The chilling redefinition of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty by Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin and the Senate’s only lesbian, is a looming threat to religious liberty. With the possible loss of tax exemptions for churches and institutions that don’t comply with the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision, an era of religious persecution may be upon us.
Baldwin made her remarks on the June 27 broadcast of Up With Steve Kornacki on MSNBC. In a transcript of her remarks posted on Newsbusters, Baldwin ignored the fact that it was religious persecution in Europe that led to people fleeing here seeking religious freedom on an individual as well as institutional level:
Those apparently few American voters who are both aware and sane got another slap to the side of the head last Wednesday when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner revealed that the Obama administration planned to raise taxes on small business owners so that the size of government would not shrink . . . I kid you not. Mr. Geithner and Mr. Obama are clearly in denial of the fact that 64% of our new job creation comes from small business growth.
This incredibly absurd stupidity is par for the course among the progressive** left in economic matters . . . but no one seems to be paying attention to their stances on feminism, human rights and freedom of religion and speech in this country which have become so convoluted that even the progressive left is finding it difficult to know which group deserves slander in the name of political correctness and which groups do not. I refer you to Sharia Law; Radical Islam; and teaching of Jihad to children with cartoon characters talking about the beauty of becoming a martyr for Allah and using phrases like “kill the Jewish monkeys.” Surely political correctness ends where simple and easily discoverable truth about EVIL begins, no?
According to the progressive left, Radical Islam is NOT to be criticized. Those who criticize the fruits of the Radical Jihadist Muslims as Bill O’Reilly did October 14th of last year on the ABC program “The View” . . . will earn the eternal scorn of the left for being “racists and extremists.” O’Reilly’s factual statement “It was Muslims who killed us on 9/11” was the stimulus for two of The View hosts, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg to walk off the show’s set that day. Radical Islam under the cover of being moderate folk interested only in freedom of religion has already instituted Sharia Law in the United Kingdom and seeks to expand Sharia Law not only into this country, but into a dominant role in this country. They (the radical Jihadists) already have Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department supporting CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) in their suit against the state of Oklahoma because an Oklahoma Law prohibiting Sharia Law was voted in by an aware public. Truth, it seems doesn’t matter. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/cair/
What exactly is Sharia Law: to begin with, its legal sanctions are what in the U.S. Constitution are called “cruel and unusual punishments”: beheading, public stoning, public whippings, public caning; cutting off hands; etc. ad nauseum. The crimes that bring these harsh punishments are beheading for apostasy (deserting Islam and converting to another religion); beheading for homosexuality; cutting of hands for thievery; stoning for adultery; caning for a woman guilty of public immodesty; and various types of death penalties may be meted out for blasphemy against Allah. The progressive left which has long championed human rights in the United States all those times when we so egregiously violate them; and specifically homosexual rights; abortion rights; and female rights calls all who disagree with them in any fashion “extremists,” racists,” fascists and Nazis” even when Sharia Law is being attacked by clear thinking patriotic Americans for violating human rights; homosexual rights; abortion rights, child or adult slavery or the rights of women. Supposedly there is no contradiction between allowing Muslims access to Sharia Law in the United States and the United States Constitution? And the many individual state constitutions?
The matter of public modesty legislated against women by forcing them to wear the burkha is utterly shocking. Where is the National Organization of Women (presumably NOW is right where they were during the Monica Lewinsky affair when they said not word one against the philandering sexual harasser Bill Clinton? Or when conservative women are abused in public discourse and even called “stupid c_nts” by liberal commentators) why do they say nothing against Sharia? The twisted laws emerging from the Quran (or Koran) are based upon the evil notion that a man is not responsible for his actions if he rapes an “immodest” woman. Indeed any woman, even one in a burkha, hoping to bring charges of rape must provide three MALE witnesses to be heard in court and have any chance of justice being done.
The Sharia laws on homosexuality are clear, unless homosexual rape is perpetrated upon a slave in a Muslim household . . . which is truly A-OK and all right, of course. Heterosexual rape of slave women is, naturally OK, too. These slave women are immodest, of course, required to be naked from the waist up . . . so that’s some understandable justification for rape, eh?
The much ballyhooed “Arab Spring” that Barack Obama (who attended Muslim school for parts of five years and has a statue of himself at ten years old standing in his schoolyard in Jakarta (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8500974.stm)has liberally praised on numerous occasions . . . in Egypt is all about burning Coptic Christian (10% of the population of the country) churches, killing their members; and quite righteously also yelling “Kill the Jews Kill the Jews” before liberal journalists who seldom or never translate what’s being chanted. This was all predictable, to anyone who saw the shocking survey of Egyptians back in November that showed that Mubarak or no Mubarak 87% of Egyptians favored Sharia Law and 92% favored beheading for apostasy.
Arab Spring is just a way to claim Democracies are arising . . . when in truth: jihadocracies are the fruits of Arab Spring. By the way recently an Egyptian high official opined that the reason that the economy hadn’t exploded into prosperity since strongman Mubarak was ousted, was that “raiding” had pretty much ceased. He was talking about raiding Black Africa and all around the world to obtain slaves for sale which is one of the most lucrative occupations in Egypt and the Islamic world. Of course the presence of one or more slaves in a Muslim household is the easiest and surest way to improve the family’s standard of living.
“What in the hell,” you are probably thinking is the motive for this stunning alignment with Islamic terrorists; Sharia Law; and just plain evil by the progressive left? In case you missed it, the much-discussed “Revolution” is underway. During “THE Revolution” the enemy of my enemy (capitalism; the U.S. Constitution; and American freedom and power and wealth) is my friend . . . as you’ll soon see when the lamestream-mainstream media; Code Pink; Bill Ayers; Bernadette Dorne; George Soros; and the Unions all come to the support of the radical Islamic 2nd “Freedom Flotilla” which will in a few weeks try to run the Israeli arms blockades again this year. These (the progressive left) are the people who are controlling our country right now and most Americans are too lazy, or too ignorant, or too stupid to see EVIL right in front of their noses. Or . . . nowadays is it just politically INcorrect to bring the matter of EVIL to anyone’s attention?
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
**Progressivism is the doctrine that we must “progress” beyond the ‘ill-conceived and outdated U.S. Constitution’ if we are to ever make “progress” toward an earthly Utopia. You’ll recognize the direct influence of Communist theorist Karl Marx in those words, no doubt. American Progressivism is an offshoot of Britain’s Fabian Socialist movement. They named themselves after the Roman general Fabius who eventually defeated Hannibal of Carthage (remember him crossing the Alps with war elephants?) after a nearly twelve-year war of attrition. Here’s the Fabian Socialists’ infamous stained glass window from the London School of Economics: note the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing society emblem of the Fabians; and the stack of socialist reading material:
Rajjpuut thinks of progressives this way: at least half an hour every week they make some public pronouncement that amounts to “praying for” their fellow man. The other 167 ½ hours of the week they’re busy “preying upon” their fellow man.
Until now I have been silent on the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” (DADT)debate. I guess I figured that sanity would prevail. Now we know that is not the case. As a continued act of betrayal, eight Senate Republicans stood with 53 democrats and 2 independents to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, a policy which has been in place since 1993.
The eight Republicans were: Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts (newly elected with the help of the Tea Party), Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (re-elected as a write-in candidate), newly elected Mark Kirk of Illinois, liberal retiring lame duck George Voinovich of Ohio took one last opportunity to betray his party, newly reelected Richard Burr of North Carolina, John Ensign of Nevada (who is up for election in 2012), Susan Collins of Maine (who is up for reelection in 2014) and Olympia Snowe of Maine (who is up for election in 2012).
I will go into the moral side of this discussion later, but let us address first the consequences and real agenda of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
If you are foolish enough to believe that the anti-American, anti-military factions that are pushing this agenda are doing so because of their love and admiration for the homosexual community, you are dangerously naive, far too gullible to be in a position of leadership, or your family tree stopped forking a few generations back. This will do to the military what a computer virus does to a hard drive. More on this later, but let me start with where I stand on the issue.
I am not a "seek and destroy Christian zealot" who believes the government should reside in the bedroom of American homes. I don't believe that what goes on between a man and a woman is any of government's business. Nor is it the business of the community unless it affects the community. If you turn your home into a brothel, you are making my neighborhood unsafe for my family by bringing in a criminal element and potential sexual predators. You will have my full attention at that point in time.
Likewise, I am not interested at all in the private consensual behavior of the homosexual community. If you live in my neighborhood and I hear whispers about these "guys" who live in that house on the corner, I am forced dismiss such rumors because under the law that I honor, Biblical law, unless there are two eye witnesses, no charge cannot be brought against anyone for anything. However, the minute you start having raucous parties where public indecency is displayed, you have made your lifestyle my business. Further, when one begins parading up and down the city streets of major cities in America (see: San Francisco Gay Pride Parade) naked, flaunting one's sexuality, and demanding special rights, you and I will find ourselves on opposite sides of the sexual divide … no ifs ands or butts about it.
Likewise, when you join the military and demand special rights to accommodate your sexual lifestyle, you have crossed the line. If we, as a nation, have to make special provisions to accommodate your sexual proclivities, where does it end? Should we not then have special provisions for polygamists? How about people that love their animals in that "special way" … shouldn't they have special protection? If homosexuality is "natural human behavior," isn't bestiality as well? After all, didn't God make us all the way we are?
And, of course, everyone knows we need special protections for those who love little boys, like NAMBLA. They are so misunderstood and hated, but didn't God make them that way? Why should they be punished for "natural human behavior"?
And how about other groups like necrophilias? Do you have any idea how difficult a public relations task selling this life style is? It’s just so hard to find understanding for these poor folks. Their outlook is so grave that I believe Harry Reid should sponsor a bill yet today just for them. Who knows … in this lame duck congress (that for the bestiality folks), even a bill for necrophilias may not be dead on arrival, which would probably leave necrophilias with mixed emotions.
Back to Don't Ask Don't Tell. There are some good sides to having openly gay men in the barracks with straights. First, it might stimulate the economy. I mean, if we have a couple million soldiers all buying soap on a rope, it is bound to boost the economy of soap on a rope makers. And I think serving in a forward position with an openly gay man would have a tendency to keep one awake in the foxhole … or anywhere else for that matter. Awkward isn't it? Being in forward position while fighting a rear guard action? But I digress. There are, in reality, serious health issues at stake.
A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime; approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners; 17% claimed 250-499 partners; 15% claimed 500-999 partners, and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners according to Wiki.answers.com.
Homosexuality seems to be a highly lustful lifestyle with the average homosexual having hundreds of sex partners during their lifetime. How is that going to play out in the barracks? Are the barracks going to become a hedonistic brothel filled with Caligulan scenes of sexual romp and lust? And if not, how about "tender moments" of hand holding and "cuddling" … is that going to be allowed in the barracks? And if such behavior is banned, how long will it be before the ACLU is suing the Army and the federal government on the grounds that the gay community is being singled out and discriminated against for only exercising "natural human behavior" already condoned by both the military and the federal government, when they revoked the DADT policy.
Then there is the privacy question. We do not allow men to live with women in the barracks. Experience has taught us that a separation of the sexes prevents a lot of potential problems, like inter-barracks relationship problems, interpersonal conflicts created by jealousy, breakups, pregnancy (which probably won't be an issue in this case), and other "natural human behavior".
Then there is the problem of inappropriate sexual behavior. We avoid the potential problems which can be created when a few good men have been out partying for a few too many hours coming back to the barracks to join a vulnerable Private Jane Doe in the co-ed showers. But even the innocent appearance of an obviously amorous male in the co-ed shower area might well be, or at least should be, an affront to the modesty of the female soldiers or now after the repeal of DADT, male soldiers.
How are straight men going to respond when they walk from the shower to their bunk and the scene turns to a "B" flick lewd prison backdrop complete with catcalls and whistles? How will that affect training, discipline, and self confidence? Will the barracks become “us” against “them” ... straights against gays?
Perhaps homosexuals should be separated from the rest of the troops to avoid the possibility of sexual harassment. But that is akin to asking men and women to bunk together isn't it? So what does one do with openly gay individuals in the military?
As stated earlier, the homosexual lifestyle for over 75% of gay men is all about sexual encounters, hundreds of them. How does that affect hygiene in the military?
Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238). 60% of all positive HIV tests are found in homosexual men. This contrasts with just over 15% of all positive HIV tests which are due to heterosexual contact. (Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada. November 2004).
Dramatic increases in syphilis in many large cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, but also in London and Manchester, UK are in the majority observed in homosexual men. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Trends in primary and secondary syphilis and HIV infections in men who have sex with men. MMWR 2004; 53: 575-8. and Nicoll A. Are trends in HIV, gonorrhea, and syphilis worsening in Western Europe? BMJ 2002; 324:1324-7.)
According to "Gay author Gabriel Rotello the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'" This reinforces my point earlier concerning their demand for equal sexual rights and the glut of court cases that would result in any attempt to limit what to them is "Natural Human Behavior."
Finally, I know that its passé to remind anyone of moral standards, but morals are no small part of the argument. What liberals in America have forgotten is that those of us who hold Judeo Christian values are the norm and that dissenting voices, pushing homosexuality, are the contrarians.
We, as traditional Christian America, have rights too. The left does not have a right to inflict their religion of liberal one world humanistic theology on us. Their religion is humanism and their theology, which sees intellect as Divine Spark, is anathema to millions of Americans who hold a Judeo Christian understanding of life. The left tells us that we have no right to force our religion and morality on them, but they have no problem erasing over four centuries of Judeo Christian heritage and morality on this continent and imposing their vulgar religion of humanistic licentiousness on us.
Every belief system is religious by its very nature. It determines both the course and correction of a society. History is replete with nations which have traded Christianity for the humanistic religion of the left and history is replete with the stories of failure, collapse and finally the replacement of freedom with the despotism of Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler.
So what will it be America the religion of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, who has really gotten behind the repeal of DADT, or the religion of our Creator who saw our forefathers through the impossible victory over the invincible British Empire? Was their confidence in themselves or their military prowess? Hardly! Their faith was this: “With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."
Nor did our founders believe that humanism could lead a nation. "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
Will the law of the Creator, whose Triune God-head our fathers celebrated in the creation of a tripartite government, be our guide or will we desert that safe harbor for the humanistic worship of intellect and power preached Marx, Lenin, and the American Left?
Unfortunately, what most Americans don't realize is that the religion of George Soros and his ilk, and their minions like Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, is the religion of power. Their goal is not to raise up America to a new enlightenment. Their agenda is to collapse America and level the playing field with the rest of the world. They believe that our power and influence is what stands in the way of their NWO. Their constant piling on of debt to the nation isn't about doing good for the poor, it is about caving in the economy causing panic and confusion, from which only they will be able to lead us to safety. The goal is always destruction that they might rebuild the world in their image of what it should be and under their wise leadership.
Finally, if they are to be successful in their quest to build this New World Order, the strategy has to include the control of every aspects of society. Among these are the economy, the media, education, government, the courts, and the military. One of the remaining two obstacles is the media the other is control of the military.
General degradation of the military can be accomplished through the appointment of socialist generals by a lackey of the NWO, which Mr. Obama (despite the constitutional restriction under Article 1 Section 8 which reserves to the states the appointment of general officers) has already done. The other is to generally degrade the capability of the military. That, my friends, is the real purpose of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. This move alone will do more to disrupt the military than any other single move that could have been made.
Sure, we have fought endless wars to tax our military, extended them beyond human endurance, and created impossible rules of engagement for them to follow. But, our soldiers are the best in the world. And despite these brutish tactics they have stood tall and exceeded even these draconian demands placed upon them. They are nothing short of heroic. But injecting the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell into the military is akin to inserting a computer virus into a hard drive. It begins chipping away at programs and the registry and then begins causing such chaos as to make the device unusable. For the military, that virus is Don't Ask Don't Tell. Through disease, social disruption, breakdown of military order, legal chaos, and the destruction of morale, this may well do what no Fabian bureaucrat or no army in the world can do ... beat the American military.
So, now that our weak kneed politicians have gotten all mushy and politically correct on the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, think about the ramifications and the unintended consequences (or perhaps more properly, intended consequences) of what we are doing and the potentially catastrophic cause and effect this repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell will have on the defenses of America.