Barrack Obama: Homosexual Champion

Barry has again made history! Obama's grand love of all things controversial and contrary to American traditional, even Constitutional, way of living has now found him appointing to the Depratment of Commerce a man who is now a "woman", Mitchell "Amanda" Simpson.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8cff7fe4abe2.jpg[/atsimg]

Obama Appoints “Transgender” as Latest Homosexual Nominee

President Barack Obama has achieved another “first” for homosexual advocates by nominating a “transgender” man to a post in the Commerce Department.

Amanda Simpson was tapped by the President to the post of Senior Technical Adviser in the Commerce Department. Amanda, formerly known as Mitchell, is a man who worked for Raytheon Missile Systems in Arizona, during which time he made the transition from “male” to “female.”

Obama Appoints Radical Transgender to Department of Commerce.

"...as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds"
Amanda Simpson
Obama's Transgender Appointee

This appoitment rivals another appointment of his that appointed an outspoken indiviual who publicly announces his utmost support for his (and others) same gender sexual activities, Kevin Jennings, to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education in charge of the “Safe and Drug-Free Schools” program.

Obama appoints Homosexual Propagandist to Education

In a stunning move, President Barack Obama has nominated homosexual propagandist Kevin Jennings to be the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education in charge of the “Safe and Drug-Free Schools” program. Aside from overseeing drug education programs, the term “safe” also means making public schools “safe” for alleged homosexual children; translated, this means Jennings’s position will be used to produce and disseminate pro-homosexual propaganda to America’s public schools.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e25f6ce02236.jpg[/atsimg]

Proof of the highlighted agenda:

Help Stop Passage of California Bill (SB 48) Requiring Promotion of Homosexuality in Grades K-12

California Senate Bill number 48, now tracking its way through the legislature, would change the teaching of core academic subjects into a “celebration” of gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual lifestyles. This profound change in the basic education of children would be mandatory, without involvement or opt-out rights of parents.

Homosexual Book Prompts Legislation

Republican U.S. Congressman Walter Jones said the Parental Empowerment Act of 2005 (H.R. 2295) was crafted in response to a situation in Wilmington, N.C., where parents were concerned that their children were given access to adult content, particularly "King and King," a book detailing a homosexual marriage between two princes.

"The goal behind this legislation is to empower parents to take charge of the content available to their young children in our public schools," said Jones. "When parents are active participants in their children's lives, everyone wins.

"This legislation will be one avenue to help parents take back their right to determine the appropriateness of the content their children are exposed to," added Jones.

Homosexual History Lessons in Public Schools

Homosexual activists, early in their quest to normalize their behavior, saw the key role children could play in their strategies, and they focused specifically on them through public schools. Legislators in California have incrementally pursued special homosexual rights and curriculum in the schools, promoting the acceptance of behaviors unacceptable to many parents. New legislation – introduced December 13 –would require that children be taught the contributions of homosexuals in California and American history.

Five years ago, the first openly homosexual California state senator, Sheila Kuehl, took aim at the schools and introduced SB 1437, legislation that – under the guise of discrimination – would have dictated a one-sided, pro-homosexual message in the public schools. Specifically, it would have banned lessons, discussions, and activities that “reflected adversely” on one’s sexual orientation. Under the banner of one-sided tolerance, traditional family views would be quashed, and teaching would have been stripped of any negative messages about homosexuality. Citizens in California – and indeed nationwide – reacted, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 1437 and several other egregious bills, known collectively as the “triple threat.”

The following year, the “triple threat” returned, including a reworked and expanded version of SB 1437 (SB 777), also authored by Sen. Kuehl. This time around, the governor signed SB 777 and one other homosexual education bill – SB 394 – opening the door to further promotion of homosexuality while silencing the voice of traditional morality and Judeo-Christian beliefs in the schools.

Openly homosexual Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) has since taken up the mantle of termed-out Sheila Kuehl. On December 13, Leno introduced an expansion of Kuehl’s previously vetoed legislation. Promoting it as a method of thwarting bullying and harassment in the schools, SB 48 is billed as the “Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act.” This legislation would require children to learn the history and contributions of homosexuals. Just as children currently study the roles and contributions of men and women, African Americans, and members of other ethnic groups, SB 48 would require lessons to include “the early history of California and a study of the role and contributions of both men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups, to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.” In other words, history in California schools would equate sexual identity with ethnicity.

So... sexuality equated with ethnicity...

While we're at it, why not equate canibalism to religious freedoms? So while the sexually perverted child molesters who were given legislative power to enjoy having legal sexual debauchery with 7 year old 'consenting' boys and girls, we can also have canibals enjoying themselves with religious feasts of human flesh... people who they legally murdered only minutes before as a 'sacrificial' offering and lovingly prepared for congregational consumption?!

Anyway... this is what Obama considers 'moral'. Is the long standing rumor, even outright public accusation, that Barrack Obama is gay an accurate portrayal of America's first black Commander in Chief? It certaintly appears that way, with his position appointments!

Obama Appoints Record Number of Gays

President Barack Obama has appointed more gay people in less than two years than any other president... White House spokesman Shin Inouye also confirmed the amount and added that Obama has hired more gay and lesbian officials than presidents Clinton and George W. Bush combined.

Here is the historical rhetoric on Obama's homosexuality from Youtube:

Rev. David J. Manning: Obama a homosexual drug user forever.



This one is particularly .... well..., gay. On an interesting note... isn't this Kevin Jennings?...



Makes you look at the picture of Jennings a second time, doesn't it?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e25f6ce02236.jpg[/atsimg]

This video claims that three gay men (one of them Donald Young), who went to the same church as Obama, were found shot dead execution style during Obama's presidential campigne:



News broadcast about Donald Young:



Testimony of Larry Sinclair, at the National Press Club, on Obama:



Larry Sinclair Obama Steamy Love Affair:



I'm only revealing actions and views from outside sources as well as from Obama himself here people. My opinion on this matter is irrelevant at this point. All I will say is this (and I'm sure those in the gay community will agree):

MORALITY is something that a President of this country must respect and protect at all costs, and sexual preferrance is a mater of moral privacy, NOT public discussion or topic involving underage children.

Obama's decisions have CLEARLY disrespected this duty of his, and have disclosed to Americans, on top of everything else he's done in like manner, that he is morally deficient, and thus unfit to represent America responsibly as a leader.

why is it wrong that obama appoints transgenders or gays to seats in office? i think its a great message of tolerance that needs to be recognized across the land.

they arent hurting anyone, so why should it matter?

reply to post by XelNaga


There's nothing wrong with it, as you state. This is just more hate-tripe.

If you truly believe the statement you've made, you are unfortunately an uneducated and misinformed individual.

Actually, this post was created to inform you of the people this is hurting... why not read it this time?




Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Just wanted to add that despite your claims via u2u, this post is far from civilly worded.

Originally posted by Heyyo_yoyo
If you truly believe the statement you've made, you are unfortunately an uneducated and misinformed individual.

Actually, this post was created to inform you of the people this is hurting... why not read it this time?

edit on 21-3-2011 by Heyyo_yoyo because: (no reason given)

care to explain how i am uneducated and misinformed?

also explain to me who this is hurting other than the ego's of bible thumpers and hate mongers?

PLEASE STOP WITH THESE HATE THREADS. OP: Get educated, deny ignorance.

what ever happened to NOT judging a book by it's cover?
i'm no fan of obama, and i may/will disagree with this appointees politics, but unlike many
here i cannot judge so simply.

Originally posted by Heyyo_yoyo
Barry has again made history! Obama's grand love of all things controversial and contrary to American traditional, even Constitutional, way of living has now found him appointing to the Depratment of Commerce a man who is now a "woman", Mitchell "Amanda" Simpson.

Pleas show me where specifically in the constitution that it bars transgendered American citizens from being appointed to political seats?

I bet I can find a spot in the constitution that bars discrimination against transgendered people...

Amendment 1 Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The federal law disagrees with you too.

I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?

* Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
* the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;

How about this little tid bit from the Declaration Of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So... you have a problem with Obama appointing a transgendered person? Tough. You have every right to disagree with his choice... But his choice is very legal whether you like it or not...

So... I ask you... You made the claim that it is unconstitutional to appoint a transgendered person? Well, I just proved you wrong.

reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo


Your point gets lost (fairly quickly) in the endless string of hate-speech. I find it hard to reach the conclusion of an argument when it starts out in such an ignorant manner. Many of the 'morals' that this country is built on are out dated and a way to justify bigotry. I didn't vote for Obama but there are plenty of other reasons to dislike him. Have fun being afraid of the big bad gay agenda brainwashing your children. If you're that uncomfortable about homosexuality you may want to reassess your own sexuality, you may find that it's built on shaky ground. I can't roll my eyes far enough into the back of my head.

reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo

MORALITY is something that a President of this country must respect and protect at all costs, and sexual preferrance is a mater of moral privacy, NOT public discussion or topic involving underage children.

1. There is nothing immoral about homosexual preference.

2. An overview of different preferences is part of sexual education for underage children, so I would say that public discussion about this topic is what needs to be done.

The important question is whether or not they are actually qualified to do the job. Were they the most qualified candidates?

If they are, then great!! If not, well then, that's another story.

Originally posted by Heyyo_yoyo
My opinion on this matter is irrelevant at this point.

Well, there's one thing we can agree on. And we REALLY agree!

MORALITY is something that a President of this country must respect and protect at all costs

And you're claiming that he's not doing that? How, specifically? And btw, where is that in his job description?

sexual preferrance is a mater of moral privacy

Excuse me? What the hell does that even mean? "Moral privacy"? What is that?

Hey, Mr. Yoyo, Obama may be gay. He might be. He may be bisexual. He's never denied being gay as far as I know, so maybe he is. Maybe he's not advertising it because he's exercising his "moral privacy" or something like that. So what if he IS gay or has a lot of gay people in his administration? What moral fiber is being destroyed again?

This is just another stupid hate thread embracing ignorance.

Signed,
Benevolent Heretic, Homosexual Champion

The amazement and growing humour about this started at :

Amanda Simpson was tapped by the President to the post of ..."

... and didn't end until the smiles between Jennings and Obama! lol lol This is too much to take in at a moment, and the bile is rising. Down with gay agenda trying to run society, love and lust to the top virtue notches, determining everything else must capitulate to municipal priorities in our minds. Desensitization - Mind Jamming/Bars - Assimilation. Sidestep it America!

"A weak fallen man, with promise of an end".
30 seconds to Mars

Originally posted by Northwarden
The amazement and growing humour about this started at : ...
... and didn't end until the smiles between Jennings and Obama!

You're kidding me, right? You didn't think that video was real, did you? Did you???

Down with gay agenda trying to run society

And down with bigotry, hatred, fear-mongering and simple-mindedness!

The title of the thread is Barack Obama: Homosexual Champion... My question: Does that mean he's a homosexual who is also a champion? Or that he's a champion of homosexuals? Either way, I like it!

The appointment of Amanda Simpson was over a YEAR ago! We talked about it here. It's not a big deal. Take a deep breath and live and let live.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

And down with bigotry, hatred, fear-mongering and simple-mindedness!

I said gay agenda, which involves brain-washing children and youth as per societal agenda, which actively seeks to instill us with all the hubris of cultural normalcy in link and accordance to the slippery slopes of a corrupting influence. There's nothing so simple about it, or any lifestyle-changing agenda for that matter. If I choose to consider the behaviour something bestial, or less-than-human, then I am perhaps bordering on bigotry, and it may upset people if I consider then a failing in their lives, worthy of correction. So be it. I can say to this, you who support the agenda as it stands are guilty-by-association to a lot of corruption in our societies, at large, since it's no shining example of a decent movement. It's also brought to you by those who, with the other glove, debase art in all its forms and portrayals.

As part of the corrupting layers go, this one in particular goes a depraved deep. You would barrage men and women who want no part of the concept to undermine their own strength of character and the very human dignity upon which they stand. If from this you cultivate a crop of angry resentment, easily termed hatred, back, then who is to say it is not the accurate crop from that which you have planted? Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Who cares how fast or slow you plant in peoples intellectual fields, if the ugly crop is the same, and smells like smouldering grapes.

It is no secret..that those who hate homosexuality this much..secretly have gay tendencies. I don't agree with homosexual lifestyle but than again it does not affect me in the way I live my life. I have gay friends and socialize with them...they are well aware of how I feel. I also have alcoholic and friends who use drugs...I also do not agree with these lifestyles but again their life choices do effect mine any way. How many times must we read about people who hate this life and then find out they have been secretly gay.

These people who hate homosexuals this much are just hating themselves for having these feelings and are repressing them to the point that in order to keep up the charade...they declare publicly they hate all gays.

I say those of you must learn to deal with your emotions and just stop spreading hate and ignorance.

An article pointing out the link between homophobia and homosexual repression.

atheism.about.com...

A quote from said article

Fortunately, we do have data -- real scientific data. There have been scientific studies which reveal strong links between being homophobic and harboring repressed homosexual urges or desires.

Originally posted by Heyyo_yoyo
MORALITY is something that a President of this country must respect and protect at all costs, and sexual preferrance is a mater of moral privacy, NOT public discussion or topic involving underage children.

Whose morals? Yours? Mine? whose?

As for sexual preference being a matter of moral privacy, so is the very act itself according to American culture. I don't hear a whole lot of people screaming that we should stop teaching sex ed in health classes. All I hear is hate filled garbage about how teaching that sexual preferences exist == homosexual agenda.