Archive for November 10th, 2010

Democrats Poised to Force Open Homosexuality on the Military

By Jerry A. Kane

Now that America’s patriots have put Soros’ and the left’s agenda on life support, Brother O must now rely on the “lame-duck” session of the Democrat Congress (the interim congressional session before the Republicans take office in January) to castrate the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy and force open homosexuality in the U.S. military.

The lame-duck session will allow the Democrats who were ousted from office in the November election to stick it to the electorate with impunity. And Brother O is adamant “that we need to change this policy.”

“There’s going to be a review that comes out at the beginning of the month that will have surveyed attitudes and opinions within the armed forces [concerning the DADT directive]. … I will look at it very carefully. But that will give us time to act … during the lame duck session – to change this policy.”—Barack Obama

Repealing the DADT directive concerning homosexuality in the armed forces as outlined in Section 654 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code will force chaplains who consider homosexual practices sinful to leave military service altogether or take military jobs outside the clergy.

My heart doesn’t bleed for these chaplains. If you don’t like it, there’s a very simple solution: Fold your uniform, file the paperwork and find something else to do.”—Mikey Weinstein, president Military Religious Freedom Foundation

Chaplains have been ministering to American troops since the Revolutionary War. Of the 3,000 chaplains who are currently on active duty, most come from theologically conservative faiths and must have the endorsement of their church or religious organization to serve.

If the church or organization withdraws its endorsement, chaplains will no longer be eligible to serve. Several mainstream denominations that teach homosexuality is an abomination that violates God’s moral law and separates the lifestyle’s practitioners from God have already threatened to remove chaplains due to potential conflicts over open homosexuality.

Classical biblical theology emphasizes searching for God and identifying with Him spiritually. Classical theology recognizes God’s identity as masculine and mankind’s identity as feminine in relation to Him. Therefore, marriage between a man and a woman is symbolic of the spiritual relationship linking God and man.

If the DADT policy is repealed, those who condemn homosexual behavior would be considered outside the military mainstream and subject to disciplinary action for bigotry under its nondiscrimination policy. Chaplains who would dare teach or preach against the homosexual lifestyle would be prosecuted as haters, bigots, and even criminals.

Americans do not have a constitutional right to serve in the military. Whether or not homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the armed forces is not a matter of civil rights or fairness. By necessity, the military discriminates and rejects enlistees based on age, height, physical abilities as well as other criteria.

The DADT directive is not based on who homosexuals claim to be, but on what they do. Homosexual behavior is a moral issue and not a constitutional or civil rights issue. It is a personal choice of lifestyle that violates the military’s code of conduct as much as lying and adultery are violations of morality that can result in a court-martial and discharge from the military.

The military requires a unique esprit de corps to carry out its dangerous and vital mission of national defense. Military communities share common attitudes, traditional values, and core beliefs that are necessary for unit cohesion.

“No one can trust a leader nor can a leader trust a subordinate if he thinks there are sexual feelings just underneath the surface. … It makes trust virtually impossible.”—Colonel John Ripley

The nation’s military is not some laboratory designed to carry out a social experiment to determine the impact of open homosexuality on performance in a mixed-versus-homogeneous culture.

“There’s risk involved. … This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness. … My primary concern with proposed repeal is the potential disruption to cohesion that may be caused by significant change during a period of expended combat operations.”—General James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps

In 2008, the Military Times conducted a survey that showed nearly 10 percent of the current military would not re-enlist if DADT were repealed. Another 14 percent responded that they would consider a different career if the ban against open homosexuality were lifted.

The government is posed to destroy the First Amendment religious rights of America’s military personnel and their unalienable right to freedom of conscience. Initially, the ending of DADT will limit religious freedom in the military, but the restrictions won’t stop there. Eventually, they will move into the society at large, making criminals of those who would speak openly to condemn homosexuality.

If Democrats are unable to overcome the Republicans’ filibuster of the debate on the annual defense authorization bill (which includes the DADT provision) in the lame-duck session, there’s not much chance that the DADT directive will be overturned in the upcoming 112th Congress. The Republicans will have six additional senators in the 2011 Congress, and California Republican Howard “Buck” McKeon, slated chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has opposed ending the policy.

Progressive facilitators masquerading as teachers in the nation’s educational system have so altered “the thoughts, feelings and actions of students” that not enough Americans revere religious freedom as the central organizing principle of the U.S. Constitution.

“This is an issue … where you’ve got a sizable portion of the American people squarely behind the notion that … [homosexuals] should be treated fairly and equally.”—Barack Obama

The end of DADT will force both clergy and soldier alike to decide whether their allegiance is with God or man. Will the people of the nation that enshrined religious freedom as the basis of its Constitution stand idly by without uttering an outcry of righteous indignation and allow progressive Democrats to invoke such despicable tyranny on the men and women in the armed forces? The short answer is they will only if the people themselves have become as wicked as the leaders who represent them.

Note:  This commentary first appeared at Liberty Juice.com.

Read Full Post »

Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who joined with California Democrat Jane Harman to co-author legislation that banned indoor and outdoor incandescent light bulbs, wants to be chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee.

“In 2007, Harman and Upton introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation – which became law as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act – that bans the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent light bulb by 2012, phases out remaining inefficient light bulbs by 2014, and requires that light bulbs be at least three times as efficient as today’s 100-watt incandescent bulb by 2020.”Jane Harman press release

On the upside, Upton has led the fight against the Bread and Circuses Salvation Sideshow Administration’s efforts to impose Net Neutrality regulations on the Internet, and he also opposed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 2009 cap and trade legislation.

Nevertheless, House conservatives owe it to their constituents to carefully examine the downside of Upton’s voting record before rubberstamping a chairmanship.

In addition to his vote against extending the Bush tax cuts in 2005, Dim-bulb Upton has amassed the following voting record: (H-T Erick Erickson of RedState)


Voted YES for TARP

Voted YES on the auto bailout

Voted YES on Cash for Clunkers


Voted NO on 7 of the last 9 RSC Budgets

Voted YES on the Farm Bill

Voted YES on the 2005 Highway Bill

Voted NO to cap farm subsidies

Voted YES four times to extend unemployment benefits

Voted NO to end milk subsidies

Voted NO to cut sugar subsidies

Voted NO to cut NEA spending

Voted NO to cut AMTRAK spending

Voted YES to increase funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Got a 53% on the Club’s 2009 RePORK Card

Got a 42% on the Club’s 2007 RePORK Card


Voted YES on Patriot Tax – a surtax on high income earners


Voted YES for Sarbanes-Oxley

Voted YES to increase the minimum wage

Voted YES on energy bill with new CAFÉ standards and tax hikes

Voted NO to waive Davis-Bacon

Voted YES to criminalize “price-gouging”


Voted YES to force 527s to disclose their donors

Voted YES on McCain-Feingold

Voted YES on the 527 Reform Act


Voted YES for SCHIP


Voted NO to privatize postal service for 20 communities

Voted 7 of 9 times to increase congressional pay


Voted YES on No Child Left Behind

I.M. Kane

For more on the story, see Republican Co-Author of Incandescent-Bulb Ban Seeks Chair of House Energy Committee by Matt Cover and Just Say No to Fred Upton by Erick Erickson.

Read Full Post »

In a series of unprecedented raid-style inspections on August 21, September 17, and October 8, deputies and narcotics agents in Orange County, Florida, stormed at least nine barber shops and arrested 37 people, charging 34 of them with “barbering without a license.”

Orange County Sheriff’s Office deputies ordered the barbers to stop what they were doing, put their hands behind their backs, and sit on the floor to be handcuffed and taken to jail. The deputies cleared out the customers, some of them children, from the shops, and then they conducted workstation searches and checked licenses.

The deputies carried out most of the raid-style inspections on black- and Hispanic-owned barbershops in the Pine Hills area without warrants. They conducted the raids under the authority of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which is authorized to enter salons at will.

Deputies said they found evidence of illegal activity, including guns, drugs and gambling. However, records show that during the sweeps … just three people were charged with anything other than a licensing violation.—Jeff Weiner

Orange County sheriff’s Captain Dave Ogden said his unit decided to make the licensing arrests because “It was a misdemeanor crime being committed in our presence.” However, arrests for barbering without a license in Florida are highly unusual. In a 10-year period, only three barbering-without-a-license arrests were made statewide.

The deputy inspectors could have issued fines instead of handcuffing and arresting the barbers in front of the patrons. Sheriff’s officials said that they decided to make the arrests because the shops had a history of criminal activity and of not cooperating with state inspectors. According to records, some shops did have lengthy histories of noncompliance, but others never had a complaint.

Although the licensing raids were unprecedented in Florida, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city of Moreno Valley, California, last year for carrying out similar raid-style searches of black barbershops.

I.M. Kane

For more on the story, see Criminal barbering? Raids at Orange County shops lead to arrests, raise questions by Jeff Weiner.


Licensing Gone Wild: Armed Government Agents Raiding Barber Shops 1:30 Video

Read Full Post »