Has Obama slighted illegals and Islamists by choosing a gay Army secretary instead?

See also: President Obama nominates first openly gay man to be Secretary of the Army

Obama must be a big fan of "Operation Petticoat."  He just appointed an "openly" gay man named Eric Fanning as Army secretary.  Why it was important to appoint someone "openly" gay, I don't know.  Perhaps Fanning and his partners will openly show displays of affection  to inspire the troops.

But I do know that it was a great decision.  I have long been a supporter of gays in the military, even before there were gays.  What better place can there be for gay men to find other men to hook up with?  Just think about it – men in tight, cramped quarters, often for weeks at a time.  It's what the military might call a "target-rich" environment!

Furthermore, gays in the military really boost morale.  When a soldier fights in life-or-death battles, it buoys him  to know that the machine gunner to his left has a crush on him or the flamethrower on his right put a Valentine's card under his pillow the night before.  It's all about unit cohesion, and the unit is a lot more cohesive if there is a lot of ambiguous sexual attraction in the barracks.  And on those rare instances when the attraction is unwanted, the resulting friction will only cause soldiers to fight even harder as they cathartically work it all out in combat!

That's why I completely support Mr. Fanning's appointment as Army secretary.  His military experience or lack thereof is irrelevant.  He's going to be in charge of the largest social experiment on the planet Earth: the U.S. Army.  I trust he will prioritize reorienting the army from fighting radical Islamists in the Middle East to dealing with feelings about same-sex attraction and having seminars with battalion and platoon leaders to discuss how to better handle these feelings among the men.  What if a non-com falls in love with his platoon sergeant?  How do they deal with public displays of affection while on duty?  These are the kinds of issues that I hope Mr. Fanning gets the Pentagon to focus on, because the purpose of the military is not only to protect the nation, but more primarily to deal with issues affecting the gay and lesbian community.

I am a little disappointed with this pick in that Obama passed over some other candidates who could have contributed in other ways.  What if, for example, Obama had picked a radical Islamist, like one of the unindicted conspirators at CAIR, or perhaps the Sudanese father of the hoax-bombing clock boy?  Why not someone who could have taught the military to feel guilty for all those Taliban and ISIS they've eliminated – someone who could teach the military Islamic prayers to say before battle, someone who could build bridges with the enemy, perhaps exchanging information that might change minds and avoid a battle altogether?

Obama also lost an opportunity to appoint an undocumented Army secretary.  What better example could there be to the immigrant community of Obama's support for them than an Army secretary who is one of their own?  The Army secretary could immerse soldiers in Spanish language classes so they could acquaint themselves with our soon to be national language.  He could also appoint Army generals newly arrived from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, countries whose citizens have been historically underrepresented in the top ranks of our military.

Obama also could have picked an environmentalist to head the army.  Imagine if we converted all our tanks to wind power.  Think of how we could kill the enemy without increasing global warming!  And what if our bombs were all solar-powered?  We'd save a ton of money on explosives!

And lastly, Obama, while picking a gay man, lost the chance to pick a transgender candidate.  I think a man masquerading as a woman would have been a great choice.  Transgender individuals would be perfect for manning (or personing!) our nuclear missile silos, since science has conclusively shown that transgender individuals are more stable than normal people. 

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

See also: President Obama nominates first openly gay man to be Secretary of the Army

Obama must be a big fan of "Operation Petticoat."  He just appointed an "openly" gay man named Eric Fanning as Army secretary.  Why it was important to appoint someone "openly" gay, I don't know.  Perhaps Fanning and his partners will openly show displays of affection  to inspire the troops.

But I do know that it was a great decision.  I have long been a supporter of gays in the military, even before there were gays.  What better place can there be for gay men to find other men to hook up with?  Just think about it – men in tight, cramped quarters, often for weeks at a time.  It's what the military might call a "target-rich" environment!

Furthermore, gays in the military really boost morale.  When a soldier fights in life-or-death battles, it buoys him  to know that the machine gunner to his left has a crush on him or the flamethrower on his right put a Valentine's card under his pillow the night before.  It's all about unit cohesion, and the unit is a lot more cohesive if there is a lot of ambiguous sexual attraction in the barracks.  And on those rare instances when the attraction is unwanted, the resulting friction will only cause soldiers to fight even harder as they cathartically work it all out in combat!

That's why I completely support Mr. Fanning's appointment as Army secretary.  His military experience or lack thereof is irrelevant.  He's going to be in charge of the largest social experiment on the planet Earth: the U.S. Army.  I trust he will prioritize reorienting the army from fighting radical Islamists in the Middle East to dealing with feelings about same-sex attraction and having seminars with battalion and platoon leaders to discuss how to better handle these feelings among the men.  What if a non-com falls in love with his platoon sergeant?  How do they deal with public displays of affection while on duty?  These are the kinds of issues that I hope Mr. Fanning gets the Pentagon to focus on, because the purpose of the military is not only to protect the nation, but more primarily to deal with issues affecting the gay and lesbian community.

I am a little disappointed with this pick in that Obama passed over some other candidates who could have contributed in other ways.  What if, for example, Obama had picked a radical Islamist, like one of the unindicted conspirators at CAIR, or perhaps the Sudanese father of the hoax-bombing clock boy?  Why not someone who could have taught the military to feel guilty for all those Taliban and ISIS they've eliminated – someone who could teach the military Islamic prayers to say before battle, someone who could build bridges with the enemy, perhaps exchanging information that might change minds and avoid a battle altogether?

Obama also lost an opportunity to appoint an undocumented Army secretary.  What better example could there be to the immigrant community of Obama's support for them than an Army secretary who is one of their own?  The Army secretary could immerse soldiers in Spanish language classes so they could acquaint themselves with our soon to be national language.  He could also appoint Army generals newly arrived from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, countries whose citizens have been historically underrepresented in the top ranks of our military.

Obama also could have picked an environmentalist to head the army.  Imagine if we converted all our tanks to wind power.  Think of how we could kill the enemy without increasing global warming!  And what if our bombs were all solar-powered?  We'd save a ton of money on explosives!

And lastly, Obama, while picking a gay man, lost the chance to pick a transgender candidate.  I think a man masquerading as a woman would have been a great choice.  Transgender individuals would be perfect for manning (or personing!) our nuclear missile silos, since science has conclusively shown that transgender individuals are more stable than normal people. 

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.