“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.” -Isaiah 5:20
In Liberal Newspeak, words have no fixed meaning. They mean what you want them to mean, and to hell with what the dictionary says.
During the Clinton administration, the Liberal Establishment Media were so infatuated with Billy, they called him America’s “first black president” even though Billy was and remains pasty white.
Now, the cover of the latest issue of Newsweek to hit the newstand orgasmically proclaims that Obama, his head topped with a rainbow halo, is America’s “first gay president”.
The accompanying cover story was written by
openly homosexual sodomite political pundit Andrew Sullivan. The full cover story is not yet online, but in a blog post published earlier this week, Sullivan wrote that Obama’s support of gay marriage brought him to tears.
Obama, Sullivan writes, “had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family.”
Although Newsweek’s cover calling Obama “first gay President” is a reference to his recent declaration of support for “same-sex” marriage, the appellation may also be the liberal media’s tacit “wink-wink” acknowledgment that all the rumors about Obama being gay (or bisexual) are true. See, for example,
- Washington Insider: Obama Member of Chicago Gay Man’s Club
- Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up
- Sinclair: I did oral sex and coke with Obama
The New Yorker, too, is orgasmic over Obama’s support of homosexual marriage. Its May 21 issue has this cover:
Bob Staake, the artist who drew the New Yorker cover, said:
“It’s a celebratory moment for our country, and that’s what I tried to capture. […] I wanted to celebrate the bravery of the President’s statement—a statement long overdue—but all the more appreciated in this political year. We are on the right side of history.”
The same Andrew Sullivan who commends Obama for his support of gay marriage candidly admits, in “Virtually Normal” (pp. 202-203), that homosexuals’ push for same-sex marriage does not mean they either want or are prepared to be monogamous:
“there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman; and again, the lack of children gives gay couples greater freedom. Their failures entail fewer consequences for others. But something of the gay’s relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”
Given that homosexuals want marriage but not the monogamy of those boring heterosexuals, the inquiring mind asks why then do they want “same sex” marriage?
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” –Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.
“[Legalizing “same-sex marriage”] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.” –Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.
And they deride Conservatives as paranoiac when we’ve said there’s a homosexual agenda!
H/t FOTM reader Wade.