Friday, December 9, 2016

Austin Ruse sees vast gay civil service conspiracy

Austin Ruse
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination against federal employees for conduct that is not adverse to their job performance. While that provides some protection for LGBT civil servants what constitutes adverse conduct is subject to interpretation. Austin Ruse seems to think that it is necessary to discriminate against LGBT civil servants for government bureaus to function properly and that gay employees need to be restrained in their efforts to effect workplace equality.
As Donald Trump begins to staff his administration, his appointees should understand how deeply the ideologically-driven LGBTs have burrowed into permanent jobs in the permanent bureaucracy and how dangerous they are.

The new political appointees should also understand how this group and their allies have driven those who may disagree with their agenda either underground or from the federal bureaucracy altogether, and some even to jail.

And they should understand that this group is entrenched and determined not to give an inch in the territory they have gained under the incredibly radical Obama administration.
Ruse seems to think that the very presence of LGBT employees represents a danger. The word “burrowed” suggests something surreptitious. If gay people have government jobs they haven't burrowed into them and they are certainly not a danger to anyone. The only “agenda” gay civil servants have is to be treated fairly and to have equal opportunity. What is wrong with that?

There is nothing sinister about an expectation for nondiscrimination. In this day and age I find nothing “radical” about explicit nondiscrimination protections for LGBT civil servants. There is no justification for discrimination. Neither sexual orientation nor sexual identity have any effect, whatsoever, on job performance. Sexuality is irrelevant to the workplace.
The LGBT cadres had already made great strides under the Bush administration. When the French and German governments initiated a statement at the UN calling for “sexual orientation and gender identity” as a new category of nondiscrimination in international law, the Bush administration almost signed it. This was not even remotely binding, but would have set a dangerous precedent. But, the United States almost signed it after Condoleezza Rice was aggressively lobbied by the highly organized LGBTs at the State Department. Only an intervention from the National Security Council killed it.
Ruse is correct. It was a nonbinding resolution. I fail to see the danger. LGBT people should not be discriminated against. Ruse seems to believe that there is some societal need to discriminate. Ruse correctly notes that Obama subsequently signed onto this and the world has not come to an end. The sky has not fallen.
But it was what happened to a lawyer named Scott Bloch that stands as an object lesson for how far the LGBTs are willing to go to ruin those who may stand in their way in the halls of power. Way back in 2004, Scott Bloch was the canary in the coal mine, and the poisonous LGBT gas well and truly got him.
The Bloch saga is lengthy. He eventually pleaded guilty to contempt of Congress. Block is an ultra-conservative Catholic (as is Austin Ruse). Block is a Knight of Malta (as is Austin Ruse). Block believes that gay people are objectively disordered (as does Austin Ruse). As head of the Office of Special Counsel, Bloch ordered that the department scrub its website and all its printed materials of any mention of sexual orientation. It was basically “fuck you — you are objectively disordered and I can fire your ass or transfer you to the Yukon to get rid of you.” (Bloch was ultimately accused of retaliatory transfers.)

Two months later Bush issued a statement claiming that gay people were still protected. In retrospect it appears that George W. Bush was more of a friend to the gay community than Donald Trump proposes to be. Trump's cabinet picks have long records of anti-LGBT advocacy. Bloch defied the president and said that his office did not have the legal authority to protect gays from discrimination. Apparently it was critically important to Bloch to be able to discriminate. Presumably this was because of his religion. Bloch starting staffing his office with lawyers out of third-tier, fourth rate Ave Maria University Law School.
Among his first acts in taking control of the office, Bloch took “sexual orientation” out as a protected category. Even now, sexual orientation is not a protected civil rights category like race and religion. Bloch was marked for political and professional death.

Almost immediately, the cowards in the West Wing threw Bloch to the wolves. Columnist Robert Novak reported that the Bushies sent an intermediary to demand his resignation, which Bloch declined. Now, certainly, this was a fight they did not want at that time, but that is the thing with cowards on this issue. They never want to fight it.

The Log Cabins called for Bloch’s head. The homosexual press went after him. LGBT employees of the federal government threw a fit.
Cowards? The question for the West Wing was why creating this controversy was so important. It was disruptive at a time when two wars were hot. Why was it so necessary to allow anti-LGBT discrimination to take place? Exactly what would Mr. Ruse posit should have been the reaction of gay employees? “Oh thank you for paving the way to discriminate against us. We are most grateful?” Get real.
There were naturally further charges against Bloch, chief among them that he was Catholic and that he had the temerity to hire lawyers from a Catholic law school. And something like a war broke out between Bloch and the Bush administration. Bloch came under investigation for allegedly punishing employees who disagreed with his change in policy toward sexual orientation. He began an investigation into Karl Rove and the violations of the Hatch Act that forbids federal employees from campaigning on federal property (this had to do with destroyed emails; sound familiar?).
In a very short amount of time, Bloch managed to create utter chaos and unnecessary distractions. Bloch, by the way, enlisted a private company to completely scrub his computers at home and work. Bloch lied about it and said that it was due to a virus.
This all began because Bloch wanted to follow the law on sexual orientation and the LGBTs would not have it, and the cowards in the Bush administration would not defend him. Maybe Bloch went too far too fast. That is certainly what I thought at the time. The Bushies no doubt thought, “we don’t need this fight right now.” Even so, Bloch was their guy and they had no problem being complicit in destroying him.
It wasn't legally necessary to remove those protections and Ruse has conceded that Bloch's problems were greater than his issues with gay employees.
This is what awaits anyone who steps into a job in the federal government for the Trump administration. The LGBTs are now even further ensconced and in more positions of power. Though I have little doubt Trump people will be braver than Bush people and will have less patience with political correctness, will they have the stomach for this fight?
What does he expect Trump appointees to do? Fire people for being gay? They might and that will make even less sense than Ruse. Why should there be a fight in the first place? Ruse is implying that discrimination is necessary for government agencies to do their job. It simply makes no sense.
Consider this: Sometime during the Obama administration, they determined to bring the homosexual issue into the congressionally mandated Office of Religious Freedom of the State Department. This is the office that is to report annually on the persecution of religions around the world. Obama shoe-horned LGBT into that office, much to the chagrin of some of those working in the office. A contact formerly in that office told me that those who objected were sidelined and later fired. This person told me this exact same thing has happened all over the federal government where organized LGBTs have gotten people fired who stood in their way or otherwise objected to their agenda.
Name two. Who has been fired? It is really a challenge to discharge civil servants. What did the gays do that was so awful?
The anti-Christian rainbow flag flies over US embassies all over the world. Exporting LGBT is now part of the “DNA” of our foreign policy, often to the detriment of our legitimate national security. We have homosexuals openly serving in the military, without a doubt something that is harmful to unit cohesion, but we have the proposition of men in dresses openly serving as well. Even more, we may be forced to use taxpayer money to pay for sex change operations. We have Christians hounded out of the military for expressing Christians beliefs about human sexuality.
So let's see, the rainbow flag demonstrating support for sexual diversity is not seen by most people as anti anything. As a nation we are proud of our inclusiveness as are most European countries and Canada. I would love to see evidence that gay troops are harmful to the military. I seem to recall that the commandant of the Marine Corps was extremely skeptical but eventually came to the conclusion that the inclusion of gay service personnel was not detrimental. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had to sign off on this at the conclusion of a study. “Men in dresses?” Ruse means transgender women. Transgender men and women already serve without incident.

Not everyone is so obsessed with the sexuality of others. Gay service members would have a remarkably short career if they went around openly criticizing Christianity. It is unnecessary to voice those opinions. It creates gratuitous strife. I don't know who Ruse thinks has been hounded out of the military but it is unnecessary to express anti-gay sentiments. It serves no useful purpose and doing so is (how did Austin put it?) “harmful to unit cohesion.”
It is crucial that anyone who takes a top spot in the administration in any of the agencies to know that sexual radicals have burrowed in and burrowed deep and they are out to protect their turf and they are out to take scalps, Christian scalps.

Anyone who is appointed and who sets out to resist this ugliness will be targeted. Only the strongest and bravest will do. But it is necessary. The health of our republic hangs in the balance.
Who are these “sexual radicals?” Is that all gay and transgender personnel? There he goes again with that “burrowed” nonsense. They aren't animals you know. Maybe he thinks they are. What exactly is it that is “necessary?” Discrimination? Why pray tell? Ruse never explains. Other than denigrating LGBT citizens, what is his point? The health of the republic requires what exactly? What does Ruse expect appointees to do and why should they do it. That will remain as mysterious as the pope's obsession with people with gender dysphoria.

Related Content:




No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.