Wednesday, November 20, 2019




Perpetuating Jew-hatred under the guise of 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) no longer upholds the antisemitism preached by its denominational founder in the 16th century, Martin Luther. It does, however, use another variant of modern antisemitism – anti-Israelism. 
In August of this year, the ELCA passed a resolution that called on the U.S. government to subsidize the Palestinian Authority (PA), while the latter is using these funds to pay the salaries of Palestinian murderers of Israelis and convicted terrorists serving time in Israeli prisons. Another ELCA resolution passed at its August convention, urging the U.S. Congress to “ensure that U.S. taxpayers funds not support military detention, interrogations, and ill-treatment of Palestinian children. That these “so-called children” are old enough to yield knifes and shoot guns that murder Israeli women and children as well as adults, does not interest the ELCA. Moreover, the funding the PA incentivizes murders of Israelis. A 17-year-old Israeli girl, Rina Shnerb, was recently murdered by Palestinian youngsters while hiking with her father and brother. If her killers are caught and sent to prison, they will receive a salary for their crimes.
The ELCA seeks to amend the anti-terrorism Certification Act of 2018, in order to remove the legislative barriers that would enable the ELCA to provide humanitarian aid to the PA. One such project is the Lutheran-owned Augusta Victoria hospital in East Jerusalem, which only treats Palestinians. The PA diverts funds it receives from the international community (including the U.S.) to pay the salaries of terrorist murderers and their families instead of paying the accumulated bills it owes to the hospital. PA officials build themselves luxurious mansions with donated funds. In essence, what the ELCA wants is for the American taxpayer to pay and for the PA officials to continue their corruption and stealing.
On November 21, 2018, the ELCA Presiding Bishop issued the following statement, which ignored the history of Arab-Palestinian terror and violence and criticized the Trump administrations pro-Israel stance on Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The statement read, “Since President Trump took office in 2017, U.S. support for Israel over concerns of Palestinians has become explicit instead of implied.” The statement continued…” U.S. position on key issues like Israeli settlements, the status of Jerusalem, and Palestinian refugees have shifted significantly."   
The previous U.S. administration allowed the United Nations (UN) to resolve in December 2016, that the Western Wall, the most sacred Jewish site (a remnant of the Temple) was an Arab-Palestinian territory. Funding the corrupt United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), an agency that spawns Palestinian terrorists, is morally wrong. UNRWA has inflated the number of refugees rather than facilitate the settling of Palestinian refugees with adequate housing after decades of neglect, only to keep them on the dole, dependent on charity. UNWRA officials care more about perpetuating their jobs rather than settling the refugees (as Israel did with Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries) and securing jobs for them.
Ynet headlined on July 29, 2019, with “UNRWA Report: Corruption and Abuse of Power at the Highest Levels.” The article quoted the following from AFP. “AFP has obtained a copy of the report, which describes "credible and corroborated" accusations of serious ethical abuse involving senior officials of the institution, including Commissioner-General Pierre Krähenbühl. The alleged charges include "inappropriate sexual acts, nepotism, reprisals, discrimination and other abuses of authority (committed) for personal gain, to suppress legitimate differences of opinion." The report was sent to UN Secretary-General António Guterres in December and UN investigators visited UNRWA offices in Jerusalem and Amman to gather information regarding the allegations, according to sources”
The entire tune of the Bishop’s statements appears hostile to the Jewish state, and takes on the role of  advocate for the Palestinians, regardless of facts on the ground, and ignoring Palestinian terror, antisemitism, the teaching of hatred against Jews and Israel in Palestinian schools, mosques, and the PA media, not to mention Hamas’ unequivocal rejection of peace with Israel. The Bishop’s statements chided President Trump for “giving no indication that the administration remains committed to the international promise and policy that Jerusalem should be a shared city.” Jerusalem is a shared city where Arab-Palestinians have the same rights as the Israelis.
The Bishop’s statement continues: “In early October (2018), the administration decided to close the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem that had served as diplomatic point of engagement for the Palestinians. The move included demoting the U.S. Consul General.  Instead of being responsible for Palestinian matters and answering directly to the Secretary of State, the Consul General in Jerusalem will now answer to the U.S. ambassador to Israel.” What disturbed the presiding Lutheran bishop and his mainline Protestant colleagues is that the U.S. Ambassador to Israel is Jewish, and proudly pro-Israeli.
The statement goes on to say, “The State of Israel remains the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, receiving approximately $3.8 billion in military aid each year. This funding helps the government of Israel maintain the occupation of the Palestinian territories, making the U.S. complicit in Israel’s detention of Palestinian children in military prisons, violent repression of peaceful protestors, and demolitions of Palestinian homes and communities.” Judea and Samaria are no “Palestinian territories.” There has never been a Palestinian state, nor has there been a resolution to these territories due to the Palestinian rejection of negotiations and peace with Israel. The Palestinian “protesters” are not peaceful, they are violent and led by terrorists. 
The mainline Protestant leaders continue, “The administration is also taking actions to deny the freedom of speech to those who criticize the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians. The Department of Education has adjusted its definition of anti-Semitism to include anti-Zionism, and criticism of the state of Israel. Any person or group speaking at educational institutions who states their support for anti-Zionism, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement or is otherwise critical of Israel’s policies is potentially at risk for investigation and sanction by the Department of Education.”
The BDS movement has been deemed to be antisemitic by the U.S. government and a number of European states including Germany. Singling out the Jewish state for delegitimization, demonization, and double-standards constitutes antisemitism. Lutheran church organizations and NGO’s in North America and Europe donate large sums of money to radical anti-Israel Palestinian groups. The Lutheran Church is a member of the World Council of Churches. As such, it supports the anti-Israel BDS campaigns and condemns pro-Israel Christian Zionists.   
The Lutheran Church has a long and sordid legacy of antisemitism. The ELCA alleged efforts to break away from Martin Luther’s genocidal Jew-hatred appears insincere, when blindly supporting genocidal Palestinian Islamists, who seek the destruction of Israel, and refuse any offer of compromise. 
Palestinians have had ample opportunities to create their own sovereign state and provide their people with a future - the Peel Commission in 1937, the UN Partition plan of 1947, the Oslo Accords in 1993, the Camp David Summit in 2000, and the Olmert generous offer in 2008, for a Palestinian state. All were rejected by the Palestinians. For the Palestinians it has always been a zero-sum strategy.   
Israel should be admired, not condemned by ELCA. Israel is only democratic state in the region where human rights, free speech, and religious freedoms are upheld despite an environment of terror and violence perpetrated against it by the Palestinians. By its blatant anti-Israel resolution, and campaigns, the ELCA does not help the cause of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In fact, the ELCA perpetuates antisemitism under the guise of anti-Israelism.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In a bombshell announcement on Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo heralded a new White House stance on the extremely divisive issue of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Pompeo said that the United States will no longer view those settlements as “inconsistent with international law.”
“After carefully studying all sides of the legal debate … the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law,” Pompeo said, citing President Ronald Reagan’s view that the settlements were not “inherently illegal.”
The move is not only a reversal of Obama era policies, but would seem to signal an end to U.S. adherence to a 1978 Carter-era State Department legal opinion that such settlements violated international law. Known as the Hansell Memorandum, the opinion stated that creating settlements in the West Bank is “inconsistent with international law” and also a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
“Calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law has not advanced the cause of peace,” Pompeo said. “The hard truth is there will never be a judicial resolution to the conflict, and arguments about who is right and who is wrong as a matter of international law will not bring peace.”
Since that 1978 opinion, no U.S. president has referred to the settlements as “illegal,” although some have labeled them an “obstacle to peace” or “illegitimate.” While the Trump administration didn’t go so far as to call the settlements “legal,” the announcement is a definite move in favor of Israel’s position on the settlements, at least as far as the United States is concerned.
Palestinians were understandably upset with the new U.S. view on those settlements. Saeb Erekat, the general secretary of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which negotiates on behalf of the Palestinians, attacked the Trump administration after Pompeo’s announcement.
“Once again, with this announcement, the Trump administration is demonstrating the extent to which it’s threatening the international system with its unceasing attempts to replace international law with the ‘law of the jungle,” Erekat said. “Henceforth, the international community must take all necessary measures to respond and deter this irresponsible U.S. behavior, which poses a threat to global stability, security and peace.”
The European Union was also quick to criticize the Trump administration’s new policy, quickly releasing a statement stating that their “position on Israeli policy in the occupied Palestinian territory is clear and remains unchanged: all settlement activity is illegal under international law and it erodes the viability of the two-state solution and the prospects for a lasting peace.” The EU also pressed “Israel to end all settlement activity, in line with its obligations as an occupying power.”
The United Nations itself has also weighed in, flatly rejecting the new policy of the United States. “We continue to follow the long-standing position of the U.N. that Israeli settlements are in breech of international law,” said UN human rights spokesman Rupert Colville.
“A change in the policy position of one state does not modify existing international law nor its interpretation by the International Court of Justice and the Security Council.”
So, we can expect a pro-forma United Nations condemnation soon.
On the other hand, embattled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the new policy: “Today, the United States adopted an important policy that rights a historical wrong when the Trump administration clearly rejected the false claim that Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria are inherently illegal under international law.”
Netanyahu further welcomed Pompeo’s assertion that the settlement issue belongs in the hands of Israeli courts — not in the hands of the globalists at the UN: “Israel’s legal system, which has proven itself fully capable of addressing legal questions relating to the settlements, is the appropriate place for these matters to be adjudicated — not biased international forums that pay no attention to history or facts.”
This announcement is only the latest in a series of pro-Israel measures taken during the Trump administration. In December of 2017, Trump announced that the United States was formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the country, despite the United Nations considering the action “null and void” shortly after the initial announcement. President Trump chose not to listen to the UN in that case, and in May of 2018, the U.S. embassy officially opened in Jerusalem.
Then, in March of this year, Trump officially recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the disputed Golan Heights, which Israel seized during the Six Day War in 1967 when Israel was attacked by the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. Israel responded by naming one of the towns in the area Trump Heights in appreciation.


A concise and chilling book unveils progressives' war on America's Christian roots.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
[Order David Horowitz's new book, Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America:HERE].
Reprinted from
David Horowitz has always been a writer whose work I've appreciated since his compelling political biography, Radical Son, which related the author's break from his communist upbringing after Black Panther associates murdered his bookkeeper friend Betty Van Patter.  But brevity and crisp linkage of multiple intellectual threads were never characteristic of Horowitz's brilliant, often voluminous, exposés of leftist thought and practice.  By contrast, Dark Agenda is a concise, chilling book brimming with evidence that links numerous cultural depredations to one overriding theme:  The left's attack on Christian America's founding in the name of "cultural Marxism." 
"Christian America" is the novel component in Horowitz's analysis, a term that acknowledges the historical fact that America, at its founding, was 98 percent Protestant.  Protestantism, in turn, was intimately linked to the doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers" and to the more broadly Christian idea that all people are created by God.  In view of these beliefs and the fact that Protestant groups were living side by side, it followed that in America there would be no institutional or governmental mediator between the individual and God.  It also meant that each individual's rights were endowed solely by their Creator and that freedom of conscience and speech would be hallmarks of the new republic. 
"Cultural Marxism," by contrast, represents the application of its "oppressor versus oppressed" vision of society to various victim groups:  blacks, "people of color," women, native Americans, homosexuals, transsexuals, and any other group claiming victimhood.  For Marxists what stands between these oppressed groups and a world in which "social justice" and equality is fully realized are the oppressors, those who supposedly establish the laws and mores that keep them in power.  Thus, failure or success isn't the result of individual choices but the inevitable outcome of a system designed to unfairly help one group (white, Christian, males) and harm the others.  Accordingly, what matters politically is destroying the patriarchal Christian system itself with its emphasis on individual moral and economic choices and replacing it with a group-focused system that, in my own words, oppresses the oppressors.  Put quite simply, "Christian doctrines were foundational to the American Republic, which the left despises."
After reading the last two paragraphs, one might think Dark Agenda is highly philosophical and abstract.  This impression couldn't be further from the truth, as these core ideas are given clear expression and development via an array of examples, many of which are doubtless unknown to even the most politically-astute readers.  Who knew, for example, that the $621 million U.S. Capitol Visitor Center that opened in 2008 "is less a monument to the nation's founding and institutions than it is to the antireligious left's vision for America.  When it opened, all references to God and faith had been carefully, deliberately edited out of its photos and historical displays."  For example, the national motto was said to be "E Pluribus Unum" when, in fact, it is "In God We Trust."  Among other historical travesties, a large "image of the Constitution was photoshopped to remove the worlds 'in the Year of our Lord' above the signatures of the signers." Similarly, the "table on which President Lincoln placed his Bible during his second inauguration is on display — just the table, not the Bible."
These examples are picayune compared to the spiteful governmental coercion that's been employed to force The Little Sisters of the Poor, among others, to violate their consciences thanks to Obamacare abortion provisions.  The Supreme Court has been the giant secular lever employed by leftists to fundamentally transform "Christian America" into a state hostile even to a school-girl who joined hands with classmates to give thanks for her food. These politically-motivated  "lawyers," as Horowitz contemptuously labels the high court, began their anti-Christian, anti-Constitutional mission with the expulsion of prayer from public schools in 1962 (Engel v. Vitale).  That assault on the free exercise of religion now extends beyond commencement ceremonies and football fields to a bakery that was  embroiled in legal battles for years for refusing to provide a celebratory cake for a gay ceremony billed as a wedding — a "crime" made possible by Court rulings against the Defense of Marriage Act and in favor of redefining marriage.  
The case of Roe v. Wade (1972), which awakened religious conservatives to the fundamental attack on Christian America, is cogently dissected in Dark Agenda, both from a constitutional perspective as well as through the eyes of Norma McCorvey, the anonymous "Jane Roe" who was intentionally deceived and reduced to a legal prop to secure the Supreme Court's "right to privacy" abortion ruling.  (As Horowitz notes, in Marxist thought it's the grand arc of history and oppressed groups that matter, not mere individuals.)  That ruling officially brought about the cultural civil war that for the anti-Christian left involves not simply a virulent hatred of President Trump but also hatred directed toward his supporters who are regularly vilified as Nazis, sexists, racists, homophobes, and "deplorables" who are rightly denied freedom of speech and conscience.  Trump's Oval Office predecessor did his best to stoke these emotions as Horowitz's litany of anti-Christian comments and actions by President Obama illustrate — from avoiding religious references during a traditional Thanksgiving ceremony to pursuit of a foreign policy that led to the annihilation of the ancient Christian community in Syria.
Among the sidebars accompanying Horowitz's central narrative are insights into the abusive and mendacious character of atheist Madelyn Murray.  For example, in 1960 Murray "set out with her two sons . . . intending to renounce her American citizenship and defect to the Soviet Union." Her repeated attempts at emigration were rebuffed by the Soviets who were probably aware of her emotional instability and violent outbursts.  Murray's revolutionary predecessor, Margaret Sanger, was also a communist sympathizer and racist.  A 1930 article in The New Yorker about Ms. Sanger noted that her monthly newspaper, Woman Rebel, "mixed its birth-control propaganda with a good deal of red-flag-waving, and perorations of the 'Workers of the World, Arise!' variety." The author also observed that she "composed an editorial declaring: 'Even if dynamite were to serve no other purpose than to call forth the spirit of revolutionary solidarity and loyalty, it would prove its great value.'"  
Horowitz ends Dark Agenda with this chilling paragraph reminiscent of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: "A nation divided by such fundamental ideas — individual freedom on one side and group identity on the other — cannot long endure, any more than could a nation that was half slave and half free.  The urgency that drew the religious right into politics fifty years ago is now an urgency of the nation itself."  Even individuals well aware of the cultural Civil War that now rages in America would do well do arm themselves with the insights in this book — insights that both explain the ideological  roots of the conflict and document a host of grievous wounds that "Christian America" has already suffered.  Horowitz, an honest agnostic, is doing his best to prevent those wounds from becoming mortal.
Richard Kirk is a freelance writer living in Southern California whose book Moral Illiteracy: "Who's to Say?" is available on Kindle.


BY Cassy Fiano-Chesser
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
CONTENT WARNING: This article is extremely disturbing. Reader discretion is advised.
November 18, 2019 (Live Action News) — Human rights abuses surrounding China's oppressive population control policies are already well known. Parents who have more than the allotted number of children are subjected to any number of penalties, ranging from something as small as a fine to something as awful as a forced abortion. But what's slowly coming to light is the growing number of so-called "re-education camps" in China, in which over 1.5 million people are allegedly being held. Their crimes are things like having the wrong ethnicity, political views, or religion, and they are forced to undergo horrors. A recent tribunal uncovered the despicable practice of forced organ harvesting from prisoners — while they are still alive. Human Rights Watch also alleges that the government is engaging in mass imprisonment, torture, mass surveillance systems, forced house arrest, sexual harassment, and more. Now, a survivor of these terrors has come forward to share her story, and expose the atrocities being committed.
Haaretz reported from Stockholm of what has been learned about what goes on inside China's re-education camps: prisoners with their heads shaved are forced to live in one small room together, sharing a bucket for a toilet, with cameras watching them at all times. They are subjected to propaganda, forced to confess "sins," and undergo torture such as metal nails, fingernails pulled out, and electric shocks in the so-called "black room." The prisoners are also forced to undergo medical experimentation, with many left infertile, and women are reportedly raped and forced into abortions.
Sayragul Sauytbay, a former teacher who escaped China and is living in Sweden, where she has been granted asylum, testified to all of these horrors. Sauytbay, who is Muslim, was separated from her husband and children when they were able to escape to nearby Kazakhstan, while she couldn't get an exit visa. Meanwhile, she lived in fear of the growing secret arrests taking place at night — and her fear was ultimately justified. "In January 2017, they started to take people who had relatives abroad," Sauytbay told Haaretz. "They came to my house at night, put a black sack on my head and brought me to a place that looked like a jail. I was interrogated by police officers, who wanted to know where my husband and children were, and why they had gone to Kazakhstan. At the end of the interrogation I was ordered to tell my husband to come home, and I was forbidden to talk about the interrogation."
After that, she refused to contact her family for fear of what would happen to them, but authorities continued to interrogate her. But the worst happened soon after: in November of 2017, she was told to report to a meeting place with authorities, where a black bag was placed over her head, and she was taken to a re-education camp and forced to sign a contract. "I was very much afraid to sign," she admitted. "It said there that if I did not fulfill my task, or if I did not obey the rules, I would get the death penalty."
Sauytbay explained that everyone's heads were shaved, and they were shackled at all times unless they were writing, even in their sleep. Sauytbay was forced to teach Chinese propaganda songs before confession times arrived. They would be required to think of sins to confess to, and if they didn't, they would be punished. This would then repeat until midnight, as they stood facing a wall with their hands raised.
For food, prisoners were given nothing but watery soup and a slice of bread, and were only given meat on Friday — but this, too, was another cruel form of torture, with prisoners given only pork, even if their religion required them to abstain.
On top of all of this, prisoners were taken to what they called the "black room" for torture. "Some prisoners were hung on the wall and beaten with electrified truncheons," Sauytbay said. "There were prisoners who were made to sit on a chair of nails. I saw people return from that room covered in blood. Some came back without fingernails." Others had their skin flayed, or were beaten for minor offenses. Sauytbay said she was deprived of food and beaten for two days after an inmate gave her a hug, which she did not reciprocate.
Sauytbay believes people were intentionally being made sterile and sick through the pills given to them as well. "The pills had different kinds of effects," she said. "Some prisoners were cognitively weakened. Women stopped getting their period and men became sterile." Those who had health conditions were not treated for them. But worst of all was what happened to women in the camps.
"On an everyday basis the policemen took the pretty girls with them, and they didn't come back to the rooms all night," Sauytbay said. "The police had unlimited power. They could take whoever they wanted. There were also cases of gang rape. In one of the classes I taught, one of those victims entered half an hour after the start of the lesson. The police ordered her to sit down, but she just couldn't do it, so they took her to the black room for punishment."
She said one of the worst examples was when a woman was made to confess her sins in front of 200 other prisoners. "When she was done speaking, the policemen ordered her to disrobe and simply raped her one after the other, in front of everyone. While they were raping her they checked to see how we were reacting," she recalled. "People who turned their head or closed their eyes, and those who looked angry or shocked, were taken away and we never saw them again. It was awful. I will never forget the feeling of helplessness, of not being able to help her. After that happened, it was hard for me to sleep at night."
Sauytbay's horrific testimony has been corroborated by other rare survivors. These women spoke also of ongoing rape, of being forced to have contraceptive devices implanted against their will, sexual torture, and forced abortion. Gulzira Mogdyn, who is both a Kazakh and Chinese citizen, said she was forced to abort her fourth child, saying they cut her baby out without even using anesthesia. "Two humans were lost in this tragedy — my baby and me," she said, according to the Washington Post.
Human rights advocate Aiman Umarova said that this is a pattern. "Sexually violating women, including stopping them from reproducing, has become a weapon for China against its Muslim population," she told the Washington Post. Two men who escaped, both Uighurs, also told the Washington Post that their wives remain in the camps in China, and were forced to undergo abortions. Another Uighur woman, Ruqiye Perhat, said she was repeatedly raped by her Chinese guards; when she became pregnant, she was forced into abortions.
Sauytbay was eventually released, but then was told she would be returning to the camp — and she vowed she would rather die. She eventually received asylum from Sweden, and is bravely speaking out in a plea to help the prisoners left behind. "They are innocent. I have to tell their story, to tell about the darkness they are in, about their suffering," she pleaded. "The world must find a solution so that my people can live in peace. The democratic governments must do all they can to make China stop doing what it is doing in Xinjiang."
Published with permission from Live Action News.


Not Enough: Gay Rights Group Demands More from Chick-Fil-A

Featured Image

Chick-Fil-A Caves to the Rage Mob

 Salvation Army urges ‘public to seek the truth before rushing to ill-informed judgment’
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Gay rights organization GLAAD is demanding Chick-Fil-A further bend the knee after the fast-food restaurant announced it would sever ties with charities deemed anti-LGBT.
In a statement released Monday, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation called on Chick-Fil-A to take further steps to show it’s serious about cutting ties with what they call “divisive anti-LGBTQ activists.":
"If Chick-Fil-A is serious about their pledge to stop holding hands with divisive anti-LGBTQ activists, then further transparency is needed regarding their deep ties to organizations like Focus on the Family, which exist purely to harm LGBTQ people and families.
Chick-Fil-A investors, employees, and customers can greet today’s announcement with cautious optimism, but should remember that similar press statements were previously proven to be empty.
In addition to refraining from financially supporting anti-LGBTQ organizations, Chick-Fil-A still lacks policies to ensure safe workplaces for LGBTQ employees and should unequivocally speak out against the anti-LGBTQ reputation that their brand represents."
One of the charities Chick-Fil-A chose to stop donating to, The Salvation Army, released a statement Tuesday expressing its dismay and claiming the split was due to misinformation being spread without fact.
“We’re saddened to learn that a corporate partner has felt it necessary to divert funding to other hunger, education and homelessness organizations — areas in which The Salvation Army, as the largest social services provider in the world, is already fully committed,” reads a statement from The Salvation Army.
Far from being “anti-LGBTQ,” the Salvation Army claims it serves “more than 23 million individuals a year, including those in the LGBTQ+ community.”
“In fact, we believe we are the largest provider of poverty relief to the LGBTQ+ population,” the Salvation Army wrote, adding they believe a disinformation campaign was to blame.
“When misinformation is perpetuated without fact, or ability to serve those in need, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or any other factor is at risk. We urge the public to seek the truth before rushing to ill-informed judgment and greatly appreciate those partners and donors who ensure that anyone who needs our help feels safe and comfortable to come through our doors.”
Chick-Fil-A also halted donations to The Fellowship of Christian Athletes over its support of heterosexual marriage.

EXCERPT: "“We made multi-year commitments to both organizations and we fulfilled those
 obligations in 2018,” Chick-Fil-A’s spokeswoman stated, noting that going forward the fast
 food chain would focus on donating to the causes of “education, homelessness, and hunger.”
 One might argue that the Salvation Army is the perfect organization to donate to if one 
wants to contribute to the fight against homelessness and hunger, but it is no longer charity 
or effectiveness that is important. It is ideology."
The LGTBQ Community and The Salvation Army; 
Statements of Support In Their Own Words:
According to Forbes the Salvation Army's top dog, Todd Bassett, took home $175,050 
from the “CHARITABLE” organization's donations for the fiscal year ending in 2004. 
THAT'S $90 AN HOUR!!! I wonder how many Santa Claus buckets need to be filled to 
pay Mr. Bassett's extravagant salary? For the fiscal year ending in 2012, the top dog at 
the Salvation Army, William Roberts, received an annual salary of $249,833. 
THAT'S $125 AN HOUR!!! (based upon a 40-hour work week). I wouldn't give a dime 
to the Salvation Army. No doubt, they have all kinds of excuses to justify such outrageous 
salaries; but no one needs that kind of salary, and it is certainly unbecoming of a so-called 
“charitable organization.”
*Update June 2016—In 2012 the Salvation Army paid it's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) $259,720!!! I have a serious problem with that! Over 44 officers received 6-digit salaries over $100,000 a year! Charities are supposed to be benevolent organizations, helping the public, not paying themselves 5-10 times what the average American earns per year. Over half of American citizens in 2016 are earning less than $30,000 per year! So why should a so-called “charity,” especially a professed Christian charity, pay those kind of extravagant salaries. Few people know that the Salvation Army also owns luxurious vacation properties in Hawaii for their executives to enjoy. I don't care how much money (billions!!!) they take in per year, it is wrong for ministers (which means “servant”) to pay themselves exuberant salaries. To put it into better perspective, the CEO of the Salvation Army in 2012 was paid $21,643 a month!!!
_______________________________________________________________  SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The following statement is The Salvation Army Northern Division’s response to false accusations claiming that The Salvation Army discriminates against the LGBT community and pays lobbyists to fight against their interests.
  • The Salvation Army is open and inclusive to all people. Anyone who comes through our doors will receive help based on their need and our capacity to assist. We annually serve around 30 million Americans from a variety of backgrounds – we do not pick and choose who we serve based on religion, sexual orientation or any other factor. This promise to serve goes to the core of our beliefs as laid out in our organizational Mission Statement: “The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.”
  • Any instance of discrimination is in direct opposition to our core beliefs and is against all of our policies.
  • It is not The Salvation Army’s practice to spend funds on lobbying.  The Salvation Army is apolitical and concentrates its resources on providing relief and compassionate care to those in crisis. Any advocacy is done in regard to the services we provide and educating legislators on how government actions will impact those we serve.
  • The Salvation Army embraces employees of many different faiths and orientations and abides by all applicable anti-discrimination laws in its hiring.
  • There is an effort to continue the misinformation and this seems to be pushed most heavily during the red kettle season.  It is difficult to fight a phantom.
  • We need your help in ending these rumors. They can persuade people not to give, which in turn diminishes our resources and our ability to serve people in crisis. Please share what you know about The Salvation Army – that we serve anywhere there is need, without discrimination.

Salvation Army 2013 video for the LGBT community

The Salvation Army Serves Without Discrimination

The Salvation Army is outwardly and purposefully disobedient to Jesus Christ. Many people are unaware that the Salvation Army is not a secular charity (such as the United Way or Goodwill Industries) but an institutional church which claims to be part of the body of Christ. Not only does it offer charity to the poor but it offers membership in the body of Christ to whomever would profess faith and agree to live by its “soldier’s covenant“. The Salvation Army does not, however, offer the professing Christians who join its ranks the opportunity to identify with Christ in baptism or remember the sacrifice of Christ through the Lord’s supper. The Salvation Army has issued the following statement in its handbook, which it defends on its website:
“Early in our history, The Salvation Army was led of God not to observe specific sacraments, that is baptism and the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion, as prescribed rituals.”
The Salvation Army, in direct disobedience of the Lord Jesus Christ, leads its converts and members away from experiencing the fullness of Christian life. Bible-believing Christians should not stand in partnership with any “church” who so blatantly disregards the instruction of the Lord. 
The Army & The LGBTQ Issue:
In 2012, during an interview on an Australian radio broadcast, an officer (who is, don’t forget, an ordained minister) responded to a question which left the clear impression to many that the Army believes that “gays should be put to death.”
(Just for grins, compare that to this leading Southern Baptist pastor who suggested not that gays should be put to death, but that those opposed – on Biblical grounds – to his church’s gospel-void, affirming embrace of homosexuals should be put to death.)
Nevertheless, the Army officer’s comments created a whirlwind of outrage. The Army was quick to offer a clarifying apology stating that “The Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine does not state that practicing homosexuals should be put to death and, in fact, urges all Salvationists to act with acceptance, love, and respect to all people.”
(Aussie salvo apologies are nothing new, apparently. The Salvation Army, again in Australia, issued an apology in 2006 related to 500+ claims of child abuse occurring over numerous decades in its Children’s Homes throughout the continent. Though no longer on its website, the archived webpage of the Army’s “response to child abuse allegations” may be found HERE.)
But the effective headline of “Salvation Army Thinks Gays Should Die” did, itself, not die with the apologetic response. The photo-shopped graphic shown above has been extensively shared across social media.  Now, nearly five years later, the Army website continues to feature an “About Us” link which directs to “The Salvation Army and The LGBT Community” page. The pithy comments distinguish the Army’s discrimination-free position among “The People We Serve,” “The People We Hire,” and “The People Who Support Us.” All three groups find embrace of and acceptance by the LGBT community.
The Army’s comment about “The People We Hire” is – for a “church” with the self-touted mission to proclaim the gospel – particularly curious. “The Salvation Army embraces employees of many different faiths and orientations. Our hiring practices are open to all, and we adhere to all relevant employment laws, providing domestic partner benefits accordingly.”
This “church” hires people of “many different faiths?” Hmm. And it also “provides domestic partner benefits?”   If you’re in a Scripture-obedient church, you probably won’t be able to find these practices repeated at home (or touted as Biblically valid, either.)
The Army’s aggressive response to appear “pro-gay” is perhaps best seen in Australia where the contentious issue of an anti-bullying program for schools is being hotly debated. Called the Safe Schools Program, it is less an anti-bully initiative than it is an effort to indoctrinate Australian children into LGBTQ acceptance. The website for the effort,, features the tagline, “A Public-Private Partnership In Support of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Queer and Questioning Youth.” In complete support of this initiative, which offers such curricula resources for youngsters as “Growing Up Queer” and “OMG I’m Queer,” is none other than the Salvation Army. (More about this issue can be found HEREH/T: Dianne Snider)   The Army’s statement of support can be read HERE.
The Army & Abortion:
To many, no doubt, the Salvation Army has a seemingly morally palatable statement regarding abortion. It uses such favorable phrases as “all people are created in the image of God,” “human life is sacred,” “responsibility to care for others … including unborn children,” and “life is a gift from God … we are answerable to God for the taking of life.”
But, reading further, the Army’s statement makes clear that, in certain cases, it is pro-abortion, a position that may sit well within liberal churches, but certainly not within Bible-believing ones.