News

Year Three Day 49 Obama Administration March 9, 2011 - History

Year Three Day 49 Obama Administration March 9, 2011 - History


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Year Three Day 49 Obama Administration March 9, 2011

President Barack Obama greets William Jawando, Deputy Associate Director of Public Engagement, his wife Michele and their four-month-old daughter Alia in the Oval Office, March 9, 2011.

9:30AM THE PRESIDENT receives the Presidential Daily Briefing Oval Office

10:00AM THE PRESIDENT receives the Economic Daily Briefing Oval Office

11:10AM THE PRESIDENT meets with Secretary of State Clinton Oval Office

3:50PM THE PRESIDENT meets with Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander Richard Eubank Oval Office

7:00PM THE PRESIDENT hosts a party to watch the Chicago Bulls vs. Charlotte Bobcats game


Face the facts: A fact check on gas prices

On CBS News' "Face the Nation " Sunday, a top campaign adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod, and the head of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, went back and forth over an issue that is looking to be critical this campaign season: gas prices. CBS News looked into some of the claims each made.

David Axelrod: "In June of 2008, the price of gas was four dollars and ten cents a gallon."

The cost of gas in June of 2008, the early stages of the heavy summer driving season and during the presidential campaign, was $4.10 per gallon. The 2008 gas crisis hit its peak one month later with prices averaging $4.11 per gallon.

By August, the cost fell to $3.74 and continued to fall until the price averaged $2.07 just after Election Day in November, when Mr. Obama was elected president.

Trending News

Reince Priebus: "He's defending a president that had-- gas prices were a dollar eighty-five a gallon when he took over."

The cost of gas was $1.84 just six days after President Obama's inauguration. As noted above, that is far cheaper than the cost of a gallon of gas six months prior in July 2008. Gas prices have the ability to fluctuate quickly.

David Axelrod on Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to refineries in the Gulf Coast: "The State Department said they needed more time to evaluate the project and all of its implications, including what it would mean for the Water aquifers in-- in Nebraska."

The State Department announced in January that it was not going to move forward with the Keystone XL pipeline for now, saying that it needs more time to evaluate the impact of the project.

As Axelrod noted, one area of contention over the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline is the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska which supplies the Midwest with water for drinking and farming. Dave Heineman, the Republican governor of Nebraska, worked to change the route of the pipeline to avoid the aquifer and the Nebraska legislature called for an environmental assessment of an alternate route.

In January, Heineman called on the president to move forward with the pipeline while assuring him that his state would determine a viable route. Meanwhile, TransCanada, the company to build the pipeline, said it will propose an alternate route soon that considers Nebraska's concerns.

Reince Priebus: "The Republicans have been in favor of this Keystone pipeline (that will create) twenty thousand jobs."

Supporters of the Keystone pipeline from the tar sands in Western Canada to the refineries in the Gulf Coast say the project would create 20,000 jobs, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. However, the U.S. State Department estimated it would create 5,000 - 6,000 jobs and some analysis say the number isn't that high, including a report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute that found up to 1,400 temporary construction jobs would be created.

David Axelrod: "But understand this president has approved dozens of pipelines. He is going to speak this week about another spur from Oklahoma to the Gulf so we can relieve a glut of oil that we have and get it down to refineries there."

The president is traveling to Oklahoma (as well as Nevada and New Mexico) this week and will discuss energy production.

After the Obama administration rejected the Keystone XL project, TransCanada, the behind the pipeline, said it was moving forward with a portion of the pipeline that doesn't need State Department approval (because it doesn't cross international borders.) The approval of oil pipelines that cross state lines consist of a combination of state and federal approval processes.

The White House welcomed TransCanada's announcement to build the pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. The president said he supports the project because it "will help address the bottleneck of oil in Cushing that has resulted in large part from increased domestic oil production."

Axelrod: "And we've freed up tens of-- of millions of new acres for exploration and-- and for oil production in the future."

In January, the president announced the that 38 million acres for oil drilling and exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and the sale is expected to begin in June 20.

Source: White House fact sheet

The announcement is not a new proposal but is part of a five-year plan that was first implemented in 2007, during the Bush administration. The Obama administration, through Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, announced in 2010 that the administration would move forward with drilling and exploration in parts of Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and the Mid-Atlantic.

However, after the 2010 BP oil spill, the Obama administration instituted a temporary moratorium that was later lifted in parts of Alaska and the Gulf Coast. The administration has maintained its drilling and exploration ban in the Mid-Atlantic, citing the need for more environmental impact studies.

The first post-moratorium opportunity for the industry to buy leases was in December 2011 and the June sale is the last opportunity for industry to buy leases to drill until the next five-year plan is implemented in 2013. The administration said it will continue exploration and drilling in the Gulf Coast and parts of Alaska but has not committed to opening federal waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, which are areas pro-oil drilling advocates want opened and are among the reasons they frame the Obama administration as anti-drilling.

Another point of disappointment among drilling advocates is that the industry faces higher prices for leases and additional safety and environmental regulations, which many oil-drilling advocates say are making drilling more difficult.

Reince Priebus: "Well, this president shut down on-shore drilling. He shut down off-shore drilling. He shut down Keystone. And so now we're sitting in a place where we're no better off today than where we were three years ago."

The president did stop construction of the Keystone pipeline, as described above.

As described above, the president issued a moratorium on new offshore drilling and exploration after the BP oil spill but later lifted the moratorium. After the BP oil spill in the Gulf, the president rescinded his proposal to drill off the Mid-Atlantic coast, sighting the need for additional environmental impact studies.

The president later lifted the moratorium but implemented stricter safety measures and regulations. The American Petroleum Institute, the trade group for the oil and gas industry, says that permits for drilling are being issued 40 percent less than before the oil spill.

The president announced in January of 2012 the sale of leases for 38 million acres in the Gulf Coast (also mentioned above).

According to EIA, as mentioned above, crude oil wells both onshore and offshore have increased - 2009 was the first year in decades that domestic oil production rose. The reason is largely due to an increased in offshore oil drilling and the production of tight oil, which is obtained through onshore shale rock.

According to EIA, the production of tight oil has tripled in the past three years to about 900 thousand barrels per day as of November 2011, largely in North Dakota, Texas and Montana, but much of the production is on state and private lands and not land controlled by the federal government.

Reince Priebus: "And this idea that David Axelrod is spinning that now we've got record production. We've got record production because of the actions of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton years ago because it takes time."

President Bush did lift a presidential prohibition on drilling off the East and West coasts in 2008, and Congress followed suit and lifted their ban, too. Though Mr. Obama has not allowed drilling in these parts. The president also outlined the five-year offshore oil drilling and exploration plan that began in 2007 (and is mentioned above).

Meanwhile, Jonathan Cogan, spokesperson EIA said there is a "myriad of factors" that impact energy production and supply, including decreased demand due to a slow economy and changes to consumer behavior, as well as increased use of domestic biofuels and domestic production.

Although it's difficult to place blame or praise, supply is up and demand is down.

A June 2011 EIA study notes that the U.S. imported 49 percent of its petroleum in 2010, which is "dramatically" less than the U.S.'s peak level of oil imports in 2005, when imports of crude topped 60 percent because consumption was at its peak and domestic oil production was low.

David Axelrod: Oil production is "up twelve percent since he's been president."

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the independent analytical arm of the Department of Energy, at the end of 2011, there were 23,503 crude oil wells in operation. That number is higher than 16,633 wells at the end of 2008. The peak number of oil-producing wells was in 1985 with more than 35,000 wells.

The number of drilling rigs to in operation to open up a well is also higher now than it was in 2008. According to EIA, there were 379 crude oil rigs in 2008, compared with 980 at the end of 2011, the most since 1990 when online records became available.

However, the Institute for Energy Research (IER), an industry-backed group, says oil production is up because of production increases on private and state lands, not because of actions by the federal government. Though the IER says federal oil production was down in 2011 from 2010, the organization's analysis shows that federal lands produced more oil the past two years since at least 2006.

David Axelrod: "And we're producing more gas than ever before."

Although 2011 and 2010 saw the highest levels of natural gas production in more than 35 years, the amount has fluctuated little over the past four decades. The mid 1980s saw the lowest levels of natural gas production with 17,270 billion cubic feet per year in 1985, but consumption was also at its lowest level, too. In the first 11 months of 2011, the United States produced 22,030 billion cubic feet of natural gas, which is the first year since 1985 the U.S. consumed less than it produced.

The Institute for Energy Research attributes the increased gas production to activity on private and state lands. The group says federal natural gas production dropped dramatically in 2011 to its lowest level since 2006. IER says 2009, the president's first year in office and also the peak of natural gas production in recent years, was followed by a 27 percent decrease in federal production but a 28 percent increase in activity on state and private lands.

Axelrod: "We've doubled the use of renewable energy, wind and solar, biofuels."


Further Notes on Obama’s Failures

President Obama talks in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., May 20, 2010. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

T his past weekend, I wrote a piece about why Barack Obama’s presidency failed. The best criticism of that essay that I’ve read over the last few days is that I begged the question. I didn’t clearly articulate a criterion of success or failure by which to judge the Obama presidency. I was more focused on the personal shortcomings he exhibited as a statesman, which got in the way of his achieving success in office. I didn’t define the success that he fell short of.

Allow me to remedy that mistake here. When I wrote that Obama failed as president of the United States, I meant that he failed on his own terms.

During the 2008 presidential race and the early years of his administration, Obama made it clear that he wanted to be the same kind of transformational president that Ronald Reagan was during the 1980s. On the stump, he fantasized about a political realignment in America brought about by an electoral tidal wave of “Obama Republicans,” his own answer to the Reagan Democrats of old. He repeated the same ambition during primary debates with Hillary Clinton and even confessed his admiration for Reagan’s political talent during a meeting with historians at the White House in the Spring of 2010. Michael Duffy and Michael Scherer, writing about this meeting for Time magazine, explained that

as the conversation progressed, it became clear to several in the room that Obama seemed less interested in talking about Lincoln’s team of rivals or Kennedy’s Camelot than the accomplishments of an amiable conservative named Ronald Reagan, who had sparked a revolution three decades earlier when he arrived in the Oval Office. Obama and Reagan share a number of gifts but virtually no priorities. And yet Obama was clearly impressed by the way Reagan had transformed Americans’ attitude about government. The 44th President regarded the 40th, said one participant, as a vital “point of reference.” Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s diaries and attended the May dinner, left with a clear impression that Obama had found a role model. “There are policies, and there is persona, and a lot can be told by persona,” he says. “Obama is approaching the job in a Reaganesque fashion.”

Obama wanted his presidency to alter the center of gravity in American politics in the way that Reagan’s did. Unlike his successor, he understood that lasting success in democratic politics comes not from bringing one’s own party closer into line with one’s own positions, but from bringing the other party closer into line with one’s own positions. Reagan’s popularity frightened the Democratic Party to so great an extent that they felt the need to nominate the relatively conservative Bill Clinton in order to win back the White House.

An even more dramatic transformation occurred almost simultaneously in the United Kingdom. Margaret Thatcher’s electoral invincibility during the ’80s forced the British Labour Party to turn themselves from the unreconstructed socialist party of Michael Foot into the neoliberal market-friendly party of Tony Blair. Both Reagan and Thatcher achieved a level of popularity among the public so great that their rivals were compelled to imitate them. This is what Obama aspired to during the last decade. He wanted so to bestride the narrow world of American politics that the Republican Party would have to become more progressive in order to stay competitive at the polls.


Year Three Day 49 Obama Administration March 9, 2011 - History

1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:

  • April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” 1
  • February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. 2
  • April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech. 3
  • May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. 4
  • April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three. 5
  • October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions. 6
  • November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. 7
  • January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court. 8
  • February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress. 9
  • April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring. 10
  • August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception. 11
  • November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. 12
  • November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. 13
  • December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries’ religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. 14
  • January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. 15
  • February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. 16

2. Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:

  • June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. 17
  • August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except America). 18
  • September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. 19
  • September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” 20
  • November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity. 21
  • November 2011 – The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans. 22
  • February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian. 23
  • February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei). 24
  • February 2012 – The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read. 25
  • April 2012 – A checklist for Air Force Inns will no longer include ensuring that a Bible is available in rooms for those who want to use them. 26
  • May 2012 – The Obama administration opposes legislation to protect the rights of conscience for military chaplains who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their strongly-held religious beliefs. 27
  • June 2012 – Bibles for the American military have been printed in every conflict since the American Revolution, but the Obama Administration revokes the long-standing U. S. policy of allowing military service emblems to be placed on those military Bibles. 28

3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values:

  • January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. 29
  • January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional. 30
  • March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. 31
  • March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. 32
  • March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. 33
  • May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. 34 He continues the deletion in subsequent budgets. 35
  • May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities. 36
  • July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direction violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 37
  • September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.” 38
  • July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion. 39
  • August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs. 40
  • September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. 41
  • February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 42
  • March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls. 43
  • July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778. 44
  • September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 45
  • October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. 46

4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:

  • May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan. 47
  • April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community. 48
  • April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc. 49
  • August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity. 50
  • August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location. 51
  • 2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. 52
  • October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House. 53
  • February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, 54 but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do. 55

Many of these actions are literally unprecedented – this is the first time they have happened in four centuries of American history. The hostility of President Obama toward Biblical faith and values is without equal from any previous American president.


Obama administration hires czar to manage cabinet and other czars

I got a chuckle out of this. It seems those in the cabinet feel the President Obama’s management style is not up to par for an executive. What do you expect when you add a few dozen czars into the mix?

With any executive position, you need to have a core group of professionals surrounding you to be effective. In the United States, the president has 15 cabinet secretaries and a few other cabinet-level positions. The current president – and others in the past – have selected other czars who do not necessarily have to be confirmed by the Senate to provide additional support, advice, or whatever to the president.

With 15 secretaries, seven other cabinet-level positions including the unmanageable Vice President Joe Biden, and more than 30 other czars all looking for face-time and mentoring from the president, the management of those individuals (more than 50 of them) is a full time job and much more.

The Washington Post points out the past issues, with a hat tip to Big Government.

During the first two years of President Obama’s term, the administration fully embraced just a few of his superstar picks – people such as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. But many more agency chiefs conducted their business in relative anonymity, sometimes after running afoul of White House officials.

Both sides were deeply disgruntled. Agency heads privately complained that the White House was a “fortress” that was unwilling to accept input and that micromanaged their departments. Senior administration advisers rolled their eyes in staff meetings at the mention of certain Cabinet members, participants said.

With the introduction of the new White House chief of staff, they are going to fix the issue with … another czar.

At the same time, the White House recently created the position of Cabinet communications director, appointing media adviser Tom Gavin to the job. The goal, according to the official statement, is “to better coordinate with and utilize members of the Cabinet” and is a “high priority.”

You just can’t make this stuff up.

Update: Our friend Ed Morrissey at Hot Air chimes in. In October 2008 I wrote about this exact subject in The case against the Obama presidency (Part 2).

What happens when someone with no executive experience takes over the toughest executive job in the world? Since we’ve not seen that situation in most of our lifetimes — even John Kennedy, the last President elected with no executive experience in government or the private sector, had some command experience in the Navy — we had little hard evidence to predict failure to manage the executive branch of the US government, but it was rather easy to presume that on-the-job training at that level would be problematic, to say the least.

From my Oct. 2008 post on presidential qualifications.

A Lack of Executive Experience

McCain does have leadership experience four years at Annapolis, seven years as a pilot before being shot down, and he served as the executive and commanding officer of a training squadron in Florida for a couple of years. One thing is for certain, the armed services of our country do a very good job training leaders.

I was certain that Obama would not select Biden for this reason alone. Neither have managed a business, an office, a city government or a state government.

Presidents normally have had executive and/or military leadership positions prior to taking office.

Bush (43), Clinton, Reagan, Carter and FDR all came from the ranks governors. Bush (41), Ford, Nixon, Johnson and Truman were vice presidents prior to taking the oath. Kennedy was a senator prior to taking office, but had four years of military service during World War II. Eisenhower had extensive military experience beginning when he enrolled at West Point in 1911. Even Hoover had eight years of experience as the US Secretary of Commerce under Harding.

That’s almost 80 years of presidential history. Obama does not have experience to match previous presidents.


1. Navy Mess

The Navy Mess at the White House, June 25, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Navy Stewards have provided food service to the Commander in Chief since 1880. The modern White House Navy Mess was established under President Harry S. Truman in 1951. The Navy’s culinary specialists prepare and serve fine foods in the West Wing.

Seated reservations are available to senior officials including commissioned officers, Cabinet Secretaries, and their guests. Staff located in the West and East Wing can enjoy food made in the Navy Mess from a take-out window located adjacent to the dining hall.

2. Situation Room

The Situation Room of the White House, Dec. 30, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Seated, from left, are: Brigadier General Marshall B. “Brad” Webb, Assistant Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Standing, from left, are: Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff National Security Advisor Tom Donilon Chief of Staff Bill Daley Tony Blinken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President Audrey Tomason Director for Counterterrorism John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Please note: a classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Months after being sworn into office, President John F. Kennedy was confronted with the Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba and insisted that intelligence information feed directly into the White House. The Situation Room was established in 1961 to meet President Kennedy’s request.

The current “Sit Room” is a 5,000-square-foot complex of rooms that is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week to monitor national and world intelligence information. Televisions for secure video conferences and technology can link the President to generals and world leaders around the globe.


Who Needs A Teleprompter to Speak for 3 Minutes?

President Obama required two heavy-duty teleprompters on Monday during a three-minute speech in which he nominated Alan Krueger to serve as chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers.

"I am very pleased to appoint Alan and I look forward to working with him," Obama said, staring at the large, flat-screen monitor to his right, then shifting his eyes to the teleprompter on his left. "I have nothing but confidence in Alan as he takes on this important role as one of the leaders of my economic team."

Krueger stood silently to the right of Obama as the president spoke. Krueger will replace Austan Goolsbee, who recently stepped down as chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. A professor at Princeton University, Krueger served two years in the U.S. Treasury Department under Obama. He also served as chief economic adviser for the Labor Department during the Clinton administration.

Obama did not give Krueger a chance to make any comments on Monday.

To put it in a less prejudicial way, Krueger did not choose to speak on Monday!

Nevertheless, was it really necessary to have a teleprompter? (Obviously, if you're going to have one you need two, so you can look from one to the other for the appropriate camera angles.)

_____________
My Schedule of Regular Posts
*Monday through Friday morning - schedules of President, VP and Secretary of State and her diplomat*Monday through Friday afternoon - List of topics Limbaugh discussed on his program that day
*Monday through Friday throughout the day - My posts on anything that I feel like talking about. At least one or two a day, sometimes more.
*Saturday through Sunday morning - An addition to my booklist of political books - covering Democrats, Republicans and other interested parties.


Bob Woodward's book on Obama

Rush talked about this today and I'll be sharing excerpts tonight, but here's the article about it from the Washington Post:
White House doesn't dispute Woodward book's portrayal of Obama
By Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 22, 2010 1:01 PM

With juicy nuggets of the new Bob Woodward book on President Obama starting to emerge, the official White House reaction so far is: It's just fine.

Many of Obama's senior advisers have already obtained and read the book, "Obama's Wars," and are satisfied with the image it conveys of the president, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

"The President comes across in the [Afghanistan] review and throughout the decisionmaking process as a Commander in Chief who is analytical, strategic, and decisive, with a broad view of history, national security, and his role," the official said in an e-mail.

But details of confidential meetings and classified documents, along with damning quotes from the principals, paint a picture of the president's team that is at odds with that perception. In Woodward's telling, Obama oversees a staff of bickering advisers and an administration that was rife with infighting during the Afghanistan policy review. If there were any remaining doubts that the "no drama, Obama" mantra left the building long ago, the Woodward book puts them to rest.

That narrative arc is not new. Details of the Afghanistan-Pakistan rupture first emerged last September, when Woodward obtained - and The Washington Post published - a report from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, then the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, describing his urgent demand for more troops. Then, during the three-month review process that followed, rifts between senior advisers who supported sending more troops (McChrystal, Gen. David H. Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton) and those who wanted to draw down (including Vice President Biden and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) were widely reported in real time.

In responding to the book Wednesday, the senior administration official played down the internal disagreements, saying "the debates in the book are well known because the policy review was covered so exhaustively."

The official offered points of proof from the text, noting Woodward's statement that Obama had focused the Afpak review around the "central questions" of whether al-Qaeda could be defeated, whether the Taliban also needed to be defeated and whether a counterinsurgency strategy could be effective given the Afghan government's limitations. Woodward also describes Obama as a voracious reader of intelligence reports - another positive the official noted.

The official also pointed out that the book portrays Obama as "preparing relentlessly." The president's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, at one point reprimands his staff for complaining about preparing analysis papers that went unread, saying they were read by one person - the one "they were intended for."

Still, those elements reflect a somewhat selective reading of the book, which also abounds in confidential documentation of palace intrigue.

"Obama's Wars" is also reverberating across the country and globally, especially in Afghanistan, where one of the book's main assertions - that Afghan President Hamid Karzai suffers from manic depression - has already been denied.

"This is a baseless, inflammatory comment that has its roots in a defaming propaganda campaign against President Karzai's personal integrity, leadership and his stances on matters of Afghan national interests," Afghan government spokesman Waheed Omar said. "The president is safe and sound. I can confirm that he takes no medication."

Omar also said Karzai administration officials were reviewing the material that has been released about the book. "We will need some time to react," he said.


America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President

When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.

Listed below in chronological order are (1) numerous records of his attacks on Biblical persons or organizations (2) examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military (3) a listing of his open attacks on Biblical values and finally (4) a listing of numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions, including letting his Islamic advisors guide and influence his hostility toward people of Biblical faith.

1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:

  • April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” 1
  • February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. 2
  • April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech. 3
  • May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. 4
  • April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three. 5
  • October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions. 6
  • November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. 7
  • January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court. 8
  • February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress. 9
  • April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring. 10
  • August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception. 11
  • November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. 12
  • November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. 13
  • December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries’ religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. 14
  • January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. 15
  • February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. 16

2. Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:

  • June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. 17
  • August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except America). 18
  • September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. 19
  • September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” 20
  • November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity. 21
  • November 2011 – The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans. 22
  • February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian. 23
  • February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei). 24
  • February 2012 – The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read. 25
  • April 2012 – A checklist for Air Force Inns will no longer include ensuring that a Bible is available in rooms for those who want to use them. 26
  • May 2012 – The Obama administration opposes legislation to protect the rights of conscience for military chaplains who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their strongly-held religious beliefs. 27
  • June 2012 – Bibles for the American military have been printed in every conflict since the American Revolution, but the Obama Administration revokes the long-standing U. S. policy of allowing military service emblems to be placed on those military Bibles. 28

3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values:

  • January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. 29
  • January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional. 30
  • March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. 31
  • March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. 32
  • March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. 33
  • May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. 34 He continues the deletion in subsequent budgets. 35
  • May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities. 36
  • July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direction violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 37
  • September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.” 38
  • July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion. 39
  • August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs. 40
  • September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. 41
  • February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 42
  • March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls. 43
  • July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778. 44
  • September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 45
  • October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. 46

4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:

  • May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan. 47
  • April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community. 48
  • April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc. 49
  • August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity. 50
  • August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location. 51
  • 2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. 52
  • October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House. 53
  • February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, 54 but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do. 55

Many of these actions are literally unprecedented – this is the first time they have happened in four centuries of American history. The hostility of President Obama toward Biblical faith and values is without equal from any previous American president.


WHAT WILL BE ILLEGAL WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS LEGAL

WHAT WILL BE ILLEGAL WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS LEGAL
JULY 31, 2012
(David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, [email protected])
Note: In this article you may notice some run-on words and strange spellings . This is necessary in order for this email to pass through internet filters so that it can be delivered.
——–

If homosexuality is fully legalized and homosexual activists are given every right they demand, citizens in western nations will be robbed of many liberties they have heretofore enjoyed. This is not a guess it is a judgment based on current facts. The right to free speech and the right to the free exercise of religion, in particular, will be effectively destroyed.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT APPEAR BIASED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.

In 1997 Jo Ann Knight was fired by the Connecticut Department of Public Health after she counseled a homosexual couple from the Bible about salvation and about the necessity of repenting of sin. Knight’s job was to supervise the provision of medical services by Medicare agencies to home health care patients, and in that capacity she interviewed patients. The homosexuals filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights. A district court upheld Knight’s dismissal, claiming that her religious speech caused her clients distress and interfered with the performance of her duties.

In 2000 Evelyn Bodett was fired by CoxCom Cable for expressing her biblical views against homosexuality to a lesbian subordinate. They claimed that she was thereby “coercing and harassing” the lesbian contrary to company policy. The lesbian, Kelley Carson, had sought Bodett’s advice in regard to a recent breakup with her homosexual partner, and Bodett gave her biblical counsel that homosexuality is a sin. Carson complained about the matter to a supervisor. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Bodett’s religious discrimination suit.

In 2001 Richard Peterson was fired by Hewlett-Packard after he posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality. Peterson, who had worked for HP for nearly 21 years, posted the verses in response to the company’s diversity policy that requires acceptance of homosexuality. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that Peterson was not discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. Commenting on the case, Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association’s Center for Law & Policy, said: “The new rule in the workplace seems to be: The Bible is out diversity is in” (“Using Caesar’s Sword,” AgapePress, March 19, 2004).

In 2002 homosexual activists tried to get the Ferndale City Council in Michigan to fire volunteer police chaplain Tom Hansen for stating his biblical views against homosexuality. The organization Soulforce claimed that Hansen, the pastor of a Baptist church, was committing “spiritual violence” against homosexuals by saying that it is sinful. The divided city council opted not to dismiss the pastor, but it did issue a resolution condemning him for his “anti-gay” views.

In 2002 Rolf Szabo was fired by Eastman Kodak for objecting to the company’s diversity policy. The program, which is called “Winning & Inclusive Culture,” allows no “negative comments” toward “gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered” employees. After the company sent out an email memo in October 2002 announcing “coming out” day for homosexual employees and demanding that they be given full acceptance and encouragement, Rolf replied to the same mailing list (1,000 employees), “Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you.” For refusing to apologize and submit to diversity sensitivity training, Rolf was fired. He had worked for Kodak for 23 years.

In 2002 in Saskatchewan, Canada, the StarPhoenix newspaper of Saskatoon and Hugh Owens were ordered to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the newspaper in 1997 quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages (Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side comprised of two males holding hands with the universal sign of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over the top. Owens bought the ad and the StarPhoenix merely printed it. The Human Rights Commission’s ruling was appealed to the courts. In February 2003 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan refused to overturn it, with Justice J. Barclay saying the advertisement was an incitement to hatred. But in April 2006 the r uling was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals.
(“Court Reverses Ruling,” WorldNetDaily, April 14, 2006).

In 2003 the city of Oakland, California, labeled a flier posted on a workplace bulletin board as “homophobic” because it used the terms “the natural family and marriage” (Suit to Decide Workplace ‘Hate Speech,’” The Washington Times, June 11, 2007). The flier, which was posted by Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, was removed after a lesbian complained to the city attorney’s office that it made her feel “excluded.” When Rederford and Christy sued the city, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated, they lost at the local, state, and federal level, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against them. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

In June 2004 Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green in Sweden became the first pastor in the European Union to be charged under hate crimes. He was convicted for denouncing homosexuality as “abnormal,” “something sick,” and “a deep cancerous tumor in the body of society” and sentenced to one month in jail. The conviction was overturned by an appeals court.

In October 2004 eleven Christians with the Repent America organization who were protesting a homosexual “Outfest” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were arrested and charged with a laundry list of crimes. In February 2005 four members of the group stood trial on three felony and five misdemeanor counts and the judge dismissed all charges. Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Dembe said, “We cannot stifle speech because we don’t want to hear it, or we don’t want to hear it now” (“Judge Drops Charges,” Baptist Press, Feb. 18, 2005). (Homosexual activists claim that the group was disrupting their program and refusing police requests to move, but the judge ruled that they did nothing illegal.)

In 2005 in Alberta Fred Henry, Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, was subject to two complaints before the Alberta Human Rights Commission after publishing a pastoral letter defending the traditional definition of marriage earlier that same year. (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008). Bishop Henry told Zenit: “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police.”

In January 2006, Catholic city councilman John Decicco of Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, was fined $1,000 and required to apologize for saying that homosexuality is “not normal or natural” (LifeSiteNews, Jan. 19, 2007). In his remarks, which were made in a city council meeting, DeCicco was expressing the official doctrine of his church. The fine goes to two homosexual activists who brought the complaint. DeCicco was also forced to issue a public statement that his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” DeCiccco told LifeSiteNews, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.”

After he preached against homosexuality at a fellow officer’s funeral in September 2006, Sgt. Eric Holyfield of the Los Angeles Police Department was removed from his position in community relations, moved back to patrol duty, and passed over for promotions and pay raises (“Police Office Sues LAPD and Los Angeles, Alleging Religious Discrimination,” Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2008). In his euology, Holyfield, who is also a pastor, quoted Bible verses proving that homosexuality is an abomination before God and said that one must repent or be condemned to hell. Holyfield’s commanding officer, Charlie Beck, who was present at the funeral, filed a formal complaint against him.

In February 2007 complaints were brought before the Human Rights Commission in Canada targeting Catholic Insight magazine and priest Alphonse De Valk, a well-known pro-life activist, for quoting from the Bible and church documents to refute “sameSex marriage.” The complaint was brought by homosexual activist Rob Wells, a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton. He accuses the magazine of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals. De Valk says, “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” adding that opposing sameSex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008).

In 2007 the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and its leader Ron Gray were investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) after a homosexual activist complained that he was offended by material on the party’s web site. The activist, Rob Wells, has also launched complaints against Craig Chandler in Alberta and Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight magazine. One of the articles that Wells complained about was an April 29, 2002, report published by WorldNetDaily in America citing a study that found that pedophilia is more common among homosexuals (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431). Another article, written by Ron Gray, protested Canada’s bill to legalize sameSex marriage.

Gray told LifeSiteNews: “Christians are probably the best friends homosexuals have in the world because we want to see them delivered from an addiction that will shorten their lives in this world and condemn them in the next. I’m not motivated by hate at all. I would guess that very few if any real Christians are motivated by hate in their response to these issues. It’s a question of compassion. Who truly loves you, someone who tells you the truth even when it hurts, or someone who will tell you you’re okay even when you’re headed down the wrong road. The Scripture says, ‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend, and deceitful are the kisses of an enemy’” (“Christian Political Party before Human Rights Commission,” LifeSiteNews, Nov. 27, 2007).

He added: “I really think this is a crucial case because if an agency of the government, which the CHRC is, can tell a political party what it may and may not include in its political statements we have gone way down the road to totalitarianism.”

In June 2007 a coalition of protestant churches in Brazil was ordered to halt their campaign “In Defense of the Family” and to remove billboards that said, “Homosexuality: God made them man and woman, and saw that it was good!” “A court order decreed the removal of the billboards and the cancellation of a public event scheduled by the coalition to further the defense of family values, claiming that it was ‘homophobic’” (“Brazil Attacks against Family Defenders,” LifeSiteNews, July 30, 2007).

In June 2008 Stephen Boisson, an evangelical youth pastor, was banned from expressing opposition to homosexuality in any public forum and ordered to pay $7,000 “damages for pain and suffering” to the homosexual activist who brought the complaint. The trouble began in 2002 when Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate newspaper in Alberta and denounced the advance of homosexual activism in the schools. Printed under the heading “Homosexual Agenda Wicked,” the letter said: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.” This offended a homosexual teacher named Darren Lund who complained to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.

In May 2008, Crystal Dixon was fired as associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo after she wrote an editorial to the Toledo Free Press expressing her views on homosexuality. She disagreed that “gay rights” can be compared to the civil rights struggles of black Americans. She wrote: “As a Black woman, I take great I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims.’ Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended” (“Homosexuality Editorial Puts 1st Amendment on Trial,” WorldNetDaily, Dec. 2, 2008).

Dixon was fired by the university president, Lloyd Jacobs, who condemned her statements. Robert Gagnon, author of “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views,” condemned the university, saying that such actions “come out of the Stalinistic, Soviet state. This is the kind of elimination of any expression of differences of opinion.”

In December 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority in Ireland banned a newspaper ad by a Belfast church, claiming that it was offensive and indecent. The ad, entitled “The Word of God against Sodomy,” was run by the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church to coincide with Belfast’s Gay Pride parade. “The Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints from seven members of the public who felt the ad was homophobic, ruling that it had ‘caused serious offense to some readers’” (“Church Ad Banned,” Christian Post, Dec. 3, 2008). This government agency has therefore ruled that the Bible is offensive and indecent and that its statements can be banned if they cause “offense” to some.

Also in December 2008, Graham Cogman was fired from the police force in Norfolk, England, for sending e-mails to colleagues quoting Bible verses and “suggesting that homosexual [sexual acts] was sinful” (“Office Force to Quit after 15 Years,” Daily Mail, Dec. 6, 2008). Cogman, 50, had been on the force for fifteen years and had three commendations. He told the Daily Mail: “In the service in general there is a feeling of fear. There is a definite bias against faith–any faith–if it takes a critical view of homosexual sexual activity. The easy option for me would have been to keep quiet but when there is such prejudice towards one point of view, how can that be right? That doesn’t sound like equality and diversity to me. I don’t have any worries with what people do in their private lives–if they are gay, that’s fine. I haven’t gone after anyone maliciously.” He is appealing the verdict.

In August 2009, Peter Vadala was fired by the Brookstone Corporation for telling a lesbian co-worker that his Christian faith did not accept sameSex marriage. Two days after she contacted the Human Resources department, his job was terminated (“Massachusetts man Fired from Corporation over Christian Belief in Traditional Marriage,” MassResistance.org, Oct. 30, 2009). The company told Peter that “in the State of Massachusetts, sameSex marriage is legal” and his actions were deemed to be “inappropriate” and “harassment.” He was accused of “imposing his beliefs upon others.”

In April 2010 Ken Howell was fired as adjunct professor by the University of Illinois for telling his Catholicism class that he agrees with the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality (“Firing Follows Anonymous ‘Hate Speech’ Complaint,” OneNewsNow.com, July 14, 2010). Howell had taught at the university for nine years, and the complaint was made anonymously by a friend of a student who attended the class.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO WORK IN THE FIELD OF COUNSELING

In July 2008 Marcia Walden was fired from her counseling job with Computer Sciences Corporation after she referred a homosexual patient to another counselor for sameSex relationship advice (“Counselor Fired over Christian Beliefs,” OneNewsNow, July 18, 2008).

In 2010, Jennifer Keeton was told by Augusta State University in Georgia that she would have to change her Christian beliefs or be expelled from the school’s graduate counseling program (The Christian Post, July 22, 2010). She was enrolled in the School Counselor masters degree program since 2009. “She expressed her Christian beliefs in class discussions and written assignments, but it was her views regarding gender and sexuality that particularly irked the faculty.

According to the filed complaint, ‘She has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces. She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created. Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a state of being.’ A Remediation Plan required that Keeton attend workshops on diversity sensitivity training toward working with GLBTQ [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Queer] populations, work to increase exposure and interaction with gay populations by attending such events as the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta, and read more on the topic to improve counseling effectiveness with GLBTQ populations.

When Keeton asked why her biblical ethical views would disqualify her competence as a counselor, Mary Anderson-Wiley [an associate professor who oversees student education and discipline] at one point responded, ‘Christians see this population as sinners.’” The Alliance Defense Fund filed suit against the school on July 21, 2010, but in June 2012 a judge of the Southern District of Georgia ruled against her.

On July 26, 2010, a federal judge ruled that Eastern Michigan University was within its rights to dismiss a graduate student, Julea Ward, from its counseling program “because she chose not to counsel a homosexual patient” (“Christianity, ‘Gay Rights’ Clash,” Baptist Press, July 30, 2010). “Ward wanted to refer him to another counselor, but the school found her action insufficient. She was given three options: 1) going through a ‘remediation program,’ 2) voluntarily withdrawing, or, 3) going before a university panel. She chose to appear before the panel, which found she had violated the ACA’s code of ethics. The panel, made up of three faculty members and a student representative, even asked Ward if she viewed her ‘brand of Christianity as superior to that of other Christ ians who may not agree with her.’”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO CONDUCT MINISTRIES TO HELP HOMOSEXUALS LEAVE THAT LIFESTYLE

The following is excerpted from “Now It’s EX-‘gays’ getting pummeled,” WorldNetDaily, May 28, 2008:

“Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals. Some attacks have been physical, such as the 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair. …

“Griggs said at the time, ‘The gays became infuriated when our ex-gay volunteers testified about leaving homosexuality. … One gay man went so far as to hit our ex-gay volunteer because he refused to recant his ex-gay testimony.’

“The fair was one of the events to which PFOX was admitted. Several other major influences in America today, including the National Education Association, and the Parent-Teachers Association, simply refuse to allow PFOX to appear at their events.

“Those who condemn homosexuality also face electronic badgering. When Sally Kern, an Oklahoma lawmaker, vocally rejected the homosexual lifestyle choice as a threat, she was inundated with tens of thousands of e-mails in a coordinated attack on her beliefs. Some of the e-mails threatened her. …

“Griggs told WND the movement is becoming more aggressive in teaching that homosexuality is something people are born with, not something they choose for whatever reasons.

“‘We have a school board teaching homosexuality is innate. We have judges ruling schools are not required to teach fact-based [sexEducation] information. Basically they are silencing anyone who holds a different opinion. Their sole concern is about advancing that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy and should have all the equal benefits of marriage. If you come at it from a Christian perspective, that makes you a homophobe,’ she said, citing the case of a University of Toledo administrator who was fired for expressing her personal Christian testimony regarding homosexuality. ‘They’re not seeking equality they’re seeking total control,’ she said. …

“‘Each year thousands of men and women with sameSex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality by means of reparative therapy, ex-gay ministry or group counseling. Their choice is one only they can make. However, there are others who refuse to respect that choice, and endeavor to attack the ex-gay community. Consequently, ex-gays are subject to an increasingly hostile environment where they are reviled or attacked as perpetrators of hate and discrimination simply because they dare to exist,’ Griggs said.”

In Brazil, where the homosexual rights movement is very advanced, the Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a suit against Rozangela Alves Justino, a psychologist who offers therapy to homosexuals who want to change their orientation (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 29, 2007).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO USE THE TERMS FATHER/MOTHER, HUSBAND/WIFE

The legalization of homosexuality is already beginning to destroy the concept of father and mother, husband and wife.

The new marriage licenses in California replace “husband and wife” with “Party A and Party B.”

In Scotland, teachers in some major cities have banned Father’s Day cards this year so as not to offend students who live with single mothers and lesbians. The London Telegraph reports, “The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools ‘in the interests of sensitivity’ over the growing number of lone-parent and sameSex households” (“Father’s Day Cards Banned,” June 20, 2008).

Last year Scotland’s National Health Service approved a policy for hospital workers mis-titled “Fair For All.” In fact, the policy is “fair” for no one, because it destroys the right of free speech and forbids the use of historic and biblical terms such as “mother” and “father” (since some patients might have two mothers or two fathers) and “husband” and “wife,” labeling this “homophobic language.” Such terms must be replaced with “partner” or “they/them” (Ed Vitagliano, “There is only one acceptable way to talk about homosexuality — SILENCE!” OneNewsNow.com, May 31, 2007). The policy is to be strictly enforced.

In May 2007 the California state senate passed bill SB 777. If approved by the state assembly and signed by the governor, it will ban any speech in the public school system that “reflects or promotes bias against” homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals, or those who “perceived” gender issues. The ban would apply even to discussions. Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families warns that references to “mother” and “father” would probably be banned if this idiotic policy becomes law (“Lawmakers Pass Redefinition ofSex_” The Berean Call, June 8, 2007).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO SERVE HOMOSEXUALS IN YOUR BUSINESS.

In 2001 in Toronto, Ontario, printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationery for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2001 a Christian gynecologist at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, California, was sued by a lesbian for refusing to provide in vitro fertilization treatment due to his religious convictions. Dr. Christine Brody has religious objections to pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage, but a fellow physician referred Benitez to an outside specialist and the clinic agreed to pay any cost involved in the fact that the specialist was not covered by the lesbian’s health insurance (“Another Type of Conscientious Objector,” American Civil Rights Union Blog, April 30, 2007).

In spite of that and in spite of the fact that she became pregnant and bore a healthy son, Guadalupe Benitez sued. In May 2008 the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. “Legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

In 2005 a British Columbia Knights of Columbus council was ordered to pay $2,000 to two lesbians, plus their legal costs, for refusing to allow its facility to be used for their “wedding.” The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2007, after a Methodist organization in New Jersey refused to rent its facility to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony, a complaint was filed with the state Division of Civil Rights. It ruled against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, saying that since the property was open for public use, it could not discriminate against homosexuals. The state revoked their tax exemption for the property. Pastor Scott Hoffman, administrator for the Association, says they refused to rent the facility because of the theological principle that marriage is between a man and a woman. They are appealing to the state court system. The complaint came soon after New Jersey legalized sameSex civil unions.

In April 2008 the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined a Christian photography studio $6,600 for discriminating against homosexuals. Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, co-owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, politely refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s “commitment ceremony.” One of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her “sexual orientation.” Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund that is representing the Huguenins, said: “This decision is a stunning disregard for religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms of people of faith, of Christians, and those who believe in traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman.

This shows the very disconcerting, authoritarian face of the homosexual activists, who are using these non-discrimination laws as weapons against Christians in the business world and Christians in their churches” (“New Mexico Commission Orders Fine,” OneNewsNow, April 11, 2008). Lorence warns this is how similar laws in 19 other states, and the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can be misused to silence biblical beliefs. In June 2012 the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled against Elane Photography, rejecting their appeal. The judge plainly stated that the state could discriminate against religious belief, writing, “The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests.”< /span>

Due to civil rights complains and lawsuits brought by homosexuals, the eHarmony online dating service was forced to establish a sameSex service and pay heavy financial penalties. A settlement with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights requires the company to establish a matching service for homosexuals, give the first 10,000 registrants a free six-month subscription, advertise the new service, and pay $5,000 to the homosexual who brought the complaint and $50,000 to the state for legal expenses (Christian News, Nov. 19, 2008). This does not include the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the company spent to defend itself against the unjust charges over a three-year period. You would think that the homosexuals would be satisfied, but that is far from the case.

They want to bleed the company even more, and the confused judges in the state of California are their abettors. The Los Angeles Superior Court ruled on November 20 that a class action lawsuit against eHarmony can go forward. Thus, every “gay, lesbian, and bisexual individual” that has attempted to use eHarmony since May 2004 can seek damages, and Judge Victoria Chaney said they do not need to demonstrate actual injury. They only have to assert that they visited the company’s web site to see a sameSex match and were turned away (“Class Action Lawsuit,” Online Dating Magazine, Nov. 20, 2008).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TURN DOWN A HOMOSEXUAL FOR A JOB.

In January 2002 the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal levied a fine of $7500 against the Vancouver Rape Relief Society for its refusal to allow a male-to-female “transsexual” named Kimberly Dawn to train as a rape and abuse hotline counsellor. In an article at its web site dated April 16, 2000, the society argued that it operates as a women-only society and that it is not wrong to exclude an individual who has grown up as a man and who its clients might not accept as a woman. The original complaint was brought in 1995. The tribunal commissioner who imposed the heavy-fisted sentence was Heather MacNaughton.

In July 2007 a homosexual man won a job discrimination claim against the Church of England. After John Reaney was turned down for a youth worker’s post in Cardiff, Wales, he complained to the government that he was being unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation. The employment tribunal agreed. Homosexual activists rejoiced at the ruling. One said that the “church must learn that denying people jobs on the ground of their sexuality is no longer acceptable” (“Gay Christian Wins Job Tribunal against Church of England,” Daily Mail, July 18, 2007).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ENFORCE PUBLIC NUDITY LAWS.

In June 2008 transgender activists removed their clothing in a public rally in Northampton, Massachusetts. The chose Northampton, because it is one of three cities in Massachusetts that have ordinances forbidding discrimination against transsexuals. Amy Contrada, a leader in the pro-family movement MassResistance, explained:

“With anti-discrimination ordinances in place, there’s no way a policeman would arrest a woman for being shirtless, because she could say she’s not a woman, and under the ordinance, she gets to determine whether she’s female or not” (“Transgender Activists Remove Clothing in Public,” WorldNetDaily, June 17, 2008).

Already in some American cities the public nudity laws are overlooked during homosexual fests. This is happening in San Francisco, for example. There are acts not only of public nudity but also of public sexual activity during the annual Folsom Street Fair and other “gay pride” festivals, and the police simply stand by and observe.

“Nude men engaged in multiple instances of public [sexual-activity] on a municipal street while police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregated nearby making no attempt to enforce public indecency regulations, according to a report on the latest homosexual-fest in San Francisco.

“The behavior was documented in photographs of an event called ‘Up Your Alley,’ which is sponsored by the same group that organizes the city’s fall ‘gay’-fest, the Folsom Street Fair, on which WND has reported.

“‘Consider how liberal government authorities like Mayor [Gavin] Newsom have corrupted the men in blue by stipulating that police not prosecute public nudity and indecency at homosexual festivals,’ said a report from Americans for Truth on the graphic activities documented at the event.

“‘What honor can there be in protecting the public practice of heinous perversions and nudity in the city’s streets? The shame of pandering politicians is transferred to the cops who were intended to be guardians of the law and public order,” said the organizer’s chief, Peter LaBarbera” (“San Francisco Fest Features PublicSex with No Arrests,” WorldNetDaily, Aug. 7, 2008).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MORAL DEGRADATION OF HOMOSEXUALS

The Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a flurry of lawsuits against websites that exposed the fact that the leader of Brazil’s homosexual movement, Luiz Mott, is a promoter of pedophilia and pederasty (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 30, 2007). “The sites, Media Without a Mask, the Christian Apologetics Research Center, and Jesussite, are accused of ‘charlatanism, infamy, defamation, and calumny,’ for having quoted Mott’s numerous statements endorsing sexual acts with children and adolescents. The Association is asking for criminal prosecution as well as monetary damages.”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO HAVE WOMEN ONLY PUBLIC RESTROOMS.

In June 2008 Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado signed a law making it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or even the “PERCEPTION” of gender identity (“Biblical Message Now Criminalized,” WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2008). James Dobson said: “Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation? Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence.”

This type of thing is already happening in Massachusetts. Consider the public hearing at the State House on March 4, 2008. The hearing was of the Joint Committee of the Judiciary on the “transgender rights and hate crimes bill” and it was dominated by homosexual activists. MassResistance reported: “We watched as a parade of men dressed as women going into the State House ladies’ restroom, and women into the men’s room–while inside the hearing the activists were unusually honest about their belief that transgender ‘rights’ will trump the public’s comfort with their behavior” (“When the Wicked Seize a State,” http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO PLACE CHILDREN WITH HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES.

“Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with sameSex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle–during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill ‘condoning discrimination.’ Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

“A sameSex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California” (National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO STOP HOMOSEXUALS FROM HAVING PUBLIC SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

When the mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, proposed in July 2007 that the city spend $250,000 on robotic toilets for the beach to curb homosexual sexual acts in public restrooms and parks, homosexual activists were up in arms. (The doors of the toilets automatically open after a certain period.) The homosexuals accused Mayor Jim Naugle of “hatred” and demanded an apology.

In response he did apologize, but not to the homosexuals. He said: “I was not aware of how serious the problem was of the sexual activity that’s taking place in bathrooms and public places and parks in Broward County and particularly the city of Fort Lauderdale. I’ve been educated on that, and I want to apologize to the parents and the children of our community for not being aware of the problem. This to me is totally unacceptable. I don’t think that in the name of being inclusive or tolerant any of us in the community should tolerate this” (“Fort Lauderdale Mayor Criticized,” Florida Baptist Witness, Aug. 2, 2007).

This further enraged the homosexuals, and they held a rally at city hall. Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called the mayor a “bigot” and said he should be “shunned everywhere he goes and not allowed at any gathering where decent people are.” City Commissioner Carlton Moore shouted, “We as a community must unite against hatred.”

Some public parks are listed on homosexual websites as recommended locations for immoral liaisons. In June 2008 Pennsylvania state park rangers arrested three men at such a park and accused them of lewd acts (“PA Park Rangers Crack Down,” OneNewsNow.com, June 18, 2008).

If homosexual activists get their way, and homosexuals are given license to act out their “lifestyle” as they please, the response given by the Fort Lauderdale mayor and the actions of the park rangers will be illegal.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND BOOKS THAT CRITICIZE HOMOSEXUALS.

In 2006 a librarian at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus was condemned by the faculty for simply recommending that the book The Marketing of Evil be placed on the required reading list for incoming freshmen. The librarian, Scott Savage, made the recommendation while holding serving on the First Year Reading Experience Committee. After a homosexual professor, J.F. Buckley, reacted to Savage’s recommendation by sending out “an obscenity-filled diatribe” in which he claimed that he felt threatened and intimidated, the faculty voted 21-0 to open a formal investigation of “sexual harassment” against the librarian (“Judge Rebuffs Christian,” WorldNetDaily, June 8, 2010). Though the university backed down and informed Savage that he was not guilty, the climate of intimidation continued and Savage felt it was necessary to resign.

In a nutshell, the thing that will be illegal when homosexuality is fully legal is Bible-believing Christianity, but none of this is surprising to the Bible believer. The Lord Jesus Christ likened the last days to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-30). And the apostle Paul prophesied:

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

We are not surprised at the wickedness that is sweeping across the world, but it is our responsibility to take a stand for God’s Word until Jesus comes.

If we take freedom of speech and religion for granted and do not use it to proclaim God’s Word, we don’t deserve it.

And no matter how evil the hour is, we must not despair. We have all of the glorious promises of a God that cannot lie. Any trouble we face in this life is very brief and fleeting. Eternity is what matters.

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men For kings, and for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

“But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed” (Luke 17:29-30).

“Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. Trust in the LORD, and do good so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the LORD and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Commit thy way unto the LORD trust also in him and he shall bring it to pass. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.”

“For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming. The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation. Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken. A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked” (Psalms 37:1-16).