Support The Military! Unless They Support Gays Serving In The Military
It’s rather ironic, if you think about it.
The one politically untouchable segment of our country is the military. Presidents and Senators often say they will “defer to the military leaders on the ground” in matters large and small. President Obama took a bit of heat after his State of the Union address because some felt he hadn’t specifically said the words “thank you” to our soldiers. (He used the word gratitude.) Any indication that someone does not support our troops — especially in time of war — is considered close to treason.
And yet, all of a sudden, we have Republican Senators — young and old — railing against our top two military leaders, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, for their testimony Tuesday in front of Carl Levin’s Armed Services Committee hearing on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
At this point, most have heard Senator John McCain (who has said he would defer to military leaders on DADT repeal — until they started to support repeal) berate Secretary Gates at the hearing. McCain essentially tried to pull rank, when, to his shock, Gates and Mullen both came out fully and personally in support of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” McCain called them “clearly biased” and said, “I’m happy to say we still have a Congress despite your plan to repeal [DADT] by fiat.”
But that same day, U.S. Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, Jr. called our nation’s top military brass “political appointees,” as if they were the result of some campaign donation, or, the likes of Bush’s FEMA Director Michael “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” Brown. Hunter, who is a freshman Congressman and immediately succeeded his father in office, in an interview with NPR, said,
Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates are both political appointees. They’re going to be biased. They’re going to say what the administration wants them to say.
Well, I suppose in a way, Representative Hunter is right. After all, Gates and Mullen are “political appointees,” in the strictest sense of the term. Secretary Gates has served the past three Republican presidents, since Reagan. Gates spent twenty-six years at the CIA, including being CIA Director. Admiral Mullen was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by President George W. Bush.
But “say what the administration wants them to say?” No way!
(Another irony: Mullen succeeded Peter Pace, who, while Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, in 2007 said, “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts.” So, in a strange way, we can thank President Bush for some forward movement on repeal. He’s probably furious.)
Hunter continued, saying,
I think the folks who have been in the military that have been in these very close situations with each other, there has to be a special bond there. And I think that bond is broken if you open up the military to transgenders, to hermaphrodites, to gays and lesbians.
News flash to all who oppose repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — we’re already in the military. To the tune of an estimated 66,000.
Hunter is really worried. Not kidding. Evidently speaking for the entire military, he continued,
[I]t would frankly make everybody a little bit uneasy to be in these close situations, how you go into combat, you know, the shower situation, the bathroom situation, just, you know, very mundane details – things that we have men and women separated, you know, because we don’t want to have that sexual distraction. That exists for the homosexual aspect of things, too.
Because every LGBTQ soldier, in combat, is thinking of nothing but sex when they’re in the bathroom. Yeah, right. I’ve never served in the military, but I’m pretty sure every soldier — gay or straight — has a lot on their minds, in or out of the bathroom, and I’m pretty sure survival, and just making it through the day, is a lot closer to the top of the list than sex.
And in a typically, supremely bigoted moment — one, honestly I see a lot with folks like Congressman Hunter, and NOM’s Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, who are so blind to their own hatred they say what’s in their heart, not realizing how they make the case against themselves — Hunter has the following conversation with NPR’s Melissa Block:
BLOCK: But Congressman Hunter, wouldn’t you agree that there are gays and lesbians serving in the military right now, they just are not open about their orientation. So the problems that you raise presumably would be problems already. They are in the barracks already. They are in the showers already.
HUNTER: No, but they aren’t open about it, like you just said. It’s like if you want to work for NPR, you don’t go to work and on the first day say, hey, I want everybody to know that I’m gay. You probably don’t care one way or the other as long as they, you know, get their particular job done. I think the military is the same way. That’s why don’t ask, don’t tell works.
Exactly. Folks in the military “probably don’t care one way or the other as long as they, you know, get their particular job done.”
Thank you, Congressman Hunter, for displaying how incredibly ridiculous your argument is, and for displaying your utter lack of understanding of this issue.
Listen to the full NPR interview:
http://www.npr.org/v2/?i=123287737&m=123287724&t=audio
Note: This piece was originally published in The Bilerico Project.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
President Donald Trump thrilled his supporters in New York on Friday as he shared how he came up with his latest nickname for Democrats — his explanation included a spelling lesson.
“Blue means Dumocrat,” the president said. “That’s a new name I came up with.”
“I was, I was thinking about this character we have in the House. His name is Hakeem Jeffries,” Trump said to boos from the audience.
“And he’s a low IQ person, very low IQ.”
“And I watched what he was saying, and what the horrible things he was saying, and I said, ‘He’s a dumb guy.’ I said, Wait a minute, he’s a Dumocrat. That’s how I got the name,” Trump excitedly said.
“You take the ‘e’ out, you don’t use the ‘b’. A lot of people don’t know ‘dumb’ has a ‘b’ in it, actually. You don’t need it. You discard the ‘b.’
“But you take the ‘e’ out, and you replace it with a ‘u.'”
“They are Dumocrats. You know why? ‘Cause their policies are dumb. Their policies are very dumb. All of their policies.”
Critics mocked the president.
“His uncle taught at MIT, but Trump just recently learned there is a b in dumb,” wrote political strategist Jeff Timmer.
“Dumbo @realDonaldTrump here is the only one who doesn’t know there’s a b in DUMB,” said former GOP Congresswoman Barbara Comstock.
“It’s impossible to overstate how f— — stupid Trump looks on the world stage,” wrote another online commenter.
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s controversial Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, is resigning.
“Unfortunately, I must submit my resignation, effective June 30, 2026,” DNI Gabbard wrote to President Trump, Fox News reports. “My husband, Abraham, has recently been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of bone cancer.”
“During pivotal moments,” NBC News reports, “as Trump deliberated over possible military action or watched live video feeds of operations in Iran or Venezuela, Gabbard was often not in the room, underscoring her outsider status.”
“Gabbard has had a tough tenure being sidelined on Venezuela and Iran. Last month, Trump floated replacing her with Pam Bondi, but some advisers saved her,” reported WIRED’s Hugo Lowell.
President Trump wrote that Gabbard had done an “incredible job,” and “we will miss her,” while Reuters reports that the White House ”forced” Gabbard “to resign from her post, a person familiar with the matter said on Friday.”
The Wall Street Journal’s Dave Brown called Gabbard’s tenure “tumultuous.”
Critics were quick to respond.
“Good riddance. The Iran war has been the biggest display of intelligence incompetence in decades,” wrote U.S. Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI).
“Tulsi Gabbard leaves this administration in disgrace after helping Trump drag the country into yet another forever war in the Middle East,” wrote political strategist Mike Nellis. “She built her entire image on opposing these wars, then abandoned that principle the second it became politically inconvenient. That’s her legacy: a complete fraud, completely full of s— — about the one thing people thought she genuinely believed in. Good f— — riddance.”
“Also, is anybody in Congress or the media going to get to the bottom of the whistleblower’s story about Tulsi Gabbard withholding classified intercepted intel for political reasons?” Nellis continued. “What the hell happened there, or are we just going to pretend that didn’t happen?”
“Are we ever going to found out if Tulsi Gabbard broke how many different national security laws by allegedly refusing to hand over investigative documents, or is that just going away now?” asked writer Charlotte Clymer.
Professor and policy analyst Adam Cochran called Gabbard’s resignation “shocking,” and added: “Can’t imagine what they would ask to do that is too out of line for her…”
Associate Professor of Political Science Christopher Clary said Gabbard “will go down as perhaps the most ineffective and incompetent DNI in the short history of that position.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump managed to effectively raise taxes on the majority of Americans through his tax policies, while handing the richest five percent a tax cut. Now, many Americans want to see the rich pay their fair share — and that could mean increasing their taxes.
The former chief economist of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Professor Zachary Liscow, argues there’s a “slow, boring” yet “easy” way to do so.
“The United States is seeing an increasing concentration of wealth at the very top and a worsening national debt,” Liscow writes in an op-ed at The New York Times. “For many Americans, taxing the rich more is an obvious move.”
He details some of the “novel proposals to curb the many intricate ways the rich make and hide their money,” including a wealth tax, a tax on unrealized gains, and a tax on “loans that billionaires take against their stock.”
But, Liscow warns, while novel, these methods would not raise the substantial amount of money the U.S. needs.
“The boring truth is that Congress can accomplish a lot simply by raising the rates of the taxes already on the books,” Liscow explains.
He examines U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) proposal to tax “fortunes above $50 million,” and says there are “serious constitutional and policy arguments for this idea, but the Supreme Court’s current members would probably strike it down.”
There is a billionaire’s tax proposal by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) that would tax unrealized capital gains, “the appreciation in the paper value of assets such as stocks.” That would likely find a Supreme Court challenge.
There are other tax vehicles, like fixing the “buy, borrow, die” loophole, which would tax loans taken against stock portfolios, but that would likely not raise sufficient funds: “It’s just not where the money is.”
He finds that “the most powerful lever is also the simplest one,” and concludes that “Congress has a simpler, tried-and-true tax policy to choose from: raising the rates.”
Liscow is advocating to restore the “top marginal ordinary income tax rate to its pre-2017 level of 39.6 percent” — where it was before Trump’s first term in office.
“In addition, raising the corporate tax rate from 21 percent toward the 35 percent it had been set at historically would add hundreds of billions in revenue for the government,” he says.
“Raising the rates,” Liscow concludes, “the simple, boring answer — is where the real money lies.”
Image: Christopher Penler / Shutterstock.com
Trump Explains ‘Dumb’ Has a ‘B’
‘Good Riddance’: Critics Cheer Tulsi Gabbard’s ‘Shocking’ Resignation
The ‘Slow, Boring’ and ‘Easy’ Way to Tax the Rich: Expert
Trump’s Latest ‘Executive Time’ Grievance Session Reveals What He’s Really Worried About
‘Political Survival’ Fears Driving Senate GOP to ‘Breaking Point’ With Trump: Report
News3 days agoTrump Explains ‘Dumb’ Has a ‘B’
News3 days ago‘Good Riddance’: Critics Cheer Tulsi Gabbard’s ‘Shocking’ Resignation
News4 days agoTrump’s Latest ‘Executive Time’ Grievance Session Reveals What He’s Really Worried About
News4 days ago‘Political Survival’ Fears Driving Senate GOP to ‘Breaking Point’ With Trump: Report
News4 days agoThe ‘Slow, Boring’ and ‘Easy’ Way to Tax the Rich: Expert
