« | »

Obama Heckled By Homosexual Militants

From an outraged Associated Press:

Obama heckled by ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ opponents

Mon Apr 19

LOS ANGELES – Opponents of the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy on gays in the military interrupted President Barack Obama with heckling at a Los Angeles fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer.

The protesters shouted to ask Obama what he is going to do about the policy, which prohibits gays from serving openly in the military. The shouts grew so insistent that Obama responded.

The president said that he supports overturning "don’t ask don’t tell" and suggested the protesters should be yelling at the people who don’t.

Obama has called on Congress to lift the ban, and military officials are examining how to do that.

Obama also told the crowd that Boxer opposed "don’t ask don’t tell" in the first place.

By the way, isn’t this heckling the President a dangerous act? Or is heckling only dangerous when it is done by a conservative?

Also, did we hear about the risks involved during the various riots against Proposition 8, in California last summer? Or were they treated by our media as righteous venting against a social injustice?

In any case, Mr. Obama seems to be re-writing history yet again. Or at least, he is misrepresenting the history of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.

For the record, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994:

SENSE OF CONGRESS – It is the sense of Congress that —

(1) the suspension of questioning concerning homosexuality as part of the processing of individuals for accession into the Armed Forces under the interim policy of January 29, 1993, should be continued, but the Secretary of Defense may reinstate that questioning with such questions or such revised questions as he considers appropriate if the Secretary determines that it is necessary to do so in order to effectuate the policy set forth in section 654 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a); …

And, in point of fact, Barbara Boxer voted against this ‘no questions asked’ bill.

On December 21, 1993, however, Bill Clinton Department of Defense Directive (1304.26), which spelled out ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ even more explicitly. (But Ms. Boxer, of course did not have a vote here.)

For the record, here is Mr. Clinton’s Department Of Defense Directive:

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 1304.26

December 21, 1993 Incorporating Change 1, March 4, 1994

SUBJECT:  Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction

E1.2.8.  Provisions Related to Homosexual Conduct

E1.2.8.1.  A person’s sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct in the manner described in subparagraph E1.2.8.2., below.  Applicants for enlistment, appointment, or induction shall not be asked or required to reveal whether they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.  Applicants also will not be asked or required to reveal whether they have engaged in homosexual conduct, unless independent evidence is received indicating that an applicant engaged in such conduct or unless the applicant volunteers a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect.

E1.2.8.2.  Homosexual conduct is grounds for barring entry into the Armed Forces, except as otherwise provided in this section.  Homosexual conduct is a homosexual act, a statement by the applicant that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage.  Propensity to engage in homosexual acts means more than an abstract preference or desire to engage in homosexual acts; it indicates a likelihood that a person engages in or will engage in homosexual acts.

E1.  An applicant shall be rejected for entry into the Armed Forces if, in the course of the accession process, evidence is received demonstrating that the applicant engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts, unless there is a further determination that:

E1.  Such acts are a departure from the applicant’s usual and customary behavior;

E1.  Such acts, under all the circumstances, are unlikely to recur;

E1.  Such acts were not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation, and;

E1.  The applicant does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

Such a determination will be made in the course of the normal accession process.  A homosexual act means:

E1.  Any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires, and

E1.  Any bodily contact that a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph E1., above.

E1.  An applicant shall be rejected for entry if he or she makes a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further determination that the applicant has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.  Such a determination will be made in the course of the normal accession process.

E1.  An applicant shall be rejected for entry if, in the course of the accession process, evidence is received demonstrating that an applicant has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex (as evidenced by the external anatomy of the persons involved).

E1.2.8.3.  Applicants will be informed of separation policy (Section 654 of 10 U.S.C. (reference (a))).  Failure to receive such information shall not constitute a defense in any administrative or disciplinary proceeding.

E1.2.8.4.  Nothing in these procedures requires rejection for entry into the Armed Forces when the relevant Military Service Command authority determines:

E1.  That an applicant or inductee made a statement, engaged in acts, or married or attempted to marry a person of the same sex for the purpose of avoiding military service; and

E1.  Rejection of the applicant or inductee would not be in the best interest of the Armed Forces.

We have to say, ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ still sounds fairly sensible to us.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, April 20th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Obama Heckled By Homosexual Militants”

  1. NoNeoCommies says:

    Sign the hecklers up and ship them to Afghanistan.

  2. proreason says:

    Would Obamy be allowed to serve in any government position, if he wasn’t elected?

    It’s hard to imagine him getting a security clearance or be willing to bear arms against anyone except white Americans.

  3. Mithrandir says:

    What do homosexuals THINK is going to happen when ‘don’t ask/don’t tell is repealed?

    Do they really think the UCMJ is going to be thrown out the window, and it will be rainbow mini-skirt and feather boa time? Do they think their obnoxious behavior is NOT going to be punished?

    Gays have proven that they cannot control their own behavior…..I mean, all that we know about how disease and AIDS is transmitted, YET they STILL are not able to control their urges…..at the threat of death? Naw….they will make a nuisance of themselves, get punished, tossed out, then the lawsuits, then all the regretful handwringing that obama heaped upon the people required to protect us, not play social politics.

    It will resolve itself one way or another……you’ll see.

  4. pblase says:

    Just as a note, the military’s position is not arbitrary. One thing to be avoided at all costs in any military organization is fraternization between an officer (regular or non-com) and enlisted; nothing will destroy morale faster than part of a squad believing that a member is receiving special treatment because he is favored by an officer. After all, the enlisted folk are literally putting their lives into their officer’s hands; would you tolerate the thought that your officer was deliberately not sending one of your comrades into the line of fire or – on the other hand – was sending you? Nor can you tolerate a situation where one service member could pressure another for favors or assignments.

    Military officers are forbidden to “hang out with” the enlisted under their supervision, they cannot have a beer with them in a bar – why the officer’s and enlisted clubs are separate, they cannot show any favoritism or partiality. This is hard enough with strictly heterosexual males; if you add sexual tensions the situation becomes totally untenable.

    This, BTW, is one of the main reasons for not allowing women into combat positions. Women and men will fraternize in such conditions and it is virtually impossible to avoid sexual tension and favoritism. As a friend of mine, who just returned from service in Afghanistan, said; half of the U.S. women soldiers there were pregnant, the other half were running prostitution rings. He wasn’t kidding.

    • Howard Roark says:

      pblase, you articulate the heart of the argument against allowing homosexuals into our armed forces. I have been saying this for years. Unfortunately, the society we live in is so permissive of “whatever floats your boat” and hyper-reactive to any constraints and limits put on these behaviors, that those of us who try to sound the alarm against allowing homosexuals into the military are painted as not only homophobic and living in the 1950’s, but as what is wrong with America.

      I have always said it like this: Imagine you’re in a 3-man squad of infantry soldiers in battle. The squad leader has to delegate certain duties to his three men in a round-robin fashion, allowing for whatever needs the unit sees fit. If the squad leader is in love with one of his men, he will always have one of the 2 others walk point in patrol after patrol, resulting in an erosion of unit cohesion, mutiny, or worse.

    • skclewis says:

      “This, BTW, is one of the main reasons for not allowing women into combat positions. Women and men will fraternize in such conditions and it is virtually impossible to avoid sexual tension and favoritism.”

      I agree PBlase. And now the Navy is going to have women serve on submarines! Does the Navy brass think there won’t be sexual tensions? I mean a nuclear sub is underwater for 30-90 days depending on their mission. 140 or so men (and now women) confined to a very finite space for that long? Come on, give me a break. I’m retired Navy myself and served with some very fine female sailors. But my duties were either on a surface ship or shore (supply duty). And there were enough sexual tensions there. As you mentioned I too have heard the stories from soldiers and Marines coming through Kuwait on their way home from Iraq that the women were supplementing their income with strip shows and sex.

  5. GetBackJack says:

    Jack Cashill slams a 50 ton boulder into Obama’s mythology


    In other words … those heckler’s were involved in a biatch-slap lover’s spat with their boy Obambi.

    • proreason says:

      I’ve been saying this since he was elected.

      There’s something mighty strange about the lad. If he isn’t gay, he sure is doing a good imitation of somebody who isn’t straight.

      Personally, I think he’s bi, with a preference for men.

      Even if you didn’t know anything about his (lack of) sexuality, you would have to wonder, just based on:
      – multi-racial
      – multi-cultural
      – multi-national
      – multi-religious

      And on EVERY issue, at least for public consumption, he’s on every side, all the time.

      How could anybody lead a life conflicted on every single part of his background, and on every single thing he is forced to say to the public…..and not be the same way about his sexual identity?

      The more I learn about him, the more I’m certain it’s true.

    • mr_bill says:

      I think the both of you are right. He has small hands, ever notice his dainty effeminate hands?

    • confucius says:

      Arguments for:

      –absent father
      –unresolved childhood issues
      –unresolved (and misdirected) anger issues
      –hyper-sensitive to criticism (even if it’s imagined)
      –knows the price of arugula
      –knows how the aborigines pronounce “Pakistan”
      –doesn’t know the name of a single baseball player
      –pitches like a girl
      –over pronounces his s’s
      –changes his hair color alot
      –dresses well
      –likes to navel gaze
      –likes Broadway
      –significant other is built like a man
      –set off Chris Matthew’s gaydar

      Arguments against:

      –not named Mark, Rick or Steve (sorry Mr. Gilbert)


      –was his mother over-domineering?
      –does he have track lighting?
      –how does he feel about jazz hands?

  6. Right of the People says:

    This is a very bad idea on more than one level.

    One solution might be to have separate units comprised entirely of males of “alternate sexual orientation”, a so called Pink Brigade. You could also have one of just lesbians. I think they might excel at special forces (sic).

    What is happening to the country I grew up in?

  7. John says:

    When I was in the Army years back, A fellow soldier (who I had no idea was gay) attempted to place his lips upon my face one night when a group of us were out in a ville in S. Korea. I blocked him wit my left forearm and proceded to give him a righ cross and subsequently broke his nose. Unfortunately, for me, 2 MPs happened to see this and we were both taken back to HQ and our commander was notified. Guess who got the UCMJ action? You guessed it… me. I tried to explain the story but the fact that I defended myself against an unwanted sexual advance was thrown ot the window. So if Barry wants to repeal DADT, he had better get ready for dissention within the ranks due to the fact there are many soldiers who will do the same ting I did since homosexuals CANNOT control their urges.

  8. AcornsRNutz says:

    I don’t think he will budge on homosexual issues much more than placating talk. He doesn’t care for them, and in fact finds the whole thing immoral. Why? Because of his muslim religion…(Christian religion !?!)..umm yes….Christian religion.

    • confucius says:

      Religion doesn’t prevent homosexuality. To wit:

      –Catholicism clearly states homosexuality is a sin; yet, there are all those priests molesting all those choir boys.

      –Iran routinely finds and hangs homosexuals.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »