Social Conservatives Run to November Polls

Vote AGAINST BHO’s Gay Agenda

John R. Houk

© June 10, 2012

Evidently the Dems feel the American public has been propagandized enough to accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle that President BHO has left his 2008 campaign position of marriage being between a man and a woman to also include same-sex marriage as normal.

President Obama declared his personal support for same-sex marriage yesterday, but the White House chose not to push for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act today.

"Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said when asked if Obama would call for the repeal of DOMA and endorsement of pro-gay marriage language in the party platform.  "That process is underway, and I refer you to the DNC on the question about the platform."

He added that "the President’s belief that DOMA ought to be repealed is well stated."

Carney refused to disclose when Obama actually completed the process of "evolving" towards support for gay marriage. "I don’t have a specific date for you," he said. (WH won't push gay marriage into party platform; by Joel Gehrke; Washington Examiner; 5/10/12)

BUT still just a little scared by not willing to push for the elimination of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which is a male/female marriage only Act. Even so just so Americans know that Obama is a pro-homosexual President which means he is anti-Christian on Biblical Morality, President Barack Hussein Obama in June proclaimed June to be Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender (LGBT) month (AGAIN). Such a Presidential declaration shows BHO’s undying support for moral debauchery as part of his “Change” agenda to transform America into a Secular Humanist/Moral Relativity Socialist nation. Obama’s “Change” agenda is an elimination of the influence of Christianity and the U.S. Constitution based on Original Intent.

Here is a photo of Obama’s LGBT June Proclamation:

 Click to see larger view

So in the coming months when Obama does the typical Leftist stunt of obfuscating America’s real problems of debt and unemployment and attempt to garner Left Wing support for reelection by focusing on pro-Leftist social issues, we Conservative NEED to be aware Obama represents a change that will destroy that which America good with his social agenda.

JRH 6/10/12 (Hat Tip: Solid Snake)

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 - Donations are not tax deductible but are appreciated to help with the bills.

****************************************

President Obama Proclaims June “Gay Pride Month”

By Dave Bohon

08 June 2012 10:41

The New American

Every year he has been in office President Obama has made it a point to cozy up to America’s tiny homosexual activist minority by officially recognizing June as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.” This year, of course, was no exception. Having just come out officially in favor of legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the President followed up on June 1 by issuing this year’s proclamation setting aside the entire month to commemorate the valuable contributions that gays, lesbians, transvestites, and an odds-and-ends assortment of sexually- and gender-confused individuals have made to American society.

“The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community has written a proud chapter” in American history, declared Obama with this year’s announcement. “From brave men and women who came out and spoke out, to union and faith leaders who rallied for equality, to activists and advocates who challenged unjust laws and marched on Washington, LGBT Americans and allies have achieved what once seemed inconceivable. This month, we reflect on their enduring legacy, celebrate the movement that has made progress possible, and recommit to securing the fullest blessings of freedom for all Americans.”

The President used the proclamation to remind the “gay” community of all he has done for its members, and how much homosexual voters owe him their support come November. “Since I took office, my administration has worked to broaden opportunity, advance equality, and level the playing field for LGBT people and communities,” Obama said. He pointed out that it was he who forced through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, bullied Congress into ending the common sense “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on homosexuals serving in the military, and is currently doing everything he can to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act and legislate the redefinition of same-sex partnerships as “marriage.”

But “more remains to be done to ensure every single American is treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity,” continued the President. “Moving forward, my administration will continue its work to advance the rights of LGBT Americans,” he promised as he officially recognized June as “LGBT Pride” month and invited the American people to celebrate homosexuality as a normal — even praiseworthy — lifestyle.

On the heels of his proclamation, Obama appeared at a June 6 fundraiser attended by some 600 homosexual activists and “gay rights” supporters, including lesbian talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres and 1970s pop singing star and actress Cher, whose own daughter went through “gender reassignment” and changed her name from Chastity to “Chaz” in an effort to live as a man.

OneNewsNow.com reported that Obama “appeared to feed off the energy” of the crowd as he pledged to block any attempt at the reinstatement of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban. Signing the repeal of that ban, Obama said, was a high-water mark for him as President.

On June 5, Stars and Stripes, the government-funded armed forces newspaper, described the results of the lifting of that ban, joyfully reporting that homosexual military personnel openly celebrated their lifestyle at a special “LGBT Pride” reception thrown by the U.S. Ambassador to Japan in Tokyo. “I can’t believe I’ve been in the Air Force 23 years living in secret, hiding who I am, and now I’m invited to a reception by the emissary of the president of the United States,” Stars and Stripes quoted one attendee, Air Force Master Sgt. Marc Maschhoff.

The military newspaper reported that the event “was an exciting and emotional night for Maschhoff and a handful of other U.S. servicemembers. Maschhoff traveled with his boyfriend — who is also an airman — from Misawa Air Base in northern Japan to Tokyo for the event. Maschhoff said he was invited by the embassy because of his affiliation with the group Outserve, a Washington, D.C.-based association for gay servicemembers with chapters worldwide.”

Amazingly, President Obama has appealed to his supposed Christian faith to justify his support for normalizing the homosexual lifestyle through the force of his office. OneNewsNow reported that on the same day he made his “LGBT Pride” proclamation, and right after a group of black pastors asked to meet with him over their concerns about his endorsement of same-sex marriage as a civil right, “the president pointed to his wife and told ABC News, ‘When we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing Himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule — treat others the way you’d want to be treated.’”

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality pointed out that the President is behaving “as if rights based on perverse and immoral behavior are basic rights…. Of course, those aren’t basic rights. Basic rights are what we all share as Americans. Rights based on perversion, on changeable homosexual sin, are not basic rights.” He added that “for a man like Obama, who professes to be a faithful Christian, to be celebrating an agenda based on using the government to create rights based on changeable homosexual behavior — that’s a travesty.”

Bob Stith, a strategist on gender issues for the Southern Baptist Convention and head of its Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals, told Baptist Press News that Obama is purposefully casting “all those who have a genuine, biblically based belief that homosexual acts are sin as haters.” But, he added, “it is not prejudicial to say that certain acts which have been viewed as sin for over 3,000 years by all three major religions are still sin.”

Stith added that the “words the president uses in his drive to normalize homosexuality clearly portray any who disagree with him as prejudiced bigots. Those who agree are loving and brave. The danger here is that those who dare to seek to protect the definition of marriage which has stood unchallenged for thousands of years are themselves the victims of prejudice and hate.”

Sadly, Stith said, Obama’s “LGBT Pride” proclamation “shows no interest in preventing this kind of bigotry. Rather it is another example that if something is repeated often enough it will be accepted as truth even if the evidence doesn’t support it.”

__________________________________

Social Conservatives Run to November Polls

Vote AGAINST BHO’s Gay Agenda

John R. Houk

© June 10, 2012

_________________________________

President Obama Proclaims June “Gay Pride Month”

Copyright © 2012 The New American Magazine

Leftist Academia Hates ROTC

John R. Houk

© February 24, 2011

I have just read a Move America Forward email that calls for major Universities to allow ROTC back on their campuses. Evidently one of the chief reasons these Universities denied ROTC opportunities on their campuses is because of the military policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) in preventing open homosexuality in the military from occurring. Of course while the Dems had both Houses of Congress the DADT policy was repealed further opening America to the immorality of accepting the sin of same-sex as a normal part of society.

The MAF email correctly points out that the Leftist reasoning is a load of horse manure for many of America’s elite Universities have been fighting the existence of ROTC programs since 1960s. The recent student heckling of Purple Heart recipient Staff Sergeant Anthony Maschek for participating in a Townhall style debate at Columbia is a classic example of Leftist Professors programming the minds of College students to hate the very military that exists to protect the American way of life of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These programmed Leftist hecklers were rude to Maschek even though he put his life on the line as a military hero. He was shot 11 times according MAF (I heard in a FOX News interview it was 9 times) and lost his leg.

I don’t have a problem with people expressing their First Amendment right to Free Speech to disagree with Maschek over the ROTC issue; however the open disrespect of interrupting, laughing and insulting Maschek while he was making his Townhall style point at Columbia University was a reprehensible act of disrespect.

The MAF email goes on to write now that DADT is off the table for Leftist academia to rail against the military they are now dreaming other Leftist reasons to keep ROTC off of major University campuses.

JRH 2/24/11

******************************

Cut Funding for Schools that Disparage our Troops!

TIME TO ENFORCE THE SOLOMON ACT

Sent by Nathan Pizzo

Move America Forward

Sent: 2/23/2011 2:47 PM

The Solomon Act, first enacted in 1995, was established to address the problem of liberal universities  banning ROTC and military recruiters from campuses as far back as the 1960’s. Under the Solomon Act, schools and universities that receive federal funding could lose those funds if the school in question does not cooperate with ROTC and military recruitment programs.

 
For years, universities, even Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale have closed their doors to our military, and when the Solomon Act became law and threatened their hefty federal government grants, schools scrambled to find a loop hole. Since then, schools like Columbia, which was the site of last week’s horrendous attack on a disabled Iraq war hero, have avoided being penalized through the Solomon Act by claiming that military discrimination of gays through “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” violated their school’s discrimination policies.

 
Now that DADT was repealed by Congress, these schools can no longer use DADT as an excuse for violating the requirements of the Solomon Act. Therefore there should be no reason why they continue to ban ROTC and military recruiters from campuses.

 
But despite the official policy change, we continue to see incidents of open hostility to our nation’s military and those who serve in it, such as the incident at Columbia which disgusted so many, and began this debate. So why do Columbia and other Ivy League schools maintain this anti-military attitude.

Jed Babbin writing for the American spectator reminds us that before DADT became the big scapegoat universities across the country had already banned ROTC, banned military recruiters, or both long before the Solomon Act.

“First, let's set the record straight. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown, and Columbia -- and pretty much all the rest of the Ivies -- tossed ROTC out not in response to the DADT law, but back in about 1969 at the height of the Vietnam antiwar protests. They latched on to the DADT law only as an excuse to continue their exclusion of the military” - JED BABBIN Jan 3, 2011

Students should be reminded that their very rights to protest are protected and ensured by the brave men and women of the military who risk their lives for our sake.

 
Isn’t it time we start enforcing the Solomon Act?! If schools don’t want to open their doors to our military, to which we owe everything, they don’t deserve the benefits of federal funding for other pet projects. Sign our petition to call on schools to either allow ROTC back on campus or finally face the penalties in accordance with the Solomon Act.

SIGN THE PETITION

No sooner had the ink from President Obama’s pen dried on the paper that outlawed DADT were college professors and apologists for the universities already making more excuses. They needed a new rationalization, something else to be unhappy about, as justification to continue their policies of barring recruiters.

 
Even after Obama made the call for ROTC to be welcomed back in schools the university professors and administrators were undeterred! In fact just weeks before the despicable incident at Columbia, a professor from that school, Jonathan R. Cole, penned an article for The Huffington Post, arguing against ROTC.

“… even the DADT policy left many inequalities between gays and straight members in the military. But more broadly, the legislation failed to address the broader inequalities that continue to haunt gay couples in America…there continue to be many ways in which gays and lesbians do not have equal rights on our campuses …”

According to Cole, accepting gays is not enough, it is also incumbent upon military leaders to ensure that gays are not only accepted by the military, but elevated to a high enough position within the greater society of America. Not only for gays, but also for the transgender, mixed gender, gender-confused and everything in between.

Since when did it become the military’s responsibility to fix society’s problems? Focusing their frustrations with other societal problems or factors on the military will not only fail to help whatever they’re unhappy about, it unfairly targets our military, which is not the source of the problem!

 
Cole, the University of Columbia and other schools are trying to come up with more excuses to violate the Solomon Act, it’s time to say no more excuses!

 
SIGN OUR PETITION TO ENFORCE THE SOLOMON ACT! SCHOOLS SHOULD ALLOW RECRUITERS AND ROTC BACK TO CAMPUS OR THEY SHOULD LOSE FEDERAL FUNDING!

Please forward this e-mail to your friends and family and spread the word!

_____________________________

Leftist Academia Hates ROTC

John R. Houk

© February 24, 2011

___________________________

Cut Funding for Schools that Disparage our Troops!

About MAF (This about page from an older MAF website that promoted a fund raiser to send the troops care packages)

Anonymous Comment to: “Angry gay activist behind Wikileaks treachery”

SlantRight 2.0 Editor: Below is a comment that should have been posted but was not. The only reason I know of its existence is that the email made it through even though the comment post did not. It was not posted because the content was too long.

I am making sure it is being posted not that I agree with Anonymous Comment, but because it is a reasoned and thought out rebuttal with an absence of ad hominem language.

Below is the beginning of the comment with the whole comment posted in its entirety as a standalone post.

JRH 12/17/10

********************

Posted by Anonymous

Originally: December 16, 2010 8:48:38 PM

Of course a member of a vilified group is likely to harbour resentment against those who vilify him. This is the summation of that verbose post, a truth obvious to even the most ignorant individual.

However, this post goes wrong when it veers into identifying a singular attribute of a person as a dependable indicator of weakness or vulnerability, especially when the presented evidence is quotations from a sixty year-old study heavily biased by the social mores of the society in which it was conducted.

It helps to analyse quotations for those kinds of biases before using them to make an educated point. For example:

Senate committee reports from the 1950s concluded that "moral perverts are bad national security risks ... because of their susceptibility to blackmail" [...]

This quote could easily be applied to a large range of human behaviour since the term 'moral perverts' is subjective, relying upon a moral framework defined in the reader's mind and the society in which they live. Take that quote and apply it to an intelligence agency operating within a society with strict moral codes, such as Sharia law, and the subjectivity of 'moral perverts' becomes clear. A woman leaving her house alone would qualify as 'moral perversity'. However, the overall point is still perfectly valid: people vulnerable to blackmail are security risks.

 
Blackmail only works when someone doesn't want knowledge about themselves shared. It's about maintaining secrecy. Is it then right to say that if we make it easier to open up these 'secrets', it nullifies the security risk for all concerned?

This is a significant aspect of the anti-DADT effort: opening up these kinds of secrets so that anyone willing is able to serve their country without the fear that an irrelevant secret could someday cost them their dream or their country a dedicated soldier. In an open, accepting society, blackmail becomes an unusable weapon. Social vilification, arguably responsible for some or all of the "emotional instability and moral weakness" observed in a particular group, is also nullified.

I'm certainly not of the type to say "Let's make everything legal!” This isn't a rational way to run a society when its members are unpredictable human beings of questionable ethics when unsupervised. While civic liberties are paramount, a careful, objective analysis of the long-term effects is necessary. I've spent a long time thinking about gender and orientation equality, and I've concluded that they're the least of our worries when it comes to society crumbling.

It's clear that many religiously-based moral and ethical hurdles exist for you before the reasoning in the paragraphs above become clear, acceptable and the goal attainable. I honestly believe that many religious beliefs stand in the way of true rationalism and comprehension of the world around us -- as I'm sure you feel that Islam or non-mainstream "Christian" schism churches deny the rational themselves. It's also true that I look upon many conservatives these days with disdain, since a heavy religious undercurrent has overwhelmed the reasoning centres of both major American political parties and (for whatever reason) we've fallen into classifying people as 'us' or 'them' -- 'left' or 'right'. This is sad because in many ways I identify with conservative opinion when it's independent of religious overtones and nationalism, and it's becoming harder to find.

Anyway, the question still remains as to whether Manning copied those documents out of spite for DADT or a sense of ethical responsibility to expose the illegitimacy of our Middle-Eastern wars. Perhaps a mix of both? But it can't be denied that annihilating DADT would have calmed his internal conflict. Personally, I think he would have released them regardless.

_________________________________

SlantRight Editor Note: If the Anonymous Commenter ever discovers that he/she’s comment was posted a standalone piece, that person should know that I performed a spell check for grammar and clarity reasons. Also the reader should not a significant amount of spelling that would be misspelled in America is not misspelled in Britain; ergo I left those words alone.

Angry gay activist behind WikiLeaks treachery

Below is an excerpt from an email that was sent to a friend who is involved investigations exposing the corruption that homosexual activism on society. He goes by the pseudonym of Solid Snake undoubtedly because homosexual political clout is strong in his local venue.

The excerpt is from MassResistance.org which was originally delivered as a five point update to its mailing list. The excerpt I will be using focuses on the homosexual traitor Bradley Manning and his involvement with WikiLeaks. At the end of point one was a recommended link to read from DefendTheFamily.com bringing more light about how homosexuality has the potential to corrupt government and the military.

JRH 12/3/10

******************************

Angry gay activist behind WikiLeaks treachery

What the media leaves out: Army staffer who leaked thousands of documents to WikiLeaks website is homosexual activist - angry at ban on gays in military.

By MassResistancee Update

Nov 30, 2010 at 9:48 PM

The US Army intelligence analyst who has been arrested for disclosing more than more than 90,000 intelligence reports and more than 150,000 diplomatic cables to the Wikileaks website is a homosexual activist enraged at the military's "anti-gay" policies.

 

The massive publication of top-secret documents has been called one of the greatest security breeches in US history and has reportedly endangered the lives of US personnel around the world.

Bradley Manning - Gay Traitor

Bradley Manning, who is now awaiting court-marshal at a military stockade in Quantico, VA, was arrested last May for giving a classified video to the Wikileaks website, and later it became clear that he had given them thousands of other military documents. He is an open homosexual, and his anger at the military's rejection of homosexuality appears to be the major reason for his actions.

Bradley (Traitor) Manning

While in the Army, Manning has openly participated in gay rights marches, even publicly demonstrating against the military. In addition:

·       His Facebook page reportedly included a photo of him marching in a gay pride parade. His big interest was to "Repeal the Ban" on homosexuals serving openly in the military. He proclaimed his support for the National Center for Transgender Equality. He also talked about going to gay bars.

·       According to newspaper reports, he was prone to fits of rage. At one point Manning was demoted for assaulting an officer. He also wore custom dog tags labeling himself as "Humanist" (as his religious affiliation). And like many male homosexuals, Manning reportedly had a terrible relationship with his father, who had also been in the military and was divorced from his mother.

·       Manning was very upset over a breakup earlier this year with his homosexual lover, a student at Brandeis University who according to the New York Times described himself on his blog as a "drag queen."
 

·       The Montreal Gazette reported that "Manning could 'identify' with Iraqis and Afghans who he believed had suffered as a result of U.S. policies, especially because he himself was a "a member of a minority" treated unfairly by the military."

Manning said he spent 14-hour days copying the classified documents to send to the Wikileaks website.

 
As the Montreal Gazette reported,

Private Manning described how he downloaded the video and lip-synched to Lady Gaga as he copied hundreds of thousand of diplomatic cables.

"Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack," he boasted. But even as he professed a perhaps inflated sense of purpose, he called himself "emotionally fractured" and a "wreck" and said he was "self-medicating like crazy."

Not surprisingly, Manning has since been applauded on homosexual blogs and websites across the country.

General media blackout on Manning's "gay" issue

Except for a few newspaper accounts, the mainstream media in the US has completely ignored any "gay" aspect to this story, and especially his anti-military homosexual activism. To our knowledge, none of the major TV or cable network news programs have discussed it. (Though Glenn Beck did mention "he was jilted by a boyfriend or something." That's the same Glenn Beck that doesn't have a problem with homosexuality.)

For example, on Monday The Atlantic posted an article, "WikiLeaks: One Analyst, So Many Documents". It discusses Manning in some detail, but simply describes him as "a disaffected young man".

 

It's pretty strange, to say the least. One wonders what else the media refuse to report.

Army ignored its own policy

Ironically, a major issue with the Manning case is that the Army was ignoring its own policy on homosexuals serving openly.

Jonah Knox (a pseudonym used by a US Army analyst) points this out in a great article on the Accuracy in Media website this week:

Army regulation restricts leaders from determining (officially) if a soldier is a homosexual and therefore someone who should be discharged. For instance, AR 600-20, Paragraph 4-19, Subparagraph d(3) ("Noncredible information") details instances that are not considered grounds for Army leaders to open an inquiry to determine whether someone is a homosexual and therefore should be discharged. The Army regulation states that "noncredible information" includes, "The only information known is an associational activity, such as going to a gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual publications, associating with known homosexuals, or marching in a gay rights rally in civilian clothes."

In Manning's case, he had a Facebook page devoted to homosexual causes that included a photo of him marching in a gay pride parade. His associates said he went to gay bars and he talked openly about his homosexuality to others. Several have said that he was angry with the military because of the failure to repeal the homosexual exclusion policy. Incredibly, however, the Army may not have considered any of the credible evidence that he was a homosexual.

It is true that Army regulations on homosexuality create a lot of confusion. And that may be intentional based on current Department of Defense policy. The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) says this in its analysis of current Department of Defense policy.

In other words, had the Army been following the law (rather than the Clinton "Don't Ask" policy regulations), this would not have happened.

Incident reiterates reasons for excluding homosexuals from military

Most public health organizations (including the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health) have observed that homosexuals are far more susceptible to mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, and violence than the general population.

The inherent emotional weakness and moral instability of people involved in homosexual behaviors and its resulting possible damage to the military have been documented going back over 100 years.

 
For further reading: This week Dr. Scott Lively published a fascinating article which discusses this,  "The Wikileaks 'Gay' Connection." We recommend it.

_____________________________

The Wikileaks 'Gay' Connection Updated

By Dr. Scott Lively

02-Dec-2010

DefendTheFamily.com

If you’re looking for someone to blame for the Wikileaks scandal, a good candidate would be President Bill Clinton. He was the one who, in 1995, signed an Executive Order removing “sexual orientation” as a grounds for denying someone a security clearance. Had that policy never been revoked, homosexual soldier Bradley Manning would never have had access to our national secrets and could not have leaked them. According to news reports, Manning decided to turn traitor after a fight with his boyfriend, which somehow motivated him to send hundreds of thousands of confidential documents to Wikileaks leader Julian Assange, who has also been alleged by some to be “gay.”

 

As to motive, the Montreal Gazette reported that "Manning could 'identify' with Iraqis and Afghans who he believed had suffered as a result of U.S. policies, especially because he himself was a "a member of a minority" treated unfairly by the military." (How common an attitude is that among “gays” and lesbians do you suppose, when their very identity as a political movement is defined by the rhetoric of “victimization?”)

 

So why were homosexuals denied security clearance in the first place? A series of Senate committee reports from the 1950s concluded that "moral perverts are bad national security risks ... because of their susceptibility to blackmail" and that homosexuals are "vulnerable to interrogation by a skilled questioner" due to emotional instability and moral weakness. (Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10/1/2001).

However, the reasons go much deeper into western history. According to Samuel Igra in Germany’s National Vice, the outbreak of World War I was a direct consequence of homosexual intrigues in the court of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Revelations that a clique of homosexuals had gained Rasputin-like control of the Kaiser engulfed the nation in scandal from 1907 to 1914 through a series of very public criminal trials.

 
According to Igra it grew so severe that Germany chose war as the only way to resolve it’s domestic crisis. He cites, among other sources, The Diary of Count Robert Zedlitz-Truetzschler, Lord Chamberlain at the Court of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who wrote “Yesterday while hunting at Springe the Crown Prince had a long conversation with General von Moltke, the Chief of the General Staff, about the political situation (the internal political situation, he means) and committed himself to the opinion that only war can clear up the confused situation of the county.” Whether or not this was the true cause of The Great War is immaterial. It is enough that it caused so great a national crisis that war was contemplated as a solution.

And in World War II, also according to Igra, the most notorious of the traitors who sided with the Nazi fascists against their own governments were all homosexuals: Guy Burgess and John Macnamara in England, Edouard Pfeiffer and Jacques Doriot in France. Leon Degrelle in Belgium. Artur Seyss-Inquart in Austria, and in Norway it was the infamous Vidkum Quisling, whose surname is even to this day synonymous with “traitor.”

 
Colonel Ron Ray in his 1993 book Military Necessity and Homosexuality noted

 
“Even if homosexuals are not ‘turned’ by foreign agents, evidence exists that homosexuals, as a group or subculture, can and do turn against their country simply on account of the nature of homosexuality and its hostile attitude toward the existing moral order. This fact is illustrated by a well known group of preeminent writers, thinkers, artists and high social figures known as Bloomsburys who began to reform English tastes before the second world war. That period, termed modernity, saw the supplanting of the fixed moral norms with another ethos. The key to understanding modernity and Bloomsbury is sodomy: Bloomsburys wanted to ‘live as they wanted to live.’ Along with their homosexuality they developed an amoral, irreligious attitude and were unpatriotic as well. E.M. Forster, a member of the Bloomsbury, was quoted as saying, ‘If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country‘”…

“Another one of its members, Sir Anthony Blunt, a member of the British Intelligence [and a notorious homosexual], became a traitor and breached security, thereby causing many to die. He regularly passed highly classified information on to a nation which would become the primary foe of the free world: the Soviet Union. He once remarked to an intelligence colleague near the end of World War II, ‘it has given me great pleasure to have been able to turn over the names of every MI-5 officer to the Russians.’”

A concise summary of the problem with inviting homosexuals into highly confidential circles is drawn from the memoirs of Police Commissioner Hans von Tresckow, who headed the equivalent of the Berlin “vice squad” from 1905 to 1919:

 
“[I]t is not the sense of duty towards one's fellow-men or the nation that forms the rule of conduct for homosexualists; but in every turn of life and in all their striving they think only of the good or harm they may do to their own clique of friends.”

It was true then and it is true today. Just ask Bradley Manning.

_________________________________

Angry gay activist behind WikiLeaks treachery

Support our work . . .
Donate to MassResistance!
Better yet - become a monthly donor (email us back to get set up)!

Donations can also be mailed to: MassResistance, PO Box 1612, Waltham, MA 02454
ALL donations are confidential. MassResistance does not sell or lend any of its lists.

_____________________________

The Wikileaks 'Gay' Connection Updated

© 2002-2010 Abiding Truth Ministries, all rights reserved.