What do we do now?

What do we do now?

Pray for the President … Love our neighbors … Hunger for God


Do what we are called to do … Live out your faith … Be engaged with government


Hold President Trump to his promises

In a 9 November 2016 Christian Headlines article, Veronica Neffinger points out the things that Christians must do.

“Pro-life advocates are calling on Christians to make sure President-elect Donald Trump upholds the pro-life promises he made during his campaign.

The Republican Trump was elected as the U.S.’s 45th president in an unprecedented election that went into the early hours of the morning on Nov. 9.

Trump ultimately won by taking the swing states of Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Now that he is confirmed as the nation’s new president, pro-life groups are hoping that he will come through on the promises he made to ban late-term abortion, defund Planned Parenthood, and appoint conservative Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

While the majority of evangelicals ultimately backed Trump, many had their reservations about the billionaire businessman, especially when it came to his stance on pro-life issues.

Although welcoming a longtime pro-life advocate to work on his campaign, and despite his promises to defund Planned Parenthood and sign legislation to prevent late-term abortions, some Christians still balked at his previous support for abortion.

LifeNews reporter Steven Ertelt wrote, “Today, pro-life America has a job to do. Regardless of whether you voted for Trump or not, we must hold President-elect Donald Trump’s feet to the fire when it comes to the various pro-life pledges he made.”

Ertelt further writes that Christians need to unite and be a pro-life voice saying, “Donald Trump you must defend the right to life.”

Texas Sues to keep Obama from forcing a "Like Your Twitter? Keep your Twitter" Moment

Texas Sues in Federal Court

Attorney General Ken Paxton Works to Prevent Hand-Over of Domain Names

Joining Senator Ted Cruz, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has made his way to a federal court in Galveston to keep lawless President Obama from handing the private property of a portion of the Internet over to the UN.

“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is jumping into Ted Cruz‘s fight to stop what the U.S. senator calls President Barack Obama’s illegal internet’giveaway.’

Paxton and three other attorneys general filed a lawsuit Wednesday night aiming to halt the Obama administration’s plan to cede oversight of the internet domain-name system to an international body. Critics claim the transition, which is set to go into effect within days, could open up the Internet to censorship by countries like China and Russia.

‘Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy,’ Paxton said in a statement. ‘The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.’

The lawsuit argues that the transfer, among other things, violates the property clause of the U.S. Constitution by letting go of government property without Congress’ approval. It also says the plan will have a negative impact on Americans’ free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

A spokesperson for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, one of the defendants, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But administration officials and technology experts have said concerns like those raised by Cruz are unfounded and demonstrate a lack of understanding about how the internet works.

The transfer has been years in the making, with the United States looking to relinquish control over domain-name registration to an international nonprofit known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. The transfer is scheduled to go into effect Saturday.

In Congress, Cruz has made stopping the transition his top priority since returning from the presidential campaign trail in May. His efforts, however, have largely stalled, especially after Congress passed legislation Wednesday that will keep the federal government open through mid-December. That bill did not address the internet issue, as Cruz had hoped.

Cruz and Paxton, both tea party favorites in Texas, have long been allies in fights against the federal government. The three other attorneys general joining Paxton in the lawsuit are Mark Brnovich of Arizona, Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma and Paul Laxalt of Nevada.

In Congress, Cruz has made stopping the transition his top priority since returning from the presidential campaign trail in May. His efforts, however, largely stalled after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unveiled a spending bill last week that did not address the issue.

Hat tip to KSEV AM700 morning Lance Roberts Show 30 September 2016 (hour 3).

To Anyone Who Has Had an Independent Thought,

Remember the Promise “Like Your Doctor, Keep Your Doctor” of Obama, Now It’s the Internet

If you don’t like what Obama has done to your healthcare, you’ll want to listen to a founding leader within the Internet community, Frank Gaffney:

Center for Security Policy president and founder Frank Gaffney offer(s) his thoughts on impending surrender of U.S. control of Internet registration.

“Look, the Iran deal, as you know, Alex my colleague Fred Fleitz at the Center for Security Policy (said),” he said, continuing:

This is national security fraud, of an epic character. And Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it, her support for it, her complicity in the Congress going along with it, in a fashion – I mean, these are very powerful indictments, I believe, for a woman who runs on her record of having been this great maven of national security. Ain’t so.

The conversation turned to the impending handover of Internet control to a foreign body, a topic that should be of major concern to American voters, although Marlow sarcastically observed there was no time for it during the debate because moderator Lester Holt thought it was more important to discuss Donald Trump’s thoughts on Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

“A lot of people in this audience have absolutely no clue why we would do this and can’t even interpret what Obama and the globalists are thinking,” Marlow said.

“Well, quite frankly, I’m among them. I can’t figure out what the argument is for doing this,” Gaffney replied. He went on to explain the situation:

What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. It gets pretty arcane, but the point is, if you think that the freedom of the Internet – whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it, or whether you think of it as an engine for free enterprise, let alone if you understand the contribution that it makes these days to national security – including, by the way, the operations of our critical infrastructure – you will understand that the United States retaining a measure of quality control as to what’s going on with how the Internet is populated with names and numbers, domains, websites and the like, is a very important thing.

And for absolutely no good reason, other than people – or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea – don’t want us to have any say in this and would like to be able to change things around so that they cannot only restrict all the things the Internet does to help their own people become familiar with the terrible they’re being subjected to, at the hands of their totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, but they want to take those freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of enterprise – away from us, as well.

So this is what it comes down to, Alex: there’s no good reason for doing this, certainly not in the next three days, which is what’s going to happen unless Congress intervenes.

And there’s an interesting point here: Hillary Clinton could make all the difference on whether that happens or not.

Gaffney agreed with Marlow’s criticism of how this vital issue was bypassed at the debate, adding that he was hoping Trump would “jump in on it because he’s taken the right line.”

Gaffney pleaded:

If every one of your impressive audience – and I do think of you as a hotshot, I don’t care what they say – this audience is important, and if they will come up on the net, today, with calls into Mitch McConnell urging him not to give up the Internet – don’t let this happen, make sure the Continuing Resolution doesn’t permit that.

He recommended bringing pressure to bear on the Democrats through their presidential candidate:

Let’s call out Hillary Clinton, to find out whether she supports Barack Obama in diminishing our country, undermining our friends and our own interests, and emboldening our enemies. I call that the Obama Doctrine – whether she’s actually gonna stand with Donald Trump and say, “Don’t give up the Internet.” We need her help on this, and if she does it, I think most, if not all, of the Democrats in the Senate will agree, and will stop being obstructionists, will support a sound measure on this count, at least, on the Continuing Resolution.

And again, we’ve got three days to fix this, folks. This is no drill. This is a live-fire exercise. We need your help, now.

I think the more people understand what’s going on here, the more we’re gonna have the right outcome. The challenge, as with so much of the Obama agenda, as you know, Alex, is trying to slip it under the radar. Keep people from figuring it out until it’s done.

And this is the real hook. This will be irreversible. Once this so-called mechanism known as the numbering and naming function is permanently and irreversibly to some multinational non-profit – which will, trust me, be dominated in due course, if not right away, by the Russians, and the Chinese, and the Saudis, and so on – we’re not getting that back. There’s not anything a President Trump is gonna be able to do about it, if he does, in fact, become president.

It’s three days from now. It’s October 1st, the end of the fiscal year. It’s what Obama’s been striving for, is to jam this thing through, while nobody’s paying attention. We can’t let that happen.

“Come up on the net, folks. Call other talk radio show hosts, other folks that you’re dealing with, your editorial boards. Get engaged in this thing,” Gaffney implored, concluding:

It’s one of those places where your own equities – your freedom of expression, your right to use the Internet for small-business innovation and enterprise in the future, and so on – is going to be on the line because we’re going to turn it over to people who don’t want us to do that sort of thing. We mustn’t let that happen.

To Anyone Who Enjoys Free Expression

Please Listen to the FCC Commissioner

From someone who knows about freedom of speech on broadcast media, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai pointed out that a surrender of our Internet would result in a loss of freedom of speech currently available on the Internet.

“On Wednesday’s ‘Sean Hannity Show,’ FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai (R) stated that the plan to “essentially give up the US oversight role…of the Internet” to ICANN is something that should worry anyone who cherishes “free expression, and free speech rights generally,” and could potentially cede oversight of the Internet to ‘foreign governments who might not share our values.’ He further stated that such a move is ‘irreversible.’

Pai said, ‘This proposal is to essentially give up the US oversight role that it’s had for the last 20 years, basically for the entire commercial lifespan of the Internet to a company called ICANN, which is an international organization, which includes a number of foreign countries. And, it’s an unprecedented move, and one that, as Mr. DeMint pointed out, is irreversible. Once we give up this oversight role, we can’t get it back.’

He added that Internet oversight is a case of, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ Pai further stated, ‘[I]f you cherish free expression, and free speech rights generally, you should be worried, I think, when there’s — this oversight role’s going to be ceded to potentially, foreign governments who might not share our values.’ “

What Can I Do?

Contact Your US Representative

Go to the US House of Representatives Find Your Representative web page. Contact them and let them know how important your web is to you.

Contact Democrats

Tweet @NancyPelosi. E-mail  Nancy Pelosi and let SanFranNan know that this is not a time to “pass it to know what is in it” situation. This is a “time to stand for America time.”

Magnify Your Voice

 Make a hashtag.

Join with others to make your voice heard.

If you do not want to create your own petition, consider signing the ACLJ petition.

Modern Day Religious Discrimination in Obama’s America

This photo of a church that merged due to
shrinking local population may be joined by others
if Iowa gets its way.

One Iowan Law Would Muzzle Churches Who Make People Uncomfortable

Churches Sue to Retain the Free Speech of Pastors and Others

OneNewsNow reported in an 18 July 2016 article that two Iowa churches have teamed with Alliance Defending Freedom to stand against an Iowa law that would curtail the freedoms of speech and religion of Iowans.

“Churches in the Hawkeye State took notice when the Iowa Civil Rights Commission released a controversial brochure describing public accommodation rights for homosexuals and transgenders under the state’s Civil Rights Act.

In particular, a portion of the brochure declares that churches are exempt from discriminating against homosexuals only if they are engaging in a ‘bona fide religious purpose.’

But what is a ‘bona fide religious purpose’ according to the commission? And does the commission have the legal right to define that term?

In a press release, however, ADF says the public accommodation law suggests a church could face legal action if it makes homosexuals or transgenders feel “unwelcome.” ADF fears that law could be used to stop church pastors – even from the pulpit – from condemning homosexuality.

Citing an earlier Register story, ONN noted that a homosexual activist and a law professor both suggest that Iowa churches are legally bound to follow the public accomodation law, even for “bona fide” churches services.”

The Des Moines Register Confirms the Details of the Suit

In an 8 July 2016 article, the Desmoines Register reported (with emphasis added by myself):

“An Iowa Civil Rights Commission brochure that some churches interpreted to mean they must abide by transgender bathroom rules and muzzle ministers who may want to preach against transgender or gay individuals has been changed, the commission said Friday.

The commission said Friday it revised the ‘Revised Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Public Accommodations Brochure’ to make it clear places of worship are generally exempt from Iowa’s antidiscrimination law except when they’re open for voting, providing a day care facility or other non-religious activities. It also said it regretted any confusion the brochure may have caused.

The previous brochure suggested the law applies to church services that are open to the public in a question and answer section, titled ‘Does this law apply to churches?’

‘Sometimes … Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public),’ it read.

The new brochure replaced that section with the following language: ‘Places of worship (e.g. churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) are generally exempt from the Iowa law’s prohibition of discrimination, unless the place of worship engages in non-religious activities which are open to the public … the law may apply to an independent day care or polling places located on the premises of the place of worship.’

Funds Set Aside for Safer Play Areas are Denied to a Missouri Church

Equal Under the Law Does Not Seem to be in Missouri

A 25 July 2016 OneNewsNow article comments on the case argued by Missouri lawyers who suppose that the state has the right to discriminate against people of faith and religious organizations. Specifically, the state argues that they should allowed to deny …

” … funds for safer playground surface materials to a faith-based Christian church school because it is religious. Erik Stanley of Alliance Defending Freedom says state officials, in a written brief, told the U.S. Supreme Court that its constitution requires discrimination against people of faith.

‘It just proves that this is unconstitutional for a state to really discriminate against a church solely based on its religious status,’ he adds.

Stanley says the state is relying upon its constitution’s Blaine Amendment, an antiquated law that originally was used to discriminate against Catholic schools.

‘One of the points that we’ve been making in this case is that no state constitution can violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. … Missouri [can rely] upon its state constitution … as long as it also doesn’t violate the First Amendment – but in this case it does.’

In an earlier legal brief, ADF argued Missouri’s position on the matter ‘violates the United States Constitution’s free exercise and equal protection guarantees.’ “

Considering the wide (and righteous) application of the 14th Amendment, it is odd that this law still stands and allows discrimination against Christians.

School Sends Police after 7-year-old Who Shared Bible Verses

Teacher and School Staff Become Offended by Bible Verses

Los Angeles Deputy Sherriff Sent to Boy’s House

Freedom of Religion for a 7-year-old means nothing to government workers (as reported first by a OneNewsNow 5 June 2016 article:

‘The situation started with an encouraging note and Bible verse from mom Christina Zavala, tucked into a packed lunch for her little boy … ,’ Liberty Counsel reported. “The seven-year-old boy read the note and verse, and showed them to his friends during lunch time at school.’

‘Mrs. Zavala’s daily note for her son soon turned into an expectation by the other children during lunch, who excitedly begged C for copies of the notes, which grew to include short stories from the Bible to provide context for the verses,” the nonprofit organization explained. “However, when one little girl said Teacher — this is the most beautiful story I’ve ever seen. (Then) separation of church and state was the response, and the notes were banned from lunchtime distribution.’

‘(The boy) was told that the school gate was the only location at which he could give the Bible verses to his friends, and only after the bell rang,” Liberty Counsel recounted. “On April 19, 2016, Mrs. Zavala wrote the school to correct its misinformation, but the only response was that (the 7-year-old boy) was reprimanded again, in front of the whole class, and again told to stop talking about religion or sharing his mother’s notes.’

‘The Zavalas and (the boy) complied with the school gate directive, and soon, as many as 15 fellow students looked forward to the after-school Bible notes,’ the pro-family group continued. ‘However, on May 9, 2016, Principal Melanie Pagliaro approached Mr. Zavala at that location, and demanded that (the boy) only hand out the notes on a public sidewalk, far from the exit, off school property. The family immediately complied.’

(A) Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff showed up at the seven-year-old’s home the same day, the family was ordered that his note sharing at school must end immediately because ‘someone might be offended.’ It was then that the boy’s family sought legal assistance from Liberty Counsel to protect his constitutional rights at school.”

For more information, refer to the OneNewsNow article.

Also Reported on the Blaze

In a 6 June article on the Blaze, it was additionally reported:

“The superintendent of a California school district told TheBlaze that he is ‘concerned’ and has commissioned a ‘speedy investigation’ after claims that an elementary school sent a cop to a 7-year-old’s home to try and ban him from handing out Bible verses.

‘I am very concerned about this incident,’ Raul Maldonado, superintendent of Palmdale School District in Palmdale, California, told TheBlaze in a statement. ‘I have directed that a speedy investigation be conducted, and I can assure you that all appropriate action will be taken once the facts are known.’

The purported incident unfolded at Desert Rose Elementary School, with the Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal firm, demanding that the school ‘correct an outrageous violation’ of the ‘first grader’s constitutional rights.’ “

Thank God that this superintendent at least verbally acknowledges that a young student’s constitutional rights have been violated. Hopefully, the boy’s right to share Bible verses at lunch will be restored soon.

Populist Trump’s Meandering on Conservative Issues

Trump has Spoken Consistently Conservative ( but Only when it Matches his Populist Views) since the Campaign Started

However, on non-Populist Issues, Not So Much

The following list of departures from common conservative principles suggest that Trump will likely stray on:

  1. Men in girls’ bathrooms — As the newest detail on the possible divide between  Trump and conservatives, the transgender issue offers a glimpse at any non-conservative tendencies Trump might harbor.
  2. Abortion — Although Trump started with a definite pro-choice view, changes preceding a 2011 interview with CBN seem to have put him on the pro-life side (to a degree).
  3. Second Amendment — When he wrote his book in 2000 (The America We Deserve), Trump completely supported Clinton’s ban on assault weapons. Since then, Trump has gained a respect for the Second Amendment (at least in speeches).
  4. Freedom of Religion
    • A 7 December 2015 American Conservative article suggests that Trump’s ban on non-American Muslims entering the country as a form of religious discrimination.  However, this suggestion flies in the face of the fact that the Alien Enemies Act (1798) allows the deportation of certain types of people in order to protect the American public.  Not only was the Alien Enemies Act written by the same individuals who wrote the Constitution, this still-active law has never been found to be in conflict the constitution.
    • An 18 January 2016 Religious News Service article pointed out Trump’s claim at Liberty University that he would protect Christians.
    • Conversely, Mr. Trump has exhibited a capability to at least verbalize the repression of religious freedom when the person using that freedom stands against him.  On 3 May 2016, Fox News conducted a phone interview with Trump during which the reporter played a clip of Rafael Cruz encouraging a group of Christians to vote for his son, Ted Cruz.  During that interview, Donald Trump said “I think it is a disgrace he is allowed to do it” (that is, Trump stood against Rafael Cruz being able speak his mind regarding Ted Cruz in a religious setting).  This statement was likewise documented by the Daily Wire, Bloomberg Politics, USA Today, Business Insider, the Hill, and other notable publications.
  5. Obamacare — Although Trump seems to know that the American people want to get rid of Obamacare, his reaction seems to be inserting even more governmental interference.
    • As far back as 2000, Trump pushed his support for a universal healthcare system. That support was noted and mentioned in a 18 April 2011 Business Insider article.
    • In a 17 July 2015 Newsmax article, Trump validated the need for getting rid of Obamacare, but still expressed support for “healthcare for everybody.” Specifically, he said “So I’m very liberal when it comes to healthcare. I believe in universal healthcare.”
      Obamacare only subsidizes the people who do not have insurance.  Still, it has caused the failure of certain insurance companies and numerous hospitals.  Since socializing such a small part of the US system has resulted in these failures, does socializing the whole system seem like the best idea?  Likewise, since Britain has experienced such cost overruns and long waits, does this seem the way to go?
    • A 3 February 2016 Newsmax article suggests that Trump’s and Sanders’ healthcare alternative plans are nearly identical.
    • A 29 February 2016 Breitbart article, Trump voiced support for the portion of Obamacare that forced religious organizations to deny their conscience or pay millions in fines:

      “During Thursday’s CNN Townhall event, when pressed by moderator Anderson Cooper on the ‘benefits’ of the ObamaCare mandate, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump said, ‘Well, I like the mandate.’ He then went on to blast ObamaCare as a ‘disaster’ and President Obama as a liar.

      Trump made clear that he is not for single payer healthcare and wants to allow private insurers to compete across state lines. Trump is, however, in favor of taking care ‘of those who cannot take care of themselves.’ We do not want ‘people dying on the streets,’ Trump said.”

  6. High Taxes — Considering that Republicans abandoned President George H. W. Bush in his bid for a 2nd term due to his abandoning his “no new taxes” pledge, Trump seems to be taking a decidedly anti-conservative/pro-Democrat path:
    • A 22 September 2015 Washington Post article points to the Club for Growth’s quote of Trump saying, “I know people making a tremendous amount of money and paying virtually no taxes, and I think it’s unfair.” To me, this seems a lot like the class warfare tactics used since President Johnson started leading the Democrats.
    • Of the #1 killer of family farms and family businesses, a 28 September 2015 Politico article quoted Trump as saying, “A lot of families go through hell over the death tax.” However, no solution was offered to this ongoing crisis of governmental confiscation of family businesses.
    •  While Trump was working to seem conservative to the Southern voters, he is quoted in an Anderson Independent Mail article dated 15 February 2016 as saying of his abandoned plan to lower taxes: “We will bring a lot of additional companies in because our tax rates are going way down.”
    • In a 10 March 2016 article by WJLA, Trump acknowledged one reason that he should seek lower taxes when he said “They don’t like seeing bad trade deals, they don’t like seeing higher taxes, they don’t like seeing a loss of their jobs.”
    • In a Reuters article dated 7 May 2016, Trump backed off his promise lower taxes on all people and announced a tax hike on the rich when he said, “I am willing to pay more, and you know what, the wealthy are willing to pay more.” This sounds a lot like Obama’s “Warren Buffet tax” that would have done more to rising stars than to those already beyond the stratosphere.
  7. Immigration — To the many of us who hold obeying the law in high regard, the immigration debate figures centrally in any consideration of Trump. 
    • Beginning some time around a 29 June 2015 article in the Hill, Trump has been recorded as saying “As has been stated continuously in the press, people are pouring across our borders unabated. Public reports routinely state great amounts of crime are being committed by illegal immigrants. This must be stopped and it must be stopped now.” This demonstrates that Mr. Trump certainly understands our angst regarding the issue.
    • Throughout his campaign, Trump has emphasized the need for legal immigration that works to the benefit of both American workers and American companies.  Likewise, he has hammered the need for the protection of Americans from terrorists and foreign criminals in America.
    • However, just as the LA Times has refused to release the tape of Obama and Rashid Khalidi, the New York Times has refused to release a tape that certain NY Times board members suggest will show Trump’s deportation-of-illegal-immigrants claim to be nothing but campaign rhetoric.

While Trump may show a tendency to stray from conservative orthodoxy, this is no sin.  Nonetheless, those of us who are concerned about the above topics will need to find a way of advancing them.  Therefore, in light of Hillary’s record regarding transgenderism, abortion, the Second Amendment, Freedom of Religion, healthcare, taxes, and immigration, we need to support someone who seems likely to support our positions.  Right now, that means getting behind Trump.  Later, it likely means lighting a fire under Trump when he strays from the topics we must support.

Why Get Behind Trump?

My reasons for supporting Trump currently seem somewhat disjointed, but boil down to the following:

  • Defend the weak — Just as Christ selflessly sacrificed himself for our sins, we are called to protect the weak (such as girls) from predators (such as men pretending to be transgender).

    Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. (Psalm 82:3-4 NIV)

  • Choose life — Although the Constitution puts the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press in the First Amendment (and all the rights following the First depend on these), the truly first right is the right to life.

    This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. (Deuteronomy 30:19-20a NIV)

  • Choose to not steal — By using the government to forcibly take money from one group to give to me does not align with my view of justice.

    Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit. (Exodus 23:2-3 NIV)

  • Defend the defenseless — When ISIS has pledged to use Obama’s lax immigration policy to bring terrorism to our shores, we must set the nation’s course to avoid another term of Obama’s reckless immigration policy.

    Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow. (Isaiah 1:17 NIV)

Gay Bullies, Part 4: Gay Group Celebrates Firing the Founder of HIV Dental Clinic

Dr. Eric Walsh

Dr. Eric Walsh Helps Set Up the First Dental Clinic for HIV/AIDS Patients in California

A 24 April 2014 Pasadena Star-News article documented the first year of operation of a dental clinic as follows:

“To most people, clean teeth may seem the least of an HIV-positive patient’s worries.

But poor oral hygiene can be just as detrimental as any other complication of the disease, if not more so, patients and health officials said.

‘Your teeth and especially the upper portion of your jaw is so close to the brain, and if you have teeth that are decaying and you have HIV, that can be an instant death,’ said Bradley Land, 49, of Pasadena, who was diagnosed with HIV just out of high school. ‘It is so important for people living with HIV and AIDS to be aware of their oral hygiene.’

Land is one of 448 patients that have flocked to the Michael D. Antonovich Dental Clinic at the Pasadena Department of Public Health, which the city touts as one of, if not the only, city-run dental clinic in the state. This week marked the clinic’s first anniversary, and organizers and patients alike said they’re grateful it’s there.

‘I think the staff is spectacular and incredibly kind, genuine and non-judgemental, and has created, at least from my personal experience, a safe environment for people living with HIV to receive oral health care,’ said Land, who is also an HIV care activist and a commission with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. ‘As a citizen I am just so proud of Pasadena. It’s just so humbling to know that the city of Pasadena has taken this bold step toward health care for everybody.’

Looking back, however, the clinic wasn’t always a guaranteed success. Public Health Director Dr. Eric Walsh said in the beginning the obstacles seemed almost too large to get it funded, built and open for businesses.

‘On the front end it seemed like parting the Red Sea. People told me it would never get off the ground,’ Walsh said. ‘Every time I see a patient getting services they need and telling me how grateful they are, it makes me glad we stuck it through on the project.’

… “

From this, we can assume that Dr. Walsh had a hand in setting up a dental clinic where the staff was “spectacular and incredibly kind, genuine and non-judgemental” and “a safe environment.”

Although Dr. Walsh may have separately preached against the homosexual lifestyle while with his congregants, Dr. Walsh had some part in setting up a system that showed compassion to patients suffering with HIV/AIDS.  However, that does not matter to social justice warriors like the AHF.

Dr. Walsh Served on the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS

In a 20 October 2010 entry to the Speaker’s Bureau of the California Black Healthcare Network, the page dedicated to Dr. Walsh says:

Dr. Walsh also served on the current and previous Presidents of the United States on the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. He has been on CDC committees and served on a committee for the former Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher.

Despite his having advocated for the HIV/AIDS community under two administrations, the gay community felt a need to come after Dr. Walsh repeatedly.

The Pasadena Star-News Reports on the Receiving of Gay Intolerance

A 24 October 2014 Pasadena Star-News article provides Dr. Walsh’s perspective on an incident where he was removed as a commencement speaker from Pasadena College due to sermons posted online:

“Former Pasadena Public Health Director Dr. Eric Walsh said he felt ‘persecuted’ for his religious views during the ‘fire storm’ that erupted before he resigned from his post, according to a recent sermon.

In the sermon, the audio of which is posted on YouTube, Walsh said he felt attacked for expressing his Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, calling the community reaction to his many public sermons a ‘witch hunt’ that ‘devastated’ him. The sermons surfaced after Walsh was invited to speak at the commencement for Pasadena City College.

‘When they went online to find things to damage my reputation or to cause the school to maybe not choose me, what they found wasn’t any scandal, there was no embezzlement there was nothing like that, it was just a lot of sermons,’ Walsh said. ‘They just took little snippets and of course by taking them out of context and framing a new context they really were able to frame me as a very terrible person. I was called in the papers a bigot, I was called a homophobe, I was called all kinds of names that weren’t true.’

Walsh also said the experience was difficult for his two children, adding that he was ‘forced’ to leave a job he ‘loved’ in Pasadena. But, quoting ‘Jeremiah,’ Walsh said ultimately the experience brought him closer to his faith. Walsh delivered the speech Aug. 9 at the international convention for Adventist-Laymen’s Services and Industries in Grand Rapids, Mich.

‘Persecution has a downside. It hurts. It’s ugly, it’s painful and it can be lonely and frightening,’ Walsh said. ‘But if you allow God to place you in the fire, by default you will be refined. … It’s not easy, but the truth is it is a privilege for God to try us.’

Walsh resigned as head of the Pasadena Department of Public Health after public scrutiny arose around a series of sermons posted online he had given as a preacher with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In the sermons, Walsh condemns gays, Muslims, popular culture and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

Oddly, for all of the calls for tolerance in the mainstream press, this was one of a very few that addressed the perspective of a Christian.

Dr. Walsh Fired from the Georgia Department of Health

The National Review also reported from the Christian view via a 20 April 2016 article on the firing:

On March 28, Georgia governor Nathan Deal capitulated to threats from the social-justice warriors at Apple, Disney, and the NFL and vetoed HB 757, the ‘Free Exercise Protection Act.’ In his self-righteous statement justifying his veto, Deal claimed that Georgia didn’t need new religious-liberty legislation. Rather, he claimed that these laws enable discrimination, and his veto was thus about the ‘character of our State and the character of its people.’

Perhaps he should look to the character of his own government. This morning, the First Liberty Institute filed a lawsuit in federal court that makes chilling claims against Georgia’s Department of Public Health, claims backed by a host of damaging documents. The Institute represents Dr. Eric Walsh, a California physician and former director of public health for the city of Pasadena, Calif. Walsh is also a devout Christian, a Seventh-day Adventist who sometimes preaches in his spare time.

Walsh, a former member of the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, had accepted a job in Georgia as a district health director when Georgia officials became aware that he’d delivered a number of ‘controversial’ sermons on his own time — sermons where he articulated orthodox Seventh-day Adventist positions on, among other things, human sexuality, Islam, evolution, and the corrupting influence of pop culture.

In California, Walsh had been attacked by student activists who objected to his selection as a commencement speaker at Pasadena City College. To these activists, working for former president Bush and President Obama to combat AIDS, serving as a board member of the Latino Health Collaborative, and starting California’s first city-run dental clinic for low-income families dealing with HIV/AIDS wasn’t sufficient to overcome the horror at Walsh’s Christian views. Under fire, Walsh canceled his commencement speech — while the city, incredibly, put him on administrative leave. The college replaced him with a gay screenwriter.

When Georgia officials learned of Walsh’s California controversy, they responded by immediately violating the law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits government employers from considering an applicant’s religion in employment decisions, but Georgia officials not only evaluated Walsh’s religious views, the director of human resources wrote an e-mail to department employees giving them the ‘assignment’ of listening to his sermons.

And so they did. E-mails indicate that health-department employees split the sermons up, listened to Walsh’s religious views, and took notes. Walsh asserts that one department official called and told him that ‘you can’t preach that and work in the field of public health.’ The very next day, Walsh claims that department officials held a ‘hastily arranged’ meeting to discuss Walsh’s employment.”

Odd how the L.A. Times (who has repeatedly reported on Dr. Walsh as being gay-bashing) never addressed the Title VI aspect of the Civil Rights Act (or of the First Amendment).

AHF Celebrates the Firing of Dr. Walsh from the Georgia Department of Public Health

The Business Wire posted a 16 April 2016 article that started with:

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) today lauded the Georgia Public Health Department for its decision to rescind a high-level job offer to Dr. Eric Walsh, the disgraced former Director of the City of Pasadena’s Department of Health, who resigned that position earlier this week after revelations of his ongoing and very publicly stated anti-gay, anti-Muslim and other prejudices came to light. Walsh had been conditionally offered a position in Georgia as District Health Director of the North Georgia Health District. Over the past two weeks since revelations of Dr. Walsh’s statements and prejudices came to light, advocates from AIDS Healthcare Foundation and other groups mobilized in Pasadena and Georgia to decry his homophobic remarks and actions and to urge both municipalities to sever ties with Walsh.

In an article published online today in GAVoice, the self-described ‘media outlet of record for the LGBT community in Atlanta and throughout the state,’ reporter Dyana Bagley writes, “…the Georgia Department of Public Health (DPH) has retracted the conditional offer of employment to Dr. Eric Walsh for the position of District Health Director of the North Georgia Health District. Today’s action by the Department follows a thorough examination of Dr. Walsh’s credentials and background as well as consultation with the six local Boards of Health which comprise the district.”

Sounds like they support tolerance only for gays.

Gay Bullies, Part 3: Bullying Mixed-Race Parents of 4-year-old as not Inclusive

This Denver Post photo shows a preschooler holding a book at the Montview Community Preschool and Kindergarten.

Gay-Advocating School Administrators Punish the Innocent and Trample Rights

A 3 April 2016 One News Now article told about a whole new low in liberal judgmentalism (consider the plight of the child who could not understand why she was being removed from her friends and the parental rights violated):

“Wanting the opportunity to opt her daughter out of the classroom discussions focusing on sexuality, same-sex relations and gender issues at Montview Community Preschool and Kindergarten (MCPK) in Denver, Colorado, R.B. Sinclair made it clear that she believes her four-year-old is too young to participate in sex education at school.

Instilling fear?

The concerned mother shared that her fear about the sexual indoctrination program arose when her daughter returned home from school and expressed that she was worried that her father might not like girls any more.

‘She met with the principal over concerns about the books being read in class, including ones that told the stories about same-sex couples and worms unsure about their gender,’ CBN News reports. ‘School officials from the privately run parent cooperative explained the stories were part of the school’s anti-bias curriculum, and because the discussions are sprinkled through the day’s activities, they told her that opting out was not possible.’

Tolerance or intolerance?

Sinclair found it ironic that as a result of the so-called tolerance training to which students must be subjected throughout the school day, her child was discriminated against because she came from a home with divergent views on the issue of sexuality.

Being singled out, the preschooler was kicked out of the school two days after Sinclair met with MCPK’s principal.

‘[The situation is] not a good fit,’ read the school’s letter that was handed to the four-year-old’s mother.

The letter from the school notified Sinclair that it was her daughter’s last day at MCPK, indicating that the school could not accommodate her request as a concerned parent to protect her child.

In an attempt to address the concern brought to the school’s attention, MCPK officials released another letter shortly after the girl’s expulsion — to inform those on campus about the sex and gender curriculum in question.

MCPK Director Linda Mars drafted the letter to try and acknowledge the concerns that were expressed over the choice of books being read by students and teachers in the classroom. In an attempt to avoid further problems, Mars insisted that the preschoolers and kindergartners must learn about diversity and tolerance during classroom instructional time, arguing that they must become familiar with all the different languages, skin colors, cultures and family structures in American society.

Despite the school’s assertion that its brand of diversity must be taught in the classroom in order for students to truly understand the dynamics of society, Sinclair maintained that her daughter is immersed in a community that is very diverse — especially since she is being raised in a biracial family, where she is exposed to both Western and Muslim cultures on a daily basis.

The frustrated mother argues that tolerance needs to go both ways.


The irony of how the gay advocating school marms squash the parental rights, free speech rights (not allowing another viewpoint in the school), and equal protection rights of this girl. In the name of equality for transgenders, they demonstrate intolerance. In the name of forcing inclusiveness on a school — they exclude a 4-year-old girl.

The Perspective of the Denver Post

However, as reported by the Denver Post, the school administrators felt that the child’s need to experience the gay and transgender lifestyle trumped the parental rights of Mrs. Sinclair:

” ‘Biases start as kids get older and start to see differences as negative. At a young age, kids are exploring all different kinds of things,’ said Kim Bloemen, director of early childhood education for the Boulder Valley School District. “It’s about just providing them with all these experiences.’

In a letter sent home to Montview parents, the school defended the books and in a newsletter suggested ways for parents to discuss the topics at home.

School officials refused to comment for this story or answer questions about their curriculum or the goals they set.

Sinclair said her daughter, who is part of a biracial family and has grown up with Muslim and western culture, is too young to understand the difference between anatomy and identity — a goal Sinclair says Montview school officials pointed out in documents they gave her.”

One would think that, even with the Bachelor of Arts in Education possessed by many teachers, the stages of childhood development might be known.

In Seeming Response, American College of Pediatricians find Transgender Conditioning Abusive

In a 28 March 2016 CNS article, the findings of an American College of Pediatricians report included:

“(I)t’s of little surprise that, tragically, of those who put themselves through this imaginary ‘transition,’ 41 percent will subsequently attempt suicide.

Still, this ‘progressive’ socio-political scheme moves quickly from merely pitiable and delusional to ghastly and abusive when children are the targets – when selfish adults exploit sexually confused young people by feeding their ‘gender’ delusion and pumping them full of dangerous hormones, or otherwise surgically mutilating and sterilizing them for life via so-called ‘gender reassignment surgery.’

In order to address the growing momentum of this harmful, gender-bending, pseudo-scientific quackery, a number of America’s leading medical experts on the subject have finally weighed in. ‘The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality,’ they warn.

This child-health advocacy group has released a report that determines, among other things:

  1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: ‘XY’ and ‘XX’ are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder.

    ‘The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species,’ they observe. ‘This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sexual differentiation (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.’
  2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.

    Let’s take it a step further. The ‘gender’ phenomenon is, in the larger sense, an artificial and anti-theist-tainted social construct. It’s an overt act of fist-shaking rebellion against the laws of nature and nature’s God.

    And it’s dangerous.

    Johns Hopkins Hospital was the pioneer in ‘gender reassignment surgery.’ It now refuses to perform these discredited cosmetic procedures. Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the hospital’s former psychiatrist-in-chief and current distinguished service professor of psychiatry, is among those who participated in the ACPeds report. He has noted in the past that, as even the left-leaning APA reluctantly acknowledges, transgenderism is a ‘mental disorder’ and that the idea of a ‘sex change’ is ‘biologically impossible.’ ‘People who identify as ‘feeling like the opposite sex’ or ‘somewhere in between’ do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women,’ determines ACPeds.

  3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.

    ‘When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such,’ notes the report. ‘These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V). The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.’
  4. Puberty is not a disease, and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous.

    ‘Reversible or not, puberty-blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child,’ notes ACPeds.

  5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98 percent of gender confused boys and 88 percent of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

    And so what do we call a physician or a parent who takes a gender-confused boy, with a 98 percent chance of full recovery, and severely and irrevocably harms that child with dangerous hormones or sterilization surgery?

    We should be calling them what they are: criminals.

    To its credit, the ACPeds report goes on to identify this so-called ‘gender ideology’ for exactly what it is: ‘Child abuse.’

  6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.

    So much for the Hippocratic Oath: ‘Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient.’

    Gender ideology is anathema to good medicine and sound science.

  7. Rates of suicide are 20 times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT–affirming countries.
    ‘What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88 percent of girls and 98 percent of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?’ the report asks.
  8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.
    ‘Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to ‘gender clinics’ where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will ‘choose’ a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.’

There you have it. ‘Gender ideology’ is child abuse – empirically and irrefutably. Isn’t it high time, at least where minors are concerned and as a matter of public policy, that we begin treating it as such?

If such abuse were associated with anything other than the ‘LGBQT’ political special interests, we already would have.”

Scholars Discount A Competing Study by the American Academy of Pediatrics

A competing study published at the web site for the American Academy of Pediatrics claimed to find that transgender children who are supported in their choice only experience “normal” levels of depression. However, a search of the comments on the web site where the study is published and of other competing studies ( found through PubMed) suggest significant errors in methods and metrics.