Obama's Lies to LGBT Americans

Dan Savage has a column at The Advocate that looks at Barack Obama's calculated courting of LGBT Americans during his presidential campaign and then the slow betrayal of that same group of citizens once he achieved his goal and won the election. Like Savage, I was swept up by Obama's in retrospect false campaign promises and for that I kick myself daily. True, Obama in the White House is better than the alternative of McCain and Bible Spice, but nonetheless, I cannot help but feel betrayed and cynically used. More evidence of Obama's double speak is highlighted in a new piece from the Palm Center that looks at Obama's use of signing statement - except for when it comes to protecting LGBT equality. First some highlights from Dan Savage's column:

*

We could start with the betrayals and the slights -- the Reverend Rick Warren, 265 (and counting) gay men and lesbians kicked out of the military since Barack Obama was sworn in, the now-infamous DOMA brief that compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia -- but maybe we should start by remembering the good times.

*

Remember when he positioned himself to the left of Hillary Clinton on the Defense of Marriage Act? While Clinton came out in favor of a partial repeal, Obama said he favored -- and would fight for -- a complete repeal, and described DOMA as “abhorrent.” That was pretty sweet.

*

But then Obama was sworn in under Rick Warren’s porcine gaze and the “fierce urgency of now” quickly morphed, in Andrew Sullivan’s damning turn of phrase, into the “fierce urgency of whenever.” Never mind that gay people are being turned away from their partners’ bedsides during medical emergencies now. Never mind that people are being kicked out of the military now. Never mind that Arkansas banned adoptions by same-sex couples on the very same day that Obama was elected. (Gosh, where’s that bully pulpit when you need it?) The man who wasn’t afraid to appeal directly to us for our votes as a candidate -- and certainly wasn’t shy about asking us for our dollars -- couldn’t be bothered to acknowledge the promises he had made to us and seemed to greatly resent being asked to actually honor them.

*

Have you ever been introduced to someone with whom you’d had a torrid one-night stand and he acted like he didn’t know you? “Don’t know me?” you’re tempted to say in a loud voice. “Honey, you ate my ass.” Could Barack Obama be that one-night stand?

*

[G]ay rights don’t seem so trivial if you’re the person being kicked out of the military -- like Dan Choi, Arabic linguist, West Point grad, Iraq vet -- or if you’re the person being turned away from your partner’s bedside during a medical emergency. But the supposed triviality of “our” issues is just as good an argument for moving on them as it is for shelving them. Demand a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” -- a move supported by 75% of the American people (including wide majorities of conservatives) -- and if members of Congress balk, call them out for bogging down on such a trivial issue, one that most Americans would like to see resolved in our favor.

*

Now’s the time -- people are being kicked out of the military now, turned away from their partners’ bedsides now. And yes, President Obama has a lot on his plate now. But delay now could very well result in no action on gay issues until the next Democrat is president. And since the White House tends to flip back and forth between parties, that could be 16 years from now.

*

Speaking of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Palm Center is continuing to reveal why and how Obama could stop discharges of LGBT service members - if he wanted to do so. The sad reality is that he doesn't seem to care. Nor, apparently do many Congressional Democrats who happily accept LGBT dollars and then sit on their hands when it comes to taking real action. Here's the Palm Center's analysis:

*

President Barack Obama’s use of signing statements—a presidential authorization to ignore portions of Congressional law—is being criticized by scholars who study gay rights for directly contradicting his defense of ongoing gay troop discharges. The President has refused to intervene to stop the firing of gay troops, citing the rationale that the White House should not be “simply ignoring a Congressional law.” Last month the President told Anderson Cooper of CNN that “it’s not appropriate for the executive branch simply to say, ‘we will not enforce a law.’”

*

But yesterday’s New York Times reports that the President has used signing statements five times to challenge nineteen provisions of federal statute, including a law restricting the use of U.S. troops in United Nations commands. According to Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the President’s use of signing statements to ignore provisions of standing law is a far more flagrant assertion of executive authority than would be an executive order halting gay discharges. “Contrary to what some have stated,” said Belkin, “using executive power to suspend the gay ban is not questionable or even controversial among major legal scholars. It is a power explicitly granted to the President by Congress under the ‘stop-loss’ statute.”

*

In light of all of this, I cannot help but believe that Obama was lying to LGBT Americans during the campaign for the presidency and many of us foolishly believed him. Speaking only for myself, that WILL NOT happen again.

Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Effort Stalling - Who's At Blame

As Politico is reporting the effort to repeal DADT has stalled and The Palm Center blames major LGBT rights organizations for the debacle. Andrew Sullivan is even more brutal in his assessment and urges LGBT Americans to stop giving money to HRC - a tactic I largely agree with since I believe HRC is more concerned with promoting itself and finding government jobs for its self-anointed movers and shakers. Here is Andrew's analysis in a nut shell:

*
“a network of gay and gay-friendly individuals and organizations worked to derail the possibility of a suspension of the ban." Can you smell the Human Rights Campaign? It's that unique blend of cowardice, careerism and fantastic amounts of money that usually tips you off.
*
Sadly, I agree with Andrew. The grass roots of the LGBT community is ready to push for real change but our self-appointed "leaders" are not. They prefer "access" and cocktail parties that stroke their egos - meanwhile real people are being drummed out of the military daily as they sip their gin and tonics and cosmopolitans. It is beyond frustrating and pathetic. Like so much in politics, the only thing these folks truly understand is money - when the ATM is turned off, they listen. Until that happens it is business as usual. Here are some highlights from Politico:
*
[T]he Palm Center, a California think tank working to end the ban on gays in the military, blames Washington gay rights activists and their allies in Congress for dropping the ball on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
*
The center has made the case for pressing President Obama for an executive order ending the ban on gays in the military, arguing that those facts on the ground -- gays openly serving -- would be irreversible, and could be followed later by Congressional action. But other gay rights advocates, led by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and Human Rights Campaign, and members of Congress like Rep. Patrick Murphy have argued that a legislative repeal should be the primary goal, as an executive order could be reversed by a new president.
*
Many people seemed to agree that the two-part strategy would make political and operational sense. Once gays are allowed to serve openly and legally, it will be impossible to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Operationally, there is no way to force gays back into the closet. And given that 75 percent of the public favors open gay service, it would be unwise politically for some future Republican President to try to reverse the order.5 Indeed, when former President George Bush tried to reverse one of Bill Clinton’s executive orders mandating equal treatment for non-military gay employees of the federal government, he could not get away with it.
*
As the two-part strategy continued to generate real heat on the administration, however, the gay community has taken its foot off the gas pedal. The chorus of gay and gay-friendly activists, journalists and politicos calling for an exclusive emphasis on legislative repeal has grown in recent weeks, and as opponents of the two-part strategy made their case with increasing fervor, the media’s criticisms of the administration have softened, and a senior administration spokesperson has again started to use conditional language as to whether “don’t ask, don’t tell will be repealed.”
*
As for the Palm Center report, here is a sampling of the criticisms of the gay rights organizations:
*
This policy analysis begins with an explanation of how and why some members of the gay community have worked so hard to stop putting pressure on the White House, and then outlines an opportunity for how to get back on track. In particular, it (1) explains the strategic misperceptions of those who seek to focus exclusively on legislative repeal including the flawed notion that the legislative strategy alone can work; (2) describes the consequences of efforts to block consideration of the two-part strategy (executive order first, legislative repeal second); and (3) suggests why a renewed emphasis on a two-part strategy is the most effective way forward.
*
Those who endorse an exclusive focus on legislative repeal seem to believe that if the gay community works hard enough, we can force conservatives to support MREA. But there is little logic to their position. Consider several obstacles. To begin, 75 percent of the public already supports open gay service, yet conservatives in Congress continue to oppose the bill.8 There is little additional room for public education or shifts in public opinion that could cause conservatives to change their minds.
*
Although Congress is not a pressure point, the same cannot be said of the White House. Those who favor an exclusive emphasis on legislation seem to appreciate neither the extent to which the President, not Congress, is vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy, nor the opportunity to generate media coverage which shines a spotlight on the chasm between candidate Obama’s pledge to lift the ban when he took office, and President Obama’s unwillingness to sign an order even though he has acknowledged that the ban harms national security.

*
Discussions of hypocrisy become particularly salient when the gay community can combine them with fresh data, studies and stories which underscore the costs of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” For example, new data documenting increased discharges of Arabic linguists would generate important media coverage in and of itself.
*
Every ounce of activism directed towards the exclusive legislative strategy as opposed to the two-part strategy enhances the ability of the White House to invoke its old pass-the-buck defense which was so effective for the first few months of the administration, before the two-part strategy was raised in public. Calling for an exclusive emphasis on legislative repeal is perhaps the greatest gift gay rights groups could give the White House. And it’s a slap in the face to service members like Lt. Dan Choi, whose careers are in peril right now.
*
Sadly, at the very moment that discussion of the two-part strategy started to disable the political stalemate surrounding “don’t ask, don’t tell”, some gay and gay-friendly activists, journalists and politicos have let up pressure on the White House by resisting executive action, and insisting on an exclusive focus on legislative repeal. Consider a number of misleading and inaccurate claims that have been circulated. One often-repeated claim is that the administration does not have the legal authority to sign an executive order and that doing so would constitute an end-run around Congress. This claim is incorrect. In 1983, Congress passed 10 U.S.C. § 12305, known as the “stop-loss” law, which allows the President to “suspend any provision of law” related to military separations during national security emergencies.
*
Some members of the gay community have provided Washington with reasons to continue discriminating, and their actions have had the effect of softening the pressure on the White House and allowing the President to again use his pass-the-buck strategy. As a result, momentum has been lost and the inertia that characterized the period before the introduction of the two-part solution is returning. Four consequences, in particular, deserve mention.
*
In addition, the community’s misleading claims have become a talking point for the President of the United States. When asked whether he would sign an executive order last month, President Obama said that doing so would circumvent the will of Congress, and that he is constitutionally obliged to enforce Congressional statute.18 This argument, which ignored his now-well-established power of “stop-loss,” was first articulated and then repeated extensively by members of the gay community itself. The community provided the President with a misleading talking point to explain why he will continue firing service members for being gay, and almost no one held him accountable.
*
If a unified community held the President accountable for his recent, misleading remarks about why he will not sign an executive order, redirected the national conversation to the two-part strategy and demanded immediate executive leadership as the first step in a multi-stage effort to lift the ban, we would maximize the chances for unlocking the stalemate in Washington and again see momentum toward an outcome that has been elusive for more than fifteen years.

*

I find it most depressing that some of the major gay rights organizations seem to care more about "maintaining good relations" than they do about concrete results. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the oil - we need a full court press to create as much squaking as possible.

Obama Could Halt Gay DADT Discharges With Executive Order

I have fairly relentless in my calling Barack Obama tio task for his failure to deliver on his campaign promises to LGBT Americans. Indeed, he has seemed more concerned about kissing the asses of his political opponents such as pathological liar Rick Warren (who has a very wide ass) rather than supporting those who helped get him elected. On the issue or the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we've seen at lot of theatrical hand wringing at the White House but no action. Indeed, we've seen a lot of disingenuous dancing around the issue so as to avoid action. Now, a new review suggests that Obama could stop the discharge of LGBT troops via executive order but if he gave a damn about the issue. Here are some highlights on a new study which has suggested that Obama could stop discharges if he were engaged on the issue:

*

SANTA BARBARA, CA, May 11, 2009 – A study released today by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order. The idea of ending the ban by executive order has gained momentum in the wake of news that mission-critical personnel, including Arabic language speaker Dan Choi, continue to be fired under the Obama administration because they’re gay. Congressman Rush Holt endorsed an executive order to end the ban on Saturday and National Security Adviser James Jones was asked about it by George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning. The report, “is sponsored by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. How to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment,” is sponsored by the Palm Center at the > University of California, Santa Barbara.

*

[A]ccording to the study, Congressional approval is not needed. Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center and a study co-author, said “The administration does not want to move forward on this issue because of conservative opposition from both parties in Congress, and Congress does not want to move forward without a signal from the White House. This study provides a recipe for breaking through the political deadlock, as well as a roadmap for military leaders once the civilians give the green light.”

*

Diane H. Mazur, Professor of Law at the University of Florida College of Law and another study co-author, said the presidential authority to stop firing gay troops, known as “stop-loss,” is different from the highly unpopular stop-loss policy that the Army recently announced it would phase out. “That use of stop-loss forcibly extends service by those who wish to leave the military,” she said, “whereas suspending discharges for homosexuality would do the opposite: allow ongoing service by those who wish to remain in uniform.” The study says the provisions of the stop-loss law, which are granted by Congress, are “sensible because they give the President authority to suspend laws relating to separation when a national emergency has strained personnel requirements.”

*

The report will also be published in a forthcoming book, "Department of Defense Social Policy Perspectives 2010," edited by James Parco, David Levy and Fred Blass.

*

In short, if Obama were disposed to do something about DADT, it appears he could suspend discharges until such time as the legislation was repealed. Unfortunately, other than lip service, Obama does not seem to really give a flip about the discrimination against honorable LGBT members of the military.