ObamAcorn Attack on Military
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(ONN) A conservative military watchdog is very pleased the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down a challenge to a Pentagon policy forbidding homosexual men and women from serving in the military -- and a Christian attorney says President Obama should abandon his plan to end the policy.



The high court said Monday it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. That policy, which was put in place by President Bill Clinton, has often been confused with the actual 1993 law passed by Congress which strictly forbids homosexuals from serving in the military.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that "don't ask, don't tell" is an unconstitutional policy.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, shares that she is pleased the Justice Department opposed Pietrangelo's appeal. "The Department of Justice did do the right thing in opposing this appeal that the Supreme Court has rejected," she says. "The court case did indeed go against the person who was trying to bring down the law regarding gays in the military."

But Donnelly says unfortunately the administration did not appeal to the Supreme Court in another lawsuit brought by former Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled can move forward.

"The Ninth Circuit said...the government has to prove that this individual nurse was causing disruption in [her] particular unit. Now that's not what the law requires," Donnelly points out. "That is a higher standard of review that has ever been used in cases like this."

Donnelly says the government must now take the case back to the appeals court and try to make a case for Witt's dismissal under those higher standards. But Donnelly hopes the Ninth Circuit's ruling might still be appealed to the Supreme Court, where she thinks there is a good chance it would be overturned.

Let the policy stand

Supremes Give Military Suit the Boot (www.frc.org)

As recently as last week, President Obama reiterated his commitment to overturning the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military. After yesterday's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, it's clear that his administration will have to wage that battle the hard way--in Congress. The justices refused to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy brought by Army Capt. James Pietrangelo, who was discharged from the military after disclosing his same-sex attractions.

For our troops and those who care about preserving the integrity of the Armed Services, this is incredibly good news.
In effect, the justices have said that if the President wants to repeal the 16-year-old policy (the military ban on sodomy predates the U.S. Constitution and traces back to the British Articles of War), he will have to do so through the proper legislative channels. And if history is any indication, the House and Senate will be far more reluctant than this President to turn our military into a sea of social experimentation.

As Congress has long recognized, homosexuality is completely incompatible with military service. According to a recent White House letter from over 1,050 high-ranking retired Flag and General Officers, allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would "add to the stress of war and disrupt training, operations, and unit cohesiveness."

Even recruiting would suffer. A 2008 Military Times poll found that 58% of active-duty military personnel object to overturning the ban. Almost a quarter of the respondents said that if the policy were repealed they wouldn't re-enlist or at least consider not re-enlisting. And I don't blame them.

As a Marine, I'm more than familiar with the living and working conditions of our soldiers. Those on the far Left who have never served in the military have no concept of the intimate environment--the open showers or the cramped sleeping quarters.



I can tell you from personal experience that the lack of privacy is difficult, but introducing forced cohabitation with homosexuals would create an atmosphere of sexual tension that compromises our troops' readiness. Not taking these realities seriously shows contempt for those who serve and a willingness to put political correctness ahead of national security.

'Gays' in the military - bad idea then, bad idea now
Matt Barber - Guest Columnist - 6/29/2009

Most are unaware that during the Revolutionary War George Washington was a staunch advocate for allowing "gays" in the military. In fact, he boldly commissioned the little-known "Fabulous Pink Brigade," which once infiltrated a British camp and – while the redcoats slept – covertly redecorated in eye-popping pastels.

No, although Washington was a revolutionary, he wasn't a radical. The idea of open homosexuality within our armed services has long been considered preposterous.

Washington wisely understood that to allow men among the ranks who sodomized other men would necessarily distract from the mission at hand, disrupt unit cohesion, and damage the morale of non-sodomy-disposed soldiers forced to sleep and bathe alongside those so inclined. It's understandably disquieting to wonder whether your foxhole buddy "has your back" or wants to rub it.

In general court-martial orders dated March 14, 1778, Washington, through his designs, addressed the disposition of a homosexual soldier "tried for attempting to commit sodomy": "[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."

Barack Obama is no George Washington. He and a like-minded gaggle of congressional liberals have pledged to repeal the federal law, Section 654, Title 10, which stipulates that homosexual practice is incompatible with military service. Furthermore, they intend to do away with Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) administrative compromise.

The president has asked Congress to pass and send to his desk H.R. 1283, which, for the first time in American history, would homosexualize the military. To wit, he seeks to supplant military vitality with San Francisco vice. Whereas George Washington put a premium on combat readiness and national security, these indispensable safeguards play last fiddle to liberals' obtuse fixation with political correctness.

In the deadly game of war it's dangerously irresponsible to place extreme social ideology above national security. In combat, even the slightest disruption or distraction can spell the difference between victory and defeat – life and death. The left fails to understand this grave reality.

The boots on the ground, however, do understand. In a March 31, 2009, letter addressed to President Obama and members of Congress, more than 1,100 of the military's highest ranking and most distinguished commanders warned that they were "greatly concerned" by movement toward military homosexualization. They expressed fear that a DADT repeal would "eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."

It seems their fears are justified. A 2009 Military Times poll determined that nearly one in 10 of those currently serving would not re-enlist if the policy were repealed. In today's highly perilous global political climate, such a plummet in service could be devastating to national security.

I'm speaking from personal experience. I served 12 years in the Army National Guard. During basic training a young man who later turned out to be homosexual was discharged after making unwanted advances toward other soldiers and for inappropriately touching several while they slept in the barracks.

A lengthy investigation ensued. Troops were pulled away from their regular training to answer questions. It was a tremendous distraction for our entire platoon. This incident most definitely disrupted unit cohesion and harmed troop morale.

But none of this matters to liberals. Obama is the un-Washington. The left – of which Obama sits on the fringe – loathe the armed services. Rather than viewing the military as a noble and necessary institution designed as our last line of defense, they consider it a giant petri dish ripe for radical social experimentation. Move over Army National Guard; make way for the smarmy avant-garde.

But it's not just the military that Obama seeks to "remake"; it's the entire social construct. On June 1, 2009, he unilaterally and arbitrarily issued an official Presidential Proclamation smugly declaring that all Americans should celebrate sexual deviancy. He dubbed June "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

Rather than regarding homosexual practice with "abhorrence" and "detestation" – as did George Washington and most everyone until recent years – Obama has euphemistically vowed to "outlaw discrimination" (read: criminalize traditional morality). Included within his proclamation – and among a host of equally radical social pledges – was yet another promise to "[end] the existing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy...."

Well, the federal courts have rejected the notion that DADT constitutes "discrimination." In recent weeks the U.S. Supreme Court was not persuaded to hear an appeal from a lower-court ruling which determined that the policy is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

In an age of rampant judicial activism, it's refreshing to witness some common-sense judicial restraint. This decision by the Supreme Court should once again remind everyone that, contrary to the propaganda fomented by the organized homosexual lobby, Barack Obama and liberals in Congress, homosexual temptation and the destructive but changeable homosexual lifestyle must not be confused with neutral and immutable characteristics such as race or gender for purposes of assigning special government minority status.

That is to say, it's properly illegal, for instance, to ban African-Americans from serving in the armed forces. It is neither illegal nor discriminatory, however, to disallow any American who "loudly and proudly" opts to practice what George Washington would have called "the sin that dare not speak its name."

Hands off the military, Mr. Obama; we can't afford the "progress."

US soldier makes case to remain in Canada

By CHARMAINE NORONHA Associated Press Writer
Posted: 07/08/2009


TORONTO—The first woman soldier to flee the U.S. military for Canada to avoid the Iraq war on Wednesday appealed the findings of a report that led to her deportation order. Lawyers for Kimberly Rivera argued...

The lower house of Canada's Parliament passed a nonbinding motion in June urging that U.S. military deserters be allowed to stay in Canada, but the Conservative Party government ignored the vote.



During the Vietnam War, up to 90,000 Americans won refuge in Canada, most of them to avoid the military draft.

Harry Reid’s Power Play to Push Hate Crimes Agenda Puts Military at Risk www.LC.org

Washington, DC – Yesterday while the nation was occupied with the Senate confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, Senator Harry Reid personally filed two amendments (on behalf of Leahy and Kennedy) to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill. Reid filed the Sen. Leahy Hate Crimes Amendment No. 1511 and then filed a Second Degree on behalf of Sen. Kennedy (No. 1539), which is an amendment to Leahy’s No. 1511. Reid then immediately filed cloture after he filled the amendment tree, which means that motion now has to ripen and there could be a vote around midnight tonight.

Time is of the essence to contact your Senators to voice opposition to this power play by Sen. Reid. By attaching the Hate Crimes amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, Reid has placed our troops at risk and has put a radical homosexual agenda above national security. To contact your Senators, the Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121. Tell your Senators you are very disappointed in the attempt to hide this bill from the American people.
This Hate Crimes bill is so controversial that it must be considered as a stand-alone bill, not rushed as an amendment. The bill discriminates against some classes of crime victims and gives special rights based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” These terms include over 30 sexual fetishes and philias.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Senator Harry Reid is willing to jeopardize our troops to push his radical homosexual agenda.

He is willing to deceive the American people by pushing his agenda under cover of night. The so-called Hate Crimes bill is controversial because it seeks to glorify a bizarre range of sexual fetishes.


Senator Reid is placing America at risk by piggybacking hate crimes, which most Americans oppose, on a bill that supports our troops, which all Americans need.
It is astounding how this administration is willing to push a radical homosexual agenda, even when it means risking national security.”

""This thread will explore the Despised and Disposable Nature of the Male Minority, and the Exempt Status of the Female Majority - particularly in relation to Military Service ""

I take it that feminit volunteers for active combat are resoundingly conspicious by their absence - doesn't suit their pores at all

Not 'left' enough? Just shift a little...
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 7/17/2009

A conservative military watchdog says Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is being politically expedient in supporting the effort to overturn the ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

Recently The Hill reported that Gillibrand (D-New York), who was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Hillary Clinton, is trying to solidify her support among the left. New York's junior senator has been criticized for being too conservative on social issues -- and at least one or possibly two New York congresswomen could challenge her in the Democratic primary for her seat.

Consequently, Gillibrand may have decided to shore up her support among liberals by supporting the repeal of the 1993 law that bans homosexuals from military service and often has been confused with Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

In doing so, says Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, Gillibrand has made a brazen political move.

"It is not a credit to Senator Gillibrand or any senator who would try to play games with an important law regarding the armed forces -- a law that is designed to protect good order, discipline, and moral in the armed forces," Donnelly states.

"To put that at risk for a brazen and personal political reason...is probably the worst motive we've seen so far."

This is not the first incident of Gillibrand moving to the left. The Hill also reports that she has worked on tightening up gun control and has gone left on the issue of illegal

Veterans Group Survey Shows Strong Support for Current Gays-in-the-Military Law

www.cmrlink.org - Elaine Donnelly – (734) 464-9430

A July 30 Washington Times article breaks a news story that effectively torpedoes the high-powered campaign for gays in the military. In an article titled “Is Obama Administration Listening to the Troops?” Base News editor Grace Vuoto reports the results of a previously-unpublished survey done by the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA). The article also references a link to the MOAA survey, which illustrates poll results with dramatic bar graphs.

By a two-to-one margin, MOAA survey respondents favored current policy or an even stronger law regarding homosexuals in the military. The MOAA survey also found that 68% of respondents believe that repeal of current law would have a “very negative” effect (48%) or “moderately negative” effect (20%) on troop morale and military readiness.

Referring to the determined campaign to repeal the 1993 law, which is frequently mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” CMR President Elaine Donnelly commented, “Gay activists keep insisting that cultural and generational changes make success for their cause inevitable. The MOAA survey, which includes significant participation by younger active duty or drilling reserve and guard members, demolishes that argument.”

The survey done by MOAA, a 370,000 multi-service veterans organization, found that 16% of respondents currently on active duty, drilling reserve, or active guard duty favored the Defense Department’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy as a “reasonable compromise.” Over three times as many (52%) favored an even stronger “outright ban on military service by homosexuals,” while less than one-third (31%) favored repeal.

Donnelly noted, “The combined 68% opinion expressed on both of these key questions—coming from MOAA members who would be directly affected by repeal of the law—conveys a clear message to President Barack Obama and to members of Congress. Repeal of the 1993 law, which cannot be justified on national security grounds, would have serious negative effects on recruiting, retention, and overall readiness in the All-Volunteer Force.”

She added that the survey results are even more remarkable in view of the fact that a combined 35% of MOAA respondents thought that today’s servicemembers are “much more” or “moderately more” tolerant toward homosexuals in the military, while 45% percent said that attitudes were “no different” from those servicing in the 1980s and earlier.

Thirty-four percent of the MOAA Survey’s 1,654 respondents were under 30 years old, and another 30% were 30-45, an age category that includes experienced leaders. “So much for the claim that since younger members of the military are more comfortable with homosexuals in general, they are ready to support repeal of the law.” She added, “Civilian culture has changed, but the unique culture of the military has not changed.”

The MOAA Survey findings reinforce those of the annual Military Times Poll of active-duty subscriber/respondents. For four years in a row, 58% of Military Times active-duty subscriber/respondents expressed support for current law. In response to a new question asked in 2008, 10% said that if the law is repealed they would not re-enlist, and an additional 14% said they would consider leaving the military. In March more than 1,000 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military released an open letter supporting the 1993 law.

The Base News article included a statement from a MOAA spokesman, but did not explain why the organization did not release the results on its own. At least one member mentioned in the article opposed the group’s silence on a major issue soon to be debated in Congress.

To schedule an interview on these issues, please call CMR President Elaine Donnelly at 734/464-9430, or Executive Director Tommy Sears in Washington, D.C. at 202/347-5333.



* * * * * * *

The Center for Military Readiness is an independent public policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues. More information is available at www.cmrlink.org.

Just goes to show - if you want to get ahead in life and retire wealthy, make war not love.

Particularly if you want a 'Stable' relationship that wont collapse.

Ohso.

Oh my - this one has so many truly lemon sour bad puns in it I shall simply have to return again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lesbian soldier awarded £190,000 for sexual harassment is 'disgusted' with wounded soldiers' payouts (but insists that HER'S was fair)

Kerry Fletcher is 'disgusted' over how much injured soldiers receive in compensation despite her own £190,000 payout for sexual harassment http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...79_233x415.jpg

A lesbian former soldier awarded nearly £190,000 after being sexually harassed by a male sergeant said she was 'disgusted' at the compensation given to injured servicemen.

Former Lance Bombardier Kerry Fletcher, 32, received a total of £186,895.52 last year after she won her claims against the Ministry of Defence for sex discrimination, victimisation and sexual harassment at an employment tribunal in Leeds.

The payout was widely criticised at the time because it was higher than the amount given to many British soldiers wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Miss Fletcher, who has since left the Army, claimed her career collapsed as a result of the sergeant's actions while she worked at stables in North Yorkshire.... but now lives in Germany...

'There's just no comparison. I feel sorry for these people who were injured in wars but they joined the Army knowing there was a risk they could come back injured or even dead..." she said.

Center for Military Readiness

Far from being a vacation month, August was a busy time for the Center for Military Readiness, and we expect the next few months to be even more challenging. To keep you informed of what CMR has been doing, I am sending you this free first edition of CMR E-Notes.
Our new on-line newsletter is packed with information and commentary that we posted on our website, www.cmrlink.org, in the past month. If you like the new CMR E-Notes, please share this and future editions with social network friends and bloggers who share our concerns about military/social issues.
You can also sign up to receive CMR updates faster by using the RSS widget device posted in several sections of our website, www.cmrlink.org.

We appreciate your support and will continue to do our best to advocate high standards and sound priorities for our military.

A. The Campaign for Gays in the Military



1. Advocates of gays in the military have shifted their focus to the human interest stories of a few military members who were found ineligible for service due to homosexual conduct. On August 23, the Idaho Statesman published an investigative report about an Air Force aviator's case that revealed a sordid story relevant to the national debate. My commentary for Human Events analyzed the implications of:

* The Fehrenbach Case: Defining Military Discipline Down

2. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) has launched a high-powered “Gays in the Military Campaign,” or GIMC, for short. The multi-million dollar "Voices of Honor" tour, which scheduled media events in at least seven cities, intends to generate support from 218 co-sponsors on a bill to repeal the 1993 law, in order to impose:

* Murphy’s (LGBT) Law for the Military

3. An Online Survey done for the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) has sparked controversy due to the organization's decision to disregard the opinions of younger, current military people who responded to the survey after the first eleven days. My article on this subject, published by NewsMax, is titled:

* Military Voices Must Be Heard

Links to graphs illustrating the on-line responses that were removed from the MOAA survey website are included in this article, posted on CMR’s website www.cmrlink.org:

Support for the Law

Effect on Troop Morale and Readiness

Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

B. Women on Submarines

On August 29, Stars & Stripes posted my letter titled “Reasons Women Aren’t on Subs” in response to a report it ran on July 22 titled "Breaking Into the Underwater Boys' Club-Sailor One of 12 Women to be Submarine-Qualified." Navy personnel quoted in the article seemed unaware of the unique hazards to females and their fellow sailors were women to crew submarines. Unfortunately, Stars & Stripes did not include hyperlinks to references supporting my statements in the originally-submitted letter. Those links and a more detailed commentary are available in the CMR's SITREP Blog section, in an article titled:

* Sophistry About Submarines

C. PR Blitz for Women in Land Combat

The New York Times ran two major front-page articles that featured interviews with female soldiers, which included very little information on the status of regulations affecting women and why the Army is ignoring them. The Times did publish my 150 word Letter to Editor in response to this article by reporter Steven Myers: “Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In.”
This article, titled "Disrespect for Regulations, Congress, and Army Women," includes several links to previous reports spotlighting the Army's continuing violations of Defense Department regulations regarding women in or near direct ground combat and the congressional notification law.

D. CMR SITREP Blog

This edition of the CMR SITREP Blog includes several items about constant pressures from activists on the Obama Administration, and comments about Rep. Patrick Murphy, the new primary sponsor of legislation to repeal the 1993 law on gays in the military:

* Summer in the Capitol City

E. CMR Activities

I am looking forward to participating as a speaker at the “How To Take Back America” Conference that will take place in St. Louis, MO, September 25-26. This conference will present outstanding speakers on a wide variety of topics that are critical to America’s future, and provide practical advice and leadership on how to stand for sound principles that can turn the future around. There will be 24 workshops, all of which will videotaped so that attendees will be able to see concurrent sessions. For more details, please go to http://www.howtotakebackamerica.org

« « « «


The Center for Military Readiness is an independent, non-partisan 501(c)(3) public policy organization that specializes in military social issues. Tax-deductible contributions to CMR can be made here. More information is available at www.cmrlink.org.

Admiral Mullen Risking Birth Defect-Hazardous Duty for Women on Submarines
Constantly Recycled Atmosphere Unlike Surface Ships

September 25, 2009

Contact: Elaine Donnelly, President CMR 734/464-9430
Tommy Sears, CMR Executive Director 202/347-5333


Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, has expressed surprise and disappointment that Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated that he supports the assignment of women to submarines. “Chairman Mullen, said Donnelly, “apparently does not understand the most important reasons why women sailors do not serve on submarines. The problem is not nuclear power, it is the air, which is constantly recycled in the undersea environment. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels in the air are safe for adults but a high-risk cause of birth defects in unborn children—particularly in the early weeks of gestation when a woman may not even know she is pregnant.”

She continued, “By thoughtlessly pushing for co-ed submarines, apparently to please military and civilian feminists, Admiral Mullen has demonstrated an appalling unawareness of the health hazards involved, and a callous disregard for quality-of-life hardships that are difficult enough for sailors in the Silent Service.”

“Admiral Mullen, Adm. Gary Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations, and Navy Secretary Raymond Mabus would show far more respect for Navy women by taking the time to read the most comprehensive analysis on this subject, an SAIC Report titled “Submarine Assignment Policy Assessment.” She continued, “The report’s detailed analysis explains stark differences in habitability standards between submarines and surface ships. It also explains the dilemmas future submarine commanders would face when they must choose between an extremely dangerous mid-ocean evacuation of a pregnant sailor, which would compromise the stealth of the mission, or a decision to force the sailor to expose her unborn child to atmospheric elements (not nuclear power) that are known to cause birth defects.”

Donnelly further recommended that the military and Navy’s top leaders review the statement of Rear Admiral Hugh Scott, MC, USN (Ret.), a recognized expert in undersea medicine, who explained the health risks of assigning women to submarines in a letter to the House Armed Services Committee. Among other things, Dr. Scott explained that ectopic pregnancies, which are not statistically rare, would create additional emergencies requiring immediate, extremely hazardous evacuations, sometimes in mid-ocean.

She added, “Britain, Canada, and the American Navy do not put women on submarines primarily because of these irresolvable health risks and operational complications. In addition, habitability standards on subs are well below minimum standards on surface ships. Crowd them even more, in order to provide separate quarters for female officers and enlisted sailors, and morale as well as discipline would suffer.”

Donnelly also noted that there is a law requiring the Navy to provide official notice to Congress before any funds are spent to gender-integrate submarines. More information is on the CMR website, linked here.

To schedule an interview on these issues, please call CMR President Elaine Donnelly at 734/464-9430, or Executive Director Tommy Sears in Washington, D.C. at 202/347-5333.



* * * * * * *

The Center for Military Readiness is an independent public policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues. More information is available at www.cmrlink.org.

Where is our latter day one of these

(*Ohso note - Mr.Soetoro has held command while Many Men Under Him Have Died, but he never himself served in any Military branch of the US Armed Forces. Although I cannot say that with certainty about any other nation or organization he may owe primary loyalty to)

Barry Soetoro ObamAcorn Fellowship Fund (Websearch for - The Fraud Of Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama) - Feb 24, 2009. If Mr. Obama has nothing to hide... In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro. ...)

From the Desk of Barry Soetoro - 6/17/09

"President Obama Announces Appointments to the President's Commission on White House Fellowships.
Washington, DC - Today, President Obama appointed 28 members to the President's Commission on White House Fellowships… said President Obama. "These leaders are diverse, non-partisan…

Including: Maya Soetoro-Ng:
Maya Soetoro-Ng, PhD. has taught and developed Humanities curriculum in public and private schools in New York and Hawaii for fifteen years. She also taught Multicultural Education and Educational Theory at the University of Hawaii's College of Education. In 2007 and 2008, she campaigned across more than a dozen states for her brother, President Barack Obama. Her children's book Ladder to the Moon will be published in the winter, and she is currently working on a book about high school Peace Education."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From rom InfoWars.com / RightSoup.com comes this ...

In Violation of the Constitution: Obama Takes On Chairmanship of UN Security Council.

September 14, 2009. Some unprecedented news today, folks. Never in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council. Perhaps it is because of what could arguably be a Constitutional prohibition against doing so. To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State"
.
Nonetheless, the rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Constitution be damned, Barry Soetoro will take the seat and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th. The Financial Times says:

Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.

On Military Policy, Reid Enlists Support (www.frc.org)

The President is busy waging two wars, one in the Middle East and the other for health care reform. But that hasn't stopped Sen. Reid from calling on him to launch another offensive--this time against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." In letters to both Secretary Robert Gates and President Obama, the Senate Majority Leader pleads for their help in overturning the ban on homosexuals in the military. "As Congress considers future legislative action," he writes, "we believe it would be helpful to hear your views on the policy. Your leadership in this matter is... needed at this time."

Few, if any, of those leading this charge on the military have actually served--and their records raise serious questions about their understanding of and commitment to national security.

To date, every report conducted to date shows that removing the ban on homosexual behavior in the military would hurt retention and recruitment. Just do the math. The homosexual community comprises about 3% of the overall population. How many of those really want to join the military and be trained as warriors?

A recent survey showed that 14% of the present force would consider leaving the military if the ban were lifted.

So in the end this isn't so much about building up the military as it is conquering it--and everything that lay beyond.

The US Army has placed a non-combatant Woman as the chief Drill Instructor for the whole Army. As with so many other forms of Misandry - the push is to provide just enough Women avoid mention of Male Sacrifice and Male Death Rates - by couching all terms in gender neutral form.

For instance if 8,000 Men Die for Each Woman (the ratio from Vietnam) - then we ignore the 'statistical' imbalance and the gender of the dead, as a sign of 'tolerance'.

After the Towers Fell in NY two Dykes from Kalifornia wrote a book about the "womyn' at ground zero, and I attended a seminar (at a Kalifornia Kollege of course) by them where they talked about their Hatred of Men as a Motivator for the book and tour.

The anger was over the fact that some dared discuss the bravery of the Male Firemen who Died on that day while climbing the towers (they actually made it to the fire and started the attack - just moments before the collapse), and that despite the fact there were Women in the Fire Service none of them were killed that day.

Thus when some media began to speak of the sacrafice of these Brave Men - these Dykes (by their own testimony) went ballistic in rage, because they were praising Men - as Men!

The demand was not for equal numbers of Women to be at risk or harmed - but Just One... So that the Male Gender of those Brave Men was Not to be mentioned by the media, but rather they must be genderless drones or not discussed at all.

For these Feminazis the true 'evil' of that day was Male Heroism - which is as Ungood as it gets in the book of Misandry.

And, as the following article shows, so too with the Avowed Communist Libertines United - aclu.

Ohso.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case of World War I Memorial in Mojave Desert
www.LC.org

Washington, DC – Tomorrow the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case involving a 75-year-old National World War I Memorial with an 8-foot cross, located in the Mojave Desert of California. In Salazar v. Buono, the ACLU filed suit to remove the cross. Following the lower court ruling, the cross was covered with a cloth and now is boxed in with plywood so it looks like a blank sign. It remains that way pending the final decision...

The memorial was originally erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) as a wooden cross with a plaque stating, “The Cross, Erected in Memory of the Dead of All Wars” and “Erected 1934 by Members of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Death Valley Post 2884.” Beginning in 1935, people gathered intermittently at the site for Easter services, and those services became a regular occurrence in 1984... But the ACLU insisted that the cross be torn down.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Passive displays like the World War I Memorial, the Ten Commandments, Nativity scenes, or statements like the National Motto do not force anyone to participate in a religious exercise and, thus, do not establish religion. This case reveals the extremism of the ACLU.

For 75 years this cross in the Mojave Desert did not disturb anyone. It stood as a memorial to the heroes of World War I. Removing this memorial would be an insult to our war veterans. Doing so under the guise of the First Amendment is an insult to the Framers of the Constitution.”