Why Obama Wants an Anti-Gay Defense Secretary

by | Jan 7, 2013

Barack Obama wants to appoint an anti-gay former U.S. Senator, Chuck Hagel, as the next Defense Secretary. Back in the Clinton Administration, Hagel opposed the appointment of an openly gay man to be ambassador to Luxembourg. At the time, Hagel said: “They [ambassadors] are representing America. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. […]

Barack Obama wants to appoint an anti-gay former U.S. Senator, Chuck Hagel, as the next Defense Secretary.

Back in the Clinton Administration, Hagel opposed the appointment of an openly gay man to be ambassador to Luxembourg. At the time, Hagel said: “They [ambassadors] are representing America. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel [the nominee] — to do an effective job.”

Under pressure, Hagel is now backing down from his comments. This means about as much as the words of any politician. Hagel knows that everyone else knows the real truth is reflected in his earlier comments on the subject.

The compelling question for today is: Why does Obama want Hagel as defense secretary? Fresh from his reelection triumph, Obama can appoint almost anyone he wants and the Democratic-controlled Senate will approve almost any nomination.

Why Hagel?

Obama, after all, credits himself with reversing the official ban on gays serving in the military. (Gays and lesbians always did serve in the military; they were not allowed to openly acknowledge their sexual orientation, until recently.) Why in the world would the leftist Obama go out of his way to choose an anti-gay Republican?

The answer lies in why so many conservative Republicans oppose Hagel’s nomination. The answer lies in Hagel’s views on foreign policy and defense—specifically, Iran, Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

Hagel is on record as opposed to unilateral sanctions against Iran, a country whose government denies the existence of the Holocaust and pledges to wipe Israel “off the map” once it acquires nuclear weapons to do so.

In 2009, Hagel appealed to the newly elected President Obama to open direct negotiations with Hamas, the infamous anti-Israeli terrorist group.

Hagel, who served as president and CEO of the World USO from 1987 to 1990, expressed intense opposition to the USO Haifa Center during a tumultuous 1989 meeting with Jewish leaders, according to multiple sources involved in the fight to keep the post open.

“He said to me, ‘Let the Jews pay for it’,” said Marsha Halteman, director for military and law enforcement programs at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which led the battle to keep USO Haifa operational. (Source: Commentary magazine online, 1/4/13)

Imagine if a nominee for Health and Human Services secretary was on record saying, “Let the blacks pay for it.” Or: “Let Hispanics pay for it.” The outrage would be deafening—and not surprising.

Why not even a whimper from Obama’s colleagues in Congress with equally racist remarks by a nominee for one of the nation’s most important and powerful posts?

Hagel’s anti-Israel voting record is too much for even the staunchly pro-Obama, pro-leftist “Washington Post,” who recently wrote that, “Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary.”

Obama is a politician, but he’s more consistent and ideological than most. To understand him, all you have to do is what most Americans no longer do: Pay attention.

Obama is openly sympathetic to militant Islam. He has been for his entire term of office. Obama does not waver. He often speaks highly not only of Islam, but organizations connected with militant Islam. A former Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Morsi, is now president of Egypt, thanks in part to the tacit approval of the Obama Administration. Morsi, as recently as 2010, reportedly stated in a public address that Jews are “the descendants of apes and pigs” and therefore must be expelled from the Middle East.

The official policy of the United States government, under Obama, is to—at best—disregard these comments. In so doing, our government implicitly supports them.

How do anti-gay remarks figure into all this? As everyone knows, Islam is violently opposed to homosexuality, to the point of justifying the execution of gays and lesbians under both moral and secular law.

Can those of you still paying attention connect the dots, or must I do it for you?

Sympathy with militant Islam is consistent with gay-hating and Jew-hating. Obama’s policies of supporting the rise of militant Islam in Egypt and offering to appease Iran are consistent with looking for a defense secretary who is openly sympathetic to these attitudes.

Obama never was a friend of individual rights or individualism. Whether it’s socialized medicine or thrashing the productive and successful, he places the collective above the individual at every turn.

Like every collectivist in human history, Obama inevitably favors some groups above others. Jews clearly do not make the cut; and gays do, but only when politically convenient for him.

Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, columnist and author of "Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)" and "Grow Up America!" Visit his website at: www.DrHurd.com.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Both Biden and his predecessor, President Barack Obama, promised that they had Israel’s back, but it now appears that they are painting a target on its back at a time of its greatest vulnerability.

How The Free World Should Deal with Dictatorships

How The Free World Should Deal with Dictatorships

Dictatorships use their connections to the free world to get unearned respect, steal technology and money, and spread propaganda. The best solution would be to achieve the highest degree of separation possible between the free world and the unfree world.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest