John Aravosis is upset about the HRC speech.

[UPDATE]: Welcome, Instapundit readers.

Yes, everybody else knows that the President’s trust-me yesterday on ending DADT is more of the same: nicely prepackaged rhetoric; good, standard delivery – and absolutely no substance whatsoever.  And that won’t change.  So you, and a large portion of the left-sphere, are now unhappy about the whole situation.


I mean, really: what are you going to do about it?  Vote Republican?

Moe Lane

Links via Instapundit & Jake Tapper.

Crossposted to RedState.


  • Skip says:

    Yup. As Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces he could issue an order today that says “until further notice there will be no proceedings under the DADT rules”, and then it would be up to Congress to pass rules sometime before he’s no longer in office to make sure that anyone who took advantage of this could stay in.

    As to the issue itself? I have no great opinion one way or another, but would probably leave it to the generals to decide if they thought it could be done. If I were one of those generals I’d probably be tentatively in favor of allowing them to serve, with one caveat. Under no circumstances should they be a ‘protected class’. Soldiers should be tough, able to take things. So just like you can be insulted for your accent, appearance, etc., in boot camp, that should be open season. If you can’t take the abuse you shouldn’t be in the army.

  • w3bgrrl says:

    Hilarious phallic graph with a great punchline. “Support for Civil Unions Inches Up.” Those crazy kids at Pew.

  • I’m not sure Skip is right. DADT is federal law, and as such is probably written into the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I’m not sure the President can just say ignore the law.

    Back to Moe’s point, I’ve noticed pretty much the same thing. Of course, I have speculated that his speech was calculated to get a bill moved into Congress, fully expecting the Republicans to block it.

    Of course, the shabby treatment of constituents isn’t a trait solely displayed by Democrats. The Republicans didn’t exactly embrace Porkbusters.

  • Hucbald says:

    Homosexuals are profoundly dysfunctional human beings. Anyone who can’t get the simple binary of male and female straight can’t be trusted on anything so far as thinking is concerned. Anyone who gives a flying flapjack about what a homosexual thinks about anything is an abject moron. That being said, so far as their serving in the military, so long as they perform their duties satisfactorily, it shouldn’t be an issue at all.

  • jedimom says:

    heh. Pretty ironic considering Aravosis and friends bashed PUMAS with that very phrase, whatta ya gonna do vote GOP and waving wire hangars at us in JPEG form…feel the karmic burn…TOTUS is not a fighter….

  • Darren says:

    Skip, if the president did as you suggest, he would be violating his oath of office. Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution states “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, and that is what he must do–whether or not he agrees with them.

  • Buford Gooch says:

    If I’m not mistaken, there is a law that says homosexuals can’t serve at all. The DADT was an executive order by Clinton to get around it to some extent. That is, it was his way of keeping people from being questioned, and then tossed out. If DADT is withdrawn, overridden, or whatever by executive order, the order must be very carefully written, or the military will simply revert to the status quo ante and “ask”. It is likely that more gays would be removed from service under that situation than under the present.

  • Brian Macker says:

    I felt the same way about government spending during Bush’s term. What was I gonna do, vote Democrat? Now that a Democrat is in office and spending has quadrupled we see that was a correct assessment.

  • Brian Macker says:


    So when a principle software architect with twenty eight years experience tells me something is wrong with a software design I shouldn’t care what he thinks because he happens to be a homosexual? I have worked with one, and I care a lot about what he has to say.

    Sounds like you are the abject moron. Ever hear of Alan Turing, you jerk. If it weren’t for that “profoundly dysfunctional human being” there would be lots of dead American and British soldiers right now.

  • Cletus says:

    DADT is federal law, passed by congress. An executive order can’t supercede that. I did over 20 years in the AF (retired in 2007), and as a vet who still works with airman every day, I can say that the culture in the military has evolved enough that what would have been a major problem in the early nineties would not be that big of a deal now. If you want to help us kill bad guys, come on along and let’s get it done.

  • Fen says:

    I served in the Marines. I have no issues with a homosexual’s ability on the FEBA. But I have two points:

    1) There is no “right” to serve. The military routinely discriminates re age, weight, medical condition, etc. So this cannot be a Civil Rights issue.

    2) If homosexuals are allowed to serve openely, they must be seperated the same way males and females are. We have little privacy to begin with.

  • Randy says:

    Sorry, but gays serve openly in several militaries, including those of Canada, Britain, Australia and Israel. Seems they work fine for our allies, and they don’t have separate facilities. In other words, everyone acts professionally. If you can’t, Fen, then you certainly don’t deserve to be in the Marines or any other branch. Afterall, you have no ‘right’ to serve.

  • wGraves says:

    What happens when a soldier, trained in combat, reacts to someone who makes a pass at him. He considers it a sexual assault, the other party considers it an invitation. After they clean up the remains, which could in fact be either party, what do we do next?

  • M. Simon says:

    President Present called off the dogs (mostly) on med-pot in states where it is legal.

  • Well, at least we gay Republicans can say that while Democrats may offer sweeter words to gay people, they don’t do much more for gay people than does the GOP. Our party is far from perfect, but at least it doesn’t make promises to gay people to get their votes and money and then, well, run.

    And look, as long the state just leaves us alone to live our lives as we please, then, it really shouldn’t matter that much. (Well, once we repeal DADT; if the President merely said the word, he could start the process in motion that would lead to repeal.)

  • Paul says:

    Is there anyone left that creamed them selves supporting Chauncey Obama that he hasn’t thrown under the bus? Hahaaha! No history, dream books. No academic records, just affirmative action. No voting record. A perfect blank( black ) slate for psycho projections.

    Enjoy your monster lefties. He’s all yours and he’s just getting started.

  • Pat Patterson says:

    The DADT policy is covered under Public Law 103-106 and thus would have to be repealed by Congress, modified by Congress or overturned by SCOTUS. The USMCJ has had prohibitions against sodomy, which is the catchall phrase, since the Revolutionary War.

  • Pete says:

    Until you [as a straight] have been awakened at 4:00AM by a drunken, cigarette smoking, gay fondling your testicles you have no real idea of what it means to mix gays and straights in an active duty setting. He was fast on his feet, I will say that, so I never caught him, but he left a bloody mess on the wall where bounced before making a hard right and exiting the barracks.

  • Jeff says:

    DADT works very well for both the gays and the hetero’s … there is no need to remove it … the “openly gay” nonsense is not about rights but about power …

  • Kinda Republican says:

    “What are you going to do – vote Republican?”

    Probably not, but they might do what I did with Bush senior and McCain and simply not vote. Bush senior and McCain did not lose simply because more people voted Democratic, but because a lot of those they thought “had” to vote for them simply did not vote in protest.

    If Obama alienates enough folks who then simply refuse to vote for him and his supporters, he can lose Congress and his re-election.

  • Banjo says:

    What gays don’t seem to understand is that there are things that are more important than their agenda, defense of the nation being one of them. Military units need cohesion and harmony is an aspect of that. My experience working among gay people is they are cliquish, bitchy and backbiting. Introducing them into our military in the large numbers that would follow the ending of DADT would weaken us in a dangeous world, however much it might satisfy an aggrieved, politically active minority (3% of the population. The values of their culture — you know what they are, fellas — would fatally subvert what is now the finest military in the world.

  • […] Moe Lane » John Aravosis is upset about the HRC speech. I mean, really: what are you going to do about it? Vote Republican? […]

  • Randy says:

    Welll. Banjo, I’m concerned about military readiness too. That’s why I think it’s stupid to fire Arab linguists just for being gay when we have a dire shortage of such linguists. Unless, of course, you think it’s more important to get rid of gays than actually fighting a war.

    And of course, you don’t explain how it is that the Israeli military can possibly function with all those backbiting gays serving openly there. I guess they just have a second-rate military, right?

    And sure, Jeff, DADT works great for gays. I guess that’s why gays really want to get rid of it, because it works well. But then, hey. gays are so stoopid, we don’t know what’s really good for us.

  • Akatsukami says:

    Damn straight you don’t, Randy; you voted for Barry Dunham.

  • submandave says:

    First, as pointed out by many, DADT is federal law enacted by the Congress in the execution of their Art 1 duties to provide laws to govern the armed forces. Unfortunately, the thoughts expressed by Skip in various forms, wrongs as they may, are quite prevalent. Not long ago I got into a pissing match with a college friend(?) for expressing my exasperation with how frequently the military is singled out as the bad guy in DADT and slammed for simply following the law. This as much a factor of poor civics eduction as it is FUD to redirect the anger of the left’s useful idiots away from their chosen law makers and toward a traditonal boogey man.

    With regard to the actual effects of repealing DADT, as one with 20+ years active an dreserve I share the thoughts of many here that it could be mostly a non-issue, but express concern for how the transition might best be managed. Many straight service members have legitimate privacy concerns, but the most common response is along the lines of “C’mon, be a man. Are you too insecure to take a few looks in the shower?” This sort of dismissive non-solution would never be tolerated should a female member express similar concerns, and it is insulting and disrespectful to treat the concerns of our male members any less seriously. Second, I am concerned that incidents of sexual impropriety amongst gay service members may be tacitly tolerated and ignored to a degree that would be unaceptable amongst heterosexual members out of concern of accusations of “homophobia” or witch hunting. Having personally seen similar disparaty in the treatment of similar infractions committed by male and femal members, one cannot dismiss the natural urge to avoid the impression that one is unfairly treating a member of an historically mistreated group. If the military clearly, openly and honestly deals with these issues then I see little fall out from DADT being kicked to the curb. I am not, however, holding my breath for that to be the case, especially with such a politically charged issue.

  • submandave says:

    Randy, don’t think I’m completely disagreeing with you, but these days just about all separations under DADT is precipitated by the member violating the DT part. In some cases, DADT is even seen as a sort of “get out of jail free card,” a way to shorted one’s enlistment and get out of military obligation early without a Bad Conduct or Other Than Honorable Discharge.

    To use the Civil Rights analogy of which so many gay rights advocates are fond, when MLK violated what he thought was an unjust law he did so with the full expectation of being arrested, making that choice to get the publicity and in order to demonstrate the unjust nature of the law in order to get it changed. He did not expect some magic federal courts fairy to wave its wand and *POOF* disolve the evil law. It is a perfectally valid tactic for a gay member to intentionally violate the DT part of the law in order to force a discharge in the hope of garnering publicity for repealing the law, but, after the fact, to make the media tour whiling about how unfair it is or mounting a legal fight to stop the discharge is, in my view, trying to avoid the real hard work required for social and political change.

  • […] party elders are likely asking the same question (as they did in the Clinton era) which Moe Lane recently articulated:  ”I mean, really: what are you going to do about it?  […]

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com