Updated - God’s General, William “Jerry” Boykin, Now Disinvited as Witness at Elena Kagan Hearings

Update: The Hill reports that Lt. General William G. "Jerry" Boykin has now been disinvited from testifying at the confirmation hearing of Elena Kagan.

Looks like retired Lt. General William G. "Jerry" Boykin will be sharing his wisdom with the Senate Judiciary Committee in the hearings on U.S. Supreme Court nominee and Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

Boykin will be appearing as a witness at the request of GOP members regarding Harvard's anti-discrimination guarantees and the Pentagon's discriminatory "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policies.

Kagan is Harvard's former Law School dean who contended with the discrimination when the Pentagon recruited on the campus.

The outspoken fundamentalist Boykin drew fire for publicly casting "America (as) engaged in a holy war as a 'Christian nation' battling Satan" and assorted adversaries, as Thomas D. Williams and JP Briggs II, Ph.D. reported in 2007.

It's unclear what insights Boykin can offer the Committee on the legal qualifications of Kagan, but his appearance does provide the GOP with an opportunity to trash gays and promote inequality and discrimination, which remain important policy commitments of the likes of Committee member U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and the White Party of God as a whole.

The hearings begin Monday, June 28.

By Steve Clemons

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan may not be everyone's cup of tea. I have no issues with her and think that she is a disciplined, fair-minded, creative thinker who will add a lot to the highest court in the land.

That said, I just learned that the Senate Judiciary Committee is calling none other than the God-connected, crusade-obsessed saber rattler retired Lt. General William G. "Jerry" Boykin as one of four military witnesses raising questions about Kagan's policy of making it tough for the military to recruit at Harvard when there was a conflict over the Pentagon's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policies.

I think DADT is a relic that should be tossed out -- but reasonable people can disagree and debate.

But Boykin? If this party is engaged in such self-destructive theatrics, why can't the White House do a better job of dividing up the Republicans into smart and not-so-smart factions.

I know that I hang out with a good number of Republicans in the smarter faction -- but no one is forcing a wedge between they and those with whom they'd rather not be hanging.

This has to be uncomfortable for many in the GOP.

The Last Acceptable Bigotries in America

Befitting our political culture, appeals to the contemporary American bigot are accomplished with sophisticated brands, images, impressions, and coded vocabulary, and not overt prejudices and stereotypes.

But there are two exceptions to this operative prohibition against overt bigotry: Arabs and gays. Two bigoted parties, long-time Editor-in-Chief and owner of The New Republic, Martin Peretz, and the Republican Party, reveal this dynamic.

As for gays [a broad term] the Republican Party and the religious right appear to owe their very reason for existence to the compulsion to marginalize and deny gays due process and equal protection under the law so often are gays the political scapegoat of GOP-religious right operatives. So, we're not surprised to find U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (R) dissenting in a landmark civil rights case, LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (02-102), writing:

Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.

This is retrograde and repulsive thinking to most Americans, but not most Republicans. Almost daily, we can find anti-gay appeal from Republicans.

Arabs and The New Republic's Martin Peretz

Arabs also enjoy a distinct status as the object of acceptable bigotry in this current milieu (environment) extending across partisan lines. An often bipartisan consensus keeps Ahmad in his place in America. Glenn Greenwald's The Right Kind of Bigotry is nothing short of spectacular in revealing this bigotry widely unchallenged. If you read nothing else, read this 300-word piece below, singling out The New Republic's Martin Peretz as a self-admitted bigot who is also a disingenuous slander artist.

From the long-time Editor-in-Chief and owner of The New Republic, [Martin Peretz] this morning [March 6]:

There were moments--long moments--during the Iraq war when I had my doubts. Even deep doubts. Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

The point here is so obvious that it makes itself. In the bolded sentence, replace the word ‘Arabs’ with ‘Jews’ and ask yourself: how much time would lapse before the author of such a sentence would be vehemently scorned and shunned by all decent people, formally condemned by a litany of organizations, and have his livelihood placed in jeopardy? Or replace the word ‘Arabs’ in that sentence with ’Jews’ or ‘blacks’ or ’Latinos’ or even ‘whites’ or virtually any other identifiable demographic group and ask yourself this: how many people would treat a magazine edited and owned by such a person as a remotely respectable or mainstream publication (notwithstanding the several decent journalists employed there)? Yet Marty Peretz spits out the most bigoted sentiments of this type -- and he's been doing this for years, as is well known -- and very little happens, because, for multiple reasons, this specific type of hate-mongering remains basically permitted in American political discourse. The double standard at play here is as extreme and self-evident as it is pernicious, but it doesn't matter. And we'll all wait with bated breath for the next installment of The New Republic's righteous, accusatory attacks on the entirely fictitious manifestations of the one strain of bigotry that bothers them, because they're such credible arbiters and opponents of prejudice.

Mil Brass: Won't Enforce Ban Against Gays and Lesbians

The year, 1960: It had been over a decade since that damn Harry Truman integrated the armed forces when the Greenboro Four decided to desegregate an all-white Woolworth’s in the famous sit-ins.

Not only did white U.S. troops have to serve with them, now civilians had to eat with 'em too. And these guys were as black as midnight.

Now, fifty years later, it looks like another uppity bunch—and elitists hope for the amateur and professional jurists among us that this particular band passes strict scrutiny by the federal Court system—seek to openly serve in the military, and it looks like the brass and the black guy who stole our country are going to let them get away wiht it.

And some of you leebrals wonder why the Tea Party and the GOPers say: "We want our country back." [A warning: Anyone who goes along with this outrage will find themselves boiled down in a 200-mile long river of blood after Jesus comes back and sees what the cultural elitists have done to our shining house on a hill. See Rod Parsley and the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio for an idea of what awaits.]

'Don't ask, don't tell' policy on gays in military to change
By Craig Whitlock and Michael D. Shear

President Obama's top defense officials will tell the Senate on Tuesday that the military will no longer aggressively pursue disciplinary action against gay service members whose orientation is revealed against their will by third parties, sources say.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen also are expected to announce the creation of a group to assess how to carry out a full repeal of the decades-old ‘don't ask, don't tell’ policy, which requires gay soldiers to keep their sexual orientation secret.

But Gates and Mullen are also expected to tell senators that it could take years to integrate gay men and lesbians fully into the military, defense officials said. Two appointees will be named to oversee a group that will draw up plans for integrating the armed forces, according to sources familiar with the Pentagon's deliberations on the subject. The planning effort is expected to take up to a year.

Among the issues to be addressed by the group: whether gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will face any restrictions on exhibiting their sexual orientation on the job; whether the Pentagon will be obligated to provide for their domestic partners; and whether straight military personnel could be compelled to share quarters with gays.

‘I don't think anyone is underestimating the seriousness of the issue, or the complexity of it,’ said a senior military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Gates and Mullen had yet to testify.

The remarks before the committee are part of the administration's effort to follow through on Obama's pledge in last week's State of the Union address to end the policy.

‘This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,’ Obama said.

Last summer, Gates asked the Pentagon's legal counsel whether the military could ignore allegations made by snitches, civilians or other third parties. Under such a scenario, gay military personnel would face discharge only if they themselves declare their sexual orientation.

Despite persistent objections in some corners, the Pentagon's senior leaders have largely come to terms with Obama's stance on the issue and are operating under the assumption that the law banning gays from serving in the military will be repealed, Pentagon officials said.

But leaders of some gay rights groups said they fear that the Pentagon will drag its heels and insist on a years-long grace period for making any changes.

‘I believe Gates and Mullen will announce a protracted process,’ said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a District-based group that advocates for an end to ‘don't ask, don't tell.’ ‘Will this just be the old, classic Washington way of doing business?’

Gay rights groups have also complained that the Pentagon is moving too slowly to ease enforcement of the third-party dismissals, noting that Gates asked the Defense Department lawyers for advice last summer but has not acted since then.

White House and Pentagon officials declined to comment about Tuesday's testimony. ‘Stay tuned,’ Gates told reporters.

Figures released Monday show that 428 people were discharged from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines last year for violating the ‘don't ask, don't tell’ policy, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The total is about one-third lower than in 2008, when 619 people were discharged.

Tuesday's testimony will represent the first significant hearing on the 1993 policy in more than a decade, officials said. Congressional sources said the debate on the issue this year could come as part of the overall defense authorization bill that lawmakers will consider this spring.

With Obama's declaration that he wants legislation this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill are under pressure from gay advocacy groups to confront the divisive policy. One source close to Senate Democrats said repealing the policy as part of the larger defense bill would make it more difficult for opponents to defeat.

A spokesman for Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), Armed Services Committee chairman, said there is no firm plan to use the authorization bill as a vehicle for the change.

As a candidate for president, Obama said repeatedly that he would end ‘don't ask, don't tell.’ But his decision to pursue congressional legislation has angered some activists, who had urged him to take unilateral action.

Even before Obama took office last year, his administration's top officials were signaling that would not happen while the president was focused on the country's economic collapse. But even then, they reiterated that the president would make good on his promise.

‘You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes,' ‘ press secretary Robert Gibbs said in January of last year.

Rightwingers Can't Let Others Live

Rightwingers continue their worries that Wisconsin's new domestic partnership (DP) law will ... it's not clear what these people are worried about.

Maybe the Apocalypse coming or Satan taking control of our fine state as the legal challenge to the DP law is heard.

"They simply don't like a certain group of people," said Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison.

It's all about hate and ignorance without which the GOP could not live.

Madison in Top Five Lesbian Meccas

The Advocate asks "What’s a girl to do once she’s crossed off San Francisco, New York, West Hollywood, and Portland?"

Madison comes in at Number Two for things a girl could do.

Madison remains a spear in the side of bigots and morons everywhere, especially the state GOP that still can't believe that the 1960s happened, much less the 40 years hence.

First, they're helping the blacks down south vote, stopping a war and now letting women love, what's next?

Writes Aefa Mulholland:

Another academic hot spot, but also a city with serious political clout, Wisconsin’s capital is the seat of out lesbian representative Tammy Baldwin. The isthmus city (Madison is perched between lakes Mendota and Monona) is a dynamic, welcoming, and active college town of 230,000.

Best spot to meet the girls
You’ll find the U.W. girls -- and the women who teach them -- at the lesbian lounge the Foxhole, a women’s space within LGBT venue Club 5, or cruising shelves at A Room of One’s Own feminist bookstore.

OUR LIVES Acclaims LGBTQA People

Madison has a fresh addition to its media that Bill O’Reilly famously scorned for its “communing with Satan.”

And this magazine's writers are heading straight into the searing hellfire, with a unique mix of empathy, pride and love.

Madison’s new Our Lives celebrates the humanity of LGBTQA individuals, and applauds the community’s pioneering work in civil rights by helping individuals' quality of life and expanding and integrating the LGBTQA community.

Patrick Farabaugh, the editor and publisher of Our Lives magazine, explains on Our Lives’ website that its mission is “… to clearly, candidly and openly reflect the diversity and optimism in our community. We are dedicated to improving our readers’ quality of life by celebrating the people, establishments and events that encourage us to embrace our identities as individuals and as a LGBTQA community.”

The Our Lives journal can be found in establishments throughout Madison, Milwaukee, Eau Claire, La Crosse and Green Bay.

Though non-partisan and even apolitical, Our Lives publishes in today’s political culture where the prerequisite to securing the Republican nomination to the U.S. presidency is either to declare hostility to the LGBTQA community or repudiate one’s past commitments to civil rights and equality, like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.

Our Lives vows that hate and exclusion will not stand and that the journal will affirm LGBTQA individuals by explaining and acquainting readers with each “… story, identity and person regardless of notoriety or lack thereof.”

Though blatant bigotry against LGBTQA persons is anathema in Madison and many areas of Wisconsin, garden-variety and de jure discrimination survives and presents challenges that Our Lives aims to overcome by establishing an oasis of inclusion and citizenship to which America aspires.
###