expected to press repeal of military ban on 'gays'
Chad Groening -
OneNewsNow - 12/5/2008 7:30:00 AM
A conservative pro-family
leader believes the Obama administration will move sooner rather than later to
attempt to repeal the law that forbids homosexuals from serving in the
In recent weeks there have been conflicting
reports about a timetable for the new, more heavily Democratic-controlled
Congress to try to repeal the 1993 law that bans homosexuals from the military.
The Washington Times reported that president-elect Barack Obama will
not move for months, perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to repeal the ban.
The paper quoted two sources who advised the Obama transition team about the
potentially explosive issue.
But Elaine Donnelly, president of
for Military Readiness, gives credence to
a story published in CNN that the policy could be overturned this
"I was told by a reporter, [from] a very respected media
institution, that the number-three priority on the list of the liberal activists
who are very excited about Mr. Obama taking over the White House...is indeed
[the] repeal of the law regarding gays in the military," she
Obama, according to Donnelly, is committed to social
engineering in the armed forces. "The president-elect Mr. Obama has made it very
clear that he would support legislative efforts to repeal the law," she
contends. "He wants to open the armed forces to social engineering on an
unprecedented scale, making it a civil rights issue to say that there should be
homosexuals in military 24/7."
Donnelly says it is important for
supporters of the military to contact their members of Congress and urge them
not to repeal the ban.
My position on gays in the military has changed considerably over the
Initially I was against allowing gays in the military.
This was not because I had any problem with people being gay. I didn't
then and I don't now. To me it has always been a logistical issue.
Why do we provide separate barracks for men and women? Because we don't
want there to be sexual tension and fraternization in soldiers' sleeping
quarters, which could affect performance in the field.
It seemed to me that putting gay and straight soldiers in the same barracks would
create an identical condition. And creating an all-gay barracks certainly
would do so - not to mention making that barracks a target for who knows
The most plausible solution would be to barrack gay men
with straight women and gay women with straight men. However, that ain't
For many years - first tacitly and then openly - the military
has employed a "don't ask/don't tell" policy. This enables gay
soldiers to serve as long as they do not overtly profess their
sexual orientation. It is not fair and it is not a good way to
do things. On the other hand, it could be argued, no
solution is very good and this is the best
of the alternatives. "Don't ask/don't tell" remains in place today.
But it is almost 2009, and the world has turned. Acceptance of gay people has come a huge distance.
Many straight people who could never have fathomed accepting and even being
comfortable with gay people years ago, now are doing so as a matter of
Parenthetically, I am not talking about intentionally flamboyant or extreme activist
gays - who most straights (and some gays) have a problem with. I am
talking about people who just go about their normal business -
the accountant, the shopkeeper, the civil servant, the ad guy - and happen
to have a gay orientation.
This being so, I think a much better case can now be made for
eliminating the don't ask/don't tell policy and just allowing gays to be in the
military without preconditions.
I have no doubt
that some straight soldiers will never accept gays and some might cause them trouble, while others will
have no problem with them at all. But, hey, that's what happens
with people outside the military too.
The result will be that everyone who volunteers to become a
soldier and protect the United States of America will be able to do so
equally. It seems to me that this is a far, far more important issue
than who a soldier prefers to cohabitate with.
So if that is what Barack Obama and his people are thinking about doing, I
say more power to them.
R.I.P. SUNNY VON BULOW
Most people probably think Martha "Sunny" von Bulow has been dead for many
years. But she has not. Ms. von Bulow died today at the age of 76,
after spending the last 28 years of her life in a coma.
For readers who have forgotten the details of her condition and the
sensational trials of her husband Claus - and for those of you too young to
remember them - here is the story, via excerpts from an
article in the Associated Press:
Bulow dead after 28 years in coma
DOBNIK Associated Press Writer
Posted: 12/06/2008 11:36:22 AM PST
NEW YORKMartha "Sunny" von
Bulow, the heiress who spent the last 28 years of her life in oblivion after
what prosecutors alleged in a pair of sensational trials were two murder
attempts by her husband, died Saturday at age 76.
She died at a nursing home in New York, her
children said in a statement issued by family spokeswoman Maureen Connelly.
Martha von Bulow was a personification of romantic
notions about high societya stunning heiress who brought her American millions
to marriages to men who gave her honored old European names.
But she ended her days in a coma, giving no sign
of awareness as she was visited by her children and tended around the clock by
She was the offstage presence that haunted the two
sensational trials of her husband, Claus von Bulow, in Providence, R.I.
At the first trial, in 1982, Claus von Bulow was
convicted of trying twice to kill her by injecting her with insulin at their
estate in Newport, R.I. That verdict was thrown out on appeal and he was
acquitted at a second trial in 1985.
The murder case split Newport society, produced
lurid headlines and was later made into a film, "Reversal of Fortune," starring
Glenn Close and Jeremy Irons.
Claus von Bulow is living in London, "mostly
taking care of his grandchildren," said Alan Dershowitz, the defense lawyer who
won his acquittal at the second trial.
"It's a sad ending to a sad tragedy that some
people tried to turn into a crime," Dershowitz
said. "I hope this finally will put to an end to this terrible tragedy."
"There are no winners in a case like this. I'm
happy to have played a role in getting the criminal conviction reversed, because
it was an unjust conviction, but there were no victory parties or celebrations
afterwards because there was a woman in a coma," Dershowitz said.
Claus von Bulow's main accusers were his wife's
children by a previous marriage, Princess Annie Laurie von Auersperg Kniessl and
Prince Alexander von Auersperg. They renewed the charges against their
stepfather in a civil lawsuit a month after his acquittal.
Two years later, Claus von Bulow agreed to give up
any claims to his wife's estimated $25 million-to-$40 million fortune and to the
$120,000-a-year income of a trust she set up for him. He also agreed to divorce
her, leave the country and never profit from their story.
As you can see, things got terribly ugly between Claus von Bulow and
Sunny's family. Ironically, the only player who remained serene and
unaffected throughout their legal wars was Sunny, who now takes the real story,
whatever it is, to her grave.
May she finally rest in peace.
BDS: LAME DUCK SEGMENT
BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is alive, well, and
not scheduled to die at noon on January 20,
Based on the ABC report below (and others), our wonderful "neutral"
media apparently intend to make George Bush into this generation's
Just as media could not get enough of Nixon bashing to the day he
died - and even years afterwards, as Ron Howard's new movie demonstrates - they
apparently intend to hound Mr. Bush after he leaves office as well.
Here, courtesy of www.sweetness-light.com, is the attack
on (gasp!) Mr. Bush's new home, the one he intends to live in after leaving the
George and Laura Buy Home in
Exclusive Dallas Neighborhood, Near Ross Perot and T. Boone
By KIRIT RADIA Dec. 5, 2008
Next month President Bush will trade the White
House for a sprawling mansion in a posh Dallas neighborhood.
The president and Mrs. Bush have purchased a
home in the Preston Hollow neighborhood in Dallas, Texas, where they will live
after the president leaves office in January 2009, the first ladys
spokeswoman Sally McDonough said in a statement Thursday.
While the First Ladys Office would not confirm
the new homes exact address reports say the Bushes have selected a
house on Daria Place at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac
Though the home is valued by the county at more
than $2 million, reports say the Bushes paid an additional million. The home
is only a few miles from the planned location of Bushs presidential library
at Southern Methodist University, the first ladys alma mater
Though the new house cant compare
with the 132-room, 35-bath White House the Bushes will depart in January,
their new home is enormous in its own right.
According its official listing on the Dallas
Central Appraisal Districts Web site, the one-story house spans 8,501 square
feet of living space, including four bedrooms and four bathrooms, and
sits on a 1.134-acre property. It was built in 1959 but is said to
have undergone several renovations.
Theres no swimming pool, but the
home boasts a wet bar, fireplace, cabana, separate storage, detached garage
and an 896-square-foot servants quarter.
President Bushs new neighbors in this upscale
Dallas neighborhood will include former presidential hopeful Ross Perot,
oilman T Boone Pickens and other wealthy Dallas denizens
The First Ladys Office said that despite the
move to Dallas, the couple will continue to spend time at Prairie Chapel
Ranch in Crawford, Texas.
When asked about his new home
today at an event at the White House, President Bush replied sarcastically to
the reporter: Why do you care? You live in Washington, DC.
This purchase by the Bushes is so egregious that
ABC even had to include it in their special photo section, Home Is Where The
Home Is Where the Money
A house believed to have been purchased by
President Bush is seen on December 4, 2008. The White House has announced that
Bush and first lady Laura Bush have purchased a home in the Preston Hollow
neighborhood in Dallas, Texas where they will reside after Bush leaves office
in January 2009. The home has been appraised at $2.1 million but the
Dallas Morning News reports that the Bushes paid considerably more for the
four-bedroomhome, which is located in a quiet
By the way, the the next house in ABCs gallery
Home Is Where the Money
An unnamed Russian oligarch has broken a world
record by paying $745 million for Villa Leopolda, a mansion on the
French Riviera, the London newspaper the Times has reported.
The 20-acre property includes two guest houses and was once
home to parties attended by Frank Sinatra and Ronald Reagan,
according to the newspaper.
Yes, what a scandal.
An ex-President living in a $2 million dollar
house on a cul de sac.
What luxury! What extravagance!
Is this a bad joke? President Bush is being
attacked for living in a $2 million home after he leaves office? That's
what ABC is spending its time doing?
Excuse me, but didn't Barack Obama's house in Chicago
cost $1.6 million dollars years ago, and $325,000 more for additinal land, which was sold to him
by that nice Antoin "Tony" Rezko - Obama's political benefactor who has now been convicted on
16 felony counts and is going to jail for years and years?
Let's see. $1.6 million plus $325,000. That sounds like just
under.....$2 million. And it was bought not by a two term ex-president but
by a first-term senator.
So ABC must have done a bunch of stories about how posh Mr. Obama's lifestyle
is, right? The network must have juxtaposed his house to
one that cost $745,000,000 like they did with Mr. Bush,
I'm sure you caught all those feature stories during the presidential
campaign. Well, didn't you?
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
IS IT FINALLY OVER IN MINNESOTA?
Here is John Hinderaker's highly informative piece on how things have turned
out in Minnesota now that the entire recount is completed (except for a possible
133 additional votes).
It gives me at least a modicum of hope that Franken cannot steal this
election. But I'm still very, very wary:
With all votes now recounted, Norm Coleman has
been re-elected to the Senate. I think. The Minnesota Secretary of State shows Coleman leading by 687 votes with 99.98% of
precincts reporting--all but one. The Minneapolis Star Tribune shows Coleman with a 192 vote victory, with all ballots
The discrepancy is accounted for by the fact that
the Secretary of State has not yet included totals from Minneapolis's Ward 3,
Precinct 1, at the University of Minnesota, where 133 ballots are allegedly missing.
The only thing we know for sure is that the number
of ballots that actually exist at that precinct, a DFL stronghold, is 133 fewer
than the number that were recorded on the precinct's voting machine. Cynical
observers suspect that 133 ballots were run through the machine twice, giving Al
Franken some extra votes. Now, however, the official version is that those
ballots are "missing," and the Secretary of State has given the precinct more
time to "find" the ballots.
However that drama turns out, Coleman will win the
recount, just as he won on November 4. But the margin is significant. The next
stage takes place at the state's Canvassing Board, which will rule on all of the
challenged ballots, something on the order of 5,000 distributed almost exactly
equally between the campaigns. Very few of those challenges will be upheld, and
no one expects the margin to be very different when that process is
At that point, Al Franken will have to decide
whether he wants to go to court to try to overturn the result of the election.
His theory would be that some of the 12,000 or so absentee ballots that were
disqualified by precincts around the state were wrongly excluded. The Franken
campaign says that they believe 1,000 or so ballots may be in this category.
Take those figures with several grains of salt; the number of disqualified
absentee ballots is not officially reported and no one, obviously, has any idea
how many such disqualifications were "wrongful."
But assume Franken's numbers are correct. If he is
down by 200 votes in the recount, and a hypothetical 1,000 absentee ballots are
now ruled eligible, he would have to carry those ballots by 600-400 to catch up.
Incorrectly excluded absentee ballots are most likely distributed about equally
between Franken and Coleman voters. So if Franken has that many votes or more to
make up, he may well decide to forgo litigation, which would raise many novel
legal issues and inevitably would last for months, and retire gracefully.
On the other hand, if Franken can narrow the
margin down by re-counting what may be an extra 133 votes and through the
challenge process, that might tip the balance in favor of protracted litigation.
Either way, though, it now appears overwhelmingly probable that Norm Coleman
will ultimately--albeit far too narrowly--prevail.
Franken could spare the people of Minnesota further anguish and suspicion by
conceding defeat. And it is possible that he will.
But, then again, this is Al Franken. So who knows?
We'll certainly find out soon enough.
DID HILLARY GIVE ANYTHING BACK?
Hillary Clinton was on the campaign trail for her husband in 1992 and
1996. She was first lady for 8 years. During that time Ms. Clinton
wore piles of expensive jewelry and countless designer gowns.
Some of it was bought. Some of it was lent to her. Some of it, I
suspect, was "lent" permanently.
Did anyone ever question what Hillary Clinton wore? Did anyone expect
her to account for it? To defend it?
Keep that in mind as you read this Associated Press report which MSNBC put
up, and preceded with an obnoxious sarcastic piece by that noted neutralist,
Rachel Maddow, about Ms. Palin's clothing:
Despite earlier furor, Palin shopping
GOP spent $4,383 at Saks, $34,384 for makeup
artist in race's final weeks
WASHINGTON - Despite the furor over a $150,000 campaign shopping spree
for GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, the Republican Party continued to
spend money on clothing and accessories for her in the contest's final weeks,
new campaign reports show.
latest buys ranged from $4,383 at Saks Fifth Avenue and $2,130 at Nieman Marcus,
to $148 at Victoria's Secret locations in Philadelphia and Cincinnati. Another
$430 was spent at Aldo, a shoe store. The buys were listed under the heading of
party also paid $55,700 in "consulting" fees to Lisa Kline & Co., a New York
fashion stylist. And the McCain-Palin presidential campaign, which was funded
with $84 million in tax dollars under the presidential public campaign financing
system, dispensed $34,384 to Amy Strozzi, a celebrity makeup artist. The
campaign had previously paid Strozzi $36,000, disclosed in earlier campaign
Party spokesman Alex
Conant said the expenditures listed in the party's October and December reports
"were the result of coordinated expenditures at the campaign's
"Accessories have been returned, inventoried, and will be appropriately
dispersed to various charities," Conant said.
Oooooohhh, the Republican Party spiffed Ms. Palin up for the campaign. How dare they.
I wonder if MSNBC or the AP will ever compare the cost
of all this to the cost of just a few sets of jewelry that
Harry Winston "lent" to Ms. Clinton or a few of the gowns she wore. If you're
waiting for a cold day in hell, you can wait for this too. Think of it as
concurrent wastes of time.
I know I won't be getting that comparison from Rachel Maddow, who adds a new dimension (or
maybe dementia) to the terms smug, smirky, snarky and adolescent.
Ms Maddow is very educated and very
smart. I guess tossing both down the toilet is what you have to do
to succeed at MSNBC these days. But, then again, having
watched keith olbermann for years I should have known that
Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small.
In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.
So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.
And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!