America, Use Your “Free” Speech Now. It Will Be Taken From You Soon.

Here’s another one I found while cleaning out the drafts folder, this one from 2010. Reads like it was written about TODAY’S events, but is SEVEN years old, showing that the problems Europe and the rest of the world are facing vis-a-vis islam are NOT new.

---

---

Europe is already lost.  The Europeans are already dhimmis to the muslim invaders.  The muslims didn’t come brandishing guns and knives, at least at first.  The Europeans let them in with their idiotic open border policies, and now they outnumber Europe’s own citizens.  Because the spineless Europeans won’t fight to save themselves, they have capitulated to the muslims by default.  Anything the muslims want, the Europeans give them because they are afraid the muslims will blow them up or cut off their heads.  Now Europeans can’t even speak out against anything to do with islam out of fear.

Muslims parade through the streets of Europe with signs and banners proclaiming that Europe’s 9/11 is coming.  They threaten violence, they criticize and threaten Christians, Christianity, and all other non-islamic religions.  Yet a Dutch citizen expresses an opinion about islam and muslims based on DEMONSTRATED FACTS, and he is now being sent to a hate crimes trial in the Netherlands.

America, this is ALREADY starting to happen here.  If we do not stand up to the muslims and defend OUR rights, we will become dhimmis just like the Europeans.  At the very least we will lose our freedoms to the liberals who wish to enslave us to THEIR system of control, but unless they crack down on the muslims, they will be enslaved along with the rest of the population.

I will not be one of those slaves.  I will not be silenced.  I will not submit.  God gave me the unalienable right to free speech, and no MAN will take that away.  I will live free, or die defending my freedom.

The Press Buries Hillary Clinton’s Sins

All of this has been VERY well known to conservatives for a long time, and the leaks just confirm what we already knew.  Those who REALLY need to digest this information are the very ones who refuse to even hear it.  Sadly, I think America is finished.  When half of America is willing to vote for such an evil, corrupt person, and the other half is unwilling to stand up and fight for what is right, you have what you saw at the end of the Roman empire.  I’m sure there will be isolated pockets of resistance, but I don’t think America has the intestinal fortitude it once had that is necessary to overcome the evil which we ourselves have allowed to overtake us.  

It was nice while it lasted, America.

---

---

+

As reporters focus on Trump, they miss new details on Clinton’s rotten record.

ENLARGE

Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in Washington, D.C., Oct. 22, 2015. PHOTO: CORBIS/GETTY IMAGES

By

KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Updated Oct. 16, 2016 2:36 p.m. ET

2312 COMMENTS

If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know thatDonald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.

But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.

The Fate of a Disarmed Populace

Show this to anyone who tells you gun control is a good idea. If they still think it’s a good idea after seeing what happens to unarmed people, they are the enemy and someone to be feared.

 

The Pope Steps in it Again

Well, His Humanliness the Pope has stepped in it again.  Have you noticed that prior to the ascendancy of this pope, the progressive liberal left HATED Catholics when, especially when it came to issues of abortion, economy, and the priest sex scandal?  Now the sex scandal is never mentioned by the left, and since this pope, who is supposed to be a champion for Christianity, is a socialist who equates Christianity and islam, the left now all of a sudden LOVES Catholics.  At least those who are as liberal as the pope.  Kind of makes me wonder what they were burning in the Vatican to generate their smoke signals…  And before any trolls say this is an attack on Catholics and Catholicism, no.  It’s not.  It is a criticism by a non-Catholic of a human, a man, who is misrepresenting the things that most see his faith as historically having stood for.

 The words of the pope:

 “In other words,” Francis counters, “[what is needed is] a social market economy.”

“It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.”

Oh, there’s more.  Just read the article.

---

---

+

Five observations on Francis’ recent interview about France, Europe, and Islam

The Pope, in a recent interview with the French newspaper “La Croix” compares Islam’s inherent drive for conquest to Christ’s Great Commission.

May 18, 2016 12:00 EST

Carl E. Olson

Pope Francis greets the crowd during his general audience in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican May 18. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

Another week, another papal interview. This time it is with the French newspaper La Croix. The main focus is the state of affairs in France and Europe, with remarks on Islam, religious freedom, and related matters. As usual, some of the Holy Father’s remarks are a bit surprising. (Part of me would rather not even write about them, if only because doing so seems more and more like a lose-lose proposition. Oh well.) Although a relatively short interview, there is much that could be said. But I will just note a few things:

1) Francis is apparently uncomfortable with talk of the Christians roots of Europe, saying that there “are so many [roots]” and adding: “In this sense, when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful. It then takes on colonialist overtones. John Paul II, however, spoke about it in a tranquil manner.” Trumphalist? Even vengeful?

Obama Has Actually Accomplished Quite a Lot in His Presidency. But That’s Not a Good Thing

---

---

Obama has actually accomplished quite a bit, and here’s a long list of his accomplishments, so stop bashing him, haters!

1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.
2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.
6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.
9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.
14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.
16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.
19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).
23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.
26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.
27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.
28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
29. First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.
30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.
31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.
34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).
36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”
37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

It’s hard to comprehend all this guy has gotten away with. Any other president would have been impeached during the first year of their presidency for what this tyrant has done! For what Obama has done in 5 years, ANY other president would have been arrested, tried for treason, and HUNG. What in God’s name is wrong with our government that they allow this guy carte blanch to break the law, rewrite and create laws without congress, and ignore and attack the Constitution? It absolutely boggles the mind!

What spawned such an evil man?  How about a communist-muslim loving mother who was into posing for pornographic pictures, a communist-muslim father (whether you believe the father is BO, Sr., or Frank Marshall Davis, the father was at least communist), communist grandparents, terrorist and communist friends and mentors?

Einstein actually explained how Obama’s background came together to form who he is.

(H/T patriotnewswire.com.  Most of this post comes from this article http://patriotnewswire.com/2015/02/stop-bashing-because-heres-a-list-of-obamas-accomplishments-haters/#, with a few additions and edits)

---

---

British Islamist: Muslims Should Humiliate Christians In Order To Make Them Convert To Islam

So, Achmed. How are you going to “humiliate” me? By accusing me of NOT molesting children. Accuse me of NOT beating, stoning, throwing acid in the face of, or mutilating the genitalia of women? Accuse me of NOT lying and killing people to get them to convert to my religion? Accuse me of NOT following a god who is so weak he can’t stand up for himself, and needs a bunch of cowardly demonic animals to do his dirty work? Ya got me. Guilty as charged. And NO, I’m not EVER going to convert to your satanic death cult.
+

---

Via MEMRI:

Abu Waleed: How many contradictions do the Charter of the United Nations and Islam have?

We take what Abdullah Ibn Abbas said, because he was a Companion, from the greatest commentators on the Koran. He said to take the jizya poll tax from the People of the Book. This completely contradicts, my dear brothers, the articles of the United Nations [Charter].

Article 2, paragraph 1, says that the organization is based on the principle of sovereignty and equality to all of its members. Equality to all of its members – is there such a thing in Islam? Is there equality of faith?

If we look at one hadith of the Prophet on the authority of Abu Huraira, Sahih Muslim… No Sunni Muslim could really argue against Sahih Muslim or Sahih Bukhari… “The Prophet said: Don’t greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you, and when you meet any of them on the road, force them to go on the narrower side of it.” Imam Malik said the same thing as well.

In fact, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab – about whom the Prophet Muhammad said: “If there were to be another prophet after me, it would be Omar Ibn Al-Khattab”… In his own charter – not the Charter of the United Nations – in his charter with the people of the Levant, the Christians of the Levant, [it is stated] that infidels and Muslims were not allowed to wear the same clothes as one another.

If a Muslim comes out on the day of ‘Eid and sees an infidel with nice clothes, the infidel has to take his clothes off and give them to the Muslim. When an infidel walks down the street, he has to wear a red belt around his neck, he has to have his forehead shaved, and he has to wear two shoes that are different from one another. He is not allowed to walk on the pavement. He has to walk in the middle of the road, and he has to ride on a mule.

This is only for adults, not for the children. You can see how Islam would make the child become a Muslim. The child growing up in a state of heresy would turn to Islam. Why? Because the child would be walking along with his dad, and would say: “Dad?” “Yes.” “Why have you got your forehead shaved?” “I don’t know, these Muslims make me do it.” “Why can’t you ride the animal like the Muslims, who ride like this? Why are you riding with both legs dangling on the side of the donkey?” “Why is it that every time a Muslim comes and asks you for your clothes, you give them?” “Why is it that every time he tells you to get down from the horse, you have to take it?”

Keep reading…

+

---

Obama Isn’t Anti-Catholic, Christian, or Jew. He’s Anti-BIBLE

With all of the evidence compiled in one place, any shadow of a doubt has been removed.  The evidence is overwhelming.

Obama is NOT a Christian, and is indeed attacking and seeking to destroy all Biblical faiths in the US, if not the world.

If he ever had a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, he left that behind like the Millennium Falcon making the jump to light speed while escaping the Death Star.

Mr. Obama, you may not want it to be true, but we ARE and always have been a Judeo-Christian nation.

Whether we remain such remains to be seen.  If Christians don’t get on their knees and fight like men (of faith), we will not, and will become just another nation on the ash heap of history.
+

---

---

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106938

America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President

David Barton

When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.

Listed below in chronological order are (1) numerous records of his attacks on Biblical persons or organizations; (2) examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military; (3) a listing of his open attacks on Biblical values; and finally (4) a listing of numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions, including letting his Islamic advisors guide and influence his hostility toward people of Biblical faith.

1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:

• April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” ¹
• February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. ²

Liberals Launch Christian Witch Trials

Christians knew it was coming. It was only a matter of when. The direction of the attack was only slightly a surprise, as many thought the crusade against Christianity was going to me lead by muslims. They are complicit agents in the assault, but it is liberal/progressive “thinkers” who have placed themselves above God, and decreed themselves to be supreme beings.

I have news for these liberal/progressives. They should look at history of ALLLLL the times God has put people like you in their place. Remember the “great” liberal Voltaire, who thought that he was living in the “twilight of Christianity,” and that the Bible would disappear from the earth within 100 years? Kind of ironic that after Voltaire’s death his house was used to print, or at least store Bibles. Time and time again throughout history, those who mock God are proven to be nothing but deceived, and deceivers.
+

---

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/07/liberals_launch_christian_witch_trials.html

Return to the Article

July 21, 2011

By Peter Heck

Break out the pitchforks and light the torches!  The leftist media is in the midst of launching a modern day version of the Salem Witch Trials.  Except this time the target isn’t those who blaspheme against the Christian religion, but rather those who practice it.  The inquisition began almost two weeks ago when Diane Sawyer and her ABC World News Tonight team christened a very provocative and alarming “investigation” into the beliefs of Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann.

Comfort: Curse or Blessing?

Don’t misunderstand me, or Mr. Marinov.  We do indeed believe that God is in control.  However, if we as Christians stand back and do nothing while Christianity and, more importantly and to the point, Christ and God are attacked, what can we hope for? God doesn’t need my defense, but as Christians we either defend Him, or deny Him. If we sit back with our hands out and do nothing like the growing generations of ‘welfare babies’ our nation, and the socialist agenda are raising, can we hope for a better life while we await Christ’s return? (Before you speak up, no, being on welfare is not in and of itself bad.  Being on welfare when you have the ability to earn your own way, is bad.  In the Christian sense, it’s like a Christian who never gets past the initial salvation and never matures, always needing to be fed and led by others.)

Does Jesus instruct Christians to sit back idly and wait on Him to return?  I don’t think so.  Matt 16:24 says

“Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.“

That implies to me an active existence.  That implies visibly “carrying” the “burden” of Christ as part of our labor.

He tells us in 1Pet 5:8-9

1Pe 5:8-9 NASB  Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.  (9)  But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world.

That says to me that we are to be vigilant, and that we are to resist evil and hold firmly to our faith (a part of which is to share it boldly).  There will be suffering, but I expect that it’s worse to suffer while doing nothing for your faith than to suffer while actively serving.

But let’s not just look at the easy verses that seem to support my position.  There are some that when taken out of context and without study would seem to say that we should simply roll over and let evil doers have their way.  Let’s take this well known passage from Matthew.

Mat 5:38-48 NASB  “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ (39)  “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (40)  “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. (41)  “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. (42)  “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. (43)  “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ (44)  “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (45)  so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (46)  “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (47)  “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? (48)  “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

One commentary from biblegateway.com suggests that “… Jesus utilized hyperbole precisely to challenge his hearers, to force us to consider what we value.”  The commentator goes on to say “… we should be so unselfish and trust God so much that we leave our vindication with him.”  What I take away from this and other commentators, and my own reading is that we are to serve ACTIVELY, and share the Good News.  The retribution, or judgment for evil is ultimately not ours to give.

So, when laws are being written to take away our free speech, when we are being told we can’t talk about God, when things are being done that cause pain and hardship not only to us, but to our brothers, do we just sit by passively and say “God is in control?”  NO!  I agree with Mr. Marinov.

We are to speak the word and truth of God boldly, even at the risk of retribution.  We are to pray.  We are to seek out good, Godly men for offices of the land and work to get them elected.  We are to counter the world’s lies with God’s truth.  If we sit and do nothing, effectively denying God, then I believe we hasten his judgment.  We are lukewarm, and will be spit out of God’s mouth if we do not stand for and with Him.

Rev 3:15-16 NASB  ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. (16)  ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

So, do not allow yourself to be comforted when there is not comfort.  Do not allow yourself to become numb.  Stand up for what is right while you can still stand.

---

http://www.americanvision.org/print/printpage.php

I Refuse to Be Comforted

by Bojidar Marinov, Feb 03, 2010

Come on.

Now.

I hear you’re feeling down.

I can ease your pain…

(Pink Floyd, “Comfortably Numb”)

I refuse to be comforted. I refuse to listen to sermons that assure me that “whatever happens, God is in control.” I refuse to read and listen to pastors, authors, and leaders that comfort me with God’s peace when everywhere around me I see God’s war.

When they banned prayer in schools, the Christians in this country were assured that in these “last days” that’s what was expected to happen. They were supposed to take comfort in the fact that Jesus was coming soon. He didn’t. And while Christians were learning to be comforted with this open attack against their faith, Roe v. Wade came. Again, words of comfort followed. Meanwhile, tens of millions of unborn children died in this government-sanctioned sacrifice of infants. Only a precious few brave men and women stood against it; the majority were comforted that “whatever happens, God is in control.”

The pulpits never gave a call for action.

Long before that the Federal government took over the control of our money supply. As a result, millions of fathers and mothers in this country saw their lifetime savings disappear in financial meltdowns where the value of their labor was offered in a massive burnt offering to the Mammon of the centralized state. Again, we were all comforted by our pastors and leaders that “God is in control,” and “He will provide for us.” Moral and industrious people worked more, made less, and the wicked kept devouring everything in a Keynesian orgy of debt and consumption. The pulpits again comforted but never gave a call for action.

They started cracking down on Christians by passing laws to silence Christianity: “Hate speech,” “separation of church and state” and all the other mantras. In a nation that was founded to proclaim the blessings of Christ, Christ was now pushed out of public life. Pastors and authors and theologians responded by . . . more comforting words. “See? He must be coming soon! 1968! No, 1988! 1989! 1996! Have comfort!”

No call for action.

Christian children were ridiculed and ostracized in schools and universities. Their faith was mocked by professors who knew nothing about their fields of study but knew everything about Marx’s Communist Manifesto. The churches started losing their young men and women by tens of thousands every year. Colleges and universities that were established to nourish and expand the Christian religion and knowledge were now openly enemies of Christ.

Again, the pulpits were silent. Except for a few comforting words. God surely must be in control.

We don’t even notice anymore when things like that happen. We are so comforted that we don’t even think of raising our voice in protest anymore. We surely value our peace and comfort—that’s what our leaders have taught us.

We have become comfortably numb.

But I refuse to be comforted. I refuse to believe in peace when I see God at war. I refuse to believe that God makes all these things happen only to teach me that He is in control and nothing else. I refuse to believe that these are blessings when I know very well they are curses. And I refuse to accept curses for comfort.

The Bible tells me that God teaches my hands to war. And my hands are itching for a fight. I don’t want to sit idly when the heathens are taking over God’s earth. I want to be out there defending it. I want my pastors and leaders to lead me, not comfort me. I want them to teach me to fight and overcome. There must be instructions for victory in the Bible. I mean, real victory, not abstract dreamy “victory” of being rescued in clouds. When we lose elections and a Communist, homosexual, or a Muslim gets elected, I want my pastor to tell me how we can elect a Biblically-qualified candidate next time. When they pass a law to ban preaching the truths of the Bible, I want my pastor to teach me how we can fight and repeal that law.

When they build an abortion clinic in my town, I want the pastors to lead their congregations in protest and teach them how to shut it down. When the liberal media attack my faith, I want my pastor to teach me how to reply and present Christ in such a way as to make them helplessly gnash their teeth in their inability to present a coherent answer. When my child is assaulted by Marxist professors in college, I want my pastor to equip me and my child with comprehensive Biblical worldview that brings down their vain imaginations.

Moses didn’t comfort the Hebrews in Egypt. He made them uncomfortable. He made them realize what they were missing: Liberty. He gave them a sense of urgency, not comfort: “Eat it with the shoes on your feet and with your staffs in your hands. No time for comfort!” He didn’t comfort them in the wilderness. He made them fight. No words of comfort came out of his mouth; no messages soothing their consciences. God is in control, he said in Deuteronomy 28, but that control isn’t necessarily good for you. It will be a curse on you and your children if you become comfortably numb. You better never become too comforted.

The Angel of the Lord didn’t comfort Gideon when he was threshing wheat. “What are you doing, mighty warrior? Hiding like a rat?” Elijah did not comfort his generation; he asked many uncomfortable questions: “Who are you going to serve, God or Baal?” The prophets did not deliver messages of comfort to Israel; they called Israel to war, to action, to repentance.

This great country, the United States of America, was not founded on sermons of comfort. The Pilgrims and the Puritans didn’t stay back in England and find comfort in the fact that “whatever happens, God is in control.” They took action. The political architect of the American Revolution, John Witherspoon, President of the College of New Jersey and signer of the Declaration of Independence, considered by most people of his time to be the “spiritual father” of the colonies, did not comfort his spiritual children; to the contrary, he worked tirelessly to instill a message of discomfort and urgency in them:

There is not a single instance in history, in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage.

Had he comforted them, the USA could have never been founded. And we wouldn’t have the freedoms we have today.

I want to have the same spirit as the Founders. And therefore I want my pastor to be like John Witherspoon. Don’t comfort me; teach me to fight and win.

Many pastors I have talked to complain of the growing influence of “para-church” organizations. No wonder. If churches give no message of victory, someone else will. And they will gain influence. People follow leaders, not drug-traffickers. And messages of comfort and peace in times of discomfort and war are nothing more than anesthetic, a narcotic to escape reality; and those who preach comfort and peace when there is no comfort and peace are spiritual drug-traffickers, not spiritual leaders.

Therefore I refuse to be comforted.

I don’t find comfort in the fact that God is in control. It makes me shiver. If we as Christians are silent, passive, compromising, His control will bring down judgment. His control will make pagans rule our land, ban preaching, take our children, destroy our property. Exactly what is happening now! I can’t find comfort in God’s judgment, and a pastor who preaches comfort in the face of God’s judgment is not doing God’s will. I refuse to be comforted. I want to be taught to turn the tide; I don’t want another dose of anesthetic.

I refuse to be comforted.

---

Free Speech Update: Atheists Double Standard Challenged

The goal of the left is to destroy the moral underpinning and education of America so that there will be no resistance to their agenda.  As they dumb down America and confuse the understanding of the difference between REAL rights (given by God), and merely privileges, they also work to incrementally take away our RIGHT to free speech and religion.

Contrary to what the left will have you believe ATHEISM IS A RELIGION.  A religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.  Christians and followers of religions which believe in a higher power believe we were created, while atheists believe we are simply an accident or coincidence.  I happen to believe that we were created by God, and I have the right to say that in public.  You have the right not to listen.  Atheists believe that God doesn’t exist and that they evolved from amoeba and monkeys.  They also have the right to express that belief in public, and I have just as much right not to listen.

Notice that there is NOT a right NOT TO BE OFFENDED mentioned ANYWHERE in the constitution.  The simple sight of you might offend me, but there is little I can do about that unless the reason your appearance offends me is because you are breaking decency laws by running around naked in public, or you are appearing in my home which I can ask you to leave at any time.  The simple fact is that free expression of all ideas WILL put something out there that WILL offend some.  As long as the expression is in a form or venue where people have  a CHOICE of whether or not to listen, that expression SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  If it’s on TV, I can change the channel.  If it is at City Hall, I can choose not to attend on that occasion.  When it is in a public location where people must see it every day, and people work in that environment, then there better be equal time given to opposing view points.  But if the atheists, homosexuals, muslims, and followers of whatever belief system are going to cast dispersions on the other religions, they better be prepared to have a few insults thrown their way as well.  As it stands now, they can say anything they want about Christianity or Judaism and get away with it, but if a Christian preacher INSIDE HIS OWN CHURCH expresses the belief that homosexuality is a sin, or that atheists will go to hell, then that is HATE SPEECH.  If you don’t like what the preacher is saying, get up and leave.

---

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123565

FAITH UNDER FIRE

Atheists’ ‘hate’ sign blasted in lawsuit

Illinois candidate claims state ‘hostile’ to beliefs

Posted: January 30, 2010
10:55 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A political candidate in this week’s primary election for the office of comptroller in Illinois has filed a lawsuit against the state charging it officially expressed “hate” and “hostility” toward Christianity and other religions that include a belief in God by allowing atheists to post a sign in a state building at Christmas.

That sign, posted by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, said,:

At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

It was placed in the Illinois Capitol Building, through which GOP comptroller candidate William J. Kelly, a cable television executive, was required to travel for his responsibilities as a candidate.

(Read complete article HERE)

---

Christmas Is Not a Political Hobby Horse

Non-Christians and liberals love to twist and distort the truth so it either looks good for them, or just doesn’t look as bad. And, yes, there are some Christians that do it as well, but then you have to ask have they gone astray or were they ever Christians in the first place.  Not for us to judge.  Gary DeMar’s article below does a marvelous job illustrating that point.

Now it’s not just liberals. The enemies of this country, namely the pushers of islam, are using our American system of laws and government, our western “sensibilities” against us, and our religion(s) against us.

Everything good thing that has ever been created has eventually been corrupted and used for (sometimes) nefarious purposes for which it was not intended, sometimes by evil people. Pretty much every cult in the world has come from people misquoting the Bible and taking it out of context. Jim Jones and the Guyana massacre, the Waco Branch Davidian massacre, and many other examples around the world show how a charismatic person can influence people by lying to them while telling them just enough of what sounds right to them to get them to accept what they’re being told.

Many branches of the protestant movement can be considered as cults because without contextual Biblical basis they cross the line by saying that how they worship is THE way to worship instead of saying it is A way to worship. I’ve visited churches where people would stand up and supposedly begin speaking in tongues. Then church leaders would say something to the effect that you couldn’t go to heaven if you didn’t speak in tongues. Really? The way I’ve read it, and the way every Bible scholar I’ve talked to reads it, speaking in tongues is indeed a gift, but not everyone has that gift. For speaking in tongues to be Biblical, there has to be someone who can interpret what you’re saying. Otherwise you could simply be making noise, or you could be speaking something inspired by demons. Other churches will tell you that only certain translations of the Bible are acceptable. If the translation you are reading is an ACCURATE translation, and God speaks to you through it, then it’s acceptable. God doesn’t fit in a King James sized box.

Why is there a Nobel Peace Prize? Most experts say it was Nobel trying to make up for the dynamite and other explosives he created for peaceful purposes being used to cause death and destruction.

What about plastic bags? Intended to carry groceries, trash, and other such things. They have been used by criminals to smother people. Rope can bind the material that builds a shelter to save your life, or it can be used to hang you by the neck.

The point is that anything that is good can and probably will be corrupted, twisted, and distorted for other than honorable purposes.

---

http://www.americanvision.org/print/printpage.php

Why Liberals (Sometimes) Love the Bible

by Gary DeMar, Dec 21, 2009

Liberals will use anything to support their unsupportable worldview, even if it’s the Bible. They will use the Bible when they can manipulate it enough to fit their agenda. How many times have you had a liberal throw Matthew 7:1 back at you when you mention that some particular behavior is immoral? “Remember what Jesus said, ‘Do not judge.’” When you criticize a piece of unconstitutional legislation or a law that the president wants passed, you’ll have “render unto Caesar” (Matt. 22:21) thrown in your face.

Every Christmas season we will hear the inevitable revisionist version of the Christmas story in order to further government programs. Jesse Jackson was the first to turn Joseph and Mary into a “homeless couple” when he claimed that Christmas “is not about Santa Claus and ‘Jingle Bells’ and fruit cake and eggnog,” of which all Christians would agree, but about “a homeless couple.”[1] He repeated his “homeless couple” theme at the 1992 Democratic Convention:

We hear a lot of talk about family values, even as we spurn the homeless on the street. Remember, Jesus was born to a homeless couple, outdoors in a stable, in the winter. He was the child of a single mother. When Mary said Joseph was not the father, she was abused. If she had aborted the baby, she would have been called immoral. If she had the baby, she would have been called unfit, without family values. But Mary had family values. It was Herod—the [Dan] Quayle of his day—who put no value on the family.

Jackson made a similar claim about the biblical record in 1999 when he stated that Christmas “is not about parties, for they huddled alone in the cold stable. It isn’t about going into debt to buy extravagant presents; the greatest Gift was given to them although they had no money. It is about a homeless couple, finding their way in a mean time.”[2]

We can agree with Jackson that Christmas is not about Santa Clause and all the modern commercial trappings, but to turn the biblical account of the birth of Christ into a political hobby horse cannot supported by an actual study of the text of Scripture. Barbara Reynolds, a former columnist for USA Today, following Jackson’s early lead, scolded the Christian Right for opposing government welfare programs: “They should recall,” she writes, “that Jesus Christ was born homeless to a teen who was pregnant before she was married.”[3] Hillary Clinton, in comments critical of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s homeless policies, sought to remind all of us that “Christmas celebrates ‘the birth of a homeless child.’”[4] Rev. William Sterrett told The Providence (RI) Journal the true Christmas story is about the poor and needy. “We have a very clear picture about the whole thing,” Sterrett said. “But the truth is Mary and Joseph were homeless. She gave birth to Jesus in a barn. This image captures the essence of a Christmas story because you cannot get any poorer than that.” Pat Nichols, writing for The Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield, MA), concludes, “At the core, the story of Christmas is about a homeless couple about to have a baby. It is a story about poverty that most of us never experience, people with little more than they carry on their backs and a donkey to provide transportation.”[5] Have these people ever read the Bible?

• Mary did not engage in premarital sex. Her circumstances, to say the least, were unique (Luke 1:26-28). Many young girls got married as teenagers.
• Mary went to live with her cousin Elizabeth upon hearing about her pregnancy and “stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home” (Luke 1:56). Presumably her parents owned a home and did not throw her out when they learned of her pregnancy.
• Mary and Joseph were actually married at the time she learned she was pregnant even though a formal ceremony had not taken place. Joseph is called “her husband” (Matt. 1:19).
• Joseph was a self-employed carpenter (Matt. 13:55).
• An edict from the centralized Roman government forced Joseph and Mary to spend valuable resources of money and time to return to their place of birth to register for a tax (Luke 2:1-7). Joseph’s business was shut down while he took his very pregnant wife on a wild goose chase concocted by the Roman Empire to raise additional tax money.
• Typical of governments that make laws without considering the consequences, there was not enough housing for the great influx of traveling citizens and subjects who complied with the governmental decree (Luke 2:1).
• Mary and Joseph had enough money to pay for lodging. The problem was inadequate housing. The fact that “there was no room in the inn” (Luke 2:7) did not make them homeless. If we follow liberal logic, any family that takes a trip is by definition homeless and finds “no vacancy” signs, is technically homeless.
• Joseph and Mary owned or rented a home. It was in their home that the wise men offered their gifts: “And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother, and they fell down and worshipped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh” (Matt. 2:11).
• Joseph, Mary, and Jesus became a family on the run when Herod, a government official, became a threat to them (Matt. 2:13–15).

In 2006, Jesse Jackson got it right: “The story of Christmas is about a couple—Mary and Joseph—forced by an oppressive imperial government to leave their home to travel far to be counted in the census.”[6] I’m amazed how politicians and social critics are quick to quote and misquote the Bible when they believe it supports their quirky political views. When conservatives appeal to the Bible, we hear the inevitable “separation of church and state,” “you can’t impose your morality on other people,” “religion and politics don’t mix.” The Bible is clear on moral issues that are culture killers: homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and abortion. The Bible is also clear on the moral issue of poverty. Nowhere in the Bible is civil government given authority to help the poor by raising taxes on the rich to pay for wealth distribution schemes. In fact, as history shows, the “war on poverty” became the war on the poor.[7]

We would be more accurate to say, the Christmas story is about how taxes hurt the poor and government decrees can turn productive families into the disenfranchised by enacting and enforcing a counterproductive law.

Post Reply | View Replies

Endnotes:

[1] As reported in The Atlanta Journal/Constitution (December 28, 1991), A9.
[2] Jesse Jackson, “The Homeless Couple,” Los Angeles Times (December 22, 1999). The version of Jackson’s message “The Homeless Couple” can be found at http://www.rainbowpush.org/commentaries/1999/122299.html
[3] Barbara Reynolds, “These political Christians neither religious nor right,” USA Today (Nov. 18, 1994), 13A.
[4] Cited in “Washington” under Politics in USA Today (December 1, 1999), 15A.
[5] Pat Nichols, “It’s time to offer a helping hand,” The Berkshire Eagle (December, 12, 2004).
[6] Jesse Jackson, “Peace Is At the Heart of the Christmas Story,” Chicago Sun-Times (December 19, 2006). In a January 8, 2009 article, Jackson once again describes Joseph and Mary as a “homeless couple”: “The real story is about a homeless couple, immigrants ordered by the government to return home to be counted.”
[7] Thomas Sowell, “‘War on Poverty’ has left nation in poorer condition,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (August 18, 2004), A13.

+

---

Ted Danson, Joy Behar: Uneducated Bias

Behar, being the “un-biased journalist” she is, leads Danson on a bashing tour of American conservatism.  Danson insults the nearly 80% of Americans who profess to be Christians.  They insult whoever they wish at will, and act as if THEY are the ones attacked when the real victims of their slander get angry.

I am a peace loving individual, but idiot “children” like this sometimes drive me to the point where I’m about to lose control and just beat the crap out of one of them to make an example.  Then they should be sent to their rooms with not microphone privileges.

Further commentary and video below.

 

---

 

Ted Danson: Rush Limbaugh, Religious Right ‘Really Piss Me Off’

By Jeff Poor

Created 2009-11-03 07:01

There’s no better example than political commentary from a Hollywood elite to demonstrate how low some conservatives are regarded. According to actor Ted Danson, some conservatives just being manipulated by Rush Limbaugh and organized religion because they’re not smart to formulate their own beliefs.  (If you don’t spout the liberal line, people like Danson, Behar, Nancy Pelosi, etc. think you are not capable of independent, rational thought.  These condescending pseudo-intellectuals think they are smarter and more intelligent than we are, therefore they should be able to dictate our fate.  Bah!  It will be a cold day in Hell before I follow people like them anywhere.)

Danson, who has starred in both “Becker” and “Cheers,” (and that’s ALL he ever did worthwhile) appeared on HLN’s Nov. 2 “The Joy Behar Show” [1] and was asked to respond to Rush Limbaugh’s criticism of Barack Obama on Nov. 1 “Fox News Sunday.” [1] Danson questioned the notion that Limbaugh, who is a self-made success, is really “one of the people.” Instead, he accused him playing on people’s fears and anger to make money, which he didn’t like.  (Where is he when Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are playing on our fears claiming “all of the children will die,” or “all of the polar bears will drown,” or “global temperatures will rise and we’ll all die?”  IF, and that’s a big IF, Rush is doing as Danson claims, he is entertaining and audiences listen to him because they agree with or enjoy what he is saying.  By contrast, when the liberals are doing it, it is to GAIN POWER and CONTROL over your money, wealth, possessions, freedom, and lives.  I’d say that’s one heck of a bid difference.  Hypocrites.)

“The people of the people, Rush, one of us, yeah,” Danson said. “Those are the people that really piss me off, to be honest. I totally understand people who are angry and are fearful. I understand people who church is a huge part of their life. I understand people not wanting their daughters to watch MTV. I understand and have empathy for all those people. (“Empathy?”  I doubt that.  “Sympathy” I might believe.) The people that come along and make use of those people’s fears and insecurities to make money or to make something, a position for them, you know, more palatable, those people are … shame, shame.”  (Again, I ask you, Ted.  What do you have to say about your liberal “friends” who are “fear-mongering” for far more nefarious purposes?  Hypocrite.)

Behar prodded Danson to name people that were guilty of his charge of playing on anger and fear, which he said not only Rush, but also the religious right.

“You know what – pretty much the religious right does that, by and large. You know?” Danson replied.  (Interpretation: So, all of you Christians and conservatives (said with disdain) out there are despicable fear-mongering snake-oil salesmen.)

Behar called them “extremists,” a suggestion Danson agreed with and got Danson to elaborate on how they play on people’s fears.  (Behar is planting leading, biased suggestions.  Why doesn’t the White House condemn her?)

“The people’s fears, you totally understand,” Danson said. “I understand that. I understand wanting to go to a mega-church because the rest of your life is tough. You know, I understand all of that, but then you come along and organize those people off of their fears and anger and I think that’s too bad.”  (Most of the “mega-churches” I’ve either attended, or watched several of their sermons tend to preach a “feel good,” “name-it-claim-it” theology that leaves out several important aspects of the Bible from their teachings.  Those who preach that if you do “x” you will be wealthy, or if you do “y” you will be happy in many cases are deceiving their congregations.  Christianity ISN’T about being wealthy or happy, it’s about following Christ and His teachings.  Christians are never promised that life will be easy, or that they will be happy. In fact they are promised that if they follow Christ, they will be attacked for their faith.  The evidence proves this to be true.  They are promised that if they are in the center of God’s will they will have JOY.  Happiness is temporary joy based on circumstances.  Joy is permanent happiness based on faith.  Danson displays not only his ignorance, but also his lack of salvation.)

Behar also accused those same people of being “encouraged” to vote against their interests and Danson alluded to opposition to a government option of health insurance, suggesting it was being opposed by people it would help.  (No, it’s being opposed by people whose hard earned wealth, freedom, and prosperity will be stripped from them by a power hungry government.)

“Who’s going to be able to get the government, what do you call it, with insurance, the government … the public option,” Danson said. “Right, only people who don’t have insurance. So people who don’t have insurance would rather not – they don’t want it.”

Behar’s explanation – those in power were in cahoots with big insurance.

“They don’t want to have too much competition for the insurance companies,” Behar said.  (The left has LIMITED competition for insurance companies by preventing them from competing across state lines and in other markets.  There would be more companies, more competition, and lower prices for consumers if THE GOVERNMENT weren’t ALREADY screwing up health care.)

 

---

 

Source URL:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/11/03/ted-danson-rush-limbaugh-religious-right-really-piss-me

Links:
[1] http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2009/20091103061048.aspx

 

---

“Hate Speech” = Anything a Liberal Disagrees With

Tolerance is Becoming Intolerance

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Expose Obama.com

Modern America preaches the value of tolerance. This says you have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to mine. We can agree to disagree. While this level of tolerance for all viewpoints has never been completely achieved, those on the left certainly preach it when they are vilifying those who hold traditional values, and attempt to label them as intolerant. In recent years, and culminating in the election of Barack Obama, we are entering a new era where you have only the right to agree with the modern liberal view, or else be ostracized as an extremist.

Upon Obama’s election, he promised to usher in a new era of post-partisan politics. No more conservative and liberal — just hope. On abortion, he said he wanted to move past the tired old politics. Translation: he wants to repeal all restrictions on abortion, but expects pro-life supporters to drop their disagreements and support him. Obama said it’s no longer about whether government is too big or too small, it’s about how effective it is. In reality, Obama has ushered in the largest expansion of federal government in any 100-day period in United States history. This period of censorship of disagreement goes well beyond Obama to many of the liberal elites.

Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano joined the thought police by allowing her department to issue a report labeling any person holding a conservative political viewpoint a potential terrorist. This is the same Department of Homeland Security that said from now on, terrorism will be called man-caused disasters. Napolitano will tolerate Islamic terrorists, yet she has no tolerance for pro-life individuals. People who favor a smaller federal government are considered dangerous enemies of the state. This type of discrimination against opposing viewpoints is becoming rampant in our society.

American “enemies of the state” took to the streets to show their support for fiscal responsibility by attending tea parties. Because this view was not approved by the liberal elites, these protesters were mocked incessantly on CNN, NBC and CBS. The worst case of disdain for tea party participants came from Janeane Garofalo. Speaking on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” she said, “Let’s be very honest about what this is about. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don’t know their history at all. It’s about hating a black man in the White House.This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that.” Garofalo proceeded to claim that conservatives suffer from a mental disorder. None of this was refuted in any way by host Keith Olbermann. Evidently, hate speech is only allowed when it is against Christians or conservatives. There are allegations that the FBI was spying on these very peaceful demonstrations.

Another example of this suppression of traditional thought occurred at the Miss USA pageant. Celebrity judge Perez Hilton, a famous gay blogger, asked Miss California if she supported gay marriage. She very politely and graciously said that is up to the different states but she personally opposes it. The Miss USA contest strongly disagreed with Miss California’s position, and after the show Perez Hilton launched a diatribe calling the young lady a “dumb B” and later called her the C-word. These hateful attacks would certainly be repudiated if it were a conservative saying them. However, Perez Hilton and his far-left cohorts are free to say whatever they want as long as they are attacking conservatives.

This same principle applies as the left pushes the fairness doctrine and attempts to pass hate-speech laws that will silence Bible-believing Christians. If you disagree with them, then you have no right to speak your beliefs.

America is founded on the principles that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights protected by our Constitution. These rights and protections are what separate our free society from authoritarian governments that have no constraints on government power. Yet Alexis de Tocqueville warned about coercion of thought in his classic book, “Democracy of America.” He cautions us, saying that democracies can become even more oppressive than other forms of government when conformity is pushed in the culture. This conformity is being shoved on our society at an alarming rate. Christians and people who hold conservative viewpoints are demonized and mocked in schools, in the media and now by the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Obama administration. Those who hold traditional viewpoints had better speak out; otherwise, in the near future they may be forced to keep their lips zipped.

2nd Amendment for Idiots, part Deux

For the liberals who have difficulty with polysyllabic words, the comic book version of this information can be found b clicking HERE.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
——————————

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—- ————- ————-

Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————

It has now been 12 (1996) months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

• Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
• Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
• Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
• In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned the m in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess the ir guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because the y knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the
shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND ‘S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT’S A NO BRAINER! DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Murder, Inc. Moving Forward

Which group is he trying to eliminate?

CNSNews.com

Obama ‘Review’ Likely to Reverse Bush ‘Conscience’ Protections for Doctors, Health Workers

Friday, February 27, 2009
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

President Barack Obama speaks about his fiscal 2010 federal budget, Thursday, Feb, 26, 2009, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration announced Friday that it is “reviewing” the conscience clause that was implemented in the last months of the Bush administration – the first step toward rescinding the rule altogether.

The Health and Human Services regulation reinforces the right of health care workers to refuse to provide abortion and contraception if it violates their conscience or moral precepts.

The new administration’s move came at the request of several groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which last fall called on Obama to rescind the regulation when he took office. The ACOG did not speak to CNSNews.com before press time.

But at the time the rule was announced, the organization said: “This HHS regulation places patients’ rights directly behind the rights of ideologically driven physicians and anyone else directly or indirectly involved in their health care.”

Judie Brown, president of the pro-life American Life League, said the move was outrageous.

“It’s frightening, and it should be frightening to people of all stripes.” Brown said.

But both pro-lifers and abortion rights groups knew it was just a matter of time until Obama came through on his promises to the pro-abortion movement.

“It’s not surprising to anybody who is familiar with Obama’s basic philosophy,” Brown told CNSNews.com. He doesn’t want anything to stand in the way of child-killing, including a person’s right under the law to say, ‘No, I will not do that because it is unethical.’”

The new president, she said, has already rescinded the Mexico City Policy, which had kept federal taxpayers from subsidizing abortions internationally.

“Therefore, he will do this, in an effort to force people, especially Christians, into the untenable position of either having to provide an abortion, or get out of their profession,” Brown said. “This is just the next step. “

Susan Muskett, senior legislative counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, agreed the move was expected.

“This is just the next step in the expansive Obama abortion agenda we had foreseen coming down the road,” Muskett told CNSNews.com.

But Muskett said that the Department of Health and Human Services is being disingenuous by saying that there is a 30-day public comment period before the provision is scrapped.

“Last fall, the federal government spent four months gathering comments in its rule-making to protect the conscience rights of doctors and health care providers,” she told CNSNews.com. “It’s just a pretext for the administration now to assert that more comments need to be gathered with regard to this rule making.”

Jonathan Imbody of the Christian Medical and Dental Association told CNSNews.com that 40 percent of his group’s doctors have been pressured to compromise their ethical stands – and without conscience-protection, face the loss of professional certification if they don’t provide referrals to abortion-providers – or face being pressured out of the profession.

One OB/GYN, Dr. Vicki L. Duncan, who testified last fall, said she was pressured by her insurance provider to provide artificial insemination for a lesbian couple, or lose her coverage.

“I contacted my malpractice carrier for legal advice, and was told that if I refused for them, but did so for a married, heterosexual couple, I would likely be sued, and they would not provide coverage. It also extended to a non-married couple. That was when I decided to no longer perform intrauterine inseminations,” Duncan said.

Brown is calling on pro-life lawmakers to take a stand.

“One would hope that the so-called pro-life members of Congress would stand up and find this totally unacceptable, and take whatever action is necessary to propose a new law that is veto proof, but that’s not going to happen, because we don’t have that kind of strength – or courage – in the Congress at this time,” Brown said.

“Just based on logic and with a right-thinking mind, even pro-abortion people should be horrified because, what’s next? Are they doing to say there is no conscience protection for those wanting to object to going to war?”