Obama: The Real Ugly American

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: https://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: http://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.


[1268 words]

25 Replies to “Obama: The Real Ugly American”

  1. Yes Bill, I was quite astounded that US foreign policy had been so successfu worldwide that they only mopping up left to do was to rid the world of heterosexuality. If this does not seal Obama’s fate at the next election, I don’t know what will–apart, perhaps, from the Republicans penchant for shooting themselves in their own feet!

    Bottom line is that God is not mocked!

    Steve Swartz

  2. Yes quite right Steve

    We need the Republicans to be strong and offer some real alternative leadership here. Obama has to be a one-term wonder.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  3. It’d be a laudable goal if their target were homosexuals in countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia. Be interesting to see whether they go after REAL homosexual rights or just push the gay marriage thing.
    Damien Spillane

  4. But Damien do you really think Barack Hussein Obama is worried about what takes place in Muslim countries? He is trying to simultaneously be a friend of Muslims and homosexuals. It will all come back to bite him one day.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  5. Surely the floods gates have now been opened. What reasons can government now give to restrict marriage based on the sexual preference of anyone? Surely we can now have many wives or husbands or as you say Bill one of each or a few of each, or my cat for that matter. As the world walks further away from God His voice gets harder and harder to hear. As Australia positions its self to go along with the anything goes movement I fear that we are placing ourselves far away from God’s protection and have placed ourselves at the feet of Satan, can God protect a people that choose the Devil?
    Greg Sadler

  6. Oh, come on now– the Homosexual agenda isn’t the only effort he thinks is important right now…

    He’s also doing everything he can to make sure that governments are forced to provide abortions! So, there’s TWO vital issues he’s involved with!

    When he’s not campaigning, of course. Which has taken up most of his time for the past three years. So, THREE! Three vital issues he spends his time and effort on!

    They’ll never be able to claim he was a “do nothing” president, after his one and only term is finished.

    Ronin Akechi

  7. A few more pearls of wisdom from the Obama admin.



    As far as the slippery slope arguments – although the gay lobby is critical of such, I am yet to hear the Greens go on the public record denouncing poly-amorous relationships, incest between consenting adults, or the practice of bestiality. They have not given us a definitive assurance that they would never support any of these relationships being given ‘marriage equality’.
    The Greens must be forced to go on the public record with their true thoughts about such things.

    Annette Williams

  8. I am more concerned about Australian society than about Obama; especially as I help out at a Breakfast program for homeless people and I am confronted by the fact that it is our dysfunctional, post Christian society that has surely contributed to this issue.
    I worry more about the Liberal party stance on the conscience vote re gay marriage and the impact of the Green’s through the Puppet Master Bob Brown than I am with a Democrat or Republican’s candidate’s credentials
    I am concerned with living, trusting in the Risen Lord than an American politician’s ability to say “God Bless America”.
    Wayne Pelling

  9. If righteousness exalts a country the opposite must drag it down into a new dark ages.
    Rob Withall

  10. At one level I think it is wrong for a homosexual to be executed for his or her sin and that pressure from the US to stop this is a good thing.

    At another level if we are talking about unjust executions heterosexual sinners need to be included as well. I cannot see anyway that homosexual are persecuted that isn’t part of a wider issue. Perhaps honour killings of rape victims should be the place to start. A homosexual’s right to life is not greater than that of a raped woman or an adulterer for that matter.

    Kylie Anderson

  11. Thanks Kylie

    We dare not be naive here, not even for a moment. Yes, if this was only about the improper and unjust use of the death penalty, not just against sexual lifestyles, but other religious professions, then we could get on board with this. But it is nothing of the sort. It is all about the normalisation of the homosexual lifestyle the world over. Plenty of nations are not at all interested in this, but Obama will force them anyway to embrace the radical agenda. The whole hog will be demanded here: same-sex marriage and adoption rights, pro-homosexual indoctrination in our schools, including our kindergartens, and so on. That is what is being pushed here, and that is what every one of us must resist.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  12. “He is trying to simultaneously be a friend of Muslims and homosexuals. It will all come back to bite him one day”

    You are right, Bill. He’s giving out conflicting messages. Moslems do not approve of homosexuality and are not about to change their beliefs to suit a charlatan who accepted a peace prize which he had not earned. They are counting the days till when he is booted out of office.

    John Snowden

  13. Obama’s support for same sex couples is curious as he and Michelle appear to have all the ingredients for a rock solid intact family, which is a rare and joyful thing to behold in these times of disposable relationships. I can’t see how he reconciles the life style choice he enjoys so obviously with his family with encouraging same sex relationships. Also how does he reconcile “God bless America” with forcing acceptance of a minority lifestyle choice on to the majority of the population and promoting abortion, a woman’s right to choose at the expense of her child, especially as in the US, and Europe, the danger of financial Armageddon is looming, one would think there are more pressing issues to deal with. Perhaps jobs can be forged from the situation – more State policy enforcers, more laws to implement, educators and learning media etc. Perhaps it’s better to look busy rather than just wait for disaster to strike but as Greg says, the floodgates will be opened, and I would guess the most appalling version of State totalitarianism and cultural Marxism will follow, as symptoms of it have already started. All in the name of Equality.
    Rachel Smith

  14. In relation to Kylie’s comment and Bill’s follow up comment on homosexuality and the death penalty.

    There can be no doubt that God said that the death penalty was a good moral judgment against the crime of homosexual sex. I find that most Christians reject this as right because it is personally abhorrent to them (not surprising – given the moral climate we are shaped by in our Western society – and we are shaped by it more than we realise).

    Perhaps there are good Biblical arguments to say that this penalty should no longer be executed by governments, but I don’t think so. God does not change, and if He judged it to be the just measure once, He won’t turn around and say that it is no longer a righteous thing to do. Can it be righteous at one stage in history and unrighteous in another?? And if so, why?? And even then, Christians still have to accept that He said it was right once, and therefore their grounds of rejecting it as a measure now should not be emotional but purely Biblical (I find the motivation amongst Christians to be against it is generally emotionally driven).

    Atheists see this dilemma and criticise Christians for not believing what the Bible says.

    Christ said that we are to teach the whole law (Matt 5:17-19 and following) – it is the righteous standard of living for those who have been brought into Christ’s Kingdom by God’s grace having been forgiven through the sacrifice of Jesus. I see no reason to reject God’s judgment in the law on this issue. The law of God is His holiness expressed at a creaturely level.

    For Christians who say it is wrong but deny a penalty for it, there is a sort of uncomfortable ‘nothing’ position. If our government is not drawing it’s instruction on this matter from God’s law, then where? It’s a halfway position to say it’s wrong, but then stop there when God’s Word goes further. For those who reject the law’s assessment, what then should be the government’s position on this? there doesn’t seem to be a ready answer. In God’s eyes it is an abomination of the highest order (Rom 1); and that should be our assessment as well.

    The issues are complex here, and of course the ultimate pinnacle of God’s plan is the coming of the Lord Jesus – through whom all can receive forgiveness. “God so loved the world” – that includes homosexuals lost in their lifestyle of sin. We should also reflect this aspect of God’s character as well – sharing the gospel with them in the hope that they will turn from their wickedness.

    How the gospel ministry effectively works together with civil punishment is difficult. On the one hand, we should uphold justice in our land – on the other, we should minister the gospel to all. I think true repentance wills the punishment anyway – for e.g. a murderer who came to Christ in prison would probably have a new sense that it was right for him to be punished and accept it graciously – and indeed he should be. Becoming a Christian in prison is no grounds for letting a criminal off the hook – but they will have the grace to bear the burden.

    I suppose it comes down to the limitations of the state; ultimately God’s judgment ‘will out’ (as the state’s ministry of justice is a limited one in its scope), and for now we uphold justice in our society as best we can, inasmuch as it involves us (governmental officials themselves being formally responsible for it) and preach the gospel to all.

    Lot’s of complex issues to work through on this topic, and may God give us the grace to do so!

    Isaac Overton, ACT

  15. Thanks Isaac

    Yes it can indeed be a rather complex debate, so short comments can hardly do it justice. I did write an introductory piece on capital punishment here:

    But much discussion remains, especially on how we understand the relationship between the Old and New Testaments – eg., what is continuous and what is discontinuous, etc. It is a mega-discussion which will not be easily resolved here. But worth thinking about and discussing.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  16. Thanks guys

    While Obama is trying to cram the homosexual agenda down the throats of every person on the planet, Tony Abbott is seeking to hold the line, at least on same-sex marriage. He says he will not allow a conscience vote on it, and sell out his party as Julia did with Labor. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/no-free-vote-on-gay-marriage-abbott/story-fn7x8me2-1226219247137

    But there will be tremendous pressure on Tony to cave in here. Even some of his own team members, like Turnbull, are pushing this. We all need to write to him and encourage him to stand strong. So please send him an email right now thanks: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  17. Obama, like all of us, will be called to account when God decides. In the meantime we should all be doing our best to be like Watchman Nee in our own little corners.
    Thanks Bill for the e-mail address for Tony Abbott — will use it right now.
    Anna Cook

  18. Bill,
    It is perplexing that you still seem to write as an american, “Our President” . And to call President Barak Obama an Ugly American is cheap and unscriptural. To some the ugly Americans are the millionaire and billionaire christians who minimise tax and condone impoverished health, education, exploitation of shockingly lowly paid domestic staff, retail staff and other manual workers.

    Isn’t it time you bagged Dr No, Tony Abbott for his two faced suport of the very issues you comment on at other times, eg abortion, gays in his own party,etc. .
    If you musty comment on America alert your readers to the nastiness of Newt Gingrich a serial womaniser, denomination changer, public speaker at $100,000 an appearance.Like ex baptist Julia Gillard, Barak Obama faces an oppostion with a default position of No. As Steve Swartz wrote God is not mocked, but clearly God hates the intolerance of the rich and loves the neglected poor. The US has more dirt poor than other developed nation. Surely the conservative believers acceptance of abuse against any minority group is unchristian and unbiblical.

    We christians can be great haters, and great nitpickers.

    Graeme Rule

  19. Thanks Graeme

    A few quick replies if I may.

    You are clearly of the extreme left. I once was too. Indeed, I was very heavily involved in the counter culture, the New Left, Marxism, etc, so I know a little bit about it. But then I became a Christian, and I came to see how incompatible this all was to my biblical faith.

    If you think the pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-homosexuality, anti-marriage, anti-family and anti-Christian Greens (the party you support, as you told me elsewhere) and Obama are somehow most compatible with your faith, then we are clearly not on the same page at all.

    Given the pro-drug stance of the Greens, and the fact that you used to be an anti-drug campaigner, I am really quite staggered at your voting. Do all the anti-drug groups you used to work for know about your change of heart?

    As to your well-worn list of complaints, I have addressed them all in numerous articles on my site, so I will not rehearse them here. If your mind is not made up on all this already, then you will find hundreds of articles devoted to explaining biblically, theologically and otherwise, the positions that I hold to.

    Given that I am an American citizen, I am not sure why you are so upset with me speaking as I do. And the word hypocrisy comes to mind when you take the high moral ground about calling someone an ugly American, only to turn around and offer your own list of worthy candidates.

    Perhaps the one thing I do agree with is your last line – but I will leave it to my readers to decide who best fits the bill there.

    But given that what I do and say and believe obviously bothers you so greatly, it may be the best thing to simply avoid my site altogether – it may cause you less angst and distress! So we may just have to agree to disagree here.

    Regards and Merry Christmas,

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  20. Graeme Rule, but surely we Christians are a minority group as the LGBT continues to suggest.
    Daniel Kempton

  21. Dear Bill

    Spats are unseemly, particularly public ones. But for a number of reasons I do need to respond to inaccurate comments made about me. To have worked happliy for then PM John Howard on a key anti drugs team shows: (a) I have never been of the extreme left, I am concerned about this allegation for a number of reasons. Firstly that my wonderful colleagues may be seen to have been gullible in working work with me, secondly the impact on my family and church, and thirdly that Culture watch readers may see me as a hypocrite, a sinner saved only by grace I surely am; but twenty years of working against alcohol and drug abuse was not a game.

    (b) You have accused me of being a Greens supporter, I did tell you privately in confidence that I had voted for a local Greens candidate having talked with an active evangelical member of their party. Altho normally I do not talk about my voting preferences, I have also voted for Family First in recent times. (c) Re your comment that I was claiming the moral high ground, I was suggesting a comment on one current Republican contender for the US Presidency would be timely. One suggestion is hardly a “list” . I was not aware that you remain a US Citizen, but the US is a hotbed of relgious intolerance,despite its great churches, great evangelical bodies and creativity.

    Surely we should be encouraging christians to be active in all major parties- Lib, Lab, Nat, Green, and if so inclined DLP, FF, and C Dems. That is after all what democracy is about in Australia.

    Despite our differences, as I have said in the past, your passion and advocacy is something to challenge us all.

    God bless you and your readers

    Graeme Rule

  22. Thanks Graeme.

    I agree with you about public spats – but that leaves unanswered the question as to why you initiated one! And your continued pot shots at America seems to indicate that you still prefer engaging in them! As for the Greens, I would not recommend that anyone gets involved with them in their current antiChrist state. And I would see a major incongruence between anyone claiming to be anti-drugs and pro-Greens. And your list of course included many more than one (all those “ugly Americans,” horrible “rich Christians,” etc). Your continued support of Julia and Barack are, as I say, major areas of disagreement. As to my advocacy work, it will continue unabated. As I mentioned, if it is off putting to you (or anyone else) then you might choose to go elsewhere. But my wish for your Merry Christmas remains. And remember that enjoying a good Christmas meal and reading disagreeable posts just don’t mix. So you might steer clear of my site for at least over the Christmas holidays! Come back when there is less feasting going on!

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  23. Is this the death rattle of an Obama in trouble? What is his motivation? Is it perhaps that since very few of his policies have actually been successful, (not all his fault), that he is grasping at a moral issue and begun preaching?

    I’m reminded of the old rhyme
    “Those that can; do
    Those that can’t; teach.
    And those that can’t teach; preach”.

    In Bill’s book “Strained Relations”, the observation is made about the disproportionately high level of funding for Hiv/Aids in our medical system, compared to the number of Hiv/aids sufferers. We see a similar disproportion here, with the amount of pressure to adopt SSM as normal in our society, compared to the number of gays, reduced by the number of gays in steady relationships, reduced by the number of gays in steady relationships that want marriage. We are talking about 1% of 5% of the population. That’s 5/10,000 at most!

    Bruce Knowling

  24. Would Graeme Rule also advocate that Christians become active in the Australian Sex Party? After all, as he says, this is “what democracy is about in Australia.”

    Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: