Box Turtle Bulletin

About Those “New” Federal Benefits for Gay Employees…

…They’re not so new. I already noted that the announced benefits pertaining to the foreign service had already been announced last month. John Aravosis confirmed that the rest aren’t new either:

I just asked OPM Director John Berry, on a White House media conference call, whether in fact federal agencies already have the right to give these benefits to gay employees. The answer, “yes.” So what’s new about tonight? Obama is going to “tell” the agencies to give the benefits — as if any agency in the Obama administration would dare tell a gay employee no to a request for time off to attend their partner’s funeral?

Need any more confirmation that all Obama wanted to do was salvage the DNC fundraiser?

White House Fact Sheet on Benefits for LGBT Federal Employees

The White House has issued this fact sheet on the Presidential Memorandum on federal benefits that he is due to sign later this afternoon. Some of this which touches on the foreign services has already been announced last month.

Fact Sheet: Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination

In an Oval Office event later today, President Barack Obama will sign a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination. The Memorandum follows a review by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management ant the Secretary of State regarding what benefits may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees in the civil service and the foreign service within the confines of existing federal laws and statutes.

Over the past several months, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State have conducted internal reviews to determine whether the benefits they administer may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees within the confines of existing laws and statutes. Both identified a number of such benefits.

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

The Presidential Memorandum to be signed today will request that the Director of OPM and the Secretary of State act to extend to same-sex partners of federal employees the benefits they have identified. The Memorandum will also request the heads of all other executive branch departments and agencies to conduct internal reviews to determine whether other benefits they administer might be similarly extended, and to report the results of those reviews to the Director of OPM.

The Memorandum will also direct OPM to issue guidance within 90 days to all executive departments and agencies regarding compliance with, and implementation of, the civil service laws, which make it unlawful to discriminate against federal employees or applicants for federal employment on the basis of factors not related to job performance.

[Hat tip: Queerty]

LA Times: Obama’s “Curiously Passive” Approach To LGBT Issues

The Los Angeles Times weighs in on Obama’s inaction on LGBT issues:

…Obama pledged to work toward the repeal of the federal marriage act, which denies gay couples such basics as filing a joint tax return. He has made encouraging noises about signing the so-called Matthew Shepard Act, which extends hate-crime laws to cover acts against gays. And he’s expected to announce today the extension of benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees. But although he appears willing to sign gay rights bills, he takes a curiously passive approach to ensuring that such legislation actually gets to his desk.

…The gap between Obama and gay rights activists appears to be growing. True, the current federal lawsuits against the marriage act and Proposition 8 fail to recognize that a hasty march can be damaging to gay rights. The current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court makes it highly unlikely that such lawsuits will succeed, and adverse decisions could set the same-sex marriage movement back by years. From an ideological viewpoint, gays and lesbians are entitled to their rights now. But well-planned timing gives them the best chance of securing those rights soon. Obama, though, has shown a dishearteningly pragmatic willingness to allow the issue of gay rights to languish. The many Americans who support these rights expect better of him.

NY Times: Obama’s Non-Health “Benefits” Timed To Stave Off Fundraising Disaster

Late yesterday, we learned that President Barack Obama was going to sign a presidential memorandum (rather than a more permanent presidential order) granting partner benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees. Then we learned that because of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” — which the Obama administration chose to defend in court with an insulting DOJ brief — bars the extension of health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners. Which means that the presidential memorandum will only address things like relocation expenses.

New York Times is reporting that the only reason the Obama administration is doing this is to help salvage next week’s fundraiser:

But administration officials said the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups. Several gay donors withdrew their sponsorship of a Democratic National Committee fund-raising event next week, where Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is scheduled to speak.

This does not appear to be mollifying anyone as far as I have been able to learn. The rebellion continues, with at least five prominent LGBT advocates saying that they are pulling out of the fundraiser.

Another Proposal for Civil Disobedience

I am whelmed — not overwhelmed or underwhelmed — with the idea of marching on Washington. Dan Savage calls himself an “agnostic” over it — not for or against it either way. But he does have another suggestion:

Here’s the idea: one gay or lesbian couple—a couple currently denied their rights under DOMA—shows up at the entrance to the White House grounds. A different couple every day. They ask to speak to the president about DOMA. They’re refused. They sit down. They refuse to leave. They’re arrested, carried away by the police. Couples would be recruited from all over the country, demonstrating that gay marriage isn’t just an issue in liberal California or godless New England, and the media in each couple’s home city and state would be notified in advance of their arrest. The occasional famous couple—Rosie and Kelli? Ellen and Portia?—would participate to pull in celeb media. But most of the couples who come to D.C. to get arrested would be average folks. The couples would need support, legal and logistical, and we would need someone to organize media outreach and maintain a website. The website would include a photo and profile of each couple that comes to D.C. to get arrested, collect all the press, and be used to recruit couples willing to travel to D.C. and get arrested.

The action would be small scale—it would be human scale—and it would go on and on and on. It would demonstrate better than another gay march just how seriously we take this issue: we take it seriously that we’re willing to travel to D.C. and get arrested. It wouldn’t be a one-day event that the White House could ignore or bluff its way through with some lame statement about its “commitment” to ending DOMA. The couples would keep coming. Every day an arrest. Drip, drip, drip. Members of the White House press corps would see couples getting arrested every day on their way to work. Gibbs would be forced to address DOMA on a near-daily basis. The president would be asked about the issue again and again.

My boyfriend—who doesn’t do demonstrations (or interviews or photos or anything public)—is so upset about the DOMA brief that he’s willing to go to D.C. and get arrested. So am I. We can’t be the only couple that feels this way.

LGBT State Org Betrays ENDA, Carries Anti-Gay Talking Points

In a stunning backstabbing move, the egregiously misnamed group “Indiana Equality” has issued a statement carrying the talking points of anti-gay groups and have decided to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Here’s a statement from IE’s chair, Jon Keep:

Indiana Equality believes that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities should be engaged in a national dialog about the need for full inclusion in the federal Civil Rights code. There is a window of opportunity now that may not come for another generation. If we push for less than full inclusion, it may be more difficult to motivate public support for full civil right protections. We should not ask for less than we need.

Anything less than full inclusion is unacceptable. Accordingly, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (END) as currently proposed, cannot be accepted, supported or promoted by Indiana Equality.

It has become evident that adding LGBT persons to local and state civil rights laws is not only possible but crucial. Adding only the right to employment at the Federal level will do little to protect the civil rights of all citizens.

Adding LGBT persons to local and state civil rights laws is crucial. But that doesn’t preclude going ahead with laws that address employment issues on a national level. ENDA does not — as Indiana Equality and other anti-gay groups claim — produces a new level of segregation. The act simply bans employment based on sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. Which means that straight people are protected from discrimination by their gay employers.

If that’s not inclusion, then I don’t know what is.

This is extremely important legislation. People really are being fired and encountering other forms of employment discrimination solely because of their sexual orientation. Transgender people are believed to need these protections more than anyone else. This is real legislation aimed at solving a real problem.

IE says they are doing this because they want a more comprehensive civil rights bill. Fine. Let’s begin laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive bill now and maybe we’ll get one in the next five or ten years. But let’s not, in the meantime, cap the knees on an important piece of legislation that lawmakers are prepared to vote on this year!

But Indiana Equality has put itself fully in league with Focus On the Family, Family Research Councils, and all other anti-gay groups who will latch onto IE’s statement and run with it. See? Even gay groups don’t want this. IE’s game is a complete betrayal on one of the more important pieces of pro-equality legislation to enter Congress.

[Hat tip: Bil Browning]

Update: IE’s link appears to have moved. I’ve updated the post to re-link to IE’s statement again. It does not, however appear to be a permanent link. Therefore I’m copying the statement below.

Click here to read Indiana Equality’s statement

Obama To Extend Minimal “Partner Benefits” To Federal Employees

The Advocate has a very brief mention that President Barack Obama will sign a presidential memorandum tomorrow at 5:45 pm EDT to provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. He is scheduled to make a few brief remarks following the signing.

Update: When I first posted this, the Advocate story only had two paragraphs, the first and the last one.  This part wasn’t part of the article yet:

The White House press office declined to detail which benefits would be included, but people familiar with the legal obstacles posed by the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, said health benefits are not likely to be a part of the package. The Lieberman-Baldwin Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, a bi-cameral bill that was introduced last month, will still need to be passed by Congress in order for full benefits to be extended to domestic partners of federal workers.

“Our analysis has been that it will take an act of Congress for the full suite of benefits such as health benefits and retirement benefits to be provided for same-sex couples and families,” said Leonard Hirsch, president of Federal Globe: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Employees of the Federal Government. Hirsch said the executive branch has the authority to extend certain other benefits through departments and agencies, such as providing relocation costs for partners of federal employees.

Really? Relocation expenses? You’ve got to be kidding me. Health and retirement benefits are the most important part of any benefits plan. This one is practically useless — and a cruel joke at that, given the events of the past few days. If this is supposed to be a sop that the Obama administration is throwing to LGBT employees, it’s a pretty limp one.

I’ve now updated the title of this post to put “Partner Benefits” in scare quotes where they belong.

Update: There’s more. President Obama will be signing a memorandum, not an executive order. Which means that it will only be in effect while Obama is in office. LGBT advocates are, shall we say, underwhelmed:

The executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a large state-based gay rights group, Alan Van Capelle, greeted today’s announcement sarcastically.

“Welcome to 1999,” he told POLITICO. “How revolutionary of the White House to give benefits to same-sex couples, when two-thirds of conservative Wall Street are already doing it. What an achievement.”

“It’s just one of the things that should have been done in January,” Van Capelle, who was among those taking his name off the Biden event, said, calling for a “comprehensive strategy.” “If the President makes the announcement tomorrow, it will still fall short of what LGBT people are expecting from this administration.”

Baldwin, Polis Statements On DOJ’s DOMA Brief

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Jared Polis (D-CO), two of the three openly gay representatives in Congress, have released statements reacting to the Justice Department’s brief defending the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act.” First up, Rep. Baldwin (no link):

Last week the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.  I was profoundly disappointed by this action, particularly coming from this administration.  I still take President Obama at his word that he is committed to the repeal of DOMA.  I also recognize that he cannot do it alone.  Congress has the responsibility on its shoulders to pass legislation that would give the opportunity to the President to keep his word and ensure that all married people, including those in same-sex marriages, enjoy the same rights under federal law.”

Rep. Polis:

I was shocked and disappointed to learn that President Obama chose to defend DOMA in federal court, especially given his campaign promise to call for a full repeal of DOMA. My sadness turned to outrage when I read the Justice Department\’s brief that not only defended this hurtful law but seemed to embrace it. Comparing my loving relationship with my partner, Marlon, to incest was unconscionable coming from a president who has called for change.

Since this filing, I have called on the President to issue a statement or give any sign that would clarify his position and am disappointed in his lack of reply.

I am a proud Democrat, as are many in the GLBT community, and I believe we must hold our leaders accountable.  The Obama Administration made a HUGE mistake in the DOMA brief. If they keep making mistakes like this, they risk losing the support of the GLBT community forever, although I do not believe we are at that point yet.

President Obama needs to honor his promise to repeal this law and end its needlessly divisive and harmful impact on our nation.  I again call on him to work with us in Congress to help pass legislation, ending this hateful and divisive law.

As the New York Times editorialized yesterday, “busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights.”

A statement from Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is conspicuously missing.

Reid: DADT Repeal May Happen “This Congress”

That would be sometime between now and 2010. According to The Advocate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid clarified his remarks from yesterday:

“We do not have a DADT bill introduced in the Senate yet, but a number of senators are working on a bipartisan approach to get DADT repealed,” Senator Reid said in a statement Tuesday. “We would welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on repeal so as to provide clear guidance on what the president would like to see and when. With presidential leadership and direction, I believe we can find the time to get repeal done in this Congress. We need all the troops we can get right now.”

Reid’s comments are the first intimations from congressional leadership on a time frame for accomplishing repeal, and are in line with those made earlier this year by Rep. Barney Frank.

In this statement, Reid still appears to be waiting for the President to take the lead, while the President has been putting the ball firmly in Congress’ court. But this is better than yesterday’s statement, with Reid suggesting that he was waiting for Obama to issue a Stop Loss order, something that Obama has refused to do.

Threat Assessment

This past weekend was Los Angeles’ gay pride parade and festival, Christopher Street West. And police presence was abundant.

Dozens of officers from various departments marched in the parade (accompanied the LA Chief of Police) and dozens more Sheriff’s Deputies were present to control traffic, keep the parade route clear, and be a general visible presence of order.

But I noticed something unusual this year. Some deputies seemed to be wearing bullet proof vests.

So I asked a deputy, “Why are you wearing vests? Are you concerned that gay folks are going to be a threat?”

And he responded, “No. It’s not the gays we’re concerned about. It’s those knuckleheads”.

And then I realized that the only deputies wearing protective gear were those lingering around the nine street preachers that had shown up to protest the parade.

In a time of increased violence from extremists, it’s nice to see a police force taking the threat against our lives seriously.

The Ensign Affair

John Ensign with his wife Darlene at a 2005 Las Vegas charity event. (Photos by Marian Umhoefer/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

On 2004, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) supported the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which was an attempt to write discrimination of gays and lesbians into the U.S. Constitution. This is what he said from the Senate floor:

“Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation.”

The sanctity of the born-again Senator’s own marriage didn’t last so long. Ensign has now admitted that he had an affair between December 2007 and August 2008 with a woman who worked for both his re-election campaign and his Battleborn political action committee. To make matters worse, the New York Times reports that the woman’s husband had worked on Ensign’s Senate staff. MSNBC is reporting that Ensign is telling fellow Senators that he’s coming forward to head off an extortion attempt by his former mistress. Politico reports that it’s the mistress’s husband who was trying to shake Ensign down.

Ensign demanded Sen. Larry Craig’s resignation in September 2007 over Craig’s arrest for soliciting sexual favors in a Minnesota airport public men’s room. He also called for President Bill Clinton’s resignation during the Monica Lewinsky scandal while running for the Senate in 1998. No word yet on whether Ensign plans on resigning, or if he’s going to relinquish his chairmanship of the powerful GOP Policy Committee. Darlene Ensign, like Larry Craig’s wife, is standing by her man.

Mormons v. Marriage Equality

In an article in Time Magazine, David Van Biema discusses the unique pressures and theological beliefs that led to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) contributing half the funds and nearly all of the manpower behind Proposition 8’s drive to remove civil marriage rights from same-sex couples.

Prop 8 constituted a kind of perfect political storm of theology, demographics and organization. At the Alameda Meeting House last June (as at other Mormon churches statewide), a letter from Monson and his counselors advised believers to “do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time.” A string of Protect Marriage coalition meetings followed. They never occurred on LDS property, but they were overwhelmingly Mormon in attendance and sought Mormon support. Alaina Stewart, a church member, was asked to employ a list of “who in the ward we thought could contribute. We’d call and say, ‘We’re asking you to give such and such an amount,'” she says.

Some declined… But the general authorities in Salt Lake City increased the pressure. A broadcast to all churches outlined the pro-8 ground campaign, with titles like “Thirty People in Each Ward” and “More than Four Hours per Week.” Craig Teuscher, the Alameda ward’s regional stake president, reiterated in church the seriousness of Monson’s request to congregants.

The new push for the proposition had a rational side: the church claimed that the legalization of gay marriage would threaten its tax-exempt status if it refused to perform gay nuptials. (Most legal scholars disagree.) But belief in Monson’s supernatural connection also played a big role. Says Stewart: “The Prophet’s telling us to stand up. When he speaks, you’re realizing that there may be things that I don’t see.” Asks Gayle Teuscher, the stake president’s wife: “If I believe that the Prophet is a true prophet of God and disregard his counsel, what does that say about my belief in God?”

Secure in their own self-defined moral superiority, Mormons were shocked and surprised to find that gay people confronted them after the election. And in progressive parts of the state they experienced a reaction they didn’t expect, the response of neighbors who now viewed them as one might view a racist or other bigot.

Three months after the election, she says, “I don’t feel quite the same way about our community.” She felt frozen out of conversations among other parents. “You think, This will go away. But it doesn’t seem to. I think about my kids in school,” she says. “I want them to be accepted, to feel it’s O.K. to be different.”

As Californians go into another round of voting on marriage equality either in 2010 or 2012, individual Mormons throughout the state will have to determine whether they are willing to heed the call of their Prophet to donate tens of millions of dollars and countless manhours in continuing a high-profile battle against the rights of their neighbors. And they will need to consider what this could cost them.

Gay leadership has changed. And under fresh leadership, gay activists will be perfectly willing to publically portray the LDS Church as an oppressive religious bully seeking to impose its peculiar views about Celestial Marriage on gay Christians and non-believers. And individual Mormons may well find that they will be perceived as haters, bigots, and opponents of freedom and equality.

In Today’s Army, Neo-Nazis Are In But LGBT People Are Out

Iraq veteran Forrest Fogarty sailed through recruitment despite his neo-Nazi tattoos (Photo: Matt Kennard/Salon)

This is what is so particularly galling about the foot-dragging and finger-pointing going on between President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid over repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” While more than two hundred American servicemembers have been discharged from the armed forces in a time of war since the start of the Obama administration simply for being honest about who they are, neo-Nazis — complete with neo-Nazi tattoos and criminal records — are sailing right on through.  This is Forrest Fogarty. He decided to become a Nazi at the age of fourteen:

For the next six years, Fogarty flitted from landscaping job to construction job, neither of which he’d ever wanted to do. “I was just drinking and fighting,” he says. He started his own Nazi rock group, Attack, and made friends in the National Alliance, at the time the biggest neo-Nazi group in the country. It has called for a “a long-term eugenics program involving at least the entire populations of Europe and America.”

But the military ran in Fogarty’s family. His grandfather had served during World War II, Korea and Vietnam, and his dad had been a Marine in Vietnam. At 22, Fogarty resolved to follow in their footsteps. “I wanted to serve my country,” he says.

Army regulations prohibit soldiers from participating in racist groups, and recruiters are instructed to keep an eye out for suspicious tattoos (PDF: 188 KB/25 pages). Before signing on the dotted line, enlistees are required to explain any tattoos. At a Tampa recruitment office, though, Fogarty sailed right through the signup process. “They just told me to write an explanation of each tattoo, and I made up some stuff, and that was that,” he says. Soon he was posted to Fort Stewart in Georgia, where he became part of the 3rd Infantry Division. [Hyperlink in the original]

Fogarty’s ex-girlfriend even tried to disrupt his military career by sending photos of him at Nazi rallies and performing in his band. The military brought him before a commission and he was asked to explain himself. But despite the photographic evidence, he denied the charges and the commission refused to take any further action. He went on to serve as a military policeman in Iraq, where he learned to add yet another group to his long list of people to hate: Arabs. “Them and the Jews are just disgusting people as far as I’m concerned,” he told Salon’s Matt Kennard.

Conservative talk radio and Fox News howled with protest when a Homeland Security assessment on right-wing extremism warned about a very tiny minority of military veterans joining extremist groups after leaving the military (PDF: 2MB/10 pages). Pundits demanded — and got — an apology from Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano. But all of that attention ignored the fact that in 2005, the Defense Department concluded that the military had become a training ground for these very same extremists (PDF: 672KN136 pages):

Effectively, the military has a “don\’t ask, don\’t tell” policy pertaining to extremism. If individuals can perform satisfactorily, without making their extremist opinions overt through words or actions that violate policy, reflect poorly on the Armed Forces, or disrupt the effectiveness and order of their units, they are likely to be able to complete their contracts.

Except there isn’t a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with respect to extremism — at least not in a way that LGBT servicemembers would recognize it. The “Don’t Ask” part of the anti-gay policy is routinely violated by military investigators. Many LGBT servicemembers were identified via their use of LGBT web sites, yet the mlitary doesn’t do any sort of organized internet screening for supremacists among Nazi or Klan websites and forums. They also don’t follow-up when presented with evidence that a servicemember is a member of a Nazi or Klan-style organization.

Furthermore, right-wing extremists routinely flaunt the “Don’t Tell” part of the policy with no repercussions. Fogarty revealed that other members of his outfit knew about his Nazi affiliations, but it just became something of a joke among fellow soldiers and commanding officers. A police officer in Fayetteville, North Carolina who used to be a paratrouper at nearby Fort Bragg said this:

[Hunter] Glass says white supremacists now enjoy an open culture of impunity in the armed forces. “We’re seeing guys with tattoos all the time,” he says. “As far as hunting them down, I don’t see it. I’m seeing the opposite, where if a white supremacist has committed a crime, the military stance will be, ‘He didn’t commit a race-related crime.'”

Fogarty left the military in 2005 with an honorable discharge.

A 2008 FBI report on White supremacists in the Military (PDF: 118 KB/14 pages) found:

Military experience—ranging from failure at basic training to success in special operations forces—is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement. FBI reporting indicates extremist leaders have historically favored recruiting active and former military personnel for their knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and their access to weapons and intelligence in preparation for an anticipated war against the federal government, Jews, and people of color. FBI cases also document instances of active duty military personnel having volunteered their professional resources to white supremacist causes.

…A review of FBI white supremacist extremist cases from October 2001 to May 2008 identified 203 individuals with confirmed or claimed military service active in the extremist movement at some time during the reporting period. This number is minuscule in comparison with the projected US veteran population of 23,816,000 as of 2 May 2008, or the 1,416,037 active duty military personnel as of 30 April 2008. It is also a small percentage of an estimated US white supremacist extremist population, which, based on FBI investigations, currently numbers in the low thousands. However, the prestige which the extremist movement bestows upon members with military experience grants them the potential for influence beyond their numbers. Most extremist groups have some members with military experience, and those with military experience often hold positions of authority within the groups to which they belong.

From the FBI report, "White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11." Click to enlarge.

Fifty-eight of the 2003 individuals identified by the FBI were members of the National Alliance, the group where Fogerty got his start before joining the military. Another 44 of the 203 individuals were members of the National Socialist Movement, the same group which protested at PrideFest in Springfield, Missouri over the weekend. The FBI report describes the National Socialist Movement as being relatively stable and cohesive. They have also been very successful with their strategic decision to target returning Iraq war veterans for recruitment:

In contrast to the NA [National Alliance] and other white supremacist groups, the NSM—although not immune to factionalism—enjoyed a greater degree of stability during the post-9/11 period and benefited from the membership exoduses of other struggling organizations. This relative stability included a sustained campaign to recruit current and former military personnel overseen by a respected figure in the extremist movement and unverified former Marine, who left leadership roles in the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and Aryan Nations (AN) to become a Colonel in the NSM and Director of its “Stormtroopers” (the NSM\’s security force) from 2002 until his retirement in December 2007. The NSM\’s military structure also adds to its recruitment success by offering a familiar organizational context for veterans, including a system of rank that serves as an incentive for joining the group. In addition, NSM literature has outlined the development of a Special Projects Division consisting of “Werewolf Units” intended for special military operations and with a membership favoring those with military backgrounds.

According to sensitive and reliable source reporting in October 2006, the NSM received a number of queries from active duty Army and Marine personnel stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan expressing interest in joining the organization or inquiring about chapters located near domestic US military bases. This report followed—and was consistent with—December 2005 source reporting on the NSM stressing the need to place units close to military bases nationwide in order to recruit military personnel. Whether as a result of group recruitment efforts or self-recruitment by active military personnel sympathetic to white supremacist extremist causes, FBI information derived from reliable, multiple sources documents white supremacist extremist activity occurring at some military bases.

Read the whole article by Salon’s Matt Kennard. It’s an amazing eye-opener. It describes supremacist leaders encouraging members to enlist in the military so that they can be trained at taxpayer expense for what they see as a coming “race war,” which is central to their beleifs.

If Not Now…?

As I said earlier, the age old question — If not now, when? — is no longer a rallying cry but a taunt to the Obama administration on it’s poor handling of LGBT issues. The New York Times joins the taunting with an editorial about the Obama administration’s bungling over its insulting DOMA brief:

The best approach of all would have been to make clear, even as it defends the law in court, that it is fighting for gay rights. It should work to repeal “don\’t ask, don\’t tell,” the law that bans gay men and lesbians in the military from being open about their sexuality. It should push hard for a federal law banning employment discrimination. It should also work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress.

The administration has had its hands full with the financial crisis, health care, Guantánamo Bay and other pressing matters. In times like these, issues like repealing the marriage act can seem like a distraction — or a political liability. But busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights.

Rachel Maddow and Howard Dean: Obama’s DOMA Defense Is “A Huge Mistake”