Peter Baklinski

Gay porn actor left it all for Jesus after ‘possession,’ terrifying near-death experience

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski
Image
Image

Note: An extensive interview with Joseph Sciambra is included below the story.

NAPA, California, October 2, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Joseph Sciambra, 44, will be the first to tell you of his large-hearted and abiding love for gays. He will also be the first to tell you that despite its feel-good name, genuine happiness cannot be found in the “gay” lifestyle.

The former gay porn actor has described his own journey into the darkest core of the gay underworld in the Castro District of San Francisco in the early 90’s as like being “Swallowed by Satan” – the title of his new book, in which he recounts his experiences. 

Joseph, who left the gay scene thirteen years ago after a dramatic reconversion to the Catholic faith, says his quest for love and acceptance through sex began with pornography. At the age of eight, he one day naively flipped through a porn magazine left out by an older brother. This was followed by more graphic porn magazines. Then came masturbation and the urge to act out with others what he saw in the magazines. 

Joseph says that what he craved to experience was a deep and satisfying sexual nirvana. He grasped for this by expanding his sexual escapades. New sexual experiences with new partners was the only stimuli that seemed to offer him the excitement, what he called the “happy-place,” that he was so desperately seeking. Brothels and prostitutes became part of his sexual routine. 

Becoming bored with female porn, Joseph moved onto gay porn. Then he realized that he must be with gay men if he was to gratify his ever-increasing sexual desires. 

Older gay men initiated 19-year-old Joseph through gay sex into the Castro gay scene. He began visiting bathhouses and adult video arcades for anonymous gay sex. In his quest for love and companionship Joseph immersed himself deeper into the gay scene. What he sought after so desperately constantly eluded him. 

So-called “glory-hole booths” (a place for anonymous oral sex) offered the next form of excitement. It was at one such place that Joseph says he delivered himself sexually over to Satan, who presented himself in the form of a gaping mouth with a foot-long forked tongue. From that point forward Joseph began hearing voices inside his head. 

Seeking new stimulant, Joseph became an amateur porn actor and escort. 

Joseph finally found himself traveling down into the darkened dungeons of sadomasochism. Here he inflicted and received sexualized pain and torture. This included horrendous practices too graphic to describe here. Most of this was filmed for the gay porn industry. Sexual nirvana for Joseph could now only be obtained along with violence, subjugation, and aggression.

Now in his late twenties, Joseph says that all he experienced inside himself was hate: hate for other men, hate for his life, and hate for the world. By now he had experienced sex with as many as 1000 men. He embraced everything that was sexually gruesome and hideous. 

One diabolical orgy was so violent that it put Joseph into the hospital. There he had an experience of death and of his soul descending into an open and salivating mouth, which he says he knew was hell. 

But Joseph’s Catholic mother was at his bedside, praying earnestly. Fear seized Joseph’s heart. He did not want to enter the eternal mouth that had opened up to receive him because of his life of choosing sin. He says he begged for God’s help and deliverance. At that moment he felt himself being brought back into his body. 

Joseph went on to rediscover his Catholic faith that he had forsaken in his childhood. He experienced forgiveness from God for his years of sexual sin in the sacrament of confession. Demons were cast from him in an exorcism performed by a Catholic priest. He says he found strength to continue his faith journey by frequently receiving the Eucharist at Mass, and found help and consolation from Mary, the mother of God.

Joseph admits that he still struggles with attraction to other men and with temptations to masturbate, but he says he has come to know that the love, acceptance, and peace he so ardently sought in sex with other men, Jesus now gives to him in abundance through a spiritual life. 

For Joseph, same-sex attraction is a cross that God has asked certain people to bear for the redemption of the world. Now running a Catholic religious shop in Napa, California, Joseph says that there is genuine joy in carrying the cross. By uniting his sufferings with those of the suffering Jesus, Joseph believes he is helping to save his gay friends from a devilish fate he barely escaped. 

According to Joseph, many gay men have come to him, telling him of their unhappiness and their own similar experiences in the gay lifestyle. Joseph says he will speak first of his love for them. Then he will speak of how his encounter with and acceptance of God’s love saved him from being “swallowed by Satan.” He will tell them that gay sexual ecstasy is momentary and delusional, but God’s love is enduring, satisfying, and as real as it gets. 

 

LifeSiteNews.com interview with Joseph Sciambra

Joseph shared with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) his experience in the gay lifestyle as it relates to today’s hot-button topics on homosexuality.

LSN: In your book “Swallowed by Satan,” Playboy was your gateway to hell; pornography led you to homosexuality. What are your thoughts on the logic behind this progression?

Joseph Sciambra: Children, especially boys, are naturally curious about the opposite sex and sex in general. Before I even saw a pornographic magazine, I had already been introduced to the idea of female sexuality through such popular shows of the time, including “Charlie’s Angels” and “Three’s Company.” When I had the opportunity to see naked women in a Playboy or Penthouse, of course, I took it. After all, many of my friends’ fathers collected Playboys, as did my older brother; so it was seen as a sort of male passage rite; looking at porn somehow made you a man.

After that first introduction to porn, you are hooked. Then begins a desire for more pornography and variant forms of porn; i.e. different female models, more explicit material, then the inability to become excited by soft-core forms of porn. It’s a cycle of addiction that often mirrors drug and alcohol abuse. When this exposure to porn happens in childhood, the entire structure of desire within the mind becomes reliant on a constant flow of visual stimulus. Later on, in adulthood, the idea of being with just one woman often leaves the porn addict feeling underwhelmed. 

LSN: Your experience with homosexuality is absolutely terrifying, especially when you relate the kind of sexual acts that were forced upon you and that you forced upon others. What you related of your experience seems quite alien from anything having to do with the political push for gay “marriage”. From your experience on the gay scene for ten years in the 90’s, what do you think is really behind the push for gay “marriage”?

Sciambra: At its core, I believe the push for gay marriage is a political ruse foisted upon the gay community by the Democrats and some within the elite liberal gay-lobby movement. Back in the early 1990s, when I was an out and proud gay man, I saw this same thing happen with DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy] in the military. It became a political rallying-cry in which the gay community could lock-step behind; even though this policy affected relatively very few gay men or women. 

Now, the concept of gay marriage has been successfully fused with that of homosexual equality. This creates a dynamic in which all gays feel obliged to support gay marriage — even if they have no interest in marriage for themselves — because it has to do with homosexual liberation. And, the point of homosexual liberation is to inevitably create some kind of relief within the gay mind, because every gay person, once they have embraced their homosexuality, comes to that end [of having no peace] after much suffering, persecution, and struggle. Going into the lifestyle is an attempt at peace and wholeness. But, it’s a deception. And the peace they long for never happens.   

LSN: Based on what you relate in your book about homosexual relationships, it seems that mainstream media has presented America with a sanitized version of the gay lifestyle, as can be seen in a movie like "Brokeback Mountain" which glorifies a homosexual relationship between two cowboys. What would you say to awaken people to the reality of what homosexuality is really about? How would you pull the wool away from people’s eyes?

Sciambra: Because the mainstream media is collaborating with those in the gay elite, there has been a very skewed and untrue picture of the homosexual lifestyle painted for the American people. At one time, I bought into that as well, although the imagery was very different when I was a child. At that time, The Village People and The Castro in San Francisco were portrayed as one big party. 

By the time I entered the lifestyle, the mood had changed with the advent of AIDS. I had to watch as beautiful young men from all across the United States, who arrived in San Francisco seeking a safe harbor of acceptance, succumbed to disease. It was heartbreaking. But in the 90’s, things started to return to business as usual: gay pornography became a hot commodity and a new generation of boys were lured to their deaths by promises of pleasure with no risk. 

With my book, my intention was not to simply disgust people or gross them out, but to reveal a very significant side of the gay lifestyle that is rarely investigated. The last serious exploration was probably the much maligned film “Cruising” directed by William Friedkin. But that movie got it right. Because, although, gay men may one day settle down and attempt monogamy, the vast majority, beforehand, had to travel through a wasteland of perversity and promiscuity. Because, every young boy, who just enters the lifestyle, is quickly set upon by a troop of eager older men ready to exploit new recruits. It sets you up for a life of bitterness and disappointment. Some survive and move on, many do not. But, they all reemerge damaged and untrusting. 

You are very keen and astute to realize that the gay lifestyle has been “sanitized” by the media, and that was precisely what I wanted to fight against [by writing my book]; to show just how ugly, and yes dirty, the gay lifestyle is; but also how ultimately sad and tragic it seems to end for almost everyone involved. I especially wanted to reach modern parents who are so willing to offer their sons up to this horror – to explain what awaits their children, and to also give some dignity to those who fell into the life because of no fault of their own. 

LSN: Good Christians speaking out against homosexuality are accused of bigotry and homophobia. Such Christians will respond that they are not speaking against persons who identify themselves as gay per se, but against their actions which are harmful to everyone involved. Many Christians are simply motivated by love of neighbour to speak this way. (But of course, unfortunately, some are not.) As someone who has descended to the very depths of the homosexual lifestyle, what message do you think Christians should give to homosexuals that would help them the most? How should Christians deliver the message so that it’s effective and so that they avoid coming across as bigots?

Sciambra: I have seen many unhappy and searching gay men and women turned off to Christianity because of an over-zealous Christian who showed them condemnation, but no love. As I discovered, when a gay person is contemplating leaving the lifestyle, they often just want a disinterested friend; i.e. someone that doesn’t want or demand something from them. This may be a matter of just listening, not really offering a lot of catechesis or dogma, but simply letting them know that you care. Once a relationship is established, you have to decide when and how the Truth of Jesus Christ’s plan for each one of us is to be delivered. Again, one must always remember that these are deeply wounded and suffering people: they need your sympathy, compassion, and prayers. 

LSN: You encountered the darkness of spiritual evil during your sexual downward spiral. Is there any connection between the homosexual movement and the spiritual forces of evil?

Sciambra: I believe there is a connection between the homosexual movement and the forces of evil because the gay lifestyle is essentially a lie and a tool of deception. Those that advocate for it – promise much, but rarely deliver. 

Now, one of the main recruiting devices is porn. It gives a completely false view of gay relationships and gay sex. In porn, everyone is beautiful, happy and healthy. Its themes, often emphasizing supreme masculinity and sexualized father-son relationships aims at the very woundedness that sits at the center of every gay man’s malformed sense of masculinity. Porn preys upon their desires for healing. What you get, is a quick fix. That, later on, leaves you more damaged than before.

I know heaven wept when I had to see so many young men buried because of disease and suicide. It was a waste. And, that was evil.

LSN: There is a movement to crush those who offer therapy to persons struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction. What are your thoughts as to why there is such opposition to this kind of therapy?

Sciambra: There is opposition to gay-reparative therapy because [born-this-way gay advocates] know deep-down that it works. Very good reparative therapy excavates the root causes which brought forth homosexual desires in the person. For the most part, these incidents are embedded in early-childhood traumas. When a therapist is able to dig down and reveal these traumas, they no longer have the same power over the person that they once did. At that point, relationships can be mended and new healthy friendships can be fostered. 

LSN: Porn led you down a slippery slope. What advice do you have to offer to someone struggling with pornography addiction?

Sciambra: The advice I would give to someone struggling with pornography is that healing is possible, but that it takes time, perseverance, and being stout of heart. Most importantly, this is only possible by the Grace of God and our full cooperation in His Love for us.

The person must spend much time in prayer, taking part in the Sacraments (daily Mass and weekly Confession) in order to understand why they have this need to view pornography. What empty space is it filling? A great part of this endeavor is having a very good confessor and or spiritual director. And, in this I discourage men from roaming about from confessor to confessor because they are embarrassed that they have become a habitual sinner. When you find a qualified spiritual director, stay with him. You have to start from this place of honesty: with yourself, others, and with God. 

LSN: Anyone would recoil at the thought of seeing someone go through what you experienced of homosexuality as described in your book. What advice do you have to someone struggling with — and tempted to act out on — same-sex attraction?

Sciambra: To those struggling with same-sex attraction, I would encourage developing their prayer life; their relationship with God. They need to spend much time in prayer, going to daily Mass, and making a weekly Confession. 

They also need to have a very good confessor and/or spiritual director. 

Instead of acting out on those desires, whether that involves sexual activity with another person or by viewing pornography, they need to excavate their feelings and memories, in order to discover why they have these homosexual desires. This is a very difficult and painful process, but it must be accomplished. Here, they must completely strip themselves of their false pride and stand completely unashamed before the Lord. Because, without exception, every gay man and woman that I ever knew, reluctantly at times, could trace their homosexuality back to some childhood experience. 

LSN: People who see their loved ones being pulled into the gay lifestyle are often unprepared to say or do anything about it. They become silent. What advice do you have to someone who is concerned about someone they love who is toying with the gay lifestyle?

Sciambra: When someone is concerned about a person that they know, who may be experimenting with homosexuality, they must first remember that God is Love. He is not shock, horror, or anger. Therefore, the way to approach such a person is not with worry or questions, but with reassurances of Love.

Every person who delves into the gay lifestyle is a person who has been hurt. As a result, they can often be guarded, mistrusting, and overly-sensitive. 

This must be considered at all times. 

With that in mind, the best outreach is gentle, patient, and understanding. This does not mean to capitulate, on the contrary, you must have an inner strength grounded in the Truth of Christ, but you must also be guided and open to the workings of the Holy Spirit. You must guard against becoming emotional, because the Truth can only be relayed and accepted when it is offered in kindness and understanding. 

Joseph’s website is available here

Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Lisa Bourne

,

61% of Americans don’t want Supreme Court to force gay ‘marriage’ on the states: poll

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

February 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A vast majority of Americans want the government to stay out of their personal affairs when it comes to defining marriage and how they conduct their work lives or businesses, a new survey says. And a great majority also oppose the idea of the Supreme Court forcing the entire country to accept marriage redefinition.

Eighty-one percent of Americans agree with the statement, “Government should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses,” according to a survey commissioned by the Family Research Council (FRC) and the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB).

The poll breakdown also showed that 80 percent of even those who never attend church believe the government should leave people alone in observing their faith when it comes to marriage. While the figures were very high across the board in support of allowing Americans freedom to practice their faith pertaining to marriage, it was highest among Hispanics at 89 percent.

Along with profound opposition to governmental tampering with religious freedom, more than six in 10 Americans also agreed with the statement, “States and citizens should remain free to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman and the Supreme Court shouldn’t force all 50 states to redefine marriage.”

That statistic is especially significant given the Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of homosexual “marriage” this summer.

The survey was conducted by WPA Opinion Research, which polled 800 registered voters from February 2-4.

A majority of Americans, 53 percent, agree that marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman, the survey also found.

The results fly in the face of the presumption for Americans to concede that the whole country accepts homosexual “marriage,” undoubtedly telling a different story than what the media would have everyone believe, said FRC President Tony Perkins.

"It's clear, based on (this) polling, that Americans have not reached a broad social consensus that marriage should be redefined," Perkins told Baptist Press.

A Fox News poll also found last fall that a more Americans oppose legalization of homosexual “marriage” than support, at 47 percent and 44 percent respectively.

A recent Associated Press poll said most Americans favor not forcing the owners of wedding-related business to go against their religious convictions by compelling them to provide services for homosexual “weddings.”

Perkins also disapproved of any effort by the Supreme Court to impose marriage redefinition nationally.

The court "will be at a point of overreach if they impose a one-size-fits-all definition of marriage on the nation by redefining it," he said.

“What this survey tells us is that the American people won't accept the redefinition of marriage by judicial fiat,” he continued in a statement on the findings.

NRB Jerry President described the survey results as "incredible," and also said it is a "slam dunk" for more than 80 percent of Americans to agree that citizens should be free of governmental interference in the practice of their faith, including in their businesses.

"Government has no right establishing speech codes or business codes on marriage and 81 percent of Americans agree entirely," said Johnson.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

The Center for Arizona Policy also welcomed the survey results, further expressing importance of listening to the will of the people.

“It’s clear that marriage matters to voters,” the group’s President Cathi Herrod said in a statement. “Furthermore, the freedom of belief and the freedom to vote for a cause are of the utmost importance.”

“The Supreme Court should not silence the will of the voters,” she said. “What’s more, the government should not penalize people for believing that marriage is between a man and a woman.” 

Herrod decried religious discrimination with the recent examples where Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired from his job and Washington state florist Barronelle Stutzman is being sued by the state’s attorney general and the ACLU.

“What should be simple matters of disagreement has turned into government coercion,” said Herrod. “Instead of respecting differences of opinion, the government is now being used to stifle differing beliefs.”

Perkins was confident that Americans will not stand by for the redefinition of marriage to be imposed by the nation’s high court.

“If it dares to redefine an institution as old as civilization itself,” he said. “Like life, the marriage debate will only intensify as the American people realize that they'll be required to surrender their fundamental right to live and work according to their beliefs.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Cardinal Raymond Burke was one of the principal authors and supporters of the book defending the Church's teachings on marriage that was allegedly blocked by Cardinal Baldisseri.
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

Synod’s chief organizer seized books by top cardinals defending Church’s marriage teachings: report

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

ROME, February 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Allegations have surfaced this week that the lead organizer of the Vatican’s controversial Synod on the Family in October personally intervened to block the distribution of a book distributed by high-ranking cardinals, including Cardinal Raymond Burke, that defended the Church’s teachings on marriage.

Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, general secretary for the Synod of Bishops, who became the focus of much criticism from bishops at the Synod for allegedly “manipulating” the process, is reported to have ordered that the books be seized, despite them having been posted through the official Vatican City State postal service.

The highly respected Vaticanist Edward Pentin, writing for NewsMax on Wednesday, said “reliable and high level sources” had confirmed that the book, “Remaining in the Truth of Christ,” was “intercepted” on the orders of Cardinal Baldisseri on the grounds that it would “interfere with the synod.” Baldisseri was also said to have been “furious” at the attempt to distribute them.

Cardinal Baldisseri reportedly claimed the books were confiscated because they had been distributed “improperly.” Those entrusted with ensuring the books made it into the hands of the Synod bishops, however, insisted that the books had gone through the regular Vatican postal service, and were therefore legally protected material, Pentin reports.       

The book includes a set of essays defending and explaining the Catholic teaching on the indissoluble nature of marriage and was intended by its authors as a means of clarifying the discussion.

The book was organized and authored by a group of the Church’s highest-ranking prelates – including Cardinal Raymond Burke, then-head of the Vatican’s highest court, and Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – who were gravely alarmed not only at the “proposal” by Cardinal Walter Kasper but at its positive reception among bishops and Catholic laity.

Cardinal Kasper had shocked the Catholic world at last year’s consistory of cardinals by his “suggestion” that the Church change its practice of withholding Communion from people in “irregular unions,” and by his claim that the pope had approved the proposal. The so-called “Kasper proposal” has since become the focal point of a nearly open civil war in the Church in which decades-long divisions between the “liberal/progressives” and orthodox prelates has been revealed by the world’s press.

At the Rome launch on October 6 of a different book opposing Kasper’s proposal, Cardinal George Pell, a member of Pope Francis’ Council of Nine, said that changing the practice or teaching of the Church would be “disastrous.”

Pentin writes, “Those responsible for mailing the books meticulously tried to avoid interception, ensuring the copies were sent through the proper channels within the Italian and Vatican postal systems.” Pentin added that his sources had “strongly” refuted the claim by the Synod’s secretariat that the books had been distributed “irregularly,” saying they had used the normal postal service that is governed according to Vatican state and international law and is known in Rome for its superior service to the Italian postal system.

Throughout the Synod, rumors circulated broadly among the assembled corps of journalists that the highly anticipated books had failed to reach the bishops and had in fact been confiscated on the orders of the Synod’s leadership. At the time, although this strange story had spread widely, none of the principal parties involved in the book’s publication or distribution were willing to come forward.

That rule of silence appears to still be in place; today none of the book’s authors or editors were willing to speak with LifeSiteNews “on the record” to confirm what had happened, and attempts to reach the Synod office went unanswered. It is public knowledge, however, that only a handful of bishops had been able to obtain a copy during the Synod itself.

Edward Pentin reported yesterday that the story has not stopped circulating in Rome since the Synod, despite having been dismissed at a December press conference by Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi. “Since then the allegations have become more widely known and have been corroborated at the highest levels of the church,” Pentin writes, saying that his sources believe the seized books were likely destroyed.

It is notable that the accusation could have a potential of a criminal liability for unlawful seizure of posted materials. The Vatican City State postal service is a member of the Universal Postal Union, a body under the auspices of the UN, which regulates the postal service practice of 192 member states. One Vatican source told LifeSiteNews today that a first attempt had been made to stop the books being sent by the Vatican Post Office, but that the postal workers had refused to cooperate, saying that it would be “unethical” to tamper with the mail.

Baldisseri, appointed as a permanent Secretary of the Synod of Bishops by Pope Francis, has become a public spokesman for the Kasper Proposal and he was heavily criticized during the Synod by many of the bishops themselves, who complained that the process was being strictly controlled to produce a particular outcome.

At a conference in Rome last month, Baldisseri told delegates that “dogma can evolve” and that the purpose of the Synod was not merely to restate Catholic teaching. He also confirmed that the documents of the Synod, including the highly contested “mid-term Relatio” that had called for the Church to “accept and value” the “homosexual orientation” had been read and approved for publication by Pope Francis. 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

Chen Guangcheng contradicts Hillary’s version: Obama admin abandoned him, caved to ‘hooligans’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Chen Guangcheng, the blind lawyer who exposed the brutality of China's one-child policy, is again questioning the official party line – the Obama administration's account. This time he is contradicting Hillary Clinton's story of his escape from home captivity in a new memoir.

Hillary, who was Secretary of State at the time Chen fled his captors and sought refuge in the U.S. Embassy, has steadfastly denied she lobbied Chen to leave the premises, despite tense negotiations with the Chinese. But Chen writes that he felt so pressured and abandoned by U.S. officials, he was “overcome by sadness and wept.”

Chen so angered Chinese officials by uncovering the corruption and coercion of the nation's forced abortion regime that he was imprisoned for years. After his release, he and his family were held under house arrest inside a garrisoned village.

But on April 22, 2012, Chen scaled the wall and ran, on a broken foot, for miles. After going through a series of safe houses, a car took him to Beijing, where he sought sanctuary in the U.S. Embassy.

Hillary and Chen agree on that much – but the rest of their tales diverge.

Hillary spent chapter five of her memoir, "Hard Choices"  “Beijing: The Dissident” – discussing Chen's plight. The light-selling autobiography claims that Hillary got a call on the yellow phone on April 25, telling her about Chen's plea. “I said, 'Go get him,'” she wrote, adding that it “wasn't a close call.” She later told the Council on Foreign Relations that she authorized some “James Bond-ish kind of activity” for his rescue.

But Chen's escape came just days before Clinton was to arrive in China for a diplomatic visit. Chen and those close to him have always maintained that Chen faced coercion to leave the U.S. Embassy – and that U.S. officials broke their word after he complied.

The State Department passed along threats that, if Chen did not leave the Embassy for a Chinese communist-controlled hospital, his family would face repercussions from government officials. Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, while denying any wrongdoing, admitted that “U.S. interlocutors did make clear that if Chen elected to stay in the embassy, Chinese officials had indicated to us that his family would be returned to Shandong, and they would lose their opportunity to negotiate for reunification.”

But in "Hard Choices", Hillary says U.S. officials were so considerate of Chen that the then-ambassador to China, Gary Locke, and State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh “spent hours sitting with Chen, holding his hand, soothing his fears, and talking about his hopes for the future.”

Hillary maintained, “we had done what Chen said he wanted every step of the way.”

Chen tells a much different tale in his newly published memoir, "The Barefoot Lawyer: A Blind Man's Fight for Justice and Freedom in China", portions of which were published by Canada's National Post.

Chen said he was “pressured to leave” after the State Department accepted an “absurdly inadequate deal” with Chinese officials, essentially trusting them not to harm Guangcheng and his family on their honor.

“I hadn’t expected so many people on both sides would be working so hard to get me to leave, without guaranteeing my rights or my family’s safety,” Chen wrote. “No one seemed to be putting pressure on the Chinese Communist Party; instead they were dumping shipping containers of weight onto my shoulders to get me to do their bidding.”

Ultimately, he left the Embassy, filled with “disappointment and despair.” He said he “was overcome by sadness and wept.”

“What troubled me most at the time was this: when negotiating with a government run by hooligans, the country that most consistently advocated for democracy, freedom, and universal human rights had simply given in,” he said.

Those who were involved with the events as they unfolded agree that Hillary's account is off-base.

“I completely support Chen Guangcheng's account,” Reggie Littlejohn of Women's Rights Without Frontiers told LifeSiteNews. “In sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton's self-glorifying version, the actions of the U.S. government were a great disappointment to Chen and to the human rights community.”

“Why did U.S. officials pressure Chen to leave by May 2?” asked Littlejohn, who met Chen's plane when he finally landed on U.S. soil on May 19. “This was the very day that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was to arrive in Beijing for trade talks. To all appearances, the State Department under Hillary Clinton was willing to sacrifice one of the great human rights activists of the world in order to conduct unimpeded trade talks.”

Littlejohn and others familiar with the events have told the same story since it occurred.

“The State Department likes to say now that they played some kind of a heroic role,” Littlejohn told LifeSiteNews in an exclusive video interview at the time. “I would dispute that characterization of their actions.”

Bob Fu, the president of China Aid and a longtime associate of Chen, said at the time that Chen Guangcheng said that “he was under enormous pressure to leave the Embassy. Some people almost made him feel he was being a huge burden to the U.S.”

After Chen left for a hospital, he said the State Department did not keep its promises to protect him.

Chen said U.S. officials were not taking his calls, nor had they accompanied him from the embassy to the hospital, as they promised. “The Embassy kept lobbying me to leave and promised to have people stay with me in the hospital,” where his room was surrounded by at least 10 plainclothes guards, he said. “As soon as I checked into the hospital room, I noticed they were all gone.”

“Nobody from the (U.S.) Embassy is here. I don’t understand why. They promised to be here,” he said.

President Obama refused to comment on the matter on April 30.

Days later, Congressional Republicans called a hearing, where Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, and then-Congressman Frank Wolf pressured the Obama administration to fix the “scandal.” Chen telephoned the May 3 hearing, and Bob Fu translated as Chen spoke to him: “I want to meet with Secretary Clinton. I hope I can get more help from her,” he said. “I really am afraid for my other family members’ lives.”

Chen specifically thanked Congressman Smith and other Congressional leaders in his book.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also criticized the Obama administration's handling of the affair.

“Eventually, as a result of efforts on many fronts, the Chinese authorities had no choice but to allow me, my wife and my children to leave for the United States,” Chen wrote last year. He arrived on U.S. soil on May 19 and is now a fellow at The Witherspoon Institute.

This is not the first time Chen has criticized Hillary's book. He disputed Clinton's assertion that Chinese Communist officials had been “scrupulous” about living up to their commitments in a June 24, 2014, op-ed for The Washington Post.

“Not only has the Chinese government relentlessly persecuted members of my family since my departure, it also never investigated its prior abuses, as it committed to do. And it imprisoned my nephew, who remains in jail today,” he wrote. “Clinton and her staff were keenly aware of the attacks on my family.”

Despite the fact that Chen's account undermines a major part of Hillary Clinton's autobiography – and calls into question her judgment and commitment to human rights – it has made few ripples in the U.S. media. The two primary stories have been in Canada's National Post and the Telegraph of London.

“I bet that most of you have never heard about any of this before,” Moe Lane wrote at RedState.com. “And it’s largely because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, and Chris Smith is a Republican.”

The America Rising PAC, a Republican political action committee, commented, “while Clinton hides from the press potentially through the summer, no one will have a chance to ask her why Chen’s account flatly contradicts her own – a story she directly profited from by including it in her book.”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook