Hillary and Obama both decided at first to avoid a position on the substance of the remarks. They then both released statements stating something completely different saying, "homosexuality was not immoral" to them. (Of course the General had been very clear in what he labeled as immoral - it was the specific acts.) On the GOP side, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have both long expressed a desire to see "open" service for homosexuals. "Open service" has become defined as being allowed to act on those homosexual inclinations that some feel. The military's current policy does not ban how one thinks, how they allow their emotions to pulse through their bodies, or even what they believe spiritually or politically about homosexual acts. The current policy merely holds in place the rule that they are not to be acted upon.
The comparison, for those of you who are liberal and still deeply confused by such blatant simple truth, goes like this. As a married man a soldier may believe that adultery is ok. He may have no pang of conscience within him that restrains him from doing it. He may often in his mind greatly crave another officer's wife, and even contemplate how he would approach it. But the military has designated acting on such impulses as being unallowable.
The General understands that were the military to lift such strict codes of behavior and to in essence allow some Godless, immoral viewpoint to become the basis for actions - that it would have devastating impact on the mental, physical, and intellectual discipline that the greatest fighting force on planet earth in such need of. Pace understands that to begin giving in to a society that argues its military should be run under the same feminized and immoral feelings of "if it feels good - do it", would be to invite disaster.
General Pace is a strong man. A man who stands in contrast to another man who has lived most of his public life in captivity to the modern feminist mindset - former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey.
McGreevey revealed this week in his on-going divorce dispute that he is now seeking child-support payments from the woman he used to provide a living for - while she was busy raising their daughter. That's right - he's off in anonymous sex trysts in national parks, and his wife was putting their beautiful seven year old girl to bed at night having to try to explain where daddy was. Of course she didn't know either. The point being that real man would never leave the protection and provision of the wife he swore an oath before God to. And certainly no real man would be off in the woods, doing unspeakable deeds and putting his family, job, and community at risk.
Yet the criticism from this week has been fierce and focused only on Pace - a real man.
Real men take it on the chin sometimes. Many times they are maligned.
But at the end of the day there is more contentment in the heart of a man who lives his life with integrity - then there ever could be with men who live enslaved to the impulses that guide their libidos. Liberals stand in profound confusion at how this is so, and because it is they grow personally hostile to someone knowing such contentment.
I do know that clarity and contentment in my own life.
NYT Journalist Wonders: "Free Speech Aside" Why Would Anyone Hold A Contest to Draw Muhammed? | Katie Pavlich