Barack Hussein Obama's Hate of Christian Moral Values

Obama’s HHS ‘Grooming’ Children for Sex

SUNDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2012 05:14 MATT BARBER

My dear friend and colleague Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting law professor at Liberty University School of Law, recently guest lectured during “Sexual Behavior and the Law,” a course I teach. Dr. Reisman’s lecture was filmed by CSPAN and will be airing soon.

In past years, Dr. Reisman has served as scientific consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She is a world renowned expert on the discredited research of bug doctor turned “sexologist,” Alfred Kinsey.

Kinsey, though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”

Even today, most are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science.

Among other things, Kinsey asserted that children are “sexual from birth.” He further concluded, based upon experiments he directed and documented in his infamous Table 34, that adult-child sex is harmless, even beneficial, and described child “orgasm” as “culminating in extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting. …” Many children suffered “excruciating pain,” he observed, “and [would] scream if movement [was] continued.” Some “[would] fight away from the [adult] partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive[d] definite pleasure from the situation.”

Yeah. Sounds like it.

It’s little wonder that Dr. Reisman identifies Kinsey as a “sexual psychopath.” These children were as young as 2 months old.

Disturbing though that may be, what’s equally disturbing is that nearly all of today’s liberal “comprehensive sex education” curricula – such as that pushed by groups like the National Education Association (NEA), Planned Parenthood and the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) – is derived entirely from the criminally fraudulent research of Alfred Kinsey.

But even more troubling is a recent discovery by Dr. Reisman. She found that the Obama administration, which fully embraces the debunked Kinsey sex-education model, has begun pushing a curriculum that, in many ways, eerily mirrors the “FBI Molester Grooming Paradigm.”

In short, she found that both Obama’s HHS and many public sex-education programs are doing to children, constructively, what pedophiles do to “groom” them for sex:

According to the FBI, child molesters:

        Demonstrate sex acts to children. Offenders commonly use pornography to teach or give instructions to naÔve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.

        Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.

        Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.

        Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.

During her lecture, Dr. Reisman shocked the 50-plus in attendance by illustrating that today’s Kinseyan-based sex education – as promoted by Obama’s HHS – does much of what the FBI describes above.

Graphic sexual images and explicit “values neutral” talk of sex and sexuality are rampant throughout classrooms across America, effectively desensitizing children and numbing their natural inhibitions. These inhibitions help protect children from potential predators.

According to Dr. Reisman, “the brain data fully support [the] finding” that such “sex education” literally changes the neural pathways of a child’s brain. There is mounting scientific evidence to support this hypothesis.

Whatever its motive, the Obama administration is guilty of employing these grooming techniques on children.

Consider, for instance, that just last year, the Department of Health and Human Services’ “Questions and Answers About Sex” website provided a “Quick Guide to Healthy Living” section which, like Kinsey, outrageously claimed that “Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings … which is healthy and normal.”

Get the implication? And what do “sexual beings” do? Well, they have sex, of course. “It’s hard for parents to acknowledge this,” admitted the page.

You think?

The HHS link then suggested that youth “may also experiment with sexual experiences, including those with members of the same sex, during the years they are exploring their own sexuality.”

Sound familiar? Remember, the FBI indicates that pedophiles will “teach or give instructions to naÔve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.”

Who needs pedophiles when we have today’s “comprehensive sex education”? It does all that and more.

Speaking of masturbation and other “sort of ‘sexual’ behavior … young kids exhibit,” the HHS is right there to help. The link says “Parents should only be concerned about masturbation if a child seems preoccupied with it to the exclusion of other activities.”

Otherwise, masturbate away, I guess.

Today’s Kinseyan “comprehensive sex education” model, embraced by Barack Obama and other “progressives,” is nothing short of educational malpractice. It’s child corruption. It’s criminally reckless. It’s undeniably “grooming” children for sex.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, a then-Sen. Barack Obama spoke about teaching “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners: “It’s the right thing to do … to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools,” he said.

And by “science-based,” of course, he meant “Kinsey-based.”

So, what is age appropriate, science-based sex education? Well, we know what Alfred Kinsey thought was “age appropriate.” We know what he considered “science-based.”

I’d expect such “educational” grooming tactics and opinions from Alfred Kinsey or Jerry Sandusky, but not from public educators – not from the U.S. government.

And most certainly, not from the president of the United States.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.


Democrat Says Pro-Life Health Workers Living in 'Slavery' Under Obamacare

By Stoyan Zaimov
Christian Post Reporter
October 25, 2012

A Democratic precinct committeeman has said that Obamacare forces pro-life health care workers into "slavery" because the federal mandate forces them to choose between their morals and their career.
"Slaves do not have a right to refuse to do work that violates their religion," said Woodrow Wilcox, who is also a delegate to the state convention of Democrats. "Under Obamacare, the Obama administration is threatening pro-life health care workers with punishment if they do not participate in abortion, euthanasia, or other objectionable services because of their religious beliefs."

Wilcox's remarks came during a "Stand Up for Religious Freedom" rally held Oct. 20 in Crown Point, Ind., just one of several such rallies simultaneously held across the nation.

An article by Deseret News highlights the plight of pro-life health care workers in detail, featuring the case of Cathy DeCarlo, a nurse who was instructed to assist in an abortion, which she says violated her principles. The courts have said that she cannot sue for damages because of the HHS mandate.

Wilcox reminded listeners at the rally that every Member of Congress must swear an oath to protect the Constitution and everyone's constitutional rights, and said that the HHS Mandate was passed without bi-partisan support, suggesting that those who do not agree with it are forced into a corner.

"How can anyone know if a proposed law violates our Constitution or our constitutional rights without at least reading it before voting on it?" Wilcox asked, noting that the Obamacare bill had not been allowed to be read first. "That is just impossible!"
Follow us

The Democrat then shared of his own experiences working with Medicare, accusing Obamacare of hurting senior citizens rather than helping them.

"For years, I have helped senior citizens to correct medical bill errors that were caused by mistakes in the Medicare system. I have saved seniors over one million dollars by finding and correcting medical bill mistakes. In fact, I wrote the book SOLVING MEDICARE PROBLEM$ to teach other people how to do what I do to help seniors. I am very familiar with the Medicare system and know that Obamacare hurts senior citizens terribly," Wilcox elaborated.

The "Stand Up for Religious Freedom" rallies were scheduled to take place in over 140 cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Miami, Kansas City, and Minneapolis. It was the third annual campaign after protests in March and June reportedly drew over 125,000 participants nationally.


Catholic bishops chide Biden over contraception mandate comments

By Mitchell Landsberg
Los Angeles Times
October 12, 2012, 2:02 p.m.

The nation's Roman Catholic bishops lashed out at Vice President Joe Biden on Friday, saying he was wrong in the way he described a healthcare mandate that would require contraceptive services for employees of some Catholic institutions.

The statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was the latest volley in a heated fight between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration over a mandate published early this year by the Department of Health and Human Services -- a battle that the church has framed as a struggle for religious freedom. The administration has characterized it as being about women's reproductive rights.

In Thursday's vice presidential debate, the first ever between two Catholics, the candidates were asked how their faith shaped their views on abortion. Both said they were opposed to abortion, although Biden said he would not impose his views on others, while Republican Rep. Paul D. Ryan said he would support abortion restrictions. In his answer, Ryan took the opportunity to attack Biden and the Obama administration for "what they're doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals."

Biden said Ryan was wrong.

"Let me make it absolutely clear," the vice president said. "No religious institution — Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital — none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact."

The bishops' conference, representing the leadership of the church in the United States, leaped in on Ryan's side. "This is not a fact," its unsigned statement said. It went on to say that the HHS mandate will "force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees."

While the administration's original proposal required employers, including church-affiliated institutions such as those mentioned by Ryan and Biden, to provide contraceptive services in their employee healthcare packages, HHS later attempted to satisfy the church's concerns with a revision that put the onus on insurance companies, not religious-affiliated employers themselves. (Churches themselves were always exempt.) It said the insurers would have to bear the cost of the contraceptive coverage, thereby giving the church the ability to say it was not paying for or sanctioning services that violate Catholic doctrine.

The bishops never accepted the compromise effort, however, portraying it as a meaningless technicality. In their latest statement, they said that Catholic institutions will "still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries."

The bishops' fight has obvious political significance, given the nation's large Catholic population. However, polls have shown that while most Catholics agree with the bishops on the HHS issue, it does not appear to be influencing the way most intend to vote. Polls have shown the Catholic population to be supporting Obama and Romney in almost precisely the same percentages as the population at large. Like Americans of other faiths (and no faith), most Catholics see the economy as the overriding issue.

By framing the issue as one of women’s reproductive rights, the administration is also clearly hoping that the dispute will rally voters for whom that is a significant issue. Women’s rights groups have pointed out that many employees of Catholic hospitals and universities – the majority, in some cases – are non-Catholic, and that the majority of Catholic women in the United States use contraception, despite church doctrine banning it.

The dispute between the church and the administration, and between Biden and Ryan, also illuminates a divide in the church between those who see abortion as an issue of overriding significance and those who put more stress on other social issues, such as poverty. Writing in the Huffington Post, the Rev. James Martin, a prominent Jesuit priest, ruminated Friday on the vice presidential debate and said the election had created "a kind of Rorschach test for U.S. Catholic voters."

"Ryan," he said, "is a Catholic who is clearly opposed to abortion and not so clearly in support of programs that would directly help the poor. Biden is not so clearly opposed to abortion and clearly in support of programs that would directly help the poor. They represent, in a sense, two distinct types of 'Catholicisms' alive in our country today. It's a big church, as an elderly Jesuit I know likes to say."

Note: Helping the poor is strictly a personal individual responsibility not governmental responsibility per Catholic Biblical Doctrine. Matthew 25:31-46.


Black clergy rip Obama on gay marriage

Pastors criticize support for same-sex unions
 
Published Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:52 am
by Cheris F. Hodges, for The Charlotte Post

The Coalition of African American Pastors have a message for President Barack Obama: Don't take black Christians for granted.

"We are disappointed in our president," said the Rev. William Owens, founder of CAAP. "We love our president and we pray for our president."

That dream doesn't include same-sex marriage. That's why CAAP has launched a website, www.10000signatures4marriage.com, to petition the president to change his mind. Owens said 85 percent of the visitors to the site agree with the group's stance.

Owens asserted that too many pastors – especially black ones – are quiet on the issue because they don't want to speak out against the first black president.

"They are drinking his Kool-Aid and it's more poisonous than (cult leader) Jim Jones' was."

But members of the gay and lesbian community reject CAAP’s views.

N.C. Rep. Marcus Brandon (D-Guilford), who is openly gay, said CAAP isn't about civil rights if it promotes discrimination.

"Clearly, if you fought on the streets, like my parents did, and follow the legacy that Dr. Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson left, you wouldn't take that type of stance," he said.

But Owens and the other pastors who took part in Wednesday's press conference – including Charlotte's William McBride of the Prayer Healing and Deliverance Center – said same sex-marriage is not a civil rights issue and if Obama doesn't change his mind, this could cost him the election.

"Obama said he evolved to this decision," Owens said. "We need him to re-evolve again."

While he said he isn't telling people not to vote for Obama and his group isn't endorsing GOP candidate Mitt Romney, the pastors want to send the message that black Christians aren't automatically going to vote for him again.

"President Obama is trying to undermine God's institution," McBride said.

And while churches have non-profit status, Owens and CAAP member David Hall said this isn't a political issue.

"As a religionist, I am called and will preach the gospel message with compassion and clarity in this matter, in spite of emerging political opinions," Hall said.

North Carolina DNC delegate Janice Covington – the state's first openly transgender delegate – said, "I think they need to go back and read their Bible, because it explicitly says Jesus said that no man should judge another and for them to judge us and to judge Obama, they are committing a sin."

And, Brandon said, seeking attention.

"What we have is a bunch of ministers demagoguing trying to get attention for themselves," he said.  "If they concentrate on fornication, adultery and greed – things that affect their church far more than any homosexual – then I think their church would see a different face to it."


Obama’s domination of church by state

President’s view is government trumps conscience

By Gary Bauer
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Washington Times

The story of President Obama’s first term is one of a president who has sought to transform how the government interacts with the governed. Mr. Obama seems to view civil society, particularly the church, as an obstacle to the only essential relationship: that between individuals and the state. For that relationship to flourish, civil society must be eliminated or dominated.

Consequently, Mr. Obama has spent much of his first term trying to conscript, bully and otherwise force churches to advance his agenda.

Mr. Obama’s allies wrote Obamacare in a way that requires all insurance plans to cover “preventive health services,” including sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs. In January, after months of deliberation, Mr. Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that the Catholic Church and other organizations that view those practices and drugs as gravely immoral would not be exempted.

The decision was an unprecedented violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. It quickly became clear that Mr. Obama’s plan was to recruit Catholics to do his dirty work. Mr. Obama wrote the policy while in regular contact with liberal Catholic groups, including Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, a network of 2,000 Catholic hospitals and other health facilities that is the largest group of nonprofit health care providers in the country. When it became clear that even Mr. Obama’s Catholic allies rejected the mandate, Mr. Obama was forced to craft an “accommodation” for religious organizations that objected to covering birth control. In those cases, the insurer, not the employer, would be required to provide contraceptive coverage to women free of charge.

After scrutinizing the proposed changes, the Catholic bishops rejected the “accommodation” because religious employers and others still would be required to have their employee health insurance plans and premiums “used for services they find morally objectionable.”

Not that the Obama administration cared about what the bishops thought. As a New York Times article stated, the accommodation was “never really driven by a desire to mollify Roman Catholic bishops, who were strongly opposed to the plan.” Instead, the “rule shift on birth control is [a] concession to Obama allies.”

Mr. Obama continued to work with liberal Catholics such as Sister Keehan while shutting out church leaders, including New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, a cardinal who is president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Richard Doerflinger, the bishops’ chief pro-life lobbyist.

As Notre Dame professor Gerard V. Bradley noted, the Obama administration’s decision to conscript the Catholic Church to advance its goal of universal birth control coverage “may reflect a desire to remove the last moral stigma from contraception, precisely by involving the Catholic Church in it.”

The HHS mandate controversy is only the most prominent example of Mr. Obama bullying religious institutions. Last October, HHS ended funding for a successful Catholic program that helped victims of human trafficking. The stated reason: The Catholic program refused to refer pregnant victims to abortion facilities.

When Mr. Obama repealed the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuality with no religious-liberty exceptions, it had serious religious-liberty implications for military chaplains and all service members of faith.

Mr. Obama has vowed to sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act into law, which would interfere with the right of religious employers to choose their employees. In the Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Obama Equal Employment Opportunity Commission tried to force a Lutheran church to hire an employee the EEOC wanted, arguing that the church didn’t have the right to control whom it employed according to its religious beliefs. The court ruled unanimously against the Obama administration that “the Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.”

These examples are included in a devastating new book by conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly and journalist George Neumayr. “No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom” explores the disturbing trend in the Obama administration of trying to transform the relationship between church and state.

As the authors write, “Through stealth and sophistry, [Mr. Obama] is gradually transforming America into a secularist and socialist dystopia along modern Western European lines.”

Neither of the authors is known for pulling punches. They expose the numerous ways Mr. Obama has enlisted religious supporters to help him justify his socialism. Mr. Obama exploits faith because, the authors write, “doctrinal Christianity is a disposable proposition for him, while political liberalism represents an organizing, not-to-be-doubted-or-changed truth for society.”

However, the administration has encountered a formidable adversary in the church. The Catholic bishops couldn’t be more united against the mandate, and Sister Keehan has backtracked on her previous support for the mandate “accommodation.” She recently stated that it is “imperative” that the administration broaden its “narrow” mandate exemption to include not just churches but also Catholic hospitals, health care organizations and other church ministries.

Mr. Neumayr and Mrs. Schlafly raise the very real prospect of civil disobedience if Mr. Obama wins a second term and continues his assault on religious liberty. “If Obama isn’t bound by the Framers’ words,” they ask, “why are the people bound by his?”

The bishops have hinted at civil disobedience. Referencing Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement, the bishops released a statement in June that declared, “Some unjust laws impose such injustices on individuals and organizations that disobeying the laws may be justified. Every effort must be made to repeal them. When fundamental human goods, such as the right of conscience, are at stake, we may need to witness to the truth by resisting the law and incurring its penalties.”

The authors ask: “Mr. Obama is on a collision course with the religious. Is he prepared in his second term to throw priests, pastors and rabbis into prison?” The answer may be yes.

Mr. Obama’s actions suggest he believes democracy is somehow endangered whenever religious groups enter the public square. He has it exactly backward. Democracy is endangered whenever religious groups are forced to advance government objectives against their consciences.

Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate, is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.



Obama’s high school pot-smoking detailed in Maraniss book

By Olivier Knox | The Ticket
May 25, 2012

Bill Clinton he was not. When it came to smoking pot, the teenage Barack Obama had rules. You had to embrace "total absorption" or face a penalty. When you smoked in the car, "the windows had to be rolled up." And he could horn his way in, calling out "Intercepted!" and grab the joint out of turn.

Best-selling author David Maraniss' "Barack Obama: The Story" describes the future president's teenage antics, notably his copious marijuana smoking, details of which were published early Friday by Buzzfeed. While the book won't be released until June 19, vast sections of it were already available Friday on Google Books.

Starting on page 293, the reader begins to get the dope on high school-age Obama's group of basketball- and fun-loving buds, who dubbed themselves the "Choom Gang," from a verb meaning "to smoke marijuana."

"As a member of the Choom Gang, Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking  trends. The first was called 'TA,' short for 'total absorption.' To place this in the physical and political context of another young man who would grow up to be president, TA was the antithesis of Bill Clinton's claim that as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled," writes Maraniss, author of a biography of the 42nd president.

"When you were with Barry and his pals, if you exhaled precious pakalolo (Hawaiian slang from marijuana, meaning "numbing tobacco") instead of absorbing it fully into your lungs, you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around. "'Wasting good bud smoke was not tolerated,' explained one member of the Choom Gang, Tom Topolinski, the Chinese-looking kid with a Polish name who answered to Topo."

Obama also made popular a pot-smoking practice that the future president and his pals called "roof hits." When they smoked in the car, they rolled up the windows, and "when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling," Maraniss writes.

Obama "also had a knack for interceptions. When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted 'Intercepted' and took an extra hit. No one seemed to mind," according to the text.

Maraniss details how the Choom Gang relaxed at a spot they called "Pumping Stations" partway up Mount Tantalus on Oahu.

"They parked single file on the grassy edge, turned up their stereos playing Aerosmith, Blue ÷yster Cult, and Stevie Wonder, lit up some 'sweet-sticky Hawaiian buds,' and washed it down with 'green bottled beer' (the Choom Gang preferred Heineken, Beck's, and St. Pauli Girl)," according to Maraniss.

"No shouting, no violence, no fights; they even cleaned up their beer bottles. This was their haven, in the darkness high above the city and the pressures of Punahou," he writes.

They also operated by consensus (NATO-style!), with any member able to "veto" a suggestion. "Whenever an idea was broached, someone could hold up his hand in the V sign (a backward peace sign of that era) and indicate that the motion was not approved. They later shortened the process so that you could just shout 'V' to get the point across," says Maraniss.

Sure, they drove around in a VW bus nicknamed the "Choomwagon." And their dealer was a "freakin' scary" guy named Ray who met a grisly end. "Many years later they learned that he had been killed with a ball-peen hammer by a scorned gay lover." (On his yearbook page, Obama says "Thanks Tut, Gramps, Choom Gang, and Ray for all the good times.")

But Maraniss also suggests that Obama, like, oh, everyone in the world, embellished his mischief.

"Later in life, looking back on those days, Obama made it sound as though he were hanging out with a group of misbegotten ne'er-do-wells, what he called the 'club of disaffection.' In fact, most members of the Choom Gang were decent students and athletes who went on to successful and productive lives as lawyers, writers, and businessmen," the author says.

Obama was a solid student, and adept at what some readers might know as "osmotic learning."

"He seemed nonchalant, yet performed well. How did he do it? He told his Choom Gang mates that the trick was if you put the textbook under your pillow the night before you would perform better on an exam. 'It never worked for me,' said Topolinski."


The ‘bribe’ to silence Wright

By EDWARD KLEIN
New York Post
May 13, 2012

When sermons of Obama’s Chicago pastor, Jeremiah Wright, surfaced during the Iowa primaries, it threatened to derail Obama’s campaign. ABC aired one where Wright screamed, “Goddamn America!” Edward Klein interviewed Wright, who told him Obama’s team tried to buy his silence.

‘Man, the media ate me alive,” Wright told me when we met in his office at Chicago’s Kwame Nkrumah Academy. “After the media went ballistic on me, I received an e-mail offering me money not to preach at all until the November presidential election.”

“Who sent the e-mail?” I asked Wright.

“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”

“He offered you money?”

“Not directly,” Wright said. “He sent the offer to one of the members of the church, who sent it to me.”

“How much money did he offer you?”

“One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,” Wright said.

“Did Obama himself ever make an effort to see you?”

“Yes,” Wright said. “Barack said he wanted to meet me in secret, in a secure place. And I said, ‘You’re used to coming to my home, you’ve been here countless times, so what’s wrong with coming to my home?’ So we met in the living room of the parsonage of Trinity United Church of Christ, at South Pleasant Avenue right off 95th Street, just Barack and me. I don’t know if he had a wire on him. His security was outside somewhere.

“And one of the first things Barack said was, ‘I really wish you wouldn’t do any more public speaking until after the November election.’ He knew I had some speaking engagements lined up, and he said, ‘I wish you wouldn’t speak. It’s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.’

“And what did you say?” I asked. “I said, ‘I don’t see it that way. And anyway, how am I supposed to support my family?’ And he said, ‘Well, I wish you wouldn’t speak in public. The press is gonna eat you alive.’

“Barack said, ‘I’m sorry you don’t see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is?’ And I said, ‘No, what’s my problem?’ And he said, ‘You have to tell the truth.’ I said, ‘That’s a good problem to have. That’s a good problem for all preachers to have. That’s why I could never be a politician.’

“And he said, ‘It’s going to get worse if you go out there and speak. It’s really going to get worse.’

“And he was so right.”



Obama Gave the Church Less Than One-Half Percent of $18 Million Income Over 12 Years
By Paul Stanley, Christian Post Reporter
April 19, 2012

An analysis of 12 years of tax returns recently released by President Barack Obama from 2000 to 2011 shows that the First Family donated 1.4 percent or less of their income to charity until he began to run for the U.S. Senate in 2004, and gave only nominal amounts to the church except for substantial donations to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church of Christ in 2006 and 2007.

The analysis performed by The Christian Post shows that from 2000 to 2011, the Obamas reported an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $18,677,610, of which they paid $5,794,492, or 31 percent, in taxes. Almost this entire amount was taxed as ordinary income based on the particular bracket the Obamas fell into from year-to-year, as compared to the 15 percent tax rate on long-term investment income that many individuals who have significant investment income, such as GOP candidate Mitt Romney, pay.

Over the same 12-year period, President and Mrs. Obama gave $1.3 million to various charities, ranging from a low of $1,050, or .4 percent of their income in 2002, to $172,130, or 21.8 percent of their income in 2011. Overall, from 2000 to 2011, the Obamas gave 6.9 percent of their AGI to charity, and less than a quarter of a percent was reported as donated to churches.

A few of the charities that received substantial gifts from the Obamas include CARE, Habitat for Humanity, Fisher House, United Negro College Fund and the Congressional Black Caucus.

During the five year period from 2000 to 2004, the Obamas' tax return did not list a breakdown of charitable contributions because the total amount was often less than 1 percent.

Assuming that for the first five years the Obamas did as least much contributing to the church as they did from 2005 on, the First Couple would have given a total of $62,955 to various churches for the 12-year period, amounting to .3 percent of their AGI. Of that total amount, $53,770 was given to Wright's church.

The president stopped donating to Wright's church completely in 2008 when controversy grew over whether Wright's black liberation theology had affected the president. Prior to that, the Obamas gave a total of $53,770 to Wright's church over a three-year period from 2005 to 2007. The largest contribution was for $26,270 in 2007.

Tax records show that the Obamas saw a dramatic increase in income when he began to run for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and that charitable giving directly tracks the President's Senate and White House campaigns.

In 2000 when the president was an up-and-coming law professor and soon-to-be State Senator, he and his wife, Michelle, who was a hospital administrator, had a combined adjusted gross income of $240,505. Their charitable gifts of $2,350 equaled just under 1 percent of their income.

In 2005, his first full year in the U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported an AGI of $1.6 million, a significant increase from their prior year's income of $207,647, which was their lowest income during the 12-year period. That same year their total charitable giving increased from 1.2 percent to 4.7 percent.

However, the vast majority of their income since 2005 has come from sales of their books. Obama's salary during his term in the U.S. Senate was around $155,000 and he now makes $400,000 annually as President.

Although the Obamas' top income of $5.5 million came in 2009, the first full year of his presidency, they only gave 5.9 percent of their income to charity with $450.00 going to two different churches.

In 2010, the Obamas' income dropped substantially to $1.7 million, however they reported no contributions to churches, but gave 14 percent of their income to charity, including a $131,000 donation to Fisher House.

In 2011, their income dropped to $789,674, but their charitable giving rose to a 12-year high of 21.7 percent. A $1000 was given to St. John's Church.

Though some Christians believe that tithing is an Old Testament responsibility not transferred to the New Testament, a substantial number of Christians still believe tithing is a sign of being born again. Pastor Phillip Meek of Love and Truth Church in Savannah, Tenn., asserts that the concept of tithing, or giving the first 10 percent to God, originated in the Old Testament but still holds true for Christians today.

"The Bible teaches, and therefore I teach, that we are to give the Lord the first 10 percent of our earnings, and I view that as gross earnings," Meek told The Christian Post.

"The definition of 'tithing' is giving 10 percent to God, and by that I mean your home church," explained Meek. "Anything above that is an offering that Christians give to individuals or entities they feel will benefit the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. More importantly, tithing is the one area where God gives us permission to test him."

The Christian Post contacted the White House to inquire if the Obamas were members of any one church.

"The First Family has attended services at 19th Street Baptist Church, the Washington National Cathedral, Allen Chapel A.M.E. Church, Vermont Avenue Baptist Church, Metropolitan A.M.E. Church, Shiloh Baptist Church, Zion Baptist Church, and multiple services at St. John's Episcopal Church and Evergreen Chapel at Camp David," said White House communications staffer Shin  Inouye in an email.

"The First Family has enjoyed worshipping with a number of D.C. area congregations and has not selected one specific 'church home' in Washington."

The President has stated on a number of occasions that he is a Christian and has made a commitment to Jesus Christ as his Saviour. 


Bishops say Catholics must disobey unjust laws
Published April 12, 2012
Associated Press

WASHINGTON –  The nation's Roman Catholic bishops called Thursday for a national campaign in defense of religious liberty, and urged resistance to laws that church officials consider unjust.

In a new 12-page document that quotes the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the bishops said priests, laypeople, public figures and others must be involved in the effort to change recent state and federal laws that church leaders believe violate religious freedom.

"We address an urgent summons to our fellow Catholics and fellow Americans to be on guard, for religious liberty is under attack, both at home and abroad," the bishops wrote.

The highest-profile clash has been over the mandate in the Obama administration's health care overhaul that most employers cover birth control costs for workers. The White House has offered a compromise for church-affiliated groups such as hospitals and universities, but bishops said the changes haven't gone far enough.

Critics within and outside the church have accused the bishops of pressing the issue to remove President Barack Obama from office. But the bishops wrote, "this ought not to be a partisan issue."

"The Constitution is not for Democrats or Republicans or independents. It is for all of us, and a great nonpartisan effort should be led by our elected representatives to ensure that it remains so," the bishops wrote.

Several bishops have shut down their adoption and foster care programs where the government would require them to place children with same-sex couples. Church leaders have also been fighting tough immigration laws in Alabama and elsewhere that many religious groups say make it impossible for them to aid illegal immigrants.

Catholic leaders have also protested a decision by federal officials not to renew a church contract for work with sex trafficking victims. Church officials would not provide the women birth control or abortion services.

The bishops cited a line from King's 1963 "Letter from Birmingham Jail," in which he wrote that an unjust law is "out of harmony with the moral law." The bishops said that no "accommodation" can be sought for such laws. Instead, they must be resisted or repealed.

"If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey them," the bishops wrote.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops plans a national "Fortnight for Freedom" from June 21 to July 4 that will include prayer and study about religious liberty.


President Obama Makes Video Vowing to Protect Planned Parenthood

By Jennifer Hartline
4/2/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

Our current President has made his position crystal clear and has demonstrated time and time again that he will always defend Planned Parenthood; he will always defend abortion-on-demand, without restriction; he will always promote the culture of death.  He will even shred the constitutional rights of the Catholic Church and all people of faith.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) - With the lovely backdrop of the red room at the White House behind him, President Obama made a video of encouragement to Planned Parenthood supporters in America, pledging his continued and unwavering support for the abortion giant.

A sitting President went out of his way to publicly vow to protect the interests of America's largest abortion provider and ensure their federal funding is not discontinued.  He publicly declared his commitment to standing between PP and Congress, between PP and the American people, to preserve the hundreds of millions of tax dollars PP gets each year.  He and Cecile Richards are so tight not a ray of sunlight can come between them.

Since Mr. Obama is so fond of clarity, let's be clear; let's be very clear, indeed.  In fact, let's take it line by line.

He begins by saying, "For you and for most Americans, women's health is an issue that stands above politics.  Yet over the past year you've had to stand up to politicians who want to deny millions of women the care they rely on and inject themselves into decisions that are best made between a woman and her doctor."

Let's clear up the euphemisms first:  Abortion is not health care.  It is the intentional killing of a helpless preborn child.  That is really what we're talking about here.  We're not talking about "decisions" regarding breast cancer or cervical or ovarian cancer, etc.  We're talking about abortion.  The President is talking about abortion.

He continues, "Let's be clear here; women are not an interest group." 

Oh, I beg to differ.  Women are most definitely his favorite interest group.  He plays "women's interests" like a violin when he needs to rally support, the way he's done this year with his contrived, politically-motivated "war on women" over contraception. 

"They're mothers and daughters, sisters, and wives.  They're half of this country and they're perfectly capable of making their own choices about their health."

Again, let's be clear.  The "choice" he's talking about is abortion.  Not whether to get a Pap smear or a breast exam or a blood test.  The "choice" is whether or not to kill the child in the womb.  I wonder why Obama's so reluctant to be clear in his language?

"So we're grateful that through it all you never forget who you're fighting for.  The woman with a new lease on life because a mammogram caught her cancer in time..."

Once more, for the record:  No Planned Parenthood clinic in the country can provide a woman a mammogram.  That is a manipulative deception that Cecile Richards and now Barack Obama love to perpetuate.  Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms and they never have.  They are merely a referral service to send women elsewhere for a mammogram. 

Since that "new lease on life" is so important to you, Mr. Obama, may I suggest the many fine Catholic hospitals across America where women can actually receive comprehensive medical care that includes mammograms.  If it's care for poor and uninsured women you're concerned about, you should be championing Catholic health care providers instead of attacking them.
 
From the Fiscal Times:  "Compared to their competition, Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line."


"... the woman who was able to choose when to start a family because she could afford contraception."

Ah yes, Mr. Obama, your concocted battle over contraception.  To secure votes for yourself and further Planned Parenthood's agenda, you fabricated this ludicrous controversy over contraception as though it were hard to find, difficult to obtain, and financially out of reach to every women not earning six figures a year.  It's the most dishonest and destructive political ploy ever foisted on the public by a sitting President, and you've used women to do it. 

You've exploited your favorite interest group to effectively threaten the real providers of genuine health care to millions of people -- the Catholic Church -- in order to prop up the illusion that America's abortion giant is a benevolent rescuer of poor women whom no one else will serve.  Catholic hospitals and clinics wait with open arms to welcome all women and meet their health care needs.  But you would rather dictate that Catholics must violate their own sacred teaching; you'd rather assault Religious freedom and require Catholic institutions to bow at your altar or else.  Whose interests are you serving here?  Let's be clear.



Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood are targeting our kids.  The ones they don't kill in the womb they'll rely on later to become new and repeat clients, and that means "educating" our children about sex, Planned Parenthood-style.  Their see our kids as primarily "sexual beings" rather than human beings with a holy sexuality.  Their vision of sexuality has no room for chastity, purity, abstinence, or respect for human life.  At the heart of their "sex-education" agenda is promiscuity, contraception, and abortion.  



NJ.com reports that while speaking to a Princeton audience recently, Cecile Richards said, "We know sex education works, the problem is we're not in enough classrooms.  In the last couple of years, Planned Parenthood has become a living digital laboratory."  Planned Parenthood uses Facebook, Twitter and text messaging to deliver sex education to young people without having to get it through the Legislature.  "Technology has the power to connect people, to get our message out and drive social change," said Richards."



Planned Parenthood's message is that our children are "sexual beings" who must be taught to explore their sexuality and enjoy unrestricted sex whenever, with whomever they choose, armed with only some latex and pills to "protect" them, and abortion to safeguard their "freedom." 



Obama goes on to say, "When some professional politicians casually say that they'll get rid of Planned Parenthood, don't forget what they're really talking about.  Eliminating the funding that millions of women rely on and leaving them to fend for themselves."



Yes, let's do remember what we're really talking about here.  We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars every year being given to an industry that exists to kill the child in the womb.  Let's stop pretending that those tax dollars are not subsidizing abortion.  Let's be clear: if PP could not abort babies they would close their doors tomorrow.  It is the abortion peddlers who should be made to fend for themselves.  Those Catholic hospitals you're threatening with your mandates, Mr. Obama -- the ones leading in breast cancer screenings, for instance -- would gladly care for women and their babies.



He concludes with this promise: "I know Planned Parenthood will never stop fighting to protect the health care and choices America's women deserve.  As long as I have the privilege of being your President, neither will I."



One last time: abortion is not health care.  Fertility is not a disease.  Pregnancy is not an illness.  Contraception is not an entitlement others must be forced to pay for.  The natural ability of a woman's body is not a defect that needs to be fixed.  What women deserve is to not have their bodies "treated" with artificial hormones and chemicals.  What women deserve is for the amazing gift of life-giving to be respected and honored, both by their doctors and by the men in their lives.  Women deserve far, far better than abortion.  The women still growing in the womb deserve to be protected and born, not exterminated. 



Our current President has made his position crystal clear and has demonstrated time and time again that he will always defend Planned Parenthood; he will always defend abortion-on-demand, without restriction; he will always promote the culture of death.  He will even go to such anti-American lengths as to shred the constitutional rights of the Catholic Church and all people of faith.  There's no "war on women."  There's no battle over the availability of contraception.  There's a genuine war on Religious freedom, and a genuine battle for liberty, both being waged by Obama.



There's no ambiguity here.  No wiggle-room at all for anyone to be uncertain as to Obama's intentions and priorities.  



There is only one question:  Will we re-elect a man who walks in lock-step with the anti-life agenda of Planned Parenthood and allow our constitutional right to Religious freedom to be eradicated?




Barack Obama is not a Christian since he disregards the Holy Bible. -

Romans 1:22-32

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.



Obama shaking fist at God

May 11, 2012
Michael Gordom
The Charlotte Observer

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In another provocative comment aimed at Barack Obama, evangelist Franklin Graham on Thursday accused the president of having “shaken his fist” at God by changing his position on same-sex marriage.

“It grieves me that our president would now affirm same-sex marriage, though I believe it grieves God even more,” Graham said in a prepared statement.

“This is a sad day for America. May God help us.”

On Tuesday, North Carolina became the 31st state to ratify a constitutional amendment designed to block same-sex marriage.

The next day, amid an online clamor to move the Democratic National Convention from Charlotte, the president changed his longstanding position against same-sex unions.

“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told ABC News.

He said he had changed his mind after having talked with his family and friends.

Graham, however, said God created and defined marriage.

It “should not be defined by presidents or polls, governors or the media. The definition was set long ago and changing legislation or policy will never change God’s definition.”

The Rev. Murdoch Smith, pastor of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church in Charlotte, challenged Graham’s view, saying “I am always suspect when someone says that they know the mind of God.”

“President Obama stated that his position was evolving because he was open to what all sides had to say on marriage equality,” Smith said Thursday. “That openness ... brought him to the conclusion that God blesses all who commit to one another in his presence.”

Graham, who now runs his father’s evangelistic association, had publicly criticized the president on spiritual matters before.

In February, during an interview on MSNBC, Graham questioned whether Obama is a Christian, adding that “Islam has gotten a free pass” under the current administration.

He was heavily criticized, particularly by African-American ministers, and later apologized.

When running for the U.S. Senate and in his first presidential campaign four years ago, Obama said he opposed same-sex marriage, partly on religious reasons, partly “because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient,” he said in the Wednesday interview.

Obama’s presumptive challenger for the White House, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, says he opposes same-sex marriage and favors an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to forbid it.

N.C voters passed their state amendment with 61 percent of the vote.



Obama voices his support for gay marriage


By JULIE PACE, Associated Press
May 8, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — On the fence no longer, President Barack Obama declared his unequivocal support for gay marriage on Wednesday, a historic announcement that gave the polarizing social issue a more prominent role in the 2012 race for the White House.

The announcement was the first by a sitting president, and Republican challenger Mitt Romney swiftly disagreed with it. "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," he said while campaigning in Oklahoma. Gay rights advocates cheered Obama's declaration, which they had long urged him to make. Beyond the words, one man who married his gay partner in Washington, D.C., was stirred to send a $25 contribution to the president's campaign. "Making a contribution is the best way to say thank you," said Stuart Kopperman.

Obama revealed his decision after a series of events that made clear the political ground was shifting. He once opposed gay marriage but more recently had said his views were "evolving."

In an interview with ABC in which he blended the personal and the presidential, Obama said "it wouldn't dawn" on his daughters, Sasha and Malia, that some of their friends' parents would be treated differently than others. He said he also thought of aides "who are in incredibly committed monogamous same-sex relationships who are raising kids together."

Obama added that he thought about "those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf, and yet feel constrained even though now that 'don't ask, don't tell' is gone because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage."

The president said he was taking a personal position. Aides said the president's shift would have no impact on current policies and he continues to believe that marriage is an issue best decided by states.

"I have hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient," Obama said in the interview. He added, "I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word 'marriage' was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth."

Now, he said, "it is important for me personally to go ahead and affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married."

He spoke on the heels of a pair of events that underscored the sensitivity of an issue that has long divided the nation.

Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview on Sunday that he is completely comfortable with gays marrying, a pronouncement that instantly raised the profile of the issue. White House aides insisted the vice president hadn't said anything particularly newsworthy, but gay rights groups cited Biden's comments in urging the president to announce his support.

On Tuesday, voters in North Carolina — a potential battleground in the fall election — approved an amendment to the state constitution affirming that marriage may only be a union of a man and a woman.

Additionally, several of the president's biggest financial backers are gay, and some have prodded him publicly to declare his support for same-sex marriage. Senior administration officials said Obama came to the conclusion that gay couples should have the right to legally marry earlier this year and had planned to make his views known publicly before the Democratic National Convention in early September. They conceded that Biden's comments accelerated the timeline, but said the vice president's remarks were impromptu and not part of a coordinated effort to soften the ground for a shift by the president. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.

As recently as eight years ago, conservatives in several states maneuvered successfully to place questions relating to gay marriage on the election day ballot as a way of boosting turnout for President George W. Bush's re-election. Now, nationwide polling suggests increasing acceptance of gay marriage. In a national survey released earlier this month, Gallup reported 50 percent of those polled said it should be legal, and 48 percent were opposed. Democrats favored by a margin of roughly 2-1, while Republicans opposed it by an even bigger margin. Among independents, 57 percent expressed support, and 40 percent were opposed.

Whatever the polls, the political cross-currents are tricky, and administration officials conceded as much.

Some top aides argued that gay marriage is toxic at the ballot box in competitive states like North Carolina and said the vote there this week shows that opposition to the issue is a rallying point for Republicans.

Shifting his emphasis, even briefly, could open Obama up to Republican criticism that he is taking his eye off the economy, voters'

No. 1 issue.

Yet some prominent gay donors have said publicly they wanted Obama to announce his support for gay marriage. Other Democratic supporters claim Obama's decision could energize huge swaths of the party, including young people. He also could appeal to independent voters.

The decision also creates an area of clear contrast between Obama and his Republican rival as he argues that he's delivered on the change he promised four years ago.

Obama said he sometimes talks with college Republicans on his visits to campuses, and while they oppose his policies on the economy and foreign policy, "when it comes to same sex equality, or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. They are more comfortable with it."

Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage and a leading supporter of the constitutional amendment approved in North Carolina on Tuesday, said she welcomed Obama's announcement at the same time she disagreed with it.

"Politically, we welcome this," she said. "We think it's a huge mistake. President Obama is choosing the money over the voters the day after 61 percent of North Carolinians in a key swing state demonstrated they oppose gay marriage."

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi instantly sought political gain from the president's announcement. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee issued an email in her name that asked recipients to "stand with President Obama." Such requests are often followed by a solicitation for campaign donations.

Obama said first lady Michelle Obama also was involved in his decision and joins him in supporting gay marriage.

"In the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people," he said.

Acknowledging that his support for same-sex marriage may rankle religious conservatives, Obama said he thinks about his faith in part through the prism of the Golden Rule — treating others the way you would want to be treated.

"That's what we try to impart to our kids and that's what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I'll be as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I'll be as president," Obama said.

Six states — all in the Northeast except Iowa — and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriages. In addition, two other states have laws that are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.



Head of Traditional Values Coalition Detained as Security Threat to Clinton

WRITTEN BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD  
TUESDAY, 20 DECEMBER 2011

U.S. State Department security personnel detained a conservative activist at last week’s conference to help implement a United Nations resolution that seeks to curb free speech.

Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, was there to protest American support, via the State Department, for the implementation UN Resolution 16/18, a non-binding document that supposedly seeks to stop religious discrimination and stereotyping. Opponents say it is really an attempt to silence the foes of Islam.

According to TVC, State Department security received a phone call from someone claiming that Lafferty — whose TVC is running a campaign against Sharia law — was a possible threat to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who attended the conference. Clinton is a major supporter of UN Resolution 16/18.

So now Lafferty wants to know who claimed that she was a threat to the Cabinet Secretary.

The Resolution

Lafferty was detained and released, apparently after State Department security officials decided that the wife, mother, and conservative activist wasn’t a threat to Mrs. Clinton.

But Lafferty and her kind are a threat to the implementation of UNR 16/18, which might be one reason officials closed the three-day conference, titled the “Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18,” at which she was detained.

Adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in March, the non-binding resolution condemns stereotyping and discrimination on the basis of religion, and demands that states take “effective measures” to combat the “problem.”

The Resolution expresses several “concerns” including the continued serious instances of derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups, in particular when condoned by Governments.... In addition, UN R 16/18 voices concern that incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of religion or belief, continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth in the present resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.

The resolution also “condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means.”

Thus does it call upon member states “to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”

The resolution does not explain who will determine what is “hostile” or what constitutes “incitement to violence.” TVC notes that “incitement to imminent violence” is a veiled attempt to muzzle the critics of Islam.

U.S., OIC Support

A major force behind the resolution is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which, as law professor Jonathan Turley noted in the Los Angeles Times, “has been pushing for years to gain international legitimacy of their domestic criminal prosecutions of anti-religious speech.”

Though the Obama administration says the resolution will not curb free speech in the United States, critics such as Turley and National Review’s Nina Shea argue that Islamic leaders have a different understanding of the resolution.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of OIC, explained in a Turkish newspaper what is at stake, at least for Islam. Noting that Islam promotes “tolerance and acceptance of other religions” and “does not condone discrimination of human beings on the basis of caste, creed, colour or faith,” he claimed that “[n]o one has the right to insult another for their beliefs or to incite hatred and prejudice. That kind of behaviour is irresponsible and uncivilised.”

Though critics point out that such discrimination is what happens to religious minorities in Islamic countries, in any event, Ihsanoglu referenced the infamous cartoons about Mohammed, which enraged the Muslim world, as an example of intolerance:

The publication of offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that sparked outrage across the Muslim world, the publicity around the film Fitna and the more recent Qur’an burnings represent incidents of incitement to hatred that fuel an atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion. Freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility. At the same time, violent reactions to provocations are also irresponsible and uncivilised and we condemn them unequivocally.

As Turley noted, reckoning what OIC wants from the resolution is hardly difficult: to silence the critics of Islam. The OIC, he wrote, has “long sought to elevate religious dogma over individual rights. In 1990, members adopted the Cairo Declaration, which rejected core provisions of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed that free speech and other rights must be consistent with ‘the principles of the sharia,’ or Islamic law." He continued,

The biggest victory of the OIC came in 2009 when the Obama administration joined in condemning speech containing "negative racial and religious stereotyping" and asked states to "take effective measures" to combat incidents, including those of "religious intolerance." ...

The OIC has hit on a winning strategy to get Western countries to break away from their commitment to free speech by repackaging blasphemy as hate speech and free speech as the manifestation of "intolerance." Now, orthodoxy is to be protected in the name of pluralism — requiring their own notion of "respect and empathy and tolerance." One has to look only at the OIC member countries, however, to see their vision of empathy and tolerance, as well as their low threshold for anti-religious speech that incites people. In September, a Kuwaiti court jailed a person for tweeting a message deemed derogatory to Shiites. In Pakistan last year, a doctor was arrested for throwing out a business card of a man named Muhammad because he shared the prophet's name.

The core countries behind this effort show little tolerance or "empathy" themselves for opposing religions or viewpoints. Saudi Arabia will not allow the construction of a church in the kingdom, let alone allow public observance of other faiths. This year, the Saudi interior minister declared free speech to be an offense against God, declaring the kingdom "categorically [bans] all sorts of demonstrations, marches and sit-ins … as they contradict Islamic sharia law and the values and traditions of Saudi society." Last week, Saudi courts sentenced an Australian Muslim to be flogged 500 times and sent to jail for "insulting" Muhammad.

The effects of the campaign in the West, Turley wrote, including the persecution of Dutch politician Geert Wilders for his film “Fitna” and statements opposing the Islamization of Europe, are “alarming.”

As for Hillary Clinton and President Obama, they back the OIC. Just after the massacre in Norway that left nearly 100 dead, Clinton went to Istanbul to let the world know the U.S government backed the resolution and wants to combat “Islamophobia.”

Said Clinton, “But at the same time, we each have to work to do more to promote respect for religious differences in our own countries.” She continued,

In the United States, I will admit, there are people who still feel vulnerable or marginalized as a result of their religious beliefs. And we have seen how the incendiary actions of just a very few people, a handful in a country of nearly 300 million, can create wide ripples of intolerance. We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy [sic]. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

Lafferty Demands Information

Lafferty, now pushing the State Department to release the identity of the caller who claimed she was a security threat, notes that Clinton appears to have acted on her suggestion to apply “peer pressure and shaming” to silence critics of Islam.

According to TVC, “Lafferty was circled by several members of Secretary Clinton’s staff before being approached by a member of the security detail, demanding Lafferty follow him. When asked why she was being removed from the reception hall, the security detail announced that a phone call had identified Lafferty as a ‘security threat’ to Secretary Clinton.”

“For weeks we have been asking whether the true aims of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and U.N. Resolution 16/18 would be used to apply “old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to chill and coerce those critical of the Islamist agenda,” Lafferty said. “Hillary Clinton was as good as her word.” She added, This language —'‘incitement to imminent violence" — has been used time and time again to close events here in the United States concerning the impact of Islamic shariah law, detain law-abiding Christians elsewhere, and now even target and detain as security threats people from State Department events.

The very restriction on free speech the UN Resolution was pushing is exactly what they used against me.

I had warned previously how members of the U.S. State Department and Hillary Clinton have pointedly remarked that part of the implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18 will be an effort to utilize "techniques of peer pressure and shaming" to silence critics of Islamic shariah. Little did I realize how quickly Clinton and her Islamist friends were set to make examples out of law-abiding Americans.



MAIN INDEX

BIBLE INDEX

HINDU INDEX

MUSLIM INDEX

MORMON INDEX

BUDDHISM INDEX

WORD FAITH INDEX

WATCHTOWER INDEX

MISCELLANEOUS INDEX

CATHOLIC CHURCH INDEX