PROOF THAT OUR PRESIDENT HAS A HEART FOR RELIGIOUSLY PERSECUTED

Something has to be done about all the bad press that our President Obama receives. Anyone can tell that he’s doing a great job. All you got to do just listen to him, and you hear the voice of compassion and sincerity.

That’s why I’m so disturbed to hear biased reports like:

·       “The United States must end its silence about and tolerance of the ongoing genocide against Christians in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and around the globe… Extensive and irrefutable evidence supports finding that the so-called Islamic State, and other Islamic terror groups such as Boko Haram and Al Qaeda, not only encourages, but requires the mistreatment of Christians, Yazidis and other vulnerable minorities. (Christian Freedom International, April 2016)

You can be sure that this is a biased source. How do I know this? Well I watch MSNBC and ABC, and these honest sources show that our President has a heart for all suffering. He would never allow this to happen!

Besides, he is appointing to his religious advisory committee people who have real compassion and understanding. Take Barbara Satin for example:

·       “Barbara Satin, a Twin Cities advocate on LGBTQ aging and faith issues, has been appointed by President Obama to serve on the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.” http://conservativesunited.com/you-wont-believe-who-obama-put-on-his-religious-advisory-council/

What more qualified person could have been appointed as a faith-based advisor than Satin! What compassion she must be able to have for religious communities. Why don’t people see our President’s compassion for the religious communities? I don’t get it.

Just look at his heart for immigrants:

·       Just this May, 1,037 more Syrian refugees were admitted to the U.S. Two were Christians. And of the 2,099 Syrians admitted so far this year, just six were Christians. Only 60 Christians have been admitted since 2011, accounting for a meager 1.3% of refugees, as opposed to 10% of the Syrian population.

You see, our President is not biased against Christian refugees. Two were even admitted in May, 60 since 2011. They have no right to say that our President doesn’t have a heart from them. If he didn’t, MSNBC would have told us so. Students would have been demonstrating.

This is why I am so upset when they write garbage like this:

·       In August 2015… 28 Chaldean Christians had been sitting in a San Diego immigration detention facility while bureaucrats decided whether to let them seek asylum in America or be returned to Iraq. 27 of them were deported.

http://patriotpost.us/posts/42950

Our President would never have sent these poor refugees back to their death. I just know it in my heart. Besides, he is a Christian and there are just thousands of churches who would have been protesting if this really happened. After all, this is a Christian nation.

They even have the nerve to question his faith. But President Obama quotes from the Bible, and it’s because of the Bible that he is forcing those discriminatory schools to allow transsexuals to use bathrooms and showers of their choice:

·       “In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.” https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/quotes/barack-obama-on-applying-the-golden-rule-to-politics

Would you believe that one conservative – it was probably FOX – twisted everything. He said that our President was applying this principle in a biased way - that if society applied this principle in the way our President did, we would also have to open the prison doors to all the prisoners. These conservatives just refuse to give our President any credit at all. He obviously is a deeply pious man. After all, he quoted from the Bible, didn’t he?

You just can’t trust these alternative presses or what you read on the internet. But if we stick with the mainline news services, we can be assured of objective reporting. If anyone doesn’t see this, they are just biased, and I have no use for them at all!

Why aren’t the most Brutalized (and Innocent) Refugees Receiving Sanctuary?

In 1998, the United States passed the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), the legislation mandated that the protection of religious freedom abroad would be a “cornerstone of American foreign policy,” and that it would create the position of "ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom."

• Regrettably, the Obama administration has chosen to take a lackadaisical approach to religious freedom, and allowed IRFA to fade into the background. President Obama left the ambassador-at-large position vacant for almost a year and a half after taking office. That same position was left vacant later in his second term for nearly a year before recently being filled.

• Further, the House and Senate passed a bipartisan bill last summer creating the special envoy for religious freedom in the Middle East. A year later, Obama has yet to nominate someone to fill the position.

At the same time, this administration has directly or indirectly supported Middle East terror by undermining Presidents Khadafy, Mubarak, and arming the worst elements in the region in an attempt to remove President Assad from Syria.

Meanwhile, Obama has done next to nothing to shelter the region’s Christians from the most barbaric treatment. Instead of compassion, the Obama administration has imprisoned Assyrian Christians trying to enter the USA:

• “In Iraq, they only had three choices: convert to Islam, death by the sword or leave the country,” said Mark Arabo, head of the Minority Humanitarian Foundation. “They’ve refused to convert, escaped slavery and death – only to be imprisoned by our broken immigration system.

• “These aren’t people who woke up one day and said, ‘Let me walk to America.’ They were forced out of their homes because of our inaction in the region. Because of our troop withdrawal. These are people who were sentenced to death because of our involvement in the country.”

• They escaped near-certain death, but not the U.S. court system.

• “The disheartening thing is it seems that our border is open to anyone unless you’re a Christian fleeing genocide"

• Arabo said he’s met with President Obama and multiple officials in his administration, pleading for large-scale evacuations of the Christians that remain in Iraq. At the outset of the Iraq War in 2003, there were nearly 1.4 million Christians in the country. Estimates today peg the total at fewer than 250,000.

• “There’s been a genocide in slow motion since 2003, but since the troop withdrawal there’s been a systematic ethnic cleansing,” Arabo said. “We’ve tried all these diplomatic approaches, but in the absence of Washington’s leadership we’ve created an ‘underground railroad.’” 

While this administration wants to grant amnesty to the illegal aliens, those who have suffered most and have nowhere to go are turned away:

• The United States is the largest home to Assyrians, many of them driven out starting a century ago during the Armenian genocide. Yet the Obama administration has made clear it won’t shelter the Assyrian refugees forced from Syria or Iraq by ISIS.

• “This administration will not issue visas for Syrians based on Christian faith.”

• That was the word given to Anglican bishop Julian Dobbs by the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. As a board member of Barnabas Fund, one of the largest relief organizations working in Syria and Iraq, Bishop Dobbs appealed to the State Department earlier this summer on behalf of the Assyrian Christians. The State Department said no.

Raymond Ibrahim, a Coptic Christian, has extensively researched the plight of the persecuted Christians in the Middle East. He writes about the plight of the Iraqi Christians:

• Discussing the ongoing plight of these Iraqi Christians, San Diego's East County Magazine concluded: "Why the federal government has failed to take steps to expedite such reunification in cases where family and religious leaders are willing to vouch for and help those seeking asylum here, then, remains an unfathomable mystery."

• Such "unfathomable mysteries" are reminiscent of the U.S. State Department's habit of inviting Muslim representatives but denying visas to Christian representatives. Since the start of 2015, 4,205 Muslims have been admitted into the U.S. from Iraq, but only 727 Christians. For every one Christian the U.S. grants asylum, it grants asylum to five or six Muslims -- even though Christians, as persecuted "infidel" minorities, are in much greater need of sanctuary, not to mention more assimilating to American culture than Muslims.

Why this disparity, especially in light of the fact that Muslims want to turn this country into an Islamic State? Many have stated, “In the heart of every true Muslim is the desire for a worldwide Caliphate.” Even worse, a recent Al Jazeera poll found that 81% of Muslims are favorably disposed to ISIS. Ibrahim continues:

• Faith McDonnell, of the Institute on Religion & Democracy, said regarding the detainment of Iraqi Christians in San Diego:

• This follows the disturbing pattern that we have seen from the State Department of ignoring the particular targeting of Christians by ISIS while giving preferential treatment for asylum to other groups with expedited processing -- like Somalis, Iraqis, and Syrians, some of whom could very well be members of jihadist movements.

We might think that the Muslim refugees, after experiencing violence at the hands of fellow Muslims, might show compassion to their fellow refugees. Instead, there have been numerous reports that Muslim refugees have killed their fellow Christian refugees. Ibrahim continues:

• Meanwhile, many of those Christians who are granted asylum in Western countries arrive there only to be further persecuted by Muslim asylum seekers -- indicating, once again, who does and who does not really need asylum; who does and who does not assimilate in Western culture.

• Most recently in Sweden, two small families of Christian asylum seekers from Syria were recently harassed and abused by approximately 80 Muslim asylum seekers, also from Syria.

• The Christians and Muslims -- described by one Swedish newspaper as "fundamentalist Islamists" -- resided in the same asylum house. Among other humiliations, the Muslims ordered the Christians not to wear their crosses around their necks and not to use the communal areas when in use by Muslims.

• After continuous harassment and threats, these Christian refugees, who had managed to escape the Islamic State, left the Swedish asylum house "fearing for their own safety." A spokesman for the government migration agency responsible for the center they had been staying in said:

• "They dared not stay. The atmosphere became too intimidating. And they got no help... They chose themselves to organize new address and moved away without our participation because they felt a discomfort."

What motivates President Obama? In so many ways, he has promoted the radical Islamic agenda:

1. Undermining Muslim leaders in favor of more radical elements.
2. Supplying arms to the radicals while refusing to arm the victims, like the Kurds.
3. Appointing Muslims with radical ties to top positions in his government.
4. Betraying Israel, our only Middle East ally.
5. Forbidding the reference to “Islamic violence” in favor of “Workplace violence.”
6. Pushing “common core” and its promotion of Islam.
7. Not declaring war against ISIS and not going against Islamic training camps in the USA.
8. Always speaking highly of Islam while criticizing the Christian faith.

Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Truth About Muhammad, is troubled by Obama’s actions:

• His fulsome praise of Islam, his refusal to call Islamic jihad terrorism by name, his statements such as “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” his aiding the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda in Syria; and so much more.

Twice, President Obama has been videoed calling himself a “Muslim.” Perhaps this might explain his behavior. But it certainly doesn’t explain why our Republican presidential candidates are not crying out about this.

Hate Speech: What in the World is it?

Most recently, Chick-Fil-A (CFA) has been accused of “hate speech.” Why? Because CFA have been open about their Biblical belief in exclusively heterosexual marriage. According to many championing the gay agenda, this automatically means that CFA hates gays! Somehow, non-agreement has been magically translated as “hate.”

Do these “champions” actually see things this way or is this just propaganda? After all, in order to be consistent, they should also call President Obama’s words “hate speech.” Why? Because he wants to raise taxes on the rich and not others! Does this mean that he hates the rich? I wouldn’t say so. It seems that he too has become pretty wealthy.

Meanwhile, the Republicans want to limit government. Does this mean that they hate government workers? Of course not!

Interestingly, there are gays who are becoming quite troubled by these “hate speech” charges. One gay writes:

• My name is Matt. I'm approaching 20 years old. I am a liberal and a supporter of Barack Obama in 2012. What's more is that I am gay and I support Chick-Fil-A… those running the corporations (like Dan Cathy CEO of Chick-Fil-A) have a right to express their beliefs. It has always been an area that causes me to respect Chick-Fil-A when they close on Sundays for the only purpose of retaining personal convictions over profit motives. Mr. Cathy has been unfairly attacked for his statement that he doesn't support same-sex marriage. As a gay man I say let him not support gays. When the gay community and gay activist groups push on anti-gay people and organizations to change their minds and opinions via bullying or forced involvement I fear it would make whatever accomplishments taste cheap like a greasy coin. Ultimately the acceptance of the gay community and the right of gays to marry will not be achieved through violent means, physical and verbal, but through peaceful and honest negotiations…How would you feel if Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, a well known Republican and Christian, told all gay business owners and workers that they could not get a job in the state because their beliefs did not match the beliefs of the state? We would call it unfair and a violation of our civil rights. Why then is it okay for a mayor to tell a company they cannot open business in the city simply because our beliefs differ?

Sadly, Matt makes far more sense than our media and universities – and these should have a vested interest in the free exchange of ideas - that have jumped on the “hate speech” bandwagon.

The White House, its Pride and Prejudice

The White House has just released the Presidential Proclamation: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2012

In regards to LGBTs, it proudly proclaims that “no one is a second-class citizen, no one is denied basic rights, and all of us are free to live and love as we see fit.”

This proclamation is based upon the belief that LGBTs have the right to receive legal recognition and support in marriage. However, if the White House is really serious about its claim that “no one is a second-class citizen, no one is denied basic rights, and all of us are free to live and love,” it must also strike down laws against adultery, open marriages, polygamy and pedophilia. Hasn’t the law also relegated these people to a “second-class” status? And so, isn’t it hypocritical for the administration to complain about LGBTs as “second-class citizen[s],” while turning its back on the rest? This is reminiscent of our Declaration’s proclamation that “all, are created equal,” while the African American remained in chains.

The administration justifies its stance by appealing to the Golden Rule: “treat others the way we want to be treated.” While this is a sound principle, it has its limitations, especially when it comes to law. I don’t think that human rights should by extended to pedophiles to seduce minors – even when the minor is amenable - nor to the billionaire who wants to marry 100 young girls. There are certain behaviors and lifestyles that government should not promote. In fact, every law that we have on the books is a statement about certain behaviors that government will not tolerate, and many for good reason. (Perhaps NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s assault against soft drinks is a notable exception.)

Sadly, those who stand in the way of this modernistic, permissive understanding of “human rights” are equated with bigots:

• I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people

The White House would not have been so dismissive, intolerant, and polarizing if it had instead written that it desired its own philosophy to prevail for such-and-such reasons. However, it has divisively taken the stance that the opposing opinions represent “prejudice.”

This language is inflammatory. It signals that those who hold such opinions are prejudiced and should be silenced. Thus the call to “eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists!”

All of this is done in the name of “human rights.” However, this administration fails to acknowledge that our human rights find their origin in our Creator, as specified in the Declaration of Independence:

• All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…

If government has the authority to grant such rights, it also has the authority to repeal them. This of course would mean that our rights aren’t “unalienable,” but conditioned upon the whim of those in power. Subsequently, whatever government deems as right, is right, if there is no higher Authority – the absolute Law-Giver. And according to no traditional religion has He established the right of SSM.

However, this administration is making its “human rights” appeal to the nations of the world based upon principles that necessarily transcend those nations and their traditions and legal codes they want to change. Therefore, this administration is speaking for God without any proof that it has the authority or authorization to do so.

And it is not just those who are in opposition who are being tarred with the label of “prejudice.” This policy also represents a charge against the Book that supports this “prejudice.” Indeed, the Apostle Paul had warned:

• Therefore God gave them [those who rejected Him] over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. (Romans 1:24-29

Such writing and thinking is now labeled “prejudice,” even though every major traditional religion would agree with Paul’s stance. It also reflects the modernistic chauvinism that “What we believe represents progress over former ideas.”

If the Bible’s teaching in favor of traditional marriage exclusively is bigoted, then there needs to be some open and public discussion on the subject. However, our permissive society is increasingly intolerant of such discussion. Even worse, we are now equated with “Nazis,” who must be silenced.

Oddly, the release concludes by invoking “our Lord”:

• I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord…

One can only wonder, “Which Lord is ‘our Lord?’”

Genocide in Sudan: A Letter to the President

Dear Mr. President,

The Sudanese of the Nuba Mountains are the victims of another genocide by Omar al-Bashir.

Recently, Franklin Graham of Samaritan’s Purse, accompanied by two reporters, visited Sudan and South Sudan where Samaritan’s Purse has been actively involved in humanitarian relief. He writes:

• President Bashir seems bent on war. I saw the brutality of Bashir’s regime firsthand when we slipped over the border into the Nuba Mountains of Sudan. The Nuba people are facing extermination as their own government pounds them with Antonov bombers, tanks, and ground forces. Entire villages are being destroyed, and nearly everywhere you turn there are hastily dug graves. The government of Sudan has barred relief workers and journalists from entering Nuba…Why are these people being targeted for annihilation? Simply because they are black, and the Arab government wants to take their land.

These people and those of South Sudan aren’t insurgents. They aren’t supported by a terroristic organization like the Syrian insurgents. Meanwhile, the West has been considering intervening in Syria to impose a “no-fly zone.”

Why then is the West turning a blind eye to these victims who are facing daily extermination?

Please bring this horrible genocide to light and intervene decisively to stop the carnage!

Sincerely, Daniel Mann

(Please contact:

White House

Phone 202-456-1414

www.whitehouse.gov/contact

U.S. Senate: www.senate.gov

U.S. House of Representatives: www.house.gov