Back in 1958 a political novel appeared called The Ugly American. In 1963 it was made into a popular film starring Marlon Brando. It had to do with Americans abroad and their unsavoury reputation in foreign lands, especially Southeast Asia. It came to mean the brash, arrogant and out of touch visitor to another country.
Unfortunately, our US President is now doing his best to become a real ugly American. The Obama Administration has decided that one of its most pressing global agenda items is to champion the homosexual agenda in every way that it can. Thus it will do all in its power to seek to implement their agenda around the world.
The New York Times covers the story this way: “The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that the United States would use all the tools of American diplomacy, including the potent enticement of foreign aid, to promote gay rights around the world.
“In a memorandum issued by President Obama in Washington and in a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton here, the administration vowed to actively combat efforts by other nations that criminalize homosexual conduct, abuse gay men, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered people, or ignore abuse against them. ‘Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct,’ Mrs. Clinton said at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, ‘but in fact they are one and the same’.”
Obama’s Memorandum begins this way: “The struggle to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons is a global challenge, and one that is central to the United States commitment to promoting human rights. I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations, or killing men, women, and children for their perceived sexual orientation. That is why I declared before heads of state gathered at the United Nations, ‘no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.’ Under my Administration, agencies engaged abroad have already begun taking action to promote the fundamental human rights of LGBT persons everywhere. Our deep commitment to advancing the human rights of all people is strengthened when we as the United States bring our tools to bear to vigorously advance this goal.”
So there you have it folks. The greatest nation in the world – or the former greatest nation in the world – has decided that its overwhelming mission in the world is to make the planet a safer place for the militant homosexual lobby to do its thing.
No stone will be left unturned and no expense shall be too great to ensure that the homosexual revolution is unleashed on the rest of the world, whether they like it or not. All the resources at the disposal of the American government will be used to force the homosexual agenda onto the rest of the world, and those who are not too thrilled about all this will just have to grin and bear it.
But let me go back to these words of wisdom from Obama: “no country should deny people their rights because of who they love”. Oh really? No one? So if a guy in Sweden is madly in love with his pet sheep, he should not be denied his rights to do his thing?
Now if you think that example is a bit far out, think again. It in fact has already happened in that Scandinavian sexual paradise. See my write-up here: billmuehlenberg.com/2011/05/23/sweden-sheep-and-sexual-suicide/
What if some poor guy in Holland just can’t get his kicks with just one woman? Is it OK for him to love two women at the same time? Obama seems to think so. And so do the Dutch. See here for an actual example of this: www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
Indeed, the examples of Obama-esque “love” are endless. The combination and permutations are almost infinite in number. And as I document in my new book Strained Relations, the arguments for same-sex marriage rights are identical to the rights to these other kinky combos.
As I said in my book, “If marriage is no longer one man, one woman for life, then any number of alternatives seems to be possible. If homosexuals can argue that a loving committed relationship should qualify anyone for the institution of marriage, then other equally binding and loving unions should be recognised.
“As Sam Schulman put it, ‘If we grant rights to one group because they have demanded it – which is, practically, how legalized gay marriage will come to pass – we will find it exceedingly awkward to deny similar rights to others ready with their own dossiers of ‘victimization.’ In time, restricting marriage rights to couples, whether straight or gay, can be made to seem no less arbitrary than the practice of restricting marriage rights to one man and one woman. Ultimately, the same must go for incestuous relationships between consenting adults.’
“Logically, one could argue for all sorts of combinations and permutations if we swallow the idea that same-sex couples have a right to marry. What about a bisexual who really does love both a man and a woman? Cannot this threesome qualify?
“Indeed, there have been plenty of homosexual activists who have long argued for the removal of most, if not all, legal restrictions on sexuality. Way back in 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations in the US demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’
“Also in this 1972 Gay Rights Platform was the call for the abolition of all age of sexual consent laws. These proposals were endorsed wide and far in the homosexual community. Indeed, lesbian activist Judith Levine argued for all this and more (even pedophilia) in her 2003 book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, and her famous Village Voice article, ‘Stop the Wedding! Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough’.
“Consider another recent example of the slippery slope in action. The pro-same-sex marriage Greens in Switzerland are now happy to see the legalisation of incest. One press report says this: ‘The upper house of the Swiss parliament has drafted a law decriminalising sex between consenting family members which must now be considered by the government. . . . Daniel Vischer, a Green party MP, said he saw nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex, even if they were related.’
“The truth is, all boundaries are smashed when we redefine marriage. There are even groups arguing for the right to marry one’s pet! Called petrosexuality, this new sexuality group insists that a person’s love for his or her pet, including sexual relations, should be made official. Thus one Dutch web site encourages people to marry their pets.”
But hey, it’s all about love, and Barack Hussein Obama will use the power of American might to ensure that love the world over is recognised, respected, and indulged in. If he is going to demand that the whole world bows subserviently to the radical homosexual agenda, then why stop there? Love is all that matters after all, so if you love your IPod, then go for it.
And if someone gives you some flak about your real close relationship with your IPod, just call in the Marines; Obama is waiting and willing to help you out.