On cover of the May 21, 2012 issue of their magazine, Newsweek dubbed Obama, “The First Gay President.” Instead of hiding their faces in shame, he and his party have embraced the title.
Last week Obama was “outed” by his vice-president, Bumbling Joe Biden. At least that’s the story being pushed by the Obama media (which includes almost all television networks and the largest national magazines and newspapers). Why would the media elite, who put Obama in office in the first place, push a story line that casts him in a bad light in an election year? Let me propose an alternative theory that explains this anomaly, and which fits the strange events that happened afterwards much better.
The media party line goes like this: Biden, in one of his famous slip-ups, told the press that he approved of homosexual marriage. Supposedly, this forced the hand of his boss, whose opinion regarding homosexual unions had been “evolving.” Obama, who planned to release his “new” position on the matter closer to the election (so the story goes), was compelled to make an agonizing decision to follow his conscience and undermine Biblical and traditional marriage by openly supporting the right of homosexuals to marry on a hastily arranged interview with a sympathetic reporter on ABC.
The media account is false on a number of counts, and they are well aware that they are lying when they push these falsehoods:
1) This is not a new position for Obama. He was for homosexual marriage when he was a “community activist” and when he ran for the Illinois Senate. When he ran for president he changed his position to being against homosexual unions out of pure political expediency; he didn’t believe he could get elected if he told the truth. Now that he is in desperate need of homosexual votes – and money – he has “evolved” back to what he has always believed, but hid for several years. Check the record. It’s as clear as day that he is as two-faced on this issue as he is on dozens of others.
2) Obama wanted to get this out of the way now, rather than closer to the election when it could hurt him more. He has been losing his lead with a number of important demographics, and he felt he couldn’t afford to lose the homosexuals. (By the way, when I use the word homosexual, I use it broadly to include all the other perversions that Obama loves to call the LGBT’s – Lesbians, Gays, Bi-Sexuals & “Transgender Individuals.”) The fact that many of these people have lots of money was also important to his decision. He knew that this was a knife that cuts both ways – his announcement would endear him to homosexuals, and would anger social conservatives in both parties. But he felt that if he did it now, conservatives would forget about it by the election. The LGBT’s won’t, and they wouldn’t have forgiven him if he hadn’t supported them.
3) The media ignores the fact that Obama’s announcement appeared to support homosexuals, but actually did nothing to advance their “cause.” He said that he “personally” supported homosexual marriage – but made no promise to give them what they really want, which is the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and a Constitutional amendment approving of their perverted view of marriage. Instead, he stated that he felt this is a matter for the states. Is he not aware that 60% of our states already have laws on the books, most passed recently, supporting God’s definition of marriage and outlawing same sex marriages? Obama always supports the federal government’s involvement in every area of our lives. But in this one critical area – on which the states have already spoken – he supports state’s rights. So the homosexual activists think he has helped them, when in fact he has stabbed them in the back.
Now let’s look at the timeline of events surrounding this issue which support my theory.
First, on May 6, I believe on Obama’s orders, Biden makes his supposed verbal gaffe. He stated that he is “absolutely comfortable” with men marrying men. He is well-known for saying stupid things without thinking first (a great quality for the man who is a heartbeat away from the presidency, by the way), so everyone believes that this was just more of his verbal diarrhea
Second, on May 9 Obama gives ABC an exclusive done with a pet interviewer, who, not coincidentally, is a lesbian. This is important, because he doesn’t want her to ask embarrassing questions like, “Weren’t you for homosexual marriage before you changed to being against it, and then ‘evolved’ back to being for it?” It’s also the reason why it was a closed interview instead of a press conference. He does a great imitation of sincerity when he describes his soul-searching and his consultation with his wife, children and others, who helped him have the bravery to make his courageous, heart-wrenching decision. By the way, this interview takes place the day after North Carolina (the site of the Democrat convention this year) overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage.
Third, the next day (May 10) a 5,400 word front page article magically appears in the Washington Post, criticizing Mitt Romney for allegedly hazing a homosexual fellow student almost 50 years ago. I say “magically” because a nine-page article like this doesn’t appear out of thin air. Even though they didn’t bother to check with the boy’s family to verify the authenticity of the wild claims made in the article, it still takes time to write and edit such a piece. It’s clear that the article had been created some time before, and that the Post was waiting for the right time politically when it could cause the most damage to Governor Romney. We don’t know for sure if the White House knew about it and asked them to print it. But the timing is amazingly propitious for Obama.
The article claims that the student (now deceased, so conveniently he can’t verify it) was bullied by Romney and other students because he was a homosexual. The student’s family says that not only did the incident not happen, but that no one knew that he was homosexual because he didn’t “come out” until many years later. The so-called “journalist” who wrote the hateful article exclaims, “I’m surprised he didn’t commit suicide!” following the supposed hair-cutting incident. So much for fair and balanced journalism.
What is shocking is that the liberal Post (which supports Obama for reelection) makes such a huge deal about a young boy cutting another boys hair, and ignores Obama’s admission that he bullied a young black girl and knocked her to the ground. Romney is accused of an unproved indiscretion as a boy, but the Post ignores Obama’s actual confession in his book that he used cocaine in college when he was much older. Which is worse? The only reason this fabricated story got any attention at all is because of the supposed homosexual angle, which fits nicely into Obama’s week-long “coming out” party. These accusations against Romney were around when Romney ran for president four years ago, but the Post didn’t run them then. They ran the article on May 10 because Obama had just made nice with the homosexual community, and they wanted to make Romney seem to be a homophobe by contrast.
Next in the timeline is Romney’s speech two days (May 12) later at Liberty University, a Christian institution. Obama’s people didn’t know for sure what he would say, but they knew he was speaking at the conservative University’s commencement, and they could make a logical assumption that he would speak in defense of traditional marriage as he often does. I believe this was also part of their decision to un-muzzle Biden when they did, because they could claim that Romney was “hateful” because if his support for Biblical marriage – as opposed to the loving and compassionate Obama who believes we should endorse a wholly unnatural perversion of marriage.
The final event in this chronology occurred yesterday (May 19), and it prompted me to write this article. The NAACP passed a resolution endorsing same-sex marriage as a “civil right and a matter of law.” In its statement the extremely liberal so-called “civil rights” organization stated that it opposes any attempts to “codify discrimination and hatred into law.”
To put this into perspective, the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) used to be a civil rights organization. In the past it did important work in advancing the rights of black people in this country, and its early leaders deserve our respect. However today it has degenerated into nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democrat party, and its current leaders should be ashamed of themselves. The NAACP no longer represents African Americans; it represents all that is worst about liberalism.
This latest resolution is proof of that. Blacks in America are much more conservative on social issues than the population in general. While the majority of Americans support traditional marriage, an overwhelming majority of African Americans believe that marriage is only between one man and one woman. In fact, it was black religious leaders who derailed a homosexual marriage bill last year in Maryland. So why did the NAACP, which supposedly represents Black America, come out with a resolution that is repugnant to most blacks?
Their motivation was slavish devotion to Obama. This has become an extremely political organization, and their allegiance is only to the man Sean Hannity calls The Anointed One. They obeyed the call to support Obama’s homosexual marriage media extravaganza by passing a resolution that has only one purpose – shameless promotion of Obama’s agenda and reelection efforts.
Apparently the NAACP believes that Obama can do no wrong. So when he came out in favor of homosexual marriage, they marched right off the cliff after him. Martin Luther King, Jr., must be turning over in his grave.
I will close with two quotations from Obama’s ABC interview.
The first shows how little Obama understands about Christianity (supposedly his religion): “The values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.”
I have never heard a real Christian refer to him or herself as “a practicing Christian” or say (as he has said at other times) “I follow the Christian tradition.” Christianity is a very personal religion. Christians say, “I am a Christian,” or “I have been born again.” Obama’s attempts to describe his religious experience reflect his twenty years in a “church” did not preach Christ. Rather it taught “Black liberation theology,” a hate-filled doctrine that preaches that all white people are oppressors, and teaches nothing of the love of Christ. (By the way, Obama’s pastor for all those years revealed recently that Obama only started going to church when he decided to get into politics.)
The other quotation reveals his narcissism in all its pitiful twistedness. He referred to the soldiers, seamen and airmen “fighting in my behalf.” I know, I was incredulous myself. Look up the video of his interview yourself. This man is so in love with himself that he actually thinks our military are fighting for him. The fact is that almost every military person I have spoken with despises him. But he is a classic narcissist. This was not a slip of the tongue. He really believes that these people love him and would be willing to die for him. He can’t understand the concept of loving your country so much that you would be willing to die for her – because he does not love America.