Archive for February, 2011


February 26, 2011 4 comments

With Wisconsin and several other states taking center stage in national news over the legislative skirmishes between Republicans and public sector unions at their respective state capitols, other news items have largely taken a back seat as multitudes of Americans sit and observe these political chess matches.  The unrest in the Middle East, rising gas and food prices, foreclosures and jobs, while still high on people’s minds, have somewhat temporarily fallen off the public radar screen as the round the clock protests continue.

One of those items, however, with no shortage of stories, according to Google news searches, was made yesterday via America’s putative president. And that was Barack Obama’s decision to instruct the U.S. Justice Dept. to cease defending a 14 year old law passed by 80% of members in both the U.S. House & Senate. The legislation was known as DOMA or the Defense of Marriage Act.

But while there was significant coverage from the so-called mainstream media and plenty of political buzz and outrage from conservative groups, political pundits and lawmakers, what was noticeably absent was any mention of the “I” word.  One of the exceptions was Monica Crowley from Fox News which you can listen to her statement here.

On the left, one group cited as having precedent a decision by the Bush Administration to discontinue fighting a marijuana advocacy policy challenged by the ACLU and struck down in court.  However, the issue here was that a public transit agency was being denied their 1st Amendment right to free speech.  The agency was apparently not advocating breaking the law but urging policy change to the current law.  Though some may find a call to ease marijuana restrictions as offensive, it does not appear to run afoul of the 1st.

The same group also cited for an example of an impeachable offense was an alleged decision also by President Bush to not protect homosexuals due to his alleged failure to adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention.  However, since Geneva is a foreign matter that is (supposed to be) subservient to the U.S. Constitution, that point is moot.

That group also said Bush violated the 4th Amendment for gays but cited no examples. It couldn’t because, despite all the political wrangling, homosexuals are not codified into U.S. civil rights law and should never be since our Declaration of Independence plainly states that all men are created equal, not just those individuals defined by which gender with which they share sexual intimacy.

One individual who strongly believes that Obama should be impeached is former Congressman and champion of secured borders Tom Tancredo.  In an editorial to the Washington Times last summer, he called for Obama’s removal based on his abject unwillingness and failure to patrol and control our southern borders.  He was one of the first public figures to demand Obama be impeached, 18 months into his faux presidency.

The left wing Media Matters cites claims that calls for impeachment are all smoke and mirrors and to back it up uses as an example a paragraph in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to House Speaker John Boehner.  The paragraph quotes former Solicitor General Seth Waxman saying that there may be times where compelling legal arguments for or against a statute cannot be made and in such “rare” cases, forgoing the defense of the statute can be viewed as a necessary evil.

It is inexplicable that a defense of millennia of traditional marriage cannot be made by the U.S. Justice Dept. here.  The fact is the Justice Dept. has colluded with America’s alleged president that traditional marriage is only in one form and to deny others that is unconstitutional.  For Obama and Holder to say that the legal assault on marriages of one man and one woman fails to qualify for a vigorous legal defense implies that 427 out of the 535 members of Congress in 1996 and President Bill Clinton willfully conspired to pass and sign into law an unconstitutional measure.

Sorry, that flies in the face of all common sense, considering that vast numbers of members of Congress are lawyers by trade as was President Clinton.  Without doing an exhaustive background research, a very conservative and reasonable estimate of the numbers of lawyers in the 104th Congress easily concludes that at least 50-100 of the 427 who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act are of a legal background.

It is not necessary to further dissect Holder’s and Media Matters’ claims as they are heavily flawed but there is one other paragraph in the attorney general’s letter that is especially factually aberrant and is why DOMA is legally defensible and why this decision warrants both Obama and Holder’s removal.

In the letter, America’s A/G states the four reasons why the law cannot stand judicial scrutiny.  Reason two basically renders the other points moot and blows the lid off of this decision.  It also dismantles the entire homosexual agenda.

While sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable, see Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason 101 (1992); it is undoubtedly unfair to require sexual orientation to be hidden from view to avoid discrimination, see Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-321, 124 Stat. 3515 (2010).”

Citing Richard Posner, a lawyer and judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, from a book he wrote is not in any way, shape or form compelling to Obama and Holder’s decision.  For whoever in the medical field Posner cites to back up his claims, there are just as many in that field, if not more, who will state precisely the opposite.

But the failure of Posner’s so-called proof that sexual orientation is immutable, meaning it is unchangeable, does not lie so much in the medical field (though that is important) as it does those who have lived the homosexual lifestyle and left it.  And there are hundreds of thousands who have, including someone I have personally met and consider to be a friend, gospel singer Stephen Bennett.

Although Stephen’s testimony as a former homosexual is stunningly compelling and beautiful, the key issue here is that his example and those of so many others are proof that homosexual behavior is NOT in any way, shape or form immutable.  People may be trapped in the homosexual lifestyle but being trapped in it does not mean that there isn’t help to walk away from it, case in point.  It isn’t an orientation.  It is a preference (see photo 2/3rd of the way down).  In other words, we’re talking choice.  We’re not talking about being born black, white, male or female, innate traits.  We’re talking conduct.  We’re talking behavior.  We’re talking practices.  We’re talking action.  Is that clear?

And because people have quit practicing unnatural and unhealthy sex acts that define who they were, the vacuous nature of Holder’s immutability argument essentially nullifies his three other points outlined to Speaker Boehner.  Apart from political correctness, they cannot legally stand, let alone this agenda.

And neither can this decision by Obama and Holder.

Besides former Rep. Tancredo, there have been little in the way of impeachment calls since then from other notable public officials for any reason. There are virtually none with reference to this decision, though Media Matters cites one individual via Twitter.

The fact that many major current public figures are carping on Obama’s decision but saying zilch about impeachment is disturbing. But like me, many other patriots who plainly see what this is all about are.  You can find some examples of them here (along with the usual cadre of leftists).  One poster named Russ briefly but quite well outlines (halfway down the page) the reasons why Obama and his administration must be ousted.

Article II, Section 3, last paragraph of our U.S. Constitution, states the presidents have an obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.  Article II, Section 4 states that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  It is inarguably treasonous that Barack Obama sued the state of Arizona because that state passed legislation to secure and patrol its borders since the federal government has refused to do its job.  It is just as treasonous to refuse to execute a duly enacted law passed by a bipartisan Congress and signed into law by a U.S. president, absent blatant unconstitutionality, which DOMA clearly is not.

And it is also treasonous to refuse to supply documentation of natural born citizenship as Barack Obama has stubbornly refused to do for over 2½ years now. For this reason alone, Congress should simply demand Obama’s resignation or take physical measures to do so. Impeachment would be unnecessary since that procedure applies to legitimate presidents.  For all practical purposes and with much compelling evidence, it strongly appears Obama is an illegitimate president because all signs point to him not being naturally born.

However, since Congress publicly refuses to address the eligibility issue for whatever reason, it absolutely must take up impeachment for Obama’s deliberate attempt to evade enforcement of our current laws.  Who can rationally argue that refusal to enforce a lawfully enacted statute doesn’t qualify for impeachment under Article II, Section 4? Obama, if a true president, could have gone to Congress with his alleged concerns about the unconstitutionality of DOMA and asked for repeal.  He did so with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), even though the process for repeal and the repeal itself was corrupted and sabotaged with outright lies. But while calling for repeal of DOMA in both the last and current Congress, no congressional action has thus far been taken up.

Thus Obama’s actions are indicative of a king and dictator and must be remedied at once. If not, it stands to reason that he will issue an executive order or take some other measure bypassing Congress to grant amnesty to the 12-30 million (depending on what number you believe) illegals currently here in the U.S.  If that occurs, it may well be the impetus whereby countless public demands for his removal will be made but it may also create massive civil unrest unlike anything we have seen since World War II.  However, we cannot wait to see if that moment will come.  Action must be taken now to remove Barack.  This is not so much about DOMA as it is the rule of law and Obama’s actions and inactions creating chaos and a lawless society.  It must be put to an end now.

It’s not arguable that this move was political to please and placate the homosexual lobby as the repeal of DADT and the 2009 hate crimes legislation were.  Given that Obama:

  1. has more avowed homosexuals in his administration than any recent previous administration (and at high levels)
  2. has given frequent speeches to the rabid homosexual Human Rights Campaign (HRC), including one from his wife saying that her hubby was born in Kenya, which was recently removed for some spurious posted claim
  3. has participated in past (and maybe present) gay activities (which the media will not touch)
  4. attended a church with numerous open homosexuals
  5. is rumored to have a gay relationship with his “body man” Reggie Love

These are definitely signs that the homosexual agenda (along with Islam) is at the top of his priorities, both personally and as putative president.  Therefore, it is by no means a stretch of the imagination that the decision to refuse to defend DOMA is a political one which suits both his own fancy as well as that of groups like the Human Rights.

This is a serious breach of fiduciary duty to America. And it warrants action from We the People since it seems Congress won’t initiate charges without a massive public outcry.

Since the Constitution plainly states that impeachment charges begin in the House, this is where we must first focus our attention.  And as we do, it is imperative that you not only contact our own Congressman or woman for his or her backing but that you request the entire delegation of the state you reside in for their action as well, especially Republicans and conservative Democrats.  Given the blatant refusal of Barack Obama to heed to the constitutional requirement to faithfully execute all of America’s laws, this matter far transcends a local representative’s district.  It affects the entire country.

To that end, I have created a letter which you can use to write or fax (please do not e-mail) your elected officials.  Although it is far preferable to put your thoughts into your own words, in a serious matter like this I believe it is OK (should you choose to do so) to copy the content of this letter and paste it into your own Microsoft Word or other program.  Be sure to then print and sign it. Your signature states that though you may be copying someone else’s letter (as in this case), you fully endorse its content by signing it.

If you plan to fax and have a system that does so by computer, it would be preferable in this particular case to do a hand fax instead since the automated fax does not have a visible signature.

Here is the letter I have sent to 8 of the 9 Congressmen in this state, including my own: FAX:

Congressman Lamar Smith, House Judiciary Chairman – (202) 225-7680
Congressman Peter Visclosky – (202) 225-2493
Congressman Joe Donnelly – (202) 225-6798
Congressman Marlin Stutzman – (202) 226-9870
Congressman Todd Rokita – (202) 226-0544
Congressman Dan Burton – (202) 225-0016
Congressman Mike Pence – (202) 225-3382
Congressman Larry Bucshon – (202) 225-3284
Congressman Todd Young – (202) 226-6866


Dear Chairman Smith & Indiana Congressional Delegation:

In light of the publicly announced decision on Wednesday by putative President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to cease enforcement of the duly enacted Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I respectfully ask you to initiate and support impeachment charges against both men.

Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires presidents to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.  DOMA is legislation that was passed in bipartisan fashion by 80% of the 104th Congress and signed into law by then President Clinton. There is not a shred of unconstitutionality in that law since it, contrary to points made in a letter by A/G Holder to Speaker John Boehner, does not discriminate against anyone from having access to the institution.

A deliberate intent to avoid and evade enforcement of this law, like any other, sends a message that the Constitution be damned.  Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder cannot cherry pick which laws they will defend and which they won’t. To do so is a serious breach of constitutional fidelity that, if not quickly remedied, warrants impeachment and removal from office.  It borders on treason since refusal equates to a blatant dereliction to defend America in all respects and on all fronts.  It has crossed the proverbial line.

Should a president find a law unconstitutional, it is up to him to go to Congress and ask lawmakers to repeal such a law.  Since Obama has not asked Congress to repeal DOMA and since Congress has not addressed it since enactment in 1996, this administration has an obligation to vigorously defend it until and if Congress does repeal it.  This was how Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was rescinded, although the decision to repeal was a terrible one. But at least the proper procedures were followed.  Such is not the case with DOMA.

The Obama Administration is already on record for failing to enforce federal immigration laws and is instead suing the state of Arizona for its courageous decision to do what the feds won’t. Adding its willful failure to enforce DOMA as well as a refusal to abide by a Florida judge’s decision striking down Obamacare, a pattern of lawlessness is steadily emerging here.  And along those lines, since he cannot get such legislation approved by Congress, there are plenty of rumblings among some of its members that Obama is set to issue an executive order to grant amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens already here.  We cannot wait for that to occur.  Obama and Holder’s blatant disregard for current statute already more than qualifies for their removal from office.

A willful refusal to support a law on the books because it conflicts with one’s own personal agenda appears to be a solid ground for impeachment, per Article II, Section 4.  If refusing to enforce DOMA does not amount to treason, it certainly qualifies under the category of high crimes and misdemeanors since it is a blunt abrogation of constitutional duty from the highest public officer in America.  It sends a message that lawbreaking is permissible, depending on one’s own whims and views.  This cannot be allowed to stand. It is why I ask you to do your solemn duty, without partisan politics and wrangling, to start the constitutional process of removing Barack Obama and Eric Holder from power without delay.

The American people are seeking leadership here and we pray you provide it.  Thank you.


Your Name
Your Address
Your City, State, Zip
Your e-mail address (optional)

Obviously, you will want to put the names of all your state’s Republican Congressmen and women at the top of your letter (names and fax numbers can be located here). Again, feel free to modify any of the above, but should you feel the need to do so, please keep your letter to a max of 2 pages.  You may also wish to call all these Congressmen, but regardless, they need to hear from you in writing. Fax is obviously faster than snail mail but regardless, it is important that your thoughts be put on paper.

Do NOT e-mail, I repeat do NOT e-mail as your messages may possibly not be read, they may be deleted or go into unmonitored accounts.

And if you have the financial means to overnight letters to Chairman Smith and all the Republicans in your state, by all means do so.

Please spread this message very far and wide.  Only when literally millions of Americans speak out will Congress even think of acting.  We must speak out like never before.  If you forward no other link or e-mail of mine, please, for God and country and your family, get this one out.  Obama and Holder must be removed without delay.

Please, readers, I beg of you to not ignore this plea.  Our nation’s survival now depends on giving Obama the boot.  Your actions or inaction will determine whether we continue to have a country and republic or a dictatorship and continued lawlessness.

And lastly, I want every reader to sign this petition to Rep. Smith and all House Republicans.  I want you to spread the word on this petition and get into as many e-mail hands as possible.  If there are people you normally don’t forward political items to, this is one you absolutely must, that is if you and they care about God, country, family and future. If the U.S. House refuses to do its job without being told, then it’s time we crack the whip and make them do it.  This needs to go viral across America more than anything else right now.

Any questions, comments, concerns or need for assistance, e-mail me at  Thank you in advance for your due consideration and may God bless and save America before it’s too late.


Repealing DADT: A Serious Risk to America’s National Security

February 13, 2011 2 comments

As the Obama Administration and the U.S. military work to implement the Congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and force open homosexuality upon our armed forces, it is imperative to know who some of the players are and why this sick social experiment must abruptly be halted. The fact World Net Daily put its current issue of its long running Whistleblower print publication online for the first time ever and for free speaks volumes as to how critical it is that policy be reversed and those who voted for it unquestionably must be removed from office, no matter how solid they are on everything else.  You can see how they voted by going here for the House and here for the Senate.

There was no public outcry to repeal the 1993 measure. In fact, public outcry was why President Clinton retreated when he sought to remove limitations on open homosexuals serving in the armed forces. Then Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn and General Colin Powell (both which have since changed their positions) were among public leaders at the time to urge to keep the then total ban in place. The Clinton Administration did end up modifying it to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they didn’t mouth off about their preferences.

The current outcry came heavily from leftist lawmakers and homosexual groups like the Servicemen’s Legal Defense Network (SDLN) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), there was no public outcry for its rescission. Nonetheless, the 111th Congress decided to take action on it to placate the homosexual lobby and gave it what it wanted, ignoring heavy military opposition to it. Pro-life Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen joined the chorus of avowed homosexuals and their gay friendly alllies by issuing an unusually terse statement as to her hatred for the law and essentially military policy.

What Congress failed to note (and no doubt deliberately so) was just half a century ago when this writer was born, Washington declared that not only were avowed homosexuals verboten to serve in the armed services, they were banned from federal employment. In fact, federal law frowned on homosexual conduct from as late as the early to mid 1970s.

During the 1960s, a time that some call the “make love, not war” generation, an avowed homosexual activist by the name of Frank Kameny and his Mattachine Society began to pave the way for the removal of DADT.  He likely didn’t know he would be the father of the law’s repeal but given whom he is and what he sought to achieve early on, he now wears the repeal as his personal badge of honor.

However, Old Frank has done America a great service by posting letters from federal officials and other materials that show how private homosexual behavior was not only forbidden as a condition of serving the military but in any area of federal employment.

On his website, Mr. Kameny posted a damning letter (page 2 is here) from the U.S. State Dept. that every Congressman and senator supporting repeal should have read.  Had they done so, it’s possible a few of them would have changed their minds and voted to keep current policy.  It likely would have had no effect in the U.S. House, given the 75 vote margin of favorability but it could have led to a successful filibuster in the Senate and thus a defeat for repeal.

In his letter, John Hanes, a State Dept. official during the homophobic Eisenhower Administration, told Mr. Kameny (among other things):

So long as this is the attitude of our society – and you are well aware that it is, as expressed both formally in laws, regulations and ordinances, and informally in the average reaction of people toward homosexuals – the homosexual is automatically a security risk because of social and emotional pressure to which he is subject from society and because of the ever present risk that such pressures can be utilized by hostile elements to coerce him into activities other than those which he would undertake of his own free will. Also because of the prevailing mores of society, the homosexual frequently becomes a disruptive personnel factor within any organization.

Who in Washington today would daresay the homosexual is disruptive and a security risk?  If Mr. Hanes was working in the Obama Adminstration today and word leaked out of his writing, there would be mass calls for his resignation and he’d be run out of town.

But perhaps if the likes of Pentagon Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen had listened to Mr. Hanes, the Wiki Leaks scandal involving the avowed homosexual servicemen Bradley Manning might have never occurred.

Another public official with guts not so many decades ago was John Will, Director of Personnel during the first term of the Nixon Administration.  In a letter (page 2 is here) to Kameny, Mr. Will recounts a matter of homosexual incest (explicit descriptions) among two federal employees and why such conduct reflects adversely on government agencies employing them as well as homosexuals in general.  One paragraph goes like this: 

”The employment of individuals who engage in acts of sex perversion and other homosexual acts of the type described will lead to lack of respect, not only for the individuals concerned but also for other employees and for the agency which employs them.”

It should also be pointed out in Mr. Will’s letter that homosexual conduct was criminal in the state of Maryland less than 40 years ago, perhaps even more so since cousins were involved.  Now the state is poised to enact same sex marriage against the laws of nature, let alone of Almighty God.

And this is what a Congressional Democrat posted in the Congressional Journal regarding a fundraising license given to Mr. Kameny’s Mattachine Society.  Had he spoken this to the current Congress, he would be run out of the party. He wrote back then saying:

“The Mattachine Society is a group of homosexuals.  The acts of these people are banned under the laws of God, the laws of nature and are in violation of the laws of man.  I think a situation which requires them to be permitted a license to solicit funds for their sexual deviations is a bad law and should be changed forewith.”

There’s no doubt that Rep. John Dowdy would have been run out of today’s Democrat Party.  There’s no room for moral conservatives among today’s Democrats.

Even LBJ’s homophobic administration did not view homosexual behavior favorably as documented here and here.

The question that has to be asked is this – if the repulsive nature of homosexual acts were condemned and even punished under federal law nearly a half century ago, how it is such behavior is not only about to be endorsed in today’s military but in an administration that has more homosexuals in it than all previous ones and more than Presidents Bush and Clinton combined? The Obama Administration’s personnel director is one of them.

The homosexual is indeed a security risk on so many fronts and is putting our men and women in uniform in grave jeopardy. And we thank Frank Kameny for showing us proof.
If the entire military and its massive opposition to repeal (not reported by the incompetent lame stream media) were the price paid to “compensate” Mr. Kameny as well as the pro-homosexual groups like HRC & SLDN, then this is something that Rep. Buck McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services, and his committee members must investigate.  I would not put it past the Obama Administration that something tangible (a potentially impeachable offense) may have been given to Mr. Kameny, either by Mr. Berry or Obama himself, given their virulent condemnation of the previous enforcement of a ban on homosexuals in the military and government in general. Perhaps that’s had something to do with Kameny getting a handshake from Obama and front seat to the repeal signing.

So how is it that actions once viewed by the federal government and described as immoral, perverse, and disrespectful; behavior which was said to bring “hatred, ridicule and contempt” on an agency of the federal government; behavior that is repudiated by every religion of the world, now be celebrated and publicly honored?

If you’re Barack Obama, you simply chalk it up to “personal (not military) experience”.  If you’re Congressman Barney Frank, who claimed he “owns” the agenda and for which the “two down” quote all but certainly includes open homosexuals in the military, ditto. If you’re Congressman Jared Polis and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, both of whom, like Rep. Frank, voted for repeal of DADT, dittoes as well.

But how does one account for Republicans like Sen. Mark Kirk, one of 8 Republicans who voted for repeal. Sen. Kirk has served in the U.S. Navy, despite not being entirely truthful about his service?  Doesn’t he know (or care) from experience about the risks of putting open homosexuals in military service? He is suspected of being one himself, despite being previously married.

Why did Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam vet and staunch defender of keeping DADT, decide after the vote to repeal to support its implementation? Is it because his wife and daughter support same sex marriage? Or is it because he has no fixed principles? Or both.

What about Sen. Scott Brown who, like Sens. Kirk and McCain, served in the military? It is well documented of his support for repeal after promising to support the then current policy.  He was bought and paid for as well by the homosexual lobby.

Why did generally reliable social conservatives like Sens. John Ensign and Rich Burr back repeal?  Is there something here as well? Did they not see the logic inference from repeal, that instead of homosexuals being silent about their preferences, they could now be upfront and outspoken about them?

It appears Washington lawmakers are a different breed than the rest of America.

Why did Congressman Ron Paul vote to repeal DADT, not once but twice? Almost anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Texas Congressman Paul recognizes him for his fiercely libertarian streak and strong defense of constitutional liberties for all Americans.  He is known in some circles as “Dr. No” for voting no on almost every bill that comes his way.  However, the fact he was a doctor prior to his time in Congress has to raise a few eyebrows why he would vote for a law that permits unhealthy and repulsive sexual acts in the armed forces. He was the sole Congressional physician to vote this way.

If Dr. Paul doesn’t see the medical risks of permitting open homosexuals in uniform, then his supporters should ask themselves if he has the judgment of being a capable president, his otherwise strong constitutional stances notwithstanding.

As noted earlier, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen was a big supporter for repeal.  Along with Rep. Paul, she was one of only three current Republicans (the other is Rep. Judy Biggert) to vote twice for it in the 2010 Congressional session (the other two supporters were the only Republicans unseated at the ballot box in November).  Notwithstanding that she represents a district in Miami Beach with an influential homosexual lobby, she is well known for her pro-life views, a position that frequently conflicts with homosexual adherents.  But it is perhaps because of this lobby that she virulently defends her pro-homosexual votes – she also has voted for hate crimes legislation, (something Dr. Paul staunchly and thankfully opposes) as well as a myriad of homosexual causes.

And there are others but the question must be asked is why Washington lawmakers are willing to put our men and women in uniform at risk with this repeal.  Are they that utterly clueless on what constitutes homosexual behavior.  Sure, we expect that from Democrats but since some Democrats did not support repeal, it stands to reason that something led the 15 House Republicans (second vote – first vote here), and 8 Senate Republicans to vote to put our troops at risk.
We now turn to Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen and Secretary Gates. Fox reports that training from top brass to allow open homos to serve will begin (probably already has) this week.  I can’t imagine what this “training” will entail – who knows, maybe one of them will attempt to explain or even engage in a perverted homosexual sex act and then tell other troops to be very sensitive with those inclined to commit such acts.

You may think this is funny but if you think about it, or even try to think to, you will automatically envision one or more sexual acts.  And then if you are a rational human being, you will then say, “Why are we going to allow this to occur in our military?”

Besides this tragically stupid and utterly bankrupt and immoral policy change, I have a question for Mr. Mullen, Secretary Gates and any other current military leaders: Knowing that we have troops on the ground in Islamic countries like Afghanistan and Iraq and knowing what some neighboring nations like them do to known homosexuals, regardless of your personal feelings about this matter, do you really think it’s a good idea to put our troops harm’s way because of this social engineering experiment?

This is a question the press won’t ask.  But they should.

Frankly, every commandant in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard should be unanimous in their response and if they were, every last one of them would tell Obama, “Hell no, we won’t implement sexual perversion on our troops and under no circumstances will we allow embracers and practitioners of such activities in our ranks”.

But folks like Mullen, Gates and clueless senators like Kirk, Brown Burr and Ensign wouldn’t give time of day to listen to those on the front lines who have sense enough to oppose such idiocy.  So we must do so.  And without delay.

And so now we must ask Sec. Gates and JC Mullen the following in an open letter:

You obviously are aware of the soldier behind scandal involving Wiki Leaks, Bradley Manning.  You were aware that he was an avowed homosexual, right?  You were aware that his young history contained numerous issues pertaining to his sexual identity that could have posed a major problem for the military, right?  Now you’re supporting a policy that will create more Brad Mannings and likely have greater repercussions on our troops, not the least of which is a possible mass exodus of men and women in uniform because, despite all the attempts from the left to normalize homosexual behavior, it is still viewed as repulsive by sizable numbers of men and women in and out of uniform.

Have you checked Manning’s Facebook page, which is laden with love for this agenda?  Can you not see the risks of what may well reoccur if you allow this change in policy to continue?

Had you taken some time to study U.S. history and read government correspondence on homosexuality and its incompatibility with government and military service, you would have found that throughout our first 200 years of history, from Washington to Ford, such behavior was never viewed with even a faint trace of approbation.  Why then do you wish to sacrifice the futures and even lives of our men and women in uniform for the sake of perverse political correctness that America’s putative president chooses to embrace?  Did you not learn a lesson from this scandal?

There is one point in the whole DADT repeal debate that has been ignored by Sec. Gates, JC Mullen and the 300+ members of Congress who voted to approve this trash.  It’s also ignored by all the homosexual activists, groups and allies.  It’s the one thing that not only debunks the repeal debate but the entire same sex agenda as well. The public has been told that homosexuals like Pvt. Manning, Congressman Barney Frank, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, actress Ellen DeGeneres, singer Elton John and others cannot help who they are; that it’s part of their makeup (orientation).  The gay identity is unchangeable in the same way that one cannot alter their skin color or gender (there are those who claim to be able to change their gender but that’s a can of worms to be opened another day). This is what we’re being told.  This is what has been sold as a bill of goods to us.

But that bill is now officially rejected. And we can thank Frank Kameny for it.

You see, Mr. Kameny has done the public a great service by posting many of the documents he has accumulated over the years to his website.  From Eisenhower to JFK to LBJ to Nixon, we’ve seen evidence that courageous federal officials rightly rejected homosexuals for government and military service because of the pressures and problems faced due to the lifestyle embraced.  From John Hanes to John Will to John Dowdy and many others not mentioned, such individuals refused to succumb to political correctness in order to placate those embracing repulsive behavior.

But most of all, we thank Mr. Kameny for telling, rather showing, us that homosexual conduct was not a matter of one’s sexual orientation.  See for yourself.

There you have it, folks, sexual preference, not orientation, is irrelevant to federal employment and military service.  Ouch!  Thank you, Mr. Kameny, for telling us the truth that homosexual practices are by one’s choice of sexual partner and not innateness. The nation owes a huge debt of gratitude for your courage to display the revealing (no pun intended) letters, pamphlets and brochures.

Mr. Kameny states on his website that the compilation of all his papers is unrivaled anywhere, be it a library, government office or via the Internet.  The 70,000 documents he claimed to have in the attic of his Washington, DC home is now at the Library of Congress with his protest signs at the Smithsonian Natural Museum of American History. That’s good to know.  Members of Congress, particularly those voting for repeal, must examine the history of homosexuals in government employment and military service in light of the Kameny papers.  The House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Buck McKeon of California, should subpoena the LOC for copies of Mr. Kameny’s documents.  What he has on his website is no doubt helpful but having the entire stack may shed some additional knowledge as to the reasons for the DADT repeal.

It is now not in doubt that this move by Obama, Mullen, Gates and those voting for repeal was not only political in scope but in appeasement of those who want to pervert the military.  Because perverting and poisoning it is precisely what they want, though they will deny it until they are blue in the face.

Rep. McKeon and his committee should further subpoena court documents on the cases involving Mr. Kameny and his Mattachine Society.  It would also be useful to get copies of all federal correspondence over the last 50 years relative to the issue of homosexuality in government employment and military service.

The left, and particularly its homosexual allies like the Human Rights Campaign, the Servicemen’s Legal Defense Network, the ACLU and many others will cry foul and claim this effort is a witch hunt designed to end in a scorched earth policy.  However, the homosexual infiltration in government and military, from the past Kameny days to the current Wiki Leaks scandal involving Cpl. Manning, appears to have octopus-like tentacles in that it appears to have pervaded all aspects of federal government over the last 30 years.  The unprecedented numbers of homosexuals currently in the Obama Administration and in leadership capacities only adds fuel to what I will now call the DADT repeal scandal.  That particular matter should be investigated by the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, chaired by California Rep. Darrell Issa.

And perhaps this question should also be asked by these committees.  If homosexuals were unable to obtain security clearance for federal employment or military service because of the behaviors they practice, how is it that America’s commander-in-chief (putative as he may be) was not vetted in this capacity, given the actions claimed to be attributed to him (and which have not been denied by Mr. Obama)?

If no other reason serves a good purpose for hearings and an overturn of the repeal, this certainly qualifies. Congress should also seek the resignations of Mullen and Gates. Their acquiescence to Obama and the left is doing grave damage to the nation’s moral fiber.

If this article goes viral, and I hope it does, there will be a backlash of anger because the public will have a pretty good idea what the repeal of DADT has done.  The people will know who was responsible and the consequences of implementation (if not reversed). It is, at least in this writer’s view, the straw that broke the camel’s back.  Or better put, it will have been the drop of boiling water that scorched the supporters of this trash.  The report by former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt thoroughly rebuts the backers as well as this excellent April 2010 report by Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. Both were ignored by party leaders in the 111th Congress as well as Obama.

Congress has a solemn responsibility to impeach and remove Obama for forcing unnatural and immoral sexual misconduct on our finest and all America. And if any serviceman or woman (homosexual or not) ends up being maimed or killed because of this change of policy, knowing what some Muslim nations do to homosexuals, their blood will be on Obama’s hands as well as everyone that voted for repeal.  The public has an obligation of voting out or recalling (if such provisions exist in their respective state constitutions) each such lawmaker at the earliest opportunity.  It should be utilized.

And if you don’t think there won’t now be advocates of concerted efforts to murder our men and women in uniform (be they heterosexual or homosexual), think again.

The homosexual activists will lash out at the truth here.  However, they can’t blame this writer.  Frank Kameny has paved the way for its “frank” revelations, not to mention those revealed by the other Frank, Barney.  The sordid details are there for the world to view.

Shoot the messenger if you must.  But after the messenger goes, the truth won’t.

Categories: Uncategorized

My Letter to House Speaker John Boehner & Majority Leader Eric Cantor

February 1, 2011 Leave a comment

Dear Readers:

I have faxed the following letter to U.S. House Speaker John Boehner & Majority Leader Eric Cantor with regards to Barack Obama, his all but certain ineligibility and other matters the 112th Congress needs to tackle.  Please feel free to read and use it or any portion of it to contact them in any fashion you wish to.  Congress will not act on Obama’s likely constitutional presidential disqualification unless We the People force them to via being buried with calls, letters and faxes.

House Speaker John Boehner
U.S. House of Reps.
Washington, DC  20515
Fax: (202) 225-0704

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor
U.S. House of Reps.
Washington, DC  20515
Fax: (202) 225-0011


Dear Speaker Boehner & Majority Leader Cantor:

I am writing you regarding a few points, though I will attempt to be brief.  This will be copied and posted on my blog for all to see.  I am putting the two of you together since you’re both House GOP leaders and the content is related to you both.

Rep. Cantor, on the heels of Speaker Boehner telling PMSNBC that he believes Resident Obama is a natural born citizen, it was reported from Meet the Depressed that you also believe the same thing.  May I ask the both of you one question?  And that is how long are you going to let this drag out while the White House impostor destroys the country?

How is it that the two of you are willing to accept the state of Hawaii’s word while at the same time there are over 400 stories at World Net Daily exposing every angle of this matter?  How is it that there are at least 10 states now that have introduced legislation at the state level that would require state board of elections offices and secretaries of state to obtain proof of eligibility from all presidential candidates? It is expected that at minimum two (Arizona & Texas) will pass thru their respective chambers and ultimately be signed into law with more to come and more states to introduce similar measures.  But if so much as one state makes a statement that our Constitution will be upheld in that regard, then what will you do when that state declares Obama ineligible to run next year because they will have nothing on file from him? This will spread like wildfire as this issue will garner national attention, inasmuch as the lame stream media will wish to ignore it.

How can you continue to ignore the countless number of lawsuits filed by the likes of Phil Berg (a Democrat), Mario Apuzzo, Gary Kreep, Orly Taitz and others and pretend this is not an issue?  Reasonable estimates and polls show that roughly half the country is at least aware of this issue with more talking about. A prospective employer even brought it up to me without any provocation in one of the very rare job interviews I’ve had to this point.  Plus who in their rational state of mind spends $2 million to lawyers to ensure that all his records, including birth certificate, are sealed?

How can you continue to ignore videos like the one from Obuzzard’s wife in her own word saying to the Human Rights Campaign during the campaign trail that Kenya was her hubby’s birthplace?

And how can you and all of Congress ignore the plight of hugely decorated Lt. Terry Lakin who sits in a Ft. Leavenworth military prison because our all but certain bogus commander-in-chief would not comply and show documents proving his natural born citizenship?  This man (Lt. Lakin) is paying the ultimate price for his firm willingness to defend the U.S. Constitution (6 months in prison with a total loss of his income) and yet during his trial he and his legal team reportedly couldn’t call or cross examine witnesses or testify himself. This is a monumental miscarriage of justice that Congress should not hesitate to intervene. And I tell you one person that would back Congressional intervention in a heartbeat.  And that is Florida Congressman Col. Allen West.

And this is just for starters.

Speaker Boehner, on the heels of all the eligibility issue, not to mention the rapidly Marxist state Obama has foisted upon this country over the last two years, please tell me how you could even think of wanting to go golfing with Obama?  Would you golf with Castro, Hugo, Kim Jong Il or dare I say Hitler, Stalin or Mao? If you can’t say NO, then you have a problem with your moral values. And so do I.  Obama may not have slaughtered millions of people as those dictators have but otherwise there is no difference between him or any of them.

Then again, who knows, maybe Obama has something in common with those tyrants. After all, millions of unborn babies have been slaughtered in the womb, thanks to his unequivocal support and votes as a U.S. senator and policies as America’s putative president for unrestricted abortion on demand.  I mean, what’s the difference whether in the womb or out?  They’re human beings.

The both of you can sweep this under the rug all you want but the public attention this is getting, even more so with the recent comments of Hawaii’s governor, will not die down any time soon.  People look at Obama, his ties to Indonesia and Kenya, socialist policies and they see something radically wrong.  State lawmakers see it as well, though not all.  However, it seems like Congress doesn’t want to upset the applecart but instead play nice with Obama.  My Lord, he’s wiping out the country with his effervescent and relentless thirst for government to pervade and control all sectors of our lives, taking with the nation’s destruction our Constitutional liberties and safeguards and leaving our porous borders continually open.  Does this not make sense to you? He’s suing Arizona because the state insists on secured borders. He should be ousted for this reason alone.

The country had issues with Republicans during the Clinton years in which the people supported both the GOP and the then president.  They liked Clinton, even if they wouldn’t give him a Democrat Congress but for the first two years of his presidency.  They wouldn’t let the GOP touch Social Security or Medicare back then.  Clinton was popular.  But Obama is not.  The public will not rise in opposition to any hearings that might be held on his constitutional qualifications or lack thereof.  The public firmly and demonstratively opposed the Democrats’ imposition of Obamacare in the last Congress. There is no reason to believe the same will occur if hearings are held on Obama’s eligibility.  Americans suspect something is wrong with him.  Congress should certify it.

Why would you not want to address Obama’s eligibility in light of the fact that every appointment he has made, every nomination he has offered, every bill he has signed, every executive order he has given is all null and void if he is ineligible?  That would be the best possible recourse for the country rather than go thru the nightmare of trying to reverse every single action thru legislation.

So I am calling on the both of you once again to use your power and influence and call for Congress and its committees to hold public hearings on whether America’s putative president was and is constitutionally to be in the office he currently holds and to take all steps to remove him at the earliest opportunity. Impeachment shouldn’t be a consideration here since such applies only to qualified presidents.  Obama is not qualified, numerous attorneys have said so but more importantly the Constitution says so.  He should be removed sans delay.  Start the process now.

Additionally, here is what the U.S. House should do, also without delay.  Thank you for leading the vote to repeal Obamacare but we must go much further.  Start here.

  1. Secure the borders without delay and finish building the fence.  Deport all illegals.  Pass legislation to ensure that no further importation of foreign workers will be allowed and that all verified illegals currently holding American salaried jobs be promptly terminated in order that those jobs be made available to legal Americans.  Employers refusing to use E-Verify to weed out those illegally employed will lose their right to operate their business and/or be fined and jailed.  After dealing with the eligibility issue, the border crisis and its effect on jobs need to be expeditiously addressed.  It can no longer be dismissed.
  2. Reverse all laws and policies that have exported jobs to China, India and other nations.
  3. Bring all troops home from Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere and put them on the borders.
  4. Defund the abortion industry in full.  Reverse public funding of embryonic stem cell research.  And yes, pass a ban on abortion on demand – isn’t 50 million babies enough?
  5. Reverse the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; it is a moral outrage and against God’s divine law to force government sanctioned homosexuality on America’s troops and the country.
  6. Cut government and federal spending to unprecedented levels.  Investigate all czars for constitutional legitimacy. Those deemed unconstitutional shall promptly be defunded.
  7. Repeal all laws restricting constitutional liberty.  Abolish the EPA and Interior Depts.
  8. Pass a bill that no U.S. representative or senator serves more than 12 years in Congress.

Beyond these agenda items, there’s little else I see for the Congress to do.  It’s encouraging in one sense that it wants to meet less than the previous Congress.  This sends a message that the current Congress (at least the U.S. House) recognizes that the longer it stays in session, the greater the risk of American liberties will be encroached.  I like that a lot.  However, given the oppressive measures the 111th Congress foisted on the American people (and to a somewhat lesser extent the previously Congresses), it may be necessary to be in session longer to remedy and reverse what it did.  I would like to see the House meet on a regular basis throughout the entire year to fix the matters above and then drastically shorten the second session next year.

As I close, I want to reiterate the first issue here, that being the constitutional qualifications of Barack Obama and his authorization to lead this country.  Please, I beg of you, Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, grow some spine.  Yes, I know that calling Obama out on his likely ineligibility is certain to rankle Washington Democrats and even put you in fear.  I fully understand the human element here.  However, there is no substitution for doing what is right.  In light of the public opinion of the millions of Americans who question and doubt the credentials of the man in the Oval Office, the lawsuits filed, the court cases heard (none of which has been addressed on the merits) and the numerous legislatures taking up this matter in various fashions, it is imperative for Congress to not bury or pooh-pooh this issue.  It doesn’t matter what clueless politicians think or say.  It matters to us, the American people and the rule of law.  Thus it should matter to you.

Please hear what I and millions of Americans have to say and do not ignore us.  The future of this country (and your jobs) may well depend on what you do and don’t do in the next 23 months.

I am praying for you do to the right thing.


Nedd Kareiva

Categories: Uncategorized