The Washington Post claims in an editorial that there is an “uproar” over General Peter Pace expressing his view that homosexuality is immoral. This is another manufactured “scandal” designed to put a top official, in this case the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, in a bad light. This “uproar,” such as it is, has come from papers like the Post and homosexual rights activists. It is an effort at intimidation, pure and simple, and thought control.
At this point in the media-generated controversy, Pace has not apologized but has been forced to say he should not have emphasized his own personal views on the subject. Some stories are saying Pace has expressed “regret” or “mild regret.”
Whatever the outcome, and it is still possible that Pace could be forced to resign over this, the message has been sent: do not offend the powerful homosexual lobby, including the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), which on Thursday, March 15, will be sponsoring a New York benefit hosted by ABC News reporter Brian Ross. The “special guests” will include Natalie Morales and Meredith Vieira of NBC News, Martha MacCallum of Fox News, Soledad O’Brien of CNN, and Robert Lipsyte of the New York Times. Corporate sponsors include ABC News, CNN, and NBC Universal.
As the NLGJA website puts it, the event is a “special evening for a great cause,” bringing together “a glittering collection of some of the brightest names in media, journalism and entertainment.”
Is it any surprise that the media have made the Pace comments on homosexuality into a national controversy, even scandal? The national media and the homosexual rights movement seem to be one and the same. But that’s a story that news consumers aren’t being told.
Leading the charge, the Post found Pace guilty of making “public expressions of intolerance.” The subheadline of the editorial was, “Gen. Peter Pace denounces gays and lesbians who are busy defending their country.” But he said nothing of the kind, and the paper knows it. The deceitful editorial is another attempt to intimidate people into not expressing opinions that contradict the politically correct views of the radical left. The Post, which runs announcements of homosexual “weddings,” will not be content until homosexuality is celebrated in the military and the schools as just another alternative lifestyle. Pedophilia, of course, can be defined by its apologists in that manner.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth points out that the Pace view is consistent with the writings of the Apostle Paul, who denounced homosexuality as an unrighteous behavior that would keep someone out of heaven. So if the Post finds what Pace said objectionable, it is also taking issue with the traditional Christian view of homosexuality. Of course, it’s easier for the Post to write an editorial denouncing Pace than attacking a disciple of Jesus Christ who doesn’t serve in the Bush Administration.
This controversy says more about the Post than it does about Pace. It shows that a major American newspaper has become a virtual house organ of the gay rights movement. And it shows that this paper will not hesitate to use its power and influence to try to intimidate those with different views. It is the Post, in fact, which is being intolerant.
I was among those who strongly criticized Ann Coulter for using “faggot,” a disparaging term about homosexuals. What Pace did, by contrast, was simply express his personal view, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, that homosexual conduct is immoral. The Post editorial said in passing that Pace was “entitled to his opinions, of course,” but went on to complain about the impact of his words. What the paper is really saying is that he is entitled to his opinions but he should keep them to himself. Frankly, the paper wants him to shut up.
We are living in strange times when smoking is considered a serious danger to one’s health, and something which cannot be tolerated in most areas of public life, but a lifestyle linked to a raging epidemic of disease and death is regarded as a civil right that must not be criticized and even deserves to be celebrated.
The Post, in its editorial, carefully avoided the issue of what exactly male homosexuals do. Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus calls them “anal-sex practitioners.” That may sound shocking to some, but it is a fact nonetheless. The Post omitted this information in order to make the case that open and out-of-the-closet homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military. We don’t want to think about such things but we must as long as we have a media establishment, led by the Post, which wants public approval for engaging in such practices in the U.S. military and other areas of society.
When the Post devotes some of its precious and limited editorial space to denouncing Pace for his personal view of homosexuality, this is a big deal. You can be sure the paper isn’t doing this just to be fashionable. It seems obvious that one or more editorial writers on the paper are card-carrying members of the homosexual rights movement or sympathizers. In this connection, it is interesting to note that the paper has made financial contributions to the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.
Also consider the fact that the Post ran a February 24 editorial about the “Death of a Gay Rights Pioneer” by the name of Barbara Gittings. I have been writing about the homosexual rights movement for over 20 years and I had never heard of her before. It turns out, according to the Post, that she is the “Founding Mother” of the homosexual rights movement, a lesbian who led the fight to bring more homosexual propaganda into the public libraries. As long as we are on the subject, Post readers are also entitled to know that the founding father of the gay rights movement was Harry Hay, a communist who supported pedophilia as just another “sexual orientation.” But don’t look for any investigations by Post Watergate reporter Bob Woodward into the sordid history of the homosexual rights movement.
The Post is one strange paper. On some matters, such as its treatment of the Joe Wilson/Scooter Libby affair, the Post can break through the liberal mold and offer straightforward and well-researched editorials. But on the issue of homosexual rights, the paper is strident to the point of sounding like the Washington (Gay) Blade, the local homosexual paper.
The Post has not yet called for Pace’s resignation. But that could come if this media-generated “uproar” continues. Those who believe in freedom of speech, traditional values, and fair and responsible journalism should stand solidly behind Pace.