Putting political correctness first

Sandy Rios Contributor
Font Size:

An openly homosexual soldier, angry with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allegedly hurt by a break-up with a boyfriend, has just leaked massive amounts of state secrets.  By leaking those secrets he has risked the lives of fellow soldiers as well as contacts worldwide working to defeat America’s enemies.  Perfect timing, you would think, to argue against the overturn of President’s Bill Clinton’s 1996 executive order which made it possible for gays to serve in the military if they simply kept their sexual preferences to themselves.

But not so.  President Obama is adamant that this policy is “unfair” and overturning it will somehow make us safer.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates sees it with the same urgency, warning opponents like Senator John McCain that if they drag their feet on Congressional repeal, it will cause greater disruption.  In Secretary Gates’ world, the greater disruption to the safety and cohesion of our troops in time of war will come from those who would try to protect the troops from grand social experiments, rather than from those who want to implement them during the fight.

But how do our military leaders who’ve been in the field feel about this proposal?

The Center for Military Readiness has gathered the signatures of over 1,163 distinguished retired military leaders from all branches of the service affirming their support for the 1993 Congressional law banning homosexuals from service.  The list includes two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several service chiefs, a number of combatant commanders and other major U.S. and allied force commanders, together with two Medal of Honor recipients and hundreds of retired flag and general officers “who have led the men and women of our armed services at every echelon, in both peace and war, past and present.”

An open letter signed by these distinguished leaders expressed great concern that repeal of the law would undermine unit cohesion, discipline, and combat effectiveness:

Our past experience as military leaders leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal [of the law] on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness. We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.

But Gates’ ear is tuned to a commander in chief who has no knowledge of military matters.  President Obama knows nothing about military strategy but is full of knowledge and enthusiasm on all things homosexual.  He is an unabashed champion of “gay rights” and must now fulfill a campaign promise.

Spc. Bradley Manning entered the military under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and yet we know he had openly declared himself gay on Facebook, linking to homosexual advocacy groups and displaying himself in photos protesting the military policy at Gay Pride parades.  The London Telegraph reported he was considering a sex change operation.  So Bradley Manning was able to commit his treason precisely because the military under Obama and Gates did not enforce the law.  The consequences will be enormous as Manning perpetrated the greatest leak of national security in the nation’s history.

And he leaked the documents BECAUSE he was gay.  He was upset by the official policy and allegedly upset by a breakup with his lover.  Did he leak them because he was emotionally unstable from hormone treatments?  Hormones always precede cross-gender surgery.  More than one airline pilot has been suspended in the past few years for the same reason: erratic behavior and dangerous conduct in the cockpit as a result of hormone treatments to expedite sex-reassignment.

We may never know the truth, because no one seems to want to discuss Manning’s sexual proclivities.  It would be politically incorrect to do so.

This type of political correctness also applies to Muslims.  Does anyone remember Dr. Nidal Hasan?  The Ft. Hood shooter was an openly Islamic jihadist who wrote, spoke, and emailed his hateful venom while no one dared speak of it because Muslims are the other protected class.  Better to let thirteen young soldiers be shot than risk one’s reputation by pointing out the obvious.  His co-workers and military superiors were scared to display “Islamophobia” and make other Muslims “feel” bad.  It is the same with Manning.  Better to risk weakening the American military than to mention the current danger we find ourselves in was caused by a gay soldier.  The safety of our nation be damned; the protection of gays and Muslims reigns supreme.

The details of the case of Pfc. Manning should be shouted from the floor of the House and Senate and from the studios of every major talk show in the nation.  But they won’t be.  Politicians and pundits are afraid.  They are concerned they will offend producers and staffers who are gay.  Better to allow men to die than be thought “homophobic.”  For most, it is inconceivable that you could respect and care for gay friends and acquaintances without endorsing this madness.

And then to provide further cover, there is the Pentagon “study.”  We are assured that seventy percent of those responding have little problem serving with homosexuals.  But the question wasn’t asked of the entire military — it was a survey.  And the respondents weren’t asked if they thought the policy should be changed, only how it should be implemented.  Focus groups” in the report assured us that this would be easy — and necessary.

I am convinced, aren’t you?  There’s no way a survey under the Obama administration or General Gates would be skewed in any way, no way the questions would be asked in such a way as to get the desired response, no way there would have been any engineering of the data, and absolutely no motivation for engineering it.  Right?

An openly gay soldier has put the nation at risk BECAUSE he was gay.  Do we need a survey to tell us it isn’t so?  Do we trust a president who made a political promise he now must keep or a secretary of defense who ignores his commanders?

And what will we accomplish by making this hasty move during a lame-duck session?  Will North Korea halt its aggression?  Will Iran dismantle its nuclear weapons?  Will China stop hacking defense and intelligence computers?  Will a surge of courage course through the veins of our soldiers in battle?  Will their hearts quicken at the thought of a gay man joining them in the trenches — and in the showers?  Will homosexual Americans line up in huge displays of patriotism to join the military, or is it the thrill of furthering their all-consuming quest to gain acceptance that drives them? And what will that all-consuming quest bring next to the ranks of the military?

A gay soldier betrays his country because he is gay at the same time the president wants to force the military to accept gays.  It’s jut one more tragic twist in this dangerous period of American history.

Sandy Rios is a writer, a Fox News Contributor, the President of Culture Campaign, and a former Chicago talk show host. The former President of Concerned Women for America, she has been featured in most major television and news outlets and travelled the world from Russia to North Korea. For more information go to www.sandyrios.com.