Monday, September 27, 2010

Matt Barber and Washington Times continue fear-mongering about repealing DADT

| »
Illustration: General Gaga by Greg Groesch for The Washington Times
Illustration: General Gaga by Greg Groesch for The Washington Times
Count the number of ways in which this typically terrible PhotoShopping fails

If there are two things that Christian-centric legal pundits have consistently demonstrated over time, it’s how they’re generally both clueless about the laws they claim to uphold and are so often virulently homophobic. Here is the latest example: Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, takes to the Washington Times and unleashes a petulant screed against efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that feels almost inanely easy to take apart.

While preaching to the choir at his April 12 Nuclear Security Summit, President Obama revealed his perspective on America's matchless military might: "Whether we like it or not," he said, "we (the United States) remain a dominant military superpower." That the president would even imagine "we" might not "like it," betrays his fixed membership within that "progressive" camp of self-loathing "or nots." (Mr. Obama's anti-Americanism is showing.)

Oh, my, the President actually said that some – “progressives”, of course, according to Barber – were unhappy with how large and powerful the US Military has gotten?

Well – no, he didn’t. Courtesy of Media Matters:

Obama discussed "cost" of getting "pulled into" violent conflicts abroad. […] Obama stated that "[i]t is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."

So, Barber chose to start off his piece with some quote-mining over which he could then get all dishonestly flustered about how Obama is supposedly “Anti-American” because (supposedly) some Americans (progressives, remember!) may not be happy with the Military’s excessive weight. That doesn’t even make much sense if we take Barber’s out-of-context quote at face value, much less with Obama’s proper meaning. Stretching logic this thin just to attack Obama – Barber’s desperation is showing.

Indeed, if there were ever a question whether Democrats are woefully weak on national defense, that question was cleared up on Tuesday. Taking direction from Lady Gaga (evidently Mr. Obama's new national defense czar) Senate Majority Leader and chief surrender monkey Harry "the war is lost" Reid cynically attempted, but fortunately failed, to ram through a repeal of Section 654,Title 10, USC - the law prohibiting homosexual conduct within the ranks of the armed services. Just two Democrats - Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas - voted against repeal.

Don’t be surprised by Barber’s seemingly random inclusion of Lady GaGa in this; he actually spends a fair amount of time childishly attacking and ridiculing her for her support of repealing DADT (and, of course, because she’s just a trashy slut, donchya know). Also note his dishonest characterization of the effort to repeal DADT as supposedly allowing “homosexual conduct” in the military. DADT is not about gay sex and those who wish to see it struck down do not fight against it to see steamy male (or female) orgies erupt in barracks. DADT is all about forcing LGBT soldiers to hide their sexual orientation entirely and to openly pretend they’re straight, all from a patently absurd basis that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would somehow (negatively) affect “unit cohesion”.

Once again, if you think that is in any way fair or easy to expect of servicepeople, then try it yourself: Spend months on end pretending that you aren’t heterosexual (assuming you are) and aren’t physically attracted to people of the opposite sex. Go out of your way to hide any indication that you may have an opposite-sexed lover or spouse back home. It’s more than unfair; it’s downright cruel to demand such a ridiculous and oppressive thing from the men and women who fight for their country’s interests. That is why rational, non-bigoted people oppose DADT, Barber, not because of some absurd fantasy shared by Rightist cranks like you about ghey secks popping up all around the armed forces.

More recently, Mr. Obama, as did Mr. Clinton before him, announced similar plans to compel military leaders to permit self-described "gays" and lesbians to serve openly: This is in spite of the fact that nearly all top brass, in all branches of the armed services, vehemently oppose the move.

Even Gen. James F. Amos, the president's recent pick to take command of the U.S. Marine Corps, testified before the Senate just days ago that reaction among Marines has been "predominantly negative." He understandably fears "the potential disruption to cohesion that may be caused by significant change during a period of extended combat operations." It stands to reason that in the precise game of war, even a slight disruption in unit cohesion or troop morale can spell the difference between life and death.

But none of this matters to the Obama-Reid-Lady Gaga triumvirate. They've somehow concluded, in the face of significant evidence to the contrary, that 234 years of American history, nearly all of our military's top leaders and the vast majority of boots on the ground simply have it wrong.

Why, yes, they do have it wrong. Simple, isn’t it? Just as how every single human on Earth was once wrong about how the Earth was the center of the Universe. (Well, admittedly, some apparently still are.) There are endless examples that prove rather unequivocally how the fact that many people believe something to be so, does not make it so. That’s why ad populum is a logical fallacy, not a credible argument. (Not that it stops so many Rightists from relying so faithfully upon it, of course.)

The fact that many in the upper hierarchy of the Military (though far from all) think that LGBT people are a bad influence in the armed forces does not make this thinking accurate and is not a good argument in support of (or against) DADT. It is merely indicative of their generalized ignorance when it comes to homosexuality, and especially, other precedents around the world. One might point them to the fact that nearly every single other developed Western country has no homosexual ban in their own armed forces, and oddly enough, they don’t appear to be erupting in debauchery and incompetence; the fact that their militaries are less powerful relates to themselves being smaller and less wealthy countries. An intelligent person might see this as indicative of the fact that allowing gays and lesbians to serve (openly) simply doesn’t effect anything other than potentially increasing the number of recruits. Which would be a good thing.

Also, what’s with the scare quotes with “self-described ‘gays’”? “Gay” and “lesbian” are how homosexual men and women are referred to. Unless Barber just holds the word in contempt because he’d prefer to use what’s assuredly a much more fitting term for him, “faggots”?

In fact, according to a 2008 Military Times poll, Gaga's got it right. When asked the question "If the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is overturned and gays are allowed to serve openly, how would you respond?" almost 10 percent of active-duty personnel replied: "I would not re-enlist or extend my service." Another 14 percent warned: "I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service."

Of course, the potential exodus of up to 24 percent of current military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating to national security. But when those holding the reins of government function from an egalitarian, globalist, Euro-socialist worldview, we shouldn't be surprised that national security takes a backseat to political correctness.

Un, there are no credible polling statistics regarding the support for DADT amongst servicemembers, as critical analyses of these polls find that they are methodologically flawed and therefore unreliable. Deux, examinations of other polls actually find that the great majority of servicemembers are comfortable working around LGBT comrades and would therefore have no problem with the gay ban being removed.

And trois, if nearly a full quarter of troops openly declare that they’re bigoted and cowardly enough to actually refuse to serve simply because gays and lesbians are serving without hiding, then I fail to see the negativity in such a loss. Not only would there be more than enough troops left, thus making the void created by their departure irrelevant, but a certain influx of LGBT servicepeople who would be more than happy to join up once the gay ban’s been removed would more than fill it. The US would actually end up with a larger, stronger and healthier military all around. Again, that’s a good thing. So why do supposedly pro-military people like Barber oppose it?

While in the interest of promoting sanctimonious notions of "tolerance" and "diversity," we dress up our military like Poochie poodle in a pink sweater, Iranian, North Korean and Chinese pit bulls bark at the gate.

Well, glad to see Barber can resist the use of hateful stereotypes and absurd imagery in his arguments.

Naturally, Barber ends on another frightening note:

Progressives have had their fun, but the grown-ups are pulling into the driveway. Defense-minded conservatives must take charge in November. If they don't, America's historic stand as the world's dominant military superpower may indeed fall.

What then?

What then, indeed. What is it with Americans (not just the Right) and their hubris regarding their military? Do they really believe they need such an over-inflated, money-burning entity to defend them against over-hyped dangers? Canada’s armed forces are tiny compared to the US’s (93,000 total personnel compared to the US’s 2.9 million), yet you don’t see the country trembling in fear from attack. The truth is that the size of the US Military is used primarily, if not solely, for bragging rights and intimidation, and has nothing to do with necessity. A military a mere third of the size would suffice quite amply for the US’s defensive needs.

(via Media Matters for America)