March 3, 2010, - 3:02 pm

UPDATED: Massa Says Cancer Recurrence; Uh-Oh: Are We Headed for . . .

By Debbie Schlussel

**** UPDATE: Roll Call reports that liberal Dem Congressman Eric Massa is not seeking re-election due to a recurrence of cancer. If that’s the case, my heart goes out to the guy, and I hope he beats it. That contrasts with the Politico claims of sexual harassment against a male staffer. If that’s not true, it’s a shame that the site would report it, especially as someone is fighting cancer. More reasons why you never know what to believe in the mainstream media . . . as in not most of it. END UPDATE ****

. . . Yet another “I am a Gay American” resignation speech?  Sure looks like it.  The story–if it’s true–of liberal Democrat Congressman Eric Massa is yet more evidence that times have not “changed,” and that being gay can still be used to blackmail people, including and especially those in the military.


Dem Congressman Eric Massa Resigning After Just One Term

Think real hard about this story, and then re-evaluate whether the U.S. Armed Forces should really drop its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy.” (And that’s in addition to the unit cohesion probs when straight soldiers are forced to sleep in close quarters with gay ones . . . or women, as the Obama administration is now going to do with submarines.)

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) will not seek reelection after only one term in office.

According to several House aides – on both sides of the aisle – the House ethics committee has been informed of allegations that Massa, who is married with two children, sexually harassed a male staffer.

Massa, whose departure endangers Democrats’ hold on a competitive seat, told POLITICO Wednesday afternoon that no one has brought allegations of misconduct to him.

Asked about the sexual harassment allegations, Massa said: “When someone makes a decision to leave Congress, everybody says everything. I have health issues. I’ll talk about it [later].”

Massa recently suffered from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and he has said that his experience with cancer drove his interest in running for office so he could help reform the health care system.

Hope he’s not sick. But, for Politico to utter the “sexual harassment” claim, the publication must have several very solid sources to back the allegation. Not that Politico is any more reliable or different from the rest of the mainstream media. It’s just that Politico is just as timid and partisan as the rest of the MSM. And that’s why it’s a big deal for them to publish the allegations.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

28 Responses

“But, for Politico to utter the “sexual harassment” claim, the publication must have several very solid sources to back the allegation.”

Debbie, why is Politico more reliable than other sources of “news” regarding sexual harassment? When a woman (or a man) says she (or he) has been sexually harassed, we have no reason to believe her (or him). Unless we are a radical feminist, that is.

It’s hard to understand how this story is relevant to the repeal of DADT, given that DADT facilitates blackmail, as it makes disclosure of a gay orientation a useful threat.

S: You’re right on Politico. It isn’t a more credible source. Not at all the case. I just know that it’s a very timid source, and I will clarify that. There is no DADT in Congress, and yet this guy is resigning his seat over apparent gay sexual harassment. It shows that repealing DADT won’t end the possibility of blackmail. But it will erode the cohesiveness of the military unit, where straight men will be forced to share close quarters with openly gay men. DS

skzion on March 3, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Debbie, you are certainly right that there is no DADT in the legislature. Alas, in many districts (and states), being closeted is nearly as necessary as it is in the military. In such seats, there is indeed a risk for blackmail. Openness is always the best thing, and I wish others would understand this. That said, if the repeal of DADT in the military actually has any effect (if some military personnel will be open), the risk of blackmail will actually decline.

    Note that I am not 100% in favor of the repeal of DADT. I am CAUTIOUSLY in favor, but I absolutely agree that military decisions must always focus on the primary aim of the military: to kill people and break things. Civil rights be damned if the primary aim will suffer. That’s why I think there should be no Muslims in the military, and why I am deeply skeptical of mixed gender military environments.

    Thanks for your integrity regarding updating this blog entry. Of course, I am not even slightly surprised that you would do so. 🙂

    skzion on March 3, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    skzion, I’m curious: WHY do we have no reason to believe them? I mean are you adopting an attitude of general skepticism towards all accusations made in Congress (understandable) or is it specific to sexual harassment claims? And if it’s the latter, then why?

    hellcat on March 4, 2010 at 2:04 pm

Are you saying all gay men and women should be thrown out of the military? Right now, gay men and women are honorably serving in the military – including submarines.

Seems to me the military code of conduct could & should be used to ensure proper behavior.

sandy on March 3, 2010 at 4:23 pm

Israel allows gays to server openly and some nations allow women to serve on submarines, there’s even one naval sub commanded by a women.
Are there any reports coming from Israel and the other nations that show how bad it is due to gays serving openly? Why can’t we just follow Israel example?

Nak on March 3, 2010 at 4:27 pm

American culture has become so litigious in the past 20 years that there are so many people willing to sell the country down the drain in order to make a buck (and attain celebrity status for 1 week as well). for the Israeli situation, you’re probably dealing with a different culture over there in that regard. Also, if the

Not Ovenready on March 3, 2010 at 5:17 pm

I am very uneasy about DADT. I realize that some gay individuals are very sanitary and hygienic, but the problem is that you never know which are which. I wouldn’t want a gay person to be involved in my food preparation or service any more than I would want an illegal alien to be involved. Of course not all gay people are unsanitary, and not all illegal aliens are unsanitary, but the incidence of disease among these groups is much higher than for the population as a whole. It’s why I won’t eat in restaurants in certain neighborhoods. You never know.

I also think there should be sanctions in the military against unadjusted persons serving food. We’ve all heard Jesse Jackson’s stories about ‘offended’ African Americans spitting into peoples’ food, or worse.

Little Al on March 3, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    Little Al, I too am uneasy, but for different reasons than you are. You will not get AIDS or any other venereal disease from food preparers. The fact is, though, that blacks and hispanics are more likely to have such diseases, and if you are concerned, then blacks and hispanics should not serve, based on your argument. Note that “unadjustment” among blacks and hispanics has nothing to do with this argument.

    skzion on March 3, 2010 at 8:22 pm

Uhhh….he’s not a closeted gay, no a closeted HOMOSEXUAL. The word is H-O-M-O-S-E-X-U-A-L!!! Please quit using gay.

Larry Sinclair came out and said he had sex with KING HUSSEIN OBAMA. Why is this story any different? You know when HOMOSEXUALS use blackmail it is nothing new. Where is Politico on this one?

Nak we are not Israel and we don’t have to follow their lead. We are America. As much as I respect Israel and want Israel to be sovereign and prosper, we don’t need to follow anyone’s lead.

CaliforniaScreaming on March 4, 2010 at 12:24 am

It’s not a case of being vulnerable to blackmail because you’re gay. It’s a case of being vulnerable to blackmail over charges of sexual harassment.

Miranda Rose Smith on March 4, 2010 at 2:04 am

Although STDs, especially the more serious ones, do weaken the immune system, making the person more susceptible to other, and more contagious diseases.

Little Al on March 4, 2010 at 5:20 am

    As does cancer. Are you also concerned that people with cancer might be handling your food? People with MS, or lupus? Cystic fibrosis? I would advise you to start eating only at home, but do remember that other people – some of them even non Aryan people, shockingly enough – are touching your food when it leaves the farm, in the factories, in grocery stores, all over the place. So you may want to start your own farm.

    hellcat on March 4, 2010 at 2:08 pm

Couldn’t Massa (D) and Larry Craig (R) get together in an airport restroom somewhere for some bipartisan bisexual bivouacing?

Sam Deakins on March 4, 2010 at 6:48 am

California, can you provide any documentation showing that allowing gays in the military disrupt unit cohesion or make the army any less effective? There are tons of nations to choose from and I don’t see any undergoing anarchy due to gays serving openly, and I assume God doesn’t mind since all these nations are still standing.

Nak on March 4, 2010 at 9:32 am

The analogy to DADT just doesn’t work. He’s resigning NOT because of blackmail, but apparently because he’s committed a CRIME, that of sexual harrassment. No one’s trying to blackmail him!

And as skzion points out, DADT only ENCOURAGES blackmail, while also encouraging men and women in uniform to lie about their sexual orientation…all the while defending our country with their lives. That is just plain WRONG.

R: We actually don’t know if he committed a crime or what happened. We don’t know the details. But it’s likely if he did harass a male staffer that he’s gay and could have been subject to blackmail. Just saying. That’s the point here. It does work. If you have a prominent general who is married with kids, he’s subject to blackmail for outing that he’s gay, and the same is the case with any soldier who is married with kids and doesn’t want them to know. Blackmail is still present even if we get rid of DADT. That won’t change a thing . . . except reduce cohesion of a military unit. DS

Robert on March 4, 2010 at 3:56 pm

Instead of making these claims can you show proof of loss of unit cohesion and effectivness from any other nation that allws gays to serve openly? Surely these selfish gays are ruining the armies of all those nations.

Nak on March 4, 2010 at 4:32 pm

Sorry, got home late & waiting all day to comment:

Yes, cancer, etc. does give rise to more infections. First though, there is a moral distinction between cancer, most autoimmune diseases, etc. and those weakened from STD’s. STD’s can be avoided, either by abstinence or by using proper precautions, and avoiding explicitly unhygienic practices. STD’s are brought on by people’s selfishness or lack of concern, consideration, or ability to follow clean, healthy practices.

Second, when I am at work and I have a contagious infection, duhhh, I stay home so as to not contaminate others. Hellcat, you are making a tacit admission that you don’t consider this proper behavior. The nerve of me, wanting to eat in a restaurant where sanitary practices are followed and sick and contagious food handlers stay home.

And yes, gays are a demographic group with a much higher incidence of STDs than the population as a whole. Cancer isn’t identified with a specific demographic group, even though some of the 100 or so cancers are more identified with one group than another. They aren’t brought on directly by behavior (leaving aside the effect of healthy lifestyle in lowering the risk of some, but not all cancers). Autoimmune diseases, there is a much, much more tangential relationship.

So I should stay at home? This method of argumentation is extremely weak. Kind of like if I don’t want terrorists to pump gas for me I should go to the Middle East, drill my own oil, refine it, etc., etc. Why not just discuss whether sick people should stay home?

Maybe if more sanitary practices were followed there would be less flu, less H1N1; I certainly know there would be less tuberculosis and less measles.

Little Al on March 4, 2010 at 8:23 pm

End DADT. Gay men *can* serve in the military, they just can’t be open about it. THAT is what opens it up to blackmail. If they are exposed, they are out of a job. and having to lie about yourself in front of your colleagues, I imagine, is probably worse for unit cohesion.

I am a gay man, I don’t have any diseases (so I can still cook your food!), and I don’t have the uncontrollable urge to jump every man I see. I don’t know why you peddle this nonsensical stereotype. I have a ton of straight guy friends (some of whom have served in the military) that have been comfortable in close quarters with me (whether in a gym locker room, in a hotel room on a trip, etc.) because they realize that being gay doesn’t make me a nymphomaniac who will rape them or make them feel uncomfortable because I have no self control.

And with ending DADT, you’re not going to get Richard Simmons or RuPaul joining up, but types like Mark Bingham (the 6’4″ hero who yelled “let’s roll” when he led the take down of the terrorists on United 93 on 9-11).

It’s a shame. I speak Persian (Farsi), Russian, and am learning Mandarin Chinese. I’d love to work for the military but I’d hate worrying every minute that some meathead will out me, sending me packing. At least if DADT ends, I can guarantee I won’t be prancing around in pink high heels (which seems to be a ridiculous concern from some), but that I can then tell that meathead to “F- Off” and get back to the work of defending this country.

Brad on March 4, 2010 at 9:52 pm

Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka “gays”) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.
According to the FDA: “[‘Gay’ men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”
The FDA further warns: “[‘Gay’ men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in [‘gay’ men] than in the general population.”
A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although “gay” men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
Do the math: If “gays” are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists’ euphemistic demands for “tolerance” and “diversity” – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?

ScottyDog on March 4, 2010 at 11:30 pm

Again we have plenty of countries to choose from to see how gays in the military are ruining everything, instead of making rediculous claims go see if these other nations are falling apart due to gays serving openly.

Nak on March 5, 2010 at 8:24 am


Really, which countries are those?

ScottyDog on March 5, 2010 at 2:22 pm

For what it’s worth, a journalist from Eric Massa’s district wrote yesterday that he has known of stories about the congressman’s attraction to men for several years.

ColeslawPatriot on March 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm

Look at that face on Massa. IT reeks “I have sugar in my pocket.” Why doesn’t he become Barney Frank’s roommate, and call it a night.


Hymie Zoltsveis on March 5, 2010 at 11:01 pm

Those who seek to bring OPEN homosexuals into the miltary generally fall into TWO categories:

1–People who have long HATED—no, LOATHED—the US military, and want to weaken/destroy it —typically communists and muslims, and

2–Useful Idiots, as Stalin called them.

If the muslim, devil Hussein wants to REALLY decide whether or not to bring in more open homosexuals….quite simply.. POLL THE SOLDIERS… they want to serve alongside open homosexuals. Let the soldiers decide!!

IMHO, the real agenda behind bringing in OPEN homosexuals is to damage/weaken/destroy the military.

Hymie Zoltsveis on March 5, 2010 at 11:15 pm

If sweet feet Massa’s face isn’t yelling “I’ve got sugar in my pocket,” it certainly says “I am light in the loafers.”

Stop in and pay Barney’s Frank a visit.

Franks a Lot!

Hymie Zoltsveis on March 5, 2010 at 11:17 pm


Really, which countries are those?
Well these countries allow gays to serve openly, so I dont know why you cant do some research to see how much their military is in shambles due to the gays, wait…Israel is on this list? But their army is strong, how can that be?

Czech Republic
The Netherlands
New Zealand
South Africa
United Kingdom

NAK on March 6, 2010 at 12:49 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field