Was Private Bradley Manning’s “WikiLeaking” a Gay “Extortion” to Get DADT Repealed?
….and other DADT issues that will never go away
DADT repeal in the “big picture”
What has really riled liberals during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we have a volunteer military. We have great young people who are so proud to be American that they sign up in sufficient numbers to field our armed forces. Though they try now and then, it has proven difficult and fruitless for liberals to protest war deaths, when the fallen have offered to die. The optic of harassing the bereaved families of American soldiers is not sympathetic.
Thus, the only way for the left to attack the military and all this annoying patriotism is to destroy it from within. By cracking open the spit-and-polish military discipline to demand the inclusion of open homosexuality, liberals can begin demoralizing one of the last stalwart, conservative, and patriotic government bureaucracies. Career warriors will now be forced to take meetings, get sensitivity training and be distracted from the prosecution of two wars. Hesitations will now occur where there never were any, because words and actions will have consequences. The new “gay” military certainly will know its “rights” and will be generously funded by activists to push for more entitlements from within the system.
Repeal of DADT is just one more progressive step to shrink our defenses and weaken us in the world. That long-term goal has only a little to do with gays, but they are useful tools for now. Gay soldiers are just one way to create chaos and distraction and eventually end our military.
The Ubiquitous Gay Agenda in the Bay Area
I am a heterosexual conservative who lives in the suburbs, pays property tax and has grown children who grew up here. Because I live in the very liberal San Francisco area, I have been observing the gay rights movement personally since 1989. It’s really not possible to “avoid” this pervasive social issue. There is now “Harvey Milk” day in public schools, to celebrate the murder of a gay pedophile elected official. God forbid you happen into San Francisco by accident during the “Bay to Breakers” race; you and the kids will see naked gay sex acts on the sidewalk with police standing by watching. It is, of course, not “hip” to complain about these affronts to good sense and decency. Everyone not gay in the bay area, has learned to live in fear of being “homophobed.” There can be dire consequences for being unabashedly heterosexual.
Gay rights groups are the bullies, not the “victims”
My observations over the years make me conclude that rather than being “victims” of bullying, gay rights activists are the bullies.
The most recent documented and anecdotal proof of this is the defense of man/woman marriage in California. In a “nut”shell, gay marriage was first banned by state law, the law was then ignored by the San Francisco mayor who started issuing gay marriage licenses, and the law was later thrown out bythe State Supreme Court. Voters then undertook a statewide petition to change the California Constitution to declare “marriage” to be [only] between a man and woman. The referendum won with nearly 8 million votes and 52% approval, but was recently thrown out by a gay federal judge in San Francisco. When the case was appealed this month, a judge with a gay activist wife was on the bench. The gay Republican group, Log Cabin Republicans, concurrently funded yet another legal challenge to DADT in the federal court based in Los Angeles. The liberal judge there demanded an immediate end to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell with her ruling and tried to enforce it with an injunction. At every turn in the legal road, gay rights groups have had the superior financing and the upper hand.
All of the above took years and millions of dollars in attorney’s fees, advertising and lobbying. The “untold” story about gay marriage in California is how viciously the gay rights groups, in the state and around the country, attacked their political opponents.
I have written extensively about how the church and pro-marriage groups and individuals who donated to the Proposition 8 (anti-gay marriage) campaign were tracked through their campaign donation records. Mormons, Catholics, and pro-marriage contributors, were telephoned, stalked, threatened with death, their employers were contacted, their homes and personal information were posted on maps online, their children were photographed….one of the men who was listed in the Proposition 8 lawsuit as a party, feared for his life by trial time, withdrew from the case and refused to testify. The ”mainstream” media mostly ignored this story. If this had been “tea party” supporters using these tactics, what do you suppose the news coverage would have been?
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal vote comes as a result of “gay-mail” by Private Bradley Manning in WikiLeaks??
I agree with Colorado Patriot over at GayPatriot blog that it is a GOOD thing that the repeal of DADT was handled as a “stand-alone” bill and not tacked on to the defense appropriations and that it wasn’t being forced on the military and American public by a judge’s decision. (He neglects to mention that there IS a federal judge’s ruling in Los Angeles which is mandating gay military service.)
What concerns me is CP at GP goes on to say that the main benefit of allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces is to “preserve national security.”
My heart stopped when I read it.
What does he mean by that? I guess I hadn’t really considered that closeted gays in the military pose a security risk because they can be blackmailed, but apparently this is an “open secret” in the gay community?
After this repeal is implemented and gay men and women are allowed to openly serve, as I’ve mentioned before, those with security clearances will no longer be blackmailable (for being homosexual, that is) and therefore no longer pose that threat to national security.
As I’ve maintained from the beginning of this debate, the real reason for repeal of this policy should be rooted in national security. While I regret that, even up to the end (as I watched speeches on C-SPAN2), that argument was rarely raised, and when so, was poorly made, the end result will be that national security is strengthened. In these days of Wikileaks and our lowest-ranking members having access to our highest-priority information, removing this security risk is vital.
His reference to WikiLeaks admits what many in the “politically-correct” brigade of journalists (liberal and conservative) have refused to cover, but which I have discussed many times:
The great untold story of the WikiLeaks scandal is that Army private Bradley Manning joined the military knowing full well that if he admitted he was gay on his application, he would not have been hired. So it is with each and every gay person who has been serving “under cover” since DADT became law in the 90s.
Manning was deceptive and knowingly broke the law by applying to the Army. Once inside, Manning decided that which end he has sex with is much more important than our national security. Spending hours on duty complaining on social networks about how “unfair” the military’s DADT policy is/was, he went into the unspeakably traitorous “black zone” of morality: he sought out Julian Assange of WikiLeaks and then stole more of the American people’s money by using his “on-duty” time pretending to dub off Lady Gaga music onto a CD. What he was really doing was downloading America’s security secrets and diplomatic cables…thousands, if not millions of them, and emailing them to WikiLeaks.
Manning is currently in the “brig” at Quantico, Virginia and he is still a whiny little worm. Manning has put American soldiers, spies and foreign agents and our diplomatic personnel at risk by stealing classified documents. While a “secret” grand jury is considering charges against him, he has been “leaking” again. In recent days, he has been using his attorney and sympathetic sob-sister media like Glen Greenwald at Salon to complain about his solitary confinement. Among other things, he is mad he can’t have a “real” pillow and blanket.
All this treachery against his own country, because he was unhappy about the military policy which he knowingly violated when he lied about his sexual preference to get hired.
If I read Colorado Patriot/Gay Patriot’s blog post again, what he is saying is, gays have been lying for years to get hired into military jobs, and knowingly setting themselves up to be bribed by people who would do this country harm.
What is patriotic about that? This is similar to the argument about amnesty for illegal aliens. If gays have known what the law is, what “entitled” them to break the law only to complain later about the system that is giving them a great career and benefits? And if they know that by lying about who they are, they put national security in peril, what is so patriotic about that? I can think of many words to describe that, but “patriotic” is not one of them. Treasonous deserving of hanging comes to mind.
For weeks, Americans and military professionals who have balked at the complexities and realities of what gay military service will mean, have been clobbered repeatedly for being provincial and hateful. We have been told how patriotic gays are waiting to sign up to die for their country.
Now that they have their wish, lo and behold, we get a very straight-forward statement from the gay community ( and I consider Gay Patriot a very prominent voice for conservative gays) that basically, gays have been knowingly putting us at risk, as Bradley Manning did, because they think they have the “right” to not follow the law.
Since I am well aware of the violent, bullying tactics used by gays against Proposition 8 supporters in California, I think I can read between the lines of Colorado Patriot’s essay.
Thus, I consider Colorado Patriot’s blog to be a very good insight into the kinds of pressures the gay community has been putting on the Congress to achieve this vote in the Senate. His blog post shows that the gay community has been committing an “extortion” against America – legalize us or we will keep joining the military and doing what we can on the inside to jeopardize the system.
Reading this post, I begin to wonder: was Bradley Manning’s gay Facebook whining and WikiLeaking treason contrived to put pressure on the Congress? Has the Congress been informed that there are more gay soldier-weasels like Manning who will pull the trigger on national security?
I am so shocked about what Colorado Patriot wrote and it occurs to me, it is likely very true. It is frightening. As he points out, none of this “national security risk” posed by gays was discussed by any Senator on the floor or in any committee. He thinks Congress missed the point. I certainly agree!
The damage that has now been done
Right now I am seething at this vote to repeal DADT and how it occurred. I weep for our soldiers who are going to have to deal with the chaos of a policy that is hurriedly approved with no thought to them.
Something as complex as this has been shoved into a few hours of discussion before Christmas. What an insult to our military that this is all the Senate felt was needed. The much-vaunted “report” to Congress was apparently an excuse for some Senators to vote yes, but as anyone knows who has followed the “survey” and the “report” as they were being formulated, a methodology was used to achieve a desired result.
Already, CNS News has discovered a report by the Defense Department which says straight soldiers will be ORDERED to shower with gay soldiers and will be ordered to share bathrooms and sleeping quarters so as not to “discriminate” against gay soldiers. Our DOD is actually taking time to make reports on this. And so it begins.
I am also thinking of the total clustef++k that the San Francisco Police department has become over the years, with constant bickering and litigating over gay promotions, and assignments and who used to be what sex. It also infuriates me that gays and lesbians will now use their political power to make the military the “gay employment insurance policy.” They will no doubt go to the front of the line in all considerations or they will sue.
Since the Immigration Control and Enforcement agency is now paying for “transgender medicine” for illegal aliens in American jails, I suppose now American taxpayers will be mandated to foot the very expensive medical treatments for military gays who will have or get HIV/AIDS from theirU.S. government-sanctioned risky behaviors. How much is that AIDS cocktail costing per month nowadays? What do we do with HIV/AIDS soldiers? Force healthy soldiers to wear rubber gloves to go to battle with them and risk infection? Give the HIV soldiers a military pension and insurance for life? Nice work if you can get it.
In San Francisco, even the million-dollar-plus expense of sex-change surgery is paid by city residents. Is it any wonder that San Francisco’s unfunded pension and health liabilities for city workers have exploded in 10 years?
Hey, America, something to look forward to: Sgt. RuPaul!
The things that the “politically-correct” crowd won’t say but should say are:
I will turn up my spam filter after posting this, but this sense of “gay entitlement” and forcing the American Congress and public to spend so much time on people who want to have gay sex is offensive. We are not “homophobes” just because we don’t appreciate having to obsess the way you all do about what goes on in your pants.
What liberals don’t “get” about conservatives, is, we don’t give a hoot what you do behind closed doors, we just do not want to hear about it. Paris Hilton aside, heteros just don’t need to discuss what happened between the dessert tray and the hot tub last night.
What DOES bother us, is, you are forcing us to legislate rights for a “preference.” No matter what you say about how you FEEL, there is no peer-reviewed science to show that you are genetically gay. None. You can point to this or that study, there is NO PEER-reviewed science. This is why gays offend many in the black civil rights movement. These are not equivalent causes. Huff and puff all you want about your “rights,” but what concerns constitutionalists and conservatives is, what will we do about the next “preference.” What will we do when the shariah law enthusiasts “prefer” to marry 2-year-olds at the courthouse? That day is coming sooner rather than later, thanks to the gay rights movement.
Gays may respond to that paragraph and say that Muslims also “have a right” to their happiness. Watch what you ask for. Read the Koran and see what Islam’s punishment is for homosexuals. There’s no way homosexuals and shariah are going to “co-exist” in any society. I have written more than once that gays need to recognize that their protection and safety depends on the strength of the conservative movement and the Constitution. Gays should DEFEND the right to bear arms and support the military personnel who are defending western civilization, which includes the freedom of gays to be gay.
Many Americans are justifiably offended to have to spend the “people’s time” on an issue of sexual preference, when we have Iran building nukes and a president who wants to dismantle our national defense. Sorry, but no matter how many of your liberal air-smoochers (and so-very-anxious-to-seem-“cool”-and-not-homophobic-conservatives) tell you how important your “issues” are, they just aren’t.
Americans should be even more offended, that in a time when our troops are dying in two wars, we have some skinny gay twerp named Bradley Manning getting even more people killed because he’s mad at America for giving him his cushy office job.
And let’s walk that back that point a little more. We have MILLIONS of people out of work right now that would LOVE to have the job of an Army private like Bradley Manning has/had. Millions of those workers would gladly put on an Army uniform, go to work and do an honest 8 hour day instead of listening to Lady GaGa, hate-chatting on Facebook, and putting fellow soldiers in danger.
And in the end……
My “secret” hope is that we aren’t quite done with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. There are procedural steps before it takes effect. Maybe they should be reviewed by the new Republican “cavalry.” I will pray for that. This repeal of DADT was done too quickly because it would never, ever come for a vote next year and gay rights activists know it. This vote was taken without any hearings for the public or notice of what the policy change will truly mean. The “study” to Congress is/was a joke.
In the meantime, I would like to request of the gay community which seems to have unlimited financial resources to litigate DADT and gay marriage in every state or venue, now that you have finally “won” your case in the Senate….can we please stop discussing gay sex and gay problems and gay this and gay that? You won. Will you please STFU so our country can finally have time to solve some REAL PROBLEMS? It’s enough already.
Why not divert those millions in lobbying fees and advertising and do some good works instead? It is very narcissistic to invest so much in your sex life. Contributing to more gay causes doesn’t count.
If ANY organized gay advocacy group decides to defend Private Bradley Manning, don’t be surprised if you never, ever, ever win anything from the American public ever again. In fact, if you end up defending him, don’t be surprised if you lose the legal ground you just gained.
Gays and lesbians who truly are patriots and want to serve in our wars and kill the Islamic terrorists who threaten our way of life have my thanks and my best wishes for a great military career. Kill as many of them as you can, because if the Taliban and Al Qaida get the chance, gays and lesbians will be the first to go.