by Pauly Fongemie
LIST OF ATROCITIES BY GOVERNMENT
Since our first two articles on
the persecution by government of Christians for their religious
beliefs, the violations by government acting as tyrant grows weekly. We
are still waiting word of the result of the ROMEIKE
CASE. Please note for persecution
of Christians worldwide, click this external link, HERE.
Please also note we include attacks on Christians by quasi-governmental
organizations or groups who influence government, such as the Southern
Poverty Law Center [the SPLC], the Muslim Brotherhood which has members
who are advisors to Obama, and leftist connections that are acceptable
to the Obama regime because they share the same mentality overall.
In addition, until we put together Sodomy on the Move, actually an
updated Homosexual Watch, we will temporarily list at the end of each
posting some of the outrages unleashed by the new found power of the
sodomite clan, that may not necessarily involve governmental bodies.
Here is the list, for the week, May 2nd and 3rd, 2013:
1. Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom
Foundation (MRFF), who wrote a column for the
Huffington Post in which he called Christians monsters. Weinstein will be a consultant to the
Pentagon to develop new policies on religious tolerance, including a
policy for court-martialing military chaplains who share the Christian
Gospel during spiritual
counseling of American troops.
We are not making this up, people this is real, this is now.
Weinstein decries what he calls the "virulent religious
oppression” perpetrated by conservative Christians, whom he refers to
as monstrosities" and "pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers"
comparing them to "bigots" in the Deep South during the civil rights
He cites Dr. James Dobson — the famous Christian founder of
Focus on the Family—as "illustrating the extremist, militant nature of
these virulently homophobic organizations" "rhetorically-charged
propaganda." Regarding those who teach orthodox Christian beliefs from
the Bible, Weinstein concludes, "Let's
call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly
squallings of human monsters."
He has all but foamed at the mouth in print:
"Today, we face incredibly
well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize
their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version
of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation's armed
In another diatribe he called
Christians "spiritual rapists" among other defamations.
He later appeared on FOX's
O'Reilly Factor with a softer tone, but O'Reilly saw through the
charade as did we who took in the interview. What else would one expect
after being caught issuing such a hateful screed?
Thus far no word from the Pentagon about discharging this man who
is the real monster.
But then this is the one and same Pentagon that:
2. Is currently censoring some Christian web sites that do not support
"gay marriage", for instance. The censorship takes the form of blocking
some personnel from viewing the material on these web sites. Apparently
they do not trust their own personnel with the truth.
3. England's new law permitting the marriage of sodomites is so
that according to the language of the law, some experts are predicting
that unless the law provides an exemption, the Catholic Church there
will not be able to marry any couple unless She agrees to marry those
who have no right to marry under the natural and Divine law, of which
the Church is the guardian and teacher.
4. From TheBlaze:
[text in bold and or underlined, added by me for emphasis.]
"A highly decorated Army lieutenant colonel says he was essentially
blacklisted by his superiors after more than 50 Muslim groups
complained about a course he taught on radical Islam. Now he is
fighting to get his career back.
"Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, a West Point graduate and decorated
combat veteran, was an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College at
the National Defense University, where he was reportedly popular among
students and fellow staff members, FoxNews.com
"That all changed when Martin
Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, slammed Dooley and his
'Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicals'' course during a Pentagon
press conference in May, calling his teachings unprofessional and
'against our values'
"He was later given a negative
Officer Evaluation Report (OER), which was unusual given the fact that
Dooley had passed the evaluations with flying colors the previous five
years. Dooley says a bad OER is like being blacklisted in military
"Attorneys at the Thomas More Law
Center believe a letter sent to the White House, Department of Homeland
Security and other federal agencies about a year ago and signed by 57
Islamic organizations caused the federal government to clamp down on
Dooley, his course and ultimately all the government's training material on radical Islam.
Among the organizations who signed the letter are the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North
America (ISNA), both named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land
Foundation trial, the largest terrorism financing case in U.S. history."
5. "Following a Monday court ruling, Anna and
Alex Nikolayev are one step closer to regaining full custody of their infant son. As
previously reported by TheBlaze, the Russian couple, currently living
in Sacramento, Calif., had their baby “snatched” up by police and Child Protection
Services (CPS) after they say they took the child to another hospital
to get a second opinion.
"On Tuesday, the couple joined Glenn
Beck on TheBlaze TV to discuss their case. A court ruled Monday
that the baby boy, Sammy, would be transferred to the Stanford Medical
Center for further medical evaluation. The couple must follow all
future reasonable medical advice and a county social worker will make
regular house visits to check on the child even after he returns home.
" 'It was awful' Alex Nikolayev told
TheBlaze TV, recalling the traumatic incident. 'It's like we had no
rights whatsoever. They just came in, assaulted us and kidnapped our
"The child's mother, Anna, said she
has never seen a government act in such an unreasonable manner, even
back home in Germany. Her husband is from Russia.
"The parents were not satisfied with
the care that their child was getting at Sutter Memorial Hospital. The
mother says she witnessed a nurse giving Sammy antibiotics, something a
doctor had instructed her not to do. Additionally, the couple was
understandably hesitant about subjecting their child to serious surgery
without being absolutely sure about such a recommendation."
May 2nd and 3rd Update:
The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that
soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: "Religious
proselytization is not permitted within the Department of
Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a
I am willing to bet that Islam can proselytize all it wants to.
On May 2, after the furor erupted the government issued a statement
denying that this is the policy. Are they going to admit that it was at
least possible? Let us use an analogy:
Let us say that you and I are morally opposed to the godless, communist
regime in Red China [as opposed to Taiwan] and we travel together every
summer for a month visiting various countries. We have been doing this
for years and by now it is a tradition. An acquaintance observes that
we have never been to Red China and suggests we ought to go there. We
both refuse immediately and in one voice because we will not provide
any more dollars to that country than necessary since it persecutes
Christians and forces women to abort their children, among other
atrocities. You and I never have a discussion about the possibility
because it is beyond the pale for us, so morally repugnant that
consideration is not even a thought.
Now, let us say the same situation exists and the same acquaintance
makes the same suggestion, however, we are not categorically morally
opposed to visiting Red China, although we don't really like much of
its policy toward its own citizens. We just never thought about it
until our mutual friend raised the matter. So you and I sit down for a
chat about the possibility. Such a trip is not off a future agenda. Our
other friends are surprised and express their views - they would never
go there unless Red China changes. So for now, we decide we won't go,
then pat ourselves on the back, announcing to everyone we are not going.
What is the difference between the two scenarios?
In the first there was never even a discussion about a possibility of
going to Red China as it was never a thought in the first place. Even
after having someone else suggest we ought to go. we refused on the
spot, but in case number two, there actually existed a possibility,
even if Red China did not alter its evil course. We decide no to go
because all our friends but one were so adverse to our doing so. Notice
that we never said that such a trip will never be on the agenda in the
future, we simply said we are not going there, meaning for now.
This is all, in effect, that the
retraction or denial really says. Let us not be unduly lulled. I mean,
if such a possibility of persecuting Christians in the US services was
never even a remote reality, the original discussion would never have
occurred in the first place.
who allegedly refused to provide flowers for a "gay wedding" because of
her religious beliefs is being sued by the Washington State Attorney
The next two are by homofascist groups or those representing them
not strictly government itself, but they are doozies;
7. "On April 18, radicalized and hate-filled feminists
assaulted Brussels Catholic Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard during his
public presentation on the nature and dignity of marriage and human
sexuality. The topless homosexual activists physically assaulted the
Archbishop, doused him with water while cursing and shouting bigoted
slurs to shame and silence him. The Archbishop bowed his head and
prayed while under attack. The water bottles used to assault him were
similar to those used to collect holy water at Lourdes, shaped in the
image of Our Lady. Following the assault the Archbishop took one of the
bottles and kissed the image of the Blessed Mother."
8. This one vindicates those of us who have been warning the polity
since 1988, but who were told by many Catholics that we were alarmists
who were not telling the truth:
Finally feeling empowered
enough and safe enough now that even the likes of the GOP establishment
are out of the closet for "gay marriage" we are now treated to a startling admission recently by lesbian
journalist Masha Gessen, one which I just indicated I have long been
onto because I read with trepidation but determination their inside
writings of which most normal people would be aghast to read and prefer
not to know about. At the time I told everyone what this woman admits
to below was in the works, that the homofascists were nihilists, out to
destroy the normal family, and later I added, to render the normal
traditional family a freak show. Her description of family is
certainly that and then some. I was told by a number of people that I
was being an "extremist" and did not know what I was talking about. Of
course they could have looked the stuff up themselves, but they were
more comfortable believing in a media concocted and media driven fable.
Human nature, which the homosfascists
counted on! Emphasis in bold by me: the report, really a tale of
twisted hate and demented rage against normalcy, is from ABC News.
radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying
about their radical political agenda. She says that they don't want to access the institution of
marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate
it. Here is what she
on a radio interview:
"It's a no-brainer that (homosexual activists)
should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it's a
no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. (F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves
lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there; because we lie that the
institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And
again, I don't think it should exist. And I donut like taking part in
creating fictions about my life. That's sort of not what I had in mind
when I came out thirty years ago.
have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don't see
why they shouldn't have five parents legally;
I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby's
biological father is my brother, and my daughter's biological father is
a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his
father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three
really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of
reflecting that reality, and I don't think that's compatible with the
institution of marriage.
quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to
point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands
organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of
marriage and uprooting traditional values from society. (This
will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches
that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and
As this page is updated, and expanded, we will divide the entries into
categorical pages, with this page becoming the index for these.