Friday, May 3, 2013


VERY IMPORTANT-See 59 minute YouTube video prevented from being uploaded: 
Text with this video in full below:

Published on May 2, 2013
Thursday, May 02, 2013 Radio commentator Steve Quayle and Rick discuss the appalling new Pentagon policy muzzling Christian members of the Armed Forces from talking about Jesus Christ to other soldiers.

The issue surfaced after activist Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religion Freedom organization, and, met with department officials and then wrote that Christians in the military are "monsters" who must be stopped from talking about their faith.

Weinstein had declared: "We face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation's armed forces."

In an interview with Fox News, Weinstein said the military needs to begin prosecuting Christians who share their faith.

"Someone needs to be punished for this," he said. "Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior."

It seemed the military was listening.

After a private meeting between Weinstein and Pentagon officials April 23, a Pentagon spokesman declared, "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense."

Weinstein, according to Fox News' Todd Starnes, told officials at the meeting that U.S. troops who evangelize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished, by the hundreds if necessary.

But leaders of the Washington-based Family Research Council, which recently faced a violent attack by a leftist who said his goal was to kill as many people as he could, said the Pentagon's apparent intent to punish evangelism makes no sense.

"Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military," asked FRC President Tony Perkins in a Fox News interview. "That's like consulting with China on how to improve human rights."

Retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a vice president at FRC, said such a policy would allow Christians within the military who speak of their faith to be "prosecuted as enemies of the state."

"This has the potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military," Boykin said.

"Our brave troops deserve better. If chaplains and other personnel are censored from offering the full solace of the Gospel, there is no religious freedom in the military."

FRC launched a petition urging the Pentagon to scrub plans to censor religious beliefs.

The FRC petition states: "Our brave troops deserve better. Subverting the religious freedom of our troops both hurts the morale of our troops and puts our nation at risk by labeling courageous military personnel as enemies.

"I urge you to resist the demands of anti-Christian activists who are calling for a court-martial order upon chaplains and service members who share their faith," the petition says.

Tens of thousands of Americans joined the effort, which was brought about, according to FRC, because of claims that "religion is one of the chief problems plaguing our troops."

Some have said, FRC points out, that "religious proselytizing" is "at the top of the list of problems in the armed forces -- even on par with sexual assault."

The FRC noted the Washington Post reported that the Air Force had created a document "with the directive that leaders of all levels (including chaplains) may not 'promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.'"

Ron Crews of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty told Starnes: "Saying that a service member cannot speak of his faith is like telling a service member he cannot talk about his spouse or children. I do not think the Air Force wants to ban personnel from protected religious speech."

However, Weinstein told the Washington Post that such conversation is a national security threat and "sedition and treason."

Ken Klukowski, a senior fellow for religious liberty at FRC, noted that Weinstein cites Focus on the Family founder James Dobson as "illustrating the extremist, militant nature of these virulently homophobic organizations' rhetorically charged propaganda."

Weinstein concludes: "Let's call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters."

Kulkowski pointed out that Weinstein endorses the Southern Poverty Law Center, which publishes a list of "hate groups" that lump together Christian organizations such as FRC with the Ku Klux Klan.

Mikey Weinstein of, issues a vicious and venomous tirade against "dominionist" fundamentalist Christianity on November 8, 2011:

Here Weinstein condemns "Christian crusaders" in the military:
Weinstein is afraid that fundamentalist Christianity will precipitate a "nuclear exchange:

Weinstein believes the military has been infiltrated by Christian evangelists in this 25 minute video:

Finally, Weinstein wrote a vitriolic tirade against Christians at the Huffington Post here, titled 

"Fundamentalist Christian Monsters: Papa's Got A Brand New Bag"

From Christian News Network: 

Pentagon Responds to Concerns Over Proposed Punishment for Superiors Who Proselytize Subordinates

Weinstein is quoted as saying in the above article the following:
“Someone needs to be punished for this,” he said. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.” “It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators” “We would love to see hundreds of prosecutions to stop this outrage of fundamentalist religious persecution.”


Second Amendment Protection Act; SB 102 establishes the Second Amendment Protection Act. First, the bill excludes from federal regulation any personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas. The bill provides that for as long as any such personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition remains within theborders of Kansas, it is not subject to any federal law, regulation, or authority. Second, the bill prevents any federal agent or contracted employee, any state employee, or any local authority from enforcing any federal regulation or law governing any personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas, provided it remains within the borders of Kansas. In the process of a criminal prosecution, the bill precludes any arrest or detention prior to a trial for a violation of the Act. Finally, the bill allows a county or district attorney or the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief in court to enjoin certain federal officials from enforcing federal law regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.

Governor to AG Holder: Kansans hold dear the right to keep & bear arms

Topeka - Kansas Governor Sam Brownback sent the following letter Thursday to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in response to his letter regarding the state's Second Amendment Protection Act:

May 2, 2013
Attorney General Eric Holder
Office of the Attorney GeneralWashington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Holder:
            The State of Kansas is in receipt of your letter in which you place Kansas on notice regarding the view of the Obama Administration concerning the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act.  
 The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear.  It is a right enshrined not only in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also protected by the Kansas Bill of Rights.  The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right.  The people of Kansas are likewise committed to defending the sovereignty of the State of Kansas as guaranteed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.  
The state’s Second Amendment Protection Act, which expressly restates our commitment to these rights, was approved by wide, bi-partisan margins in the Kansas Legislature.  The measure was adopted by a vote of 35 to 4 in the Kansas Senate with the Democrat Senate Minority Leader supporting the bill.  The measure was adopted by a vote of 96 to 24 in the Kansas House of Representatives.  Again, the Democrat House Minority Leader voted for the bill.  This is not a partisan issue in Kansas.  
The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will.  It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so.
Sam Brownback


John Stemberger's "OnMy, is campaigning to prevent homosexuals and homosexuality in the Boy Scouts. Please support them.

An Open Letter from
A Legal and Ethical Analysis of the Proposed BSA Resolution
to Allow Open Homosexuality in the Boy Scouts
1) The proposed BSA resolution is logically incoherent and morally and ethically inconsistent. Under the proposed change in policy, open homosexuality would be officially consistent with the Scouting code throughout a Boy Scout’s life until the moment he turns 18, when it suddenly becomes a problem. Under the policy when a 16- or 17-year-old “open and avowed” homosexual becomes an Eagle before his 18th birthday, right after he turns 18 he is removed from Scouting.  No troop leader would want to put himself in the position of enforcing such an irrational rule.  A de facto change in the rule against openly homosexual adult leaders would also occur almost immediately. This inconsistency between the membership policy of youth and adults will surely draw an equal protection lawsuit by gay-rights activists groups against the BSA in which the association rights established by the Supreme Court will no longer be available. (See #7 infra.)
2) Opening the Boy Scouts to boys who openly proclaim being sexually attracted to other boys and/or openly identify themselves as “gay” will inevitably create an increase of boy-on-boy sexual contact which will result in further public scandal to the BSA, not to mention the tragedy of countless boys who will experience sexual, physical and psychological abuse. BSA’s own Youth Protection videos indicate that “70% of abuse to boys is by teenagers”. Two-deep leadership will have to be at least three-deep for units with homosexual youth. The complexity of sleeping arrangements will create a myriad of social and liability challenges. Sexual awareness and harassment training will be required in all Scouting units.  The leaders setting forth the proposed policy clearly did not have the safety and security of the boys in the BSA as their paramount concern.
3) The proposal forces and requires every chartered Scouting unit, regardless of religious convictions, to facilitate open homosexuality among boys in their program. The proposed resolution is much worse than the original idea for a local option where each troop would decide whether to allow open homosexuality in its unit. It fails to respect or reverence the religious beliefs, values and theology of the vast majority of Christian churches which charter well over 70% of all Scouting units.
4) If the proposal is enacted, it will gut a major percentage of human capital in the BSA and utterly devastate the program financially, socially and legally. Of the faith based Scouting units, the vast majority of them are Latter-day Saints, Methodists, Catholics or Southern Baptists. Despite what denominations may decide for political reasons, the majority of local churches that charter Scout units will not be able to embrace this policy without violating their religious convictions. The BSA’s own “Voice of the Scout” surveys provide solid evidence that tens- and possibly hundreds of thousands of parents and Scouts will leave the program if the proposal is adopted. The financial impact from such a significant membership loss would be enormous. Camps will close, executives will be let go and properties will be sold off as a result of the vast loss of finances from major donors, private foundations and declining membership.
5) The Resolution robs parents of the sole authority to raise issues of sex and sexuality with their kids. Parents should have the exclusive right to raise issues about sex and sexuality with their children in their own time and in their own way, in the privacy of their homes; not brought up by other older boys around a campfire. Allowing open homosexuality would inject a sensitive and highly-charged political issue into the heart of the BSA, against the wishes of the vast majority of parents. Under the longstanding current policy, boys who have a same-sex attraction are not banned or removed from the program unless they act out in a manner that distracts from the mission of the BSA. Under the new policy all Scouting units would be required to accept a 17-year-old gay activist openly flaunting his sexuality and promoting a leftist political agenda.
6) The proposed policy directly contradicts the BSA’s comprehensive 2010-2012 study which unanimously concluded last summer that prohibiting “open and avowed homosexuality” was “the absolute best policy” for the Boy Scouts.  Only months after the BSA affirmed the policy that was clearly in the best interest of its boys, a handful of top BSA officials caved from the pressure and criticism they received from their own adult peers. What kind of message are we sending to young people when the adults trying to teach them to be “brave” cannot muster up the courage to stand up for the values that are clearly best for the BSA? Sadly, instead of looking out for what is best for the safety and security of the boys in the program, BSA’s top leadership is more concerned about what is popular in the polls taken outside the Scouting family. To try to undermine the results of the unanimous 2012 study, the 2013 Voice of the Scout national survey was a carefully crafted tool to persuade and “condition” those surveyed to the idea of openly gay BSA members.  The full survey results were not even reported publicly or to the wider Scouting family.
7) The proposed resolution leaves Scouting units with no options or legal protection if they refuse to allow open homosexuality among the boys of their units. This proposed policy completely retreats from the principles hard-fought in the U.S. Supreme Court case BSA vs. Dale in 2000. The legal protection under Dale will be completely removed for both adults and youth members. Any Scout unit which refuses to accept or abide by the new policy will either have their charter revoked by national BSA leadership or become fully exposed to legal attacks for alleged violations of nondiscrimination ordinances. Many units and chartering organizations will be forced to fold, unable to withstand the enormous time and cost associated with the legal attacks.
8) The effect of the phrase “sexual preference” in the BSA resolution could be used by LGBT activists to push for transgendered girls in the BSA. If a biological girl “prefers” acting out as a transgendered boy, she must also be allowed into any Boy Scout troop. In October of 2011 the Girl Scouts admitted a 7-year-old boy named Bobby Montoya into their program who preferred to be treated as a girl. Because the vague and undefined phrase “sexual preference” is used in the resolution, it opens the door and requires Scout units to accept any sexual preference expressed.
9) The “whereas” clauses in the resolution are symbolic and not part of the actual proposed policy. While the Resolution includes some positive “Whereas” clauses designed to take the edge off of the new membership policy language by advocating for some type of moral purity, “Whereas” clauses have never been binding in contract law or in the legal construction of a resolution. The only words that will become part of the official membership policy are the 141 words after “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT…”
10) Top BSA leaders completely ignored the collective wisdom of rank-and-file Scouting family members when they proposed this resolution. Nationwide the BSA’s official “Voice of the Scout” survey shows respondents support the current policy by a supermajority of 61% to 34%. This survey also showed:
  • 3 of the 4 major BSA Regions around the country collectively voted that they did not want to see a change in the policy.
  • 72 percent of chartered organizations oppose this change and support the current policy.
  • 64 percent of council and district volunteers oppose this change and support the current policy.
  • 62 percent of unit leaders oppose this change and support the current policy.
  • 61 percent of Boy Scout parents oppose this change and support the current policy.
  • 50 percent of Cub Scout parents oppose this change and support the current policy.
John Stemberger is an Eagle Scout, a Vigil Honor member of the Order of the Arrow, a former Scoutmaster, a Lifetime N.E.S.A. member and a father with two sons in Scouting.  He is an AV-rated Orlando lawyer who practices in civil and constitutional litigation.
Additional Legal Opinions:
“Boy Scouts Produce Incoherent Policy on Gays”, by Ken Klukowski, Legal Analyst, Author and Law Professor
“The Boy Scouts’ Ill-Considered Proposal to Revise Its Membership Policy on Homosexuals”, by Ed Whelan, attorney and a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Text of the Proposed Resolution
Membership Standards and Executive Summary
The following YouTube videos are presented in order from short to long duration: