, ,

So, Barack Obama nominates a guy to become the new secretary of the Army, and what’s the first thing about the guy trumpeted by the media in their headlines and first paragraphs?

The guy’s top qualification to be Army secretary? Nope.

His extensive background in experience and leadership? No again.

His top three accomplishments coming up the ladder? Uh-uh.

The first thing we’re told about nominee Eric K. Fanning in the media reports is that he’s gay.

And I ask: Why the hell should we care whether a potential, top administrator of an organization dedicated to killing bad guys and helping to maintain peace through strength is a homosexual?

Somebody please tell us what difference it makes insofar as being the U.S. Army’s top administrator that Eric Fanning prefers males over females in his private sexual life?

Why do the media keep pushing the liberal Obama agenda in our faces? Is it really a “historic move” that Fanning’s nomination could make him the first openly gay secretary of a branch of the U.S. armed forces?

Is this honestly a “man bites dog” moment? (I guess, according to modern media standards, that would be determined by knowing the gender of the dog, eh?)

Save his gayness gene for a paragraph on the man’s background lower in the report, down among those details about where he is from, what college degrees he holds, where and when he served in the U.S. armed forces, and who his parents are.

If Fanning is a gifted leader filled with good strategic and tactical judgment, hopefully the U.S. Senate will confirm him on those qualities, and not just because the Senate majority wants to make a statement about self-declared transgender individuals getting their shots to serve in high places.

By the way, no pun intended with the headline above this rant.