James Burnham’s 1964 classic, The Suicide of the West, was on my mind when I heard that Rush Limbaugh had homosexual entertainer Elton John perform at his wedding. Limbaugh is a great conservative entertainer, but he could have picked better entertainment at his own wedding. Such a decision carries great weight. It says that Limbaugh himself is giving up on fighting the social and cultural war and that he wants to “make peace” with the Hollywood left that has been so determined to vilify and destroy him.
Then I heard that Ann Coulter is speaking at the GOProud homosexual convention and that Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas is making an appearance at the homosexual Log Cabin Republican dinner. Before that, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels had called for a “truce” in the cultural war. It looks like surrender or suicide to me.
The Burnham book is about liberalism being the ideology of suicide. Why are so many conservatives ready to jump to our deaths by pretending that liberalism’s practitioners can be appeased or accommodated? It is because money takes precedence over anything else. The gays pay good money, and they have lots of it. Some Republicans want some of the largesse.
The $1 million Limbaugh reportedly paid to hire Elton John would have been better spent on social conservative groups trying to preserve traditional values, including marriage between a man and a woman. God knows that groups like Peter LaBarbera’s Americans for Truth could use the assistance. Dozens of Marxist-led mean and angry “gay rights” demonstrators showed up in Chicago to protest LaBarbera’s premier Truth Academy. They fear the truth about the destructive aspects of their so-called lifestyle.
Meanwhile, in a post on the Bradley Manning homosexual military scandal, the usually reliable conservative-oriented Newsbusters site asks, “Does the possibility that Manning’s opinions on DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] motivated him to leak the documents in question have any bearing on the validity of the policy itself? Of course not. No one is suggesting that Manning’s homosexuality in itself motivated him to allegedly leak these documents, and therefore that homosexuals should be banned from the military.”
There is every reason to believe that his homosexuality motivated the release of the documents. What’s more, the leaking of this classified information is an obvious reason why the current homosexual exclusion policy should not only be maintained but strengthened.
Our report about the homosexuality of accused Army traitor Bradley Manning, who served as an intelligence analyst, has been belatedly picked up by other conservative bloggers but the Newsbusters spin is shocking in that it seems to take the liberal view that we should not make too much out of it. The post is designed to play down the serious nature of this homosexual sex scandal and excuse the liberal media’s general failure to report on its serious implications.
Now, however, The New York Times has taken the story to a new and important level. Perhaps the liberal media serve a purpose after all.
The paper reports that Manning has been a homosexual for many years and that, two years ago, he fell in love with his male “drag queen” lover. So here’s the key question: Who in the Obama Administration and the Army knew what about Manning and when? The Times story suggests that his homosexual galavanting has been going on for far too long. He had not been in the closet, as required by law.
Here are some excerpts from the New York Times story, “Early Struggles of Soldier Charged in Leak Case,” by Ginger Thompson:
- “Then he joined the Army, where, friends said, his social life was defined by the need to conceal his sexuality under ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’… it was around two years ago, when Pfc. Bradley Manning came here to visit a man he had fallen in love with, that he finally seemed to have found a place where he fit in, part of a social circle that included politically motivated computer hackers and his boyfriend, a self-described drag queen.
- “At other times, he openly flirted with boys. Often, with only the slightest provocation, he would launch into fits of rage.…he wore custom dog tags that said ‘Humanist,’ and friends said he kept a toy fairy wand on his desk in Iraq—the more he clung to his hacker friends.”
A toy fairy wand on his desk? Did anybody notice that? Plus, we know that he had a Facebook page devoted to homosexual themes, including a picture of him flaunting his homosexuality in a gay pride parade.
Manning, under arrest and detention by the Army and reportedly under a suicide watch, is a classic case, if you read the entire Times article, of how a homosexual personality is created through rejection by his father. This is, of course, what the Times wants to emphasize for its own reasons. The paper is trying to create the impression that Manning was forced to allegedly betray his country through rejection by his father and the military itself, which forced him to stay in the closet in order to serve.
But he wasn’t in the closet. He was out of it, and flaunting his homosexuality through Facebook and marching in a gay pride parade.
Lt. Col. Robert K. Brown, editor and publisher of Soldier of Fortune Magazine, asks the pertinent question, “How did Manning get a security clearance? Many years ago, during my first tour in the Army, I was a Special Agent in the Counter Intelligence Corps. Most of the time I ran security background checks on those that were being considered for security clearances. If the check on him was done like we did it, all this crap the NYT has dredged up would have outed this guy early on. So, the real question is, who ran the BI (background investigation) on him…?”
The point is that the rejection, or the bullying that he is said to have received in school by those who knew or suspected he was a homosexual, cannot in any way justify his alleged treason. This scandal goes far beyond Manning himself. But the Obama Administration will want to contain the damage.
Clearly, the case justifies the original homosexual exclusion policy. In fact, the Manning scandal should be the nail in the coffin of Obama’s proposed repeal of the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy.
Remember that repeal has passed the House but not the Senate.
It is important to note that John Barron, in his book, KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret Agents, said the following:
Contrary to popular supposition, the KGB is not primarily interested in homosexuals because of their presumed susceptibility to blackmail.
In its judgment, homosexuality often is accompanied by personality disorders that make the victim potentially unstable and vulnerable to adroit manipulation. It hunts the particular homosexual who, while more or less a functioning member of his society, is nevertheless subconsciously at war with it and himself.
Compulsively driven into tortured relations that never gratify, he cannot escape awareness that he is different. Being different, he easily rationalizes that he is not morally bound by the mores, values, and allegiances that unite others in community and society. Moreover, he nurtures a dormant impulse to strike back at the society which he feels has conspired to make him a secret leper. To such a man, treason offers the weapon of retaliation.
It does not appear that the successor to the KGB exploited Manning. Instead, he was a member of a network associated with the shadowy and sinister Wikileaks.org website and its founder, the strange character known as Julian Assange. The effect is still the same—disclosing national security information to our enemies, undermining American foreign policy and our war effort. The lives of our troops and those who work for the United States abroad are in jeopardy.
It looks like treason in the case of Bradley Manning was a weapon of retaliation against the United States. It has damaged the United States and resulted in more torment for Manning. It would have been better if he had been drummed out of the service months ago because of his open violations of DADT. It would have been better if he had then received some psychological counseling and treatment.
It is not politically correct to say but this is the danger you face when a homosexual struggling with his sexual identity is entrusted with national security information. Admitting open homosexuals into the Armed Forces who continue to struggle with their sexual identity will only exacerbate this national security problem.
The guilt of the liberal causes him to feel obligated to try to do something about any and every social problem, to cure every social evil,” Burnham wrote, even if the liberal “has no knowledge of the suitable medicine or, for that matter, of the nature of the disease…
Admitting open and active homosexuals to the military will not solve the problem. It makes the problem worse. What these people need is real “compassionate conservatism,” of the kind that promises release from their inner torment and psychological instability. It means freeing them from a destructive lifestyle that has driven Bradley Manning to the point of suicide.