Obama Heckled By 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' Opponents

LOS ANGELES -- Opponents of the 'don't ask don't tell' policy on gays in the military interrupted President Barack Obama with heckling at a Los Angeles fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer.

The protesters shouted to ask Obama what he is going to do about the policy, which prohibits gays from serving openly in the military. Multiple times, the shouts grew so insistent that Obama responded.

WATCH Obama stop to address the protesters twice, first at around the two-minute mark:

The president said that he supports overturning "don't ask don't tell" and suggested the protesters should be yelling at the people who don't.

Obama has called on Congress to lift the ban, and military officials are examining how to do that.

Obama also told the crowd that Boxer opposed "don't ask don't tell" in the first place.

The full pool report of the event appears below:

POTUS took the stage at 6:13 p.m. local time. Audio again is not the greatest. He calls out names of several California government officials, each of whom draw applause.

At 6:17, several protesters among the crowd interrupted POTUS' speech, expressing anger over the slow progress on repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay service members. The crowd tried to hush them. "What about don't ask, don't tell?" one protester shouted.

POTUS yelled back "we are going to do that."

POTUS kept talking, increasing his volume to speak over the protesters. The crowd then erupted into chants of "Yes, we can."

He later said, "we are going to repeal don't ask, don't tell."

Your pooler has learned the protesters are from GetEQUAL, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender group that also orchestrated protests outside the fundraiser. The group was also behind a protest last month at the White House, where activists Lt. Dan Choi and Capt. James Pietrangelo handcuffed themselves to a gate.

"IT's time for equality for all Americans!" another protester yelled at 9:22. Obama said, "can I just say again Barbara and I are supportive of repealing Don't ask dont tell." But protester keeps yelling. Bringing Obama's remarks to a halt. The crowd responds again by "shouting yes we can!" over the protesters.

"Be quiet!" someone yells.

1 of 13

1 of 14

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

President Barack Obama shakes hands at a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., at the California Science Center in Los Angeles, Monday, April 19, 2010.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Plastic Bag Ban In LA Approved By City Council, Paper Bags To Be 10 Cents (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

Obama Bill: Newport Beach Charges President $35,000 For Added Security Presence (VIDEO)

Manson Family Recordings Made By Charles 'Tex' Watson Sought By LAPD (VIDEO)

The Abbey Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Gay Marriage Is Legal (VIDEO)

Itzcoatl Ocampo, California Homeless Killer And Former Marine, Faces Death Penalty (PHOTOS)

Marijuana Bales Found Floating In Dana Point Harbor In Orange County, Calif. (VIDEO)

President Barack Obama shakes hands at a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., at the California Science Center in Los Angeles, Monday, April 19, 2010.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

comments(7747)

featured comment

Reply | Share

HuffPost Blogger Nelson Montana said on 20 Tuesday 2010 am30 8:42 am: One would think that some gay groups are more interested in "making a scene" than actually accomplishing something -- as hard to believe as that may be. Rule number one in any negotiation: Don't argue with the guy who's trying to give you what you want.

Total comments: 7747 | Post a Comment

1 of 14

Rate This Slide

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Current Top 5 Slides

loading...

Choose your Top 5 Slides

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[tmo7734]

01:11 AM on 05/09/2010

Although I'm an Obama supporter, on this issue, the President deserves all the heckling he's getting. On the campaign trail, Obama's attitude about "don't ask, don't tell" was much different. It doesn't take 1 1/2 years to correct a policy that clearly discriminates against a group of Americans who are willing to serve this country. Israel admits gays and their fierce military can stand up against ANY country, including the U.S.

[mwn]

10:29 AM on 04/24/2010

you just can't please everyone...gays have been discriminated against for a long long time...Obama's been in office for less than 1 year and he's done more to help their cause than any other president...and yet people thinks he's going too slow...Republicans say "NO" to any change...what do you think the far right republicans will say about gay right advocates..."IT"S AGAINST THEIR RELIGION" - "THE BIBLE TELLS US SO" - AMERICANS DO NOT WANT IT - like republicans are the ones that have tried so many years to help gays get equal rights...
Get real...Republicans are on their way out...problem is they believe their own lies so much they just don't realize it yet...

[hibeam]

11:48 PM on 04/21/2010

I don’t think I could possibly enjoy this support tour more than I do. Prez Obama trying to make himself heard above an army of hecklers. Barbra in the background looking like she is having a stroke. Priceless stuff. Please more, more, more. The imagery is just beautiful.

[jspkim]

05:50 PM on 04/21/2010

Obama can actually issue an executive order to suspend discharges NOW.

"...In May 2009, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara[40] concluded that, while "Legislative action is still required to permanently remove 'don’t ask, don’t tell', the President CAN ISSUE an Executive Order to SUSPEND homosexual conduct discharges."[41]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

[murphthesurf3]

02:29 PM on 04/21/2010

Just to diminish the mythology of the Executive Order so much promoted here.

The National Archives of the Federal Register provides this info:

Definition: Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.

Frequency
Obama 32 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html
Bush 291 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush.html
Clinton 364 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton.html
George HW Bush 166 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/bush.html
Ronald Reagan 381 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/reagan.html
Jimmy Carter 320 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/carter.html

AN EO WOULD NOT FIT IN THE AREA OF REPEAL OF DADT. The president has chosen not to act to force the Congress to act. An EO that has the effect of a repeal would result in a court and congressional battle that would delay the matter for years. Instead he chose to act through his Sec. of Defense whose directive IS IN PRACTICE an order NOT to pursue any further actions in this matter AND to place any ongoing actions on hold UNLESS they are the result of complaints related to inappropriate behavior by a member of the armed forces.

[jasonmlk11]

01:59 PM on 04/21/2010

Ed Rendell said we have to ratchet this up and not worry about the polls. So lets do it people!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575193921155425154.html

[wxw101]

01:58 PM on 04/21/2010

i thought they did a better job screening the audience to make sure they were properly orchestrated and color coded for maximum affect on the weak minded.

I guess there is always one who slips through and ruins the "stage" value of these productions.

[jasonmlk11]

01:52 PM on 04/21/2010

Ed Rendell said we need to ratchet this up and not worry about the polls:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575193921155425154.html

[1088]

10:54 AM on 04/21/2010

If I had to choose a group of people to protect my life, a would choose the teabaggers to do it. Reason? They stick with you through good or bad, unlike the Liberals and Progressives who would stab you in your gut when things are bleak. As much as I don't believe in the teabaggers mission, I do admire their passion.

[wxw101]

02:00 PM on 04/21/2010

Well said. You and I might disagree on politics, but they are not a fickle bunch - pretty loyal to the end.

[GlennInVenice]

07:51 PM on 05/07/2010

I believe that you will find that many liberals stay true to what they believe to be the right side of an issue, not a person. Remaining loyal to a person, particularly a politician, sets you up to be manipulated and used BIG TIME!

When Obama acts like a leader and moves us in the right direction on an issue, he has my support. Only then..

[Bud111]

09:44 AM on 04/21/2010

Wishful Thinking -- If only Dennis Kucinich were President, (Revisited)

1. The USA would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. We would be on our way to Single Payer.
3. Unemployment would be much, much lower.
4. Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be gone by now!

[1088]

10:59 AM on 04/21/2010

If Kucinich were President, WE WOULD HAVE NOTHING TODAY, NO, NADA, ZIPPO, ZERO bill pass, period!! Because of the make up of the Senate, we have blue dogs, and all the dogs there are, and the President has to compromise and a realist of how things works. Kucinich reminds me of the Right Wing, my way or the high way. That attitude doesn't get you any where or anything!

[TakePenguin]

07:46 PM on 04/30/2010

You don't really know that. If we had a leader instead of someone who let congress drive then maybe we might have a stronger bill. The only time the president put the screws on anyone was on Dennis Kucinich; not the blue dogs, and not the republicans. He sat on his hands for months while the bill became weaker and weaker. Keep in mind he gave the public option only a small lip service, when in reality he wanted to dump it in the trash from the start. We all know about the back door deals Obama made with the Hospitals and insurance companies; can you honestly say that Kucinich would have done the same?

[GlennInVenice]

07:55 PM on 05/07/2010

Well given the HUGE VOLUME of bad legislation passed in the past 12 years or so, I honestly think we would have been better off with NOTHING, NADA, ZIPPO, ZERO than with the sum of the results of our corporatist legislature.

Even the "health care reform" bill gives us "progress" by increasing the national debt so that the insurance companies, who actively work to deny us expensive procedures, see increased profits. One step forward, two steps back. That is change but not progress.

Seriously. Better off without them.

Think about that.

[jasonmlk11]

01:57 PM on 04/21/2010

and death and destruction everywhere

[murphthesurf3]

09:38 AM on 04/21/2010

To all who say the President should just issue an Executve Order to overturn DADT.

Executive Orders are a bit of a legal fiction. There is no Constitutional provision that explicitly permits Executive Orders. Article II, Section 1, Cluse 1 and Article II, Section 3, Clause 4 call upon the President to execute laws as passed by the Congress and to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Executive Orders have been used to help direct officers of the Executive Branch. Orders are made in pursuance of Acts of Congress to ensure the proper enforcement of the Law.

What you are suggestion is that the President REPEAL a law. Only two executive order have been vacated by the courts. One by Truman involving the integration of the armed forces. The other by Bill Clinton involving government contracts with companies employing strike breakers. Both were vacated as efforts to repeal standing law without due process.

Obama had 2 options: Suspend gay discharges under federal law (10 U.S.C. §12305) to retain any member of the military he believes is essential to national security.

Or he could order the military to stop issuing "findings." The president can order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality.

It is the second option which the DOD has effectively chosen.

Obama chose the second to compel Congress to deal with the matter, avoiding legal challenges in the courts or an effort by Congress to overturn his order.

[JohnDewey]

10:27 AM on 04/21/2010

This endless debate about the efficacy & legality of Executive Orders is a red herring.

First, it's a discussion made moot by the fact that Presidents are using Executive Orders and signing statements with increasing frequency, not less. Whatever you or I think of them, the reality is that the men who actually have power are using them. We can say that Bush didn't have the Constitutional authority to wage war against Iraq (as I believe), but it's academic given that the war is happening and Bush isn't on trial or in jail.

More to the point is that the President is unwilling to use an Executive Order in this case, even simply as a stopgap measure against more firings. This is undeniable; the President could, at any time, put a halt to the discharge of any individuals whilst the Congress puts a law in place that better reflects the Constitution. He could help those who are being harmed in the short term while Congress fixes the law for the long term.

An action by the President in this way would not only go a long way toward restoring the trust of his supporters, it would be quite commensurate with our traditions, not unlike the power of pardon & clemency that we give the Chief Executive.

[murphthesurf3]

12:24 PM on 04/21/2010

Part 1.

You are wrong about the increasing use of Executive Orders. The National Archives of the Federal Register provides this info:

Definition: Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.

Frequency
Obama 32 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html
Bush 291 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush.html
Clinton 364 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton.html
George HW Bush 166 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/bush.html
Ronald Reagan 381 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/reagan.html
Jimmy Carter 320 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/carter.html

Carter had more EO's in 4 years than George W. Bush had in 8. Clinton had more than Bush. Reagan had more than Bush.

Note the definition. EO's are used to manage the operation of the Federal Government. They interpret standing law.

The wars in Iraq/Afghanistan was approved by a resolution for the use of force by the Congress without a formal declaration of war. And that is a whole other matter.

[murphthesurf3]

12:24 PM on 04/21/2010

Part 2.

DID YOU READ MY POST. The president has chosen not to act to force the Congress to act. An EO such as you suggest would result in a court and congressional battle that would delay the repeal. Instead he chose to act through his Sec. of Defense whose directive IS IN PRACTICE an order NOT to pursue any further actions in this matter AND to place any ongoing actions on hold UNLESS they are the result of complaints related to inappropriate behavior by a member of the armed forces.

Your attempt to draw a link between the EO you suggest and the constitutionally mandated power of pardon and clemency indicates that you do not understand what an EO is.

[1088]

11:50 AM on 04/21/2010

The President can't use an executive order, because it was passed by Congress, and it has to repeal by Congress. There are protocol for changing this in the Military too. All Three things has to come together.

[murphthesurf3]

12:25 PM on 04/21/2010

You are correct. Maybe you could have a chat with JohnDewey.

[jsrl317]

06:31 AM on 04/21/2010

Weak 4$$ Obama shows up in a new suit after the Health Care debacle. I wish he'd get some stones and keep them!

Repeal DADT, just DO IT!

[Jtt]

05:48 AM on 04/21/2010

What do you think we are doing - why dont you go police that nightmarish corrupt pile of ignorance you call a party and let us fix ours.

[Jtt]

05:49 AM on 04/21/2010

this was in response to:

FearlessFreep I'm a Fan of FearlessFreep I'm a fan of this user 71 fans permalink
photo

If Bush had done the same thing, liberals would have denounced it.

[1088]

05:42 AM on 04/21/2010

I love my President!!

[Kevins]

03:00 AM on 04/21/2010

Reactions to this post sure prove one thing:
A lot of people don't like gay Americans. No wonder Republicans have always been sucessful using anti-gay feeling as a wedge issue in the Democratic party.

Thankfully, President Obama isn't one of them. I think he'll continue to work for civil rights, and fulfill his promises, including rolling back DADT.