Tag Archives: gay marriage

Hillary’s latest iteration preaches ‘love and kindness’

Originally posted at American Thinker

It was during the 2008 election that Hillary Clinton portrayed herself as the hard-hitting person America needed in the White House to answer the phone at 3:00 am.  This time around, in response to Republican Donald Trump’s hard-hitting talk, Hillary has modified that image.

Recently, while speaking to a crowd in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton replied to a question about how to confront hate and fear by saying: “We’ve got to do everything we can to weed out hate and plant love and kindness.”

Judging from that reply, it appears that the former secretary of state, who notoriously answered a question about an American ambassador being sodomized and murdered in a terrorist attack with “what difference at this point does it make,” has added a hearty dose of Oprah Winfrey to her more recentimage upgrades.

And here senior adviser for strategic communications to U.S. secretary of state Marie Harf had America convinced that a jobs program was all it would take to turn even the most violent terrorist into a mild-mannered citizen of the world.

Meanwhile, wasn’t it Hillary who blamed the uncovering of her husband’s infidelity on a “vast right-wing conspiracy”?  And isn’t it a testy Hillary who doesn’t take kindly to being pressed by reporters with questions she doesn’t want to answer?

Yet while campaigning in Salem, New Hampshire recently, it was Hillary who remarked, “It may be unusual for a presidential candidate to say we need more love and kindness in this country, but I think that’s exactly what we need.”

This is coming from the woman who has been accused of being “extremely abusive and condescending” toward the Secret Service.

Then again, while Ms. Hillary does fancy herself the doyenne of empathetic social policy, according to the long list of women her husband groped and attempted to sexually molest, the former first lady was the one who “terrorized” every one of his victims for accusing Bill of sexual abuse.

Now, behaving like none of those well-documented affronts ever happened, Hillary is making it a habit of ending her public spiels with a challenge to her audience to add “love and kindness” to their daily lives.

And, rest assured, Hillary probably lives up to her own solicitation.

That is, as long as no one brings up things like her evolution on gay marriage, her husband’s influence on her policy stands, how those confidential emails disappeared, Benghazi, or her defense of a man who raped a 12-year-old girl.

For now, Hillary is toning down her tough girl persona by attempting to draw a stark contrast between herself and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.  Trump is the guy who dared to suggest that there are some illegal Mexicans who are rapists and pedophiles, and that ISIS-infiltrated Syrian refugees are a threat to national security – all of which is true.

That’s why, if transforming her image is the goal, Mrs. Clinton needs to try harder.  After all, Hillary did ignore Bill hitching a ride on pal Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” and was heard giggling on tape over her decision to defend a child rapist she knew was guilty.

As for Syrian refugees, similar to how Christopher Stevens was forging relationships in Libya, the former secretary of state believes that welcoming in refugees benefits America’s fight against radical extremism by forging ties with the Muslim communities where ISIS refugees will be building IEDs and storing munitions.

In the interim, the presidential hopeful’s new Rodney King-like “can’t we all just get along” warm and fuzzy approach is effectively winning over women, who, as a gender, are renowned for responding positively to New Age rhetoric.

Democratic pollster Margie Omero says that Hillary talking about love and kindness “very much tracks with … a lot of women voters.”  Margie claims that women tell her they want to “go back to a time in which we’re being nicer to each other.  Politics has become too coarse.”

It’s likely that the “love and kindness” message appeals to the womenfolk because, every chance she gets, Hillary pledges unwavering support for abortion provider Planned Parenthood, an organization that kills and then carves up babies and sells their body parts in a loving and kind way.

Terry Matre, a female therapist from West Des Moines, thanks to Hillary’s group cuddle language, recently had an epiphany and agrees:

I had hesitation about what I thought was a kind of hardness in her but she doesn’t have that in person. When you think about what Donald Trump is saying and then you think about her, you’re like, my God what took me so long.

Let’s just say there’s a pretty good chance that Terry wouldn’t be feeling the love if she had a run-in with Bill brandishing his Grand Reserve Gurkha and then, like Juanita Broaddrick, was threatened by Hillary to keep her mouth shut.

So, there it is!  Hillary Clinton is refashioning her public image by peddling her own unique brand of loving kindness.

Yet the truth is that in her decades-long unstoppable pursuit of power, in addition to leaving dozens of women abused by her husband in her wake, Hillary Clinton has told unspeakable lies, spearheaded much corruption, and stepped over numerous rotting corpses.


Disagreeing with Gay Marriage May Be Detrimental to Hair Style

Antonio Darden 2

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Just when you thought it was safe to get a touch-up from your gay hairdresser we come to find out that unless you want blue hair or crooked bangs, disagreeing with gay marriage can be detrimental to your hairdo.

In New Mexico, where gay marriage is still illegal, former Democrat, current Republican, Governor Susana Martinez dared to express her personal opinion that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

As a result of her traditional marriage conviction, her gay (as long as everyone agrees with him) hair stylist, Antonio Darden claims he dropped Martinez as a client.

The owner of Antonio’s Hair Studio, Darden has been with his male partner for 15 years. Antonio commented:

“It’s just equality, dignity for everyone. Everybody should be allowed the right to be together.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t Antonio been with his partner for 15 years? How exactly then has the governor’s stance on gay marriage impacted Antonio’s ability to be “together” with the man he’s spent almost two decades with?

Antonio must be some hair-cutter because one ardent Antonio fan, Vivian W. of Santa Fe, describes the hair cutting wunderkind this way:

I love going to Antonio’s Hair Studio. I feel that he has the realistic knowledge of hair styling, cutting and maintenance that I need.

He is very punctual, professional yet personable and ‘real’. It is always a pleasure to converse on many interesting topics or to be just comfortable with our silence as he works.

And I love the many birds and feeders outside the window. His care of nature adds to my knowledge that I am in good hands.

Despite Darden’s “care of nature,” the personable and “real” Antonio said that after he found out the governor had a conflicting opinion on a controversial subject of gay marriage he gave her the old heave-ho.

Martinez had her haircut from Darden three times, which means she didn’t oppose gay hair cutters and was willing to pay a fair wage for services regardless of sexual orientation.

Nonetheless, Antonio is making a name for himself among gay activists bragging:

“The governor’s aides called not too long ago, wanting another appointment to come in. Because of her stances and her views on this, I told her aides no.”

Mr. Darden maintains that the governor’s office was persistent about having the gay marriage activist style her coif. So much so, Martinez’s aides called back. Darden said, “They called the next day, asking if I’d changed my mind about taking the governor in and I said no.”

Now the governor’s office is denying Darden’s claim that he was the governor’s official hairdresser. Martinez’s spokesperson is saying that almost a year ago Antonio styled the governor’s hair maybe two or three times.

The New Mexico governor’s office feels the denial of services is more about publicity than same sex marriage.

Headlines of late highlight the controversy over the legality of denying sex couples wedding services from businesses like bakeries and wedding photographers. But in New Mexico at least, apparently it is acceptable for a homosexual business owner to deny services to someone for merely disagreeing with his or her lifestyle choice.

If what Antonio is saying is true, Martinez would be wise not to allow an angry gay man with scissors in his hand in the proximity of her throat.

Looks like Governor Susana Martinez may be forced to find herself a hairdresser without bird feeders who supports traditional marriage.

Barack Obama Peddles Adam and Steve in Senegal

DownloadedFileOriginally posted at American Thinker

The $100-million Obama Traveling Show touched down in Senegal.  All heady from news of the activist side of the Supreme Court further weakening the U.S. Constitution, Barack Obama could not contain his exuberance over Adam and Steve getting closer to being able to book their wedding reception immediately following the more traditional nuptials of Adam and Eve.

Not happy with “fundamentally transforming” the once-great nation called the United States of America, in Senegal, where homosexuality is outlawed, Barack Obama felt compelled to talk down the established laws and leadership of the African nations hosting him.  He called for homosexuals to have equal rights in countries where gays are usually imprisoned or, worse yet, decapitated.

The stunning thing about Barack Obama’s gall is that his tolerance for anyone disagreeing with him is less than zero.  Yet he’s arrogant enough to disrespect Senegalese President Macky Sall and challenge Senegal’s stand on social issues.

What if Vladimir Putin swam over from Russia to the U.S. to appeal to evangelicals by insisting that Christians should not be forced to finance insurance policies that cover birth control and abortion?  Obama would blow a gasket.  But when it comes to his right to infringe on the leadership of others, Barack Obama has no respect for diplomatic boundaries.

President Macky Sall quickly rejected Obama’s inappropriate call for Africans to give gays equal rights under the law.  Why Sall would even host Barack Obama is curious indeed.  After all, Sall overthrew an incumbent who tried to change Senegal’s constitution and establish a familial dynasty of succession.

Sall responded to the U.S. president’s effrontery on the homosexual issue by politely saying, “We are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality. This does not mean we are homophobic.”  Even if Senegal is homophobic, quite frankly, it’s none of Barack Obama’s business.

Senegalese law says that “an improper or unnatural act with a person of the same sex” can be punished by up to five years in prison, which is sort of the direction America is moving — but with Tea Party types being portrayed as more unnatural than gays.  Nonetheless, Sall reassured Obama that in Senegal, gays, unlike Christians and conservatives, and especially Christian conservatives in the U.S., are not mistreated.

After a meeting in the presidential palace, Obama brushed aside Sall’s comments and reiterated that his goal is to send a message to Africans that his opinion should hold more weight than African law and leadership decrees.

Then, although many had already surmised it, the world officially found out that Barack Obama is planning on transforming the universe.  Circumventing Sall’s correction, Obama stressed: “People should be treated equally, and that’s a principle that I think applies universally.” And if Macky Sall doesn’t want Chicago to visit Senegal, he’d best submit.

As for the African people, just like in America, what they want, think, or believe doesn’t matter much to Obama.  Amnesty International released a report that said that 38 African countries consider homosexuality wrong, and according to Pew, nine out of 10 respondents — 90 percent — of Senegalese, Kenyans, Ghanaians, Ugandans, and Nigerians reject homosexuality.

That means that if Barack Obama were in charge, Christians and Muslims in these African nations would be forced to submit and accept what they consider reprehensible.

Which raises the question: how can a president who claims to support Islam also support homosexuality, premarital sex, and abortion?  Is the plan, when Obama ups the ante and goes universal, to inflict his social views on Muslims, too?

Nonetheless, after calling 83-year-old lesbian Edie Windsor from Air Force One on his way to Africa to congratulate her on the SCOTUS voting down DOMA 5-4, the president said his administration would begin to closely examine every federal statute to quickly level the playing field between Billy and Lily and Billy and Willy.

That plan raises yet another question: the Obama administration has the resources to comb through every federal statute to pick out every benefit for which married same-sex couples will be eligible, but didn’t have the manpower all these years to canvas American cities and locate renegade illegal aliens?

Either way, while in Africa, Barack Obama reiterated his personal conviction that gay rights are at the “root of who we are as … American[s].”  Because after all, Obama, who now speaks for the people who disagree with him, says, “We believe in basic fairness.”  The problem is that in Obama’s world, the type of fairness he’s referring to is social and economic equity, which is unattainable without inflicting the sort of totalitarian groundwork he’s presently laying.

Segueing from promoting homosexuality in a Muslim nation to designer religiosity, Obama then prayed for ailing former South African President Nelson Mandela, whose impending funeral might take the attention off the extended Obama family’s $100-million African getaway.

When he finished pushing homosexuality to Macky Sall, Obama toured Goree Island, the place where (although he won’t admit it) signares — wealthy women of color — sold their own people into slavery through the “Door of No Return” (which is a lot like what liberals do to black people in America).

As for the African people, someone should inform them that Barack Obama is a son of Hawaii — I repeat: H-A-W-A-I-I — not Africa, because for some reason the signs outside his hotel, possibly borrowed from Ireland, read, “Welcome home, President Obama.”

Along with those signs, gay (but not in a gay way) village people greeted him with music, dancing, and song, which sounds a lot like what’s going on in San Francisco.

So, on the first day of his African adventure, Barack Obama, oftentimes misidentified as a long-lost son of Kenya, is busily attending to the people’s business.  As America grapples with the inexplicable damage he’s causing here at home, he’s making his way through sub-Saharan Africa hawking homosexuality, insulting African leaders, defying Islam, and making sure the wife, kids, mother-in-law, and niece are having a great time running up the taxpayers’ tab.

‘Kid Props’ Hinna and Zea Save the Day!

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Okay, call me a skeptical, cynical, conspiracy theorist if you must, but these two letters were supposedly from two 9-year-old girls who both wrote unsolicited correspondence to the president in support of his anti-gun and then anti-gun, pro-public education, pro-gay marriage agenda.

Letters! in response to her letter, Hinna Zeejah of Oceanside, NY was one of four ‘kid props’ invited last January to provide a backdrop to the president’s signing of 23 executive orders to tighten gun control.

Then, Zea the letter writer and her twin sister Luna, daughters of two mommies, flew in from Humboldt, California to introduce and help Mr. Obama kick off LGBT Pride month with a reception at the White House.

Now about the letters!

Aside from the liberal use of exclamation points and artistic embellishment in both, the similarities between the two are almost uncanny.

The introductions are virtually identical: both girls are “sad” about gun violence (how convenient), both mention dead students, and both third graders are for gun ownership limitations.  And then coincidentally, both Zea and Hinna both sign off with “Happy” vibes and a cartoonish closing.

Now not for nothing, but the whole letter writing campaign seems a bit fishy.  Two third grade girls write similar letters, with comparable penmanship, artwork included, get invited to the White House to high-five Barack Obama as he systematically dismantles the American Constitution?

Sorry!  I don’t buy it.

Now either, Hinna and Zea collaborated, some White House goon did a little cross-country coaching, or Barack Obama’s penmanship and artistic abilities have vastly improved between January and June.

Homosexual Marriage Advocate Takes Things to a New Low

554971_498631090193866_804180497_nOriginally posted at American Thinker

A leading question is one posed in such a way that it extracts from the person being questioned the answer the interviewer desires. In the mid-1980s and early 1990s, there was an explosion of child sex abuse cases. Debbie Nathan, author of Satan’s Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witchhunt, believes that in some cases it was “quite possible [that] untrained or overzealous investigators… tease[d] false allegations from children.”

Small children, who are more susceptible to leading questions, sometimes think being interviewed is a game. So, rather than offering answers that reflect their true feelings, oftentimes children respond with replies they believe grownups want to hear.

An example of an adult teasing out a desired response from a child was displayed when the liberal host of MSNBC’s The Cycle, Krystal ‘Screw’ Ball, showed up on the “Political Playground” with her daughter Ella in tow.

Besides being a Democrat strategist, Krystal is known for an unsuccessful run for Congress in the state of Virginia in 2010 and for some photographs depicting her mouthing a large red sex toy that a man dressed up like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer had taped to his nose. An avid proponent of abortion, Krystal Ball also stirred controversy when she referred to pre-abortion trans-vaginal ultrasound as “mandatory state probing” and “state rape.”

Five-year-old Ella is the first of Ball’s children to survive the womb. Due to be born this summer is a second possible survivor rumored to be a son.

Ball has paraded Ella on “Political Playground” before. On those segments, Krystal goaded her daughter into praising Barack Obama and lamenting Mitt Romney for threatening to ax Big Bird.

Krystal recently hosted the adorable Ella again. This time, Mom proceeded to masterfully extract from the little girl the answer she needed to reinforce a pro-gay marriage stance. In response to Krystal’s successful endeavor, the question is this: Is Ms. Ball’s point that if a child says it, it must be true — or that grownups who don’t think like kindergarteners should be ashamed of themselves?

In a liberal’s mind that may be how they see things, but in the mind of a sane person it’s clear that children have vivid imaginations, a natural propensity to tell lies and exaggerate, and above all a tendency to parrot what they hear parents saying.

Nonetheless, just short of dangling a lollipop in front of Ella, Krystal Ball began the manipulative segment by asking the little girl, “What is marriage?” Ella, who later in the interview confidently expounded upon New York state marriage law, initially seemed unable to answer the question. Eventually, Mom coached Ella to say that marriage means people live together. At one point, little Ball clarified that people marry people, not cars or trees (at least not yet).

Krystal probed further with the ‘marry a person’ question, asking, “A person… what kind of person?” Ella, exhibiting traces of latent homophobic tendencies, with unabashed gender specificity, said, “Like a wife or a husband.” Krystal then asked, “What makes a person decide that they want to get married?” Ella replied uncertainly, “They get in love with each other?”

Sounding like an interviewer at a bogus daycare sexual abuse trial, Ms. Ball revealed her extreme values when she asked her daughter, “What if you were in love with a girl, could you marry a girl?” Much to her mother’s delight, Ella said that if she chose to marry a girl, and not a little boy named Eli, she could only do so in New York.

Fidgety Ella explained: “Yes, because girls can marry girls and boys can marry boys in New York.” Then, appearing to be a little awkward, the tyke explained that sometimes the extraordinary does happen in New York — a girl actually marries a boy.

Ball quickly reacted with, “And that’s good because you want people to marry who they’re in love with, right?” Ella, the girl who couldn’t explain marriage two minutes before, responded “Yeah!” Take that, you loveless homophobes! It’s all about love!

No it’s not! In an effort to cheaply bolster the same-sex marriage argument, it’s about exploiting a child’s suggestibility and eagerness to please, and doing so is as despicable as cajoling stories of sexual abuse from impressionable children that say exactly what overzealous investigators want to hear.

And the provocation didn’t stop there — lesbian marriage promoter Krystal Ball continued to corrupt little Ella by posing yet another leading question: “How come in other places a girl can’t marry a girl… that seems strange, right?”

No, ‘Screw’ Ball, that’s not strange. What’s strange is a political hack using her kindergarten-aged daughter to communicate the message that disagreeing with same-sex marriage is “strange.” What’s next — a pro-choice segment where a pregnant Krystal Ball explains to a terrified Ella that before she was born she could have killed her, but chose not to?

The “Political Playground” conversation ended with the pundit telling the child that “Some other places haven’t decided yet that you should be able to if you’re a girl marry another girl.” Ball then asked, “They should change that shouldn’t they?” to which the always agreeable Ella replied, “Yeah! That’s crazy.”

Driving home the point, Krazy Krystal must have needed to hear the youngster say it again, so she prompted Ella with another, “It’s crazy, because people should be able to marry who they love… Riiiight?”

Wrong! Plumbing the depths of a new liberal low, Krystal Ball exploiting her child to express her own view on homosexual marriage definitely takes the same-sex wedding cake. Then again, this shouldn’t be a surprise coming from a rabid liberal who would have flushed a pre-born Ella if it had benefited her somehow. Instead, Krystal chose to let Ella live so that one day, on a cable news show, Ball could wheedle ‘who you love’ talk out of a five-year-old before leading her to spout off about the crazy strangeness of anyone who opposes gay marriage.

The Whitewashed Sepulchers of Washington, D.C.

Originally posted at American Thinker

Liberal-style designer spirituality is a combination of moral relativism and a hybrid form of pseudo-Christianity.  Pious liberals mix together a dash of New-Ageism, a sprinkle of secular humanism, a bit of out-of-context Scripture, and a large dollop of liberal social policy, all topped with some compassionate acts of look-at-me mercy and, if it fits into their busy schedule, a very slow and public stroll to the local church.

Take Nancy Pelosi, please — I mean, for instance.  Nancy Pelosi, a self-described “ardent practicing Catholic,” is the perfect example of a designer Christian.  This is a woman who purports to be committed to her Catholic faith, but condemns the church she supposedly loves for opposing contraception, abortion, and gay marriage, and for having that pesky “conscience thing.”

Ms. Pelosi expressed her support for gay marriage when she said, “My religion has, compels me — and I love it for it — to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider [not allowing gays to marry] a form of discrimination. I think it’s unconstitutional on top of that.”

Vice President Joe Robinette Biden is also a “devout” Catholic and “long-standing supporter of Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose.”  Joe said this about gay marriage: “Look, I am vice president of the United States of America. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men marrying women are entitled to the same exact rights.”

Liberal designer religion is the dogma that Barack Obama adheres to.  He, like most on the left, creates his own belief system as he goes along.

In 2008, an “evolving” Barack Obama expressed a favorable view of same-sex unions when he said, “If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”

People like Barack Obama — members of the First Church of Designer Christianity — conveniently overlook Psalm 119, which says that “[t]he sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.”

But that’s neither here nor there.  Liberal Democrats who exploit Scripture to justify anti-biblical principles and behavior don’t really take what Jesus said all that seriously; they use Scripture out of context to support a corrupt creed and adapt Bible verses to their way of thinking.  For instance, take the time Barack Obama referenced the name of Christ and then used it as a battering ram to push the point that God wants the federal government to tax the rich.

At the 2012 National Prayer Breakfast, quoting a parable that refers to the level of accountability God demands from those blessed with a greater measure of truth, Barack Obama misapplied Jesus’ words to material wealth when he said, “But for me as a Christian, [taxing the rich] also coincides with Jesus’ teachingthat, ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'”

So “above his pay grade” Barack Obama, like God, has decided he’ll require much from whomever he pleases.

Barack Obama has proven to be an excellent hearer and outstanding speaker, but a poor doer of God’s Word.  He, and the current party in power, pick and choose from a buffet of beliefs and have cobbled together a reprobate, conviction-free religion designed especially for themselves and their constituents — devoid of core conviction, conscience, and moral integrity.

For example, after lying about economic policy, alluding to gay marriage by mentioning loving whomever you please, and appealing out on the campaign trail to the Sandra Fluke contraception contingency by promoting pro-abortion policies, apparently Barack Obama decided he was about due for a photo op/stroll on over to the local Episcopalian Church.

While attending services at St. John’s Episcopal Church, the president and his family heard a sermon from the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John delivered by Reverend Michael Angell.  In the sermon, the reverend suggested to congregants that they “inwardly digest Christ’s message of self-surrender,” a concept quite alien to the abortion-on-demand platform Barack Obama proudly maintains — 98% of which are performed purely for convenience.

Yet, despite supporting the violent killing of the unborn and the redefinition of traditional marriage, Barack Obama stepped forward to receive “holy communion.”  And while it is impossible to read another person’s heart, it’s best to be aware that partaking of the Lord’s Table is as treacherous an endeavor for an abortion rights advocate as it is for anyone to do in an “unworthy” manner.  But not to worry — designer Christians, be they “gay-affirming” reverends or abortion-advocating laypersons, are all expert at exercising self-absolution.

Abortion- and gay marriage-supporting politicians like Catholics Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and part-time Episcopalian Barack Obama misquote Scripture, turn church attendance into a photo op, and even shamelessly receive communion, falsely believing the whole time that dead men’s bones somehow disappear from whitewashed sepulchers just because a liberal says so.

Willy the Wedded One Opines

Originally posted at American Thinker

Marriage expert and relationship pundit Bill Clinton has stepped forward on the issue of legalizing gay marriage in the state of New York.  If there ever was a person in support of an alternative view of marriage, Slick Willy the Wedded One sure is.

Why should Hill and Bill be the only two people in the world allowed to classify marriage according to their own skewed definition when there are so many colorful and eclectic possibilities? Heck, these are the two who feel comfortable living out of carpetbags and calling themselves New Yorkers.

The last time the connubial couple was seen within 500 feet of one another was for Chelsea’s $6 million heterosexual nuptials. Nevertheless, Bill Clinton’s views on marriage have not ceased to evolve even though he and Hillary have sacrificially chosen to conduct their idyllic union living apart.

During his sex-crazed tenure as president, while in the throes of adultery, Bill opposed gay marriage:

As president in 1996, Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans federal recognition of gay marriage. He has said he didn’t like signing the measure into law, explaining that at the time he was dealing with a GOP-led Congress and trying to ward off the prospects of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Of late the ex-president strongly favors “legalizing gay marriage in New York.”  America’s Renaissance man changed his mind because as he ages, marriage-minded Bill said he has come to realize that above all, he is someone who “personally supports people doing what they want to do.”  Bill even expressed to an audience of impressionable college students his personal code of ethics when it comes to gay wedded bliss: “I think it’s wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that.”

Struggling with the issue, the morally relativistic, open-minded, laissez-faire Clinton, in a 2009 interview with now- openly gay CNN reporter Anderson Cooper, spoke about how undermining the societal glue provided by traditional marriage ensures “coherence and strength and commitment and mutually reinforce[s] loyalties.”  Said Bill: “If gay couples want to call their union marriage and a state agrees, and several have now, or a religious body will sanction it, and I don’t think a state should be able to stop a religious body from saying it, I don’t think the rest of us should get in the way of it.”

It can be summed up simply in this way: As always for Clinton, “It depends on what the meaning of the word marriage is” and if a “herf” made up solely of a White House intern and a randy President sanction certain cigar aficionado activities, “the rest of us should{n’t] get in the way of it.”

Remember when Bill moved into an office in Harlem where, within the traditionally God-fearing black community, gay marriage continues to be frowned upon?  Clinton’s pro-gay marriage statement, issued “through Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group,” maintained that same-sex marriage would help “strengthen the bonds of community,” and may be why America’s first black president recently moved out of the largely African-American neighborhood to a new office downtown.

Bible-carrying Clinton may just be taking a Christian “Do unto others” attitude in order to woo back anti-gay marriage/churchgoing blacks.  Opposed to being stopped from doing what he wants to do – which includes God knows what – Bill’s Christianity may have matured to the level where he understands it is wrong for him to stop monogamous homosexuals from doing whatever they want to do, even if by doing so his political clout contributes to undermining a God-ordained institution.

And so Clinton’s ‘more perfect union’-via-homosexual-matrimony HRC statement reads as follows:

Our nation’s permanent mission is to form a ‘more perfect union’ – deepening the meaning of freedom, broadening the reach of opportunity, strengthening the bonds of community. That mission has inspired and empowered us to extend rights to people previously denied them. Every time we have done that, it has strengthened our nation. Now we should do it again, in New York, with marriage equality.

Clinton continued: “For more than a century, our Statue of Liberty has welcomed all kinds of people from all over the world yearning to be free. In the 21st century, I believe New York’s welcome must include marriage equality.”

I must say, America’s most notorious Philanderer-in-Chief’s émigré/homophile connection is so bizarre and convoluted that if taken seriously, it insults the gay community, taints the historic relevance of Ellis Island, and could cause millions of immigrants to hightail it back to the Mother country.

A clueless Clinton throws around the concept of extending rights, but appears to be oblivious to the fact that marriage is a God-ordained institution.  The ex-president’s reputation as a womanizer explains his skewed idea of what makes a ‘perfect union,’ and why his own marriage to Hillary is the weakest, most pathetic example of a committed relationship known to man.

It would be in the nation’s best interest if Willy the Wedded One, henceforth and in perpetuity, spared himself further embarrassment by refraining from proselytizing and undermining the sacred bond between a man and a woman, which is a subject he has proven, time and again, to know absolutely nothing about.

%d bloggers like this: