CNN’s story, “Chelsea or Bradley Manning: Addressing transgender people,” ignores the other alternative—he/she is simply a pervert who should have been booted out of the service years ago and should never have received a security clearance. The key question—not pursued by the media—is why Manning was allowed to remain in the Army when he was acting in violation of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” policy.
Manning will pay a price in prison, but those who permitted this to happen have still not been held accountable.
In our August 1, 2010, article, “Military Homosexual Scandal Tied to WikiLeaks Treason,” we noted reports that Manning, the U.S. Army Intelligence analyst who leaked the classified information to WikiLeaks, was not only a homosexual but was considering a sex change.
Adding insult to injury, this traitor is now making this official, hoping the taxpayers pick up the bill.
We asked at the time, “Who in the Obama Administration—and the Department of Defense—was aware of his conduct and looked the other way? Was Manning given a pass because his ‘lifestyle’ was considered to be in favor and acceptable under the Obama Administration?”
Manning claimed connections into the Pentagon and the White House. Our media never followed up.
We noted that “The revelations of Manning’s openly pro-homosexual conduct suggest that a more liberal Department of Defense policy, in deference to the wishes of the Commander-in-Chief, had already been in effect and has now backfired in a big way.”
These are the important questions—far more important than whether Manning should now be called he or she.
The buck stops with President Obama, whose announced desire to overturn the homosexual exclusion policy was undoubtedly a factor in Army officials looking the other way on Manning.
In our August 20, 2010, article, “Accused Army Traitor Cruised Gay Bars,” we noted that, according to information then developed by CNN, Manning had been cruising the homosexual subculture for several years, under the noses of his military superiors, and even went to gay bars.
Despite this homosexual scandal, Congress voted to repeal the homosexual exclusion policy.
In our article, “Pentagon Celebrates Gay Pride During Treason Trial,” we noted that Obama’s Defense Department hosted a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month event which failed to include any mention, pro or con, of the most celebrated homosexual soldier in American history, Bradley Manning, then on trial for treason.
It was a strange omission. Why weren’t they proud of their gay solider? Homosexuals marched on his behalf in gay pride parades.
My article quoted conservative columnist Ann Coulter as saying that Manning’s homosexuality was critical to understanding the case, and that foreign intelligence services have traditionally exploited sexual perverts.
In Manning’s case, it was not a foreign intelligence service per se, but WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who went to work for Moscow’s RT propaganda channel, where he conducted interviews with Islamists and Marxists.
Coulter wrote, “The most damaging spies in British history were the Cambridge Five, also called the ‘Magnificent Five:’ Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, Donald Maclean and John Cairncross. They were highly placed members of British intelligence, all secretly working for the KGB. The only one who wasn’t gay was Philby. Burgess and Blunt were flamboyantly gay. Indeed, the Russians set Burgess up with a boyfriend as soon as he defected to the Soviet Union.”
We don’t know everything there is to know about NSA leaker Edward Snowden, who supposedly has a girlfriend that he abandoned in order to flee to China and then Russia. But his handler, Guardian writer Glenn Greenwald, is an open homosexual with Marxist links whose “partner” was detained on his way through London and had his laptop, camera, memory sticks, and DVDs confiscated by authorities.
The media won’t remind us of this fact, but two previous NSA defectors to the Soviet Union/Russia, Bernon F. Mitchell and William H. Martin, were also perverts.
Mitchell confessed to “sexual experimentation with dogs and chickens,” according to the 1962 report, “Security Practices in the National Security Agency.” Mitchell, who had “associations with members of the Communist Party,” was “sexually abnormal,” had “posed for nude color slides perched on a velvet-covered stool,” and had “homosexual problems.”
The report said Mitchell and Martin “had supposedly gone through the most rigorous of loyalty and security checks prior to and during their employment with the most sensitive and secretive of all agencies”—the NSA. Issued by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, it recommended ways to improve background checks of potential NSA employees.
At that time, the government frowned on employing homosexuals and “deviates.” In fact, a 1950 congressional report was titled, “Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government,” and said that the FBI, the CIA, and the intelligence services of the Army, Navy and Air Forces were all “in complete agreement that sex perverts in government constitute security risks.”
Can you imagine a government report nowadays referring to “perverts?”
Today, the NSA has “Special Emphasis Programs” that are in place for various groups, including the “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT).” Examples of recent presentations NSA has sponsored include, “Can We Talk: Gay and Straight Issues in the Workplace.”
Back in 2000, Reed Irvine and I wrote an article about homosexual Rep. Barney Frank, who was reprimanded by the House over a sex scandal, being invited to speak to CIA employees. “Down the road,” we said, “the CIA and the National Security Agency, which also sent open gays to hear Barney Frank, may recruit men who dress as women, and vice versa. After all, the transgendered also want their rights.”
It has all come to pass, under America’s first gay president, as Newsweek called Obama. The magazine thought this was great. With Manning, we are seeing the results.
Now The Wall Street Journal reports in a story, “NSA Officers Spy on Love Interests,” that National Security Agency officers on several occasions have channeled their agency’s enormous eavesdropping power to spy on “love interests.”
Clearly, it would be a mistake to assume these are just cases of heterosexuality.
Rather than focus on over-hyped “revelations” of supposed wrongdoing by the agency in its terrorist surveillance programs, we need to know who is being hired by this agency and why. That investigation could lead to more Edward Snowdens.
Again, The Wall Street Journal broke the story, noting that the company that performed a background check on Edward Snowden is now under investigation itself. USIS, which describes itself as “the leader in federal background investigations,” says, “we provide services around the globe to the government under 100 contracts. We work closely with numerous departments of the federal government, ranging from State, Homeland Security, and Defense to Justice and intelligence agencies.”
USIS, a subsidiary of Altegrity, Inc., acknowledges an “ongoing civil investigation of USIS” but claims it “is unrelated to any background investigation of Edward Snowden.”
If it is not related to the Snowden matter, then clearly we need another investigation of this firm.
In response to the Snowden disclosures, a Senate subcommittee held a hearing, “Safeguarding our Nation’s Secrets: Examining The Security Clearance Process,” which has resulted in a new piece of legislation, the Security Clearance Oversight and Reform Enhancement (SCORE) Act. It won’t do anything to stop NSA catering to sexual special interest groups.
The Senate version is sponsored by Democratic Senator Jon Tester (MT), with six co-sponsors: Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Rob Portman (R-OH).
Referring to Snowden, Tester asked, “…how in the world does a contractor, who had been on the job for less than three months, get his hands on information detailing a highly classified Government program that he subsequently shared with foreign media outlets?”
Of course, President Obama himself has access to the same information and never went through a process to get a security clearance.
Former FBI agent Max Noel told me the Bureau used to investigate candidates for federal employment by analyzing Character, Associates, Reputation, and Loyalty to the United States. The first letters in those words make up the acronym CARL.
Noel said Obama could not have been elected president if he had been subjected to the CARL test. But members of Congress also evade the security clearance process.
Tester said, “We have spent hundreds of billions in this country trying to keep classified information classified and to keep people from outside coming in. And what we see here is that we have a problem from the inside.”
Yes, indeed. And it starts at the top, with a President from Tester’s own political party.