Free Republic

From an editorial in the local paper in Oak Ridge today:

Hurricanes wreak havoc in Texas and Florida, killing dozens. Earthquakes kill dozens more in Mexico. Wild fires ravage western states and threaten major metropolitan areas like Los Angles.

Petty tyrants threaten our nation with nuclear strikes. A US Senator stands trial on bribery charges. Americans in uniform are dying in far-flung countries to keep Islamic extremists from revisiting terror on the American homeland.

Yet, it appears that some in our midst cannot prioritize the enormity of events in just the last few weeks. Presumably, the import of history older than that is completely lost on them, as well. Rather, it seems the most vital thing in their lives is to complain about trivialities.

Ostensibly, a music teacher in the fair city of Oak Ridge exposed students to a portion of the most famous oratorio in history: the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel’s Messiah. Besides the Hebrew word, “hallelujah,’” that piece of music contains the phrase: “The Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”

Mystifyingly, objecting to that “heinous offense” is suddenly the most essential thing to worry about in some peoples’ lives. Evidently, it occupies more of their thoughts and efforts than floods, earthquakes, wildfires and wars.

As a result, some very clear questions arise: Can music created by one of the most famous composers of the last three centuries, enjoyed by millions, abruptly become offensive? Performed publicly in countless American venues since its creation, can it suddenly become an anathema to the Constitution?

Is the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional because it contains references to Nature’s God and a Creator? How about the Star Spangled Banner and its fourth verse statement “… in God is our trust”?

Where does the irrationality end? Astronomy is taught in public schools. By the complainers’ logic, astronomy must be banned because the planets are named for Greco-Roman gods… Obviously, that is a blatant, state endorsement of religion.

Similarly, constellations named for religious myths cannot be used for navigation of government-owned ships and aircraft. Furthermore, using a navigational chronograph must be forbidden since it is named for the Greco-Roman god, Chronos… another all-too-recognizable state endorsement of religion.

In deed, four days of the week are named for Norse gods and another for a Greco-Roman god. Since calendars come with these religious endorsements and are used throughout schools and government, must we ban them as well?

Is the absurdity of complaining about Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus clear enough, yet? Rather than fretting over trivialities, let us help American families losing loved ones and suffering from natural disasters, wars and terrorism.

BTTT

BTTT

What are the legal implications of a “limited round” magazine several states have imposed when talking about a “belt” fed weapon?

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

Thomas Jefferson

Highest peak on the East Coast? Isn’t it Mount Mitchell, NC?

It was all those Celts driving their SUV’s to visit Mickey and Minney Mammoth land. Added to this was all of the polution from the flint axe and knife factories. These sources poluted so much that the ice caps melted... There you have it: Al Globull Warming hockey stick curve proof... /s

It was all those Celts driving their SUV’s to visit Mickey and Minney Mammoth land. Added to this was all of the polution from the flint axe and knife factories. These sources poluted so much that the ice caps melted... There you have it: Al Globull Warming hockey stick curve proof... /s

BTTT

BTTT

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887

I wish it were that simple, and I wish you were right...

In the past, the courts have been deferential to the power granted to Congress to regulate the military. Additionally, there has been a recognition that civilian "rights" are limited in the military environment.

I agree with your analysis that sodomy within the ranks will seriously degrade our military capability. I hope that this travesty can be stopped.

At issue is the repeal of Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states (in part):

"The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Repeal of the 1993 law noted above did not repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

Uniform Code of Military Justice [excerpted]:

Article 125.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

The oath taken by every president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. [emphasis added]

US Constitution [excerpted]

Article I

Section. 8.

Clause 14: [The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Note that Congress has prohibited sodomy in the military through the UCMJ. All of the extraneous uproar concerning the repeal of the 1993 law is just that unless Congress takes the additional action of changing the UCMJ. Military commanders, including the “Commander-in-Chief,” are obligated by their oaths of office to enforce the rules and regulations made pursuant to laws (UCMJ) promulgated by Congress for the US military.

Without a change to the UCMJ eliminating the prohibition on sodomy, it appears the policy will revert to that which existed before 1993. Homosexual practitioners, if discovered (provably) engaging in sodomy, will be subject to court-martial. Consequently, the only way this situation can be averted is for the Commander-in-Chief to violate his oath to support the Constitution and issue illegal orders not to enforce the UCMJ.

At issue is the repeal of Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states (in part): "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Repeal of the 1993 law noted above did not repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

Uniform Code of Military Justice [excerpted]:

Article 125.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

The oath taken by every president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. [emphasis added]

US Constitution [excerpted]

Article I

Section. 8.

Clause 14: [The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Note that Congress has prohibited sodomy in the military through the UCMJ. All of the extraneous uproar concerning the repeal of the 1993 law is just that unless Congress takes the additional action of changing the UCMJ. Military commanders, including the “Commander-in-Chief,” are obligated by their oaths of office to enforce the rules and regulations made pursuant to laws (UCMJ) promulgated by Congress for the US military.

Without a change to the UCMJ eliminating the prohibition on sodomy, it appears the policy will revert to that which existed before 1993. Homosexual practitioners, if discovered (provably) engaging in sodomy, will be subject to court-martial. Consequently, the only way this situation can be averted is for the Commander-in-Chief to violate his oath to support the Constitution and issue illegal orders not to enforce the UCMJ.

Here are some suggestions:

Use your search engine of choice to look up the “Vostok ice core.” You will note in the analysis, the proxy indicators used for climate measures in this ice core, that interglacial periods occur, roughly, about every 100,000 years with other changes on other periodic bases of about every 26,000 years, etc.

Next use your search engine to look up Milankovitch cycles. These astronomical phenomena that have roughly corresponding time cycles noted to occur in the Vostok ice core.

Next use your search engine to look up the thermometer. Your will note that accurate instruments (and that is a generous assessment) have only existed for a few hundred years. (Some could argue that accurate instruments have existed for less than a century on wide-spread basis.) Barometers, another staple of weather instruments, have a similar time of existence. Anemometers, rain gauges, etc. all follow a similar path as far length of existence is concerned.

Additionally, you will note that nothing approaching comprehensive, systematically catalogued, “global” climate/weather measures existed prior to the “age of aviation.” Furthermore, you will, also, note that, as a generality, only where there were aviation (or occasionally, nautical) requirements were these measures captured.

Next consult any basic statistics book on sampling methodology. You will find that samples that can accurately, mathematically characterize a phenomenon must be randomly distributed throughout the time frame of the phenomenon of interest. Additionally, you will note the minimum number of samples required must increase considerably as the fidelity required to construct a reasonably predictive model of the phenomenon increases.

Aviation, on a global basis, is not yet a century old. Magellan’s voyage of circumnavigation is less than 5 centuries old. Even assuming that comprehensive and accurate global climate measures were captured from that time to this (obviously they weren’t), the question becomes from a sampling methodology perspective, is that enough to be able to characterize a climate cycle of 100,000 years?

Is “real,” long-term, global warming occurring or are random fluctuations within the normal range of variation being observed?

The proof is left to the reader.

The issue, succinctly stated, is simply, whether, or not, a self-generated, public pronouncement of a private sexual behavior should be entitled under law to special preference in housing or employment considerations. Furthermore, the indicated sexual behavior provides no objective benefit to the individual, those potentially forced to act in deference to such a pronouncement, or to society in general. Additionally, the indicated sexual behavior statistically drives up health care costs, which are a major concern to employers and the state.

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (According to the American Psychological Association [APA] the term, sexual orientation, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the behavior of a mentally healthy, adult human being.

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

The potentially negative impacts of homosexual behavior on employer health care costs are statistically well established. Forcing employers to knowingly hire individuals who voluntarily engage in high-risk behavior drives up the cost of providing health care coverage to the employer. The employer who is mandated by law to make such hires, must then decide whether to lower or eliminate health care benefits to all other employees to accommodate the potentially increased costs of the high risk behavior group.

In summary, a clear definition of homosexuality combined with statistically valid, medical information establishes that such behavior is economically detrimental to any employer who includes health care coverage as an employee benefit. Furthermore, the increased costs of employers dropping significant amounts of employee health care to Medicare and Medicaid or other government sponsored health care would make such a move extremely detrimental to the state and all of its taxpayers. Therefore, it is unwise, completely apart from any religious, moral or emotional arguments, for any state to allow any of its subordinate governmental entities to change current discrimination protections to include homosexual practitioners as a protected class.

Just in case the courts dally too long or

At issue is the repeal of Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states (in part): "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Repeal of the 1993 law noted above did not repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

Uniform Code of Military Justice [excerpted]:

Article 125.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

The oath taken by every president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. [emphasis added]

US Constitution [excerpted]

Article I

Section. 8.

Clause 14: [The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Note that Congress has prohibited sodomy in the military through the UCMJ. All of the extraneous uproar concerning the repeal of the 1993 law is just that unless Congress takes the additional action of changing the UCMJ. Military commanders, including the “Commander-in-Chief,” are obligated by their oaths of office to enforce the rules and regulations made pursuant to laws (UCMJ) promulgated by Congress for the US military.

The foundation of US military law was the British Articles of War. In fact, our first military justice codes, the American Articles of War and Articles for the Government of the Navy, predate the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

From the 1749 Royal Navy Articles of War [excerpted]:

If any person in the fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable sin of buggery and sodomy with man or beast, he shall be punished with death by the sentence of a court martial.

The act of sodomy has been condemned in various legal codes for more than 3,500 years. Specifically, English language, military justice codes have criminalized sodomy for hundreds of years. This prohibition is, and, has been, in place for good reason.

Sodomy is morally and religiously offensive, if not repugnant, to the overwhelming majority of the military’s population as well as the civil populace. Consequently, allowing the unrestricted practice of sodomy within the ranks of any military organization would be detrimental to the good order and discipline, hence military effectiveness, of that group.

As a result, condoning the open practice of sodomy is extremely unwise militarily, completely apart from any religious or other aspects. However, there are other practical reasons for prohibiting the practice of sodomy with the military.

The military serves as its own blood bank. Consequently, any contaminant to the blood supply in an organization that potentially requires massive quantities is incredibly unwise.

According to the FDA: "[homosexual practitioners or 'gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

The FDA further warns: "[homosexual practitioners or 'gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in "homosexual practitioners than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study found that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Some proponents have attempted to disguise the issue of sodomy by using the term sexual preference. According the APA, sexual preference is a term that refers only to feelings. No one can know the sexual preference of another human being unless that person engages in some behavior that reveals such. All behavior by mentally competent adults, especially in a military setting, is subject to regulation. Currently, lawful regulations (UCMJ Art. 125) exist that prohibit homosexual behavior in these settings.

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (As previously noted, the term sexual orientation is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the voluntary behavior of a mentally healthy, adult human being.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal (whether civil or military) regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis rather than a voluntary choice, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual… and the issue is, again, defined as a voluntary, behavioral choice.)

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, e.g., Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome, not the currently observed proportion of the population.

Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source. Once again, the logical conclusion is that homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice.

Without a change to the UCMJ eliminating the prohibition on sodomy, it appears the policy will revert to that which existed before 1993. Homosexual practitioners, if discovered (provably) engaging in sodomy, will be subject to court-martial. Consequently, there will be no time required for the troops to “get used to the change.” The only way this situation can be averted is for the Commander-in-Chief to violate his oath to support the Constitution and issue illegal orders not to enforce the UCMJ.

Good morning Colonel,

Consider the argument below as proof that there is no "gay" gene. Additionally, even if there such a thing, it is still no excuse for homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation, as officially defined by the APA, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the voluntary behavior of any mentally healthy, adult human being.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal (whether civil or military) regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis rather than a voluntary choice, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual… and the issue is, again, defined as a voluntary, behavioral choice.)

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, e.g., Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome, not the currently observed proportion of the population.

Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source. Once again, the logical conclusion is that homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice.

All voluntary behavior is subject to legal restriction within the constraints of our Constitution. Therefore, unless there is a claim that that homosexual behavior is a Constitutionally protected right, it is subject to lawful control, especially in the military.

Additionally, even if it were successfully alleged to be a Constitutional right such as is "freedom of speech," it is still subject to constraint, e.g., one has no freedom of speech to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, military members are not legally allowed to make publicly "disparaging remarks" about, nor hold up to ridicule, elected officials.

Good morning Colonel,

Consider the argument below as proof that there is no "gay" gene. Additionally, even if there such a thing, it is still no excuse for homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation, as officially defined by the APA, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the voluntary behavior of any mentally healthy, adult human being.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal (whether civil or military) regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis rather than a voluntary choice, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual… and the issue is, again, defined as a voluntary, behavioral choice.)

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, e.g., Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome, not the currently observed proportion of the population.

Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source. Once again, the logical conclusion is that homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice.

All voluntary behavior is subject to legal restriction within the constraints of our Constitution. Therefore, unless there is a claim that that homosexual behavior is a Constitutionally protected right, it is subject to lawful control, especially in the military.

Additionally, even if it were successfully alleged to be a Constitutional right such as is "freedom of speech," it is still subject to constraint, e.g., one has no freedom of speech to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, military members are not legally allowed to make publicly "disparaging remarks" about, nor hold up to ridicule, elected officials.