Worldview Weekendby Cliff Kincaid
The MASH television spectacle of Corporal Klinger wearing women's dresses to get out of the military may now give way to the Pentagon actually permitting transgendered male soldiers to openly wear women's military uniforms. This is what repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," could mean.
While some might scoff at the idea of transgendered soldiers ever serving in the Armed Forces, the transgendered are an essential component of the so-called LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) community pushing repeal of the military's homosexual exclusion policy.
Don't forget that the Obama Administration has already claimed credit for the first openly transgendered appointee to the federal bureaucracyÂ¯a man/woman at the Commerce Department named Mitchell/Amanda Simpson.
Rep. Barney Frank, who once got mired in scandal after ordering a prostitute through a "hot bottom" ad in a gay paper, is pushing another bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, that would include the transgendered in the category of protected classes. There is no reason to believe the military would be allowed to prohibit male soldiers from dressing in women's clothes.
While it is tempting to think that the only damage that would be done would be the turning of our once-feared military into a global laughingstock, there are important national security and health implications to the homosexualization of the Armed Forces.
One major problem is not in any sense comical. And that is that, since male homosexuals are currently prohibited from donating blood, their entry into the Armed Forces could mean disease and death for those who come into contact with their blood and bodily fluids on the battlefields of the world. Male homosexuals have been prohibited from donating blood because they carry life-threatening and deadly diseases such as HIV/AIDS.
Here's what our media will carefully omit from their coverage of this matter: a decision to repeal the policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) would mean that gay soldiers could be put in the position of donating infected blood to other soldiers in desperate need of blood transfusions. So a solder desperate for life-giving blood could die as a result of the transfusion from a gay soldier.
By the same token, a profusely bleeding gay soldier could threaten those caring for him on the battlefield, ultimately taking the lives of his fellow soldiers.
In a recent interview, former Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean, a medical doctor, told me that he believes that gays ought to be able to serve in the military but doesn't know if they should be able to donate blood. He said he would have to review the medical literature.
He made these comments as I was covering a May 2 rally, outside the White House, to force immediate repeal of DADT.
A position of opening the military to individuals with a documented history of exposure to deadly diseases, when there is no guaranteed way to screen their infected blood out of the blood supply, is obviously reckless and irresponsible. But that is what Congress is being pressured to do. The pressure campaign reflects the power of the homosexual lobby, which includes most of the major media.
Needless to say, our media won't be talking about transgendered soldiers and gay blood on the battlefield as Congress prepares, sometime this week, to vote on this controversial issue. All that we are going to be hearing about are the "rights" of the gays to serve.
But what about the "rights" of those of us who seek to avoid dangerous and risky sexual behavior? What about the rights of our soldiers who should not have to face the risk of infected blood on the battlefield?
With our troops engaged in two warsÂ¯and another war threatening to break out on the Korean peninsulaÂ¯it might seem strange that the Obama Administration, which says it wants to solve health problems such as obesity, is backing a decision that could mean spreading infected blood on the battlefield and through the ranks. But it gets worse. The Obama Administration is also considering lifting the general ban on male homosexuals donating blood. This repeal would apply to the military and civilian sectors.
All of this is being done for one reasonÂ¯political power. The Hollywood-backed and well-funded homosexual lobby, which occupies high positions in the Obama Administration, wants to transform the Armed Forces of the United States, compromising its character and integrity in the process. The readiness of the military would inevitably suffer as a result.
We hear a lot these days about "Big Oil" and whether the Administration will talk tough to BP. But if Congress votes to permit open and active homosexuals in the military, it will represent special interests taking precedence over the rights and health of all Americans.
While the media portray homosexuals booted out of the military as innocent victims of a bad government policy, they don't talk about the soldier named Johnny Lamar Dalton who came down with HIV after joining the service and then infected a 17-year-old boy that he had met in a gay online chat room.
If anything, the policy of excluding homosexuals has not been enforced vigorously and harshly enough. The military already cares for 19,000 HIV/AIDS infected soldiers. It is not known how they got the disease, but the Dalton case suggests that some came from prohibited homosexual conduct. Each patient costs at least $18,000 - $20,000 a year.
Consider that the U.S. Government has already spent $200 billion on HIV/AIDS and no cure or vaccine has been found. Meanwhile, gays flaunt their lifestyle, engaging in dangerous sexual practices like bare-backing, a form of anal intercourse in which one partner is HIV positive and the other is not and neither uses any form of protection at all. Despite the risks and the stakesÂ¯life and deathÂ¯the experts say unsafe sexual practices are on the rise among male homosexuals.
It stands to reason that admitting open and active homosexuals would increase the number of troops coming down with HIV/AIDS, this increasing the problems for the military and costing taxpayers billions of more dollars.
But common sense has taken a back seat to the need by the politicians ruling the White House and Capitol Hill to satisfy the demands of a special interest group and to get votes for liberals this November.
As a result of the repeal of DADT, thousands of straight and healthy soldiers will probably leave in disgust and dismay, while tens of thousands more will choose never to sign up. Our military will end up in shambles, the war against Islamic fascism would be jeopardized, and a draft would be required to fill the ranks with soldiers reporting to the male homosexuals already there and in command positions. They will demand sexual favors to rise in the ranks, creating even more problems down the road. It is a recipe for national suicide.
But don't think this would only affect the Armed Forces, as important as they are. Lifting the ban on gay blood potentially affects millions of people who may have to access the nation's blood supply because of accidents or illnesses that they suffer. Those absolutely dependent on blood transfusions to survive, the hemophiliacs, would face immediate risk of death.
Memorial Day is always a sad occasion, as we remember what our veterans have accomplished, in order to keep us free. It would undermine their sacrifices and dishonor their memories if the homosexual lobby succeeds in its battle this week, with the help of the media, in transforming the Armed Forces into a playground for their perverted sexual practices and incubator for their deadly and dangerous diseases.
Â· My foreign policy non-profit America's Survival, Inc, has produced a new video on the dangers of gay soldiers and gay blood. You won't find this information in the media.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at email@example.com.
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com