If William Jefferson Clinton was America’s first “black” president, could
it be that Barack Obama is positioning himself to be the nation’s first
“gay” president?His supporters have argued vehemently for months that Barack
Obama does not represent the interest of the radical homosexual
activists. Chicago “South-side” radio talk show hosts declare with
confidence that Senator Obama has said he would oppose the redefining
of marriage to include unions that only the imagination could cook up.
Obama has blindsided black clergy across America with the con-game that
they should not worry about his views on homosexuality.
He has uttered a “Praise the Lord” at the side of Gospel uber-star Rev.
Donnie McClurkin, who himself was sexually abused by a homosexual and
thusly forced to struggle with the issue in his own life at times.
Obama has gone from church rally to church rally making vague
references to God’s power, and God’s purposes - while never defining
one ounce of what any of it means.
Yet as someone who has followed his career since long before he
was a national stage player, I have warned that his aggressive support
for the radical homosexual activist agenda in America is a part of the
overall picture of who he is.
In this way he may be more “gay” than Clinton was “black” - and by a wide margin at that.
For all the shell game that Obama was able to juggle in the run for
President to date on the issue of his real, underlying views on the
radical homosexual agenda - this week he removed all doubts.
In an alarmingly pointed written statement Obama signed his
named to the personal promise of greater advance against the
institution of marriage of any candidate to ever run for the highest
office.
Pointedly so he gave his full pledge to overturn, or repeal, the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
“I also believe that the federal government should not stand in
the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue
equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic
partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator
Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S.
Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe
we should get rid of that statute altogether.”
This act was signed by the last liberal President in office
William Jefferson Clinton. In pledging to do so Barack Obama has now
staked out turf that threatens the viability of the next generation of
children that could subject them to an operative norm that would
contribute to the de-constructing of families as to however one could
imagine in one state - and then forcing recognition of that sexual
union by its neighboring state regardless of what the citizens of that
state say.
In pledging to overturn DOMA Obama seeks to remove state’s
rights, violate the principles of federalism, violate a major tenant of
all traditional religious systems observed in America, and subject
children to a quite non-healthy home-life. Studies of which have
confirmed would have a detrimental effect on said children’s
scholastic, emotional, intellectual and physical health.
Yet the overturning of DOMA is merely the beginning of Obama’s radical homosexual activist agenda.
For months supporters of Obama have written to me asking for evidence
that he would do anything to advance or at the very least not stand in
the way of the redefining of marriage. See at least Ted Kennedy and
John McCain both made the argument in not supporting the Constitutional
Amendment to Protect Marriage that it was unnecessary on the grounds
that DOMA would prevent the cancerous spread of Massachusetts’ Judicial
Activism from roaming state to state. But for Obama this is merely too
little activism, and it proceeds far too slowly for his own desire.
Thus in his written statement this week he argues publicly that
states should be allowed to redefine the marriage laws in their state
regardless of what research norms, the will of the people, or the
common sense of healthy tradition have to say about it.
In doing so Obama displays a reckless commitment to play games
with the future sexual formation of families and puts himself so firmly
planted in the camp of anti-biblical views of truth, sex, and family
that we have never seen its comparison in all years previous.
Make no mistake, committed Obama supporters share his
uber-libertine leanings to homosexual behavior, and want to encourage
more relaxation of traditional moral sexual barriers in society. And
with academics like Dr. Judith Levine arguing in her book, and endorsed
by Clinton Surgeon General Joyclin Elders, arguing that sex between
adults and children is not harmful to the child - one can easily
imagine what such relaxation of rules would lead to.
I was the first pundit in America to predict that Barack Obama
would be president in 2009. A prediction, I admitted at the time,
pained me greatly. Nothing that has happened in the nomination process
of either party has caused my five underlying conditions for his
victory to be erased. With John McCain as the GOP nominee it appears my
prediction is perfectly on track.
Yet I will not allow my prediction to come true without
speaking the transparent truth that Obama is not a man of traditional
values, nor is he a friend to families.
He may aspire to be many things.
Hey may also aspire to be labeled America’s first gay president.
He would without question be more deserving than “Clinton as ‘black’”
under even the kindest of comparisons.
Kevin McCullough’s first hardback title “The MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking” is now available. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com.
Be the first to read Kevin McCullough’s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
