U.S. Senate Unanimously Confirms Nation’s First Openly Homosexual Army Secretary

Fanning Credit Monic King-compressed
Photo Credit: Monica King

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate has confirmed the nomination of Eric Fanning to serve as Army secretary—a move that homosexual groups note make him the nation’s first openly homosexual secretary of the Army.

“I’m honored by today’s Senate confirmation and thrilled to return to lead the total Army team,” he said in a statement on Tuesday.

Fanning had previously served as special assistant to Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work. He also served as the undersecretary of the Air Force from 2013 to 2015, and for a time was the acting secretary of the Air Force.

Barack Obama had nominated Fanning for the post last September, but Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts placed a hold on the matter out of concern over whether the Obama administration would move detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Ft. Leavenworth.

As he reportedly received assurances last week that the move would not occur as there was not time left to do so, a vote on Fanning moved forward.

“I believe that because of last week, in a private meeting with Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, I received the assurances I needed to hear to release my hold on Mr. Fanning,” Roberts told the Senate on Tuesday.

“I look forward to voting for Mr. Fanning, who has always had my support for this position,” he stated. “My hold was never about his courage, character or capability, but rather about our nation’s security if the detainees were moved to Ft. Leavenworth.”

  • Connect with Christian News

The vote to confirm Fanning was unanimous, with some noting his homosexuality in praising the confirmation, such as Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, who Tweeted that the approval was “an historic moment for #LGBT service members.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, also Tweeted, “Congratulations to Eric Fanning on historic appointment as the first openly gay @SECARMY.”

Homosexual advocacy groups applauded the confirmation in focusing on Fanning’s sexuality, with Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin remarking in a statement, “Eric Fanning’s historic confirmation today as Secretary of the U.S. Army is a demonstration of the continued progress towards fairness and equality in our nation’s armed forces.”

As previously reported, homosexuality was outlawed in early America as a number of states passed sodomy laws under their criminal statutes, banning sexual activity between those of the same gender due to biblical prohibitions against it.

“By 1791, when the original 13 states ratified the Bill of Rights, they all treated sodomy as a criminal offense,” chronicles on the matter state.

In 1778, General George Washington ordered Lieutenant Frederick Gotthold Enslin to be drummed out of the camp for “attempting to commit sodomy” with a male soldier.

His March 14th proclamation stated, “His Excellency, the Commander in Chief, approves the sentence, and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes, orders Lieut. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; the drummers and fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at guard mounting for that purpose.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Theodore Fenton

    A big congratulations to Secretary Fanning! You make America proud!

    • Daddy50

      Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men…

      • Gal 5:22-23

        That is actually talking about the two types of adultery, with women and with men. No one word in Greek covered them both.

        The part of that which will trip up so many here is that revilers – people who call others they disagree with harsh names – are not getting into heaven.

      • Theodore Fenton

        The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

        — Article VI, U.S. Constitution

        • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

          USA is a kingdom of earth, not the kingdom of God/heaven. God’s kingdom is not of this world.(JOHN.18:36)
          ……. U, the LGBTQs, liberal n Rino Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, feminists, unions, lazy n irresponsible poor, etc can hv this kingdom of earth or USA. True conservative Christians hv opted for the eternal kingdom of God/heaven, even if they hv to be persecuted/prosecuted/martyred by the powerful US govt.

          • Theodore Fenton

            Agreed. We’ll have this world. You concentrate on your celestial rewards in Paradise.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            Fyi, the Word of God also says that there is an “Expiry Date” on this world of yours, ie Doomsday or the Apocalypse or the Great Tribulation, when Jesus Christ returns to this earth/world to exact the Vengeance of God on scoffers/mockers like you.

      • Seen From Space

        Nor the bigots, nor the judgemental, nor the self-righteous, nor those who despise their fellow man for what he has no choice but to be. There is no place in the Kingdom of God for such as these.

        • The Last Trump

          Yes, Christian stalkers and bashers will have no place there to be sure….

          • Gal 5:22-23

            Or Christians that use word disparaging gays or transgender people or people of different faiths.

      • Gal 5:22-23

        Hmmm a totally reasonable reply removed. Are you a sock puppet for a moderator?

    • Amos Moses

      Yep ,,,,,,,,,, exactly what got satan thrown out of heaven ………Pride …..

  • The Last Trump

    Transgenders and homosexuals given some of the highest offices in the land.
    The transformation of America into depravity and debauchery continues.
    Christianity’s days are numbered in America, and indeed worldwide.
    Just as the Bible forewarned. What a book!!
    We know Jesus returns to a world that hates Him and His flock.
    There is no parade or welcoming committee to greet Him when mankind’s Redeemer returns.
    No, sadly, He returns to battle.
    And we are watching the stage being set right before our very eyes.
    Not long now, folks.. 🙂

    • Theodore Fenton

      “Transgenders and homosexuals given some of the highest offices in the land.”

      So how is this a sign of depravity and debauchery?

      • http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/fisherhl Mr. Avatar

        Mental illness is now normal.

        • gogo0

          mental illness was embraced long ago in America by people who believe in and speak to an imaginary being.

          • B1jetmech

            So I guess that includes the founding fathers too, right???

          • gogo0

            yes, and myself when I was younger, and some people that I respect. many great people do stupid and irrational things

          • B1jetmech

            Yeah, I grew up as a non believer but went on to be one of those people who did stupid and irrational things.

            BTW, what is considered stupid and irrational to you???

          • gogo0

            in this case, building one’s life around unobservable omnipotent beings because a book that states it is infallible says so

          • B1jetmech

            A believer reconciles to God as a new creation. Don’t bother looking with your eyes because you won’t see Him.

            Even the Israelites after experiencing miraculous intervention that freed them from Egypt even turned their backs to God. So waiting to see some sign is a waste of time.

      • The Last Trump

        See Bible.

        • Theodore Fenton

          I’ve seen one.

      • Florenca Mcdowell

        teddy
        check your pants or panties that should tell you what your sexuality is.
        Mental disorders of identity or miss identity is a sickness that is what is WRONG.

    • Gal 5:22-23

      Yep we can add 2016 The Last Trump to the long long list of fails:

      365 CE Hilary of Poitiers Announced that the end of the world would happen during that year.

      375–400 CE Martin of Tours Stated that the world would end before 400 CE, writing, “There is no doubt that the Antichrist has already been born. Firmly established already in his early years, he will, after reaching maturity, achieve supreme power.”

      500 CE Hippolytus of Rome, Sextus Julius Africanus, Irenaeus All three predicted Jesus would return during the year 500. One of the predictions was based on the dimensions of Noah’s ark

      793 Apr 6 Beatus of Liébana The Spanish monk prophesied the second coming of Christ and the end of the world on that day to a crowd of people.

      800 Sextus Julius Africanus Sextus Julius Africanus revised the date of Doomsday to 800.

      799–806 Gregory of Tours Calculated the End would occur between 799 and 806.

      848 Thiota Declared that the world would end during that year.

      992–995 arious Christians Good Friday coincided with the Feast of the Annunciation; this had long been believed to be the event that would bring forth the Antichrist, and thus the end-times, within 3 years.

      1000 Jan 1 Pope Sylvester II The Millennium Apocalypse at the end of the Christian Millennium. Various Christian clerics predicted the end of the world on this date, including Pope Sylvester II. Riots occurred in Europe and pilgrims headed east to Jerusalem.

      1033 Various Christians Following the failure of the January 1, 1000 prediction, some theorists proposed that the end would occur 1000 years after Jesus’ death, instead of his birth.

      late 1000s Various Christians Leading up to the Crusades, many people made pilgrimage to Jerusalem in hope of being saved, for the “dread day of wrath was upon them: men no longer tilled the earth, fearing the end of all things”.

      1260 Joachim of Fiore The Italian mystic determined that the Millennium would begin between 1200 and 1260.

      1284 Pope Innocent III Pope Innocent III (d. 1216) predicted that the world would end 666 years after the rise of Islam.

      and on and on and on…

    • Josey

      Yes and we also know who the winner is, glory to His Name! He only has to look at them with fiery eyes and the sword which is the word of God, they all try to hide from Him in caves and mountains but there is nowhere to run or hide. Jesus is coming soon! Seek Him while He may be found, the door is closing.

      • Theodore Fenton

        You might find counseling beneficial.

      • ComeOnPeople!

        Watch Worst Than War documentary and you will see where we are heading. Anyone who holds a Christian view is being demonized in the media. It’s Christians who are hurting so called progress in the world. Watch Worst Then War for free if you have Amazon prime.

        • Texas ParentsCare

          Genocide: Worse than War Documentary on PBS???? @SpeakB4UnolongerCan:disqus

          • ComeOnPeople!

            I don’t agree will all of it but the historical accounts and the use of propaganda before the war are in the history books. That documentary albeit not perfect does offer information to those who seldom crack historical books.

          • Texas ParentsCare

            I tried to find the doc on PBS? No such thing?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            I watched it on Amazon. Yes it’s a Documentary.

    • acontraryview

      “Transgenders and homosexuals given some of the highest offices in the land.”

      What offices would those be?

    • Ronald Carter

      Hello Last Trump, I have some questions about your rather unusual post.

      When you say “not long now” are you referring to the rapture, and are you suggesting that homosexuals and transgendered people are the reason it’s coming?
      Are you suggesting that giving the transgendered and homosexuals government jobs is the reason for its slide into depravity and debauchery? On what basis?
      You’re also suggesting that the giving of government jobs to the transgendered and homosexuals is “forewarned” in the Bible? Can you please provide chapter and verse, please?
      Also, can you tell me what any of this has to do with hating Jesus? Sorry if I’m coming across dense, it’s just that it’s a little difficult to connect the dots logically here – I’m quite certain you mean this all as one coherent idea where each point you make relates directly to everything else you said, but I need help with it. Thank you.

      • Amos Moses

        “are you suggesting that homosexuals and transgendered people are the reason it’s coming? Are you suggesting that giving the transgendered and homosexuals government jobs is the reason for its slide into depravity and debauchery? On what basis? You’re also suggesting that the giving of government jobs to the transgendered and homosexuals is “forewarned” in the Bible?”

        It is judgement that has already come. We are not to be judged because of them… they are the judgement. Romans 1, Romans 13……….

        • Ronald Carter

          You make me more and more glad every day that I don’t belong to the same religion you do.

          • Amos Moses

            LOL! ………. you have no religion ……….. you are lost ……..

          • Ronald Carter

            Nope, I’m right here. And fear no eternal hell nor eternal life.

          • Amos Moses

            “And fear no eternal hell nor eternal life.”

            As i said ………….. lost ……

          • Ronald Carter

            Thanks, that means SO much coming from you.

    • Amos Moses

      Its a good thing ………

      • ComeOnPeople!

        Amos what Worst Than War! It’s a must to see where we are heading. People are being programmed to hate any who stand in the way of so called progress.

        • Tangent002

          *Worse Than War

          • ComeOnPeople!

            oops thanks … corrected

        • Amos Moses

          and that means ………. His return is very near ……….. its a good thing ………… a terrible bit will happen in the interim ……… but a good thing ….

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Yes…yes and yes… what many do not understand is that God has a plan and nothing they do …. even shutting up or destroying HIS body here on earth, will keep the plan of God from being fulfilled. As a matter of fact their actions and the world system is only bringing to fruition what is written in the scriptures. “Worse than War” is a very good documentary that shows how people can easily be deceived to the point of harming those around them, whom once they called neighbor .

            This life is not what we who know HIM hold on to but the next. We base our actions & our choices in light of eternity and not on the here and now. Yet our GOD will have to shorten the days so that even the very elect will not fall away from HIM. My pride says I’ll be fine, I know my GOD but my humility says… I am weak but HE is strong.

    • ComeOnPeople!

      Watch Worst Than War documentary and you will see where we are heading. Anyone who holds a Christian view is being demonized in the media. It’s Christians who are hurting so called progress in the world. Watch Worst Then War for free if you have Amazon prime.

  • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

    Just another Obamanable appointment and an abominable confirmation.

  • http://www.moonbatdan.com/ Dan T

    That familiar insincere smirk, contempt for the whole world.

    • Theodore Fenton

      Looks like an average smile to me.

    • gizmo23

      What smirk?

  • Brad F

    Odd, some of the Senators claim to be Christians. Obviously they are lying – but, on the plus side, votes this like show them to be the CINOs that they are. As the Bible says, “Put not your faith in princes.” There is not one true Christian in that reeking slime pit called the Senate. They are all secular humanists, regardless of their religious affiliation.

    • Theodore Fenton

      The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

      — Article VI, U.S. Constitution

      • Brad F

        How cute, a cut’n’paster.

        • Theodore Fenton

          Try reading it, for once.

          • Brad F

            I don’t take orders from child molesters.

          • Slidellman4life

            Whoa! Where did that come from?

          • Peter Leh

            your big enough to know who is saved and who is not.
            you are god

          • Theodore Fenton

            Theodore Fenton, Social Justice Warrior!

          • Brad F

            In other words: nobody.

        • gizmo23

          It is the constitution

    • Peter Leh

      so confining his nomination is a confirmation of faith?

      verse please?

      • Brad F

        “Put not your faith in princes” is Psalm 146:3.

        Never read a Bible, right?

        • Peter Leh

          that is far different than being the gatekeeper of another’s salvation?

          what does the bible say about those who pretend to be god?

    • acontraryview

      “Odd, some of the Senators claim to be Christians.”

      How is that relevant?

      • Texas ParentsCare

        Because men and women whom claim to be Christian cannot divorce their faith from how they work, breathe and live. They are to obey God, not man. If they voted in a known homosexual then they have turned their backs on their Lord and their faith. Anyone who broadcasts and proudly displays their sins and expects Christian support, affirmation and/or adoration should be sadly mistaken!

    • TheKingOfRhye

      “There is not one true Christian in that reeking slime pit called the
      Senate. They are all secular humanists, regardless of their religious
      affiliation.”

      No-true-Scotsman-ing a whole governmental body, impressive…..

      Actually what you described sounds pretty awesome to me, I wish that were the case, as one of those ‘secular humanist’ types myself. Did you know, in 2006, there was a poll by the Univ. of Minnesota, that asked people what groups do “not at all agree with their vision of American society” and if they agreed with the statement “I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group.” Number one by a wide margin in both questions? Atheists. Ahead of Muslims, blacks, homosexuals, etc.

    • [email protected]

      there is nothing about being a christian that demands denying a qualified individual a position becasue they are gay. you have a very flawed view of what it means to be a christian if you think that voting in favor a gay man means you are not a christian.

  • ISA41:10

    Yet another task for Trump on Day One, to boot this clown from his job, along with Carter, Mabus and the entire JCS

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Why, is he somehow unqualified?

      • ISA41:10

        Yes, homosexuality is a mental disorder.

        • Theodore Fenton

          Homosexuality is a gift from your deity.

          • Amos Moses

            satan is not a deity………..

          • TWhane

            Welp, I don’t believe in a “God” or “Satan.” Good luck with your hateful life. And just remember 1 Timothy 5:8 if you ever have a LGBT child.

          • Amos Moses

            satan does not care if you believe in him or not ………. reject God ……… you get the other ……. not really a matter of belief ………. it is a matter of consequence …….. like driving your car at a wall and not braking ……….. the wall does not care ………

            And just remember 1 Corinthians 5:11 if you ever have a LGBT child.

          • TWhane

            You’re an idiot. Honestly, believe in whatever mythical creatures you want. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

          • Amos Moses

            So if he is not ……………. then why are you here ……….. arguing about a thing you say does not exist …………… are you a scientist ……… do you believe science has the answers to life the universe and everything? ………….

          • Theodore Fenton

            Imaginary deities have never been a problem. The problems arise from their gullible followers.

          • Amos Moses

            So where is your evidences it is “imaginary” ………..

        • Ambulance Chaser

          According to whom?

          • ISA41:10

            Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away
            by PHIL HICKEY on OCTOBER 8, 2011

            According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II. (The DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – is the APA’s standard classification of their so-called mental disorders, and is used by many mental health workers in the USA and other countries.)

            Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

            What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

            The APA claimed that they made the change because new research showed that most homosexual people were content with their sexual orientation, and that as a group, they appeared to be as well-adjusted as heterosexual people. I suggest, however, that these research findings were simply the APA’s face-saver. For centuries, perhaps millennia, homosexual people had clung to their sexual orientation despite the most severe persecution and vilification, including imprisonment and death. Wouldn’t this suggest that they were happy with their orientation? Do we need research to confirm this? And if we do, shouldn’t we also need research to confirm that heterosexual people are happy with their orientation? And if poor adjustment is critical to a diagnosis of mental illness, where was the evidence of this that justified making homosexuality a mental illness in the first place?

            Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.

            Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.

            So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote! I remember as a boy reading of the United Nations World Health Organization’s decision to eradicate smallpox. This was in 1967, and by 1977, after a truly staggering amount of work, the disease was a thing of the past. Why didn’t they just take a vote? Because smallpox is a real illness. The human problems listed in DSM are not. It’s that simple. You can say that geese are swans – but in reality they’re still geese.

            The overall point being that the APA’s taxonomy is nothing more than self-serving nonsense. Real illnesses are not banished by voting or by fiat, but by valid science and hard work. There are no mental illnesses. Rather, there are people. We have problems; we have orientations; we have habits; we have perspectives. Sometimes we do well, other times we make a mess of things. We are complicated. Our feelings fluctuate with our circumstances, from the depths of despondency to the pinnacles of bliss. And perhaps, most of all, we are individuals. DSM’s facile and self-serving attempt to medicalize human problems is an institutionalized insult to human dignity. The homosexual community has managed to liberate themselves from psychiatric oppression. But there are millions of people worldwide who are still being damaged, stigmatized, and disempowered by this pernicious system to this day.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, according to no one with any authority, then. Got it.

            You could have just said that and saved us both a lot of time.

          • [email protected]

            Claiming that homosexuality was de-listed only becasue of political pressure is revisionist history. if you want to say that it is a mental disorder then please show how homosexuality meets the definition of a disorder.

          • ISA41:10

            What changed to declassify homosexuality from being a mental disorder. NOTHING!!!! The fact that about two-thirds of syphilis and AIDS cases occur amongst one percent of the population tells us something that is immediate and unambiguous: that homosexuality is not an innocuous choice. What gay men do behind closed doors is fundamentally different from what heterosexuals usually do in their bedrooms. It’s also more dangerous. In 1975, when that young man appeared before my psychology class, and told us in all apparent sincerity, “I’m just like you,” he was lying.

            Yes, it was and still IS a mental disorder

          • [email protected]

            what changed is the fact that it was re-evaluated and it was found that the classification could not be supported, that homosexuality did not meet their own definition of a mental disorder. It is completely possible to engage in homosexuality in a safe and responsible manner and thus this can not be used as grounds for claiming that homosexuality is a disorder. It can be used as an argument agasint unsafe and irresponsible sexual practices.

            if you are concerned about health risks then you should support greater support for same sex relationships as that promotes stable and open relationships that are safer and carry less health risks. treating homosexuality like a crime or a mental disorder only increase the health risks by decreasing the support for stable relationships. for one example it makes it far harder to engage with medical providers for testing or treatment for sexual health.

        • TWhane

          There are studies showing that it is not a mental illness. However, there are also studies showing that it is. Honestly, science can be biased in the sense that the scientists can try to make things follow their own beliefs. All I ask is that you be a decent human being and don’t ostracize people for who they are, but how they act. Treat people according to their character and actions.

        • [email protected]

          No it is not a mental disorder. It was at one point classified as such but that was never justified and that problem was corrected. so no the military is not going to pretend that homosexuality is a mental disorder becasue it is not.

          • ISA41:10

            It sure is a mental disorder. Man on man is one of the grossest concepts on the planet.

            Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders

            Posted by Tony Listi on October 1, 2007

            BY RYAN SORBA

            “It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move.”

            “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”

            -Barbara Gittings, Same-gender sex activist

            Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Activist Frank Kameny states the movement’s objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…” (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)

            In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of one’s own gender to be disordered. Karoly Maria Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual” was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder. Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex. Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public attitude.

            Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

            Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.

            On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions. In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.” (The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)

            Same-gender sex activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, talks of “…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.” (The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40) As a result of the pressure, in the words of the prominent journalist and same-gender sex activists, Andrew Sullivan, in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107) Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists. Another same-gender sex activist Mark Thompson writes, “Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees declared we were no longer sick.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 97)

            After the vote by the American Psychiatric Associations Board of Trustees, some members of the APA, led by Dr. Charles Socarides called for a full vote by the APA’s 17,905 members. (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 104)

            On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

            Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905

            Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555

            Number of members that “Abstained”: 367

            Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810

            Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

            It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s membership approved the change. It should be further noted that the “National Gay Task Force” was able to obtain APA members addresses and the “NGTF” (with-out identifying itself) and they sent creepy letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM. Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106) Dishonesty and intimidation had won the day for the same-gender sex movement, and when activists publicly claim that this vote was a scientific decision; they hide three years of deceit and intimidation. In same-gender sex publications, however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. For example, Kay Tobin Lahausen, co-author of The Gay Crusaders describes a variety of activism. “We did all sorts of protests…When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in his big black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine…He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217) (–Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for “CBS This Morning” and “Good Morning America.”)

            Lahausen’s lover, Barbara Gittings was a well known activist during this time as well. Gittings was the first head of the American Library Association Gay Task Force, although she was not a librarian her objective was to bring books advocating the same-gender sex movement to the attention of librarians in hopes of having them included in libraries. At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-gender kissing booth, to attract attention to the same-gender sex. Gittings tells about her activism against the APA. “Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association… to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness. Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. “Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides being sick, we were sinful and criminal. But the sickness label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves. The sickness issue was paramount.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.221)

            Gittings took place in the disruptive attacks (“saps”) on the APA. She states, “I am not opposed to sap tactics. In fact, I spearheaded a sap at a psychiatrists meeting and I’m ready to do it again.” (The Gay Crusaders, p.234) Barbara Gittings recounts, “The 1970 convention in San Francisco was disrupted by a group of feminists and gay men who were enraged by what the psychiatrists were saying about them—and newspapers all around the country carried the story” (The Gay Crusaders, p.216). The “Gay” Militants, a book about that time, adds details, “On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of ‘gay’ and woman’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrists on the subject of ‘aversion therapy,’ a system of treatment which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli. By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge…and the doctors were heckling from the audience.’” (The Gay Militants, by Donn Teal, p.272-273)

            Same-gender sex activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, “Konstantin Berlandt, of Berkeley GLF, paraded through the hall in bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” (Ibid., p.274) On June 23, 1970 same-gender sex activists disrupted yet another meeting, this time in Chicago, be repeatedly shouting down the main speakers discourse. (Ibid., 275) Then, in October at a meeting at the University of Southern California, same-gender sex activists shouted down a speaker and then took over the stage and the microphone. (Ibid., pp.276-280)

            Kay Lahusen and Barbera Gittings know what really happened to the APA. In the book, Making History they are quite open about the reality.

            Kay: This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.

            Barbara: It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first sapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.” (Making History, p.224)

            The APA was thoroughly intimidated. Later in the same year (1974), after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by a historian of the same-gender sex movement, Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” (Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was taped July 19, 1974). Anytime a scientific organization endorses same-gender sex, remember Gittings words: “They are running scared.” Same-gender sex activists have learned that intimidation works and they are never hesitant about using intimidation, psychological manipulation and deceit to reach the goals of their radical agenda.

            Later in 1974, same-gender sex activists set their vicious sights on an individual member of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. David Rueben, who was perhaps the best-known psychologist in the area of human sexuality at the time. Unbeknownst to Dr. Reuben, same-gender activists were lying in wait outside one of his lectures, and his physical safety was at risk. A same-gender sex activist and writer, Leigh Rutledge describes the attack in her book The Gay Decades, “June 16, A fist fight broke out at a Philadelphia playhouse when ten gay activists interrupt a lecture by Dr. David Rueben and denounce him as ‘a criminal’ for his views on male homosexuality. One policeman and a protestor are injured in the melee.” (The Gay Decades, by a man that engages in same-gender sex and writer, Leigh W. Rutledge, 1992, p.69) On that same page, this book tells us that, “The Centers for Disease Control estimate that gay or bisexual men account for as much as one-third of the syphilis cases in the U.S.”

            Apparently, the American Psychological Association also got the message of intimidation, because they caved in to same-gender sex activists in 1975. In the book, The Long Road to Freedom the author writes, “January…The American Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.115) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science, intimidation by same-gender sex activists was over for them. “Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti-gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.214)

            Could the AAAS have been thinking about “pressure from gay scientific groups” when they published the poorly done studies by LeVay (“gay” brains) and Hamer (“gay” gene)? Two scientists who protested the LeVay study raise serious questions about AAAS, Science, and same-gender sex activists. “The appearance of LeVay’s paper highlights a serious issue in science public policy. Should such a study, based on a questionable design, with subjects drawn from a small, highly selected and non-representative sample, receive the kind of international attention and credibility that publication in a journal with the stature of Science lends?” (Science, 11-1-91, p.630)

            If Dr. LeVay was not able to draw a proper sample and to fulfill other basic requirements for a scientific study, why did he conduct the study at all? If the study was not done for scientific reasons it must have been done for political reasons. Indeed, LeVay’s study was part of a public relations campaign, (the born “gay” hoax) to make the public believe that individuals were born “gay.” Science, a supposedly reputable publication, must have been intimidated to risk their own legitimacy by published such shoddy work. When unethical political movements dominate science, pushing science in unscientific directions, science suffers and leads society astray. One lesson from these facts is unmistakable: every time a scientific group repeats the same-gender sex movement’s propaganda, you may justifiably suspect that these groups are acting out of ignorance or intimidation.

            Another lesson is that same-gender sex activists are so desperate to cover their deeply dysfunctional condition that they will stop at nothing to hide the facts from the public. Award-winning writer and same-gender sex activist Randy Shilts describes the denial among men that have sex with men, about their unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic among them when he writes, “…the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want to out it out of your mind and insist it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is.” (And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182) Desperate denial –this seems to be what drives the deceit, psychological manipulation, and intimidation of both scientific groups and the public.

  • Peter Leh

    thank you for your service Eric Fanning

    • B1jetmech

      What service? Hes never served in the military…he’s only there to carry out the social engineering within the military.

      • [email protected]

        He has not served in the military but he has served in the civilian leadership of the military and has done so well in many different positions in multiple service branches. the fact of the matter is that it is possible to serve the military while still in a civilian role.

        • B1jetmech

          The only thing that makes this guy qualified by Washington standards is he’s a “yes” man to Obama who will carry out the social engineering within the ever shrinking military. That’s it.

          • [email protected]

            He served as the deputy undersecretary and deputy chief management officer for the Department of the Navy, deputy director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, undersecretary of the Air Force, and the acting U.S. secretary of the Air Force. sounds like good qualifications to me, also he opposes further force reductions to the army.

          • B1jetmech

            Yeah…and? Anyone with a basic college degree can worm their way around Washington as a career bureaucrat.

            Washington id full of useless people with fancy titles and paper accomplishments.

            I wouldn’t trust most of these types to run a business. Besides, if Fanning was so against fore reductions…why didn’t he resign?

            So what positive influence will Fanning bring to the ever shrinking military?

          • [email protected]

            Did you watch the confirmation hearing? if you have questions about his record and qualifications that would be a good place to start. all the GOP members of the senate armed services committee believed that he was qualified and after watching the confirmation hearing it is easy to see why. If he was not qualified they could have voted agasint him. you have cited nothing to suggest that he is not qualified for the position other then you don’t like the fact that he is gay.

          • B1jetmech

            Your are right that I don’t like that fact he’s gay because if it wasn’t for that, he would be another faceless bureaucrat playing the system in Washington…which all purely academic. Obama likes fanning because he is gay and will carry out Obama’s dreadful agenda against mission readiness within the military. There are plenty of more qualified people with war/Cold war credentials that exceed what this kids experience.

            I really don’t care for the senate because they lost credibility long ago when they usurp the Constitution and gave Obama an excuse to nuke up Iran.

          • [email protected]

            there is no agenda agasint mission readiness and while the military does face challenges openly gay people is not one of those challenges. you say there are plenty of people with more experience yet as I already demonstrated Mr. Fanning has a lot of experience in executive leadership positions with the military. Mr. Fanning has stellar qualifications for the job, claiming otherwise is just not representative of the facts. Senator McCain said of Mr Fanning that he was ” totally qualified, totally, eminently qualified for the job

          • B1jetmech

            The military, especially the army is the smallest since WWII. How can you say there is no agenda against mission readiness?

            There are plenty of other people with combat experience who can make a better secretary of the Army then Fanning. The problem with them is they are not political enough.

            As far as mr. McCain, his days are hopefully numbered because he might lose in the primaries.

          • [email protected]

            the military ramps up and down in size depending on how many conflicts it is engaged in. it is not cost effective to keep a huge standing army when there is not a war on so we do some force reductions after large wars….this is nothing new and happened after WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. with that said we still have one of the largest military in the world by troop numbers and by far have the most defense spending in the world by raw amount.

            the Secretary of the Army does not need combat experience. It is a civilian post and while prior service is possible it is not necessary. as a point of reference about 1/4th of the Secretary of Defense posts have been filled with those with no prior military experience. so again it is certainly possible and certainly not a disqualifier agasint an otherwise very qualified individual.

          • B1jetmech

            Why is it not cost effective to keep the military built up and ready for war? Want to know it is? because it costs more money to build up and train ten’s of thousands of people then it does to maintain.

            Why would Obama cut military spending when China is on the rise and taking over the China sea. Putin is threatening nuclear war…the middle east is erupting…sounds like a good recipe to downsize the military.

            When it came to the world wars fought in the 20th century. The US was protected the oceans and had long notice in case of pending enemy invasion. Now we have hours if the nuke bombers are launched and 40 minutes if nukes are launched.

            I know about combat/military service isn’t required to be a secretary of a branch of service. But it goes alot further in knowing the job verses just being good in academics? Have you met any secretary of of any branch? I have. It’s like the vice president position…not worth a bucket of spit.

            Then again, Fanning is there to institute more social engineering and oversee further downsizing. He’s a tool for Obama.

          • [email protected]

            I was not making an argument on if we should downsize after wars, but rather explaining the trend that plays into the current troop reductions. the point is that it is a trend that has been around for a while, not a new unprecedented invention. Also Mr Fanning is opposed to the force reductions so he would favor the argument of maintaining a ready force as would I.

            also you can not have it both ways. if the position of Secretary of the Army is truly not worth anything then honestly it should not matter who gets the Job. If it is truly worthless then why care if it is filled by someone with combat experience? right now your trying to claim that the position is worthless while also arguing about who should get the position, which again if it truly is worthless then it should not matter to you who gets it.

          • B1jetmech

            I was not making an argument on if we should downsize after wars, but rather explaining the trend that plays into the current troop reductions.

            I’m talking real word events going that would deter any US president from making any cuts to the military. You, come along and downplay it as some trend. We are in dangerous times and the so called civ military leaders from the president on down are acting as if nothing is going on in the world.

            Also Mr Fanning is opposed to the force reductions so he would favor the argument of maintaining a ready force as would I.

            Saying one thing and doing another is typical. Like I say, Fanning is there to oversee Obama’s social engineering transformation of the military. He will NOT ad any strategic advantage because he has no combat or military experience. His experience is pure academic.

            What position does Fanning take on defense Secretary Ash Carter’s pondering on How to Change ‘Unmanned’ Job Titles to Gender-Neutral Wording?

            if the position of Secretary of the Army is truly not worth anything then honestly it should not matter who gets the Job.

            I’m just quoting John Nance Garner. But why do we need another layer of civil service leadership when we already have military chief of staffs? That’s a lot of chiefs. But since we have this added layer of civilian leadership, then fill it with former combat hardened veterans…because there are plenty to choose from.

            I bet they wouldn’t qualify for it because they wouldn’t share Obama’s vision of social engineering and downsizing of the military.

  • Peter Leh

    so homosexuals are not qualified? are we christians delusional?

    • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

      Yes, bc he is likely very biased against Muslim countries since most Muslim countries persecute n/or lynch LGBTQs.

      • Tangent002

        ISIS Muslims execute Christians, too. Does that mean a Christian candidate would be automatically disqualified?

        • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

          Apples n oranges.
          …….The ISIS Muslim terrorist group is not a Muslim COUNTRY like Gaddafi’s Libya n Assad’s Syria, which Obama n his gang had seek to overthrow in 2011 n 2012, which then helped to give rise to ISIS n other Muslim terrorist groups in those regions.

          ISIS r Muslim terrorists, like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Lashkar e-Taiba, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Abu Sayyaf, Chechen terrorists(eg Dzokhar Tsarnaev), Uighur terrorists, etc.
          …….Most Christians, some Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, LGBTQs, Hindus n non-Christians r very biased against ISIS n other Muslim terrorist groups. In comparison, likely, only the LGBTQs r very biased against Muslim countries.

          • [email protected]

            The comparison would still stand as many Muslim nations also actively persecute Christians or restrict religious freedom of Christians. Point being that a christian Secretary of the Army would be just as likely to be biased agasint Muslim nations as a gay Secretary of the Army. I would also point out that the Secretary of the Army does not decide who we use military force agasint.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            Again, apples n oranges.
            …….There is a big difference between Muslim countries restricting the religious freedom of Christians n jailing/executing homosexuals or allowing the mob-killing of homosexuals.

          • [email protected]

            you are severely underestimating the amount of persecution of Christians in these Muslim nations. but bottom line, i am not worried about selecting someone who is not a fan of human rights abuses in Muslim nations, indeed i would say that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            Again, apples n oranges.
            …….There is a big difference between Muslim countries/govt n Muslim terrorists. Pls name me one Muslim country/govt that has laws calling for the jailing/execution of Christians.
            …….Nevertheless, there may be Muslim terrorists/extremists murdering Christians in a few Muslim countries n the ISIS Sunni Muslim terrorist group hv slaughtered Shia Muslims, Christians, Yazidis n Kurdish Muslims in Iraq n Syria.

          • [email protected]

            Google “Which countries still outlaw apostasy and blasphemy?” and the first thing that should pull up is a pew research center link. both apostasy and blasphemy laws can be used to criminalize Christianity in Muslim nations. And again, even if the human rights abuses were only targeted at gay people I still would not think that it was a bad thing to have a secretary of the army who was opposed to those human rights abuses. bottom line there is mistreatment of both Christians and gay people in these nations as a result of Islamic law being imposed.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            In such Muslim countries/govts, the apostasy law is used against ex-Muslims who hv left Islam n the blasphemy law is used against anyone who has blasphemed their Allah, prophet Muhammad or Koran.
            …….These Islamic laws r not used to criminalize Christianity, although they may be abused in isolated cases, just like any law can be abused by the police/govt, eg the liberals-dominated US govt purposely do not fully enforce Federal immigration laws against the mostly Hispanic/Mexican illegal immigrants, in order to pander for the Hispanic-vote. Can US citizens illegally immigrate into Mexico or Canada.?

          • [email protected]

            right so if someone tries to convert from Islam to Christianity or if a Christian tries to lead a Muslim to Christ they could fall afoul of these laws. bottom line both Christians and gay people can have their rights infringed on under Islamic law and we could say the same thing about women. so using your logic about Mr Fanning not being qualified we quickly end up with saying that the secretary of the army must be a Muslim becasue otherwise he might be biased against Muslim countries. personally I want our secretary of the army, president, and the rest to be biased agasint those who violate basic human rights standards. this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

  • MPA2000

    Wow The GOP, aka Family Values types just made Russia and China laugh at what has now become the world’s first Homosexual Army.

    • acontraryview

      Actually, I think more people would laugh at your comment than they would about the Army Secretary.

      • MPA2000

        Actually we laugh at your pathetic attempt to dress like a woman, trannie.

        • acontraryview

          I don’t dress as a woman.

    • [email protected]

      If they want to laugh they can go right ahead. they will find that having an openly gay Secretary of the Army has not decreased the combat effectiveness of the army at all.

      • MPA200

        Oh yeah? That’s why Russia and China are barrel rolling our jets and aircraft carriers. Iran just takes our sailors hostage and we do nothing about it.

        Combat ready my arse. Heck IS just ran through our front lines and killed our Spec Ops guy. Lucky for us we can call the jets to do what our pansie foot soldiers can’t.

        • [email protected]

          provocative moves by antagonistic nations is nothing new. We had a spec ops guy assisting allied forces in Iraq who then died during the conflict, IS did not run through US lines. the limiting factor as far as IS goes is not our military capabilities but rather the political will to engage in another ground conflict there. if we went forward with a ground war we would win every engagement with the enemy.

          • MPA200

            it absolute is new. And it because we have a homosexual army led by a flamer.

          • [email protected]

            Nonsense. These provocations were a regular occurrence during the cold war so no, they are nothing new. Also Eric Fanning just got the position so to claim that it happened becasue of him taking the post is clearly not correct as these incidents happened prior to Eric fanning being sworn in.

          • MPA200

            NO they were not. Show me one news article where a nation took our sailors hostage or barrel rolled our jets and carriers?

            Well…

          • [email protected]

            To cite just one example there was that time when the USSR shot down a US spy plane. seems to me that shooting down an aircraft is slightly more of a provocation then flying close. the point is that it has happened and you can find examples if you look. It is happening again becasue that tension is there again, not becasue the new Secretary of the Army is gay.

  • Brad F

    The story goes that Teddy Roosevelt refused to appoint a certain guy to his Cabinet because he heard he was “loose with women.” How times have changed. Now we’re supposed to applaud one of Obama’s bath-house leches. The same people will be glowing in a few years when Hellary appoints the first open pedophile. DC is even scummier than Sodom.

    • gizmo23

      and you are a Christian?

      • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

        See, like the devil, u hv falsely accused Brad of being the kind of person who only judged Satin n others by their appearance, n not by their inner qualities ……. bc he approves of Roosevelt not appointing a certain guy who was “loose with women”.

        • gizmo23

          I’m just questioning his language and his accusations against people with proof of their behavior

          • Brad F

            I don’t care, all Christian websites have gay trolls, they’re like ants at a picnic.

          • gizmo23

            Then don’t visit them

          • Theodore Fenton

            Grow up.

        • acontraryview

          Who’s judging Satin? I mean, it does wrinkle easily, but other than that, it’s a nice fabric.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            Yeah, u should say that to the transvestite, Barbara Satin, who was appointed by Obama to the Advisory Council on FAITH-based Neighborhood Partnerships. What an odd appointment – a faith-based transvestite.? …He/she might as well be called Barbara Satan.

            On that thread, Brad had commented on how ugly Satin looked as a transvestites n gizmo immediately criticized him for only judging Satin by her/his looks/appearance, n not his/her inner qualifications. So, I criticized gizmo for jumping into conclusion about Brad n falsely accusing him of false judgment.
            …….Turns out I was right, ie on this thread, Brad has shown that he also judges others based on their inner qualifications, n not just on their looks, bc he approves of Roosevelt not appointing a certain guy who was “loose with women”.

  • Nidalap

    Since they hold such control over it, it must be awfully convenient to use the military for social experimentation…

    • acontraryview

      How is it social experimentation to have an openly gay Army Secretary?

    • [email protected]

      experimentation implies that this is uncharted waters….its a little late in the game to claim that openly gay people is an experiment….it is a first for the secretary of the army to be gay sure but there are already openly gay people in the army and that is going fine and there is no reason to believe that this will be any different.

  • Chris Loethen

    Another disgusting sodomite moves into a position of power in the military. The left are taking a page from Hitlers playbook again.

    • TWhane

      Last time I checked Hitler was against the Jewish and thought of them as disgusting. Isn’t that what you’re doing against Homosexual individuals? If people like you had your ways innocent people would be murdered for their sexuality. I’d call you a hypocrite but you obviously don’t know what it means. And just so you’re aware, this country was founded on religious freedom. It isn’t a Christian Nation, thankfully.

      • Amos Moses

        They are doing it to themselves ………………… and there are no “innocent” people ……. they have abandoned God …….. and so God has abandoned them ….. given them over to their own lusts of the flesh ……….

        • TWhane

          If there is a “God” it looks to me like it’s abandoned everything. I look around this world and see poor, innocent, starving children. Many children even die of cancer among other things. Open your eyes, if there was a “God” don’t you think it would do something? But whatever, think what you want, it doesn’t have an effect on me.

          • Amos Moses

            Looks can be deceiving ……………. and you do not seem to have the eyes to see what is there …………. but you could ……… You are the blind ……… trying to lead the blind …… what reason would anyone have to follow you ……….. and where are you going ………

          • TWhane

            See, unlike people like you, I don’t want people to follow me. I’m not a good enough person to be a role model for anyone, although I’m not necessarily a bad individual either. I have my own set of morals and sense of right and wrong. I will admit to be easily angered when it comes to certain opinions that are hateful towards others, but I accept it as a flaw. However, I am most certainly not blind, and you are very contradictory. Goodbye, I truly hope you have a good day and/or night.

          • Amos Moses

            i want them to follow Christ …….. you want them to follow …….. gee, not sure …….. but it aint good ………….

            ” I have my own set of morals and sense of right and wrong. ”

            ….and there lies the problem …………. Stalin, Mao and all the others had the same thing …………………. that does not work out to well …………… especially for those who disagree with them ………. and you are no different ……….. from anybody ……. not even me …………….. truth is ………. if someone would say they want to follow you ………. you would probably do it ………

    • Theodore Fenton

      Here’s another page:

      “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed.”

      [Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on his personal Christian feelings. Published in “My New Order”, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]

      • Amos Moses

        Interesting ………… but there is no evidence he was a christian ……….. just saying it means nothing …. there must be acts commensurate with that belief ……… and the killing of millions rather belies that assertion ….. He was a follower of Alice Bailey and HP Blavatsky and an adherent of theosophy …… both occultists and an occultic practice ……… which again belie any assertion …… and of course he ALWAYS told the truth ……….. i think Joseph Chamberlain’s recollections would differ …

        • Theodore Fenton

          I merely offer his words. Besides, all Christians are sinners.

          • Amos Moses

            True ……….. but not all who say they are christians ……..are ………

          • Theodore Fenton

            How are we to know?

          • Amos Moses

            Who is “we”?

          • Theodore Fenton

            Anyone.

          • Amos Moses

            Well, “anyone” is not going to get it, a christian will get it,,,,,, but the unsaved world will only use it to accuse ………. so which are you? …………..

          • Theodore Fenton

            You mean a “true” Christian will get it.

          • Amos Moses

            Not even sure if you know what you mean by that ……… and you have not answered the question …. which one are you ……….

            BTW, i do see you want to play the “No True Scotman Fallacy” fallacy …………. loser move ….. more internet drivel …………… and you have revealed yourself ……….. and yes ….. you will never get it ……… not that way ……………

          • Theodore Fenton

            It’s pretty obvious you don’t even know what you mean.

    • Tangent002

      ‘Pink Swastika’ nonsense?

      You can do better than that, Shirley.

      • Amos Moses

        Yeah, sure ………..SMH………..

    • [email protected]

      well the NAZI’s rounded up gay people and sent them to the camps just like the Jews so no, this is not at all like that. It is unfortunate that you think that gay people are disgusting, it clearly has limited your thinking on this matter.

  • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

    This can be wrong.
    …….. Most Muslim countries persecute LGBTQs. So, the LGBTQs hate Muslims vehemently, besides hating conservative Christians n other religionists who r anti-LGBTQ’ity.
    ……. A gay Army Secretary will tend to quietly push the US govt to willy-nilly attack Muslim countries. Maybe that was why Obama attacked Libya’s Gaddafi in 2011, Syria’s Assad in 2012, abandoned the Iraqi Shias in 2013, abandoned Egypt’s Mubarak in 2011, etc.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    So among all the senators of the senate of the United States of America, not even one has the moral certainty and the backbone to register even a protest vote against the promotion of immorality.

    • Theodore Fenton

      I doubt that Secretary Fanning will be having sex in his office.

      • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

        You don’t seem very certain at all. One hopes for better from those appointed to high office, but this is not the case.

        • Theodore Fenton

          I thought I was pretty clear.

    • [email protected]

      they are not voting on a statement of morality, they are voting on filling the position for the secretary of the army. what matters is if Mr. Fanning is qualified for the position, not if they personally approve of his sexual orientation. thankfully they were all able to make that distinction.

      • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

        Being qualified has little to do with this particular appointment. Being openly homosexual has everything to do with this particular appointment. Voting is always a statement of morality, or in this case, of spinelessness, irrespective of how they spin it. Senators don’t feel that this moral battle is worth the injuries they will sustain in the fighting.

        • [email protected]

          being qualified has everything to do with this appointment. He served as the deputy undersecretary and deputy chief management officer for the Department of the Navy, deputy director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, undersecretary of the Air Force, and the acting U.S. secretary of the Air Force. sounds like good qualifications to me. this was not and should not have been a “moral battle” this should have been about confirming the nominee if he was qualified or rejecting his nomination if he was not. the vote was not and should not have been about his sexual orientation.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            pen pusher pervert pips pluckier peers to post because obamanation

          • [email protected]

            nice alteration but not exactly an argument. the fact of the matter is that Eric Fanning is qualified and if he was heterosexual you would not be on here complaining about his getting the job.and why do you not like it? becasue it shows that gay people are just as capable of doing the job as heterosexual people and that makes it hard for you to claim that gay people are some sort of menace to society.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            If the job is feminising and sexualising the military, then sure, he’s amply qualified. Let’s put politicians in charge of hospitals too instead of doctors … oh wait, Obama’s done that already.

          • [email protected]

            this does nothing to feminize or sexualize the military. its not like the military was asexual before gay people were allowed in. does having a heterosexual man talk about his wife also sexualize the military?

  • acontraryview

    His resume is impeccable. I wish him the best in his new job.

    • Texas ParentsCare

      Yet, we know his character is questionable at best. If he wanted the job based on his work career and merit alone, why is being blasted from the rooftops that he is a homosexual? Because there is an agenda – Christians must applaud, accept and endorse the homosexual lifestyle. While we love all people, we will not condone their sin – ever. We obey God, not man.

      • [email protected]

        It is being reported on that he is Gay because this is a first and firsts tend to get reported on. If there had been openly gay service secretaries in the past this would not be news but there were not, he is the first, and thus it is news. Furthermore it especially gets reported on given that DADT has only been repealed for a little under 5 years. thus showing how the army went from kicking people out becasue they are gay to having a secretary of the army who is gay is a compelling story.

        • Texas ParentsCare

          Sad.

  • jael2

    This is reminiscent of the SS in Nazi Germany. Read the “Pink Swastika” by Scott Lively

    • Tangent002

      I’m not a big fan of historical fiction.

      • Semp

        Gays get their fiction from blogs disguised as “news.”

      • Brad F

        You prefer sweet stories like Uncle Ned and Little Scotty Go Camping Together.

    • [email protected]

      the “pink Swastika” by Scott Lively is a piece of holocaust revisionism by an anti-gay activist that is not worthy of any consideration other then to note it as holocaust revisionism. It is a work of lies and falsehoods aimed at demonizing gay people.

  • james rallis

    I retired from the A.F. in 1988 BEFORE don’t ask don’t tell. What a sad note for Obama’s legacy to be known as the president that made AIDS a military service connected disability.

    • [email protected]

      people in the military could get AIDS before the repeal of DADT and of course can still get it after. allowing or not allowing open service in the military for gay people has nothing to do with AIDS or the potential to get AIDS.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    USA is over. Its weapon will be used against itself. Security efforts are vain for an immoral nation that worships immorality. So sad. Christian population is the only hope for the land.

    • [email protected]

      the USA is over becasue it does not discriminate agasint gay people when selecting its Secretary of the Army? It is a warped view of morality indeed that demands that gay people be subjected to discrimination.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        What would sexually immoral people aim other than spreading immorality into the whole world? The Westerners have gone wrong by appying racial equality upon sexually immoral people. USA is not good if it is not Christian.

        • [email protected]

          homosexuality is not a disease that “spreads” acceptance of homosexuality does not change the percentage of the population that is homosexual. secondly we have religious freedom here so we do not only need to be christian and we should also note that many Christians and a growing number of christian denominations do not condemn homosexuality.

          • B1jetmech

            “a growing number of christian denominations do not condemn homosexuality.”

            So then they are hypocrites, right?

          • [email protected]

            no they are not, its just that they do not believe that the bible has a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. Christians disagree about what the bible says on a number of topics and homosexuality is one of those topics. It is quite possible to believe the bible and believe that it is okay for one to be gay.

          • B1jetmech

            Well, You better learn the what God has to say about this matter because he detests it. He hates homosexuality because it goes against his design of man and woman…and no we didn’t come about by some cosmic accident.

            Christians who condone homosexuality are pretty much in the last stages of apostasy as scripture has told us long ago.

          • [email protected]

            I do know what God has to say about this matter, i am familiar with both sides of the debate and find the side that is supportive of gay people to be far more convincing. a sexual ethic that leaves no path for gay people to act on their sexuality is a broken sexual ethic and it is not hard to believe that there is a problem with claims that the bible leaves no path for gay people to be sexually active. homosexuality does not go agasint heterosexuality, heterosexuality still exists, its just that a minority is gay. indeed humanity is better off with a minority that does not have a reproductive sex drive.

            to be clear gay people can engage in sexual sin, just like heterosexuals and Christians should say that both gay and heterosexual people should Chanel their sexual energy into marriage.

          • B1jetmech

            You know what God has to say on this matter? Let’s look at just one verse of what God says here:

            26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

            Romans 1:26-27

            Notice in vs 26 that “God gave them up to Vile passions” that is, God letting go letting them devolve into a life of no morals not just is form the Lord but even by Man’s standards.

            vs 27 talks of men leaving the natural use of women and going for other men. Obviously, God has a serious problem with homosexuality. Does God need to be any clearer?

            However, God does provide a way out of the sin of homosexuality but the problem for the homosexual is they have to acknowledge it as sin. That in there lies the problem.

            …and the bigger problem is so called Christians falsely telling you it’s okay…well it would have been better for them if they never believed because God is going to deal with them in ways I can’t imagine.

            So what’s it to going o be? God’s way or man’s fallible ideals?

          • [email protected]

            that passage in Romans is referring to temple prostitution and sex orgies as an example of depravity that went along with falling away from Him. during these participants would have sex with anyone, including people of the same sex. so this was not homosexuality but rather complete disregard for any form of restraint on sex to the point of just having sex with anyone without regard for any limitation.

            This is clear when you look at the context of the passage. the passage is talking about those who turn form Him to worship false gods and then gives the example of the temple prostitution and sex orgies as an example of what follows from turning away from God and worshiping the created instead of the creator. so no, the passage should not be used as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality.

          • B1jetmech

            Then why did verse 27 mention “Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful…”

            You see, when it comes to homosexuality, it won’t be mentioned by name because the meaning of words change over time. So God, through man…writes it out as an “act”: of something.

            Another issue, the bible is designed to withstand hostile jamming…that is, it’s not only designed to give a message verse by verse but through out the whole length of the bible.

            One cannot use the excuse of “interpretation” will very from person to person because there is no excuse to thinking God’s word is relative to an individual. Scripture is fixed.

            So when Romans 1 states that a man leaves the natural use of a woman for a man it’s very remedial in this context because it’s describing as an act…and that act is s sin to God that He detests. The biggest problem with people who think they are homosexual and it’s okay with God is they lean on their feelings. Well, feelings are the biggest enemy when it comes to conviction by the Holy spirit.

          • [email protected]

            Becasue men who were naturally attracted to women, heterosexuals, were engaging in sex with other men and they were doing so not becasue they were attracted to other men but becasue they were engaged in these pagan sex practices. this is about an act of un-restrained sex, of sex disconnected from any relational aspect.

            and yes I would also agree that the bible will have the same message through out the whole length of the bible. thus if you going to make your case successfully you will need to rely on more then Romans 1. unfortunately for you that’s your strongest argument, its the verses that I struggled with the most, after that it becomes much harder to make the case you are making.

          • B1jetmech

            “they were attracted to other men but because they were engaged in these pagan sex practices.”

            You really don’t make any sense…because vs. 26 and 27 are easy to read and understand. In fact, Romans 1 explains why the men of Sodom were so degenerated…because the Lord gave them up to a depraved mind (or debased)as it is mentioned in vs. 28…

            It wasn’t the fact they were engaged in pagan sex practices…they were in sin, pure and simple. A homosexual doesn’t need to practice some form of paganism. The sin is homosexuality itself and living it out.

            “thus if you going to make your case successfully you will need to rely on more then Romans 1 unfortunately for you that’s your strongest argument”

            Let’s just stay focused on Romans 1 because you haven’t got it right. I don’t need to make the case because scripture is fixed on the issue. What you’re doing is justifying sin with NO scripture to back up your claim…because there isn’t any.

            Romans 1 does list the sins of vs 29-31 but vs. 26 and 27 describe homosexuality itself.

          • [email protected]

            you are taking the verses out of context to reach the conclusion you want to reach. the “For this reason” at the beginning of verse 26 directly ties vs 26 and 27 in with the preceding verses and these verses can not be probably understood without the surrounding context. You do need to make a case, a case that your reading and interpretation of the scripture is correct. I look at the same verse and once the proper context is taken into consideration and understood it does not reach the conclusion that you reach.

            Again vs 26 and 27 do describe same sex sexual conduct but they do so in the context of showing how the pagan worship lead to a high level of debauchery and all sexual boundaries being removed, to the point of even heterosexual men and women having sex with people of the same sex. It shows how completely thinking and reason went out the window as a result of worshiping the creation as opposed to the creator. if you ignore the context it may look like a blanket condemnation of homosexuality but this is not the correct view and that misapplication of the verse then leads to a sexual ethic that is not workable and that unnecessarily excludes gay people.

          • B1jetmech

            you are taking the verses out of context to reach the conclusion you want to reach

            You are wrong.

            In the last few verses of chapter one God does three things:

            1.) God also gave them up to uncleanness
            2.) God gave them up to vile passions
            3.) God gave them over to a debased mind

            So in vs. 24 God gives them up to uncleanness…dishonoring themselves among others and idol worship.

            Verse 26, God gives them over to vile passions as in homosexual behavior.

            Finally in verse 27, God gives them over a to a debased mind. basically they are living the lowest form of morality unimaginable. Because anything goes.

            You can bet that once a nation embraces homosexuality as normal despite it being against God…then the the end of that nation is at hand. Because we already have paganism. Were not a christian nation were a pagan nation. Not one nation under God but one nation under many gods. This is what the ancients went through…the very, debauchery were living through.

            So here we are at the completion of “debase mind” stage if I can call it that. That fact that you endorse homosexuality as not being a sin is a symptom of these problems.

            In verse 24 they worshiped the creation…what are you doing? The fact that you put homosexuality up high by not declaring it sin as God does…makes you an idol worshiper? Sound ridiculous? Well, does your world view revolve around it? Does it effect your decision making when it comes to morality and sin? Think about it.

          • [email protected]

            you claim that what is being referenced is homosexual behavior however as I have already gone over that is not the case. the sexual conduct is same sex in nature but that does not mean that homosexuality is being condemned in general. rather what is being condemned is the temple sex practices and the reliance of the inclusion of this in the passage is part of the downward trend that is highlighted in the passage. so it has a very specific meaning and that very specific meaning is very important to the overall point being made. if you switch out that very specific meaning and instead insert homosexuality in general you both distort the point being made and also unnecessarily insert a blanket condemnation on homosexuality with is highly problematic. so you are largely on track the problem is mixing up a very specific reference to same sex sexual activity as part of temple worship and homosexuality in general.

          • B1jetmech

            what is being referenced is homosexual behavior however as I have already gone over that is not the case

            How do you identify when homosexual behavior is going on and yet not call it homosexual acts?

            rather what is being condemned is the temple sex practices and the reliance of the inclusion of this in the passage is part of the downward trend that is highlighted in the passage.

            Actually, what is being condemned is the above list of Romans 1:24, 26-27. The Lord doesn’t separate the issue like you and whoever told you this. The Lord is consistent on the matter since the Levitical laws as homosexuality is sin to him…an abomination.

            so it has a very specific meaning and that very specific meaning is very important to the overall point being made.

            The Lord doesn’t and wouldn’t confuse us on the matter. If homosexuality was not to be an abomination then it would have stated so in scripture. The only thing has changed on the matter is… no longer does a homosexual need to be put to death as per and within the Mosaic law. Why? because they have the opportunity to repent of their sins because of Christ dying on the cross. If they do not repent, then they are still separated from God.

            in general you both distort the point being made and also unnecessarily insert a blanket condemnation on homosexuality with is highly problematic.

            If you accuse me as such then you accuse God also. My word has no meaning and doesn’t matter. It’s his word is what I go by. Mankind has a long history of messing up what God states in his word and will continue to do so. So if you accuse me…you accuse the Lord also.

          • Texas ParentsCare

            People are to be chaste in singleness and monogamous in marriage.

          • [email protected]

            I agree.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Existence of the homosexuals is not the problem. They need to hear God’s love and His truth as all people do. The problem is that the West’s authorities and powerfuls demand the Christians to endorse homosexuality even though it is going against what God commands and a clear conscience’s conviction from His Word. It’s not true that “many Christians and a growing number of Christian denominations do not condemn homosexuality.” They are either Non-Christian or being very cowardly. It means the Western society’s pressure to give up the Biblical truth is strong. Mankind needed Christianity for the truth and salvation, but the West has no rights to push sexual immorality. The Holy Bible condemns both homosexuality and transgender as hell-bound sins. All unrepentant sins are. I John, Jude.

          • [email protected]

            you can continue to believe that homosexuality is a sin while in the military, its just that military policy is not going to treat it like its a sin, nor is demanding equal treatment the same as demanding that people personally “endorse” something.

            secondly it is indeed true that many Christians and a growing number of Christian denominations do not condemn homosexuality.” certainly the majority still condemn homosexuality but the number shrinks each year. more and more Christians are re-evaluating their position on this and it is becasue they see that the view that homosexuality is a sin is flawed. they recognize that it is a sexual ethic that fails at providing a proper option for gay people to channel their sexual energy into and so they are changing their views on this. you may not agree with that change in position but it is one that is happening both in secular and religious institutions.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            People should have rights to refuse to work under those whom their values differ. USA was created under the same common values. If the values differ, brotherhood bond loses meaning. How can anyone know that the people with different values would work for the best interest of each other? Americans need defense under the same values.

            You are wrong on the trend. The Holy Bible condemns homosexuality and transgender as sin. Mankind’s common moral sense also agrees with it, because if one is depraved enough to have lust over the members of the same sex, the lust has no limit whatsoever. It’s the powerful secular rich West’s monopoly that is pushing and funding the homosexual agenda upon the world. The West has been never sorry for the exploitation of the poor. The Westerners must be held accountable for the destruction of the planet, or they must stop ordering people around.

          • [email protected]

            the military is made up of people with differing values. what matters is the common values that all those in the military should share. you do not get to decide that you do not want to work with someone becasue you do not like them or their personal values, that is not how the military works.

            and I am not wrong on the trend. you can look at any track of public opinion to see the change over the years in favor of gay rights and that is also seen in the military.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Christians protect everyone’s life equally and unconditionally. How can we know these generals would use those whom they oppose as human shields? Sexually immoral people are cheaters and cannot be trusted. Sodomic USA cannot be trusted. USA needs Christian leadership. Americans were honest and transparent and sacrificial because they had Christianity. Nowadays, so many of them seem mere incompetent playboys.

  • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

    And exactly what has this man’s sexual orientation to do with his post? Remember, Alexander the Great was a homosexual. I think he did quite well as a commander of the military.

    When will the Christian right has a serious problem with the Constitution and with logic. So many organizations are profiting big-time off manipulating their emotions. Religion is a great racket!

    • Semp

      Wow, impressive logic there. Alexander the Great was a homosexual, therefore Christians hate the Constitution. You’ve dealt a lethal blow to Christianity, we’ll never recover now.

      • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

        I stand in awe of your lack of reading comprehension and logic. Is that the best you can do? Perhaps it is. I am assuming you do have a molecule of intelligence. I’d love to see you attempt to comprehend my statement and respond with an intelligent answer.

        Is it any wonder why progressives think the Christian right is , , , unintelligent? Your convoluted response contains as much intelligence as monosyllabic grunts.

        • Semp

          That is so sad, an elderly gay with nothing better to do than troll Christian blogs and extend your middle finger. No wonder gays have such high rates of depression, alcoholism, and suicide, you’ve got nothing going on but your hate for normal people. Someone your age ought to be taking trips with his wife and playing with his grandchildren, but here you are, lonely and angry. That doesn’t speak well for the “gay” life, does it? The most you people post, the more you convince normal people how unhappy gays are.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            First, you do not know me. Secondly, does your “logic” extend no farther than making assumptions and condescending? You have no ability to present civil arguments? Yet you consider yourself a believer in the book that tells you to do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Is that what you want? You believe all others should treat you with incivility?

            Again, you are demonstrating your complete lack of reading comprehension. If I defend a Muslim, that makes me a Muslim? If I defend Mormons, does that make me a Mormon? If I defend the poor, does that make me poor?

            Do any of these defenses make me an angry person? What is the matter with you? Have you no sense of civility? No honor?

            You are the one attacking homosexuality. I come to defend the right of people to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience. I would defend YOUR right to worship according to the dictates of YOUR conscience.

            What I argue is that you have no right to dictate to others how they should or should not live or whom they marry within the law. That is their business, not yours. Live and let live.

            Here is the big question: What do you believe to be justice (social and economic)?

    • Stogiebear

      Wow, 541 comments and 246 upvotes.
      You’re really making a splash.

      • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

        Is condescending what Jesus would do? Do you think he would have an intelligent argument? You make a fine representative of your faith. Try to think for a moment and come up with a sensible argument.

  • Florenca Mcdowell

    his eyes tells it all. Eyes show where you soul is. Does he have some brown on his noise? Is he a friend of Barry???? Crazy Nancy????