President Biden’s Biggest Blunder was Intentional
The “Unjust Limitations on Women” Mention in the 80th Anniversary D-Day Speech
On the 80th anniversary of the greatest liberation campaign in the history of the world, the President of the United States and his left-wing speechwriters felt it necessary to bring up “unjust limitations on women being able to serve.” At the time of the Normandy invasion, the United States military operated as a meritocracy. Only the strongest units of the 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne, and the 29th Infantry, including the 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions, were chosen to take the beach at Normandy. Men who did not meet the stringent physical and psychological requirements for such an arduous mission were excluded.
By highlighting this supposed injustice, the President inadvertently shed light on the ridiculous notion of denying biology in favor of social re-engineering. The truth is evident: men and women are built differently. The controversy over males competing in female athletics should not be ignored by military planners and advocates of a genderless society. Moreover, the divine plan of being fruitful and covering the earth is embedded into our very being. Of course, men and women are ontologically equal in terms of being, worth, and personhood. However, in terms of pure value for the reproduction of the species, the female is more valuable. She has a limited capacity for giving birth, whereas the male has an almost limitless ability to establish his seed. This is one reason why women and children go on the lifeboats first. It is a matter of honor rooted in the Christian faith reflecting creation and biological facts. In terms of physical protection of the species, males are designed for the job. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a critical place for women in the defense of the home or nation. There most certainly is. But it does mean that we recognize differences and fight to win. When an intruder attacks your home, you expect the men—your father and any older brothers—to take the lead in defense. Why? The reality is that most likely, the threat is a male, and the strongest possible defense is needed. Tradition born of common sense dictates that women and children are protected first in emergencies because of their critical role in the survival of the species. All of this is basic to human existence. The fact that we have to reiterate the obvious says much about how far we have lost our way.
Beyond biological and theological reasons, it was simply inappropriate to raise any issue of injustice on this significant day. The remaining veterans, now averaging 100 years old, deserve a day of honor and gratitude. Instead, the President made a significant blunder—not due to incoherent mumbling, shuffling, or tripping over an extension cord—but a deliberate, planned, and forced error. Mercifully, the image of a wheelchair-bound centenarian D-Day Veteran standing at attention and saluting the Commander-in-Chief will outlast the liberal rhetoric penned by twenty-something staffers back in DC.
His speech was intended to rival Ronald Reagan’s iconic “The Boys of Pointe du Hoc.” It did not come close. Instead, Biden’s D-Day speech will be remembered for all the wrong reasons.
“Our nation is desperate for strong masculinity that protects our way of life and shows the next generation what it means to be an American man of honor. The lessons learned from winning World War II cannot be forgotten. It’s more important than ever that we teach our children about the “Boys of Pointe Du Hoc.” They were and will always be the most important example of American exceptionalism, which our nation requires to stay the shining beacon on the hill.” — Mary Rooke, Daily Caller
Very sad and true, and very glad to see you saying this. Not many Reformed pastors or elders, and almost no Reformed seminary professors, have the experience wearing the uniform and the rank and retired status that you have. You speak with credibility here in both military and ecclesiastical circles that almost nobody in Reformed circles has.
We can have a debate on the role of women in modern combat operations where there is no longer really a "front line" -- but sending women into D-Day? Really? On what possible planet does that make sense?
Yes, there were cases in World War II of female partisans and female Soviet snipers, but almost no military force in 1944 was putting women into combat roles. How was what the United States did an "injustice" when it was the near-universal practice on all sides of the war?
While I agree this is likely something drafted by President Biden's speechwriters, I do think he deserves more blame than would have been due to several of our recent presidents and most of our current national level political leadership if they had said this. Unlike President Clinton, President Obama, or President Trump, President Biden **DID** have sons who wore the uniform, one of whom served honorably though the other did not. Furthermore, during his time in the Senate, Biden had a legitimately earned reputation for being a supporter of law enforcement and the military back when police unions were still a significant part of the Democratic constituency in major East Coast urban areas.
That means President Biden knew better, and if he didn't, he should have. That comment in his speech -- even if drafted by a female veteran, which is quite possible -- didn't belong in a D-Day speech. There is a place and a time to have a debate about what we can learn from the recent experience of women fighting in Israel and Ukraine, but a D-Day speech was the wrong time, wrong event, and wrong place.
(My own views are that Israel's situation is near-unique among modern nations with a demonstrated and obvious need for virtually all civilians to have military training to defend themselves and their families, and the Israeli situation is more analogous to women being trained to defend themselves if attacked in their homes or public places by terrorists or invaders, and less like a typical Western military force.)