The Obama Doctrine

George W. Bush had a doctrine. His dad didn’t but Ronald Reagan had one. So did Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. Also Lyndon Johnson, and John Kennedy. Gerald Ford did not last long enough to have one. Eisenhower had one. So did Truman.

No doubt Barack Obama wants one. Some say he has one but they are quick to say they are not sure what it is. There is now a six-year debate about what it might be.

I say he has one and it is clear. His number one foreign policy priority is the promotion of lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals, and transgenders around the world. It is the thing he is most consistent about and the thing he consistently backs with the might and muscle of the United States no matter what.

He issued a presidential memorandum in 2011 making LGBT rights a major foreign policy priority. He directed every part of the Federal government that does business beyond our borders to make this a priority issue including, inexplicably, the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps there are, after all, transgender farms in Sweden like there are in California.

He directed all Federal agencies to “to expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct.” Homophobia and intolerance are not defined but you can expect they will be defined broadly enough to get you and me.

Don’t think the Obama Doctrine is not serious or that he treats LGBT issues like he treats America’s traditional leadership role in the world, that is, with regret and disdain. No, for this he punishes. In March he withdrew greatly needed financial assistance to Uganda because Uganda passed what many see as draconian laws restricting LGBT activity, both public and private. I happen to agree that the Uganda laws are draconian but the withdrawal of development aid from such a poor country over this issue simply does not make sense except in the context of the Obama Doctrine.

Uganda is one of the poorest countries in the world. Thirty-seven percent of its population lives on less than $1.25 per day. Life expectancy at birth is 54 years. It has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world.

Barack Obama withdrew financial support from this poor country as a sop to his rich gay friends at the Human Rights Campaign. He even withdrew money from a program to combat HIV/Aids.

Last Friday twenty-five Democratic Senators, led by Ed Markey of Massachusetts, proposed legislation that would place into law that LGBT is a foreign policy priority for the United States. Their bill goes much further than Obama’s memorandum. This bill even mandates the training of foreign soldiers in the promotion of LGBT rights. It creates a new Special Envoy, appointed by the President, who may roam the world as he sees fit to ensure that this favored group’s favored desires get the full backing of the most powerful nation on earth.

Let’s keep in mind that right now the world is on fire. The Iranians work ever closer to nuclear capability. Russia expands into Crimea and Ukraine. Somali terrorists raid Kenyan villages killing dozens. Egypt teeters on chaos. Libya is in chaos. Syria has a hot civil war going. Thailand had a military coup. Terrorists kidnap Israeli teenagers. Baghdad is about to fall to a new group no one heard of a few news cycles ago.

And what does Obama do? Besides dithering on the big things, he hoists the gay rainbow flag over embassies all over the world. We are relieved the gay flag flies not over but under the US flag, but give them time. The US holds gay pride events, including dances, in our embassies, even in countries we need as allies in our fight against Muslim extremism but who are guaranteed to find such events deeply abhorrent. We appoint otherwise unqualified men as ambassadors but who qualify because of their same-sex attraction.

There is evidence of pushback against this ideological encroachment. The president of Uganda said he opposed the new draconian law until the US government, left-wing media and NGOs brought intense indeed global pressure. He was angry, called it imperialism, and signed the bill.

In recent days, the Organization of American States issued a document explicitly saying the LGBT issue is properly left to the member states of the OAS and could not be mandated from on high. This is seen as a stick in the eye to the US and the gay ambassadors Obama has appointed in Latin America.

There is no doubt that those with same-sex desires are discriminated against in places all over the world. It is also true that life-sentences or even death for homosexual encounters is deeply wrong. Any fair person can say these things without equivocation, even at the risk of angering our brothers in Africa.

But the showboating of Barack Obama in order to gain the applause of the deep-pocketed gays in Hollywood and Wall Street and every other power center they dominate is probably causing more harm that good.

What’s more, continuous attempts by the radicals at the UN and the European Union to force this issue into the global human rights paradigm will only harm genuine human rights in the long run. Existing human rights treaties already cover those with same-sex desire. To try and foist a new category of non-discrimination for “sexual orientation and gender identity” into international law will only tell the thug states that human rights really do not exist or that they may be ignored.

Most of the world does not want this. It’s like most of Africa does not care about so-called reproductive rights. They care about basic medical care, which they cannot get because we in the rich west spend our money on reproductive rights.

Most of the world rightly sees this LGBT business as the work of American and European elites, and so it is. One billion people live on a buck a day. One billion people cannot get a clean glass of water and who pee into the river they drink from. These people have real concerns and they do not align with the sexual fashions of those in Malibu, Tribeca and DuPont Circle.

The Obama Doctrine is to support and promote the rights of an elite few at the expense of the rest of the world.

Editor’s note: Pictured above is the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv during the city’s so-called Gay Pride week this month.

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. He is the author of Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data published by Regnery. He is also the author of the new book Little Suffering Souls: Children Whose Short Lives Point Us to Christ published by Tan Books. The views expressed here are solely his own.

  • Bedarz Iliaci

    “The Obama Doctrine is to support and promote the rights of an elite few at the expense of the rest of the world.”

    Is the world entitled to a say in how American Govt spends its money?

    • Augustus

      The American people are entitled to a say in how the American Government spends their money and the rest of the world has the right to resist the cultural imperialism of the Obama administration.

      • Vinnie

        Amazing how a constitutional republic and Christian morality is deemed abhorent by Obama and progressives, yet pushing immorality on us and every other country is deemed good.
        I remember something about good being evil and evil being good.
        Woe to us? Do we have at least 10 good people left?

    • FernieV

      Certainly, when that money is used to subvert and bully the institutions that dare to oppose what we consider in Africa an aberration, namely, the glamourization of the unnatural sin of sodomy (which was equally consider abhorrent by most Americans a few decades ago).
      All are aware of the interest of many Africans to getting a green card: this LGBT-friendly policies of Obama are going to convert many Africans into gays and lesbians (at least until they manage to get the desired immigration papers…).
      The whole thing is seen in Africa, where I live for several decades, as PATHETIC!

    • Guest

      Yes, actually. If the money is used for immoral purposes then people of conscience have a duty to speak up.

    • asmondius

      Are aberrosexual activists entitled to determine foreign policy?

    • DE-173

      Is the world entitled to a say in how American Govt spends its money?

      As long as we’re entitled to tell the world how it spends it’s money.

    • Art Deco

      Is the world entitled to a say in how American Govt spends its money?

      No, but evidently you think we’re all entitled to non sequiturs.

  • Scott W.

    By declaring support for the homosex movement, Obama has found a cheap and easy way to appear resolute and visionary, but it is more like declaring support for Godzilla after he’s leveled half of Tokyo. He and the bulk of heterosexual enables think the glib “right side of history” rhetoric will scare everyone into line. Well, it shouldn’t for two reasons: 1). The first group to really employ the right-side-of-history rhetoric was the Soviets, and 2). Even if the champions of wicked behavior really are on the right side of history, that isn’t sufficient reason to join them any more that ten-thousand orcs is sufficient reason to abandon the walls of the Hornburg.

  • Vinnie

    Sounds like moving to Uganda may be moving closer to sanity, and you’d be in a position to help people who really need assistance.

  • Fred

    Good article Arnie, thanks. He shared his doctrine and people view when he referred to the bitter people who cling to their religion in antipathy of others. I once thought we had a representative government that did the will of the people, not one that was hell bent on disguising their true intent and then implementing policies that the majority of voters don’t want. It seems to me we’ve regressed to the age of imperial presidency, bolstered by two branches who refuse to fully exercise their duty to keep the system in check. Hard to imagine our chief executive saying the constitution is so full of negativity limiting the possibilities of what he can do, or a congress who won’t demand accountability for breaking the laws of the land, or a court who tells an administration that their arguments are fundamentally flawed but if you consider another view it might be palatable.

    • Vinnie

      Don’t forget the Chamber of Commerce and big business. Oligarchy

  • What is it with those most hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement that once in power they cause such diverse damage, discontent and death?

  • FrankW

    I think Obama’s doctrine is greater than just the promotion of the LGBT agenda. I believe his agenda is outright chaos as widespread across society as possible. It is the Saul Alinsky agenda come to life.

    The government takes over the health insurance industry, and what do we see? Free contraception enforced with the threat of extinction for any healthcare organization that
    objects based on religious convictions. If this stands, all Catholic health organizations dedicated to honoring Catholic teaching will be forced out of this industry. The end goal of the Obama administration is to rid our nation of faith-based health care. Does anyone still doubt that?

    We have seen similar behavior in so many other areas. Want to start a political grass roots organization based on conservative principles? You’ll get the IRS targeting you and threatening take away everything you have.

    Want the government to secure our border? You get chaos thanks in large part to
    deliberate publicizing of open border policies in Latin America.

    You want to see our marriage laws enforced? Our President refuses to enforce DOMA (the law of the land) because he disagrees with it, and he knows Congress won’t call
    him on it.

    I could go on and on. The Obama agenda was to fundamentally transform America. Unfortunately, he seems to have succeeded quite well. I had hoped he’d fail.

    • Art Deco

      I think you are assuming that Obama can in his mind follow a transaction through to its conclusion, has some passably accurate conception of the behavior of collectivities, and surrounds himself with people who know something.

      One of his biographers described his work method: his staff prepare memoranda for him with three-canned options at the end. He selects an option and puts some sort of vapid marginalia on it, like ‘yeah, we need to be doing more of this’. What you see with Obama is the resultant of the vectors operating withing the Democratic Party and manifestations of its defaults in the formation of institutional cultures. Obama adds little to that. He’s just on-air talent. He’s Ted Baxter.

      One dreadful problem here is the secular decay of the bourgoisie and the patriciate, another is the portfolio of skill and talent for which the political process selects. The president of the United States in 1991 was a combat veteran who in 1948 had left everything with which he was familiar to found and prosper in his own business. He had no avocational political involvements until he was 39 years old and took challenging and uncertain pathways when he did undertake such involvement. He never drew a government salary until he was 42 years old and from what is known of his finances, he was wealthier in 1963 than he was 20 years later. He has had a full avocational life – 60 odd years of marriage, a number of sports and hobbies, and a double-digit quantity of grand-children. To the extent we have such men nowadays, they are deterred from public life by the process and the people who are already there. The archtype of federal office-holders nowadays is Chuck Schumer, people of little integrity whose talent lies in running publicity campaigns.

      The Obama machine puts the likes of Tommy Vietor on the NSC staff. That should tell you something.

      • fredx2

        Well, George H W Bush’s dad was a Senator, so it is hard to think that he did not have some political life in mind. All that he did can easily be interpreted as giving him status to begin a political career – move out to Texas, make a fortune, then enter politics. No one will vote for you until you have proven yourself to be a competent man.
        I wish we still required these things from our politicians.

        • Art Deco

          Well, George H W Bush’s dad was a Senator, so it is hard to think that
          he did not have some political life in mind. All that he did can easily
          be interpreted as giving him status to begin a political career – move
          out to Texas, make a fortune, then enter politics. No one will vote for
          you until you have proven yourself to be a competent man.

          George Bush the Elder moved out to Texas in 1948. His father never ran for a consequential public office until 1950 and was not elected to such an office until 1952. Prescott Bush was a member of the Greenwich Town Meeting for a number of years. As we speak, the electoral constituencies for members of the Greenwich Town Meeting have a mean of 267 residents. I’d wager most such contests have only one candidate and always did; it would have been a tedious mess of volunteer work.

          If public life was really George Bush’s object in 1948, he had an odd and roundabout way of pursuing that. It have been more agreeable to stay in the BosWash corridor (as did two of his three brothers) and stick with the financial sector (as all three did). IIRC, one of his brothers ran for Congress once (when he was past 60) and the other two have never run for public office. Prescott Bush, Sr had 10 grandchildren who survived to adulthood; two have run for public office. There is no particular reason to think George Bush was jonesing for a political career in 1948 (unless he’s admitted it).

  • Aliquantillus

    President Obama is a hater of the core values of modern Western Civilization, in particular freedom of religion and freedom of speech. No better way for him to bring down these values than by backing the totalitarian and utterly intolerant gay agenda. A person in power who is hell-bent on destroying Western values can make no better choice than to support the gay rights movement, which is determined to enforce upon us a culture of political correctness. The day is not far away that the Bible and traditional Catholic teaching will be prohibited because they are marked as sources of “hate speech”.

    • Art Deco

      No, Obama just has no means to appreciate squat which is not au courant in the social circles in which he has lived his life.

    • Ethan

      Oh, please. Even Pope Francis has said that gays should not be marginalized but that they must be integrated into society. What is un-Catholic about opposing discrimination against LGBTs? What is un-Catholic about speaking out against vile anti-gay legislation in Uganda? What is un-Catholic about supporting human rights and free speech?

      • Art Deco

        Oh, please. Even Pope Francis has said that gays should not be marginalized but that they must be integrated into society.

        Ethan, the sexual dysfunctions of homosexual men prevent them from building and maintaining normal domestic life and have correlates which tend to disrupt the formation of undisfigured friendships. They’re going to be on the margins. Get used to it.

        • Patrick

          There isn’t a perfect solution, so there’s no point in trying?

          There’s a name for that logical fallacy, you know.

          • Art Deco

            There is no ‘solution’ of any kind, Patrick, perfect or otherwise.

            • Patrick

              There’s a difference between someone being on the margins and people actively marginalizing them.

              There’s a difference between someone being called to a less common and (according to current culture) less “desirable” vocation and people calling for them to be put into mandatory “treatments” that have no science to support their efficacy. Or to be imprisoned.

              Unjust discrimination is real and it is unacceptable and it is one of the leading things that drive these people away from their true vocation.

              • cestusdei

                The real discrimination is against Christians who disagree with homosexuality.

                • Patrick

                  The presence of one injustice does not prevent another injustice from occurring.

                  • Guest

                    There is no right to “gay” behavior. There is no right to demand gay ideology be affirmed in society. Get with the Church.

                    • Patrick

                      I’m with the Church. The Church says unjust discrimination against them should be avoided.

                      Get with the Catechism.

              • Art Deco

                Your latest letter to a region in your mind, Patrick?

                Back to matters which exist in the here and now:

                I do not know if you’ve noticed this, Patrick, but institutions and social platoons going about their business are now defined by the bar and by the diversity industry as engaging in aggression against others. You’re drawing a distinction without a practical difference in today’s world.

                ‘Unjust discrimination’? You have apparently not noticed that people are denied employment for all manner of unimportant and even frivolous reasons. You do not have a cause of action unless your in one of the Democratic Party’s client groups. At the same time, the use of civil service examinations and impersonal employment tests is dying out, because ‘injustice’ has now been defined as something which disrupts the construction of patronage networks by Democratic Party pols.

                What ‘drives people away from their true vocation’ ain’t baker (or tinker or soldiers or sailors) but ill-discipline and their own fractured interiors.

                • Patrick

                  Don’t go using scare quotes around a term that comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church like it’s some politically correct invention.

                  And yes, I have noticed lots of people who are denied employment for unjust reasons, but one injustice is not made more acceptable just because it is surrounded by many others.
                  You don’t get to rationalize away the Church’s commands just because other people are making bad decisions too.

                  “But everybody’s doing it” is not an excuse.

                  And yammer on about how Democrats define “justice” all you want. It doesn’t matter.
                  I’m talking about the Church’s definition of justice.

                  “What ‘drives people away from their true vocation’ ain’t baker (or tinker or soldiers or sailors) but ill-discipline and their own fractured interiors.”

                  So the Church has no responsibility to reach out to the damaged to try to help them now?
                  Calling them “queers” isn’t going to show them that they have a real, fulfilling, productive place in the Church.

                  Or am I wrong? Is there some method by which you can slur them into listening to you that I don’t know about?

                  • Guest

                    The Vatican has clarified what unjust discrimination entails. I suggest you read Ratzinger’s document. He states clearly there is no right to homosexual acts or behavior. None!!!!

                    • Patrick

                      I’m well aware of that. I wasn’t even talking about that.

                      I kind of took it for granted that we were all on the same page in that regard.

                      I was actually talking about the actual unjust discrimination that was clarified.

                    • Guest

                      What do you call unjust discrimination?

                    • Patrick

                      I thought you just said the Vatican clarified that?
                      Are you *not* talking about the sort that they clarified is the sort that is unjust?

              • Guest

                Criminal laws against sodomy can be just or unjust just like any other law. Society had an obligation to protect the common good. There is no right to gay ideology. The Pope has termed this a new ideology of evil. Promoting degenerate ideology and attempting to defend it by the CCC is disingenuous to say the least.

                • Patrick

                  What planet are you getting this idea that I’m supporting some ludicrous “right to gay ideology” from?

                  I. Am. Not. Doing. Any. Such. Thing.

                  I am saying that the actual, REAL unjust discrimination… the kind the Church itself says is wrong… is wrong. I’m not using activist terminology, I’m using the Church’s definition of “unjust.”

                  I’m saying that the presence of another injustice doesn’t make those ones go away. Even if they are a minority of the injustices that occur does not render them any less unacceptable, because they undermine human dignity.

                  As far as I can tell I don’t even disagree with anything here except the repeated implication that injustice against certain people is less intolerable because it’s less common or less severe or because they’re sinners or something.

      • ForChristAlone

        Don’t dare quote Pope Francis. You’re not even a practicing Catholic. Get off my site!

      • Integrated into society, for a homosexual, means either a life of celibacy, or gasp, finding a nice person of the opposite sex to marry.

      • Guest

        There is no right to gay propaganda. None!!!

    • WTFUAMERIKA

      “President Obama is a hater of the core values of modern Western Civilization, in particular freedom of religion and freedom of speech.”
      Isn’t that the WHOLE liberal progressive ideology?

  • Florian

    Obama aggressively promotes ‘rights’ for LGBTs while promoting the ongoing slaughter of human babies in the womb…up until and including the 9th month of gestation…this man is doing everything he can to destroy traditional human values and he will continue as long as no one opposes him strongly and consistently…his presidency has been a sham…built on falsehoods – and he gets away with it because he is black..well, actually, he is black and white…impeachment proceedings should have been begun when he left our people to die in Benghazi so he could get on to Vegas and his campaigning…now the IRS is deep in dirty coverups – but Obama does nothing because he was so deep himself in the coverup about Benghazi…his attorney general Eric Holder has gotten away with so much and he is smug and arrogant about it because he knows Obama has his back as Holder has Obama’s back…this lawlessness will continue unless the Republicans man up and do something more than show boating…

  • Jeffrey Quick

    So…why hasn’t Obama invaded Iran for stoning homosexuals?

    • DE-173

      Because Obama has cognitive dissonance. One part of his demented mind is regurgitating the hard left nostrums of Frank Marshall Davis and other parts are regurgitating the lessons of the madrassa he attended.

      • Art Deco

        No, he has one mind, and it manifests the touchstone’s of the legal profession, the mental health trade, and the educational apparat. One is what Mr. Sailer calls ‘leapfrogging loyalties’: you side with foreigners against people proximate to you that you disdain (in contrast to the ‘concentric loyalties’ most people possess). The other is the abiding contempt and hostility for anything which suggests varieties of the talking cure are not omnicompetant. Professional people are not cops and are not soldiers and do not have the virtues of either. Suggesting that these people are crucially important is anathema. Suggesting that standards need to be stated straightforwardly and compliance enforced by non-lawyers is anathema.

        • DE-173

          Mr. Sailer calls ‘leapfrogging loyalties’: you side with foreigners against people proximate to you that you disdain (in contrast to the ‘concentric loyalties’ most people possess).

          Sounds a little like Roger Scruton’s “oikophobia”

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          Alain Finklekraut has long argued that a mixture of post-colonial guilt and a “sacralisation of the Other” is what drives so many young people to think in terms of a post-national future, the better to identify with the poor and oppressed of the earth. Pierre-Andre Taguieff groups them as “Christian humanitarians,” “third-worldists,” and “anti-globalization activists,” who find common ground in their hatred of Jews, expressed through Anti-Zionism and covert Anti-Semitism.

          • Art Deco

            Why not carefully interrogate those ‘sacralizing the other’? Wagers its appended to a contempt for previous generations, for the proximate working class, for people in your social segment who made you feel inadequate.

            Recall Tom Wolfe’s description of journalists: men with 1.) a history of being clocked on the playground who 2.) did not take it on the chin. They want vengeance.

  • BillinJax

    I would say that the Obama Doctrine coincides with his religious impersonation of being a Christian. He deceivingly mocks our doctrine while worshiping a Trinity of Terror aimed at America
    and our way of life. He is obsessed with the power he has at his disposal using every angle and weapon he can get his hands on, legal or illegal, believing he will forever be overshadowed and protected by the power of the press which has sold its soul to the secular progressive agenda.

    What is the nature of his trinity? Control and corrupt capitalism destroying our free enterprise system, fill the justice system with liberal judges shredding our Constitution, and patronize and promote every group that can paint Christian values as bigoted, racist, hypocritical, or out of touch
    with modern moral relativity. Call it the anti-C trinity if you wish.

    Anti-Capitalist anti-Constitution and anti-Christian, it is here and in full bloom within his administration.

    • fredx2

      Since he got elected, he has not said much about Christianity, has he? It seems it was all a show, in order to get elected

      • BillinJax

        Obama’s Christianity must be viewed through the prism of his beloved mentor the Rev.Wright who for twenty years taught his family how to express it.

  • M

    I’d rather see a leader make a stand against brutal discrimination than invade a country under false pretexts, cause tens of thousands of death and hundreds of thousands of injuries and mutilations, orphan untold numbers of children, displace millions of people, inflict complete ruin on a country that once offered free college education to both men and women, and destabilize an entire region in a manner that is likely to breed terrorism. I’d say President Obama’s primary doctrine is to make affordable and effective health care available to all Americans. Already “Obamacare” appears to have improved the health of young adults and saved them money (http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/la-na-obamacare-young-adults-20140617,0,973891.story.) I hope nobody is mean-spirited enough to resent that.

    • Guest

      Pro abortion, pro sodomy, pro aberrant gender, evil ideologies, and much more. Do we resent that? Of course we do, anyone with a brain and a conscience would resent such oppression.

    • JP

      1) What false pretexts?
      2)Since ObamaCare has passed both the cost of health insurance and health care have risen faster than anytime during the last decade. The number of uninsured is higher than it was in 2008

      3)Foreign policy is not dictated by a domestic entitlement like ObamaCare.

      • Ethan

        “1) What false pretexts?”

        Seriously, Dude? You mean you missed the Bush lies about WMD, the Iraq-Al Qaeda link, that we’d be greeted as liberators, that there were no real problems between the Shia and the Sunni, that the “problem” would be resolved in weeks not months, that we were sowing the seeds of democracy, that a surge wouldn’t fix anything, that the surge had fixed everything, and on and on? If you missed any of that, you were getting your news from Fox Noise. But not to worry, folks. Halliburton made money. Did you know that people who watch Comedy Central are better informed than Fox Noise watchers? Here are clips from Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert on the scurrilous neocons and their blatant lies:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWoizlbOKDc
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwsYeyLTcPw

        • Art Deco

          You mean you missed the Bush lies about WMD,

          Missed them because they never happened outside the imagination of Democratic partisans.

    • Scott W.

      Just because Obama is awful and many people here say so, it doesn’t necessarily mean everyone here carries water for Bush. Besides, moral equivalence is weak argumentation; especially when one acts like it is perpetually 2003.

    • Fred

      Please M, read more than the Baltimore Sun to understand what a complete and utter disaster the Un-affordable Care Act is. Like so many bills that get passed, the name is such a contradiction. It’s neither about affordability or about care, it’s only about government control and cronyism. Why do you think rates are rising at twice what they are before, people are being dumped despite promises to the contrary, and people are going to the emergency room at higher rates than before. Doctors are being treated like an exchange commodity with no regard for their service. The country’s health care system is being destroyed to reward the connected. But you will be able to get “free” birth control and abortion inducing durgs.

    • Larry

      Agree completely, M. More than 8 million people now have health insurance that didn’t have it before. My family has better private insurance through ACA for half the price than we had previously. Obamacare isn’t perfect, but it’s the best he could get for us given the anti-life opposition. Look at what the duplicitous, lying war criminals did to get us into Iraq in 2003, and the filthy mess they’ve left for the rest of the world to clean up. Those sociopaths have killed literally hundreds of thousands of people and yet Cheney is now trying to criticize Obama? That man should be in jai! That anyone can get upset because a few US embassies decided to promote the American values of liberty and equality for all is beyond me, given the true and unscrupulous evil of the previous administration.

      • Objectivetruth

        What über liberal, atheistic, pro abortion Democratic Party website did you cut and paste this comment from?

      • Objectivetruth

        Why is it so easy for pro Obama minions such as yourself to lie?

      • fredx2

        And millions of others have had their insurance policies cancelled and their new rates skyrocket. But hey, if it was good for you, then you can ignore all those other people.
        Now gayness is “the American value of liberty and equality for all”?
        See how twisted Obama’s America has become?

        • ForChristAlone

          Exactly, the meme of these trolls is: “As long as I have mine…”

          • John200

            Don’t rush to the conclusion that the troll is telling the truth.

            Anedotal evidence, unchecked, and unverifiable. Be slow to take the obvious bate.

    • Augustus

      Indeed, Saddam offered free education with his oil money; and Mussolini made the trains fun on time. What’s there to complain about?

    • fredx2

      Yes, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a paradise. You realize that he killed Shias something like 80,000 a year,- that he cut off water to their hospitals, cut off medicine to their hospitals, drained the swamps the March arabs lived in, caused several wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people, invaded Kuwait, terrorized his own population, gassed his own people, had his secret police kill thousands more and much more.
      But oh, if he allows people to go to college, then he is a saint. Let the Canonization begin

      • Ethan

        You left out that 30% of children born in Fallujah today have birth defects, that Iraqis are dying at a much, much higher rate as a result of the neocon invasion than they ever did under Saddam, that Iraq has very few hospitals or medical supplies left, and that the US supported and armed Saddam in his war against Iran? But don’t worry about all that. Halliburton made millions, so we’re good.

        • Art Deco

          I take it you’re Watosh’s grandson. Where you get your public health data is a mystery.

    • ForChristAlone

      “Already “Obamacare” appears to have improved the health of young adults ”

      More human persons have been aborted under Obama’s watch than have obtained jobs. That’s an example of just how he has improved the health of young adults.

  • thebigdog

    A mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv will be the crowning achievement of the Obama / Shea Doctrine… and then they will blame Bush.

  • There is no such thing as the “Obama doctrine” about anything.

    When you elect a president, you don’t elect him, you elect the group of people who THROUGH him want to pass, by all possible means regardless of people’s approval or not, their OWN agendas. Obama is a tool, a pen that is required to write down his signature, his seal of approval.

    Moving the groups’ agenda forward depends greatly on the kind of presidents we have. If we have a strong leader, with strong personality, patriotic, with strong unwaivering moral principles, then rest assured that no group can influence his decisions when it comes to moral issues, especially.

    But since this person called “Obama” has no moral principles, is an atheist and a puppy doll, and since technically we have an empty presidency since 2008, then yes, any leftist and communist group can get what they want from him, especially when it comes to SODOMY.

  • JP

    JFK’s Doctrine – Pay Any Price, Bear Any Burden
    LBJ’s Doctrine – Kennedy Doctrine on steriods
    Nixon’s Doctrine Cold War Detente
    Carter Doctrine Human Rights over Realpolitik
    Reagan’s Doctrine – Peace through Strength
    Bush41 Doctrine – New World Order
    Clinton Doctrine – Human Rights and Economic Growth for All
    Bush43 Doctrine – Never Again (referring to 9/11)
    Obama Doctrine – We are the ones we’ve been waiting for

  • mollysdad

    This is what makes Barack Hussein Obama the most evil man ever to hold the office of POTUS.

    • Art Deco

      The most frivolous man, you mean.

  • cpsho

    Obama doctrine? The number 666 or 616. They are the same anyway; they are both the number of the Beast.
    Revelation 13 v 14-18
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_beast#616
    http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/06/19/category-archive-message-board-60/#more-508

  • hombre111

    “The world is on fire?” Austin, Austin, the world was on fire during WWII, which ended with sixty-eight million dead. Crimea, Syria, Iraq, and the senseless stuff in Africa wouldn’t add up to a week’s worth of headlines back then. That said, you are probably correct. Obama has no business promoting an LGTB agenda in other countries.

  • Pingback: Sun News Announces Gay Victory, Demise of Family; Socons Look for Unbiased Media Channel | Catholic Canada()

  • Mark Jaworowski

    I have long suspected that Obama is homosexual – a fact in and of itself, I can live with. But his promotion of the LGBT community should not hurt our interests abroad.

    • Scott W.

      There is no reason to suspect he is a homosexual. In fact, believing it can lead us to gravely missing an important point: Namely, that the homosexual movement gets most of its power not from homosexuals, but from ideologically-addled heterosexuals. Liberalism makes people stupid, and the very idea that two men in a barren, mutual-masturbation arrangement is a marriage is proof of that. When one objected to Austin saying the world is on fire and invoking WW2 against it, again the point was missed because totalitarian regimes like National Socialism are really the result of Liberalism undergoing existential crisis as is happening now.

      • cpsho

        Homosexuals practicing homosexual acts have 666 on their right hands. Heterosexuals condoning and encouraging homosexual acts have 666 on their foreheads.
        revelation 13 v 14-18
        http://www.prophetamos3m.com/6.html

    • Art Deco

      C’mon Mark. He’s been married for 22 years and he has children.

      Again, what hits you is the degree to which fashion drives all of this. Our professional-managerial bourgeoisie do not qualify even as shallow thinkers on this issue. It’s as if high-school (with its scarcely explicable affinities and antipathies) never ended for most of these people.

    • susanwho

      Homosexuals have married for hundred of years to hide their homosexuality… Not unusual at all.

      • fredx2

        There is no evidence whatsoever to believe that Obama is gay. The fact that some gay men have been married in the past is not reason to believe that all straight men might just be gay.

    • fredx2

      Nonsense

      • Guest

        Why nonsense? There is evidence he is.

        • Art Deco

          There is none.

          • Guest

            Are his friends lying?

            • Art Deco

              Which friends?

              • Guest

                The one’s he grew up with who have spoken to various media outlets.

                • Art Deco

                  You’re not getting any more precise with these contentions. Come up with a name and a reason to believe that person was actually acquainted with Obama in Honolulu, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, or Chicago at any time between 1971 and 2005

                  • Guest

                    I posted a link above to the Huffungton post. That piece has several links that offer more insight.

                    • Art Deco

                      The article on the Huffington Post is supermarket tabloid fodder. You ought to know better than that.

                    • Guest

                      That is your opinion.

  • susanwho

    He promotes lbgt because he is one, as he is so antisemitic because he is a Muslim.

    • M

      This is so ignorant! Obama is not lgbt, antisemitic, or Muslim. How crazy do you have to be to believe what you have written?

      • Guest

        There is evidence from his youth he is “lgbtwrepiurmdhgde[p”

        • Art Deco

          There is ‘evidence from his youth’ that he was a bourgeois stoner with diminished motivation. Baked, not buggered.

          • Guest

            Then the friends from his you are lying.

            • Art Deco

              Which friends? You keep referring to unspecified ‘friends’. Not good enough.

              • Guest
                • Art Deco

                  Jerome Corsi and Dave What-his-name have never met the President and Dr. Corsi is well known as one of those people who has lost his reason in old age (see James Fetzer, Jeffrey Hart and Paul Craig Roberts for other people lost in weirdly imaginary understandings of contemporary history).

                  Your third example is a woman named Mia Pope, who appears to have been a sometime resident of Honolulu over the years and whose tales are promoted by one Jeff Rense, another professional trader in conspirazoid literature.

                  [drums fingers]

                  1. Obama has not lived in Honolulu for 35 years;

                  2. Explicit homosexuality among high school students was almost unknown at the time;

                  3. Frequent cocaine use among adolescents was then rare (unknown where I lived). That aside, Obama was not some character out of the imagination of Bret Easton Ellis; he lived in an ordinary bourgeois household in a condominium in the Maliki neighborhood in Honolulu. The notion that he would have had the disposable income to be snorting coke on a regular basis cannot be taken seriously.

                  4. There were 700,000 people on Oahu in 1977. You would never assume that any individual who spent some weeks on the island at that time would have ever met any given individual there resident.

                  There are attention whores in this world and there are people who make a living trading in the incredible to amuse themselves and others. You can see their wares on the supermarket check-out line (the latest being that Mooch has hired a divorce lawyer).

                  • Guest

                    What evidence do you have Pope is lying?

                    • Art Deco

                      It is not anyone’s business to prove Pope lying. She’s a random individual who has passed through Honolulu over the years; the number of people who fit that description are in the 7 or 8 digits. It’s her business to provide something other than her word.

                      Her claims are not credible. You’re telling me a 16 year old youth made a point of his homosexuality to someone at the periphery of his social circle and routinely snorted cocaine. You’d only have seen the latter if he came from a family you’d call decadent rich (he did not) or was immersed in the criminal subculture (no reason to think he was). He’d have been one strange piece of work if you ever saw the former. There’s no reason to believe this is not some attention whore’s fantasy (rather like the numbnuts who insists she was Lee Harvey Oswald’s girlfriend in the summer of 1963). I had relatives living in Honolulu in 1977. Nothing to stop her from making claims about them, too. What differentiates my people from Obama is that you’d only stumble on my people looking at city directories 25 years old or more.

                      You’re taking this woman on faith while insisting that his two decades long marriage and children are a ruse. You’re mighty determined. (And that determination is wasted).

                    • Guest

                      She was there and you were not. She made claims and you have no proof she is lying.

                    • Art Deco

                      There were 700,000 other people on Oahu in 1977. So what? By what epistemological principle is any fantastical thing any one of them says taken as given unless someone disproves it? You have no proof that I’m not a member of the Roumanian royal family, either.

                      Putz.

      • ForChristAlone

        Can you prove he is not any of these?

        • Art Deco

          Why is it his job to demonstrate someone else’s outlandish claims? Obama is troublesome enough for what he does and say and it does not do the cause of productive public discourse any good to be lost in blind alleys.

  • susanwho

    His doctrine is the Scorched Earth Doctrine.

  • Dan

    If they fly the rainbow flag at U.S. Embassies, shouldn’t they also fly it at the White House? Heck, shouldn’t they also redo the pledge? “I pledge allegiance to the Rainbow Flag, and the relativism for which it stands….” This seems to be de facto the pledge you have to take these days to avoid being cast out as a pariah.

  • Patrick

    My takeaway from this article:
    The president of Uganda choose to engage in an activity he knew his much-needed potential allies would find abhorrent and did it anyway despite having been actively informed of the consequences.

    Also, secondarily, that often people forget that one man’s tragedy does not negate another, and that one injustice is not made less unacceptable by the presence of a more terrible one.

    • Art Deco

      The takeaway from your post is that American foreign policy should be driven clamoring constituency groups obsessed with incremental amendments to the Ugandan penal code.

      • Patrick

        Apparently I wasn’t clear enough that I was pointing out a bit of problematic relativism in Austin’s argument, not promoting the diametric opposite argument.

        • Art Deco

          There is no relativism. It is exceedingly difficult to construct a decent argument about the precise dimensions of criminal penalties. To you incarcerate someone for six months, two years, eight years? These are not questions that are readily answered and are going to be influenced by unarticulated impulses and a host of local factors (including what the local community can spare on imprisonment). People will maintain a rough sense of what is draconian and what is not, sometimes this sense will be prevalent and sometimes it will not be, and that’s it.

          Your not sitting here trying to peddle the idea that the U.S. government and various Eurotrash governments are objecting to the dimensions of Ugandan criminal penalties, are you? They are objecting to the treatment of consensual sodomy as a crime. They want stereotyped, au courant, and decadent occidental sensibilities imposed on an east African country with troubles enough of its own. That’s just bad. Ultimately, it doesn’t do queers any favors to tell them the world revolves around their asses. The State department would do well to tell the gay lobby to buzz off.

          • Patrick

            Austin said one nation should not be doing things possible needed allies would not approve of. I stated that by that logic, another nation he mentioned should also not be doing things possible needed allies would not approve of.

            I was not, in fact, affirming the latter, but only demonstrating how the principle used in one part of his article, if applied to another part of it, would lead to a conclusion contrary to the one he reached.

            Oh, and calling people “queers” when fully aware of the word’s nature as a deliberate slur directly violates the commands of the Church regarding how we must treat people with same-sex inclinations.
            Just sayin’.

            • ForChristAlone

              Just sayin’ you’re a queer masquerading as an intelligent person.

              • Patrick

                I’m defending the Church from people who make it look like deliberate use of slurs isn’t DIRECTLY forbidden by official Church teachings.

                For someone who likes telling people to leave the site for not being Catholic, you clearly need to do some homework on the Catechism.

                • Guest

                  Not all homosexuals are honest people seek God. Many are propagandists seeking the destruction of societal mores. The Church does not seek to protect evil doers. That should be exposed and their evil arguments countered.

                  • Patrick

                    And we must treat them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity at the same time.

                    Purely utilitarian reasons for this include: A) It makes our arguments that much more compelling when we are being reasonable and respectful while they rant and yell, and B) Because if we do not, more Catholics with same sex inclinations will fall away because they aren’t properly shown they have a place in the Church and a vocation.
                    I know of no general in history that would say that doing something that makes your recruits join the opposing side is a good strategy.

                    But more importantly, we have to do it that way because that is what the Church expects of us.

                    • Guest

                      Respect, compassion, and sensitivity are not deigned by you. They are defined by the Church. Bring an apologist for evil is not compassion. Stop the propaganda.

                    • Patrick

                      They are, and I think you’d find if you actually read them that deliberately using pejorative terms that haven’t changed (or gotten any less pejorative) in 120 years is clearly classified under disrespect under the Church’s definition.

                      People just want to rationalize the names they call other people when they get angry. Doesn’t make it right.

                    • Guest

                      You are simply redefining words to suit yourself. Plain speech is not a sin. Covering for deviant ideologies is sin.

            • Art Deco

              Austin said one nation should not be doing things possible needed allies
              would not approve of.

              Where?

              Oh, and calling people “queers” when fully aware of the word’s nature as a deliberate slur

              Society gets a drizzle of dumb little laws when it neglects big wise laws. One manifestation of this is the self-appointed language police, who manufacture artificial offenses on a 15 year cycle. If my diction irritates you or your clientele, tough.

              • Patrick

                “The US holds gay pride events,including dances, in our embassies, even in countries we need as allies in our fight against Muslim extremism but who are guaranteed to find such events deeply abhorrent.” -Austin Ruse, up above the comments section.
                He is clearly disapproving, but the reason he is giving for why it is bad contradict his points about Uganda.

                I was simply stating that it was poor reasoning (which opens itself to criticism needlessly) even if it was presented in support of a reasonable conclusion.

                I think the words “commands of the Church” should have made it clear I was talking about how your choice of words was directly contrary to instructions given in the Catechism, not some hippy-dippy quibbling over terminology.

                “Queer” has been a deliberate slur for one particular set of people over 100 years.
                You don’t get to claim they just invented the idea that it’s a disrespectful term. It’s been deliberately pejorative for longer than you’ve been alive.

                Now, please, tell me how calling them “queers” squares with the Catechism’s instructions for how we need to treat people with this particular sinful inclination.

        • Guest

          You are confused.

          • Patrick

            I was merely pointing out that Austin used a principle once and disagreed with it another time in the article.

            I was not actually expressing my position on the issue, and apparently I was not clear enough about that.

            • Art Deco

              Mr. Ruse is not responsible for harmonizing his statements with your imagination.

              • Patrick

                Maybe you need to read the article again.

    • Guest

      The take away from your post is that you think unnatural acts are no big deal.

      • Art Deco

        “Patrick” is actually the abiding self-appointed tribune of the homosexual population on these boards. You usually get a duo from sorosphere casting whenever that subject is broached, who appear for one thread and then disappear. There’s also that AC-DC lawyer who monitors this site, but that chap doesn’t have much taste for concern-trolling or sundry eccentric fixations.

        • Guest

          I find Patrick to me the one who claims fidelity to Church teachings on the matter while doing everything he can to paint the homosexualist as victim. It is a ruse.

          • Patrick

            Sinners can be victims. They aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, almost all of each group is also part of the other in some way.

            That obviously doesn’t justify sin.
            And at the same time, denying someone’s pain will guarantee they listen to nothing you have to say and prevents you from showing them the Truth.

          • ForChristAlone

            Patrick is an avowed practicing homosexual.

            • Patrick

              So, just inventing claims to attribute to others is the standard of argumentation here now?

              Even that Alessandra lady could argue better than that…

              Or to put it in terms you can understand, “ForChristAlone” is an avowed practicing satanist.

              I’ll retract that claim as soon as he retracts his.

        • Patrick

          I don’t presume to speak for them. I simply do not view them as unwelcome outsiders, but rather as prodigal sons who have not yet learned the importance of returning.

          • Art Deco

            Let go of my leg.

    • cestusdei

      When homosexuals are persecuting those who disagree with them they should not be surprised that others start paying attention.

  • BillinJax

    It is not justice it is not compassion it is not fairness it is not equality. It is the heat from the fires of hell that is warming the passions and arousing false courage in those whose perversions are erroneously being deemed worthy of mainstream morality.

    The gradual softening of Judeo-Christian will to protect the
    truth of scripture and its traditional values which with reliance on Divine
    Providence allowed western civilization to prosper and flourish over the last
    few centuries has now, by the last sixty years of easy living and the daily
    drumbeat of the live and let live lullaby of the secular progressives who
    convinced themselves they are more than simply God’s children and have ordained
    themselves His counselors among mankind, brought us to the brink of modern day
    Sodom and Gomorrah.

    As a result of our growing indifference to the truth we seem to never get it when it comes to recognizing Evil and its intent when it is wrapped in politically correct language or persuasive but corrosive compassion by legislators, news media, and the entertainment industry. This has been going on for so long that we now have some of our spiritual leaders falling victim to the mountain of madness being released as an avalanche of appeasement upon us by the
    aggressive gay agenda, abortion on demand despots, and most destructively those
    wise but devious secular progressives who cleverly challenge us and want you to
    turn the other cheek, not judge lest you be judged, love and accept everyone AND
    their sinful behavior lest you are less than the Christian you claim to be.

    These masters of deceit only quote and use scripture to serve their need to dilute and dissolve our traditional values one by one until the few truly faithful remaining are deemed enemies of society and antiquated bigots.

    The new Christian persecutions have begun and will increase rapidly just as prophesy has foretold that the flock will be scattered when the shepherds are smitten but ultimately those who remain faithful through the purification of the Church will, in the end, share in the glory of our savior Lords triumphant return and His divine justice.

  • Paul

    Obama has only one single agenda and that is to set the world against the USA. The spearheading & promotion of gay-rights and same-sex relationships by the world’s most powerful country is designed to set other countries, that do not share the same liberal values, against the USA. This form of liberalism is disguised as tolerance and open-mindedness but, in truth, it turns friend into foe and divides the country – thus, this is obama’s ultimate goal : to destroy the US.

  • Pingback: G. K. Chesterton's Love Affair with the Irish - BigPulpit.com()

  • ForChristAlone

    Obama’s policies – both domestic and foreign can be explained in very brief terms: He is in alliance with Satan. The man, in fact, resembles conventional depictions of Satan.

    • Art Deco

      This has gotten rather florid and silly.

      The man’s a lousy piece of work and the way his minions behave is indicative of the decay in political culture and institutions. ‘Fraid that’s just off normal for the human race, though.

  • “Uganda is one of the poorest countries in the world. Thirty-seven percent of its population lives on less than $1.25 per day. Life expectancy at birth is 54 years. It has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world.”

    Gee, I wonder if that might have something to do with their resistance to the gay mafia? After all, if you are struggling to eat, LGBT concerns are really small.

    • Art Deco

      If I understand correctly, part of the motor of this sort of legislation has been concerns re sex tourism.

      • I’ve never heard that before. But I do know this for a fact; only materially wealthy countries care about LGBT rights at all.

  • Zippity-Do-Daddy

    This statement in the article: “We are relieved the gay flag flies not over but under the US flag, but give them time.” voids any validity of the opinion being stated.

    It is shameful that a political hit-job is being promulgated by a Catholic website. Articles such as this cheapen Catholic fact on gays and lesbians (as well as abortion and contraception) to the level of conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones.

  • End abortion,sodomy&divorce!

    surely as God rained down fire and brimstone…sooner or later that same fire and brimstone will rain down on the ENTIRE world!

  • kpm

    Obama Doctrine is Freedom of worship it is promoted overseas and Domestically.
    He is trying to diminish the role of religion in society!

  • lroy77

    Hate to agree with you but a bigger, and more serious Obama doctrine is his stance on abortion. As bad as LGBT is, Obamacare is worse.

MENU