In a November 18 editorial titled, "Barack's Brokeback barracks," The Washington Times again baselessly fearmongered that "[m]ilitary personnel whose religious beliefs conflict with the LGBT agenda will find themselves no longer welcome in the military" if the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law is repealed.
From the Times' editorial:
The unchecked leaks conceal the larger problem with the working-group effort, which has focused not on whether the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military - usually called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - should be repealed, but how a repeal should be implemented. As sources in the military "listening sessions" have stated in letters to The Washington Times, working-group members have promoted the Obama administration's social revolution from the top down. Military personnel whose religious beliefs conflict with the LGBT agenda will find themselves no longer welcome in the military. Even if the 70 percent number were accurate, that would imply nearly a third of the troops would be on the unwanted list.
From the November 16 edition of Fox Business' Freedom Watch:
Loading the player reg...
The slow-witted thirteen-year-olds Tucker Carlson has apparently hired to run The Daily Caller strike again:
Get it? Rosie O'Donnell, who is gay, is therefore half a man. Hahahahaha!
When The Daily Caller launched with $3 million in seed money from Republican financier Foster Freiss, the GOP donor said: "Tucker and Neil [Patel] present a huge opportunity to re-introduce civility to our political discourse. They are mature, sensible men who are very thoughtful and experienced with pleasant senses of humor and do not take themselves too seriously. They want to make a contribution to the dialogue that occurs in our country that has become too antagonistic, nasty and hostile."
I'll give Freiss this much: His quote is funnier than any of the Daily Caller's gay jokes.
It's been a little while since the Washington Post last provided a platform for gay-bashing, so let's check in on the On Faith microsite, shall we?
Uh-oh. This won't go well: It's a discussion topic about gays in the military. And the Post's introduction to the discussion quotes the the anti-gay views of three people -- but doesn't quote any gay-rights advocates.
And right off the bat, Frank Pavone, president of the National Pro-Life Religious Council and a Catholic priest (last seen writing in the Post that sex can only be had "in a marriage between a man and a woman, and when open to life") chimes in with a post encouraging military chaplains to denounce gay service members. Here's Pavone:
On military bases, when our service people gather for worship, they are gathering as a community called together and united by the Word of God. By so gathering, they are saying they accept that word and are striving to live by it. If they come together as Catholics to have Mass and Communion, they are identifying themselves with a community that has a specific set of beliefs and practices, and they are saying they accept those beliefs and practices.
Those beliefs and practices include accepting and respecting God's plan for human sexuality and striving to live accordingly. The chaplain's role is to lead the community in the affirmation of those beliefs, and to bring God's strength to those trying to live them. The chaplain draws clear lines between what corresponds to Christian belief and behavior, and what doesn't. It's not up to the chaplain to create or change those boundaries.
If we institute policies which are going to openly condone homosexual activity, let's not be surprised or complain when chaplains do their job.
So, I guess Pavone isn't among those who consider "unit cohesion" an important goal. Otherwise, he probably wouldn't be quite so eager for military chaplains to sow discord among troops by devoting sermons to the supposed immorality of gay service members.
Pavone also suggests gays shouldn't be allowed to serve openly, demonstrating a clear double-standard in the process:
Now if a gay person wants to serve in the military, I honor that person's commitment to defend this country and serve its citizens.
At the same time, I would think that defending the country and serving its citizens are precisely the motive for entering the military - not, on the other hand, making a statement about being gay.
I don't know where Pavone got the idea that people who want to be able to serve without lying about being gay are more interested in "making a statement about being gay" than in serving their country, but I'm quite confident he'd never write such a passage about troops who want to be openly straight.
Last week, the Washington Post reported on a Pentagon study group that found minimal risk to repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. According to two sources familiar with the report -- which is slated to be released on December 1 -- overturning the law would actually have "positive, mixed or nonexistent effects," and military objections to allowing openly gay men and women to serve would subside once repeal took effect.
Good news, right? Not if you're Robert Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries.
In an op-ed in today's Washington Times, Knight, a conservative activist and writer with a proclivity for making homophobic remarks, pushed back hard against the report, deriding its leak as part of a mission to "destroy the military's backbone" and expressing skepticism that most soldiers indeed support repeal:
Not all of the snipers targeting U.S. military personnel are in caves or perched on cliffs in Afghanistan. Some are right here in America, planting stories instead of explosives. Their mission: to destroy the military's moral backbone. On Oct. 28, unnamed "sources" claimed to the Associated Press that a survey conducted by the military over ending the ban on homosexuality reveals that most soldiers are thrilled with the idea. Sure they are.
Knight also claimed the military would "be used as a battering ram against American society's resistance to mandated acceptance of homosexuality" and concluded, "Watch this week for more leaks and talking heads concluding that the 'science is settled,' that GI Joe really does want Gay Joe for a bunky."
Knight's op-ed is just the latest anti-gay screed the Washington Times has tastelessly chosen to publish. As we've previously noted, the Times has an extensive history of plugging anti-gay smears, falsehoods, and distortions, including that repealing DADT would "break" the military."
However, mounting evidence reveals that the law isn't working and that repeal would not undermine unit cohesion and morale. Moreover, polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans support overturning the policy.
When it comes to DADT, it's clear that the arguments put forth by the Times fly in the face of the facts. Rather than offer substantive evidence, the Times goes to great lengths to promote an anti-gay agenda that relies solely on conservative dogma and the vitriol of other homophobes. This is both an insult and a disservice to all members of the military and the general public.
Here's today's Washington Post, on Sen. John McCain's opposition to repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the war hero and former presidential candidate who once supported repeal … is now trying to strip it from the massive defense authorization bill that sets Pentagon policy. McCain has said he wants it cut to ensure quick passage of the bill, according to his aides.
But the claim that McCain wants DADT repeal removed in order to ensure quick passage of the bill simply does not make sense.
See, just a few weeks ago, John McCain said he'd filibuster an attempt to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. The idea that McCain's only objection to including DADT in the defense authorization bill is that he fears it would slow passage of the bill is incompatible with his own statements that he'd filibuster DADT. People worried about legislation being slowed down don't threaten filibusters. They announce that they'll vote for cloture. And people who don't object to DADT repeal as long as it doesn't slow passage of a defense authorization bill don't threaten to filibuster repeal.
I don't know what John McCain's real reason is, but the Post should try to find out rather than uncritically passing on nonsensical spin from his office. Failing that, they should at least make clear that the given reason doesn't make any sense.
Take a look at the headline for this AP article:
The phrase "Pope defends family" in this headline implies two things: That "family" does not include gays, and that "family" needs defending from them. (And, looking at the article more broadly, it also implies that a divorced parent and his or her children are not a "family," either -- and neither is a couple including a woman who has had an abortion.)
The Pope didn't "defend family." He articulated his view of what constitutes a family and what threatens it. A headline stipulating to that view is pretty much the opposite of impartial journalism.
Don't see the difference? Try to imagine the AP using the headline "Speech defends family" for an article about a speech in which someone embraces gay marriage, single-parent households, and reproductive rights.
In his October 25, 2010 broadcast of The Savage Nation, nationally renowned homophobe Michael Savage did his best to blame the contraction of throat cancer on gay men:
Did you hear this? Oral sex between men is bringing about a rise in men's throat cancer, as well as a few other risk factors. Would you like to hear what they are? Would you like to hear this? Oh, that's right, how about marijuana? Oral sex amongst men and marijuana smoking seem to be correlated in the increase of men's throat cancer. It's a horrible type of cancer. Horrible. Just horrible horrible horrible!
Although ABC News did release an article regarding a study that links oral sex to certain cancers, the article never attributes this to gay men, as Savage does. In fact, the article never mentions oral sex between two men at all. The study does say that oral cancers as well as those in the neck and head can be caused by Human Papillomavirus (or HPV), which is, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, just as common in women as it is in men. In addition to contracting HPV through oral sex, the article claims that the virus can also be transmitted through other means, like open-mouth kissing, or sexual intercourse. The article never mentions sexual orientation at all.
Fox & Friends this morning provided further evidence of their willingness to tolerate any kind of hateful, bigoted rhetoric, as long as it advances their agenda. Today's example: Catholic League President Bill Donohue who appeared on the program to whine about perceived anti-Catholic prejudice in the New York Times. Donohue cited past artistic reviews, and a picture of the musical Divine Sister to support his claim.
If it had just ended with a well-known guest complaining about a so-called "liberal," anti-Christian "bias" in the media, this segment would be no different from Fox & Friends' normal campaign against any media outlet that isn't a political arm of the GOP. But, Donohue went further, using his appearance on a major news program to spew anti-gay bigotry. Donohue claimed that "if everybody practiced what the Catholic Church teaches in terms of sexuality, you wouldn't even have people dying of AIDS," and, after pointing out that the Catholic Church spends money "servicing people dying of AIDS," complained "and yet we continue to get it by these gay bigots."
Donohue went on to claim that the Times "hate[s] the Catholic church's teachings on sexuality," presumably because "it's a gay-friendly newspaper." Here is the interview, posted in its entirety just so you don't miss any of Donohue's vitriol:
Loading the player reg...
Continuing its long history of publishing anti-gay rhetoric and smears, The Washington Times wrote in an October 22 editorial titled, "Queer eye for the G.I." that the White House is "ram[ming] its radical homosexual agenda through the military." The Times further stated: "The destructive force unleashed by the Pentagon's collaboration with the leftist agenda is apparent from the circus created when homosexual activists like Dan Choi sashayed over to the Times Square recruiting center to make a political point in the short period in which the Phillips order [to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"] was effective."
From the editorial:
Pentagon officials have been pretending that they have not already made up their minds on this issue. Generals have issued blanket denials that the conclusions for the forthcoming working group report on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" have already been decided. It appears that as the White House rams its radical homosexual agenda through the military, too many generals and admirals are willing to sell their brothers in arms down the river if it means they can keep a shiny set of stars on their epaulets.
The destructive force unleashed by the Pentagon's collaboration with the leftist agenda is apparent from the circus created when homosexual activists like Dan Choi sashayed over to the Times Square recruiting center to make a political point in the short period in which the Phillips order was effective. Leftists are only interested in political points and symbolism here. Providing defense to the nation in the most effective way possible is the furthest thing from their mind. Treating military recruitment primarily as a diversity issue opens up a closet full of absurdities. On what basis, then, would the military discriminate against the elderly? Why can't grandpa become a paratrooper? Should the military not reject someone merely because he is handicapped? Why not a wheelchair-bound infantryman?
The judiciary's chieftains suffer no ill consequences when the unintended consequences of their decrees prove to be ruinous. That's why answers to the thorny questions of public policy belong to the elected branches of government. Military leaders also need a reminder that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is still the law of the land, regardless of the personal desires of the commander in chief.
WorldNetDaily's backlash against a judge's order to stop enforcement of the military's ban on gay and lesbian troops in the military continues with an October 19 column by WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving.
Kinsolving denounces the idea that the judge would "force the acceptance of openly announced buggers into the barracks," writes that it is a "very dangerous and disease-ridden judicial decision," and adds: "The recruitment of self-announced homosexuals would also cause a major medical problem given the sexual orientation's high rates of AIDS and syphilis."
Kinsolving ignores the fact that comprehensive medical testing is typically a part of any pre-deployment health screening process in the military. Screening guidelines and policies can be found here. Moreover, U.S. military regulations require continued testing of all active-duty personnel every two years for HIV, and experts in nations that have lifted their bans on open service by gay men and lesbians have said that the rate of HIV infection among the troops has not increased.
Kinsolving goes on to ask his readers to "imagine a Marine Corps general – whose combat record includes numerous battle honors for extraordinary courage -- issuing the following orders" on segregation of homosexual and heterosexual inmates. He doesn't explain what one's combat record has to do with following orders that exist only in Kinsolving's imagination. He also asserts, "Forcing any heterosexual midshipman to room with any self-announced homosexual midshipman would be an appalling denial of basic rights."
As you might suspect from the above, Kinsolving has a longtime obsession with homosexuality, repeatedly denouncing what he calls the "Sodomy Lobby." But his employer is just as anti-gay as he is, so he fits in just fine.
Last week, Judge Virginia A. Philips ordered the military to immediately stop enforcement of the ban on gay and lesbian troops serving openly in the military; last month, she had ruled that the statute is unconstitutional. Over the weekend, WorldNetDaily published a column by Dave Welch alleging that Phillips "fired a judicial IED directly into the effectiveness, readiness and moral of our military in a time of war makes this, in my non-legal opinion, an act of treason."
In fact, as we've noted, at least 25 nations, including U.S. allies like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Israel, allow gay and lesbian troops to serve openly. In a February 2010 report, the Palm Center reviewed the experience of those nations and found: "Research has uniformly shown that transitions to policies of equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful and have had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness. No consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that lifting the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military."
Welch goes on to declare Phillips a "domestic enemy" and calls for her impeachment.
From Welch's column:
We had ONE judge again overrule the legislative and executive branches, as well as our military leadership and the will of the people.
Regardless of the issue, what we again have by a Clinton-appointed radical is complete and utter rejection of the U.S. Constitution, the separation of powers and rule by the "consent of the governed." The fact that U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips fired a judicial IED directly into the effectiveness, readiness and moral of our military in a time of war makes this, in my non-legal opinion, an act of treason.
The raw arrogance represented by this Virginia Phillips should result in impeachment. She has proven herself not only unfit for judgeship but is in fact a "domestic enemy" of the very kind our military members take an oath to defend against.
In addition to the usurpation of authority, the blow against the values that represent the fabric and foundation of this county is even more egregious. Even the social engineers with much influence in our Defense Department understand caution is in order before throwing away centuries of historical military precedence.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins recently suggested that gay youths who committed suicide after being bullied were actually responding to their "despair" after being told by gay-rights groups that "they are 'born gay' and can never change." The FRC has long sought to minimize anti-gay bullying and attacked those who seek to stop it.
The Washington Post has spent much of the week under fire for its decision to celebrate "National Coming Out Day" by publishing an anti-gay screed by Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on its On Faith microsite, a decision it said was an effort to balance out a Live Q&A it hosted for Dan Savage, who is leading a campaign to reduce suicide among gay youths. Perkins' homophobic rant has even been criticized by the Post's own Jonathan Capehart.
Sadly, the Post's hospitality towards anti-gay bigots is not limited to Tony Perkins. Nor is that hospitality a recent development: In April, the Post hosted a Live Q&A with Family Research Council senior fellow Peter Sprigg. As I noted at the time, the Post's decision to host Sprigg was troubling:
[T]he Post's decision to host Sprigg is alarming … Peter Sprigg says "gay behavior" should be outlawed. And Sprigg has said "I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe that homosexuality is destructive to society."
It seems safe to assume the Washington Post would not provide a forum to someone who says the practice of Judaism should be outlawed, or that he would prefer to "export blacks from the United States." So why does the Post host anti-gay bigot Peter Sprigg?
The answer to that question is becoming all too clear.