QUICK LINKS
McCain Calls Out CNN on Their Gay General
You've heard about it by now.
During last week's Republican Presidential debate on CNN, ret. General Keith Kerr---a national co-chair for a Hillary Clinton veterans group, asked the question, " Why do you think that the American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?"
McCain blasted CNN for allowing someone connected to the Clinton campaign to be asking questions in a forum that was intended for those who are actually interested in what the Republican candidates believe. Not in defeating them.
I agree with McCain. But let's forget that part for a moment.
Let's look at the question. Then at CNN's response.
The question:
"Why do you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?"
The question suggests that any of our US military people who do not embrace the gay lifestyle as normal are unprofessional. It further suggests that the candidates to whom he addressed the question--McCain, Huckabee, Romney and Hunter also believe that.
Not only is this a slam on US military people in general and the candidates specifically, but it is also an example of what is going on in too many classrooms across America in regard to the advancement of the gay agenda under the guise of tolerance and diversity.
CNN's response is equally telling.
CNN's vice president and executive producer David Bohrman said "CNN would not have used the General's question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate."
Sure.
But nothing about the question its self.
It would seem that gay activists will stop at nothing to advance their agenda and some in the media will stop at nothing to assist them.
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
12 Comments:
A GOP politician had to answer a question from a Democrat? Better break out the smelling salts, and prepare the fainting couches!!
Of course, a Democratic Polititian would never be asked a loaded Republican gotcha question. CNN would never allow a Democratic candidate to be asked a question like "I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?"
Oh, wait, what's that you say?
This VERY question WAS asked at the Democratic YouTube debate on CNN! How can that be? We didn't hear any shrieks of horror or clutching of pearls over the fact that an obvious GOP partisan was allowed to ask a leading at a Democratic Primary debate?
All of which begs the question:
IF the Republican presidential candidates are such shrinking violets that they cannot face a question from a Democrat, how can they possibly hope to stand up to Al Queda?!?
[b]It would seem that gay activists will stop at nothing to advance their agenda and some in the media will stop at nothing to assist them.[/b]
Yes, someone might even ask a presidential candidate a question!!!! When will it never end???? (as CNN admits an official Clinton campaign announcment had identified the General months before - CNN just didn't do their homework.)
[b]The question suggests that any of our US military people who do not embrace the gay lifestyle as normal are unprofessional.[/b]
Odd slant - people in the military serve with people who's politics, religions, and 'lifestyles' they don't 'embrace as normal' every day. Part of being 'professional' is to be able to work and do your job even people you don't necessarily agree with on non-job related issues.
So yes the question does stand and is deserving of an answer especially by Republican candidates - why can't our service people do what so much of the rest of our military allies easily can?
And of course the reality is our service people can and do right now as they have in the past - only pathetic, select individuals can't and most of them aren't in or have ever been in the military service.
As polls show the generation coming up has no problems with this issue - this is a dead horse being beaten just one more time to excite the petty and hard of heart.
Seattle, Gay Army officer veteran
don't believe that for one moment.
Most army personell do not want to serve beside openly gay individuals.
Does not the military STILL have the 'rule'that 'gays'/homosexuals are NOT allowed to be in the armed services!? I hope so. For years this rule has worked. Hopefully it will remain. Homosexuality is a deviant behaviour. This has not changed!
Rom. 1 has warned us to stay within God's priciples. Our forefathers set up our nation to do so. Let's not steer away from these basic principles. For those who disagree and who profess to be gay, there is a concern and acceptance for you as a person, but not with your choices of life style. Prayerfully someday you will be enlightened as to why we feel so strongly about this issue!
God's Love is for us all!
Gary,
I am puzzled by your statement:
The question suggests that any of our US military people who do not embrace the gay lifestyle as normal are unprofessional.
I did not read anything about embracing the "gay lifestyle" as normal. Based only the data in your blog, I merely read about internal qualities of being professional - the ability to interact in a mature, e.g. Christ-like, manner with other human beings regardless of their sexual activity (funny to even write this - why would I care about your sexual activity (assuming it was consensual of course)??).
Could you clarify the leap you made towards suggesting acceptance as "normal" - I don't see it.
Thanks,
Greg
In the 2004 election, the right wing couldn't talk about gays often enough.
Now, even bringing it up in a right wing environment is advancing the gay agenda.
My how times have changed so quickly.
Mark in Tigard
Until the "gay" issue is declared valid by good science and research (let alone by Biblical standards!) it should not even be an issue for discussion!
The CAUSES that contribute to people desiring to practice this abnormality is real and should be the thing that is addressed!
We do need to stop any questioning about "gay rights" etc. with the declaration that it has never been established as valid. Until then, the issue that needs to be discussed is regarding the CAUSES!
Otherwise, we are strictly dealing with a social issue of preference. In spite that many who claim the practice may well have no rememberence of how it got established in themselves! It is an emotional disorder.
That it has got to the major national level involved in politics and laws is pathetic!
I found this to be very interesting:
Christian Response to the Nazis
Key to understanding Nazism’s popularity with Christians is the Nazi condemnation of everything modern. The Weimar Republic was regarded as a godless, secular, and materialistic, betraying all of Germany’s traditional values and religious beliefs. Christians saw the social fabric of their community unravelling and the Nazis promised to restore order by attacking godlessness, homosexuality, abortion, liberalism, prostitution, pornography, obscenity, etc.
Early on, many Catholic leaders criticized Nazism; after 1933, criticism turned to support and praise. Commonalities between Nazism and Catholics were anti-communism, anti-atheism, and anti-secularism. Catholic churches helped identify Jews for extermination. After the war, Catholic leaders helped former Nazis back into power. Protestants were even more attracted to Nazism than Catholics; they, not Catholics, produced a movement (German Christians) dedicated to blending Nazi ideology and Christian doctrine.
Christian “resistance” was mostly against efforts to exert greater control over church activities. Christian churches were willing to tolerate widespread violence against Jews, military rearmament, invasions of foreign nations, banning labor unions, imprisonment of political dissenters, detention of people who had committed no crimes, etc. Why? Hitler was seen as someone restoring traditional Christian values and morality to Germany.
Kudos on publishing even material that would create questioning for your target audience!
I wonder why the gay general thinks that the American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with pedophiles?
Throughout history there have been cultures where intergenerational sex was deemed acceptable. Maybe the military should lead the effort to celebrate the diversity of those who prefer younger sexual partners. Is it more fair to persecute pedophiles for the way they were born, than to persecute those who prefer gay sex?
I used to be in the military and I now work for Washington State. One thing I have noticed that is different about the two work environments is that the state does not force me to shower with people who may be sexually attracted to me. Where I currently work, some of my coworkers are gay and that does not affect my relationship with them. However, I would find a different job if I was forced shower with my gay coworkers.
This in no way is homophobia. It is a reasonable expection of privacy. Much the same as the privacy that is afforded by having men and women shower separately. To endorse the current separate showering arrangement is not some twisted form of heterophobia. Endorsing the current military shower arrangements also does not indicate that I hate straight people.
As a practical matter, the military should preserve what little privacy the men and women who serve our country currently have. "Don't ask, don't tell" is absurd and should never have been made policy.
Well Dan,
First: pedophiles already ARE allowed in the military - pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children, doesn't mean they actually have had sex with them. There is no question asked nor test done to try and exclude pedophiles.
Second I think you are confusing pedophiles (those attracted to almost exclusively to prepubescent children) with ephebophiles, people attracted to those in early adolescence. And even those are allowed in the military - I had a guy in my unit who's wife was 16 and he was over 20!
Third the privacy dodge always fails because people in the military already are showering with people who might be sexually attracted to them - multiple survey's show that beside the 5% of men who have actually have had sex with men past age 18 there are another 5% that find other men sexually attractive but haven't done anything about it. What you are complaining about is you want to be able to pretend you aren't showering with people who might find you sexually attractive - pretty lame reason so say someone should be able to be in the military.
If people were able to be openly gay you actually would be able to avoid them in the shower the same way so many do if there is some one there they owed money - they just wouldn't go in until they left. :) Openly gay people increases your control of your privacy - you have it backwards.
You're right, Dan. It's not homophobia, it's narcissism!
What makes you think that any gay co-worker would want to check you out in the shower? Face it, we're just not into you.
Jack in Seattle
Post a Comment
<< Home