Renew America columnist A.J. Castellitto yesterday presented an intriguing “hypothetical”: “If one were determined to take down America…the secret weapon would come from a surprising place…From out of the closet.”
Yes, he writes, it is very possible that “homosexuals are merely commie pawns unknowingly being used for the hat-trick trifecta destruction of freedom, faith, family.”
This is hypothetical.....
If one were determined to take down America; if it were not possible by force; the secret weapon would come from a surprising place....
From out of the closet.
As per number 26 of the 45 declared goals for the Communist Takeover of America (don't blame me – I didn't make these up) a strategic, targeted area of cultural infiltration would include the presentation of homosexuality as "normal, natural, healthy."
I'm wondering if this goal was actually too low on the list?
Considering some of the most recent cultural developments related to the LGBT-SSM-agenda, it seems this goal should have made the top five.
Based on the expressed concerns and priorities of the current administration, it's almost as if they are living in an alternate universe. In fact, one could argue that both the media and our president have been willfully negligent (considering alternative media reports of increased persecution and hostility against Christians worldwide). Meanwhile, religious conservatives, especially those of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, have been experiencing a hostility of a different sort, pertaining to their reluctance to embrace non-traditional marriage.
However, if we take it back to the "hypothetical," it would seem as if the same-sex marriage phenomenon has proven an exceptionally effective tool in uprooting our fundamental foundations.
When applied to the "takeover" agenda, it could be perceived that American homosexuals are merely commie pawns unknowingly being used for the hat-trick trifecta destruction of freedom, faith, family.....
What if individuals with same sex desires are merely being held up and exploited as objects of intolerance? What if they are just the means to a much greater and darker end-game agenda.....?
If it weren't merely a hypothetical, you'd almost believe it to be true.....
In an interview with Janet Mefferd yesterday, FrontPage magazine editor David Horowitz falsely claimed that President Obama “said nothing” about the kidnapping and murder of an American boy, along with two Israeli friends, in Israel, saying that the president’s supposed silence was “because he was a Jew, I guess.”
“This is the most disgraceful period in the entire history of the United States, and the most disgraceful administration,” he said.
In fact, the president issued a statement in response to the boys’ murders, calling it a “senseless act of terror” and promising Israel “the full support and friendship of the United States.” Secretary of State John Kerry also condemned “this despicable terrorist act in the strongest possible terms.”
“That’s a sick religion, Islam,” Horowitz also told Mefferd. “People have to recognize that and stop comparing it to Christianity.”
Horowitz also claimed that “tens of thousands of Americans are going to die because of Obama” because “terrorists are going to come across our borders, our porous borders.”
“Look what they’ve done. They’re operating as though this isn’t America. They’re destroying our borders. You can’t have a country without borders,” he said.
In his latest column, Pat Buchanan rails against the possibility that President Obama will take executive action to grant some kind of relief to some undocumented immigrants living in the United States, which he insists is part of the president’s effort ensure the country’s “evolution from a Western and predominantly Christian country into that multicultural, multilingual, multiethnic, borderless land Teddy Roosevelt inveighed against as nothing but a 'polyglot boarding house for the world.'"
“Obama did not like the America we grew up in,” he writes, adding, “How much more diversity can we handle before there is no unity left?”
Finally, he adds that an executive action on immigration would, of course, be a distraction from Benghazi.
Obama wants history to rank him among the transformational presidents like Lincoln, FDR and Reagan. And what better way to transform America than to ensure her evolution from a Western and predominantly Christian country into that multicultural, multilingual, multiethnic, borderless land Teddy Roosevelt inveighed against as nothing but a “polyglot boarding house for the world”? Obama did not like the America we grew up in.
An Obama amnesty would instantly become the blazing issue of 2014, replacing his foreign policy fecklessness, diffident leadership, and IRS, VA, Benghazi and Obamacare foul-ups and scandals.
In the long run, an amnesty that puts 5 million illegal immigrants, most of them from Third World nations, along with their progeny, on a certain path to citizenship, would complete the process of turning America blue.
The children pouring in from Central America, we are told, are fleeing repressive regimes. But billions of people in Asia, Africa and Latin America live under repressive regimes.
If all are entitled to come, they will come. And they will remake the West and America in their own image, Obama’s image, the image of that Tower of Babel, the United Nations General Assembly.
How many more tens of millions of poor and uneducated people can we absorb before we exceed the carrying capacity of the republic?
How much more diversity can we handle before there is no unity left?
As we boast of our ethnic, cultural and religious diversity, what still makes us one nation and one people? For it is not religion. Not culture. Not custom. Not history. Not tradition. Not language. Not ethnicity.
Is it only a Constitution and Bill of Rights — over the meaning of which we fight like cats and dogs.
Conservative activist and potential GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson joined James Dobson on Family Talk Radio yesterday, where the two got to talking about LGBT-affirming pastors.
Dobson, joining a long line of anti-LGBT activists who don’t quite understand what bisexuality is, asked what pastors who endorse marriage equality are going to do about bisexual people, who he said “have sex with males and females at the same time.”
“That’s called orgies, that’s what it used to be called” he said.
Carson, for his part, despaired that pastors who approve of same-sex marriage have given a “finger-in-your-eye to God.”
Carson: I find it difficult sometimes to understand why ministers are willing to abandon the scripture to go along and get along. I just find that very puzzling.
Dobson: I do too, especially on the issue of gay marriage. There are many, many formerly conservative big-time ministers — I mean those who have big churches and great influence — who have abandoned that.
Carson: They’ve been beaten into submission.
Dobson: If they’re right to do this today, were they wrong yesterday?
Carson: The bigger issue is, of course, if you can say the Bible is wrong on that, then, you know, why isn’t it wrong on everything, or anything that you don’t want it to say?
Dobson: I have been on a crusade to say to many ministers, and I’ll say it again now, that if men can marry and if the things that are said about same-sex relationships and marriage and the Bible are misunderstandings, what do you do with the rest of LGBT? What do you do with bisexuality? If one of those is right and proper and holy, what about those who have sex with males and females at the same time? That’s called orgies, that’s what it used to be called, or just sleeping around with everybody and it doesn’t matter. How can a Christian minister who reads the Bible condone that?
Carson: Well, you know, my emphasis is that marriage is an institution established by God himself. And when you look in the New Testament, the marriage relationship is used to help us understand His relationship with His people. So when you start distorting that, you’re really going pretty deep into the finger-in-your-eye to God. That’s why I have a hard time understanding why ministers are willing to do that.
On her radio program this morning, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios compared undocumented children to married people who commit adultery.
“I have compassion and love, I know that many of them are desperate, some of them just want to better their lives,” she said.
“People make the argument that immigrant children go on to make such great citizens, and they do, and I’m all in favor of that when it’s legal,” she said. “But to kind of say it’s not so bad because they’re all very nice, and very nice people…is to kind of say, like when people commit adultery because another person is more compatible with them and they go on to have a happy marriage, it’s kind of like, it’s apples and oranges.”
For Republicans who would like to “rebrand” the party to reach more voters, Michael Peroutka is a nightmare. Peroutka won the Republican primary for a county council seat in Anne Arundel County, which includes Maryland’s state capital. As we have been reporting, Peroutka is a Christian Reconstructionist who believes “It is not the role of civil government to house, feed, clothe, educate or give heath care to…ANYBODY!” He is an ardent supporter of the white nationalist League of the South, which promotes the secession of southern states, and whose leader recently wrote about “Fourth Generation Warfare” in which citizen hit squads would target “political leaders, members of the hostile media, cultural icons, bureaucrats, and other of the managerial elite without whom the engines of tyranny don't run."
Last week, Larry Hogan, the Republican nominee for governor, disavowed Peroutka over his extremist positions. Yesterday, Peroutka held a press conference in which he repeatedly claimed he is not a racist, vowed that he would not play the “race card game,” and produced two African American Republicans, Eric Knowles and Robert Broadus, to vouch for his not-racism.
But if the press conference was meant to dispel the notion that Peroutka is an extremist, it failed miserably. Peroutka repeatedly refused to disavow the League of the South, on whose board he has sat. He would not say it was a mistake to have called Dixie the national anthem at a League of the South convention. And he refused, in spite of repeated questions, to disavow the idea that the southern states should secede. In response to the suggestion that the Civil War settled the question of secession, he said “No moral issue is really ever settled by the point of a sword.” He repeatedly stated that secession is “a historical fact” and “a political reality.” The American Revolution was an act of secession, he said. And it is a kind of secession when people move out of Maryland to escape its high taxes.
Huffington Post blogger Jonathan Hutson has video of the entire press conference. Unfortunately, nobody asked Peroutka about his belief that Maryland’s General Assembly is “no longer a valid legislative body” because it has passed laws he thinks are in violation of God’s law. Or about his participation in Larry Klayman’s “revolutionary” rally last year, whose goal was to force President Obama out of office. Or why state Republicans should support Peroutka, a former Constitution Party presidential candidate, given that it was less than a year ago that he wrote this:
“Anyone, including those who identify with the ‘Tea Party’, who loves America and desires real reform, would do well to disengage themselves from the Republican Party and their brand of worthless, Godless, unprincipled conservatism.”