FROM the get go, this site has zeroed in on the real agenda of the ‘Gay Mafia’ – that which constitutes the radical left – be they actual homosexuals or their heterosexual counterparts. Their authentic targets were never publicly verbalized by leading activists, that is, until they secured the imprimatur of the (left-leaning) Supreme Court.
IF one takes the time to connect certain (past and present) dots, plus possesses a working knowledge of an opponent’s basic blueprint, one can then begin to see from there to here.
EFFECTIVELY, without executing fundamental homework assignments, let there be no doubt which side will come out the winner. Preordained.
THE inherent question is: do conservatives place enough of a value upon traditional marriage to do the heavy lifting, whatever it may be?
Commentary By Adina Kutnicki
Posted on July 3, 2015
(Aha…the communist/Marxist hammer and sickle is the true interlocking arm behind the gay agenda and its rainbow alliance…its signage)
BE that as it may, this investigative journalist understood that buzzwords – the more touchy feely the better – were necessary components for their overall agenda’s success. And if anyone believes that the loosely held hierarchy of the ‘Gay Mafia’ is not akin to a largely held corp board – via marketing strategies to the nth degree, and down to crossing its last t – well, you would be way off the mark. Granted, there are many in the gay community who are less than clued into overall decision-making, but this makes no diff. The point being, those who possess high up access to effectively create change, aka transform, are the ones who bear watching and deserve the closest scrutiny.
IN this regard, an avalanche of verbiage had to resonate with the general public. It necessitated pulling at the heart-strings and changing the national discourse upside down. And, so they did.
BUT before we head to the “spilled beans”, please recall the following heads up and other related matters:
HEADS UP ONE:
BACK in Sept. 2013, almost two years before gay ‘marriage’ uprooted the west’s core definition of marital union (ostensibly, like a pair of smelly socks, it was past due to throw it into the dustbin of history for ‘necessary’ change…hmm), this site expounded: the Gay Agenda and its dangerous militancy; the complete stripping of Judeo-Christian moorings.
DECIDEDLY on target.
HEADS UP TWO:
BUT more important than being personally right (no pun intended) are the take a-ways gleaned. This is precisely why a follow on report was noted via “the ‘down low’ POTUS strikes again: ‘gay day’ lauded in Obama’s America. A Pandora’s box.”
NOT for nothing.
HEADS UP THREE:
RESULTANT, another alarm bell rung: “the Gay Mafia and its poisonous roots in academia; pedophilia and strong-arm tactics.”
MORE than compelling.
AND all of the above brings us to the Gay-in-Chief’s overturning of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act – a foreshadowing – even though it passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities.
BUT that was then (1996), and this is now. Creep by creep. Yet, it is important to note that a more than seasoned investigator has come to the very same conclusions. In good company.
America has a huge problem right now. Multiple problems, in fact, but like the victims of a train wreck, we must do triage so we can apply treatment in order of importance. The blunt force trauma inflicted upon America by five rogue members of our judiciary, redefining marriage as a result of a highly potent cabal of activists intent on America’s destruction, certainly moves this problem up the list of importance…..read the whole thing….
NOT only that, but one of the aforementioned black-robed ‘gang of five’ actually declared, in 2009, the diametrically opposed Constitutional basis:
1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton. a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage? Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details. Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.
Emphasis added. Of course, there was no right to constitutional right to same-sex marriage right up until last week when Kagan joined four other justices on the court in creating one. Appropriately enough, your opinion of whether or not Kagan lied to Congress in her confirmation hearings depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.
DOES (il)legal gymnastics resonate? Is social engineering the “new” law of the land? These are fair and urgent questions! Kagan, what say you? To put it more bluntly, W T F?? Moreover, isn’t lying under oath an impeachable offense? Just putting it out there…
ENTER, the ‘spilled beans’.
Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want toradically redefine and eventually eliminate it. Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:
“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.” (Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)
For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society. (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.) While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point.
When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts. This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits. Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers. Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008. In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married.
Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.
Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.
AGAIN, their agenda, the destruction of marriage, was obvious to those who looked past their feel-good and manipulative rhetoric. Indeed, their ultimate goal is to eviscerate the fabric of the nation into a hollowed shell, thus, priming it for a totalitarian takeover. Their campaigns seek nothing less than to (eventually) overturn American society.
DEAR readers, the following is addressed to fellow conservatives, you know, those of us who are deemed a cross between retrograde and worse: we are basically vile meanies for refusing to recognize that ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ are at the heart of changing the major underpinning of Judeo and Christian society; marriage between a man and a woman! You got that?
IN other words, this segment of society must be tarred and feathered, and there is no better blueprint for said tactics than Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules For Radicals.
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off-balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
YOU get the picture.
IN any case, the next time you hear catch-all words like ‘equality’, ‘fairness’ and the like, know that you are being played. Think of it this way: is it ‘fair’ for America’s hard-core radicals to not only destroy the institution of marriage, that which millions upon millions of citizens hold dear, but to undermine its two rocks, its foundations?
ALAS, a two-tier battle plan must be utilized to fight back against the radicals at America’s throat. In essence, firstly, one must fully internalize where their objectives lie. Afterwards, it will be that much easier to go for the jugular. This can be accomplished through the implementation of communal push-back plans, be it rallying around religious leaders and justices of the peace who refuse to hand out any marriage licenses, to challenging them in court, and so on and so forth.
MIND you, the betrayers within the Supreme Court would have us believe that religious leaders can still refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies. The question that now remains is how the Supreme Court will balance religious freedom, which is protected under the First Amendment, with this ruling on future cases. Kennedy touched on this point in his opinion.
“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons……”
YES, we already know that some are being threatened with arrest and fines for refusing to comply with their edicts!
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. “The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended”….
REGARDLESS, this is not a battle that any non-radicalized American can afford to lose. More importantly, it is morally untenable not to lend ones assistance, whatever it entails. Incontestably, the stakes are as high as allowing theBrotherhood Mafia to take over the reins of the nation, even though they agree that same-sex marriage is a no-no.
BUT never mind all that. After all, they do insist that Shariah Law must be the law of the land, as such, the Constitution will be abrogated in toto.
READERS, America (the west) is gripped by two devils – radical leftists and Islamists. Stake your traditional claim!