by Pauly Fongemie


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 era.

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 forces."

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 sweeping 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, reports.

"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 circles.

"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 child.'

"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 case-by-case basis...".

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.

6. A florist who allegedly refused to provide flowers for a "gay wedding" because of her religious beliefs is being sued by the Washington State Attorney General.

The next two are by homofascist groups or those representing them and 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.

 "On a 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 recently said 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. 

"The 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.

"I 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 … And 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.

"For 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 sexual morality.)"

As this page is updated, and expanded, we will divide the entries into categorical pages, with this page becoming the index for these.


MAIN INDEX  -------------------- E-MAIL