Second Source Confirms Obama Intends to Force Federal Grant Recipients to Accept LGBT Applications

C-Fam ^ | September 9, 2015 | Austin Ruse

[Mrs. Don-o]

WASHINGTON DC, September 10 (C-Fam) A second source has come forward to confirm earlier Friday Fax reporting that the Obama administration intends to force Catholic and other Christian groups to accept LGBT applicants in hiring.

The source, who insists upon anonymity, described a meeting held for department and agency heads at the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House where they were informed of the change in policy.

An official from the Obama administration told the group that they would be required to add “sexual orientation and gender identity” to hiring guidelines for grant recipients, just the same as the Administration mandated for Federal contractors a year ago.

The source reported to the Friday Fax that any organization receiving the grant could not discriminate based on ‘sexual orientation and gender identity” in the hiring of an employee that worked on the program funded by the grant or in seeking subcontractors. Additionally, they could not discriminate based on ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ when implementing the respective program.”

When the Friday Fax first reported this change last May the administration, through the National Security Council, denied the change in policy. Various faith-based groups who are Federal grant recipients also received denials from their administration contacts.

Our source says the administration is lying when they deny such a change is in the works.

The first source who came to the Friday Fax in May said agencies were being asked to accept this new policy without an Executive Order and that the State Department legal office has advised the White House this would not be a legal matter but a matter of simply changing policy.

Federal contracting affects relatively few faith-based groups. It is under Federal grants that Catholic and Evangelical groups receive Federal money. There are many more, some say 50-1, grant recipients than Federal contractors. It is under Federal grants that faith-based groups assist poor people in the United States and around the world.

The Friday Fax reported in May that some Federal agencies are hesitant to make the change but because of pressure from the White House are reluctant to say so.

Such a change could be profoundly harmful to such groups that will now be dragged into the public fight over “sexual orientation and gender identity” where one government official has been jailed, and small business owners have been fined and harassed out of business for resisting the new sexual orthodoxy.

The second source who came to the Friday Fax last month says Friday Fax reporting and subsequent storm of criticism last May caused the administration to slow the process down but that the intention remains to force faith-based groups to accept applications and therefore employment of those who publicly oppose Christian teaching on human sexuality and marriage.

It is likely that some groups, perhaps many, will have to pull back from Federal funding and close certain programs that now help the poor in Africa and elsewhere.

[realcleanguy]

This makes sense when you think about it. Obama is doing God’s work, bringing us closer to the Tribulation, the revealing of the AntiChrist, the world being burned, etc. Obama doesn’t care about the Bible, he cares about lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life. And through this he is doing God’s work, and the return of Jesus Christ.

Yes I am a Christian, and yes I know Jesus is coming back. Soon. At the rate things are going with Obama it’s sooner than you think

[backwoods-engineer]

Well, Obama and his minions like Bunning have already established the baseline: kiss up to the homosexuals, bow down before Baal and Moloch, or they will put us in jail.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

It may be a good thing for Christians to step up and sacrifice to carry out ministry... Instead of taken by money the government extorts at the point of a sword.

[tumblindice]

Part of shedding Leviathan’s tentacles and going Galt requires shunning any activity that involves federal funding.
They take our money and will give a little of it back, but only if we do as they say.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article Mrs. Don-o. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"The source reported to the Friday Fax that any organization receiving the grant could not discriminate based on ‘sexual orientation and gender identity” in the hiring of an employee that worked on the program funded by the grant or in seeking subcontractors."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

The problem with the grants in the referenced article actually doesn’t concern LGBT issues imo. The real problem is that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to tax and spend for grants in the context referenced by the article, corrections welcome.

As mentioned in related threads, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

Note that it can be argued that funding for these grants were actually personal and organazational funds that the corrupt federal government stole from the people in the form of unconstitutional federal taxes.

So Obama’s policy to use the loss of “federal” funds to force the LGBT agenda down everybody’s throat is essentially another example of the corrupt, post-17th Amendment Senate not doing its job to protect the states as the Founding States had intented for it to do. More specifically, the Senate should have killed the unconstitutional House appropriations bills that raised the taxes to help provide such funding.

The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt Senators, unconstitutional federal taxes used for vote-winning grants, and lawless presidents along with it.

[Ray76]

“sexual orientation and gender identity” is a psychological condition subject to change

[cva66snipe]

Some people who were against the faith based initiative beginning the last administration tried to say this would happen down the road. It gave government a huge foot in the door. What uncle pays money too uncle either runs or regulates in these times. Today the hiring. Tomorrow the pulpits and Alters. LBJ’s War On Church continues.

[17th Miss Regt]

Soon enough, the religious tax exemption will be under attack from the gay radicals.

Withdrawing a church's tax exemption may be the death knell of a church. Or maybe not. But once the exemption is withdrawn pastors won't have to be coy about politics. They can come right out and advocate for candidates and issues without fear of the government pulling their tax exemption - it is already gone. So they can let loose in politics.

[boycott]

Did Black America misunderstand the young president when he said he would do more to advance his people (gay and Islamist)?

---

No. Not all but most have just been willing to sell their souls.

[publius911]

It is likely that some groups, perhaps many, will have to pull back from Federal funding and close certain programs that now help the poor in Africa and elsewhere.

I guess that the pro-sodomy and other pervert subcultures can take over that role.

They should be really good at it.

< /sarc >

[onedoug]

He doesn’t need to announce anything. He is a homosexual islamist, and anyone paying attention knows it.

[FreedomPoster]

I think the entire official string is now LGBTQWTFBBQLOL!

[arthurus]

There is no excuse on earth for Christian organizations accepting money from the government for anything, no matter how “charitable” the cause. For one thing there is no charity in bestowing stolen money on the poor or on anyone else.

[Pelham]

Well you and I see that. I’m just waiting for Barky to make it official.

[Yosemitest]

IF we OBEYED GOD, we would NOT have this problem, and the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF would NOT be “WHERE he is” !

[Yosemitest]

ALSO, NEVER FORGET THIS !

Americans will not stand with SODOMITES !

"Radical Islamists" dictate from the Oval Office's ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF and his IRANIAN SPY ?

Take these GREAT WORDS with you.
Put them on posters along with the faces that said them.


Let us remember WHERE we came from.

Footnote: U.S. Constitution
Article I, Section 8: Uniform Immigration
Leviticus 19:34
Article II, Section 1: President Natural-Born
Deuteronomy 17:15
Article III, Section3: Witnesses
Deuteronomy 17:6
Article III, Section 3: Attainer
Ezekiel 18:20
Separation of Powers
Jeremiah 17:9
Three Branches of Government
Isaiah 33:22
Tax-Exemption for Churches
Ezra 7:24
Republicanism
Exodus 18:21

And let us NOT FORGET THESE GREAT MEN and WHAT they SAID !

“For what business, in the name of common sense, has the magistrate with our religion?
The state does not have any concern in the matter.
In what manner does it affect society in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?
The consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.
In contrast with this spiritual tyranny, how beautiful appears our constitution in disclaiming all jurisdiction over the souls of men,
securing by a never-to-be- repealed section the voluntary, unchecked moral persuasion of every person by his own self-directed communication with the Father of spirits!”
– William Livingston, Constitution Signer


“Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience and private judgment.
They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, a
nd in that free situation they are now left.”
– John Jay, first Supreme Court Chief Justice



Original Intent of the First Amendment

Fisher Ames provided the wording for the First Amendment in the House of Representatives.
He did not say anything about “separation of church and state” in his debate, nor may it be inferred as his intent.
In fact, Fisher Ames said something that would be ruled unconstitutional because of the court’s modern application of that very phrase, “separation of church and state.”
He said,
“Not only should the Bible be in our schools, it should be the primary textbook of our schools.” xliv


Earlier, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, the founders discussed the individual rights of American citizens, which would later become the Bill of Rights.
How many times did they mention the phrase “separation of church and state?”
Zero.
They did not talk about it once.

The phrase “separation of church and state” was not even introduced into the American vernacular until a little over a decade after the First Amendment was adopted.
The phrase is exactly that - a phrase.
It is not a statute, it is not a law, and it is not an amendment to the Constitution.
It is simply a phrase lifted from a letter written by one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was writing to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802, in response to a letter wherein
they raised their concerns about religious liberty ever being infringed by the American government.
Jefferson responded that this would not occur because the Constitution builds “a wall of separation between Church and State.” xlv
So much has been erroneously inferred from that one statement.
(I encourage you to read David Barton’s article in the November 2003 issue of the Notre Dame Law Review for a more thorough treatment of Jefferson’s intent.)

Simply stated, Jefferson was using the phrase to describe the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which says, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The protection of our rights to live out our faith without government interference is what was being expressed both in the letter and in the First Amendment.


What About Separation of Church & State

The Supreme Court twisted the meaning of the First Amendment by isolating those eight words from this personal letter from Jefferson. xlvi
They did not even consider the letter in its full context. xlvii
Then, in 1962, the Court used the phrase to completely remove God from all governmental institutions. xlviii
It is amazing how the court can ignore history and rewrite it to fulfill their particular agenda and purpose.

We’ve Got the Wrong Guy

Perhaps even worse than misapplying Jefferson’s words is the fact that Jefferson’s words were used in the first place
as a means for discovering the intent of the First Amendment.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson and his words “separation of church and state” are irrelevant when it comes to interpreting the intended meaning of the First Amendment
because Jefferson did not give us the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.


When a biographer wrote to Thomas Jefferson, to congratulate him for his influence on the Constitution, his response was,
One passage of the paper you enclosed must be corrected.
It is the following.
‘I will say it was yourself more than any other individual that planned and established the Constitution.’
xlix


Jefferson pointed out to the biographer that
he “was in Europe when the Constitution was planned,
and never saw it
until after it had been established.”l


Nor was Thomas Jefferson one of the Congressmen that passed the Bill of Rights, which contains the First Amendment.

So, arguing what the framers’ intent was by using Thomas Jefferson as an expert witness on the First Amendment
is the same as
having a murder trial where the judge allows those who were not at the scene of the murder
to come forth and tell us what happened.
It is intellectually dishonest
and a piece of cleverly crafted creative history at best, to say that Thomas Jefferson’s words provide the intent for the First Amendment.
To understand the original intent of the First Amendment, you must scrutinize the thoughts of those who took part in the debate,
the ones who actually gave us the First Amendment.
That debate emphasized the need to avoid another Church of England being established in America.
In other words, they were trying to prevent a national denomination from being forced upon the citizens.
None of their comments reflected intent to separate religious principles from government or from the public square.
Just the opposite:
they wanted to foster free expression, not political oppression.

For those who still want to rely on Jefferson as their expert regarding the First Amendment, it should not go unnoticed that
exactly two days after writing his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended the weekly church service being held AT the U.S. Capitol.
These were religious services that he had helped to start and faithfully attended throughout the remainder of his presidency.li

It appears that Jefferson’s views were far removed from the interpretation of them by our modern courts today.
Would Jefferson,
a man who himself established and attended religious services on federal property while holding the office of the President,
really think that it was against the good of our nation or our citizens
for children to pray for their teachers, parents, and country at the beginning of each school day?
You decide.



Notes:
xliv. Compiled By Friends, Works of Fisher Ames 134 (Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809).

xlv. Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802), in Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings 510 (Merril D. Peterson et al. eds., 1984) (1781).

xlvi. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

xlvii. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings 510 (Merrill D. Peterson et al. eds., 1984)
(1802): Believing with you
that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,
that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship,
that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared
that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”
thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.


l. Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

lii. Letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly (Washington ed., 441). < http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/foley-page?id=JCE1686>.

l. Id.

li. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, 119,
letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802.
Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President.
Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.

[Mrs. Don-o]

L and G aren't ridiculous? They're natural, normal, healthy, moral, wholesome, on the level?

I don't have scorn for people who are dealing with their own objective disorders. God knows that the human race is a cracked species, rife with disorders. But it's not exactly graceful to have your sexuality offtrack like that. We must hope for a healing, an access of grace, a better resolution.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don’t think sin and error are ever God’s work. He tolerates them for a time because they are consequences of human liberty -— He permits ugliness, lies and evil -— but He does not will them.

[Heart-Rest]

As this "LifeSiteNews" article from a couple years ago (and many others from a Google search) have pointed out, various Catholic charity groups like "Catholic Charities", "Catholic Relief Services", "CCHD", etc., have partnered closely with many "pro-abortion" and "pro-homosexuality" groups, as well as various government aid programs, in their many quests to provide "social justice" and "aid" to various people around the world, thus helping to promote those activities.

That particular LifeSiteNews article points out that Pope Benedict XVI boldly tried to change that situation, and have those Catholic groups separate from the non-Catholic and governmental organizations, which insisted on providing support for those sinful activities.   Like you said, it can be a good thing to lose government grants and support for projects, if those grants and that support come loaded with sin.

While God can certainly bring good out of evil, for us humans, the ends do not justify the means.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Good post.