Tag Archives: U.S. foreign policy

Obama Elevates LGBT as U.S. Foreign Policy Priority

By Wendy Wright

(GENEVA – C-FAM)   All federal agencies dealing with U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance must now promote lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights. This new priority puts U.S. foreign policy on a collision course with religious freedom.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced President Obama’s sweeping directive to UN diplomats in Geneva last week. Along with the full-force of the U.S. government, a Global Equality Fund will equip foreign LGBT groups to agitate within countries.

Every federal agency engaged overseas, and “other agencies as the President may designate,” is directed to “combat the criminalization of LGBT status or conduct abroad,” assist LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, leverage aid to advance LGBT nondiscrimination, respond swiftly to abuses of LGBT persons abroad, enlist international organizations “in the fight,” and report on progress.

A State Department official said, “We are not just having people . . . whose full-time job it is to occupy ourselves with concerns of human rights, but also people whose daily grind is, most of the time, spent on different things.”

This elevates LGBT above every other people group, including those persecuted for religious beliefs, promoting democracy and human rights, ethnic minorities, and women.

Asked by the Friday Fax if any other minority has this status, the State Department did not respond.

By one account, only nine countries do not discriminate in some way against LGBT individuals, such as donating blood or “higher age of consent laws.”

Obama’s directive comes as Nigeria debates a bill to protect marriage. The Catholic Medical Association of Nigeria denounced “the coordinated ferocity” by foreign governments and international groups “browbeating” legislators to adopt laws that are premised on “dubious science and ethical mischief.”

Reacting to Obama’s order, Oliver Kisaka with the National Council of Churches of Kenya told the CS Monitor, “God did not make a mistake; being gay is that person’s own perspective. Those who live as gays need help to live right and we should not be supporting them to live in a wrong reality.

“Society should reach out to gays and transgender people to help them out of their situation. They have not ceased to be God’s children and no one is a gone case.”

Clinton equated religious and cultural views on sexuality and gender identity with “violent practices toward women like honor killings, widow burning or female genital mutilation.”

Tina Ramirez of the Washington DC–based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty told the Friday Fax, “The Administration is sticking its head in the sand when it comes to the conflict between gay rights and religious freedom. The failure of either the President or the Secretary of State to articulate how the international LGBT rights initiative will interact with religious conscientious objection is a recipe for conflict between the two. No one disagrees with Secretary Clinton’s truism that religious freedom doesn’t protect religiously-motivated violence against anyone. But the real issue, that neither the President nor Secretary Clinton talked about, is what happens when the LGBT initiative conflicts with sincere conscientious objection. Religious liberty is a fundamental human right protected in the United States Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and countless other human rights instruments; the Administration seems to be treating it as an afterthought.”

Wendy Wright is Managing Editor of FridayFax, internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.”

Republicans Are Inconsistent with Obama, But Democrats Are Hypocritical

By Daniel Pipes

While it is certainly true that Democrats cut Obama slack on policies where they would slam Bush or McCain, as a fair-minded Republican I note that the reverse holds true as well: Republicans slam Obama and go easy on Bush. I will establish both points in my areas of expertise, the Middle East and Islam.

Obama & Bush – sometimes it matters less what the policy is than who implements it.
Start with Democratic inconsistency: Although Democrats raged against American forces fighting in Iraq and muttered about their role in Afghanistan, there were more American troops in the combined Iraq-Afghanistan theater under Obama in late 2009 than had ever been the case under Bush – and Democrats were silent about this. Democrats derided Bush for damaging America’s reputation among Muslims and Obama placed huge emphasis on establishing a new tone vis-à-vis Muslims. But his efforts had precious little impact, with polls showing Muslims seeing him about the same as Bush; and Democrats are silent. Finally, Democrats bemoaned the clandestine CIA drone program operating in countries where U.S. troops are not based, such as Pakistan. But the Obama administration authorized more targeted killings in its first year than did the Bush administration in its final year. Specifically, there were thirty-six operations in 2008 and fifty in 2009.

Republicans, however, also are inconsistent: they mock Obama’s insistence on trying diplomacy vis-à-vis Iran, but Bush did the same, authorizing 28 meetings with representatives of Tehran at the ambassadorial level or higher. Republicans excoriate Obama for setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan but said not a peep when Bush did the same for the much larger undertaking in Iraq in the status of forces agreement to withdraw all U.S. troops by the last day of 2011. Conversely, Republicans give Obama little credit for keeping the Iraqi mission basically in place, only speeding up the timetable.

On a positive note, Republicans did stand with Obama on increasing troops to Afghanistan and they did applaud his taking out Osama bin Laden. In contrast, it is hard to imagine any comparable support by Democrats for a President McCain. Although Republicans have problems with consistency, Democrats are blatantly hypocritical.

Originally published by the Daniel Pipes Blog on July 11, 2011.

2011 UN Agenda: Same As It Ever Was

By Terrence McKeegan, J.D.

UN-watchers expect the new year’s agenda to include youth, demography, reproductive health, the homosexual agenda, and the global economic crisis.

Last summer the UN announced the International Year for Youth that runs for a year. UN leaders expected commitments for a global conference on youth slated for sometime next summer, but the General Assembly failed to approve a final plan. Even so, wary conservatives expect some aggressive action on youth in the new year.

In particular, social conservatives expect a massive push to sexualize young children, something made explicit at the World Youth Conference in Mexico last August, as well as in a UN report calling for radical sexual education for young children last Fall.

Global demographic meltdown also concerns UN Member States. Governments around the world bemoan below replacement fertility rates and crashing social welfare systems. The UN says 70 countries have fertility rates that are below replacement level. According to many economists, states with below replacement level fertility will not be able to sustain their social benefit systems, with too few new workers to pay for the benefits of rapidly ageing populations.

The demographic crisis challenges the decades-old emphasis by UN agencies and Western countries in pushing population control in the guise of reproductive health and sustainable development on the developing world. The UN Commission on Population and Development this year deals with the directly related issues of fertility and development.

One of the most contentious issues since the 1990’s, UN agencies, UN commissions and left-wing advocacy groups use the term reproductive health to push for a right to abortion. Advocates expect a pitched battle this year over the reproductive health agenda and a serious push back from pro-life quarters.

Just this month, the journal Contraception published a study from Spain that found that although contraceptive use increased 60%, the abortion rate doubled. This directly contradicts the widely-accepted dogma that increased use of contraception reduces the number of abortions.

Member States also face serious concerns over the deepening financial crisis. Western governments face massive deficits and are moving in the direction of austerity budgets. Newly elected Republicans in the US intend to follow Canada’s lead to defund Planned Parenthood, as well as other programs that push abortion and controversial issues.

With most of the major international donors experiencing severe fiscal problems, development aid and obtaining additional funding commitments will be a major emerging issue in 2011.

The homosexual agenda will be pervasive in many international negotiations in 2011, partly due to the Obama administration making it a primary focus of its foreign policy. Expect to see several attempts to incorporate the undefined terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” into as many UN documents as possible.

Finally, UN Secretary General, Ban ki-Moon is up for reelection this year. Social conservatives complained about his outspoken support in December for the homosexual agenda and the appointments of many pro-abortion advocates to high level UN positions under his watch.

Originally published in Friday Fax, January 6, 2011. Friday fax is a publication of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM).

Is Obama Pro-Israel?

The November 12th edition of The Progress Report, the politically progressive author argues that the Obama administration is supportive of Israel. The following is an excerpt of the post titled “Obama’s Pro-Israel Record”.

The ongoing disagreement over the settlements has tended to obscure the Obama administration’s record of support for Israel, and has been used by critics to dishonestly label the President as “anti-Israel.” But by any reasonable measure, Obama has been an extremely pro-Israel president. He has significantly expanded trade between Israel and the U.S., and played an extremely important behind-the-scenes role in bringing about Israel’s acceptance into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a long sought-after Israeli goal. In September, Obama went before the United Nations General Assembly and challenged the international community to support Arab-Israeli peace, and declared that “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate.” He also assured the world that “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakable opposition of the United States.” In comments made to The Progress Report in August, Josh Block of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee remarked, “Clearly the Obama administration remains deeply committed to the U.S.-Israel alliance.”

It’s been rumored that Secretaty of State Clinton was pro-Israel prior to Obama’s becoming president. That would help explain pro-Israel of the staunchly pro-Muslim presidency, which is the resounding sentiment of many Israelis and others. Being representative of American interests such as Middle East peace and trade, Obama also would of necessity seek to get Israeli officials what they want in exchange for serious negotiations with the Palestinians.