Saturday, August 1, 2015


Freedom from Religious 
Bondage and Deception
by Mike Gendron of Proclaiming the Gospel-

Former Catholics have described their experience of participating in the weekly Sacrifice of the Mass as a "prison sentence" that was, for the most part, repetitious and boring. They remember attendance at the Mass as being a requirement to avoid committing a mortal sin and incurring the penalty of eternal damnation. The expression on the long, drawn faces of many Catholics during Mass revealed their lack of joy for having to be there. They were not there to worship God in spirit and truth but to fulfill the unbiblical laws of their religion. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC, para. 2180), "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass." Why is this law so demanding? Why are Catholics compelled to participate in the mindless ritual of standing, sitting, kneeling and genuflecting as priests perform their religious duties? Why are Catholics not given the freedom to attend religious services out of love and adoration for their god? The answers are found in the deceptive dogmas of the Catholic Church.
Catholics must attend the weekly sacrifice of the Eucharist in order for the sins committed during the previous week to be forgiven. According to the Catechism, "The Eucharist is a sacrifice because it re-presents the sacrifice of the cross...the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: The victim is one and the same. In this divine sacrifice...the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner...this sacrifice is truly propitiatory" (CCC para. 1366,1367). In other words, Catholics are taught that divine justice (for their sins) is satisfied every time the Eucharist is offered to God.

Catholics are also taught that their redemption comes through the ongoing sacrifice of the Eucharist. "Every time this mystery is celebrated, the work of our redemption is carried on" (CCC, para. 1405). This blatantly denies the testimony of Scripture. 
When Jesus ascended into heaven, He "entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12).
Catholics are given no choice but to believe these deceptive teachings. If they deny the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, they are condemned by their religion. "If anyone denies, that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ...let him be anathema" (Canon 1, Council of Trent). 

Only the truth of God's Word can set Catholics free from religious bondage (John 8:31-32). "The God who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in tabernacles made with hands; neither is He offered with human hands...the Divine Nature is not like gold, or silver or stone" (Acts 17:23-29). In other words, the divine nature of Christ is not like flour and water, or an image formed by the thoughts of ungodly men. The Lord Jesus Christ cannot be offered by the hands of sinful priests. Jesus Christ, the perfect High Priest, offered Himself, the perfect sacrifice, once for all sin for all time, to a perfect God who demands perfection. He then cried out in victory, "It is finished!" There are no more offerings for sin (Hebrews 10:18). We must call our Catholic friends and loved ones to repentance and faith in the true Christ who must be worshipped in Spirit and truth (John 4:24). It was through Christ's once-for-all death, burial and resurrection, divine justice was satisfied, redemption was paid, sins were forgiven, reconciliation was achieved, death was conquered, and salvation was secured for His people! What a glorious Savior! 


Obama Steps Up U.S. Training of Communist Chinese Military

Soldiers from Chinese Paramilitary Forces march in formation during a ...
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Even as the Communist Chinese dictatorship ruthlessly oppresses the people of China while stepping up its aggressive rhetoric, espionage, and military activities aimed beyond its borders, the Obama administration has been training Beijing’s troops in U.S. military tactics, techniques, and procedures. Critics have long opposed the high-level “mil-mil cooperation” between the U.S. Armed Forces and one of the most brutal autocracies on the planet. At least one U.S. lawmaker has been expressing concerns. But the Obama administration, which boasts of its actions and has called for even deeper military ties with Beijing, shows no signs of backing down from the highly controversial and potentially dangerous programs.
In 2013, the Obama administration shocked the world by inviting Communist Chinese troops to the United States to train with American forces for the first time in history. Ostensibly aimed at practicing “disaster management,” the U.S.-Communist China military exercises raised widespread alarm among national security experts. And while the Pentagon downplayed the risk and denied in comments to The New American that any weapons were involved, Chinese officials were boasting of “weapon demonstration, technique exchange, and cooperative action.” Earlier in 2013, a senior Chinese general, who in 2005 threatened to destroy hundreds of U.S. cities with nuclear weapons, led a “military exchange program” delegation to Washington, D.C. from Beijing.
The next year, again for the first time in history, Obama offered further opportunities for Chinese forces to gather sensitive intelligence on how the U.S. military works — this time by inviting Beijing’s Navy to participate in the “RIMPAC war games.” Hosted off the American coast by the U.S. Pacific Command, RIMPAC is the largest multinational maritime exercise in the world. And by allowing the Chinese regime’s ships to participate, Beijing was able to gather important insight into the U.S. military’s “tactics, techniques and procedures” (TTPs), according to analysts. Beijing was invited again this year, even as it steps up its aggressive actions against U.S. Navy ships in international waters.
Since Obama took office, U.S. forces have been training Chinese troops and sailors in “counter-piracy operations” in the Indian Ocean, too. The Obama administration also waived the ban on Chinese parts in U.S. weapons systems, with potentially catastrophic implications for national security. And in February of this year, the administration invited dozens of Chinese naval officers to tour the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Surface Warfare Officers School, and the U.S. Naval War College. The dictatorship’s officers also “took part in seminars with trainees at the Surface Warfare Officers School,” the Chinese Navy headquarters boasted to the regime’s propaganda outlets.  
In recent years, the administration has gone even further in terms of linking up the U.S. military to Beijing’s “People’s Liberation Army.” “The military-to-military ties between the United States and China have grown and strengthened in recent years and it is an area of cooperation that the United States values,” said Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice last year while in Beijing meeting with top Communist Chinese officials, including dictator Xi Jinping. “President Obama firmly believes that the U.S.-China relationship is one of the most consequential bilateral relationships in the world and that there is virtually no problem of global significance that can be better resolved when the United States and China are working together at the same table.”
The deepening bonds between U.S. and Chinese forces under the Obama administration, justified by the administration and the establishment as an effort to prevent “misunderstandings,” has now attracted some attention even from establishment media organs. In a Reuters column last week about how the United States is training China’s military even while inching toward conflict, columnist William Johnson noted that, despite tensions, “the two nations’ militaries train together at a very high level.” He noted that even though the two governments were coming closer to “armed confrontation,” the Obama administration was simultaneously “training Chinese forces in the American way of war.” The two militaries are also developing “increased interoperability,” Johnson observed.
Beijing is taking full advantage of the opportunities to learn about the U.S. military and how it operates, too. Various “cooperative” and “international” military efforts with U.S. forces are being used by China to, for example, “explore the anti-submarine warfare tactics of the U.S. forces stationed on Diego Garcia Island, south of India, as well as those of U.S. and allied forces in the Gulf of Aden,” according to Johnson. Meanwhile, with Beijing being allowed to use the European Union’s MERCURY communications network, China is able “to understand exactly how NATO allies coordinate efforts in every stage of sea battle, from planning to execution to assessment,” Johnson explained. Incredibly, the columnist goes on to argue for increased military cooperation.  
Apparently, some military officials also support the administration’s ongoing support for the Chinese regime’s armed forces. “The PLA(N) [People’s Liberation Army-Navy] and PLAAF [People’s Liberation Army-Air Force] are now global brands and our desire is for them to increasingly contribute to security and stability operations,” wrote Vice Admiral Robert Thomas in a column published by Defense One. “What’s next? Our goal is clear: we want to work with the PLA(N) and PLAAF to ensure their efforts contribute to regional stability and that they act as a proponent of the rule of law in the international system. To this end, increased cooperation between the U.S. 7th Fleet and the PLA(N) will benefit all nations in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.”
But more than a few high-profile voices have said the cooperation ought to end — and that it is putting U.S. national security in danger. In an analysis published by the Center for Security Policy, for example, U.S. Admiral James "Ace" Lyons (Ret.) started off by blasting the invitation extended to Communist China to participate in RIMPAC. That massive exercise “is for allies and friends, not nations planning to eventually wage war on the United States,” he said, quoting analyst Robert Sutter’s 2005 assertion that “China is the only large power in the world preparing to shoot Americans.” That assessment remains true today, Admiral Lyons noted: “Beijing is configuring its forces — especially its navy — to fight ours.”
“As Beijing’s behavior has become more troubling, the Pentagon has clung to the hope that military-to-military relations will somehow relieve tensions with the Chinese,” Lyons continued, rightly or wrongly assuming that the Obama administration’s training of Chinese forces is at least well-intentioned, if naïve. “Yet as Ronald Reagan taught us, the nature of regimes matter. We are now helping an incurably aggressive state develop its military — to our peril. There is something very wrong at the core of the Obama administration’s and the Pentagon’s China policies.” Of course, numerous other respected analysts and Western officials have offered similar warnings about Beijing’s intentions.
The Chinese regime’s increasingly aggressive confrontations with U.S. ships and aircraft in international waters and airspace have raised alarm, too. Meanwhile, Beijing’s generals have, even in recent years, threatened to annihilate hundreds of U.S. cities in a nuclear holocaust if the U.S. government were to stick by its treaty obligations and defend the free Republic of China (Taiwan) from the communist regime ruling the mainland. Obama responded by inviting the communist general to the United States on an official exchange mission. The regime has also been aggressively spying on the United States, most recently found culpable in a massive hacking attack. Plus, the fact that the Communist Chinese dictatorship has murdered more human beings than any other in history should, in and of itself, be cause for serious concern.  
In Congress, some lawmakers have started questioning the Obama administration’s “mil-mil” actions, too. Late last year, Rep. Randy Forbes (R. Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, sent a letter to Obama’s defense chiefs asking for a “review” of the cooperation. “I believe that the Department currently lacks the thorough guidance and oversight mechanisms necessary to maintain a consistent mil-mil policy that best serves U.S. national security objectives over the ‘long-haul’ of the emerging U.S.-China peacetime competition,” the congressman wrote, citing “multiple examples” of senior U.S. officials “pursuing multiple, divergent mil-mil engagement objectives.” But even Forbes’ publicly expressed doubts hardly hit on the main problems.
Of course, Obama has not been alone in handing sensitive insight into the U.S. military to Beijing on a silver platter. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, for example, helped the hostile communist government access some of the most sensitive American military technology, even while covering up various crimes for the regime and its agents, as documented in the February 15, 1999 “Chinagate: Treason in the White House” issue of The New American. “President Clinton promised to restrain those who ordered the Tiananmen Square massacre, but he has now allowed these men whose hands are stained with the blood of martyrs of freedom into the highest reaches of our military defenses, and made available to them significant portions of our advanced military technology,” wrote former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer.
The Obama administration’s seemingly bizarre decision to cooperate so closely with the brutal Chinese regime is in line with advice offered by billionaire globalist financier George Soros. In recent months, the Rothschild dynasty protégée has become increasingly vocal in demanding an even broader “strategic partnership” with the dictatorship, allegedly to avoid another world war. Soros has also called regularly for Beijing to “own” what he touts as the “New World Order.” The broader globalist establishment, meanwhile, continues to build up the ruthless autocracy, even as Chinese Communists increasingly seize control of more and more of the architecture of “global governance.”
For the sake of U.S. national security and liberty, the U.S. government should end any and all programs that could benefit the brutal autocracy or its armed forces in any way — particularly in the event of conflict with the United States. The Obama administration, which has also invited Russian terror troops to U.S. soil for training with U.S. forces for the first time in history, clearly has no intention of reining in the potentially catastrophic assistance to hostile foreign regimes. But Congress, which controls the purse strings, can and should take action to protect America.

Friday, July 31, 2015


Planned Parenthood Organ Buyers
Protected by Judge
Published on Jul 30, 2015

David Knight talks about the latest sting video from a Planned Parenthood and how now a judge has ruled that any videos showing the buyers cannot be shown.



Planned Parenthood VP Says Fetuses May Come Out Intact, Agrees Payments Specific to the Specimen

Human Capital - Episode 1: Planned Parenthood's Black Market in Baby Parts

FULL FOOTAGE: Planned Parenthood VP Says Fetuses May Come Out Intact, Agrees Payments...


White House Backs Planned Parenthood And Their
'High Ethical Standard'


Globalization of Education: 

Producing Green Global Citizens (Video)

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

For years, Americans have been up in arms over the Obama administration’s unconstitutional efforts to nationalize education, primarily through Common Core. Especially concerning is the White House bribing and bludgeoning our state governments to surrender control over our schools. The outrage is still growing.
But a peek beneath the surface reveals that the nationalization of American schools is actually just one component of a much broader global agenda: the globalization of education. This is being openly pushed by the Obama administration, the United Nations, UNESCO, Common Core financier Bill Gates, the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg summit attendees, and many other powerful forces. It is all public record.
What do I mean by “globalizing” education? Just what the term implies: moving away from local, state, and even national control of schools into a brave new world where education policy is largely dictated at the global level. That might sound far-fetched if you’ve never done the research or get your news from the TV, but it is all essentially out in the open.
UNESCO — the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization — has been working toward this goal from the start. For decades now, globalists at UNESCO and other UN outfits have been openly plotting to impose what they sometimes refer to as the “World Core Curriculum” on all of humanity. If you want a real trip down the rabbit hole, investigate this. It was created by UN Deputy Secretary General Robert Muller, a disciple of influential occultist and Lucifer Publishing Company founder Alice Bailey.   
Today, UNESCO has all sorts of “global education” schemes to transform humanity. In a recent column published by Project Syndicate, Bulgarian Communist and UNESCO boss Irina Bokova is very explicit about it all. She wrote that “education can bring about a fundamental shift in how we think, act, and discharge our responsibilities toward one another and the planet.” She also said that “schools can nurture a new generation of environmentally savvy citizens to support the transition to a prosperous and sustainable future.”
In the same column, she brags about how UNESCO and the UN Climate Change bureaucracy are promoting “climate change” education in schools and training teachers to shape the values of your children — all toward what UNESCO would like to see. Bokova and other UN leaders also regularly describe the purpose of their global education schemes as producing quote-unquote “global citizens.”
The UNESCO chief goes on to say that “what is needed now is a global movement, with every student in every country learning about sustainable development from well-trained teachers, equipped with the appropriate curricula and resources.” She also described the UNESCO-led “UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development,” which began in 2005, as “explicitly intended to instill in every human being the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values necessary to shape a sustainable future.” In every human being? Does that include your children? You can bet on it.
In 2004, billionaire Bill Gates, a chief funder of the UN Population Fund, abortion giant Planned Parenthood, and of course, Common Core, signed an agreement with UNESCO on global education. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, meanwhile, has been very open about his agenda too. Consider that he often refers to UNESCO as the administration’s “global partner” in the “cradle-to-career” agenda. At a 2012 “Sustainability Summit,” Duncan said the administration is working to quote, “build the science of sustainability into the curriculum, starting in kindergarten and extending until the students graduate from high school.” He also brags about using government schools to turn your children into “green citizens” ready for “green jobs.” Do you send you kids to school to become “green citizens”? If you’re like virtually every parent I’ve ever met, the answer is obviously “no.” You can read many of Duncan’s radical speeches right on the Department of Education’s website. 
I want to leave you with one final quote from UNESCO that should give you some insight into where all of this global “education for sustainable development” is really going. In a UN “toolkit” for global “sustainable” education, the UN sustainability zealots tell us, “Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.” Did you catch that? More education increases the threat to sustainability.  
I’ve written very extensively on this subject, so I encourage you to read the articles in The New American and follow the links to the primary source documents embedded within them (e.g., see herehere, and here). In short, American schools and schoolchildren are being globalized. And your kids are in the crosshairs. Now that you know, what do you plan to do about it?

UN: Gov’t Must Control Private Schools 

Because of “Human Rights”



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The United Nations wants its member states, mostly dictatorships and repressive regimes, to clamp down hard on educational freedom under the guise of “human rights.” Concerned that students in private schools around the world are not receiving sufficient doses of globalist indoctrination prescribed by various global agreements, the dictator-dominated UN “Human Rights Council” passed a resolution this month calling on governments worldwide to “monitor” and “regulate” non-government education. Governments and dictators should also impose “standards” on private schools, the UN bureaucrats and government representatives said in the deeply controversial document.   
Incredibly, the resolution even speaks of “protecting education from commercialization.” What it really means, of course, is protecting government-run monopoly “education” from competition by superior providers. After all, why would parents spend money on a private school if the tax-funded “education” provided by government was just as good or better? Obviously they would not. So what the UN pseudo-human rights bureaucracy is really saying is governments must prevent parents from choosing better alternatives. Of course, following the prescriptions outlined by Karl Marx, some members of the UN body actually ban any forms of non-government-run education already.
The disgraced UN council, composed of some of the most ruthless Communist and Islamist autocrats on Earth, regularly condemns freer nations — often for upholding actual rights instead of bogus UN-defined privilegesmischaracterized as “human rights.” Continuing with its long tradition, the body urged governments to “fulfil the right to education” by, among other schemes, “putting in place a regulatory framework guided by international human rights obligations for education providers that establishes, inter alia,  minimum norms and standards for the creation and operation of educational institutions.”
It was not immediately clear what sort of “standards” and “norms” the UN outfit had in mind — Common Core-style dumbing down and other UNESCO-linked demands, perhaps? Nor was it clear how usurping control over private and alternative schools to conform with purported “international human rights obligations” would contribute to a better education. In fact, proper education does not seem to be the goal at  all, as made clear by a growing deluge of UN documents, resolutions, and other schemes demanding that schools worldwide indoctrinate children into new “values,” “attitudes,” “beliefs,” “sustainability,” and “global citizenship.”  
The latest UN resolution on education, approved in Geneva on July 1, also calls for governments and dictators to start “monitoring private education providers” and “holding accountable those whose practices have a negative impact on the enjoyment of the right to education.” Setting aside the fact that education is a service and a privilege, not a right — real rights, by definition, mean freedom from coercion, not compulsory “services” from government — the resolution did not make clear what sorts of “practices” the UN and its members believe have a “negative impact” on “the  enjoyment  of  the  right  to  education.”
Also in the resolution was a call for governments to use tax funds to support “research” (read: biased “studies” touting government education) and “awareness-raising activities” (read: propaganda touting government education) on the issue. Supposedly, the “research” and “awareness” should help “better understand the wide-ranging impact of the commercialization of education on the enjoyment of the right to education.” Of course, a mountain of research on the topic is already available, and it shows that government-run schools exist to serve government — and that private schools, homeschooling, and other alternatives are drastically superior to “public” education, generally at a fraction of the cost.  
The UN also “calls upon all relevant stakeholders [governments, the UN, government-funded ‘civil society’ groups, regional outfits such as the European Union, etc] to ensure that the post-2015 development agenda fosters the universal realization of the right to education, including by establishing education targets that are specific, measurable, realistic and relevant,” the resolution said. The document did not specify what sort of “education targets” it had in mind. But based on previous UN education schemes, indoctrination targets would have been a better term to describe the agenda.    
Indeed, in the same resolution, the UN “Human Rights” Council applauded another UN organ, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which has been at the forefront of pushing the extreme ideologies of globalism and statism through schools worldwide. “The UNESCO-led UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, which began in 2005, was explicitly intended to instill in every human being ‘the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values necessary to shape a sustainable future,’” UNESCO chief Irina Bokova, a Bulgarian communistboasted in a recent column. Read that again.
“What is needed now is a global movement, with every student in every country learning about sustainable development from well-trained teachers, equipped with the appropriate curricula and resources,” Bokova continued, with “sustainable development” meaning a radical redesign of human society toward collectivism, central planning, humanism, population control, and global governance. In the same piece, Bokova bragged that her agency, which she regularly boasts promotes global humanism, was also “promoting climate-change education in schools.”   
As long as there are private schools outside the control of UN member governments and dictators, there will always be children whose “attitudes and values” are not shaped by the accelerating indoctrination efforts. Hence, under the guise of “human rights,” many of the UN’s most totalitarian and brutal member regimes demanded in the resolution that private schools be brought under government control. If private education negatively affects the “human right to education,” though, do privately owned grocery stores negatively affect the “human right to food”? Murderous communist dictator Raul Castro, whose regime sits on the UN “Human Rights” Council behind the resolution, may think so. But for anyone who appreciates liberty and prosperity, the answer is obvious.  
If the collection of mass-murderers and tyrants on the UN council was not itself enough evidence of the UN’s warped view of “human rights,” a brief examination of its scheming provides plenty more. Indeed, the UN’s “human rights” are diametrically opposed to the unalienable, God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, or even traditional Western notions of human rights. Under the UN’s version of human rights, “rights” come not from God, but from governments, treaties, and international organizations. They can also be restricted or abolished by government at will under virtually any pretext, as the UN’s own “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” openly admits. And in no case may those alleged “rights” be used contrary to the “purposes and principles” of the UN, according to Article 29. In other words, you have no rights under UN “human rights.”
But it’s even worse than that. Just this month, after celebrating as a hero a homosexual activist most  infamous for raping underage boys, UN boss Ban Ki Moon claimed the U.S. Supreme Court’s attack on marriage, tradition, virtually every religion, states’ rights, self-government, and the U.S. Constitution was a “great step forward for human rights.” Other recent attacks on freedom under the guise of promoting “human rights” have included trying to criminalize free speechattacking Britain for not providing large enough houses for welfare recipients,demanding more gun control in America, calling for parents to be jailed for smacking their children, and much more. Meanwhile, the UN continues to be embroiled in scandals, including widespread and systematic rape of young children by its “peacekeeping” forces.
Ironically, though, the UN resolution demanding government control over all forms of education would appear to violate the UN’s own “Universal Declaration of [pseudo-] Human Rights.” For example, that document clearly states in Article 26 that “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” If parents have the right to choose what kind of education their children will receive, how can the UN “human rights” apparatus demand that governments decide what kind of education private schools of parents’ choosing will provide to children? The same article in the UN declaration also states that education “shall further the activities of the United Nations.”    
While the UN resolution passed almost entirely unnoticed in the world press, it did have some supporters other than the mostly autocratic regimes on the UN “Human Rights” Council. A massive coalition of Astroturf “education” groups — some of which openly say they want government school to be made compulsory for all — celebrated the measure, too. “The rapid, unregulated growth of private providers of education is already creating — and enabling — violations of the right to education, threatening to erase the last 50 years of progress in access to education,” argued Camilla Croso with the Global Campaign for Education in a statement. “This resolution shows that States have realized that they must act now to regulate such providers — before it is too late.”
In the real world, however, the expansion of educational liberty and the diminishing role of government schools in some areas of the world ought to be celebrated. The UN and its member governments around the world have big plans to indoctrinate your children into becoming “green” and “global” citizens — and they openly boast about it. It is time for the U.S. to withdraw from the UN dictators club, defund it, and get the federal government out of aaalll education once and for all.



"101 Reasons to Move to New Hampshire"





'Obese', 'normal', 'mothering', 'fathering', 'senior citizens', 'homosexual', 'illegal alien' also discouraged
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Using the words “American,” “obese,” “normal,” “mothering,” “fathering,” “homosexual,” “illegal alien,” and “senior citizens,” is offensive and should be discouraged, according to a “Bias-Free Language Guide” posted on the University of New Hampshire website.
The guide, first uncovered by Campus Reform, “is meant to invite inclusive excellence in [the] campus community.”
The word “American” is “problematic” according to the guide because it “assumes the U.S. is the only country inside [the continents of North and South America].”
Calling people “illegal aliens” is also politically incorrect, with the preferred term for undocumented immigrants being “person seeking asylum,” or “refugee,” while the word “foreigner” is discouraged and replaced with “international people.”
More banned words and phrases include;
– “Caucasian (replaced with “European-American individuals”);
– “Mothering” and “fathering” (replaced with “parenting” and “nurturing” so as to “avoid gendering a non-gendered activity”);
– “Homosexual” (replaced with “gay,” “lesbian,” “same gender loving”);
– “Obese” or “overweight” (replaced with “people of size”);
– Saying a person is “poor” (replaced with “person who lacks advantages that others have”);
– Saying the word “healthy” because it’s offensive to disabled people, who can’t be called disabled, they must be called a “person who is wheelchair mobile”).
“Terms also considered problematic include: “elders,” “senior citizen,” “overweight” (which the guide says is “arbitrary”), “speech impediment,” “dumb,” “sexual preference,” “manpower,” “freshmen,” “mailman,” and “chairman,” in addition to many others,” writes Peter Hasson.
The guide also rails against “ciscentrism,” which “includes the lack of gender-neutral restrooms, locker rooms, and residences” at the university.
To his credit, the president of the University of New Hampshire Mark Huddleston responded to the story by asserting that the guide was not official campus policy.
“I am troubled by many things in the language guide, especially the suggestion that the use of the term ‘American’ is misplaced or offensive,” he said. “The only UNH policy on speech is that it is free and unfettered on our campuses. It is ironic that what was probably a well-meaning effort to be ‘sensitive’ proves offensive to many people, myself included.”
Meanwhile, Republican State Senator Jeb Bradley has vowed to take the guide into consideration next time lawmakers decide how much money to give to the university.
“Implying the word ‘American’ is not appropriate to use on campus is un-American to say the least,” he said. “Will UNH next propose to change our Live Free or Die motto to Live Free but Upset No-One?”
The University of New Hampshire is by no means the only educational institution that is attempting to encourage censorious codes of political correctness on campus that completely contradict the notion of universities being bastions of free speech.
Earlier this month we reported on how the University of Wisconsin (Stevens Point) was teaching faculty members that all manner of harmless behaviors and phrases were examples of “racial microaggressions.”
The examples included; Asking someone where they are from or where they were born, telling someone they speak good English, telling someone that you have several black friends, saying that you’re not a racist, and complimenting an Asian person by telling them they are very articulate.
Published on Jul 2, 2015
Do you have several black friends, compliment people of color, and think that America is a melting pot?.....You're a racist, according to the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point.

Here's an actual list of things that according to the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point are racist;

- Asking someone where they are from or where they were born.

- Telling someone they speak good English.

- Telling someone that you have several black friends.

- Saying that you're not a racist.

- Complimenting an Asian person by telling them they are very articulate.

- Asking an Asian person for help with science or math.

- Uttering the phrase "There is only one race, the human race."

- Saying that you think America is a melting pot and that when you look at someone you don't see race.

- Believing that the most qualified person, regardless of race, should get the job.

- Thinking that every person, regardless of race, can succeed in society if they work hard enough.

- Telling a black person who is being too loud to be quiet.

- Telling an Asian or Latino person who is too quiet to speak up.

- Mistaking a person of color for a staff member when you're in a store.

- Calling something "gay".

- Doing an impression of someone's dialect or accent.

University of Wisconsin - 'Examples of Racial Microaggressions' -


Sex Workers' Rights at University of New Hampshire

Saying American Is The New N Word


1 Corinthians 1:25- "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
1 Corinthians 3:18-20-"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, "The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless."
Jeremiah 17:9-"The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?

QUOTE: The EMU board of trustees passed a motion on November 16, 2013, to engage in a six-month listening process around hiring practices and covenanted same-sex relationships, beginning January 2014.
QUOTE: The president’s cabinet invited a wide range of constituents – including students, faculty, staff, alumni, donors, church leaders – to fill out survey forms giving their views on the hiring policy. “More than 7,000 people responded to our survey,” according to BJ Miller, director of institutional research. In addition, 20 “dialogue sessions,” including approximately 300 individuals on campus, were held. At least one president’s cabinet member was present at each session to listen and anonymously report perspectives to the rest of the cabinet. The president and cabinet members also engaged leaders across the church. “The listening process was extremely valuable in enabling the president’s cabinet to gain a deeper understanding of the range of feelings, hopes and fears about extending university employment to persons in same-sex covenanted relationships,” 
Jim Brenneman
Kay Brenneman Nussbaum

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

(Friday Church News Notes, July 31, 2015,, 866-295-4143) - The following is excerpted from “Two Mennonite Colleges,” Christian News Network, Jul. 22, 2015: 
“Two American colleges that identify as Mennonite institutions have announced changes to their hiring policy to now allow the employment of homosexuals who have ‘wed’ their partners. Eastern Mennonite University (EMU) in Harrisonburg, Virginia and Goshen College in Goshen, Indiana announced the alterations on Monday, while claiming to still hold to the biblical principles as Christian schools. EMU’s decision followed a two-year ‘listening process’ to ‘review current hiring policies and practices with respect to individuals in same-sex relationships.’ ... On Monday, Board Chair Kay Brenneman Nussbaum and President Lauren Swartzendruber stated that they believed the compromise was satisfactory. ‘[EMU] is grounded in Mennonite/Anabaptist values, and we believe people in same-sex covenanted relationships are valued members of our learning community with equal rights to standard benefits,’ Nussbaum remarked in a statement. ... Goshen College made similar statements, remarking that there is a ‘diversity’ of opinions on whether or not biblical law prohibits sexuality between those of the same gender. ‘As an institution rooted in the Anabaptist tradition, we reaffirm our strong relationship to Mennonite Church USA, and recognize the diversity of interpretation of Scripture on this issue within our denomination and the broader Christian church, a diversity reflected within the board of directors and on our campus as well,’ said President James Brenneman.”


“We seek forbearance and grace amidst our differences,” he continued. “We deeply affirm the goodness of marriage, singleness, celibacy, sexual intimacy within marriage, and a life of faithfulness before God for all people.”
In a special FAQ section on the decision, Goshen also asserted that the “decision is in keeping with our commitment to non-discrimination and our Christ-centered core values.”
The announcements come just weeks after the Mennonite Church USA rejected a proposal to allow same-sex “marriages” within the denomination, but agreed to a resolution stating that Mennonites will tolerate those who believe homosexual behavior is not sinful.
“We acknowledge that there is currently not consensus within Mennonite Church USA on whether it is appropriate to bless Christians who are in same-sex covenanted unions,” it reads.
“Because God has called us to seek peace and unity as together we discern and seek wisdom on these matters, we call on all those in Mennonite Church USA to offer grace, love and forbearance toward conferences, congregations and pastors in our body who, in different ways, seek to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ on matters related to same-sex covenanted unions,” the resolution continues.”
While EMU and Goshen have spoken favorably of the policy changes, others are not so pleased with the development.
“Please read 1 Corinthians 6:9, [which declares], ‘Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers or anyone practicing homosexuality.’ How can you hire someone who will not inherit the Kingdom of God and teach students what the Bible says?” one commenter stated.