Originally posted on Conservative Critic's Blog:
Is this an act of isolated bigotry?
No. Burning of the New Testament is a religious duty according to Judaism’s highest religious authority, the Babylonian Talmud. It says
Originally posted on Conservative Critic's Blog:
Is this an act of isolated bigotry?
No. Burning of the New Testament is a religious duty according to Judaism’s highest religious authority, the Babylonian Talmud. It says
Hillary Clinton compares Putin actions to Hitler’s
From Associated Press
March 05, 2014 1:04 PM EST
LONG BEACH, Calif. (AP) — Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton likened Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions on the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine to those of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.
Clinton made the comments Tuesday during a fundraising luncheon for local Boys and Girls Clubs, the Press-Telegram of Long Beach reported (http://bit.ly/1e0C6Ji ).
Putin contends ethnic Russians in Ukraine need to be protected. Clinton said that’s what Hitler did when he maintained ethnic Germans outside Germany in places such as Czechoslovakia and Romania were not being treated right and needed to be protected.
“Now if this sounds familiar, it’s what Hitler did back in the 30s,” Clinton said, according to the newspaper. “All the Germans that were … the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying, ‘They’re not being treated right. I must go and protect my people.’ And that’s what’s gotten everybody so nervous.”
The newspaper quoted Clinton as saying Putin is a man “who believes his mission is to restore Russian greatness.”
“When he looks at Ukraine, he sees a place that he believes is by its very nature part of Mother Russia,” she said at the private event.
Clinton continues her California tour Wednesday with an address at the University of California, Los Angeles.
|Peter Baklinski||Tue Mar 04 16:57 EST||Homosexuality|
TORONTO, March 4, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A biological man claiming to be ‘transgender’ so as to gain access to and prey on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed “indefinitely” last week after being declared by a judge a “dangerous offender.”
Pro-family leaders are pointing out that this is exactly the type of incident they warned of as the Ontario government passed its “gender identity” bill, dubbed the “bathroom bill,” in 2012.
Christopher Hambrook, 37, leaned on the ever expanding legal “rights” offered to people who “identify” with the sex opposite their biology. Under the name “Jessica,” he was able to get into the women’s shelters, where he sexually assaulted several women in 2012, the Toronto Sun reports.
Court heard how one woman awoke to find Hambrook assaulting her on her bed. “Her tights had been pulled down past her bottom and her bathing suit had been pulled to the side,” court documents reveal. “She yelled at the accused, demanding to know what he was doing. He simply covered his face with his hands, said ‘Oops!’ and started giggling.”
Court also heard evidence of Hambrook terrorizing a deaf woman living in the shelter. “The accused grabbed the complainant’s hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area while his penis was erect,” court heard.
The same deaf women reported that Hambrook would peer at her through a gap between the door and its frame while she showered.
Justice John McMahon imposed the “indefinite” prison sentence due to Hambrook’s long history of committing sex crimes.
Hambrook was a former stripper and escort from Quebec before moving to Toronto in 2009 and posing as a woman. While in Montreal he served four years in jail for a 2002 sexual assault of a five-year-old girl who was a family friend and for raping a mentally challenged 27-year-old woman while on bail for the first crime, reports the Toronto Sun.
The prosecution successfully convinced the judge that Hambrook’s out-of-control sexual urges put the public at great risk and that an indefinite jail sentence was the only way to protect the public.
“I am satisfied there is no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public from Christopher Hambrook,” said Judge McMahon.
Ontario amended its Human Rights Code to make “gender identity” and “gender expression” prohibited grounds for discrimination in 2012. The bill’s sponsors said at the time that the so-called “Toby’s Law” would open the door to “social change” in Canada.
Family advocates argued at the time that the NDP sponsored bill would create a legal right for a man who calls himself ‘transgender’ to use rooms and facilities intended for women so as to exploit women.
The bill was subsequently dubbed the “bathroom bill” by its critics. Allowing a man who calls himself ‘transgender’ to enter a woman’s area has already proved problematic in the United States.
In 2012 a college in Washington state decided it would not prevent a 45-year-old man who presents himself as a transgender “female” from lounging naked in a women’s locker room in an area frequented by girls as young as six. Teenage girls on a high school swim team were using the facilities when they saw “Colleen” Francis deliberately exposing male genitalia through the glass window in a sauna. Police told one outraged mother that the university could not bar the biological male from the premises.
Brian Rushfeldt, president of Canada Family Action, told LifeSiteNews that Hambrook’s method of gaining legal entrance into the woman’s shelters proves gender identity legislation is inherently flawed.
“The Ontario law is dangerous. It is unacceptable that any country would allow a law which puts citizens at risk. It proves the law was ill planned and executed, and the government should be held legally responsible for these crimes.”
Jack Fonseca of Campaign Life Coalition told LifeSiteNews that it “didn’t take a brain surgeon to predict that letting men into women’s bathrooms and other private spaces would eventually lead to sexual assaults.”
“I wish we didn’t have to say ‘I told you so,’ but Ontario’s party leaders and MPPs were warned that the transsexual ‘Bathroom Bill’ endangered women and needed to be defeated.”
“Of course this lunatic law could only make it easier for rapists and peeping toms to prey on female victims while masquerading as ‘transgendered.’”
Fonseca called for a repeal of the law.
“If this dangerous law is not repealed, we will only see a rise in male predators attacking women in spaces where they deserve the right to privacy like bathrooms, change rooms and women’s shelters.”
Fonseca took aim at Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak for supporting the bill, saying that he should take “personal responsibility for the attempted rape of those poor women in the shelters.”
“Hudak cannot escape blame: He supported this nonsensical law.”
QMI Agency’s Christina Blizzard wrote in an opinion piece last week that women have a “right to protection.”
“This is a bad law that allows heterosexual predators access to women in their most personal moments. Extra care should be taken to protect at-risk women in vulnerable situations, such as homeless shelters.”
Ezra Levant said that the gender identity law in Ontario has made the province become a “magnet for rapists.”
“Instead of women being protected in Ontario, instead of the law protecting women, the law serves up women to a rapist named ‘Jessica,’” he said on his show The Source.
A federal version of the “gender identity” bill currently sits in the Senate after failing to pass its third and final reading in August after the Conservatives shut down Parliament for a summer break.
Fonseca said that the federal legislation puts Canadian women at risk.
“We urge all concerned Canadians to phone, email and write Canada’s Senators pointing out that the Ontario version of this law allowed Mr. Hambrook to sexually assault two women, and to ensure that Senators do not make the mistake of granting legal cover to would-be rapists at the federal level.”
“Tell the Senators to vote NO to Bill C-279 when it comes up again.”
This black women really tells it like it is…..
Black Female Journalist on the Obamas
Here’s a black female journalist’s opinion of the Obamas. These are her words
How beautiful and liberating the truth can be when our minds are opened for all who care to see and be free.
The below summary of Barack and Michelle Obama’s 5 year
A white man’s account would be instantly criticized by the liberal media as pure racism. But, how can anyone scream Racist when an exacting description of the Obamas is penned by a well known journalist of color?
BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE OBAMA EVER!
(Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.)
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s.
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I
I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of
like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.
I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President, and a love of our
His(Obama’s) arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of
I view that statement and that Mindset as an insult to those who died to
I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they
And what the two of them have shared has been proven to be lies. He lied
He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded
His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them
and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show
I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, “Nero In The White House” -
He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have
Please resend to all your address book. America has to
(Receptionist) Hello, Welcome to ObamaGolf. My name is Trina. How can I help you?
(Customer) Hello, I received an email from Golfsmith stating that my Pro V1 order has been cancelled and I should go to your exchange to reorder it. I tried your web site, but it seems like it is not working. So I am calling the 800 number.
(Receptionist) Yes, I am sorry about the web site. It should be fixed by the end of 2014. But I can help you.
(Customer) Thanks, I ordered some Pro V1 balls.
(Receptionist) Sir, Pro V1′s do not meet our minimum standards, I will be happy to provide you with a choice of Pinnacle, TopFlite, or Callaway Blue.
(Customer) But I have played Pro V1 for years.
(Receptionist) The government has determined that Pro V1s are no longer acceptable, so we have instructed Titleist to stop making them. TopFlites are better, sir, I am sure you will love them.
(Customer) But I like the Pro V1. Why are TopFlites better?
(Receptionist) That is all spelled out in the 2700 page “Affordable Golf Ball Act” passed by Congress.
(Customer) Well, how much are these TopFlites?
(Receptionist) It depends sir, do you want our Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum package?
(Customer) What’s the difference?
(Receptionist) 12, 24, 36 or 48 balls.
(Customer) The Silver package may be okay; how much is it?
(Receptionist) It depends, sir; what is your monthly income?
(Customer) What does that have to do with anything?
(Receptionist) I need that to determine your government Golf Ball subsidy; then I can determine how much your out-of-pocket cost will be. But if your income is below the poverty level, you might qualify for a subsidy. In that case, I can refer you to our BallAid department.
(Receptionist) Yes, golf balls are a right. Everyone has a right to golf balls. So, if you can’t afford them, then the government will supply them free of charge.
(Customer) Who said they were a right?
(Receptionist) Congress passed it, the President signed it and the Supreme Court found it Constitutional.
(Customer) Whoa…I don’t remember seeing anything in the Constitution regarding golf balls as a right.
(Receptionist) There’s no explicit mention of golf balls in the Constitution, but President Obama is a former constitutional scholar and he believes it would have been included if the Constitution had not been drafted by a bunch of slave-owning white men. The Democrats in the Congress and the Supreme Court agree with the President that golf balls are now a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
(Customer) I don’t believe this…
(Receptionist) It’s the law of the land, sir. Now, we anticipated most people would go for the Silver Package, so what is your monthly income, sir?
(Customer) Forget it, I think I will forgo buying balls this year.
(Receptionist) In that case, sir, I will still need your monthly income.
(Receptionist) To determine what your ‘non-participation’ cost would be.
(Customer) WHAT? You can’t charge me for NOT buying golf balls.
(Receptionist) It’s the law of the land, sir, approved by the Supreme Court. It’s $49.50 or 1% of your monthly income…
(Customer)-(interrupting) This is ridiculous, I’ll pay the $49.50.
(Receptionist) Sir, it is the $49.50 or 1% of your monthly income, whichever is greater.
(Customer) ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What a rip-off!!
(Receptionist) Actually sir, it is a good deal. Next year it will be 2%.
(Customer) Look, I’m going to call my Congressman to find out what’s going on here. This is ridiculous. I’m not going to pay it.
(Receptionist) Sorry to hear that sir, that’s why I had the NSA track this call and obtain the make and model of the cell phone you are using.
(Customer) Why does the NSA need to know what kind of cell phone I am using?
(Receptionist) So they get your GPS coordinates, sir.
(Door Bell rings followed immediately by a loud knock on the door).
(Receptionist) That would be the IRS, sir. Thanks for calling ObamaGolf, have a nice day…and God Bless the Land of the Free and the Brave.
Scientists have been saying for years that Yellowstone Park sits on a huge caldera of magma, the prescription for a monstrous volcanic eruption – if you think this is just poppycock, read the following blog….gene/conservative critic
We warned of this happening a couple of weeks ago and many of our readers and friends just laughed….well, check out the following site and you won’t be laughing…you will be scrambling to get ready…..gene/conservative critic
|Albert Mohler||Tue Feb 25 11:00 EST||Opinion|
February 24, 2014 (Albert Mohler) – Several states are now considering legislation that would provide explicit protections to citizens whose consciences will not allow an endorsement of same-sex marriage. The bills vary by state, as do the prospects for legislative passage, but the key issues remain constant. Millions of American citizens are facing a direct collision between their moral convictions and the demands of their government.
The cases are now piling up. A wedding photographer in New Mexico, cake bakers in Colorado and Oregon, and a florist in Washington State have all found themselves in this predicament. Each now faces the coercive power of the state. They are being told, in no uncertain terms, that they must participate in providing services for same-sex weddings or go out of business.
The bills now being considered in several states are attempts to protect these citizens from government coercion. They take the form of remedial legislation — bills intended to fix a problem. And the problem is all too real, and so is the controversy over these bills.
Those pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage are relentless in their insistence that these bills would violate the civil rights of same-sex couples. They brilliantly employed arguments from the civil rights in their push for same-sex marriage, and they now employ similar arguments in their opposition to bills that would protect the consciences of those opposed to same-sex marriage. They claim that the rights of gays and lesbians and others in the LGBT community are equivalent to the rights rightly demanded by African Americans in the civil rights movement. Thus far, they have been stunningly successful in persuading courts to accept their argument.
That sets up the inevitable collision of law and values and Christian conviction. In each of the cases listed above, the key issue is not a willingness to serve same-sex couples, but the unwillingness to participate in a same-sex wedding. Christian automobile dealers can sell cars to persons of various sexual orientations and behaviors without violating conscience. The same is true for insurance agents and building contractors. But the cases of pressing concern have to do with forcing Christians to participate in same-sex weddings — and this is another matter altogether.
Photographers, makers of artistic wedding cakes, and florists are now told that they must participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies, and this is a direct violation of their religiously-based conviction that they should lend no active support of a same-sex wedding. Based upon their biblical convictions, they do not believe that a same-sex wedding can be legitimate in any Christian perspective and that their active participation can only be read as a forced endorsement of what they believe to be fundamentally wrong and sinful. They remember the words of the Apostle Paul when he indicted both those who commit sin and those “who give approval to those who practice them.” [Romans 1:32]
The advocates of same-sex marriage saw this coming, as did the opponents of this legal and moral revolution. Judges and legal scholars also knew the collision was coming. Judge Michael McConnell, formerly a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and now director of Stanford University’s Constitutional Law Center, suggested many years ago that the coming conflict would “feature a seemingly irreconcilable clash between those who believe that homosexual conduct is immoral and those who believe that it is a natural and morally unobjectionable manifestation of human sexuality.” Accordingly, he called for a spirit of tolerance and respect, much like what society expects of religious believers and atheists — what he called “civil toleration.”
But the advocates of same-sex marriage are not friendly to the idea of toleration. One prominent gay rights lawyer predicted just this kind of controversy almost a decade ago when she admitted that violations of conscience would be inevitable as same-sex marriage is legalized. Chai Feldblum, then a professor at the Yale Law School, also admitted that her acknowledgement of a violated conscience might be “cold comfort” to those whose consciences are violated.
But perhaps the strangest and most disappointing dimension of the current controversy is the entry of some Christians on the side of coercing the conscience. Writing in USA Today, Kirsten Powers accused Christians supporting such legislation of “essentially arguing for homosexual Jim Crow laws.” She explicitly denied that florists and bakers and photographers are forced to “celebrate” a same-sex union when forced to provide their services for such a ceremony.
Well, my wife and I recently celebrated the wedding of our daughter. We not only celebrated it, we paid for it. And I can assure you that we were expecting our florist and cake baker and photographer to celebrate it as well. And we employed them for their artistic ability and we paid for their expressive ideas. Kirsten Powers went on to suggest that Christians who have such scruples about same-sex weddings are hypocritical if they do not refuse to participate in the wedding of an adulterer. As a matter of fact, some Christian wedding vendors do indeed try to screen their clients in this way. But the fact remains that the marriage of a man and a woman is, in the biblical point of view, still valid. No union of same-sex couples is valid according to the Bible. This is a huge and consequential matter of conscience and conviction.
Jesus, we should note, was often found in the presence of sinners. He came, as he said, to save those who are lost. But there is not a shred of biblical evidence to suggest that Jesus endorsed sin in any way. To suggest otherwise is an offense to Scripture and to reason.
Just days later, Powers was joined by Jonathan Merritt in yet another essay in which they argued that conservative Christians are selectively applying the Scriptures in making their case. They also denied that forcing participation in a same-sex ceremony is a violation of conscience. They wrote:
Many on the left and right can agree that nobody should be unnecessarily forced to violate their conscience. But in order to violate a Christian’s conscience, the government would have to force them to affirm something in which they don’t believe. This is why the first line of analysis here has to be whether society really believes that baking a wedding cake or arranging flowers or taking pictures (or providing any other service) is an affirmation. This case simply has not been made, nor can it be, because it defies logic. If you lined up 100 married couples and asked them if their florist “affirmed” their wedding, they would be baffled by the question.
Well, the issue is really not what “society really believes” about baking a wedding cake, but what the baker believes. Reference to what “society really believes” is a way of dismissing religious liberty altogether. If the defining legal or moral principle is what “society really believes,” all liberties are eventually at stake.
Their article also perpetuates another major error — that the wedding of a man and a woman under sinful circumstances is tantamount to the wedding of a same-sex couple. In their words, “This makes sure to put just one kind of ‘unbiblical’ marriage in a special category.” But a same-sex marriage is not “just one kind” of an unbiblical marriage — it is believed by conservative Christians to be no marriage at all.
The state might decide to recognize a same-sex union as a marriage, but to coerce a Christian to participate in a same-sex wedding is a gross violation of religious conscience.
And it will not stop with bakers and florists and photographers. What about singers and other musicians? Under the argument of Powers and Merritt, they can be forced to sing a message they believe to be abhorrent. What about writers for hire? This argument would force a Christian who writes for hire to write a message that would violate the deepest Christian convictions. To be forced to participate in an expressive way is to be forced to endorse and to celebrate.
The most lamentable aspect of the Powers and Merritt argument is the fact that they so quickly consign Christians to the coercive power of the state. They should be fully free to try their best to present a biblical argument that the right response of Christians is to offer such services. But to condemn brothers and sisters as hypocrites and to consign their consciences to the coercion of Caesar is tragic in every aspect. We can only hope that they will rethink their argument … and fast.
THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT BLOGS YOU WILL READ HERE…THIS IS A TIDAL WAVE OF IMMORALITY BEING INSTIGATED BY AMERICA’S PRESIDENT…AND IN COMPLETE OPPOSITION TO CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES WORLDWIDE…
SEND THIS LINK TO EVERY CHRISTIAN FRIEND, CHURCH MEMBER, MINISTER AND MISSIONARY YOU KNOW…REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU ARE IN THE WORLD!!!
|Ben Johnson||Mon Feb 17 16:21 EST||Homosexuality|
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 17, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – President Barack Obama has elevated the right to have sex with a member of the same sex to the level of universal “fundamental freedoms” in a new presidential statement criticizing Uganda. But critics say his promotion of homosexuality in a continent that overwhelmingly opposes that behavior amounts to a form of liberal “cultural imperialism.”
Obama wrote on Sunday that he opposed a proposed bill in Uganda that would criminalize same-sex “marriages” and impose life imprisonment for repeated homosexual acts, among other provisions, because “as a country and a people, the United States has consistently stood for the protection of fundamental freedoms and universal human rights.”
Obama said the bill represents “a serious setback for all those around the world who share a commitment to freedom, justice, and equal rights.”
He added that he had “conveyed” the message that “enacting this legislation will complicate our valued relationship with Uganda.”
His reaction came after Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said last Friday that, after nearly two months deliberation, he would sign legislation that makes conducting a same-sex “wedding” punishable with seven years in prison. Infecting others with AIDS, having sex with minors, or repeated homosexual acts may earn life imprisonment. An earlier version of the bill called for the death penalty, but the provision was removed.
According to a spokesman, Museveni decided to sign the bill after scientists told him “there isno definitive gene responsible for homosexuality.” He added that homosexual prostitution is “what the president wants to prevent,” especially after Presidential Adviser on Science Dr. Richard Tushemereirwe said that all homosexuality had “serious public health consequences.”
American observers said, while they may take a different approach than Museveni, President Obama’s remarks are an act of cultural hubris.
“His arrogance is breathtaking,” Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, director and senior fellow of Concerned Women for America‘s Beverly LaHaye Institute, told LifeSiteNews. The “president repeatedly insists that his personal values and beliefs are equated with the nation’s values and beliefs. When he insists that those controversial ideas constitute a human right, the president is saying that the deeply-held religious beliefs of many Americans are irrelevant.”
He is also disregarding the views of most Africans, they say. An estimated 72 percent of all African nations have passed or are in the process of passing laws restricting public homosexual behavior.
Crouse told LifeSiteNews President Obama’s actions are a form of “cultural imperialism – exporting the sexual crusade of a very small minority of Americans with outsized influence,” who have tried “to tear down the moral foundations of our nation as well as the rest of the world.”
Museveni’s spokesman, Ofwono Opondo, said, “This bill is very popular both within the parliament and Ugandan society,” something they see “as a measure to protect Ugandans from social deviants.” Opposition to homosexuality is a pan-African concept held by Christians and Muslims.
“Obama of all people should realize how offensive his position on homosexuality is to devout Muslims,” Dr. Crouse told LifeSiteNews.
President Obama has frayed relations with African leaders before. During his $100 million African trip last summer, President Obama provoked a clash with the president of Senegal, Macky Sall, over whether gay “marriage” should be legal. In August, Obama told Jay Leno onThe Tonight Show that nations like Russia, which forbid same-sex “marriage,” “are violating the basic morality,” adding that he had “no patience for countries” that do not affirm “gays or lesbians or transgender persons.”
Just last month Secretary of State John Kerry condemned Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan for signing a bill that imposes a 14-year prison sentence on anyone involved in a same-sex “wedding,” as well as prohibiting public displays of homosexual behavior.
President Obama put his bully pulpit, and the full weight of the U.S. government, behind promoting the homosexual agenda worldwide. In 2011, Western nations withheld nearly $350 million from Malawi because the nation banned homosexual activity. Wikileaks revealed the Obama administration coordinated with homosexual activists to promote the LGBT agenda in Sierra Leone.
African leaders have responded with sometimes pointed criticism of the president and, sometimes, the United States.
In April 2012, Gambian President Yahya Jammeh said that his people would “rather eat grassthan accept this ungodly evil attitude,” even if it meant foregoing Western aid.
Last summer the deputy president of Kenya, William Ruto, rebuffed Obama by saying his nation is “sovereign and God-fearing,” and Obama’s promotion of homosexuality “goes against our customs and traditions.” Cardinal John Njue, Archbishop of Nairobi, said that those, like President Obama, “who have already ruined their society … let them not become our teachers.”
“It is unseemly for an American president to dictate to other countries what their cultural, moral and religious traditions ought to be,” Dr. Crouse told LifeSiteNews. “And it is hypocritical for him on the one hand to say America is unexceptional and bow to other national leaders and then on the other hand, seemingly from a position of moral superiority, tell other nations that their beliefs are inferior to his supposedly enlightened, exalted views.”
“The homosexual activists are not content with acceptance and respect as human beings,” she said. “They, and now our president, are forcing the world to approve and mainstream their homosexuality.”