Awww...According to our Attorney General, Eric Holder, the one thing that keeps him awake at night is the alarming rise in the number of Americans who are more than willing to attack, kill and otherwise do malicious damage to their fellow citizens. Sadly, our esteemed Attorney General is more likely to be spending his restless nights worrying over conservative Christian Tea Party grandmothers rather than those people with a proven record of treacherous and damnable behavior. Take, for instance, modern America's current socially privileged group: homosexuals. Democrats with the cooperation of a few spineless Republicans, have decided to invite this minority out in the open to celebrate, as acceptable and normal, a lifestyle that is anything but normal. By repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy they have taken the first, dangerous step in unleashing this "lifestyle" upon us. Unfortunately, a quick look into homosexuality's history reveals homosexuals to be exactly the sort of people willing to attack, kill and otherwise do malicious damage to their fellow citizens.
We have heard, over and over, about the poor unfortunate homosexual soldiers who just wanted to serve their country only to be booted from the service when they proved to be unable to keep their private sexual choices to themselves. You should be careful where you place your sympathies. The inconvenient truth is that homosexuals who wanted to be soldiers can and have had successful careers in the military. It's those whose loyalties to their lifestyle superceded their oaths to their country who have consistently proven to be dangerous. Consider the case of Private Bradley Manning. He is the mole who gave Wikileaks hundreds of thousands of secret documents...the latest in a long illustrious line of homosexual traitors.
According to Manning's on-line chats he considered himself to be in "an awkward place."
"Manning could 'identify' with Iraqis and Afghans who he believed had suffered as a result of U.S. policies, especially because he himself was a 'a member of a minority' treated unfairly by the military." - Montreal Gazzette
Ahh yes. The ole' victimization excuse that those who perceive themselves as persecuted feel compelled to bring up as a justification for their choice to commit crimes in the name of "social justice." So even though Bradley Manning willingly volunteered to join the military and abide by the rules he clearly understood when he joined, he proceeds to blame the military and, in a fit of rage, hatch a plan to betray his country by creating the biggest leak of classified documents in U.S. history. He obviously considered the lives he would place in jeopardy by his actions to be a justified retribution for HIS mistake of choosing to join an army that he knew was not going to throw a parade to celebrate the enlistment of a homosexual. Boo-hoo.
If you are wondering how someone like Bradlee Manning could ever get the clearance necessary to get in the presence of such sensitive information then perhaps you might want to lay some of the blame at the feet of former president Bill Clinton. In 1995 he signed an executive order removing sexual orientation as a grounds for disqualifying someone for a security clearance. As we are about to show, this was one of the stupidest actions ever initiated by a president, especially coming from a democratic party that likes to portray itself as intellectually superior to its political opponents.
You may be wondering why homosexuals were denied security clearances prior to President Clinton rescinding the ban. A series of Senate committee reports dating from the 1950's called for enhanced efforts to ELIMINATE all homosexuals from the federal service. The committees concluded that:
"moral perverts are bad national security risks ... because of their susceptibility to blackmail" (Wherry 1950, 2), that homosexuals were "vulnerable to interrogation by a skilled questioner" due to their emotional instability and moral weakness, and that they were "easy prey to the blackmailer" (U.S. Senate 1950, 5).
Colonel Ron Ray in his 1993 book Military Necessity and Homosexuality also noted:
“Even if homosexuals are not ‘turned’ by foreign agents, evidence exists that homosexuals, as a group or subculture, can and do turn against their country simply on account of the nature of homosexuality and its hostile attitude toward the existing moral order. This fact is illustrated by a well known group of preeminent writers, thinkers, artists and high social figures known as Bloomsburys who began to reform English tastes before the second world war. That period, termed modernity, saw the supplanting of the fixed moral norms with another ethos. The key to understanding modernity and Bloomsbury is sodomy: Bloomsburys wanted to ‘live as they wanted to live.’ Along with their homosexuality they developed an amoral, irreligious attitude and were unpatriotic as well. E.M. Forster, a member of the Bloomsbury, was quoted as saying, ‘If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country."
As you can see the suggestion that homosexuals were easy to blackmail was based on solid history of a then recent vintage. The most notorious traitors who sided with the Nazi fascists against their own governments were all homosexuals. This would include future KGB spy Guy Burgess and John Macnamara in England. Edouard Pfeiffer and Jacques Doriot in France. Leon Degrelle in Belgium. Artur Seyss-Inquart in Austria, and in Norway it was the infamous Vidkum Quisling, whose surname is even to this day synonymous with “traitor” much the same way as Benedict Arnold's name resonates in America.
The most damaging spies in British history were a band of homosexuals known as the Cambridge Five. (Although in particularly arrogant homosexual fashion they referred to themselves as "The Magnificent Five.") The five were Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, John Cairncross, Anthony Blunt and lone heterosexual Kim Philby. These wonderful chaps all turned out to be on the KGB payroll. Anthony Hunt was in fact a member of the aforementioned Bloomsburys and his security breech cost the lives of many. Guy Burgess was so useful to the Soviets that upon his defection to the Soviet Union he was promptly set up with a boyfriend as a reward for his service. Fantastic.
The American's were just as riddled with homosexually compromised spies such as the ironically named Michael Straight, who was a speech-writer for President Franklin Roosevelt, and Whittaker Chambers who claimed that he gave up homosexuality when he gave up communism and later became the star witness in the infamous Alger Hiss case.
As impressive as the treachery of homosexual espionage appears there is a lot more blood on the hands of those who pursue these abominable relationships. In his book, Germany’s National Vice, historian Samuel Igra claims the outbreak of World War I was a direct consequence of homosexual intrigues in the court of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Revelations that a coterie of homosexuals acquired a Rasputin-like control of the Kaiser immersed the nation in a perverse scandal that spanned from 1907 to 1914. It resulted in a series of very public criminal trials.
Igra states that the scandal grew so big that Germany felt it had to choose war as the only way to resolve it’s domestic crisis. He cites, among other sources, The Diary of Count Robert Zedlitz-Truetzschler, Lord Chamberlain at the Court of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who wrote:
“Yesterday while hunting at Springe the Crown Prince had a long conversation with General von Moltke, the Chief of the General Staff, about the political situation (the internal political situation, he means) and committed himself to the opinion that only war can clear up the confused situation of the country.”
That's pretty damning. Whether or not this was the true cause of The First World War is really not the issue. It is enough that a homosexual scandal caused so great a national crisis that war was contemplated as a solution.
Before supporters of progressive social policies get too proud of themselves for introducing the concept of open homosexuality into the US military they should consider the under-reported story of the Srebrenica massacre, the worst act of mass murder committed in Europe since the second world war. General John Sheehan, a retired marine corps officer who was NATO's supreme commander at the time of the 1995 atrocity said that homosexual soldiers in the Dutch military were one of the reasons for the Srebrenica massacre.
"They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialise their military – that includes the unionisation of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them. That was the largest massacre in Europe since world war two." - General John Sheehan
The General, testifying earlier this year in a Senate hearing added that the Dutch chief of staff had told him that having gay soldiers at Srebrenica had sapped morale and contributed to the disaster.
Of course such a politically incorrect statement was dismissed as total nonsense because it contradicts the inevitable conclusion that has always been at the end of this debate. No one was going to let any evidence come between homosexuals and their cherished desire to get revenge against the United States military for failing to recognize their "special" status.
However, there is more treachery awaiting the military as the fallout from the repeal of DADT works its way into the system. The beauty of DADT was that it allowed the military to remain neutral. The military didn’t have to approve or disapprove. Now, the military will be forced to review its codes of conduct, and you can rest assured they will be rewritten in favor of homosexual rights, giving special treatment to homosexuals.
Forcing the services to accept openly gay members will also make it impossible to overcome the effects of inevitable homosexual networking. This is the preference that homosexuals give to one another based on their sexual contacts. The Marine Corps had to fight long and hard to rid themselves of a "lesbian mafia" that controlled the assignments and promotions of female Marines for years until an IG investigation finally gave the leadership the tools needed to break up the network. These network connections crossed ranks, units and services as they took priority over everything else. These networks destroyed evidence, lied, and obstructed investigations to protect one another. As always, homosexuals' loyalties lie with themselves and their carnal confidants, not to the service or their duty.
The most well known example of homosexuals infiltrating and networking within an organization for their own ends is, of course, the example of the Roman Catholic Church. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, American Roman Catholic Bishops and officials at the Vatican were being inundated with accusations of clerical sexual abuse in the United States. However the problem was not isolated to the U.S. Ireland and other European countries have experienced problems relating to instances of Roman Catholic priests sexually abusing children. This was constantly mis-reported in a press that is openly supportive of the homosexual agenda as being a crisis of "pedophilia." The blame has consistently been placed upon the Catholic church for "tolerating" and obfuscating alleged pedophile abuses.
However, the data collected by John Jay College of Criminal Justice shows that from 1950 to 2002, 81 percent of the victims of these priests were male and 75 percent of them were post-pubescent. Puberty, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, begins at age 10 for boys. Therefore it is more correct to say that three out of every four victims have been abused by HOMOSEXUALS.
"The (New York) Times continues to editorialize about the "pedophilia crisis", when all along it's been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay." - Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League
During the 1970's, renowned singer and former Miss America contestant, Anita Bryant, was excoriated in the media for her crusade against homosexuality. One of her primary complaints against homosexuals was that they were out to "recruit" children into their lifestyle. Well, the data is in and it appears she was right. They are recruiting children into this lifestyle by the most diabolical means possible:
In 2001, the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior published a study entitled Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. The abstract for this article states the following:
In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.
That homosexuals prefer such occupational careers as priests and teachers is no accident. Homosexuals preying upon the young and the weak is not something that is either rare or new. It is, in fact, how their "peculiar species" has always preserved itself.
In the societies of ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality was openly tolerated and even encouraged. Men of the time understood sex to be a matter of sexual penetration and phallic pleasure. The physical act of sex itself required a two tiered system to divide the roles of sexual partners into the categories of penetrator and the penetrated. This can also be referred to as "active" verses "passive" or, more appropriately, as "dominant" verses "submissive." Insertion of the phallus expressed social domination, superiority and seniority. So Roman law placed the sons of Roman citizens off limits to men. Citizenship status could be removed from a Roman male who allowed himself to be penetrated.
In ancient Athens, by contrast, free boys could be openly seduced, however an elaborate set of peculiar interpretations of the rules of engagement for this behavior protected adolescents from the shame associated with bodily penetration. These convenient and self-serving protocols allowed adolescent boys to gratify their male suitors without compromising their future status as adult citizens. These relationships ended once the boy could grow a beard because the Greeks, like their future Roman counterparts, considered a mature adult in a submissive homosexual role as weak and effeminate. These were dishonorable and unacceptable character traits in a society that praised virility. Hence, the discouragement of homosexual oral sex and the complete humiliation of any effeminate or "flaming" submissive homosexuals. So as you can see there is a two tiered system of justice. Penetrator homosexuality is fully acceptable, whereas submissive homosexuals suffered persecution for their weakness. Knowing this, how can you describe homosexuality as anything other than predatory?
It is actually the Christian apostle Paul who broke this two tiered system of homosexuality for the future of Western Civilization. He equated all homosexual acts as a violation of the natural use of the body and made no distinction between the dominant or submissive partner in the abominable copulation:
Romans 1:24-27 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Since both Roman and Greek societies had slave classes it should be remembered that one of the sanctioned and accepted roles of slave boys was to make themselves available for anal sex to their free masters. Young male slaves were often purchased entirely for the purpose of pleasuring their masters. Homosexual rape was also common in this world and the victims were chastised and punished for their weakness. The Greeks even had certain kinds of parties called Komos, where groups of drunken men would wander the streets looking for someone to kidnap and rape. Wealthy Roman families often bought large male slaves for the sole purpose of escorting their young male children through the dangerous streets so they wouldn't be raped. These homosexually tolerant societies were very predaceous by design...and the homosexuals designed it!
Even though these were societies that were highly permissive of homosexual behavior it should be noted that there were no such things as homosexual households or "families," no homosexual institutions or anything remotely resembling a "gay " culture. These are all fabrications of a modern homosexual movement aggressively attempting to promote itself as a "persecuted" minority in search of "special" rights that have never existed in any culture.
There was a lot to consider before repealing the DADT policy in the military. Unfortunately the history and damage homosexuality, and homosexuals, has done to planet earth was not allowed to intrude on the discussion. Allowing maladjusted, predatory narcissists to display their sexual preferences while enlisted in the armed services can produce no benefits, save the questionable one of giving them leverage over those who are repulsed by their behavior. It is inevitable that there will be an "us versus them" mentality amongst homosexuals, which offers no benefit to to the military.
One of the many values the military cherishes is that of selfless service. The ability to put the good of the nation above personal desires is as admirable as it is an essential trait of a good soldier. After all, at any time he or she may be called upon to give his or her life for the nation's defense. When you start openly accepting and actively recruiting people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above their duty and the needs of their country, then you have the dangerous combination that has and will again cause great harm. That's how we got PFC Bradley Manning. Because of his homosexuality and his bitterness toward the military, he decided to seek retribution and leak the 250,000 classified documents that have done our country irreparable harm. And yet he is a hero to his homosexual brethren, for he struck a blow against their enemies in the fight for their special privileges. Homosexuals are today as they always have been. It's all about them...they're special.
If homosexuals are willing to serve and die for this country is it right to deny them the right to marriage? That’s sure to be the next question presented by the advocates of homosexual superiority. Vice President Joe Biden already stated that he believes the legalization of homosexual marriage is inevitable. That is why repealing DADT is such a mistake. These so called "progressive" policies require an ignorant and/or apathetic population to gain traction. This is also how so many steps backward keep being mistakenly called progress. Once in place, all opposition to homosexuality will be disregarded as a bigoted relic of the past. Then these policies cannot ever be deemed to have failed, despite the misery and suffering that they cause.
There are those who suggest we must hate the sin and love the sinner. Unfortunately some sinners love their sins too much. It may be true that some homosexuals have done things that benefited their societies...in spite of their homosexuality. However it is also true that homosexuality itself has not produced one thing on this earth that we are not better off without. There is nothing commendable about sodomy or the homosexual lifestyle and it shouldn't be elevated as a preference in the US military or anywhere else! There is a direct connection between homosexuality and the demise of a society. You will get the government and country you choose.
Homosexuals have fashioned your tolerance into a knife and stuck it in your back...can you feel it yet?
Meet your new Army