Obama’s Disgrace at Medal of Honor ceremony

Did You Elect This Man?

Obama’s Disgrace at Medal of Honor ceremony

Some say those who commit such acts of omission, referring to the article below, may be only lacking in historical perspective when they ignorantly trample (being not informed) on basic tradition… BUT, knowing [former Secret Service – protected the President] the detail and briefings (from The White House and military) that go into a moment like this, you must ask – where are the wise counselors? And IF that counsel (briefing on the significance and historical tradition associated with the MOH) WAS given, the only two viable explanations for President Obama’s reprehensible behavior are these:

-he forgot to salute, or
-he selectively, and willfully, ignored his briefers and their recommendations.
Most U.S. Presidents seemed to discover the “sanctity” of the presidential office only after having obtained it. Even they come to revere it as something ‘above them’. With this president, you get (by his actions) that it is a role “due him”.


Did You Elect This Man?

Obama’s Disgrace at Medal of Honor ceremony

Some say those who commit such acts of omission, referring to the article below, may be only lacking in historical perspective when they ignorantly trample (being not informed) on basic tradition… BUT, knowing [former Secret Service – protected the President] the detail and briefings (from The White House and military) that go into a moment like this, you must ask – where are the wise counselors? And IF that counsel (briefing on the significance and historical tradition associated with the MOH) WAS given, the only two viable explanations for President Obama’s reprehensible behavior are these:

-he forgot to salute, or

-he selectively, and willfully, ignored his briefers and their recommendations.

Most U.S. Presidents seemed to discover the “sanctity” of the presidential office only after having obtained it. Even they come to revere it as something ‘above them’. With this president, you get (by his actions) that it is a role “due him”. Reading of, and trying to understanding his “centers of influence” that have contributed to his make-up, my only open question is – why are so many surprised? We know our character will reflect those philosophies and values held by those with whom we have long term association. We have seen this in him. He has so “simply failed” to salute on many occasions in many venues… His repeated actions make you wonder if he truly believes he is “above it all.”

Professionals have written of the narcissistic personality traits of this President, in particular. They seem to reflect frequently in his behavior. In which case, this article’s observation and opinion seems warranted and justified. Classically, he will say one thing while he reflects a contradicting behavior. In the MOH award ceremony, that I watched several times, he kept saying repeatedly, “I really like this guy.” That’s nice. But it is not about “I”… Go on… The whole point of the ceremony and the award is not just to acknowledge an individual’s remarkable selfless action and stellar performance of duty “above and beyond,” but to demonstrate , by presidential example , the honor to be afforded and reflected by those into whose presence the MOH comes. Our country does NOT know what to do or how to receive one who crosses paths with a bearer of the MOH. We don’t see many because most are given posthumously. He had opportunity. He had a moment to be most presidential and to give this country a lesson and example. Anyone can make a presentation. Few can teach. Fewer can lead. And those that are the best of leaders- lead by example.

Warm regards and Semper fi,
Jim Meyers (Board, CftC)
above article edited, emphasized, or added to by the CftC, where indicated in blue

>

Why No Salute by Obama at the Medal of Honor Ceremony?
By Attorney Rees Lloyd
November 26, 2010 NewsWithViews.com

A moment of national pride took place recently in the White House when an American soldier, Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, received the Medal of Honor for bravery above and beyond the call of duty in combat in Afghanistan<

Sgt. Giunta became the first living American soldier to receive the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War. He is now one of only eighty-eight (88) living holders of the Medal of Honor.

As modest and self-effacing as he is brave, Sgt. Giunta brought further honor to himself by his humility in receiving the nation’s highest medal of valor. While he made no comment in the ceremony, Giunta said before the ceremony that he was “not at peace” with being “singled out” for the honor as so many other soldiers did so much. And after the ceremony, he said he would trade the honor in a moment if he could bring back those whose lives he attempted to save under enemy fire but was unable to save. He definitely showed that he was an American in whom America could be proud.

In contrast, there was another “first” at the ceremony involving the Commander-in-Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama, in whose conduct the nation cannot and should not take pride: As far as is known, Obama became the first President, the first Commander-in-Chief , not to salute the living recipient of the Medal of Honor after presenting the medal.

It is a tradition in the military for all military personnel, no matter how high their rank, including the Commander-in-Chief, to salute a holder of the Medal of Honor no matter how lowly his or her rank. If General David Petreas was to encounter Sgt. Giunta, it would be the General who would salute the enlisted man, as a sign of respect for that soldier’s extraordinary bravery, but also to show respect to all those who have received the Medal of Honor.

At all gatherings of veterans of the American Legion, or VFW, or other veterans organizations, if a Medal of Honor recipient enters the room, even a National Convention involving thousands, the proceedings stop to render military honor to that holder of the Medal of Honor. All veterans rise, come to attention, and salute. It is a matter of pride, of respect, of tradition.

And, as far as is known, it is tradition that every President who has had the honor to present the Medal of Honor to a living recipient, has shown humility, respect, and national pride in that recipient by stepping back and rendering a salute.

It was missing in action in the Obama presentation. He is apparently above all that; “like a God,” as an editor of Newsweek once wrote.

Instead of rendering the traditional salute, after fumbling as if all-thumbs in trying to affix the blue-ribboned Medal of Honor, Obama, equally awkwardly, tried to “hug” the Sergeant. Yes, a “hug” for the soldier who remained at attention with eyes front in military bearing.

But a “hug” is not a “salute,” even in the Age of Obama. While there may be some comedic value in Obama’s pathetic display, it was more emetic than comedic. I didn’t write about it at the time, so as not to distract from Sgt. Giunta’s receipt of the Medal of Honor. But days have passed, and it needs to be said.

Why? Is it naught but petty carping of poor President Obama? I think not. He is the Commander-in-Chief” who has in his power the lives of those who serve in defense of the country, which he himself did not deign to do. It is pointing out that this man, this professional politician, repeatedly evidences contempt for America, for America’s traditions, and for Americans who respect those traditions.

It is as if he loathes the nation he was so desperate to lead, and be loved by, Messiah-like. It is of a piece with his constant misquoting of the Declaration of Independence by leaving out the words “endowed by their Creator” when speaking of “unalienable rights.”

Perhaps more aptly: It is of a pathetic piece with Obama’s penchant for declining to abide by the U.S. Flag Code when the Flag passes to place his hand over his heart. Instead, he drapes his arms down and enfolds his hands at his crotch Michael Jackson style. It is now mocked as Obama’s “crotch salute.” But it isn’t funny. It is contempt by Obama for the Flag, for America.

Perhaps it is unfair to criticize this President of the United States for displaying such contempt for American traditions. Perhaps it is too much to expect an American President to salute a recipient of the military Medal of Honor when that president never served in the uniform of his country; has said that the Rules For Radicals of the America-hating socialist revolutionist Sol Alinsky are “seared into my [his] brain;” who launched his political career in Chicago from the living room of the revolutionist Weather Underground rich-brat-bombers Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn; and who sat for twenty years in a pew of the church of Rev. “God D…n America” Wright, being marinated in hate-filled, grievance-filled, self-defined “anti-white” and “revolutionary” Black Liberation Theology.

Then again, perhaps it is not too much to expect anyone who would be America’s president to at least respect American traditions, including honoring the Flag, and saluting those who receive the Medal of Honor.

© 2010 Rees Lloyd – All Rights Reserved

REES LLOYD is a longtime civil rights attorney and veterans activist whose work has been honored by, among others, the California Senate and Assembly, and numerous civil rights, workers’ rights, and veteran’s rights organizations. He has testified as a constitutional expert at hearings before the U.S. House and Senate representing The American Legion.

He has been profiled, and his work featured, by such varied print media as the Los Angeles Times and American Legion Magazine, and such broadcast media as ABC’s Nightline and 20/20, Fox News In The Morning, and, among others, by Hannity. His writings have appeared in a variety of national, regional, and local newspaper, magazine, and other publications. He is a frequent radio commentator, and a sought after speaker.* [*For identification only. The views expressed here are solely Rees Lloyd’s and not necessarily any person, entity or organization he may otherwise represent. ]

E-Mail: ReesLloydLaw@gmail.com

Anonymous said…

“Without judgment I write these words.” Sorry…like so many others you (anon. 1 and 2) have passed judgment without even looking at the evidence. You have judged that this president (Obama) is “harmless” despite his actions that prove otherwise and fault those of us who are outraged for simply examining the evidence: no proof of eligibility; appointing radicals and cheats (taxes) in his administration; a close friend of domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn; nationalizing the auto industry and health care and turning our country toward outright communism; lack of respect for Constitutional law; fraudulent use of a soc. security number, and on and on and on. And while not holding his hand over his heart may seem trivial to you, there is a federal statute that requires us to do that when the National Anthem is played. And this man is president??? Even if ignorant of the law, which he apparently is, he should do it out of respect! No, anon. 1, you judged him “innocent” without any supporting facts, yet condemn the rest of us for our outrage when we have all the EVIDENCE we need that he is NOT GOOD FOR AMERICA, and may not even be American.

anon.2…where is the evidence about GWB? Or is this another dose of leftist propaganda? Oops..sorry. Just another case of “judgment” without being based on evidence.

The Shot Heard Around the World

Shots Heard Around the World
The results of the mid-term elections were not viewed by many Americans dedicated to reclaiming the heritage of “liberty and justice for all” intended by the Framers with the same enthusiasm as the Republicans. Tea Party activists called attention to the danger and lost freedoms accompanying the Framers’ clearly expressed fear of an out-of-control Federal bureaucracy. We are still faced with a Senate, and possibly even a House, where those elected say what is necessary to gain election, and once in office continue “taxation without representation“. Without a Congress willing to free us from the shackles of the cancerous Federal bureaucracy, or the States themselves limiting this tumor engulfing us by calling to the authority of the 10th Amendment, this “one Nation under God” has taken a path that those In Constitution Hall in 1787 foresaw as leading to certain failure.

Shots Heard Around the World
The results of the mid-term elections were not viewed by many Americans dedicated to reclaiming the heritage of “liberty and justice for all” intended by the Framers with the same enthusiasm as the Republicans. Grateful for the efforts of the Tea Party activists in calling attention to the danger and lost freedoms accompanying the Framers’ clearly expressed fear of an out-of-control Federal bureaucracy, we are still faced with a Senate, and possibly even a House, where those elected say what is necessary to gain election, and once in office continue “taxation without representation“. Hopefully, those Americans whose voices were largely responsible for an electorate rejecting the betrayal of Congress will continue to call those elected to accountability to “we, the people”. From these shots heard around the world, there is hope for the oppressed everywhere that “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has not yet perished.
Remaining in public offices of “honor and trust” and around the world are those “enemies, foreign and domestic”, who continue to trample on the Constitution. Friends of freedom and justice beyond our borders do not understand how the person directly responsible for the sub-prime economic meltdown, Barney Frank, or the socialist champion, now leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, has been reelected. Having recognized the historically validated failures of socialism, unbridled capitalism, and the false religions and ideologies seeking the demise of representative, republican democracy, other nations are now moving toward where those who conceived and gave birth to these United States intended. English voters have elected politicians pledged to cutting the costs of their government bureaucracy in half. Without a Congress willing to free us from the shackles of the cancerous Federal bureaucracy, or the States themselves limiting this tumor of injustice, calling to the authority of the 10th Amendment, this “one Nation under God” has taken a path that those In Constitution Hall in 1787 understood as leading to certain failure.
With the likes of the Franks and Reids left to continue spewing the disastrous consequences of liberalism’s/socialism’s lies and deceptions, all seeking freedom coming from truth and justice see the retention and continuation of a system of values totally contrary to the foundation of government where, in the words of “the father of our Country”, “religion and morality are indispensable supports for our form of government”. Void of or severely deficient in righteousness, integrity, and morality, politicians, particularly in Congress, have terribly failed in their oaths of office to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution from “enemies, foreign and domestic”. Those “certain unalienable Rights, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” are under attack as never before in our history. Patriots, men and women before us “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, . . . . pledg[ed their] Lives, [their] Fortunes and [their] sacred Honor. . . ., with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence”. Shots fired, whether heard around the world or impacting state legislatures as occurred, must be followed with the same resolve, dedication, and sacrifice here and now as followed those shots fired over two centuries ago at Lexington and Concord. We are at war! The injustices of socialism; unbridled capitalism; judicial activism; Congressional irresponsibility, failure, and corruption; executive branch tyranny; and the evils of Islamic religious fundamentalism; addictions and their attending crimes; the unjust forces of arms wielded by governments seeking to overthrow the Framers’ intentions are our “enemies, foreign and domestic”.
Airport ‘security’?
Thomas Sowell – Syndicated Columnist
11/23/2010
No country has better airport security than Israel– and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don’t have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts. Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs?

“Security” may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this administration in other areas is all too painfully apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures.

Can you remember a time when a Cabinet member in a free America boasted of having his “foot on the neck” of some business or when the President of the United States threatened on television to put his foot on another part of some citizens’ anatomy? Yet this and more has happened in the current administration, which is not yet two years old. One Cabinet member warned that there would be “zero tolerance” for “misinformation” when an insurance company said the obvious, that the mandates of ObamaCare would raise costs and therefore raise premiums. Zero tolerance for exercising the First Amendment right of free speech?

More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke warned about the dangers of new people with new power. This administration, only halfway through its term, has demonstrated that in many ways. What other administration has had an attorney general call the American people “cowards”? And refuse to call terrorists Islamic? What other administration has had a secretary of Homeland Security warn law enforcement officials across the country of security threats from people who oppose abortion, support federalism, or are returning military veterans?

If anything good comes out of the airport “security” outrages, it may be in opening the eyes of more people to the utter contempt that this administration has for the American people.

Those who made excuses for all of candidate Barack Obama’s long years of alliances with people who expressed their contempt for this country, and when as president he appointed people with a record of antipathy to American interests and values, may finally get it when they feel some stranger’s hand in their crotch. (See related video report: TSA humiliates cancer survivor)

As for the excuse of “security,” this is one of the least security-minded administrations we have had. When hundreds of illegal immigrants from terrorist-sponsoring countries were captured crossing the border from Mexico — and then released on their own recognizance within the United States, that tells you all you need to know about this administration’s concern for security.

When captured terrorists who are not covered by either the Geneva Convention or the Constitution of the United States are nevertheless put on trial in American civilian courts by the Obama Justice Department, that too tells you all you need to know about how concerned they are about national security. The rules of criminal justice in American courts were not designed for trying terrorists. For one thing, revealing the evidence against them can reveal how our intelligence services got wind of them in the first place, and thereby endanger the lives of people who helped us nab them. Not a lot of people in other countries, or perhaps even in this country, are going to help us stop terrorists if their role is revealed and their families are exposed to revenge by the terrorists’ bloodthirsty comrades.

What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security do not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter — and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.

Meanwhile, this administration is so hung up on political correctness that they have turned “profiling” into a bugaboo. They would rather have electronic scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for some questioning.

Will America be undermined from within by an administration obsessed with political correctness and intoxicated with the adolescent thrill of exercising its new-found powers? Stay tuned.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Opinions expressed in ‘Perspectives’ columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
In the view of those conceiving and giving birth to these United States, few freedoms are more requisite to and defining of the American way of life, than the Right to Privacy and Property. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. – The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 15 December, 1791

The Pigford vs Glickman Case:
Ripoff of the American Taxpayers By Black Activists
John Wallace
1 August, 2010
Pigford v. Glickman was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (the “USDA”), alleging racial discrimination in its allocation of farm loans and assistance between 1983 and 1997. The lawsuit ended with a settlement in which the U.S. government agreed to pay African-American farmers $50,000 each if they had attempted to get USDA help but failed.

To date, almost $1 billion has been paid or credited to the farmers under the settlement’s consent decree.

CASE HISTORY:

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 by Timothy Pigford, who was joined by 400 additional African-American farmer plaintiffs. Dan Glickman, the Secretary of Agriculture, was the nominal defendant. The allegations were that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly when deciding to allocate price support loans, disaster payments, “farm ownership” loans, and operating loans, and that the USDA had completely failed to process subsequent complaints about racial discrimination.[1]

After the lawsuit was filed, Pigford requested blanket mediation to cover what was thought to be about 2,000 farmers who may have been discriminated against, but the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the mediation, saying that each case had to be investigated separately. As the case moved toward trial, the presiding judge certified as a class all “black” farmers who filed discrimination complaints against the USDA between 1983 and 1997.

The plaintiffs settled with the government in 1999. Under the consent decree, all African American farmers would be paid a “virtually automatic” $50,000 plus granted certain loan forgiveness and tax offsets. This process was called “Track A”.[2]

Alternatively, affected farmers could follow the “Track B” process, seeking a larger payment by presenting a greater amount of evidence — the legal standard in this case was to have a preponderance of evidence along with evidence of greater damages.

THE RIPOFF OF THE TAXPAYERS BY BLACK ACTIVISTS:

Originally, claimants were to have filed within 180 days of the consent decree. Late claims were accepted for an additional year afterwards, if they could show extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from filing on time.

Far beyond the anticipated 2,000 affected farmers, 22,505 “Track A” applications were heard and decided upon, of which 13,348 (59%) were approved. $995 million had been disbursed or credited to the “Track A” applicants as of January 2009[update], including $760 million disbursed as $50,000 cash awards.[3] Fewer than 200 farmers opted for the “Track B” process.

How could there be 86,000 discrimination claims if there were only 26,785 African-American farmers in 1977?

Beyond those applications that were heard and decided upon, about 70,000 additional petitions were filed late and were not allowed to proceed. Some have argued that the notice program was defective, and others blamed the farmers’ attorneys for “the inadequate notice and overall mismanagement of the settlement agreement.” A provision in a 2008 farm bill essentially allowed a re-hearing in civil court for any claimant whose claim had been denied without a decision that had been based on its merits

In other words, the number of total claims filed by people of African descent claiming to be farmers not only exceeded the original estimate by almost 40 to 50 times, it is close to four times the USDA’s estimate of 26,785 total black owned farms in 1977! One reason for this is that the settlement applied to farmers and those who “attempted to farm” and did not receive assistance from the USDA. So “black” people who were thinking of going into the farming business, but never did, were also eligible for the $50,000 fraud award, because they might have been discriminated against. It sounds like “Black Reparations” to me.
Paying off the latest group of Pigford fraud application cases is said to be a high priority for the Obama administration.
CONNECTION TO SHIRLEY SHERROD – USDA
Remember the recent case involving a woman by the name of Shirley Sherrod, whose quick dismissal from the Obama administration may have had less to do with her comments on race before the NAACP than her long involvement in the aptly named “Pigford” case. In a special article written for the Washington Examiner, Tom Blumer explained that Shirley Sherrod and the group she formed along with family members and others, New Communities. Inc. received the largest single settlement under the Pigford case.

Her organization, New Communities, is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and her husband Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit.

What makes this even more interesting is that Charles Sherrod, Sherill’s husband, appears to be the same Charles Sherrod who was a leader in the radical group Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the early 1960s. The SNCC was the political womb that nurtured the Black Power movement and the Black Panthers before it faded away.

In his article, Blumer had some interesting questions about this settlement and about Sherrod’s rapid departure from the USDA

•Was Ms. Sherrod’s USDA appointment an unspoken condition of her organization’s settlement?

•How much “debt forgiveness” is involved in USDA’s settlement with New Communities?

•Why were the Sherrods so deserving of a combined $300,000 in “pain and suffering” payments — amounts that far exceed the average payout thus far to everyone else? ($1.15 billion divided by 16,000 is about $72,000)?

•Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money?

Here are some other questions to consider:

•Did Shirley Sherrod resign so quickly because the circumstances of her hiring and the lawsuit settlement with her organization that preceded it might expose some unpleasant truths about her possible and possibly sanctioned conflicts of interest?

•Is USDA worried about the exposure of possible waste, fraud, and abuse in its handling of Pigford?

•Did USDA also dispatch Sherrod hastily because her continued presence, even for another day, might have gotten in the way of settling Pigford matters quickly?

Here is another area for concern: In her position at the not for profit, “Rural Development Leadership Network,” a network of activists and community builder, was Sherrod involved in any way in encouraging people to submit fraudulent claims under Pigford? Did she put Black people who owned rural land in touch with lawyers who would file the paperwork claiming attempts to farm had been prevented by the non cooperation of the local USDA?

As many of you may know, there are a multitude of small parcels of non productive rural land all across the south, land unsuitable for mechanized agriculture that was once owned by subsistence farmers, black and white alike. Many of these parcels continue to be owned by family members who moved elsewhere out of sentimental reasons. The property taxes and other carrying costs are cheap and often ancestors are buried there in family plots. A drive on any country road in the South may turn up several carefully maintained postage stamp sized family cemeteries. I wonder how many of the these owners claimed they had farmed, attempted to farm, or thought about farming such acreage to score a fast $50,000 Black Farmer Fraud Award from Uncle Sam?

I guess if you are or were a poor white, Asian, Native American, or Hispanic farmer, you’re just out of luck in collecting your $50,000 fraud award.

FOOTNOTES:

1. Timothy Pigford, et al., v. Dan Glickman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 97-1978 (PLF). Paul L. Friedman, U.S. District Judge.
2. “The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers”, Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [1].
3. “The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers”, p. 5. Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [2].

or
The Worst Situation for Any Economy To Be In

Treason – Adhering To Our Enemies and Giving Them Aid

Treason

“Adhering To Our Enemies – Giving Them Aid

“Adhering To Our Enemies – Giving Them Aid”
The two biggest stories this week are WikiLeaks’ continued publication of classified government documents, which did untold damage to America’s national security interests, and the Democrats’ fanatical determination to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow gays to serve openly in the military.

The mole who allegedly gave WikiLeaks the mountains of secret documents is Pfc. Bradley Manning, Army intelligence analyst and angry gay.

We’ve heard 1 billion times about the Army translator who just wanted to serve his country, but was cashiered because of whom he loved.

I’ll see your Army translator and raise you one Bradley Manning.

According to Bradley’s online chats, he was in “an awkward place” both “emotionally and psychologically.” So in a snit, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.

Isn’t that in the Army Code of Conduct? You must follow orders at all times. Exceptions will be made for servicemen in an awkward place. Now, who wants a hug? Waitress! Three more apple-tinis!”

According to The New York Times, Bradley sought “moral support” from his “self-described drag queen” boyfriend. Alas, he still felt out of sorts. So why not sell out his country?

In an online chat with a computer hacker, Bradley said he lifted the hundreds of thousands of classified documents by pretending to be listening to a CD labeled “Lady Gaga.” Then he acted as if he were singing along with her hit song “Telephone” while frantically downloading classified documents.

I’m not a military man, but I think singing along to Lady Gaga would constitute “telling” under “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Do you have to actually wear a dress to be captured by the Army’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” dragnet?

What constitutes being “openly” gay now? Bringing a spice rack to basic training? Attending morning drills decked out as a Cher impersonator? Following Anderson Cooper on Twitter?

Also, U.S. military, have you seen a picture of Bradley Manning? The photo I’ve seen is only from the waist up, but you get the feeling that he’s wearing butt-less chaps underneath. He looks like a guy in a soldier costume at the Greenwich Village Halloween parade.

With any luck, Bradley’s court-martial will be gayer than a Liza Minelli wedding. It could be the first court-martial in U.S. history to feature ice sculptures and a “Wizard of Oz”-themed gazebo. “Are you going to Bradley’s court-martial? I hear Patti LaBelle is going to sing!”

Maybe there’s a reason gays have traditionally been kept out of the intelligence services, apart from the fact that closeted gay men are easy to blackmail. Gays have always been suspicious of that rationale and perhaps they’re right.

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.

The Magnificent Five’s American compatriot Michael Straight was — ironically — bisexual, as was Whittaker Chambers, at least during the period that he was a spy. And of course, there’s David Brock.

So many Soviet spies were gay that, according to intelligence reporter Phillip Knightley, the Comintern was referred to as “the Homintern.” (I would have called it the “Gay G.B.”)

Bradley’s friends told the Times they suspected “his desperation for acceptance — or delusions of grandeur” may have prompted his document dump.

Let’s check our “Gay Profile at a Glance” and … let’s see … desperate for acceptance … delusions of grandeur … yep, they’re both on the gay subset list!

Obviously, the vast majority of gays are loyal Americans — and witty and stylish to boot! But a small percentage of gays are going to be narcissistic hothouse flowers like Bradley Manning.

Couldn’t they just work for JetBlue? America would be a lot safer right now if gays in an “awkward place” psychologically could do no more damage than grabbing a couple of beers and sliding down the emergency chute.

Look at the disaster one gay created under our punishing “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. What else awaits America with the overturning of a policy that was probably put there for a reason (apart from being the only thing Bill Clinton ever did that I agreed with)?

Liberals don’t care. Their approach is to rip out society’s foundations without asking if they serve any purpose.

Why do we have immigration laws? What’s with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards — why not make heroin legal? Let’s take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!

For liberals, gays in the military is a win-win proposition. Either gays in the military works, or it wrecks the military, both of which outcomes they enthusiastically support.

But since you brought up gays in the military, liberals, let’s talk about Bradley Manning. He apparently released hundreds of thousands of classified government documents as a result of being a gay man in “an awkward place.”

Any discussion of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should begin with Bradley Manning. Live by the sad anecdote, die by the sad anecdote.


Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” ““How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless,” “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” and most recently, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America.