Homosexual Hijackers: The Hypersexualization of Cultural Hostages

When the celebration of a godly Catholic Saint becomes a flashpoint for the homosexual agenda, it’s just another sure sign that things have really spiraled out of control in America. How is it that the St. Patrick’s Day parades in Boston and New York have become the latest pawn in the homosexual hijacking of this country?

In the current cultural clash between morality and decadence, apparently nothing is considered sacred or beyond the tainting touch of the “gay lobby.”

As the militant homosexual activists aggressively sweep through our society in their hostage-taking enterprise, they trample on religious rights — and numerous other freedoms — leaving only debauchery in their wake. Through their shameless “gay” gangland style thuggery, they defile and hypersexualize everything that they come into contact with. And the “Big Beer” brouhaha is just their latest attempt to distort a holiday observance, which is supposed to be about commemorating a heroic, holy man, into more perversity on parade. The homosexual wrecking ball has “come out” in full vengeance mode with corporate sponsors, professional sports organizations, elected officials, mainstream media outlets, Hollywood celebrities, and universities all drooling and panting to be the first to ride the “gay” bandwagon on its path to perdition.  

Is it any wonder that the Catholic Church doesn’t want to sully their Saint with the raunchy displays that are typically seen in the annual “gay pride” parades held across America? Why would the organizers want to see homosexuals prancing around in drag, genitalia-revealing clothing, or nearly naked?

And what’s the likelihood that “gay pride” organizers would ever allow Christians to march in their parades and pass out biblical literature about the sinfulness of homosexuality? Or what’s the chance that they would welcome groups such as NOM (National Organization for Marriage), NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) or JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) to march right alongside the transvestites? Or what about an ex-gay marching band or Mark Regnerus as the grand marshal? Not on your life! The simple fact is that homosexual events are not “open” to everyone. Certain individuals and organizations, that don’t conform to their ideology, are absolutely barred from participating in their parades. Of course, they wouldn’t want any religious or moral principles “raining on their parade.” Homosexual extremists march along a one-way street when it comes to so-called “tolerance.”

At “gay pride” events and parades in places such as San Francisco, Atlanta, Charlotte, and New Orleans, it is not uncommon to see drag queens, phalluses, public nudity, actual and simulated sex acts, offensive signs/music, pornographic images, NAMBLA (pedophilia) representatives, S&M paraphernalia, and public spankings to raise money for AIDS efforts. So, why would the Catholic Church – and any morally sane individual – want to associate St. Patrick with those kinds of debauched displays?

In some places, the homosexual hijackers’ reign of terror is basically complete. For instance, in San Francisco, public decency ordinances are consistently and systematically overlooked during their homosexual, perversity-promoting events. Nudity and public sex acts are the norm during the annual Folsom Street Fair and other “gay pride” parades and festivals held in the city. Police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregate nearby and observe, making no attempt to enforce the law for fear of being labeled homophobic or worse.

And where is the mainstream media while all of this crude and vulgar behavior is so blatantly on display? They’re engaged in a homosexual-friendly, collaborative cover-up via a media blackout because they know that these sex-crazed, pornified sin-fests don’t fit the nice, neat little narrative of the happy, “normal gay family” that’s just minding their own business in relative suburban obscurity. Although not all homosexuals are militantly involved in the hostile takeover of the American culture, we can’t ignore the intimidating and morally corrosive efforts of the aggressive “gay” activists.

In advance of the September 15, 2013 “gay pride” parade in Dallas, Texas, the city officials made it clear that they had had enough of this type of outrageous behavior. They pledged to crack down on the lewdness and nudity that had become widespread at their annual gay pride parade. While past marches had featured bare-breasted women and men in tight, wet underwear with visible genitalia, Dallas law enforcement said the city would no longer turn a blind eye to such violations of city and state law. The rules now state: “In accordance with the city of Dallas public nudity ordinance, parade participants must not expose genitalia, buttocks, or female breasts.” Additionally, the new parade restrictions prohibit other vile exhibitions: “In accordance with state of Texas obscenity law, sexual paraphernalia, real or simulated sex acts and genital or phallic representations are prohibited from the parade.” City officials, along with the event’s organizers, said they wanted the pride event to be more “family friendly.”

The reaction, however, from the “gay” community and activists to this policy change was quite eye-opening. It shockingly revealed the true darkness that lurks at the heart of America’s homosexual movement. They expressed great outraged at the newly-implemented common sense changes. On the social media website Twitter, incensed homosexuals vowed to wear  – or not wear – whatever they wanted to the pride parade. Activist Daniel Cates wrote on his Facebook page, “The ‘queer’ is effectively being erased from our Pride celebration in favor of the most polished, heteronormative representation of our community as possible. It should be noted that the rioters at the Stonewall Inn fought to break OUT of the d*mn closet! Our movement was built of sex positivity and our desire to BE WHO WE ARE! I urge you ALL to openly DEFY the Tavern Guild!” (Evidently, the word “restraint” is nowhere to be found in the homosexual dictionary.)

Based on Mr. Cates’ own words, here are a just a few thoughts:

If they “can’t be themselves” without being mostly naked, raunchy, and highly sexualized, doesn’t that contradict the whole “It’s not about sex, it’s about love” mantra? It sounds much more to me like a crotch-centric fixation than anything to do with love. 

If they’re so adamantly against “heteronormative” behavior, then why are homosexual activists also fighting so hard to get “married?” Marriage, after all, is the most heteronormative institution there is! There is obviously no method to their madness.

And homosexuals claim that they want equal treatment under the law, but as soon as they are told that they will be treated like any other citizen who breaks public decency laws, they throw a hissy fit. Apparently, they don’t really want equal treatment; what they demand is special treatment. They think that they are entitled to some sort of “protected class,” above-the-law status that allows them to brazenly break the law with impunity, and sadly, in most places and in many ways, that’s exactly what were witnessing as public officials cower in fear and cave to their every terrorist-like tactic!

Therefore, the “coexist” meme is a falsehood of epic proportions; it’s really “Leftist code” for the legal authorization of the anti-Christian forces – of which the virulent homosexual hijackers have become the worst offenders – to run roughshod over anyone with whom they disagree. In their twisted idea of coexistence, Christians and conservatives must live under the heel of the homofascists.

What the St. Patrick’s Day Parade organizers and every other religious group, cultural edifice or icon of morality need to do is implement a “we don’t negotiate with ‘queer’ terrorists” policy. Or else all will be lost to the homosexual hijackers.

Source:  http://bit.ly/1ozcBWe

Read More

UK leaders sound alarm over persecution of Christians in the Middle East

Source

 

The 2013 Christmas season brought with it the clarion call sounded by the Prince of Wales and a series of UK leaders over the dwindling population of Christians in the Middle East, where “Christianity was, literally, born.” Speaking at Clarence House in London, Prince Charles addressed religious leaders, following visits to both the Coptic Orthodox and the Syrian Orthodox Churches.

“I have for some time now been deeply troubled by the growing difficulties faced by Christian communities in various parts of the Middle East. It seems to me that we cannot ignore the fact that they are, increasingly, being deliberately targeted by fundamentalist Islamist militants,” Prince Charles stated clearly, while taking the lead in defense of Christianity by recognizing the grave situation Christians are facing and encouraging the world to stand against these atrocities. 

“We all lose something immensely and irreplaceably precious when such a rich tradition – dating back 2,000 years – begins to disappear,” he went on to say, in heartfelt remarks.

The problems facing Christians in the Middle East should not be taken as lightly as they seem to have been so far by world leaders. The former archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, in his Christmas message published in The Sunday Telegraph writes about this saying, “I imagine that in the West our politicians think that because churches have until recently been in extraordinarily powerful opinion-forming positions, they cannot possibly be pictured as a persecuted minority. 

Yet far from being important and influential, in many parts of the world Christianity is weak and despised, and Christians are attacked and killed. In Nigeria, churches are firebombed; in Pakistan, churchgoers are prosecuted under draconian blasphemy laws, while in Egypt, they are either marginalized or assaulted.” Turning his attention to the problems Christians are also facing in the West, he then observes, “Closer to home, I admit I am worried about the future of faith in the West. Many Christians I meet say there is a pressure on them to be silent about their faith.”

As the situation for Christians in the Middle East seems to be worsening, embracing the word “persecution” when describing the ongoing atrocities in the region is apparently not something that the general public is willing to do. The majority opinion is still one which allows for so many media outlets to ignore the true scale and origin of the matter.

The deliberate targeting by “fundamentalist Islamist militants” that Prince Charles spoke of is graphically and statistically supported by Open Doors’ recently released 2014 World Watch List reporting on the 50 worst nations persecuting Christians around the world. CBN News contributor Raymond Ibrahim writes that “those persecuting Christians in 41 of 50 nations are Muslims.” 

Douglas Alexander, British labor party politician and shadow foreign secretary places today’s dire matters in perspective when he points out that “Across the Middle East, Christians have lived for almost two millennia in the place their faith was born…Indeed, the Ottoman Empire, which spanned much of today’s modern Middle East, was a multicultural state, with Christians cohabiting alsongside Shia, Sunni, Jews, Alawites and Druze.”

The interventions of the former archbishop of Canterbury and Prince Charles, particularly at Christmas, may have helped in showing how serious the matter truly is and how one should not presuppose it to be a fleeting incident. Even so, one can only wonder how much longer Christians are to be subjected to such suffering before their brutal treatment is recognized for the outrageous and futile tragedy it really is?

One of the biggest problems that Western society faces when it comes to unveiling the truth seems to be that of political correctness. Douglas Alexander talks about the threat such overzealous pseudo attempts at protecting certain freedoms can represent. “In the UK today, perhaps through a misplaced sense of political correctness, or some sense of embarrassment at ‘doing God’ in an age when secularism is more common, too many politicians seem to fear discussing any matters related to faith,” he states in the The Sunday Telegraph, making reference to Alastair Campbell’s memorable interruption of one of Tony Blair’s interviews by adding “we don’t do God” in order to prevent the then prime minister from talking about his faith.

Douglas Alexander also adds that “just like anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, anti-Christian persecution must be named for the evil that it is, and challenged systematically by people of faith and of no faith.” This seems to be the issue which has become a leitmotiv when it comes to defending a Christian’s right to worship. 

Defending religious freedom appears to be the socially excepted norm; however, this doesn’t always seem to be the case when Christianity is involved. Even though such a defense would only mean that all religions would be treated equally, or as Douglas Alexander observed, it would mean “not to support one faith over another – it is to say that persecution and oppression of our fellow human beings in the name of any god or ideology is never acceptable and is morally repugnant.”

The conservative Telegraph reports that Prime Minister David Cameron attempts to join the conversation praising Christian volunteerism or what he refers to nebulously as “Big Society.”

“Syria, Iraq, Egypt and other areas of the Holy Land sometimes overflow with tears. We won’t resign ourselves to a Middle East without Christians who for two thousand years confess the name of Jesus, as full citizens in social, cultural, and religious life of the nations to which they belong,” Pope Francis declared recently in meetings with several Eastern rite leaders, including Coptic Pope Tawadros II of Egypt.

But is the West turning the proverbial blind eye to all of these events? Is Christianity being deliberately targeted for destruction not only through persecution in places like the Middle East but also through the “keep silent about your faith so you don’t offend anyone” policy that the West has been taking part in for some time?

London’s Sunday Telegraph editorialized on the eve of Christmas that “Christian freedoms are worth fighting for.” Where are the New York Times and the Washington Post on this vital issue of our day? So, we must be grateful for those courageous media, religious, political and royal leaders in the UK for speaking up on behalf of Christianity during the Christmas season; and, yes, thank you Prince Charles for taking the lead.

On the one hand, the persecution Christians are faced with in the Middle East is rapidly deplenishing the region of this religion by killing or driving away believers. On the other hand, political correctness is slowly but surely seeping into the very fabric of Western Civilization and making this part of the world more and more immune to the suffering of people and the significance of the atrocities that are taking place. 

The way in which Christians are looked upon in the Middle East today by “fundamentalist Islamist militants” is no different than any other past example of inhumanity which plagued the world with its horrors, not so long ago. One can only hope that the term Christian will not become readily accepted by the West, the way it seems to have been in other regions, as another historical equivalent of the Holocaust’s “Untermensch” or of Rwanda’s “cockroach.” Indeed, where are the governments representing these 41 of 50 Muslim nations specified on the Open Doors’ 2014 World Watch List, and why are they silent?

Some Christians in the Middle East may have lived through another Christmas, yet, despite this, sad, somber questions lurk in the dark corner of a future that is almost upon them and, ultimately, through the burden of brotherly love and responsibility, upon us all: “Will the birthplace of Christianity still be a home for Christians in the future? What will the world lose if Christian tradition is lost in the region? Should we even dare to contemplate such a future?”

---

Georgiana Constantin is a law school graduate who has studied European, International and Romanian law. Her thesis on the UN and global governance was completed at the Romanian-American University in Bucharest. She is currently a Masters candidate for International and European Law at the Nicolae Titulescu University in Bucharest. Ms. Constantin, who is based in Romania, is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.

Read More

By MarcusPorcius

Dan Savage is well known for being a loud-mouthed Christian-bashing jerk, unless you’re a liberal, in which case he’s a hero of the “LGBT community.” He regularly releases vulgar attacks on anyone who doesn’t believe as he does, his most infamous attack being the Google bomb on Rick Santorum. He was at it again Friday, this time attacking Christian teenagers while giving the keynote address at the JEA/NSPA National High School Journalism Convention. Warning: Graphic Language.

Remember, this is supposed to be about bullying. Seems like he’s bullying Christian teenagers, does it not?

Three things immediately come to mind.

1. While some did walk out the majority of the crowd did not, and in fact cheered him on for his Christian bashing. This is the end result of decades of Christian bashing in public schools and pro-gay propaganda in same schools. The objective of course is to raise kids that react this way to Christian bashing and to carry that attitude into their future journalism so that Christians and conservatives are routinely mocked in the press.
2. Where was the Muslim bashing? Do they not execute gays in Muslim countries to this day?
3. Where was the UN bashing when they in fact passed an amendment to remove being gay as a reason to condemn executions?

The answers to the last two questions are obvious. Like all militant liberal activists, Dan Savage is an intellectually dishonest loser whose “principles” extend exactly as far as is convenient to promote the overall liberal agenda. Don’t get me wrong. Dan Savage will bash and has bashed Muslims but not in front of gatherings like this, where he might actually be accused of hate speech and be subjected to disapproval from his liberal ilk. Which brings me to my next point.

Dan Savage is a coward.

Dan Savage is a foul mouthed jerk, but more than that, he is a coward.

I’ve long said that laws used to be about keeping order and protecting the weak, but that they’ve devolved into protecting the jerks and criminals in our society instead. Dan Savage is the poster child of that maxim. In the old days, calling someone a coward meant that you had to stand up for the claim and if necessary fight it out. If you dared people to face you, and they actually did, you couldn’t get away with filing a restraining order or calling the cops.

And you couldn’t stand at a podium, curse at children, call them “pansy assed” and expect to keep your teeth for more time than it took for a parent of one of those children to reach that podium. In the old days you got exactly what you deserved for this sort of behavior. These days you claim to be the victim, and your “attacker” goes to jail, maybe even for a “hate” crime, ironically enough.

By the way, while I would never challenge Dan Savage to a fight or try to incite anyone else to, because he would have me or anyone else prosecuted and probably sue as well (being the previously described coward). Let’s just say in general terms that given a legal and justified opportunity, I would love to see Dan Savage given a chance to prove how tough he really is. I would love, just once, to see Dan Savage prove that he is in fact not the pansy ass he claims teenagers are.

Oh, and please, please, please God let Dan Savage do some Muslim bashing (for a change) to a gathering of Islamic journalists. Go on Dan. I dare you.

The Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association are Christian haters and hypocrites.

Dan Savage of course holds no remorse for his cowardly, may I say, pansy-assed behavior. But the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association should, and they don’t. This was the extent of their “apology:”

We appreciate the level of thoughtfulness and deliberation regarding Dan Savage’s keynote address,” the NSPA wrote. “some audience members who felt hurt by his words and tone decided to leave in the middle of his speech, and to this, we want to make our point very clear: While as a journalist it’s important to be able to listen to speech that offends you, these students and advisers had simply reached their tolerance level for what they were willing to hear.”

The NSPA said they did not have a prior transcript of Savage’s speech and that wish “he had stayed more on target for the audience of teen journalists.” They also said it provided a “teachable moment” for students.

As for Savage’s attack on people of faith?

“While some of his earlier comments were so strongly worded that they shook some of our audience members, it is never the intent of JEA or NSPA to let students get hurt during their time at our conventions,” they wrote.

Where to begin? How about the line about journalists listening to speech that offends them, for starters? If Dan Savage was a fundamentalist Christian giving a speech bashing gays, would they have expected the kids to sit for that? Somehow I doubt it.

They said they didn’t have a prior transcript of Savage’s speech. Didn’t they ask for one? Of course not, and that’s because they knew exactly what he was likely to say. They booked him as the keynote speaker, did they not? I’m sure he wasn’t picked out of the phone book at random. They knew exactly who he is and exactly what kinds of things he’s infamous for and that is exactly why they booked him. The NSPA and JEA are liberal, pro-gay, Christian-hating organizations and they picked Dan Savage for the specific things they knew he would say to these kids.

“Teachable moment?” Really? Like what, that Christian bashing is okay? That you must accept the gay agenda or be mocked and attacked in front of your peers (true to life, unfortunately)?

Some of his comments were “strongly worded?” Is that would they would have said if he had replaced Christian with “Muslim” and Bible with “Koran?” Again, I think it’s okay to doubt that. Hypocrites all.

They didn’t want students to “get hurt?” No, it’s more that they didn’t expect any students to be hurt, because they assumed that they would be approving of Savage’s Christian bashing, and in fact most of them were. Furthermore the NSPA and JEA didn’t care the least if some of the students were in fact hurt, because those Christian anti-gay bigots deserved it, right?

You people should be ashamed, but I know you aren’t because you did this deliberately. Unfortunately the law protects your teeth as well.

Source

Read More

HHS Secretary Sebelius squirms as pro-life lawmaker grills her on birth control mandate

Read More

American Idol Producers Tell Contestant to Tone Down Christian References

The producers of the hit show American Idol apparently told one of its top contestants to tone down his overtly Christian references if he wants to win the competition.

According to Today.com, Colton Dixon doesn't care and "plans to continue using the show and social media to spread his message of faith":

"When we first started the Twitter and Facebook stuff, they said beware of political and religious tweets," he told TODAY.com. "Just because it can turn off voters or whatever. But, you know, being a Christian is who I am. It is a part of me musically. It is what I want to do after the show -- go into Christian music." [...]

"I am not going to hide it, and I am not going to stray away from it just because I am on a TV show." [...]

"I wake up and I do devotional every morning," he added. "It reminds me why I am here, which is to share the love of God. I know there are several other contestants who can say the exact same thing. But it is a part of me and I want to share it -- no matter what, good or bad outcome. It is me."

Frankly, I'm not sure the producers understand who their audience is.

Fans of the show know full well that country singers like Carrie Underwood, Kelli Pickler, and Kelly Clarkson do well on the program because so many of the viewers are folks from red states as opposed to California and New York.

We got proof of that in 2009 when blue state favorite Adam Lambert lost in the finals to the more folksy, Arkansas-born Kris Allen.

At the time, many felt this actually became a red state-blue state battle with folks having little interest in the show casting votes to show support for liberal and conservative values.

As Allen ended up winning, Idol producers might want to rethink Dixon toning down anything as he has cruised into the top ten and definitely seems a favorite of the judges and the audience up to this point.

On the other hand, as these are the same folks that decided to pay tribute to President Obama in the middle of Wednesday's show, their political views might regularly get in the way of knowing what's in their financial best interest.

As for Dixon, he's been a breath of fresh air in this writer's opinion, and that was before I had any idea what his religious beliefs were.

Just seemed like a fine young man with a heck of a voice to me.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/16/american-idol-producers-told-contestant-tone-down-christian-reference#ixzz1pJdwdl6J

Read More

Totally epic must-see video of priest denouncing HHS mandate

Read More

‘I promised God that if he would save my baby, I would leave the homosexual lifestyle’

Source

February 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Lisa Miller, an ex-lesbian who made national headlines during her battle to protect her daughter from a custody transfer to her former sex partner, is now telling the story of her struggle through a book by one of her attorneys, Rina Lindevaldsen.

“Only One Mommy: A Woman’s Battle for Her Life, Her Daughter, and Her Freedom” (New Revolution Publishers, 2011), gives readers new insights into Miller’s inspiring odyssey from abused and neglected child, through the horrors of sexual and chemical addictions, to redemption through faith in Jesus Christ.

Miller’s final act of bravery was her decision to enter into hiding with her child, Isabella, to escape her former lesbian partner Janet Jenkins, who was successfully seeking to transfer custody of Miller’s daughter, Isabella, to herself. Although Miller remains in hiding, she speaks to readers through journals and letters left with her attorney, and through Lindevaldsen’s own narrative.

At the root of Miller’s nightmarish childhood were two elements: contraception and divorce. Miller’s early memories are filled with the bitter reminder that her mother, who was using birth control at the time she conceived Miller, had not wanted her.

“Whenever my mother was mad at me, she would pull out the oval peach colored pack of birth control pills that she had saved all those years to show me that only one week was missing, and that was the week she got pregnant,” Miller writes.

At age seven, Miller’s parents divorced, leaving herself and her brother alone with an increasingly mentally ill, distant, and cruel mother. Miller’s isolation and lack of affirmation from her parents led her to seek solace in unhealthy fixations on food, diet pills, and pornography. In order to relieve herself of emotional pain, she began to cut herself, which added to the scars that her body already held from her mother’s beatings

However, Miller was also the recipient of positive influences through friendships with leaders in her church and schoolteachers, who took an interest in her and provided her with adult role models. Her religious education would come back to her in her darkest days, providing a way out of her seemingly impossible situation.

After entering a troubled marriage, and finally making a suicide attempt that left her in intensive care for days, Miller received another major blow. During her recovery in a psychiatric ward in Virginia, a counselor informed her that she was a lesbian and must seek the sexual companionship of other women.

“As part of my treatment, in order to be released, I had to meet with my immediate family, including my husband, and tell them I was a ‘lesbian.’ I complied, and not surprisingly, my marriage ended. Even though I had left behind all of my childhood addictions at that time, sadly, I entered into the addiction of homosexuality,” writes Miller.

Lisa eventually entered into a relationship and a Vermont “civil union” with a recovering alcoholic named Janet Jenkins. During that time she was artificially inseminated, resulting in the birth of her daughter. She recalls that in the misery of her sexually immoral and conflictive relationship with Jenkins, she almost lost Isabella before she was born. It was then that she made a special petition to God, promising him that “if he saved my baby, I would leave the homosexual lifestyle.”

Isabella was born healthy, and although Miller did not keep her promise immediately, she recalled it as her relationship with Jenkins continued to deteriorate. “It was then that God brought to mind the covenant that I had made with him just months earlier. I knew enough from my religious background that one does not make covenants with God and not keep them without suffering negative consequences. When my daughter was 17 months old, I left the homosexual lifestyle and moved with my daughter back to my home state of Virginia, where she had been conceived and born.”

Judicial tyranny and the struggle to save Isabella from her lesbian “other mother”

After Lindevaldsen’s summary of Miller’s victory over homosexual vice and her other addictions, the attorney leads readers through the maze of legal arguments that have been used to justify giving parenthood rights, and ultimately guardianship, of Isabella to Jenkins. In the process she shows that no state is truly safe from the effects of homosexualist legislation in other jurisdictions.

Although Miller was artificially inseminated while in a civil union with Jenkins, Isabella was never adopted by her, and Jenkins’ name does not appear on Isabella’s birth certificate. Moreover, Miller and Jenkins were residents of Virginia when they entered into their Vermont “civil union,” and Virginia’s constitution explicitly denies all recognition to such unions.

In sum, while Jenkins appears to lack all standing to make a claim of “parenthood,” that did not prevent judges in Vermont and Virginia from twisting the law like a pretzel to ensure that Jenkins had access to Isabella.

Miller’s legal nightmare began when a Vermont judge decided to literally create a law where one did not exist. Vermont had no law giving parenthood rights to the spouse of a woman who is artificially inseminated - the spouse had to adopt the child. But despite the fact that civil unions were to be treated like marriages under Vermont law, Vermont Judge Richard Cohen decreed from the bench that Jenkins was Isabella’s “mother.”

Noting that “the court admitted that the legislature still hadn’t answered the question of how a child born by artificial insemination by an anonymous sperm donor would gain the legal status of a child to the spouse who was not biologically related to the child,” Lindevaldsen observes: “To its credit, the court at least admitted what it was doing—creating new law in order to reach its decision.”

However, despite all of the protections inserted into the Virginia constitution against the enforcement of civil union or homosexual “marriage” legislation from other states, prosecutors managed to make use of a federal law that was designed to stop one parent from denying custody to another: the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (FKPA).

Although the law was created to prevent parents from fleeing to another jurisdiction to get a better custody settlement through another set of courts, it was used in Miller’s case to claim that Virginia could not cancel the custody order issued by the Vermont court. Lindevaldsen argues that this is false reasoning because the federal Defense of Marriage Act protects states from the obligation of giving “full faith and credit” to homosexual unions formalized in other states, and even under the FKPA, states don’t have to enforce the decisions of other states’ courts. Nonetheless, the Virginia courts ruled in favor of Jenkins, and agreed to apply the Vermont decision.

Lindevaldsen goes on to discuss the destructive effects of the homosexual lifestyle, and documents the damage to children and teens caused by the movement’s influence in the school system.

The author, who is a an associate dean and professor of law at Liberty University, told LifeSiteNews that Christians need to be aware of the Obama administration’s relentless pursuit of Miller and her daughter, and the implications of their decisions at the voting booth with regard to family issues.

“I think certainly the current administration has obviously made a commitment that this is a high priority for them, that they are going to track down a biological mother and attempt to take this child away from her biological mother and I certainly think that there is some political pressure that could be taken,” Lindevaldsen said.

“I think the word needs to get out. Christians need to know that these things are happening, the idea that a woman apparently had to flee the country to protect her child, shouldn’t be happening in America, and I don’t think enough Christians know about that and don’t realize that the people they vote for in an election year, who they vote for has direct consequences on things like this.”

She added that, in addition to their involvement in the national political process, Christians can work at the state level to ensure that other children are not victimized by ant-family legislation. Lindevaldsen says she has handled dozens of other cases that are similar to Miller’s.

“We need to pass laws at the state level making it very clear that courts do not have the discretion to do this, to declare a child to have two parents, because we need to avoid these situations happening in the future, because they are happening on a regular basis.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

Read More

Evangelical Pastor and Followers Violently Attacked by Hindu Mob

Seems like militant atheists and muslims are not alone in their drive to kill Christians

An Evangelical Pastor and Christian church goers were attacked by a violent Hindu mob, in what critics have identified as religious hate crimes.

According to sources, the Pastor, identified only as Pastor Kiran, was accompanied by a group of evangelical Christians while visiting a fellow church member in Nalgonda district, South East India's Andhra Pradesh state.

According to witnesses, an unidentified group of Hindu fundamentalists became outraged after they spotted Kiran and his group carrying some Christian literature, according to All India Christian Council (AICC).

The mob accused the evangelicals of plotting to conduct forced conversions, suggesting that Kiran and his group were seeking to convert non-Christians to Christianity whether or not the non-Christians were willing.

Although Kiran has vigorously denied the allegations, he and the church members were reportedly severely beaten although sources deny that there were any serious injuries.

It is believed that the pastor was taken to a local police station, by the angry Hindu mob, where law enforcement failed to file any charges against him which critics attribute to Kiran's innocence.

Hindu extremism appears to be on the rise in India, with an increase in attacks against Christian pastors becoming more prevalent.

On Wednesday, Protestant Pastor Pabita Mohan Kota's Kandhamal district home was attacked by what sources confirm was Hindu extremists, according to BosNewsLife.

Kota's wife, whose name is being withheld for security purposes, said that her family was attacked in a religious hate crime.

One of the extremists was, "...in an inebriated state due to consumption of liquor and came shouting towards our house...He pushed my daughters, shouting 'You Christians must not live here. It is not your permanent owned or legal land,'" Kota's wife told BosNewsLife.

Kota, who is an already frail old man, has seen his health worsen since the attack and one missionary described the toll which the attacks have had on the pastor and his family.

"Though damage to the house is not much, the mental torture, tension and fear is much and irreparable," Missionary K J Markose of the Catholic Montfort Missionaries group said.

Markose also said that the pastor is on trial vigorously denying "false claims" that critic argue have stemmed from heightened religious tensions.

Hinduism is the dominant religion in India with over 80 percent of the population identifying themselves as Hindu. Christians are still overwhelming minority, accounting for roughly 2 percent of the population.

The Evangelical Fellowship of India (EFI) are urging Christians to write to the Chief Minister and demand security for Christians and their churches.

Benge Nsenduluka
Christian Post Contributor

Read More

Hate speech against Tim Tebow

"Tim Tebow is more than just a sports phenomenon. He’s a cultural phenomenon. For starters, Tebow’s very existence is somehow controversial. He’s a walking pro-life testimonial. He’s been pulling off comebacks since before he was born. Pam Tebow, Tim’s mother, courageously chose to carry baby Tim to term despite doctors’ recommendations that she abort him.

You may recall that before Tim went pro, the Christian group, Focus on the Family, commissioned an innocuous TV ad that ran during the 2010 Saints-Colts Super Bowl game. It briefly told the story of the Tebows’ pre-natal struggle. The word “abortion” was never even uttered, but a positive portrayal of childbearing was all it took.

And so began the left’s hate affair with Tim Tebow. Radical feminist groups, media-types and liberal pundits alike lost their collective noodle even before the ad ran.

Erin Mattson, vice president of The National Organization for Women (NOW), told ABC News that Tim’s story of survival was “really quite offensive. … This ad is hate masquerading as love!” she barked. Tim wasn’t dismembered alive and scraped in pieces from his mother’s womb, you see.

The New York-based Women’s Media Center launched a failed censorship petition drive to pull the ad, framing it as an “attack on choice.” Get it? Pam Tebow chose alright; she just happened to make the wrong “choice,” and dared to share about it publicly.

But as a Denver Bronco, Tim Tebow’s profile has grown exponentially. So too has the left’s hatred for him. This is due in large part to his very open Christian faith. After each game, Tim begins by thanking God: “First and foremost, I’d like to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

And who hasn’t heard of “Tebowing,” wherein one drops to a knee in prayer?

Source

Read More

Atheism and Liberal, Missouri

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the summer of 1880, George H. Walser founded the town of Liberal in southwest Missouri. Named after the Liberal League in Lamar, Missouri (to which the town’s organizer belonged), Walser’s objective was “to found a town without a church, [w]here unbelievers could bring up their children without religious training,” and where Christians were not allowed (Thompson, 1895; Becker, 1895).

“His idea was to build up a town that should exclusively be the home of Infidels...a town that should have neither God, Hell, Church, nor Saloon” (Brand, 1895). Some of the early inhabitants of Liberal even encouraged other infidels to move to their town by publishing an advertisement which boasted that Liberal “is the only town of its size in the United States without a priest, preacher, church, saloon, God, Jesus, hell or devil” (Keller, 1885, p. 5).

Walser and his “freethinking” associates were openly optimistic about their new town. Excitement was in the air, and atheism was at its core. They believed that their godless town of “sober, trustworthy and industrious” individuals would thrive for years on end. But, as one young resident of that town, Bessie Thompson, wrote about Liberal in 1895, “...like all other unworthy causes, it had its day and passed away.” Bessie did not mean that the actual town of Liberal ceased to exist, but that the idea of having a “good, godless” city is a contradiction in terms.

A town built upon “trustworthy” atheistic ideals eventually will reek of the rotten, immoral fruits of infidelity. Such fruits were witnessed and reported firsthand by Clark Braden in 1885.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Saturday, May 2, 1885

Braden was an experienced preacher, debater, and author. In his lifetime, he presented more than 3,000 lectures, and held more than 130 regular debates—eighteen of which were with the Mormons (Carpenter, 1909, pp. 324-325).

In 1872, Braden even challenged the renowned agnostic Robert Ingersoll to debate, to which Ingersoll reportedly responded, “I am not such a fool as to debate. He would wear me out” (Haynes, 1915, pp. 481-482). Although Braden was despised by some, his skills in writing and public speaking were widely known and acknowledged.

In February 1885, Clark Braden introduced himself to the townspeople of Liberal (Keller, 1885, p. 5; Moore, 1963, p. 38), and soon thereafter he wrote about what he had seen.

In an article that appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, titled “An Infidel Experiment,” Braden reported the following.

The boast about the sobriety of the town is false. But few of the infidels are total abstainers. Liquor can be obtained at three different places in this town of 300 inhabitants. More drunken infidels can be seen in a year in Liberal than drunken Christians among one hundred times as many church members during the same time.

Swearing is the common form of speech in Liberal, and nearly every inhabitant, old and young, swears habitually. Girls and boys swear on the streets, playground, and at home. Fully half of the females will swear, and a large number swear habitually.... Lack of reverence for parents and of obedience to them is the rule.

There are more grass widows, grass widowers and people living together, who have former companions living, than in any other town of ten times the population.... A good portion of the few books that are read are of the class that decency keeps under lock and key....

These infidels...can spend for dances and shows ten times as much as they spend on their liberalism. These dances are corrupting the youth of the surrounding country with infidelity and immorality. There is no lack of loose women at these dances.

Since Liberal was started there has not been an average of one birth per year of infidel parents. Feticide is universal. The physicians of the place say that a large portion of their practice has been trying to save females from consequences of feticide.

In no town is slander more prevalent, or the charges more vile. If one were to accept what the inhabitants say of each other, he would conclude that there is a hell, including all Liberal, and that its inhabitants are the devils (as quoted in Keller, 1885, p. 5).

According to Braden, “[s]uch are the facts concerning this infidel paradise.... Every one who has visited Liberal, and knows the facts, knows that such is the case” (p. 5).

As one can imagine, Braden’s comments did not sit well with some of the townspeople of Liberal. In fact, a few days after Braden’s observations appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he was arrested for criminal libel and tried on May 18, 1885. According to Braden, “After the prosecution had presented their evidence, the case was submitted to the jury without any rebutting evidence by the defence (sic), and the jury speedily brought in a verdict of ‘No cause for action’ ” (as quoted in Mouton, n.d., pp. 36-37).

Unfortunately for Braden, however, the controversy was not over. On the following day (May 19, 1885), a civil suit was filed by one of the townsmen—S.C. Thayer, a hotel operator in Liberal. The petition for damages of $25,000 alleged that Clark Braden and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an article in which they had made false, malicious, and libelous statements against the National Hotel in Liberal, managed by Mr. Thayer.

He claimed that Braden’s remarks, published in the St. Louise Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, “greatly and irreparably injured and ruined” his business (Thayer v. Braden). However, when the prosecution learned that the defense was thoroughly prepared to prove that Liberal was a den of infamy, and that its hotels were little more than houses of prostitution, the suit was dismissed on September 17, 1886 by the plaintiff at his own cost (Thayer v. Braden).

Braden was exonerated in everything he had written. Indeed, the details Braden originally reported about Liberal, Missouri, on May 2, 1885 were found to be completely factual.

It took only a few short years for Liberal’s unattractiveness and inconsistency to be exposed. People cannot exclude God from the equation, and expect to remain a “sober, trustworthy” town. Godlessness equals unruliness, which in turn makes a repugnant, immoral people. The town of Liberal was a failure.

Only five years after its establishment, Braden indicated that “[n]ine-tenths of those now in town would leave if they could sell their property. More property has been lost by locating in the town than has been made in it.... Hundreds have been deceived and injured and ruined financially” (Keller, p. 5). Apparently, “doing business with the devil” did not pay the kind of dividends George Walser (the town’s founder) and the early inhabitants of Liberal desired. It appears that even committed atheists found living in Liberal in the early days intolerable.

Truly, as has been observed in the past, “An infidel surrounded by Christians may spout his infidelity and be able to endure it, but a whole town of atheists is too horrible to contemplate.” It is one thing to espouse a desire to live in a place where there is no God, but it is an entirely different thing for such a place actually to exist. For it to become a reality is more than the atheist can handle.

Adolf Hitler took atheism to its logical conclusion in Nazi Germany, and created a world that even most atheists detested. Although atheists want no part of living according to the standards set out by Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament, the real fruits of evolutionary atheism also are too horrible for them to contemplate.

Although the town of Liberal still exists today (with a population of about 800 people), and although vestiges of its atheistic heritage are readily apparent, it is not the same town it was in 1895.

At present, at least seven religious groups associated with Christianity exist within this city that once banned Christianity and all that it represents. Numerous other churches meet in the surrounding areas.

According to one of the religious leaders in the town, “a survey of Liberal recently indicated that 50% of the people are actively involved with some church” (Abbott, 2003)—a far cry from where Liberal began.

There is no doubt that the moral, legal, and educational systems of Liberal, Missouri, in the twenty-first century are the fruits of biblical teaching, not atheism. When Christianity and all of the ideals that the New Testament teaches are effectively put into action, people will value human life, honor their parents, respect their neighbors, and live within the moral guidelines given by God in the Bible.

A city comprised of faithful Christians would be mostly void of such horrors as sexually transmitted diseases, murder, drunken fathers who beat their wives and children, drunk drivers who turn automobiles into lethal weapons, and heartache caused by such things as divorce, adultery, and covetousness. (Only those who broke God’s commandments intended for man’s benefit would cause undesirable fruit to be reaped.)

On the other hand, when atheism and all of its tenets are taken to their logical conclusion, people will reap some of the same miserable fruit once harvested by the early citizens of Liberal, Missouri (and sadly, some of the same fruit being reaped by many cities in the world today).

Men and women will attempt to cover up sexual sins by aborting babies, children will disrespect their parents, students will “run wild” at home and in school because of the lack of discipline, and “sexual freedom” (which leads to sexually transmitted diseases) will be valued, whereas human life will be devalued.

Such are the fruits of atheism: a society in which everyone does that which is right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6)—a society in which no sensible person wants to live.

Fonte

REFERENCES

Abbott, Phil (2003), Christian Church, Liberal, Missouri, telephone conversation, April 7.

Barnes, Pamela (2003), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, telephone conversation, March 12.

Becker, Hathe (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Brand, Ida (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Carpenter, L.L. (1909), “The President’s Address,” in Centennial Convention Report, ed. W.R. Warren, (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), pp. 317-332. [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/wwarren/ccr/CCR15B.HTM.

Haynes, Nathaniel S. (1915), History of the Disciples of Christ in Illinois 1819-1914 (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/nhaynes/hdcib/braden01.htm, 1996.

Keller, Samuel (1885), “An Infidel Experiment,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Special Correspondence with Clark Braden, May 2, p. 5.

Moore, J.P. (1963), This Strange Town—Liberal, Missouri (Liberal, MO: The Liberal News).

Mouton, Boyce (no date), George H. Walser and Liberal, Missouri: An Historical Overview.

Thayer, S.C. v. Clark Braden, et. al. Filed on May 19, 1885 in Barton County Missouri. Dismissed September 10, 1886.

Thompson, Bessie (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Read More

Pastor is Denied Charter School Applications Because of His Faith

Descriminating against Christians is OK.

Source

---

School officials in Compton, Calif., have denied two applications filed by Pastor Charles Patrick of Sunago Christian Fellowship Church to start a charter school because he is a church leader.

"A Pastor is entitled to as much right under the First Amendment as any individual is. Especially when they're going to be using the funds, in this case, for secular purposes," Robert Tyler of Advocates for Faith & Freedom argued on Patrick’s behalf, according to onenewsnow.com.

"I think that what we're seeing here is a move toward trying to prevent any person of faith from really being involved," Tyler added.

Although Patrick did not apply on any religious grounds and did not plan to teach religion in the school, the Compton Unified School District denied his applications.

Pastor Patrick, who wanted to start the school in Los Angeles, said he simply wanted to create a charter school "in a safe location," according to OneNewsNow.

Frontier Legal Foundation has filed a lawsuit against California in response to the denial of Patrick’s application on the grounds that the State is violating the pastor’s First Amendment rights.

“There is a culture war that’s ongoing that is attempting to remove God from any public arena. It shouldn’t matter that they (Patrick and his church) are a Christian organization if they are using the school for secular purposes,” Tyler told The Christian Post.

“I have not yet communicated with the Lawyers from Frontier, but I will call them to see if they would like to use our services,” Tyler added.

Frontier Legal Foundation’s lawsuit cites Patrick’s protection under the “Establishment Clause,” which protects all citizens against discrimination.

Tyler also told The Christian Post, he is unsure if Patrick was told explicitly that his applications were being denied based on his religion, but it would appear that Patrick’s first amendment rights have been violated.

Kris Coombs
Christian Post Contributor

Read More

Feds' War on Religion

Chuck Norris

Anyone who knows me knows that for my whole life, I've been a huge supporter of our U.S. military personnel, whom I congratulate about their victory in Iraq. But when our president and officials in the U.S. Department of Defense exchange a war abroad for a religious war at home, can't we see that something else is seriously awry in this administration?

It's one thing to watch "merry Christmas" be omitted from signs in your favorite department store but quite another to see Bibles withheld from wounded warriors at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

It's true! On Dec. 2, the Family Research Council reported that it had discovered a memo released in September at the esteemed military hospital, in which Navy officials announced that "no religious items (including Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit."

Thank God for those in the FRC, as well as Rep. Randy Forbes and other members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, who demanded to meet with officials at Walter Reed and in the Navy about the matter. Just a few days ago, Vice Adm. John Mateczun confessed that the memo had not been properly evaluated and was being rescinded, and Walter Reed posted a public apology on its website.

But imagine if the FRC had not found this memo. Imagine how many others like it aren't found and are circulated around the federal government.

If you think this is an isolated incident, consider the following dozen-plus examples reported in the past six months alone by the FRC and Rep. Forbes' office and a few of my own I found, which document how religious freedom and Christian liberty in particular have been limited, quarantined, omitted or outright obliterated.

--The Air Force Academy apologized for merely announcing Operation Christmas Child --a Christian-based charity and relief program designed to send holiday gifts to impoverished children around the world.

--Yet the Air Force is building an $80,000 Stonehenge-like worship site for "earth-based" religions, including "pagans, Wiccans, druids, witches and followers of Native American faiths."

--The Marine Corps considered tearing down a Camp Pendleton cross meant to honor fallen heroes.

--Air Force officials stripped religious curriculum from a 20-year-old course on "just war theory."

--The Department of Veterans Affairs censored references to God and Jesus during prayers at Houston National Cemetery.

--The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate passed the $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which included a repeal of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which states: "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy."

--The Department of Health and Human Services unveiled new health care rules that ignore basic conscience protections for medical workers with faith-based objections to abortion and contraception.

--Officials at HHS denied funding for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' successful program for sex trafficking victims because of the church's teaching on human life.

--Administration officials refused to intervene in the closing of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

--President Barack Obama has lobbied for the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would trample on the faith of employers in hiring, firing and promotion decisions.

--The Pentagon released new regulations that force chaplains to perform same-sex "weddings" despite their religious objections.

--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demonized other countries' religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights.

--Just this past week, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation sent a letter to officials at Travis Air Force Base, demanding the removal or transfer of a Nativity scene and a menorah that are part of a larger holiday display on the base.

What is going on in the U.S. military? Why is it so difficult for the feds to understand the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which says they "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

And how many of these restrictions of our religious liberties are direct results of President Obama's being in office? And if these occurred in just the past six months, imagine what would happen in another four years if Obama were to be re-elected. Our service members, as well as our devoted military Christian chaplains, deserve better.

Gone are the days when the commander in chief rallied the troops and nation with a religious presidential call as Ronald Reagan and Franklin D. Roosevelt did. FDR declared in his Christmas address to the nation Dec. 24, 1944 (the first Christmas after D-Day):

"Here, at home, we will celebrate this Christmas Day in our traditional American way because of its deep spiritual meaning to us; because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in our lives; and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal Prince of Peace and Good Will. ...

We pray that with victory will come a new day of peace on earth, in which all the nations of the earth will join together for all time. That is the spirit of Christmas, the holy day. May that spirit live and grow throughout the world in all the years to come."

SOURCE

Read More

Ofensive

Read More

Navy Chaplain Sues After Being Dismissed for Praying 'In Jesus' Name'

Christian persecution.

---

Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Navy in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, insisting his religious rights were violated when he was dismissed from his position for praying "in Jesus' name."

The chaplain claims in the lawsuit that the federal government violated his rights when his ship'' commanding officer punished him in 2004 by downgrading his evaluation because he quoted "exclusive" Bible verses during an optional Saturday Christian memorial service. In addition, Klingenschmitt is seeking restitution because he was subsequently punished with another downgraded evaluation by his shore commanding officer in 2005 when he wrote to Congress and the president claiming that the Navy violated the Constitution when it forbid public prayers in Jesus' name.

The lawsuit also claims Klingenschmitt was unlawfully punished for wearing his uniform while worshipping in public and praying in Jesus' name outside the White House. The judge enforced the religious policy SECNAVINST 1730.7C, the chaplain claims, which required non-Jesus prayers in public, and although Klingenschmitt had written permission to wear his uniform during any religious service or activity, the judge ruled that he was not engaged in a public worship service, though he was worshipping in public. Congress later rescinded the law, but the chaplain was still dismissed.

"As a chaplain I took a stand for the right to pray in Jesus' name, and was I vindicated by Congress, who restored that right for other chaplains, but it was not grandfathered back to my case," said Klingenschmitt in a statement. "Now I'm filing this lawsuit to establish case-law precedent that will, hopefully, stop the domestic enemies of the Constitution from censoring chaplains prayers, or punishing their sermons or whistleblower speech, ever again in the future."

Klingenschmitt is seeking the reinstatement of his position in the Navy as military chaplain with four years of back pay and lost pension benefits.

Allison Summers
Christian Post Contributor

Read More

The world was not worthy of them

In the time that it takes you to watch this video 2 Christians will have been killed for their belief in Jesus.

Please pray for our brothers and sisters enduring tribulation around the world. Words can neither describe nor do justice to these images.

May God and Christ be glorfied in their sacrifice.

"Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated. The world was not worthy of them." - Hebrews 11:36-38

Read More

Christian Nursing Student Magdalene Ashraf Raped by Muslim Doctor, Denied Justice in Pakistan

KARACHI, PAKISTAN -- A huge controversy has broken out in Pakistan over the case of Magdalene Ashraf, a 23-year-old third-year Christian student nurse at the Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre in Karachi, who was allegedly raped by a doctor on July 15, 2010.

Magdalene is the daughter of Ashraf Masih, a poor Christian, who is said to have "dreamed of a good future" for his daughter after her graduation, but then all came crashing down after the alleged rape.

Instead of a rape charge, a case of simple assault was made by the police against Dr. Abdul Jabbar Memon, which falls under section 324 of the country's Penal Code.

ANS has discovered from an informant who asked not to be named for security reasons, that a "renowned Pakistani hospital" run by the state, had allegedly declared, in its medical examination report, that a semen specimen sent to them was "not that" of the alleged rapist of the virgin Christian trainee nurse, thus depriving her of "justice in this case."

The informant then alleged, that staff there conspired together and allegedly declared that the specimen sent to them was not that of the main accused doctor, nor of any of his "accomplices" whom it was claimed had raped the Christian nurse and thus deprived this "hapless and impoverished Christian trainee nurse of justice."

According to our informant, the Christian trainee nurse was allegedly seduced and taken to the doctors' mess led by a Muslim nurse and then subjected to "immense physical, mental and sexual assault" by the doctor and two other Muslim men.

According to reports obtained later that night, she was found lying on ground "nearly dead" and "drenched in blood" and taken to the hospital for treatment for her "critical condition."

Our source said that the police were reluctant to register a case against this influential Muslim physician but, later on, under media pressure, registered a case, but "refrained from inserting the rape section of Pakistani Penal Code." (Read more.)

Read More

California School Drops Prohition Against Christian Song

Source

Christianity is not quite illegal yet, not even in California public schools:

Los Angeles Unified School District officials announced Tuesday that they will no longer prohibit a 5th-grade student from performing to a Christian song at a Feb. 4 elementary school talent show. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys had filed a request for a temporary restraining order earlier in the day against the district, following their filing of a lawsuit against district officials on Friday.

The principal of Superior Street Elementary School had told the student's mother that the song "We Shine" was "offensive," allegedly violated the so-called "separation of church and state," and suggested that her child pick a song that "does not say 'Jesus' so many times."

Offensive can be defined as "targeted for repression by liberals." When an educrat like SSES Principal Jerilyn Schubert blathers piously about the "separation of church and state," she is probably attempting to refer to the First Amendment — which ironically upholds the very freedom of religion she was trying to squash.

Fortunately, the mother didn't take it lying down:

The concerned parent replied to Schubert by explaining that the song represents her child — who personally selected the song and practiced for months — and not the school, and that there were no restrictions on what students could perform in the show. Schubert then asserted that other students performing songs with profane and vulgar lyrics were also told to select different songs, in essence equating religious lyrics with profanity and vulgarity.

In the end the educrats backed down, muttering as they slunk back to their holes that they would let it go this time because talent show attendance isn't mandatory.

Finally a kid has learned something in a public school. When they push you, push back. It works.

Read More

It begins: Bible is "offensive"

We read:

"Fox Sports has rejected a Christian group’s proposed Super Bowl commercial featuring the Bible verse John 3:16.

The Lookup 316 commercial by Fixed Point Foundation was refused a spot before the nation’s largest TV viewing audience because it contained too much “religious doctrine,” according to FOX.

"[The commercial] was deemed to be too offensive," said Larry Taunton, executive director of Fixed Point Foundation, to The Christian Post.

However, the commercial does not feature any preacher, sermon or Bible. Instead it offers a question: "John 3:16, what's that mean?" The answer is simple. Look it up.

Source

Read More

EU Foreign Minister Just Can't Quite Bring Herself to Admit that Christians Were Attacked

Via Ace of Spades

—Gabriel Malor

I bring this up only because it echoes President Obama's statement, wherein he had to make up fictitious Muslim victims because he couldn't just admit that the New Years attacks were against Christians.

As I wrote then, it doesn't fit within the warped worldview of leftists to admit that Christians are being murdered by members of the Religion of Peace^TM.

Talks ended angrily when Italy accused Lady Ashton, the EU's foreign minister, of "excessive" political correctness because she refused to name any specific religious group as a victim of attacks.

Franco Frattini, the Italian foreign minister, demanded an EU response on the persecution of Christians after a New Year suicide bombing at a Coptic church in northern Egypt in which 23 people were killed.

The Egyptian bombing followed attacks in Baghdad and fears, expressed by the Vatican, of persecution leading to a Christian exodus from the Middle East.

Mr Frattini, backed by France, said it pointless to issue statements defending religious tolerance without any references to the specific minority, Christians, that was under attack.

I can hardly believe it; Italy and France are the bulwarks of Western Civilization in the EU, defenders of Christendom? Maybe Western Europe is actually waking up after all.

The EU foreign minister's response:

The EU high representative said she would have to "reflect" further about how to "make sure we recognise individual communities of whatever religion who find themselves being harassed or worse."

"Harassed"? They were blown up while celebrating midnight vigil Mass before a holy day. This dhimmi would simply lay down for the sword.

Posted by Gabriel Malor

Read More

San Diego firefighters victorious in suit against forced participation in gay pride parade

Source

SAN DIEGO, California, January 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Four California firefighters forced to participate in a gay pride parade in July 2007 are victorious after the California Supreme Court this week refused to hear the city’s petition to review an appellate court decision last year.

The four men, led by Fire Capt. John Ghiotto of the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, filed the suit against the city of San Diego for sexual harassment a month after a battalion chief directly ordered them to ride a fire engine in a lewd parade through the city streets. The men endured verbal abuse and come-ons, as well as overtly sexual gestures from the crowd.

“You could not even look at the crowd without getting some type of sexual gesture,” stated the original complaint, which noted that Christian protesters reviled them for joining the parade. Had the men refused, Ghiotto noted, the men risked being immediately suspended and stripped of any chance of promotion.

“As a supervisor I felt disgusted and embarrassed, that I had to subject my crew to this type of behavior.”

An initial trial ended in a hung jury in September 2008, before a jury sided with the firefighters the following February. After the San Diego attorney’s office appealed, the firefighters won again in October of last year, when the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District issued a ruling strongly in their favor.

Charles LiMandri, the general counsel for the California branch of the National Organization for Marriage who represented the firefighters, told LifeSiteNews.com that his clients were “delighted” with the outcome.

“It’s an important case because it shows that if Christian or people of faith generally are willing to stand up for their religious beliefs, and refuse to be bullied by secular agendas, that they do have rights that can and should be enforced in court,” said LiMandri. “In this case those rights were upheld.”

LiMandri said that it also “sends a strong message to people about what these gay pride parades are really like.”

Read More