Obama Nominates Open Homosexual to Lead the U.S. Army
By Julio Severo
Eric Fanning, a longtime Pentagon official who is an open homosexual, has been nominated by U.S. President Barack Obama to lead the U.S. Army.
 |
| Eric Fanning |
His words and actions are radically opposed to the words and actions of the Father of America.
As recorded in “The Writings of George Washington” (March 10, 1778, 11:83-84, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), George Washington ordered: “At a General Court Marshall … Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier … and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Liett. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return.”
Washington, the Father of America, had a soldier expelled just for attempting to commit sodomy. In Fanning’s case, there was not just attempt. He did it.
Do you want the bare truth? I am sure that in Obama’s and Fanning’s case, the Father of America would approve sentence on them and he would treat, with abhorrence and detestation, their sodomy and sodomy advocacy as an infamous crime.
In the least, Obama would be expelled from the U.S. presidency and Fanning would be expelled from Army, both with dishonor, never to return. Both have committed treason against the Father of America.
Sadly, Fanning and his open homosexuality are not the only scandals in the U.S. Army. Obama and his blatant homosexual advocacy are not the only scandals in the U.S. government. There are reports, even from U.S. Christian leaders, that U.S. military and political actions have favored Islamic oppressors and harmed Christian victims. Three important U.S. articles are:
The Father of America never intended his Army to shelter homosexual advocates. It would be abhorrent and detestable for him.
He never intended his Army to favor Islamic oppressors at the expense of Christian blood. It would be utterly abhorrent and detestable for him.
He intended the U.S. Army only to be a protector of America, not a global police force to impose a pro-Islam, pro-sodomy, pro-abortion and anti-Christian “democracy” around the world.
I have read a lot about Americans who are proud of defending their gun rights by arguing that guns are important for protecting themselves and their families. I fully agree. But their argument also says that guns are necessary against a tyrannical government.
Would not a government treating, with abhorrence and detestation, Washington’s anti-sodomy stance be tyrannical?
Would not a government favoring Islamic oppressors at the expense of Christian blood be tyrannical?
A bare truth to gun advocates: if you are not able to move now, what are your gun rights good for?
Washington would have been utterly ashamed of a U.S. Army led by an open homosexual.
He would have been utterly ashamed of a U.S. Army favoring Islamic oppressors at the expense of Christian blood.
And would he be honored by gun advocates who sit by while the U.S. Army favors Islamic oppressors at the expense of Christian blood?
A truly patriot American would make a revolution.
For much less, Washington did it.
This is the bare truth.
Portuguese version of this article: Obama nomeia homossexual assumido para liderar Exército dos EUA
Source: Last Days Watchman
Recommended Reading: