Skip to comments.Proposed Army manual's scary message for our troops in Afghanistan (Don't criticize pedophilia)
Posted on 12/14/2012 10:43:56 PM PST by huldah1776
click here to read article
Lord God I am glad I am retired from the Military. I would resign or retire if I were active duty today.
>> any criticism of pedophilia, directing any criticism towards Afghans, mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct or anything related to Islam.
So the connection to pedophilia and homosexuality is now official?
Does that mean that references to goat “husbandry” are also out of bounds?
I would guess that you dont mention pedophilia because Mohamad could easily be considered a pedophile.
I would also surmise that you dont mention homosexuals because that would lead to the uncomfortable fact that the Afghans execute homosexuals and we do not.
Of course you cant mention womens rights because the only right an Afghan woman has is to be whipped or murdered if she disobeys or heaven forbid embarrass her male relatives.
Isn’t this what they lambasted the Catholic Church and many priests unjustly about?
I wish the military would stage a coup and save civilization from these bastards.
My ancestors are rolling over in their graves. This is a religious war.
[ Does that mean that references to goat husbandry are also out of bounds? ]
I thought the Goat was the wife and not the husband...
“So the connection to pedophilia and homosexuality is now official?”
It isnow official that mahomed was a pedophile and that islam is a book on pedophilia.
“So the connection to pedophilia and homosexuality is now official?”
It is now official that mahomed was a pedophile and that islam is a book on pedophilia.
I meant to say the koran is a book about pedophilia and that islam is a sect full of pedophiles.
There goes "Man Love Thursday's" off the calanders
. The handbook says troops should avoid making derogatory comments about the Taliban,
So our troops should be careful to not say anything bad about the people they are supposed to shoot at?
“any criticism of pedophilia”...
What kind of de-generates are running our military?
The same kind that abandoned their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
The same kind that willingly serve the Usurper.
The same kind that commit treason in exchange for a federal paycheck.
Supreme Court cases that cite natural born Citizen as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
What an effed up country.
Afghanistan is pretty messed up, too.
Asking soldiers to check their morality at the door and just follow orders. Nothing bad can come as a result of *that*. (/s)
Who is responsible for these additions? Can we please see a quick end to their career?
Bacha bazi boys are the way to go in Afghqanistan. The level of sanctioned pedophilia in Afghanistan hasn’t been widely commented on by the MSM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.