CHRISTIANITY... http://thetruthwins.com

IF YOU DIDN"T KNOW WHAT RELIGION THE PRESIDENT WAS... AFTER READING THIS WHAT RELIGION MIGHT YOU THINK THAT HE BELONGS TO??

Christianity 

http://thetruthwins.com

Share this article

     

---

You are about to read some of the most shocking quotes that Barack Obama has ever uttered in public. A few of these have been widely circulated, but most of them are very obscure.

Even though he claims to be a Christian, throughout his political career Obama has repeatedly attacked traditional Biblical Christianity and he has a very long history of anti-Christian actions.

In public speeches he has repeatedly cast doubt on the Bible, he has repeatedly stated that he does not believe that Jesus is necessary for salvation, and he has consistently said that he believes that all “people of faith” believe in the same God.

At the same time, Obama has always referred to Muhammed as “the Prophet”, he has always expressed great love and respect for Islam, and he has even removed all references to Islam from terror training materials used by federal government agencies.

So what in the world does “the leader of the free world” actually believe? Read the quotes below and decide for yourself…

20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Islam

#1 “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

#2 “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”

#3 “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”

#4 “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”

#5 “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

#6 “Islam has always been part of America”

#7 “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities”

#8 “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

#9 “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

#10 “I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”

#11 “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

#12 “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”

#13 “In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”

#14 “throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

#15 “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”

#16 “The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’”

#17 “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”

#18 “We’ve seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants – farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe.”

#19 “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

#20 “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Christianity

#1 “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”

#2 “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”

#3 “Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?”

#4 “Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.”

#5 “The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.”

#6 From Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope: “I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”

#7 Obama’s response when asked what his definition of sin is: “Being out of alignment with my values.”

#8 “If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that was all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they.”

#9 “This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.”

#10 “I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.”

#11 “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.”

#12 “I’ve said this before, and I know this raises questions in the minds of some evangelicals. I do not believe that my mother, who never formally embraced Christianity as far as I know … I do not believe she went to hell.”

#13 “Those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God’s will–they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths.”

#14 On his support for civil unions for gay couples: “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount.”

#15 “You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them.

And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

#16 “In our household, the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology”

#17 “On Easter or Christmas Day, my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites.”

#18 “we have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own”

#19 “All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra — (applause) — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)”

#20 “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2013/October02/021.html#99JIoXe5dZ34m7v2.99

Obama considers costly unilateral "fix" of Obamacare Subsidies... By Karl HotAir.com.

Obama considers costly unilateral “fix” of Obamacare subsidies

POSTED AT 3:01 PM ON NOVEMBER 9, 2013 BY KARL

  

When the going for Obamacare gets tough, the Administration considers throwing more money at the problem. To quote the Allahpundit, “Shocka“:

The Obama administration is considering a fix to the president’s health care law that would expand the universe of individuals who receive tax subsidies to help buy insurance, an administration source told The Huffington Post.

***

According to the administration source, the White House is “looking at an administrative fix for the population of people in the individual market who may have an increase in premiums, but don’t get subsidies.”

Even liberal pundits like Paul Waldman wonder how the Administration does this without Congress. True, Obama has not considered the Constitution to be much of a constraint in other situations. On the other hand, exploding the projected cost of O-care subsidies from $458 billion to $1.2 trillion in just the first six years might be difficult to pull off with a wave of the administrative wand.

Yet the most interesting thing about this trial balloon is the extend to which it does not fix what you would think the Left would consider the problem with O-care subsidies. The proposal could be a purely unserious political feint which tries to put the GOP in opposition to decreasing O-care’s pain (per Waldman’s suggestion), or — like Obama’s “sorry, not sorry” this week — to avoid supporting broader legislative fixes. If not, the Administration may have deeper political concerns in mind.

The policy landscape is fairly well-understood, even across ideological lines. As Avik Roy and the Manhattan Institute crew show, health care premiums are set to increase significantly on average under Obamacare, even after the subsidies are included in the calculations. Moreover, there will be distinct winners and losers under this scheme. Men, particularly young men, will tend to be losers. Young women and those approaching retirement age will tend to benefit. TNR’s Jonathan Cohn does not directly dispute much of this analysis. Rather, he relies on experts suggesting O-care will produce more winners than losers, “as long as you account for subsidies, Medicaid, and the ability of young adults to enroll in special catastrophic plans or stay on their parents’ policies,” particularly the Medicaid expansion. These are important qualifiers, as we we will see later.

Cohn continues with perhaps the most salient point:

Of course, the debate about how premiums is just one piece of the story. The ultimate question is whether, under Obamacare, people buying insurance on their own think they are getting a good deal. And the answer to that question will depend on a bunch of factors—not just how much people pay up front in premiums, for example, but also what kind of out-of-pocket costs they face if and when they get sick. And what’s affordable to one person may not seem so affordable to another.

Indeed. Accordingly, it is useful to look at a couple of several examples provided by heath industry consultant Robert Laszewski, based on fairly typical figures from California for the mid-range “Silver” plans to which subsidy levels are tied:

A single person making $22,980 per year would face a premium, net of subsidies, of $121 per month. That’s pretty good.

However, the point most people have been missing is that same person would also face a $500 deductible and up to $2,250 in out-of-pocket costs for things like co-pays. If the individual were sick, that looks like a pretty good deal. If they were healthy, would they spend what is perhaps 10% of their monthly take home income for a plan with an upfront $500 deductible?

***

For so many individuals and families, 10% of their take home income is a huge issue. This is the marginal income left at the end of the month, after taxes, rent, and car payments that is so critically important to them. As purely an insurance value, it’s a good deal. But the notion that hard earned and important dollars would be spent for something they aren’t going to get any measureable short-term value for is another matter entirely.

***

A family at 300% of the federal poverty level will make $71,000 and have to pay out 9.5% of their income for premium, or $6,700 a year for that second-lowest cost Silver plan. How many families making even this much have an extra $558 a month in their budget to buy a plan with a $2,000 per person deductible?

At The Guardian — no right-wing outlet — Marc Rubin notes the same problem with respect to the low-end “Bronze” plans:

The cost alone of these “low end” policies are producing sticker shock when people see them. It gets worse when people see what the insurance companies are actually offering for these premiums. That’s when they get the second shock.

Many uninsured are finding that the bronze or lowest end policies are being priced in the range of $250 a month and up on average and that they come with $6,000 yearly deductibles(pdf) to be paid out of pocket before they get full coverage. Until then, they pay 40% in co-pays until the $6,000 out-of-pocket is reached in addition to the monthly premiums. And again, this is for the bottom tier polices for a single person, not a family. Costs to a family are higher.

It doesn’t take Warren Buffet’s financial savvy to figure out that young, healthy uninsured Americans, who are largely uninsured because they cant afford health insurance in the first place, are not going to be flocking to buy these policies for the privilege of having a health insurance card in their wallets that requires another $6,000 out-of-pocket before their expenses are fully covered and includes co-pays of 40% of all initial costs until that $6,000 is reached. What most of them will do is what they have been doing – live without insurance and go to an emergency room if they need medical care where the law says they have to be treated whether they have insurance or not.

As Laszewski notes, the problem with the subsidies results in part from the fact that the Democrats wanted to price Obamacare at below $1 trillion for political reasons. We have already seen the establishment media begin to report on the degree to which the implementation of O-care — though Healthcare.gov — was compromised by political considerations. We have yet to see much revisiting the degree to which politics warpedthe creation of the policy itself. Jay Cost has been tweeting about it, and the many times progressives have done it in the past.

Politics also would appear to be the motivating factor behind the Administration’s latest trial balloon. As Byron York noted earlier this week, “[t]he key to Obamacare’s success or failure — provided the administration can actually learn to operate the system — is whether it helps more people than it hurts, or hurts more people than it helps.” I would slightly amend that argument. The key is whether the Administration, and Democrats in general, have a net gain politically.

Progressives see a net gain, but not just on the subsidized voter — they rely on those getting Medicaid (to the extent Medicaid actually helps) and young people staying on their parents’ plans. But the younger and poorer population is also less likely to vote than the older, healthier and wealthier. Providing subsidies to people with incomes higher than 400% above poverty may help stabilize a risk pool currently being filled mostly by the Medicaid expansion. However, as subsidizing the more affluent does nothing for the people in the examples described above, one might be forgiven for suspecting the Administration is looking to buy off more likely voters who will feel the pains of O-care.

  

Tags: coverage, delay, Department of Health and Human Services, health, insurance, insurers,obama, ObamaCare, sebelius, subsidies

Hawaii Elections Clerk: Obama not born here! By Joe Kovacs, WND March 13, 2011

Hawaii elections clerk: Obama not born here By Joe Kovacs, WND A college instructor who worked as a senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008 is making the stunning claim Barack Obama was definitely not born in Hawaii as the White House maintains, and that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not even exist in the Aloha State. Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, now teaches English at Western Kentucky University. "There is no birth certificate," said Tim Adams, a graduate assistant who teaches English at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Ky. "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this." Adams, who says he's a Hillary Clinton supporter who ended up voting for John McCain when Clinton lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, told WND, "I managed the absentee-ballot office. It was my job to verify the voters' identity." He says during the 2008 campaign when the issue of Obama's constitutional eligibility first arose, the elections office was inundated with requests to verify the birthplace of the U.S. senator from Illinois.

Officer to Obama: See you in Court... by Bob Unruh, WND

Officer to Obama: See you in court By Bob Unruh, WND An Army officer who invited his own court-martial to resolve for the nation questions about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has waived a preliminary hearing in his case. Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who refused orders from a chain of command led by Obama, also today released a new video explaining why documentation needs to be released by Obama that could confirm that he qualifies to be president under the Constitution's demand that the office by held only by a "natural born citizen." Lakin was scheduled for an Article 32 military hearing tomorrow, the equivalent of a civilian preliminary hearing in a court case. But Daniel J. Driscoll, an Army hearing officer, had banned Lakin from bringing in evidence about Obama's birth as well as testimony from Hawaii officials who may have information on the subject. "In my view our constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not a military judicial body, to put the president's credentials on trial," Driscoll wrote in a memorandum determining what evidence the defense for Lakin would have been allowed. But in a new video, Lakin said the issue is important:

Big legal setback for Obama's Health care overhaul...(by Mark Serman & Erica Werner) Associated Press Dec. 13, 2010 @ 1855 hrs.

Big legal setback for Obama's health care overhaul

By MARK SHERMAN and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Mark Sherman And Erica Werner, Associated Press 31 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul hit its first major legal roadblock Monday, thrown into doubt by a federal judge's declaration that the heart of the sweeping legislation is unconstitutional. The decision handed Republican foes ammunition for their repeal effort next year as the law heads for almost certain eventual judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Republican appointee in Richmond, Va., marked the first successful court challenge to any portion of the new law, following two earlier rulings in its favor by Democratic-appointed judges.

The law's central requirement for nearly all Americans to carry insurance is unconstitutional, well beyond Congress' power to mandate, Hudson ruled, agreeing with the argument of Virginia's Republican attorney general — and many of the GOP lawmakers who will take control of the U.S. House in January. Hudson denied Virginia's request to strike down the law in its entirety or block it from being implemented while his ruling is appealed by the Obama administration.

"An individual's personal decision to purchase — or decline to purchase — health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause," said Hudson, a 2002 appointee of President George W. Bush.

Nevertheless, the White House predicted it would prevail in the Supreme Court, although it may be a year or two before the health care law gets there. The next step for the Virginia lawsuit is the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, where Democratic-appointed judges hold a majority.

In an interview with television station WFLA in Tampa, Fla., on Monday, Obama emphasized that other judges had either found the law constitutional or dismissed lawsuits against it.

"Keep in mind this is one ruling by one federal district court. We've already had two federal district courts that have ruled that this is definitely constitutional," Obama said. "You've got one judge who disagreed. That's the nature of these things."

But in the short term, the latest court ruling hands potent ammunition to GOP opponents as they prepare to assert control in the new Congress with promises to repeal the law. Obama in turn has promised to veto any repeal legislation and appears likely to be able to prevail since Democrats retain control of the Senate. Republicans also have discussed trying to starve the law of funding.

Whatever the eventual outcome, Monday's ruling could create uncertainty around the administration's efforts to gradually put into effect the landmark legislation extending health coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. And it can only increase the public's skepticism, which has not significantly receded in the months since the law's enactment, defying Obama's prediction that it would become more popular as the public got to know it.

Obama aides said implementation would not be affected, noting that the individual insurance requirement and other major portions of the legislation don't take effect until 2014.

Underscoring the potential for Hudson's ruling to become a political cudgel for the new Republican House majority, incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, quickly cautioned states against "investing time and resources in Obamacare's implementation now that its central mandate has been ruled unconstitutional."

"Republicans have made a pledge to America to repeal this job-killing health care law, and that's what we're going to do," said Boehner. Calls to repeal the law were a staple of tea party campaign rallies this year.

Other lawsuits are going forward, including one by 20 states that gets under way Thursday in Florida. That suit also challenges whether the federal government can require states to expand their Medicaid programs.

The suit that was decided on Monday had gained a high profile because it was pursued by Virginia's outspoken attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli. The two earlier cases decided in favor of the administration were brought by little-known legal entities.

In his ruling, Hudson largely agreed with Cuccinelli's argument that Congress exceeded its authority, and he dismissed the Justice Department's argument that the insurance-buying requirement would come under the definition of regulating interstate commerce, a power given to Congress by the Constitution.

The mandate for people to buy insurance "is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution," the judge said.

Hudson limited his ruling to striking down the so-called individual mandate, leaving intact other portions of the law — something supporters cast as a victory. But administration officials and outside analysts agree that important provisions of the legislation could not go forward without the requirement for everyone to be insured. That's because insurers need to have large pools of healthy people, who are cheap to insure, or it is not financially tenable for them to extend coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition or guarantee certain policies to nearly all comers.

Some provisions of the law took effect in September, six months after its passage, including free preventive care, an elimination of lifetime limits on coverage and a requirement for insurers to allow adult children to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.

Hudson recognized that his would not be the last word on the subject.

"The final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court," he wrote.

White House health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle said the administration is encouraged by the two other judges — in Virginia and Michigan — who have upheld the law. She said the Justice Department is reviewing Hudson's ruling.

In contrast to Hudson's ruling, the judges in Michigan and Virginia, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the purchase requirement was allowable under the Constitution.

___

Associated Press writer Larry O'Dell contributed to this report from Richmond, Va.

A Federal Judge declared Obama's Health Care Bill Unconstitutinal. Dec. 13, 2010

Newsmax

US Judge Rejects Key Part of Obama Healthcare Law

Monday, December 13, 2010 12:11 PM

By:
RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge declared the Obama administration's healthcare law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately will decide.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which two others in Virginia and Michigan have upheld. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one 20 other states have joined in a Florida filing.

Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. However, the key issue was his claim that the federal law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.

Hudson, a Republican whom President George W. Bush appointed, sounded sympathetic to the state's case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.

Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law's implementation, noting that its two major provisions — the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets — don't take effect until 2014.

The central issue in Virginia's lawsuit was whether the federal government has the power under the constitution to impose the insurance requirement. The Justice Department said the mandate is a proper exercise of the government's authority under the Commerce Clause.

Cuccinelli argued that, although the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.

Obama Appoints Homosexual Propagandist to Education (by Steve Baldwin, Western Journalism)

Obama appoints Homosexual Propagandist to Education

By Steve Baldwin, WesternJournalism.com Exclusive

Obama's Gay Advocate in Education
In a stunning move, President Barack Obama has nominated homosexual propagandist Kevin Jennings to be the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education in charge of the “Safe and Drug-Free Schools” program. Aside from overseeing drug education programs, the term “safe” also means making public schools “safe” for alleged homosexual children; translated, this means Jennings’s position will be used to produce and disseminate pro-homosexual propaganda to America’s public schools.
Granted, homosexual propaganda in our schools has become common place, but the appointment of Jennings ensures that for the first time ever, the Federal government will be funding and promoting homosexual propaganda on a large scale basis. This nomination makes clear that President Obama believes America’s public school children should be exposed to deviant sexual lifestyles having nothing to do with academics.
Who is Jennings? He’s the founder and, until recently, the President of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the nation’s leading homosexual pressure group working to insert homosexual propaganda into America’s public schools. GLSEN’s budget is in the millions and they are the driving force behind the formation of over 4000 homosexual clubs on our colleges, high schools and even middle schools. Most of these clubs were formed by homosexual faculty members trained by GLSEN.
But this appointment shouldn’t surprise anyone. Obama has supported the homosexual agenda his entire political career. Indeed, within 24 hours of winning the presidency, his website posted the most aggressive pro-homosexual agenda of any president in American history.
Obama supports “hate crimes” legislation, which criminalizes even thoughts in opposition to homosexuality; he supports massively increasing funding for AIDS “prevention” programs, despite the fraud and abuse rampant in such programs today. He supports repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexuals in the military.
He favors quotas for homosexuals in federal hiring; he wants to force businesses with government contracts to hire homosexuals; he promised homosexual leaders he will use the bully pulpit to force adoption agencies to adopt children out to homosexuals. He wants to grant health benefits to the partners of homosexual government workers, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. He even wants to create a new category of federally protected sexual deviancy called “gender identity” — a another name for transsexuals — which means that Federal and state government entities – including public schools – could not refuse to hire transsexuals.
Obama misled voters during the campaign when he claimed to oppose homosexual marriage when in fact he secretly promised homosexual leaders he will abolish what he termed the “abhorrent” federal DOMA law, an action which clears the way for states to legalize homosexual marriage. Obama even claims the Bible – specifically the Sermon on the Mount – legitimitizes homosexual unions! There is little doubt that Obama will go down in history as the most pro-homosexual president in American history and perhaps one of the most pro-homosexual leaders in the Western World.
The homosexual community was so excited about Obama’s election that during the inaugural weekend, a leading S & M homosexual group – among the sickest people alive – reserved a large room at the Doubletree Hotel in Washington DC, for a massive orgy involving hundreds of perverts, at which activities were planned that were so vile they cannot even be repeated here.
Jennings is perfect for the Obama regime since, like Obama, he’s a zealot for promoting homosexuality. He wants all children to be exposed to homosexual behavior and has spent most of his life propagating myths like the claim that 10% of all children are homosexuals, a myth key to his rational for why schools should cater to homosexuals.
But the fact remains that homosexuality is not normal behavior regardless how many advocates proclaim it to be. It is deviant sexual behavior. Indeed, there aren’t any credible geneticists today who claim homosexuality is genetic so no one is born this way. Indeed, the evidence that homosexual behavior is a learned behavior influenced by a child’s home life, role models and even homosexual molestation, remains overwhelming.
Nevertheless, Jennings has dedicated his life to the corruption of our youth. Indeed, GLSEN’s website goes into great detail about how “teachers need to incorporate gay and lesbian issues throughout the curriculum – not just in classes such as health education, but in traditional disciplines such as English, history, and Science.” GLSEN also instructs teachers how to use non-academic activities to promote this lifestyle, such as the school library, athletics, proms, counseling, speakers, and films. This saturation, GLSEN hopes, will convince many school children that engaging in homosexual behavior is perfectly normal and thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of developing more homosexuals.
At a 1997 GLSEN conference Jennings said he looked forward to the day when parents will react to reports that schools are “promoting homosexuality” by saying, “Yeah, who cares?” And GLSEN board member Stephen Glassman stated, “I don’t want to be tolerated. I don’t want to be put up with. I want to be ….celebrated.”
But we’re not talking about just college and high school students. GLSEN wants to propagandize children as young as possible: GLSEN leader Jaki Williams says that kindergarten kids need to be exposed to positive portrayals of homosexuals. She said that children that age are “developing their superego,” and “that’s when the saturation process needs to begin.” Another GLSEN leader stated, “the younger you start, the better.” GLSEN conferences often have sessions titled “But they’re too Young!….Discussing Gay and Lesbian Issues with Elementary-Age Students.” GLSEN’s websites have numerous resources instructing teachers how to create “lesson plans…for elementary schools.” GLSEN even promotes fairy tale type books that portray two fathers or two mothers. These people are sick.
As for parents, why, that’s just a minor obstacle. GLSEN conferences feature sessions about “how to deal with barriers (i.e., unsupportive parents)” of elementary school children. When GLSEN leader Chuck Jones spoke at a GLSEN conference about how to deal with opposition from disgruntled parents or faculty members, he stated, “this is war, so plan accordingly.”
Jenning’s view of Christians who actually believe what the Bible says about homosexuality is not flattering: “We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit …I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘[F---] ‘em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! Drop dead!” GLSEN’s materials repeatedly attack the foundational Christian belief that homosexuality is sinful and considers anyone who holds this belief to be “homophobic.” Naturally, GLSEN promotes books that misled students about what the Bible actually says about homosexuality.
Incredibly, GLSEN promotes pro-pedophile books such as One Teenager in 10, which contains at least a half dozen stories involving sex between children and adults. Another example of a GLSEN-promoted book featuring child/adult sex is Growing up Gay/Growing up Lesbian: “When I was 15, he must have been 29-39…I seduced him.. it was a wild night. We did everything.” Another GLSEN-recommended book has a story about a minor boasting about how he met his 25 year old “boyfriend” who “picked me up right away when I joined the group.”
Incredibly, one GLSEN book even discusses in detail how a man had sex in a public rest room with a young boy who then comments how the “the whole world of rest-room sex had opened up to me.” This is sick; GLSEN is promoting books that fulfill the fantasies of homosexual pedophiles who believe children WANT them sexually. Not surprisingly, GLSEN promotes many books by Alyson Publications, a leading publisher of pro-pedophile books and gay porn. GLSEN also has distributed material that refers children to adult homosexual clubs where they can meet older homosexuals.
GLSEN also promotes books that feature sex between children like this: “he let my zipper go down a little and then put a little of his hand down the waistband of my boxers…we still kissed .. as he slid his hand down further. A clear tent had formed in my boxers….” Then, of course, we can’t forget GLSEN’s obsession with promoting cross-dressing as they do in a play called Cootie Shots that is distributed to elementary schools.
But Jennings himself has no problem with child/adult sex. He wrote that when he was a teacher a student came to him and confessed he had sex with an adult but the child left his office, Jennings wrote, “with a smile on his face.” Apparently, Jennings told the kid that nothing bad happened.
GLSEN has sponsored pornographic conferences that focus on highly inappropiate sexual behavior such as fisting. One such event occurred in Massachusetts a few years ago in which GLSEN sponsored a secretive workshop titled “What They Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class: A Workshop for Youth Only, ages 14-21.” Unbelievably, this workshop discussed how minors can engage in a highly dangerous activity called “fisting” in which a man inserts his arm up the anal cavity of another man. When the homosexuals discovered the session was secretly taped, they sued to block release of the tape.
Obviously, GLSEN’s holds radical views on the development of homosexuality, believing that most children are naturally homosexual! One of GLSEN’s ideological warriors wrote on its website that “It is possible to speculate that in the twentieth century a number of cultural taboos evolved to cut short the homosocial ties of girlhood and to impel the emerging women of thirteen or fourteen toward heterosexual relationships.” In other words, homosexuality is the norm and heterosexuality is forced upon our children by our “heterosexist” culture. Indeed, GLSEN’s material constantly refer to “institutionalized heterosexism” because, God forbid, school books picture normal families and school restrooms marked either “boys” or “girls” is often not a “match [for] your gender identity/expression.” Clearly, GLSEN’s goal is to destroy any bias whatsoever in favor of “heterosexism.”
GLSEN refuses to acknowledge several massive surveys of homosexual lifestyles showing they have much higher rates than do heterosexuals regarding criminal activity, suicides, drug abuse, mental illness, alcoholism, etc. But this is no surprise; deviant behavior always leads to higher rates of unhealthy activities. If homosexuality were normal, such differences wouldn’t exist.
The reality is that there aren’t any peer-reviewed large scale studies of homosexual lifestyles that demonstrate it’s a normal lifestyle. Indeed, every year thousands of minor boys contract HIV from having sex with older homosexual men and research also demonstrates that the average lifespan of a homosexual male may be as much as twenty years less than that of a heterosexual male.
Why then, are our schools promoting this lifestyle? Shouldn’t they be counseling our children to avoid such a dangerous lifestyle? Our public school systems spend millions on the creation and distribution of anti-drug education programs but a good argument can be made that homosexual behavior poses a more serious health risk than most drugs do.
But apparently, Obama doesn’t care about the health of children. He doesn’t care that GLSEN and Kevin Jennings are jeopardizing the health of millions of school children. Indeed, the Obama administration even sent Joe Biden’s wife to GLSEN’s New York gala last May.
It is now abundantly clear that Obama is a political animal who cares only about power and destroying America’s Judeo-Christian culture. The appointment of Kevin Jennings essentially means that the promotion of a deviant and unhealthy lifestyle to our children is now a federal priority but will also ensure the loyalty of homosexual activists to Obama for years to come.
The end result is that thousands of children will be seduced into a death lifestyle; gender identity confusion will dramatically increase youth suicide, and the intellectual – if not the actual physical — molestation of children “confused” by GLSEN’s deceptive material will increase. Instead of hiring Kevin Jennings, the federal government should be investigating how GLSEN is breaking Federal and state laws by exposing children to obscene literature and encouraging illegal sexual liaisons.
About the Author: Steve Baldwin writes on legislation and does investigative research. He is the former executive director of the Council for National Policy. He was elected to the California Legislature and served six years, where he chaired the Education Committee. He also served as the Minority Whip. Baldwin has managed numerous campaigns, and he has authored two policy- oriented books, one on education and one on how America’s enemies use the media to manipulate public opinion. He has advised numerous Congressmen, including Newt Gingrich on public policy.