Monday, October 01, 2012

Exhaustive list? Obama's acts of hostility toward Judeo-Christian faiths

This is a pretty stunning catalogue of transgressions posted by Fr. Z., sent to him by a reader, he says. See "Pres. Obama's record in regard to Christians and biblical values" (WDTPRS, October 1, 2012).

The list of items is subdivided into the following categories:
  1. Acts of Hostility Toward People Of Biblical Faith
  2. Acts of Hostility From The Obama-Led Military Toward People Of Biblical Faith
  3. Acts of Hostility Toward Biblical Values
  4. Acts Of Preferentialism For Islam
Check it out. It's easy to forget how substantive some of these acts of hostility have been.

Oh, what the heck. Here's the list:

1. Acts of Hostility Toward People Of Biblical Faith:
  • a. April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”
  • b. February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011.
  • c. April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University , Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech.
  • d. May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House.
  • e. April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican ; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three.
  • f. October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions.
  • g. November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus Unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law.
  • h. January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court.
  • i. February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress.
  • j. April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring.
  • k. August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception.
  • l. November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial.
  • m. November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech.
  • n. December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries’ religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights.
  • o. January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis.
  • p. February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion.
2. Acts of Hostility From The Obama-Led Military Toward People Of Biblical Faith:
  • a. June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery ..
  • b. August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except America).
  • c. September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains.
  • d. September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.”
  • e. November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity.
  • f. November 2011 – The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans.
  • g. February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point dis-invites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian.
  • h. February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei).
  • i. February 2012 – The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read.
3. Acts of Hostility Toward Biblical Values:
  • a. January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations.
  • b. January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional.
  • c. March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit.
  • d. March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.
  • e. March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.
  • f. May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. He continues the deletion in subsequent budgets.
  • g. May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities.
  • h. July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direct violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
  • i. September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.”
  • j. July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion.
  • k. August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs.
  • l. September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
  • m. February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
  • n. March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls.
  • o. July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778.
  • p. September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
  • q. October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion.
4. Acts Of Preferentialism For Islam:
  • a. May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan.
  • b. April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is dis-invited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community.
  • c. April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc.
  • d. August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity.
  • e. August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location.
  • f. 2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.
  • g. October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House.
  • h. February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do.
[Hat tip to Fr. Z.]


Anonymous said...


Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The Kenyan's Cairo Speech:.. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

Charles Bolden:

The White House and NASA (Negroes Are Simply Awesome) today defended comments by National Aeronautic Space Administration administrator Charles Bolden about reaching out to the Muslim world – comments that conservatives criticized as undermining NASA’s mission.

A few days ago, in Cairo, Bolden told Al Jazeera that when he became the NASA administrator, President Obama charged him with three things: "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering — science, math and engineering."

The Old Negro Space Program:

Jack L. said...

Some of you folks should read Dinesh D'souza's book The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.

He is not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Rather, he saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.

Think about it. It's not Fundamentalist Christians or Evangelicals or Traditional Catholics who provoke the ire of conservative Muslims. These groups happen to have ethical values that overlap substantially in important areas, as the UN conference on family values a decade ago showed, in which the Vatican and Muslims were co-belligerents against the liberal abortion, contraception, and homosexual-lovers in the liberal West.

Obama is an icon of everything these Muslims despise -- the liberalism that permits all of these things, along with permissive attitudes toward pornography, prostitution, recreational sex and everything else celebrated by his Hollywood cronies.

D.H. said...

Anonymous doesn't consider these acts of Obama "substantial"? I'd like to know why. What would it take for him? I'm hesitant to draw historical connections, but I suppose there were Europeans who didn't think the events of 9–10 November 1938 known as Kristallnacht a "substantial" threat to the stability of civil life and the security of Jewry in Germany and Austria.

JM said...

What I think people fail to consider is that Obama does not need to be "anti-Christian" in any explicit motivation. He is the logical development of all the ideas we have funded and let flow through the public education system for the last 40 years come home to roost. He is simply a secularist, one step further removed than Clinton, etc. It is a natural development, just like gay marriage is a natural development in the public square from pervasive fornication. Dennis Prager's recent commentary on the asendency of the Left as a pervasive ideology nails it. There is no conspiracy. There is simply Leftism...

JM said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Think about it. It's not Fundamentalist Christians or Evangelicals or Traditional Catholics who provoke the ire of conservative Muslims.

Dear Jack. Actually, they are: it is fundamentalists and evangelical Christians who are rabid Christian Zionists and who contribute so much monetary and rhetorical support for the war criminals of Israel.

That aside, merely existing as a Catholic is blasphemy according to Mahometan Doctrine. While it was all well and good that the Holy See and some Mahometans were able to find common ground on abortion, Mahometanism is a deadly enemy of Holy Mother Church and a "conservative" Mahometan, if he experiences a spiritual metanoia, will discover that Mahomet is the "perfect man" and ought be imitated whereas if the "conservative" Christian experiences a metanoia he discovers Jesus, the Prince of Peace, who ought be imitated.

The difference between a psychotic, murdering, brigand who married a 6 yo and He who is the Incarnation was well-expressed by Serdja Trifkovic (Paraphrase):

Mahomet is a combination of David Koresh and John Gotti.

Religion makes all the difference in the world and those Mahometans we label "terrorists" are they who most faithfully actualise the commands in the Koran and who most faithfully imitate the behavior of Mahomet as recorded in the hadiths.

Far from "hijacking" the "religion of peace" terrorists are the most faithful adepts of that diabolical delusion.

America's foreign policy support for Israel is the stick that keeps whacking the Mahometan Hornet's Nest and yet Uncle Sam's stinging complaint is always - Why do they hate us?

Pertinacious Papist said...


Great article you linked above. (Incidentally, the deleted comment was a replica of this one, as you may have known.)

I like your logic in this piece, and I agree with it and think it holds generally for the generations now living.

While Obama needn't be "anti-Christian" in any explicit motivation, however, I do think (after reading a sufficient number of accounts such as these listed) that he may have some degree of epistimic self-awareness about his disposition.

While he's shameless about speaking about his "Christian faith," as though he were a born-again-er who found the Lord, as he did in his 2007 speech about Katrina and New Orleans, his actions speak a good bit louder than his words. He is essentially an anti-colonialist with Fabian
Socialist tendencies, who wants to be Robin Hood with White Christian Americans in the position of the Sherriff of Nottingham, and American blacks, third world populations and Islamic peoples in the position of the downtrodden peasantry, and Jeremiah Wright (maybe) in the position of Friar Tuck. Something like that.

Pertinacious Papist said...

Hello "I am not Spartacus,"

Good to see you again. While I have not read the book cited by "Jack" above, I have read an article on the same subject by the same author, D'souza, in the now defunct print edition of Crisis magazine. I remember it being very good and thinking his argument cogent.

I doubt, however, that most Muslim inhabitants of the Middle East are any more cognizant of the "Zionism" of American Fundamentalists [whom I would rather not call "rabid"] and Evangelicals than the latter are cognizant of the Islamist fraternizations with the Nazi's and their anti-semitic programs during WWII [see, for example, HERE].

You're certainly right about Serge Trifkovic's account of Muhammad's life, except I think that he, as the model of self-restraint he certainly exhibited, had the consummate decency to wait until Aisha was nine-years old to consummate his marriage with her. Ahem.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Dr. Yeah, I think rabid was a might over-heated; staunch would have been better.

As regards the Nazi-Islam connection in, "Palestine Diary," by Messrs John and Hadawi, they note that the Mufti was soliciting help from several sources as he thought they had no dog in the hunt and just wanted good relations with whichever side would be victorious.

They go on to cite facts establishing that the Nazi Government was instrumental is supporting and supplying the Zionist movement into Palestine and provide the evidence with tables.

Later in the book they disclose the Gestapo-Zionist emigration connection that was collaborating via a central office and which information had been produced in the Eichmann trial; and throughout the book they reveal the very positive eye-opening connections twixt the Nazis and the Zionists.

Now,can any individual read such facts in our controlled media? Impossible. Only an autodidact can find out.

The M.E. is one hell of a tangled mess but what is never tangled is the information we Americans receive about it; we are only and always told one side of the story and Americans are in such fear and dread of information that a friend warned me not to order, "Palestine Diary" from Amazon; "They will put you on a list."

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

A picture taken in 1943 of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini reviewing Bosnian-Muslim troops - a unit of the "Hanjar (Saber) Division" of the Waffen SS which he personally recruited for Hitler

Dear Dr. Messrs John and Hadawi, in "Palestine Diary," address this matter: "The day of 13 March was spent listening to the main Arab witnesses; Jamal El-Husseini (Cousin of the Mufti) and Auni Abdul Hadi, representing the Arab Higher Committee. Jamal put in a written statement that the Mufti alone could speak for the people of Palestine, and when shown photographs of the Mufti taking the salute of the Bosnian S.S., he answered with calculated candor, expressing his conviction that even when he was in Germany the Mufti "was working for the interests not of the English who were warring with the Germans but for the interests of his people who had no direct interest, at least, in the controversy. They felt it was not their war and that the Mufti was right in taking such steps as he could to do the best for Palestine whoever might be victorious."

Aside from that mater, there is also the fact that the Zionists planned to massacre the Palestinians; "Sir John Bagot Glubb, Commander of the Arab Legion, has described a significant meeting that took place...The British Officer (Glubb's senior officials) asked the Jewish Officer "whether the new Jewish state would not have many internal troubles in view of the fact that the Arab inhabitants of the Jewish state would be equal in number to the Jews. "oh, no' replied the Jewish officer. "That will be fixed. A few calculated massacres will soon be rid of them." The speaker was not a terrorist - he was a respectable moderate Jewish official, employed in the mandatory government."

The Middle East has been nasty and brutish for a long time and I am in favor of our disengagement there.

I'd rather spend out time and treasure fixing America. To hell with the M.E.

Cynic said...

Not Sparty,

The perspective you express is why I couldn't support Ron Paul. He's good on many things, despite his avuncular professorial demeanor. He thinks we should just "mind our own business," and by that means that we have no business concerning ourselves with what happens beyond our borders. That view is hardly sustainable -- not merely from the point of view of SELF-interest, but from the point of view of CHARITY toward those peoples saddled with constant oppression.

I've read the anti-Zionist literature too, and I'm well-acquainted with the injustices within Israeli culture, the treatment of Sephardic Jews as second-class citizens, the atheistic and Neo-Marxist perspective of secular Israelis, etc. Still, justice is justice, and I don't buy the (ironically) leftist perspective that it's all one one-sided: by the Israelis against the Palestinians and all other surrounding Arab states.

You're right about the mainstream media failing to inform us of the relevant facts on the international scene, but it's often a crap shoot trying to find the unvarnished facts on your own too.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Cynic. Charity, literally, begins at home and the idea that "charity" might possibly describe what it is America has done in the M.E. (since the 1920s) is risible.

Christianity is being extinguished in the M.E. and America has been instrumental in establishing Sharia-Based Constitutions in Afghanistan and Iraq and as Christians continue to suffer as victims of religious cleansing all we get in America is candidates appearing before AIPAC swearing fealty to a country comprised of Christ-Deniers.

If it were not so serious, it might read like the outline for a Marx Brothers movie.

Cynic said...

Not Sparty,

Now it's your turn: STOP IT. I NEVER claimed that US foreign policy in the middle east was charitable or motivated by charity. Read what I wrote again. I was clearly laying out what I think is (and is not) a morally tenable political disposition for a Catholic. I was denying that it would be right to bury our head in the sand, like an Ostrich, as far as international policy goes.

Mind you, I agree that we have plenty to concern ourselves with in domestic policy, but I deny that isolationism is a morally tenable position for a Catholic these days.

Consider a microcosmic analogy. One might say that we should mind our own business and concern ourselves only with our own families, not with others. But if we see our neighbor's house being burgled or his daughters molested, is it not the sole of CHARITY to get up and DO something about it? That's all my point was. Sheesh.

And this was St. Augustine's point in drawing up his Just War Theory. The goal of a just war should be the restoration of a peaceful order, and when this involves rescuing a neighboring country, it should be motivated by love of neighbor. Period.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Cynic. We were having an exchange about a specific topic - the M.E. - and in was you who introduced the matter of Charity (and self-interest) into the discussion about our policy in the M.E. in what clearly appears to have been an attempt to use those specific items as justifying reasons for our involvement there.

Charity not only begins at home, if it is to be applied outside the home, it ought be applied to those unfortunates much closer to our home (America);; the Americas have plenty of oppressed and poor souls who could benefit from our aid far more effectively than those in the M.E.

As to the canard of isolationism (a political slander developed to counter the effectiveness of the America Firsters) , nobody that I know of has suggested that we end all trade, educational exchanges, travel, cultural and/or religious exchanges twixt America and other countries.

Anonymous said...

Obviously the person who made this list has way too much time on their hands. One needs to refer to the context for EACH statement in its entirety, not just a snippet, lest we make false generalizations. This list is akin to every statement made by a person who seemingly is against women, Jews, and Muslims, yet if one delves further into the meaning, in the events that it took place, we realize our own biases and prejudices are actually driving home the narrative.

"It's not Fundamentalist Christians or Evangelicals or Traditional Catholics who provoke the ire of conservative Muslims."

Really? Talk to any number of these groups--as well as Orthodox Jews and Muslims who strictly observe the Koran--and usually the first thing uttered from their mouth is how their religion is "better" than any other faith. This mindset is the exact reason why there has been long-standing animosity between religious groups.

Moreover, this concept of "American Exceptionalism" has been co-opted by our military intelligence agencies, at the behest of (D) AND (R) presidential administrations, to overthrow governments legitimately decided by the citizens of a country. The installation of the Shah of Iran in 1953 comes to mind after a CIA led coup toppled a democratically elected leader. Subsequently, our government has supported dictators (Manuel Noreiga, Saddam Hussein) in the name of "anti-communism". Motivated to love thy neighbor when it comes to foreign policy, I think not.


Jack L. said...


Listen, you joker. Have the courtesy to address us by name, as well as the courtesy to give your own name, as long as you are hurling grenades at us.

Cynic can speak for himself or herself, but my point was not that Muslims deny that their religion is superior to Christianity or Judaism (Where did I suggest that?). My point was that what provokes the indignation of good and faithful Muslims when they consider the West, and why they have referred to us as the "Great Satan" since the days of the Shah, is because everything they see on satellite TV from the West, from Hollywood, from Obama's and the Democratic Party's constituency and its George Clooney values, is abominable to them, as it should be to us!

Read D'souza, not just the NYT.

Anonymous said...

"Have the courtesy to address us..."

And you have the audacity to call me "Joker"!

"but my point was not that Muslims deny that their religion is superior to Christianity or Judaism (Where did I suggest that")

You didn't make that remark, I simply provided an alternative, reasonable position, NOT incendiary in the least. Indeed, SOME Muslims look at our culture as a "cesspool" similar to SOME Christians and Jews referring to their ways of life as being "subhuman". BOTH viewpoints promote bitterness and hostility.

I'm not referring to "Obama", the "Democratic Party's constituency", or "George Clooney" values that is the impetus or drive for "Muslim ire", my comment was simply to point out that religious zealotry begins with an attitude of superiority.

"Read D'souza, not just the NYT."

Exactly the type of response I expect from a partisan, regardless if it is a liberal or conservative. The adults in the room in America are the moderates.


Cynic said...


I have no idea who you are, but I must admit I suspect your motives because of your arrogant tone.

Touchy in the extreme that someone should call you "Joker," you turn around and return the favor by calling him a "partisan."

Dismissive of those who consider their religious preference "superior," you imply that in contrast to these immature snot-nosed babies in the room, you are among the "adults" because, unlike them again, you are a "moderate."

Would you like us to applaud you, your Sublime Non-Incindiary Smugness? Or, is there some reason that, by thinking your own "moderate" views superior to those of others (what, by virtue of their TRUTH?), that you believe you are immune from legitimate accusations of parochial bias and condescending smugness?

Anonymous said...

I'm not being smug, just straightfoward. Your tone and statements best fit the description. And I never said I was superior to you and your arguments. Projection on your part.

Now, do you care to specifically address my positions? We're all waiting...


Anonymous Bosch said...

Looks to me like several of you here have abandoned discussion of the post for discussion of eachother's intentions and tone. And the one who takes the cake in this regard is Greencarman. Boring.

Let's get back to the issues or drop this thread. Is Obama evil or not, that's the question.

Anonymous said...

Boring to the point that you responded, Bosch. Anyhoo, is Obama "evil"? That was the thread? No, the point was made that Obama is "at war" against Christianity. It is clear who has made up their minds regarding this position. My point (yet again) is that religion is being used as a weapon of war rather than a tool for faith. And SOME adherents to those religions are EQUALLY guilty of trying to denigrate one another's fundamental tenets.


Anonymous Bosch said...

Your antithesis between religion as a weapon of war and tool of faith in confuted by our Lord: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34).

This is not to suggest that our Lord advocated violence, as he showed when he was being taken captive in the Garden and told Peter to put down his sword. It is, however, to suggest that a life of faith is a life of spiritual battle, which is not confined to the privacy of a person's heart, but extends into the public square and the "powers and principalities" St. Paul speaks of, which in "high places" do spiritual battle over the souls of men, not only individually, but in mass political movements. That is not my private view, but the view of Scripture and sacred tradition.