Tag Archive for: homosexuals

Understanding and Reacting to the Criminalization of Christianity in America

/in , , , /by

LightWins_250The LGBT agenda is steamrolling through society’s institutions – including the courts and political parties. We’ve already seen bakers and wedding businesses severely fined and punished for acting on their beliefs. Protections for religious liberty are being rejected by legislatures. And even more oppressive LGBT “anti-discrimination” laws are now being introduced in Congress.

The criminalization of Christianity and Orthodox Judaism in America is not simply speculation. It’s already happening.

What is really going on? How will it affect you? Are Biblical issues involved? What can you do about it?You’ll want to hear what America’s major leaders and activists (including Brian Camenker of MassResistance) have to say!

Over the last two years, pro-family leader Janet Porter interviewed over 50 key people in the pro-family and conservative movements. Their observations on the culture war, America, God, and how it all comes together are a real education. Titled “LIGHT WINS,” this production will definitely move you!

Copies of this outstanding DVD have been donated to MassResistance to support our activism.!

During August every person donating $150 or more will receive a free DVD of “Light Wins”!This is a great way to help support our valuable work!

To donate $150 or more and get this outstanding video:

1. Send a check to MassResistance

OR

donate by credit card HERE. (Donations to MassResistance are not tax-deductible.)

OR

2. For tax-deductible donations: Send a check to Parents Education Foundation, or call in a credit card to our office: 781-890-6001.

Mailing address for both: PO Box 1612, Waltham, MA 02454


Pro-family activist and radio host Janet Porter interviewed top leaders & activists across America for this outstanding DVD.


Governor Mike Huckabee


Phyllis Schlafly


Dr. James Dobson


Pastor Scott Lively

Fr. Frank Pavone


Brian Camenker


David Barton


William Donahue


Dr. John Diggs, Jr.


Peter LaBarbera

ALSO INCLUDED:

Matt Barber
Gary Bauer
J. Kenneth Blackwell
Lt. Gen William G. Boykin
Mark Crutcher
Joseph Farah
Dr. Jim Garlow
Gary Glenn
Congressman Louie Gohmert
Dr. Steven Hotze
Bishop Harry Jackson
Craig James
Aaron & Melissa Klein
Chap. Gordon Klingenschmitt
Dr. Alveda King
Congressman Steve King
Robert Knight
Andrea Lafferty
Troy Newman
US Senator Rand Paul
Anne Paulk
Tony Perkins
David Pickup, MA
Gregory Quinlan
Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.
Peter Sprigg
Mat Staver
Tim Wildmon

And many more . . .

RELATED VIDEO:

Surrender Like a Boy Scout

/in , , , /by

scoutingThere has been much written about the Boy Scouts of America’s recent acceptance of openly homosexual scout masters. The organization has been raked over the coals by the right and accused of offering only a half-measure by the left. But few appreciate what the BSA has actually done — and the BSA has no idea what it has done to itself.

Scouting has never been just about tying knots and learning survival skills, but about instilling virtue and building character. And part of having character means standing up for what you believe is right.

Insofar as this goes, no boy will find the “reformed” BSA organization a good role model.

Whether or not you agree with the BSA’s recent policy change, this is indisputable. Note that when BSA president (and ex-defense secretary) Robert Gates defended the decision, he spoke of how the ban on homosexual adults was “unsustainable,” said that he had “fear” it would mean the BSA’s demise, and spoke about how one couldn’t ignore the changing legal landscape and culture (we can only imagine what kinds of policies he’d have felt compelled to adopt in 1936 Germany or the 1925 USSR). There wasn’t even a pretense at a moral argument. “Instead, he argues from organizational self-interest — never mind if it is right or wrong…. Duty to God and country? To heck with that — management always has its own priorities,” as National Review put it in a scathing editorial.

Of course, it isn’t hard to figure out that, much like the leper character in Braveheart, Gates is a perhaps proud compromiser; he wants to mollify the sexual fascists while tacitly saying to traditionalists, “I don’t want to do it, you see; we have to — to survive.” Well, there’s a new scout survival skill for you. Perhaps now they’ll have courses in political expediency and realpolitik and merit badges in waving white flags and lying prostrate.

It’s not that Gates is wrong about the culture’s trajectory, the legal challenges or what they portend for the BSA. But the organization was being sued six ways to Sunday 15 years ago and bravely held the line. What’s different today? Sure, the wider culture has degraded further — but so has the BSA’s internal culture.

Lost in this whole debate is that allowing openly homosexual BSA leaders is not movement toward equality — that notion is marketing — but away from it.

After all, there have always been homosexual scout leaders, just as there have been those who were adulterers or fornicators. But they generally “kept up appearances,” which, while paling in comparison to actual virtue, is the next best thing. But while the last two groups are still presumably expected to keep it in the closet, the group that always feels compelled to wear its sexuality on its shirtsleeve will be out and “proud” in the bush.

And, really, it wouldn’t even matter now if adulterers and fornicators followed suit. It is certainly true that being “morally straight” (part of the BSA oath) involves more than just sexuality; it is also true that sexuality is an integral part of it. And, obviously, the BSA’s sexuality model was always Christendom’s traditional one: sexuality is to be confined to a married couple (man and woman, by definition), period. Some will now protest, saying that the BSA never dealt with sexuality at all. No, not explicitly, but it isn’t only what’s mentioned explicitly that matters. There’s no such thing as a value-neutral environment. “Values are caught more than they’re taught,” and it is what is assumed that is learned best. If an “out” adulterer, fornicator or homosexual is a scout leader, he’s teaching the legitimacy of the behavior in question in the most powerful way possible: by living it — as someone who is a role model. Moreover, that the BSA allows him to “serve openly” relates a message of organizational acceptance.

So the issue here is the validating of homosexuality in young boys’ minds? Actually, it’s worse than that. Question, how effective is the following message: adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, polygamy is a sin, but homosexuality? That’s just a lifestyle choice, junior, sorta’ like living on a houseboat.

It’s a what’s-wrong-with-this-picture scenario the dullest student could figure out in a second. Once Scout Master Ken can arrive in camp all joyous and gay talking about the new knot — the one he fancies he’s tied with his “significant other” Lloyd — it’s clear that basically anything goes sexually. Hey, if he can indulge his passions, why can’t I indulge mine? In other words, the acceptance of homosexuality means the complete collapse of the traditional sexual model.

What does this mean for being “morally straight” in general? C.S. Lewis once noted (I’m paraphrasing), “Sex is not messed up because it was put in the closet; it was put in the closet because it was messed up.” And opening that stuffed closet messes everything else up. Similar to how you can’t compartmentalize accepted homosexuality and keep the traditionalist sexual model intact, it’s essentially impossible to compartmentalize widespread sexual vice and keep general virtue intact. It’s as how cancer metastasizing unfettered cannot be kept confined to one organ: vice corrupts the heart, weakens the mind, clouds judgment and creates desire for the justification of relativism (e.g., who’s to say what right and wrong is, anyway? Don’t impose your “values” on me!). This leads to more vice. This is not to say, lest I be misunderstood, that a sexually corrupt people can’t have its virtues. It is to say they can’t be virtuous.

And that is the issue. None of this would be happening if the BSA’s leadership, reflecting moderns in general, weren’t lacking in virtue themselves and hadn’t descended into vice-enabling relativism. Even years ago I fully expected their surrender because I understood that, as Lewis also said, you cannot “make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.” Robert Gates and most of the rest of the BSA leadership are men without chests; they have no heart for the fight because they have no principles, and they have no principles because they started believing not in principles but provisional values.

As far as the BSA’s mandate of creating boys with chests, the organization long had to fight the corruptive wider culture. But now it has collapsed, completely and likely irrevocably, its own internal culture. And for what? A slight reprieve? A stay of execution? Gates has said he didn’t foresee the rapid cultural changes (a tipping point, really) of the last several years. What he also doesn’t see is that he has merely “traded the Sudetenland for peace in our time.” And he will learn that this peace is fleeting with people whose “truth” changes with time, people who tolerate no dissent, honor no compromise and take no prisoners.

The BSA decided that it profited the organization to lose its soul so it could gain the world. Its punishment will be, I suspect, that it will end up without either.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Directive Urges English Teachers to Push Students to Question Their Gender

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts prepare to lead marchers while waving rainbow-colored flags at the 41st annual Pride Parade on June 28 in Seattle, two days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. Photo by Elaine Thompson — The Associated Press

San Francisco: Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society Can’t Find Enough Housing for Gay ‘Refugees’

/in , , , , , /by
Mark Hetfield

Mark Hetfield, President & CEO of Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.

Ho hum!  So we are bringing refugees from the highly touted welcoming-to-all “Rainbow Nation” of South Africa, dropping them off in San Francisco and now whining about how there isn’t enough housing for them.

Maybe one of the well-paid staffers at the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) might welcome this gay refugee to their home!

A long sob story at the Bay Area Reporter:

Gay_Refugee_31_LRG

Isn’t HIAS PAID to take care of the refugees it resettles? Why is San Francisco gay refugee saying this: “In the U.S. I am facing homelessness,” Mayema told the Bay Area Reporter in a recent interview. “I don’t want to end up on the streets.”

“Our biggest challenge in helping these people is to find housing for them,” said Amy Weiss, the director of refugee and immigrant services at Jewish Family and Children’s Services of the East Bay. “They come with no employment history and no housing history. San Francisco is hard enough to find housing if you have an income. It is a huge problem for us and for them and to anybody resettling refugees.”

The agency is believed to be the only one in the country that has developed a specific program to work with LGBT refugees. It began four years ago when a number of Iranian LGBT refugees, who had fled to Turkey, needed help resettling in the U.S.

Since then the agency has worked with a number of LGBT refugees, mostly gay men from Africa and the Middle East. In November Junior Mayema arrived from Capetown, South Africa, where he had fled five years ago from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Then look at this, even the UN High Commissioner for Refugees refers to the attack (the star of this story claimed he suffered) as an “alleged attack.” So, he was resettled in America even though it was never proven he was attacked in S. Africa?

UNHCR staff, after learning about Mayema’s alleged attack, referred his case for resettlement last summer. Four months later, according to the account, he was granted refugee status and, in November, arrived in the Bay Area where he received assistance from the Jewish agency and a local church-sponsored group in acclimating to his new surroundings.

And, by the way, as we admit hundreds of refugees from the supposedly welcoming country of South Africa, you can bet there are few if any persecuted white people in the group.  I wonder if a white person pretended to be gay or lesbian and said he or she was attacked, could they get in to the US from South Africa?

The sob story goes on and on, continue reading here.  It is largely a play for more taxpayer money!

VIDEO: Church of Perverts

/in , , , , /by

The USA is in big trouble now that Christianity has been shoved aside by the worship of sexual perversion.

Obama’s Ancestral Home Not-On-Board with Gay Marriage

/in , , /by
Iran_Khamenei_Twitter_c0-49-700-457_s561x327

Tweet of Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran.

President Obama is visiting Kenya his ancestral home. It was here that his father grew up, was sent to college in Hawaii where he met Obama’s mother, became a minor government official, a man who was an alcoholic and who died in an alcohol related car accident.

President Obama was not there to visit his estranged family, he was there to push his LGBTQ agenda. Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta was not-on-board with his nations most well known “citizen”, as Obama joked.

The Conservative Post reports:

During a conference with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, Obama spoke about supporting gay marriage “right.”

Kenya’s penal code states that sexual activity between same-sex partners is punishable by up to 14 years in jail.

Here are Obama’s remarks…

From IJReview via CNN:

image

“When you start treating people differently not because of any harm they are doing to anybody, but because they are different, that’s the path whereby freedoms begin to erode, and bad things happen. And when a government gets in a habit of people treating people differently, those habits can spread.”

“As an African-American, I am painfully aware of what happens when people are treated differently under the law.”

Kenyatta’s response…

“The fact of the matter is Kenya and the U.S. share so many values: common love for democracy, entrepreneurship, value for families — these are some things that we share. But there are some things that we must admit we don’t share. Our culture, our societies don’t accept.”

“It is very difficult for us to be able to impose on people that which they themselves do not accept.. This is why I repeatedly say for Kenyans today the [gay rights issue] is generally a non-issue. We want to focus on other areas.”

Wow. Take this Obama!

President Obama making this his main issue has also drawn the ire of the Iran’s Supreme leader, who posted a picture of Obama committing suicide on Twitter. Iran doesn’t have a gay problem, they hang them.

Obama has commit political suicide both in Kenya and in Iran with his nuclear deal.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Barack Obama greeted by Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta, right, on his arrival at State House in Nairobi, Kenya, July 25, 2015. Ben Curtis/AP Photo.

America at the Tipping Point

/in , , , /by

TimeMagOn June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 split decision, declared that the institution of marriage is not limited to individuals of opposite genders… one man and one woman.  Five of the nine justices found a way to conclude that the Constitution guarantees a right to marriage between same-sex couples.  “No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.  “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.  In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”  His words were more appropriate to a lonely hearts club newsletter than to a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Constitution has nothing to say on the subject of same-sex marriage.  He wrote, “If you are among the many Americans… of whatever sexual orientation… who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision.  Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal.  Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner.  Celebrate the availability of new benefits.  But do not celebrate the Constitution.  It had nothing to do with it.”

It didn’t take long for the states to make their feelings known.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton referred to the decision as, “A judge-based edict that is not based in the law.”  Paxton cited the 1973 abortion decision, Roe V. Wade, as another example of how the U.S. Constitution “can be molded to mean anything by unelected judges.”  He went on to say, “But no court, no law, no rule, and no words will change the simple truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.  Nothing will change the importance of a mother and a father to the raising of a child.  And nothing will change our collective resolve that all Americans should be able to exercise their faith in their daily lives without infringement and harassment.”

And now that the Supreme Court has placed their stamp of approval on same-sex marriage, we find that liberals and Democrats are reaching beyond that decision to find ways of making us “swallow” other items on the gay lobby’s agenda.  For example, Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA24) has introduced the Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act of 2015, requiring that the terms “husband” and “wife” be stricken from federal law because she feels they are patently “anti-gay.”  She would prefer to see those terms replaced with more “gender-neutral” terms such as “spouse” or “married couple.”

In Portland, Oregon, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners and operators of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa Bakery, have been ordered by the Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industry (OBLI) to pay $135,000 in damages to Rachel Cryer, and her wife-to-be, Laurel Bowman.  The dispute arose last year when Cryer and Bowman asked the Kleins to bake a cake for their upcoming same-sex wedding.  And when the Kleins declined, saying that to make a wedding cake for the event would represent a violation of their religious beliefs, Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint with the State of Oregon.  In their ruling, the OBLI found that “the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Any thoughtful person must conclude that the same-sex marriage decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has brought the nation to a “tipping point.”  It has brought us to the point where the alternatives available to We the People… alternatives that were once thought to be only remote possibilities… are now realities, staring us directly in the face.  The alternatives are, in order of preference, a) massive civil disobedience, b) widespread 10th Amendment nullification by states and local communities, and finally, c) dissolution of the Union, otherwise known as secession… by far the most draconian of the three alternatives.

What five Supreme Court justices, Barack Obama, liberal Democrats, gays, and lesbians apparently fail to understand is that they have forced the country so far to the radical left that they may have finally reawakened a “sleeping giant,” once known as the “silent majority.”

Already, black pastors across the country have announced that, instead of being forced to marry same-sex couples, they will engage in massive civil disobedience.  The vast majority of those pastors are men and women who have always urged their parishioners to support the Democrat Party and its candidates.  The Obama administration, under Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, have been highly selective in which laws they enforce and which they prefer to ignore.  If the Obama administration decides that they will side with the LGBT wing of the Democratic Party, will black pastors across the country sit idly by as their colleagues are arrested and hauled off to jail?

In her new book, ¡Adios America!, Ann Coulter reminds us that Democrats have not been able to win a majority of the white vote in presidential elections since 1948.  It is a trend that had been developing for many decades and there is little doubt that it is the unstated purpose behind the existence of the Immigration Reform Act of 1965.  As Democratic strategist Patrick Reddy is quoted as saying in a 1998 Roper Center report, “The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy, has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a decade.  It will go down (in history) as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”

In other words, what the Democrats have done methodically over the past 50 years is to import the votes that they were unable to attract among traditional working-class European-Americans.  And now that they are importing millions of new voters from Mexico and Central America, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims from the Middle East, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa, apparently under the theory that they will be “eaten last,” one has to seriously wonder how many years we have left as the home of capitalism and the freest nation on Earth.

To be elected president or vice president of the United States requires a total of at least 270 votes in the Electoral College.  Through the strategic spending of other people’s money, especially among minorities in the major urban areas of the East Coast, the West Coast, and the Upper Midwest, Democrats have fashioned an electoral map that gives them a relatively firm base of 22 states with a combined total of 257 of the needed 270 electoral votes.

Republicans, on the other hand, have a firm base of 23 states with a combined total of 191 electoral votes.  That leaves a total of 6 swing states… Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia… with a combined total of 90 electoral votes.  In order for a Republican to win in 2016, and beyond, he/she must carry all 23 of the solid Republican states, plus all six of the swing states.  They could afford to lose either Colorado’s 9 electoral votes or Iowa’s 6 electoral votes, but not all 15.  To lose both Colorado and Iowa, while carrying Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia would leave them with a total of just 266 electoral votes, four short of an electoral majority.

That analysis brings into sharp focus just how close we are to sliding over the “tipping point” into the dustbin of world history.

The Founding Fathers could not have envisioned a time when the American people would elect a totally incompetent and constitutionally ineligible man, a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya, to two consecutive terms in the White House, followed immediately by the first female president who also happens to be, if not the most corrupt, one of the most corrupt political figures in U.S. history.

But still, there are positive signs of life in the body politic:

  • The decision by black pastors to engage in massive civil disobedience.
  • The numerous lawsuits by states against oppressive federal government rulings.
  • The decisions by a growing number of states to allow military recruiters to be armed.
  • The growing number of states that have engaged in 10th Amendment nullification.
  • The growing number of states that have joined the Article V Convention movement.

But, in the end, should all else fail, there is still the alternative of secession.  The 25 states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming would make one helluva fine country… a country with secure borders, a second-to-none military, the world’s most productive economy, and long term energy independence.

I’m sure we would also allow the states of Colorado, Iowa, and Ohio to join us if only they would agree to behave themselves and to make life inside their borders unbearable for liberals, radical Muslims, illegal aliens, and other undesirables.  The bottom line is this: we no longer have a margin for error.  If we wish to have a long term future as a constitutional republic we cannot afford to elect another Democrat to the Oval Office in 2016.  We are at the tipping point of our nation’s history and one more misstep could easily send us off to political oblivion.

To borrow a phrase from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the national motto for 2016 must be, “Friends don’t allow friends to vote Democratic!”

RELATED ARTICLE: Transgender Only Modeling Agency Opening in This City

Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms the Reality of Porn Addiction

/in , , , /by

Contrary to recent claims, pornography addiction is no illusion. A recent peer-reviewed study that appeared in the journal “Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity” affirms the reality of porn addiction, and supports the addiction model. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation contends that this information is of vital importance for both medical professionals and those affected by porn addiction in order to facilitate accurate treatment and healing.

Years ago, those who struggled with alcohol and drug addictions were belittled as having a weak character instead of a disease that necessitated treatment and rehabilitation. Now those who face addictions to sex and pornography are being similarly maligned by recent studies that allege that their enslavement to sexual stimuli is not true addiction. The study “Sex Addiction as a Disease: Evidence for Assessment, Diagnosis, and Response to Critics” exposes the truth that sex addiction follows the same patterns as drug and alcohol addiction.

This study states that, “the realities of addiction in our country and in the world must be faced. One of these realities includes accepting natural or process aspects of addiction, such as sex, food, and gambling as integral to the disease processes just as chemicals, such as alcohol, tobacco and other drugs.”

Instead of isolating those who struggle with porn or sex addiction, it is time to begin focusing on offering them the resources they need. To learn more about the research related to the harms of pornography, visit PornHarmsResearch.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: Names of Men who ‘Covered Up’ UK Pedophile Ring Released

Obama’s Continued Disdain for Africa

/in , , /by

In June of 2013 Obama tried to lecture Senegalese President, Macky Sall in front of his own people on accepting homosexuality in his country.  Before his trip to Africa, Obama was sternly warned by many, “do not talk about homosexuality in Africa.”

But as is his habit, Obama never misses an opportunity to lecture and talk down to Blacks in the U.S. and Africans abroad.  To his credit, President Sall quickly chastised Obama with these words, “We are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality…This doesn’t not mean we are homophobic.”

In 2014, during the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, Obama again lectured Africa on the need to accept homosexuality and under his administration they even took it a step further.

For the first time in the history of the U.S., Hillary Clinton made a country’s promotion of homosexuality a criteria in whether the U.S. would continue to extend foreign aid.  This was a tectonic shift in our foreign policy and should have no place in our relations with other sovereign countries.

I am very proud that almost without exception African leaders have told America and the rest of the Western world to “keep your money and foreign aid, we will not sacrifice our culture and values for your help.”

So, with this as a backdrop, I was more than stunned at the blatant disrespect Obama and his administration continues to show towards Africa; specifically in the case of South Sudan.

Two weeks ago I was invited by the Embassy of South Sudan to join them in their celebration of their 4th birthday as an independent nation.  The creation of South Sudan was one of former president George W. Bush’s lasting foreign policy achievements.

The event was a nice, festive affair with diplomats from throughout the continent of Africa in attendance.  There was a very short program with one of the speakers being Lucy Tamlyn, U.S. State Department, Office of Special Envoy for Sudan & South Sudan.  Her remarks offended everyone in the room. She said in part, “The four year anniversary of the founding of the Republic of South Sudan should indeed be a day of celebration but when we think of the difficult situation that the people of South Sudan are experiencing on the ground it’s hard to be in a celebratory mood.  Over the last few weeks, we have heard reports of abuses against civilians, including against innocent women and children.  Numerous reports have confirmed that all parties to the conflict have committed offensive military actions in violations of international humanitarian law.  With more than 2.2 million displaced and 4.6 million at risk of life threatening hunger.  It is clear that the hopes and the aspirations of the South Sudanese people are not being met.  As the government begins its extended mandate today, we call on all parties to the conflict to forge a lasting peace and work to put in place a government of national unity.”

A government of national unity?  Are you kidding me?  The last time I checked, Salva Kiir Mayardit was and is the duly elected president of South Sudan.  If and when the people of South Sudan want to change their nation’s leadership, they will do so during the next election.  It’s called democracy!

There are many legitimate areas for the U.S. to criticize the government of South Sudan.  But the celebration of their independence was not the time nor the place for such a discussion.

As an American with extensive relations and travels in Africa, including South Sudan, I was deeply embarrassed by my country.  We Blacks in the U.S. have come to expect this type of condescension  from the Obama administration when speaking to Blacks; but to display this level of arrogance to a sovereign nation is beyond the pale.

Obama would have never sent a representative to an event hosted by the government of Saudi Arabia and had them criticize the government for their treatment of women and their aggressive support for terrorism.  Obama doesn’t have the guts to do that.

But because he has so little regard for South Sudan, he doesn’t hesitate to call for the weakening of a democratically elected head of state by mandating he put a political foe in his government (Riek Machar).

How does Obama reconcile his claim to want to promote democracy around the world, with the interfering in the internal affairs of a nation?

I wish Obama would show the same amount of bravado when it came to getting our hostages out of Iran; or when it comes to challenging Putin’s aggression in Crimea; or when it comes to China manipulating their currency and hacking into our computer networks.

He doesn’t have the stomach to do this.  So, he decided to make himself feel like a man by attacking and embarrassing a developing nation that he knows can’t really fight back diplomatically.

This is not just about South Sudan; but rather the entire continent of Africa.  Africa has many friends and supporters in the U.S., but unfortunately they are rarely sought out for help in situations like these.

RELATED ARTICLE: Are Gays ‘Born That Way’? Most Americans Now Say Yes, but Science Conclusively Says No

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Black List Pub.

Che is Dead, Long Live Conchita: A New Rebel Icon

/in , /by

In addition to offering 51 gender options to its users, Facebook is also changing its male, female, and group icons in order to bring more fairness and equality among the 51 aforementioned genders. Thus, instead of the female appearing behind the male’s shoulder, she is now in front of the male, which makes hers a more equal gender.

New Facebook gender icons

The female’s new hairdo makes her look less like Darth Vader, and the group icon now features a third, metrosexual-haired silhouette that can be one of the remaining 48 genders. The Washington Post happily reports this revolutionary development as an important step towards eliminating cultural biases that have contributed to gender inequality.

Facebook Che iconUnnoticed and unreported, however, came another development in the world of Facebook icons: the appearance of a Comrade Che emoticon.

In other words, while Facebook, WaPo, and others are splitting hairs over the equality of multiple genders, along comes Che Guevara and puts them up against the wall, if only in Facebook terms. And that’s how revolutions happen in real life, too.

The website behind the Che emoticon offers this description:

“The rebel, the face of non-conformity. Che will add style to your Facebook chats and messages.”

Facebook Che iconReally? Is the face of a masculine cisgender-male person still in tune with modern times? Given that Che Guevara never questioned his sexual identity but merely accepted an assigned gender role that was expected of him by the patriarchal bourgeois society, just how much of a rebel and non-conformist was he?

Shouldn’t the new, more progressive generation also have a new, more progressive icon – a rebel who truly challenges the status quo?

Our research has led us to an ideal candidate. Meet Conchita Wurst, the Austrian Drag Queen of Eurovision, the new true face of non-conformity!

VIDEO: Conchita Wurst – Rise Like a Phoenix (Austria) 2014 LIVE Eurovision Second Semi-Final:

Please update your T-shirts, emoticons, and social media avatars. We know Che would comply!

A new rebel to replace Che
Share these PNG icons far and wide!

Che Conchita icon red Che Conchita icon black
A new rebel to replace Che

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

COUNTDOWN: Four Days Left to File for SCOTUS Marriage Re-hearing

/in , , /by

We have rarely seen anything as disgraceful as this.

There are just five days to go before the July 21 deadline to file for a re-hearing before the US Supreme Court on its recent 5-4 “same-sex marriage” ruling. But chances are bleak that this crucial filing will be done. The cave-in by the GOP has spread to major pro-family organizations.

July 10 meeting in DeWine’s office. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (in red tie) watches Constitutional Law Professor David Forte (far left) discuss the Motion for Recusal filed in April and a Motion for a Re-hearing to be filed immediately. Seated to DeWine’s left is Solicitor General Eric Murphy. Nearly 50 Ohio pro-family activists, citizens, and pastors were also in the room.

As we described in our report last week, the US Supreme Court “same-sex marriage” fight is not completely over. According to the Court’s published rules, within 25 days of a ruling, a party can ask the Court for a “rehearing” if there are pertinent issues meriting an appeal. The issue of “merit” here is that Justices Kagan and Ginsburg – both of whom ruled for “same-sex marriage” — were clearly required by federal law to recuse themselves from this case. The 25-day period to file for a re-hearing expires on Tuesday, July 21.

It seemed like a simple and obvious step for our side to take, especially given the outrageous nature of the ruling. So a few days after the June 26 ruling, national pro-family activist Janet Porter called together a few dozen of the top pro-family groups (including MassResistance), activists, and some legal scholars to help get it moving. But we certainly didn’t anticipate this much opposition to this from our “friends”.

Of the four state AGs who are eligible to file the motion (from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee) it was decided for various reasons focus on Mike DeWine of Ohio. Several in the group have connections to him.

Pro-family citizens meet with Ohio AG Mike DeWine

DeWine is a Republican with long connections to pro-family people in Ohio. Janet Porter and several in the group are Ohio residents – some of them know DeWine personally. They were able to arrange a meeting last Friday, July 10, in DeWine’s office, to ask him to file for a re-hearing.

Even with short notice, nearly 50 people showed up for the meeting in DeWine’s Columbus office. They included Janet Porter, Constitutional Law Professor David Forte of Cleveland State University, several Ohio activists, and a large group of pastors. Alongside DeWine was the Ohio Solicitor General, Eric Murphy.

Prof. Forte started the meeting by going over the Motion for Recusal filed on April 27 (the day before the Court hearing) and outlining the legal issues for re-hearing the case. DeWine responded by saying he would not be filing for a re-hearing, then opened up the floor for questions and statements from others.

Pro-family activist and Ohio resident Coach Dave Daubenmire attended the meeting. Here’s his account of what happened.

As soon as Prof. Forte was done presenting, Michael DeWine said he had no intentions of re-filing. He said that there’s no chance of winning; it takes 5 justices to agree to do it. He doesn’t want to give false hope to people that this might be reversed. And it’s now time to direct our focus to protecting religious liberty, he said.

The meeting lasted about an hour and 45 minutes. We had thought we were going to just get 15 minutes. He took every question. Some great points were made. One gentleman asked him, “What about his duty to protect children? Because of this ruling, it’s now going to be taught to our children in schools. It’s going to be mandated. And you have an obligation to protect the children.” Another pastor stood up and said, “This is your Moses moment. The Lord has been preparing you. And you’re an elected official. You represent the will of the people who voted on this issue. And the Supreme Court is totally out of bounds and we want you to appeal it on our behalf. ” Then DeWine went through that whole thing again about why he wasn’t going to file it.

And I told him, “Listen, Attorney General DeWine, I was a football coach for 30 years. I didn’t just play the games I thought we would win. We had to play every game on our schedule. And this game’s not over. We have our legal right to an appeal. And on behalf of the concerned Christians and citizens of Ohio we want you to appeal.” This went on for about an hour and 30 minutes. Everybody who had a question and raised their hand, he listened to the question. He didn’t always answer or respond, but he listened.

And then the meeting was done. At the end of the meeting he didn’t say that he wouldn’t do it, but he didn’t say that he would, either. He promised us that he’d read David Forte’s brief and that he would take it under consideration.

How does DeWine know that somebody’s heart [on the Supreme Court] won’t be changed? We need to at least get them on record about this lack of recusal. The people feel robbed.

One attendee told us this:

I believe that DeWine wants to be Governor. And I believe the Republican Party wants the issue to go away, and that he doesn’t want to cross the party bosses. That’s what I think really happened. But who do you serve? I think he serves the [establishment] Republicans and not the citizens of Ohio.

DeWine reacts to flood of emails & calls (from everywhere)

Over the last week, since MassResistance and others have publicized this, DeWine’s office has his office has received a flood of calls and emails from Ohio, across the country, and even foreign countries. (We know that from people who’ve also contacted us.)

It doesn’t appear that the July 10 meeting moved DeWine much. And his “reasons” for not filing are even weaker than before. Here’s a response DeWine’s office emailed to an activist in Maryland on Tuesday, July 14.

Dear Mr. xxxx:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the United States Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage.

I defended Ohio’s Constitution and statutes in this area at the District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

As you know, the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court rejected our argument that the definition of marriage should be left to the States and the people.  Before the Court issued its decision, a suggestion for recusal was filed by amicus parties and the individual Justices had the duty to consider their impartiality.  The Justices did not recuse themselves.  Under Supreme Court rules (and specifically Supreme Court Rule 44.1), motions for reconsideration are to be denied unless they have the vote of at least five Justices.

Again, thank you for contacting my office.  If we can ever be of assistance to you in the future, please feel free to contact us.

Very respectfully yours,

MIKE DEWINE
Ohio Attorney General

Absurd reasoning by DeWine

DeWine’s reasoning in the above email is very disturbing.  (1) He refers to a “suggestion for recusal,” i.e., the Motion for Recusal. But that was not a formal part of the process because it was filed by an outside party – and was most likely ignored by the Justices. And it was submitted the day before the Aril 28 Supreme Court hearing. (2) The fact that a vote to accept a hearing requires five justices not a legitimate reason not to file for a re-hearing. Upon seeing the new evidence, one or more of the majority could change.

Moreover, DeWine’s refusal to file for an appeal arguably constitutes malpractice. There is a universally accepted requirement that a lawyer must zealously fight for his client’s interests, not fold up his tent when it’s inconvenient or unpleasant. The American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct state, “As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system.” This is replicated in just about every other Bar Association code of ethics – even using the word “zealously”. The fact that in 2004 62% of the voters in Ohio passed the state’s Marriage Amendment makes DeWine’s inaction even more outrageous.

What about the other three states eligible to file for a re-hearing?

The Supreme Court case, Obergefell v Hodges, originated in Ohio, but was also a consolidation of cases in Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky – the other states in the Sixth Circuit. Thus, the Attorneys General of all four states have standing to act.

Janet Porter’s ad-hoc pro-family activist committee had connections to DeWine, but unfortunately none of them had effective  political connections to any of the other AGs.

We had assumed that that the larger national pro-family groups would also use their considerable influence to push this. We certainly made this known to them. But they all pretty much backed away. One national leader told Janet that this was a “waste of time.” What about the National Organization for Marriage? Not a word. We could name so many others. (There’s certainly a lot of fundraising going on over this ruling.) Or even the Federalist Society, which had the inside track to the legal process in this case?

Here’s what everyone can do now

CALL, EMAIL, TWITTER, or even FAX these AGs.  They need to hear from more people than they’ve ever heard from before:

Demand that they file a “Motion for Rehearing” in the Supreme Court marriage case by next Tuesday, July 21st. The Court must consider the information about how Justices Kagan Ginsburg violated federal law by officiating homosexual “weddings” before the ruling, and not recusing themselves from this case.

OHIO Attorney General Mike DeWine (Republican)
Phone: 800-282-0515
Email: mary.mertz@ohioattorneygeneral.gov  (his assistant)
Twitter: @OhioAG

TENNESSEE Attorney General Herbert Slatery  (Repubican)
Phone 615-741-3491
Fax 615-741-2009
Twitter: @TNattygen  [https://twitter.com/tnattygen]
Chief of Staff: Leigh Ann Apple Jones

MICHIGAN Attorney General Bill Schuette (Republican)
Phone 517-373-1110
Fax 517-373-3042
Email: miag@michigan.gov

KENTUCKY Attorney General Jack Conway (Democrat)
Phone 502-696-5300
Fax  502-564-2894
Email: web site contact page

Why filing this motion for a re-hearing is very important

We’ll repeat what we said earlier. Even if it’s not ultimately 100% successful this is extremely important:

First, it will “officially” bring the issue of Kagan’s and Ginsburg’s failure to recuse themselves (in violation of federal law) into the public spotlight. Right now, it’s relatively buried in ignored motions and various news articles in some conservative media.  And it will reinforce understanding of the overall illegal nature of this ruling.

Second, it spotlights the overall illegitimacy of today’s Supreme Court, its overtly un-Constitutional approach to shaping our laws, and its illegal power grabs far and beyond what was intended by the Founders.

If this opportunity is lost, it will be a terrible indictment to this movement. If only the homosexual movement would give up this easily.

PRAVDA: U.S. Taxpayers pay $3.5M to Study Lesbian Obesity

/in , , , , , /by

Pravda.Ru reports:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has conducted a research to find out how the sexual orientation influences the body build.
The U.S. taxpayers have already paid $3.5 million for the ‘significant’ project, and it is to last till June 30.

“Sexual Orientation and Obesity: A Test of a Gendered Biopsychosocial Model,” seeks to determine why there is a disparity in the obesity rates between straight women and lesbian women and straight men and gay men.

According to the study, “It is now well-established that women of minority sexual orientation are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic, with nearly three-quarters of adult lesbians overweight or obese, compared to half of heterosexual women. In stark contrast, among men, heterosexual males have nearly double the risk of obesity compared to gay males.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. government debt is going to beat ‘records’ of WWII.

Read the full article here.

Gays Throw Human Excrement At Christians, Wipe Their Anuses With Pages of The Bible by Theodore Shoebat

/in , , /by

When up to a thousand conservative Christian parents in Germany were protesting against a new pro-homosexual “sexual diversity” curriculum in their schools, homosexuals charged at them and thew human excrement at the Christians. They also ripped pages of the Bible, wiped their anuses with the pages, crumpled them up and threw them at the Christians.

What makes these sodomites so different than Muslims who defecate in churches? The answer is nothing.

According to the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians:

They were spit at, eggs were thrown, and little bags with feces or color. Cables of loud speakers were torn out …Pages were ripped out of the bible and used to wipe backsides, then formed into a ball and thrown at the parents. …Christians were deeply hurt in this process. At least one banner was snatched and destroyed in front of the eyes of the parents. Marshals were target[ed] with pepper sprays. Shouting by counter-demonstrator[s] made the planned public speaking partly impossible.

The police, instead of bringing order, came and took the side of the sodomites, telling the Christian protesters to leave. As the organizers stated:

Police urged the organizers to dissolve the rally, in order ‘to avoid escalation.

This is why we support the current law in Russia in regards to homosexual propaganda. The sodomites must be suppressed in order to prevent their agenda from spreading and taking root in any component of civilized. This is why God gave us this law:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

But since the Divine Law has been replaced by the dictates of politicians whose souls are seized by the devil, these sodomites “fill the land with violence and continually arouse” the anger of God (Ezekiel 8:17)

St. Peter described governors as “them that are sent by him [God] for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. (1 Peter 2:14) Evildoers would include sodomites, since St. Peter’s moral code would have been from the Divine Law.

In the words of St. Paul when he addressed the sodomites in his Epistle to the Romans:

Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:32)

The sodomites know they do evil, and we as Christians know that the Divine Law must be imposed upon them, or else they will “continue to do these very things”.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Can Court Clerks Decline to Do Gay Marriages? How It’s Playing Out in the States

Hypocrisy ALERT: Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Pro-Christian Cakes [+Videos]

Are Gays ‘Born That Way’? Most Americans Now Say Yes, but Science Conclusively Says No

Lesbian U.S. Senator Says First Amendment Protects Free Exercise ONLY INSIDE of Churches, Synagogues and Mosques

MADNESS: 15-Year-Olds to Get State-Subsidized Sex-Change Operations WITHOUT PARENTAL NOTIFICATION

Gay Activists Put up Version of Iwo Jima Photo; ‘Jennifer Aniston’ Posts a Bold Response

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Shoebat.com.

SCOTUS Re-trial on Marriage Issue? It’s Possible if GOP doesn’t Cave In…

/in , , , /by

It’s not completely over yet. But a group of treacherous and cowardly Republican politicians are standing in the way. A new fight is on, and everyone’s help is needed.

Prominent pro-family figures, some GOP presidential candidates, and hundreds across the country are pressing Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine to formally file for an appeal hearing on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 “gay marriage” ruling handed down on June 26.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg performs a same-sex “marriage” on August 31, 2013.

She told the Washington Post, “I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship.” [Fox News photo]

According to the Court’s published rules, within 25 days of a ruling a party can ask the Court for a “rehearing” of a case on pertinent issues that would merit an appeal. The issue of “merit” here is that Justices Kagan and Ginsburg – both of whom ruled “for” same-sex marriage — were clearly required by Federal law to recuse themselves from this case.

Kagan and Ginsburg’s actions and statements mandate recusal

The right of impartial court proceedings is the very basis of the entire American system of justice – from the lowest court to the Supreme Court.  Thus, federal law 28 U.S. Code § 455 states:

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

During the year prior to the Supreme Court case, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburgand Elena Kagan publicly performed same-sex “weddings.” At one such event, Ginsburg told people that the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” reflected “the genius of our Constitution.” Ginsburg also told Bloomberg Business News that she thought that  Americans were ready for gay marriage.

Kagan’s aggressive advocacy for LGBT “rights” goes back to her years as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009), and is thoroughly documented in our MassResistance report.

Supreme Court Justices are usually scrupulous in avoiding the appearance of impropriety. They regularly recuse themselves from cases based on relatively mundane issues, such as comments they’ve previously made, involvement by relatives in peripheral issues, and past employment. Kagan has recused herself from several cases involving the government because she served as Solicitor General. But this case clearly is very emotionally connected to the worldview of Kagan and Ginsburg.

Earlier attempts to bring up recusal – ignored by our side’s legal team

This case, Obergefell v Hodges, originated in Ohio, but is also a consolidation of cases in Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky – the other states in the Sixth Circuit. Thus, all four states have standing to act.

The actions of Kagan and Ginsburg immediately raised the ire of the pro-family movement. In the months preceding the April 28 hearing of the case before the Court, numerous groups tried desperately to bring up the obvious need for their recusal.

But the legal team preparing to argue the case and the attorneys general for the four states involved all adamantly refused to take any action on it. On behalf of several groups, constitutional attorney Andy Schlafly even drew up a Motion for Recusal that the legal team or the attorneys general could use. But they all ignored it.

We recall speaking with a well-known legal writer connected to the case about it in March. He made it clear that they were all afraid – afraid of antagonizing the Justices, afraid of looking unprofessional, afraid of the backlash. When pressed, he gave contrived reasons why they shouldn’t even try it, and dropped the subject.

Finally, the day before the April 28 Supreme Court hearing, the Foundation for Moral Law filed its own Motion for Recusal of Ginsburg and Kagan which laid out the issue in detail. It was followed by another Motion for Recusal filed by pro-family activist Dr. Steven Hotze.

Procedurally, it’s practically unheard of for someone not officially connected with the case to file such a motion. And although apparently the documents were eventually processed, it’s not known whether the other Justices are even now fully aware of Kagan and Ginsburg’s actions.

The Court’s rules for filing a motion for a re-hearing

The Court’s “same-sex marriage” ruling was announced on June 26. There is a 25-day window for further action (ending on July 21), if our side choses to file.

In a situation where important facts were not brought up and a re-hearing of a case is merited, the Supreme Court provides a method for it. Rule 44 of the “Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States” reads:

Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time.

… The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay.

… A petition for rehear­ing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.

A further discussion of Rule 44 can be found HERE. The main purpose of the rule is to bring up pertinent issues that the Court may not have considered in the case. It is not often utilized, and to our knowledge it has never been used for a recusal issue. But recusal is definitely a preeminent issue of this case.

Focus is on Ohio Attorney General to file for re-hearing

It immediately became clear in the four states involved with this case, though dominated by Republicans, the officials had little interest in pursuing this further, despite the gross injustice of the case and the general outrage among millions over it.

So a few days after the ruling, national pro-family activist Janet Porter called together a few dozen of the top pro-family groups and activists (including MassResistance) to get it started.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine appeared to be the most obvious choice to file it. He can act without permission of the Governor, he has a pro-family background, and several members of Janet’s group know him personally and could likely meet with him. A former US Senator, DeWine lost his seat in 2007 after supporting some oppressive pro-gay legislation, angering his conservative base. He apparently got the message. It’s widely rumored that he’s preparing to run for Governor.

On May 1, Janet’s group contacted DeWine. At least one of them spoke to him by phone. The Foundation for Moral Law emailed him a letter outlining the situation in detail. Governor Mike Huckabee sent him an email urging him to file the appeal as did several others. We were told that Rick Santorum also called him.

Fight back against cowardliness – put on the pressure!

Unfortunately, DeWine has reacted initially with some hostility. Despite the universal outrage among his base about the “same-sex marriage” ruling, he seems most interested in distancing himself from any further confrontation. When asked about a possible re-hearing by the press, his spokesman bluntly told the Columbus Dispatch “We do not plan on filing a motion.” And he may have more personal concerns. We’ve been told that some key players in the GOP are homosexual, and he doesn’t want to ruffle any more feathers on this issue. He clearly needs to be more interested about what’s best for the country.

Everyone needs to get involved. Take five minutes.
PLEASE CONTACT DeWine’s office!
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine: 800-282-0515
Email: mary.mertz@ohioattorneygeneral.gov  (his assistant)

Tell him: “File the motion for a Supreme Court re-hearing!”
Let him know that if he capitulates on “gay marriage” he can expect your opposition in any political race he runs in again.

Please tweet this out on your Twitter account (copy and paste):
@OhioAG please file a Motion for Rehearing Obergefell v. Hodges immediately! #nullifySCOTUS http://hrefshare.com/8b3cd

Personal meeting with DeWine on Friday. On Friday, July 10, a group of Ohio activists is meeting with DeWine personally. We suspect that he will be read the riot act. Perhaps DeWine does not realize how much of an emotional issue this is to his conservative base. Perhaps he does not remember that in 2004 the Ohio Marriage Amendment passed by 62%, despite being vastly outspent by the other side. Does he want to be another Mike Pence (the Republican governor of Indiana who capitulated on the religious freedom bill, and likely will never get elected again)? We’re sure much of that will be brought up.

As bad as DeWine seems, it’s not looking too good in the other states. Republican Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan has issued an immediate statement of capitulation and full compliance, instructing state officials to amend the marriage license for use by county clerks. He’s also said he’ll veto any “religious freedom” legislation unless it includes adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the state civil rights law. (And this is from our “friends”!)

We have until Tuesday, July 21. We’re also looking at a second try with officials in Tennessee and Kentucky.

Why is this important?

Given the super-charged political nature of this particular Supreme Court ruling and the general arrogance of the majority of the Court regarding their power to vastly re-define the Constitution, the likelihood of this ruling being reversed in a re-hearing is not great. But filing this motion for a re-hearing is still very important.

First, it will “officially” bring the issue of Kagan’s and Ginsburg’s failure to recuse themselves (in violation of federal law) into the public spotlight. Right now, it’s relatively buried in motions and various news articles.  And it will reinforce understanding of the overall illegal nature of this ruling.

Second, it spotlights the overall illegitimacy of today’s Supreme Court, its overtly un-Constitutional approach to shaping our laws, and its illegal power grabs far and beyond what was intended by the Founders.

Ultimately, this ruling – like the abortion ruling in 1973 and so many others – must be conscientiously ignored, dishonored, and violated by all good Americans. It starts with this.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of John Becker, 30, of Silver Spring, Md., waves a rainbow flag in support of gay marriage outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. Photo by Jacquelyn Martin/The Associated Press.

Why We Must Rally Behind the Kleins

/in , , /by

Sorry folks, I just can not let this go. Every fiber of my being screams out in outrage. I don’t know what to do, but We the People must do something! Our side is composed of Conservatives, Christians and true patriots with brilliant minds. Surely, we can come up with a solution to defeat a handful of evil Leftist arrogant tyrannical bullying Oregon government officials.

In case you were abducted by aliens and just returned to earth (I watched the movie Close Encounters yesterday), Christian bakery owners, Melissa and Aaron Klein, were fined $135K and state ordered not to speak publicly about it. The Kleins’ crime is refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.

Now get this folks, the Kleins served their lesbian client on numerous occasions. But, the Kleins’ religious faith forced them to decline from doing anything in support of a behavior that is contrary to the Word of God. That is the Kleins and our first Amendment Right.

Leftists have masterfully entrenched the absurd claim that not supporting a behavior is the same as “discrimination” against a person. Oregon officials figuratively told the Kleins screw your rights; comply or suffer economic death.

Who are these Oregon officials who think they can give the Constitution and 40 million Christians the finger and get away with it? Brother and sister patriots, we can not let this go unabated; literally stand by and watch Christians slaughtered right before our very eyes.

Donald Trump said his rising presidential poll numbers confirm America’s “silent majority”. Rush Limbaugh asked why are we not seeing proof of their existence; push back against SCOTUS redefining the thousands of years old definition of marriage, the bullying of the Kleins and so on?

Explaining his point, Rush cited when Obama sent bus loads of illegals to Murrieta, California. Local residents rose up in protest and would not allow the buses to unload. Why are we not seeing that kind of resistance against the Left’s government minion’s full court press, no-holds-barred assault on our freedom?

I will not give the ministers’ names because I think it is unproductive to beat up on people on our side. Focus on defeating our Nemesis, not each other. In response to SCOTUS unlawfully and outrageously cramming same sex marriage down America’s throats, I heard a few TV preachers say let’s not over react. It is just the world acting like the world.

It felt like the preachers were conceding the point, advising us to speak gently about the topic. Let’s just keep our beliefs safe and warm within the walls of our churches. Well guys, the Left “ain’t” gonna allow Christians to do that.

When a reporter asked a homosexual activist attorney will there be a “ceasefire” now that they have been given the right to marry, the attorney said absolutely not. She said that while they respect religious rights, they will continue to fight for gays to have the cakes and flowers they want. Do you see the insidious crafty way the attorney solidified the Left’s determination to force Christians to act against their faith? Who in the world is stopping gays from having the cakes and flowers they want? Nobody. The Totalitarian attorney is really saying they will not rest until every Christian is government mandated to fully embrace homosexual behavior.

Rush quoted this famous chilling poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller.

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I am not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I am not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because I am not a Jew.

They they came for me –and there was no one left to speak for me.”

What am I saying? I am saying if we passively allow the Left to destroy the Kleins, we are next!

I thought another “Dan’s Bake Sale” style rally in Oregon might be in order for the Kleins. Imagine, multiple thousands showing up in support of the Kleins and protesting the Left’s unconstitutional tyranny. We would need someone with a big platform like Rush to pull it off.

As I stated earlier folks, I prayerfully covet your ideas and solutions. All I know is We the People can not simply stand idly by and allow what is happening to the Kleins go unabated. Quoting heroic Todd Beamer, “Let’s Roll!”

RELATED ARTICLE: Hypocrisy ALERT: Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Pro-Christian Cakes [+Videos]

Religious Charities, Gay Marriage, and Adoption: A Case for Pluralism by Walter Olson

/in , , /by

At Reason, Scott Shackford has a valuable piece on where libertarians’ interests are likely to coincide with those of organized gay rights advocates and where they are likely to diverge, following the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage.

One flashpoint of controversy is likely to be the role of conservative religious agencies in areas of adoption that are commonly assisted with public funds (as with the adoption of older kids from foster care).

It is now legal all across America for gay people to adopt children, and now with same-sex marriage, they can adopt their partner’s child as well. This fight is largely over, and was actually pretty much won even before gay marriage recognition.

But there is another side, and it ties back into the treatment of religious people. Some adoption agencies are tied to religious groups who do not want to serve same-sex couples or place children in same-sex homes. They are also typically recipients of state funding for placing children, and are therefore subject to state regulation. Should they be required to serve gay couples?

Some states, such as Illinois, attempted to force them. As a result, Catholic Charities, which helped the state find adoptive and foster home services for four decades, stopped providing their services in 2011.

At the time, a gay activist declared this a victory, saying “Finding a loving home for the thousands in the foster/adoption system should be the priority, not trying to exclude people based on religious dogma.”

Some libertarians I admire have taken the view that where any public dollars are involved, private social service agencies must be held to rigorous anti-discrimination standards.

While I respect this view, I don’t share it.

Programs that are explicitly voucherized (such as G.I. Bill college tuition benefits, which can be used for seminary study) often go to institutions that I might find discriminatory, and the same logic can apply even with some less explicitly voucherized benefits.

If a state depot is dispensing gasoline to rescuers’ boats after Katrina, and Catholic Charities’s boats spare the need for government boats to reach some rescue targets, the “subsidy” might in fact save the taxpayers money.

In Olson’s experience, the more agencies out there serving the needs of the children looking for homes, the better. …

Much as with the controversies over bakers and florists, being denied service by one agency does not actually impact a gay couple’s ability to find and adopt children at all.

But eliminating Catholic Charities from the pool reduces the number of people able to help place these children. It’s the children who are punished by the politicization of adoption, not Catholic Charities.

This is especially important when dealing with older children or children with special medical needs. … Allowing both sides (and others as well) to play their role as they see fit benefits all children in the system.

As for the concern that some adoption agencies take taxpayer money and then discriminate, Olson points out that it’s much more expensive to the taxpayers to leave children to be raised by the state, not to mention terribly cruel.

“If you don’t care about the kids or the families, at least care about the taxpayers,” Olson says. But you should probably care about the kids, too.

I’ve written about the same set of issues (in the foster care context) before. The new Reason piece is here.


Walter Olson

Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Cake Artist’ Fights in Court to Be Able to Refuse to Make Wedding Cakes for Gay Couples

EDITORS NOTE: This post first appeared at Cato.org.