Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

Politics

The 90’s were good in spite of the Clintons, not because of them

3 Comments

A common political mistake is to assume that everything that happened within the tenure of a political leader is solely attributable to them — for good or bad.  One of the most horrific examples of this is when people credit Bill Clinton for the 90’s economic growth.  But that happened in spite of his Presidency, not because of it.

Did Clinton pass everything he wanted to?  Of course not.  “Hillarycare” was a disaster and we are fortunate it was never implemented.  And the Republicans cleaned up in the 1994 congressional elections.  They kept Clinton from doing what he wanted, and he was forced to compromise.

More than that, the growth would have happened regardless of who was President.  Anyone remember the PC and Internet revolutions?  Yeah, those had a “little” to do with the great economy.

And the positive part of the “Internet bubble” occurred on Clinton’s watch then burst at the very end of his 2nd term (October 12, 2000).  Bush had nothing to do with the 90’s run-up in stock prices but the loss of tax revenues from all of that made for unfavorable  comparisons.

So never let Leftists get away with pretending that electing Hillary would bring back the 90’s economy.  She did nothing to make that happen, and Bill only helped by not having his initiatives put into law.

Politics, Pro-life

Schizophrenic feminism

3 Comments

One of the most bizarre things about radical feminism is how quickly they will abandon their supposed core ideals to support unrestricted and even taxpayer-funded abortion.

Exhibit A: Bill Clinton. The guy was everything they should hate about men, with one exception. He supported abortion, so they loved him.

Exhibit B: “Bro-choice” guys.  The real reasons lots of young males support abortion rights is to get sex without apparent consequences.  In other words, to use women.  The early feminists knew this. You should know it, too. And keep this in mind when pro-abortion people insist that men should have no say in abortion. Have you noticed that they don’t try to shut up the men who support abortion?

Exhibit C: While claiming that women are strong and wise enough to know when to kill their children they gladly accept support from pro-abortion guys saying how stupid women are.

Exhibit D: Planned Parenthood systematically hides rape, incest and sex trafficking.  They have been caught on audio and video countless times.  I mock the pro-aborts who think these aren’t real.  Do you seriously think that Planned Parenthood wouldn’t have immediately sued to shut this down if that were the case?  When Lila Rose exposed them on video it made the news for 5 minutes until they let PP pretend that those were just a few “rogue” employees.  But the cross-country evidence is there for anyone who isn’t blinded by the pro-abortion media.

Exhibit E: Planned Parenthood would rather destroy a breast cancer charity than part ways amicably.

Exhibit F: They know that Kermit Gosnell was not unique and that there are many abortionists like him, but they do nothing to try to stop them.  In fact, they aggressively fight regulations that would make abortions safer for the mothers (though, of course, they are still deadly to the children).

Exhibit G: They know that nearly all gender-selection abortions kill females for the sole reason that they are female.  In addition to killing the females, it creates many additional societal problems such as sex trafficking.  Yet pro-aborts do nothing to stop it, because fighting that would point to the humanity of the unborn, and pro-aborts avoid that at all costs.

Exhibit H: While pretending to be for the choices of all women, they viciously attack pro-life women.

Exhibit I: They discount women who regret their abortions and try to keep them from seeking the hope and healing available to them in Jesus.

Abortion is pure misogyny.

———

This is what control looks like.

This  is what hate looks like.

This  is what extremism looks like.

This  is what — as even some pro-aborts concede — murder looks like.

Pro-abortion extremists have such seared consciences that they can’t even look at what they are responsible for.

Bible

Now let’s talk about Mother Teresa . . .

14 Comments

. . . because taking on Gandhi last week wasn’t enough.

First, I must say that I appreciated her anti-abortion efforts.  I love how she got in the faces of Clinton et al on the topic.  Good for her.

But theologically speaking, I have some sizable issues with her.  These articles explained them well:

First, The Myth of Other Teresa:

She was revered around the world as an example of Christian love and charity and as someone who dedicated her life to the noble cause of advancing the gospel to the poor and needy of the world while caring for their physical needs. Her legacy will doubtless be as one of history’s great humanitarians.

Upon examination, though, the Mother Teresa portrayed by the media and popularized in our culture is glorified (soon to be beatified) and almost deified. A close examination of her beliefs and the work she did shows that her legacy may be little more than fiction. . . . We also see her belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a mediator between God and ourselves (see Catholic Catechism, paragraph #969, #1172 and #494) and as such, plays a role in our salvation. . . .Through the entire book there is never a hint that she relies on Christ alone for her salvation. Rather we read things like, “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic” . . . “I love all religions. … If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.” Or in another place, “All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”

Her soteriology (he doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ) was a train-wreck:

“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.”

. . . Time and again we see her expounding such universalist beliefs. In an interview with Christian News a nun who worked with Mother Teresa was asked the following in regards to the Hindus they worked with, “These people are waiting to die. What are you telling them to prepare them for death and eternity?” She replied candidly, “We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods.”

Huh?!  But the Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation!  You can’t miss it.

And she chose to let people suffer:

Contradictions in her beliefs, then, are apparent. We see similar contradictions in her humanitarian work. The common belief is that Mother Teresa worked with the sick and destitute to lovingly return them to health. An examination of her missions will show that this is far from the case. Mother Teresa believed that there is spiritual value in suffering. Once, when tending to a patient dying of cancer, she said “You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you.” (Christoper Hitchens – The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, p. 41). For this reason she would not prescribe pain killers in her clinics, choosing instead to allow her patients to experience the suffering that she believed would bring them closer to Christ. Despite the tens of millions of dollars donated to her charity each year, her missions were rudimentary and offered no real health care. Her missions mainly catered to the critically ill and simply afforded them a place to go to die. It is interesting to note that when Mother Teresa became ill she would travel to the finest health care facilities to receive treatment. . . .

What, then, is the importance of debunking the myth of Mother Teresa? The answer is this. Pastors of Protestant churches around the world continue to speak of Mother Teresa in saintly terms. They hold her up as the ultimate example of self-sacrifice for the sake of the gospel. From the pulpits they discuss how she responded to Christ’s Great Commission to spread the gospel to all lands. The reality, though, is that if she preached at all, she preached a false religion. In so doing she provides us with an example not of a Christian responding to God’s call, but an example of deeds of charity and compassion completely separated from the Truth.

Also see Mother Teresa in her own words:

In an interview with her biographer, the following exchange was recorded:

Biographer Naveen Chawla: “Do you convert?” Mother Teresa: “Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you’ve found God, it’s up to you to decide how to worship him.”

That doesn’t sound very Christian.

Finally, see French study claims Mother Teresa not so saintly:

She was “anything but a saint,” the Canadian study authors found, as Newser reports. In fact, she found beauty in watching people suffer, the authors say.

The study is based on accounts of doctors who visited Mother Teresa’s so-called “homes for the dying.” The found terrible conditions, Newser reported — poor hygiene among patients, hunger, lacking medical supplies. Some patients were even denied necessary medical care, doctors said. Even Mother Teresa didn’t get care there — she went to an American hospital, Newser reported.

And the reported conditions weren’t for lack of money. Teresa’s Order of the Missionaries of Charity had hundreds of millions in donations, Newser reported.

The authors of the study allege the Vatican purposely ignored the truth of Mother Teresa’s charity. Rather, church officials helped to set the stage for her image as a saint, and even pushed through her beatification to avoid scrutiny.

Did she do some good?  I suppose so.  But it is unfortunate that she is held up as such an icon when her theology was false and her good deeds rather suspect.

Politics, Pro-life

Boomerang.

6 Comments

So the Democrats are going to run with the “Akin’s gaffe applies to all Republicans even though almost 100% have denounced it” theme at their convention and they are going to trot out Bill Clinton to speak there and in swing states?  Please feel free to remind people of the following:

  • A President who abused his power to have sex with an intern doesn’t make the best pro-women role model — especially when he was in the process of completely destroying her before he found out about the dress.
  • Just because he was President in the 90’s doesn’t mean he gets credit for everything good that happened then.  Remember that two of his better moves — welfare reform and NAFTA — were more Conservative than Liberal and that the Republican Congress stopped him from doing a lot damage with healthcare reform and more.  He should send New Gingrich a thank-you note every year.  Oh, and there was that little thing called the PC Revolution / Internet Bubble that did marvelous things for the economy in general and tax revenues in particular.  Clinton got the bubble and Bush got the damage when it burst.  But I don’t recall Bush blaming Clinton.
  • If Democrats really care about rape, then they should whale on people like Whoopi  Goldberg who said basically the same thing as Akin, and they should really pounce on people like accused rapist Bill Clinton.
  • Clinton was (is?) a serial adulterer.  Tell me again how that is pro-women?
  • Even Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was on record saying that, “I don’t want my daughter near him.“
  • Democrats love abortion so much that they will ignore all the horrible things Clinton means for women as long as he lets them kill their unborn children.
  • If Obama is so pro-“equal pay,” why are women underpaid in his White House?
  • If the Democrats are so pro-women, why don’t they oppose gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which crush and dismember females for the sole reason that they are unwanted for being female?  It is the ultimate misogyny, fully supported by the Left.
  • Remind them of Al Franken’s jokes about raping reporter Leslie Stahl.
  • Remind them that unemployment has been worse for women and blacks under the Obama administration.
  • If they really care about rape, then ask them why they don’t protest Planned Parenthood for systematically hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking.  The audio and video evidence against them is overwhelming.  Start by asking them, “Are all rapes pretty much equally bad, as Akin’s critics have noted?  OK, so let’s talk about Planned Parenthood . . .”
  • Also, ask them how it qualifies as pro-women to cheer at the funding losses of the Komen Foundation just because they dared to cut a tiny fraction of Planned Parenthood’s funding.
  • Pretty much anything you can mention about Ted Kennedy should be effective as well.

Don’t let the Left get away with whitewashing Clinton and their anti-women policies.  Make their claims boomerang on them just like the silly dog issue (yeah, Romney had his on the roof of his car, but Obama ate a dog).  And then there’s the latest “Oh, the humanity” reaction that Romney made a birth certificate quip.  Somehow that is unacceptable, unlike accusing your opponent of being a cancer-causing felon and abandoning tradition to make waves during his convention.

The war on women – yet pandering to Islam.

Media, Politics

Uh oh, a double dog dare!

4 Comments

I got this challenge on Facebook from a life-long friend.  He has a great sense of humor and thick skin, but sadly suffers from a debilitating case of Liberalism. Out of kindness, I gave him two chances to withdraw the dare, but he persisted (they are a stubborn lot!).

Neil, I dare you to post this on your blog. No, I double dog dare you. Zombies Walk The Halls Of Congress : NPR.

The article highlighted Democrats and Republicans who stayed in Congress after scandals.  I wonder why NPR didn’t go after examples like this more aggressively?  I mean, sweet Maxine is still there.  They could shine a bigger light on this one:

Other survivors? There’s Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA). During the fiscal meltdown, she arranged a meeting with the Treasury Department for a bank her husband owned stock in.

The article forgot to note that Republicans are more likely to resign and more likely to be pressured to resign from their party.  Then again, you can only be a hypocrite if you have standards to begin with.  Witness Chris Matthews’ claim that the real problem with Weiner is that “backwards” religious people disagree with his behavior — meaning that “progressive” people think there was nothing really wrong with a Congressman exposing himself to bribes and ridicule  in sending R- and X-rated pictures of himself to strangers and then lying to friends and enemies alike in a pathetic cover-up attempt.  His real crime was getting caught.  Hey, at least Matthews clearly reveals his “morality.”

Also note that the NPR article “forgot” to mention Bill Clinton staying in office after abusing his authority with an intern, exposing himself to the possibility of blackmail, trying to destroy her life (and he would have succeeded if not for the infamous dress) and lying under oath.  Yet while Nixon became synonymous with deception and scandal, Clinton’s punishment is making $100,000 per speech and having a wife who is Secretary of State.

Back to the dare: My friend’s premise was that I’d never post something from NPR that showed that they were balanced.  But the grand irony is if they were truly unbiased then he could send me their links all day, every day.  But as it is he found a token piece that was balanced and was so shocked and thrilled that he launched into his double dog dare without realizing that he was proving my point, not his.  

Whether NPR is biased or not (and of course they are wildly biased, or my extreme Liberal friend wouldn’t be such a loyal fan), they shouldn’t get government funding.

There you go, my friend.  Hope you’re happy!