THE GAY-ING OF AMERICA
3 top commanders warn Senate: Don't accept open homosexuality, 'reprogramming' rejected
By Brian Fitzpatrick© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – As the commanders of the Army, Air Force and Marines cautioned the U.S. Senate against abruptly repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, critics are also warning that accepting open homosexuality and pro-homosexual "reprogramming" could drive massive numbers of troops out of the service.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pointed out during the first day of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Thursday that according to a survey conducted for the Pentagon, repealing DADT could create an "alarming" troop retention problem at a time when the military is already shorthanded.
Get the inside story on what's happening to America, in "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"
Said McCain, "If 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned … Do you think that's a good idea to replace 265,000 troops … in a time of war?"
Military analyst Bob Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council, said the real number could exceed half a million.
"Twelve-point-six percent is just the people who said they would leave," Maginnis told WND. "If you add in the number who said they 'might' leave, you get 23.7 percent. That would be 528,000, when you count both active duty and reserves.
"And that's only if you trust their numbers," Maginnis continued. "They have a real problem with their numbers. It's skewed toward noncombatants, and the Air Force had much larger proportional participation than the Army, so the numbers are totally unreliable.
"They spun their questions in a way that's absolutely bizarre. They literally have distorted the truth, it's all about repeal, not about what's good for the service," he said..
"I don't think people understand how they have spun these numbers. Not only is the survey biased, the way they combined their percentages is skewed. They say 50 or 55 percent of the troops support repeal, but that's not true. The big slice of that 55 percent is 'mixed', some positive, some negative." The truth is, it was 30 percent negative, and 15 or 20 percent positive."
Maginnis said the results of the survey consistently show that two service members oppose DADT repeal for every supporter.
Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Amos acknowledged Friday that a clear majority of combat Marines oppose permitting open homosexuality in the ranks.
"Their message is that the potential exists for disruption of the successful execution of our current combat mission should repeal be implemented at this time," said Amos.
In addition to compromising combat effectiveness, repealing DADT would also threaten unit cohesion and combat readiness, according to Amos.
"If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level," Amos testified. "It will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat." >"[I] would not recommend going forward at this time, given everything the Army has on its plate," said Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey. "I believe the law should be repealed eventually." Casey said DADT could be repealed with "moderate risk to our military effectiveness and the long-term health of the force.".
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz advised delaying any change until 2012, to give the military enough time to implement "training and education programs."
Only Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead recommended repealing DADT this year, parroting an argument made Wednesday by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that the risks involved in allowing open homosexuality in the ranks could be overcome by "leadership."
"I believe these concerns can be effectively mitigated through engaged leadership," said Roughead.
Far from easing the transition to a "gay"-friendly military, the "training and education" recommended by Schwartz could actually amplify recruitment and retention problems, according to Maginnis. "You'll sit through mandatory classes and someone tells you what you can and cannot do. Criticism of homosexuality will receive zero tolerance. Sex and gender equality will be embedded in every basic officer training course all the way up to the war colleges." "'Re-education,' that's a good term … or call it 'reprogramming,'" said Maginnis. "Ever since George Washington the military has been programmed to believe homosexuals are disruptive to morale and unit cohesiveness, and are a readiness problem. You have to expunge all those negative thoughts you have about homosexuality and replace them with what you're told by the chain of command about what's right and wrong. "If you have strongly held religious beliefs you'll have cognitive dissonance, and it'll be very difficult to overcome. The military is ignoring privacy concerns, and you'll be told you'll have to room with a homosexual. Your commander will tell you that you will never be propositioned and your roommate will never leer at you, so your deeply held religious beliefs will be of no consequence," he said.
"You have a disproportionate number of evangelicals in the armed forces today. Retention among that population is going to be hit. >"Recruitment is the big elephant in the living room," Maginnis added. "The report says enlistment could decline by seven percent. That's serious. What they don't tell you is we recruit from the south and the mountain west states, which have the highest Protestant numbers of any of the states. We also find they come from families with a history of service. It's the fathers or grandfathers who recommend them to join the service. FRC looked at these vets, and they're decisively against these changes." McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a leader of anti-repeal senators, claimed on Friday that enough senators oppose repealing DADT to block a vote on the issue during the current lame duck session. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., leader of the pro-repeal forces, reportedly has said enough senators will support a vote to override a filibuster.
The House has already passed legislation to repeal DADT, and President Obama is vigorously supporting the repeal.
Showing posts with label Brian Fitzpatrick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brian Fitzpatrick. Show all posts
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility
BORN IN THE USA?
Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.
"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.
Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.
A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.
"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."
"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."
"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.
Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.
According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.
"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."
Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.
Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.
Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.
"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."
"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."
Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.
"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.
"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."
Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.
"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.
Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.
A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.
"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."
"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."
"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.
Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.
According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.
"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."
Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.
Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.
Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.
"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."
"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."
Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.
"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.
"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)