Obama: Focusing Like a Laser Beam on Jobs (Liarin-Chief)--Gay Rights as the Most Important Issue of Our Time

We know that President Obama's idea of "foucsing on jobs" is to give CaMPAIGN SPEECHES on a "jobs bill" he knows has already failed (the same things being in this jobs bill that Obama has supposedly already tried, wihout success, except success is RAISING OUR DEBT AND DEFICIT).


Remember Dishonest Jack Cafferty, on The Liar Network (CNN): He asked how Republicans could expect anyone to vote for them when they kept getting DISTRACTED by "socisl issues" from the things Americans really care about, like teh economy and jobs. Dishoenst Jack, of course, EARNED his hickname by proceeding to prove that all HE cared about was "social issues", and that he was perfectgly willing to sell the entire country down the river so long as HIS positon on "social issues' prevailed. But that is Dishonest Jack. No one pays any attention to that dishoenst fool anyway. The President of the United States is another matter. He MATTERS.


Here is a current featured (A)) headline on AT&T/Yahoo: "Obama: Commander-in-Chief must support gay troops"


What in the Hell does that MEAN? Is the "Commander-in-Chief really supposed to support gay groops more than heeterosexual troops? I think Obama thinks so, with the approval of Dishonest Jack, The Liar Network, and the rest of the mainstream media ObSESSED with "gay rights" as the MOST IMPORTANT issue in the country today (outside of the racism shown by every criticism of Obama). You can see that the headline is PROVEN. Obama is NOT "focused on jobs".


Obama is not even focused on his TRIUMPH in the War on Terror. Why distract our MILITARY at this time, when THEY are on a roll in getting th ebad guys? I would almost expect to see the result of that Predator strike in Yemen being "gay soldiers" being trotted out to be congratulated on the part they played. Indeed, maybe that was part of the otherwise obscure "meaning" of what Obama said. Nope. I was NOT interested in reading the entire AP article. In the firstr place, the AP is an UNRELIABLE source. Secondly, there is just no way you can recover from that ridiculous headlie. If it were SATIRE, as is true of many of mine, that would be one thing. But these headlines of our mainstream media,k knowingly "inspired" by Obama, are dead serious. Obama seems to have adopted the CALIFORNIA approach to jobs (explaining the 12% unemployment in the state); REQUIRE gay activist prpaganda be presented in the public schools. Obama is evidently going to REUIRE the same thing for our military--undermiing the success our military has been having by turning it into part of the "struggle" over pursuit of the gayactivist agenda.


The mainstream media is dead serious in their headline, as Obama appears to be. I am dead serious in my reaction to it. Thisis INISANE: to be pushing a gay activist agenda at a time when we really have much more serious things to worry about, and when the governnment has no business FAVORING gay activism anyway. The "son't ask,, don't tell" poicy has been eliminated (reasonable as it appeared to us who see no reason for gays to expect to PUSH their sexucal practices into other people's faces. But now Obama, and the truly despicable and hypocritical mainstream media, seems to say that even that is NOT ENOUGH. We--especailly if you listen to The Gay Network, referring agian to CNN--evidently have the responsibility to make sure that homosexuals are HAPPY and SUCCESSFUL.


Nope. I refuse to accept that responsibility. And I suggest that just MAYBE Obama and Dishonest Jack shoiuld listent to themselves and give the whole thing a long rest as jard;u beomg tje ,akpr ossie we face tjese daus )exc[et. pf cpirse. fpr gau actovosts. om wocj categpru O omc;ide A:: pf CMM amd tje ,aomstrea, ,edoa. amd A:: ;eftost De,pcrats. Yep. You can be a "gay activist" without being gay, and right now I refuse to go into the question of whethese peole are so "liberal" that they WANT to see a Kinsey society in which everyone is ENCOURAGED to "experiment" will all kinds of "exuality". My liberal law school roommate (and friend, at least in a school sense) had no problem when I suggested that the entire goal here (this was in 1971) was to havve 50% of the country engaging in homosexual sex and 50% of the country engaging in heterosexual ses--in other, words, complete "equality". Obama seems to agree with that goal. I KNOW CNN does. And nope, the idea that there is "no choice" here is absurd. For SOME people there may be "no choice" See the movie "Kinsey" again, and realize that it received FAVORABLE reviews from leftists. I reviewed the movie in this blog, and even got one of the few dcomments I have ever gotten from my older daughter, who was the one who dragged me to see it.


P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).