constitutionalley.us

Are we about to experience a revolutionary renewal of Truth, Justice and the American Way? Or must we now retire our global scepter, and settle in to our new place amongst the pantheon of imperial has-beens? If you’re one of Obama’s hired hands or dedicated followers, it’s obviously the latter. If you’re Mr. Lips, it appears to be the former.

Today, the articles at American Thinker start off with one by Brad Lips that is titled, “Cheer-up, America! The Case for American Optimism.” Mr. Lips is the CEO of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, and his prescription for what ails the country goes something like this:

How do we get from here to there [“your best days are ahead”]? This will require bold ideas and savvy strategy.  Here are a few that I think would make a difference:

• Tax and entitlement reform: Throughout his Presidency, Obama has made it impossible for business owners to predict their future tax liabilities. . .Businesses will hire again when tax rates are set for the long-term. . .Similarly, responsible budget-cutting and entitlement reform will earn a sigh of relief from credit markets.
• Monetary reform that removes the punch bowl from the Fed: Our government has misused its authority over the dollar. It’s supposed to protect that value of the dollar, not debase it to accommodate government over-spending. . .
• Spending caps and setting priorities: Cutting back the federal leviathan will take time and discipline, but we need to begin by setting spending caps, creating sunset dates for all federal programs. . .

[snip]

Slaying the Big Government Goliath will require growing and strengthening the freedom movement’s “army of Davids” — ordinary citizens who are connected to limited government think tanks and advocacy groups — all using the new media to inform the public and mobilize effective political engagement.  It’s folly to put faith in a political leader; real change will be driven by changing the incentive structure for politicians across the spectrum. We do that by increasing public pressure for limited-government reforms.

Our early progress towards this end is the single most important reason for optimism.

A majority of Americans are awakening to the notion that there is a battle of ideas to be won, which transcends any particular electoral battle.  As we’ve seen, there is reason to believe the defenders of big government are seeing their power structures melt away.  If we stay committed at the grassroots and keep developing the sector of civil society, that’s dedicated to limited government principles, the political victories — and a return to the American success story — certainly will follow.

Don’t let this moment of maximum pessimism cloud your vision of the path ahead. Cheer up, America! It’s time to go long on the U.S. of A.

Our best days are ahead of us? “Our early progress. . .”? As long as “we stay committed at the grassroots”? Remain “dedicated to limited government principles”? Then “political victories — and a return to the American success story — certainly will follow”?

Who’s he trying to kid? We’re not in the midst of a political pep rally. And we certainly don’t need another national cheer leading squad. That’s what we got with Obama & Company. Nevertheless, “It’s time to go long on the U.S. of A.”!

Balderdash! Or, if you prefer, substitute some other, more expressive expletive.

What we are experiencing is our greatest national existential crisis since the Civil War. Our problems aren’t just political in nature. They’re also cultural as well as spiritual.

Our system of education – from kindergarten through university – has, to a large extent, been converted into one giant, socialist diversity and political correctness propaganda mill.

Our legal system has been stripped of nearly all its former principled common law restraint. You are no longer a citizen. You are a subject of the American Imperial Legal System. ‘Compliance’, not ‘justice’, is its motto. To paraphrase the Borg, “Don’t you realize? You’ve already been assimilated!”

As a nation, we’ve permitted ourselves to be seduced and corrupted by mammon, self-indulgence and feel good-ism.  The object of our admiration and hero worship is moneyed celebrity, that clan of over-paid performers which includes practitioners of the political arts.

We demand to be fed and entertained. “Panem et circenses” was the phrase coined some time back. Good thing the Romans didn’t have 500 cable channels or their empire would probably not have lasted as long as it did. At least they were blessed by the fact that the vast majority still had to work for a living which kept the frequency of riots and demonstrations down to a tolerable level. Even so, there came a time when stepping out for some adventure with the Imperial Legions was no longer what it used to be. Better to stick around for the weekend orgy of one’s sexual preference.

So, who’s going to do all this heavy political lifting and toting that Mr. Lips assures will see us through our dark hours? Mr. Brokaw’s “Greatest Generation” is not all that many years away from extinction. Thus, our generational best days wouldn’t seem to be ahead of us. It’s certainly not the crowd occupying Wall Street.

Et tu?

Ciao,
Dennis

Yesterday, the following arrived from my old Air Force buddy and flight lead, FASTFAC, regarding the video clip of Prof. Richard Epstein that had appeared on these pages:

Liked the Epstein commentary.  Since there appears to be more than one knowledgeable person out there who can “plain speak” (about) the flaws in our massive legislative avalanche, then (this) question…why aren’t these people, with their very same statements (such as Prof. Epstein) appearing on Conservative as well as Liberal talk shows…well, Conservative anyway?  Don’t we need a broad voice of understanding presented to the “people” as to what is happening?  People with advanced degrees might be “suspicious/agenda oriented” to most of the populace, but there appear to (be) many who can do “basic communicating.”

Well, the fact is that Prof. Epstein may be seen and appreciated in any number of venues, but certainly not on liberal or conservative “talk shows.” Reason magazine produced a video interview of him in November of 2010 titled “Richard Epstein on Barack Obama, his former Chicago Law Colleague.”  On five occasions he has also appeared, solo or with another legal scholar, on the Hoover Institution’s “Uncommon Knowledge” series.  But no, you won’t find him anywhere in or on the mainstream media unless it’s as an object of derision or scorn. In fact, one of our esteemed legislators, I can’t recall whom or the specific circumstance, though I’m fairly sure he was a Democrat, once scowled to the effect that he couldn’t understand how or why anyone would believe anything that this crazy guy had to say. How’s that as an indication of Congressional intellectual prowess?

However, the reason behind Prof. Epstein’s conspicuous absence from the more widely disseminated venues designed to influence public opinion is simple – misdirection. You certainly can’t have him clarifying things and expect to sell an agenda carefully crafted to achieve other than its advertised purpose and saddled with dubious ancestry. This is even truer of the Republican establishment than it is of the progressive Democrats. The Democrats may be totally “full of it” when it comes to the value, effectiveness, and consequences of their class warfare endeavors, but they sure don’t keep secret what they intend doing. It may all be nonsense but, by golly, you will see progress. On the other hand, as Mark Twain might express it, the Republicans are always talking about “smaller government” but never really do anything about it.

Here’s what Mr. Jeffrey Lord has to say about that:

THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR

Special Report
Clark Clifford Republicans
By Jeffrey Lord on 10.18.11 @ 6:09AM

The GOP Establishment shell game: when winning is losing.

“Clark is a wonderful fellow. In a day when many are seeking a reward for what they contributed to the return of the Democrats to the White House, you don’t hear Clark clamoring. All he asked in return was that we advertise his law firm on the backs of one-dollar bills.” — John F. Kennedy on Washington lobbyist and ex-Truman aide Clark Clifford

What can one say?

Is there any wonder Tea Party supporters think they are always in danger of being played?

In a Republican Establishment shell game.

[a really BIG snip, be sure to read it all]

Because, in one form, fashion or another, the Establishment recognizes instantly that these people — and millions of others — are dead serious. The Tea Party is serious. Rush is serious. Hannity is serious. Levin is serious and writes a bestseller telling you why he’s serious. They are all so collectively serious that when they talk about “limiting government” they mean getting rid of entire Cabinet departments and federal agencies and the literal thousands of volumes of regulations that accompany them. Not to mention the thousands of federal bureaucrats who write them.

And it’s very safe to say that when the day comes that the next Republican President and any Republican Congress that served with him or her leaves office, these people will have a few questions:

• Is the federal government smaller than when you took office?
• How many Cabinet Departments did you eliminate?
• How many federal agencies did you eliminate?
• How many government regulations did you eliminate?
• How many federal jobs did you eliminate?
• How many federal employees did you cut from the federal payroll?

And perhaps last but not least.

How many Clark Clifford Republicans did you gently un-employ and send home by doing this?

And did they go?

— Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com

Anyone recall President Reagan’s answers to those questions?

Too bad Barry Goldwater isn’t around to give us a hearty “Told you so!”

Wonder what will Speaker Boehner’s answers will turn out to be?

Ciao,
Dennis

Panem et circenses is Latin for “bread and circuses.” The phrase refers to the political practice of a ruling class providing the means of life and a little recreation to appease discontent amongst what might otherwise be the unruly mass of unwashed plebeians.

We have, for better or worse, advanced a bit over the past two millennia, though I suspect Roger Kimball might think otherwise. We are no longer obliged to trudge down to the Coliseum or Circus Maximus (no, that’s not the rock group) for our fill of blood sport, gore or just plain nonsense. We can witness the spectacle in the comfort of our homes. And with the magical capability to pause the action so as not to miss a sensational second, the need to relieve ourselves, or restock with some crunchy panem and preferred intoxicating fluid, is only a minor distraction.

On occasion, however, pre-planned activities will prove inadequate as diversionary tactic. At such times, when 500 cable channels prove insufficiently obfuscating, new headline grabbers must be invented to keep the restless populace distracted. And thus we have the latest pseudo-grass roots production of “Occupy Wall Street” coming soon to a political theatre near you. Though I care not a bit about such shenanigans, I do feel obligated to have at least some understanding of these “demonstrations” by Obama’s standing civilian security army. You know, the one he talked about during his campaign for President? So, off I am to see the wizards of punditry that I might be enlightened.

From Michelle Fields at the Daily Caller:

Organizer admits to paying ‘Occupy DC’ protesters [VIDEO]

A liberal organizer told the Daily Caller on Thursday afternoon that he paid some Hispanics to attend “Occupy DC” protests happening in the nation’s capital.

TheDC attended the protest event, an expansion of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that began in New York City. Some aspects of the protest, it turned out, are more Astroturf than grassroots.

One group of about ten Hispanic protesters marched behind a Caucasian individual from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting rent control in Washington, D.C.

Asked why they were there, some Hispanic protesters holding up English protest signs could not articulate what their signs said.

Interviewed in Spanish, the protesters told conflicting stories about how their group was organized. Some said it was organized at their church, and that they were there as volunteers. Others, however, referred to the man from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition — the only Caucasian in the group — as their “boss.”

TheDC asked that organizer whether he was paying the group to attend the protest, and he conceded that some protesters “aren’t” volunteers.

Now that’s distraction! Even the protesters don’t know what they’re protesting! But who’s behind it? Where’s money coming from?

Well, according to Matthew Vadum at frontpagemag.com:

Occupy Wall Street’s ACORN Rent-A-Mobs

Evidence suggests that ACORN, the Left’s premiere astro-turfing organization, has been paying people to participate in the Occupy Wall Street protests.

[snip]

The sleazy, SEIU-funded Working Families Party, a front group for ACORN, placed a want ad on the Craig’s List website dated Sept. 26. The ad indicates that WFP was recruiting activists to carry out “direct action,” leftist argot for a variety of activities aimed at forcing sociopolitical change.

[snip]

WFP’s ad is titled, “FIGHT TO HOLD WALLSTREET ACCOUNTABLE NOW! MAKE A DIFFERENCE GET PAID!” It states:

The WFP is seeking immediate hires.

You must be an energetic communicator, with a passion for social and economic justice.

Only outgoing, articulate dedicated, determined candidates will be considered for the positions.

For those candidates that qualify WFP offers substantial paid-training provided by senior leadership, on varied issues such as: advocacy, public speaking, mobilizing, fundraising, networking and organizing. We invest in passionate people with excellent communication skills and a full benefits package is offered to those candidates that qualify. In addition, there is opportunity for advancement and travel to our satellite chapters and out of state affiliates.

This is not a policy job! Through direct action you will be shaping NY state politics for the next 20 years.” [emphasis added]

As previously reported, WFP has been involved in organizing the Occupy Wall Street protests since the beginning.

Sounds simple enough. The whole thing is just a progressive setup. Right?

However, GOP guru, high priest and Wall Street Journal pundit, Karl Rove, sees things a bit differently:

Democrats Court the Wall Street Protesters
The strategy risks alienating independents and blue-collar voters

[snip]

The fact that it lacks a clear program means that Occupy Wall Street is susceptible to being captured by even more extreme elements. It’s no accident its rallies and marches around the country include signs extolling wacky causes and marginal, but highly organized, left-wing groups. Nothing draws ideologues who know what they want as fast as a malleable crowd that doesn’t.

What Democrats eager to latch on to the Occupy Wall Street protests don’t seem to fully grasp is that these events are in part an expression of deep dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama and other D.C. Democrats. Some young Occupy Wall Street participants are angry because their economic future seems so bleak. They want someone to hold responsible for the absence of jobs. Others see Mr. Obama as insufficiently liberal. And some are simply nutty: A third of the protesters polled by New York magazine say the United States is as bad as al Qaeda.

While Mr. Obama and other top Democrats may be momentarily excited by the notion of a long-term relationship, Occupy Wall Street may not want to even go out for a date. The refusal of protestors in Atlanta to allow Congressman and civil rights icon John Lewis to address their rally is just one sign this may not be a terribly Democratic-friendly crowd.

Huh? Is this, or isn’t this, an ACORN sponsored protest movement? If it is, then the Dems already own it lock, stock and barrel. And any seemingly anti-Dem statements or activities are naught but misdirection.

If Mr. Rove is to be believed, who really placed the recruitment ad in Craig’s List?

If you’d like to know whom I believe, here’s a hint: It’s not the fellow who, after hanging up his phone, broke into tears upon learning that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was not going to prosecute him for not having outed Secret Agent Valerie Plame to Robert Novak.

But this just begs the question as to why we’re seeing all this distractive activity in the first place. You may want to check the headlines published a bit before the placement date of the recruitment ad. Or maybe, something that was on page ten or so. But whatever the reasons are, they probably have nothing to do with Wall Street.

Ciao,
Dennis

From a correspondent:

Dennis,

Ya brings new meaning to “proud”…

I wonder how the straight soldier would feel if he found he was sharing his field tent with 4 gay brothers — just a thought.

I have several gay friends and am exposed to many in the **** community, I just don’t think we are handling things for the majority anymore.

L.

My response:

Dear L.

I would have fewer problems with open homosexuality in the military and gays in general if fighting harassment and discrimination were really the primary issues. However, the mission of the gay political agenda is normalization. That is, there will be no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Hence, gay marriage, same-sex couple adoption, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera — to quote Yul Brynner.

A good part of the problem with deciding how to deal with these issues is that few people know very much about the dark underbelly of the gay “rights” movement. The ACLU/Gay war against the Boy Scouts over the past twenty years gives a very strong indication that the gay rights movement is more about placing themselves ahead of others. Just yesterday, I made my annual $25 contribution to the cub scouts by buying a box of their microwave kettlecorn popcorn. When I mentioned to the three adults with the scouts that this was my way of getting back at the ACLU, the response was blank stares. They had no notion of what I was talking about.

If you’re really interested in the issues of gay rights, politics and the rest of what goes with it, here are some links to what I think are excellent sources.

The first is a fairly long law review article, but it does provide a nicely detailed history of how, when and why much of this b.s. has come about:

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/regent.pdf
CRAFTING BI/HOMOSEXUAL YOUTH
Judith A. Reisman

From the City Journal:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_queering_the_schools.html
City Journal
Spring 2003
Queering the Schools
Marjorie King

Originally from the Weekly Standard, here’s an account of what gave birth to the organization massresistance.org:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/wstandard.html
Banned in Boston
Better not complain about the gay agenda for Massachusetts schools
BY ROD DREHER
(Appeared in “The Weekly Standard” July 3-10, 2000)

And these are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

All this hasn’t been accidental, and I really do wonder about the Republican establishment’s failure to deal with these issues honestly and openly. At the massresistance.org site they make some interesting assertions about Mitt Romney and how he aided and abetted the gay movement while he was governor. Don’t think I want him for President.

Say “Hello” to K. Trust all is well.

Ciao,
Dennis

Another sobering editorial video from Pat Condell:

Hat Tip: David Horowitz at frontpagemag.com

Very interesting post today over at babalú:

The very real shackles on our economy
By Henry Louis Gomez, on October 7, 2011, at 10:29 am

I wanted to share a couple of anecdotes with you to illustrate the very real shackles that are holding our economy back.

As some of you know, I own a 66 Dodge Polara that I’ve spent several years and several thousand dollars restoring. Owning an old car like that requires a trustworthy, inexpensive mechanic to work on it. When I bought my old clunker I was referred to one in Hialeah. Over the years my mechanic did a lot of work on my cacharro, including rebuilding the engine. I became quite friendly with him and during my visits to his shop I passively observed the difficulty of running a shop like his. Permits, insurance, inspectors, certifications, etc. etc. All of that plus the usual overhead like rent and payroll. Well, long story short, my old car was parked in the garage without moving for an extended period of time. I finally got around to calling the mechanic to let him know I was coming in and he told me he had closed up shop, he’d come to me instead. Now, this is typical of what’s going on with small business. It’s being driven underground.

[snip]

According to this person (an expert on the matter) the cost of corn has historically hovered in the $2.50 a bushel range. Today it’s at $7.00. Can you guess why? Because corn federal ethanol mandates currently require that 50% of the corn crop be used for fuel. So here we are, not drilling for oil on our own land and burning up our food as fuel for our cars. By the way the fuel created from corn is more expensive, less efficient and probably more environmentally damaging than gasoline from oil. But corn ethanol has become a sacred cow to Democrats and Republicans alike. So what happens when we live in a world of $7 a bushel corn? Chicken farmers lose money. Several US chicken companies have already sold to foreign investors. Some will end up closing up shop. Eventually the price of chicken will have to rise. All because the government is interfering in the market for one of the most important inputs.

And don’t forget lemonade stands. They’ve practically disappeared. Forbes even published an article on it: “The Inexplicable War on Lemonade Stands.” Guess Kiddie Kapitalism has also been driven underground.

If you’re interested in having a bit more formal understanding of informal economics, including some insightful thoughts on the drug trade, may I suggest spending a bit of time with Prof. Richard Epstein. He’s my go to guy when I try to discern some reasonably logical way of correcting the course of our seemingly rudderless legal ship of state. I’ve posted a couple of excerpts from his June, 1994, Yale Law Journal article on the underground economy here.

If you’d like to see why many Democratic politicians find him slightly less tolerable than being intimate with a leper, watch what he has to say about keeping your old health plan under Obamacare:

Nancy, would you care to add anything?

Now, how ’bout Ms. Pelosi?

Ciao,
Dennis

Combat readiness will be moving to the back of the bus. Repeal of the DADT (Don’t ask, don’t tell) policy regarding open homosexuality in the military seems to be transmogrifying into an affirmative action recruitment program for those with non-standard sexual orientations/genetics — that is, if one accepts the “I just can’t help myself” gay contention. From yesterday’s Washington Times:

Activists push partner benefits for military gays
Network seeks re-enlistment rights for DADT discharges at same rank

By Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times
Thursday, October 6, 2011

A prominent gay advocacy group has issued a five-point manifesto of new rights it wants from the U.S. military since the Sept. 20 repeal of the longtime ban on open homosexuals in the ranks.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) already has stated that it wants benefits for the partners of gay troops as well as for President Obama to lift the ban on “transgenders” serving openly. Its manifesto, “Beyond Repeal,” lists more goals.

For one, it wants the Pentagon to pave the way for veterans discharged under the 1993 policy, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” to be able to re-enter the service “if they meet the qualifications for rejoining.”

The Pentagon, at a time when all four services are looking to cut personnel, has said that such people do not have an automatic right to join and must start the process with a military recruiter.

SLDN is warning that former members may file federal lawsuits if the military does not give them their exact former positions at time of their discharge.

It also is urging the military to upgrade discharges for those kicked out under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy or previous bans imposed by regulations.

With another nod to the over-lawyerizaton of the military perhaps we’ll soon see “recruitment” posters along the following lines:

[Picture was published with the original article, so this isn’t invading anyone’s privacy. . .assuming, that is, that Mr. Simmons even gives a diddly squat. Might even help his film career. As they say in Hollywood, the only bad publicity is no publicity. Right?]

Court Says Marine Porn No Big Deal
Under the Radar
October 1, 2011

Sgt. Matthew W. Simmons took active duty leave from the Marine Corps Band to go star in some gay porno movies under the stage names “Christian Jade” and “Adam.”

He got himself in trouble when he wore part of his Marines uniform in some of the videos and identified himself as a Marine in some “behind-the-scenes” footage shot alongside one of his movies. After guilty-plea convictions on several charges, Simmons took his case to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal appeals.

The court ruled that Simmons did not technically violate the ban on making commercial use of his uniform, even though he was paid $10K for his performances:

“We are also not satisfied, on the basis of this record, that the appellant’s statements or wear of uniform items may create an inference of service endorsement of the activities depicted. The appellant never wore a complete ‘uniform,’ so the general public could never receive ‘visual evidence of the authority and responsibility vested in the individual by the United States Government.’ He did not voice any Marine support for what he was doing or any service views on the propriety or impropriety of his conduct.”

Aspiring military lawyers can read the entire decision here. We’re not doing any linking here, but if you want to learn more about the details of Sgt. Simmons’ budding film career, Gawker can hook you up with that. (via Suits & Sentences)

All of this nonsense just doesn’t strike me as of any benefit to the U.S. Military as a fighting force. Considering their early enthusiasm for the repeal of DADT, I wonder if Messrs. Krauthammer and Kristol have anything to say about these recent developments? Gentlemen?

Now, let’s see, wonder what else Mr. Obama is up to? Ready to pull anymore proclamations out of your hat? Or anywhere else?

Ciao,
Dennis

Charging one more time into the Free-Trade breach, the Wall Street Journal sings the praises of House Speaker Boehner in today’s op/ed pages:

Washington’s Free Trade Adult
John Boehner acts presidential.

President Obama is indulging Congress’s protectionist elements as the price of moving three delayed free-trade agreements. Speaker John Boehner showed better judgment when he denounced such tactical domestic politics as “dangerous” on Monday night. 

After Boehner’s golfing-date induced performance on budget and debt-limit issues, I’m not sure just how much we can rely on his economic wisdom.

On the other hand, originally published by American Thinker in January of this year, the following gem is titled, “Smoot-Hawley & the Economic Contraction of the Great Depression.” My point is, what damage did Smoot-Hawley actually do to the economy? The following spreadsheet from that article tells a story quite different than the standard version most economist spout:

(Click image to enlarge. You can download a working .xls spreadsheet here.)

As Clara Peller was oft inclined to say:

Is there? Anybody there? I’m really beginning to wonder. And if there is, they’re not running for elected office.

And John Boehner “Presidential”? My foot! If elected, he’d start crying. Right?

Such a joke we’ve become.

Ciao,
Dennis

last updated 2011.10.04.1407z

Having more than one person think about an issue generally improves analytical productivity. One individual just cannot think of everything. That’s why we have think “tanks” and focus “groups.” I was once again reminded of this when I received the following email response from one of my correspondents. To wit (salty language warning hereby given):

RE: “Open Homosexuality in the Military: Some Observations”

This article may present confusion in the heat of battle. For example, a squad is on patrol and comes under heavy fire. An insurgent rushes the squad and the sergeant yells, “Shoot the cocksucker!”  Can you see where the confusion might come in? 

F.

Any other thoughts?

Ciao,
Dennis

P.S. Here’s what Bob Hope had to say about it in 1967:

[hana-flv-player video=”/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Bob-Hope-Da-Nang-1967.flv” width=”320″ height=”240″ description=”” player=”4″ autoload=”true” autoplay=”false” loop=”false” autorewind=”false” /]

last updated 2011.09.29.1606z

From yesterday’s Washington Times:

After demise of ‘don’t ask,’ activists call for end to military ban on transgenders
By Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times
Wednesday, September 28, 2011

With homosexuals now able to serve openly in the military, the gay rights movement’s next battleground is to persuade the Obama administration to end the armed forces’ ban on “transgenders,” a group that includes transsexuals and cross-dressers.

“Our position is that the military should re-examine the policy, the medical regulations, so as to allow open service for transgender people,” said Vincent Paolo Villano, spokesman for the 6,000-member Center for Transgender Equality.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), which pushed to end the military’s gay ban, is urging President Obama to sign an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on “gender identity.”

[snip]

“SLDN supports the revision of medical regulations to ensure that transgender Americans may serve.”

[snip]

Transgenders are not banned by law, but rather by a Defense Department instruction, “Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment or Induction in the Military Service.”

[snip]

In a letter to Mr. Obama, SLDN Director Aubrey Sarvis wrote: “We … call on you to show the leadership President Truman did when he issued an Executive Order banning racial discrimination in the armed services and to issue an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination in the armed services based on sexual orientation and gender identity to be effective on the date of repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

I suspect this isn’t what Truman had in mind at the time. On the other hand:

Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and Marine Corps combat veteran, said: “At some point, the administration will need to decide where this ranks among the military’s priorities. But it should send the message now that a line has been drawn, and it won’t get caught up in these discussions. I hope the administration has enough sense to see this for the unneeded distraction it is.”

At least there appears to be a smidgen of sanity left in “Khali-four-knee-ah” — or however you prefer to spell it.

Scouring the internet for a clue as to what our esteemed Fearless Leader might be inclined to do in this circumstance, we have:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release                                                       May 28, 2010

Presidential Proclamation–Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month

As Americans, it is our birthright that all people are created equal and deserve the same rights, privileges, and opportunities.  Since our earliest days of independence, our Nation has striven to fulfill that promise.  An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.  This month, as we recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans, we renew our commitment to the struggle for equal rights for LGBT Americans and to ending prejudice and injustice wherever it exists.

[snip]

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.  I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

Any questions? It’s only a matter of when.

Ciao,
Dennis

P.S. Wonder if this is what Charles Krauthammer had in mind when he suggested that the repeal of DADT was “an idea whose time had come”?

A journalist, Lawrence Auster, has noted that movement conservatives have been conspicuously silent on having openly gay soldiers serve in the military or else, like FOX commentators, have been ardently behind the change. Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol were so unreservedly positive on FOX that their fellow-news commentator Juan Williams, a black Democrat, stared at them in disbelief. Williams asked them whether the change they wanted could be carried out as easily as they suggested.

Mr. Rumsfeld?

AMERICA’S LEADING GAY NEWS SOURCE

political news
Donald Rumsfeld endorses ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
February 14, 2011
By Chris Johnson

The former defense chief who served under President George W. Bush has endorsed repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and said open service in the U.S. military is “an idea whose time has come.”

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who also headed the Pentagon under President Ford, made remarks in favor of ending the military’s gay ban to ABC Radio on Friday.

“First of all, we know that gays and lesbians have been serving in the military for decades with honorable service,” Rumsfeld said.  “We know that [repeal of a ban on gays serving openly] is an idea whose time has come.”

Guess that settles it.

Oops! Almost forgot about Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown’s address at the Log Cabin Republicans’ “Spirit of Lincoln Awards Dinner” on September 20th:

It’s an honor to be here tonight to receive this Spirit of Lincoln award.

As many of you here know, I approach each and every issue that comes before the Senate in an open-minded and independent manner.

I’ve been in the Senate for a little more than a year-and-a-half, and I am proud to say that I vote in the best interest of our state and our country. On every issue that comes before us – ranging from jobs bills, financial reform, the START Treaty- and the Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell– I have done my due diligence, made sure I understood the issue, have acted independently and voted regardless of what political party was the prime sponsor of the bill.

Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a perfect example of my approach.

cont’d. . .

Got that right. Just another campaign promise in the trash.

“Log Cabin Republicans”? How they describe themselves may be seen here.