Obama’s Disturbing Remarks

Remarks by the President

at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner

Washington Hilton Hotel

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Good evening, everybody. Good evening. I could not be more thrilled to be here tonight — (laughter) — at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. This is a great crowd. They’re already laughing. It’s terrific.

Now, if I do win a second term as President, let me just say something to all the — (applause) — let me just say something to all my conspiracy-oriented friends on the right who think I’m planning to unleash some secret agenda: You’re absolutely right. (Laughter.) So allow me to close with a quick preview of the secret agenda you can expect in a second Obama administration.

In my first term, I sang Al Green; in my second term, I’m going with Young Jeezy. (Laughter.)


THE PRESIDENT: Michelle said, yeah. (Laughter.) I sing that to her sometimes. (Laughter.)

He sings THAT to her??? Read the lyrics if you can stand to – they are very explicit – but find them here:

THE PRESIDENT: In my first term, we ended the war in Iraq; in my second term, I will win the war on Christmas. (Laughter.)

HUH? Win the WAR ON CHRISTMAS? Did you know there was such a thing? Well, it’s becoming more and more apparent that Christmas is detested by almost everyone for its supposed Christian overtones, and they have been de-christianising it for years. It’s not politically correct to have a religious festival that is so blatantly Christian. So it’s becoming a “winter festival” instead.

“In the past, Christmas-related controversy was mainly restricted to concerns of a public focus on secular Christmas themes such as Santa Claus and gift-giving, rather than what is sometimes expressed by Christians as the real “reason for the season” – the birth of Jesus.

Modern-day controversy occurs mainly in western countries such as the United States, Canada, and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom and Ireland, and usually stems from a contrast between the holiday’s significant social and economic role in these countries and its strong association with Christianity in an increasingly multiculturally sensitive and religiously diversifying society.

In recent decades, public, corporate, and government mention of the term “Christmas” during the Christmas and holiday season has declined and been replaced with a generic term, usually “holiday(s)”, to avoid referring to Christmas by name.

Also, many retailers are asked to greet their customers with “Happy Holidays” or “Season’s Greetings” than with the traditional “Merry Christmas”.

It has also been further argued that as western society continues to diversify culturally and religiously, public recognition of a potentially sectarian holiday, such as Christmas, may be seen as non-inclusive or offensive to non-Christians or non-celebrants in general.”

However, do you want to vote for a man who openly (even in jest) aims to “win the war against Christmas”? – presumably, to completely overturn any religious connection to that time of the year. It’s disturbing to say the least that these are the principles of a man whose words and actions affect many if not most of the nations round the world.


THE PRESIDENT: In my first term, we repealed the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” — (applause) — wait, though; in my second term, we will replace it with a policy known as, it’s raining men. (Laughter.)

July 22, 2011 President Obama formally certified on Friday that the American military is ready for the repeal of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy as Pentagon officials said that nearly two million service members had been trained in preparation for gay men and women serving openly in their ranks. Enactment of the repeal will come in 60 days, on Sept. 20. The two-month waiting period is called for in the legislation passed late last year that ended don’t ask, don’t tell, the 17-year-old law that banned openly gay men, lesbians and bisexuals from military service. As of Sept. 20, service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve our country, Mr. Obama said in a statement. Pentagon officials said they would be looking in the next two months at gray areas that might allow them to extend some benefits to same-sex married couples in the military. (Source)


What’s Obama referring to? He’s aiming to push the gay agenda even further!

There’s an ongoing conspiracy theory that says Obama is gay, and was even “married” during his college years and is seen in photographs wearing a wedding ring on his ring finger at that time. A spoof profile that he wrote for college lists one of his accomplishments as “deflecting persistent questions about the ring on my left hand.”

Be that as it may, it’s certain that Obama today does support gay marriage. In addition, his choice of song “Raining Men” is now hailed as a GAY ANTHEM, like “YMCA” by The Village People, and the gay community helped popularize it.

The song was written by Paul Jabara and Paul Shaffer in 1979 originally for Dave Balfour’s album ‘Stars’ (it was eventually discarded),and originally recorded by The Weather Girls in 1982. It was covered by Martha Wash (of The Weather Girls) as a duet with RuPaul in 1997, Geri Halliwell in 2001 and by Young Divas in 2006. The song is hailed as a camp classic and more recently as a dance anthem, gay anthem, and as a classic feminist anthem.

There is a gay blog called “It’s Raining Men” to which I won’t give the link but if you are that interested you can find it yourself on Google, and the strap line reads: “Breaking barriers and giving expression to the gay community” – therefore we have to ask ourselves why, of all songs, Obama would choose this one as his theme and anthem for his second term!

THE PRESIDENT: In my first term, we passed health care reform; in my second term, I guess I’ll pass it again. (Applause.)

I’m not qualified to comment on the Health Care Reforms, but I know they are hotly debated in the States – nonetheless, Obama chose to throw this comment in as another part of his supposed conspiracy agenda. Draw whatever conclusion you like from that!

Political Correctness: It’s Gone Too Far!

In looking for links to acccompany this article, I had way too many to share! This topic is everywhere! Why is nobody addressing this issue in a sensible and rational way – it’s yet another of those issues rammed down our throats by politically-correct numbskulls.

In other words the thought-police who throw their dummies out of the pram when they hear of anything disturbing their one-world love-fest in which we solve all our problems with a group hug.

These are the people who don’t turn a hair at offering twelve-year olds over-the-counter abortion tablets,  but run foaming at the mouth to the police when somebody is called “gay”. Even if that person IS “gay”, which kind of puts it into the realm of factual information rather than insult, does it not?

Equality? Don’t Make Me Laugh

Supposedly, we are all equal now (don’t make me laugh. Ever seen the size of a banker’s salary??). And equality has its disadvantages, like not being able to call somebody from Africa black any more. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but many Africans are black, that’s a fact of nature. But say so and you’re racist.

So the word black has fallen out of favour. We have to have CHALKboards now, coffee “without cream”, HEAVY clouds, an “unfortunate day” instead of a black day and of course nobody can be blackballed any more! It even seems (see links above) one school tried to change “Baa Baa Black Sheep” into “Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep” to reeducate the toddlers. Could it get any more ridiculous?

Doddery but Sane

I actually remember the “olden days” before this global propaganda for the New Age. We ate cooked breakfasts, cycled to work, used cash to buy things, bought fatty meat (gasp!) and delicious offal, and when there was an occasional immigrant living in the neighbourhood people were on the whole polite and respectful no matter what they thought.

We didn’t need a leaflet campaign to develop good manners, because we were brought up decently. Of course certain groups like “the Jews” were to my Dad and others of his age an object of scorn, even though he’d never met one, and if he had met one I’m sure he would have shaken his hand and greeted him warmly like anybody else. Certainly nobody shouted names in the street, and if you heard somebody being offensive about the “blacks” you corrected them.

I’ll go as far as to say (and why do I feel a frisson of fear when I do so?) that in those days the correct factual title of a “person of colour” was a “negro”, simply because that is a word that means “black” and it’s no different to somebody being yellow, brown or white. Since I don’t mind being called white, why should somebody else mind being called black? (OOOOh, I can hear the comments boxes beginning to heat up even now.)

Not being Gay is Now the Crime?

As far as the “gay” thing goes, no doubt homosexuality existed then as it always has done. But you wouldn’t know so. It was behind closed doors, no questions asked. Live and let live. Children didn’t know about such things, as is right. It was treated as a life-choice that was unhealthy and wrong, but – again – if that was your choice you got on with it.

But instead of a sexual deviation from the norm (I say this as a plain statement of fact) being tolerated, today it has to be elevated almost to cult status, praised, promoted, taught in schools, and no TV show is complete without at least one gay character. This goes far beyond tolerance. It’s an evangelical attitude to pushing homosexuality at every opportunity.

The same people, forgetting that tolerance cuts both ways, pillory without mercy any Christian who dares to be evangelical. Equality supposedly means we are all equal, but in this Animal Farm world of ours “some are more equal than others”.

Let a Christian quote something from the bible and you find out just how one-sided equality really is.

Gay lovers – far from being persecuted – are more protected than any other segment of western society, and they have won equal rights with any other group. They can have a civil marriage in a Register Office, adopt children, and receive financial aid as a couple, but that’s not enough. Now they want to redefine marriage for the rest of the country and be “married” as well, forcing every Church in the land legally to marry gay couples whether they like it or not. But as soon as a Church representative objects, there is a witch-hunt by the usual gay activists, being given any amount of airtime to claim they are being hated, oppressed and disadvantaged!

We have the Right to Disagree

Let’s get this straight. Racism, Sexism and all the other isms are wrong. They always have been wrong. The only difference now is that the people who do it are arrested, instead of being given the cold shoulder down the pub. Society used to find its own level, because some people were known to be loud-mouthed bigots and were shunned.

At the same time, if you happened to choose the path of loud-mouthed bigotry, that was up to YOU and nobody was going to put surveillance cameras on your house as a result.

Football Pitfalls

On British TV (although I never watch sport) the issue of the racist footballer was unavoidable. He was endlessly condemned, hauled before his peers, suspended from the game and fined a huge amount of money, and this piece of news was aired over and over again at a time when hundreds were dying in Syria. A tyrant shells his own people, but WE are totally preoccupied with what one man said to another in a rash heated moment during a game of football.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s upsetting that one person should call another THAT word (see, we can’t even say it now). But the word he used – in his own native land – wasn’t half as offensive as was made out, and one could argue that it’s commonly used by black people themselves. But I’m straying from my point.

Criminalising thought patterns, words and beliefs is very near to the religious persecution that we all know will come in its wake.

And in another such incident, a man was reported and subsequently arrested for a similar offense. Do the British police have nothing better to do, than searching countless hours of CCTV tapes for a man who “made a racist gesture” at a football match?

It was so mind-shatteringly offensive, apparently, that our eyes and ears had to be protected from knowing what it was! (Unlike the sexually explicit and blood-soaked drama on TV I might add).

I had to search the internet to find it was a “monkey-gesture”, you know, somebody scratching their sides like an ape. Come on! Can’t we act like grown-ups and spend our time (for instance) tracking down some of the people who steal and melt down our bronze war memorials?

And more to the point, isn’t this public outcry and baying for blood out of proportion? And isn’t it indicative of today’s world, where you do not have the freedom of thought or speech, even though you are NOT racist, or a bigot? Because a simple misunderstanding can lead to arrest and a criminal record too.

The Law Misused

Punishment was once reserved for those who had broken the law. That used to mean burglary, arson, murder, fraud and similar offenses. The arsonist was free to tell others what he thought of immigrants (like it or not) and until he lit a fire under them he wasn’t jailed.

Now a schoolgirl who complains that she can’t understand what her study mates are saying (because they are all speaking Urdu) is arrested, treated like a common criminal, and has to spend several hours in a cell not knowing what will happen to her. (see above link)

Hasn’t something gone terribly wrong? Why has this Government issued strict orders that teachers must log and report every “incident” that hints at homophobic, racist or other hate-crime offenses? In 2010 alone, more than 20,000 pupils aged 11 or younger were last year put on record for so-called hate crimes such as using the word ‘gaylord’.Some of them are even from nursery schools where children are no older than three.

Read more: Daily Mail Article

Once branded as a racist, with your name reported to the local authorities, this record can accompany you throughout your education, and later into your work experience. One chance remark by a child too young to understand the meaning of the words, may prove to be a millstone round his or her neck for life!

How can this be better than a simple reprimand by a parent or teacher? What message of “tolerance” does it present to a toddler, when his or her friends are disgraced and branded for playground backchat?

A child who is taunted as being “four-eyes” or “fatty” hits back by calling the bully a “homo” (because he heard the word used on TV) and is instantly a suspect in a criminal case! No longer can you just wince when you overhear talk in Macdonald’s about some “paki” shopkeeper who refused to sell them cigarettes – you are in fear that the police will be called and you’ll be summoned as a witness.

And it won’t stop here. Once the door is pushed open to the “hate-crime” house it will offer up more and more room to those who are intent on promoting their particular beliefs. They are determined to batter down any form of protest against their activities, good or bad.

Who is Really the Bigot?

Who gave these people authority to dictate what you and I think as we sit in the bath, or what we say when we chat to Auntie on the phone? The same people (usually atheists) who violently object to any kind of biblical legality or judgement, are prepared to condemn and criminalise anyone who disagrees with their twisted view of normality.

Notwithstanding what you and I think might be unbearably offensive, incorrect, one-sided, ill-informed and downright snitty – but up to this decade we still had the freedom to do it.

I find myself whispering when I comment on the news now! It’s got to me too!

Christian Parents not suitable to Foster

In a landmark judgment, handed down this afternoon (28 Feb) in which a Christian couple were rejected for fostering because they would not teach a child that homosexuality was normal, the High Court has suggested that Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics are unsuitable as foster carers, and that homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK.

The Judges stated that Christian beliefs on sexual ethics may be ‘inimical’ to children, and they implicitly upheld an Equalities and Human Rights Commission submission that children risk being ‘infected’ by Christian moral beliefs.

Today’s judgment strongly affirms homosexual rights over freedom of conscience and leaves Mr & Mrs Johns currently unable to foster a child as desired, despite their proven track record as foster parents. There now appears to be nothing to stop the increasing bar on Christians who wish to adopt or foster children but who are not willing to compromise their beliefs.

The summary contained in the judgment sends out the clear message that Christian ethical beliefs are potentially harmful to children and that Christian parents with mainstream Christian views are not suitable to be considered as potential foster parents as this does not accord with diversity and equality policies.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE: http://christianconcern.com