US Aid Subsidizes Persecution of Christians



Much has been made – and rightly so – of recent news reports that President Obama somehow managed to find a spare $250 million to send to Egypt while warning American taxpayers about “immediate, painful, arbitrary budget cuts” to come as a result of the so-called sequester.

The president’s dishonesty offends. But what particularly outrages is that he gifted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi with U.S. foreign aid even as his Islamist regime continues to persecute the country’s Coptic Christians, who make up 10 percent of Egypt’s population.

CNN recently reported, “Threats by Muslim extremists against Coptic Christians in the past year have forced scores of Christian families to flee their homes in Dahshur and the Egyptian border town of Rafah.”

For Egypt’s Copts, memories remain fresh of Islamist terror attacks upon their churches two years ago, as well as violence suffered at the hands of Egyptian military and security forces by Christian protestors demanding protection of their places of worship.

The reason Mr. Obama has no compunction whatsoever about cutting a quarter-billion dollar check to Cairo – a mere down payment on more than $1.5 billion Morsi’s government  will receive in 2013 – is that the more than three-quarters of Americans who count themselves Christian haven’t uttered a peep in protest.

Well, we should be silent no more. We should raise voices until they are heard all the way to Washington. We should demand that Congress withhold foreign aid to countries, like Morsi’s Egypt, in which our brothers and sisters in Christ are being persecuted.

The initial targets should be the ten countries that are, both, among those for which Mr. Obama has proposed the most foreign aid in 2013, according to the State Department’s foreign assistance dashboard, and those that rank among the 50 countries where persecution of Christians is most severe, according to the 2013 watch list compiled by Open Doors, an international faith-based organization.

Here, then, is The Christian Diarist list of the Worst of the Worst U.S. Foreign Aid Beneficiaries:

Afghanistan. The president proposes to send $2.5 billion this year to Kabul (not including U.S. funding of continuing military operations). According to Open Doors, Christians cannot meet in public and even gatherings in private houses require extreme caution. No church buildings exist, even for expatriates. Both local and foreign Christians are subject to kidnapping, abduction, killing, often having to flee the country.

Pakistan. Mr. Obama’s foreign aid budget includes $2.2 billion for the ally – supposedly – that harbored Osama Bin Laden. Many of Pakistan’s persecuted Christians are uneducated manual workers, says Open Doors, who suffer unfair treatment from employers. Muslim men continue to sexually assault underage Christian girls. Opening a new church building is virtually impossible and emigration of Christians continues.

Iraq. The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki looks forward to $2 billion from Washington. Christians in Iraq are on the verge of extinction, Open Doors warns. Large numbers of persecuted Christians have fled abroad or to the (until recently) safer Kurdish region. The church faces many challenges, not the least, members being killed or abducted.

Egypt. For the reasons previously stated.

Jordan. King Abdullah II is expecting $671 million from U.S. taxpayers. Public evangelization of Muslims is against government policy. There is no official recognition of those that leave Islam for Christianity. Converts can find their marriages annulled and children taken from them.

Nigeria. Lagos has a $600 million payday coming from Washington. The government of President Goodluck Jonathan has done little to reign in the Nigerian terror group, Boko Haram, whose attacks upon Christian churches have claimed the lives of at least 800 Christ followers.

Tanzania. President Obama has earmarked $571 million for this Christian majority African nation. On the Zanzibar archipelago, Islamic militants are bent on wiping out all Christians. They have burnt and looted churches and threatened persecuted Christians with death.

Kenya. The birthplace of the president’s father looks forward to $460 million in U.S. largesse. Like Tanzania, Kenya is a Christian majority country. However, according to Open Doors, in the Muslim-majority areas there are high levels of intolerance and hostility towards Christians. Al-Shabaab and similar Islamist terror groups were responsible last year for a high level of violence against Christians, according to Open Doors, with 22 killed and more than 10 churches were burnt, looted or destroyed.

Uganda. Mr. Obama proposes $438 million for Kampala. Muslims are spread over the whole country. They live in pockets, and in those areas Islamist extremists present a serious threat to the Christian church. Meanwhile, local authorities controlling those Muslim areas discriminate against  Christians, barring them from public office or denying them promotion.

Ethiopia. The government of Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn is in line for $351.3. Converts to Christianity, as well as “underground believers,” have to be exceedingly cautious to avoid being traced by Islamist extremists, like the terror group, Kewarjah, which is blamed for repeated attacks against Christians in the country’s southwest.

Slouching Toward Gay Takeover of Boy Scouts



One of the more memorable sketches to air on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” featured actor Alec Baldwin and comedian Adam Sandler as members of a Boy Scout troop.

Baldwin played a gay scoutmaster, “Mr. Armstrong.” Sandler reprised his role as “Canteen Boy,” a scout clearly suffering arrested development.

In the sketch, Mr. Armstrong makes a sexual advance on Canteen Boy, brushing his unshaven face against the lad. So uncomfortable is Sandler’s character, who is not so dimwitted that he doesn’t know a pedophile when he sees one, that he flees into the woods.

The sketch was uproariously funny.

But what is not funny is the prospect that the Boy Scouts of America will today reverse its longstanding policy barring openly gay adults and boys from bringing their homosexuality to scouting.

It is almost certain that if BSA allows gay scoutmasters – like Mr. Armstrong – it is only a matter of time before one of them succumbs to the lust of the lies and the lust of the flesh and molests an innocent young scout.

I’m not hating on homosexuals. I’m not saying they are all child-molesters-in-waiting.

I’m not trying to stir up controversy (as SNL did with its provocative Canteen Boy sketch, which the gay community condemned as homophobic, and for which all-too-politically-correct Alec Baldwin continues to apologize to this day).

I’m just looking at the hard evidence.

Indeed, just this past October, the Boy Scouts of America released 20 years worth of documents revealing a pattern of molestation by not a couple dozen, not a couple hundred, but thousands of grown up men who saw scout troops as a target rich environment to exercise their sexual depravity.

The Los Angeles Times painstakingly examined nearly 1,900 confidential files created between 1970 and 1991 (only God knows how many there have been since then).

The common thread, according to the Times, is that molesters engaged in what psychologists call “grooming behavior,” a gradual seduction in which under-age Boy Scouts were lavished with gifts, favors and attention.

In hundreds of cases, Scout leaders allowed the boys to drive cars, drink alcohol or look at pornography. They gradually tested physical boundaries during skinny dipping, group showers, sleepovers and one-on-one activities.

Those Mau-Mauing the Boy Scouts to open up their ranks to homosexuals would have us believe that doing so will not lead to more unholy man-boy sexual abuse.

But even dimwitted Canteen Boy would know better than that.

‘Religious Right’ Accused of Exploiting School Massacre



“Wicked.” “Crazy.” “Extremist.” Those are the words Americans United For Separation of Church and State uses in reference to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

But the organization, which claims to fight to “ensure religious freedom for all Americans,” is not using those words to describe Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who shot and killed 27 innocent souls.

No, its reproach is directed at the “religious right,” including such figures as Mike Huckabee and William J. Murray, for daring to suggest that the eviction of God from the nation’s public schools just might have contributed to the rise of school-related violence and mayhem over the past half-century.

“We ask,” said Huckabee, former Arkansas governor, “why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?”

Huckabee was echoed by Murray, who heads the Religious Freedom Coalition (which, unlike Americans United for Separation of Church and State, actually does fight for religious freedom).

“In the vast majority of America’s public schools,” he said, “the authority of God has been replaced with the authority of the iron fist of government. Morals? Without the authority of God, there are no morals, and none are taught in the public schools today. The ethics that are taught are situational, perhaps the same situational ethics that led to the logic that caused the tragic shootings in Newtown.”

Americans United For Separation of Church and State declared “deplorable” the views of Huckabee and Murray (and others who share their conservative Christian thinking, including yours truly). But there is prima facie evidence to support the statements by the two religious right figures.

Indeed, in his 2000 book, “Restoring America’s Christian Education,” Providence Foundation President Stephen McDowell noted: “In 1940, the top offenses by students included chewing gum, talking in class, unfinished homework, and running in the halls.” By 1980, he continued, “the top offenses were drugs, drunkenness, assault, rape, and murder.”

Things changed in the early 1960s, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions, Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp, that banned prayer in schools. That was followed by early 1970s Supreme Court decision, Lemon v. Kurtzman, which declared that any practice allowed by public schools must have a strictly secular purpose.

 Then there was the early 1990s decision by the High Court in Lee v. Weisman and early 200s decision in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, that outlawed prayer at public school graduation ceremonies and before high school football games, respectively.

Those court decisions ignored the fact that America’s first public schools were founded by Christians. And that some five generations of school children learned to read and write using a spelling book, a grammar and a reader published by Noah Webster, a devout Christian, who is perhaps best known for the dictionary that bears his name.

“The central goal of education,” said Webster, is “to train youth in the precepts of Christianity.” He added, “Only people of good character and ideals can preserve religious and civil liberty. It was this very kind of people that gave birth to freedom throughout the world.”

Webster was right. And it’s because America has strayed so far from his thinking that the nation’s public schools have become the devil’s playground.

Obama’s Ungodly Policies Risk Black Christian Votes


Once upon a time, I wrote a newspaper column while onsite at a Democratic National Convention.

I opined that, “It really doesn’t matter who the Democrats nominate as their party standard-bearer – Bill Clinton, David Duke or a loaf of bread – black voters will blindly support him (or it).”

Indeed, blacks have gone overwhelming Democrat since the 1932 presidential election, when Franklin Roosevelt captured 71 percent of the black vote.

Given that history, most political observers expect the same outcome when black voters go to the polls this upcoming November. Especially since one of their own is running for a second term in the White House.

Well, I have a different view. While I expect that the majority of blacks will indeed cast their ballots for Barack Obama, I seriously doubt he will capture 95 percent of the black vote this time around.

That’s because a certain segment of the black population – socially conservative, church-going Christians – are none too pleased with the ungodly positions the president has taken on such issues as same-sex marriage and abortion.

Indeed, the 1,300-member Coalition of African-American Pastors is currently circulating a petition among their church congregations encouraging Obama to reconsider his election-year support for same-sex couplings.

“By embracing gay marriage,” said Rev. William Owens, the Coalition’s president, “President Obama is leading the country down an immoral path. Some things are bigger than the next election.”

Then there’s the National Black ProLife Coalition, a network of pro-life and pro-family organizations. It points out that abortion is the leading cause of death for blacks.

And that Democrat-aligned Planned Parenthood, whose president got podium time at the Democrat convention in Charlotte, is most responsible for the yearly slaughter of pre-born black babies.

“We’re calling out black leaders,” the Coalition declares, “who align themselves with the destructive eugenic force of Planned Parenthood.” That includes Obama, who has sold his soul to the abortion-industrial complex.

So, while a majority of black voters almost certainly will line up behind Obama again – despite the immoral path down which he has led this nation, as Rev. Owens lamented, those that place God above political party, above racial hegemony, will vote not to return him to the White House.

A Pastor Sells His Soul to the Party of Obama


Rev. Derrick Harkins is a hypocrite.

He’s the pastor of Nineteenth Street Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., which the Washington Post describes as “theologically conservative.” And he serves on the board of the National Association of Evangelicals.

But the Baptist preacher also is the National Director of Faith Outreach for the Democratic National Committee, which supports public policies that are an affront to the Almighty.

Indeed, today Harkins presides over a meeting of the party’s so-called Faith Caucus at the Democratic convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Its task is to devise a strategy to somehow persuade Christian voters that the party’s platform is about “being our brother’s keeper” and “compassion.”

Pastor Harkins should be reminded of the Scripture which declares: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.”

Harkins obviously believes that Scripture does not apply to him. He thinks he can be, at once, a faithful Christ follower and loyal Democrat.

But the reality – which the pastor is too blind to see – is that his service to the party of Obama is a disservice to the Kingdom of God.

Indeed, there simply is no way that a man of God can support a president, support a political party, that defends the yearly slaughter of more than one million unborn children. And there’s no way that a pastor faithful to God’s Word could blithely associate himself with a president and a party that promote the abomination of same-sex marriage.

I imagine Harkins rationalizes his hypocrisy by invoking the words of Jesus: “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” And I imagine the pastor deludes himself that he is somehow following the Savior’s example.

But the Democrats in Charlotte are absolutely unrepentant of their advocacy of ungodly policies. And they are absolutely convinced that the wrongdoers are those of us who oppose abortion, who oppose homosexual nuptials.

Harkins knows this. Yet he continues to fellowship with those who shake their fists at God, who are gathered this week at the Democratic convention.

The Bible tells the stories of two men – Samson and Saul – who were once highly favored by God, but from whom God’s Spirit departed when they did their will, rather than His.

Those should be cautionary tales for Pastor Harkin. By casting his lot with unrepentant abortionists and sodomites – among other recalcitrant sinners partying in Charlotte – he risks the same spiritual ruin as Samson and Saul.

Paul Ryan Faces Left-Wing Religious Attack


The Obama re-election campaign huddled today with “progressive” religious leaders as they coordinate a line of attack against conservative Catholic congressman Paul Ryan, Republican Mitt Romney’s selection as his ticket-mate.

The Democrat-aligned religious leaders are critical of the budget proposals Rep. Ryan has championed on Capitol Hill, which, they charge, will exacerbate the sufferings of the nation’s poor.

They also portray Ryan as a secret admirer of Ayn Rand, who famously authored “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead;” who was, at once, a strong defender of capitalism and an avowed atheist.

Of course, it is hard for left-wing religious leaders to play the poverty card against Ryan when they are supporting a Democrat president on whose watch the ranks of the nation’s poor has grown by more than 6.5  million.

As to Ryan’s affinity for Rand, there are many faithful Christians, including yours truly, who share her belief in limited government and individual rights, but who absolutely do not share her disbelief in God.

What amuses is that the Obama campaign actually believes that the left-wing religious attack on Ryan it is plotting can somehow win Christian evangelical votes to the Democrat column this upcoming November.

That’s no more likely than Obama returning the poverty rate, the jobless rate and (while we’re at it) gasoline prices to where they were the day before his inauguration.

Because the faith espoused by religious leaders carrying water for the Obama campaign is quite different than the faith practiced by Christian evangelicals.

No true Christ follower would support abortion-on-demand, like the left-wing religious leaders who stand with Obama. Nor would authentic Christians give their blessing to same-sex marriage. Nor would they endorse government-mandated contraceptives-on-demand for single women.

The Scripture advises believers that, during the early years of Christianity, there were “false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in damnable heresies.”

The left-wing “religious” leaders who have joined the Obama campaign in its planned attack on Ryan are the false teachers of whom the Scripture warned. And the day surely will come when the Lord holds them accountable for the heresies they espouse.

LA Times Deceives About Evangelical Leaders


“Evangelical leaders echo Obama, say U.S. is not a Christian nation.” So read the headline accompanying a putative “news” story published yesterday in the exceptionally liberal, exceedingly biased Los Angeles Times.

Times religion reporter Mitchell Landsberg misleadingly claimed that evangelicals agree with a statement the current president made in 2006 when he was still a member of the U.S. Senate:

“Whatever we once were,” said Obama, “we are no longer a Christian nation. At least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of unbelievers.”

What the future president was saying at the time was the various faiths (and non-faiths) were morally equivalent in his world view.  And, in advancing that view, he was effectively repudiating America’s  Christian heritage.

For the United States was founded not by Jews (although Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). Nor by Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus. And certainly not by unbelievers (notwithstanding the fiction promulgated by atheists that the nation’s founders were “deists” rather than Christians).

Evangelical leaders certainly do not “echo” Obama, as the Times suggested yesterday. They certainly do not agree with the view he expressed back in 2006.

What 68 percent conveyed in a just-released survey released by the National Association of Evangelicals is that they do not consider the United States a truly Christian nation, abiding by the teachings of Christ the Lord.

And most of us who are Bible-believing Christ followers would agree.

For a truly Christian nation would not allow more than a million unborn children to be slaughtered each year by abortionists. It would not defile the institution of marriage by allowing gays, lesbians, transgenders, et al to be lawfully wed.

It would not mandate that health insurers provide contraceptives to single women so that they can be sexually promiscuous without fear of pregnancy. It would not bow to the demands of “nonbelievers” to tear down crosses that honor this nation’s war dead, which have stood on public ground for decades.

That’s the post-Christian America to which Obama referred back in 2006. The nation that has moved further away from the faith of its founders during his presidential watch. Further away from God.

The Times is dead wrong to suggest there is any area of agreement between Obama and evangelical leaders. Including whether he deserves to be returned to the White House.

Are Transgenders the New ‘It’ Minority?


First came Richard Raskind, an ophthalmologist who in 1975 underwent “sex reassignment” surgery. He emerged as Renee Richards and decided to pursue a professional tennis career as a woman – four years after reaching the finals of the men’s 35-and-over tennis championship.

More recently, there was Chastity Bono, daughter of famed pop duo Sonny and Cher, who in 2010 became Chaz Bono after undergoing a sex-change operation. A documentary on her/his “gender transition,” imaginatively titled “Becoming Chaz,” was well-received at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival.

And now there’s Larry Wachowski, co-director of the “Matrix” series, who debuted this week as Lana. Wearing a gray dress and pink dreadlocks, the latest member of the transgender community appears in a promo for a new movie he/she made with his/her bro Andy.

There was a time, not so long ago – before Chaz Bono appeared on “Dancing With The Stars,” before Barack Obama climbed in bed with the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community – when transgenders kept their sex change on the down low.

Now, they’re out and they’re proud. Transgenders are the new “it” minority.

Not on Main Street USA, mind you, where most of us reside.

But on the main drag in West Hollywood. And on Castro Street in San Francisco, the nation’s capital of LGBT activism.

And on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington, D.C., where LGBT guests of Obama recently took turns flipping off a White House portrait of the late great President Ronald Reagan.

Now that the LGBs have all but succeeded in mainstreaming their ungodly lifestyle, the Ts are next in line. They are determined to win legal recognition as a “protected” minority.

Indeed, transgenders are fighting to overturn the still-in-place Army regulation which declares those who’ve undergone a sex change unfit to serve.

They are challenging rules requiring athletes competing in women’s sports to actually have been born female.

They are demanding the “right” to continued employment when “transitioning” from one gender to another.

The transgender community represents that it’s no different than any other minority group in this country and, therefore, should be accorded “equal” treatment under the law.

But transgenders like Richards and Bono and Wachowski are clinically ill, according to the American Psychiatric Association. In fact, the APA has long held that men who want to be women, and women who want to be men, suffer from “gender identity disorder.”

So transgenders don’t need special legal protections. What they really need is psychiatric help.

Hypocrite Mayors Attack Chick-fil-A on Gay Marriage


Planned Parenthood killed a 24-year-old Chicago mother-to-be last weekend. But Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel hasn’t called for the abortion provider to shut down its Chi-town clinics.

San Francisco-based Wells Fargo has been found guilty of predatory mortgage lending, illegal foreclosures and securities fraud, among other offenses. Yet San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee hasn’t banished the bank from the city.

And Liberty Mutual Insurance, headquartered in Boston, cheated its auto policy holders by ordering body shop owners to repair new vehicles using “junkyard” parts. However, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino hasn’t told the company it is no longer welcome to do business in Beantown.

No, the three mayors have reserved their outrage for Chick-fil-A, the fast-food franchise, whose unabashedly Christian ownership have the temerity to stand up for traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values,” said Emanuel.

“Closest ChicFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer,” tweeted Lee.

“I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston,” wrote Menino, in a letter to the fast-food chain’s owners.

So matricide and infanticide are Chicago values, but not traditional families with husband and wife?

So San Francisco doesn’t want opponents of homosexual marriage within 40 miles of the city, but a financial institution that has used unlawful tactics to foreclosure on homeowners is welcome?

So Boston will do everything in its power to keep out a company that stands with the majority of Americans who believe homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God, but the city is okay with an insurer that ordered old parts be used to repair the new cars of its unsuspecting policy holders?

A voice of reason in the attack on Chic-fil-A by Mayors Emmanuel, Lee and Menino has come from, of all politicos, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (whom many religious leaders have not forgiven for banning prayer at the 10th anniversary memorial of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks).

“I disagree with them strongly on this one,” said Bloomberg, referring to his fellow big city mayors. “You really don’t want to ask political beliefs or religious beliefs before you issue a permit. That’s just not government’s job.”

Well, amen to that.

No to Condoleezza Rice For Veep


Condoleezza Rice has, in my estimation, served this country with distinction.

First, as a member of the National Security Council during the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush. Then, as Secretary of State, during the presidency of George Walker Bush.

A FOX News poll released yesterday said that Rice is the top choice of the Republican faithful to be the ticketmate of Mitt Romney, the party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

But she is not the top choice of this social conservative; this long-time Republican.

That’s because Condi supports abortion “rights.” And, frankly, because the 58-year-old has never been married; never had children.

I believe that, after Barack Obama’s jobless “recovery” and his government takeover of the nation’s health care system, the biggest issues in the upcoming presidential campaign will be marriage and abortion.

Romney, the GOP standardbearer, can proclaim himself as the candidate who stands with the majority of Americans who believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.

On the other side is Democrat Obama, who stands with the abortionists; who stands with the homosexuals who defile the institution of marriage, which was created by God Almighty.

I believe Romney loses both the abortion and marriage issues with Condi on ticket.

For while she says that she opposes late term abortion and she favors parental notification when an under-age girl seeks an abortion, the fact remains that, if her views became policy, there would continue to be more than one million unborn babies killed each year.

I do not know Condi’s views on marriage. Whether she agrees that it is the backbone of society; that it should be reserved exclusively to one man and one woman; that same-sex marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God.

If she agrees with all that, her views coincide with those of social conservatives and Christian evangelicals, who make up a third of the Republican Party base.

Nevertheless, it would be hard for Condi to make a strong, convincing case for traditional marriage when she’s never been a bride herself. When she’s never been a mom.

I’m not condemning Condi for never being married. And by absolutely no means am I criticizing her for being childless. 

I’m simply saying that that a never-been-married, childless woman – or man for that matter – is not the ideal spokesperson for family values.

That’s not to say that there is no place in a Romney administration for an individual boasting the distinguished resume of Condoleezza Rice.

Maybe U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Or Secretary of Homeland Security.

Just not a heartbeat away from the presidency.

%d bloggers like this: