Sex Symbols-ConfusionBy Selwyn Duke

So another mask has dropped.  Barack Obama made history yesterday in becoming the first president to announce support for faux marriage.

And on January 20th, 2009 he made history in becoming the first president who supports faux marriage.


Obama revealed himself in a Wednesday interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, saying, “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that, um, for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that, uh, I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

This statement was made after Obama explained his “evolution” on the issue, a hothouse transformation that included discussions with homosexuals on his staff.  But here’s the reality: the aforementioned “certain point” he reached had more to do with the electorate’s perceived evolution than anything else.  This is because Barack Obama has always been pro-faux marriage.

How do I know?  For starters, Obama isn’t a Christian, as he claims; he isn’t a Muslim, as some critics claim, although he is a Muslim sympathizer.

He is a moral relativist and de facto atheist.

But, unlike with my first two sentences, I repeat myself.

And being a thoroughly modern Alinskyite secularist, he will always be on the cutting edge of societal devolution, which includes support for the undermining of marriage. 

If that isn’t enough for you, though, consider that, writes ABC News, “[i]n 1996, as a state Senate candidate, he [Obama] indicated support for gay marriage in a questionnaire, but Obama aides later disavowed it and said it did not reflect the candidate’s position.”  Allow me to translate: “Our guy was dumb enough to reveal that he supported faux marriage when he needs votes in areas in which blacks are numerically strong.  And, as you may know, the black community doesn’t look kindly upon faux marriage.  So just ignore that man behind the curtain!  Barack is down!”

And now Obama is a bit down in the polls.  What’s his game?  Did loose-cannon Biden put him on the spot by announcing his acceptance of faux marriage earlier in the week?  Or was half-slow Joe’s remark a trial balloon?  Is Obama trying to shore up support among his demoralized base?  Whatever the case, know that the president’s problem isn’t that marriage, like the matter of when life begins, is above his pay grade.

It’s that morality and telling the truth are above his pay grade.

And now think about this: If Obama was willing to drop the marriage mask before the election, what masks will be dropped after it when, as he said to Dmitry Medvedev, he has “more flexibility”?

For sure, he will continue to evolve.  Heck, he may even announce that he’s a communist before 2016 is up – no doubt after discussing the issue with the Marxists on his staff.

    © 2012 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Posted in , ,

5 responses to “The Real News Today: Obama Was Always for Faux Marriage”

  1. Ron Avatar
    Ron

    Countries get what they deserve. Considering America’s decadence, it’s going to get it in spades.

    Like

  2. peachy Avatar
    peachy

    I’ve got an informal list of the major introductions of counterculture memes into our popular culture, certain types of music being prominent of course, and how those ideas have corrupted our culture as they have worked through it. I had tended to think of gay marriage as a symptom of a decadent, indulgent society. Now, I’m beginning to see it as a tool that functions as a later stage of demoralization following promotion of the tolerance of promiscuity, bisexuality and homosexuality. The basic family unit does seem central to a people capable of self-rule in which the parents are the primary authority figures, Kind of makes you wonder if the malleability of gender is next, perhaps even a final phase of influence and control. I’d be interested in your take on this idea, Selwyn.

    Like

  3. Selwyn Duke Avatar
    Selwyn Duke

    Dear Peachy,
    Thank you for participating. Actually, the idea that “gender” is malleable has already taken hold. In fact, I put “gender” in quotation marks because the term, as it relates to people, was originated for the very purpose of facilitating the notion that it is malleable. Traditionally, “gender” only pertained to words, not people; this is why I will only use the word “sex” when referring to the latter.
    What is at issued here is a good example of the manipulation of language, and, unfortunately, most people use the Lexicon of the Left unthinkingly. Understand, however, that “gender,” as co-opted and redefined by the left, refers to a person’s perception of what he is, as opposed to “sex,” which refers to something objective. I have written much about this. A good example is found here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/179-gender-agenda-boys-in-girls-bathrooms
    As for the impetus behind this insanity, it’s not a grand human conspiracy orchestrated from on high; however, it can take on the appearance of one because of the millions of like-minded people who, being of one (quite mediocre) mind, all behave the same way, promulgate the same ideas and advance the same agenda. This is why ideas matter. When the wrong ones take hold in civilization, you’ll have problems.
    By the way, my last paragraph isn’t a contradiction of my earlier piece on the West’s spending its way to tyranny. When I mentioned the KGB’s efforts at “demoralization” in the West in that article, I didn’t mean to imply that they were the sole reason for our problems; I was simply emphasizing the importance of morality by pointing out how malevolent geniuses understand that degrading it is necessary if you want to make a target nation crumble from within. But as ex-KGB man Yuri Bezmenov said about the “demoralization” process, while the Soviets would try to give the left-wing agitators in our nation a little “push,” most of what plagues us is done “by Americans, to Americans.” And, of course, if we were morally and spiritually healthy, none of this would matter one whit.

    Like

  4. Yoyo Avatar
    Yoyo

    Although I know this will fall on deaf and blighted ears, please try and watch a little.
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM
    This is the story of a love split apart by our non recognition. If you can watch this and not see the need for civil unions or marriage please tell me how. I promise in all good faith I will try and understand how you can argue that way which is so anti human to me.

    Like

  5. Justin Avatar
    Justin

    Yoyo, we know you’re a yo-yo. The question is, who’s pulling your string?

    Like

Leave a reply to Yoyo Cancel reply