Truth in Bible surpasses Political Correctness
Cultural Marxism vs. Judeo-Christian Heritage:
The University of Notre Dame announced its intentions to cover murals of Christopher Columbus over the weekend.
University President John Jenkins wrote in a campus-wide email that the murals once reflected “the attitudes of the time” but that they are now “demeaning” to “the indigenous peoples.”
Painted in 1882-84, the artwork has great historical value and resides in the university’s iconic Main Building, aka the “Golden Dome.”
The Native American Student Association of Notre Dame issued a statement via Facebook, applauding the “thoughtful and wise decision,” calling it “a good step towards acknowledging the full humanity of those Native people who have come before us.”
The Young Americans for Freedom chapter at the University of Notre Dame is calling on the university to reverse its decision.
“Sadly the University of Notre Dame decided to coddle its students by shielding them from a painting of an important figure in world history,” Grant Strobl, YAF spokesperson and Notre Dame law student, said in a statement. “If we adopt the standard of judging previous generations by current standards, we may reach a point where there are no longer accomplishments to celebrate.”
YAF chapter leader Luke Jones wants his school to “proudly display the remarkable artwork depicting Christopher Columbus.”
RUSH: In order to keep the mob at bay before they really get mad at us, we’re gonna eliminate whatever it is that might upset them.
RUSH: How about this: “Notre Dame [University] to Cover up Murals of Columbus in the New World.” They have a series of artwork, tapestries and murals that depict various moments in history. And the University of Notre Dame has announced — obviously out of fear of the mob or because they themselves have been totally given over now to the phony political correctness — they are going to cover them.
Why socialist policies are so popular—but so harmful
These [leftists] are using a technique that is as old as the human race,—a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them. ~ David O. McKay
A fundamental difference between the left and right concerns how each assesses public policies. The right asks, “Does it do good?” The left asks a different question, [as shown in the following examples].
The New York Times editorialized against any minimum wage. The title of the editorial said it all –“The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00”
There’s a virtual consensus among economists,” wrote the Times editorial, “that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market. …More important, it would increase unemployment … The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable—and fundamentally flawed.”
Why did the New York Times editorialize against the minimum wage? Because it asked the conservative question: “Does it do good?”
The New York Times editorial page wrote the very opposite of what it had written in 1987, and called for a major increase in the minimum wage. In that time, the page had moved further left and was now preoccupied not with what does good—but with income inequality, which feels bad. It lamented the fact that a low hourly minimum wage had not “softened the hearts of its opponents”—Republicans and their supporters.
Study after study—and, even more important, common sense and facts—have shown the deleterious effects that race-based affirmative action have had on black students. Lowering college admissions standards for black applicants has ensured at least two awful results.
One is that more black students fail to graduate college—because they have too often been admitted to a college that demands more academic rigor than they were prepared for. Rather than attend a school that matches their skills, a school where they might thrive, they fail at a school where they are over-matched.
The other result is that many, if not most, black students feel a dark cloud hanging over them. They suspect that other students wonder whether they, the black students, were admitted into the college on merit or because standards were lowered.
It would seem that the last question supporters of race-based affirmative action ask is, “Does it do good?”
The left has a soft spot for pacifism—the belief that killing another human being is always immoral [unless it is killing unborn babies]. Not all leftists are pacifists, but pacifism emanates from the left, and just about all leftists support “peace activism,” … and whatever else contains the word “peace.”
The right, on the other hand, while just as desirous of peace as the left—what conservative parent wants their child to die in battle?—knows that pacifism and most “peace activists” increase the chances of war, not peace.
Nothing guarantees the triumph of evil like refusing to fight it. Great evil is therefore never defeated by peace activists, but by superior military might. The Allied victory in World War II is an obvious example. American military might likewise contained and ultimately ended Soviet communism.
Supporters of pacifism, peace studies, American nuclear disarmament, American military withdrawal form countries ins which it has fought—Iraq is the most recent example—do not ask, “Does it do good?”
Did the withdrawal of America from Iraq do good? Of course not. It only led to the rise of Islamic State with its mass murder and torture.
Why do liberals support a higher minimum wage if doesn’t do good? Because intakes the recipients of the higher wage feel good (even if other workers lose their jobs when restaurants and other businesses that cannot afford the higher wage close down) and it makes liberals feel good about themselves: “We liberals, unlike conservatives, have soft hearts.”
Why do liberals support race-based affirmative action? For the same reasons. It makes the recipients feel good when they are admitted to more prestigious colleges. And it makes liberals feel good about themselves for appearing to right the wrongs of historical racism.
The same holds true for left-wing peace activism: Supporting “peace” rather than the military makes liberals feel good about themselves.
Perhaps the best example is the self-esteem movement. It has had an almost wholly negative effect on a generation of Americans raised to have high self-esteem without having earned it. They then suffer from narcissism and an incapacity to deal with life’s inevitable setbacks. But self-esteem feels good.
And feelings—not reason—is what liberalism is largely about. Reason asks: “Does it do good?” Liberalism asks, “Does it feel good?”
That’s the threat. Islam in and of itself is not, but the idea of supremacy, Sharia law supremacy, that is and should be — it’s not — it should be the target of our vetting. That does pose a problem. And as they continue to migrate to America and expand their numbers, the problem gets exponentially larger at the same time. The belief in the supremacy of Sharia law is where this is all centered. That’s where all the vetting should be aimed.
I saw something yesterday on the Drudge Report, and I didn’t click the link, so I don’t know the details. But it’s either now or very soon the Muslim population in America will outnumber the Jewish population in America. It either has happened or it’s on the way to happening.
Now, the passage that I cite here in McCarthy’s book, The Grand Jihad, was written about ten years ago. And it has become only clearer in those 10 years that the jihadists are only the tip of the spear. We’re dealing with an ideological enemy whose aim — and they’re quite up front of this. They do not deny this. It is us — it is we — who refuse to hear it. Their objective is to supplant Western culture. “Come on, Rush! We had a guy who went nuts and he drove a car through eight people. This is not mass terrorism.”
That’s not the point. The point is: Where does the guy get his beliefs? Where does the guy get his ideas? Why’s he mad? Why does he want to do this to one person, eight people, 20? Why? That’s what we’re up against, and they can happen at any time because the people are here, and we’re not vetting for these kinds of people. We are purposely avoiding trying to find out whether or not the people we’re allowing into the country have any kind of supremacist notion of Islam or Sharia law.
That is his ideological enclave. But we’re debating visa and refugee policy, and instead we need to be vetting for Sharia supremacy. I know this is a minority view for a lot of people. It goes too far. It gets into an area where people are uncomfortable about it. But that is the problem. That is what we’re up against. Put simply, we are allowing people into the country who want to tear it down. We’re allowing people into the country who want to overthrow it.
We are allowing people into the country who want to supplant our way of life with theirs. We’re letting them in. Can I read to you how this was described in the Washington Examiner? “Multiple People Killed When Truck Drives Down New York City Bike Path.” Really? Is that what happened? Reminds me of the old days where the SUV was blamed for killing people or driving off the top of a parking garage. The SUV had its own personality. It could drive itself around — and whatever damage that happened, the SUV did it.
Critical Thinking Skills:
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. ~Matthew 7:15,20
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ~John 8:32
The smear was highly developed by communists in the Cold War era, and is a common practice in our society today, by politicians and by persons posing as journalists. The smear is done by people attacking those who disagree with them, frequently persons who hold to biblical values. Bible believers do not engage in this practice, because moral standards of Bible believers prohibit bearing false witness (lying).
Today smear tactics are prevalent among people who call themselves journalists, but who in reality “report” unsubstantiated rumors and blatant lies about people they disagree with.
Excerpt from Birthright, Part 1
Ruben grumbled as he strode over to the huge dictionary in the back of the room. Flipping the pages, he finally came to the word and read the meaning out loud: “A legendary Greek robber named Procrustes, who was noted for stretching the bodies or cutting off the legs of his victims so they would fit the length of his bed.”
“Just as Procrustes would stretch or cut off the legs of his prisoners to make them fit his bed, tyrants must stretch or cut out the TRUTH to fit the confines of their ideology—controlling freedom of speech, or people’s lives, or worse.
Alger Rotcraft explains the art of the “smear campaign.”
“First of all, it was a mistake to try to bring them down on an issue. Stay away from the issues; don’t give them anything to debate you about. The smear is only successful if you focus on character assassination.”
Find examples of the smear in our society today. Start by looking at anyone who speaks truth and defends the original intent of the Founders of the American Constitution. Make a list with two columns. On one side, place the statements of the person being attacked; on the other side, write what is being said about that person. Research the backgrounds of the attackers and the attacked, to examine their “fruits,” or works. Add the corresponding works in each column. Discern which are facts, and which are opinions.
The American public was nearly deprived of the opportunity to read this book.
In 2012 popular historian David Barton set out to correct what he saw as the distorted image of a once-beloved Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, in what became a New York Times best-selling book, The Jefferson Lies.
Despite the wildly popular success of the original hardcover edition, or perhaps because of it, a campaign to discredit Barton s scholarship was launched by bloggers and a handful of non-historian academics.
What happened next was shocking virtually unprecedented in modern American publishing history. Under siege from critics, the publisher spiked the book and recalled it from the retail shelves from coast to coast. The Jefferson Lies is thus a history book that made history becoming possibly the first book of its kind to be victimized by the scourge of political correctness.
But more than three years later, it s back as an updated paperback edition in which Barton sets the record straight and takes on the critics who savaged his work.
And that’s just part of the story. Why did this book spark so much controversy?
It could only happen in an America that has forgotten its past. Its roots, its purpose, its identity all have become shrouded behind a veil of political correctness bent on twisting the nation’s founding, and its Founders, beyond recognition.
The time has come to remember again.
This new paperback edition of The Jefferson Lies re-documents Barton’s research and conclusions as sound and his premises true. It tackles seven myths about Thomas Jefferson head-on, and answers pressing questions about this incredible statesman including:
Did Thomas Jefferson really have a child by his young slave girl, Sally Hemings?
Did he write his own Bible, excluding the parts of Christianity with which he disagreed?
Was he a racist who opposed civil rights and equality for black Americans?
Did he, in his pursuit of separation of church and state, advocate the secularizing of public life?
Through Jefferson’s own words and the eyewitness testimony of contemporaries, Barton repaints a portrait of the man from Monticello as a visionary, an innovator, a man who revered Jesus, a classical Renaissance man, and a man whose pioneering stand for liberty and God-given inalienable rights fostered a better world for this nation and its posterity. For America, the time to remember these truths is now.
Rush Limbaugh sets the record straight on two more examples of liberal lies: the smearing of Roger Ailes, and re-writing American history.
Liberals Re-write History on Declaration of Independence
Danielle Allen suggesting the second copy [of the Declaration of Independence] blows to hell the whole premise of federalism and establishes an all-powerful command-and-control one unitary central governing authority. And the states, to hell with ’em, all because in this copy the signers did not group themselves by state nor are the states from which they hail mentioned.
She says, “This parchment manuscript eliminates in one stroke how the Federalists and the anti-Federalists debated the question of whether the new republic was founded on the authority of a single united, sovereign people or on the authority of 13 separate state governments.” You ever heard of the Constitution, Danielle? For crying out loud, it’s a copy. Look what they’re trying to do here. Where has this thing been, anyway? In some whaler’s cabinet over on the coasts near the white cliffs of Dover in the U.K.? Well, what are we talking about here?
Look, you have a bunch of leftists searching everywhere they can for evidence that socialism and one giant, big government everywhere is the answer. And they would love it if they could find evidence or convince you that they have found evidence that even the Founders of the United States knew of the greatness and the potential of a single all-powerful government.
And one of the ways they’re going about it is prohibiting any speech they think undermines their cause,
50 years of indoctrination in the schools yields bitter fruit
It is very subtle, but very insidious, intended to put a globalist spin on history for young people who come long after the events, and after decades of globalist indoctrination in the schools.
The Americans and the French are referred to as “the Allies”. This term was used in World War 2.Then this same presentation said that Cornwallis surrendered to the French and the Americans, instead of England’s General Cornwallis surrendering to America’s George Washington.
Some revisionists have also used Allies interchangeably with united nations, implying that the United Nations won World War
Seth Clark was not allowed to deliver this graduation speech because it referenced God.
The tiny rural town of Akin in southern Illinois might not have a post office, but it can now count itself among the players on the national stage after an eighth-grade boy was barred from giving a graduation speech over its religious content.
Akin Community Grade School salutatorian Seth Clark submitted his speech for approval, the Benton Evening News said, but a local citizen complained about the content of the address, which included references to God and the Bible. So school officials told the 13-year-old he couldn’t deliver the speech, the paper reported.
“As a public school, it is our duty to educate students, regardless of how different they or their beliefs may be,” a statement from Akin Superintendent and Principal Kelly Clark to the paper reads. “While students are welcome to pray or pursue their faith without disrupting school or infringing upon the rights of others, the United States Constitution prohibits the school district from incorporating such activities as part of school-sponsored events, and when the context causes a captive audience to listen or compels other students to participate.”
Enter Rickey Karroll — a friend of Seth’s family — who told WSIL-TV he offered his property across the street from the school so Seth could give his speech.
And that’s exactly what happened.
Right after the May 16 ceremony, Seth — still dressed in his cap and gown — marched across the road along with classmates and dozens of supporters, the station said.
He then stood on the front porch of the house on Karroll’s property and read his speech.
Across the country, loud and sometime violent campus protesters are often met by administrators who ultimately give in to demands related to perceived slights on issues ranging from race to gender and sexuality to alleged hate speech. But one college president is fighting back, and he says the pursuit of truth – not unanimous political ideology – ought to be the goal of higher education.
Oklahoma Wesleyan University President Everett Piper burst on to the scene in late 2015 when he wrote an open letter to his students and famously explained their campus was not a day care but a university. He is also the author of the forthcoming book “Not A Day Care: A Coddled Nation is a Crippled Nation.”
“The liberal arts institution was founded some 1,000 years ago, let’s say at Oxford, for what? To educate a free man and a free woman, to educate culture and what it means to enjoy liberty, and liberation, thus the word liberal,” said Piper, in a follow-up interview to his column.
He told WND and Radio America the original purpose of a liberal arts education is now almost unrecognizable at most schools.
“The classical liberal is someone who stands for freedom, for liberty and for liberation. What we see today within the American academy is the shutting down of ideas. We see ideological fascism rather than academic freedom,” Piper said.
“The conservative voice is actually more classically liberal because we’re arguing for an open, robust exchange of ideas. Why? Because we can trust truth to judge the debate rather than politics or power.”
And what kind of speech is protected? What kind of speech? I mean, because people that work for the XYZ company get fired every day for saying things the company doesn’t like, so what kind of speech are we talking about here that’s protected? And what did they mean, the Founders wrote the Constitution; no abridgement against free speech. What’s the purpose? Why is it so important?
No, there’s a reason for it. There’s a reason why freedom of speech has constitutional protection, and it’s why there are prohibitions against anybody in government telling you you can’t, or anybody in a political environment telling you you can’t say anything. There’s a reason for it. There are many reasons for it.
How are you expected to counter propaganda, for example, without freedom of speech? How are you able to combat lies and distortions and misrepresentations without freedom of speech? If only certain speech is sanctioned by government, well, then you will not have a free nation for long. And that is precisely what is happening on college campus.
There’s something much more hideous going on, and it is a direct assault on the First Amendment.
No, there’s an all-out assault on free speech. Political correctness is part of it. That’s censorship. And now this effort to behave in felonious criminal behavior to start riots and fires and destroy property to prevent a speaker showing up on your campus with whom you disagree, and to have the university coddle that? To have the left say we must understand the very sensitive and delicate nature of these young students. We must understand that they’re so easily shocked, so easily depressed, so easily rendered helpless. We must accommodate them. No, it’s all a giant scam that’s being run here.
There’s a full-fledged, all-out assault on the First Amendment, without having a constitutional convention, without having an amendment, without having to erase it or write it out. It’s a fear and intimidation campaign. And it was joined and supported in an op-ed in the New York Times yesterday by somebody named Ulrich Baer. Ulrich Baer is vice provost for faculty, arts, humanities, and diversity, and professor of comparative literature at New York University.
That is specifically what the free speech clause in the First Amendment means. It is permission to say anything anybody thinks, and it has a political realm that was attached. Saying “fire” in a crowded theater is not something you think. That excuse is often given as a legitimate limit on free speech. You can’t incite riots. But we’re not talking about that and everybody knows it.
Ulrich Baer:“The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks.”
RUSH:Yes, it is. That’s its power. And because it exists, free speech is how such speech is dealt with and answered. At any rate, listen to what comes next. This is just one excerpt. I’m not gonna read the whole piece. I wouldn’t do that to you. I couldn’t handle it myself.
RUSH: Here’s the upshot of what this guy, Ulrich Baer, is saying. Free speech means balancing the inherent value of a given opinion with the obligation to make sure it doesn’t offend anybody else in the community. That’s what he’s saying. Okay, now, you might think, “Rush, we ought not be offending people.”
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon
Sorry, folks. It’s irrelevant, when we’re talking about political speech as a means of shutting it down. But that’s not the point here. Do you realize the real danger here are the words “balancing the inherent value of a given opinion.” Well, now, tell me, who gets to do that? Who gets to decide the value of what anybody is saying and then who gets to proclaim, “You can’t say that anymore, and because you did say it, we’re gonna punish you”?
Who gets to say that? Who has this power to determine the inherent value of something anybody says? Well, I’ll give you one clue: as big an authority as they can come up with, preferably run by them. Ideally, the federal government would determine the value of what you say and be able to shut you down if they determine that you are violating the inherent values that are important to them.
And that’s exactly what these people want. And that’s what the free speech movement on campus really is. It is a blooming, burgeoning effort at creating a central authority that will be able to eliminate and punish any speech that modern leftists don’t want to hear.
Saturday during her Fox News Channel “Justice” opening statement, Judge Jeanine Pirro reacted to University of California at Berkeley disinviting author Ann Coulter from speaking on campus, saying the shutting down of free speech on college campuses is pushing the country to a fascist and totalitarian society.
“America is in trouble,” Pirro began. “They are trying to silence you. A monstrous and pervasive movement is putting the First Amendment and your free speech, the most basic and fundamental tenets of our nation at risk and in danger of extinction. And whether you are on the left or right, free speech is essential to our democracy, the reason the country was found, the reason people risk so much, even die to come here. Yet, as you sit there, you are watching a silencing in real-time. Where people are not allowed to express their opinion if it does not align with the thinking of others.”
“It’s putting us on the course where we are in danger of becoming a fascist totalitarian society where there is only one accepted point of view; no other will be tolerated, and it’s time to fight back,” she added.
American Family Association News/ Christian News:
Every month American Family Association provides Issues at Hand in a useful summary of the Christian Worldview, so you can be up-to-date with many issues important to you, all in one post. ~C.D.
December 2016 – A student advertisement for an event at Claremont College in California read, “Masculinity can be extremely toxic to our mental health, both to the people who are pressured to perform it and the people who are inevitably influenced by it.”
As writer LaShawn Barber for World Magazine pointed out, such language used in relation to women would be described as misogyny.
Students stated that the event was comprised of mostly women, and that the consensus was that masculinity “is harmful to those who express it and those affected by it.”
December 2016 – Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Massachusetts churches over a new law that allows individuals legal access to bathrooms or locker rooms based on perceived gender identification versus biological sex. The state has identified churches as places of public accommodation and therefore bound by the law.
Plaintiffs are Horizon Christian Fellowship, Abundant Life Church, House of Destiny Ministries, and Faith Christian Fellowship in Haverville. Defendants are members of the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination and state Attorney General Maura Healey.
The law also prohibits covered entities from making statements intended to discriminate or to incite others to do so. ADF argues the state intends to “force churches and pastors to refrain from religious expression regarding sexuality that conflicts with the government’s views.”
onenewsnow, 10/11/16, 10/12/16
Margaret Louise Sanger (1879-1966) (above) was an activist for birth control, population control, and eugenics. Her legacy is being carried on by Planned Parenthood, which pretends to help the poor while hiding the reality that it targets the vulnerable.
December 2016 – In October, Planned Parenthood Federation of America celebrated its 100th year since Margaret Sanger opened the first clinic in Brooklyn, New York. She believed in “improving” the human race by discouraging reproduction among persons she presumed to have undesirable traits.
What began with birth control in 1916 has become the largest abortion provider in the country. Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report (2014) shows that 43% of the abortion provider’s revenues came from taxpayers via state and federal government health services grants and reimbursements in the amount of $553.7 million.
While Planned Parenthood celebrated 100 years of death, pro-lifers and Christians observed the century milestone in a different way, by gathering to pray for an end to the destruction Planned Parenthood has perpetuated over the years.
“They have an underlying and faithful ally in the media and Hollywood,” said Eric Scheidler, spokesman for Pro-Life Action League.
“We cannot match Planned Parenthood dollar for dollar, yet we can confront them with something they have none of. They don’t have the power of our Lord and prayer.”
Prayer vigils were held at more than 100 Planned Parenthood clinics throughout the country on October 15.
cnsnews.com, 10/17/16; onenewsnow.com, 10/14/16
The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation, created the graphic above by distilling invoices and price lists subpoenaed by the U.S. House Select Panel on Infant Lives in April 2016.
December 2016 – Two California medical companies have been accused of illegally profiting from the sale of fetal tissue in a lawsuit filed by the Orange County district attorney’s office on October 11. Prosecutors are seeking a $1.6 million fine as well as an injunction to prevent future profits.
Undercover videos circulated last year by the Center for Medical Progress vividly informed the public about the harvesting of aborted baby organs. The lawsuit does not name abortion providers but claims DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics collected tens of thousands of dollars in profit from fetal tissue and stem cells they received from abortion providers.
While it is legal for organizations to charge a fee to recover expenses incurred in the process of collecting and donating fetal tissue, the lawsuit alleges the companies sold to research groups at least 500 times between 2012 and 2015 for more than what it cost to process, handle, and ship the body parts.
onenewsnow.com, 10/12/16; dailysignal.com, 4/20/16
December 2016 – A study published in September in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion details the $1.2 trillion contribution that religion makes to the U.S. annual economy. In areas from health care to education to philanthropy, the benefit of religion for the American economy is greater than the top ten tech companies combined, including Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
Interestingly, the impact of church congregations is the second greatest player in the economics of religion, constituting 36.1% of the total $1.2 trillion. Businesses with religious backgrounds are number one, making 37.8% of the contribution. Charitable institutions generate 26.1%.
The impact is not only monetary. Highly religious individuals are more likely to donate money and goods and time to volunteer, according to Pew Research polling that asked adults about their activities in the prior week. Congregations coordinate 7.5 million volunteers in 1.5 million social programs, and religious organizations have tripled the amount of money they spend on social programs in the last 15 years.
cruxnow.com, 9/14/16; faithcounts.com
Anti-Freedom of Speech: Attorneys can’t discuss ‘harmful’ subjects
December 2016 – New ethics rules established by the American Bar Association in August prohibit attorneys from “harmful” verbal conduct that could include discussing or debating same sex marriage, religion, or immigration. Under the speech code, attorneys could be disciplined or removed from the bar if they are seen as manifesting bias or prejudice.
“What it really does is shut down everyone from saying anything that might be controversial for advocating for your clients vigorously or even selecting clients,” said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh.
December 2016 – With all the recent media attention on police officers, those who wear a badge are feeling extra pressure. For example, a female officer in Chicago, Illinois, recently felt the stress while being attacked by a 28-year-old male high on PCP.
The man attacked her viciously, slamming her head into the pavement. She was taken to the hospital where she was treated for multiple injuries, and bits of concrete had to be removed from her face.
Eddie Johnson, police superintendent, said, “This attack went on for several minutes. As I was at the hospital last night visiting with her, she looked at me and said she thought she was going to die, and she knew that she should shoot this guy. But she chose not to because she didn’t want her family or the department to have to go through the scrutiny the next day on the national news.”
December 2016 – New Mexico Advocacy Coalition, an anti-human trafficking group, is launching a campaign against major booksellers that sell how-to manuals for pimps. The group found at least 15 such titles on Amazon.com, along with reviews such as “required reading for the pimp in training. Written as an instructional manual.”
While Amazon has a vague restriction against offensive sexual content in books, the New Mexico Advocacy Coalition is petitioning the online seller to step up enforcement of guidelines and stop selling such books. Jet.com, Barnes and Noble, and Wal-Mart were also found to be selling some of the same titles.
December 2016 – In June, the U.N.’s Human Rights Council in Geneva voted to establish an LGBT ombudsman, an official designated to monitor complaints of infringement of LGBT rights and launch investigations in different countries. The ombudsman would determine how U.N. affiliated organizations interact with countries based on how they treat special rights for homosexuals.
Stefano Gennarini, spokesperson for Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, suggested that such a position would pressure countries to enact homosexual rights and give the LGBT agenda a foothold of power with the U.N. A November vote was planned to determine the outcome of the decision.