Under President Obama, “justice” is anything but blind. Neither is it deaf. In fact, based on recent revelations, it appears to be watching your every move and listening to your every word. Still, if you happen to be a federal employee, now it’s even listening for your silence.
The only thing this Obama White House seems to generate is scandal. Well, here’s yet another to add to the growing list. In addition to the Benghazi cover-up, IRS targeting of political dissenters and the illegal seizure of media phone records, whistleblowers within DOJ have contacted Liberty Counsel to express grave concerns over this administration’s latest attack on freedom.
Our sources have provided Liberty Counsel an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was emailed to DOJ managers in advance of the left’s so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.”
The document is chilling. It’s riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.
Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT” employees, managers are instructed:
“DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)
That’s a threat.
And not even a subtle one.
Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”
This lawless administration is now bullying federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.
Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.
The directive includes a quote from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize justification: “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”
Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country and most of the world still acknowledge objective sexual morality (and immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric issues.
Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:
“DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”
Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?
Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the Bible. I believe that God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?
Here are some more DOs:
DO “Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and invite (but don’t require) others to join you.” DO “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.’”
Are you kidding? Does this administration really think it’s legal to induce managers to “attend LGBT events,” or to “display pride stickers” against their will? That’s compulsory expression. That’s viewpoint discrimination.
That’s unconstitutional.
But there’s more:
“DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”
Oh, brother.
Sorry. Oh, gender-neutral sibling.
“DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.”
In other words, lie. Engage in corporate delusion.
“DO deal with offensive jokes and comments forcefully and swiftly when presented with evidence that they have occurred in the workplace.” “DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.”
Who gets to decide what’s an “inappropriate joke [or] comment”? I thought we had a Constitution for that. It sure ain’t Big Brother Barack. Sure, I get it, it’s probably better not to start your work day with: “A lesbian, a tranny and two gays walk into a bath house …” but still, “no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” means no law. No matter how much Obama wishes it so, we don’t leave our constitutional rights at the federal workplace door.
The DOJ edict even addresses cross-dressing man woes:
“As a transgender woman [that’s a man in a skirt], I want people to understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am [again, you’re a man in a skirt]. Yes, there was awkwardness with pronouns at first for folks who knew me before the transition. But it hurts when several years later people still use the wrong pronouns. And just imagine if people were constantly debating YOUR bathroom privileges. Imagine how humiliating that would be.”
Tell you what, buddy: I won’t “debate YOUR bathroom privileges” if you return to this planet. You’d better stay the heck out of the ladies room while my wife or two daughters are in there; otherwise, we have a problem. Women have an absolute right not be sexually harassed in the workplace – a right to privacy when using the facilities. To constantly worry whether a gender-confused, cross-dressing man is going to invade her privacy creates a hostile work environment.
This “DOJ Pride” directive is but the latest example of the “progressive” climate of fear and intimidation this radical Obama regime has created for Christians, conservatives and other values-oriented folks, both within and without the workplace.
Dr. Jennifer Morse recently gave a perfectly civil and thoroughly Christian talk to a group of Catholic college students in Iowa. In a speech deeply rooted in compassion, she urged students to reach out to same-sex attracted classmates and offer them friendship. She thought they could benefit from chaste friendships, and that they would not necessarily get much of that type of support from others on campus.
The response to Jennifer's speech was predictable. The Gaystapo took to the internet with a series of egregious mischaracterizations of the speech - all of which were intended to intimidate those who would dare show compassion for those struggling with same-sex attraction. Among the lowlights were:
The claim that Jennifer somehow exploited the death of Tyler Clementi by mentioning his name in one sentence of her talk.
Pretending to believe that telling Catholic students to reach out to their same-sex attracted classmates in chaste friendship would amount to anti-gay bullying.
Organizing their usual swarming technique of sending people to attack Jennifer's Facebook page, although most had not listened to any part of her remarks.
In order to fully understand the extent to which the homosexual left is trying to make perfectly normal mainstream opinion seem hateful and offensive, click on the following link to hear Morse's "offending" speech. Any fair-minded person who listens to the whole 30 minute podcast will arrive at the same conclusion: there is nothing there for any normal person to take offense from.
But the homosexual left is anything but normal. It is a movement that relies upon hysteria to breed intimidation. Take a few minutes to compare what you saw in Morse's speech with the reactions from the Gaystapo. Here are links to two of the more egregious articles from the other side:
Please bear in mind that Huffington Post gets more traffic than the New York Times, Fox News, and NRO. Their report on the Morse speech can be accessed here.
The Advocate reports that the Clementis think it is “cruel” and in fact constitutes a "new low" to reach out to those struggling with homosexuality. In fact, they are furious over the idea of extending compassion toward and forming friendships with homosexuals. They demand an apology here.
Those witnessing the emotional meltdown of the Gaystapo might be tempted to think of Orwell's 1984. More specifically, they might recall the two minutes hate. It isn't difficult to imagine crowds of homosexual activists sitting around watching clips of Morse's speech and screaming at their monitors in a show of solidarity. Take the time to log on to a comment thread on the Huffington Post or on the Advocate. We're already there. Jennifer Morse has become Emmanuel Goldstein.
But the Jennifer Morse controversy is more than a foretelling of the future. It is also a reminder of the past. One cannot easily dismiss the similarity between the Morse episode and the Salem witch trials that characterized another dark period in the history of our civilization.
As C.S. Lewis once observed, the witch trials are misunderstood. Many believe they represented a time when people administered justice according to antiquated principles. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those trials happened merely because people applied a different set of facts to the same principles. They thought witches could fly to gatherings where they could consort and cast spells and destroy innocent lives. And so the courts tried them and sometimes executed them. The principle that people who did such things deserved to die was correct. The belief that they were actually doing them was incorrect.
There are no witch trials today because we do not believe a self-proclaimed witch when she says she will cast a spell upon us. When she says she has the power to transform us we merely laugh and walk away.
That explains all the hysteria in response to Jennifer Morse. Her opponents say she is wrong because homosexuality is genetic and unalterable. But they react to her with hysterics because they know in their hearts that the Gospel transforms. They know the Truth has power over all things. At some level they know that if they we were made in the image of God they cannot consent to their own destruction and call it good.
Of course, once convinced they are not made in the image of God, people have a difficult time loving themselves. That struggle hardens the heart and transforms loving your neighbor as yourself from a virtue into a vice. Eventually, tolerance becomes letting people destroy themselves and then destroying those who try to help them.
East Carolina University (ECU) has launched a new campaign that attempts to pressure employees to affirm homosexuality despite their religious and moral objections to the lifestyle. Couched in the language of safety and inclusion, the program promises to brand as intolerant those who refuse to accept the university's official position on matters of private sexual morality. This is especially problematic, given that ECU is a public university.
The campaign was launched with a profoundly unwise email, sent by university employee Summer Wisdom under the subject line "Gay? Fine by me." She begins:
"This spring the LGBT Resource Office (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) is hosting a program called 'Gay? Fine By Me' and we would love for you and your department to share in this opportunity. The LGBTRO will be ordering shirts that say 'gay? fine by me' and distributing them to faculty, staff and students to promote an atmosphere of support on campus. This simple message helps to combat homophobia by publically (sic) affirming our LGBT community and creating an inclusive environment where all students can feel safe to express who they are. The shirts will be distributed free of charge, though the LGBTRO welcomes donations to the project."
Note that Wisdom, while not demonstrating wisdom, does demonstrate honesty in two ways. First, she admits that affirmation, rather than tolerance, is the goal of her movement. Second, she characterizes refusal to affirm homosexuality as evidence of a "phobia," which needs to be combatted. Her position is simple: Pro gay is fine by me. Anything else is not fine by me. She continues her assault on reason:
"Everyone will be encouraged to wear the shirts on campus and to participate in a campus wide ally project where we will create a Human Rainbow during the annual Barefoot on the Mall celebration. Photos of this massive showing of LGBT support will be publicized on the LGBTRO’s website and social media accounts."
Wow. Everyone will be encouraged to wear a t shirt saying "Gay? Fine by me." Why? Because they know there is opposition on the campus and they need to combat it. In other words, they are going to promote inclusion on campus by "encouraging" people to promote a message with which they disagree. Then they will take a picture to preserve a record of those who conformed. These are the same people who oppose prayer in schools because they think kids will be stigmatized for refusing to bow their heads. She continues:
"The LGBTRO would also like to create an internal marketing campaign by taking pictures of ECU faculty, staff, administrators, student leaders and student groups wearing the shirts. This is where you come in. If you, your department or office, or the student group you advise would like to participate, you can reserve the correct number of shirts on the org sync order form below. Shirts will be distributed March 18th - 20th on Wright Plaza, at the LGBTRO ... times and location for the photo shoot will be e–mailed to everyone who reserves shirts or picks one up at Wright Plaza."
In other words, just in case the photo at the Human Rainbow event fails to identify all dissenters, Ms. Wisdom will arrange for departmental photo shoots. So, for example, if there are ten professors in a department and only nine in a picture, we all know who needs an extra nudge in keeping up with "diversity" and "progress." One could say of the photos that if you're not included, then you're not inclusive. She continues:
"The picture will be yours for your own marketing materials but will also be part of a campus wide poster campaign of Pirate Allies. We are also willing to bring a photographer to you if you are part of a large group or department and would like the photo to take place in your own building or during a pre-arranged meeting instead of walking everyone over to our photo shoot. Please communicate with my (sic) directly if you would like to set up something like this. This is a wonderful opportunity to be a part of something great while showcasing support for positive change on ECU’s campus."
Why not offer to put rainbow stickers on the doors - and rainbow buttons on the lapels - of all staff and faculty members who support the cause? That way, when their "Gay? Fine by me" t shirts are dirty, they can have something to transfer from garment to garment. For those who disagree, just give them yellow stars (or come over and sew them on their outer garments). She continues:
"If you or your department would like to participate, the link below will take you to an order form on OrgSync where you are provided multiple options: 1. Reserve the correct number of shirts and sizes for your group, 2. Reserve your shirts AND make a donation to the project, 3. Make a donation to the project without ordering shirts. (Donations to the project of $500.00 or more will add your office or department’s logo to the event publicity flyers as a sponsor)."
Well, that was a real shocker, wasn't it? After all that preaching, she had to ask the congregation for money. Finally, Wisdom signs off:
"Summer Wisdom, LGBT Resource Office, Sociology Instructor."
So Ms. Wisdom teaches sociology. Another shocker! No wonder she is so fixated on ideological conformity. The question is whether ECU department heads will use these photo ops as an opportunity to pressure people of faith into promoting beliefs that conflict with their deeply held religious convictions.
The answer is in my next column.
Chicago Public Schools is considering a new sex education program that would discuss sexual orientation and gender identity for the first time, chief health officer Stephanie Whyte said.
Republican leaders have capitulated, pro-family pundits have caved, and gay activists have announced that their struggle for equality is just about over. Is it time for biblical conservatives to throw in the towel?
What a ridiculous thought. Why in the world would we do that?
I’m fully aware that:
· Newt Gingrich recently announced his belief that same-sex unions are “inevitable” and that Republicans must accept this if they want to win future elections.
· Pro-marriage leader David Blankenhorn has recanted his opposition to same-sex “marriage,” saying “the time has come for me to accept gay marriage and emphasize the good that it can do.”
· Recent polling indicates that “the public has gradually become more accepting of same-sex marriage . . . . More Americans favor it in 2013 than oppose, according to the Pew Research Center.”
· The 2012 elections marked the first time that any states voted to legalize same-sex “marriage” and President Obama, in his inaugural speech, declared that it is the task of this generation to legalize gay “marriage.”
· Last week, in a 400-175 vote, British “MPs approved the second reading of a bill legalizing [same-sex] marriage, indicating a significant majority of members support the measure” as it moves through the process of legal approval.
· A poll last week claimed that Americans, by “a margin of 55 percent to 33 percent” believe that the Boy Scouts “should drop its policy against openly gay members.”
Yes, I’m fully aware that gay activists have declared that the “National Movement Opposing Same-Sex Marriage Is Done,” and that, to quote pioneer gay journalist Mark Segal, what’s happening today is not a “watershed” but “a tidal wave.”
Long-time gay activist Cleve Jones has even stated that, “The opposition is just melting away. We have reached the hearts and minds of the American people,” and there is no turning back the clock. Yes, Jones said, “I am kind of beside myself. I have to pinch myself sometimes. I never thought I would live long enough to see this. Never. Ever.”
Things have gotten to the point that, on January 31st, Hank Plante wrote on SFGate.com that, “I received a provocative e-mail from a prominent gay journalist this week. It had two words: ‘It’s over.’”
Is the battle for “gay rights” really over? Should conservatives who differ with these “rights” throw in the towel? After all, there’s no use wasting our time and energy and resources fighting against the inevitable. In fact, the longer we fight a losing battle, the more we make ourselves look irrelevant.
Why not consolidate our losses and live to fight another day? Surely there are other battles that deserve our attention. Why not throw in the towel when it comes to opposing the full acceptance of homosexual practice?
Here are four answers to these fair and weighty questions.
1) For many years now, the unspoken mantra of gay activists (going back to the famous “zaps” of the early 1970’s) has been, “We will intimidate and we will manipulate until you capitulate.” Today, when gay activists announce that we conservative believers are on the wrong side of history, it is just another form of intimidation. Surely they are not telling us these things so as to help us! So, in case it isn’t clear, let me say it plainly: We will not be intimidated.
2) We do what is right because it is right, not because it is pragmatic or popular. To quote the Oregon Christian baker Aaron Klein, “I’d rather stand up for what I believe in and what I feel is right and get totally annihilated when it comes in the end than to bow down to this and say ‘go ahead.’ Because that sets the standard for the next one, the next one, and the next one.” In the famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King, “Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ But conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.”
3) Polls and popularity trends do not determine what is morally right and wrong. One generation ago, sex out of wedlock was frowned upon. Today, it’s accepted as a normal part of life. Yet a recent US Census report indicates that “Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82 percent.” Popularity does not necessarily equate with morality, and only a fool makes moral choices based on the polls.
4) I’m not in the least bit surprised by the victories of the “gay revolution.” In fact, when I first became involved in this specific aspect of the “culture wars” less than 9 years ago, I saw back then that our side had already lost the battle and that gay activism had won the day. So, these recent developments don’t faze or surprise me in the least. From day one, my trust was in God, not people, and that’s where my trust remains. Attempts to redefine marriage and family and to normalize different sexual orientations may have their day, but that day will pass.
In the end, I can truly thank gay activists for helping us understand their world better – including the pain of bullying and the unique struggles they have endured – and for that, I am grateful. And I can admire their zeal and courage, even while differing with their goals.
But just as they didn’t throw in the towel when they were a tiny, vilified, minority, much less we will throw in the towel when their revolution seems to be winning the day. This too shall pass.
The president declared it. A pastor prayed it. And woe betide those who differ with this new reality announced at yesterday’s presidential inauguration: Gay is now an official social category as defined and tangible as black or white. Put another way, romantic attraction and sexual desire are now viewed as being as innate and immutable as skin color.
Make no mistake about it. Another significant step was taken yesterday at the inauguration, and what was once associated with the extremist views of radical gay activists is now as American as apple pie. As expressed in the closing prayer of Episcopal pastor Luis León, “We pray for your blessing, because without it we will see only what the eye can see. But with your blessing, we’ll see that we are made in your image, whether brown, black or white; male or female; first generation immigrant or Daughter of the American Revolution; gay or straight; rich or poor.”
Earlier in the festivities, and framing his speech in historic, Constitutional terms, President Obama said, “We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths -- that all of us are created equal -- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall . . . .”
Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall? By Seneca Falls, Obama was referring to a watershed moment in the women’s rights movement that took place in the mid-1800’s in Seneca Falls, New York. By Selma, he was referring to the pivotal Civil Rights marches and protests that took place in Selma, Alabama in the mid-1960’s. And by Stonewall he was referring to the Stonewall Riots that took place in New York City in 1969 when drag queens and their gay friends fought back against the police who raided their bar.
So, the president spoke of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall in the same breath, and in front of the whole nation at his inauguration, thereby equating women’s rights, black civil rights, and gay rights – which include bisexual, transgender, and other categories as well – also putting the women of Seneca Falls, the blacks of Selma, and the drag queens of Stonewall in the same category.
Do we realize just how significant this is? Do we grasp the implications?
The president also said: “It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law -- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”
To repeat my opening comments: woe betide those who differ with this new reality announced at yesterday’s presidential inauguration. The war is on against people of conscience and people of faith who do not affirm homosexual practice, no matter how loving and fair-minded they may be.
Third, they demanded that everyone recognize those “rights”;
Fourth, they want to strip away the rights of those who oppose them;
Fifth, they want to put those who oppose their “rights” into the closet.
I have often been ridiculed for laying out this progression, but it is unfolding in front of our eyes, with a massive shift taking place in just the last year. And with the president of the United States declaring at his second inaugural speech that homosexuality (and more) is equivalent to gender and skin color, a line has been drawn in the sand. And that line in the sand will soon become a line in the courts and law books to the point that anyone who does not affirm homosexual practice will be codified as a bigot or worse.
As I wrote in 2011, “the legitimizing of homosexuality as a perfectly normal alternative to heterosexuality also requires that all opposition to homosexual behavior must be delegitimized. At the very least, the gay agenda requires this (and let recognized gay leaders renounce this if it is not so):
“Whereas homosexuality was once considered a pathological disorder, from here on those who do not affirm homosexuality will be deemed homophobic, perhaps themselves suffering from a pathological disorder.
“Whereas gay sexual behavior was once considered morally wrong, from here on public condemnation – or even public criticism – of that behavior will be considered morally wrong.”
Yesterday marked a watershed moment in the gay rights movement, and it is time for people of conscience and faith to draw our own line in the sand: We will be loving and respectful to all people. We will oppose bullying and unfair treatment of all people. But we will not equate homosexuality with gender and skin color, and we will not celebrate that which we morally and spiritually oppose.
And so, Mr. President, we will not be intimidated, and to use your terms, in the spirit of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall, we will stand up for what we believe is right, regardless of cost or consequences.
If we agreed with you, sir, that there is no moral or social distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality and that homosexuality was innate and immutable, we too would champion this cause. But we do not agree, sir, and in the spirit of Martin Luther King and others whom you hail, we will not compromise our convictions, come what may.
Whenever I write about the issue of First Amendment Freedom of Association, I defend the right of campus groups, not government administrators, to control their own belief structure and membership requirements. This often involves discussing real life cases with real life tension between religious groups and homosexual activists. This results in a slew of emails asking why a homosexual student would ever want to join a fundamentalist religious group. The short answer to the question is that homosexual activists don't really want to join these organizations. Some want to use them for political gain before shutting them down altogether.
The homosexual rights movement is not a political movement seeking equality. It is a religious movement seeking affirmation. Conservative Christian organizations refuse to offer affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle. In fact, they actually condemn it. So they become targets of homosexual activism.
Paradoxically, homosexual activists also target conservative Christians because being rejected by them is an important part of the process of attaining affirmation from the general public. When a homosexual activist tries to "join" such a group, it is often done with the following goals in mind:
Using discrimination claims to strengthen the genetic argument (and using the genetic argument to strengthen discrimination claims). It is fairly obvious why homosexuals want to assert that homosexuality is genetic. If they are programmed to behave in a certain way then homosexuality becomes less of a behavior and more of a status. This helps advance efforts to include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws, which are meant to give homosexuals equal power in relation to legitimate civil rights causes based upon immutable physical characteristics.
The only problem with the genetic argument is that it lacks supporting evidence. There is no more evidence for a gay gene than there is for Santa Claus or for legitimate feminist scholarship. The best the activist can do is to argue circumstantially that no one would choose a lifestyle that guarantees being subjected to discrimination. The argument is as silly as saying there must be an interracial dating gene because no one would choose to be subjected to discrimination for dating someone of another race.
But homosexual politics is not about logic. It is about end results. Activists need to be subjected to "discrimination" in order to advance their cause. So they join conservative Christian groups they do not like, engage in advocacy they know offends and disrupts the group, get kicked out of the group, and then claim to have been discriminated against. Finally, they lobby for stronger anti-discrimination rules that put them on a par with blacks and women.
Defaming the opposition. Homosexuals have a lot of options on campus. They can join a Unitarian Universalist group, they can join a United Methodist group, or they can start their own religious group that affirms homosexual conduct. But the very thought that someone on their campus disagrees with their lifestyle makes them angry. They simply cannot "coexist" (no matter what their bumper stickers say). This anger is probably due to awareness that they are engaging in a lifestyle that is both unnatural and immoral. So, if you can't beat the Christians, just join them (and eventually destroy them). It’s always destroying, not joining, that motivates them.
After they join the group they don't want to be in - and deny the stated principles of the group they never agreed with - the unable-to-coexist homosexual activist goes to the administration with a complaint. When the Christian group is expelled from campus under the anti-discrimination clause people ask "Why did the Christian group have to expel the homosexual?" Stated another way, the question becomes "Why can't Christians coexist with homosexuals?"
In the end, the homosexual activist has made the group whose very existence he refuses to tolerate look intolerant. Another public relations victory!
Containing moral criticism. Of course, once the conservative Christian group is gone a clear message is sent to those who would dare to criticize the homosexual lifestyle. This exerts a powerful chilling effect on constitutionally protected religious expression.
But that isn't the end of things. The homosexual rights movement continues to redefine homophobia in order to reduce any semblance of criticism directed toward the homosexual agenda. Isn't this similar to what we have seen in the struggle for racial equality in America?
At first, the civil rights movement was about stopping lynching and racial segregation. After redefining racism (to include any disagreement with black leaders whatsoever) the movement has become little more than a mechanism used to suppress political speech. Racism went from being a social problem to being a political weapon. Redefining homophobia now serves the same function for the homosexual activist that redefining racism served for the civil rights activist.
But there is one crucial difference between the black civil rights movement and the homosexual rights movement. The former began by addressing real oppression before eventually (and incessantly) crying “wolf” as a means of punishing political speech. The latter began as an attack on free speech that becomes more pronounced with each and every concession.
The supreme irony of all this is that the NAACP is the organization that first won legal recognition of the right to freedom of association in 1958. They prevailed in a successful effort to keep the KKK from joining and destroying their organization. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the NAACP saying they could keep their membership lists secret and even keep out those who disagree with their beliefs.
Today, in an effort to attain moral equivalency with the NAACP, the homosexual rights movement is adopting one of the old tactics of the KKK. Politics makes strange bedfellows – particularly when it demands affirmation of what goes on in the bedroom.
A well-liked, Christian man in England had his salary reduced by 40% after posting a comment on his Facebook page in which he stated that the government should not force churches to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies. And a Christian couple running a bed and breakfast in their family home in England was fined almost $6,000 for hurting the feelings of a gay couple by refusing to rent a room to them. The headline to Amanda Platell’s report on the first of these two cases said it all: “The real hate crime is persecuting a decent man for his beliefs.”
According to Platell, “Adrian Smith is a kind and gentle man. Friends say the happily married father is a pillar of the community, a practising Christian and a tireless worker for charity. Yet this week Mr Smith was in court, defending accusations that he is a bigot whose personal views are so offensive and outrageous that they are incompatible with his work as a housing officer. His crime? To have put a posting on his personal Facebook page which said he thought civil partnerships ceremonies in church were ‘an equality too far’.”
Smith’s comment, posted on his personal Facebook page, explained, “‘If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex, then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith or conscience.’”
Who could object to such a moderate, fair-minded comment? One of Smith’s co-workers did object, alleging that his post demonstrated that he was “blatantly homophobic” (!). As a result, “His salary was reduced by 40 per cent by the Trafford Housing Trust, which claimed he was guilty of ‘gross misconduct’ because people might mistake his views as trust policy.” Yes, this actually happened days ago in jolly old England.
Platell, who is no rightwing conservative, exclaimed, “What utter nonsense. And what a terrifying insight into the dystopian world we now live in — a world where a man can be penalised for a thought crime, even when that thought is shared by a huge proportion of the population.” And even when the thought is eminently reasonable.
Then there is the case of a devout Christian couple, Susanne and Mike Wilkinson, owners of a bed and breakfast, who refused to rent a room to a gay couple in 2010, just as they had previously refused to rent a room to an unmarried heterosexual couple. They were taken to court by the gay couple and, just last week, found guilty of hurting the feelings of the gay couple, resulting in a fine of nearly $6,000.
After the verdict, Susanne Wilkinson said, “We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law.” She noted that, “Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home. People’s beliefs about marriage are coming under increasing attack and I am concerned about people’s freedom to speak and act upon these beliefs.”
“I am a Christian,” she said, “not just on a Sunday in church, but in every area of my life - as Jesus expects from his followers. That’s all I was trying to do and I think it’s quite wrong to punish me for that especially after enduring over two years of vile abuse and threats.”
“We find this a strange justice,” she commented, “in a society that aspires to be increasingly tolerant.”
The Wilkinson’s actually received hundreds of threatening emails (sometimes hundreds in an hour), with one message arriving “hand-delivered and handwritten in capitals,” saying, “I am coming to burn your house down.” So much for tolerance.
Back here in the States, Dr. Angela McCaskill, a deaf black woman serving as the Chief Diversity Officer of Gallaudet University in Washington, DC, was placed on administrative leave after signing a petition calling for a vote on same-sex “marriage” in Maryland. (See my article, “The Diversity Police Strike Again.” Note that it was two lesbian professors who reported McCaskgill to the school administration.) But instead of backing down, Dr. McCaskill held a press conference in which she said: “I’m dismayed that Gallaudet University is still a university of intolerance, a university that manages by intimidation, a university that allows bullying among faculty, staff and students.” Well said, Dr. McCaskill!
Barely 25 years ago, two gay strategists stated that it was essential to “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.” They explained that, “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector.”
To be sure, there have been more than enough gay men and women who have been victims of hatred and violence, and they deserve society’s protection as much as any other citizens. But today, more and more gays are becoming the victimizers while it is civil-minded, decent straights who are becoming the victims.
The gay bullies are being exposed, and their very own strategy is working against them. It’s time for society to stand up for the victims of gay bullying.
There was a lot of talk about the Islamic prayer meeting last Friday in Charlotte. It was sanctioned by the DNC and was expected to draw 20,000. It drew perhaps 200. There was a lot of talk about the Occupy protests that were expected to add a disruptive presence to the city, but less than 1,000 protesters showed up, despite months of hype and build up. There was, however, a rally that drew multiplied thousands of attendees on Sunday and was officially shunned by the DNC. Oh, you didn’t hear about it?
I’m speaking about the Charlotte 714 rally (based on the biblical text found in 2 Chronicles 7:14) where Christians from more than 100 different churches in the region attended a 7-hour, non-political rally at the Verizon Wireless Amphitheater. (According to the figures released by the amphitheater, there were 9,000 total attendees over the course of the day.)
A few weeks before the DNC, the churches involved in the event made an effort to “adopt a delegation,” offering to send welcome baskets with information about their churches and the city. But the “Democrats denied the evangelical group permission because of its pro-life stance.”
According to David Benham, the organizer of Charlotte 714, “The mayor’s office texted me and said, ‘We regret to inform but we ask that you not send those letters, and not engage in ‘Adopt a Delegation,’ because your views on women are contrary to the convention.’”
It appears, then, that to deeply honor women as wives and moms and singles who make an immense contribution to the well-being of our society and to highly esteem babies in the womb (including female babies) is to hold to a view of women that is “contrary to the convention.”
It’s also quite ironic (or should I say hypocritical?) that, while rejecting these pro-life Christians, the DNC endorsed the Muslim prayer meeting. Were these Muslims who gathered to pray pro-abortion? Did they embrace feminism? Did they support same-sex “marriage”?
But it’s not just Charlotte 714 that was shunned by the DNC. According to Rev. William Owens, president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, “By taking this grave and unnecessary step of endorsing gay marriage in the party platform, President Obama and the Democratic party are once again putting black Christians at the back of the bus.” He continued, “Every other constituent of President Obama, every other key part of the party base—gays, latinos, women—gets a hearing except black voters whose voices and values are ignored. This is more than a shame, it’s an outrage. We are here to warn the Democrats: do not leave out black Christians, do not take our votes for granted.”
And could it be that the DNC is also taking the Jewish vote for granted? The 2008 platform stated explicitly that “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.” That entire statement has been removed from the 2012 platform, among other important changes.
But there’s more: God himself has been removed from the platform. The 2008 platform stated that, “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.” It now states that “each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”
Thankfully, God was front and center at the Charlotte 714 event, an event that was significant because it was, far and away, the largest gathering in Charlotte outside of the DNC itself; it gathered together a diverse group of pastors, leaders, and congregations; and it was totally non-political in tone. In fact, the only really “political” moment of the day came when a black minister urged his fellow African-Americans not to vote for President Obama because of his radically pro-abortion stance. Yet there was not the slightest call to vote for Mitt Romney, whose name may not have been mentioned once.
Instead, the focus was on our sins and failings as the Church in our nation, recognizing that America’s greatest problem is not so much the presence of darkness as it is the absence of light. As I said in the closing message of the night, “The only reason that abortion of demand still exists in Charlotte and there is not a greater hope for the mothers and their babies is because of the apathy of the Church. And no-fault divorce among heterosexual Christians has done more to destroy marriage than all the gay activists combined.”
Thankfully, the response was heartening, as thousands pledged themselves afresh to be “the salt of the earth and the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-16), wanting to make Charlotte 714 into a movement more than an event. It’s a shame that you probably didn’t hear about it until now.
In recent days, the extreme intolerance, bigotry, and exclusivity of some gay activists and their straight allies has been on prominent display in their attacks against Chick-fil-A. What makes this all the more ironic, not to mention Orwellian, is that their campaign is being carried out in the name of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity. As expressed by jurist Marvin Frankel (in his book Faith and Freedom: Religious Liberty in America), “The powerless call out for tolerance. Achieving power, they may soon forget.”
Today, words like “diversity” and “inclusion,” which have been on the lips of gay activists for years, have taken on an ominous tone that would make Orwell proud.
Since March, students at New York University have been circulating a petition calling for Chick-fil-A to be removed from their campus for “human rights violations” (I kid you not). In classic doublespeak, the petition states that the fast food company doesn’t belong there because “NYU prides itself on being a diverse, open and inclusive campus community. . . . Unfortunately, maintaining a contract with an anti-gay vendor like Chick-fil-A undermines what makes this university so great.” So, Chick-fil-A should be banned because NYU “prides itself on being a diverse, open and inclusive campus community.”
In the same vein, Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, stated, “As the country moves toward inclusion, Chick-fil-A has staked out a decidedly stuck-in-the-past mentality.” He further stated, apparently with a straight face, that “fair-minded consumers” can now “make up their own minds whether they want to support an openly discriminatory company.” It appears, then, that Griffin’s version of an “inclusive” America means that it’s either the gay way or the highway.
But it gets worse. In the now infamous words of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.”
It appears, however, that you can have a mayor in the city of Boston who discriminates against a population (namely, the scores of millions of Americans who do not want to redefine marriage) and against a business (namely Chick-fil-A, an exemplary company that has broken no laws, including laws of discrimination).
Mayor Menino continued (and with Orwellian eloquence at that), “We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” a stunning example of unintended irony if ever there was one.
In a similar example of unconscious doublespeak, New York City council speaker Christine Quinn, herself in a same-sex “marriage,” explained why she too wanted Chick-fil-A kicked off the NYU campus: “We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anything and anyone that runs counter to that.”
That’s right, Chick-fil-A. We are so diverse that we will run you out of our city. And we are so open and inclusive that we have no room for a business like yours.
Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno also attributed his attack on Chick-fil-A to “diversity,” explaining to ABCNews.com that his district is “a very diverse ward--economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation” – but not so diverse that it can welcome a Christian-based company. (The comments of the magnanimous mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, require little commentary: “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.” Perhaps he should have added, “No disrespect intended to my fellow neighbors and residents who oppose same-sex ‘marriage,’ and certainly, no disrespect intended to Minister Farrakhan, whose business is always welcome in our city.”)
Not to be left out in this remarkable display of tolerance, equality, and diversity, the Philadelphia City Council was considering “a resolution condemning Chick-fil-A for what one city leader called ‘anti-American’ attitudes that promote ‘hatred, bigotry and discrimination.’ City Councilman Jim Kenney sent a letter to Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy telling him to ‘take a hike and take your intolerance with you.’” (I am not making this up.)
Does Councilman Kenney not realize that he should be directing his statement to the face looking at him in the mirror? (To repeat: “take a hike and take your intolerance with you.”) Does the Philadelphia City Council not recognize that 31 states have so far voted to uphold marriage as the union of one man and woman? Are all these states, most recently North Carolina, with an overwhelming vote of 61-39%, “anti-American”? And isn’t it the Philadelphia City Council resolution that is actually an example of “hatred, bigotry and discrimination”? Yes, Chick-fil-A, we will discriminate against you because we oppose discrimination.
Already in 1994, Camille Paglia wrote in her book Vamps and Tramps, “One reason I so dislike recent gay activism is that my self-identification as a lesbian preceded Stonewall: I was the only openly gay person at the Yale Graduate School (1968-72), a candor that was professionally costly. That anyone with my aggressive and scandalous history could be called ‘homophobic,’ as has repeatedly been done, shows just how insanely Stalinist gay activism has become.” And Orwellian too.
So be on guard: The intolerance brigade is coming for you.
The current hate campaign being waged by homosexual activists against fast food chain Chick-fil-A, because of the firm’s Christian values, may well turn out to be a bridge too far. The effort may prove to be a setback for homosexual activism.
The vile attacks on the firm and its owners, the Cathy family, should make clear, finally, that the “gay rights” movement is not about refining and advancing American freedom, but about rewriting American values and advancing, not freedom, but the homosexual political agenda.
Recently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at a flag raising ceremony in Alexandria, Egypt, noting the re-opening of the American consulate there. Given the current political climate in Egypt, the Secretary of State felt behooved in her remarks to highlight principles of freedom as understood by Americans.
“….to us, real democracy means that every citizen has the right to live, work, and worship as they choose, whether they are man or woman, Muslim or Christian, or from any other background.”
Perhaps Secretary Clinton should be lecturing Americans instead of Egyptians.
Can it really be that in America today a businessman can be labeled a bigot, boycotted, and cut off by suppliers because of the crime of being a Christian?
When Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy made his now famous incendiary admission that “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit,” he was not pontificating. He was responding to a question in an interview done in a paper I expect not read by many homosexuals – the Baptist Press.
Never mind. It was sufficient provocation that Cathy publicly admitted that the Bible defines his understanding of marriage – the unique bond of man and woman – which also happens to be the standard definition in dictionaries on the shelves of every American home and library.
“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values,” said Chicago Mayor, and former chief of staff to President Barack Obama, Rahm Emmanuel. Emmanuel defended Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno’s threat to deny Chick-fil-A permitting in Chicago because its owner supports traditional marriage and family.
But UCLA law professor and constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out in his blog that “denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation.”
The Constitution? The First Amendment? Religious liberty? Do these apply to Christians?
Volokh goes on to point out that a permit might be denied, “…if Chick-fil-A actually discriminated in their serving or hiring decisions in Chicago in a way forbidden by Chicago or Illinois law….But the stories give no evidence of such actions…”
The fact that there is no evidence that Chick-fil-A discriminates in its business practices did not deter Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank from writing that Dan Cathy’s support of traditional marriage “…implied that gay people (not to mention divorced people) had no business eating at Chick-fil-A.”
One court decision after another over the last fifty years has, step by step, purged any hint of religion and traditional values from our schools and public spaces.
Has it made this a fairer, better, freer nation? If you think breakdown of family, forty percent out-of-wedlock births, a million abortions a year, $16 trillion in national debt, and government dependence is better and freer, yes.
Of course society must embrace civility, respect and tolerance. But this doesn’t mean that the sexual proclivities of some should provide license to rewrite our language and the traditions that define our faith and virtue.
Hopefully many will respond to Mike Huckabee’s appeal to patronize Chick-fil-A on August 1 as a display of support for traditional Christian values and as a reminder that our Constitution protects religious freedom.
Have we really gotten to the point where being a Christian is considered un-American?
According to published reports, when Larry Brinkin was arrested two weeks ago, the police found “images of year-old infants subjected to sodomy and oral sex, and perverse racial comments (Brinkin’s email: ‘I loved especially the 2 year old n----- getting nailed. Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond b---- is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White D--- Rules!’).” Yet the media has barely reported this terribly disturbing incident.
But, you ask, who was Larry Brinkin? He was “a central figure in the gay rights movement,” a man who was so influential that, “The San Francisco board of supervisors actually gave a ‘Larry Brinkin Week’ in February 2010 upon his retirement.” It was Brinkin who first used the term “domestic partnerships” in a legal dispute, marking a watershed moment in gay activist history, yet news of his alleged crimes against infants and children, not to mention his alleged White Supremacist leanings, has received very little media attention.
Is there a double standard here? Imagine what the media would be doing if Brinkin had been a conservative Christian leader.
When evangelical leader Ted Haggard fell, the media was quick to pounce, suggesting that this exposed the corrupt nature of evangelical Christianity as a whole. And media leaders have done this repeatedly whenever there has been a scandal connected to an evangelical (or Catholic) leader, and the news is blared from the headlines. But where, I ask you, is the outrage or the front page news when a gay leader commits atrocities such as those allegedly committed by Larry Brinkin? And why isn’t the media claiming that Brinkin’s transgressions expose the corrupt nature of gay activism as a whole?
The failure of a Christian leader is considered endemic and representative; the failure of a gay leader is considered an aberrant exception. Why the unequal treatment?
Personally, I do believe that ministry leaders should be held to high standards, and if we fall short in a serious, public way, we deserve the disappointment (and even scorn) that comes with it. After all, we are supposed to be moral and spiritual examples, even serving as faithful representatives of Jesus, and we have no business preaching morality while living in immorality. And while I absolutely believe in God’s mercy and the possibility of restoration (we all need His mercy), I do agree that the stakes are high and that there will often be heavy fallout when a prominent Christian leader sins in a serious and public way.
My question, though, has to do with Larry Brinkin, who allegedly enjoyed watching infants as they were being sexually abused (yes, infants!). Where is the national indignation? Why isn’t the name of Larry Brinkin on the lips of every news commentator in the nation? And why, two weeks after his arrest, does a Google search for his name yield just 111,000 hits? More importantly, why hasn’t his arrest caused the public to stand up and say, “We must do something to stop the vicious exploitation of little children!”?
The answer is that Brinkin’s arrest has received relatively little media attention because he was a gay activist leader, not a conservative Christian leader, and there is no hiding the mainstream media’s pro-gay, anti-conservative Christian bias. And because Brinkin’s arrest has not been widely reported, the general public has not been confronted afresh with the horrors of child pornography.
(On another note, there was a shocking case in England a few years ago where social workers had evidence that a gay activist couple was sexually abusing the boys in their foster care, but the social workers were afraid to report the couple lest they be accused of homophobia. Not surprisingly, the case received limited coverage in the UK and almost no coverage here in the States. What if this had been a conservative Christian foster care couple?)
To be sure, Ted Haggard was a better known figure than Larry Brinkin, but there have been other Christian leaders of much less notoriety than Haggard (like an otherwise unknown Catholic priest), and that didn’t stop the media from making their failings into a national scandal. Brinkin, for his part, was no smalltime player, with the San Francisco Examiner describing him as an “iconic San Francisco gay activist who brought the nation’s first domestic partnership lawsuit in 1982.” And he was, after all, a respected, long-term leader within the Human Rights Campaign, the world’s largest gay activist organization. Why hasn’t the HRC been tarred and feathered the way evangelicals (or Catholics) are after one of their leaders falls? Why the inconsistency?
To this day, the name of Ted Haggard, is used to mock evangelical leaders (in the form of emails and comments we frequently receive, telling us that we will be the next Ted Haggard) while the name of Larry Brinkin is being forgotten as quickly as possible. Why the double standard?
Well, it looks like the libertarians are mad at me again. Several of my libertarian readers have written to complain that my recent columns have been switching back and forth between making fun of homosexual rights activists and abortion rights activists. That must really make them angry because so many libertarians are homosexuals who need to have abortions. At any rate, I think I have identified the source of the problem and a possible solution.
What my libertarian readers fail to understand is that I simply write about the insanity that surrounds me here at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. At UNCW, the two most prominent non-academic offices are:
the Women’s Resource Center, or WRC - which focuses on destroying the family by aborting children, and
The LGBTQIA Office – which focuses on destroying the family by undermining marriage. Both centers want to destroy the family so it can be replaced by the government. People who are smart enough to understand that are called conservatives. People who miss the point are called libertarians.
Along those lines, some of my readers may remember a column I wrote suggesting that the WRC and LGBTQIA Office be merged in order to save money. After the column was published, the unthinkable happened. The university took my proposal seriously! They merged the two offices and put UNCW lesbian czar Amy Schlag in the WRC located in Randall Library.
Of course, that made everyone happy except for the lesbians running the LGBTQIA Office. Apparently, they considered the idea of a UNCW LGBTQIAWR-Center to be simply unworkable. They were coming dangerously close to using up the whole alphabet! So they did what lesbian activists do when denied government funding: they made so much noise that they drowned out the activities of all the NORMAL people who do legitimate academic work.
First, the former director of the UNCW LGBTQIA Office started organizing pro-abortion events in her new capacity as an administrator within the WRC. At one event, organized and promoted by Schlag, they actually sold “I Had an Abortion” t-shirts to women who had murdered their children in the name of “choice.” This caused a huge protest, which was organized by an un-named right-wing professor who collects guns and smokes illegal Cuban cigars.
The protest included pro-life students wearing shirts that said “I Dismembered My Cat” and “I Did Not Kill My Baby.” Of course, that offended the PETA people who care more about cats than human beings. In fact, there was such uproar that the WRC had to cancel its next pro-abortion event. The incident made international news when it was picked up by the pro-life press in Great Britain.
In the wake of all the uproar, the UNCW Gaystapo went to the media to complain about the shutting down of the LGBTQIA Office. And, of course, the university capitulated by reopening the office in a more prominent location in the student union building. The capitulation predictably angered conservatives who are opposed to all of these non-academic offices that promote liberal politics at taxpayer expense. Did you hear that libertarians? Do you understand the connection between social and economic issues?
So what are we conservatives to do in the midst of a difficult and, quite literally, taxing situation? If we shut down the LGBTQIA Office, the LGBTQIA people will continue to scream like petulant children. In the process, they will disrupt the legitimate activities of all the NORMAL people on campus. But if we keep the LGBTQIA Office, then the NORMAL people will all have a claim to offices representing their opposition to the LGBTQIA political agenda.
Naturally, I have a solution to all of this drama. It’s called the SMLXL Center. It may sound strange, but I think it gets to the heart of why people discriminate against LGBTQIA people – and it does so without entering the messy realm of sexual politics.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that gay dudes are, on average, skinnier than straight dudes. That is why it is easier to bully them in the school yard. If gay dudes were as large as straight dudes, it would be much more difficult to push them around.
Nor does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that lesbians are, on average, bigger than straight chicks. That is why they are so often excluded from the dating pool. Guys simply prefer smaller women over the larger women you see congregating at Indigo Girls concerts. I guess you could say that lesbianism really isn’t a choice. It’s all determined by their jeans!
Since what has previously been characterized as “homophobia” is really body-weight discrimination, all we really need is a campus SMLXL Center. No person should be judged on the basis of whether he or she (or it) wears a small, medium, large, or extra-large t-shirt. Those who would discriminate based on body-type should be prosecuted under the full weight of the justice system. Even gay men who look like lesbians deserve equal protection under the law. Elton John deserves the same treatment as Rosie O’Donnell – even if he isn’t a tiny dancer!
Our LGBTQIA Office needs to be replaced with a new SMLXL Center today. It might not trim any fat off of our bloated state budget. But at least we can spare a general public that is tired of hearing about gay marriage and sodomy. And, who knows, maybe a greater appreciation of weight gain will end the feminist war against pregnancy. It makes little sense to kill small people just to keep others from getting large.
I really think our new body-size diversity center will be a lesson to one and to all. A person is a person, whether extra-large, large, medium, or small.
Under President Obama, “justice” is anything but blind. Neither is it deaf. In fact, based on recent revelations, it appears to be watching your every move and listening to your every word. Still, if you happen to be a federal employee, now it’s even listening for your silence.
The only thing this Obama White House seems to generate is scandal. Well, here’s yet another to add to the growing list. In addition to the Benghazi cover-up, IRS targeting of political dissenters and the illegal seizure of media phone records, whistleblowers within DOJ have contacted Liberty Counsel to express grave concerns over this administration’s latest attack on freedom.
Who gets to decide what’s an “inappropriate joke [or] comment”? I thought we had a Constitution for that. It sure ain’t Big Brother Barack. Sure, I get it, it’s probably better not to start your work day with: “A lesbian, a tranny and two gays walk into a bath house …” but still, “no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” means no law. No matter how much Obama wishes it so, we don’t leave our constitutional rights at the federal workplace door.
