WHAT DOES the promotion of an open lesbian to the higher ranks of the Army say about our nation?

Tammy Smith was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in the U.S. Army last week and received her stars from her “wife,” Tracey Hepner, in a ceremony in Washington, D.C. She is the highest-ranking open homosexual in the Army.

Tracey and Tammy look like sisters, or perhaps brothers. They are not sisters or brothers, but two unrelated women who admit to all the world that they engage in perverted acts in private and that they reject men as suitable mates. And they are applauded as mavericks for these personal failings. Unsurprisingly, Hepner is heavily involved in homosexual activism.

Brig. General Smith, who works in the Army Reserve Office, dismissed any larger significance of her promotion. “For me, the story is about the promotion and the opportunities it brings,” she said, according to The Daily Mail.  Exactly. Our culture routinely combines plodding careerism with sexual decadence. The two are inescapably linked. We are living in the midst of a bourgeois orgy, with every sexual predilection unleashed for the sake of that vital, careerist synergy. We have the vulgarization of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois-ification of sexual perversion. I can imagine the Hepner/Smith home as a place of impressive furnishings and upper middle class solidity. They are no doubt solid lesbian burghers. I would be willing to bet a small sum that they have dogs and are devoted to their pets, whom they take for long, brisk, restorative walks when they are not working. To be a dog owned by a lesbian professional in the nation’s capital is to be royalty in the canine world.

While domestic deadbeats raise the nation’s children at considerable expense and effort, assuring that our country will have some future, however decadent that future may be, lesbians who shun childbearing gain national acclaim and glory for being dull, plodding, self-centered careerists.

Any woman, by the way, who calls another woman her “wife” is living in a fantasy world. I could understand this if she was ten years old and playing dress up with a friend. But such clinical delusions in an adult should automatically disqualify her from leadership in a supermarket or a gift shop, let alone a branch of the military.

—- Comments —–

Fitzgerald writes:

Most do not know this, but all upper echelon officer appointments must be confirmed by the Senate. Promotions such as the recent one for Tammy Smith are political and therefore politically charged. I would be interested in knowing which senators she has courted as this promotion could not have been approved without at least a small cadre of powerful lawmakers backing her.

 Buck writes:

Since she is the first “flag officer,” I wonder which flag she will fly and who would have the brass… to stop her when she does.

“Unsurprised” writes:

As one with a family member deployed overseas, neither this, nor the tales of woe at Homeland Security under Napolitano, comes as any surprise. I’ve recently been told about sexual fraternization leading to people being sent home, to utterly inexperienced women being put in charge and immediately favoring other inexperienced women to bully the men, and to general confirmation that the push towards more women, blacks, gays, and lesbians in the military have made the U.S. military no place for white Christian men.

Terry Morris writes:

And all on the taxpayer’s dime. God bless America!

James P. writes:

Fitzgerald writes:

“Most do not know this, but all upper echelon officer appointments must be confirmed by the Senate. Promotions such as the recent one for Tammy Smith are political and therefore politically charged. I would be interested in knowing which senators she has courted as this promotion could not have been approved without at least a small cadre of powerful lawmakers backing her.”

The new reality is that a Colonel who opposes gays in the military will certainly never make General. Most officers will see which way the political wind is blowing and never express any “homophobic” opinions in public.

Male officers in the 1990s were denied promotion for publicly stating that placing women in combat was a terrible idea. Today, male officers know better than to say this, even if they think it. Soon enough male officers will never say anything about gays in the military either.

Buck writes:

Two females referring to each other as “wife” (it’s necessarily both, right?) is more destructive than the homosexualist commandeering of the terms “queer,” “gay,” and “partners.” It destroys the meaning of “husband” and “wife” and “marriage.” If two merry males “marry” and refer to each other as “husband,” then what is an actual married man? What is his “wife”? Wife means husband. Husband means wife.

Laura writes:

People ask, “How will homosexual marriage affect me?”

For one, as Buck points out, it destroys the meaning of these words.

Why would a normal man want to refer to himself as a “husband” if the same word commonly refers to a homosexual in a relationship with another man? Even if a normal man did not consciously object to the implication, he probably would feel intuitive reservations. Marriage would not have the same meaning as before.

Homosexual “marriage” affects everyone.

Izzy writes:

The United States Army has become a laughing stock.

Please follow and like us: