I remembered that comment when I was told that conservative columnist George Will had endorsed gays in the military on Sunday’s edition of the ABC show “This Week” and had smeared supporters of the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy as unintelligent. I couldn’t believe it. But I checked the transcript. Indeed, George Will had said those curious things.
Although Will was referring to Republican members of Congress as dummies, it is a fact that the chiefs of all the military services also expressed their opposition to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” at this time. Are they stupid, too?
Sunday, May 30, will mark the day when George Will sold out.
On this occasion, he decided to take a politically expedient viewpoint, which won him plaudits from the other panelists, but the policy position he took is demonstrably fraught with dangers for our troops. It is reckless and dangerous, primarily because Will and other panelists refused to come to grips with the health impact of gays in the military. Instead, they talked about gays they know, or the gays their kids knew, as if the only factor is whether you can interact with them at a cocktail party.
Socializing with gays is not the main issue, although it can be a problem in the close quarters and battlefield conditions that our soldiers are forced to endure. The key problem is that the blood of male homosexuals is contaminated with HIV and other diseases that can cause death.
These infectious agents cannot be effectively screened out of the blood supply. That is why gay males are prohibited from donating blood.
What George Will may not understand is that the gays are already moving beyond the issue of acceptance in the military to demanding that the federal government lift the ban on gay blood, putting all of our lives at risk and in jeopardy.
It was not always this way with Will. Back in 2007 he seemed aware of the authoritarian nature of the gay agenda, noting in a critical column that they were trying to label support for traditional values as homophobic and a hate crime. He wrote a 2009 column defending California’s vote in favor of traditional marriage and criticizing efforts to undo it.
But somewhere along the way, possibly in response to criticism of columns like that, Will decided to give up the fight. Perhaps he started moving this way after the election when he hosted a dinner party for then-President elect Obama. In any case, the drift reached a ridiculous extreme on Sunday’s “This Week” program, when asked why Republicans in Congress were fighting repeal of the homosexual exclusion policy, and Will replied with the comment, “They’re not being very intelligent.” The other panelists chuckled.
This is what George Will has become—a purveyor of insults against those who used to treat his columns as authoritative. He apparently has discovered that it plays well to the liberal intelligentsia and saves him a lot of hate mail. He has found his new “base,” just like other conservatives who sell out. Now, he will be praised at the dinner parties with the “progressives” from the Obama Administration.
Whatever the motivation, I remember being struck when I listened to George Will’s speech at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and thought about how it was narrowly focused on economics and had ignored the moral and social dimensions of the crisis that affects our nation.
I know that George Will is aware of the moral crisis, especially how it is reflected in the acceptance of the hideous practice of abortion on demand in the United States . Will has a child with Down syndrome and he has written about how society is targeting a whole class of citizens with this disability for elimination. With good reason, he finds it morally objectionable.
Will George Will now abandon this issue as well?
Fortunately, there are parents like Kurt Kondrich of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who keep this issue alive. You may remember that Kurt and his wife Margie and their Down syndrome daughter, Chloe, met with Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign. The meeting received national attention.
Kurt has written a short piece with a new twist on the “profiling” controversy involving the new Arizona immigration law. He writes about the issue of “Prenatal Disability Profiling” and says:
“Since passage of the new Arizona immigration law to curb the flow of illegal aliens into this country there has been a lot of talk about ‘profiling.’ Profiling can be defined as targeting an individual for criminal activity based upon race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Many people across this nation decry this procedure as outrageous and unacceptable. There is a targeted group of unborn children who are profiled and targeted daily, and none of them have engaged in any type of criminal activity. Their only crime is they do not meet the standards of perfection and beauty a lost culture has deemed necessary to enter this world. The extra chromosome they carry is being genetically profiled, and their unique, angelic traits do not allow the majority of them to secure ‘entry’ into this world.
“When a person is profiled and identified as an illegal alien the most severe penalty can be deportation. When a child is prenatally profiled and identified as having Down syndrome the penalty in 90% plus of the cases is termination. In all my years as a Police Officer I cannot recall a criminal case involving an individual with Down syndrome, and I often think how better off our society would be if these terminated ‘profiled’ individuals had been granted citizenship. It is frightening how silent the outcry is for this form of profiling, and my prayer is that this nation and world will wake up soon and recognize the true injustice of ‘Prenatal Disability Profiling.’”
The reason the unborn are targeted for elimination is that they are not considered members of the protected groups of people under the Marxist view. Their status is of secondary importance to the rights of women, one of the protected groups. On the other hand, illegal aliens and gays are considered victims of American society and have been elevated to protected status. As such, the view is that they should and must be given special rights.
George Will is just the latest example of a trend by some “conservatives” to surrender on the cultural issues and fight the battle on economic grounds. Another example is his fellow “conservative” columnist, Kathleen Parker, also of the Washington Post writers group. She has become pro-gay as well.
When translated into political terms, this becomes the kind of “new” or “progressive” conservatism that we saw in the British Conservative Party, which failed to win a majority of the vote in the recent British elections and now has to exercise power in collaboration with a far-left party. We have called them the fake conservatives. British Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader David Cameron is so much of a panderer to the militant homosexuals in Britain that he told them he wants to rid “homophobia” from the schools, give special funding to the transgendered, and provide tax breaks for homosexual couples.
Does George Will consider this an “intelligent” course for the Republicans that he now spends time insulting?
It is tragic to see a pillar of the conservative media become a captive of the lost culture. The American conservative movement has lost one of its greatest columnists.