An interesting commentary on this article can be found here: The Entire Sad Contraception Issue Explained

Also read here about how the Japanese population is going to drop by one third in the next fifty years due to their love affair with contraceptives and abortions:

from The Blaze:

We’ve covered the Catholic Church’s ongoing battle with the Obama administration over contraception health care mandates for quite some time. Over the weekend, though, the stand-off took an unusual turn, as Catholic churches across America read a letter to congregants that perfectly encapsulated the church’s stance against the impending federal requirements.

The Church’s vocal arguments against the Obama administration are centered upon a Health and Human Services Department requirement that employers must include contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in health-care coverage. While this requirement doesn’t apply to houses of worship, it will force Catholic colleges, hospitals and other Christian groups to provide these drugs despite their faith-based opposition to them.

Over the weekend, the Catholic Church’s letter went beyond simply issuing oppositional rhetoric to media. Instead, priests read an open note to congregations across the country, dubbing the administration‘s take on women’s health and religious violations as an attack on their faith. In the letter, Bishops highlighted what they called “an alarming and serious matter,“ as their words contended that the federal government has ”dealt a heavy blow” to the Catholic population.

In it, Catholic leaders went on to say that the Church “cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law,” as it violates the Catholic conscience. Additionally, the church says that it is faced with a difficult decision — either comply and violate its faith or drop coverage for employees and suffer the consequences. The letter urges congregants to take action and to call Congress in an attempt to overturn the regulation.

Employers will be forced to offer free contraception in their healthcare plans, it was announced yesterday.

Religious organisations had been pushing for exemption from the ruling, but the Obama administration has said they will be allowed just a one-year delay in implementing the policy.

The vast majority of healthcare plans will have to offer birth control without any co-pays or deductibles from the beginning of August.

Republicans in Congress argued that the administration’s ‘unbending’ refusal to make an exception for religious groups would undermine freedom of worship.

But reproductive-rights activists hailed the decision as ‘common sense’ which would uphold employees’ access to ‘basic health care’.

The decision was announced by Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who said she had considered ‘the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty’, according to The Hill.

She added: ‘I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.’

Churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship are exempted from the requirement, but other religious bodies – such a universities, hospitals and charities – will have to offer free contraception from August 2013.

‘This ruling forces religious organizations to violate the fundamental tenets of their faith, or stop offering health insurance coverage to their employees,’ said the Republican Policy Committee.

The GOP leadership also criticised the government’s ‘unbending approach to appease its liberal base’.

The ‘Obamacare’ health reforms are designed to make insurers offer preventive measures such as contraception free, on the grounds that that will save on the future costs of treating illness.

Although most insurance plans already include contraception, some religious groups say they would rather shut down than offer birth control.

Nashville’s Dominican congregation told The Hill: ‘What war and disease could not do to the congregation, the government of the United States will do – it will shut them down.’

The president of Planned Parenthood welcomed the ruling, saying: ‘Birth control is not just basic health care for women, it is an economic concern.

‘This common sense decision means that millions of women, who would otherwise pay $15 to $50 a month, will have access to affordable birth control, helping them save hundreds of dollars each year.’

Joint US-Israel drill called off by Netanyahu, to Washington’s surprise

Debkafile’s sources disclose exclusively that, contrary to recent reports published in Washington, Jerusalem – and this site too – it was Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, not the Obama administration, who decided to call off the biggest ever joint US-Israeli military exercise Austere Challenge 12 scheduled for April 2012.

Washington was taken aback by the decision. It was perceived as a mark of Israel’s disapproval for the administration’s apparent hesitancy in going through with the only tough sanctions with any chance of working against Iran’s nuclear weapon program: penalizing its central bank and blocking payments for its petroleum exports.

This was the first time Israel had ever postponed a joint military exercise; it generated a seismic moment in relations between the US and Israel at a time when Iran has never been so close to producing a nuclear weapon.

This week, Netanyahu further orchestrated a series of uncharacteristically critical statements by senior ministers: Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon called the Obama administration “hesitant” (Jan. 15), after which Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman urged the Americans to “move from words to deeds” (Jan 16). The underlying message was that the Israeli government felt free to attack Iran’s nuclear sites on its own if necessary and at a time of its choosing. Debkafile’s sources report that Netanyahu decided on this extreme course after careful consideration when he judged the Obama administration’s resolve to preempt a nuclear Iran to be flagging, as indicated by four omissions:

1. Washington has taken no action against Iran’s capture of the RQ-170 stealth drone on Dec. 4 more than a month after the event, and not even pressed President Obama’s demand of Dec. 12 for the drone’s return. Tehran, for its part, continues to make hay from the event: This week, our Iranian sources report, the Islamic Republic circulated a new computer game called “Down the RQ-170.” Players assemble the drone from the components shown on their screens and then launch it for attacks on America.

2. Silence from Washington also greeted the start of 20-percent grade uranium enrichment at the underground Fordo facility near Qom when it was announced Jan. 9. Last November, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned in two US TV interviews (Nov. 17 and 22) that as soon as the Fordo facility went on stream, Iran would start whisking the rest of its nuclear facilities into underground bunkers, out of reach and sight of US and Israeli surveillance.

Barak made it clear at the time that Israel could not live with this development; therefore, the Netanyahu government believes Israel’s credibility is now at stake.

3. Exactly three weeks ago, on Jan. 3 Lt. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, Iran’s Army chief, announced that the aircraft carrier USS Stennis and other “enemy ships” would henceforth be barred from entering the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz . Yet since then, no US carrier has put this threat to the test by attempting a crossing. Tehran has been left to crow.

4. Even after approving sanctions on Iran’s central bank and energy industry, the White House announced they would be introduced in stages in the course of the year. According to Israeli’s calculus, another six months free of stiff penalties will give Iran respite for bringing its nuclear weapon program to a dangerous and irreversible level. source – DEBKA

from The Stonegate Institute:

Nigerian Christians are under attack. On Christmas day, the Islamist group Boko Haram targeted churches in Nigeria’s capital, killing 40 innocent people. Boko Haram — literally “Western Education is a Sin ” — opposes whatever comes from the West, such as education, culture and science, and considers Christians as an obstacle to building an Islamic caliphate.

Boko Haram has recently increased its attacks against Christian Nigerians, who make up 48.2% of the country’s population. Last November, of Boko Haram killed 150 Christians and bombed 11 churches. “It was a direct attack against Christians. Members of Boko Haram asked: ‘Are you a Christian or a Muslim’ If you said you were a Christian, they killed you. […] I saw someone who was slaughtered like a lamb in front of a church,”said a representative of the Christian Association of Nigeria.

According to the Nigerian newspaper, Sunday Tribune, Nigerian intelligence believes that the intensification in the activities of Boko Haram is aimed at putting the group in advantageous position to secure the leadership of “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.” A report in the hands of the Nigerian government allegedly confirms that after the killing of the U.S.-born Al-Qaeda top leader ,Anwar Al-Awlaki, in an air strike in Yemen by a joint CIA-U.S. military operation, Al-Qaeda is seeking to relocate from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa.

“International and local intelligence agencies indicate that the activities of Boko Haram in recent weeks were aimed at getting the attention of the Al-Qaeda organizations and securing the headquarters,” the Sunday Tribune reports, adding that Al-Awlaki’s replacement will be chosen from among the African terrorist group that have the most impressive record of terror acts. The Nigerian newspapers mention that several terrorist groups based on the African continent hope to take over Al-Qaeda’s leadership to be able to access more financial aid. “The contest is hot,” states the Sunday Tribune.

According to Nigerian media, despite the competition, Boko Haram has strong ties to[N the Africa-based Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [North Africa],and with the Shabaab rebel group in Somalia. As this alliance could transform the central belt of Africa into an immense operational ground for terrorist operations, it is — or should be — of major concern.

Washington does appear to be worried about Boko Haram’s activities, probably fearing that the Nigerian group might attack U.S. interests. Recently, The Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security had a hearing on emerging threats to the U.S. posed by Boko Haram. The subcommittee stressed that Boko Haram has evolved quickly, and can be a threat to U.S. interests and to the U.S. homeland. “Boko Haram has the intent and may be developing capability to coordinate on a rhetorical and operational level with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Shabaab,” the subcommittee concluded, adding that “Boko Haram’s evolution in targeting and tactics closely tracks that of other Al Qaeda affiliates that have targeted the U.S. Homeland”.

The subcommittee further revealed the need for the collection of more intelligence on Boko Haram, as the U.S. Intelligence Community has until now wrongly underestimated the capabilities of the Nigerian terrorist group to target the U.S. homeland . The U.S – commented the subcommittee – incorrectly assessed that Boko Haram had only regional ambitions and that threats against the U.S. homeland were merely “aspirational.” Nigerian sources confirm, however, that if Boko Haram will not be stopped in time, it could shake the entire African region, targeting U.S. embassies and American civilians, and that it could recruit can recruit Boko Haram’s Nigerian sympathizers in the U.S.. Last August, Boko Haram had already claimed responsibility for a bomb attack on a U.N. headquarters in Nigeria that killed 23 people.

In light of Boko Haram’s violent escalation, it is urgent first of all officially to designate it as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). The U.S. should also cooperate with the government of Nigeria to counter Boko Haram. The U.S. security subcommittee further recommended that it is especially necessary to increase the U.S. Intelligence Community collection of human intelligence on Boko Haram, by gathering information on the ground through interpersonal contacts with Boko Haram’s members the better to combat the threat posed by the terrorist group to both Nigerian and U.S. interests.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech justifying Obama Administration Middle East policy changes everything. True, it isn’t surprising. I’ve been writing for almost three years about how the current U.S. government thinks this way.

Do not underestimate this speech’s importance. It isn’t a reluctant acceptance that Islamists might win elections and take over countries. It is an enthusiastic endorsement of that idea.

But now there can be no doubt that Obama’s Middle East policy is engaged in what might be the biggest blunder in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Millions of people will bemoan it as delivering their countries into the grip of repressive dictatorships.

The speech can be summarized as follows:

Islamist regimes—at least those whose “behavior” is proper–are good. If Islamists exercise political power they will be moderate. Thus, the United States will not merely tolerate but will actually support Islamists taking power.

The Obama Administration is now on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and the Taliban (“moderate” wing). It is the equivalent of an American government telling you that Communism and fascism are no threat because they can be tamed by participating in elections and being in power.

Thus, the Obama Administration has openly sided with Israel’s enemies. I don’t mean the Palestinian Authority (PA) or Saudi Arabia. That would be tolerable. We’re talking here about openly genocidal, anti-Semitic groups.

It has also sided with the enemies of the PA, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. It has sided with the enemies of democratic forces in Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Lebanon. Indeed, the U.S. government is working to empower the most dangerous enemies of democracy in the Middle East.

What’s especially remarkable is that this strategy is based on no evidence. All Clinton can cite is a single case—Turkey—that proves the exact opposite of what the Obama Administration claims.

Here are five examples on the other side:

–The Oslo peace process was based on the belief that the radical nationalist PLO would be moderated by being given power, guns, and money. Has the result been peace and moderation?

–The U.S. government favored the participation of Hamas in the Palestinian election. It won and then staged a coup. Today Gaza is ruled by a radical regime that foments war on Israel and openly proclaims its intention to commit genocide on Jews.

–Hezbollah participated in the Lebanese elections, won, and while it cannot institute a Shia Islamist regime in a country where 70 percent aren’t Shia Muslims and its opponents are armed, it is doing all it can to make that country a dictatorship that will attack Israel when it thinks the timing is right.

–In Egypt, we have seen the descent into anarchy and violence; the persecution of Christians, the unleashing of fanaticism. Where is the debate in the Muslim Brotherhood to indicate moderation? Where is the renunciation of past extremism? Where is the reinterpretation of Islamic texts to justify a totally different worldview? These things don’t exist.

–Turkey, the great role model, is seeing democracy wane as the Islamists arrest their enemies, take over the media, and adopt an anti-Western foreign policy that backs radical Islamists elsewhere.

March of folly indeed. This is a sprint.

Clinton claims:

“Not all Islamists are alike. Turkey and Iran are both governed by parties with religious roots, but their models and behavior are radically different. There are plenty of political parties with religious affiliations—Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Muslim—that respect the rules of democratic politics. The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.”

Let’s review

–True, Not all Muslims are alike but all Islamists are alike.

–By the same token, not all Russians are alike but all Communists under Lenin and Stalin were alike.

-And, not all Germans were alike but all Nazis were alike.

–Not all organizations composed of Caucasians are alike but all members of the Ku Klux Klan are alike.

–The fact that European Christian Democratic and Israeli religious parties respect the rules of democratic politics has no connection with whether the Muslim Brotherhood will do so.

Is that clear?

What’s striking about the administration’s position is the lack of the most basic logic. True, a political party with religious affiliations might “respect the rules of democratic politics.” But that doesn’t mean parties favoring a Sharia state in which, say, Muslims who convert to another religion are sentenced to death, fall into that category. There is no proof that Islamist parties “respect the rules of democratic politics” except their willingness to run in elections. The Nazis and Communists also ran in elections. So what?

And what is a moderate Muslim? He might be a conservative traditionalist; liberal reformer; Kurdish or Berber nationalist; tribal loyalist; etc. But that doesn’t apply to an Islamist, someone who wants to fundamentally transform the existing society into one governed by Sharia law under a hardline interpretation, wiping of Israel off the map, subordinating Christians and women; and driving Western influence out of the region.

Winning an election and forming a government is only the first step. What does that government do? It passes laws that enforce an Islamist conception of society; puts its people into the bureaucracy, rewards imams who are radical and fires those who are moderate; rewrites textbooks and what appears on the media, chooses judges and the commanders of the armed forces; and sponsors terrorism against other states.

It would be something else completely for the U.S. government to say: We will accept the Muslim Brotherhood in government if it takes power in an election, but we will do everything possible to stop that from happening. That would be a proper U.S. interests’ policy.

Clinton did set some conditions but in no way hinted that any Islamist party might violate them:

“Parties committed to democracy must reject violence; they must abide by the rule of law and respect the freedoms of speech, religion, association, and assembly; they must respect the rights of women and minorities; they must let go of power if defeated at the polls; and in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration. In other words, what parties call themselves is less important to us than what they actually do.”

Where to begin?

–The Islamists do not reject violence. The Muslim Brotherhood supports terrorism against Israel, Americans, and Iraqi Shia. It will soon be backing violence, at least covertly, against Christians, secularists, and others. That is their doctrine.

–Abide by the rule of law. Well, they will democratically change the law into a repressive dictatorship. The Communists and fascist regimes also had laws that they enforced

–Freedom of speech. No speech that criticizes Islam, their interpretation of Islam, or themselves, as we already see in Turkey where a former general was just sentenced to prison on the charge of having criticized the judgment in conversation with a villager.

–Freedom of religion. No building or repair of churches, no equality of treatment for Christians. In Turkey a great historic church is now being converted into a mosque.

–Association and assembly. Even now, look what happens if Christians try to demonstrate in Cairo.

–Respect the rights of women and minorities. Laws will be changed to take away women’s rights because Sharia will govern.

–And what will the U.S. government do if these democratic practices don’t happen? Might it to be too late?

–“The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.” Can you really be that dangerously stupid? There is a difference between non-Islamists and Islamists; a difference between a group that is a tiny minority in the United States and that is—in Egypt—90 percent of the population. Clinton is suggesting that to say Islamists are not moderate democrats is to be an Islamophobe and a racist.

That paragraph is thus full of careless and ignorant rhetoric. The U.S. government seems to be defining a “faithful Muslim” as someone who supports the Muslim Brotherhood. Who do you think is going to be filling the prisons of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Gaza, and Lebanon? Faithful Muslims, that’s who.

She continues, “In Tunisia, an Islamist party has just won a plurality of the votes in an open, competitive election. Its leaders have promised to embrace freedom of religion and full rights for women. To write a constitution and govern, they will have to persuade secular parties to work with them. And as they do, America will work with them, too, because we share the desire to see a Tunisian democracy emerge that delivers for its citizens and because America respects the right of the Tunisian people to choose their own leaders.”

Notice that she says “as they do” and not “if they do.” She assumes moderation. A proper approach would be to say: If they do we will work with them and if they don’t we will work against them. Moreover, she assumes that the Islamists “share” America’s desire for Tunisian democracy. They don’t have to prove anything or pass any tests.

Who is writing these speeches?

The premise Clinton employs toward the Islamists is the exact equivalent of Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize before making any peace. They are certified as moderate democrats without doing anything democratic except for participating in elections.

There are so many problems with this speech that I will continue this discussion in a second article discussing Clinton’s answer to her question, “Why does America promote democracy one way in some countries and another way in others?”

He quotes Micah 4:3:

He shall judge between many peoples,  And rebuke strong nations afar off; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore.

The passage actually refers to the 1000 year millenial reign of Christ on earth AFTER his second coming.  “And rebuke strong nations afar off,” actually means Christ will act as an umpire for disputes and differences between nations, arbitration by nations via war will no longer exist.

Mr. Wright tries to say that it refers to the U.S. being judged NOW for its inequities. He goes further in his abuse of the word to try and infer that Micah was of African descent. There is no basis at all for this claim.

If the international Bond market stops buying U.S. government debt then the U.S. is in serious trouble! 

Even now the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank a quasi-private institution is purchasing more U.S. Debt than anyone else, even the Chinese, because there are no longer enough buyers in the international bond market. And this is because the world has decided that the U.S. is no longer a good credit risk. But the Fed can only purchase so much debt.  

What happens is this: The U.S. Treasury holds weekly and monthly bond auctions to sell U.S. Government debt to Bond funds and foreign countries in order to get more money to fund the federal budget. In the past all of the bonds that the U.S. Treasury wanted to sell were bought by the bond funds and foreign countries, meaning the auction was fully subscribed. However now that the U.S. government has decided to increase its debt so much it has had to drastically increase the value of the bond sales,  to the point that Bond funds and Foreign countries will not buy all of the bonds, meaning the auctions are undersubscribed. A VERY BAD THING! It means the International Bond market has decided the U.S. is now a bad financial risk. And if you lose the trust of the international Bond market, your country is in deep deep trouble financially. This is actually the last step before financial collapse! 

So the U.S. Treasury has turned to the U.S. Federal Reserve and made an agreement with them, The U.S. Federal Reserve will purchase all the bonds that no one else will buy. There is a huge problem with this though: In order for the Federal Reserve to buy the bonds, it has to have the money to do it. And how does it get the money? 

And this is the BIG DANGEROUS part: The U.S. Treasury issues I.O.U.’s to the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve then CREATES the money with which to buy the Bonds, because the U.S. Dollar today is an I.O.U., a debt instrument obligating the government to pay the Federal Reserve a tangible asset equal to the value of the money that the Fed issues! So what you have in actual fact is for each bond the Fed buys, what is owed for the Bond automatically DOUBLES! 

So not only do you have an automatic doubling of the debt you have massive growth in the amount of U.S. dollars in circulation which depreciates the value of the dollar drastically, and if you have added to that the fact The international Bond market will not buy U.S. Debt, it then turns into a vicious free fall of the value of the U.S. Dollar and hyperinflation. And the World would immediately stop using the dollar as the international currency of exchange, which would accelerate the dollars fall! 

The immediate impact of all of this would be similar to, but much worse than what happened to the Soviet Union after Communism fell, Their economy collapsed their government could no longer afford the massive military that they had and within 10 years they had to scrap ¾ of their military. We would within a very short time fall from being the only superpower to not having any power at all on the world stage. 

If you want to get a good understanding of the International Bind market and the power it wields you need to get this book: “The Ascent of Money” by Niall Ferguson, he is a well known history professor at Harvard.

from Reuters:

The world’s largest bond fund has gone ultra bearish on the United States, dumping all of its U.S. government-related debt holdings.

The move by Bill Gross’s $236.9 billion PIMCO Total Return fund completed last month comes in the wake of a vicious Treasury market sell-off and just days after he questioned who will buy Treasuries once the Federal Reserve halts its latest round of bond purchases in June.

Gross, who also helps oversee a $1.1 trillion investment portfolio as PIMCO’s co-chief investment officer, has repeatedly warned against U.S. deficit spending and its inflationary impact, which undermine the value of government debt and push up yields as investors demand more compensation for risk.

Over the last five months, worries over the ballooning U.S. budget gap estimated at $1.645 trillion for 2011, political stalemate in Washington over how to narrow it and inflationary fears have all contributed to a steep sell-off in Treasuries. The benchmark 10-year note has seen its yield, which moves inversely to price, rise more than one percentage point since early October to 3.46 percent by Wednesday’s close.

Gross expects further carnage. Just last week, he told Reuters Insider that a 4.0 percent yield for 10-year notes is a “rational expectation” if the Fed “disappears as the buyer of last resort.”

Gross, as with many other investors, has raised red flags over demand for Treasuries when the U.S. central bank ends its controversial quantitative easing program. This week, he posed the following in his widely read monthly report: “Who will buy Treasuries when the Fed doesn’t? The question really is at what yield, and what are the price repercussions if the adjustments are significant.”

Already, bond prices have taken a massive beating on that possibility and as the U.S. economy recovery strengthens. The 10-year Treasury yield hit a 9-1/2 month high of 3.77 percent on February 9, rising 40 basis points in the short period from the end of January.

Gross sold all of its U.S. government-related securities, including U.S. Treasuries and agency debt, from its flagship Total Return fund, as of the end of February 28, according to the firm’s website on Wednesday.

That’s down from when the portfolio held 12 percent government-related debt at the end of January. The last time PIMCO was this negative on U.S. government-related debt was in January 2009.

A PIMCO spokesman declined to comment. . . . .

read the full article here.

A coalition of 34,000 black churches is blasting President Barack Obama’s decision to stop defending the federal law that bans recognition of gay marriage.

The Rev. Anthony Evans, who heads the National Black Church Initiative, says Obama “has violated the Christian faith” by failing to uphold Jesus’ teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Justice Department announced Wednesday that, at Obama’s direction, it would not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in a court case where it’s being challenged.

As a result, Evans says black churches must “reassess their extraordinary support for him.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney says Obama is still “grappling” with his personal views on same sex marriage, but has long opposed the federal law as unnecessary and unfair.

‎”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Not to mention that the Attorney General has viloated his oath of office as well in deciding not to defend a federal statute!

This is where democracies begin to break down and dissolve into rule by Despots and Tyrants, when they decide they will not honor and defend the laws of the country they lead, simply because they do not agree with them or because they want to extend their own power.

There is a famous event in Roman history, and it is an idiom used to say a person has crossed a point of no return: “Crossing the Rubicon” and it refers to Julius Caesar crossing the river Rubicon in Northen Italy in 49BC with his legion to make his claim to be emperor of Rome. At that time it was a capital offense for a Roman General to cross into Italy with his legions. the law was meant to prevent exactly what Julius Caesar was doing, using troops loyal to him to defy Roman law.

This event destroyed the Republic and its laws replacing it with rule by Emperial decree until the western Roman Empire collapsed in 476AD!

from Albert Mohler:

Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress yesterday that President Obama had ordered the Department of Justice to cease all efforts to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts. The announcement came without public warning, even as the administration was dealing with an international crisis in Libya and a political showdown over unions in Wisconsin.

The Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] emerged in 1996 as at least one state — Hawaii — indicated the very real possibility that it would vote to approve same-sex marriage. The Act makes clear that no state can require any other state to recognize a same-sex marriage, and that the federal government is prohibited from extending marital benefits to same-sex couples. The Senate approved the measure by a vote of 85 to 14. In the House of Representatives, the vote was 342 to 67. Faced with such overwhelming congressional support, President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

But 1996 was a long time ago, politically and culturally speaking. President Obama vigorously and repeatedly declared his opposition to DOMA during the presidential campaign of 2008.

In subsequent statements, President Obama had indicated his hope that Congress would repeal the measure. That was unlikely, though Sen. Diane Feinstein signaled late Wednesday her intention to offer legislation to repeal DOMA. She did so only after the White House made its announcement.

President Obama’s decision to enforce but not to defend DOMA in the courts is not without precedent, but such presidential actions are extremely rare. The President is required by the Constitution and his oath of office to enforce the nation’s laws, but he has instructed his Attorney General no longer to defend the law in the courts. In essence, this seals the judicial fate of the Defense of Marriage Act — it is now left without its most important defender.

What makes this decision even more unusual is that the Obama Administration had previously taken action to defend DOMA against legal claims. Faced with new court challenges and protests from gay rights groups and editorials in the liberal media, the President changed his mind.

In his letter to Congress, Attorney General Holder stated, “As you know, the Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government.” And yet Mr. Holder proceeded to argue that there were no reasonable arguments to be made in defense of DOMA. “This is the rare case,” he asserted, “where the proper course is to forgo the defense of the statute.”

Addressing reporters in a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Jay Carney defended President Obama, arguing that his position on DOMA “has been consistent.” The President “has long opposed it as unnecessary and unfair.” Carney also said that the administration had been forced to act, having been given a deadline by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District, which is currently hearing a case challenging DOMA on constitutional grounds.

Who could possibly be surprised by this action? During his campaign for the nation’s highest office, President Obama made his advocacy for homosexual rights clearly and unambiguously. He attacked DOMA and called for its repeal. Even as pundits suggest he is moving to the political center, in the course of the past few days, the President has revoked the Bush-era conscience protections for medical personnel and betrayed marriage by ceasing the defense of DOMA. If anything, these moves represent a shift even further to the left.

Clearly, the President believes that he has sufficient political support to make this move. While gay rights groups have been pressuring the administration for this kind of action, in the first two years of his term, the President clearly felt that such a move would be too politically expensive and risky. No longer.

Is the President right in thinking that he will not be hurt politically by this action? The game played by many liberal politicians in general, and by Democratic politicians in particular, is to say that they are personally opposed to same-sex marriage, even as they work to remove all defenses against it. The political game played by many conservatives, by the way, is to pose as defenders of marriage without taking any action that would draw political risk. Remember that when conservative politicians now call for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman. Where were they when such an action would have required courage but was politically viable and clearly needed?

In the press briefing, Jay Carney said that the President’s personal position on same-sex marriage is “distinct from this legal decision.” Last December, President Obama told reporters that his personal position on same-sex marriage is “constantly evolving.”

Well, there may be issues in which the distinction between the legal and the moral arguments makes a real difference, but this is not one of those issues. To suggest that President Obama does not personally support same-sex marriage is to posit a dualism within him that is nothing less than Gnostic. Mr. Carney would do better to stick with his argument that the President’s support of the gay rights movement is consistent. It is not credible for the President now to play Hamlet on the question of his own position on same-sex marriage.

The most immediate meaning of this announcement is two-fold. In the first place, it means that the constitutionally appointed defender of the nation’s laws, the Attorney General of the United States, has now been ordered to cease defending this single law in the courts. That alone is almost surely sufficient to spell the doom of DOMA in short order.

In the second place, this announcement means that President Obama and his advisers now believe that the full legalization of same-sex marriage is both inevitable and without major political risk to the President and his plans for re-election. That, in itself, represents a moral earthquake. The President clearly believes that a sufficient number of Americans will either support or accept same-sex marriage — and this comes just a few years after a majority of the states passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, and most by huge margins.

The President has made his decision. The Attorney General has now made his announcement. Mark your calendars for yesterday. That day now represents a tragic milestone in the betrayal of marriage.

from OneNewsNow:

Gordon James Klingenschmitt is a former Navy chaplain who was forced out of the service in 2007 for praying in Jesus’ name. He says the Obama Pentagon wants to purge evangelical, Bible-preaching chaplains from the service by giving them an ultimatum — “reconcile” with homosexual sin, or quit.  

Pentagon leaders preparing to impose open homosexuality on the military are serving notice that discrimination against the deviant lifestyle will not be tolerated. In a recently released memorandum, Defense Secretary Robert Gates directed his policy staff to move ahead carefully, but expeditiously, to end the ban on military service for open homosexuals.
 
Officials said they will complete implementation plans for the new policy by Friday, February 4, and will commence indoctrination training this month.

Klingenschmitt, the former Navy chaplain, now heads up “The Pray In Jesus Name Project.” He believes a purge is coming.
 
“Chaplains are now being faced with a choice: either quit the service, or reconcile with homosexual sin,” he states. “Promotions and assignments are going to be controlled by whether or not chaplains reconcile with homosexual sin. It’s really leading to a purge, I’m afraid.”
 
He contends that “many” conservative chaplains are going to be persecuted by the Obama administration — an administration he says is “forcing these bad policies to punish chaplains who quote the Bible outside of the Sunday chapel.”
 
Klingenschmitt says while some liberal chaplains may go along with the new policy, he believes evangelical, Bible-believing chaplains are not going to reconcile with something God has called sin — and consequently are going to be forced to resign from the military as soon as the implementation plans are put in place