Category Archives: Congress

Marxist origin of the homosexual movement

Lana, a reader of FOTM, recently made a very insightful comment, citing the thesis of E. Michael Jones in his book Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control. Lana writes:

…the further the sexual deviance and permissiveness i.e. sexual liberation, the inevitability of the need for social control. In other words, there is a method to the madness. TPTB promote this extreme excess because it has been scientifically shown that it paves the way for political control and repression…. [T]he end-game of the so-called “sexual liberation” — of which women’s “liberation” and the homosexual movement are part and parcel — is a way for the state to gain control.

As constraints on behavior increasingly are loosened, the social fabric increasingly becomes frayed, resulting in increasing chaos and disorder. But a society cannot function under such circumstances, so citizens increasingly turn to the state as a solution, thereby expanding the powers of government.

Indeed, Numbers 26 and 40 of the 1963 Communist Goals For America, which was entered into the Congressional Record (Appendix, pp. A34-A35) on January 10, 1963, state:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

40. Discredit the family as an institution.  Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

On March 16, Mike published a post on “Communists Conceived Women’s Liberation Movement.” Here’s a companion piece on the Marxist (aka communist) origin of the homosexual movement.

~Éowyn

Photo credit: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.org

A scene from San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair, 2010. Photo credit: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality http://www.aftah.org

The revolution of the family: the Marxist roots of ‘homosexualism’

by Hilary White
Life Site News
Aug 23, 2013

A few days ago in The Guardian, Peter Tatchell wrote a pretty good description not only of that ideology’s goals but its origins. This political ideology, often called “queer theory” by its proponents in academia, is what is being pushed, quite openly these days, by the “gay rights” movement. Despite what we are told all day by their collaborators in the mainstream media, from the six o’clock news to your favourite sit-com, this movement is not about “equal rights”. It is about re-writing the foundational concepts of our entire society. I predict that it will not be much longer before the pretense of “equality” is dropped, having done its work.

… Others have pointed out the Marxist origins of the Sexual Revolution as a whole, and it is clear that the sudden explosion of homosexualism is merely the next logical step in a systematic programme. A close cousin to radical feminism and grandchild of Marxism, homosexualism was developed out of the politico-academic pseudo-field of “gender studies” and has, for 30 or 40 years, been pushed on a mostly unwilling public, through “anti-discrimination” and “equalities” legislation by a coalition of lobbyists, NGOs and politicians on the extreme left, and in increasingly powerful international circles.

Peter Tatchell is a prominent British homosexualist, which means he is a proponent of a specific political and social ideology that he wants to see adopted in British society and elsewhere. He is also a homosexual man, that is, he experiences sexual attraction for other men, a condition whose origin is still debated by doctors, psychiatrists and geneticists. The two things are not the same. This is a fact that tends to escape a lot of people who read and write about the Culture Wars, especially in its current manifestation that seems to have suddenly become all about homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are homosexualists, and not all homosexualists are homosexuals.

Tatchell’s Guardian piece was a paean to a document put together in 1971 by what he describes as a collective of “anarchists, hippies, leftwingers, feminists, liberals and counter- culturalists” to bring about “a revolution in consciousness”. He called the “Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto” “a pioneering agenda for social and personal transformation” that started with the proposal that “subverting the supremacy of heterosexual masculinity was the key to genuine liberation.” Tatchell said it was the book that changed his life.

The Manifesto sums it all up, Tatchell says, by “critiquing” “homophobia, sexism, marriage, the nuclear family, monogamy, the cults of youth and beauty, patriarchy, the gay ghetto and rigid male and female gender roles” … the whole kaboodle of the sexual revolution.

The Manifesto itself is quite blunt about identifying the main enemies to defeat: “The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family.”

“Consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.”

Most tellingly, the Manifesto says that “reform,” in other words “equality,” is never going to be enough; what is needed is a total social revolution, a complete reordering of civilisation. Reform, it said, “cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, at worst a sickening perversion. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society’s most basic institution – the Patriarchal Family.”

Far from being “the source of our happiness and comfort,” it says, the family is the oppressive “unit” in which the “dominant man and submissive woman” teach children “false beliefs” about traditional “gender roles” “almost before we can talk”.

The core concept of gender ideology is given: there is “no proven systematic differences between male and female, apart from the obvious biological ones. Male and female genitals and reproductive systems are different, and so are certain other physical characteristics, but all differences of temperament, aptitudes and so on, are the result of upbringing and social pressures. They are not inborn.”

“Human beings could be much more various than our constricted patterns of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ permit – we should be free to develop with greater individuality.”

“Our entire society,” the Manifesto says, “is built around the patriarchal family and its enshrinement of these masculine and feminine roles. Religion, popular morality art, literature and sport all reinforce these stereotypes. In other words, this society is a sexist society, in which one’s biological sex determines almost all of what one does and how one does it; a situation in which men are privileged, and women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise.”

It is this that must be overturned, entirely eradicated, before the true freedom we all deserve can be put in place.

It does not take a degree in political theory to recognise the origins of this kind of language: throw off your chains, comrades! Indeed, a very little digging will take you directly to the origins of the Gay Liberation Manifesto in the writing of the first Marxists: in this case, Friedrich Engels, who wrote a document describing what most of us call the traditional family in terms nearly identical to that of the Manifesto.

Engels called it “monogamous marriage” and said that it exists “not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period.”

“The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.”

“The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules.” Engels’ solution, of course, we all know already.

The Gay Liberation Manifesto, like Mr. Engels’ work before it, proposes that once we throw off the ancient shackles of “heterosexism, male privilege and the tyranny of traditional gender roles” we all get to live in a glorious and shining “new sexual democracy” in which “erotic shame and guilt would be banished”. This means, in practice, more or less what we now have: everyone gets to sleep around with whomever, and nobody gets to have any long-term claims on anyone else either in marriage or as parents.

Now that it has started the global “gay marriage” snowball, the ideology’s promoters seem to have only a few mop-up operations left to accomplish. The pressure is already starting to widen the burst-open definition of marriage to include multiple partners of either sex and to legalise and accept paedophilia – as an expression of “children’s rights”.

But as with all utopian visions, homosexualism’s great weakness is the failure to consider the entirety of human nature. It proposes, essentially, a permanent state of self-indulgent adolescence, and to other self-indulgent adolescents, this sounds pretty good. Have all the cake you want, eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and never get fat.

Unfortunately, since the 1960s, most of us have been raised to think that this programme is the very meaning of freedom and securing it the whole purpose of democracy. The ideology was already being promoted to children on television to children when I was a child. I remember the huge splash made in 1974 by an animated TV show called “Free to be you and me” that told us through a series of cute animated sketches, narrated by the icons of the 70s lefties Marlo Thomas and Alan Alda, that it was wrong to assume, or adopt, traditional sex roles. Gender ideology for tots.

For those who actually try to put it into practice, however, it quickly becomes obvious that humans were simply not meant to function this way, and basing an entire culture on the proposition, as we have since the 1960s, is going to create dismal state of emotional and social chaos, misery, loneliness, poverty and selfishness such as the world has never seen before.

The main problem with the homosexualist version of the Marxist dream is that you have to get everyone to agree. And I mean everyone. Marxist theorists have always known that utopia will only work if no one is allowed to raise any objection. Everyone has to agree, and no voice of dissent can be tolerated to pop the soap bubble logic of the enterprise.

The first voice to be aggressively silenced, as always, is therefore the Church that proposes something rather more rich and (ahem) fertile for man’s destiny than this facile materialism and sensualism. The Church that, furthermore, has a more comprehensive understanding of human nature, and knows that total license is not a recipe for human happiness… far from it.

Texas attorney general: U.S. is heading toward a constitutional crisis because of Obama flouting Congress and courts

Ken Paxton

In an interview on Fox News yesterday, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of the State of Texas, was asked whether America is heading toward “a constitutional crisis” because of Obama’s total disregard for Congress and now the courts. (The segment begins at the 2:55 mark in the Fox News video, here.)

Paxton replied:

“I think we are. If you think about what’s going on here — the President is violating federal law, the U.S. Constitution, which is going past what Congress is supposed to be doing, and now we’ve got the administration in court not being forthcoming about they’re supposed to be forthcoming about. We definitely have a huge issue here related to whether the Obama administration is going to follow the Constitution, and then once they get into court, whether they’re going to tell the truth.”

Paxton’s stunning remark was precipitated by Obama’s latest “F-you” to the court, specifically to Andrew Hanen, the federal judge who is single-handedly doing the job of the useless Congress by standing up to Obama’s reckless amnesty.

Judge Andrew Hanen

Judge Andrew Hanen

On Feb. 16, 2015, U.S. District Judge Hanen issued a preliminary injunction to temporarily block Obama’s amnesty so as to give a coalition of 26 states the time they need to pursue a lawsuit to permanently stop the amnesty orders. If the implementation of Obama’s amnesty were not blocked, Hanen reasons, the 26 states will “suffer irreparable harm in this case” because once the millions of illegals obtain amnesty, “the genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle.” (See “Federal judge stops Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals”)

At issue are two executive memoranda signed by Obama last November:

  1. The first memorandum expands eligibility for Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which halts deportations and allows work permits for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.
  2. The second executive memo, known as DAPA, would extend similar benefits to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents.

See also “Obama has issued more executive orders than any U.S. president in history.

Combined, DACA and DAPA could affect as many as 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally. Some estimates are as high as 10 to 12 million illegals.

4 days after Judge Hanen’s order blocking the implementation of Obama’s amnesty, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it would seek an emergency stay of the judge‘s injunction. (See “Obama emergency order to restart amnesty in defiance of federal judge Hanen”)

Hanen responded by denying the DOJ’s request. So the federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen’s injunction while the case is appealed.

Obama vs. Hanen

 

The latest tussle between Judge Hanen and Obama took place last Thursday, March 19, 2015.

As reported by FoxNews, at a Texas hearing on Obama’s amnesty executive actions, Judge Hanen sharply scolded a DOJ attorney — that the administration had misled Hanen on a key part of the program, for which Hanen fell “like an idiot.” Hanen said he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds the DOJ indeed had misrepresented the facts.

At issue is whether the DOJ had misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama amnesty program would not go forward before he made the Feb. 16 ruling to temporarily halt it. The program is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that gives deportation reprieves (i.e., effective amnesty) to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as “minors.” The problem is that even before Hanen’s ruling on Feb. 16 to block DACA’s implementation, federal officials had already given 3-year reprieves and work permits to more than 108,000 illegal aliens.

Kathleen Hartnett Associate White House Counsel Kathleen Hartnett, a Harvard Law grad like Obama, successfully worked on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

At the Thursday hearing, Hanen chided DOJ attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the Feb. 16 injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to DACA until Feb. 18.

“Like an idiot I believed that,” Hanen said.

A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted. “We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point,” she said.

“Can I trust what the president says? That’s a yes or no question,” Hanen asked.

“Yes your honor,” Hartnett replied.

The coalition of 26 states have asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions against the Obama administration because, in the words of the coalition’s lead attorney Angela Colmenero (who is also a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General’s Office), DOJ attorneys had made “representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming.”

Obama’s DOJ lawyer Hartnett insists “There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here. The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing.”

Hanen said he would issue a ruling “promptly” on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.

See also:

~Éowyn

Tea Party calls conservative talk host Mark Levin “The Great Enabler” of Obama

Mark Levin

Mark Levin, The Great One?

By Dwight Kehoe, editor of TPath.org (Tea Party Advocate)
March 4, 2015

Several years ago Mark Levin, tagged by Hannity as The Great One, was offered and then accepted a full time gig doing a “conservative” talk show on the ABC radio network and affiliates.  He began that job not as the Great One, but as the Great Enabler.  He may have been told that it was not in his best interest nor the best interest of the network to discuss the eligibility of Barack Islam Obama relating to Article II or any aspect of his credentials which might actually prevent an illegal presidency.

Can we prove that he was given this conditional requirement?   No, but there are numerous instances from many ex-employees of the national radio and TV networks who have denied that order was ever given to them, until that is, they no longer worked for them.  These personalities fervently  refused to admit this ever happens.  One quite famous individual who also denied this fact while working for FOX has now admitted that he was prevented from speaking of several issues.

Even though this gentleman has not admitted that the “off limit subject” related to Obama, coincidentally enough this guy finds himself in the same sinking ship of fools as the Great Enabler. Both are now struggling to keep their integrity afloat, frantically bailing the birther issue and the messengers of it, overboard.

As the evidence against Obama becomes more pronounced, so too does the boiling anger of the Great Enabler which he directs at those who have been warning this country about Obama from the very beginning.  Those who have refused to be cowed, refused to forsake the Constitution and the rule of law have now become a bigger enemy to Mark Levin, than the illegal usurper.

We can be fair and suppose that when Levin agreed to ignore these issues, if he indeed did agree, that early on he was too busy impressing Hannity with his greatness to have had the time to look into the reality of the Obama saga.  Then, after having adopted and implemented such a nasty stance, it would have taken a true Great One to admit he was wrong.  But alas, the Great Enabler prevailed.

He understands now that his early acquiescence and his subsequent denial and cover up will implicate him, the self proclaimed constitutional scholar, as one of many selfish actors who have aided and abetted the destruction of our country. He smothers his personal guilt under the cover of belittlement of those who know he has failed us.

Once again this past week, after exiling a patriot form the call in phone line, the Great Enabler said this:

“You have to call this show about the birth certificate? Oh that’s been really effective. It has failed in every court. The birth certificate…with all the problems we have with this President, that’s all you have?”

That statement is of course as ignorant and deceptive as any Obama could have uttered.  Actually however, it was not a statement, but a series of questions.  He offered them rhetorically and with his typical sarcasm.  They must have been rhetorical because he hung up on the patriot before he could answer.

So, Mr. Levin, we would like to take a minute and answer them and as with many questions like that, yours have elicited several questions of their own.  No one will hang up on you before you can answer them.  It will take courage to honestly answer, so we hope you don’t mind if we don’t hold our breath while waiting.

First we answer your questions:

Q – “You have to call this show about the birth certificate?
A – Are you not the supposed Constitutional expert?  Who should I have called, Eric Holder?

Q – “That’s really been effective?”
A –  No it has not been effective because everyone in this country who could have made a difference and made it effective, put their careers ahead of the future of  America.

Q- “With all the problems we have with this (President/ Usurper), that’s all you have?
A – Real world to the Great Enabler,  if you and your ilk had of done your job, worked with the Birther Patriots, all of the problems this country has now, would never have been.  Barack Islam Obama would be back with his communist  gangster comrades in Chicago and not in Washington DC endangering the entire world.

Now a few questions of our own:

1.  Are you not aware that the Founding Fathers, after much discussion and communication between George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Jay, amended Article II to include the  “Natural Born Citizen” requirement?

2.  Have you not read any of the Federalist Papers and other writings where they stated many times that legal terms they use were based upon Vattell’s work, The Law of Nations?

3.  Did you never take the time to find out that, according to the Founders, Obama would not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen, regardless of where you “think” he was born?

4.  Did you ever consider looking at all those court cases you claim have been adjudicated in favor of Obama?  Did you not see that none of them ruled or affirmed Obama’s eligibility on fact, but supposition by the judges?

5.  Did you notice that all the cases otherwise ruled, that those bringing the case had no standing?  No standing is the answer all progressive judges use when they can’t produce evidence to support a decision they have been ordered to make.  No standing now  describes your standing with real constitutional conservatives.

6.  Did you happen to notice that there are errors on Obama’s birth certificate which can only be explained by it being a forgery?  The  youngsters who dominate the “basement underwear brigade”*, those who did the forging, made errors in terms and words which are common today, but never used back in 1961.

7. Did you happen to note when you reviewed Obama’s Birth Certificate that it states the name of the hospital as it is called today, even though it went by another name in 1961?

8. If you were running for President and needed to show a birth certificate, would you have one forged, which could possibly send you and the forgers to prison, if you had a real one?

There are Mr. Levin, many, many more questions we could ask you.  As with these, the answers will not sit well with the image of  The Great One.

Finally, if you are a Constitutional Scholar, then you are also a coward.  It’s impossible, with your record, to be one and not the other.

See also:

~Éowyn

Stop being nice to America-destroying Left

Conservatives, including me, like to blame Obama for everything that’s wrong with America.

But the truth is he wouldn’t be in the White House, ignoring and bypassing Congress by signing more executive orders and memoranda than any U.S. president in history:

  • without MILLIONS of Americans voting him into power, twice!
  • without the willful complicity of the establishment media
  • without the gutless spineless Republicans, and
  • without the approval of MILLIONS of Americans (50% of adults, according to Gallup Poll, still!), despite or because of everything he’s done.

To quote 18th century French diplomat Count Joseph Marie Maistre (1763-1821), “Every nation has the government it deserves.”

In the following op/ed by Michael Cummings for Clash Daily, he perfectly articulates my sentiments.

america_divided

Tired of Losing: No More ‘Benefit of the Doubt’, Decorum for America-Destroying Leftists

Ben Shapiro, attorney, author of Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America, and Brietbart.com editor-at-large, said in a recent column:

“If someone calls you a racist, and you respond by stating that they are a reasonable human being with policy differences, you grant their premise: A reasonable person has called you a racist, which means it is reasonable to call you racist. You lose.”

I am tired of losing.

I am tired of giving people on the Left the benefit of the doubt. Is it not clear they do not mean well? Is it not clear they don’t want the same things as we? Is it not clear they do not wish to arrive at the same destination via a different path? These people are not on our side, and were I in Congress I would not call any member of the opposition party “My honorable friend” or “esteemed colleague.” Decorum be damned.

In the last week we’ve seen former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani get criticized on every news show over his statement that he didn’t think Barack Obama loves America. True Americans cheered as Giuliani didn’t back down when challenged over the days that followed. Even Scott Walker, when asked about what Rudy said of Obama, essentially said, “Ask Obama.” Well done, both of you.

We need more of this, more of calling these people out.

And why shouldn’t we? Barack Obama has done more damage to this country than any president or elected official. We need to tell the truth.

  • He and his perpetually angry wife criticized our country during the 2008 campaign.
  • He began his administration with a trip around the world to apologize for every wrongdoing he believes America has committed.
  • He destroyed the best health care system in the world.
  • He pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving a gaping hole the Islamic State is only happy to fill with the blood and body parts of Jews, Christians, and not-the-right-kind-of-Muslims.
  • He traded five, high value terrorists for a proven Army deserter, some of whose fellow soldiers died looking for him.
  • He has spent more than all other presidents combined.
  • He vetoed a bipartisan bill that would allow the building of the Keystone XL Pipeline, bringing more energy independence and jobs to our nation.
  • He pushed the FCC to treat the Internet as a public utility, paving the way not just for speed but content restriction.
  • He granted de facto amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and set processes in place to provide them tax credits and Social Security.

We know how long this list could get.

Note: Cummings left out Obama abandoning 4 Americans to die in Benghazi; the IRS singling out conservatives for extra scrutiny; the NSA spying on our every email, phonecall, and credit transaction; targeting right-wing Americans as extremist terrorists; promoting sodomy as U.S. foreign policy; imposing gun control via banning bullets by executive action; and much much more. See our “The Obama Chronicles” page.

In every facet of our lives, Barack Obama and people like him on the Left want to control us — never asking if we want to be controlled nor checking with the Constitution on the legality of their actions. Free enterprise, health care, freedom of religion, free Internet, strong military — they destroy everything they touch. In protecting America or our allies from danger, these people have made it clear they want chaos to reign.

I don’t know what else to say other than this: I hate Barack Obama. You can’t call me racist because I hate Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, too. You can’t call me sexist because I hate Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. You can’t call me anti-pervert because I hate Joe Biden.

Do I hate these people personally? No. How could I? I know none of them. But I hate anyone who becomes part of the 1% off the freedoms of the best country this world will ever know, but with every breath they take seek to fundamentally transform it.

Do I hate these people more than the Islamic State? No, but I hold them responsible for the bloodshed painting the entire Middle East.

My hatred is bipartisan. You would like to think that since, for the moment, we still have elections, we could vote these people out and put in place principled and courageous leaders who will keep their multiple and fervent promises to stop Obama. And in 2010 and 2014 we set decades old records in political power shifting by handing Republicans the keys to Congress. Since then, Republicans have taken impeachment and funding (shutdowns) off the table. Please tell me where our negotiating power resides other than at the bottom of the pit in the movie “300.” Save for a few, patriotic stalwarts, I hate the Republicans too.

But I love God, Jesus, and the American people, and with faith in all of these I remain optimistic that while we’re in a really dark part of history, we will see the light.

Armor of God I can do all things through Christ

See also:

~Éowyn

Gun Control! Obama to ban bullets by executive action

The Piece of Sh*t occupying the White House is running amuck.

Already, he has issued more executive orders and memoranda than any U.S. president in history, the recent two amnesty executive memos being especially egregious examples. See:

Now that the Sandy Hook hoax failed to achieve its purpose of nation-wide gun control, Obama is switching his tactics by employing his executive power to ban 5.56 mm bullets used in AR-15 rifles — the most popular rifle in America.

guns-make-us-less-safe

Paul Bedard reports for The Washington Examiner, Feb. 26, 2015:

It’s starting.

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.

The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.

“The Obama administration was unable to ban America’s most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it’s trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group’s policy and lobby shop. “The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama’s latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.”

At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.

The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.

But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof.

Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.

“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.

Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”

Many see the bullet ban as an assault on the AR-15 and Obama’s back-door bid to end production and sale.

“We are concerned,” said Justin Anderson with Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s top sellers of AR-15 style rifles. “Frankly, we’re always concerned when the government uses back-door methods to impose quasi-gun control.”

Groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation suggest that under BATFE’s new rule, other calibers like popular deer hunting .308 bullets could be banned because they also are used in AR-15s, some of which can be turned into pistol-style guns. “This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide,” said the group.

not for hunting

For all the posts FOTM has published on the Sandy Hook hoax, go here.

~Éowyn

Obama bypasses Congress, again, with new Special Envoy for Sodomites

Christians are being slaughtered across the world, especially in the Middle East — Christianity’s birthplace — where Christianity is on the verge of going extinct.

The Obama Administration has no envoy to Christians but the POS has seen fit to create out of thin air a new position in the State Department — a first-ever Special Envoy for Sodomites.

Just another of his middle-finger salutes to Congress and the U.S. Constitution. (See “Obama tells Congress he’ll decide what’s constitutional“)

Barack Obama

Robert R. Reilly writes for MercatorNet that on Monday, February 23, Secretary of State John Kerry proclaimed, “I could not be more proud to announce Randy Berry as the first-ever Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons.

Randy Berry

Randy Berry

 

Until his new appointment, Berry was the U.S. consul general in the Netherlands.

Two Democrats, Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif) had introduced legislation in the last Congress to create such a position, but the bill died. The bill was reintroduced in the new Congress, with zero chances of passage.

And so, true to his F-you declaration a year ago that “I’ll act with or without Congress,” Obama simply created the position by executive fiat. This has the added advantage of not requiring Congressional confirmation of the openly-gay Randy Berry in the new position. It simply becomes an executive branch appointment.

But what exactly is Special Envoy Randy Berry supposed to do “for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons” in foreign countries?

The State Department said Berry would push to end laws in dozens of countries around the world that criminalize same-sex relationships. As Kerry put it, “Too often, in too many countries, LGBT persons are threatened, jailed, and prosecuted because of who they are or who [sic] they love.”

Robert Reilly took a look at more than 40 of the laws that purportedly persecute people because of who they are or whom they love. Here is a sample.

  • Uzbekistan: “voluntary sexual intercourse between two male individuals”
  • Yemen: “Homosexuality between men is defined as penetration into the anus”
  • Sudan: “Any man who inserts his penis or its equivalent into a woman’s or a man’s anus or permitted another man to insert his penis or its equivalent in his anus is said to have committed Sodomy”
  • Brunei: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years…”
  • Myanmar: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals shall be punished…”
  • Mauritius: “Any person who is guilty of the crime of sodomy or bestiality shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding 5 years.”
  • Kuwait: “Consensual intercourse between men of full age (from the age of 21) shall be punishable with a term of imprisonment of up to seven years.”
  • Kenya: “Any male person who, whether in public or private, commits any act of gross indecency with another male person, or procures another male person to commit any act of gross indecency with him, or attempts to procure the commission of any such act by any male person with himself or with another male person, whether in public or private, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for five years.”

Contrary to what John Kerry said, not one of the laws Reilly looked at punishes anyone because of who they are, but only because of what they do. A homosexual cannot be arrested because he is a homosexual, but only if he sodomizes someone – just as an alcoholic cannot be arrested for being an alcoholic, but only if he is drunk and disorderly in public, or is driving drunk. In other words, these laws reflect the rule of law, not the kind of tyrannies embodied in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. The issue of whom they love is also irrelevant to these laws, but only, once again what they do together. It is a matter of whether the expression of “love” is appropriate to the nature of the relationship. These laws judge sodomy as inappropriate to any relationship. The principal issue here, then, is the act of sodomy itself, and whether or why the United States should be supporting it in its foreign policy.

John Kerry is very firm that it should, because:

“Defending and promoting the human rights of LGBT persons is at the core of our commitment to advancing human rights globally — the heart and conscience of our diplomacy. That’s why we’re working to overturn laws that criminalize consensual same-sex conduct in countries around the world.”

In other words, the Obama Administration is proclaiming to the world that the United States of America “defends” and “promotes” SODOMY. Not just that, but the defense of SODOMY is the core — “the heart and conscience” — of U.S. diplomacy.

When did the American people decide that sodomy is up there with the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence or in the Bill of Rights?

As recently as 1986, only 29 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that:

“Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 states outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 states and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private in between consenting adults.”

Why did these laws exist for so long? Because our inalienable rights rest firmly upon “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and sodomy is clearly contrary to those Laws, as it violates the very ends of man’s sexual powers, which are unitive and procreative. Sodomy is an act unfit for either of those ends. Therefore, one cannot claim a natural right to do something that is unnatural. Or as Abraham Lincoln said, one “cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

Reilly explains that, as he stated in his book, Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything:

But that, of course, is exactly what the rationalization for homosexual behaviour accomplishes…. It transforms wrong into right. For that rationalization to hold, however, everyone must share in it. The rationalization of sodomy requires its universalization. Everyone must agree that the unreal is the real [and evil is good]…. We are in the phase of its domestic enforcement now, and Secretary Kerry is preparing for its global enforcement in our foreign-policy, as proudly announced by the LGBT flags flying on the masts of our embassies overseas last June, just under the American flag. The State Department has become the instrument for the global universalization of the rationalization for sodomy.

The problem with this should be self-evident. The promotion of “gay” rights must come at the expense of the promotion of human rights because the two are immiscible. One is founded on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and the other on moral relativism, which eviscerates the very idea of natural rights and the natural law on which they are based. If you have one, you cannot have the other. You have your rights by virtue of being a human being, and not by anything else – not ethnicity, not religion, not race, not tribe, not sexual orientation.

The Obama Administration, by its aggressive rationalization and promotion of sodomy across the world, is undermining the very notion of natural law on which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were founded.

See also:

~Éowyn

Harry Reid dons shades to hide facial bruises

Who exercises on New Year’s Day?

We are told that on January 1, 2015, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) did just that in his home in Henderson, Nevada, when supposedly an exercise band snapped, sending the 75-year-old crashing into cabinets.

“A piece of equipment Senator Reid was using to exercise broke, causing him to fall and break a number of ribs and bones in his face,” read a statement from his office.

Yesterday (Feb. 24), nearly 2 months after his “workout accident,” Reid appeared at a news conference wearing sunglasses.

Harry Reid in sunglasses

The shades replaced the large bandage Reid’s been using to cover his facial bruises, but as you can see, the bruises are still visible.

Whoa! That must have been some “exercise band”!

In response to reporters asking about his sunglasses, Reid said. “I can see out of my right eye, just not very well. And it hasn’t healed. I have to be very — I have to be a patient, patient.”

In May 2011, Reid dislocated his shoulder, bumped his forehead, and sustained a contusion just below his left eye when he slipped and fell during a morning jog in the rain. Reid was leaning on a wet car near his home in Washington, D.C.’s Ritz-Carlton hotel when he tumbled to the ground. (See “Harry Reid breaks ribs & face in second “exercise” injury in 3 years”)

Below are side-by-side pictures of accident-prone (wink, wink) Reid’s injuries.

↓ Click to enlarge ↓

Harry Reid injuries

Do you believe Harry Reid? Sound off in our poll!

~Éowyn