A&E Didn’t Cave, They Saw the Light

ooo monkeyIn a fascinating turn of events, A&E has decided to reinstate former pariah (from their point of view) Phil Robertson, despite the clamoring of GLAAD and the accompanying chorus of homophilic liberals. Robertson, you may recall, was placed on “indefinite hiatus” for daring to suggest that homosexual actions were unnatural and considered sinful by God and His followers.

The tempest in a teapot boiled over a week or so ago after Robertson’s interview with GQ magazine in which he says that he thinks it is obvious that a woman’s sexual organs are more attractive to men than another man’s rear end, and that he grew up in the South alongside Blacks who, prior to welfare, were hard-working happy people with no animus towards Whites. Somehow these statements that nearly anyone who doesn’t drive a car with an Obama sticker on the rear bumper would agree with angered radical homosexuals and race-baiters.

A&E responded in a knee-jerk fashion in their statement, “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.”

The problem for A&E is that his personal belief in God and in what He has revealed IS reflected in the series Duck Dynasty, and that is one of the reasons it is so wildly popular. It is unlikely, in fact, that the show’s viewers are “strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community”. As a result, the backlash was tremendous, with people even going so far as to wear camouflage clothing to church. Stores sold out of Dynasty merchandise, and boycotts were planned for establishments like Cracker Barrel who intended to dump the Dynasty merchandise. Boycotting A&E was assured.

So, after thinking twice about losing viewership of their show with record-breaking popularity, A&E backed down. “While Phil’s comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the ‘coarse language’ he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article,” the statement said. “He also made it clear he would ‘never incite or encourage hate.”

Of course, Robertson did not use coarse language; he used medical terminology. In terms of inciting or encouraging hate, he never said anything that could possibly be so construed, unless you think that criticism of Obama’s health care plan is somehow racism. Nevertheless, they realized their mistake and came around.

Reading the comments to this story on various sites where it was reported was interesting and instructive. Oddly enough, some commentators were critical of A&E, saying that they “caved to the almighty dollar” and somehow abandoned principles in so doing. Considering that many if not most of the folks at A&E are ostensibly Christian, and this entire business of being “supporters and champions of the LGBT community” is a recent phenomenon resulting from the unprecedented rise of nominal acceptance of something anathema to Christianity due to political machinations by the Obama left, their suspension of Robertson could hardly have resulted from long-held values and principles. It was much more likely due to following the Hollywood crowd, political pressure, and the threats of the homosexuals and their sympathizers.

Still, is doing what results in more viewership, and of course more profit as a result, somehow wrong?
To put this in proper perspective, what is the mission of A&E Network? Presumably, to provide entertainment. Is the constant pro-homosexual, pro-divorce, pro-feminist, anti-family message of most of Hollywood entertainment? If it is not, how do people indicate that to the networks? By voting. Since there are no “polls” per se, the “votes” are tallied by the ratings from Nielson and similar agencies, by the purchase of associated merchandise, and by sponsor patronage. So, when what the network presents as entertainment does not entertain, you turn it off. If it downright offensive, you turn it off, and you don’t patronize sponsors who support it. What other means do people have of voicing their displeasure?

Our country claims to have a representative system of government. I personally wonder just whom our government represents. Politicians on both sides say what they need to say to get elected, and then do whatever they please afterward. They are aided in this by their term length, because the longer it is, the more time people have to forget what they did during their term. Did you ever wonder why our Representatives are more conservative and seem to reflect more closely the wishes of their constituencies than our Senators? Could be that people’s memories are good enough that they can remember for two years, but not for six.

But I digress. What has happened in America is that Obama and his ilk in the Democrat party have divided people into small special interest groups, told them that the other groups are all against them, and convinced them that their only hope is in the Democrat party. These people may have little in common, but they hold their noses and vote for the Democrats because they believe they are their only hope.

Thus you have the pro-abort people voting for Democrats, and you have the pro-homosexual people voting for Democrats. Do these people have the same beliefs? Do homosexuals need abortions? They simply vote for the party that has promised to give them whatever they want, and they agree, reluctantly, to take what comes with it. That is why many fiscally conservative homosexuals vote for the Democrats who are destroying and redistributing their wealth. They feel they have nowhere else to turn.

So in this case, we have a legal system made up of liberal appointed judges who answer to no one, and politicians who are elected by a coalition of basically single-issue voters who are satisfied as long as their issue is addressed. These are the people who are pushing the homosexual agenda. However, what would happen if we had a chance to go to the polls and vote on things such as the use of books like “Heather Has Two Mommies” in our schools, or our children being forced to share bathrooms and locker rooms with children of the opposite sex? How about deciding if we should take down the Ten Commandments from public buildings or crosses from national cemeteries?

I submit that this is what happened with Duck Dynasty. A single issue, the normalcy of homosexual activity was voted upon, and it was voted down. I submit that this “vote” says a lot more about the real feelings and beliefs of the American people than the fact that they keep voting for liberals.

No, A&E didn’t cave. A&E saw the light.

About the author: Pat Henry

Pat Henry is a columnist and a patriot from Hanover County, Virginia, a state that resisted ratification of the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added to protect the people’s individual rights, which shall not be infringed.

View all articles by Pat Henry
Share Your Comments
Trending Now on GJWHG