White House bars black groups from military families event

[Zorra]

"It is rather unfortunate that both East Wing and West Wing staff have refused to allow a representative of black military families to even be in the room at an event that is supposed to honor their commitment and sacrifice," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United.
snip---
"The President has been crystal clear that the Administration is moving forward with the repeal of "Jim Crow laws" quickly and efficiently," she said. "However, it still remains the law. The White House, including the First Lady and Dr. Biden, look forward to working with the families of black service members after certification occurs and repeal goes into effect."

http//editedbyzorra.sad
:cry:
The words black replaced the words gay and the word Jim Crow laws replace don't ask don't tell.

Original article may be found here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20053120-503544.html

It's real. Deal with it.

[Book Lover]

1. Rec, Rec, REC!

Thank you.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Well done!

[DFab420]

3. WEll lets see.

If a law was in place that could get you kicked out of the military for being black, and then the Commander in Chief, even though he opposed the law, and planned to sign a repeal into effect once he was able, hosted them at the White House, don't you think the GOP would stand up and say. "HEY! Look! the President is a: willfully ignoring the rule of law b: not fulfilling his duty as CoC " or maybe just c: make political targets of those Black members and maybe even try to get them kicked out before the law was repealed?"


Is it real. Yes.

Does it suck. Yes

Is it Obama's fault. No.

Deal with it.

[undeterred]

5. Speechless.

[davidthegnome]

7. On the contrary...

This is not something that should have to be dealt with. I don't care how they'd paint it or spin it.

Frankly I don't give a shit what the GOP would say or think about it. It's time to stop letting them run the game.

[DFab420]

Yea totally, we should stop caring what the party in control of the House thinks

I mean seriously, how much power does one whole House on the Capitol have right?

It's not like they could've pushed for DOMA issues on the military families with gay partners or spouses, not like they could have been used as scapegoats by the rePubs to push a social agenda, because republicans never do that......

I agree that it's petty politics that kept these soldiers from seeing the President, but I also see why it went down this way.

[FreeState]

22. How does DADT work with people that are not in the military?!?! n/t

[DFab420]

23. I'm sorry I don't understand your question

could you expound a bit for me so I could answer?

[FreeState]

24. They are baring gay groups that are not members of the military - read the article n/t

[Rex]

27. Read the article? Now why would I do that?

Heresy! I just like to post without ever reading the article! I am just THAT SMART! :crazy:

[DFab420]

36. Yea go figure, read it the other day and couldn't hold on to the salient details

my bad, next time I'll make sure to be all read up etc etc.

Thanks!! :hi: :thumbsup:

[Rex]

64. It's cool, one day you will be so uberDUadvanced like me that

just the thread title alone will spawn a reply! Why, just now I have 5 replies waiting for future posts I will never read! :P

Wait, I have a vision of their beginning thread titles!

Obviously You Don't...
Read The Article...
Or Ever Reply...
With Any...
Meaningful Answer...

At least that is what my crystal ball told me they will be titled. I'm about to roll some bones to confirm my incredibility spot on replies. :crazy: :dunce:

[DFab420]

66. lol +1

[DFab420]

29. Yup just did,

and in answer to the above question I would say this

"If you couldn't invite the gay military members and their families, why would invite the group the represents them?"

Would it not seem just a disingenuous to allow non-military LGBTQ civilians while baring those in uniform. I would say it would be simpler to say sorry, next year, rather then have the advocates, but not the people they are advocating for, at this event.

[FreeState]

37. You missed this part then - the part were straight non-military are invited to represent groups

“It is rather unfortunate that both East Wing and West Wing staff have refused to allow a representative of gay military families to even be in the room at an event that is supposed to honor their commitment and sacrifice. We have been trying for nearly two weeks to get just one spot for one of our community’s representatives at this event. The First Lady’s office has used the continued enforcement of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ as an excuse to exclude us, even though they know that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ does not apply to the civilians who work at their advocacy and service organizations. Many straight organizational representatives have been invited to this event, including some with few or no military families in their constituencies. Yet our thousands of gay military families are shut out from being represented today because of nothing but lingering political homophobia. Gay and lesbian military families should not have to fight this hard just to stand in the back of the room in 2011.”

[DFab420]

47. I'm sorry I thought I addressed that when I said

"If you couldn't invite the gay military members and their families, why would invite the group the represents them?"

Would it not seem just a disingenuous to allow non-military LGBTQ civilians while baring those in uniform. I would say it would be simpler to say sorry, next year, rather then have the advocates, but not the people they are advocating for, at this event. I get that its wrong, I'm not arguing that it was the right thing to do

What I am saying is politically, if you looked at this politically, it was the sound call. Doesn't make it ok personally, but politically it's what happened.


Again, would it not just highlight more the discrepancy if you allowed the group of advocates to go but not actual military families to attend? Also, how would you answer questions about DOMA and military benefits to a press that now sees this as the perfect time to put you in a rock and a hard place.

[FreeState]

49. No - if you cant invite them inviting a rep is the minimum you could do. n/t

[DFab420]

59. I also see that point of view as well.

Again, politically speaking this could have fallen a few different ways, however the cards came out as they did and all I am saying is this is just how the politics of the situation played out.


I understand it could have been different, I also understand the reason it went down the way it did.

[Rex]

82. One question.

Do you really think the GOP would have made a huge stink about this? Was that the fear here or was it 'just following orders'?

Okay two questions.

[DFab420]

86. I think it's the WH's job to see it from every angle

and I would never put it past the GOP to try and burn someone form the LGBTQ community...

[Luminous Animal]

And including other groups that are not members of the military - read the article.

[DFab420]

33. In answer to your question

and in answer to the above question I would say this

"If you couldn't invite the gay military members and their families, why would invite the group the represents them?"

Would it not seem just a disingenuous to allow non-military LGBTQ civilians while baring those in uniform. I would say it would be simpler to say sorry, next year, rather then have the advocates, but not the people they are advocating for, at this event.

[FreeState]

39. Not when they allow straight non-military orgs to be there! n/t

[DFab420]

51. the non-military orgs don't really enter into it.

My argument isn't that it's either for the military or not, it's that due to the shitty shitty DADT laws, gays in the military can still be targeted. And also excluded. And that it would be disingenuous to pretend, by having the advocacy group present, that DADT wasn't still in effect, because it is.

[FreeState]

54. Thats a nice spin - I dont buy it. Your welcome to believe it though n/t

[DFab420]

62. Thank you,

You are free to believe what you believe.

And while won't call your opinion spin, I will recognize it's import as a valid argument, as well as the fact that we carried out a debate in which neither of us called each other names.

[davidthegnome]

38. Republicans will use any number of sleazy tactics

to further their agenda. This does not mean that we should constantly be on the defensive in regards to social issues. Rather, it's time to alter the game - and for once - attack, in my opinion. Now that aside...

Petty politics are preventing this Nation's soldiers from being honored for service for which they have earned honor and respect a thousand times over. That's not cool with me - yes, I see why it went down this way, but I'm not going to excuse it or hold back in my criticism just because I understand the petty politics. To hell with petty politics, this is flat out wrong.

[FreeState]

19. Heres a hint - there asking for GLBT reps that are not in the military attend

Just as is the case with a lot of the others that are going to be there - they are not active duty. DADT does not cover those that are no longer in the military!

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2011/04/12/wh-staff-refuse-to-include-gay-military-family-representatives-at-military-families-event

“It is rather unfortunate that both East Wing and West Wing staff have refused to allow a representative of gay military families to even be in the room at an event that is supposed to honor their commitment and sacrifice. We have been trying for nearly two weeks to get just one spot for one of our community’s representatives at this event. The First Lady’s office has used the continued enforcement of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ as an excuse to exclude us, even though they know that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ does not apply to the civilians who work at their advocacy and service organizations. Many straight organizational representatives have been invited to this event, including some with few or no military families in their constituencies. Yet our thousands of gay military families are shut out from being represented today because of nothing but lingering political homophobia. Gay and lesbian military families should not have to fight this hard just to stand in the back of the room in 2011.”

[Zorra]

119. "nothing but lingering political homophobia".

Thank you.

[northernlights]

96. spare me. this white house has no problem ignoring the law

when it comes to letting white collar criminals off the hook. It has no problem re-writing the laws to give the president the "right" to assassinate Americans without due process.

How very convenient. Yet another low blow from the white house. Seriously. How low can they go?

[CBGLuthier]

139. Deal With It? I have a very thorough way of dealing with it thank you very much

It's called not supporting assholes who do these things whether their name is Bush or Obama.

Dealt with. Happy Sunshine?

[chrisa]

140. "Deal WIth It"

No

[PVnRT]

142. How in the hell does that justify shutting out a gay group from this service?

This has nothing to do with DADT or anything else. It is an idiotic exclusionary policy for a photo-op type of event that will do nothing more than antagonize the LGBT community even more.

[iwishiwas]

4. whow. that is so sad. Thanks for the post.

[qazplm]

6. it amazes me

that the guy does something that clinton tried and failed to do, a pretty monumental thing, and because he didn't do it fast enough, he sucks and is an anti-gay bigot.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zorra]

125. Actually, I strongly suspect that it was the President's corporate appointed staffers

that committed this grievous, inexcusable faux pas. They have a really, really bad track record, IME. I do have some idea who appointed these bozos and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the President that actually chose them.

Heads are gonna roll. Hopefully, I'm completely sure, I think.

Seriously, I'm 99% positive that both the President, and his intelligent, talented First Lady partner Michelle, got blindsided by this unfortunate fiasco and are undoubtedly furious about it, to put it mildly.

And:-), I am personally confident that the President, in the spirit of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Stonewall Demonstrations, is going to do the courageous correct thing and issue an Executive Order or Presidential Directive ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", while at the same time guaranteeing GLBT folks complete equal rights under the Constitution.

Within the next few days, of course. He can't do it overnight.

Damn the republicans, full speed ahead...

Run with it.

[bluestate10]

8. UNTRUTH ALERT. Read the article in the link.

The article is about a gay group protesting slower than desired action on repealing DADT. The article says nothing about Black service members, zero. Untruth was a more courteous way of saying the more exact word.

[Zorra]

10. It's ironic satire. Original article is posted at link. nt

[Tx4obama]

You should have put (Satire) in your OP title so it wouldn't show up on other pages in the lists

looking like something that is supposed to be the truth when it is NOT.

[Zorra]

85. Sometimes you just gotta get up and go to the front of the bus

to make a point. nt

[Luminous Animal]

95. !

:fistbump:

[Zorra]

97. backatcha

;-)

[Bluerthanblue]

118. except in reality you wouldn't

have been in the back of the bus.

this is where your analogy fails.

[Zorra]

120. That's pretty scary, blue. You might want to consider investing in

a new crystal ball.

[EFerrari]

87. What utter bs.

Are you saying only OPs that advocate for gay rights shouldn't use arresting subject lines?

Really? I assume you will follow your own instructions when you post OPs?

[Tx4obama]

108. No I didn not say that. subject lines should not be eye catching.

But OP titles should not be written to read as the truth when they are not.
I believe you know as well as I do that when scanning thru the forum's main lists of threads that all you see is the title - and I do believe that they shouldn't be composed to be misleading.

[Zorra]

129. Nothing about the subject line was misleading.

The intention of the subject line was absolutely nothing but a shameless effort to attract attention to an ongoing injustice.

And draw a parallel between all forms of discrimination.

In this case, the injustice is unwarranted legal, civil, and social discrimination against GLBT folks.

That is why many of us protest, like in Wisconsin--to draw attention to injustices, in the hope of rectifying these injustices.

[Luminous Animal]

133. True that... the WH did indeed block advocates for a minority from visiting. Under cover of a law

that does not apply to them.

[KeepItReal]

11. Yes, there ain't nothing "Black" about this article

WTF?

[inna]

????

:wtf:

you don't get it, do you?

[bluestate10]

34. Not at all. And I will never "get" such bullshit. DADT was repealed over

stiff resistance, a lot of people put their political careers on the line to vote repeal. I see no fun in a poorly crafted attempt to diminish a major accomplishment.

[Luminous Animal]

46. What law would be violated for allowing civilian representatives of LGBT service folks

to attend the meeting?

This is bullshit...
""The President has been crystal clear that the Administration is moving forward with the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' quickly and efficiently," she said. "However, it still remains the law. The White House, including the First Lady and Dr. Biden, look forward to working with the families of gay and lesbian service members after certification occurs and repeal goes into effect."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20053120-503544.html#ixzz1JMBetr59


What a remarkably weak excuse not to mention the callousness of it.

[bluestate10]

69. A law is a law until full repeal is completed. Why would President Obama

ignoring a law be any less egregious than a Scott Walker ignoring a law? There are many laws that I don't like, but I obey them. DADT was a horrible compromise that was done to circumvent even more draconian laws, thank god is is seeing it's last days.

[EFerrari]

72. Unless the president is gay, in uniform and tells, he can't violate DADT

can he?

Do you see any chance of that occurring?

[Luminous Animal]

77. What law would be violated for allowing civilian representatives of LGBT service folks

to attend this meeting?

[EFerrari]

26. Maybe you should read more carefully before calling anyone untruthful.n/t

[bluestate10]

40. Maybe the OP should not try to sneak in a political POV as satire. nt

[EFerrari]

44. There was no sneaking. It's right there in the OP. n/t

[Zorra]

50. Ever heard of William Shakespeare? Great playwright. The master of political satire.

Used satire to illuminate social injustice as well.

Check him out, great stuff.

Always putting his political two cents into his satire.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. Okay, then.

Nice work, Shakespeare. :rofl:

[Zorra]

132. *sigh*. Your post speaks for itself. nt

[Luminous Animal]

134. Indeed. Nice work Zorra on skewering "liberal"

hypocrisy when it comes to civil rights.

[Luminous Animal]

65. Gulliver's Travels... what a sneaky novel. And how about that sneaky Colbert.

[fishwax]

110. isn't that often the point of satire?

[inna]

116. omg, that is a HILARIOUS comment.

[Riverman]

9. Right On!

[WillyT]

12. Off To The Greatest !!!

:kick: & Rec!!!

[KittyWampus]

13. The repeal of DADT is real too, it's a process. You need to deal with that.

[Zorra]

14. Tell that to the people that are having their rights and dignity denied them. nt

[WillyT]

15. Ah... The "Wait Your Turn" Theory... Nice...

:puke:

:wtf:

[bluestate10]

43. No. It's meaningful change happens slower than the unreasonable desire. nt

[EFerrari]

28. There is zero chance of Michelle Obama being discharged

for violating DADT. Deal with that.

[Bluerthanblue]

55. that isn't the point- the two issues are NOT the same.

Discrimination based on gender is wrong.

Discrimination based on race is wrong.

Discrimination is wrong.

Would you feel the same if the OP had framed this using the concept of "White House Bars Jewish Groups from Military Families Event"?

:shrug:

The issue is valid on its OWN- there isn't the need to twist it into something other than what it is.

[EFerrari]

67. The OP didn't twist anything.

The OP compared one type of discrimination to another.

And, it's not a separate issue, it's a variation on the same issue.

[Tx4obama]

16. The OP title is a LIE.

Btw, the event is for 'military families' anyway and NOT for representatives of groups.

[Zorra]

17. It is ironic satire. Tell that to the husbands and wives and families of glbt folks

that have served their country and died or been crippled for it.

[bluestate10]

45. It was a poor attempt to slip in a distorted point of view. Busted. nt

[Zorra]

111. I'm sorry that you apparently missed the point of the OP.

Clearly, a lot of other folks seem to understand the point of the OP.

Do you for some reason believe that it is justifiable to discriminate against GLBT folks because the law refuses to recognize their equal rights under the Constitution?

The same thing happened to black folks, Native Americans, and women, etc. for a long time. It still does sometimes.

It is way past time that GLBT folks had their rights recognized. It should have been done in 1776.. But we are more aware now then we were then. We need to do what is right and do it now.

It's awful late in coming.

The right thing, the human thing to do, is to acknowledge this fact immediately, and rectify the injustice immediately.

No one should have ever to wait for their inalienable rights.

In denying (out) GLBT folks and GLBT representatives access to this event, the WH is, hopefully unwittingly, reinforcing and justifying GLBTphobia.

"We know you have equal rights under the Constitution, but the law has yet to pass. Therefore, until it does, we can't let you GLBT folks (black folks) into our social event."

You don't seem to get it the parallel. Possibly because you never experienced discrimination and the indignity of not being considered as or treated like an equal human being.

It is very unpleasant.

[Better Believe It]

20. White House bars gay groups from military families event: So that's OK with you?

Kristina Schake, Communications Director for the First Lady, explained the decision this way in an email to CBS News.

"The President has been crystal clear that the Administration is moving forward with the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' quickly and efficiently," she said. "However, it still remains the law. The White House, including the First Lady and Dr. Biden, look forward to working with the families of gay and lesbian service members after certification occurs and repeal goes into effect."

Nicholson, from Servicemembers United, complained in his statement that "he First Lady's office has used the continued enforcement of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' as an excuse to exclude us, even though they know that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' does not apply to the civilians who work at their advocacy and service organizations."


"Many straight organizational representatives have been invited to this event, including some with few or no military families in their constituencies," he added. "Yet our thousands of gay military families are shut out from being represented today because of nothing but lingering political homophobia. Gay and lesbian military families should not have to fight this hard just to stand in the back of the room in 2011."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20053120-503544.html

[bluestate10]

53. Yes. The WH is barring a lobbying group, not gay soldiers. Why not invite

defense contractors, to an extent, they have rights too.DADT repeal is a reality, it is happening. Where were you during 8 years of Bush?

[Luminous Animal]

68. The WH seems to have no problem with other lobbying groups attending this event.

[Luminous Animal]

21. "Many straight organizational representatives have been invited to this event,

including some with few or no military families in their constituencies,"

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20053120-503544.html#ixzz1JM8x1u34

[EFerrari]

35. LOL Really? Do you have a guests' list handy?

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

101. Here is a list

Background on the Launch of "Joining Forces" Initiative Today
By The White House on 04/12/2011 – 9:12 am PDT -- Headlines



BACKGROUND ON THE LAUNCH OF “JOINING FORCES” INITIATIVE TODAY
EAST ROOM

Today, the President, the Vice President, the First Lady and Dr. Biden will deliver remarks at the launch of the First Lady and Dr. Jill Biden’s national initiative, Joining Forces, to support and honor America’s service members and their families in the East Room.

STAGE PARTICIPANTS

Military Families

Teresa Arciola
Warrant Officer Clifford Blackmore and Carmen Blackmore (wife)
Sgt. Cory Briest and Jennifer Briest (wife)
Brooks Family: Shirley Brooks (Founder of Delaware Boots on the Ground), Norman (husband), Jason (son), Jeffrey (son), and Emily (daughter)
Sgt. Brian Mast and Brianna Mast

Business Leaders

Nancy Brown, American Heart Association
Geoff Cramer, Futures, Inc.
Ken Fisher, Fisher House
Henry Jackson, Society of Human Resource Managers
Dr. Mary Keller, Military Child Education Coalition
Sharon Robinson, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
Eric Spiegel, Siemens
W. Kenneth Yancey, Jr., SCORE
David Zaslav, Discovery Communications

AUDIENCE BACKGROUND
*What follows below is a representative list.

Administration Officials Expected to Attend

Secretary Timothy Geithner, U.S. Department of the Treasury

Secretary Robert Gates and Mrs. Becky Gates, Department of Defense

Secretary Ken Salazar, U.S. Department of the Interior

Secretary Hilda Solis, U.S. Department of Labor

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Secretary Shaun Donovan, U.S. Housing and Urban Development

Secretary Arne Duncan, U.S. Department of Education

Secretary Ric Shinseki and Mrs. Patty Shinseki, U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs

Patrick Corvington, CEO of Corporation for National and Community Service

Deputy Secretary William Lynn and Mrs. Mary Murphy

Under Secretary Clifford Stanley, Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense

Assistant Secretary Raymond Jefferson, Veterans’ Employment and Training Services, Department of Labor

Assistant Secretary Tammy Duckworth, Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs


Secretary John McHugh, U.S. Army

Secretary Ray Mabus and Mrs. Lynne Mabus, U.S. Navy

Secretary Michael Donley and Mrs. Gail Donley, U.S. Air Force

Admiral Michael Mullen, Mrs. Deborah Mullen and daughter in law Jennifer Mullen, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff

General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of U.S. Marine Corps

Admiral Gary Roughhead and Mrs. Ellen Roughhead, U.S. Navy

General Norton Schwartz and Mrs. Suzie Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force

General James Amos and Mrs. Bonnie Amos, U. S. Marine Corps

General Martin Dempsey and Mrs. Dempsey, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army

Admiral Robert Papp and Mrs. Papp, U.S. Coast Guard

General Peter Chiarelli and Mrs.Beth Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army

Lieutenant General Jack Stultz and Mrs. Laura Stultz, Chief of the U.S. Army Reserve

General Stanley McChrystal and Mrs. Anne McChrystal, U.S. Army (Ret)

Sergeant Major Raymond Chandler III and Mrs. Jeanne Chandler, U.S. Army

Command Sergeant Major Carlton Kent and Mrs. Elizabeth Kent, U.S. Marine Corps

Master Chief Petty Officer Rick West and Mrs. West, U.S. Navy

Command Sergeant Major James Roy and Mrs. Paula Roy, Air Force

Holly Petraeus, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Assistant Director for the Office of Servicemember Affairs, wife of General David Petraeus, Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A)

Members of Congress Expected to Attend

Representative Sanford Bishop, D-GA
Representative Susan Davis, D-CA
Representative Norm Dicks, D-WA
Representative Bob Filner, D-CA
Representative Chris Gibson, R-NY
Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-WA
Representative Tim Walz, D-MN
Representative Joe Wilson, R-SC

Business and Military Organization Leaders and Others Expected to Attend

Joyce Baezer, National Military Family Association

Nancy Brown, American Heart Association

Janice Chance, American Gold Star Mothers

Daniel Christman, Chamber of Commerce

Geoff Cramer, Futures, Inc.

Nathaniel Fick, Center for a New American Security

Ken Fisher, Fisher House Foundation

Peter Gaytan, The American Legion

Jim Gibbons, Goodwill

Sloan Gibson, USO

Mike Haynie, Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities Programs

Henry Jackson, Society of Human Resource Managers

Dr. Mary Keller, Military Child Education Coalition

Lieutenant General John Kelly and Karen Kelly (wife)

Jim Knotts, Operation Home Front

Brenda Linnington, BBB Military Line

Sgt. Brian Mast and Brianna Mast (wife)

Paul Rieckhoff, Iraq/Afganistan Veterans of America

Sharon Robinson, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

Kathy Roth-Douquet, Blue Star Families

Charles Saylor, National Parent Teacher Association

George Sherman, Best Buy

Eric Spiegel, Siemens

Robert Wallace, Veterans of Foreign Wars

Rick Weidman, Vietnam Veterans of America

W. Kenneth Yancey, Jr., SCORE

David Zaslav, Discovery Communications

http://www.favstocks.com/background-on-the-launch-of-joining-forces-initiative-today/1244288/2/

[Luminous Animal]

102. Thank you. Clearly there are many people and representatives of organizations

that are not members nor strictly (nor even loosely) advocates of military families.

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

104. you're most welcome! nm

[Luminous Animal]

103. Please go through this list and point out which people in attendance are military families...

BACKGROUND ON THE LAUNCH OF “JOINING FORCES” INITIATIVE TODAY
EAST ROOM

Today, the President, the Vice President, the First Lady and Dr. Biden will deliver remarks at the launch of the First Lady and Dr. Jill Biden’s national initiative, Joining Forces, to support and honor America’s service members and their families in the East Room.

STAGE PARTICIPANTS

Military Families

Teresa Arciola
Warrant Officer Clifford Blackmore and Carmen Blackmore (wife)
Sgt. Cory Briest and Jennifer Briest (wife)
Brooks Family: Shirley Brooks (Founder of Delaware Boots on the Ground), Norman (husband), Jason (son), Jeffrey (son), and Emily (daughter)
Sgt. Brian Mast and Brianna Mast

Business Leaders

Nancy Brown, American Heart Association
Geoff Cramer, Futures, Inc.
Ken Fisher, Fisher House
Henry Jackson, Society of Human Resource Managers
Dr. Mary Keller, Military Child Education Coalition
Sharon Robinson, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
Eric Spiegel, Siemens
W. Kenneth Yancey, Jr., SCORE
David Zaslav, Discovery Communications

AUDIENCE BACKGROUND
*What follows below is a representative list.

Administration Officials Expected to Attend

Secretary Timothy Geithner, U.S. Department of the Treasury

Secretary Robert Gates and Mrs. Becky Gates, Department of Defense

Secretary Ken Salazar, U.S. Department of the Interior

Secretary Hilda Solis, U.S. Department of Labor

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Secretary Shaun Donovan, U.S. Housing and Urban Development

Secretary Arne Duncan, U.S. Department of Education

Secretary Ric Shinseki and Mrs. Patty Shinseki, U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs

Patrick Corvington, CEO of Corporation for National and Community Service

Deputy Secretary William Lynn and Mrs. Mary Murphy

Under Secretary Clifford Stanley, Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense

Assistant Secretary Raymond Jefferson, Veterans’ Employment and Training Services, Department of Labor

Assistant Secretary Tammy Duckworth, Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs


Secretary John McHugh, U.S. Army

Secretary Ray Mabus and Mrs. Lynne Mabus, U.S. Navy

Secretary Michael Donley and Mrs. Gail Donley, U.S. Air Force

Admiral Michael Mullen, Mrs. Deborah Mullen and daughter in law Jennifer Mullen, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff

General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of U.S. Marine Corps

Admiral Gary Roughhead and Mrs. Ellen Roughhead, U.S. Navy

General Norton Schwartz and Mrs. Suzie Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force

General James Amos and Mrs. Bonnie Amos, U. S. Marine Corps

General Martin Dempsey and Mrs. Dempsey, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army

Admiral Robert Papp and Mrs. Papp, U.S. Coast Guard

General Peter Chiarelli and Mrs.Beth Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army

Lieutenant General Jack Stultz and Mrs. Laura Stultz, Chief of the U.S. Army Reserve

General Stanley McChrystal and Mrs. Anne McChrystal, U.S. Army (Ret)

Sergeant Major Raymond Chandler III and Mrs. Jeanne Chandler, U.S. Army

Command Sergeant Major Carlton Kent and Mrs. Elizabeth Kent, U.S. Marine Corps

Master Chief Petty Officer Rick West and Mrs. West, U.S. Navy

Command Sergeant Major James Roy and Mrs. Paula Roy, Air Force

Holly Petraeus, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Assistant Director for the Office of Servicemember Affairs, wife of General David Petraeus, Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A)

Members of Congress Expected to Attend

Representative Sanford Bishop, D-GA
Representative Susan Davis, D-CA
Representative Norm Dicks, D-WA
Representative Bob Filner, D-CA
Representative Chris Gibson, R-NY
Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-WA
Representative Tim Walz, D-MN
Representative Joe Wilson, R-SC

Business and Military Organization Leaders and Others Expected to Attend

Joyce Baezer, National Military Family Association

Nancy Brown, American Heart Association

Janice Chance, American Gold Star Mothers

Daniel Christman, Chamber of Commerce

Geoff Cramer, Futures, Inc.

Nathaniel Fick, Center for a New American Security

Ken Fisher, Fisher House Foundation

Peter Gaytan, The American Legion

Jim Gibbons, Goodwill

Sloan Gibson, USO

Mike Haynie, Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities Programs

Henry Jackson, Society of Human Resource Managers

Dr. Mary Keller, Military Child Education Coalition

Lieutenant General John Kelly and Karen Kelly (wife)

Jim Knotts, Operation Home Front

Brenda Linnington, BBB Military Line

Sgt. Brian Mast and Brianna Mast (wife)

Paul Rieckhoff, Iraq/Afganistan Veterans of America

Sharon Robinson, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

Kathy Roth-Douquet, Blue Star Families

Charles Saylor, National Parent Teacher Association

George Sherman, Best Buy

Eric Spiegel, Siemens

Robert Wallace, Veterans of Foreign Wars

Rick Weidman, Vietnam Veterans of America

W. Kenneth Yancey, Jr., SCORE

David Zaslav, Discovery Communications

http://www.favstocks.com/background-on-the-launch-of-jo... /

[Ohio Joe]

18. K&R - nt

[Warren DeMontague]

25. The point can be made without misrepresentation.

:thumbsdown:

[Zorra]

30. Obviously, the point has yet to become completely clear to some. nt

[Luminous Animal]

52. It seems obvious that the point is all too clear and very disconcerting to some.

[EFerrari]

60. Yep.

[Bluerthanblue]

105. no- it's that it is manipulative-

Why not post the article without changing it?

There are more than a few people who served in the military despite the fact that they were gay.

The fact that they had to hide that part of themselves in order to be able to serve is WRONG and completely unfair.

Yet, they had an opportunity to make that choice- as ugly as it is.

My son has never had the opportunity to choose not to disclose his beautiful chestnut brown skin. He shouldn't ever have to, but that just isn't even a possibility.

Prejudice and discrimination suck. It isn't right, and it isn't harmless.

I support full equality for GLBT people. That is something that doesn't need to be justified by playing it against any other population which struggles for the right to be treated without prejudice.

[Luminous Animal]

137. The very fact that you think the OP is playing this against something reveals your bigotry.

[bluestate10]

76. Lies typically are disconcerting. I agree with you. nt

[EFerrari]

80. Attacking a poster is much easier than arguing

your own position.

[Luminous Animal]

98. No, you decidedly DO NOT agree with me.

You don't have the wits to agree with me.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. No, one can agree with the underlying point but be against posting patently false OPs.

It's a patently false OP, where a news story has been deliberately altered and then reposted as news.


If someone did the same thing with one of Helen Thomas's recent anti-semitic rants, substituting "Muslims" for "Jews" or "Zionists", some people here would throw a fucking shitfit. Except even that would be more legitimate than this, because at least Thomas's jabberings are opinion pieces. This is an actual news story.

[Luminous Animal]

130. Satire which was clearly pointed out in the OP itself.

Personally, I would not have give them game away explicitly. Have everyone's eyes gotten too old or brains too atrophied to read to the bottom line?

[Warren DeMontague]

131. There are better ways to make the point.

Or maybe people's brains have gotten too old and atrophied to be able to make a cogent case for equality without playing goofy word games.

[Luminous Animal]

135. Okay.. give it shot big guy. Make a cogent point about why advocates for LGBT military families

cannot be represented amongst these people who attended. Personally, I see nothing but ignorance and bigotry.



BACKGROUND ON THE LAUNCH OF “JOINING FORCES” INITIATIVE TODAY
EAST ROOM

Today, the President, the Vice President, the First Lady and Dr. Biden will deliver remarks at the launch of the First Lady and Dr. Jill Biden’s national initiative, Joining Forces, to support and honor America’s service members and their families in the East Room.

STAGE PARTICIPANTS

Military Families

Teresa Arciola
Warrant Officer Clifford Blackmore and Carmen Blackmore (wife)
Sgt. Cory Briest and Jennifer Briest (wife)
Brooks Family: Shirley Brooks (Founder of Delaware Boots on the Ground), Norman (husband), Jason (son), Jeffrey (son), and Emily (daughter)
Sgt. Brian Mast and Brianna Mast

Business Leaders

Nancy Brown, American Heart Association
Geoff Cramer, Futures, Inc.
Ken Fisher, Fisher House
Henry Jackson, Society of Human Resource Managers
Dr. Mary Keller, Military Child Education Coalition
Sharon Robinson, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
Eric Spiegel, Siemens
W. Kenneth Yancey, Jr., SCORE
David Zaslav, Discovery Communications

AUDIENCE BACKGROUND
*What follows below is a representative list.

Administration Officials Expected to Attend

Secretary Timothy Geithner, U.S. Department of the Treasury

Secretary Robert Gates and Mrs. Becky Gates, Department of Defense

Secretary Ken Salazar, U.S. Department of the Interior

Secretary Hilda Solis, U.S. Department of Labor

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Secretary Shaun Donovan, U.S. Housing and Urban Development

Secretary Arne Duncan, U.S. Department of Education

Secretary Ric Shinseki and Mrs. Patty Shinseki, U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs

Patrick Corvington, CEO of Corporation for National and Community Service

Deputy Secretary William Lynn and Mrs. Mary Murphy

Under Secretary Clifford Stanley, Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense

Assistant Secretary Raymond Jefferson, Veterans’ Employment and Training Services, Department of Labor

Assistant Secretary Tammy Duckworth, Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs


Secretary John McHugh, U.S. Army

Secretary Ray Mabus and Mrs. Lynne Mabus, U.S. Navy

Secretary Michael Donley and Mrs. Gail Donley, U.S. Air Force

Admiral Michael Mullen, Mrs. Deborah Mullen and daughter in law Jennifer Mullen, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff

General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of U.S. Marine Corps

Admiral Gary Roughhead and Mrs. Ellen Roughhead, U.S. Navy

General Norton Schwartz and Mrs. Suzie Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force

General James Amos and Mrs. Bonnie Amos, U. S. Marine Corps

General Martin Dempsey and Mrs. Dempsey, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army

Admiral Robert Papp and Mrs. Papp, U.S. Coast Guard

General Peter Chiarelli and Mrs.Beth Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army

Lieutenant General Jack Stultz and Mrs. Laura Stultz, Chief of the U.S. Army Reserve

General Stanley McChrystal and Mrs. Anne McChrystal, U.S. Army (Ret)

Sergeant Major Raymond Chandler III and Mrs. Jeanne Chandler, U.S. Army

Command Sergeant Major Carlton Kent and Mrs. Elizabeth Kent, U.S. Marine Corps

Master Chief Petty Officer Rick West and Mrs. West, U.S. Navy

Command Sergeant Major James Roy and Mrs. Paula Roy, Air Force

Holly Petraeus, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Assistant Director for the Office of Servicemember Affairs, wife of General David Petraeus, Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A)

Members of Congress Expected to Attend

Representative Sanford Bishop, D-GA
Representative Susan Davis, D-CA
Representative Norm Dicks, D-WA
Representative Bob Filner, D-CA
Representative Chris Gibson, R-NY
Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-WA
Representative Tim Walz, D-MN
Representative Joe Wilson, R-SC

Business and Military Organization Leaders and Others Expected to Attend

Joyce Baezer, National Military Family Association

Nancy Brown, American Heart Association

Janice Chance, American Gold Star Mothers

Daniel Christman, Chamber of Commerce

Geoff Cramer, Futures, Inc.

Nathaniel Fick, Center for a New American Security

Ken Fisher, Fisher House Foundation

Peter Gaytan, The American Legion

Jim Gibbons, Goodwill

Sloan Gibson, USO

Mike Haynie, Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities Programs

Henry Jackson, Society of Human Resource Managers

Dr. Mary Keller, Military Child Education Coalition

Lieutenant General John Kelly and Karen Kelly (wife)

Jim Knotts, Operation Home Front

Brenda Linnington, BBB Military Line

Sgt. Brian Mast and Brianna Mast (wife)

Paul Rieckhoff, Iraq/Afganistan Veterans of America

Sharon Robinson, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

Kathy Roth-Douquet, Blue Star Families

Charles Saylor, National Parent Teacher Association

George Sherman, Best Buy

Eric Spiegel, Siemens

Robert Wallace, Veterans of Foreign Wars

Rick Weidman, Vietnam Veterans of America

W. Kenneth Yancey, Jr., SCORE

David Zaslav, Discovery Communications

[Warren DeMontague]

124. No, I think DADT should be ended, & I support full equality incl. marriage rights for GLBT citizens

what I don't support is playing word games with a news story and then re-posting it as 'news' to make a point, even if the point it's trying to make is a perfectly valid one.



...understand?

[Luminous Animal]

32. The OP clearly stated that the text had been replaced...

"The words black replaced the words gay and the word Jim Crow laws replace don't ask don't tell."

[Tx4obama]

71. The OP TITLE is seen on other pages. Unless you click on the thread all you see is the LIE. n/t

[EFerrari]

75. The OP is not a lie and really, is a personal attack all you have?

[bluestate10]

79. A claim which is not the truth is by definition, a lie. nt

[EFerrari]

81. All the facts a competent reader needs are in the OP.

Sorry for your tautology.

[Luminous Animal]

90. Unless it is satire, then it is satire.

Jonathan Swift did not really believe that the solution "for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public" was to sell the children as food for the rich.

[Bluerthanblue]

41. it's a disservice to both groups to word it like this-

The issue the OP is trying to highlight has merit on it's own.

There is no need to twist it.

unrec for the deception.

I wish the OP would post this in it's actual form.

[ecstatic]

48. +100 nt

[Zorra]

57. Link to actual form of article is in OP. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

63. and the actual form HAS merit- it's valid on it's own, why

play games with it?

[EFerrari]

70. Games? Do you think this is amusing in some way?

That's on you, to describe discrimination against gay families as some kind of game.

[Bluerthanblue]

91. no that's exactly what disturbs me about the way this

was posted.

[EFerrari]

93. Then that's your reading in.

The OP itself is not trivializing anything.

[Bluerthanblue]

99. the issues being faced by both groups are not identical.

You didn't answer my question about how you would react if the OP had used the illustration of "Jewish Groups".

Why?

[Luminous Animal]

100. The OP could very well had done that and it would have had a similar impact.

Situations do not have to be identical in order for comparisons to be relevant.

[Bluerthanblue]

107. similar perhaps, but not the same.

Comparisons sometimes don't work well. This is one of them imo.

[Bluerthanblue]

109. see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=877175&mesg_id=877989

[Zorra]

128. Please, this is not a question of "my discrimination is bigger than yours".

It's a question of acknowledging and allowing equal rights, equal civil rights, for all American citizens regardless of where someone's ancestors are from, what someone believes, the color of someone's skin, who they are attracted to, or of what gender they consider themselves.

That's the issue here. Nothing else.

[Bluerthanblue]

138. then why not just put it out there AS IS-

What you say is absolutely frickin CORRECT!!!

There is NO justification for discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. NONE.

You aren't making that point clearly and plainly when you play with the reality of the situation.

If the issue was about discrimination being shown by the WH on the basis of RACE- then your OP would be fine, but it's NOT and you know it.

You are using race as a way of getting attention, in a way that I find manipulative and wrong.

You've done exactly what you accuse me of, when you imply that the issue of GLBT discrimination doesn't have legitimacy on it's own.

:shrug:

If 'that's the issue here'- why use manipulation?

[Zorra]

144. I'm sorry if you do not, cannot, or will not, understand the point of this satire

and the reason for and the validity of the parallel within the satire.

sat·ire r/Noun1. The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

But if you do not already understand something that is already apparently very clear to the majority of people here, then I suggest you do a perception check. Explaining it any further would be time consuming, useless, and redundant.

You do not appear to be stupid nor illiterate, which leads me to believe that you are simply being deliberately obtuse.

Again, if so many other posters did not completely understand, immediately and intrinsically, why I posted this as satire, then I would consider the possibility that the OP was not clear in its essential meaning.

[Zorra]

74. Precisely, because you asked that question. nt

[EFerrari]

58. There is no deception whatsoever.

All the facts were in the OP.

[Bluerthanblue]

73. sorry, but using sensationalism to make

a point only detracts from the actual issue.

There's no need to play games.

[EFerrari]

78. In your opinion. The comparison is apt

apparently, too apt for the comfort of many posters here.

[bluestate10]

84. There is no comparison. The OP is grotesque and distorts the seriousness

of racism and homophobia.

[EFerrari]

89. How can you claim there is no comparison when you make the same comparison

implicitly in your own post?

[Luminous Animal]

92. Rejecting representatives of LGBT service people, as did Ms Obama and Ms Biden, is grotesque and

callously disregards the seriousness of homophobia.

[Zorra]

94. On the contrary. The OP clearly characterizes the seriousness, extent, and enculturation

of both racism and homophobia.

[EFerrari]

42. There was no misrepresentation unless you mean

that whole part about "military families" which should have been "some military families".

[Warren DeMontague]

123. The misrepresentation is that the OP header is deliberately untrue, to make a point.

I think there are better ways to make a point than posting falsehoods as 'news'.

[ZombieHorde]

61. I wish that was true, but homophobia is seen as more acceptable than racism.

This is even true here on DU.

[Bluerthanblue]

112. both are despicable-

however, they are not interchangeable.

Being Black is something that one can choose to disclose or not. That doesn't in any way- make the DADT policy acceptable, but the reality that this option doesn't even exist changes the comparison.

[FreeState]

114. Not all GLBT people can hide their reality either

They are compairable on many levels, compairing the two does not mean one thinks they are the same thing.

[Bluerthanblue]

115. sorry-

I don't agree.

I don't believe that anyone should have to hide or deny who they are, but the option to do so exists. That doesn't justify denying FULL civil rights to anyone based on their sexual orentation.

[Luminous Animal]

121. There are men in my neighborhood who get beaten up for merely walking down the street.

Haters specifically come here to beat them up. In other words, every man who walks in my neighborhood is considered gay and is a target for gay bashers. What do you propose are their options?

This shows how little you know. And why gays and lesbians who DO hide stilll get bashed. I was beaten up as a youth for being athletic. And I was beaten up as a young adult for dressing in a skirt.

What am I?

[Warren DeMontague]

122. I agree completely. But that's not relevant to the point I was making.

The point I was making is, these cute word games and other 'tricks' whereby people post patently false OPs and headers to 'make a point' don't make the point. They just piss people off, because they're saying something that is demonstrably false.

Homophobia should NOT be acceptable, GLBT citizens should have full equality including marriage rights and gov't benefits and recogniton- absolutely they should. But when someone puts up an OP with a headline like "Sen. Fritzwardle Smokes A Turd", unless Sen. Fritzwardle actually smoked a turd, it's misleading, dishonest, and patently false, and should be locked.

[demmiblue]

31. Shameful and disgusting. n/t

[PufPuf23]

83. EFerrari Made a great point in that retired vet gays would

not impact the event because of the status of DADT.

I have no pony in this issue, but to exclude military gay vets and family is disgusting.

Personally. I avoided the military and would recommend that to anyone -- opportunity, perhaps desperate, weighed against loss of the humane -- but I faced a draft and was more fortunate because of those older and my draft lottery number as Vietnam was winding down. Brought me to the streets. Changed many of my world perceptions.

I am so anti-war -- but support a most fair draft to end wars.

Given the interium status of DADT the exclusion is more than tone deaf IMO. CBS is the news source.

[walerosco]

88. K & R

[TriMera]

106. K&R. n/t

[Safetykitten]

113. A beautifull afternoon, a nice breeze, THEN AN UNAPPROVED KISS!

[Zorra]

146. That is the prettiest post I have ever read.

Thanks for the lovely image you put in my head!
:hi:

[Thumper79]

117. Very creative and sad at the same time.

[DRoseDARs]

136. Thank you. It's the same thing I do in such discussions: Replace "gay" with "black" or "Jew" and ask

..."Is it repulsive yet, or do you just personally hate gays?"

Sometimes you just have to slap people in the face with their own soft bigotry to get them to see it.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KamaAina]

145. Someone came up with a simple, elegant solution yesterday

invite gay servicemembers who are retired to the event. Being retired, they wouldn't face any reprisal under DADT.

But apparently that was a bit too simple and elegant for the WH. :eyes: