In the early days of his presidency, Bill Clinton suggested the military should reexamine its policy of dishonorably discharging gay men and lesbian women. There were those who argued, and continued to believe, that his "mistake" was a key element in the loss of moderate support, which , in turn, resulted in the loss of control of the House of Representatives two years later.
Ultimately, "don't ask, don't tell" became the policy of the military, a policy that left men and women who were risking their lives to defend this country vulnerable to discharge if they failed to successfully hide a key part of their identity.
It was wrong. But for almost two decades, it was also political dynamite: too hot to touch.
The assumption was that integrating gay men and lesbian women openly into the military would somehow diminish its effectiveness and destroy morale. The assumption was that anyone who got near the issue would pay for it, unless they came from a super-safe liberal district.
The assumption was wrong.
Give credit to the military leaders who, in the past year, studied the issue and concluded that forcing people into the closet did not make the military more effective, and that allowing them to be open about their sexual orientation would not destroy morale. No one — gay or straight — is allowed to sexually abuse others. But there has never been even a shred of evidence that abuse is more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals.
Give credit to the courageous men and women who served this country bravely even as second-class citizens, and who then had the courage to "come out" publicly and serve as shining examples of what was wrong with the policy.
Give credit to Leon Panetta, the new Secretary of Defense, who on Friday announced that gay men and lesbian women would, henceforth, not have to live in fear that their sexual orientation would be revealed even if they didn't tell.
And give credit to President Barack Obama, who was not afraid to play with what some believed was still dynamite.
I remember, three decades ago, when the gay men who were working with me on the Democratic platform were "afraid" that a convention floor fight about whether our antidiscrimination policy should be amended to include the phrase "sexual orientation" would do them more harm than good.
Those men are now dead, lost to AIDS, but their determination, and their understanding that change takes time as well as courage, provided the foundation for where we are today.
No American, gay or straight, black or brown, male or female, should ever be denied the privilege to serve our country because of who they are. I am grateful to every one of them; grateful that they are willing to put their lives on the line; proud of their patriotism and their courage.
Thanks to their courage, thanks to the honesty of military leaders, thanks to the wisdom of Secretary Panetta and the determination of President Obama, gays and lesbians will be able to serve proudly and openly in the military. Sixty days after Panetta's order, "don't ask, don't tell" will join the policies discriminating against African Americans and the rules unduly limiting the careers of servicewomen as a discredited chapter of our history.
There are many things wrong with Washington today. There are many issues on which politics triumphs over principle. For many years, this was one of those issues.
Obama ran on a platform of hope and change. In this, he delivered on that promise.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
With our Rockefelller et al engineered demographics collapse
well underway ----anyone out there who hasn't figured out that
'Sexual Liberation' (wholly devised by the ultra rich capstone)
---is nothing more than 'Elimination via Sex' ---hasn't even the
chance of finding a clue in this --the 11th hour of POST America.
The next steps for this Administration, rife with communists, gays and gay activists, will be to make homosexuality or bisexuality compulsory just as it has made taxpayer funding of abortion cumpulsory via Obamacare, as it has made education of "gay" history and culture compulsory in our public schools, as it has made taxpayer funding of euthanasia compulsory via Obamacare and IPAB and to defile the institution of marriage by its support of repeal of the Defence of Marriage Act. The jug eared, blue lipped joker is already abondoning his banal "hope and change" mantra that fooled only the terminally stupid, is abandoning his record [as he must] and is pleading to the fools to, this time, judge him on his intentions and on the laughable notion that he should be re elected because and I kid not " he thinks about the American people every day" Those imbeciles that voted for "hope and change" got what they voted for, to wit, a vile treacherous America hating sociopath in the Whitehouse and got what they asked for, to wit, record unemployment, crippling debt, a collapsed economy, rapid moral decay, a depleted military, lies upon lies upon lies and tyranny. Hope and change more like dope and chains.
Comment: #3
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:24 AM
During my 20 years in the Air Force, I served with five individuals who I "suspected" were gay. They were, to a one, stellar performers. If all gay people have that work ethic, we need more gay people, not less.
Re: capiscan Notice no other comments were challenged. Yes the entire military and indeed military moral has been seriously depleted and if jug ears, Reid et al get their way it will be seriously underfunded and dangerously depleted. Further, "We need more gay people, not less" ? Suspected were gay? Seems you were and remain mighty interested. I suspect that you might have been trolling for some low flying or a cockpit friend?
Comment: #6
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:11 AM
The comments of dereanged racist Joseph Wright that Obamacare somehow mandates that abortions be funded by American taxpayers is patently false. Republican Henry Hyde added an amendment to a bill many years ago that passed the Congress and remains the law of the land. The Hyde amendment specifically forbids the govenment from funding abortions.
Mr. Wright constantly makes racists remarks with respect to our president. some of his comments border on criminal intent to hurt this man. In the last presidential election, I voted for John McCain but once this man became president, he deserves the loyalty of every American until the next election. As to his remark that this administration is loaded with Communists, I would ask him to post a list of those members of this administration who are Communists. I suggest that he cannot name even one who is a member of the Communist party.
Those of us who drop in to read Susan's column are a bit tired of the racist comments and the false assertions of this dereanged bigot.
Re: robert lipka As always Robert you never quite get it correct. Firstly full disclosure I am no bigot, I detest equally all parasites, all enemies of America, all enemies of freedom, all enemies of the free market and all those who would destroy the future of my country my children and grandchildren, to wit, all liberals, all progressives, all Democrats, jug ears and those who would offer any loyalty to such entities. The fact that you voted for McCain or would continue to offer any loyalty to this, so called President [ he is no president of mine] puts you squarely in that group. My loyalty is to the Constitution as should yours be. Secondly, the Hyde Amendment is not permanent law at all. It is simply a legislative provision, it is a rider, which applies only to funds allocated or appropriated for the DHHS and has done so since 1976. Obamacare establishes a new principle for heavy federal subsidies of insurance plans that cover elective abortions, thereby using tax dollars to subsidize elective abortion and making it compulsory upon tax paying Americans to also so subsidize. The Hyde amendment has no application to such subsidies at all. Further, Obamacare appropriates billions in new funds from taxpayers to fund community health centers. the Hyde amendment does not apply as law there either. But by executive order 13535 jug ears directed HHS to ensure that longstanding regs containing the Hyde language are applied to those grants. But as with all EOs jug ears could quietly on a Friday evening repeal that EO. Not often right Robert but it seems wrong again. The fact that I describe your President accurately and though the truth may be repugnant that does not make it or me racist. So that we are clear I have no intent to hurt jug ears and neither have I any intent or wish for others to hurt him. He will be out on those jug ears soon but not soon enough. Thirdly, I equate communists, Marxists and Maoists. One does not have to be a member of the Communist party to have communist ideaology and therefore be a communist/Marxist. Van Jones the former green czar {and if you believe he does not still heavily influence this Admin you are dumber than I thought] is a self confessed communist, Annita Dunn { once Communications Director White House] is a self professed Maoist, Stern [although not a member of the Admin but upon whom the Admin heavily relied is of undeniable Marxist/communist ideaology and Richard Trumpka {AFL CIO] who boasts of talking with the Whitehouse daily and visiting twice weekly is said by the Communist Party USA to have a close working relationship with them in continuing political work.
Joseph Wright your own postings are filled with bigotry. How else are we to interpret such posting as the one above refering to the president as "blue lips" which is a long time racial slur or in a posting a week ago referring to "Amos and Andy" referring to the president. No Mr. Wright you are indeed a bigot.
What a sad lonely life you must lead to be so filled with hate for your fellow human beings and resent the very freedoms for them that you claim to espouse??? I cannot imagine that you have one real friend who is also not a bigot.
And as I suspected, you cannot name one person now currently with the administration who is a Communist and now you have re-qualified your definition of a Communist. ???? Anita Dunn has NEVER professed to be a Maoist. She only said that she had read Mao's Little Red Book and that some of thethings Mao said in the book made some sense.......that is far from being a Maoist......By your standards , If a person read Anna Sewell's Black Beauty and like it, then they would be a horse????/
No Joseph, it is clear by your writings that you are a dangerously deranged bigot.
Comment: #9
Posted by: robert lipka
Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:12 AM
Re: robert lipka If I a not getting under the skins of liberals sufficiently such that their only response is the old chestnuts of racism and bigotry whilst studiously avoiding the substantive issues then I am not doing it properly, Clearly I am suceeding and shall happily continue my accurate portrayals of the enemy within. Dunn actually stated that Mao the murderer of millions was her favorite philosopher and by dint of that must also be seen to share the Mao philosophy. A far cry from your rose colored rewriting of the fact.
Comment: #12
Posted by: joseph wright
Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:30 PM
From reading your posts, I consider you my friend, and compatriot.
Thank you for the effort put into your posts, and the attacks you take from those that only profess to
be open minded when they agree with the person or the philosophy.
But a president that wants to spread the wealth and transfor the country is not upholding and defending that which he took an oath to do.
And a president that was supposed to be all about hope and change. Seems the country once had Bob Hope and we had Johnny Cash, but now with this president and those two men no longer with us, we have obama and no hope and no cash/change and we are the worse for it.
The "tape" of Anita Dunn that both individuals above are referencing is a heavily edited tape that was aired on the Glenn Beck television show. Ms Dunn referred to BOTH Mao and Mother Theresa and in fact apologized to the audience in the church were she was speaking that those two might be mentioned in the same catagory. Gloenn Beck was asked to apologize for the dishonest editing and Fox subsequently bounced him from their network for that kind of dishonest journalism. But I see that he has duped a few people with the tactic. Ms. Dunn later appearred on CNN and clarified her remarks and stated catagorically that she in no way intended to endorse the terrible regime of MAO. Her comments were directed to only certain parts of Mao philosphy THAT MATCHED WITH MOTHER THERESA'S PHILOSHPHY. Beck engaged in a major distortion of fact...That was his stock in trade and it finally got him bounced from FOX for those distortions. Many of Beck's fans still support this man even in the face of right-wing FOX news giving him the heave-ho. In my local town, many advertisers on the local radio station now specifically ask not to have their ads run during Beck's radio show.
Comment: #15
Posted by: robert lipka
Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:48 AM
Re: robert lipka Not only did Dunn say that Mao was her favorite philosopher she also said quote " Mao is one of the people she turns to most". Her express words speak for themselves. Those words were not taken out of context and neither could they be so taken. There is no context that could make those words mean other than their ordinary meaning, which is that she turns to Mao most. The fact that Dunn "apologized" for mentioning Mother Theresa in the same breath as Mao whilst in a Christian church is not exculpatory of her at all but is wholly indicative of the depths to which she was prepared to sink and to which she knew she was sinking as she spoke. Her later feeble and dishonest attempt to take part in some revisionist history, for the gullible, after she let the cat out of the bag did not then and does not now pass the laugh test. For her, after being caught in her Maoist pandering, to belatedly say that she did intend to support a brutal murderous regime like Mao's falls entirely flat coming when it did and also when one considers that she is entirely capable of supporting and being an apologist for a brutal regime of genocide of children in the womb. That said she was not accused of support of the murder of millions of Chinese, she was rightly brought to task for her self professed Maoist philosophy. No Robert, her words were and remain absolutely probative of her totalitarian statist ideology, which is the unholy ideology that underpins this whole corrupt Administration. That you would attempt to defend her and her holding of a statist/Maoist ideology by distortion of the truth and by patent untruths is not only shameful but indicative of how the left and the enemies of this Rebublic will rally around the most loathsome of actors and actions no matter what.
Comment: #16
Posted by: joseph wright
Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:40 PM
The libs on this site (including the article author) are not blind to what's going on in this administration. They are Marists themselves, trying desparately to lie to us that they are not.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Early
Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:10 AM
When I was in college, a professor of mine, who also happened to be part of the local Republoican party campaign committee, assigned us several books to read for the course, One was the Communist Manifesto and the another was Mao's little Red book. In all he assigned about ten books for us to read and use in his political history class. I have to admit that I had NO INEREST in reading either of those two books. I did read the Manifesto because he promised to test us on it's contents. I glancede at the Little RED BOOK and it seemed like the usual drivel that a person with little depth of thinking would write. The lesson that I learned was that, if you want to get the attention of the masses, you need to make it simple for the masses to read and understand. When tested later on the Red BOOK, I gave that as my answer. I got a nice grade on that test because that was exactly the answer the Prof was looking for. The lesson here to be learned is that the philosophy of MAO as contained in that book is no great depth of thought,,,,just everyday things you might read in say a CHICKEN SOUP OFR THE SOUL type of book. But reading either the Red Book or Chicken Soup series does NOT make you either a Communist or a CH?ICKEN. Only a complete fool could equate that. Or a blind deranged ideologue. I do not personally know Anita Dunn nor I suspect does the above poster, but I suspect that she is more in tune with the principles of freedom than the hateful spewing of some of the posters on this site.
Comment: #18
Posted by: robert lipka
Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:53 AM
What is clearly on display for all now to see is liberalism's bankruptcy in terms of truth and morality. For Dunn, Lipka and or any other liberal/progressive to endeavour to engage in moral or other relativism as between Mother Theresa and Mao is not only obsene but further evidence that liberalism is indeed a mental and spiritual disorder.
Comment: #19
Posted by: joseph wright
Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:05 AM
Mr. Wright continues to read things into my posts that are not there. What a horrible father Mr. Wright MUST have had that he would allow his son to grow up so hateful and full of contempt of the rights and opinions of others. My dad grew up very poor in the depression and worked in CCC camps as a teenager. The CCC camps were a government program that put food on the table for many very poor people. People from all across the spectrum went to those camps to work.....Today, certain politicians would call that a "government handout" or "Welfare " program and sneer at the thought of such programs but they were necessary in the depression years. Just to keep people alive. My dad drilled into me that I should respect people both high and low because we all had one thing in common,,,,,life. To equate being poor with being lazy was something that he also hated. I remember him working almost every day of his life. But most of all, I remember the respect he showed for everyone he met. He was a fascinating and charismatic man who had many many friends. The ladies especially liked him because he was almost a Double of Errol Flynn. But I remember his character most of all. Kind and caring. He once told me that when I died , if people remembered me as being kind.....that was all he would ask of me. It is good to have a decent father. Your character is always a reflection of that in some ways. Too bad Mr. Wright did not have a decent father to teach him vlues of respect for others.
Comment: #20
Posted by: robert lipka
Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:27 AM
Re: robert lipka The more Robert posts the more he proves my point about liberals. Having been soundly defeated upon the substantive effects or more accurately the inapplicability of the provisions of the Hyde Amendment to his first argument, having been soundly defeated upon the objectively proven Maoism of Dunn, having been soundly defeated on the statist/ totalitarian nature of this Administration like all liberals Robert resorts to a fanciful and irrelevant, even if true, anecdote about the CCC camps, his claimed father and how hard it was in the depression and like all liberals plays the victim and the "please like me because Joseph is mean" card, of course he having already and incorrectly played the race and bigotry card. Robert then in desperation (because he cannot defeat facts or logic) commences upon equally irrelevant and groundless unprovoked ad hominem attack upon my father, a decorated war hero, a decorated police officer and a man of whom he has no knowledge and of a man's teachings or philosophy of which he also has no knowledge. I have offered no illusions as to the fact that I have no respect at all for liberals, liberalism or its mores and values but judge for yourselves how hollow Robert's hypocritical words ring about respect for others.
I can easily imagine Robert, still in his Mommy's basement screaming and frothing at the mouth as he posted and proving once and for all that liberalism is indeed an unhappy curse upon those it visits and upon those around them. Whilst liberals are, as a rule, detestable Robert is more to be pitied. Keep taking your medication Robert
Comment: #21
Posted by: joseph wright
Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:29 AM
Now you have finally got my point, I did indeed attack your father without having one whit of information about him except for the hateful rantings of his son. But acorns do not fall very far from the tree. That is a known FACT.
Now that you see how ridiculous it is for someone to present an attack based on supposition perhaps you will reconsider your own tactics on this post site. Branding people as liberals, sneering at gays, referring to the President with known racial slurs and attacking everyone who dares to post an opinion on this site that you don't agree with is the stock in trade of a bigot.
I admit, attacking your father was a cheap shot but I felt it was necessary to finally show you how horribly wrong you are to attack people who dare to share their opinion. That inhibits the discussion on Susan's website, It is after all, her website and not yours , Joseph. You are chasing them away and the rest of us want to hear THEIR opinions, not your racist and predictable drivel.
Comment: #22
Posted by: robert lipka
Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:48 AM
Re: robert lipka
No Robert, you do not escape that easily. Another bit of revisionist history after your hysterical incoherent baseless rant which you would have been happy to let stand if not called out. I have not said anything about Obama, Dunn et al and this corrupt Administration that I could not utterly support with facts and history. Again you baselessly attack my father with the acorn jibe. Inherent within your comment that people are" branded" as liberals, whether you realise it or not, is the recognition that liberalism is indeed an affliction and that the word liberal is a pejorative as it should be. Secondly as regards Obama I referred to him as a jug eared blue lipped joker. That description was objectively fully accurate. He has jug ears and his lips have a distinctly blue tint. You in your rush to judgement and getting it wrong again conflated my objective description with the term "blue gummer" which indeed is a racial slur but one which I did not use. You are correct in this regard, I should not have previously referred to the Obama/Holder deceitful duo and arch racists as Amos n Andy like, but for this reason, it was an insult to Amos n Andy whose professional bufoonery was intended to amuse and to entertain and not destroy this Republic through gangsterism and tyranny. The Justice Department under Holder has become the hot bed of racism with Holder denying justice to all but "his people" refusing to persue the black panthers in Philly and on purely racial grounds has launced suits against States simply endeavouring to enforce state and federal immigration law. Obama has divided the country on race lines and in endaevor to remove the blindfold from justice and to redistribute justice based on race and gender has made Supreme Court appointments based on race and gender/ sexual orientation.
Do not dare to presume that I have gotten any point from you or your ilk other than as I have repeatedly said and that you have repeatedly proven and proven with your latest post that liberals and those with a liberal disposition are a danger to the gene pool. As I say keep taking your medication.
Re: Joseph Wright:
Now you come out trashing the Supreme Court appontments because they were both women???? Now your hatred for women is revealed. And since you also mention race as one of the components of your hate, I assume that you resent the fact that one of those women is of Hispanic heritage?? Joseph, the last time I checked , more than 1/9th of the citizens of these United States is of Hispanic heritage. Is it YOUR judgment that this group does not deserve to be a part of our Supreme Court?? This appointment was long overdue. Long overdue. The Hispanics in this country have long added greatly to this country and if you don't believe that is true, look very carefully at the names of those who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. That sad list is overbalanced with those with Hispanic surnames.
As to your hatred of women, I can only assume that you just don't appeal to them or that you were divorced and just can't take the fact that a woman could walk out on you. Something, AND OF COURSE I AM ASSUMING, had to trigger your hatred.
Personally, I love women and respect them. They have always been very nice to me and I love to compliment them on their beauty AND THEIR INTELLIGENCE.....that is why those women were appointed to the Supreme Court. They have great INTELLECT and that is how they WORKED THEIR WAY ONTO THE SHORT LIST of possible nominees. They got there by hard work, not because they just happened to be of a certain political bent. Even with their appointments, the Court still has a decidedly Conservative viewpoint of helping big business interests at the expense of the little guy. Not one case since this Conservative majority has taken over has been decided for the little guy over big business. All 5=4 decisions in so many many cases.
Re: robert lipka Wow! I truly did not comprehend just how right I was about liberals and those of that bent being a danger to the gene pool. You are absolute proof of that. God you are obtuse! Neither Sotomeyor nor Kagan were appointed because of intelligence or judicial ability or ability to understand and apply the supreme law of the land as it is set forth in the Constitution. Lets start with Sotomayor. Justice is supposed to be blind to race creed and gender. Race creed and gender should not affect the judicial decision making process. That was the point in my statement that you obviously missed that Obama purposely endeavoured to remove the blindfold from justice to inject a racial and liberal ideology into the law a fact easily demonstrated by the words and actions of the aforementioned political hacks and activists. In 2001 Sotomayor then an appeals court judge said that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging". That single statement should have disqualified her but she later went on, questioning Bader Ginsberg's and Sandra O'Connor's invocation that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases and declared that " I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Clearly, for her justice was not to be blind but shaded to accord with her Latino heritage and shaded to Latinos. She later again said a 'court of appeals is where policy is made" confirming her activist credentials. She went further and her remarks were published in the Berkely La Raza Law journal, to wit, " Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may make a difference in our judging." Obama picked her to pander to the Hispanic vote not for her ability to properly interpret the law. As for Kagan, notwitstanding that there are currently investigations under way as to whether she perjured herself in her confirmation hearings with regard to her role in defending Obamacare, Kagan's view of the Constitution from her own mouth is this " The Constitution just says what you're supposed to do and how things are supposed to work but its open to change" Kagan's view, identical to Obama's is that the Constitution is not there to be applied but to be modified from the bench to service her socio political whims. And neatly completing the circle back to the subject of Estrich's article, Kagan lied that she did not block the military at Harvard and then later confirmed that in contravention of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy then in force she refused to follow law as enacted by Congress. Kagan is no more than a political activist who insists upon her socio political views even to defy existing law and is consequently unfit for the Supreme Court or any court for that matter. Sotomayor got there primarily because she was Latino and Obama needs that vote. Kagan got there to assist Obama in destroying the Constitution. They may have worked hard to crystalise their patent activist, racist, progressive standing but the Supreme Court is no place for either of them just as the DOJ is no place for Holder and the Whitehouse is no place for Obama. and just for you Robert, I wish I could say that they were at least easy on the eye but........
I read Susan's Hope and Change article in my local newspaper in Iowa and wanted to find her website and let her know that I enjoyed her well written and very articulate letter. I could not have expressed my perspective as eloquently as she did and I wholeheartedly support her appreciation of those who have made the repeal of 'don't ask don't tell' a reality. Thank you from the heartland.
Comment: #27
Posted by: Kathy K
Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:49 AM
What the difference between two or heteosexual people living together and two or more homosexual people living together? Why should government give preference to one group over another? And I'm not talking about marriage here!
Comment: #29
Posted by: Early
Tue Aug 2, 2011 8:10 AM