Tag Archives: Authoritarian

Fascism: Obama administration objects to conscience protections for military chaplains

Fascism is the system of government in which the government pushes it’s notions of purpose, meaning and morality onto the citizens. In a fascist government, values derived from religion, family and community are overridden by the state. Fascism is exclusively an outworking of the left. When government is big, secular and religious fascism are possible. In contrast, right wing conservatives always want government to be small, so that individuals, families, businesses and charities are left with the most freedom to decide.

So is the Obama administration left wing (fascist) or right wing (liberty)? Do they respect the right of individuals to decide what to do?

Consider this article from CNS News.

Excerpt:

The Obama administration “strongly objects” to provisions in a House defense authorization bill that would prohibit the use of military property for same-sex “marriage or marriage-like” ceremonies, and protect military chaplains from negative repercussions for refusing to act against their consciences, as, for example, in being ordered to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.

In a policy statement released Wednesday, the White House Office of Management and Budget outlined numerous objections to aspects of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 4310). The bill was reported out of the House Armed Services Committee last week and is set to be debated in the House, beginning Wednesday. (See related story)

Overall, it recommends that President Obama veto H.R. 4310 if its cumulative effects “impede the ability of the Administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources.”

The veto warning is not specifically linked to the two provisions dealing with marriage, but they are listed among parts of the bill which the administration finds objectionable.

The memo said the two provisions “adopt unnecessary and ill-advised policies that would inhibit the ability of same-sex couples to marry or enter a recognized relationship under State law.”

Section 536 of H.R. 4310 states in part that no member of the armed forces may “direct, order, or require a chaplain to perform any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain, or contrary to the moral principles and religious beliefs of the endorsing faith group of the chaplain.”

Further, no member of the armed forces may “discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a direction, order, or requirement” that is prohibited by the previous clause.

The OMB complained that, “in its overbroad terms,” section 536 “is potentially harmful to good order and discipline.”

Section 537 of H.R. 4310 states that “[a] military installation or other property owned or rented by, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of, the Department of Defense may not be used to officiate, solemnize, or perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman.”

That provision, the OMB said in the memo, would make it obligatory for the department “to deny Service members, retirees, and their family members access to facilities for religious ceremonies on the basis of sexual orientation, a troublesome and potentially unconstitutional limitation on religious liberty.”

Obama in December 2010 signed into law legislation repealing a ban on homosexuals and lesbians serving openly in the military. Last week he publicly endorsed same-sex marriage for the first time.

The House Armed Services Committee passed H.R. 4310 on May 9 by a 56-5 bipartisan vote, the only nays coming from Democratic Reps. Chellie Pingree (Me.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Tim Ryan (Ohio), Hank Johnson (Ga.) and Jackie Speier (Calif.).

This is not the first time that Obama has shows disrespect for the religious liberty and freedom of conscious of individuals and private organizations. He thinks he knows better than you what to believe, and he thinks it’s a good idea to force his views and priorities onto you, your family, your employer, your church, and any charitable organizations you might be affiliated with. He’s a fascist, and his regime is fascist. That’s just the way it is.

I really recommend that all of my Christian readers check out the book “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek. Hayek is a Nobel prize winning economist who argues that all our liberties – including our freedom of religion – are rooted in free market capitalism and small government. He argues that only when individuals are free to choose where they work, to keep what they earn, and to spend it on goods and services they really want, will their be real freedom. It’s important for Christians to choose an economic philosophy that guarantees the social conditions that allows them to thrive as Christians. Not just with respect to evangelism, but with respect to freedom of conscience, and freedom to promote their beliefs in public in the most effective, persuasive ways possible. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced on our Kingdom plans just because we are lazy and want our neighbor to buy us health care and mail us Medicare checks. You do not give up your freedom to serve God in exchange for your neighbor’s money.

What opposition to Christmas displays tells us about atheism

A post critical of litigious atheists, by Doug Giles.

Excerpt:

The atheists I grew up with in Texas were a tad bit pluckier than today’s lardy hagfish atheists who file lawsuits every winter when they see a child wrapped in swaddling clothes.

Yep, the anti-theists I used to hang out with in the Lone Star state were rugged individualists who were so busy milking this existence that they didn’t have time to bleat like a stuck sheep because a plastic baby Jesus statue endangered their delicate beliefs.

My other non-believing buddies who weren’t the robust Hemingway types were usually heady stoners who were into physics, Pink Floyd and Frisbee and were completely comfortable around people of faith versus today’s reflexively irate, touchy atheists who pop a blood vein in their forehead if they accidentally hear “Silent Night” playing at Macy’s.

For God’s sake atheists, übermensch up why don’t you?

Giles then goes on to explain one of the latest attempts by former-Pentecostal-hymn-singer Dan Barker to ban nativity scenes and other Christmas stuff from being displayed.

Then concludes:

Yep, according to the 21st century metrosexual atheist motif, anything that offends them should now be banned. That makes me scratch my head because I thought the atheists were the tough-minded ones who could stare death in the face and mock God and His dictates, but now a silicone statue of Yeshua in diapers puts them in a tailspin. Hello, sweetie.

He mentions Dan Barker in his article, so I think it’s worth linking to this post I wrote about how Dan Barker abandoned Christianity. To persist in the Christian life requires a certain amount of intelligence and wisdom. You have to be good at life. Dan couldn’t cut it.

Good news for the right to free speech in Canada!

Life Site News has the best post I’ve seen so far.

Excerpt:

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled today that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Canada’s human rights legislation against hate messages, unreasonably limits the Charter right to freedom of expression.

[…]Popular conservative pundit and human rights commission critic Mark Steyn today said that the end of the hate speech legislation is near, calling today’s decision a “landmark decision.”  “This is the beginning of the end for Section 13 and its provincial equivalents, and a major defeat for Canada’s thought police,” he said. “It’s not just a personal triumph for Marc Lemire, but a critical victory in the campaign by Ezra Levant, Maclean’s, yours truly and others to rid the Canadian state of this hideous affront to justice.”

[…]The hate message section of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) has been the subject of growing criticism, having been accused of placing limits on the Charter right to freedom of expression.  High profile cases have been brought against conservative publisher Ezra Levant and columnist Mark Steyn, as well as numerous cases against Christians who have expressed their convictions against the homosexualist agenda.

The CHRC has admitted to using unethical methods within their investigations.  Notably, in a hearing during Lemire’s case, CHRC employee Dean Steacy testified that he and a number of colleagues regularly used an alias to post racist messages…  The CHRC was also investigated by the RCMP regarding allegations that they had hacked into a private citizen’s internet connection, though that case was dropped when it led the police to the American jurisdiction.

Until today, no respondent had won a human rights case brought to the Tribunal under section 13.  Further, about half of the section 13 cases have been brought by Richard Warman, and almost all of them in recent years.

Blazing Cat Fur has a huge round-up of blog reactions from the best Canadian blogs.

Here are some of the blogs from his round-up:

I took a look at the comments on BCF, and they are still pretty cautious, but excited.

This news was big enough to get picked up over at Hot Air by Ed Morrissey, who explains:

When government tells you what you can and cannot say in the political context, then free speech is essentially dead.  Section 13 created an enormously intimidating device for anyone who wants to argue their beliefs in the public square in Canada.  Even in just a “remedial” mode, it creates an atmosphere where people have to worry whether their speech will create a necessity to seek government approval, and the costs of defending speech become so onerous as to silence people.

The conservatives need to make this an issue in the next election, which is coming soon since the Liberals have announced that they are no longer going to back the Conservatives. Now is the time for bold action, Stephen Harper.

Further study

What is the Chief of the Human Rights Commission like?

I was browsing on “The Blog of Walker”  and I found some links to a speech given by Jennifer Lynch, the head fascist at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It’s interesting because she is exactly the kind of person that I would expect Obama to put in charge as the Free Speech Czar, given his record of suppressing dissent.

Take a look at his post:

First there was the speech.

…Now she’s actually going to go mano-a-chicko with Ezra Levant on the Roy Green Show! Well…sort of. I guess the excitement would be too much for her delicate constitution, so she’ll be on the show after Ezra’s had his say, or even before – it doesn’t really matter as long as she doesn’t have to deal with that icky fellow who’s been keeping her up at night with head-aches and upset stomach these past few months ( although I’m just guessing as to that).

Mark Steyn links to other responses to the the speech. But let’s focus on Ezra Levant’s response.

The speech given by Canada’s Chief Fascist

Here is a post written by free speech activist Ezra Levant about Lynch’s hate-filled speech:

On Monday, Jennifer Lynch, the chief commissar of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, gave a speech to her fellow censors at the human rights industry’s annual trade show in Montreal. It was such a grotesque speech, any self-respecting government ought to fire her for uttering it. It revealed Lynch’s complete misunderstanding of the nature of human rights, the right of citizens to question their government, and the government’s proper attitude towards peaceful criticism.

It was the speech of an angry bigot.

It showed Lynch to be temperamentally unsuitable for any public office, especially a prosecutorial office with powers similar to those of real police. She’s bitter, vindictive, paranoid and motivated by anger and vengeance. If she was a real cop, answerable to an internal affairs branch, she’d be put on leave and investigated for her rage-filled rant.

Lynch’s speech was that of a bureaucrat at war with Canadian citizens. It was a speech of a bully who seeks the power to destroy those who oppose her.

… Lynch’s speech, in which she catalogues her enemies and denounces them, was a formal, public utterance, vetted by the CHRC’s half-dozen PR staff. It was clearly written by Lynch herself – the personal venom of it just couldn’t be faked.

He then goes on to provide excerpts of the speech that are particularly hateful and bigoted.  Witness the secular-left in their full fascist flowering! Unhinged and unmasked. This is what they learn in university – that there way is the right way and that all dissent to their agenda proceeds from racism, sexism, etc.

My friend Andrew sent me an article from Canada’s National Post about her speech.

Excerpt:

Contrast such criticism, though, with the chill writers and other public figures feel knowing that if their words offend any minority favoured by a rights commission, the commissioners may, on behalf of the complainant (and at taxpayers’ expense), compel testimony, seize documents, search private offices and impose fines and other penalties. The CHRC, too, has a frighteningly undemocratic 100% conviction rate in hate-speech cases.

These laws were brought in by the secular-left in Canada. We just elected the secular left here in the United States. Can we expect the same kind of suppression of free speech from Obama?

Recall that the Democrats have already put forward a hate crime bill and a bill to criminalize blogging, with sentences up to 2 years. The hate crimes bill passed the House, while the blog-crime bill is still in committee.

Will Canada’s Chief Fascist debate?

Ezra “debated” her on Saturday on the radio. (H/T Blazing Cat Fur)

But she would not go against him head-to-head. Instead she wanted to speak after him, so that she could not be corrected or rebutted. There you see the full expression of the left – they cannot stand that you are allowed to talk back to them, and they want to silence you – regardless of evidence.

This is how Darwinism and Global Warming are being put through by the secular-left right now. Stifle dissent, choke off debate, malign your opponent’s motives, coerce them with the force of government.

I will update this post with Ezra’s reflections on the “debate”.

Further study