Thursday, July 21, 2011

Franken Demolishes Anti-Marriage Spokesman

They're having hearings about repealing the Defense of Marriage Amendment. Naturally The Nutty Ones showed up in fine form. Here are a few amusing moments when Al Franken takes Tom Minnery from Focus on the Family and reveals him flat-out lying about a study he cites.





Isn't that fun?

40 Comments:

Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Yes, Jim, that is fun! It's good to see Senator Frankekn is still adding chapters to his book "Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right"

Hey Anon, did you hear what Mr. Minnery, the liar said when Senator Franken asked him about the study he cited? Minnery admitted: "I would *think* that the study, when it cites nuclear families, would mean a family headed by a man and wife."

He sounds like you: "I think it, therefore it must be!"

Uh wrong, guess again!

Mr. Minnery should have read the study he cited so he would "know," not "think" how they define a "nuclear" family.

Apparently simply reading, let alone comprehending what you read is a real challenge for those unfair and unbalanced types who reside on the extreme right fringe.

July 21, 2011 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the hearing is actually a waste of time

both Houses need to approve to repeal DOMA and the House of Reps won't do it

repealing DOMA would increase the deficit, btw

last thing we need

July 21, 2011 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please back up, with actual facts and sources, your fatuous claim "repealing DOMA would increase the deficit, btw"

I can imagine that repealing DOMA will also increase the already-horrendous divorce rate of heterosexual couples, too.

July 21, 2011 12:34 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I agree Mr. Minnery wasted everyone's time, both by writing his poorly researched slop and then by defending it with an announcement of what he *thought* the study he cited said versus what the study actually said.

Please back up, with actual facts and sources, your fatuous claim "repealing DOMA would increase the deficit, btw"

LOLOL Oh that's a good one!

You don't honestly expect Anon will back up what he *thinks* with facts, do you?

Anon is just like Mr. Minnery, certain of things he doesn't know one iota about.

July 21, 2011 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"WASHINGTON -- Republicans are willing to push President Obama to the wall with their budget-slashing bill to raise the debt ceiling because they are convinced he will capitulate on his veto threat and sign it, GOP lawmakers declared Thursday.

The Republican bill, which passed the House Tuesday and which Democrats warn will require even steeper cuts than the unpopular House budget plan that passed in the spring, is starting debate in the Senate.

And although the President has threatened to veto the measure and Senate Democrats say it is unacceptable, the group of Republicans from the House and Senate said it was Democrats' only choice to avoid defaulting on America's debt -- and that Obama would take it to stave off catastrophe.

"This is the only viable plan, right now, that will do that," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) "And I will bet you a porterhouse steak that, if it lands on his desk, he'll sign that puppy."

As for Obama's threat to reject the Tea Party-inspired "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill, Coburn suggested they were empty words.

"The president said he'd never take a short-term increase [of the debt limit]," Coburn said. "What did they say yesterday? He'd take a short-term increase. That's how good his veto threat is."

"He's going to do what's necessary to fix this country, and if he gets presented this bill, he's gonna sign it," the Oklahoman declared.

In fact, when Obama faced a similar watershed moment last year over the 2011 budget and extending unemployment insurance, he gave into GOP demands to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy for two years.

Coburn was not alone in predicting that the Democrats and their leader in the White House would roll over.

"The political reality in this place is subject to changing on a dime," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

"We have a bill, we have a solution," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). "It's the only one that can be passed before the Aug. 2 deadline."

The House was planning to take the weekend off, which would give even less time for a fail-safe option to be passed.

Shortly before the GOP news conference, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took to the floor to warn that the House taking time off and delaying work on the alternate proposal would all but guarantee a default, and the GOP would be to blame.

Republicans, however, said they were not worried about taking the heat.

"I'm willing to go out across this country, even if the polls are 70 percent against what we're doing," said Coburn.

DeMint predicted the public would swing the GOP's way once the Senate started to debate the proposal. He said Americans were only more on the Democrats' side for the moment because Obama had manipulated them as leaders held talks at the White House.

"Republicans may have made a mistake in working in good faith with the president in these secret negotiations, because it allowed him to get the upper hand," DeMint said."

July 21, 2011 9:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Major Garrett on MSNBC: "The latest rumor is that the President is now floating an idea of a $3 trillion with no revenue in it, and Senate sources have said that they are concerned about this possibility. And when there is a letter opposing the gang of six which has revenue in it, you can only imagine the entrenched Democratic reaction to a plan with $3 trillion that has no revenue in it.

July 21, 2011 9:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

UPDATE: 4:45 p.m. -- White House spokesman Jay Carney responded in his briefing that President Obama would stand behind his veto threat, and would be happy to accept an Oklahoma steak.

"We would take that bet," Carney said. "And I would refrain from heading to the Safeway to buy A-1 because the President has very clearly vowed to veto a bill if such a bill were to arrive on his desk because it is a draconian measure that, in terms of its impact on dramatic cuts in Social Security and Medicare, would make the Ryan budget plan pale by comparison. It’s an irresponsible thing to do."

July 21, 2011 9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said on Twitter, "Anyone reporting a $3 trillion deal without revenues is incorrect. POTUS believes we need a balanced approach that includes revenues."

July 21, 2011 9:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Despite days of negotiations, House Republicans are still standing firm against increasing the federal debt ceiling, threatening the country with default unless their demands for huge spending cuts (and no tax increases) are met. Not only would failing to raise the debt ceiling do serious harm to the national economy, it would adversely impact state and local economies.

In fact, earlier this week, the credit rating agency Moody’s warned that five states — Virginia, Maryland, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Tennessee — could have their credit downgraded if the federal government’s credit rating goes down, “because their dependence on federal revenue makes them vulnerable to a U.S. credit cut.” In response, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) urged Congress to come to a debt ceiling compromise “immediately“:

quote:
“There’s got to be a compromise, I’m not going to tell them how to do it. I’d suggest they try spending cuts — everybody knows they’re spending too much,” McDonnell said on MSNBC. “But they’ve got to get this done immediately or the uncertainty for the business community is going to be just devastating to our country.” [...]

“It’s not going to get done without some compromise and when it’s affecting states now, it’s creating great uncertainty, there’s massive unhappiness with the federal government generally over its inability to do the basic things that government needs to do.“

But McDonnell was not always so keen on Congress reaching a compromise. In fact, just a few months ago, he told the ultra-conservative Human Events that the debt ceiling shouldn’t be raised at all, unless Republicans received all their demands.

It’s no surprise that McDonnell sees a benefit to raising the debt ceiling now. Perhaps he could convince the Republicans in Congress of the urgency of the situation?

July 21, 2011 10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Despite days of negotiations, House Republicans are still standing firm against increasing the federal debt ceiling, threatening the country with default unless their demands for huge spending cuts (and no tax increases) are met."

there is absolutely no threat of default unless Obama willfully decides not pay his debts before spending any other tax revenues

the current tax level is sufficient to pay our debts, military pay and social security payments

other expenses will await agreement on a budget

“It’s not going to get done without some compromise and when it’s affecting states now, it’s creating great uncertainty, there’s massive unhappiness with the federal government generally over its inability to do the basic things that government needs to do.“

the only branch that has taken action in the House of Reps, which has passed the Tea Party plan to raise the debt ceiling

they are taking a well-deserved weekend off while they wait for the Democrat-controlled Senate to finish dithering over the bill and vote on it

and we all know that if a bill raising the debt ceiling is sent to Sir BO, he will sign it, regardless of the details

facts are facts, TTF

July 21, 2011 10:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He will sign it" is not a fact, it's a fantasy. The facts are President Obama said and the White House reiterated the President will not sign anything but a balanced bill.

President Obama, like the majority of Americans, knows rich and poor alike must share the burden of paying off our debt. Everybody but the fringers in the tea party knows that's fair and balanced.

July 22, 2011 12:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Al Franken is politically posturing because he knows that repeal of DOMA has no chance to pass the House of Reps

someone once said truth is inconvenient

who was that?

July 22, 2011 12:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""He will sign it" is not a fact, it's a fantasy. The facts are President Obama said and the White House reiterated the President will not sign anything but a balanced bill."

no, he'll sign it because he doesn't want to go down in history as the villain who began the decline of the U.S.

"President Obama, like the majority of Americans, knows rich and poor alike must share the burden of paying off our debt."

the rich already cover most of the bill for government spending in the U.S. and their taxes are already due to increase next year because of provisions in Obamacare

can you say "overkill"?

"Everybody but the fringers in the tea party knows that's fair and balanced."

the American voters put the Tea Party in control of the institution charged in the Constitution with the intitation of any tax increases

by definition, they aren't fringe

we'll all have a good chuckle at Barry's expense on Aug 2

July 22, 2011 12:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, Dems are outraged that Obama has agreed to 3 trillion in cuts without any tax increases

Barry says to his minions: "hey, that's the way we roll!"

tell you what: let's just do away with those big tax breaks for corporate jet owners that B Hussein O keeps bringing up

sorry fat cats, your days of depreciating those jets over five years is over

Barry's a tough negotiator so you're only going to get to write the jets off over....wait for it...seven years

take that, rich people!!

guess those Dems are glad they elected the big BO now!!

tee-hee-hee

July 22, 2011 7:40 AM  
Anonymous in Mikulski's 35 years said...

Just as Senate Democrats were sitting down Thursday to a scheduled meeting with White House budget director Jacob J. Lew, rumors of a new debt-limit deal between President Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) flashed across their BlackBerrys.

One after another, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.), Barbara A. Mikulski (Md.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and others demanded that Lew explain what the president was doing.

The Democrats were winning, the senators said. Why give up now? Why cut a deal without guarantees of new tax revenue?

For 45 minutes, the cross-examination went on, with few details offered. When Lew left, Mikulski turned to her colleagues and said, “I haven’t seen a meeting like this in my 35 years in Congress.”

July 22, 2011 7:57 AM  
Anonymous not Feinstein's page said...

For the first time in weeks of debt negotiations, Thursday brought forward long-simmering tensions between Obama and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill.

With more concerns than details, Democrats lashed out, saying that deep cuts to federal agency budgets and entitlements were too steep a price to pay. They questioned whether Obama shared their core values, and they sought reassurance — at a hastily arranged evening meeting at the White House that lasted nearly two hours — that the final legislative package would be the balanced approach that the president had promised.

“There has to be a balance. There has to be some revenue and cuts. My caucus agrees with that. I hope that the president sticks with that,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) told reporters.

In the House, rank-and-file Democrats said the situation had grown dire.

“It would concern me greatly that these folks — the tea party group — have been able to convince the president to go along with a deal that basically gives them everything they want,” said. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), a former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (Ariz.), a leader of the House Progressive Caucus, said: “We feel like the programs we care about are on the table. The other side’s priorities that the American public thinks should be dealt with — tax cuts, corporate subsidies — are not on the table.”

Often kept in check out of loyalty for their president, congressional Democrats have grown increasingly suspicious of Obama’s motives over the past year.

Many in the House didn’t appreciate what they saw as meager support for Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) in her final, embattled months as House speaker before the 2010 midterm election.

Among Senate Democrats, there is still bitterness about the deal Vice President Biden negotiated in secret in December with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that extended all of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthy.

The T-word — “triangulation” — began to circulate across Capitol Hill as lawmakers recalled how President Bill Clinton distanced himself from his party’s liberal base and from conservatives as he positioned himself for a reelection run.

Pelosi, now the House minority leader, stayed largely silent ahead of the White House meeting, which was designed in part to ease nerves on the left. One of her top advisers suggested that it was still too soon to think the president would agree to such a proposal, given that the final deal is likely to need dozens of Democratic votes.

“If Obama thinks he can do it with 218 Republicans, let's see it,” said Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Republicans didn’t mind seeing open feuding on the other side of the aisle. Exiting his own GOP luncheon Thursday, a smiling McConnell greeted reporters by confirming only that he “had lunch,” deflecting questions about the debt talks. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.), the most outspoken GOP critic of any broad deal, also found nothing to denounce.

Among the Democrats, it was the senators who were most vocal in their criticism of a president who used to be one of them. Reid’s statement — unusual in its form, delivered at an impromptu setting just off the Senate floor minutes after Lew’s hasty exit — set the tone for how his caucus felt about any deal without tax increases of some form.

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (N.J.) noted “a little separation” between Obama and his former Senate caucus. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) pleaded to return to negotiations over a Reid-McConnell plan that contained no tax increases and no entitlement cuts.

“This is a very sensitive time,” she said, trying not to directly criticize the White House.

Did she think the White House was working off the same page as her?

“No,” she replied.

July 22, 2011 7:57 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Enjoy trying to read tea leaves about what the debt ceiling bill will look like. The point is, contrary to tea party leaders like Michele Bachmann's insistence, there will be a debt ceiling increase. Wiser heads will prevail.

Even poor give-'em-back-their-overpaid-taxes surplus creator Bob McDonnell (who is actually putting half that surplus tax money into a "rainy day" fund, imagine that!) has pirouetted from being adamantly against raising the debt limit to whole heartedly supporting it. Even with a multimillion dollar surplus (well, not counting those deferred payments of $620 million to the Virginia Retirement System, just pretend those don't count), Virginia faces the loss of its AAA rating should the US not raise the debt ceiling, because nearly a quarter of Virginia's revenues come from the federal government.

the American voters put the Tea Party in control of the institution charged in the Constitution with the intitation of any tax increases

In 2010 tea party candidates cost many incumbent GOP House and Senate members their seats. Currently there are 56 members of the House tea party caucus out of 435 members, hardly "control" of that body. In 2011, American voters have demonstrated they are having a serious case of buyer's remorse. The GOTP has lost Congressional special elections in NY's 26th district and in California's 26th district this year and even the first of many recall elections in WI, a state the GOP swept in 2010.

July 22, 2011 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Ooops typo, that's California's 36th Congressional district.

July 22, 2011 9:39 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon claimed:

“no, he'll sign it because he doesn't want to go down in history as the villain who began the decline of the U.S.”

Oops, too late.

You’d be referring too G.W. Bush there. You should have noticed it when Putin invaded Georgia and Bush said “Hey, that’s not nice! Stop that!” at which point Putin just turned to look at him and in his thick Russian accent asked “Why? What are you going to do about it?”

Bush inherited a bustling economy and then presided over the decline of our financial system and socialized the losses it had by making the U.S taxpayer responsible for the banker’s malfeasance. We should have known better than to trust our economy to a recovering alcoholic with a record of poor and questionable business skills.

Then there is the whole business of cooking the data to make it look like Sadam had WMD, and permitting torture, making people seriously consider bringing him up on war crimes charges.

Obama will be remembered as the poor sap that got stuck trying to clean up Bush’s mess.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

July 22, 2011 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The point is, contrary to tea party leaders like Michele Bachmann's insistence, there will be a debt ceiling increase."

is that the point?

I see....

all the same we'll be chuckling

"Even poor give-'em-back-their-overpaid-taxes surplus creator Bob McDonnell"

that's amazing- Republican takes over as governor

he's mocked by liberal media because the numbers he campaigned on don't add up

wa-la!

we have a surplus

"In 2010 tea party candidates cost many incumbent GOP House and Senate members their seats."

they actually have integrity which is why they're winning the war, regardless of the minor battles lost

"Currently there are 56 members of the House tea party caucus out of 435 members, hardly "control" of that body."

and, yet, they seem to be controlling the agenda, don't they?

they're good

"Ooops typo, that's California's 36th Congressional district."

oh, thanks for clearing that up

yawn!

"You’d be referring too G.W. Bush there."

no, I was talking about Barack "dreams of" Hussein "my anti-American father" Obama, our very own Manchurian candidate

"Bush inherited a bustling economy and then presided over the decline of our financial system"

actually, that economy bustled along until the Dems took Congress in 2006 and Barney "Head Gay" Frank decided to roll the dice with low-income housing loans

Clinton, btw, was the signer of the deregulation liberals denounce

"Then there is the whole business of cooking the data to make it look like Sadam had WMD,"

Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMD, which is why intelligence agencies worldwide thought he had them

"Obama will be remembered as the poor sap that got stuck trying to clean up Bush’s mess."

not based on the evidence so far

Have a nice day,

July 22, 2011 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What do you think about this?
From FRC
Al Franken Thinks He's Funny--But He's Just Wrong
Homosexual activists are gloating over an exchange Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) had with Tom Minnery (of Focus on the Family affiliate CitizenLink) at yesterday's hearing on a bill to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Minnery had cited a December 2010 federal study which showed that children raised in a "nuclear family" have better health outcomes. Franken, however, triumphantly noted that a "nuclear family" was defined (in part) as one headed by "two parents who are married to one another"--not two opposite-sex parents. But did Franken forget the law he wants to repeal? DOMA says, "In determining the meaning of . . . any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States , the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."
Since this was a federal study published by a federal agency based on a federal survey conducted by federal (Census Bureau) employees, its definition of "married" is bound by DOMA. Even if, by chance, the interviewers or authors violated that law, the survey data was collected from 2001 to 2007. During that time (and only from mid-2004 on) there was only one state (Massachusetts) in which homosexual couples could "marry." The vast majority of homosexual couples raising children fall in the categories of "unmarried biological or adoptive family," "blended family," or "cohabiting family"--all of which have poorer outcomes for children than the traditional "nuclear family."

July 22, 2011 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's funny!

between that and the Obama turn to the right, this is a great week for the forces of reason

July 22, 2011 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is time for the president to get out of the way.

For the longest time he wouldn't engage, and now he's engaged. For the longest time he didn't care about spending, and now he cares about spending. Good, both in terms of policy and for him. But his decision to become engaged has become a decision to dominate, to have his face in front of the television with his news conferences, pronouncements, and what his communications people are probably calling his "ownership" of any final agreement. He's trying to come across as the boss, the indispensable man, the leader. And, of course, the reasonable one.

That's all very nice and part of Political Positioning 101, but at this point it's not helping. He's becoming box-office poison. His numbers are falling. The RealClearPolitics composite job approval poll rating has him down six points since June 2, when the debt ceiling crisis began. That fall exactly tracks his heightened media presence and his increased attempts to be seen as dominant. Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, said that if he ran for president today he'd lose, that his job numbers are "worse than they appear," and that he continues to have real trouble with undecided voters.

And if you've watched him lately, you know why. When he speaks on the debt negotiations, he is not only extremely boring, with airy and bromidic language—really they are soul-killing, his talking points—but he never seems to be playing it straight. He always seems to be finagling, playing the angles in some higher game that only he gets. In 2½ years, he has reached the point that took George W. Bush five years to reach: People aren't listening anymore.

The other day he announced the Gang of Six agreement with words that enveloped the plan in his poisonous embrace: "I wanted to give folks a quick update on the progress that we're making." We're. He has "continued to urge both Democrats and Republicans to come together." What would those little devils do without Papa? "The good news is that today a group of senators . . . put forward a proposal that is broadly consistent with the approach that I've urged." I've urged. Me, me, me.

That approach includes "shared sacrifice, and everybody is giving up something." He was like a mother coming in and cheerily announcing: "Dinner's served! Less for everybody!"

We're trying to begin a comeback, not a famine. We're trying to take actions that will allow us to grow.

He's like a walking headache. He's probably triggering Michele Bachmann's migraines.

The Gang of Six members themselves should have been given the stage to make their own announcement, and their own best case.

The president, if he is seriously trying to avert a debt crisis, should stay in his office, meet with members, and work the phones, all with a new humility, which would be well received. It is odd how he patronizes those with more experience and depth in national affairs.

He should keep his face off TV. He should encourage, cajole, work things through, be serious, get a responsible deal, and then re-emerge with joy and the look of a winner as he jointly announces it to the nation. Then his people should leak that he got what he wanted, the best possible deal, and the left has no idea the ruin he averted and the thanks they owe him.

For now, for his sake and the sake of an ultimate plan, he should choose Strategic Silence.

July 22, 2011 12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"we have a surplus"

...because we have not funded the Virginia Retirement System for two years, once more demonstrating the GOP's obsessive need to balance budgets on the backs of retirees.

July 22, 2011 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It sounds like Peter Sprigg wrote that very carefully worded but twisted FRC press release. Notice the press release does not ever say that there were "no same sex headed nuclear families" included in the study, nor does it quantify how many of the nuclear families (same sex or not) included in the study might have been from Massachusetts or other states.

In other words, FRC is throwing up a smoke screen for Mr. Minnery, who admitted he didn't even bother to make himself aware of how the authors defined a "nuclear family" before he assumed a nuclear family can only have two opposite sex parents.

July 22, 2011 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why would he consider that?

only a lunatic fringe would consider gays a nuclear family

July 22, 2011 1:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm so glad that President Obama has realized the error of his ways and sees that it's not right to take more money from rich people to pay for wasteful spending.

Just like only Nixon could go to China, only Obama can take Democrats to the land of reason!

July 22, 2011 3:03 PM  
Anonymous howdy dowdy time!! said...

right now, TTFers are fuming...

July 22, 2011 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The only one fuming is you, Anon.

Does your boss know he's paying you to fume here today?

It must be rough on you to realize TTFers were right about that little fantasy of yours yesterday.

Today the Senate voted down the tea baggers draconian bill so it will not make it to Obama's desk for his veto.

July 22, 2011 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

American Forces Press Service reports:

Obama Certifies Military Ready for ‘Don’t Ask’ Repeal

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 22, 2011 – Based on recommendations from military leaders, President Barack Obama has certified to Congress that the U.S. armed forces are prepared for repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

There is a 60-day waiting period before the repeal goes into effect, so the law will officially come off the books Sept. 20. After that date, gay service members can be open about their sexual orientation.

The president signed the certification and delivered it to Congress today.

Congress passed the repeal law in December. The legislation gave the military time to prepare the force and said repeal would happen only after the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified the force as ready for repeal.

The Defense Department chartered a repeal implementation team to coordinate the necessary changes to policy and regulations, and to provide education and training to service members. The team worked to ensure the smoothest possible transition for the U.S. military to accommodate and implement this important and necessary change, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said.

“Today, as a result of strong leadership and proactive education throughout the force, we can take the next step in this process,” the secretary said. “The president, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I have certified that the implementation of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention of the armed forces.”

Panetta said he believes the repeal is essential to the effectiveness of our all-volunteer force. “All men and women who serve this nation in uniform – no matter their race, color, creed, religion or sexual orientation – do so with great dignity, bravery, and dedication,” he said in a written statement on certification.

July 22, 2011 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Panetta pledged to support a military free from personal, social or institutional barriers that prevent service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility that their talents and capabilities warrant.

“They put their lives on the line for America, and that’s what really matters,” he said. “Thanks to the professionalism and leadership of the U.S. military, we are closer to achieving the goal that is at the foundation of America — equality and dignity for all.”

The services put together training courses for the force and more than 1.9 million service members have now received that training. DOD and service officials also looked at regulatory and legal changes that repeal entailed.

“I am comfortable that we have used the findings of the Comprehensive Review Working Group to mitigate areas of concern, and that we have developed the policy and regulations necessary for implementation – consistent with standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention,” Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a written statement.

Certification is not the end of the road. The department, the services and the combatant commands must work “to train the remainder of the joint force, to monitor our performance as we do so, and to adjust policy where and when needed,” Mullen said.

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law went into effect in 1993. It allowed gay and lesbian personnel to serve in the military as long as they were not open about their sexual orientation.

On Feb. 2, 2010, Mullen testified to that Senate Armed Services Committee that he believed it was time to repeal the law.

“It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” Mullen told the senators. “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

Mullen said he believes soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines can handle the changes.

“My confidence in our ability to accomplish this work rests primarily on the fact that our people are capable, well-led and thoroughly professional,” he said in his written statement today. “I have never served with finer men and women. They will, I am certain, carry out repeal and continue to serve this country with the same high standards and dignity that have defined the U.S. military throughout our history.”

July 22, 2011 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Update: Politico reached out to the author of the study discussed by Minnery and Franken, who said Franken was correct in his interpretation of the study’s definition of what, exactly, constitutes as a nuclear family:

"Sen. Franken is right,” the lead author of the study told POLITICO. The survey did not exclude same-sex couples, said Debra L. Blackwell, Ph.D., nor did it exclude them from the “nuclear family” category provided their family met the study’s definition.

The study’s definition of nuclear family is: “one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents of all the children in the family.”

That means the study does not provide evidence that straight couples’ children necessarily fare better than same-sex couples’ kids, as Minnery claimed."

July 22, 2011 5:54 PM  
Anonymous María said...

Focus on the Family... Losing!

July 23, 2011 2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

poor Al Frankenstein:

still bitter because he didn't get a part in the new Three Stooges movie

July 24, 2011 3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

poor Aunt Bea:

still bitter because she didn't get a part in the remake of 'Whatever Happened to baby Jane?'

July 24, 2011 5:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL!

what ever happened to Baby Bea?

July 24, 2011 11:56 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Obama will be remembered as the poor sap that got stuck trying to clean up Bush’s mess.”

Which will remind them of just how DEEPLY racist so many republican/conservatives were, like Mitch McConnell and Michele Bachmann, and those that support their sentiment that “Our number one goal is to make sure Barack Obama is a one term president.” IOW, screw all 300 million of ya, all we want is to get that nigger out of the White House!
---
“They [tea party candidates] actually have integrity which is why they're winning the war, regardless of the minor battles lost”

You must mean “integrity” in the “wholeness” sense. As in the wholeness of their collective idiocy. And yes, they are winning the war on democracy. Because they and their supporters have an unfair advantage over liberals (as in liberty), they’re willing to hurt as many people as it takes to get what they want -- absolute power over the rest of us.
---
“Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMD, which is why intelligence agencies worldwide thought he had them”

So we spent trillions of unfunded dollars to kill, maim, injure and terrorize hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent people based on what Saddam Hussein wanted our intelligence agencies to “think?”

July 25, 2011 7:31 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

FRC: “Minnery had cited a December 2010 federal study which showed that children raised in a "nuclear family" have better health outcomes. Franken, however, triumphantly noted that a "nuclear family" was defined (in part) as one headed by "two parents who are married to one another"--not two opposite-sex parents.”

So it’s Franken’s fault that Minnery used a less than ideal study to make his point -- just like they say same-sex couples are less than ideal parents? Maybe they should work on their ideas of ideal before stoning children from their glass houses in the sewer (no offense to sewage).

“The vast majority of homosexual couples raising children fall in the categories of "unmarried biological or adoptive family," "blended family," or "cohabiting family"--all of which have poorer outcomes for children than the traditional "nuclear family."

Meanwhile, divorce is still legal.

July 25, 2011 8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor "Anonymous"...still auditioning for a part in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". What he/she doesn't realize is that he/she has to stand in line behind the lunatic Tea Baggers to get the roll.

July 26, 2011 12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it always amazes me how bad TTFers are at spelling

with six you get eggroll

in drama, you get "roles"

July 26, 2011 1:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home