The Army’s incomplete diversity
Ann Coulter writes:
The Army’s top brass, Gen. George Casey, responded to the military’s shocking decision to keep a terrorist-sympathizing Muslim in the Army by announcing: “Our diversity … is a strength.” And I thought gays couldn’t openly serve in the military.That is an odd contradiction, isn’t it? The Army most definitely does not regard the diversity of homosexuality as a strength. It prohibits homosexuality, drumming open homosexuals out of the ranks, on the basis that homosexuality is a threat to good order and disclipline, while it welcomes, or at least does nothing to remove, open jihadists and terror supporters.
This would fit my recent prediction (here and here) that when at some point in the future it comes to a stand-off between the mutually contradictory agendas of Islam and the sexual-libertarian left, Islam will win.
Ken Hechtman, VFR’s Canadian leftist reader, writes:
You write:LA replies:
Mr. Hechtman of course supports every conceivable leftist inclusion, and he wants them all at the same time. He wants Islamic polygamy to be institutionalized in Canada, and presumably everywhere in the West, and he also wants homosexuality to be installed in the U.S. armed forces, and of course homosexual marriage everywhere. And he expects to have what he wants. Thus he suggests that the Democrats’ absolute commitment to have open homosexuals in the military is tantamount to their having open homosexuals in the military. But the Democrats also have an absolute commitment to nationalized control of health care and the legalization of all illegal aliens. Their desire for something doesn’t mean they’re going to get it.David B. writes:
This entry reminds me of seing Brian Mitchell, author of a book about the feminization of the military, being interviewed on TV about a decade ago. He said that we now have a “corrupt and cowardly third-world military.” We see this in today’s events.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 12, 2009 10:43 AM | Send