Dale O’Leary

To same-sex attracted boys - wait

Dale O’Leary
By Dale O'Leary

June 12, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - While your friends seem obsessed with girls, you are experiencing feelings of attraction to guys. You find yourself fantasizing about being close – really close – to a teacher or macho guy in your school. You long for something more, but it isn’t a girl.

The culture—teachers in your school, the Gay Straight Alliance—is telling you that all this is a sign you were born gay. You might as well accept it and “come out” because there is nothing you can do to change it. That’s how God made you.

But before you act on this advice, take time to look at the facts. You may have heard the claim that science has found a “gay gene.” This is not true. In spite of a lot of looking, no scientist has found anything resembling a gay gene. The head of the human genome project says they have looked and it isn’t there.1

Other studies offer conclusive evidence that people are not “born” that way. If same-sex attraction were genetic or caused by some other pre-natal influence then identical twins would virtually always have the same pattern of sexual attraction. In a large sample of identical twins, only 27 pairs were found where one had same-sex attraction, and of these only 3 pairs or 11% both had same-sex attraction.2 These means same-sex attraction can’t be genetic and so no matter what you are feeling today or how young you were when you first felt different, you were not born that way.

Those who have studied the origins of same-sex attraction don’t believe there is a single cause, rather there are a number of paths that lead to these feelings.

Before you decided to “come out” you can explore how you got to this point.

Many persons who experience same-sex attractions in adolescence were victims of sexual child abuse or sexual exploitation by adults or by other children. Over 40% of persons who self-identify as “gay” say they were victimized as children.3 If this was your experience, you need to deal with this. Having sex with another male won’t heal this wound.

Some victims were so needy and longing for same-sex affection that they felt the abuse was a positive experience, because it was better than their other experiences. They may believe that since they experienced pleasure it means they were “gay.” It doesn’t. It just means their body works. Using a child as a sexual object is never good for the child.

Many men with same-sex attraction did not properly identify with their fathers or with other boys in early childhood.4 They felt different. Perhaps they identified with their mothers or female playmates, perhaps they were afraid of rough and tumble play, perhaps they lacked athletic ability, perhaps they were interested in art, music, or quiet pursuits.5 This could leave a young boy feeling left out of the male world and longing for masculinity. Such boys do not need to have sex with a male, they need to find their own manhood.6

Perhaps you didn’t fit the stereotypes. Perhaps you were teased or even labeled “gay,” but that was a lie. Real men come in all shapes and sizes with all kinds of interests and different levels of abilities. None of these experiences makes you unchangeably “gay.” You just need to find your own masculine identity.

There are other reasons why you shouldn’t “come out.”

Although you may think that coming out means entering into a loving committed relationship with a person who will really meet your needs, too often it means falling into a temporary relationship which, when it dissolves, leaves you more devastated and feeling more lost than you were before. You may be looking for security, but men who have sex with men end up going from one relationship to another – with all the attendant heartbreak or falling into a pattern of short-term relationships – short-term being an hour or two.

Some adolescent boys fall into prostitution with all the risks of violence, disease and shame. One can hardly be proud of a work history that includes a year or two of hustling or be pleased to end up as the poster boy on some pornographic website.

Disease is a real problem for adolescent males who come out. You may promise yourself that you would never be so stupid as not to use a condom, but the research shows that very few men who have sex with men keep this promise.7 They suffer from condom fatigue. They have sex when they are drunk or high. They believe a partner who says he is HIV negative, forgetting the score of other sexually transmitted infections the man might not even know he is carrying or that in the heat of passion men often lie.8 The younger a man is when he begins to have sex with men the greater the risk he will become HIV positive.9

Disease is not the only health risk. Persons with same-sex attractions are more likely to have problems with drugs and alcohol. In particular, the use of crystal meth is a real problem for this community and the results are devastating.10 Not only does crystal meth lead to physical problems and mental problems, it also causes the user to think they are invulnerable and therefore don’t need a condom. This is leading to a rise in HIV infections.11

Sex is addictive. Once you begin to have sex with men, you may not be able to stop. You may have programmed your brain for this particular activity.

The good news is that studies show that a majority of those who think they are “gay” in their early teens discover in their 20’s that they are not.12 They just grow up.13 Maybe that will happen to you spontaneously, maybe through counseling you will discover where your feelings came from.14 It would be a shame if before that happened you became a sex addict or meth addicted or infected with an incurable disease.

You have a choice. You can explore the origins of your feelings. You can get help to discover your manhood.

You can wait.

Endnotes:

1.  B.S. Mustanski, et al. “A genome wide scan of male sexual orientation,” Human Genetics, 116, 4 (2005): 272-278.

2. Michael Bailey et al. (2000) “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and its Correlates in an Australian Twins Sample,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, March, 78 (3) 524-536; John de Cecco, David Parker (ed), (1995) Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual Preference, Harrington Park Press: NY. This book presents the debate on biology. The editors conclude, “Current research into possible biological bases of sexual preference has failed to produce any conclusive evidence.” 

3. Lynda Doll et al. (1992) “Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and bisexual men,” Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, p. 855-864. (Over 40% of adult homosexual and bisexual men in this study reported a history of sexual abuse.) Johnson, R., Shrier, D. (1985) Sexual victimization of boys: Experience at an adolescent medicine clinic. Journal of Adolescent Health Care. 6: 372 - 376; Siegel, J., Sorenson, S., Golding, J., Burnam, Stein, J. (1987) The prevalence of childhood sexual assault: The Los Angeles epidemiological catchment area project. American Journal of Epidemiology. 126, 6: 1141; Gregory Dickson, Dean Byrd, (2006) “An Empirical study of the mother-son dyad in relation to the development of male homosexuality,” Journal of the Association of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists,  Vol. 30. The study found that 49% of homosexual men versus. 2% of heterosexual men had a history of sexual abuse.

4. Kenneth Zucker, Susan Bradley, (1995) Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Childhood and Adolescence (Guilford: NY; George A Rekers, (1995)  Gender Identity Disorder,  www.leaderu.com/jhs/rekers.html (George Rekers, Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems (Lexington/Jossey-Bass/Simon & Schuster); Susan Bradley, Kenneth Zucker (1998) “Drs. Bradley and Zucker reply,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37 (3) p. 244-245.

5. Friedman, R. Stern, L. (1980) Juvenile aggressivity and sissiness in homosexual and heterosexual males. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. 8 (3) p. 427 - 440.

6. Elizabeth Moberly, Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic )Cambridge, England: James Clarke, 1983); Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, (Northvale NJ: Aronson, 1991).

7. David Ostrow, et al (1994) “Sexual Behavior research on a chohort of gay men 1984-1990: Can we predict how men will respond to interventions”, Archives of Sexual Behavior , 23, 5: 531-552.

8. Binh An Diep et al. (2008) “Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant, Community Associated, Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Clone USA300 in men who have sex with men,”  Annals of Internal Medicine,  148 (4)

9 Richard Stall, et al. (2003) “Association of Co-Occurring Psychosocial Health Problems and Increased Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among Urban Men who Sex with Men,” American Journal Of Public Health,  93 (6) p. 939-942; R. Hogg, et al. (1997) “Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men,”  International Journal of Epidemiology, 26 (3) p.657-661; J. Diggs, (2002) “Health Risks of Gay Sex” Corporate Research Council, (480) 444-0030; M. Xiridou, (2003) “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17, 7 1029-1038: Gabriel Rotello (1997) Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men,  Dutton: NY.

10. Milton Wainberg et al, ((2006) Crystal Meth and Men who Have Sex with Men: What mental health care professionals need to know,  Haworth Medical Press, NY; Perry Halkitis, Leo Wilton, Jack Drescher, ed. (2005)  Barebacking: Psychosocial and Public Health Approaches,  Haworth Medical Press: NY; Sean Esteban McCabe, et al (2005) Assessment of Difference in Dimensions of Sexual Orientation: Implications for Substance Use Research in a College-Age Population, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66, p. 602-629.

11. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review (2008) “Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses among Men Who Have Sex with Men,” June 12. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5725a2,htm: In 2006 new infections in men who have sex with men aged 113-24 increased by 18 percent over the previous year.

12. Edward Lauman et al. (1994) The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, (Chicago: University of Chicago); K. K. Kinnish, et al. (2005). “Sexual Differences in the Flexibility of Sexual Orientation: A Multidimensional Retrospective Assessment,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34 (2), 173-83; Nigel Dickson, et al. (2003) “Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood, Social Science & Medicine, 56, p. 1607-1615.

13. Warren Throckmorton, “Hiding Truth From School Kids: It’s Elementary Revisited,” June 16, 2004 http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=78.

14. Robert Spitzer, (2006) “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” (in J. Frescher, K. Zucker, eds., Ex-Gay research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study and Its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics, and Culture, Harrington House; NY) p. 35-66. Stanton Jones, Mark Yarhouse, (2007) Ex-Gays’ A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,(Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL).

Truth. Delivered daily.

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

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

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