I wait for General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, to send an e-mail to me and my fellow soldiers in regards to homosexual Bradley Manning’s reported treason in the WikiLeaks scandal. You see, General Casey sent an e-mail to soldiers following Major Nidal Hassan’s jihadist massacre at Fort Hood last year in which he said that he was “. . . concerned about the potential for this speculation to cause a backlash against our Muslim Soldiers and civilians. We need to be vigilant to ensure this does not occur.”

General Casey apparently felt this e-mail did not sufficiently convey his thoughts or where his sympathies resided because he later went on Meet the Press and said of the massacre, “Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

Therefore, I now wait for General Casey’s e-mail warning soldiers against any backlash against homosexuals.

The Law and Army Regs

The Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion law is controversial and subject to interpretation. The law (Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.) and Army regulations state that homosexuality is incompatible with the Army (indeed, with all service branches). The Army had to have known that Bradley Manning was a homosexual based on the readily-available evidence. This means that the Army knew that Manning was a homosexual and yet did nothing about it—until Manning’s sexuality apparently led him to betray America and jeopardize lives. Manning, who served as an intelligence analyst and had a security clearance, has been arrested and is reportedly under suicide watch.

The Army states its policy on homosexuality in Army Regulation (AR) 600-20, Paragraph 4-19 (Page 28 of the Regulation—which is page 34 in Adobe Reader). The Army G-1 (Human Resources) also publishes a summary of this regulation in its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) pamphlet. AR 600-20, Paragraph 4-19, Subparagraph C (“Separation Policy”) states that “Homosexual conduct is grounds for separation from the Army under the terms set forth in paragraph a(3).”

Yet at the same time, Army regulation restricts leaders from determining (officially) if a soldier is a homosexual and therefore someone who should be discharged. For instance, AR 600-20, Paragraph 4-19, Subparagraph d(3) (“Noncredible information”) details instances that are not considered grounds for Army leaders to open an inquiry to determine whether someone is a homosexual and therefore should be discharged. The Army regulation states that “noncredible information” includes, “The only information known is an associational activity, such as going to a gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual publications, associating with known homosexuals, or marching in a gay rights rally in civilian clothes.”

In Manning’s case, he had a Facebook page devoted to homosexual causes that included a photo of him marching in a gay pride parade. His associates said he went to gay bars and he talked openly about his homosexuality to others. Several have said that he was angry with the military because of the failure to repeal the homosexual exclusion policy. Incredibly, however, the Army may not have considered any of the credible evidence that he was a homosexual.

It is true that Army regulations on homosexuality create a lot of confusion. And that may be intentional based on current Department of Defense policy. The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) says this in its analysis of current Department of Defense policy:

The shift in priorities, made effective immediately, worsens confusion and abrogates the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., which clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. By making the law extremely difficult to enforce, apparently by design, the Gates/Mullen regulations have created a new form of institutional dishonesty that is even worse than Bill Clinton’s administrative policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” DADT encourages homosexuals to enlist even though they are not eligible for military service.

Therefore, it does not surprise me that the Army may never have investigated Manning for his support of the homosexual agenda, for his frequenting of homosexual events and/or establishments because Department of Defense policy does not seem to allow it. However, Department of Defense and Army regulations did allow the Army to investigate Manning based on his declarations of being a homosexual who despised the Army for not fully embracing the homosexual agenda and not acting quickly enough to repeal DADT.

Now, however, the damage has been done. He is charged with releasing a video to WikiLeaks and is the suspect in the theft and release of additional classified information that has undermined the war effort and U.S. relations with allies in the region.

As the investigations continue, this is the time to strengthen, not repeal, the policy against homosexuals, and make it clear that involvement in gay rights causes and groups is sufficient grounds for expulsion. Under no circumstances should Congress reward Manning’s conduct by repealing DADT.

The kid-gloves treatment of Manning demonstrates that the current policy that the Department of Defense and Army have on homosexuals in the military stems from a desire to bow at the altar of political correctness and seek approval from the same-sex advocates and their leftist allies. The left has generated enough politically correct pressure that the Department of Defense and Army now go out of their way to ignore homosexuals within their ranks—even if that costs the lives of service personnel and betrays national security.

But there’s yet another interesting and newsworthy aspect to the Manning story: the left supports his anti-American actions and wants more of this kind of treason to occur.

Treason Support Groups

A cursory search of the Internet finds numerous Bradley Manning support and/or defense sites. Many stories across the web have either reported on the support for Manning and treason, or outright defended him and treason. [See, for example, “Antiwar activists rally around soldier suspected of leaking classified material to WikiLeaks,” “Activists rally to ‘Free Bradley Manning’ in WikiLeaks case,” and “Early Struggles of Soldier Charged in Leak Case.”

A Huffington Post propaganda piece, “Pvt. Bradley Manning and the New York Times: Manufacturing a Villain,” is so deranged that it actually portrays a New York Times article defending Manning but openly discussing his homosexual activities as a “smear.” Leftists proudly boast of their support for Manning, who is facing more than 50 years in prison. There are even some leftists, such as Michael Moore, who not only support Manning, but call for more people to commit treason. The Hill reported that Moore “put a link to WikiLeaks on his site, urging readers to ‘LEAK EVERYTHING YOU GOT!’.”

No one can ever again tell me that the left doesn’t hate America or that it doesn’t hate American service personnel. Michelle Malkin has a nice archive of material documenting this left-wing hate stored under her “They don’t support the troops” tag. Those on the political right who refuse to acknowledge this embedded and organic leftist hate are fools or useful idiots. The loyal American is an enemy to the left.

One would think that Manning’s actions would be a rallying point for the right, and that those who take the name of “conservative” would unite in support of morality. But this hasn’t happened. AIM has already noted that some so-called conservatives were slow in discussing how Manning’s homosexuality apparently led to his treason. In addition to the “conservative” silence on the apparent Manning homosexuality-treason link, many so-called conservatives have publically declared their support for the homosexual infiltration of the military and/or homosexual “marriage.”

John Hawkins and his Right Wing News (RWN) are the latest to support the homosexual agenda with the announcement that RWN is supporting Homocon, the homosexual convention coming in September that is going to feature Ann Coulter.

Hence, the Manning story has not only failed to unify those supposedly on the right, but it has become clear that some so-called “conservatives” are intent on fracturing and destroying the conservative movement with their abandonment of morality and their support of the same-sex agenda.

However, if society is going to ignore the apparent connection between Manning’s homosexuality and his treason, and if society is going to ignore the increase of problems that homosexuals in the military have already caused since the implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (see, for example, “Homosexual Assault in the Military” and “Male-on-male sexual assaults in the military”), then we need to be consistent and also get rid of all other standards and regulations that are causing “needed and skilled servicemen” to be discharged from the Department of Defense.

Discrimination and the Physically Unfit

The number of Servicemen the Department of Defense discharges due to homosexuality is minor compared to other reasons. For example, over four times more service personnel are discharged for failing to meet physical fitness standards than are discharged for homosexuality. Why is this? Why do we discriminate against servicemen who want to serve their nation just because they don’t meet someone’s idea of what it means to be “in shape?” The Department of Defense already knows that physical fitness is not a qualifier for competency to serve. That’s why the Army sets lower physical fitness standards for female soldiers and for soldiers of both sexes as we get older. Hence, it could be argued that the regulation on physical fitness should be dissolved because it serves no useful purpose and “needlessly discharges thousands of otherwise qualified soldiers when our country so desperately needs them.”

While we’re at it, why not eliminate all other “antiquated” notions of morality that cause us to lose valuable service personnel. Why not permit soldiers who lie, cheat, and steal to serve with honor? If society now deems “outdated” the notion that homosexuality and the military are incompatible, then so is every other moral standard.

By this standard, Manning should be forgiven—and even honored. After all, he was just “doing his thing” and “being himself.”

There is a final point to consider about the “conservative” silence on the Manning case.

Are alleged conservatives—who are so obsessed with political victory and building a “big tent”—so stupid that they are willing to betray the many millions of Christians who have supported them through the years in exchange for a relative handful of subversive homosexual “supporters” whose actual goal is to make real conservatism extinct?

That is a question that has to be put to website operators such as John Hawkins, as well as Senator John Cornyn and Rep. Pete Sessions, who are attending a pro-homosexual Log Cabin Republican event next month in Washington.

The apparent surrender of the “conservative” movement to the homosexual crowd brings to mind what Robert Knight wrote in “Conservative media fiddle while the military burns” on May 28, 2010 at One News Now:

The military is a linchpin for all of society. It is a bastion of traditional values. Former communist David Horowitz recalls that during the ‘60s, radical leftists determined that if they could destroy the U.S. military, they could destabilize the rest of capitalist America.

Knight says that one of the means by which the left would destroy the Armed Forces was to open up the military to homosexuals. It will inevitably lead to a mass exodus of soldiers devoted to traditional American values.

In the end, if major elements of the “conservative” movement embrace the homosexual agenda, the conservative movement will itself be destroyed, along with the nation that it says it wants to preserve and defend. That is a high price to pay for political correctness and pleasing the liberals.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author

Jonah Knox
*Jonah Knox is the pseudonym for a noncommissioned officer and analyst in the United States Army Reserves. He is an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran who recently returned from an eight-month active duty tour in Iraq where he helped in the counter-improvised explosive device (C-IED) fight. Mr. Knox has also worked for the Army as a civilian contractor.