Gay Patriot Header Image

12,000 Flags To Mark Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Law

This is one of the topics we discussed on our GayPatriot’s America podcast last evening.

From an email from Log Cabin Republicans:

Log Cabin Republicans is proud to partner with Liberty Education Forum, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Servicemembers United (formerly Call to Duty) and the Human Rights Campaign for a three-day tribute on the National Mall to honor the 12,000 Americans who have been discharged under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law since its inception.

On November 30th, 2007, a three-day tribute will begin on the National Mall in our nation’s capital to coincide with the signing of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.  One American flag will be placed on the Mall (between 7th and 14th Streets) for
each discharged service member.  These flags will stand as a testament to the national security harm caused by this discriminatory law, and will serve as the backdrop for a series of events honoring LGBT service members, their sacrifice, and their fight to serve with dignity.

Interestingly, the Log Cabin email also asks for financial help:

Whatever you can contribute…$25, $50, $75, or any other amount…will help us purchase and place these American flags.  (Link here)

Not to mix apples with oranges… but how can LCR afford to run a high-profile broadcast TV ad campaign against Mitt Romney, but not afford to buy American flags for what seems to be a very good visual demonstration against this Clinton-era relic of a law.

Where ARE their priorities?  And why can Tim Gill cough up money so easily for TV ads, but not for American flags??

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

32 Comments

  1. LEF is the lead in this project.

    Comment by Bill Thibaut — November 2, 2007 @ 5:29 pm - November 2, 2007

  2. and donation to LEF is tax deductable.

    Comment by Bill Thibaut — November 2, 2007 @ 5:30 pm - November 2, 2007

  3. hang on a moment….HRC is supporting an event to protest something Clinton did? Wow, to read this blog you’d think HRC was/is a Clinton puppet and agreed with everything that Clinton did and said. hmmmmmmmm. Dogs must be meowing and cats must be barking at this point….

    Just a few reminders on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
    Colin Powell (a Republican) actually crafted the policy
    Nothing was done by Bush or the Republican controlled congress for 6 years to reverse it.
    Since before and after 9/11, the military and government has discharged over 60 persons who are translators of Arabic and its various dialects. Lack of translators was listed as one of the holes in national security which could have detected the plot which killed over 3000 people. National security agencies, as of 2007, are planning to use an admittedly flawed “translator machine” due to the “lack of translatrors”
    In 2005, a bill was introduced to reverse “don’t ask, don’t tell”, but it was killed by the Republicans
    Already this year, there is a growing effort by Democrats to have it reversed (but I’m guessing fat chance of Dubya sign such a bill while he’s president)

    Comment by Kevin — November 3, 2007 @ 5:55 am - November 3, 2007

  4. hang on a moment….HRC is supporting an event to protest something Clinton did? Wow, to read this blog you’d think HRC was/is a Clinton puppet and agreed with everything that Clinton did and said. hmmmmmmmm. Dogs must be meowing and cats must be barking at this point….

    What’s so difficult about the fact that HRC is against DADT while still being ideologically aligned with the Clintons? Is your expectation that somehow people/groups who are allies of one another always align 100% lockstep with each other? Nonsense. The real world is rarely so braindeadenly simple like that.

    Just a few reminders on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
    Colin Powell (a Republican) actually crafted the policy

    Colin Powell was a military man, therefore, he’s ultimately subservant to the will of the civilian leaders in the Executive.

    Nothing was done by Bush or the Republican controlled congress for 6 years to reverse it.

    So? Why would they?

    Since before and after 9/11, the military and government has discharged over 60 persons who are translators of Arabic and its various dialects. Lack of translators was listed as one of the holes in national security which could have detected the plot which killed over 3000 people. National security agencies, as of 2007, are planning to use an admittedly flawed “translator machine” due to the “lack of translatrors”

    The govt also turns away Israels from being an arabic translator. The govt refused the help of Arab Christians who fled Lebanon during its civil war.

    The govt’s gross incompetence in this area has nothing to do with gaydom.

    In 2005, a bill was introduced to reverse “don’t ask, don’t tell”, but it was killed by the Republicans
    Already this year, there is a growing effort by Democrats to have it reversed (but I’m guessing fat chance of Dubya sign such a bill while he’s president)

    Well why hasn’t Congress passed a bill? Maybe instead of scheming ways to get us to have to surrender Iraq, like drafting bills attacking Turkey Congress should have spent its time on issues that are important to peole alive today.

    Comment by Vince P — November 3, 2007 @ 6:12 am - November 3, 2007

  5. Umm..wait a minute here..lets review

    1) Clinton tries to remove anti-Gay restrictions in the military
    2) Right wing radio goes ballistic
    3) Virtually all Republicans go ballistic (any GOP members that agreed with Clinton when he tried to remove all the anti-gay restrictions? Please feel free to list them)
    4) Republican Military leaders, including Colin Powell, go ballistic and undermine Clinton’s initiative
    5) Southern Democrats, including Sam Nunn, attack the President
    6) Clinton, realizing that he can’t get what he wants, does what he can.
    7) Clinton, later in his presidency, calls for the repeal of DADT, but since the GOP controls Congress, cannot get repeal passed.

    How is this Clinton’s fault? I’m not happy with DADT but at least he tried to get it repealed. I blame Colin Powell, the GOP,right wing radio, and Sam Nunn much more than Clinton for this. Who sustains the current law? Its the GOP and the Bush Administration.

    What Republicans support repeal? Certainly not any of the GOP Presidential contenders (Not even Giuliani). There are a few (I think two) GOP cosponsors of the repeal. Bush would certainly veto the legislation. How many Dem Presidential candidates support repeal? All of them. How many GOP Congressmen do you think would vote for repeal? Ten? Maybe. How many GOP Senators? Four. Maybe.

    In order to get a repeal of DADT, the Dems must have control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The Dems of 2007 are different than the Dems of 1993. The GOP is, unfortunately, pretty much the same.

    Go after Clinton for signing DOMA twelve years ago. But with regards to Gays in the military, I think you guys are blaming the wrong people.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — November 3, 2007 @ 9:39 am - November 3, 2007

  6. Why is it Clinton’s fault? Because , in the end, it was proved that he really didn’t want to change policy once it became clear that there was going to be opposition.

    Clinton pandered to gays, so post election he thought he would give them something.

    Now what was his motivation…

    – was it to end the policy because he was fundamentally opposed to it?

    or

    – returning a favor to a political consituency about an issue that he personally was indifferent.

    I will pick B.. he was just returning a favor… but he choose to the Armed Forces of the United States to do it… a bad choice. He thought apparently he could play political godfather to part of his base and that the toy wold be our military and that he could get away with that.

    So by his cynical action he set in motion a series of events that exposed the fact that he really didnt care about gays in the military.

    What he did do was stir up a lot of people… and for nothing.

    If he actually stuck to his proposal he could have won the issue and got his way… after all he is the Commander in Cheif of the military.

    So Clinton’s actions on behalf of a pro-gay issue actually did the opposite.. in the end, things were more anti-gay than before.

    A similar miscalculation is being done now, IMHO , with these people who go to court to get gay marriage rammed down the throat of States.

    When you ram things down the throat of the overall population on something they dont want, there wll be a backlash.

    You see just a little of it now with the many marriage amendments to states constitution but i predict there is more to come.. and eventually Congress will use its Article III Section 2 power to exclude certain law from being appealable to the Supreme Court.

    Comment by Vince P — November 3, 2007 @ 10:26 am - November 3, 2007

  7. There are probably two or three more to come (Florida is one). The backlash is ending, and there will be no movement on Article III Section 2 powers. Period.

    Sure, Clinton could have fired Powell. He could have done more. I’ll fault him for that. But I’m not going to fault him for trying. And I’m certainly going to place more blame on those that put the pressure on him to cave.

    And you are wrong about DADT being worse than the old policy. Before Clinton, you could be drummed out even if you were not out. In theory, you are now allowed to: attend the church of your choice (even a Gay church), speak out on LGBT issues, attend Gay bars and Gay pride parades. DADT is supposed to end witchhunts.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — November 3, 2007 @ 10:51 am - November 3, 2007

  8. I get letters from Republican candidates all the time asking me for money. How can they afford all these high-profile TV ads and websites and then still need money for other things???

    My point being: Of course, they’re going to include an appeal for money along with any program/notification that they send out, whether they directly need it specifically to complete that project or not. And since donations aren’t given in special flag-only-dollars, then some of that money does go to the flags, depending on how you regard the matter of how to determine what a specific and generic un-earmarked donation goes toward. That was a rather sophomoric charge, in my opinion. Are you just looking for reasons to decry LCR?

    As for their priorities, one of them is certainly gay rights. Another (stemming from the “Republican” in their name) is trying to influence the Republican party in their direction. Romney is a flat rotten candidate on gay rights, and, again, in my opinion, showing that gay Republicans have some teeth–and aren’t just sheep who can be ignored and thrown under the bus when convenient–isn’t such a bad thing.

    Comment by PSUdain — November 3, 2007 @ 7:56 pm - November 3, 2007

  9. 4: My point is that people here love to gleefully go after a guy who hasn’t been president for nearly 6 years. If Republcians are so gosh-darn behind the same rights for everyone, they why is this law still around? Why is DOMA still around? Why were 9are) all these anti-gay marriage initiatives sponsored by Republicans?

    Also your points about arab-speaking israelis and arab christians just adds to my point: discrimination is much more important than our supposed need for true national security.

    Comment by Kevin — November 3, 2007 @ 8:14 pm - November 3, 2007

  10. >My point is that people here love to gleefully go after a guy who hasn’t been president for nearly 6 years

    Gleefully go after?

    Give me a break. Someone was trying to absolve Clinton of all responsiblity. If rabid Clinton-defense wasn’t attempted here, no one would have to bring up Clinton’s involvement.

    You didn’t see the cause and effect? It’s pretty dishonest to take my Clinton comments out of context and act as if I decided to go after Clinton for no other reason than to go after him.

    I would like nothing better than to never have to talk about Clinton again. I’m not someone who lives in the best, picking at scabs, etc. etc.. so I dont appreciate your implication.

    Nothing bores me more than hyperpartisan interpretations of everything.

    The obsessive need to make sure you say something negative about Repbulicans if someone says something about a Democrat.

    And my point about the translators was that the problem there goes way beyond anything specifically about gays (if that’s even true that gays are actively being denied… I dont think those are military jobs)

    Comment by Vince P — November 3, 2007 @ 8:45 pm - November 3, 2007

  11. And remember, Clinton is running to be President again, right now. (In the first Clinton Presidency, we were told “You get 2 for the price of one” – meaning it was a Hill-Bill co-presidency. If you think Hill-Bill aren’t still a political team and running to do the same thing again – then think again.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 3, 2007 @ 9:00 pm - November 3, 2007

  12. DADT has been the rule in the military for a long time – long before Clinton took office.

    I don’t think Clinton really cared one way or the other about the ban on gays in the military. Given his reluctance to risk political capital, he did all he could (not a lot).

    But, there’s no way the conservatives in Congress would have allowed things to turn out any other way.

    Gays and lesbians can serve honorably and effectively in the military. We certainly can’t afford to lose any good soldiers in these times.

    The 12,000 flags may serve to make a point about the number of soldiers lost to an outdated policy but when people enlist in the military, they know the rules.

    If/when the ban on gays is lifted, it will take someone like John McCain (conservative, military hero) to do it (I don’t think it will be McCain).

    Comment by Robert — November 3, 2007 @ 10:43 pm - November 3, 2007

  13. #3 Lack of translators was listed as one of the holes in national security which could have detected the plot which killed over 3000 people.

    We’re talking about the military and not the CIA or any other intel agency. As far as the CIA is concerned, they don’t discriminate based on sexual orientation.

    However, the CIA was short on translators because lord BJ gutted the agency. That’s why Tenet referred to the agency as being in “Chapter 11 bankruptcy”. While al-Qaeda was growing, BJ gleefully decimated the CIA. That’s why there were no CIA agents in Berlin when Atta and crew were in town plotting 9/11. That’s why there were only three agents in all of Indonesia which has one of, if not the largest populations of Muslims. This (and the Church Commsission) is why there was no intel in Iraq or Iran as well as why they still don’t.

    With the shortage of CIA agents during lord BJ’s clownistration, the agents beleived that to move up, they had to rotate around to different field offices. Therefore, agents weren’t staying in one country learning all about it or it’s language.

    Also your points about arab-speaking israelis and arab christians just adds to my point: discrimination is much more important than our supposed need for true national security.

    It wasn’t based on discrimination as you’re thinking. The people that the CIA tried to recruit from the Muslim community were not able to meet the requirements for working in such a sensitive field. This was either because of their personal experiences or their background and/or connections to others. It wasn’t discrimination just because they’re “dirty ragheads” or anything like that. It was discrimination (the good kind) because they couldn’t meet the requirements for working in intel positions.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 3, 2007 @ 11:57 pm - November 3, 2007

  14. Oops! Forgot the quotes around Kevin’s comments in #3.

    Also forgot to sum up by saying that if lord BJ hadn’t given us intel on a shoestring budget, we’d probably be far better off.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 3, 2007 @ 11:59 pm - November 3, 2007

  15. go after a guy who hasn’t been president for nearly 6 years.

    Does that mean after innaugaration day 2009, the liberals will immediately shut their festering cake holes regarding Bush?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 4, 2007 @ 2:30 am - November 4, 2007

  16. Every Democratic candidate for President has said he or she would repeal DADT. Any Republicans making the same promise?

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 4, 2007 @ 1:44 pm - November 4, 2007

  17. Funny, I thought DADT was progress in compromise. In that the military wouldn’t go after gay soldiers as long as they kept quiet. I could be misremembering.

    Anyway, as I recall it the Purpose of the rule in the code of conduct, not having gays in the military was that a person’s devient behaviour was usable as grounds for black mail, thus it posed a security risk. I think now that time has passed and yes the UMJC should be revised again. Now who does that?

    Comment by The Livewire — November 4, 2007 @ 7:09 pm - November 4, 2007

  18. Thank you TominHouston, Robert, and Houndentenor, all for bringing a little clarity to this debate. And to the guy up there claiming “Clinton decimated the CIA”, provide a little proof of that please — and something real, not little linkies to your fellow Clinton-Haters saying the same thing, also with no proof/no evidence. As much as I don’t naturally gravitate to Senator Clinton, I’m kind of hoping she wins — just to keep the Fey Patriots as batshit crazy as I’ve come to love them. Just to come on here occasionally and say Clinton, Clinton, Clinton and watch the heads explode.

    Comment by KYKid — November 4, 2007 @ 7:12 pm - November 4, 2007

  19. Just remember, if you support a Republican for President this year, youre supporting keeping DADT in place (all are opposed to its’ repeal). All Democratic candidates are in favor of allowing LGB soldiers to serve openly and honestly.

    There are THREE out of 205 (Thats less than 2%) Republican cosponsors of the repeal of DADT in Congress. That’s right LESS THAN TWO PERCENT. Maybe TEN Republicans would vote to repeal it.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — November 4, 2007 @ 10:59 pm - November 4, 2007

  20. Yes that’s right.. vote for a Democrat. All of whom advocate a policy of surrender.

    So yes.. vote for a democrat and join the miltary just as the democrat you voted for will implement policies that will ensure your defeat in battle and shamefull retreats that the country’s honor may never recover from.

    Then watch as the Jihadis interpret the Democrats redeployment of US troops as a sign from Allah that the US is about to collapse just as the Jihadis viewed the Soviet withdrawel from Afghanistan as a sign from Allah that the soviet union was about to collapse.

    Watch as the sharia law the jihadis impose whereever they can leads to the execution of gay people.

    Yes vote for a Democrats so that you can join the military , a military that will be crippled in a nation that surrendered the initiative to the Jihadis.

    Yeah tom… great idea! keep em coming!

    Comment by Vince P — November 4, 2007 @ 11:10 pm - November 4, 2007

  21. #18
    Well, let’s see: McCain, Romney and Huckabee have talked to the commanders about changing it. They said no, so the candidates don’t feel that it should be changed. Did all the liberals ask the commanders about changing military policy, or did they just decide they knew what was best for the military?

    Giuliani & Huckabee have said that it doesn’t need to be changed during a war.

    (all are opposed to its’ repeal)

    That’s funny, I can’t find any comments by Thompson on the matter.

    All Democratic candidates are in favor of allowing LGB soldiers to serve openly and honestly.

    Yeah. Didn’t Edwards claim that he was going to unilaterally get rid of DADT on his own?

    BTW, how many liberal candidates support gay marriage?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 5, 2007 @ 1:00 am - November 5, 2007

  22. Oh that’s right, liberals get a total pass because they’re willing to pander to a victim class.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 5, 2007 @ 1:02 am - November 5, 2007

  23. #13

    Not to mention, Kevin, that if the CIA has blithering bottle blonde idiots like Valerie Wilson running ’round, it’s a wonder we know what time it is, let alone what’s going on in the world. Have you seen this idiot? I’d be embarrassed to admit she worked the fries at McDonald’s, nevermind pushing a pencil at Langley.

    Seriously. Somebody should ask her why, with such blonde hair, she thinks she needs to dye her roots.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 5, 2007 @ 8:08 am - November 5, 2007

  24. I love how people change the topic when they don’t like the answer.

    If you think DADT is a bad policy then press the Republican candidates to change it. It’s absurd to be discharging arabic translators at this time, but we are. Railing against the inadequacies of the Democrats doesn’t change that the Republican party is overwhelmingly anti-gay. Are you the folks that are supposed to be working towards changing that? Godspeed.

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 5, 2007 @ 1:02 pm - November 5, 2007

  25. I have a very good friend who’s a squadron commander in the USAF. He’s processed out a lot of soldiers in his time. In his opinion, 90% of those he discharged under DADT were people who took advantage of the policy because they wanted out of the service.

    Assuming he is correct, that’s 10,800 flags honoring people who ditched out on their military service.

    Comment by V the K — November 5, 2007 @ 1:57 pm - November 5, 2007

  26. I personally don’t have an opinion about DADT.

    I’m 32 and am not looking to join the military.

    Common sense tells me that changing the policy will have some sort of effect on the military, thus I’ll defer to the military whether or not it’s a good idea to change it.

    The military is the last institution in this country that is not incompetent. I want to keep it that way.

    Comment by Vince P — November 5, 2007 @ 2:15 pm - November 5, 2007

  27. Well isn’t that convenient. So that’s why people have fought to stay in?

    Yes, I suppose there are always people who work the system and if you are gay and you want out DADT offers you an option for a less than honorable discharge. But not all of those dischargeed wanted out. And if DADT is mainly used (which I think is probably not true) by those exploiting it to get out of the military, isn’t that a good argument for getting rid of the policy?

    And of course plenty of commanders are looking the other way because we are at war and they don’t want to lose good soldiers. And then when the war is over and they are ready to reduce the number of active duty troops, who do you think is going to suddenly be discharged under DADT? That’s just what happened at the end of the last Gulf War.

    I will give you one point. In the middle of an active conflict is probably not the best time to try to change the policy. Of course eliminating DADT saves the military a lot of paperwork and legal troubles so it would conceivably free up resources better used elsewhere. But politically this is a horrible time to be fighting to change an existing policy that will be unpopular in many military circles.

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 5, 2007 @ 2:40 pm - November 5, 2007

  28. It’s absurd to be discharging arabic translators at this time, but we are.

    It’s even more absurd to ASSume they haven’t been replaced.

    Railing against the inadequacies of the Democrats doesn’t change that the Republican party is overwhelmingly anti-gay.

    But it does highlight the fact that liberals are anti-gay, but will suck your dick for your money and votes only to stab you in the back after they’ve gotten the power you handed them.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 5, 2007 @ 6:43 pm - November 5, 2007

  29. Here’s an article I read about the Translators.. This is what I had in mind when I originally brought it up.. I finally found it

    The FBI Translator Scandal

    ACT members respond and demand action

    By Jerry Gordon

    Last Thursday, Brigitte Gabriel and I put out an Action Alert to the American Congress for Truth membership, asking you for examples of how our government rebuffed your valued assistance as Arabic and Farsi linguists for critical intelligence translation work assignments in military, foreign and homeland security agencies.

    In less than 72 hours were got dozens of responses and they are still coming in.

    While a sampling they are nevertheless indicative of your concerns about why our government persists in denial of loyal American citizens offering to reduce the mountainous backlog of untranslated intercepts and transcripts of interrogations in Arabic and Farsi, in particular.

    How mountainous is the backlog of untranslated intercepts? Read this comment from a National Security Agency (NSA) official quoted from Congressional hearings in a Washington Times article on the subject written by Rowan Scarborough and Bill Gertz entitled:”Intelligence backlog.”

    NSA director, Army Lt. Gen. Keith in commenting in written response to Senators on the large backlog of time consuming labor intensive foreign language intercepts on terrorism noted:

    “Today’s backlog is no longer confined to Arabic and its multiple dialect but also less commonly taught languages where linguists are in short supply.”

    One knowledgeable insider in our national security apparatus wrote in response to the ACT action alert:

    ‘The fact that the FBI and the military don’t have enough linguists/translators especially after 9/11 is a disgrace and the fact that those they have are possibly not reliable or trustworthy makes it imperative that new competent resources are found ..”

    Imagine that you are a Marine Corps battalion commander in Anbar province in western Iraq-hotbed of the Sunni and al Qaeda insurgency. You find out from your G-2 via counter intelligence operatives that the local interpreters procured through a contract let via a major defense contractor have been feeding intel to these insurgent groups. You’re darn angry because this has cost you casualties and in some instances lives of brave Marines in your field units. What do you do besides complain to the theater ground commander and higher intelligence echelons at CENTCOMM.

    As we have found out in our inquiries to our ACT members we have an overwhelming response that includes first rate Arab and Farsi linguists who are Middle Eastern Christians, Jews and apostate Muslims disappointed that their talents have gone wanting because of political correctness and frankly outright intimidation by Muslim linguists in our security agencies.

    Here are some examples of the responses received from ACT members and others to date. I will begin with Brigitte Gabriel’s experience. She is one of many Christian Lebanese who tried to help but got no where.

    Brigitte Gabriel, ACT founder, Lebanese Christian.

    Brigitte applied three times to the FBI in 2001 and 2002 VOLUNTEERING her services to help translate, in whatever capacity she could be used, to help our country in the fight against terrorism. She never got an answer. Finally the Government sent her a government application that stated that translators must be between the age of 25 and 35, (she had just turned 36), must have graduated with a degree in the language they wish to apply to translate and must have three years on job experience as translators. (utterly ridiculous bureaucracy) Meanwhile complaining on TV that they do not have enough translators.

    Brigitte Gabriel speaks not only the classical Arabic which is the official language of all the Middle East, but also the local dialects, Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian, Palestinian, and Jordanian.

    From an Iraqi Christian.

    “I applied twice for the FBI. I never got an answer from them. I heard that the Recruiters are Egyptians and want translators with an Egyptian dialect. I don’t know if religion is a factor, but I’ve given up. I think it will be very intimidating under these circumstances. By the way I’m an Iraqi Christian living in the U.S. I worked as a linguist for the U.S. Army in Iraq.”

    From a Lebanese American Christian.

    “I was deployed from Ft. Benning, Georgia in May, 2003 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Supporting our armed forces and intelligence units. In October 2004, I was injured by a suicide bomb blast inside the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. I had to come back for treatment. A year ago I was released by all doctors and they recommended that I could go back to work, but not in Iraq. I called my employer and to my amazement they offered me a job back in Iraq but not a stateside one because I lacked a security clearance. I refused and they sent me a letter in January, 2006 laying me off. I have tried in vain to find a job with the government or defense contractors. The recruiters are usually Muslim and some have told me that they have relatives working for al Jazeera TV. Can you believe that!

    From a Persian American Jew

    I volunteered to help with Farsi translations. I heard back from them that they were interested in my Hebrew skills!! I didn’t see how Hebrew came into the equation with dealing with our country’s dangers. The response was very bureaucratic in nature. I have since done Farsi translation for a private think tank.

    From a Coptic Christian American

    “I am a Christian Egyptian who applied for a linguist position with the FBI after 9/11, went through the testing process and was sent a rejection letter. I would love to contribute to your cause, if I can be of assistance.”

    Rejection of American Israeli citizens

    “I know personally of such a case where a loyal American applied for such service and got nowhere. This American Israel Jew got the same treatment. He is young, intelligent eastern looking guy who could make a real contribution to the efforts. Something funny is going on.”

    What these ACT responses do is to resonate previous reports of bias against Middle Eastern Christians, Jews and apostate Muslims chronicled in reports from WorldNetDaily about discrimination against American Israeli linguists and by investigative authors Rita Katz – an Iraq born American Jew – in her book “Terrorist Hunter” and Paul Sperry in his engrossing book “Infiltration.”

    So what is ACT going to do now that we have lifted the veil on this burgeoning scandal? Plenty.

    Working with key House and Senate National and Homeland Security Committees we are going to push for following:

    A GAO audit of major defense contractors supplying in-country interpreters at egregious billing rates running as high at $100,000 annually versus $30,000 for a military trained linguist interpreter;

    We are going to file under the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) a request for information from military, foreign and domestic intelligence agencies that includes the annexed information.
    We are going to hold a Washington Summit for ACT members to discuss this issue and more as part of a major agenda for action;
    We are going to request hearings on the translator ‘scandal’ from Senate and House National and Homeland Security Committees.
    We will assist these subject matter Committees on Capitol Hill in the review and preparation of remedial legislation and executive actions to bring the translator scandal to heel, so that our troops in the field and our citizens at home aren’t in jeopardy of a major series of 9/11 Islamist terrorist attacks.
    Act will need your help in reaching out to those of you who are U.S. citizens to get to your Congressional representatives and Bush Administration officials demanding their attention to this problem.

    Keep those emails coming! They are grist for the mill and build an effective case for immediate attention to this problem. A problem that needs resolution now if this nation is to be secure. A problem that is compounded by political correctness and intimidation by American Muslim advocacy groups.

    We will continue to monitor your emails and report back on developments on this issue as they emerge. Rest assured that ACT is going to make this a ’cause’ that will resound in the halls of Congress and the mainstream media.

    Thank you for telling it like it is. With your support ACT will win this battle!

    Comment by Vince P — November 5, 2007 @ 7:43 pm - November 5, 2007

  30. “Just remember, if you support a Republican for President this year, youre supporting keeping DADT in place”

    I could honestly care less.

    Especially since gays like Mark Sanchez and Tom Ammiano in San Francisco make it obvious that REAL gays are antimilitary — as in their support of the JROTC ban.

    Why the armed forces should be required to accept people who are openly and publicly hostile towards them, I have no idea.

    Meanwhile, under DADT, you are perfectly able to serve as long as you can keep your sexuality from dominating your life.

    I find it interesting that so many liberal gays are apparently incapable of doing that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 6, 2007 @ 2:39 pm - November 6, 2007

  31. Whoa! I can’t imagine that any gay people wanting to serve in the military are themselves anti military. That’s completely absurd.

    You have made it clear in the brief time I have been reading your posts that you don’t really think gay people deserve equal rights because some gays are liberal and some are even way off to the wacko pinko left. Nice.

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 6, 2007 @ 5:27 pm - November 6, 2007

  32. What I have made clear, Houndentenor, is that as long as gays use and are allowed to use their sexual orientation as their reason for holding liberal and wacko pinko views, they should be treated accordingly.

    Bluntly put, if you allow the use of your sexual orientation as an excuse to ban JROTC from schools, to block building of veterans’ memorials, to deface recruitment offices, and to block military recruiters from coming onto campus, the military is completely justified in telling you to take a hike.

    Perhaps if you and your fellow liberal gays, or your organizations like SLDN, would slap down the gay Democrats liberals like Ammiano and Sanchez and the places like UC Santa Cruz and Columbia that justify their outright anti-military hate and bigotry on gayness, you might have a point.

    But for now, you ain’t doing it — and until that happens, I see no reason for the armed forces to change their assumption that being gay means being anti-military.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 6, 2007 @ 6:06 pm - November 6, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.