Matt Barber - DOJ on ‘Gays’: ‘Silence Will be Interpreted as Disapproval’

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.

I’m just glad the wheels are finally coming off.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - Brown Shirts at ECU

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.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - UNCW Invests in “Stimulating” Technology

The worst part about censorship is that there are college professors who are too stupid to know what it actually means, or worse, that sometimes pretend to be too stupid to know what it actually means. Censorship occurs when the government stops objectionable speech from being disseminated. It does not occur when the government refuses to actually subsidize speech that may be deemed objectionable. But sometimes professors and low-level college administrators pretend that refusal to fund government speech is censorship. They usually do this when the speech is so bad that no one else would ever subsidize it. So they adopt a false definition of censorship and pretend to believe it in an effort to attack those who would understandably oppose government support of bad speech.

A case in point is the UNCW LGBTQIA Office. They recently sponsored a showing of the film “The Passion and the Power: The Technology of the Orgasm.” You can see the trailer below. It is obviously a very serious intellectual undertaking. I’m just kidding. It is actually a profoundly idiotic documentary focusing on the history of the vibrator.

The showing of a film at UNCW documenting the history of the orgasm was not nearly as bad as it gets on a college campus. In 2005, a feminist group at UNC-Chapel Hill sponsored an orgasm awareness week and built a vibrator museum in the middle of the quad. The museum was filled with vibrators, including a wooden one from the 1920s. It may have been protected free speech. But it wasn’t exactly the peak of the intellectual season.

In reality, there is actually something less objectionable about the UNC-Chapel Hill museum in comparison with the UNCW LGBTQIA film. The former activity was financed with mandatory student activity fees, which must be distributed in a viewpoint neutral fashion. The latter was a sponsored activity on behalf of a government office that should not even exist, especially in a time of deep state budget deficit.

I understand that universities must invest in technology if they want to prepare future generations to lead a nation in a complex and competitive global market. But the kind of technology we need to invest in is scientific technology. We don’t need to invest in orgasm technology. If an administrator wants to show films about vibrators to students (which are then followed by discussions with the students about the topic of their orgasms) she needs psychotherapy. She does not need her own LGBTQIA Office.

(Note: The official UNCW LGBTQIA Office flier reads “We will be showing the film, ‘The Passion and the Power: The Technology of the Orgasm,’ followed by a group discussion on the topic.” I’m not making this up).

Taxpayers have to pay for the physical space that is the UNCW LGBTQIA Office. And we are desperately short of physical space here at UNCW. We even have special committees designed to address the issue of our lack of physical space. Yet no one seems to question the decision to pay lesbian administrators to show orgasm films and lead discussions with students about their orgasms on university property in the confines of their own government funded office. No one except me apparently.

This all demonstrates a gross failure on behalf of Chancellor Gary Miller. His administration shut down the LGBTQIA Office and merged it with the Women’s Center last year after I wrote a column proposing the merger. Then, the gay activists flipped out like a bunch of terrorists at a U.S. Embassy. So Miller’s administration wimped out and re-opened the LGBTQIA Office.

Now that they have re-opened, the LGBTQIA Office has started circulating fliers that not only promote their events but also decry censorship. Their latest says “The worst thing about censorship is ___.”

I think it is time to fill in the blank by writing Chancellor Gary Miller at chancellor@uncw.edu. Tell him the following: “The worst thing about censorship is when it is used as a weapon against the over-burdened taxpayers.” Put simply, it is the climax of intellectual dishonesty.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Star Parker - Obama's Real Hilary Rosen Problem

Spokespersons and pundits stick their foot in it all the time. But rarely do we see public relations heavy artillery brought out to do damage control to the extent provoked by Hilary Rosen’s recent remark that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life.”

President Obama himself responded to this – “…it was the wrong thing to say.” First Lady Michelle Obama tweeted repudiating Rosen – “Every mother works hard and every woman deserves to be respected.”

Clearly, Rosen’s short verbal assault on Ann Romney was something the Obama campaign apparatus saw as a very serious problem. But why?

It seems ridiculous to think that women, married and at home or otherwise, would change their vote based on this relatively trivial observation.

Veteran Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg called this “…a nothing story” and predicted that it would have no effect on how women vote in this election.

But no one can accuse the Obama political machine of being dumb. Quite the opposite. So, again, how to explain the high level PR damage control barrage to clean up the perceived mess made by Rosen?

Here’s the real problem that I believe they saw.

The issue was not so much what Hilary Rosen said, but who said it. More than Rosen’s words, her persona itself is an assault on working class, traditional thinking Americans of both sexes.

Rosen, who works closely with the White House, is a high dollar lesbian “inside-the-beltway” Washington power broker. She and her now estranged partner, the former director the Human Rights Campaign – an organization championing rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders – adopted two black children in 1999.

Her current lesbian partner is president of the American Federation of Teachers – the nation’s second largest teachers’ union.

At a time when it is critical for Obama to gain support and confidence of the same middle of the road white working class Americans who swung over to him in 2008, the last thing he needs is to have Hilary Rosen become a poster child for his party.

She has earned millions in the very influence peddling and power brokering business that Obama campaigned that he would purge from Washington. Her lifestyle embodies and boldly conveys the view that traditional American values and the traditional American family should no longer be considered “the way” but one of many possible legitimate lifestyle choices.

President Obama was elected in 2008 by voters unhappy with the Republican Party and unhappy with the status quo in Washington. He sold himself as a new kind of politician – a fresh, new beginning.

Recall his lofty words: “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America.”

Obama had no record then, so his charm and rhetorical skills closed the deal for him with voters.

But now he has a record and it is not pretty. And that same record points clearly to the fact that this is a man of the hard left, who heads a party of the left.

But his big problem is that he needs to be re-elected in a country that is right of center. The most recent Gallup polling on this shows that 40 percent of Americans self identify as conservative, 35 percent as moderate, and 21 percent as liberal.

It has never been clearer that there is indeed a liberal America and a conservative America, and that today’s big question is which will define what will be the United States of America.

The president and his party have a huge political challenge to continue the shell game with voters and obscure the fact that they stand for liberal, left wing America and that Hilary Rosen does indeed typify their party.

It’s why Rosen’s remarks and sudden high profile provoked political panic in the White House.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - My New Diversity Merger Proposal

Diversity never held anyone together because people usually bond over their commonalities, not their differences. At one little state-run university, diversity is starting to cause a great campus divide. It all started when the university decided to merge the Physics and Physical Oceanography Department with the Geography and Geology Department. The move will undoubtedly hurt the prestige of the university. But that isn’t the only thing that has people angry. They are also mad because the merger occurred on the heels of an expansion of diversity initiatives and right during the middle of an expansion of the campus recreation center.

This is a touchy topic for me to write about in the midst of a budget crisis. But everyone knows I’m a uniter, not a divider. So, I’ll try to offer some positive solutions free of sarcasm and ridicule. I hate sarcasm and ridicule. I really mean that.

Currently, UNC-Wally World (pseudonym, hereafter: UNCW), has the following offices, which are overseen by the Associate Provost of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion:

1. The Upperman African American Cultural Center;
2. El Centro Hispano;
3. The Women’s Studies and Resource Center;
4. The Multicultural Affairs Office; and
5. The LGBTQIA Office.

My simple plan to save the tax payers money, without ruining the academic reputation of the university, begins with four simple steps:

1. I would merge the Upperman Center with El Centro Hispano and call it El Centro for Racial Unity. There is no need for blacks and Hispanics to be segregated.
2. I would rename the LGBTQIA Office the LGBTQIAX Office. The “X” would stand for ex-gays – a group currently excluded from the list of gender and sexuality minorities.
3. I would merge the LGBTQIAX Office with the Women’s Studies and Resource Center. It would then be called the Gender and Sexuality Studies and Resource Center.
4. I would then merge the three existing centers a) El Centro for Racial Unity b) the Gender and Sexuality Studies and Resource Center and c) the Multicultural Affairs Office. The new office would simply be called The Diversity Office, or El Diversity Office, whichever sounds more welcoming.

Since one office is more manageable than five, we could fire Jose Hernandez, our current Diversity czar, and save his salary. We could replace him with the most competent leader among the departments just eliminated. There would be no need for a high-level administrator to oversee my leaner, but not meaner, El Diversity Office. We could get rid of the six-digit salary Hernandez pulls in – not to mention those of the other four directors we would let go. That would amount to several hundred thousand dollars in savings to the taxpayer. That is more than the paltry $80,000 UNCW plans to save with the controversial Physics, Oceanography, Geography, Geology merger.

Having eliminated four departments, we may now cancel the planned academic merger and expand by making the two existing departments (Physics and Physical Oceanography Department, Geography and Geology Department) into these four departments:

1. Physics Department;
2. Physical Oceanography Department;
3. Geography Department; and
4. Geology Department.

Creating two departments and eliminating four is a net savings for taxpayers. Best of all, it would actually enhance our academic prestige by creating new academic departments where people study real problems instead of “celebrating” imaginary differences.

During the current budget crisis, we have shut the library down for four hours per night in order to save money on lighting and to cut employee payroll. I would end that practice and make the savings up by shutting down El Diversity Office for four hours a day. Some may not like it but that is El Tough Lucko. Our state is in a budget crisis and we need money so we can feed and educate our illegal aliens.

Of course, the remaining issue is where to put the two academic departments formed under my new proposal. I say we make the student recreation center the new home for both. After all, this is a university, not an amusement park.

Mike Adams

---

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---