Here’s an excerpt from his letter to President Obama.  You can read the full thing and get a bit more information at AMERICAblog Gay:

Dear Mr. President,

My name is Mohammad Abdollahi and I am an undocumented immigrant.  Two months ago I made history.   On May 17, according to the New York Times, I become one of the first undocumented students, along with two others, to “have directly risked deportation in an effort to prompt Congress to take up [the DREAM Act].” Risking deportation was no small act for me. Not only did I risk being forcibly removed from United States, the only country I know as my home, to Iran, where I don’t know the culture or the language. I also happen to be gay. In Iran, people like me are tortured and executed. I am still at risk of deportation and execution, right now, and I will continue to be at risk until the DREAM Act is passed.

I took this risk because I had no choice. For all of my life, my future has been held hostage by politicians, both Democrat and Republican, who have used me as a political football. My family immigrated to the United States from Iran when I was just three years old. Undocumented immigrants are often told, “get in line!” without knowing that many of us were at one point in this infamous line. My family was “in line” until an immigration attorney miscalculated the processing fee for an H1-B visa by $20 dollars and our application was rejected. The second attorney my family hired to fix the application spent his time bickering with the old attorney instead of informing my parents that they only had 60 days to appeal our rejected application. The deadline came and went and we became undocumented.

I’ve known I was undocumented for a long time, but I still graduated from high school. While working to pay out-of-state tuition, I was able to earn my Associate’s degreein Health and Human Services from Washtenaw College. When I had enough credits, I applied to Eastern Michigan University. I handed a counselor there my transcript and he said, “Mohammad, you are the kind of student we want at this university.” He then handed me an acceptance letter. I was in.

I looked at this letter and thought of my mother. With this piece of paper, I could go to my mother and tell her that she didn’t have to stay up late crying anymore. She didn’t have to blame herself anymore. She hadn’t done her children wrong by bringing them to this country. I could tell her it was all worth it. Then, the counselor brought back his supervisor, who told me that they could not accept me because I “needed to be in a line to get in”. The counselor then reached over his desk and took my acceptance letter from me.

The “DREAM Now Series: Letters to Barack Obama” is a social media campaign that launched Monday, July 19, to underscore the urgent need to pass the DREAM Act. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, S. 729, would help tens of thousands of young people, American in all but paperwork, to earn legal status, provided they graduate from U.S. high schools, have good moral character, and complete either two years of college or military service.  With broader comprehensive immigration reform stuck in partisan gridlock, the time is now for the White House and Congress to step up and pass the DREAM Act!

The “DREAM Now” letter series is inspired by a similar campaign started by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Every Monday and Wednesday DREAM-eligible youth will publish letters to the President, and each Friday there will be a DREAM wrap-up.  If you’re interested in getting involved or posting these stories on your site, please email Kyle de Beausset at kyle at citizenorange dot com.

Democrats allow themselves to be cast as weak on security every election cycle.  Sure, Hillary Clinton runs as a hawkish democrat who refuses to set a deadline for withdrawl, but no matter what, we’re all cast as weak on defense simply because we’re not in the NRA and think that maybe we should engage in talks before we engage in bombing (an oversimplification, but not by that much).  Here, once again, we’re casting ourselves as weak on military issues.  This may not be as significant as starting a war, but President Obama is also the Commander in Chief.  So he should command.  And everyone else in the armed forces should follow that lead, just like they promised.  Why are we looking for approval on a policy change that most people agree with?

Do we think some republicans will use this to their advantage come November?  Sure, if swift, just action were taken now and DADT were repealed, some candidates might face the issue in their reelections.  But frankly, punting it a year down the road just means that instead of the campaign attacks asking why did you support this “radical liberal agenda,”  it will be a legitimate issue of future legislative action.  It will be a campaign promise of (and for) the homophobes rather than a settled piece of policy that is just one more vote that has come and gone.

Barring any truly momentous events,  the 2010 election will be about jobs and the economy.  If President Obama were to announce today that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would not be enforced until Congress passed its repeal, soldiers would not stand up and leave the armed forces (and anyone who thinks they’re loyalty is that superficial, please stand up).  Further, there won’t be some mad rush of men and women in the armed forces coming out and putting on their rainbow camo.  They’d continue to do their jobs, and they wouldn’t have to hide.  They could openly talk about what most of their colleagues probably know.  The partners and husbands and wives of those soldiers could finally speak out about what they go through on a day to day basis and get the support that straight husbands and wives receive.  This doesn’t require a lot of political capital–especially if done through the Defense budget.  What it does require is an little bit of courage.

Now, an update for those who haven’t been following closely.

• Today the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing, featuring Secretary of Defense Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen.  Mullen’s opening remarks that he personally supports the repeal are below.
  

  “We have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals, and ours as institutions

• Based on the previous remarks of Sen. McCain, he should be open to voting for the repeal.
• Carl Levin gets a bit weak-kneed, thinking maybe a pause is better than repeal.
• The Pentagon is starting a year long commission, headed by  Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Army Gen. Carter Ham to look at how to “safely incorporate” openly gay soldiers into the armed forces.  There is also a 45-day review to look at ways to reduce discharges (citing third-party outings as a situation that could be reduced).  More from the AP here.
• Republicans are turning on Secretary Gates (that’s right, the Bush appointee), calling him an activist Secretary of Defense?
  

  Republicans on the panel accused Mr. Gates of usurping Congressional prerogatives by suggesting that the Pentagon commission would study how, not whether, to implement a repeal of the ban.

  “Your statement obviously is one which is clearly biased, without the view of Congress being taken into consideration,” said Sen. McCain, accusing the defense chief of trying to repeal the law “by fiat.”

More to come, but I’ll leave you with a few statements:

Statement from the Service Members Defense League.

We strongly applaud Sec. Gates supporting the President’s view that DADT needs to go. It’s a matter of when and how, he said, not if. We also strongly applaud Chairman Mullen who unambiguously personally supported gays and lesbians serving openly. The top military brass of the United States just laid out a roadmap for full repeal.

The statement of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Contact: Bethany Lesser (202) 224-3873

GILLIBRAND STATEMENT FOR SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARING ON “DON’T ASK DON’T TELL”

First Congressional Hearing Since Discriminatory Policy Was Established 17 Years Ago

Gillibrand Helping Lead  the Charge in the Senate to Immediately Repeal the Policy

Washington, D.C. – Today, as the Senate Armed Service Committee holds the first hearing on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy since it was first established 17 years ago, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand issued the following statement. Senator Gillibrand is helping lead  the charge in the Senate to repeal the unjust, harmful policy that undercuts the civil rights of some of America’s bravest men and women, and weakens America’s national security.

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, distinguished Members of the Committee; I appreciate your leadership in hosting this important hearing today.
James Madison once said, “Equal laws protecting equal rights… the best guarantee of loyalty & love of country.”

Lesbian and Gay servicemen and women have been serving in our armed forces bravely while being denied the full equality they deserve. Since 1993, more than 13,500 American troops have been discharged from the military under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), at an estimated cost of over $400 million. Those discharges include more than 800 specialists with skills deemed mission critical by the U.S. military, including at least 323 linguists, approximately 10% of foreign language speakers, 59 of which specialized in Arabic, and at least nine of which specialized in Farsi, the official language of Iran. Among these specialists were pilots, engineers, doctors, nurses, and combat medics, all of which the military has faced shortfalls of in recent years.

These brave Americans were not discharged because of poor performance, but rather because of their sexual orientation.

According to a recent study by the Williams Institute, an estimated 66,000 lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are serving in the US military. According to data provided by the Department of Defense, discharges under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps declined to 428 in 2009 from 619 the previous year. This represents a 65% drop since 2001, the highest number on record.

In a time of war, discharges have decreased, even as anecdotal evidence strongly suggests larger numbers of lesbian and gay service members are serving openly. Despite the current law, individual commanders are deciding to retain otherwise qualified personnel.

Why is this the case? Because the Armed Forces is experiencing shortfalls in several types of mission-critical personnel, especially in the midst of fighting ongoing wars, and is losing additional trained and highly qualified personnel under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It has been estimated that the U.S. military loses more than 4,000 gay and lesbian military personnel each year, which it would have otherwise retained, had the service members been able to be open about their sexual orientation, and that more than 40,000 recruits might join if the ban is lifted.  Commanders on the ground believe what many of us strongly believe-it’s time to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

In a January 2007 Op-Ed article published in The New York Times, General John M. Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the policy was enacted, stated that his opinion was that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. He argued that due to the U.S. military being stretched thin by its current deployments in the Middle East, the Armed Forces need to accept every American who is willing and able to serve. Last week I was proud to share another statement from General Shalikashvili, 1 of only 17 people in the country’s history to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calling for an end to this failed policy.  In his statement he said:

“When I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my support of the current policy was based on my belief that implementing a change in the rules would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders at the time.

“The concern among many at that time, was that letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was seen as a useful measure that allowed time to pass while our culture continued to evolve. The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. I believe that it has.”

Twenty-five foreign militaries now let gays serve openly, including our closest ally, Britain.  I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee and I am acutely aware that most of our allies – Israel, Britain, France, 22 of 26 NATO nations in all – allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly and I believe the American military should follow suit. At a time when our nation is fighting two wars, and with increased national security threats, we can ill afford this loss of personnel and talent in our national defense. Our military is the best in the world. Once gay and lesbian service members are allowed to serve openly, our military will still be the best in the world.

As we look at the path that has brought us to this hearing today, regarding how best to repeal the Don’t ask, Don’t Tell policy, I am reminded of several leaders in the fight to allow openly gay service members into the Armed Forces.

One is then West Point Cadet, Lt. Alexander Raggio. In his 2006 award winning thesis he stated:

“The military should abandon the false acceptance of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and allow the open service of homosexuals immediately.”

And he added, “Current policy cannot be rationally explained except as a reflection of the personal prejudices of those who create and enforce it and, rationalized by faulty logic and double standards.”

These steps towards equality are our duty.  I strongly believe that equality is an inalienable American right – and should not be ascribed based on gender or race, religion or sexual orientation or gender identity. America must lead by example when it comes to equality and justice.  Freedom from discrimination is a basic right that all Americans should enjoy. Lifting the ban on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not only necessary for realizing equality, but it’s necessary for ensuring that our armed forces remain the best in the world.

Pepe Johnson, a former Sergeant, U.S. Army sums up the moral imperative on why we have to change this policy. Every day this policy remains we ask these soldiers to lie about who they are, Pepe said  ”Honesty and integrity are everything in the army.  I felt if I was lying, I didn’t have it.  I wasn’t serving with integrity. I felt trapped. Lying is not the way of the Army — I felt I was violating regulation.

“During the three years I served I only wanted to be all I could be – to borrow the old recruiting slogan – but Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell forced me to be something other than what I was. And that’s not consistent with the Army’s Values: ‘Leaders are honest to others by not presenting themselves or their actions as anything other than what they are, remaining committed to the truth.’ (FM 6-22, Army Leadership) As long as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell exists, there is a hole in the integrity of the entire military.”

We must recognize that human dignity and respect are part and parcel of who we were as Americans – male or female, African American or Caucasian, Gay or Straight, Bisexual or Transgender.

We must ensure that our armed forces are fully prepared with the best resources we can muster.  Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a threat to our men and women in uniform and our national security. We cannot afford to handicap our efforts because of ignorance or hatred.

This policy is wrong for our national security and inconsistent with the moral foundation upon which our country was founded. It is critically important for this Congress to take up President Obama’s call to permanently end the ban on LGBT Americans serving in our armed services. We will strengthen America – both militarily and morally — by repealing this discriminatory policy.

A woman at the town hall asks softly: “I’ve heard that Sen. Obama is an
Arab.”

McCain quickly cuts the woman off.

“No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man and citizen,” McCain says. “He’s
not. Thank you.”

Can’t an arab be a decent family man (or woman) and a citizen?

I think this is interesting for two reasons.  I’m sure the McCain camp was not happy with the stories depicting his supporters and the crowds who come out for him as angry, crazy, xenophobes, and all around terrible human beings (which the Obama camp is smartly pushing).  I’d also bet that there was some discussion within the campaign as to whether you ignore this and hope that the press talk about something else (just not the economy), or if McCain pushes back.  The obvious upside to the defending Obama approach is it recalls the days when McCain was honorable.  The downside is that this becomes another story that highlights how hateful some of his supporters are.  Clearly they risked the downside and ultimately I think it will pay off as long as the next story isn’t about McCain being honorable while sending out Palin to rally the ignorant neo-nazi portion of the base.  Though, following up on my previous post on this, McCain may have just done the right thing.

Either way, I think videos like this do not play well for McCain.

“The day that Sen. Obama cast a vote to not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body let me tell you,” she said. “I would suggest Sen. Obama change shoes with me for just one day. I suggest he take a day and go watch our men and women deploying.”

UPDATE: An ad driving home McCain’s lack of support for veterans.  Both candidates miss votes, but the hypocrisy brings to mind something about stones in glass houses.

The three words that I take from this (that are most beneficial for Obama) are steady, competent, and level-headed.  (Certainly not a slogan, but three adjectives that are certainly reassuring.)

Overall, I think that this was an Obama victory, but not a landslide.  McCain never seemed senile or off his rocker, and Obama was clear and exuded confidence.  I normally think that speaking simply and clearly is vital, but in such unsettling times, I think a slightly more elaborate (and over the heads of most people–mine included) answers can be reassuring.  McCain seemed like he was trying to keep up and get a couple of good shots in, and Obama seemed like the grown up.

Not a landslide, but for McCain to really win this required far more than a tie.  McCain needs a game changer, and this wasn’t it.  One more shot, but I think it’d take more than 1 out of 3 to win.

10:26-I don’t get the talk of a second Holocaust that seem to be a Republican talking point (Palin has used it several times).  I get they are sucking up for the Jewish vote, but it seems like over the top hyperbole.  I don’t think it’s winning many votes.

10:13-Bomb Bomb Iran is NOT speaking softly.  Good point, Obama.  Obama’s position on attacking Al-Qaeda is what I think almost all Americans support.  I hope most hear that Obama isn’t saying invade.

McCain’s wandering while Obama speaks is REALLY odd.

9:49-I may be wrong, but I think McCain has referred to Obama as “that one” twice.  Not THE one, though. UPDATE: Ben Smith saw it and the Obama Camp saw it too.

9:41-Ironic McCain makes a jab about not answer questions.  Where was he during the VP debate?

9:37-McCain’s health care tax credit implements taxes on health care expenditures.  That is, for all intents and purposes, a tax increase.

9:35-When will McCain learn that laugh lines in debates where the audience can’t respond fall VERY flat.

9:33-Great moment talking about national service and sharing the burden that military families now carry alone.  Also good line to say it’s not fair to ask the teacher to tighten the belt, but not the CEO (paraphrase).

9:28-Great question about what we have to sacrifice.  McCain isn’t answering on the individual level–interesting he’s hitting defense spending.  Mentioning the overhead projector seems a little silly, but at least it’s not the bear-paternity joke.  Obama’s answer on scarifice and the lack of it after 9-11 is interesting, but it took him a bit too long to get to how individuals can help by making sacrifices.

McCain is right about exploring other energy sources.  Props for raising “tide power.”

9:23-Brokaw asked a forbidden follow up question…

9:22 McCain– “I have fought against excessive spending and outrageous.”  Want to finish that sentence?  Obama said that McCain would do exactly what he’s doing (accuse of big new spending plans).

John McCain appears to be wandering while Obama answers questions.

9:19- In response to a question about trusting either party, Obama said he understands the questioner’s cynicism.  Danger: too close to bitter.  Luckily McCain also used the “cynical” description.

9:17-Where is the money coming from to buy all these home loans?  Apparently a new idea.

9:12: I wish McCain had asked permission to call Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae by their first names.  Obama’s rebuttal to the Fannie/Freddie is pretty effective.  A nice pivot to “what’s important is how this impacts you.”

McCain is promoting renegiotiating mortgages based on current values, which–I believe–was George Soros’ plan (or R. Glenn Hubbard, at Columbia Business School).

9:09: McCain shouldn’t be walking around quite so much.  It’s not fair, but his mildly awkward movements emphasizes his age (some might call it hobbling…).