Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
The Military Fairy
First Openly Homosexual Geneal
The anti-American and anti-citizen political march continues in Washington, with the introduction of a new openly homosexual military for America. Our common American Judeo-Christian ethos, morality and common sense has taken another hit, thanks to the anti-Judeo-Christian program of Obamunism aided by the Democrat Party.
Billlary Clinton’s infamous “don’t ask don’t tell,” let’s pretend they aren’t really there wink and nod at homosexual infiltration into all male combat units has finally born its evil fruit. The Senate repealed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” on December 18, 2010, to the everlasting shame of this Christian nation. They did it with the help of eight (8) Republicans, whose names should forever live in infamy:
The hidden purpose is, of course, to further the goal weakening American military defense. That’s the Marxist goal. The Secularist goal is to weaken American Judeo-Christian faith, and the Libertine goal is to turn America into the new Sodom.
High-ranking yes-men – I mean officers – in the Pentagon, even with lots of stars on their shoulders, have even stated that unit cohesion will not be injured by the insertion of an open screaming queen or flaming faggot into a small combat team. “Unit cohesion depends upon unit leadership,” they say. Perhaps once the team leader himself is the screaming queen, they think everybody will then be happy. These high ranking jackasses never had to take a shower with a gang of open homosexuals, and they never had to sleep in a two-man pup tent with an obvious flamer, so they don’t even know what the hell they’re talking about.
This repeal is going to force decent heterosexual men into close living, sleeping, showering and eating company with flaming homosexuals who are there to seduce them, and who are there for the perverted thrill of living in such a manner with an all male captive audience.
Clowns who say idiotic things like “The last thing I’m going to worry about on the battlefield is if the guy next to me is gay” never served, will never serve, do not see service as any kind of duty or responsibility, or perhaps even as a national need. They know nothing whatsoever about the closeness and absolute inter-dependence of military life. All they know about military life they saw in movies or read in books, and all of that information concentrated on the smallest percentage of military life, which is to say, the battlefield.
They don’t even think to ask that sort of question around any issue of barracks life, such as the common showers, and common sleeping facilities. Or of any issue involving one or more month long field exercises, in which they would pair up with a sleeping buddy, and help each other take showers in the field. All they know about military life is the military life they see in the movies.
An openly homosexual American military is wrong for the same reason that it is wrong for heterosexual servicemen to bring their wives into the barracks and along with the unit. It is wrong for the same reason that it is wrong for men and women to serve in the same military units involving co-ed barracks. The military unit needs to concentrate on the military mission, without any sexual undercurrents or distractions, or any relationship problems, jealousy problems, break-up or make-up problems, or any such distractions from the mission. Every single member of the unit needs to commit himself to and be absolutely dependent upon ever other member of the unit, at all times.
Nothing good will come of this. I’m glad my service is done. But this has got to be changed, for the good of national defense. I predict that the best, brightest and fittest for service will have second thoughts about joining. Many of the best now serving will retire early, or leave service before they would have. The military will become more and more like Hollywood, which is to say, openly, publicly, flamingly homosexual, and publicly celebrating that fact.
We talked about the effort to instill the false notion of the homosexual as victim and hero in the The HIV=AIDS=DEATH Hoax page.
We presented our argument renouncing the infamous Sexual Revolution of the 60s.
We presented our argument refuting the notion of Open Homosexuality.
What more needs to be said?
Right and wrong are turned upside down here. Open homosexuality is seen to be a virtue, rather than a sinful, disgusting and shameful thing. Anyone daring to speak out against it is held to be immoral, of all things, and damned with the stigma of homophobia; a rhetorical invention aimed at labeling opponents as somehow mentally ill. There is no such thing as heterophobia; only homophobia. See? Ask anyone in show-biz, or in journalism, or in education. Or in high office.
What kind of a people are we? What kind of a nation is this?
Our government – our elected government – opposes us, and is against everything we stand for. It opposes our religion. It opposes our common decency. It opposes our morality. It actually opposes our national existence.
It is just so hard to believe that so many in high office could be so irretrievably, irreconcilably, irrevocably Democrat. I mean stupid.
Pray for America, and put on another kettle of Tea.
Smart-Assed Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devises that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
Culture=Religion+Politics; Who Are We? Vic Biorseth
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Mon Feb 14 10:47:49 2011
From: Frederic Jose
You state that crude and vulgar speech has no place in comments, fair enough ... but the language that you use in your article itself does not set the absolute pinnacle of decency either. Homosexuality is a very contentious issue that can be argued both ways, but calling homosexuals "screaming queens" and "flaming fags" etc. do not contribute to a sane discussion of the topic. This is one problem that I have detected in all these discussions involving homo life or abortion issue. Liberals think (and call) conservatives bible-thumping morons with IQ around 70 or so, and conservatives return the favor in equal measure. Unless the name calling stops, we will never resolve these issues as sane adults in a democratic country.
Date: Mon Feb 14 18:03:06 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
I’ve been over this ground multiple times in multiple pages. I tried to lay out some of the ground rules in the Ethics of Language page, with the navigation-button sub-title “It’s not my language!” But I guess it is my language, since it is what I use. Let me try to lay out my ground rules as applied to homosexuals.
I take very strong exception to anyone touting and promoting the legalization, normalization, social acceptability and even non-sinfulness of any form of sexual license and/or perversion. I follow the Judeo-Christian ethos and the morality that comes out of the Judeo-Christian religion upon which this nation was founded, and which represents the clear majority of her citizens.
Re the need to “resolve these issues as sane adults … “ There is no problem to resolve if the sane adults follow the Judeo-Christian ethos of America. What other moral norm would you have us follow? That of Sodom and Gomorrah? Is that to be our new basis for civil law, civility and moral norms? If so, I reject the idea outright.
By what right does the homosexual tail seek to wag the heterosexual dog?
Date: Tue Feb 15 09:45:43 2011
From: Frederic Jose
I think you have misunderstood my point completely. First of all, let me state this clearly that I do not support homosexual lifestyle. I am straight, and have always been so. And the problem of homosexuality is not uniquely American either. Here in India, we recently had the Supreme Court rule that homosexuality is valid. I work in a group that tries to prevent youngsters opting for a homosexual lifestyle. The only point where we differ is how to deal with this. Screaming about Judeo-Christianity to them does not work any better than throwing Frisbees at them. The only way you can convert young people from this perverse lifestyle is by having a sane, healthy discussion with them. Outright condemnation in the strongest possible language simply alienates people, who then will never listen to you or the valid points you have to say.
"If you can't go around it, over it, or through it, you had better negotiate with it." I did not say this, someone much wiser than me did, but valid point huh??
Date: Tue Feb 15 18:59:59 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Points well taken; however, I very seldom scream, and just about never at youngsters. The language I use that you took exception to is not directed at people struggling with the problem of homosexuality, or even at those homosexuals who do not seek to impose pro-homosexual laws upon me and my nation. The championing, sponsoring and promotion of open, public, in-your-face homosexuality is what I refer to as the promotion of public faggotry. That is the problem I address. I attack public faggotry just as directly, openly and boldly as the opposition champions it.
The problem you address is how to help those tempted or controlled by this problem to be able to properly deal with it, and that is an entirely different problem. I see it primarily as a two-sided problem, related first to a problem with morality, and second to a problem with self control. In our culture the best place to start is with a priest, minister or rabbi.
What I am working against is the continued degeneration of America in particular and Western Culture in general. In America, we like our laws to be representative of the people rather than dictated to them from on high. We conservative Americans are kind of funny about that sort of thing.
Date: Thu Aug 04 18:48:13 2011
I won't really get into your use of the slur "faggot" because you've already explained your point, but I felt the need to just say that regardless of ones position on a subject, hateful name-calling is usually the worst way to present your opinion and I would say the same to anyone who argued their point by aiming that sort of speech at you.
However! I already spent more time on that than I wished too. I'd like to tell a short true story and then pose a hypothetical question.
As a freshman in high-school (I went to a boarding school) I had been given a "double" meaning I would have a roommate. He was an extremely insightful and smart guy. He enjoyed philosophy and took a few theology classes during his time in high school. However more important than that, he was a very caring individual that was always willing to help a friend or stranger. By the end of freshman year we had become close friends, probably my best at the time. He now lives close to 600 miles away from me however we keep in contact as much as possible because he still is one of my closest friends. Two years ago he came out to me. Since he was about 13, he told me, was when he knew that he was gay. All through middle school, all through high school, all through college he kept it a secret because he was afraid of how people would treat him differently, but more importantly he was afraid of the shame it would bring to his parents. I would like to point out that he in no way acted "gay" when I met him and he still doesn't act "gay" now. In fact, if you didn't know it you would never be able to tell, especially because he doesn't throw it in your face. However he will tell you he is if you ask him a question that would warrant that response. He is no different of a person than he was when I met him and I am proud to call a guy with such a caring and insightful manner my friend.
Now I ask you, put yourself in my position. If your best friend of years and years came to you because he trusted you and told you his biggest and most fearful secret looking for understanding and compassion, would you never shake his hand again because you would fear his disgusting feces covered extremities? Would you never hug him again because you would be afraid that he would become sexually aroused at the mere touch of another man? These are things you have brought up in several other articles and I'm just wondering if that would change given the circumstances?
Date: Fri Aug 05 07:32:09 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Homosexuals and other perverts, like fornicators and adulterers, are what they make themselves. None of them are “born” to commit the sins they commit. Unless they suffer from some serious psychosis, they are what they are by their own free will. The fact that a surrounding society, such as Sodom and Gomorrah, might approve of and even actually encourage such sin does not change the fundamental nature of the sin.
I am indeed in that situation. I encourage chastity, in accordance with one’s state in life (married; single; religious,) to everyone. There is no reason that a person with homosexual tendencies cannot avoid un-chastity as well as a person without that particular temptation. I avoid physical contact with known homosexuals, but not to the point of being rude or obvious. There are always opportunities to wash one’s hands.
Tuesday, February 26,
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0.
Date: Fri Sep 26 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
If you want to build a website like this one, this is how you do it.
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
and absolutely nothing else.
The Purpose of this grouping of links is to highlight the planned and purposeful moral degradation of human culture, in Western Civilization in general, and in America in particular.
The Death of Morality Pages
Beginning, perhaps, with the Reformation, with a mighty surge in the 1930s with the social acceptance of artificial contraception, social standards today are now so low as to make a harlot blush. Professional politicians of all Parties cooperate with Marxist-materialists in all other fields to actually suppress religion and the morality that flows from religion, not only in the public square, but everywhere, following the moral degradation of popular entertainment.
Refuting Free Love: the whole 60’s era of Make Love Not War & Sexual Revolution. From Revolution, to Riots and Anarchy, to Sit-Ins, to Love-Ins, the horrible results demand a refuting of free love.
Artificial Contraception: Tool of Materialism with which to destroy Monotheism. Acceptance of Artificial Contraception marked the single most destructive turning point in the history of Western Culture, marking the end of moral norms, foretelling tolerance of anything at all.
The Sexual Revolution: Sexual Freedom, or enslavement and degradation? The Sexual Revolution was supposed to free us, rather than enslave us, and uplift us, rather than degrade us. It was a lie from the beginning; it degraded whole cultures and attacked human dignity.
Welcome to America's Protected Multi-Billion Dollar Masturbation Industry . That the government simultaneously censors Christian expression and protects pornography, the main product of the Giant Masturbation Industry, is a pure national disgrace.
Abortion in America: Supreme Court takes complete charge of American Government. Through decisions regarding abortion, the Court arbitrarily and without opposition, systematically undid representative, legislated law in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and Made New Law.
Being pro choice or pro woman's right to choose equals being pro abortion. Saying you are pro choice, or pro right to choose, is saying you are pro abortion. Period. Pro choice equals pro abortion.
Femi-Nazi -ism: The Leftist, authoritarian Movement that commandeered Feminism. The Femi-Nazi Movement seeks to modify our language and culture, restrict our speech and press, and create and alienate yet another "disenfranchised" group.
Homo Nazi -ism assaults the Western Culture ethos of our American majority. The grass-roots Homo Nazi is for the most part a simple immoral selfist. But the homo-Nazi in the rarified atmosphere of city, state and national politics is a much more sinister character.
What does normalized, mainstreamed, open homosexuality say about us as a people? Our argument against open homosexuality is an argument for the continuance of Western Civilization, the Western Culture Ethos and the normative family.
So the Marxists get their wish again: an openly homosexual American military. An openly homosexual American military has been the goal of Secularists, Marxists and other Democrats for decades.
Ascendent Heterophobia & Utter Moral Depravity - the new American Guiding Ethos. The Fundamental Transformation of America, from a decent Christian nation into the grips of Heterophobia.
All the Smiling Degenerates, Looking Good while advancing Moral Depravity. The Smiling Degenerates of American Government, Happily Bringing America Down.
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the