Tag Archives: Democratic Party

Favorites, Politics, Pro-life reasoning

How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections

Leave a comment

I’m re-running this in honor of Rand Paul turning the tables on the Left and asking if they are OK with killing a 7 lb. baby in the womb.  I much prefer Cruz or Walker over Paul, but it was a great answer.  We need more of that!  

Also see Turning rocks into softballs where I offer some other tips on how to respond to the questions about rape, incest or abortions in general.  

We need to be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves!

—–

A few gaffes – most notably by candidates Akin and Mourdock – cost the Republicans two Senate seats and possibly the White House.  But with just a little common sense and some simple pro-life arguments they could have easily turned this to our advantage.  Romney and others could have done the same thing whether the specific rape/abortion questions came up or not.

The errors resulted when the candidates tried to articulate theological concepts that can’t be distilled into sound bites and that are virtually certain to be misinterpreted by the media and voters.  If you are running for office you should be skilled at knowing what hot topic questions you’ll get and how to steer the answers to your advantage.

So when the topic of abortions in the case of rape and incest came up, they didn’t need to get theological.  They could have noted any or all of the following.  Consider how simple yet accurate these arguments are and how they would resonate with the average voter – even pro-choice voters, the majority of whom side with pro-lifers on topics like parental notification, late-term abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions.

  • Rape is an incredibly serious crime and I support punishing it to the full extent of the law.
  • Incest, in this case, isn’t about 30-something siblings who are attracted to each other, it is about innocent young girls being abused by relatives.  That means it is rape.  Here’s a perfect example.
  • Statutory rape is rape, and the most rampant kind in our society.  Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times on audio and video systematically hiding statutory rape.  If elected, I will not only fight to stop their Federal funding but I would work tirelessly to hold them accountable for their crimes of hiding these rapes. If a 28 yr. old guy is statutorily raping your 13 yr. old daughter or granddaughter then Planned Parenthood will be glad to destroy the evidence and hide the crime – funded by your tax dollars!  They have also been caught hiding sex traffickers, and the opposition to sex trafficking is one of the few issues where Democrats and Republicans have common ground.   Surely we can all agree that we don’t want our tax dollars to fund organizations that hide that crime!
  • If you want to entertain capital punishment for the rapist then we could debate that, but why would the innocent child have to suffer for the father’s crimes?  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique human beings from fertilization.  Go check out any embryology textbook.  Let’s put the focus on punishing the guilty rapists and those who hide their crimes.
  • If you want to understand the theology about God’s sovereignty I’d be glad to share it with you, but that is beyond the scope of this debate and would take some time to explain.  But you don’t have to be a theologian to know that rape is evil and hiding the crimes of rapists is evil.
  • Roe v Wade won’t be overturned and even if it was it wouldn’t make abortion illegal — it would just turn it over to the states.
  • Remember that the official platform of the Democrats is now pro-abortion, not pro-choice.  They want abortions without restriction — which would include partial-birth abortions (aka infanticide) — and they want pro-lifers to fund them with their taxes.  That means Democrats want more abortions, not less, and they want others to pay for them.  Obamacare is already forcing people to pay for some abortions, and it is deliberately violating religious freedoms and conscience clauses.

They could also respond by asking some of the questions the media never asks pro-abortion candidates:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you wouldapprove of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover storyon “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

How hard would that be?  Instead, Akin, Mourdock et al answered foolishly and cost us Senate seats and possibly the presidency, and they missed an easy opportunity to educate people on the most important moral issue of our time.

Please equip yourself with basic pro-life reasoning and be prepared to share it.

Politics, Pro-life

Words matter: The Democrats are pro-abortion, not pro-choice

5 Comments

I’ve mentioned this before and will probably only mention it six or seven more times, so please read carefully.  Do not let the pro-abortion people get away with using terms such as pro-choice or reproductive choice.  It is easy to show how false those are.  And don’t let them call you anti-abortion or anti-choice without taking the time to explain why they are correct on that claim.  You can take what they mean as a personal attack and use it to our advantage.

I used to try and be charitable and refer to pro-abortion people as pro-choice.  I preferred to get into the facts and logic and didn’t want to get people distracted by thinking we were just calling them names.  But with the latest platform of the Democratic party the most accurate term for them is pro-abortion.  

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

We should take the time to explain why pro-abortion is the correct term.  If you insist on taxpayer-funding of abortions, that is the opposite of choice.  Your are forcing pro-life people to pay for abortions.  And you are claiming that we don’t have enough abortions and that society will be better if we have more.  They don’t want them to be rare, they want more of them.  Those claims aren’t pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.

The majority of those who identify as “pro-choice” agree that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, that women should have a 24 hour waiting period before having the abortion, that parental consent should be required for teens and that taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund abortions.  That makes Obama and anyone supporting the Democrat’s platform the extremists.

Consider how many people who identify as pro-choice agree with pro-life positions on specific topics, then consider how radical the Democrats’ platform is (unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions at any time, including “partial-birth abortions”/infanticide).

Regarding “reproductive choice” or “reproductive health,” just point out the irrefutable scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization.  Therefore, abortions are designed to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.  Perverse organizations like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice have self-refuting names.  It may seem subtle, but explaining how their pet terms are false undermines their credibility and helps point to the science and logic that are on our side.

These suggestions may seem unimportant, but they can make a big difference.  The Left uses terms to their advantage all the time, such as “marriage equality” and the pro-abortion phrases noted above.  Don’t let them get away with it.  By politely pointing out how pro-abortion their policies are and how “reproductive choice” is about birth control and not abortion we can plant seeds and persuade the middle ground about the truth.

Also, use verbal Judo and turn attack phrases such as “anti-choice” or “anti-abortion” back on them.  Just say, “Why yes, I am anti-abortion.  Abortions kill innocent but unwanted human beings without adequate justification, so I oppose them.  Thanks for noticing!  You should oppose them, too.”  I’m beginning to prefer the term anti-abortion over pro-life.  It is accurate and it spells out the word they hate to say: Abortion.

Regarding “anti-choice,” just ask them to complete the phrase and then agree with them: “You are using ‘choice’ in the sense of choosing to crush and dismember an innocent but unwanted human being without adequate justification, so I am against that choice.  You should be, too.  But I favor all sorts of other choices for women: Whom to marry, what career to choose, the freedom to speak out against “same-sex marriage,” whether to fund abortions of other people, whether to own a gun, what size soft-drink to consume, whether to home school, and more.  How do you feel about all of those choices?”

Politics

How to expose the false pro-abortion outrage over Kermit Gosnell

7 Comments

While most media outlets, politicians, pro-abortion groups and false teachers are still silent on the Kermit Gosnell infanticide case, some have realized that there is no way around it and are trying to feign outrage and hypocritically and falsely blame pro-lifers. It is your basic damage control, but they shouldn’t get away with it in the way Planned Parenthood gets a media pass when busted for hiding statutory rape and sex-trafficking.

Cases in point are the Planned Parenthood Tweet in the image below and a typical “Gosnell was so bad but it is the fault of pro-lifers” nonsense from wolves in sheep’s clothing.

So how do you “out” these people? Simple. Just point to the facts by saying:

1. Kermit Gosnell was pro-late term and “partial-birth” abortion. So are President Obama, the rest of the Democrats* and Planned Parenthood. Do you agree or disagree with them? If you agree with them, why are you and they so outraged at his actions?

2. The main horror of Gosnell was killing babies 30 seconds after it was legal. Planned Parenthood and Obama are both on record as opposing protections for infants who survive abortions. Please explain the moral significance of those 30 seconds and why one is capital murder and one is merely the morally benign or even morally good choice of the mother. Also explain whether you agree with Obama and Planned Parenthood, and why it isn’t hypocritical for PP to complain about Gosnell.

3. Kermit Gosnell was pro-taxpayer-funded abortion. So are President Obama, the rest of the Democrats* and Planned Parenthood. Do you agree or disagree with them? If you agree, then would you concede that forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions would be more of a pro-abortion position than a pro-choice position?

4. Democrats and Planned Parenthood have aggressively fought the application of health standards and inspections of abortion clinics. This political pressure resulted in even existing laws being ignored by multiple agencies. Isn’t it hypocritical to now blame the Republicans for Gosnell’s safety issues?

5. Given the complete breakdown in oversight over Gosnell’s activities by multiple agencies and that he was only caught by accident by another agency, what makes you think that all the other abortionists run clean clinics and have adequate oversight when killing innocent but unwanted human beings?

6. Given that the Left plays the race card over all sorts of made-up things, why are they ignoring the real racism of Gosnell, and, presumably other abortion clinics — not to mention the fact that abortions kill blacks at a rate three times that of whites and that taxpayer-funded abortions will increase that ratio?

7. As bad as Gosnell was, there weren’t any documented cases of him hiding statutory rape or sex-trafficking as there have been for Planned Parenthood. They broke many laws. Should they be punished to the “full extent” for running a “criminal enterprise” as they have called for in Gosnell’s case? Should they still receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding?

Please ask those things as nicely as you can to let people have a “dignified surrender” and acknowledge how wrong they are on the greatest moral issue of our time.

Reminder: Keep Tweeting #gosnell as much as you can — such as with this post!

* If you vote for Democrats, you are now pro-abortion, not pro-choice. And not just pro-abortion, but pro-“partial birth” abortion (aka infanticide). From their platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

If you want to require taxpayer-funded to increase abortions then you aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. Forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions = pro-abortion. Wanting to increase the number of abortions = pro-abortion. If you are pro-“partial birth” abortion then you are really pro-legalized infanticide.

Christian worldview

The error of broad-brushing economic statistics

6 Comments

Putting all the blame or credit on one leader is incorrect. You have to look at what specific policies they drove and actually implemented and what the effects were.

Should Clinton get all the credit for the 90’s? Absolutely not. Clinton should send thank-you’s to the 90’s Republicans who prevented him from implementing many of his policies. He should also thank the PC business / Internet boom which drove the phenomenal growth of the decade. He benefited from the Internet bubble and the massive productivity gains and business growth, while Bush was impacted negatively by the bursting of the Internet bubble. Clinton didn’t create the technology boom and Bush didn’t burst the bubble, but the stats of both are impacted by them.

And the problems at the end of Bush’s term were largely from the race-baiting housing bubble driven by Democrats — the very thing they are doing again!.  Sadly, they were able to exploit people’s ignorance on the matter, with the help of the Democrats and their media allies who ignored or lied about the root causes.  That not only led to us getting Obama, but they pretended that a President couldn’t make real changes in one term.  Ugh.

Politics, Pro-life reasoning

How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections

12 Comments

A few gaffes – most notably by candidates Akin and Mourdock – cost the Republicans two Senate seats and possibly the White House.  But with just a little common sense and some simple pro-life arguments they could have easily turned this to our advantage.  Romney and others could have done the same thing whether the specific rape/abortion questions came up or not.

The errors resulted when the candidates tried to articulate theological concepts that can’t be distilled into sound bites and that are virtually certain to be misinterpreted by the media and voters.  If you are running for office you should be skilled at knowing what hot topic questions you’ll get and how to steer the answers to your advantage.

So when the topic of abortions in the case of rape and incest came up, they didn’t need to get theological.  They could have noted any or all of the following.  Consider how simple yet accurate these arguments are and how they would resonate with the average voter – even pro-choice voters, the majority of whom side with pro-lifers on topics like parental notification, late-term abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions.

  • Rape is an incredibly serious crime and I support punishing it to the full extent of the law.
  • Incest, in this case, isn’t about 30-something siblings who are attracted to each other, it is about innocent young girls being abused by relatives.  That means it is rape.  Here’s a perfect example.
  • Statutory rape is rape, and the most rampant kind in our society.  Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times on audio and video systematically hiding statutory rape.  If elected, I will not only fight to stop their Federal funding but I would work tirelessly to hold them accountable for their crimes of hiding these rapes. If a 28 yr. old guy is statutorily raping your 13 yr. old daughter or granddaughter then Planned Parenthood will be glad to destroy the evidence and hide the crime – funded by your tax dollars!  They have also been caught hiding sex traffickers, and the opposition to sex trafficking is one of the few issues where Democrats and Republicans have common ground.   Surely we can all agree that we don’t want our tax dollars to fund organizations that hide that crime!
  • If you want to entertain capital punishment for the rapist then we could debate that, but why would the innocent child have to suffer for the father’s crimes?  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique human beings from fertilization.  Go check out any embryology textbook.  Let’s put the focus on punishing the guilty rapists and those who hide their crimes.
  • If you want to understand the theology about God’s sovereignty I’d be glad to share it with you, but that is beyond the scope of this debate and would take some time to explain.  But you don’t have to be a theologian to know that rape is evil and hiding the crimes of rapists is evil.
  • Roe v Wade won’t be overturned and even if it was it wouldn’t make abortion illegal — it would just turn it over to the states.
  • Remember that the official platform of the Democrats is now pro-abortion, not pro-choice.  They want abortions without restriction — which would include partial-birth abortions (aka infanticide) — and they want pro-lifers to fund them with their taxes.  That means Democrats want more abortions, not less, and they want others to pay for them.  Obamacare is already forcing people to pay for some abortions, and it is deliberately violating religious freedoms and conscience clauses.

They could also respond by asking some of the questions the media never asks pro-abortion candidates:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you wouldapprove of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover storyon “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

How hard would that be?  Instead, Akin, Mourdock et al answered foolishly and cost us Senate seats and possibly the presidency, and they missed an easy opportunity to educate people on the most important moral issue of our time.

Please equip yourself with basic pro-life reasoning and be prepared to share it.

Politics, Pro-life reasoning

Government & bedrooms

3 Comments

A common pro-choice sound bite is that “Government should stay out of our bedrooms.”  It is an emotional play on the theme of privacy, but the logic is poor for several reasons.

I don’t know of any abortions that occur in bedrooms.  I’m pretty sure that most take place at abortion clinics.  Rape, incest, pedophilia, murders, thefts and a host of other crimes can occur in bedrooms, but I don’t hear anyone suggesting that the government ignore those.

I realize those items were taking the claim literally, but the pro-choice reasoning also fails in a figurative sense.  Groups that claim to want the government out of bedrooms sure have cashed a lot of government checks for “educating” our youth on sexually related matters.  Planned Parenthood and the like appear to have a great deal of interest in your bedroom activities and those of your children, and they crave and receive massive government funding and do their best to destroy anyone who gets in their way — even breast cancer charities like the Komen Foundation.

If by “government out of our bedrooms” they mean “government out of our sex lives,” then Planned Parenthood supporters should ask that they refund all the money they have received (Over $4 billion since 1987) and get out of our schools.

As with most pro-choice arguments, this claim ignores the primary issue of abortion: Whether or not an innocent human being is killed.  If abortion doesn’t kill an innocent human being, then of course the government shouldn’t be involved in determining whether the procedure is legal.  However, if it does kill an innocent human being, then it really doesn’t matter where the life of the unborn started.   And of course, the scientific fact is that the unborn are unique, living human beings from fertilization.

The government does not get involved in “bedrooms” in the sense that they dictate with whom consent adults can have sex.  But is should get involved when people want to destroy the unwanted human being created in those bedroom activities.

The Democrats want to intrude in the bedroom.  From their 2012 Platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The greater irony and hypocrisy of the Left is that they now want government to be explicitly involved in the bedroom by forcing taxpayers to pay for birth control and abortions.  They don’t mind if that tramples religious freedom.  Pro-lifers are being consistent here: Keep the government out of the bedroom but protect innocent human beings, and respect the First Amendment.

In addition, as Glenn noted in the comments, they also want the government to get involved in the bedrooms of gays and lesbians.  By nature and design those relationships don’t produce children and can never provide a mother and a father to child, so why would they need government involvement?

If you vote for the Democrats, you are voting for taxpayer-funded abortions, less religious freedom and government intrusion into the bedroom.

Christian worldview

“Entitled to every single solitary operation”

3 Comments

If you vote for Obama/Biden you are voting pro-abortion and anti-religious freedom.  Not pro-choice, but pro-abortion — more abortions, funded by all taxpayers. From the Democrats’ 2012 platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

That means they favor:

  • 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester and “partial-birth” (aka infanticide) abortions
  • Taxpayer-funded abortions.  That means that pro-lifers will be forced to pay to have innocent but unwanted human beings killed.  That’s not pro-choice, that’s pro-abortion.
  • Increased abortions — They think that there aren’t enough abortions today, so society as a whole will improve if we make them “free” to the mothers.  Giving abortions away seems like a peculiar way to make them rare.
  • More dead black babies relative to whites — Abortions in the black community are already three times that of whites, and they know that figure will increase with taxpayer-funded abortions.  It is the ultimate racism.
  • Restrictions on religious freedoms — It is inevitable, and already evident with Obamacare, that they want to force religious groups to fund abortifacient drugs and abortions.

Now Joe Biden expands on this, saying:

Maybe where Romney is most sketchy is on women’s rights. I got a daughter and lost a daughter. I’ve got four granddaughters and Barack has two daughters. And this is to our core. Our daughters and our granddaughters are entitled to every single solitary operation, every single solitary opportunity!

Click the audio to see how pro-abortion he and his supporters are.  You see, abortion is an opportunity and an entitlement to them.  And if they are entitled to abortions then that means you are obligated to provide abortions.  (Side note: Joe misses the morbid irony that those daughters and granddaughters wouldn’t exist if the mothers had opted for the abortions they were “entitled” to.)

Note that these “pro-women” pro-aborts oppose a ban on gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which kill females for the sole reason that they are unwanted females.

Note what extremists these people are.  Even the majority of self-identified pro-choicers oppose what the Democrats’ platform pushes.  Never let them get away with labeling pro-lifers as extremists.

It is un-Christian and un-American to not only permit the killing of innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb but to force others to participate.  Destroying religious freedom is also un-Christian and un-American.  No Christian should vote for the Democrats.

Christian worldview

Roundup

5 Comments

In one study, half the scientists admitted to reporting only desired results — But you can totally trust what the politics-disguised-as-science global warming, Darwinian evolutionist and pro-gay monopolists tell you about science and psychology!

—–

Jon Stewart admits he’s not just a Democrat but a Socialist — I appreciate his candor.  I just wish that those who get their “news” from him had better discernment.

—–

Brannon Howse Interviews Former Roman Catholic Priest Richard Bennett — A good question for a pastor, priest or any layperson claiming the name of Christ: Can you tell me in detail about how much you’ve studied the Bible?

I absolutely love Richard Bennett and his online ministry, Berean Beacon. I have handed out his testimony on CD for a number of years now. The most startling thing I have learned about Catholicism from Bennett’s ministry is that Catholics do not learn the Bible in seminary…..they mostly learn church history, “their” version, anyway. Yet all the Catholics I know are trained from a young age to venerate their priests as possessing greater biblical knowledge, when in fact, they possess little Bible knowledge, if any. So I like that Richard Bennett, as a former priest, has exposed this little known fact. And it was through actually reading the Bible that Richard Bennett was converted.

“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” Heb 4:12

—–

Uncle Walter Revealed as Corrupt Left-Wing Hack — the Internet has its downsides, but one of the greatest things is that we have countless ways to get news and can use our discernment to see which are most reliable.

Surprise surprise. Walter Cronkite — the erstwhile “Most Trusted Man in America” who did more than anyone to win the Vietnam War for his fellow collectivists — has been revealed as a corrupt moonbat:

A thorough new biography of Walter Cronkite by Douglas Brinkley reveals that he was not the unbiased journalist his supporters have always claimed him to be. In fact, he was a liberal who used his position as America’s top anchor to promote the left and damage the right. …

Cronkite had a secret deal with Pan Am which flew his family around the world to vacation spots like the South Pacific for free. The President of the CBS News Division knew about the arrangement but did nothing about it.

Cronkite’s behavior wasn’t just personally unethical, it was also professionally unethical. It was Cronkite who persuaded Robert Kennedy — during a private meeting in his office — to run for President in 1968.

—–

Harry Reid [and the Democratic Party] Deliberately Helps Illegal Aliens to Continue Looting Us for $Billions — Now why would a political party deliberately give incentives for people to enter our country illegally, consume healthcare and other benefits and get paid for it?

At least now that it has been well publicized that illegal aliens are scamming the IRS for$billions by claiming all their relatives back in Mexico as dependents, our rulers will do something to staunch the bleeding. Then again, maybe not:

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked a move to bring the Child Tax Credit Integrity Preservation Act (S577) to the floor, and in doing so, assured that those working in this country illegally will continue to receive billions of dollars in tax refunds for children that do not even live in this country.

In 2011, U.S. Treasury Department Inspector General Russell George released a report revealing that the Internal Revenue Service doled out $4.2 billion in refundable tax credits to illegal aliens in 2010 alone.

Obama refused to close the loophole, so the Republican House took action. But the Senate is controlled by Democrats.

—–

House to examine proposal for United Nations regulation of the Internet — Any politician who votes to give anything to the UN should be voted out of office and possibly tried for treason.  Mercifully, both sides seem to be against this — for now.

United Nations has a simple business plan when it comes to wresting control of as much of the world as possible: Pronounce yourself the global arbiter of human rights, then declare everything a human right.

The UN has already said Internet access is a human right, so naturally the best way to police that human right is to put the UN in charge of the Internet.

. . .

Because when you think “Internet freedom” you think China and Russia. Don’t worry though, the UN wouldn’t have a Internet “kill switch” (they call theirs an “enemies of human rights emergency denial-of-service button” —definitely not the same thing).

What’s to consider? Nancy Reagan’s “just say ‘no’” rule applies to anything that would grant the United Nations more authority over anything.

—–

Craig Groeschel on the Big &%#*! Deal about Profanity

Since I wasn’t sure what The Hangover was rated, my last check point involved doing a little research to see if this was a movie for the whole family or one just for me and my wife to watch together. What I discovered floored me.

According to www.screenit.com, this comedy has more than its fair share of non-family-friendly scenes, intense language, and sexual situations. The rough spots include 91 different variations of the f-bomb (apparently it can function as noun, verb, adjective — maybe even a conjunction for all I know), 41 excretory words, 14 references to a person’s behind, 13 “hells,” and nine slang terms for male anatomy. To top it all off, this hilarious movie has 31 different versions of taking God’s name in vain.

When I told my friends and staff members that the movie had 91 f-bombs, which averages out to approximately one version of the “f” word per minute, they were all shocked. “Really? I didn’t even notice” was the most common response.

Really… you didn’t notice one “f” word each minute?

Politics, Pro-life

Breaking: Planned Parenthood hires disgraced Penn State football coaches

4 Comments

Press release from Planned Parenthood:

Cecille Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, announced today that the nation’s largest abortion provider will be hiring several former Penn State employees, including Joe Paterno and Scott McQueary.

“Our reasoning is simple,” said Richards.  “To maximize our profits we must perform abortions on countless victims of statutory rape.  Obeying the law and reporting the criminals is really bad for business.

While roughly half of the public has been persuaded by our sound bites that killing innocent but unwanted human beings is a civil right, we haven’t been able to convince as many that it is wrong to cover up sexual relations between 20+ year old men and underage girls.

While the Penn State employees were eventually discovered, their willingness and ability to hide child rape for so long demonstrates their commitment and usefulness to an organization with the principles of Planned Parenthood.  We are especially keen on hiring Mike McQueary, who has the unique ability to see the act in progress and not contact the authorities.  That’s the kind of dedication we need to counter those pesky pro-lifers who catch us over and over with their sneaky and unethical audios and videos.”

It is theoretically possible that the above is satire (I wish I didn’t have to write that, but you never know how people will take things).

I urge you to bring up Planned Parenthood’s long record of hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking when the Penn State topic comes up.  People are rightly sickened by the actions of the football program, yet Planned Parenthood does the same thing on a vastly wider scale and with the blessing of the Democratic Party, the media and countless fake “religious“ people.  If your under-aged daughters were impregnated by a statutory rapist, Planned Parenthood would gladly hide the crime and destroy your grandchild (For a price, of course.  It isn’t a charity.)

Remember, your tax dollars and the rampant media bias makes this possible.  Just count the headlines and op-eds on Penn State and compare them to the coverage of Lila Rose’s video sting operation. Even the Huffington Post and Saturday Night Live can see the perversions of justice that happened at Penn State, but they ignore the systematic injustices at Planned Parenthood.

I was talking to a Liberal who was rightly blasting the Penn State situation.  I got him to agree that statutory rape is evil.  Then I explained how often Planned Parenthood had been caught hiding statutory rape.  In theory, his outrage should have been greater than it was towards the Penn State situation.  After all, the Planned Parenthood evils are for more extensive and paid for with his tax dollars.  His level of outrage: Zero.  His interest in more information or proof of my claims?  Zero.  He just changed the subject.

—–

Hat tip for this idea: Uber-commenter Jeff E., who left this comment on the Joe Paterno post:

Change the location of the discovery of underage rape from a Penn State sports facility to a Planned Parenthood office and see just how quickly liberal media outrage over not immediately reporting such incidents to the police changes. Should we hold Planned Parenthood leadership to the same standard they want to hold Penn State officials?

That’s a perfect question to ask anyone (rightfully) complaining about the Penn State fiasco.

Christian worldview, Politics

From the “you can’t be a hypocrite if you don’t have standards” category

7 Comments

I’ve tried to ignore the whole Weiner-gate thing (sort of like the mainstream media wanted to, but those evil Republican pajama-bloggers wouldn’t let it go*), but his press conference was on the TV in front of me when riding the exercise bike at the gym yesterday.  So here are some thoughts I must purge . . .

Prediction: Representative Weiner will win re-election next year, and it will say more about the voters and the Democratic Party than it will about him.  [Update: I hate being right.  The scandal is as fresh as could be and the “resign” vs. “don’t resign” polling is just 46% to 41%]Anyone suckered by his faux-pology today deserves what they get.  Just watch the video at Creepy must-see flashback: Weiner lies shamelessly to ABC about what happened and watch him lecture the media for daring to ask him questions about this, then ask yourself if you should believe his speech.

But what you really need to do is read Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Elin Nordegren, Elizabeth Edwards and Maria Shriver to see how Andrew Klavan and the Wintery Knight isolate the problem: Of course the guys were all 100% responsible for their actions, but these women should not have been surprised with what they got.  Schwarzenegger, for example, had a very creepy past.  What made Maria think he was going to straighten up and fly right for her?  WK offers a great series of questions that women should ask before marriage, then offers this:

Basically, instead of relying on feelings and peer approval to choose a man, women need to ask men questions and be willing to reject them if they give the wrong answers. It seems that today, a well-grounded Christian worldview, based on closely-argued conclusions and empirical evidence, is regarded as superfluous to marital stability. I guess people think that fidelity is basically random – that Bill Clinton is as likely to be a faithful spouse as James Dobson. And I think the problem there is that women are so inundated with celebrities, that they no longer believe that there is a way to judge men’s character based on what men know and can demonstrate that they know. After all, if women abdicate the responsibility to judge men, because “men are unpredictable”, then they can set themselves up as helpless victims and avoid all the work of having to evaluate a man while keeping him at arms length. Making him prove himself capable of being a man, in other words.

Character and knowledge count. Just because a man can put on a show for you, it doesn’t mean that he is capable of producing the results of a thoughtful Christian worldview.

What does Dr. Laura say about marriage?

“Commitment to marriage and child rearing was once viewed as the pinnacle of adulthood identity, so that women looked carefully for the “right” man for the job, and parents were consulted for opinions and blessings.”
Source: Dr. Laura Schlessinger, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, page 53.

Please read the whole thing.

* Also see Breitbart’s Vindication, where we see once again where the mainstream media was an epic FAIL and others are filling in the gaps.  He was right all along.