Posted on 12/24/2010 12:36:03 AM PST by EternalVigilance
So Obama has signed the legislation his henchmen pushed through the lame-duck session of Congress, intended to force personnel serving in the United States military to accept homosexual activity as lawful and legitimate conduct. Would this legislation have passed without the support of Republican congressmen like Ron Paul and senators like Scott Brown of Massachusetts? Of course, Paul is the guru of some who claim to be staunch advocates of liberty; and without the votes and financial support of grass-roots conservatives throughout the country, Brown would never have won election.
*snip*
Now, the prime source of visceral conservative opposition to socialism is its proven propensity to expand the sphere of government coercion and control. But no form of coercion is more deeply offensive to human dignity and self-respect than the coercion of conscience. When the force of law is abused to compel people to perform or tolerate actions they conscientiously believe to be intrinsically immoral, this usually announces the penultimate stage of tyrannical oppression.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was intended to circumvent state sovereignty to force all Americans to cooperate in the enforcement of slavery. The angry moral revulsion of anti-slavery citizens in the free states led to actions that matured into the kind of open, organized resistance that announced the onset of the American Civil War. Forced to choose between obeying God's law and submitting to human legislation that violated it, many chose to follow the dictates of natural conscience. In this they acted in the spirit of the American founders, who defied the dictates of the British monarch rather than accept impositions levied without regard for the requirements of God-ordained natural justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
In a sane world, Alan Keyes would be President.
The Usurper would be in jail.
.....oh, yeah. And Ron Paul would be in a padded cell, on heavy doses of thorazine.
In a sane world, Alan Keyes would be President.
The Usurper would be in jail.
Yes
and Yes.
Great article by Keyes.
Regarding what motivates a DC politician, Keyes neglected to include the ‘need’ for political acceptance and survival, and the narcissism that hungers for it.
It does make sense that Ron Paul would back the elimination of DADT though. Even for things the man doesn’t like (and he assuredly is not fond of gays), he sticks to the principle of greatest personal freedom. You have to respect that kind of dedication to principle, especially when he’s fair enough to not pick-and-choose whose liberties he supports.
If only Alan was our first real American African slave descendant to be President, we would be truly blessed. His understanding of the Constitution is grounded in his family's history, unlike the 1/6 African Usurper fraud put into power by power coming down from high places!
To really believe that, you have to believe there is some "right" to do wrong. Which, of course, is the core fallacy of libertarianism.
The founders of this free republic, of course, had no such definition of the word "liberty." Not even close.
Look at the source; that’s far as anybody need go.
“To really believe that, you have to believe there is some “right” to do wrong. Which, of course, is the core fallacy of libertarianism.”
If a fellow Marine wants to smoke poles in his spare time, it’s no skin off my nose so long as he shows up for formation at 0730.
I carry on with women in the privacy of a residence, and so long as gays demonstrate the same courtesy, I fail to see the “wrongness” involved. Clearly, they shouldn’t be allowed to harass or molest anyone, but that’s the same standards we hold non-queers to.
We don’t have any legal prohibition against gay stuff amongst consenting adults anywhere in the Republic, so it seems pretty odd to suddenly get picky about it in the military. I’ve served with a handful of gay Marines, who were pretty subtle about it, and a few presumed lesbians (by really butch haircut and tats) who confined their femaling to outside of public view, and I fail to see the harm involved.
So DADT repeal had 250 supporters in the House and 65 in the Senate and perennial laughing stock Alan Keyes decides to use a specific one of those 315 in his headline for page view purposes?
Ron Paul also opposes Az’s SB1070.
So much for his claimed States Rights position.
You want homosxuals in the military? You think that it’s Constitutional to force everyone in the military to closely associate with sex perverts? Even though the experts state that it will harm military readiness and morale? You think people practicing sodomy is the same thing as liberty? And forcing others to associate closely with those practicing sodomy?
Ron Paul is a hyporcrite and a nutcase, and the Libertarian Party Platform is all “gay” rights, 100%. The LP is merely the anarchy ultra-kook fringe of the left.
Have you seen this thread yet, if not, you should check it out:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2644629/posts
If you support the homosexual agenda you are anti-Constitution and you’ll get the zot from FR!
Jim Robinson
Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2010 11:33:01 AM by Jim Robinson
A couple more posters got zotted today.
Guess we need another reminder:
If you support the homosexual agenda you are anti-constitution and you’ll get the zot from FR. Homosexuals already have the same “rights” as everyone else. God did not grant and the constitution does not guarantee homosexuals any special rights. In fact, the homosexual agenda is a full frontal attack on OUR God-given, constitutionally protected rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, Life, Family, Marriage, Pursuit of Happiness, etc.
I don’t want it on FR and won’t have it on FR.
Like abortion, if you support the homosexual agenda on FR, your account here will be zotted!
Don’t like it? Tough frickin Shinola! Get the hell OFF this conservative site!!
Homosexuals were barred from the military since the inception of our country. DADT was a compromise, but if they were found to be homosexul flagrantly, they were kicked out. They’ve never been openly allowed. You are either singularly ill-informed, or lying. One of the two, your choice.
Here are some articles explaining why homosexuals in the military harms readiness and morale, if you’re just ill-informed.
Ten Reasons to Oppose an “LGBT Law” or Policy for the Military
The Center for Military Readiness ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608259/posts
Senate Testimony: European Militaries Are Not Role Models for U.S.
The Center for Military Readiness ^ | 3/22/2010
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608228/posts
Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military Are Disproportionately High
FRC ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608306/posts
In Support the 1993 Law Stating that Homosexuals are not Eligible to Serve in the Military
CMR ^ | July 23, 2008 | Elaine Donnelly
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608370/posts
“THE REAL PENTAGON POLL: 91% OF SERVICE MEMBERS REJECT HOMOSEXUAL LEADERS - 1 IN 4 WOULD QUIT”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635458/posts
“MILITARY: Marines lead opposition to repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635350/posts
“Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2636350/posts
“Homosexuals were barred from the military since the inception of our country. DADT was a compromise, but if they were found to be homosexul flagrantly, they were kicked out. They’ve never been openly allowed. You are either singularly ill-informed, or lying. One of the two, your choice.”
Lying? That’s a rather harsh accusation. Do you doubt that there are dudes where fellow soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines said “yeah, probably a fag” who continued to serve during the DADT period? The third clause which was often referenced in terms of DADT (which you may recall if you ever had to deal with military admin) was “don’t pursue”, so we couldn’t go out of our way to try to “catch” someone. If we had 0-dark-30 health-and-welfare inspections and happened to find two guys in bed, yes they could be booted (though mostly that just ended up finding liquor caches, unregistered pistols, and Air Force girlfriends past visiting hours).
My artillery battery had at least two guys that were “yeah, probably a fag”, but since they didn’t openly do anything gay they weren’t bootable. One was a decent guy overall so got along fine, the other was kind of a jack-up but inoffensive so did his four and got out.
So far as “obvious-but-not-open” females: you do the math and tell me. Stocky chick with hair as choppy as Marine regs allow (”eccentric” of “faddish” haircuts are prohibited), arm tattoos (back when that was allowed), wears jeans, boots, and wife beaters with no makeup on libo time. You tell me: how many straight girls do that? So everyone just said “dyke, she ain’t having any” and hit on other girls instead. This wasn’t my unit (again, arty battery), but saw it plenty in neighboring support units.
To recap: not supporting the gay “lifestyle”, not saying it’s cool for dudes to mince around, and definitely not saying that gays should get any special status or affirmative action or whatever. Just noting that there were definitely queers in the military during the DADT period who were “presumed” gay but not bootable since they didn’t do anything that ran afoul of DADT. So not like that part is a huge change.
If you want to actually learn the truth, you can read the articles above. Homosexuals in the military cause many, many problems, more under DADT than before when they were asked and supposed to tell, and kicked out, and will be much worse with DADT repealed.
Mentally ill sex perverts do not belong in the military.
Pretty subtle about it?
When I was in the Corps...a homo would've been as obvious as a whore in church.
By your own definition Paul is an anarchist.REASON dictates that a group identified by their lust for bad sexual behavior i.e. unnatural sexual orientation=homosexuality. ought not be equated groups identified by immutable traits given by the Creator —i.e. race or sex. Only an ignorant( or an evil )man would not distinguish between sex ( male or female genetics) and ones learned desire for sexual intercourse with their same sex.I cannot support any mere politician too ignorant (or evil ) to make that reasonable distinction.
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.