United States Accepting Only 28 Christians vs. 5,435 Muslim Refugees, Despite ISIS’ Unstoppable Genocide

assyrian-christians

The United States government is processing an unbelievably low number of Christian refugees despite the ongoing genocide at the hands of the Islamic State terror group in Iraq and Syria, the American Center for Law and Justice reports.

The conservative law group cited numbers from the Refugee Processing Center, noting that while the U.S. has processed 11,086 Muslims from Iraq since the beginning of 2015, only 433 Christians have been added to that number. And in Syria, there have been 5,435 Muslims welcomed and only 28 Christians.

They argued, however, that religion should definitely be a consideration when granting refugee status, given that IS targets Christians and other religious minorities in the region.

The law group said Secretary of State John Kerry admitted in March that IS kills Christians because of their religion.

“So, we know that ISIS targets Christians in Iraq and Syria because they are Christians. Christians are being slaughtered, tortured, raped and displaced because they are Christian. We also know that under U.S. and international refugee law, religion is a criterion for granting refugee status,” the ACLJ added, warning that unless serious action is taken to protect minorities, they will be wiped out at the hands of IS.

Reports from last year, such as the Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing Systems, have also suggested that the U.S. is taking in very few Christians as part of its refugee program.

The November 2015 report stated that Christian refugees made up only 1.6 percent of total arrivals in 2015, while Muslims made up 97.8 percent of the total.

For comparison, close to 10 percent of the Syrian population is Christian, and at the time more than 700,000 Syrian Christians had been displaced and driven out of their homes because of IS.

The ACLJ has spoken out against IS’ genocide of minorities on a number of occasions, but back in May said that recognizing the genocide, both on the part of the U.S. and the U.N., is an important step toward addressing the crisis.

The organizaton is calling on the international community to take “swift and decisive action,” saying that June’s United Nations Human Rights Council session will have to decide on measures to put an end to the ongoing genocide.

“As the time for the HRC’s meeting is rapidly approaching, it is important that the United States and Secretary Kerry act quickly and decisively in advancing at the United Nations the cause of those Christians targeted by ISIS. We are optimistic that they will do so,” the law group wrote.

Planned Parenthood: How Much Longer?

full_planned-parenthood-how-much-longerIn one sense, there are really just two types of people when it comes to the topic of abortion: those who think it is okay to kill unborn babies, and those who think it’s wrong. If you don’t think you’re in one of these categories, you still are; you’re just confused.

Confusion, though, isn’t the most terrible thing. It means there is still hope, and in fact, this hopeful condition likely characterizes the general public of the United States. Most people don’t have a deep conviction about unborn babies. Most people don’t even think about unborn babies unless it’s an election year or the news runs a story. Even most who support abortion could only repeat the rhetoric they’ve heard from devotees.

And therefore, if confusion is what’s really popular, the question becomes:

What will it take for abortion activists to convince the general public that their position is a psychotic threat to humanity?

When will the rhetoric about women’s health and women’s rights be exposed for what it truly is (since, of course, by women’s “health” and women’s “rights” they must not mean the near 28 million girls aborted since 1973)? What will it take? Where is the tipping point when the truth of Planned Parenthood can no longer be ignored by the popular conscience?

Abortion’s Self-Destruction

Mind-changing momentum is beginning to build, and to our surprise, it’s not so much from the direct work of pro-life advocates, but from the unmasked mishaps of abortion activists themselves. Yes, that’s right. They’ve ironically stumbled into a suicide mission.

What if, counter-conventional as it might seem, the greatest felt gains for unborn humans will come by the abortion industry’s self-destruction?

Last year there was the Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains reportedly awarded for exceeding their abortion quota. That is to say, in addition to other reports of such quotas, there was a certain number of abortions that the clinic was prescribed to perform and when they surpassed that number they were honored, all of which backfires against the language of abortions as safe, legal, and rare.

But that is really nothing compared to the recent video that exposes Planned Parenthood for selling the body parts of infant corpses. If the thought of abortionists high-fiving each other over surpassing their abortion quotas doesn’t unsettle you, just watch the video of Deborah Nucatola chomp her food and sip her wine as she talks about selling aborted baby heads. You can watchthe full two hours and forty minutes of conversation.

Apparently, according to Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s Senior Director of Medical Services, not only is abortion “safe, legal, and rare,” but it’s a pretty big money-maker if you can keep those heads and livers intact as you extract the baby feet first.

How Much Longer, America?

Once again, we’re not supposed to know about this industry. Planned Parenthood doesn’t want us to know, especially since it’s illegal. But we do know. And if we open our eyes, we’ll never think the same way again about their organization and their little tagline, “Care. No matter what.” Care? They receive millions of taxpayer dollars, and our president tells them to keep up “the good work” — to butcher babies and sell their body parts? Care?

Sooner or later, Planned Parenthood, the conviction-less masses are going to start scratching their heads. Please, just keep talking. Just keep doing what you do. The lights are coming on, and you’ve got nowhere to hide.

The question for the rest of us is how long it is before we feel the cumulative effect. How much time will we give the abortion industry before they self-destruct? How much longer, America? How long are we going to let this go on?How many more conversations need to leak? How much more blood must be spilt? How many more body parts must be dismembered, packaged, and sold before we realize this whole thing is a nightmare? God, may it end soon.

Jonathan Parnell

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/planned-parenthood-how-much-longer

US Supreme Court Argument Preview: Religion, Rights, and the Workplace

us-supreme-court (1) 

At 10 a.m. next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hold ninety minutes of oral argument on the government’s authority to require private businesses to provide birth control and other pregnancy-related services to their employees under the Affordable Care Act.  Arguing for the challengers to the so-called “contraceptive mandate” will be Paul D. Clement, of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Bancroft PLLC.  Defending the mandate will be U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.   Each will have forty-five minutes of time, under an order issued Thursday expanding the time beyond the normal amount.  The consolidated cases areSebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.

Background

For the first time since the broad new federal health care law partially survived its most sweeping constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court nearly two years ago, the Affordable Care Act comes up for a new test before the Justices.  This time, the Court will be examining whether the government may enforce against private businesses owned by religiously devout owners the requirement that employee health plans provide no-cost coverage for women’s pregnancy-related services, including birth control.

These services, required under the so-called “contraceptive mandate” in the Act and in government regulations, are not themselves in legal trouble:  the only issue before the Court at this point is which businesses can be ordered to provide the services to their female workers at no cost to them.

That issue will be debated by two of the legal gladiators who met in the last test at the Court of the Affordable Care Act:  Washington attorney Paul D. Clement, a former U.S. Solicitor General, and the current Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

There probably would be a significant loophole in the contraceptive mandate’s reach if the challengers win.  Some women’s rights groups have estimated that millions of women would be affected.  Female workers of the two companies involved and those of other religiously oriented companies would have to cover personally the cost of at least some of the birth-control services — unless the government were to set up a new program on its own to do so, which is a very unlikely prospect.

Thus, the two cases that the Court has combined for review set up a direct conflict between the interests of some employers against those of their female workers of child-bearing age.  The federal government is clearly on the workers’ side, but the lower federal courts have been divided on who should win.

The dispute only involves private businesses because religious groups, as such, are given an exemption by regulations the government has issued.  Even some businesses get exemptions, too, because their employee health plans have been “grandfathered,” but before long those, too, will actually have to provide the benefits at issue, or face heavy financial penalties.

At the level of their greatest potential, the two cases raise the profound cultural question of whether a private, profit-making business organized as a corporation can “exercise” religion and, if it can, how far that is protected from government interference.  The question can arise — and does, in these cases — under either the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause or under a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress in 1993.

In a manner of speaking, these issues pose the question — a topic of energetic debate in current American political and social discourse — of whether corporations are “people.”  The First Amendment protects the rights “of the people,” and the 1993 law protects the religious rights of “persons.”  Do profit-making companies qualify as either?

Aside from whether corporations do have any religious rights, as such, the cases also raise the question whether the religious rights of their owners — real people, who undeniably can act according to their faith — are violated by the requirement that their companies obey the contraceptive mandate.  Ordinarily, in business law, corporations are separate from their owners, but the owners in these cases resist that notion, at least so far as the owners’ religious views actually shape the business of their companies.

No one doubts that the owners of the two companies have sincere religious objections to some forms of birth control or that their beliefs do counsel them to avoid any role in providing those services to their employees.  The companies and their owners do not have to convince the Court that that is what they believe — only whether that belief controls enforcement, or not, of the mandate.

One company is Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and a related company, Mardel, Inc.  Headquartered in Oklahoma City, the two companies are owned — through a trust — by members of the Green family.   Hobby Lobby is a chain of more than 500 arts-and-crafts stores across the country, with more than 13,000 employees.  Mardel is a chain of Christian book stores, with 35 outlets and about 400 employees.

The Green family members signed a formal commitment to run the two chains according to Christian religious principles — closing on Sunday, advertising their religious orientation, and playing religious music in the stores.   The owners and their stores do not object to every part of the contraceptive mandate, but they do object to the use of any drugs or intrauterine devices that — in the words of their lawyers — “end human life after conception.”

They have estimated that, if they follow their faith and violate the mandate, they face fines of about $1.3 million a day, or almost $475 million a year.  They believe that cancelling their health plan to avoid obeying the mandate would put them at a competitive disadvantage with other employers.   They do not believe that the government can force them to make such choices.

The other company is Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a company based in East Earl, Pennsylvania, that also has operations in other states, making wooden cabinets and wood specialty products.  It has about 950 employees.

The company is owned by members of the Hahn family, who are Mennonite Christians.  Their faith teaches them that it is wrong to take a human life and to prevent its creation through drugs and intrauterine devices  If the company or its owners were to violate the mandate to adhere to their beliefs, they estimate that they would face financial penalties of about $35 million a year.

Federal appeals courts ruled in conflicting ways.  The U.S. Court of Appeals f0r the Tenth Circuit decided that Hobby Lobby was likely to win its challenge because, even though it is a profit-making business, it can, indeed, act according to faith principles.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided that neither the company, Conestoga Wood Specialties, nor its owners could claim First Amendment religious rights — because, it found, the corporation is incapable of doing so, and because the owners had chosen the corporate form for their business and it stands apart from their personal interests.

Petitions for certiorari

The federal government asked the Supreme Court to review the Hobby Lobby case, while the Hahn family and their woodworking company did the same in their case.  As offered to the Justices, the two cases together raise both the First Amendment religious rights question and the RFRA statutory issue, as to both the companies and their owners.

The First Amendment provides that no law may be passed, at any level of government, that prohibits “the free exercise of religion.”  RFRA provides that government agencies (only at the federal level, since the Act no longer applies at the state and local levels) may not impose a “substantial burden” on the religious exercise of “a person,” even if the law is one that everyone ordinarily must obey, unless the government can justify the burden to satisfy a “compelling government interest,” and only if it is the “least restrictive means” of doing so.  It does not specifically define “person.”

On November 26, the Court agreed to review both cases and consolidated them for review.

Briefs on the merits

Hobby Lobby Stores — whose name will probably provide the label for the case in history – argued aggressively in its merits brief that the federal government was pursuing “a misguided shell game” in which only the Green family has rights and the corporation suffers alone the burden of the mandate.   That, it contended, was a move to ”drive a wedge” between the family and its corporation.

The brief insisted that, if the Court uses the definition of “person” that is in the federal Dictionary Act, it would refer not only to natural persons, but to corporations, too.  And, under the ACA regulations at issue, the filing said, the government is seeking to force employers to provide specific contraceptives, not just “an exchange of money.”  It is the contraceptives, not their cost, that burdens the Green family’s faith and the principles of Hobby Lobby Stores and the related bookstore chain, the brief argued.

Saying that the Court must apply “strict scrutiny,” the most demanding test for the validity of a government mandate or program, the Hobby Lobby brief said that the government has “not come close” to satisfying that standard.  The official claims that the mandates support public health and women’s equality are so broad that they could never meet that test, the brief said.

The retail chains’ filing said that the government has come up at the last minute with another attempted justification — that is, that the mandate is part of a comprehensive scheme of providing health benefits to all.  But that notion, the brief said, is belied by all the exemptions the government has allowed.

Because the question that the government raised in its petition in the Hobby Lobby case was restricted to the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the retail chains’ merits brief is confined to that issue.

The merits brief for Conestoga Wood Specialties and its owners deals with its claims under both RFRA and the First Amendment.  The filing begins with a defense of the Hahn family’s claim that its members choose to practice their faith through business activity, as well as in their personal lives.  “The corporate formality of a business is not determinative of whether religious exercise occurs in that business,” it contended.

But, if the family’s religious interests could be separated from the company, the brief went on, the company itself “exercises religion, too.”  Under state law, the corporate form may be used “to pursue all lawful purposes, without excluding religion,” Conestoga’s lawyers told the Court.  The Supreme Court, they added, “has never limited religious freedom to natural persons.”

Aside from arguing that the contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the religious rights of the Hahns and of their company, the brief said that Congress in passing the Affordable Care Act did not require that contraceptive services be included in employee health plans; that was added by the federal government in ACA regulations.

And, like Hobby Lobby, the Conestoga filing asserted that “strict scrutiny” is the only valid test to apply and that the government cannot show that it has a compelling interest in enforcing the birth-control mandate against religious objectors.  If the government is intent on assuring access to birth control, the brief said, it could either expand existing programs which provide that service or create new ones.

The Obama administration’s merits brief in Hobby Lobby focused on the RFRA claim, and its separate brief in the Conestoga case sought to answer claims under both RFRA and the First Amendment.

In each filing, the government made the same basic points:  profit-making businesses do not “exercise” religion at all, for purposes of either federal law or the Constitution; the mandate only applies to corporations and not to their owners and, in any event, corporations law treats the business separate from the owner; and, even if the mandate did have to satisfy a compelling government interest, it does so by assuring that female workers have access to an important health benefit as part of a comprehensive health insurance scheme.

The contraceptive coverage requirement, according to the government, is a neutral obligation that applies to profit-making businesses in general, and does not target any religious exercise.  The exemptions that have been provided for other businesses — those whose plans are “grandfathered” and thus do not immediately have to obey the mandate — will only exist in a phased sequence, and that alone is not enough to deprive the mandate of its neutral character, the U.S. brief said.

In passing RFRA, the brief contended, Congress did not intend to “uniquely disable the government by working a dramatic expansion” of the claims for exemption based on religious liberty.  Besides, it added, there has not been a single decision by the Supreme Court that struck down a federal law — or required an exemption to it — on the theory that that was necessary “to protect the rights of a for-profit corporation or of the owners, managers, or directors of the corporation.”

The government brief also made a religious liberty argument of its own.  It said that giving for-profit businesses the chance to obtain an exemption from federal laws based on religion would threaten “the special place of religious institutions in our society.”  Congress has often given religious bodies exemptions from laws, but it has always “drawn the line at for-profit corporations,” the brief said.

If Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are legally entitled to exemptions, Congress would be discouraged from providing exemptions for non-profit religious organizations “for fear that doing so would automatically entitle for-profit corporations to the same accommodation,” according to the government’s argument.

The briefs for the government also asserted that there actually is no burden on any religious exercise by owners or corporations, because the choice to use a birth-control pill or device would be made independently by the female workers covered by a health insurance plan.   The connection between those choices and the interests of the employer who finances the plan, the brief went on, is “too indirect” to make a legal difference.

The amicus briefs

If numbers of amici were to make a difference, there is no contest in these cases:  the government drew two dozen briefs in support, while Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are backed by five dozen filings.  There are two briefs that do not take a position on how these specific cases should be decided, but they take opposite positions:  a brief by professors of history and law argues that the Court has always treated corporations differently from natural persons, while a brief by a group of traditional religious organizations urges the Court to adopt an expansive view of the right to religious exemptions from public laws.

The boldest brief in support of the government takes a position that the government did not, urging the Supreme Court to strike down RFRA as an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to scuttle a Supreme Court decision requiring religious organizations to obey laws that apply generally.  That is a brief by a disparate group of advocacy organizations, including non-believers and survivors of clergy sexual abuse of children.

There is, on the corporations’ side, a brief by constitutional law scholars seeking to answer that constitutional challenge.  That brief contends that RFRA is a valid exercise of Congress’s legislative powers, and that nullifying the law “would threaten thousands of statutes that protect religious minorities.”

There are predictable allies on each side:  civil rights and women’s rights groups, liberal organizations, professors of various disciplines, and liberal lawmakers on the side of the federal government and the ACA, and traditional religious organizations and advocacy groups, conservative and libertarian entities, professors of various disciplines, and conservative lawmakers on the side of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga.

Analysis

If the legal territory the Court enters in these cases is not entirely new, it is also not well traveled.  The Court has sort of assumed since 1886 — without ever ruling flatly — that corporations are “persons” in a constitutional sense.  And, over time, it has filled in some of the gaps on what rights corporations are to have under the Constitution.  But it has never said, explicitly, that they are endowed with the right to freely exercise a religious faith.

These two cases give it the chance to do just that, if it is so inclined, and that would be a profound constitutional shift, with deeply uncertain implications.  It would, at a minimum, pave the way for businesses to choose whom they serve according to the identities of the customers and how those square with the religious preferences of the company.

But the Court need not go that far, even if it should lean toward ruling in favor of an exemption within the business world from the ACA’s contraceptive mandate.  It could decide that the Green family and the Hahn family have a right to exercise their religious beliefs in the way they run their business firms, and that this mandate intrudes on those rights.

Along the way, of course, the Justices would have to find a way around the conventional business law notion that corporations stand apart from their owners.  But they could do that with a very narrow definition of the rights of the owners of a company that is so closely held that it is essentially not a public corporation, except in name.  Again, though, that would grow out of the rights of the owners, not of the corporate entity itself.

The problem in anticipating a victory for religious owners, though, is that the focus in that analysis may fall too heavily on the owner’s interests, and insufficiently on the interests of the employees.  What is at stake on that side of the legal controversy is the interest of female employees in managing their personal lives and their reproductive health, with obvious implications for their ability to carry on their work lives and careers.

Just as there are Justices now on the Court who would, indeed, view this controversy through sympathetic eyes for business management, there also are Justices now serving who would certainly view sympathetically the claims of female workers of child-bearing age.

In these two cases, those two perspectives seem distinctly at odds, and the chances of finding common ground between them seem remote, indeed.

For example, the easiest way to rule for a religious exemption for businesses or their owners in this case would be to interpret the Affordable Care Act as not even authorizing the government to include birth control in the requirements for employee health plans.  That is an argument that the lawyers for the businesses here actually make.  But to rule that way would be to read the purposes of the statute’s coverage of preventive health services so narrowly as to ignore the realities of the health of women who work in offices, factories, and shops.

In terms of the legal foundations for a ruling, the Court might well go into this case hoping to avoid making new constitutional law, on the institutional premise that it should not decide a constitutional question unless it has no way to avoid it.

But it would be hard to base a ruling in this case solely on the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because that Act is essentially designed to protect constitutional rights of religious liberty.  To know what that law does protect requires knowing what the Constitution embraces — either as to corporations, or as to their owners, or both.

Only one thing, perhaps, is certain as the argument in this case approaches: whatever the Court decides, it will not decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act.  The nation’s politics, and many of its legislatures (including Congress), are absorbed with debates over whether to keep the law, to amend it, to render it unenforceable, or to repeal it altogether.  None of that depends upon the outcome of this case.

The Court has not been asked to strike down any part of the law, and it almost certainly won’t volunteer to do so.  All that is at issue is who must obey the contraceptive mandate.

Posted in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby StoresConestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius,AnalysisFeaturedHealth CareMerits Cases

Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Argument preview: Religion, rights, and the workplace, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 20, 2014, 3:30 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/argument-preview-religion-rights-and-the-workplace/

NBC’s ‘New Normal’ Gay Adoption Show Seeking to Further Redefine Marriage

New Normal NBC Show | Gay Agenda Illuminati New World Order

Hollywood is once again promoting its own redefinition of marriage to society.

As more and more shows seek to take aim at promoting anti-Christian values, NBC has now entered the fray with “The New Normal”, a shows about a gay male couple who seek to adopt a baby and the single mom, who out of desperation for money chooses to be a surrogate mother for them. In addition to promoting homosexuality and gay marriage it also seeks to highlight abortion and the “dilemma” having an unwanted child can be. All this is just another step toward society’s rebellion against God and Biblical principles.
The show created by Ryan Murphy who is the creator and producer of the show Glee, which has promoted homosexuality among teenagers in graphic fashion and devoted an episode to mocking the Bible, is not hiding its stance that all morals and principles about the family should be thrown out of the window. As the show’s website states:

These days, families come in all forms – single dads, double moms, sperm donors, egg donors, one-night-stand donors… It’s 2012 and anything goes.
Bryan and David are a Beverly Hills couple and they have it all. Well, almost. With successful careers and a committed and loving partnership, the one thing missing is a baby. And just when they think the stars will never align, enter Goldie, an extraordinary young woman with a checkered past. A Midwestern waitress and single mother looking to escape her dead-end life and small-minded grandmother, Goldie decides to change everything and move to L.A. with her precocious eight-year-old daughter. Desperate and broke – but also fertile – Goldie quickly becomes the guys’ surrogate and quite possibly the girl of their dreams. Surrogate mother, surrogate family.

The idea that “anything goes” is a rallying cry for society as it seeks to remove any and all Godly principles and erase the idea of sin and immorality. The Bible prophesied that this would be the ultimate direction of the world:

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. — Psalm 2:1-3

There is a great deal of rage against God in the unbelieving world. And why? Because of the desire to remove the “bands and cords” of The Lord, which are His laws declaring what is sinful. Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible and God, who invented marriage, intended it to be between one man and one woman, forever. As Jesus Christ stated:

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. — Mark 10:6-9.

Jesus is God in the flesh. He is also The Word. So all scriptures are His Words. God said in Leviticus: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:22. Jesus said “I and my Father are one.” So there is no separating God the Father’s Statements from Jesus Christ. And homosexuality is clearly a sin.

But instead of having an objective moral authority, which God has provided with the Bible, many in the gay rights movement have decided to make their own determination of right and wrong, replacing God’s order with their own designs.

In the city of Sodom, sexual morality was done away with. It was the “anything goes” society of the ancient world. And when Lot, the nephew of the Israelite patriarch Abraham and a God-fearing man, received two angels at his home as guests, the men of Sodom wasted no time revealing their agenda:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. – Genesis 19:4-7.

Notice that in this passage that all the men of the city, young and old came together to perform illicit acts together with the male angels. Additionally, they were so brazen they wanted to do them publicly. This is the result of making your own morals and declaring things to be good that were once considered sin. It was just an open homosexual society with no boundaries. And this happens when people are willing to reject God’s ways for their own. If men can be with men, why not men and children? This is clearly going to be the next battleground as schools continue to promote sexual behavior to children as young as 5 in “sex-ed” classes. Larry Brinkin, an iconic gay rights activist who coined the term “domestic partner” was recently arrested for storing child pornography with children as young as 1-year-old. If anything goes, who is to say that this behavior or his alleged desire is wrong?

Such was the state of Sodom where there were clearly moral standards for intimacy being followed. What those men at Lot’s house did not know was that the two angels were coming to remove Lot and his family just before God would rain down destruction on Sodom and the city of Gomorrah destroying them forever with fire and brimstone, a foreshadow of the judgment we all face for sinful rebellion against God:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. – Jude 1:7.

The Obama Effect: New Normalization of Homosexuality

Obama’s “Christian-based” support of gay marriage has given enormous momentum to the movement.

Certainly much of the momentum towards “the new Normal” was the announcement of the support for same-sex marriage by President Barak Obama. Obama, dubbed the “America’s First Gay President” by Newsweek Magazine, made history in announcing support for gay marriage and provided unprecedented legitimacy and momentum to those who want to change the definition of marriage. The President showed even more of the desire to throw off God’s and cords when he said it was his Christian faith that inspired him:

“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others.

But, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.” (source)

Treating others the way you would want to be treated does not mean condoning the sinful rebellion of others. Obama also is a strong supporter of abortion and Planned Parenthood and has expressed that being pro-choice allows his daughters the ability to overcome the “mistake” of having a baby by aborting it, a theme the New Normal hits on as well (the unplanned daughter of the main character even asks her mother “what would you be if you didn’t have me?”)

As a “practicing Christian” the President should be aware that sin is at the root of humanity’s broken relationship with God and repentance and faith in Jesus Christ is the remedy. How can any Christian should any other person Christian love without sharing those truths?

As with the now-cancelled blasphemous ‘GCB’ show, that mocked Godly values, pray against shows like the New Normal. Additionally, pro-family group One Millions Moms, who led a successful boycott of NBC’s pornography-celebrating Playboy Club TV show (which was cancelled after just 3 weeks) is now doing a similar boycott against the New Normal.

The entertainment world is becoming more embedded in sinful rebellion by the day. And just like Sodom, Hollywood is pushing every boundary and incurring more of God’s wrath. Society will move in what directions it chooses but Christians should still feel no shame in proclaiming the Gospel of forgiveness in Jesus Christ and the joy of a life that seeks to follow God’s ways rather than throw them away. It is The Word of God that can change hearts and turn a rebellious spirit to a contrite one that seeks The Lord.

“Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness..” — Joel 2:12-13.

Courtesy of   http://beginningandend.com/nbcs-new-normal-gay-adoption-show-seeking-to-further-redefine-marriage/

Obama Issues National Day of Prayer Proclamation

President Barack Obama on Friday proclaimed May 5 as the National Day of Prayer, continuing a long tradition in the face of protest.

With ongoing opposition from atheists and other nonbelievers, Obama made sure this year’s proclamation did not exclude any group.

“Let us be thankful for the liberty that allows people of all faiths to worship or not worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and let us be thankful for the many other freedoms and blessings that we often take for granted,” he stated.

The proclamation comes just weeks after a federal appeals court overturned a 2010 ruling that found the annual prayer day unconstitutional.

In a 3-0 decision, the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals determined that the presidential proclamation imposes no requirement on a person and therefore no one is hurt by a request that can be declined.

“Those who do not agree with a president’s statement may speak in opposition to it, they are not entitled to silence the speech of which they disapprove,” chief judge Frank Easterbrook, a Reagan appointee, wrote in the court opinion.

The court ruled that Wisconsin-based atheist and agnostic group Freedom from Religion Foundation lacked the legal standing to challenge the National Day of Prayer, saying that a “feeling of alienation” was not sufficient legal grounds for a lawsuit.

“Hurt feelings differ from legal injury,” the court concluded.

Each year, since 1952, presidents have designated the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer.

Just before last year’s prayer day, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb struck down the federal statute creating the “National Day of Prayer,” concluding that it connotes endorsement and encouragement of a particular religious exercise.

The Obama administration appealed the decision and Obama went ahead with the annual presidential proclamation, where he noted that prayer has long been an important part of U.S. history.

In this year’s proclamation, Obama pointed to President Abraham Lincoln and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as examples of leaders who turned to the Lord in prayer when they had nowhere else to go.

“On this National Day of Prayer, let us follow the example of President Lincoln and Dr. King,” he stated.

He called for prayers for the Armed Forces, those affected by natural disasters in recent months and those abroad who are seeking peace and rights in the midst of uncertainty and unrest.

“I invite all citizens of our Nation, as their own faith or conscience directs them, to join me in giving thanks for the many blessings we enjoy, and I ask all people of faith to join me in asking God for guidance, mercy, and protection for our Nation.”

This year marks the 60th National Day of Prayer. On Thursday, Christians across the country will observe the day under the theme “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.”

Courtesy of http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-issues-national-day-of-prayer-proclamation-50050/

The War on Christianity

By Burt Prelutsky

When I read that Americans had responded to the earthquake in Haiti by donating over a billion dollars to relief efforts, I was amazed once again at the generosity of my fellow citizens. Even though they, themselves, are suffering through an economic meltdown, they once again opened their purses, their wallets and their hearts to help out suffering strangers. Even though at least half of the donors were conservatives, those very folks that left-wingers deride as bigots, the recipients were black men, women and children.

Speaking of bigotry, I have no idea if I’ll be supporting Mitt Romney in 2012, but I do wish that everyone could get past his religion. Those people who have a different faith should understand that the tenets, symbols and traditions of every religion appear odd, to say the least, to outsiders. In some cases, they can seem absolutely daffy. But this is America; we’re entitled to be odd or at least appear that way to others. But unless someone is an Islamic fundamentalist or a Satanist – or do I repeat myself? – one’s religion shouldn’t preclude a decent person’s being elected president.

That brings me to the current resident of the White House. I am still somewhat mystified as to how someone who climbed out of the sewer of Chicago politics by standing on the shoulders of Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright ever made it to the Oval Office. Granted, Hillary Clinton was caught flat-footed and John McCain ran such a terrible race that if he’d been a racehorse, they would have had him undergo a urine test.

Still, in what parallel universe would a guy who boasted that the high point of his career was that he’d been a community organizer be elected the leader of the free world? After stating that the trouble with the U.S. Constitution and the civil-rights movement was that they didn’t deal with the redistribution of the nation’s wealth, I wonder how it is he got a thousand votes, let alone 62 million. He was also the chowder-head who, after saying that America was the greatest nation on earth, insisted that it was his mission to radically transform it!

Frankly, I think it was a classic case of Pygmalionism. Americans, thanks in great part to the most rancid media this side of China, were mesmerized by the mantra of Hope and Change. Voters were encouraged to think of politics in terms of a fairy tale, as if Obama was Prince Charming and that empty slogan was code for “And they all lived happily ever after.”

The more Obama talked, the more, it seemed, poor, ugly men were lulled into thinking they’d become rich and handsome, while homely women came away believing they’d become beautiful and be pursued by rich, handsome men.

Pygmalionism, as you probably guessed, is the state of being in love with an object of one’s own making. These days, it’s also known as Obamaism.

The confounding aspect of all this is how so many people who regard religion as a sham, and who have nothing but contempt for Christianity and Judaism, continue to believe that Obama is the messiah.

That brings us to Rev. Franklin Graham, who was first invited to address the Pentagon on the National Day of Prayer, and then was uninvited after a couple of Muslims complained.

I am not a Christian and I have never met Rev. Graham, but I was outraged after hearing about this. Since when does the intolerance of a few nullify the wishes of the many? This is not to suggest that a minority should be deprived of their say, but nowhere is it written that they are entitled to the final say.

From my vantage point, it appears that even after the Pentagon’s cowardly policy of political correctness led directly to the murders of 13 innocent Americans at Fort Hood, the military still hasn’t learned its lesson.

Under Bill Clinton, homosexuals in the service were advised not to tell and the brass was ordered not to ask.

Under Barack Obama, it seems that the policy is still in place, except now it’s being directed at Christians.

Courtesy of  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=161985


 

 

 

ADF To Congress: Imposing Homosexual Agenda On Military Will Create Legal, Religious Liberty Chaos

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 27, 2010— Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, working with the Family Research Council, sent letters to all 535 members of the U.S. Congress Wednesday, advising them regarding the legal and religious freedom implications associated with the proposed repeal of the military’s standing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The information provided to Congress included legal analysis by ADF of the religious freedom threat posed to both chaplains and service members.

ADF also provided Congress a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, signed by 41 retired military chaplains, advising key officials that a repeal will, among other things, “endanger religious liberty for chaplains and service members.” A news conference to discuss how overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will undermine religious liberty in the military will be held Thursday at 2:30 p.m. EDT at the House side of the Capitol Building, Room HC-8, in Washington, D.C., with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Rep. Jack Kingston, ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot*, and pastors from across the country.

“The First Amendment rights of troops who defend those rights for the rest of us should be non-negotiable–not an afterthought,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Daniel Blomberg. “The small group of activists who are pushing to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ are conveniently ignoring the dramatic legal impact of the legislation upon the religious liberties of thousands of chaplains and service members. The legislation that Congress is considering puts at risk fundamental, constitutionally protected liberties, treating those rights as limited ‘privileges’ that can be taken away at any time.”

Earlier this month, upon request of the Pentagon working group in charge of reviewing the repeal, ADF also sent legal analysis regarding appropriate religious liberty protections for chaplains and service members if Congress were to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

“First, passing a law that elevates homosexual behavior to a protected class sets the military’s policy at direct odds with the moral teachings and beliefs of a significant group of military chaplains and service members,” the ADF analysis states. “This conflict will likely have the effect of both pressuring service members and chaplains to alter their beliefs to accommodate military policy and marginalizing those whose religious beliefs will become equated with racism or sexism. Second, while religious exemptions are a standard feature of non-discrimination laws protecting homosexual behavior–so standard a feature, in fact, that their absence from the pending repeal legislation before the House and Senate is conspicuous–they are often only partially helpful in guarding religious liberty.”

“The nature of the proposed repeal is an alarming signal that religious liberty, free speech, and even national security have taken a back seat to the homosexual legal agenda,” Blomberg added.

In February, ADF attorneys sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Gates advising them of the legal risks and dangers of the proposed repeal. Among other effects, such a repeal would place hundreds of chaplains to the armed forces in irreconcilable positions between military mandates and their religious freedoms. 

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.