Tag Archives: United States Department of Justice

It is here: “Silence will be interpreted as disapproval”

As I pointed out to our Sunday School class when doing a few lessons on Refuting Pro-Gay Theology, there is no more fence.  By that I mean that the Left is forcing you to pick a side.  No more mushy middle when you can give lip service to the word of God yet not have it cost you anything.

Here is the clearest example I’ve seen: DOJ on ‘gays’: ‘silence will be interpreted as disapproval’ (text below).  Note that DOJ = Department of Justice.  Let me repeat that: Department of Justice.  You know, the people charged with executing justice in the land.

You can thank the false teachers and theologically Liberal “Christians” for this.  You would think that they would at least pretend to care about religious freedom, but they don’t even offer the mildest rebuke.  And why would they?  When your religion is worshiping the government then you don’t care if they take away real religious freedom.

Read it carefully.  This is where things are going.  You can’t just “tolerate” these behaviors, you must actively affirm them — or else.

Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT” employees, managers are instructed:

“DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)

That’s a threat.

And not even a subtle one.

Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This lawless administration is now bullying federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.

Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.

The directive includes a quote from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize justification: “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country and most of the world still acknowledge objective sexual morality (and immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric issues.

Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:

“DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the Bible. I believe that God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?

Here are some more DOs:

DO “Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and invite (but don’t require) others to join you.”

DO “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.'”

Are you kidding? Does this administration really think it’s legal to induce managers to “attend LGBT events,” or to “display pride stickers” against their will? That’s compulsory expression. That’s viewpoint discrimination.

That’s unconstitutional.

But there’s more:

“DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”

Oh, brother.

Sorry. Oh, gender-neutral sibling.

“DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.”

In other words, lie. Engage in corporate delusion.

“DO deal with offensive jokes and comments forcefully and swiftly when presented with evidence that they have occurred in the workplace.”

“DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.”

Who gets to decide what’s an “inappropriate joke [or] comment”? I thought we had a Constitution for that. It sure ain’t Big Brother Barack. Sure, I get it, it’s probably better not to start your work day with: “A lesbian, a tranny and two gays walk into a bath house …” but still, “no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” means no law. No matter how much Obama wishes it so, we don’t leave our constitutional rights at the federal workplace door.

The DOJ edict even addresses cross-dressing man woes:

“As a transgender woman [that’s a man in a skirt], I want people to understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am [again, you’re a man in a skirt]. Yes, there was awkwardness with pronouns at first for folks who knew me before the transition. But it hurts when several years later people still use the wrong pronouns. And just imagine if people were constantly debating YOUR bathroom privileges. Imagine how humiliating that would be.”

Tell you what, buddy: I won’t “debate YOUR bathroom privileges” if you return to this planet. You’d better stay the heck out of the ladies room while my wife or two daughters are in there; otherwise, we have a problem. Women have an absolute right not be sexually harassed in the workplace – a right to privacy when using the facilities. To constantly worry whether a gender-confused, cross-dressing man is going to invade her privacy creates a hostile work environment.

Plan B pills available to 15 year old kids? This has enormous implications.

Once again, the illusion of consequence-free sex trumps parental rights, medical risks and more.

President Obama, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the radical Left are in favor of all children having unrestricted access to the “Plan B morning-after pill,” though for now the limit is 15 because one judge picked that age.  But what if another judge says it is 14, or 10?  Elections matter, and this is what you get when you stay at home or don’t understand the worldviews of those you are voting for.

Not only is this terribly dangerous for the children, but it aggressively usurps parental rights.  They are saying that as a parent you have no right to know if your kids are having sex or taking powerful drugs.  If it is legal for 15 yr. old children to buy them over the counter, why won’t adults buy be able to buy them and give them to kids in schools?

Like so many other birth control methods, this will give a false sense of security and increase pregnancies, abortions, diseases and emotional damage.

In nearly every other area of life and health 15 yr. olds are treated as not having the ability to make important decisions: Voting, alcohol, smoking, military service, whether to go to school, whether to take Advil at school without parental consent, drive, get tattoos, curfews and more. Yet the Left wants this powerful drug available to your daughters and sons and grandchildren.

I’m waiting for statutory rapists and pedophiles to use this and similar Leftist actions as a blanket defense. If 15 yr. old girls are mature enough to consent to sex with those 17 or younger and to purchase strong medicines by themselves, what is morally significant about their partners being 18 or over?  “But your honor, the State considers the 15 yr. old to be mature enough to consent to sex with a 17 yr. old and to buy these powerful drugs.  Why isn’t she mature enough to consent to sex with an 18 yr. old, or a 21 yr. old, or a 31 yr. old?”

And note that sales aren’t limited to girls.  Just think about all the guys who will buy these pills and use them as part of their seduction schemes. “Just take this pill tomorrow and there will be no consequences” — right?!

Worse yet, many of the extremists don’t want an age limit at all.  And in a sense they’ve already achieved their goal.  Since 15 yr. old children can’t drive they typically don’t have identification, so pharmacies will ultimately have to take their word for it.

Also see Thoughts on Plan-B – Sifting Reality and Hyper-sexualized, asexual America.

.

The story within the story on the Operation Fast & Furious cover-up

Why are Department of Justice and White House personnel yelling and screaming at a reporter over her coverage of the Operation Fast & Furious cover-up? Via Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith requests Special Counsel on possible Eric Holder perjury:

[Laura] Ingraham: So they were literally screaming at you?
[Sharyl] Attkisson: Yes. Well the DOJ woman was just yelling at me. The guy from the White House on Friday night literally screamed at me and cussed at me. [Laura: Who was the person? Who was the person at Justice screaming?] Eric Schultz. Oh, the person screaming was [DOJ spokeswoman] Tracy Schmaler, she was yelling not screaming. And the person who screamed at me was Eric Schultz at the White House.”

It isn’t just the obvious perjury of Eric Holder about when he knew of the program.  It is how these high level Obama officials assume that they can tell the media what they can and can’t report — as if that’s what they’ve been doing since he’s been in office!

What if a Republican President decided not to enforce a law he didn’t like?

Anyone on the Left cheering President Obama’s dropping of legal support for the Defense of Marriage Act isn’t thinking even 30 minutes into the future.  Do they really like the precedent that a President can pick what laws to enforce?  (BTW, DOMA passed by huge margins in the Senate (85 – 14) and House (342 – 67) and was signed into law by President Clinton.)  Will they just sit there when a Republican President does ignores laws he opposes?

Let’s turn to our one-stop-heresy shop, Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie, for the typical response of the theological Left (i.e., false teachers):

President Obama Does The Christian Thing In Dropping Legal Support For Defense of Marriage Act.

Really?  Got any Bible verses for that?  In addition to Jesus specifically stating that marriage was designed for one man and one woman:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

President Obama today directed the U.S. Department of Justice to stop defending theindefensible: the so called “Defense of Marriage Act” which bars federal recognition of same sex marriages.

“Indefensible?”  That’s beyond hyperbole considering what both Christian and non-Christian cultures have determined through history.  Same-sex unions by nature and design do not produce the next generation.  Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman.

This was an act of moral courage on the part of the president

That’s odd, when a Republican like Rick Perry spends time passing a sonogram law to reduce abortions and make them safer for women the Lefty criticism is that he should be working on the budget or other bigger problems (Bigger than saving lives?!).  But when Obama does something like this to cater to certain sexual preferences it is courage. Check.

The prohibition of gay marriage is the twin evil of the legal prohibition that not long ago existed that barred interracial marriages.

For the 100th time, skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not.

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ made history by becoming the first mainline Christian denomination to endorse full marriage equality in 2005.

Yes, we know you are a band of apostates.  As Glenn noted, “The United Church of Christ has again demonstrated it is more involved with the social gospel than the true gospel, and that they assist those who behave illegally.  In Chicago a UCC has given sanctuary and protected some of the Wisconsin Democrat lawmakers who are hiding from the State Patrol rather return to do the job they are being paid to do.”

The U.S. Department of Justice “will now take the position in court that the act should be struck down as a violation of same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection under the law,” according to The New York Times.  This action on the part of the president moves our nation closer to being the Beloved Community.

“Beloved community” is a classically nauseating false teacher-ism.  He’s got no Bible verses to back it up.  He makes up the phrase then pretends that his false god makes that the highest goal.  Then again, what do you expect from a “reverend” who brags about taking 6 year old girls to gay pride parades?

Racism roundup

A few stories caught my eye the other day.  Just one question: How many of these did you see on MSNBC?  That’s what I thought.

NAACP Has No Interest In Addressing Racism Against Justice Clarence Thomas

The NAACP won’t directly address the racism displayed by progressive protesters outside a summit hosted by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch at the end of January in Palm Springs, Calif., but the organization did call for an end to all “vitriolic language.”

In response to The Daily Caller’s request for comment on a videoshowing progressive protesters calling for somebody to “string up” African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or “send him back into the fields” or “cut off all his toes and feed them to him one-by-one,” NAACP spokesman Hilary Shelton pointed to theorganization’s recent resolution calling for a “civil political discourse.”

“Last summer, the NAACP passed a resolution calling for a civil political discourse,” Shelton said in an e-mail to TheDC. “We continue to call on all Americans to abandon vitriolic language. It serves as a distraction from the real issues our society need to address and distorts the challenges we as Americans have to confront to make our nation greater still.”

Shelton would not, however, address the content of the video directly.

Civil rights commission finds that Obama administration has racist double standard

Remember the New Black Panthers voter intimidation story?

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights came out in December with a draft of its interim report on the New Black Panthers Party scandal. Earlier today a final report was posted on thecommission’s website, and with it, a flurry of rebuttals and separate statements from a number of the commissioners. The import of these statements should not be minimized.

The statements indicate several points: 1) the New Black Panther Party case brought by career Justice Department employees was meritorious on the law and the facts; 2) there is voluminous evidence of the Obama administration’s political interference in the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party case; 3) there is ample evidence that the Obama administration directed Justice Department employees not to bring cases against minority defendants who violated voting rights laws or to enforce a provision requiring that states and localities clean up their voting rolls to prevent fraud; 4) the Justice Department stonewalled efforts to investigate the case; and 5) vice chairman Abigail Thernstrom has, for reasons not entirely clear, ignored the evidence and tried to undermine the commission’s work.

Surprise! Bush economy led to accelerated growth of black-owned businesses

The number of black-owned businesses grew much faster than the national rate during the five years before the recession began, according to data released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The ranks of black firms shot up more than 60 percent from 2002 to 2007, compared with the overall national increase of 4 percent. By the end of the boom, Prince George’s County had the highest share of black-owned businesses – 55 percent – among all large counties in the nation.

Less clear is how those firms fared after the recession hit. The Census Bureau did not offer any information on how minority-owned businesses did after late 2007, when the economic downturn began.