meaning that in spite of having a majority vote - they still didn't have the stupidly required 60 votes to pass the Defense bill that held the opportunity to eventually repeal DADT. This opened the door for McCain (who, before the Tea Party put his career in jeopardy, was in favor of the repeal) to filibuster. And in case you're low on how this works, a filibuster
stops any chance to debate the amendment in question.
Of course, this was no surprise to me - as I said, I predicted it - but that doesn't mean there weren't a few surprises that bowled me over. For instance, the fact that an important Democratic vote was lost.
Can we say, "Harry Reid"? I thought we could.
His resounding vote of "NO!" is still being heard from one end of the country to the other (not to mention a couple of other supposedly shoe-in votes from both Democrats and Republicans).
Apparently, there were three primary reasons for the counted on Republicans who'd previously supported the repeal - became turncoats and voted against the bill today (thus allowing McCain who now can be called totally insane) to filibuster. Here are the top three reasons:
- They wanted the chance to debate the issue
- They wanted the military to have the opportunity to study how repealing DADT would affect the military
- They didn't feel this bill was the appropriate bill for adding amendments
Sounds good, eh? *rolls eyes* Well, as the news media has pointed out over and over again tonight, and as anyone who Googles could find out, a filibuster actually
STOPS any debate - so #1 is an outright lie.
Knowing that, one must ask: "Why don't they want the debate today?"
Hello? Can we say "Upcoming Primaries"? Can we say, "We don't have time for a debate, we have campaign calls to make and seats to win!"
Yeah, I thought you could.
#2 - Another outright lie. The Amendment does
NOT repeal DADT, that's a misnomer deliberately utilized by the Republicans and believed by those who haven't done their research. The amendment was written so that the repeal could not go into effect until
after the Pentagon published the results of their survey on how service members and their families view the change (that report is due in December). It also states that such a repeal can not take affect until
after the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the repeal will not affect the military’s ability to fight.
#3 - probably the most ridiculous lie of all. In every administration, and every year that the Defense Bill comes up for a vote, amendments are added (just like every other bill under the sun). And in most cases, those amendments have NOTHING to do with the bill itself. This tactic is used by both parties.
"You want my vote for Senate Bill #yadda yadda? Fine, just add this tiny little amendment and you've got my vote."
Sound familiar? Of course it does. That's politics.
In 2005, Rep. Dennis Hastert threatened to hold up the Defense Bill unless an anti-immigration amendment was added. He did something similar in 2006, refusing to vote for the bill unless a federal court security bill was added. In 2004, Rep. Sen. Sam Brownback added an FCC amendment to the Defense Bill - one that would increase fines for indecent entertainment! Yeah, that one
really belongs in a Defense Bill! (All these were looked up easily, btw).
And adding another "BTW": the discussion regarding repealing DADT in the bill isn't the only amendment that has the ire of the Republicans. In fact, the real reason for what happened today might just have more to do with something called the "
Dream Act". And what is that? What, you've never heard of it? Well, you see, the Dream Act establishes citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and then enroll in college
or enlist in the military. Needless to say, the Republicans don't want it, but they're being fairly quiet because military experts agree that such an amendment would actually strengthen the military. The Department of Defense actually supports the Dream Act (just as most highly placed military leaders support the repeal of DADT).
Oh, it should be noted that the Democrats who became turncoats stated that their reason for voting 'no' was that clearer heads will prevail after the Mid-Term elections in November.
This is me - laughing - at their stupidity.
Small break for some applauding:
I would be remiss not to praise Lady Gaga while at the same time, weeping for the youth of our country who have far more to lose come November (and 2012) and yet who failed to express their views in these last months in order to be heard over the virulent spewing done by Tea Party candidates (combined with the sound of Moderate Republicans dropping their moderation in a heap on the floor so they might better jump on the TP bandwagon or get left behind altogether like their companions were in the primaries held so far this year).
And while applauding Lady Gaga, I have to hold my applause for President Obama - because he could stop all this crap right now. He could suspend any further dismissals by the military of gay personnel. He has that power. He could also take a much harder tack by use of 'reconciliation' to get what he needs, or be even more forceful by leaning on those Democrats who refuse to vote as needed. We're talking about Republicans who have made it very clear that they'll vote everything of Obama's down - everything. To me, that means it's gloves-off time for Obama. It's time for him to step up to the plate and start getting tough.
Yes, everyone is disgruntled, that can't be denied (well, except the rich who control our oil, drugs, banks, etc.), but is the current movement within the Republican party the answer to our problems? If you're thinking yes - well, you live in Fantasyland.
On the other hand, maybe you'd enjoy living in the past - as in centuries past. Maybe you'd prefer a world that wouldn't understand the Constitution if it were written by a five-year old in crayons.
God and Country sound so good, don't they? And yes, most of our founding fathers believed in God;
trusted in God, because if they didn't, God wouldn't be a part of everything from the wording on our money to our Pledge of Allegiance. BUT - the difference is, our
[1].founding fathers
also recognized that not everyone prayed to the
same God (if any god at all). In spite of Texas trying so hard to remove Thomas Jefferson's opinion on this issue, the truth is still out there in
articles like the U.S. Constitution On-Line which printed a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. I'll let you read the letter yourself, but I find that I have to include this segment leading up to the letter itself, showing how much time Thomas Jefferson spent on composing the letter in order to ensure that he didn't insult the Association:
"
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion."
The key words are "
...the establishment of religion." In other words, he understood, as did the majority of our founding fathers, that to impose
one established religion would result in the same constrictive lives of their own ancestors; those first brave men and women who sailed for the New World and established a pluralistic
[2] society; one that became a siren call for those who were, as Lady Liberty so eloquently states via the words of Emma Lazarus, "...
yearning to breathe free."
But today, our political 'leaders' (a term I use very loosely) have forgotten the wonder and brilliance of a pluralistic society and the true freedom it provides and encourages. They've forgotten what the Statue of Liberty has come to mean to the world - as so eloquently stated in "
Emma Lazarus, The New Colossus":
"
...the statue [of Liberty] emitted a new ideal for the United States. Liberty did not only mean freedom from the aristocracy of Britain that led the American colonists to the Revolutionary War. Liberty also meant freedom to come to the United States and create a new life without religious and ethnic persecution. Through Larazus' poem, the Statue of Liberty gained a new name: She would now become the "Mother of Exiles," torch in hand to lead her new children to American success and happiness."
The problem with the Tea Party movement and the Moderate Republicans who are afraid for their jobs, is that they don't understand that separation of Church and State doesn't mean religion can't exist. It doesn't mean those who believe in it are Godless people - just the opposite, in fact. What it does mean is that when the 'church' becomes the State - it must be, obviously,
one church. And that's when we have problems.
Stay tuned for part 2 on this subject tomorrow and in the meanwhile, ask yourself a few questions:
- Why would privatizing (meaning allowing a private *business* to take over) Social Security be a bad idea and who would benefit by private business taking over? (this is on the Tea Party agenda)
- Why is something we PAY into - considered an entitlement? Is a paycheck earned for a hard day's work also an entitlement?
- Why does being forced to use your Social Security benefits or Social Security Disability benefits (the ones you've paid into for years) - make you lazy?
- Why are the hard-won rights of the Disabled a bad thing - and who would benefit by the loss of those rights?
This about these questions and we'll compare answers tomorrow....
Footnotes:
[1]: If you want to find the truth about how our forefathers felt on this subject, you'd better start researching fast and keeping copies - the ultra-religious right, via the Tea Party, are quickly revising history or removing parts of it altogether from the education of our children.
[2]: From
Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess: "
Pluralism refers to a society in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious or cultural groups coexist within one nation, each contributing to the society as a whole."
