Question: Do we know the history of homosexuals in the military and why is that important?
The following article and/or blog post does a meticulous job of revealing the chronological history of homosexuals in the military-You Decide:
Homosexuals in the Military-Posted on WallBuilders.Com-By David Barton – 2001:
This is the article and/or blog in its entirety:
Preface: There was a series of events that led to the need for this historical analysis. Below is a general chronology providing context. There were, no doubt, numerous other events that occurred—newspaper articles, magazine articles, government reports, meetings, etc. However, these key events will preface the analysis:
January 20, 1993–William Jefferson Clinton assumes the Presidency, promising to end the historic ban on homosexuals serving in America’s Armed Forces.
January 29, 1993–President Clinton issues the following memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin:
I hereby direct you to submit to me prior to July 15, 1993, a draft of an Executive Order ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in determining who may serve in the Armed Forces of the United States.
June 2-21, 1993–survey entitled, “Congressional Survey of All Active-Duty Admirals and Generals Shows Overwhelming Opposition to Lifting Military Gay Ban.” Ninety-seven and a half percent do not wish to have homosexuals serve in the military. Over ninety percent of the military’s senior officers question “national security” if homosexuals are allowd to serve.
July 19, 1993–“Don’t ask; don’t tell” plan announced by the President. Under this plan, new recruits are not to be asked if they are homosexual. Homosexual “orientation” is allowed; homosexual conduct remains a reason for separation.
July 23, 1993–Senate Armed Services Committee votes to pass law supporting President Clinton’s policies.
July 27, 1993–House Armed Services Committee offers similar legislation.
Court challenges started by the ACLU and others, and debate rages in the media.
Elected officials and others begin requesting an historical perspective on homosexuals in the military. David Barton prepares the following essay, supporting the contention that immoral conduct never has been allowed in America’s Armed Forces.
In recent years, widespread discussions and hearings have been held concerning the issue of homosexuals serving in the United States military forces. This monograph will explore the issue via three questions:
- Has homosexuality always been incompatible with military service?
- Why should the military be concerned with a person’s morality?
- Why should homosexuality concern us as a society?
Has Homosexuality Always Been Incompatible With Military Service?
While the issue of homosexuals in the military has only recently become a point of great public controversy, it is not a new issue; it derives its roots from the time of the military’s inception. George Washington, the nation’s first Commander-in-Chief, held a strong opinion on this subject and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his general orders for March 14, 1778:
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose. 1
General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military.
An edict issued by the Continental Congress communicates the moral tone which lay at the base of Washington’s actions:
The Commanders of . . . the thirteen United Colonies are strictly required to show in themselves a good example of honor and virtue to their officers and men and to be very vigilant in inspecting the behavior of all such as are under them, and to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices, and also such as are contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience, and to correct those who are guilty of the same. 2
Noah Webster—a soldier during the Revolution and the author of the first American dictionary—defined the terms “dissolute” and “immoral” used by Congress:
Dissolute: Loose in behavior and morals; given to vice and dissipation; wanton; lewd; debauched; not under the restraints of law; as a dissolute man: dissolute company.
Immoral: Inconsistent with moral rectitude; contrary to the moral or Divine law. . . . Every action is immoral which contravenes any Divine precept or which is contrary to the duties which men owe to each other. 3
This meaning of the word “moral” versus “immoral” was understood throughout American society; the practice of sodomy was clearly adverse to and “contravene[d] Divine precept.” The order to “suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices . . . contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience” was extended throughout all branches of the American military, both the Army and the Navy. 4
It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws—the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. 5 In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:
What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . .
I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; “peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum” (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: “ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei” (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments). 6
Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, “dismemberment” of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. 7 In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. 8 The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:
That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. 9 NEW YORK
That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. 10 CONNECTICUT
Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. 11 GEORGIA
That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. 12 MAINE
That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. 13 [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. 14 PENNSYLVANIA
[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. 15 SOUTH CAROLINA
That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. 16 VERMONT
Based on the statutes, legal commentaries, and the writings of prominent military leaders, it is clear that any idea of homosexuals serving in the military was considered with repugnance; this is incontrovertible, with no room for differing interpretations. 17 The thought of lifting this proscription is a modern phenomenon, and would have brought disbelief, disdain, and condemnation from those who established our Armed Forces.
Why Should the Military Be Concerned With a Person’s Morality?
Concern for the character and morality of military personnel has a strong historical basis. Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of pure morals in our free society, and that philosophy extended to our military.
Before considering the importance of morality to the military, first consider some general statements on the importance of morality by those responsible for originally creating the rules that have stirred so much controversy of late in the debate over homosexuals in the military. John Adams (the founder of the Navy), on October 13, 1798, while serving as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief, told the military:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. 18
Adams similarly explained:
Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. 19
George Washington, the nation’s first Commander-in-Chief, summarized the same truth in his “Farewell Address.” Significantly, this address was also partially authored by John Jay (the author of America’s first military discipline manual) and Alexander Hamilton (a General during the Revolution). These three military leaders emphasized the necessity of moral behavior, declaring:
Of all the dispositions and habits which leads to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, “Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert . . . ?” And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ‘Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? 20
Since moral behavior was necessary for society in general, it was even more necessary for military personnel in whose hands rested the security, and thus the future, of the nation. The importance of good morals in the military can be seen in the following three selections from Washington’s general orders:
It is required and expected that exact discipline be observed and due subordination prevail thro’ the whole Army, as a failure in these most essential points must necessarily produce extreme hazard, disorder, and confusions; and end in shameful disappointment and disgrace. The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war established for the government of the Army which forbid profane cursing, swearing, and drunkenness; And in like manner requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged on actual duty a punctual attendance on Divine service to implore the blessings of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defence. 21
His Excellency [George Washington] wishes [it] to be considered that an Army without order, regularity, and discipline is no better than a commissioned mob; Let us therefore . . . endeavor by all the skill and discipline in our power, to acquire that knowledge and conduct which is necessary in war—our men are brave and good; men who with pleasure it is observed are addicted to fewer vices than are commonly found in Armies; but it is subordination and discipline (the life and soul of an Army) which next under Providence, is to make us formidable to our enemies, honorable in ourselves, and respected in the world. 22
Purity of morals being the only sure foundation of public happiness in any country and highly conducive to order, subordination, and success in an Army, it will be well worthy the emulation of officers of every rank and class to encourage it both by the influence of example and the penalties of authority. It is painful to see many shameful instances of riot and licentiousness. . . . A regard to decency should conspire with a sense of morality to banish a vice productive of neither advantage or pleasure. 23
Consequently, moral improprieties were met with severe punishment in the American military—as illustrated by the opening example in this paper.
Why Should Homosexuality Concern a Society?
Public discussions concerning homosexuality are a purely recent phenomenon; it was long considered too morally abhorrent and reprehensible to openly discuss. Consider, for example, the legal works of James Wilson, a signer both of the Declaration and the Constitution and appointed by President Washington as an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. Wilson was responsible for laying much of the foundation of American Jurisprudence and was co-author of America’s first legal commentaries on the Constitution. Even though state law books of the day addressed sodomy, when Wilson came to it in his legal writings, he was too disgusted with it even to mention it. He thus declared:
The crime not to be named [sodomy], I pass in a total silence. 24
America’s first law book, authored by founding jurist Zephaniah Swift, communicated the popular view concerning sodomy:
This crime, tho repugnant to every sentiment of decency and delicacy, is very prevalent in corrupt and debauched countries where the low pleasures of sensuality and luxury have depraved the mind and degraded the appetite below the brutal creation. Our modest ancestors, it seems by the diction of the law, had no idea that a man would commit this crime [anal intercourse with either sex]. . . . [H]ere, by force of common law, [it is] punished with death. . . . [because of] the disgust and horror with which we treat of this abominable crime. 25
John David Michaelis, author of an 1814 four-volume legal work, outlined why homosexuality must be more strenuously addressed and much less tolerated than virtually any other moral vice in society:
If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread, we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then . . . national weakness, for which all remedies are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the very first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth. . . . To these evils may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions of those men who submit to this degradation are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way from what is the result of whoredom.
Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much more secrecy . . . and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and that after some hundred years it will no longer be the same . . . powerful country it is at present. 26
In view of the arguments listed by historical and legal sources, there is substantial merit for maintaining the ban on homosexuals in the military. 27 The Founders instituted this ban with a clear understanding of the damaging effects of this behavior on the military. This ban has remained official policy for over 200 years and one would be hard-pressed to perceive the need for altering a policy which has contributed to making America the world’s foremost military power.
1. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp. 83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.(Return)
2. Journals of the American Congress (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. I, p. 185, on November 28, 1775.(Return)
3. Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (Springfield, MA: George and Charles Merriam, 1849).(Return)
4. Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America (Philadelphia: Richard Folwell, 1797), pp. 456-457.(Return)
5. See, for example, James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (NY: R. Worthington, 1884), Vol. III, p. 233, in his letter dated October 18, 1821. See also the writings of Founders James Kent, James Wilson, Fisher Ames, Joseph Story, John Adams, Henry Laurens, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Otis, et. al. (Return)
6. Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769), Vol. IV, pp. 215-216.(Return)
7. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), p. 211.(Return)
8. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson M emorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, pp. 226-227, from Jefferson’s “For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments.”(Return)
9. Laws of the State of New-York . . . Since the Revolution (New York: Thomas Greenleaf, 1798), Vol. I, p. 336.(Return)
10. The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, p. 295.(Return)
11. A Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia (Milledgeville: Grantland & Orme, 1822), p. 350. (Return)
12. Laws of the State of Maine (Hallowell: Goodale, Glazier & Co., 1822), p. 58.(Return)
13. Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: John Bioren, 1810), Vol. I, p. 113.(Return)
14. Collinson Read, An Abridgment of the Laws of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1801), p. 279.(Return)
15. Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute Laws of South-Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), Vol. I, p. 99.(Return)
16. Statutes of the State of Vermont (Bennington, 1791), p. 74.(Return)
17. Randy Shilts’ revisionist work, Conduct Unbecoming, attempts to provide historical precedent for homosexuals in the military by claiming that the General Baron von Steuben, a Prussian fighting for the American cause, was gay (see also Newsweek, Feb. 1, 1993, “What’s Fair in Love and War,” pp. 58-59). Shilts’ accusations against von Steuben are unacceptable to the very source he cites—a biography authored by John Palmer (see John McAuley Palmer, General Von Steuben , New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937). Palmer, although acknowledging an anonymous 1777 letter accusing the Baron of sexual improprieties, concluded that it was “probably a malicious slander that originated among Steuben’s enemies,” further stating that “the charge is inconsistent with the conception of Steuben’s personality that has grown up in my mind after eight years’ study.” Additionally, Shilts claims that the Baron’s 17 year old interpreter, Pierre Etienne Du Ponceau, was his lover, citing his youth and lack of linguistic skills as proof. However, Thomas McKean, signer of the Declaration of Independence, says that Du Ponceau had offered “satisfactory proof of his knowledge in the languages.” Furthermore, the Dictionary of American Biography says of the married Frenchman that “his contributions to historical and linguistic literature were numerous, particularly on philological subjects.” Shilts’ claims lack credible historical documentation, and are a hindrance to any substantive debate on this extremely important issue.(Return)
18. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, dated October 11, 1798.(Return)
19. Ibid, Vol. IX, p. 401, dated June 21, 1776.(Return)
20. Address of George Washington . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: Christopher Jackson, 1796), pp. 22-24.(Return)
21. Washington, Writings, Vol. III, p. 309, from General Orders from Cambridge on July 4, 1775.
22. Ibid, at Vol. IV, pp. 202-203, from General Orders from Cambridge on January 1, 1776.(Return)
23. Ibid, Vol. XIII, pp. 118-119, from General Orders from Fredericksburgh on October 21, 1778.(Return)
24. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, p. 656, from lectures given in 1790 and 1791.(Return)
25. Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), Vol. II, pp. 310-311.(Return)
26. Sir John David Michaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, Alexander Smith, translator (London: F. C. and J. Rivington, 1814), Vol. IV, pp. 115-117.(Return)
27. For a summary of the current medical and military arguments supporting the ban on homosexuals, see Gays: In or Out? The U. S. Military & Homosexuals—A Sourcebook, by Col. Ronald D. Ray, USMCR (NY: A Maxwell Macmillan Company, 1993). Col. Ray’s Bibliography lists many of the numerous books and studies detailing homosexuality’s inherent physiological, sociological, and psychological problems. (Return)
Note: The following article and/or blog relates to and/or supports the above article and/or blog-You Decide:
THE GAY MOVEMENT AND THE CFR’s ANTI-RUSSIA PSY-OP!–Posted on NewsWithViews.com-By Servando Gonzalez-On March 1, 2014:
The Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, have become a point of friction between the anti-Christian, pro-gay, pro-New World Order U.S. and the pro-Christian, anti-gay, anti-NWO Russia. To make things even worse, Obama decided to skip the Sochi Games and instead appointed three openly gay athletes – Billie Jean King, Brian Boitano and Caitlin Cahow – to lead the U.S. delegation. This was made as an obvious insult to Putin and the Olympic hosts.
“Conservative” Republicans, who love and yearn the good old days of the Cold War, are itching for a fight at the OK Corral. Lacking any arguments to justify their newly-found love for the NWO gays, they argue that Putin should not be trusted, because he was a member of the dreaded KGB. They seem to forget, however, that their beloved George H. W. Bush was a Director of the dreaded CIA, a CFR-created and controlled organization that has done more to destroy America than the KGB.
Faced with strong criticism during a recent news conference of the World Congress of Families at Washington D.C., Alexei Komov, the WCF representative in Russia, mentioned that some “Wall Street bankers” were among the “international professional forces of evil,” that had “introduced communism” and “imposed” it on Russia. As expected, his comments were immediately refuted by some “conservative” Republicans as just another anti-Semite conspiracy theory.
Nevertheless, despite claims to the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that communism actually was introduced to Russia by international bankers as a way to eliminate competition in the oil business.
Russia Discovers Oil
The main problem the international bankers and oil magnates had with Russia was that a large amount of oil had been discovered in Baku, near the Caspian Sea in Azerbaijan. At the time, the Baku oil field was considered the largest known oil deposit in the world. By the early 1880s, Russian crude production reached 10.8 million, almost a third of U.S. production.
As expected, John D. Rockefeller and his criminal associates of the American International Corporation (AIC), Andrew Mellon, J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie, were deeply alarmed about the Russians challenging their ambitions of controlling the world oil supply, and they began conspiring to develop a plan to stop the Russians in their tracks. They concluded that the only way to achieve their goal was to depose Czar Nicholas II, and the only way to accomplish that was through a “revolution.”
History books, mostly written by unscrupulous CFR-controlled disinformers passing as historians, have painted the Russian revolution as the result of a spontaneous uprising of Russia’s exploited proletarian masses against their oppressive government.
This vision, however, does not coincide with the facts.
Mainly thanks to the efforts of scholars such as Antony Sutton, G. Edward Griffin and others, now we know that the “spontaneous” Russian “revolution” was actually a covert operation planned and carried out by a conspiracy of international bankers and oil magnates. That operation would have been impossible to succeed without the money supplied by some of the most notable millionaires at that time.
Between 1907 and 1910 the conspirators met several times with Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, already living in exile in New York, and with Vladimir I. Lenin, another Russian revolutionary living in exile in Zurich. Eventually the arch-capitalists struck a deal with the arch-anti-capitalists: in exchange for financing their “revolution,” the capitalists would be allowed to have a hidden hand in designing the economy of what was soon to become the Soviet Union —allegedly the staunchest anti-capitalist nation in the world.
With the help of the conspirators, Lenin returned to Russia with plenty of gold in his famous “sealed” train, and, soon after, Trotsky, under the protection of President Wilson and Colonel House, followed Lenin’s path with more gold. This gold made possible the Russian “revolution.”
The fact, however, that the Russian “revolution” was actually a covert operation concocted by international bankers, is not new.
In a speech to the House of Commons on November 5, 1919, Winston Churchill exposed in a few words the whole conspiracy:
. . . Lenin was sent into Russia . . . in the same way that you might send a vial containing a culture of typhoid or of cholera to be poured into the water supply of a great city, and it worked with amazing accuracy. No sooner did Lenin arrive than he began beckoning a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats in New York, Glasgow, in Bern, and other countries, and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect, the most formidable sect in the world . . . With these spirits around him he set to work with demoniacal ability to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian State depended. Russia was laid low. Russia had to be laid low. She was laid low to the dust.
What Churchill failed to mention, though, was that the ones who had disseminated the Communist plague were bankers from England, Europe and the U.S., among them the Rothschilds, Sir George Buchanan and Lord Alfred Milner (members of the Round Table, who had been instrumental in the creation of the CFR), the Warburgs, the Rockefellers and J.P. Morgan. With their investment, the conspirators had created a pseudo-enemy they controlled —to some extent. Soon after, the Soviet Union became the bogeyman they used for many years as a credible threat to manipulate and control the U.S. and other Western countries. Unfortunately, the credible threat they had created disappeared when the Soviet Union imploded in 1989. Then they were forced to create a makeshift new bogeyman: terrorism. The rest is history.
Currently, faced with a new Russia that firmly opposes the New World Order, the CFR conspirators have created a new virus they want to poison the Russian people with: the Gay Movement.
The Gay Movement: a Trojan Horse for the New World Order
Initially, the main interventionist tool the CFR conspirators used to control the policies of other countries was the U.S. Marines. Later, however, they resorted to more subtle tools, like the Peace Corps. It seems that now the interventionist tool of choice is the gay movement, which they plan to use as a fifth column to influence the policies of foreign countries. This is why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a senior CFR agent, just recently declared that the U.S. would only provide aid to countries that support “gay rights.”
Nevertheless, despite their claims, the gay movement leaders do not care for the rights of homosexuals in the U.S., much less abroad. Actually, they are using homosexuals as pawns to advance their secret agenda and the globalization plans of their CFR masters in a dirty political game.
In recent times, only two countries in the world have harassed, persecuted and interned homosexuals in concentration camps: Nazi Germany and Castro’s Cuba. But there is a less known fact: both Hitler and Castro were surrounded by a coterie of closet homosexuals. Ernst Rohm, Rudolf Hess, Reinhardt Heydrich, and even Hitler’s driver, Emil Maurice, were well-known homosexuals. In the same fashion, Castro’s close friend Alfredo Guevara (no relation to Che) and his brother Raúl, just to mention two of the most notorious ones, are well-known closet homosexuals. But neither in Germany, nor in Cuba, were those macho gay homosexuals in power harassed, persecuted or interned in concentration camps. On the contrary, some these warmongering, virile gay homosexuals played a key role in sending effeminate homosexuals to concentration camps.
Gays VS Homosexuals
Though for political reasons gay leaders and propagandists use the terms “gay” and “homosexual” as synonyms, the terms in fact denote two very different things. The confusion, however, is not the product of chance, but of a carefully designed disinformation campaign (PSYOP) developed by the American gay movement with the secret help of very powerful people, who have used it as a smokescreen to hide its true nature. But gay and homosexual are not synonyms. As a matter of fact, the terms denote two very different phenomena, and the distinction is not merely linguistic.
Webster defines “homosexual” as “of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.” A homosexual is a person who has sex with persons of his/her own sex.
The term gay, on the contrary, is political, and does not refer to any specific sexual practice. It denotes a type of homosexuals who are zealots, partisans, chauvinists and persecutors, dogmatists in their fanaticism. Contrary to homosexuals, gays are militant homosexuals, members of an action movement, actively engaged in activities to advance a particular agenda in the political sphere. Actually, the process of “coming out of the closet,” by which a person tells to the world that he is gay, is basically not a sexual but a political act.
In synthesis, the difference between homosexuals and gays is very similar to the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan, a Jew and a Zionist, and between Liberace and Elton John.
A vegetarian is a person who, for health, taste or any other reason, does not eat meat. A vegan is an extremist vegetarian who thinks that by not eating meat he is saving planet Earth, and he feels ethically and morally superior to meat eaters. A Jew is a person professing a particular religion. A Zionist is a person pushing a particular political agenda. In the same fashion, Liberace was a pianist who became famous in the 1950s. Though everybody knew that he was a homosexual, nobody cared, because the kept it private. On the contrary, Elton John is a gay man who is also a pianist. He uses his fame as a pianist to push the gay agenda.
So, it is obvious that there are two different types of homosexuals. The difference between them is so obvious that some researchers already created names to distinguish them. As early as 1945, German historian Samuel Igra called these militant homosexuals “homosexualists.” I simply call them by the term they themselves coined to disguise their true nature: gays.
According to the gay movement’s disinformation story, the term “gay” was created to counteract the negative connotations attached to the term “homosexual.” But, contrary to their claims, homosexual and heterosexual have always been neutral terms, with no negative connotations whatsoever. Proof of it is that the gay movement keeps using the term bisexual.
Actually, the term gay —most likely a creation of the Tavistock Institute, the Stanford Research Institute, or some other of the conspirators’ psychological warfare think tanks — was specifically coined to create cognitive dissonance: far from being lighthearted, carefree, cheerful, showy, brilliant — which aptly designates the widespread stereotyped image of effeminate homosexuals — the core of the men who call themselves “gays” belong to the “butch” type of virile, tough, aggressive, warmongering, Spartan macho homosexuals who are everything but gay in the original meaning of the word.
For the “butch,” macho gays, young attractive boys are the most desirable option for sexual pleasure, while heterosexual males, feminine women and effeminate homosexuals, are regarded in this order as progressively inferior.
However, though most gays are actually homosexuals, not all homosexuals are necessarily gays. Actually, despite the fact that, as a result of cultural imperialism, most homosexuals in Latin America jumped on the gay bandwagon and now call themselves “gays,” the concept is totally alien to the Hispanic culture. The reason for this is that in Latin America homosexuality had never been politicized — until now.
But, blinded by the massive propaganda campaign pushing the gay agenda —which is actually a subset of the New World Order conspirators’ agenda — most homosexuals around the world began calling themselves gays. They have never suspected that had been recruited under a false flag.
Moreover, as Obama’s recent declaration has proved beyond any doubt, the term “gay” properly includes all types of people, homosexuals or not, who, in one way or another, out of conviction, fear or opportunism, actively support and advance the gay political agenda — which is very close to the CFR conspirators’ agenda.
In the same fashion, millions of homosexuals around the world, particularly in Third World countries, who do not support the gay agenda and have no intention of making a political statement by coming out of a closet they have never been in by openly proclaiming their homosexuality, cannot be properly called gays. Obviously, “gay” is a political term, while “homosexual” is a sociological one. The fact that some gays are homosexuals does not mean that the terms are interchangeable.
Though most people, including most homosexuals, erroneously use the terms as synonyms, the distinction between gay and homosexual is of cardinal importance to understand the essence of the gay phenomenon. As a matter of fact, the American gay movement is fully aware of the distinction, and uses the terms as synonyms for their own ideological purposes, as a way to distort reality. The fact that “gay” and “homosexual” are not synonyms was perhaps the best-kept secret of the gay movement.
Seen from this perspective, it is relatively easy to understand the otherwise unexplainable fact that in the early seventies, while the Castro government was harassing and torturing homosexuals by the thousands and interning them in concentration camps, many American gays joined the Venceremos Brigade and traveled to Cuba, allegedly to work in the sugar crop but actually to give support to the Castro regime. American gays, who are essentially anti-homosexual, had no objections to the harassment and torturing of homosexuals in Castro’s concentration camps.
Under this light, it is easy to understand why San Francisco gays of the pro-Castro organization “Queers for Cuba,” boycotted in San Francisco Bay Area theaters the film Before the Night Falls, based on the autobiography of Cuban writer and homosexual Reinaldo Arenas. Arenas was one of the thousands of homosexuals persecuted in Cuba by the Castroite gays and interned in concentration camps, who escaped the Island during the Mariel boatlift of 1980.
It is also easy to understand why when the more than twenty thousand homosexuals who had escaped from the harassment and persecution in Castro’s gay paradise arrived in the U.S., the American gay organizations turned their backs on them. Only religious charitable organizations, mostly Catholic, gave the Cuban homosexuals a helping hand.
Just a few years ago, the gay-friendly Latin American Studies Association (LASA), received Mariela Castro, the daughter of gay Raúl Castro, the main instigator of the persecution of homosexuals in Cuba, as a hero during its International Congress in San Francisco on May 2012. Further evidence that the gay movement has nothing to do with sexuality, but with politics is that the panel on which Mariela participated was titled Una mirada a la Diversidad Sexual desde lo Político (A View at Sexual Diversity From a Political Point of View). It was not a coincidence that, just a few days before the opening of the LASA Congress, there were government-sponsored marches for gay rights in several Cuban cities.
Currently, American gay leaders, with the full support of the CFR-controlled media presstitutes, are trying to convince the American people that Cuba, the most repressive country in the Western Hemisphere, has suddenly become a heaven for gays. But you have to be very naïve to believe that in Castro’s Cuba, a country where women, blacks, workers, effeminate homosexuals and practically anybody who does not fully support the government have no rights, gays have suddenly become the only ones who have rights. The parades actually show that, like everywhere in the world, gays support the oppressors, including their oppression of homosexuals, which, despite claims to the contrary, still exist in Castro’s Cuba. Despite the American gay movement’s claims on the contrary, there’s nothing to be proud about ignoring the harassment of homosexuals in Castro’s Cuba and showing their support for their oppressors.
The American gay movement paints itself as liberal, progressive and socially conscious. Actually, however, it has willingly become a secret tool of the Council on Foreign Relations, probably the most reactionary organization in America, where oil magnates, Wall Street bankers and CEOs of transnational corporations conspire to bring about the communo-fascist society they euphemistically call the New World Order. This explains why nowhere in the gay literature one can find a condemnation of the tyranny the NWO conspirators are pushing upon the American people and the peoples of the world — including homosexuals. This also explains why you don’t see any rainbow flags held by the protesters outside the Bilderberg meetings.
Since the Russian government declared that it would not tolerate pro-gay propaganda during the Winter Olympic Games, a barrage of anti-Russia gay propaganda exploded in the CFR-controlled press about gay harassment in Russia. What a pro-gay author who wrote about the harassment failed to mention, however, is that gays are notorious for staging false-flag attacks to play the role of victims and demonize their opponents.
As soon as Ronald Reagan took his Oath of Office, he began working hard in the pursuit of his dream: putting an end to the evil Soviet empire. Reagan didn’t hate the Russian people and he didn’t want to destroy Russia, he just wanted to free them from the oppressive Soviet regime. No wonder Reagan earned the hatred of the CFR conspirators who had created and kept artificially alive the evil empire that was enslaving the Russian people.
In one of those unexplainable turns of history, just in a few years Russia became the country Reagan had in mind, while America, under the control of a few psychopaths, is on the way to becoming the evil empire he hated so much.
Some “conservative” Republicans cannot accept even the possibility that Russia may be changing back into a Christian country. Well, I can’t blame them. If twenty years ago somebody would have told me that America was going to change into an anti-Christian, communo-fascist dictatorship I would not have believed it — but it is happening very fast right before my eyes.
Granted, like most politicians such as the Bushes, the Clintons and Obama, Vladimir Putin might be corrupt and power hungry. But there is a big difference that makes him a fierce enemy of the NWO conspirators: contrary to his American counterparts, Putin loves his country. His dream is to change Russia into a first class industrialized country with a large middle class.
Moreover, Putin is not associated with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the World Economic Forum or any other globalist organizations. He is not conspiring in the shadows to eliminate Russia’s sovereignty and create a New World Order — a global government controlled by oil magnates, international bankers and CEOs of transnational corporations.
Contrary to his CFR foes, Putin’s goal is not to turn back history and change Russia again into the medieval, hunger-games-like society the CFR conspirators imposed on the Russian people for more than half a century and now envision for the rest of the world, including the U.S.
And that makes a big difference.
The CFR globalist conspirators hate Putin for the same reasons they hated Kennedy and Reagan, the last presidents who really loved America. It will not be so easy for them, however, to get rid of Putin the same way they got rid of Kennedy and tried to eliminate Reagan.
Despite all the anti-Russian propaganda related to the Winter Olympics at Sochi, Russian leaders do not hate homosexuals. They simply don’t want the gay movement to turn the event into a tribune to advance the gay movement’s New World Order agenda. Evidence of this is President Putin congratulating and embracing openly gay speedskater Ireen Wust for her gold medal.
Proof that the CFR conspirators’ criticism of Russia’s anti-gay policies is politically motivated is that U.S. allies such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Qatar, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Yemen, Uganda and Kenya, have more strict anti-gay laws than Russia, but that is never mentioned in the CFR-controlled mainstream media. The fact that most Russians now know who brought communism to their country, and that some Christians in the U.S. currently see Russia as an ally, only proves that people are awakening from their media-induced stupor. You cannot fool all the people all the time.
The ones who now want to convince us that communists are still in control in Russia are the same ones who told us that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US because he had weapons of mass destruction. Apparently, the collaboration of the US government with the same Muslim terrorist groups they initially blamed for the 9/11 events has become so obvious that the War on Terror hoax is untenable and no longer useful. Therefore, they want to fall back to the old, trusted pseudo-enemy: Soviet communism.
But, despite their best wishes, communism is dead in Russia. On the other hand, it seems that, like a zombie, communism is reincarnating in the US. So, if those super patriots are so eager to fight communism they don’t need to travel far away, much less learn Russian. Just by looking around they can find plenty of communism to fight right here in God-fearing America.
The bottom line is that Russia has become the main obstacle in the globalist conspirators way to fully implement their gay New World Order; that’s why they have been encircling Russia trying to bring her to her knees. Currently, any attack on Russia is an attack on the freedom-loving peoples of the world, particularly on the few remaining freedom-loving Americans. We should not fall for our real enemies’ propaganda.
As an active, militant tool of the New World Order conspirators, the gay movement has become an enemy of freedom-loving Americans. We must unmask the gay movement and show the people what it really is: a reactionary, extremist political movement disguised as a progressive social one.
Of course, every one who attacks the gay movement is immediately accused of being homophobic. Unmasking militant gays, however, has nothing to do with sexuality, much less with an irrational fear of homosexuals (the true meaning of “homophobia”). On the contrary, if History teaches us something, it is that whenever gays take political control of a country, non-militant homosexuals are the first ones who end up interned in concentration camps. It happened in Nazi Germany, it happened in Castro’s Cuba, it was attempted in Japan, and it will happen here in America if pro-NWO, militant gays are allowed to grab power.
Help your brainwashed homosexual friends to liberate themselves from the gay mental straitjacket. Tell them who their true enemy is.
© 2014 Servando Gonzalez – All Rights Reserved
1. See, Nancy Armour, “Vladimir Putin visits Team USA in Sochi,” USA Today, February 14, 2014.
2. Other “conservative” Republicans are now pushing the recent theory that it was the KGB who killed Kennedy. Well, unless somebody proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Allen Dulles was a KGB agent infiltrated into the CIA, I won’t buy it!”
3. On CIA’s anti-American activities, see, Servando Gonzalez, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order (Spooks Books: Oakland, California, 2010), pp. 108-149.]]]
4. This is not an exaggeration. For example, most of the “communists” in the State Department Senator McCarthy accused of anti-American activities actually were either CFR members or CFR-controlled agents. Proof of this is that the ones who immediately jumped to defend the traitors and vilify McCarthy were President Eisenhower, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy, and journalist Edward Murrow, all CFR members themselves.
5. See, Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, Part I (New York: Pocket Books, 1991), p. 59.
6. John Christian Ryter, “The Secret Life of AIC,” NewsWithViews.com, March 31, 2009.
7. Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1974).
8. G Edward Griffin, The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve (Appleton, Wisconsin: American Opinion, 1994).
9. Any resemblance to the “spontaneous” revolutions of the so-called Arab Spring and the one now taking place in the Ukraine is not the product of a coincidence.
10. Everything indicates that the CFR globalist conspirators are repeating their game in the Ukraine. See, Paul Craig Roberts, “Washington Orchestrated Protests are Destabilizing Ukraine,” Infowars.com, February 13, 2014. 1
12. On October 2013, WorldNetDaily devoted a whole issue of its printed magazine Whistleblower, to the subject of how the “gay rights” movement has become a Trojan horse for totalitarianism. Unfortunately, however, the issue fell short of its goal because most articles deal more with homosexuality and its social implications than with the political aspects of the gay movement itself. Actually, the only article that deals with the gay movement’s political implications, erroneously links the gay movement only to the Democratic Party. See, Joseph Farah, “Where Sexual Anarchy is Leading Us: Identifying the Totalitarian Movement Whose name No One Dares Utter,” Whistleblower, Volume 22, No. 10 (October, 2013), pp. 4-5.
13. See, General Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket (Los Angeles: Feral House, 2003). Butler joined the Marine Corps when the Spanish American War broke out. During his 34 years of Marine Corps service, Butler was awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor, the first one for the capture of Veracruz, Mexico in 1914, and the second one for the capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti in 1917. In addition, he was awarded numerous medals for heroism, including the Marine Corps Brevet Medal (the highest Marine medal at its time for officers) He was one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
14. See, “Hillary Clinton on Gay Rights Abroad: Secretary of State Delivers Historic LGBT Speech in Geneva,” The Huffington Post, December 6, 2012. See also, “U.S. to Use Foreign Aid to Promote Gay Rights,” Religion Today, December 7, 2011.
15. The intimate connection between American gays and the Nazis is evidenced by the admiration some macho guys feel for the Nazi paraphernalia. Just a look at photos from the San Francisco Gay Parade events show them proudly clad in black leather and riding boots SS-style. See, Judith A. Riesman, “The Pink Swastika as Holocaust Revisionist History,” The Institute for Media Education, February 1998.
16. Both Hitler and Castro have been accused of being homosexuals. See, i.e., Lothar Machtan, Hitler’s Secret: The Double Life of a Dictator. See also, Eleonora Bruzal and Luis José Uzcátegui, Los hombres que erotizó Fidel. According to Machtan, Hitler himself never condemned homosexuality, but he allowed the persecution of effeminate homosexuals in order to disguise his own true colors. This could be easily applied to Castro.
17. Interesting: “conservative” Republican mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh hired gay activist Elton John to entertain the guests attending Rush’s wedding party in 2010.
18. Samuel Igra, Germany’s National Vice (London: Quality Press, 1945). More recently, author Judith Riesman calls them “homosexists.”On her Oct. 27 WorldNetDaily column, Judith Riesman made use of the heretofore unknown word “homosexist.” According to Riesman, “Homosexists are zealots, partisans, chauvinists and persecutors, dogmatists in their fanaticism.”
19. Venceremos Brigade pro-Castro activities in Dennis Altman, Homosexual Oppression and Liberation (New York: Avon, 1971), p. 218.
20. LASA Conference, May 23-29 2012, San Francisco. See, “March for gay rights in Cuba,” BBC.co.uk, May 19, 2012.
21. See, i.e., J.G. Vives, “LGBT Community Attacked, Tortured and Imprisoned in Russia as Regime Threatens to Imprison Gay Olympians: Peaceful people in Russia are being attacked and imprisoned at an alarming rate for being open about their sexual orientation,” Intellihub.com, August 8, 2013.
22. [See, i.e., “Another Fake Gay Hate Crime … With a Twist,” Gay Christian Movement Watch, November 26, 2013, also, “Cops: Lesbian Fakes Attack In Which She Carved Anti-Gay Slurs Into Skin,” CBS, August 22, 2012, Kate Briquelet, “Lesbian Waitress in “anti-gay” Receipt Flap Fired,” New York Post, December 7, 2013, also, “Joseph Baken, Montana Man, Pleads Guilty To Fabricating Anti-Gay Attack,” The Huffington Post, August 8, 2012, Hayley Bruce, “Police: Gay man faked hate crime in Iowa City,” The Daily Iowan, July 29, 2011, “Arson at Illinois gay bar likely a fake hate crime by owner,” Insurance Fraud News, November 2, 2013.]
23. If you think that I went too far by claiming that the U.S. is becoming the new evil empire, please watch this video and see some of our sociopath leaders shamelessly joking about their war crimes: “5-minute video: US ‘leaders’ JOKE about OBVIOUS War Crimes, war lies, war murders: Arrest them,” Infowars.com, February 9, 2014.
24. Unknowingly, in their total ignorance of communism, those “conservative” Republicans have accepted the late Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev’s doctrine of the irreversibility of communism! Nevertheless, despite CFR machinations behind our backs, like Russia, one day Cuba will change back into a democratic republic.
25, See, Andrew Springer and Kirit Radiaa, “Openly Gay Medalist ‘Cuddles’ With Putin,” ABC News, February 10, 2014.
26, See, Paul Joseph Watson, “Why is the Mass Media Promoting ‘Gay Rights’?” Infowars.com, February 8, 2014.
27, See, i.e., Greg Corombos, “Bolton: Putin Plot to ‘reconstitute Old Soviet Union,’” WND Radio, According to the article, CFR agent John Bolton warned “of Vladimir Putin’s attempts to reconstitute the old Soviet Union.”
28, The fact that the CFR globalist conspirators are encircling Russia is the only explanation for their otherwise unexplainable role in the so-called “Arab Spring, their support for the CIA-backed anti-government insurgents in Syria, Egypt and Libya, and their current efforts to destabilize the Ukraine. It is interesting to see how the CFR-controlled mainstream media is giving full coverage to the Ukrainian “rebels,” while mostly ignores the fight of the Venezuelan people against Castro’s military occupation forces.
29, On November 25, 1970, author Yukio Mishima and some members of his Tatenokai (“shield society”) neo-Nazi, gay militia group tried to gain power in Japan through a coup d’etat. Fortunately, they failed in their attempt.
Note: What follows are numerous other articles and/or blogs, report, book and videos that relate to and/or support the above articles and/or blogs-You Decide:
Obama intimidated top military brass: Agree with policy on gays or resign!-Posted on Biz Pac Review-By Tom Tillison-On April 2, 2014:
GAY’ U.S. SOLDIERS CAUGHT IN ASTONISHING ACT: ’Sellout crowd attends LGBT fundraiser on military base’!–Posted on WND.com-On March 2, 2014:
Victims of sex assaults in military are mostly men: Women are more likely to speak up!–Posted on The Washington Times-By Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times-On May 20, 2013:
NEW IN ‘GAY’ PARADE: U.S. TROOPS IN UNIFORM: ‘Command-level decision breaks down decades of limits on use of military image!-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On July 18, 2012:
NOW MEN ARE VICTIMS OF MILITARY SEX ASSAULTS: ‘Male-on-male attacks up since repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’!–Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On April 23, 2012:
SEX CRIMES SURGE IN U.S. ARMY: ‘Phenomenal numbers of rapes, sexual assaults, forcible sodomies!’-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On April 17, 2012:
LIBEL CASE AGAINST OBAMA’S ‘GAY’ ACCUSER TOSSED: ‘Larry Sinclair claimed president’s campaign paid to rig polygraph!’-Posted on WND.com-By Jerome R. Corsi-On April 24, 2012:
BILL LETS CHAPLAINS HOLD BIBLICAL VIEW OF ‘GAYS’: ‘Congressman says everyone’s constitutional rights should be protected!’-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On March 17, 2012:
MARINES ‘STARTING TO LOOK RIDICULOUS’: ‘Base official calls homosexual kiss ‘typical’!-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On March 3, 2012:
1950 Congressional Report On Perverts In Government (S. Res. 280)!–Posted on USASurvival.org:
Despite Plea from Obama Administration, Conference Committee Restores Military Ban on Sodomy, Bestiality!-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Pete Winn-On December 15, 2011:
Senate Poised to Legalize Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military!–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Pete Winn-On December 1, 2011:
Okay to Be Openly Gay in U.S. Military!–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Susan Jones-On September 20, 2011:
Defense Secretary Panetta Expected to Certify End of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’!-Posted on CNSNews.com-By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press-On July 22, 2011:
Navy Authorizes Chaplains to Perform Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ in Naval Chapels–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Pete Winn-On May 9, 2011:
Marines Get Trained on Accepting Gay Recruits–Posted on NewsMax.com-On April 28, 2011:
Hang on! ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal faces fresh fire: ‘Congress wary after generals admit they ‘don’t know’ how ‘gays’ impact readiness’–Posted on WND.com-By Drew Zahn-On April 22, 2011:
KNIGHT: Marching in lockstep with homosexual agenda ‘Obama militants shoot warrior tradition first, ask questions later’–Posted on The Washington Times-By Robert Knight, The Washington Times-On April 5, 2011:
Military indoctrinated on gays kissing, behavior: ‘Materials offer scenarios on gays’–Posted on The Washington Times-By By Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times-On March 23, 2011:
Evangelical chaplains may face ultimatum–Posted on OneNewsNow-By Chad Groening-On February 2, 2011:
What do military heroes think of sex experiments? ‘The mission is fight and win wars. President’s job is to protect nation’–Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On January 1, 2011:
67 Percent of Marine Combat Forces Say Putting Homosexuals in Their Units Will Hurt Their Effectiveness in the Field, Says DOD Report–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Terence P. Jeffrey-On December 20, 2010:
Rep. West: ‘Crazy’ to Fight Over ‘Don’t Ask’ With War to Win–Posted on NewsMax.com-By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter-On December 3, 2010:
McCain: 264,600 may quit military: ‘3 top commanders warn Senate: Don’t accept open homosexuality, reject ‘reprogramming’–Posted on WND.com-By Brian Fitzpatrick-On December 3, 2010:
Army, Marine chiefs cast doubt on gay service–Posted on National Review Online-By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press-On December 3, 2010:
Combat Troops’ Opposition Not an ‘Insurmountable Barrier’ to Letting Gays Serve in Military, Defense Secretary Says–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Edwin Mora-On December 03, 2010:
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Blackmail–Posted on National Review Online-On December 2, 2010:
McCain Questions Pentagon on Repeal of Gay Ban–Posted on The New York Times-By ELISABETH BUMILLER-On December 2, 2010:
The Real Pentagon Poll: 91% of Service Members Reject Homosexual Leaders – 1 in 4 Would Quit–Posted on AIPNews.com-On December 1, 2010:
Bradley Manning: Poster Boy For ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’–Posted on Human Events-By Ann Coulter-On December 1, 2010:
McCain Says He Will Oppose Repealing Law That Bans Homosexuals from Military–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Matt Cover-On November 15, 2010:
Supreme Court Ruling Keeps Ban on Gays From Openly Serving in the Military–Posted on FoxNews.com-By Lee Ross-On November 12, 2010:
Gates urges Congress to repeal gay ban now–Posted on Yahoo News- By ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer-On November 7, 2010:
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ May Go, But Military’s Don’t-Do-Sodomy Law Still in Place-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Matt Cover-On October 21, 2010:
White House: Obama Will Push Lame-Duck Congress to Legalize Homosexuality in U.S. Armed Forces–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Fred Lucas-On October 19, 2010:
Military Recruiters Told to Accept Gays-Posted on The New York Times-By The Associated Press-On October 19, 2010:
Judge’s Order Bars Military from Enforcing Federal Law Against Homosexuals Serving in Military–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Matt Cover-On October 14, 2010:
Republicans Block Bill to Lift Military Gay Ban–Posted on NewsMax.com-On September 21, 2010:
Move to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Stalls in Senate–Posted on The New York Times-By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN-On September 21, 2010:
Do Senators Understand Truth Behind Homosexuals’ Military Service?–Posted on Townhall-By Peter Sprigg-On September 20, 2010:
New gay Army: Top general calls Christian soldiers ‘bigots’–Editorial posted on The Washington Times-On September 16, 2010:
Obama Threw “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Case-Posted on Floyd Reports-By Ben Johnson-ON September 13, 2010:
Judge Strikes Down Military Ban on Gays-Posted on The New York Times-By The Associated Press-On September 9, 2010:
Marines don’t want to share rooms with gays: general–Posted on Reuters-On August 24, 2010:
Unpatriotic Democrats want a Gay Military Culture-Posted on ExposeObama.com-By Kevin “Coach” Collins, Coach Is Right-On August 12, 2010:
Half of Democrats Favor Punishing Soldiers Who Oppose Homosexuality, Survey Finds–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Adam Cassandra-On August 11, 2010:
Military Homosexual Scandal Tied to WikiLeaks Treason-Posted on USASurvival, Inc.-By Cliff Kincaid-On August 1, 2010:
The Battle of the Blood–Posted on The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property–By John Horvat-On June 15, 2010:
Conservative media fiddle while the military burns–Posted on OneNewsNow.com-By Robert Knight, Guest Columnist-On May 28, 2010:
Saving Soldiers from Gay Death!-Posted on USASurvival.org-By Cliff Kincaid-On May 27, 2010:
Democrats’ War Funding Amendment Would Allow Homosexuals to Serve in Military–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Matt Cover, Staff Writer-On May 28, 2010:
House Votes to Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ as Vote Nears in Senate–Posted on ABCNews.com-By HUMA KHAN and Z. BYRON WOLF-On May 27, 2010:
Majority of Americans Believe Future of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Should be Left Up to Military Commanders, Zogby Poll Finds–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Nick Dean-On May 27, 2010:
New Blockbuster Video Exposes Dangers of Gay Blood and Gay Soldiers–Posted on USASurvival.org:
Famed War Hero Speaks Out Against Obama Decision to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’–Posted on Culture and Media Institute-By Jeff Poor, Business & Media Institute-On May 26, 2010:
Report Exposes Unacceptable Risks of Changing Pentagon’s Homosexual Exclusion Policy-Posted on USASurvival.org-By Cliff Kincaid:
White House eyes a compromise on gays in military–Posted on Yahoo News-By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer-On May 24, 2010:
Marine Corps General James Conway: Marines Would Not Be ‘Forced’ To Live With Gay Soldiers–Posted on The HuffingtonPost.com-By ANNE FLAHERTY-On March 26, 2010:
Senate Armed Services Chairman Did Not Know That Bill He is Sponsoring Would Legalize Bisexual Behavior in the Military–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter-On March 08, 2010:
Sen. Nelson: ‘Premature To Make Any Decision’ On Allowing Homosexuals To Openly Serve in Military-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter-On March 08, 2010:
Sen. Lieberman Proposes Legalizing Bisexual Behavior in the U.S. Military–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter-On March 08, 2010:
‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ study already under fire–Posted on Yahoo News-By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer-On March 3, 2010:
Outraged Conservatives: Barring Critic of Obama’s Gays-in-Military Policy from Air Force Prayer Meeting Is Attack on Free Speech-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Pete Winn and Karen Schuberg-On March 01, 2010:
Air Force Retracted Invitation for Conservative Leader to Speak at Prayer Luncheon After He Criticized Obama’s Position on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’–Posted on CNSNews.com-By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor-On February 26, 2010:
Ask Obama About Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: “Gay voters are growing impatient for equality”-Posted on The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal-By RICHARD SOCARIDES-On January 24, 2010:
Military leaders doubt repeal of limits on gays–Posted on Reuters.com-By Susan Cornwell-On February 23, 2010:
Chiefs warn against lifting gay ban too quickly-Posted on Yahoo News-By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer-On February 23, 2010:
The Case Against Gays in the Military: “Open homosexuality would threaten unit cohesion and military effectiveness”–Posted on The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal-By MACKUBIN THOMAS OWENS-On February 2, 2010:
CRS: Homosexuals and the U.S. Military: Current Issues-Congressional Research Report 7-5700-By David F. Burrelli, Specialist in Military Manpower Policy and Jody Feder, Legislative Attorney-On July 22, 2009:
Should Homosexuals Serve Openly in the Military?–Posted on SpeakOut.Com-By Brian Hughes-On April 26, 2000:
Soros Owns the Left; Now Wants to Control the Right: “The Gay Infiltration of the Conservative Movement”-Posted on USASurvival.org-By Cliff Kincaid-On February 22, 2010:
Video: Barack Obama Gay Sex Scandal New Evidence!-Posted on YouTube.com-By billdemo2-On May 15, 2008:
The “Born Gay” Hoax–Posted on MassResistance.Org-By Ryan Sorba-2007:
Note: The above articles and/or blog posts, reports and book relate to and/or support my following blog posts-You Decide:
The Military Pays the Price for Obama’s Agenda!
Veterans and members of our Armed Forces under attack!
Kagan spit in the eye of America’s Armed Forces!
Have the “power elite” and pseudo-experts covertly sold us corruption disguised as freedom?
Where Is America Today?
A Nation Adrift Theme and Disclaimer:
“Food For Thought”
“God Bless & Keep Our USA Safe”