Stamping Out Anti-Christian Bias Is Going To Involve Goring Some “Sacred” Liberal New Religion Belief “Oxes”
Christians in America have been the target of a propaganda campaign intended to marginalize them for nearly forty years now. How did it happen, who started it, what has made it successful, when and why did the government get involved and how do we stop it?
The military calls them “information operations” for a reason. One of the essential elements-among many-in conducting a successful info op is gaining and creating somewhat of a groundswell of support for the basic tenets of the desired message. Another tenant is to obfuscate the real purpose, else momentum will be blunted that will tamp down the spread of the disinformation.
As famous guitar-slinger Joe Walsh observes in describing his success, the key is “ya gotta have a hook!” In his case he is referring to finding a “gitchy guitar lick, adding a good rhythm and making up lyrics: but the key is the hook!
For what was then referred to as the “gay community” at the time, the hook was essential to making progress in a United States that was still largely Christian and was not supporting somewhat of a redo of the “free love” spirit from the 1960s in rainbow colors, applied to a burgeoning gay community.
The “hook” in this case was combining the political power-money-of a number of fledgling groups, including the ever-expansive Letter People, the abortion movement, and the residue of race-based organizations that later became what I call the Black Liberation Revival Movement. Later joined by the revamped Move on, Occupy Wall Street effort that became ANTIFA.
I wrote an article series called “Pass the Decoder Ring” that was intended to decrypt and decode the propaganda being used by a group I call the “Letter People-the LGBTQMOUSEers.” Most of the series has scrolled off our website at this point.
The intent of the series was to explain-and expose how this military-like information operation had combined the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) of such a campaign with Saul Alinsky tactics to undermine Christians in America: and it worked!
Two somewhat keys to this plan included painting Christians as hypocrites for touting brotherly love-but “hating gays-” (they cried) and undermining religion in general through the power of the LSMBTGA undertaking a broad-based campaign supported by elements such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the funding of groups like Planned Parenthood (PP, aka, Abortion Solutions R Us.)
The article follows with a few tweaks, but suffice it to say this campaign has exceeded their wildest expectations, culminating in the current environment where the DOJ raided and prosecuted anti-abortion protesters, Christian groups have been excluded from adoptions, restrictions have been placed against Christian groups in the public square during COVID, etc.
In order to combat or undo this campaign, you have to understand the breadth of the effort and how and why it has been so successful marginalizing Christian groups.
Pass the Decoder Ring: Commit to learning the Critical Race Theory and Alphabet Soup Propaganda to Claim Back Your Kids and Grandkids Part 2
In Part 1, I introduced the idea that race based efforts like Critical Racism Training (aka, Critical Race Theory-CRT) and gender related propaganda are targeting our children and using information-operations based Saul Alinsky tactics to keep people off balance by changing terms of references and standards.
Part 2 discusses the who, what, when, where, why and how (5Ws and H) things seemingly “broke through” despite garnering no increase in popular support and also provides several areas where these tactics have gained traction via the courts.
While many were quietly going about their daily lives and business, a concerted propaganda campaign was launched typified by tenets espoused in the 1989 publication “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s.”
Serving as somewhat of an informal “gay manifesto,” the authors advocated somewhat of a revamped publicity blitz and rebranding, leveraging the increasing tragedy of the AIDs outbreak to cast gays as sympathetic victims. The AIDs epidemic was tragic and baffling, but the tactics adopted were viewed as a compelling argument “shame campaign” akin to Alinsky methods used successfully by leftists the world over.
Advocates and pundits began what can only be described as a militant campaign to press their narrative with an increasingly sympathetic LSMBTGA broadcast campaign, while taking bold action to undermine communities and institutions that stood as impediments to their objectives.
Among the tactics employed in several states included legal attacks on what were viewed as archaic laws through a methodology characterized by calling the police to investigate a potential “domestic abuse” issue, only to find Johnny and Jimmy involved in sexual acts that were outlawed under state statutes.
One of the more famous Texas cases formed the basis for the Supreme Court’s 26 June 2003 decision that struck down the prevailing Texas law banning gay sodomy.
Many of these rulings involved local or state laws that in truth were somewhat antiquated and dated. However, there remained little to no public support for changing laws to legitimize what were viewed by many as aberrant lifestyles that involved personal choices.
Facilitating “gay-friendly” environments for most communities simply was not supported by public sentiment as evidenced by polling. That did not prevent activists from increasingly trumpeting that such laws and the society that supported them were evidence of bigotry. In short order traction was gained by adopting tactics from race messaging and a new framing of the term hate speech.
But I’m getting somewhat ahead of the narrative. The big changes to most issues related to letter people rights-that previously have been matters of the state-were now being elevated and decided upon by an increasingly activist Supreme Court.
There have been numerous cases brought and many somewhat bizarre, unexpected results with unintended consequences. What makes these cases unusual is the simple fact that in many of the decisions the Supreme Court completely ignored the constituent sentiment in the effected states, often ruling in blatant disregard of recent votes undertaken that specifically rejected the issue under consideration.
The precedent then served to extend the subsequent disenfranchisement of the specific voters addressed in the case to the entire US. A dispassionate review of these decisions reveals just how far afield the Supreme Court strayed from precedent, matters of law, states’ rights, the constitution and interpretation thereby.
A major decision related to family and parentage was 2017 under Obergfuel where the court ruled to allow states to begin listing married same-sex couples on their children’s birth certificate. But first came the 2015 decision to allow same-sex marriage, followed by the novelty to allow non-biological parents to be listed on birth certificates.
Many heralded the decision, but just as many derided the undermining of law and state’s rights by a branch of government that seemed driven by politics and not by either tradition, common sense or the constitution.
This is where the advocacy, messaging and narrative converged to expand upon use of the courts in an Alinsky assault on recalcitrant communities.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia observed during the debate over the Texas gay sodomy case that it was wrong for the court to substitute its judgment for the state in ruling that gay sex was lawful, as such a ruling took the issue away from the community, disregarded precedent and substituted the court’s judgement for the state.
He also opined on other state issues the Supreme Court had placed at risk, including “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity … every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”
The “torturous logic” applied by the court renders asunder the principle of biology undergirding existing law in favor of a novel concept of fluidity of choice based on parental gender unconditioned on prevailing legal definitions of “parents.”
The Texas 2003 case that was seemingly focused on a specific issue paved the way for the gains that followed, as the Supreme Court soon became a “woke” participant in facilitating major breakthroughs for letter people activists.
The momentum on gay marriage truly gained steam during the election of 2008 but had been set in motion much earlier. Senate candidate Barack Hussein Obama had previously in 2004 denounced the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by President Bill Clinton, as “an abhorrent law,” and promised to seek its repeal (on the basis that it should be a state issue.)
Later Presidential candidate Barrack Hussein Obama decreed that he believed, and his faith dictated that marriage was between a man and a woman. He repeated that assertion in speeches, interviews and letters, further replying to an LGBTQ advocate group that notwithstanding his religious and personal beliefs, “the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union or a civil marriage.”
In an interview with renowned pastor Rick Warren, he stated “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.“
However, when his democrat platform was published the following “plank” issue was delineated: “We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.”
This perfidy on the part of President Obama is the reason I often refer to him as “BHO’Linsky.” He spun and glibly dissembled continuously as he parsed his views on controversial positions for election purposes, that he then abandoned the minute election was no longer an issue.
He often -for instance-made the case about problems with black homes with absent black fathers, referring to his own childhood (notwithstanding the presence of his grandfather,) yet abandoned defense of DOMA the minute it was politically expedient.
After his election, cases slowly made their way through the courts testing the DOMA Act, culminating in an official statement from Attorney General Holder in February 2011 that the US Government would no longer defend the Act at trial.
No group drew the ire of this militant campaign more than religious groups. There was no way for LGBTQ groups to make progress in states that reflected some 60% or more of the population practiced some form of religion or Christianity without undermining those views.
While now intuitively obvious why this was done, it was no less a surprise when these vitriolic attacks began that targeted Christians.
The tactics flipped the proverbial script, going after formerly esteemed religious based organizations essential to running orphanages, placing children for adoption, doing charity work, feeding the hungry and the homeless. But many of these organizations held religious beliefs and principles that believed homosexuality was a sin, and that marriage was between a man and a woman. They were also largely opposed to prevailing and emerging abortion policies.
The militant groups opposing them found a willing and deep-pocket partner in Planned Parenthood (PP.) Government funding for PP “health programs” and private donations were increasing their influence considerably as they became a force in local and national elections.
Additionally, they were running their own focused tactics campaign against conservatives and religious adversaries by casting their own actions as “health care” and pointing to groups that were against abortions- “women’s health care”- as out of the mainstream bigots who thought they knew better than women what to do with their bodies.
Powered by big money donors and the bully pulpit of the Southern Poverty Law Center, these groups highlighted what they decried as bigotry on the part of religious organizations and sought to have them banned and sanctioned from the public square.
In this case attacking and undermining any religious based freedom of practice protected under the constitution that fails to show tolerance, support or expresses an aversion to all things precious to the letter people as a form of what “they” label as bigotry rather than an expression of religious beliefs.
Of course, there are exceptions to this dogma, particularly when countries do more than talk about their disgust with letter doctrine and take action to kill those identified as practitioners.
Odd that words of US based critics are often treated harsher and as more insidious than the actions of religions that throw such people off buildings. The one faces bans on social media, while the other, not so much…
BHO’Linsky tactics were applied as propaganda “exposing” that many Christians’ religious beliefs simply have no place or tolerance for letter people and never have, although such tactics would have you believe that there has always been widespread acceptance, with the exception of a handful of loud religious or Neanderthals fighting progress. Such is not now and was never the case.
This topic gets problematic for me when you have issues within issues that undermine the original goal of tolerance and degrade any chance at acceptance. Glenn T. Stanton explores the issues and implications in a Federalist article “Including Queer Sexuality Actually Means Excluding Lesbians.”
For those who struggle with the “acceptance” part of these topics, these articles can be difficult to follow and somewhat mind blowing coming to grips with how community advocates approach these topics.
The issue Glenn discusses is the problem causing identified lesbians to withdraw from actual, as well as the proverbial “club” because they are being forced to “accept” the presence of transgender men who identify as woman who are being aggressively included as lesbians.
The quote outlining the concept for one such bar states: “We believe that what makes a bar uniquely Lesbian is its prioritization of creating space for people of marginalized genders; including women, non-binary folks, and trans men. … As these spaces aim to be inclusive of all individuals across the diverse LGBTQIA+ community, the label Lesbian belongs to all people who feel that it empowers them.”
That was clear as mud, hence the need for the decoder! To clarify, the commonly accepted definition of Lesbian is too restrictive under the new and emerging rules. So, these men who are trans identify as woman, but who like woman, so they are in effect trans woman Lesbians (so hard to keep up,) who must be accepted by Lesbians. Like an episode of “Soap,” if you are confused, you won’t be…but you probably will be in this case.
When you digest that last bit above, here is an article that puts the “huh” in “Huh?” The title says it all “Lesbian falls in love with man, becomes the world’s first Lesbian heterosexual.” Sigh.
Eliminating “bigotry” and the marginalization of Christians was a concerted effort by leftists and democrats to prop up their goal to undermine society by elevating Letter people.
It is going to take a similar effort to undo the efforts that we now see expressed in everyday life and the lawfare that has near institutionalized the campaign.
Understanding how it came about is the key to undoing it, starting with government policy.
Max Dribbler
9 February 2025
LSMBTGA: Lamestream media echo chamber (LMEC-L) social media (SM) big tech tyrants (BT,) government (G) and academia (A)
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA