gay marriage

George Takei Rant Epitomizes Leftist Worldview

George Takei Rant Epitomizes Leftist Worldview

Like many of us, last week I came across news pieces covering “Star Trek” alum and homosexual activist George Takei’s racist rant against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The Justice’s dissenting opinion on the court’s same-sex marriage decision of a week ago apparently left Mr. Takei “seething.”

For the record, “dissenting opinion” means that Justice Thomas was on the side that lost.

I guess some people can’t even win gracefully. Even though the gays got their way, so to speak, Takei found it necessary to deliver his denunciation of Thomas, calling him a “clown in blackface” who “does not belong on the Supreme Court,” is “an embarrassment” and “a disgrace to America.”

Mr. Takei’s professed objection to the content of Justice Thomas’s opinion is immaterial, since he elected to mince into the gutter and have at it. To be fair to him regarding context, however: Part of the argument before the court held that the government would somehow be robbing homosexuals of their dignity – like slaves or segregated blacks, for example – by not “allowing” them to “marry.”

Thomas met that argument head on, addressing the nature of dignity. In short, he contended that even if the government or court was indeed denying some perceived benefit or right to homosexuals, the dignity of the individual or a segment of society (like slaves or segregated blacks) is in no way reliant upon the imprimatur of government.

In a sense, I’m not sure that Mr. Takei entirely understood what Justice Thomas was saying. In other words, Thomas may have been speaking a wee bit above Takei’s head. I’ve spoken with quite a few people in the last several days who independently considered this possibility based on the actor’s volatile response.

But I believe a larger factor was this: People such as Clarence Thomas are so reviled by the left that liberals interpret everything they say with an ear toward being offended. Takei wanted to take offense to what Thomas said, so he found offense in it – perhaps without even a full understanding of that to which he was taking offense.

Although what Takei said referencing Justice Thomas was undeniably bigoted, the aggregate of his statements provide insight into the liberal worldview, their sense of self-worth, and their feelings of entitlement.

Takei trotted out his progenitors’ experiences with internment during World War II, intimating that Thomas simply had no idea what it was to be from an oppressed minority group – whereas Takei himself, being a Japanese-American and a homosexual, certainly did, by golly. This, I believe was a straight-up case of the actor being blinded by narcissistic self-righteousness.

While I doubt he realized he’d done it, Takei also expressed the liberal-inculcated conviction that an individual’s self-worth most certainly is predicated upon other people’s perceptions. This occurs at a deeper level than simply being vain or overly concerned with one’s outer presentation. Giving personal power away is what the liberal con is all about; how else could their Marxist overlords enroll followers into victimhood and surrender?

I had a great deal of fun on social media last weekend over all this, I must say. After tweeting an apology of sorts in the general direction of Justice Thomas, George Takei then took to Facebook, where he embarrassed himself even more. I weighed in – which I seldom do with others’ pages on that site. Some sparks flew, but the majority of comments reflected disappointment and disgust on the part of many George Takei fans (or perhaps, former fans).

Certainly, most people saw the hypocrisy quite clearly: Here we had an arch-liberal homosexual activist openly disparaging a black Supreme Court Justice along racial lines. It didn’t even fit with Takei’s usually reserved deportment.

Nobody in the liberal establishment raised an eyebrow, and the press pretty much gave Takei a pass. In fact, the website for Fox affiliate KSAZ in Phoenix (which conducted the original interview) left out Takei’s anti-Thomas rant entirely in its text version, though it appeared in one of the accompanying videos.

So here’s my question for this week: Whatever happened to homosexuals simply wanting “equality,” not having to “hide in the shadows,” as they used to whine years ago?

I’ll tell you what happened: Leftist incrementalism happened. Later, “tolerance” became the catch phrase du jour. Then, it was “acceptance.” Fast-forward to 2015, and we have a member of this heretofore oppressed minority publicly declaring that the beliefs of another American disqualify him for his job.

Takei, the gay lobby, and the left at large are of course operating upon the premise that homosexuality is “normal and natural.” The determination of normalcy for every bizarre alphabet designation they contrive is completely arbitrary. The left decree them as “normal” because it legitimizes demonizing their opponents; biological convention and millennia of historical evidence that affirm homosexuality’s destructive effect upon societies be damned.

Finally, as we’ve heard floated by some on the left lately: Deviation from this new “truth” is not only bigoted, but reflects deviant mental processes – ones that could be remedied quite effectively in a re-education camp.

The “Gay Rights Movement” has never, ever been about the civil rights of America’s miniscule population of homosexuals. It is about conditioning people of faith (Christians, speaking tactically) into accepting State revision of their doctrine.

This would effectively make the State “god” in the operational sense – but that’s how it has always played out with communism.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Homofascists, Christians and the State as ‘God’

Homofascists, Christians and the State as ‘God’

Among the more shrill allegations voiced by constituent subgroups of the political left is that the opposition (Republicans, conservatives and Christians) would gladly kill them in a great purge if only they had the practical capacity to do so. During the 2004 campaign season, iconic pop singer and self-described “fag hag” Cher ( A woman who enjoys hanging out with gay men) publicly proclaimed that George W. Bush would ship homosexuals off in cattle cars to death camps were he re-elected.

I suppose Cher reasoned (if indeed she does reason) that doing this had somehow slipped Bush’s mind during his first term.

I’ve heard the same charge leveled with regard to ethnic minorities, that right-wingers would just love to re-institute slavery or segregation; in their perfect world, they could simply wipe out those nasty darker-skinned people altogether. Naturally, this presupposes that all right-wingers are white.

Those on the left routinely typify their opponents as intolerant, hateful and potentially violent. This has increased in volume and frequency under the Obama administration, which codified these mischaracterizations into Department of Homeland Security policy; DHS has designated pro-lifers, patriots, constitutionalists, Christians, amnesty opponents, gun enthusiasts, military veterans and other groups as potential terrorist threats.

In keeping with their hypocrisy and incongruity, leftists conveniently omit the fact that they have carried out more terrorism, pogroms, mass murders and genocide than any political group in history. As regular readers will be aware, projection of their antisocial character defects onto opponents is a hallmark of the left’s methodology.

Their objective is to convince as much of the citizenry as possible that their warnings are at least somewhat plausible. This way, when DHS Storm Troopers arrive in the wee hours to collect their neighbors, they will accept the cover story without protest: The detainees were involved in a terrorist plot to carry out large scale “hate crimes” against illegal immigrants, homosexuals, or some species of endangered grouse.

What we are in fact seeing is the political left, through deception, incrementalism and outright violation of the Constitution, insidiously maneuvering rational, law-abiding Americans into a position so untenable that at some elusive but inevitable point, violent civil disobedience – vigilantism – may be the only practicable response.

There are a few very sobering commentaries published recently that address the de facto criminalization of Christianity in the wake of Canada having legalized “gay marriage” in 2005. One is Lea Z. Singh’s “Same-sex ‘Marriage’ and the Persecution of Christians in Canada,” written for Crisis Magazine.

Previously, I identified an analogue between the process of abortion having become legal in the U.S. and the push for legalization of same-sex-unions. It’s a bait-and-switch, with the practice bearing little resemblance to the theory.

As Singh and other commentators have explained, the same tactic was used to secure “marriage equality” for homosexuals in Canada. Opponents of legalizing same-sex unions were given frequent and impassioned assurances that their religious liberties would continue to be protected. Singh writes: “The preamble to Canada’s Civil Marriage Act states that ‘everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion,’ and ‘nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion. …’”

This did not hold true, however, as the Canadian government, dominated by radical leftists, took it as license to legislate social norms. It is now illegal to express opinions on gender identity or preference that deviate from the new pro-homosexual, anti-Christian orthodoxy.

According to Ms. Singh, “It is not premature to speak of open discrimination against Christians in Canada.”

Canadian homofascists – with the imprimatur of the government – have established the baseless and biologically fallacious equivalency between interracial and same-sex relationships as conventional wisdom. Thus, “Christians who believe in traditional marriage are the modern-day equivalent of racists,” says Singh, “and warrant identical exclusion.”

This means that if you’re a Christian, or do not otherwise embrace the sodomite movement, it is legal and encouraged to deny you a job, a promotion, housing and engage in your being systematically disenfranchised.

Bear in mind that all of this is taking place in a country wherein 52 percent of the population opposed the “legalization” of same-sex “marriage” to start with.

Shortly, Singh writes, all public schools in Ontario will implement a new, mandated curriculum beginning in the third grade. This course of study introduces children to the perverse, patently idiotic concept that gender itself is a matter of choice, that “transgender desires are just as perfectly normal as homosexual leanings.”

And Canadian parents dare not oppose this, because it would make them quite literally subject to prosecution. As an effect of the Civil Marriage Act, the very concept of what constitutes a “parent” changed, so many parental rights were summarily negated.

Since the passage of the law, hate-crime tribunals began prosecuting Canadian Christians for publicly articulating biblical values. Homosexual activists have spies in churches, monitoring sermons for biblical passages considered to be “hate speech.” Pastors have been jailed, businesses fined out of business and individuals driven into bankruptcy.

So, how might American Christians react to such developments here? The reason I ask is because the wheels are already in motion. The satanic minions in our government absolutely must bring about these societal transformations in order to “kill off” God and establish the State as the ultimate arbiter of morality. Rending the family unit asunder will ensure that the State becomes the individual’s sole guide, instructor and authority from cradle to grave.

I’m not inclined to think that We the People will respond as submissively as Canadians did to a similar scenario transpiring here. In fact, when otherwise rational, law-abiding Americans suddenly realize that the last of their liberties have been legislated, regulated and executive-ordered away, their response just might make the left’s accusations in the opening paragraph a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Obama’s plans for Africa: Racist colonialism?

obama_salute1After renewed efforts to push his autocratic climate change agenda in the U.S., President Obama finally made his long-heralded trip to the African continent. Though his reception in some countries was celebrated, in others it was somewhat frosty; in an instance or two, Obama managed to turn a warm welcome into a sub-zero sendoff.

Obama’s visit to Senegal was more or less boilerplate for a powerful head of state. The most noteworthy event was probably a magnificently sappy photo-op with Obama staring wistfully from a stone doorway at Gorée Island, the “Door of No Return” through which Africans bound for slavery in the New World are reported to have passed.

On June 29, Africa Tour 2013 took a nosedive. In Johannesburg, South Africa, police were forced to fire rubber bullets and stun grenades into crowds of protesters before the president arrived at the University of Johannesburg. Hundreds of South Africans turned out to protest U.S. drone strikes, Mideast policy, support of Israel and Obama’s foreign policy in general.

It was in South Africa where Obama began putting his foot in it with reckless abandon. Speaking on climate change and economic growth at a town hall event in Johannesburg, President Obama claimed that “the planet will boil over” if everyone has access to air conditioning, automobiles and big houses unless the world finds “new ways of producing energy.” Those in undeveloped nations have been complaining for decades that the demands of developed Western nations with regard to environmental concerns serve to stultify the economic growth of Third World countries. Yet there was Obama, rubbing it in and demanding more compliance. Africans can ride bicycles for another 50 years; we’ll tell them how to grow.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Obama