Why Homosexual Activists Hate General Peter Pace

TFP ^ | 06.27.08 | Michael Whitcraft

[Coleus]

President Bush has awarded Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), General Peter Pace the US’s highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Not surprisingly, he is once again enduring a “moral lynching” at the hands of liberal media and homosexual activists across the nation.  Controversy began plaguing General Pace, a Catholic, after his March 12 statement that homosexual acts are immoral and therefore, should not be condoned by the military.^[1]  Following this statement, General Pace was maligned and ultimately lost his position as JCS Chairman, making him the first in over forty years to hold the position for only a single term. Officially, he was not nominated for a second term due to potential difficulties at his congressional confirmation hearings, because of supposed mismanagement of the Iraqi war.  Nevertheless, many believe that he lost his post because of his position against homosexual acts. The premature ending of General Pace’s career was not enough to satisfy homosexual activists. Still inebriated from the victory over traditional marriage in California and New York, two groups spearheaded a protest against General Pace’s reception of the presidential award.

Moral High Ground
These two groups are no strangers in the struggle against morality in America. One organization called: Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gay (PFLAG), began in 1972 and today is well-known. The other, whose stated purpose is overturning the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, is called: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). This organization, which has been more vocal against General Pace, issued a June 18 press release, in which SLDN Executive director, Aubrey Sarvis is quoted, saying:

Honoring General Pace with the country’s highest civilian award is outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops currently serving on active duty in the armed forces.^[2]

Sarvis’ choice of words like “insensitive” and “disrespectful” demonstrate a claim to the moral high ground in the debate. This is substantiated by the images on the SLDN web site, showing different people whose countenance is carefully crafted to give the impression of indignation against unjust persecution. These images serve as page-headers for the entire site, with a different person for each section.  Each one seems to be saying: “how dare you deny me my rights.” This is especially true of the man pictured in the “Newsroom” section. Because this contention is admittedly subjective, readers are encouraged to take a look for themselves by clicking here.

This sanctimonious image is rather peculiar for a web site promoting active homosexuality in the military, a cause that not only contradicts the well-established moral depravity of homosexual acts (as was well-argued by the TFP statement: “Battling for America’s Soul,” click here), but also denies America’s soldiers their rights to safety and dignity. Certainly, the open acceptance of homosexuals in the U.S. Armed Forces would make the close-quarter reality of military life difficult for normal soldiers. This is especially true, since battlefield conditions do not always permit high standards of modesty. Troops forced to expose themselves in the presence of homosexuals who desire amorous relations with them would be denied their basic dignity.

Furthermore, a soldier going into battle, must be prepared to be bathed in the blood of his comrades, as often happens in the heat of battle. Considering the enormous disproportion of STDs among active homosexuals, especially AIDS,^[3] this would put innocent servicemen at risk of contracting behavior-related illnesses from which they would be free, otherwise. It would unnecessarily endanger their safety. These moral issues must be considered. Thus, paraphrasing the words of Aubrey Sarvis, allowing active homosexuals to openly serve in the military is outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the vast majority of America’s normal troops.

At the award ceremony, President Bush praised General Pace as a man of "complete integrity."

Peter Pace: A Man of Integrity

Clearly, the homosexual lobby lacks the integrity to admit the consequences of the aberrant sexual behavior they promote. General Peter Pace stands in stark contrast to them and is a veritable rock of scandal in their midst.

At the award ceremony, President Bush stated:

 

One of my great privileges as the President has been to meet so many outstanding Americans who volunteer to serve our nation in uniform. I've been inspired by their valor, selflessness, and complete integrity. I found all those qualities in abundance in General Peter Pace.^[4]  This “complete integrity” is exemplified by General Pace’s reaction to the political maelstrom that followed his statement on the immorality of homosexual behavior. While the liberal media and homosexual activists cried out against him, he refused to apologize for his beliefs. Rather, he reiterated his views in a September 2007 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying:

We should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God’s law.^[5]

 

Years of public service had certainly taught him the ramifications he would suffer by standing true to his convictions. Nevertheless, he remained undaunted.  Later, when he was asked to retire from his post rather than suffer the embarrassment of being denied nomination for a second term, he once again maintained his integrity. At a press conference, he explained that he refused to step down for one “fundamental reason.” No Marine or soldier should:

think — ever — that his chairman, whoever that person is, could have stayed in the battle and voluntarily walked off the battlefield. That is unacceptable as a leadership thing, in my mind.^[6]

It is this fundamental integrity that has caused General Pace to be despised by the liberal media and homosexual lobby. Had he retracted or apologized, he certainly would have suffered less. However, this integrity is also what has elevated him to hero status in the minds of Americans nationwide. It is a quality most needed for this nation in these days of relativism and compromise.

Footnotes:

1. See “Is the Uproar Against General Pace the Beginning of a Religious Persecution?” http://www.tfp.org/index.php?option=com
   _content&task=view&id=477&Itemid=108.
2. http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html
   ?section=2&record=4907.
3. See the statements of leading AIDS researcher Dr. de Cock, as quoted at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
   2008/jun/12/aids.health and Michael Fumento’s book, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: How a Tragedy Has Been Distorted by the Media and Partisan Politics.
4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
   2008/06/20080619-9.html.
5. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?
   Page=/Culture/archive/200806/CUL20080619b.html.
6. http://johnib.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/
   general-pace-was-forced-out-refused-to-resign-in-wartime/.

[Coleus]

General Peter Pace, an Italian Catholic brought up in Teaneck, NJ, and a Great American.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Here's a Man that President Bush fired.

As opposed to that idiot Chertoff who's still moving in the halls of power.

[Bishop_Malachi]

Honoring General Pace with the country’s highest civilian award is outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops currently serving on active duty in the armed forces.[2]

_____________________________________________________

Ok, I realize that some academic has a model for making this prediction, but I’m calling BS on this claim. That would put the per capita level of homosexuals in the military higher than in the public at large, wouldn’t it? Does this seem reasonable?

[Bulldawg Fan]

I applaud him for his strong stance against immorality but remind you that the Marine Corps persecuted its own during his tenure. Ask the Haditha Marines about it.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Sounds to me this fine man should be our candidate for president not a politician.

[infowarrior]

Ok, I realize that some academic has a model for making this prediction, but I’m calling BS on this claim. That would put the per capita level of homosexuals in the military higher than in the public at large, wouldn’t it? Does this seem reasonable?

Answer to your question...
A. You should...
B. Yes... (Which means that letter A is operative)...
C. No... (Which, once again, means letter A is operative)...

the infowarrior

[13Sisters76]

“Furthermore, a soldier going into battle, must be prepared to be bathed in the blood of his comrades, as often happens in the heat of battle. Considering the enormous disproportion of STDs among active homosexuals, especially AIDS,[3] this would put innocent servicemen at risk of contracting behavior-related illnesses from which they would be free, otherwise. It would unnecessarily endanger their safety. These moral issues must be considered. Thus, paraphrasing the words of Aubrey Sarvis, allowing active homosexuals to openly serve in the military is outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the vast majority of America’s normal troops.”

It’s about time SOMEONE finally made this point!
I have been trying to remind people I know about the situations where a soldier finds himself up to his elbows in another soldier’s blood (think “Blackhawk Down” and “Saving Private Ryan”). This is just part of the job and no soldier gives it a second thought when another soldier needs help.

Let’s protect them as much as we can!

[Steely Tom]

I just realized something.

There’s an ulterior motive operating here with all the “US soldiers are torturers” stuff.

There is a new generation of potential political leaders undergoing trial by fire for their country in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

By setting up the “soldiers are torturers” meme, the left preempts their emergence as a force when they come home.

Many (if not most) of them would have served as leaders for the Right.

[Coleus]

.

[Teflonic]

Great article, thanks for sharing.

[Tired of Taxes]

Indeed, General Pace is a hero for maintaining his integrity.

[JSDude1]

He should be our Presidential Nominee instead of J. McCain.

[haroldeveryman]

How long would George Patton have lasted in today’s army with our thought police exercising veto power?

[billmor]

Good point but with lefties and cowards like Murtha with his pants on fire, they hardly have any strong leaders to carry their leftist banners...Reid, Pelosi, Murtha...all wimps.....same for many of the dimRATS in Congress at present...Thel all need to be swept out of office...oh yeah, and don’t forget Congress latest 6% rating by the public...

[napscoordinator]

Sounds to me this fine man should be our candidate for president

Oh here we go again with putting a person on a pedestal. Yes he did great work, but President???? Get real. I am sure that you were on the Colin for President and Condi for President bandwagon too, but look how that would have turned out. Please he did a great job and is awarded for it. He does not deserve President.

[Ben Reyes]

How about Veep for McCain?

[BooksForTheRight.com]

General Peter Pace is a decent man of integrity. He expressed an opinion, which in today’s PC-dominated world, gets you fired. GWB fired him for expressing his opinion, so in my opinion GWB is worthless.

[fwdude]

Other than a patriot such as Pace not backing down from his position on morality, what gets homo-fascist the most enraged is a member that turns from their own. Hell hath no fury like the homo-fascists' rage against a man or woman who realizes that his/her homosexual lifestyle is sinful and turns away and changes. They, and those who help them change.

[jmaroneps37]

“General Peter Pace, an Italian Catholic brought up in Teaneck, NJ, and a Great American,” so naturally homosexuals hate him.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Well, no smart ass.I was not on their band wagon.They are not conservative.No question about general Pace.