Posted on 12/16/2010 8:01:58 AM PST by IbJensen
The Washington Post’s homosexual editorial writer, Jonathan Capehart, is out with another hysterical rant on a subject that he feels passionately about—gays in the military. Putting special interest politics ahead of our fighting men and women, who bleed and die on the battlefield, he wants Congress to act quickly in the lame duck session to repeal the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy because he says the failure to feature open homosexuals in the front lines of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq “threatens national security.” This is what he claims in a recent blog post.
Opinion writers such as Capehart, who also appears regularly on MSNBC, are entitled to their opinions and have considerable latitude saying or writing whatever occurs to them. But there should be some basis for what they say. There is none here. In this case, Capehart has further degenerated into the incoherent and incomprehensible. How can it possibly be argued that the failure to have homosexual soldiers on the front-lines in Muslim countries, which officially frown on such behavior, threatens the national security of the United States? Logic says that it would make our troops into even more of a target than they are now.
Does he mean that open homosexuals in combat would increase the chances of victory? He can’t possibly be serious.
It would be one thing to argue that there is little risk to having them in the ranks. That is the official line put forward in a recent controversial Pentagon report that critics say was biased in favor of changing the policy and allowing open gays in the military. But Capehart goes beyond this to arguing that the risk involves NOT having them in combat. The report never said that and nobody in the Pentagon who commissioned the report has claimed that a change in the policy is risk-free or beneficial. They all agree it is risky to change. But because President Obama wants it to happen, in order to please part of his far-left base, most of them are following orders and going along.
Capehart goes beyond this, arguing as if Washington politicians are somehow denying our troops something necessary for their survival on the battlefield if they maintain the current Pentagon homosexual exclusion. It is desperation politics by someone who knows that the new Congress is extremely unlikely to change the policy.
It bears repeating: there is absolutely no basis for Capehart’s assertion that keeping open homosexuals out of the front lines somehow harms national security. The statement is simply ridiculous on its face, especially because up to 60 percent of our front-line soldiers were cited in that report as being opposed to repeal of the policy. They recognize the threat to military order, readiness, and discipline. Capehart apparently doesn’t care about them.
The other unmentionable problem, which is glossed over in the official report and not even alluded to by Capehart, is that a policy to welcome open homosexuals in the ranks naturally increases the possibility of some troops coming down with HIV/AIDS through tainted blood transfusions. Gay men are currently prohibited from donating blood in the civilian or military sectors. As such, more homosexuals in the military IS a threat to national security. It stands to reason that having more of them in the military, even though they are tested at regular intervals, can only increase the risks and dangers associated with donations of blood on the battlefield. This conclusion is common sense.
Capehart is given the latitude to make ridiculous assertions. Apparently his bosses are afraid to demand that he justify his absurd statements before they go into print. It is another sign of the deterioration of standards at the paper.
The Columbia Journalism Review has called Capehart “one of the mainstream media’s most visible, active voices on gay causes.” He is certainly visible and active, since he also appears regularly on MSNBC, in addition to his work at the Post. But his voice is shrill and irrational. He has become another major embarrassment to the Post but is rather typical of the fare that MSNBC presents on a daily basis.
With his latest outburst, it might be said that Capehart, who is black, is auditioning for his own show on MSNBC, a network that has been under fire for excluding minorities from its top on-air positions. (MSNBC recently added Tamron Hall to the line-up, as pictured on the website, giving blacks one of 13 slots).
Perhaps Keith Olbermann, who specializes in curious and bizarre statements, could use a black sidekick. It would help put a further dent in the mostly white line-up of hosts on the little-watched cable network.
Enough to make decent people puke!
The cancer cells on society... good thing they don’t multiply easily.
My question is WHY ARE WE STILL READING/QUOTING LIBERAL MEDIA?
LET THEM DIE DIE DIE!!!!!!!!!!!
WHO THE HELL THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA FOR BONER TO GO TALK TO BABA WAWA?????
Should work fine.
Put all the queers in the same unit, send them to the fiercest fighting, repeat as necessary.
Face it, We already have a de facto state of “out and proud” in our military. The career of SFC Bradley J. Manning proves it. In the first days of revelation about him through his Facebook entries before the MSM clamped down we read that he was as open and obnoxious about his proclivities as Maj. Hasan was about his. He should have been dishonorably discharged for his all-around bad behavior but he was still allowed to handle classified material.
Manning is the Frankenstein’s Monster that the military feared would be forced on them if the gay ban was formally dropped. It has already been INformally dropped and it only takes one such miscreant, determined to do as much damage as he can in the service of his twisted ideology, to derail an entire command and demoralize an entire service.
The current regime regards our magnificent miltary as some sort of social experiment.
The canary a**ed libtards hate the idea of our troops actually killing our enemies.
Send them out on a mission of love and mutual understanding, with no ammunition. See how tolerant the enemy really is..........
Agree with a lot of what you wrote.
However, for future accuracy sake, you should know that Manning is an Army Private First Class (PFC) (E-3) in just his first enlistment, not the much more senior Sergeant First Class (SFC) (E-7). This, of course, just makes the disclosure even more shocking; one has to ask “How did such a junior enlisted soldier get access to so much material?”
As for Manning, whether PFC or SFC, he will end his life in Fort Levenworth (hopefully in solitary confinement).
Prolly the same alpha-hotel that set up Sharon Angle's "debate" against a video of Reid.
Yes, islam is all about diversity. Especially homosexuality.
Much of today’s major media is gay, which explains why they are so biased against Repubs, who they blame, as well as Reagan, for The Great Gay Death.
There was a poll posted on FR a few years ago stating that 58% of NBC News-New York staffers are GAY/Lesbian/Bi/or transgendered. They call the New York Times editorial board “The Gay Mafia” because ALL BUT ONE of them are gay.
This isn’t rocket surgery.
Even if the queers are permitted to serve, the behavior is still forbidden by the UCMJ. Who really believes they will behave themselves?
I goofed. I meant to say PFC. Either way, if I had behaved the way he did when I was in the Navy back in the eighties I would have been out on my ass.
Lost in all of the discussion and debate about having gays serve openly in our military, think about where these people potentially might serve. Iraq, the Af-Pak theatre, other muslim countries including Saudi Arabia. Might be reason enough for them to go straight or fear the consequences of a “tolerant” muslim society.
Labels?, LABELS? We ain’t got no steenkin’ labels!!
The MSM is made up almost entirely of special interests who see their power draining away and are lashing out.
The MSM is made up almost entirely of special interests who see their power draining away and are lashing out at conservatives and the voting public.
Who really believes that the leadership will enforce it? Perhaps in the case(s) of unwanted or forcible acts, sure...but regardless of whether or not the UCMJ is changed, consensual homosexual acts are going to have to be accepted. After all, they're the new protected class.
Trying to regulate homosexual behavior in the military will be labelled as homophobia and discrimination, turning the services into a morass (pun intended) of political correctness and endless litigation. The left will do to the military want it intends to do to marriage and Christianity. If the politicians won’t stand up for America it will be up to the people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.