Murphy (D-PA) special session on repealing DADT interrupted.

[Scam of God]

I mostly have a link to somewhere hosting the C-SPAN clip of the interruption. I'll post quotes from various bits.

Link

Murphy gave three reasons for this session: 1. It is “vital” to national security that we repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 2. It is “doing right by our taxpayers.” $1.3 billion has been spent to throw these people out of the military. 3. DADT goes against “the very fabric of what makes our country the greatest country on Earth”: the fact that we are all created equal.

He has 176 Co-Sponsors in the House.

Walz of MN called DADT 'Archaic and outdated', and pledged to be in this every step.

Capps of CA calls it discriminatory and way past due to be tossed.

Polis of CO is speaking on the report on the efficacy of it recently.

Woosley of CA saw it passed in her freshman year, it's time to see it gone.

Quigley of IL spoke of a lesbian discharged, who had said Integrity is a core Army value, and her integrity got her canned.

It goes on, but you get the drift. Lots of compelling arguments went on. Then came Gohmert, R-TX.

Social experimentaion, etc. Then he goes off topic to rant.

About the Hate Crimes bill being on the Defense-Re-Authorization:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The last bit is what confused me. "Giving up liberties for security leads to Hitler" means we shouldn't repeal DADT? What liberty are we giving up? The liberty to be required to keep homosexuals out of the military? Am I missing something here? Because that's even worse than the usual "liberty to oppress" doublespeak I'm used to.

This is pretty typical of a nationalist conservative trying to use the rhetoric of freedom and libertarianism and failing miserably. Because the system now in place results in a net negative amount of liberty: the military deprives homosexuals their freedom to serve their nation as best they can. It does not protect liberty to exclude a minority from public service, but stifles their own freedom. But Mr. Gohmert, who clearly pines away for the days when Ronald Reagan was mistaken for anything remotely approaching libertarian, has a clearly befuddled concept of the issue.

[Smash255]

This is a perfect example of why the GOP is gone in the northeast.  Gohmert being a perfect example of what the party has turned into, southern nutters.

[paul718]

Embarrassing.

[TeePee4Prez]

This is a perfect example of why the GOP is gone in the northeast.  Gohmert being a perfect example of what the party has turned into, southern nutters.

You still have that albatross of Pete King.  I'm still a little nervous about Joe Sestak's seat going to Pat Meehan.  Tom Corbett has a substantial lead for the PA Gubernatorial race over all Dems, including the conservative western PA pol Jack Wagner.  I wouldn't say "gone" just yet.

Now if only Keystone Phil were here......

Sorry Smash.  Sometimes I do have to play Devil's Advocate with you.

That said I think Bryan Lentz will win PA-7 over Pat Meehan.  I think the PA Gov will tighten considerably once the Dems get more name rec, but I have to give Corbett the edge for now.

[minionofmidas]

No, Gohmert is saying people have always been willing to give up their liberties, that's the way it's supposed to be, and any policy to make them not giving up any liberties or make them not willing to is against God's Will because it always has been thus.