Member Login

You are not currently logged in.

» Register
» Lost your Password?
Article Archives


One of the most vital things for a successful dictatorship is military control. A politically neutral military composed of people loyal to the country, rather than its leadership, represents an ongoing threat to a despot.

For centuries, America has had that politically neutral military, but the Biden administration is accelerating a process begun under Obama, which is to weaken military readiness while ensuring that both officers and troops hew to a specific political ideology.

In the first five years of his presidency, Obama fired almost 200 military officers, some of whom felt very strongly that there was an ideological purge taking place. Certainly, the Pentagon class’s willing embrace of leftist ideologies (DEI, CRT and, especially, LGBTQ+++) indicates that those in charge of the military’s strange new destiny are on board with all of this.

And when I say “willing embrace,” I mean that we haven’t seen anyone take a principled stand by resigning and speaking up about the madness.

I’m sure that there are a lot of conservative officers in the military who don’t like what’s happening but remain silent because they feel a duty of loyalty to the men and women who report to them. Maybe they see themselves as a bulwark against the madness of bringing race hatred, anti-Americanism, and gender confusion to what’s supposed to be a non-partisan organization that exists to keep America safe.


Indeed, Army Maj. Gen. Kenneth Kamper was one such officer, a man who ignored politics and lived to ensure that the people serving under his command were optimally prepared for potential battle. However, last Wednesday (6/14), the Pentagon relieved Kamper of command from the “fires school” at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

The reason given was a “loss of trust and confidence in his ability to command.” The actual sin was the allegation that he hunted on Fort property without abiding by procedures:

The investigation is tied to hunting on Fort Sill property, with some complaints revolving around Kamper allegedly not going through the proper approval process and skirting local rules, according to two Army officials with direct knowledge of the situation.

I won’t comment on whether this is a traditionally accepted ground for removing a senior officer from command. I’ll note only that another senior officer blatantly and very publicly violated the Hatch Act and was untouched.

That, of course, would be Space Force Lieutenant General DeAnna Burt, who spoke in her official capacity when she explicitly attacked states that have implemented policies intended to protect children from receiving toxic hormones and mutilating surgery in pursuit of the chimerical “transgender” reality:

As you saw above, LtGen Burt says she may be “compelled” to promote less qualified personnel in her hiring and promotion decisions due to “anti-LGBTQ+” laws in various states.

What Burt says is terribly wrong on multiple levels. Many have pointed out that she is putting LGBTQ+ sexual grievances ahead of national security because national security requires that she always use the best person for a given job.

I’ll add only that any person who believes he or she is a member of the opposite sex is mentally ill and, therefore, cannot be the best person for any position in the military. In a sane world, that person would be removed from the military on psychiatric grounds.

I have the same disdain for a parent, whether in the military or not, who would subject his or her children to the cruelty of body mutilation. Were that parent to insist on binding the child’s feet or molding an infant’s head, the parent’s unfitness for any type of military position would be blindingly obvious.


Aside from Burt’s attack on military readiness, there’s also the problem of her openly taking sides in a political issue, the issue being the hard-fought question of whether it’s appropriate to mutilate children’s bodies in pursuit of an unproven, unscientific theory that is already being abandoned across Europe.

Doing so appears to be an open violation of the Hatch Act (government employees may not engage in political activity). Even more significantly, Burt openly advanced a partisan position, something the military is supposed to strongly discourages to ensure a non-partisan military that fights foreign enemies, not domestic opponents.

Before Obama and Biden, an officer who made an open political attack, as Burt did, would be out within hours. Now, though, the only person who’s out is the officer who didn’t follow proper procedures for hunting.

The one who used the military’s bully pulpit to attack political opponents and advance a wildly ideological position goes on unhindered.

UPDATE: By writing this post, it’s entirely possible that I just got myself on a list because I spoke badly of a United States general. If that’s the case, we definitely don’t live in a free country anymore. 


Andrea Widburg is the deputy editor of American Thinker.