Home ›

Foreign Policy

Printer-friendly version Send to friend

Liberty Counsel, Family Research Council Enraged by Move to Consider Gay Rights in Foreign Aid

Submitted by Brian Tashman on December 6, 2011 - 4:10pm

That was fast.

Just moments after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the United Nations in a historic address that the United States that the United States is committed to protecting LGBT people overseas from persecution and discrimination, and will use foreign aid as an instrument to defend their rights, Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber attacked Clinton and President Obama for having an “obsession with the radical homosexual activist agenda.” Clinton called out abuses such as violence against the LGBT community, including “corrective rape,” along with the criminalization and demonization of homosexuals.

But that was too much for Barber, who earlier this year joined Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver in blasting the Obama administration for withholding aid to Malawi because the country outlaws homosexuality. Barber told the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow that the Obama administration is “trying to force nations to adopt America’s immoral positions on issues of sexuality” while supposedly ignoring “real human rights abuses”:

The announced policy, according to Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action, "displays the arrogance of the Obama administration."

It is "frankly offensive," says the attorney, that President Obama "feels compelled to export American culture's decline in morality, and export that immorality to other nations that are trying to adhere to traditional principles relative to human sexuality."

Barber also notes that the administration is apparently ignoring the fact that foreign nations -- like the United States -- are sovereign countries. He adds that the U.S. is "using essentially blackmail and the purse strings" of the nation to force countries to change their moral principles.

"What about nations where Christians are driven out of the nation or executed?" he asks. "And this Obama administration, instead of focusing on real human rights abuses, is trying to force nations to adopt America's immoral positions on issues of sexuality."

Barber believes there is an "obsession with the radical homosexual activist agenda that seems to drive this Obama administration."

UPDATE: Family Research Council senior fellow Peter Sprigg also denounced the new policy to defend LGBT rights abroad, lashing out at the administration for “imposing an alien ideology on other countries”:

"It is startling that President Obama is prepared to throw the full weight and reputation of the United States behind the promotion overseas of the radical ideology of the sexual revolution. If he did the same on other issues, his own liberal allies would undoubtedly accuse him of cultural imperialism. Threats to withhold foreign aid from poor countries unless they conform their laws to the views of Western radicals are unconscionable.

"The United Nations, like the United States, remains sharply divided on the issue of whether special rights should be granted on the basis of sexual conduct, sexual orientation or gender identity. No treaty or widely accepted international agreement has established homosexual conduct as a human right, yet the Obama administration's actions seem guided by this fiction.

"President Obama should increase efforts to defend human rights that are widely recognized, such as religious liberty, rather than appeasing his domestic allies by imposing an alien ideology on other countries."

PFAW
Filed under:

Tea Party Nation: Obama Turning Military Into "A Very Expensive Video Game"

Submitted by Brian Tashman on October 24, 2011 - 10:15am

Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation warned members that President Obama is making the military far weaker through his controversial use of drones. While the use of drones has sparked controversy, they were essential in the killing of Col. Muammar Gaddafi and Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, and in monitoring Osama bin Laden.

Phillips explains that Obama’s increased use of drones is a result of liberals’ aversion to military action. “Drones are great for a cowardly President,” Phillips writes, “He can order the drone to hit a target and if there is success, he can claim the glory for it and if the drone fails, there is no captured American pilot or the corpse of an American pilot to be paraded about on TV.” Phillips derides liberals for supposedly not caring about the military and claims they are only determined to protect the reputation of a “liberal president”:

Obama is a many singularly devoid of his own accomplishments. There are types of men who must build their legacy on the acts of others. Obama is one of those. His legacy of war is not only dangerous but opens the door for America’s defeat.

What is his legacy?

Obama’s primary military legacy is the use of UAV’s or drones. Drones are great for a cowardly President. He can order the drone to hit a target and if there is success, he can claim the glory for it and if the drone fails, there is no captured American pilot or the corpse of an American pilot to be paraded about on TV.

In Obama’s military, gone are the swaggering fighter jocks of Top Gun or World War Two. Instead, Obama warfare is little more than a very expensive video game.

…

Under the Obama Defense Department, unmanned vehicles are the flavor of the day. Unmanned vehicles do have their uses, but as our primary military strike tool, they leave a lot to be desired.

Of course, for liberals, there is only one consideration with the military. In liberal land, the military must never be a political embarrassment for the liberal President. Yes, they can be around to transport the President. Yes they can be around for disaster relief. But if there is a military operation, they had better not screw up and end up with collateral damage or Americans captured or killed.

That is why Obama and the left love drones so much.

…

Liberals never ask the important question about defense. What are our threats and how do we defend ourselves? Instead, defense is always a political question. How do we have defense without “embarrassing” the liberal President? The answers they come up with are always wrong.

By relying on technology alone, without American airmen and soldiers actually doing the fighting, Obama is creating a legacy like his liberal predecessors.

A hollow defense that may not serve America in her time of need.

PFAW
Filed under:

Harvey Sides With Radical Islamists On Homosexuality, Calling It "A Disgrace To Our Nation"

Submitted by Brian Tashman on July 20, 2011 - 1:37pm

Mission America’s Linda Harvey is siding with a radical Muslim group in Pakistan who is protesting an LGBT-pride event hosted by the US Embassy in Pakistan. According to the AP, an extreme Islamist political party led a protest with signs declaring “Death to America” and “Americans, we will not allow you to spread your vulgar and ugly civilisation in Pakistan,” with one speaker saying gays and lesbians “should be immediately deported out of Pakistan.” Harvey says she is “on the same side” as the protesters, criticizing the State Department for claiming that LGBT rights are human rights and accused the embassy of celebrating a “deviant lifestyle, something that should be a disgrace to our nation.” Later in her radio show, Harvey chides Secretary Hillary Clinton’s “radically liberal social views” and for inviting Lady Gaga to a concert in Italy, dubbing the State Department an “agent for Lady Gaga.”

Recently there was a rare instance where outspoken Muslims and I were on the same side of an issue. In Pakistan as part of Gay Pride month, US State Department employees, those at the embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, held a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender pride event. Can you imagine? The utter foolishness here is beyond belief. But they got what could’ve been predicted as a reaction, outrage from the local Muslim community. Of course, one is left to wonder if this wasn’t the goal: rebellion and more of the perpetual in-your-face antics of homosexual activism all to stand up for this deviant lifestyle, something that should be a disgrace to our nation.

In a brief statement on the State Department website they justified their actions; they said it was to demonstrate support for “human rights, including LGBT rights in Pakistan at a time when those rights are increasingly under attack from extremists elements throughout Pakistani society.” Well, homosexuality is not a human right, folks. God has already told us about this behavior and it’s always a sin.

PFAW
Filed under:

Hagee: U.S. Can't Win Wars Because Of Satan Worship

Submitted by Brian Tashman on July 18, 2011 - 10:53am

According to Pastor John Hagee, the U.S. military is no longer able to win wars because of Satan worship and increasing “paganism” in America. Hagee, who is an official endorser of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s The Response prayer rally and a prominent Religious Right leader, delivered the remarks in a speech to last year’s Word Explosion Conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Perry has said that The Response is needed to solve problems that are “spiritual in nature,” adding that to create his policy platform he will simply “hand it over to God.” Many of the pastors and activists working with Perry to organize The Response already have “spiritual answers” to issues regarding the economy, corruption, marriage, the size of government, national security and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Now we can add to the list foreign policy. Hagee claims that God is no longer showing favor to America because of environmentalism (which he labels paganism), religious freedom and Satan worship:

America right now has its fist in the face of God and in the name of pluralism we are honoring paganism coast to coast in this nation.

…

You want to know what drives environmentalism in America? Paganism, paganism, this is exactly what Paul spoke about in Romans. And Paul said, when a generation does this I will give them over to a reprobate mind, they will believe a lie and they as a generation will be damned. Let me say this to you very clearly and those of you watching over the internet: There is one God in this book, it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Allah is not God, Buddha is not God, Mary is not God, Mary Baker Eddy is not God, birds, animals and bugs are not God, Jehovah God is the God of all Gods. He is a jealous God, and He demands that He be the Lord of all or not at all!

…

We have allowed the worship of Satanism in the U.S. military, most Americans are not aware of that, and we wonder why it takes us ten years to defeat our weak enemies as Moses said in Deuteronomy 28. How is it that in World War II we whipped the world in four years and now we’re bogged down in one lingering war after another that does nothing but rape our economy and kill our young men? Why? Maybe the God of Heaven is not with us. He says when you accept another God, I leave. I’m either the only Lord, or you’re on your own. That means stop voting for pagans and putting them in public office

PFAW
Filed under:

Hagee: President Obama Is A Dictator

Submitted by Brian Tashman on July 12, 2011 - 2:46pm

In an interview on the Daystar show Celebration, John Hagee of the Cornerstone Church said that President Obama is a “dictator” for his actions in Libya. Hagee, a leader in the Religious Right who is involved in organizing Texas Governor Rick Perry’s The Response prayer rally, has previously claimed that Adolf Hitler was a “hunter” sent by God to hunt Jews. “You want to talk about how absolutely insane our government is right now, we are in Libya, the President is in violation of the War Powers Act, he can only stay there 90 days at his word, we’re beyond that,” Hagee said, “Congressmen are suing him trying to get him to stop. This is the actual work, if you will, of a dictator:”

Watch:

PFAW
Filed under:

Farah: Obama's Israel Policy Caused Deadly Tornadoes

Submitted by Brian Tashman on June 15, 2011 - 3:42pm

Joining other Religious Right activists who have held President Obama responsible for the deadly tornadoes in the Midwest because of his approach to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is now directly linking Obama's speech on Israel's borders to the disaster in Joplin, Missouri. He even suggests that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans as a result of President Bush's foreign policy decisions:

Bible prophecy may have a bad name in the light of Harold Camping's misguided date-setting, but the biggest sign of the end may have been overlooked in all the rapture hysteria of the May 21st weekend.

Once again, we saw the U.S. hit with a series of deadly superstorms following Barack Obama's pledge to return Israel to pre-1967 borders.

Just days after Obama insisted Israel must give up lands it won through military victory with its enemies, some 200 people were killed by a tornado in Joplin, Mo.

There's a pattern here.

We saw it in Katrina, when George Bush forced Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. In fact, as everyone from Israeli rabbis to U.S. senators have noted, it seems to happen every single time the U.S. pressures Israel to divide the land.

...

It goes right back to Genesis and God's pledge to bless those who bless the children of Israel and curse those who curse them.

That is a prophecy that has seen every empire of the world come and go – yet Israel remains. It may be chastened by God. It may be dispersed. It may be divided according to His will. But God has punished every nation that has come against Israel. Each one has been judged.

PFAW
Filed under:

Religious Right Leader Blames Obama's Israel Policy For Tornadoes

Submitted by Brian Tashman on June 13, 2011 - 9:43am

Laurie Cardoza-Moore, the head of the Christian Zionist group Proclaiming Justice to the Nations (PJTN), blames President Obama’s recent speech on the Mideast crisis for the deadly tornado outbreak in May. Cardoza-Moore is a Tea Party and anti-Muslim activist who is funding the lawsuit to block the construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, which argued that Islam is not a religion and that consequently Muslims shouldn’t have the constitutional right to build a house of worship. Congresswoman and likely presidential candidate Michele Bachmann addressed PJTN last year just before Cardoza-Moore held a fundraiser for her campaign, and Religious Right radio host Janet Parshall won the group’s “Tree of Life” award earlier this year.

Like Janet Porter, another Christian Zionist leader who said President Obama’s approach to Israel and support for legal abortion caused the tornado outbreak, Cardoza-Moore holds Obama responsible for the recent tornadoes and the resulting deaths of hundreds of Americans:

The head of a pro-Israel group says that country's prime minister has replaced the president of the United States as leader of the free world.

Laurie Cardoza-Moore, president of Nashville-based Proclaiming Justice to the Nations (PJTN), is trying to mobilize Americans to take a stand for the nation of Israel. (See earlier story) She is concerned that Muslim countries are trying to muster U.N. support for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, which could be approved by the General Assembly in September.

…

The PJTN president believes that Obama's treatment of Israel has already had consequences.

"President Obama is bringing us down. If you look at what happened after Obama made that speech, look at the weather patterns that we had. Day after day, horrific tornadoes [came] blazing across this country [and] hundreds of people [lost] their lives," she recalls. Cardoza-Moore adds that history shows that every nation that has ever turned its back on Israel was brought down to ruin.

PFAW
Filed under:

Porter Brings Religious Right Leaders, Dominionists And Prophets Together For Israel

Submitted by Brian Tashman on May 18, 2011 - 3:16pm

Janet Porter of Faith2Action has started a new website, IsraelYoureNotAlone.com, and has managed to gather a whole host of names for a Wall Street Journal ad condemning President Obama’s handling of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

Porter, who last week blamed the deadly tornadoes in the South on Obama’s approach to Israel and legal abortion, garnered signatures from Religious Right luminaries like Mike Huckabee, James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, Mat Staver, Tim Wildmon, and Roy Moore, along with dominionists like herself such as Jerry Boykin and Rick Scarborough, and New Apostolic Reformation ‘prophets’ like Rick Joyner, Che Ahn, Mike Bickle, and Chuck Pierce. Other prominent Religious Right signatories include Gordon Klingenschmitt, Don Feder, Rob Shenck and Paul Blair.

Many Christian Right leaders believe that Israel must refuse territorial compromise and a two-state solution in order to accelerate the End Times. The ad warns, “We believe Israel's ancient prophets who warned of dire consequences to any nation who would divide your land.”

Porter sent Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 10,000 yellow roses to protest Obama’s “horrendous treatment” of Netanyahu, and Glenn Beck recently announced that he will hold a rally in Jerusalem to fight against the two-state solution.

View the ad here [pdf]:

PFAW
Filed under:

Keyes: Mission To Kill Bin Laden May Have Been "Driven By Political Considerations"

Submitted by Brian Tashman on May 6, 2011 - 1:19pm

After warning that President Obama was devising a scheme of using international forces to stay in power, Alan Keyes is now raising doubts about the successful operation to kill Osama bin Laden. Keyes likens the Obama administration to the Soviet Union, and claims that “back chatter” tells him that Obama and his advisers may have been opposed to the raid against bin Laden because of his “politically correct concerns about offending Islamic sensibilities” that made him “act the part of timid politicos.” But Keyes also maintains that Obama wanted bin Laden killed rather than capture him alive for more sinister, politically-motivated reasons:

Following the track of events in America's governmental and political life these days is like reading Pravda in the heyday of Soviet Communism. This should come as no surprise in an era when the executive branch of the U.S. government is dominated by a faction whose figurehead sports a biography steeped in his ideological affinity for hard-line leftist associates (not excluding the kind of terrorist affinities for which Obama mentor Bill Ayers is justly infamous).

The ostensible decapitation of the al-Qaida terrorist network (otherwise known as the takedown of Osama bin Laden) has just the sort of pretzel twists that beg for an informational Rosetta stone and an expert to make good use of it who is well-versed in the many arcane languages of political intrigue. The sequence of events, like the characters, words and phrases of an unknown language, have what seems to be a familiar structure. But every translation runs into contradictions that disturb the complacent assumption that we are dealing with familiar terms.

…

Back chatter is also coming to the fore that suggests that both the timeline and substance of the decision-making process were hardly as straightforward as this story line makes them appear. Did the U.S. government know of bin Laden's whereabouts for weeks or even months? Was there a tussle over the decision to act against bin Laden, one in which considerations of political risk, joined with politically correct concerns about offending Islamic sensibilities to make Obama and his White House associates act the part of timid politicos, rather than intrepid executives with a righteous zeal for justice?

…

If you had such an intelligence asset, what would drive your decision to liquidate it? Does it serve an intelligence purpose? Is it driven by political considerations? In this case, the story of Obama's intrepid takedown of the terrorist kingpin draws attention away from the rising influence in the Middle East and North Africa of the fanatical Islamic fundamentalist forces that spawned al-Qaida in the first place. It draws attention away from the pressures now being brought to bear against Israel to accept a practicing terror organization (Hamas) as an interlocutor in the so-called Middle East peace process. And of course, it provides at least a temporary reversal of the American people's distrust and loss of confidence in Obama and his faction.

PFAW
Filed under:

Phillips: Obama Didn't Want To Kill Bin Laden

Submitted by Brian Tashman on May 6, 2011 - 10:31am

Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips is out with his latest conspiracy theory on Osama Bin Laden’s death: Obama opposed the raid on bin Laden’s compound but the military went through with it anyway. According to Phillips, who thinks that Obama isn’t a real American because a “real American” would’ve wrapped bin Laden’s body in pig fat, military and intelligence officers went behind Obama’s back to execute the mission. He says that Obama’s stern facial expression and serious demeanor in his address to the country shows that he was angry about the successful operation.

Of course, this contradicts Phillips’s previous claim that Obama only wanted to kill bin Laden to help his reelection campaign, but Phillips cites his source as a “story floating around the Internet” so this one must be true:

There is another story floating around the Internet that is very interesting and at this point very believable. The military, by and large does not like Obama. The story floating around says that the military put the operation on and only gave Obama forty-eight hours notice the operation was taking place. The Obama regime then spent the forty-eight hours prior to the raid trying to stop it from taking place.

The news story cites unnamed military sources. Ignoring the fact the military, especially the special operations community by and large despises Obama, are there clues this may be true?

The White House has released only one photo from the situation room and in that photo, no one looks really happy. If the propaganda from the regime were true, you would expect to see some jubilation or even relief when raid was over.

When Obama addressed the country, he did not look happy or even relived. He looked angry. Why would he be angry? Perhaps if the military went behind his back?

…

One of the most interesting stories that have come out of the raid is the fact that communications were blacked out from the Seals for about 25 minutes during the raid. Glitches occur but does anyone really believe the helmet cams all just went down at the same time?

…

What really happened the night Osama died? If any of these stories are true, and given the way the military and the intelligence community hates the current regime, the truth may well come out next year during the election. For Obama, it will probably come out at the worst possible time.

Seeing Osama dead, priceless. Seeing all of this coming back to bite Obama, epic!

PFAW
Filed under:
Syndicate content