Tag Archives: democrats

Democrats hate blacks.

And that includes their media accomplices, of course.  There are no other explanations for the following.

  1. They know that promoting out-of-wedlock births is terrible for families and dooms them to generational poverty, but they need that permanent black underclass to provide faithful Democratic votes.  Democrats have had monopoly control over most inner city politics, schools and media for over half a century, and look what it has done for blacks.  Remember the Democrat Death Spiral: “a vicious cycle by which miserable economic conditions lead to government dependency and class envy, leading to Democrat electoral victories, leading to higher taxes and crippling regulations, leading to still more miserable economic conditions.”  Even if their intentions were good, Leftists literally fail at basic economics.
  2. That said, they still hate black people so much that they push abortion on them, resulting in black children being killed at a rate three times that of whites.  Planned Parenthood kills more blacks in a day than the KKK has in their history, and it isn’t an accident.  So with my abortion position there would be many more blacks alive today.  Who are the real racists?
  3. They oppose charter schools, thereby condemning many black children to failing, dangerous, out of control schools.  They can’t stand any competition with their unions — even though countless teachers in Leftist areas who can afford it send their children to private schools.
  4. Because of number 2 the Democrats need more votes, so they import illegals by the truckload and want open borders.  That takes the jobs of low-income blacks and suppresses the wages of remaining jobs.
  5. They want to disarm blacks so they can’t defend themselves, all the while living in their safe, gated communities with home security systems and armed guards.
  6. They knowingly spread lies such as “hands up, don’t shoot” that promote riots and destroy black communities, all because it advances the Leftists’ agenda.  They have no intention of truly helping people in towns like Ferguson, especially after riots destroy the towns and even fewer businesses want to locate there.
  7. They talk down to blacks.  Studies show that conservative whites talk to blacks in a more normal fashion while Leftists condescend and dumb things down.  And they assume that blacks are too stupid to get an ID to be able to vote (although that is more about the Left wanting to steal elections with voter fraud).
  8. And to make all that worse, the Left — including the “Christian” Left — have the nerve to say that Republicans are the racists.  They create bitterness and divisiveness 24×7 just so they can increase their power.  No matter how well some blacks have done the Left gaslights them into thinking they are oppressed and must be miserable.  Whereas blacks used to want more policing in their communities, the Left has now convinced them to hate the police and to protect the drug dealers and thugs that destroy their neighborhoods and harm their children.
  9. They seek to destroy successful conservative blacks such as Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice, referring to them as “Uncle Toms” and such.
  10. They turn a hypocritical blind eye to wickedly misogynistic, violent and hateful rap music even though they know it harms the black culture, yet they cry about “micro-aggressions” allegedly made by whites.

More gifts from the Left!

What now?  Just that the Left is on record saying that felons should be able to vote — possibly even the Boston Marathon Bomber.  Source: Moonbattery Voting Rights for Boston Marathon Bomber

HARRIS: I have been long an advocate of making sure that the formally incarcerated are not denied a right to vote, which is the case in so many states in our country, in some states permanently deprived of the right to vote.

She then gibbered about how not letting incarcerated terrorists vote is the equivalent of Jim Crow. Her rhetoric confirmed yet again that for all the good it may of done in the past, civil rights is now nothing more than a wrecking ball.

LEMON: But people who are in — convicted, in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, on death row, people who are convicted of sexual assault, they should be able to vote?

HARRIS: I think we should have that conversation.

I love it. That will come back to haunt her and all the other Dems who either have to explain why she’s nuts (and alienate the extreme Left) or agree with her.

And here’s a great response to Bernie:

It is so simple to point out how letting felons vote would have disastrous impacts on local communities – and that’s just for starters. The prison where I do prison ministry has as many convicted felons as the town has eligible voters. The felons could easily outnumber the free people.  Please, Democrats, keep talking about this!

But wait, there’s more!  Elizabeth Warren wants to buy votes buy promising to pay off college debt.  You could run against that 24×7 in swing states, reminding those who didn’t go to college that Warren et al want to make them pay for the college degrees and unfinished college programs of those who make much more than them.  How about if Warren just cut her $400,000 Harvard salary by 90%?

Their hypocrisy is staggering and unending.  They are so “generous” that they never stop trying to spend more of your money, but they are comically stingy with their own charity, such at Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke donating a whole 0.3% of his income.  These frauds are rich but give away almost nothing.  And even then their tax returns don’t say what they gave to.  It may have been to Leftist political organizations and not charities helping the poor.

Their hatred of Trump has driven them to further open borders extremism: Sanctuary cities, judges helping illegals avoid ICE, benefits for illegals, etc.

Then there is the gun-grabbing.  More and more Dems are on record saying they really do want to take our guns.  Until they get complete power they’ll do it indirectly with excessive fees and restrictions, then they’ll start grabbing.

And don’t forget how they fight to kill children up to their first breath and even after those abortions “fail.”  Most people identifying as pro-choice don’t support later-term abortions.

And the Green New Deal?  Just quoting from the original is all you need to do to mock them.

And there is always the Socialism thing.    This pretty much sums it up.

And yes, Snopes actually did a piece saying she wasn’t really on the show.  Don’t believe me?  Check out Snopes.com.

But the Republicans – aka the party of stupid — will probably find a way to fumble these issues.  If they would just stay on point, and keep reminding people that the entire Russia thing was an elaborate hoax made up by the Left, then Trump should win.

So to recap, the Democrats are proudly:

  • Pro-child killing to the first breath and even OK with letting them die if they survive abortions
  • Pro-perversion, including teaching your 5 yr. old children that they can change genders and taking your children away if you don’t affirm their desires.  Oh, and increasingly saying that pedophilia is an “orientation” – which means it must be not only protected by law but affirmed.
  • Open borders to reduce your wages or take your jobs and to reduce your safety and quality of life
  • Hypocrites who give your money to counterproductive social programs but are incredibly stingy themselves – even though they are the epitome of the “1%”
  • Gun-grabbers who mock the Constitution
  • Anti-free speech
  • Rabid antisemitism from the Muslims elected in districts where vast amounts of “refugees” have been imported
  • In favor of murderers, rapists and terrorists voting from prison
  • In favor of destroying the economy with their ridiculous Green New Deal – just another part of their unlimited power grab based on “climate change” fallacies

Another blasphemous book by Rachel Held Evans

Note: An update after her death on 5/4/2019 is at the bottom.

Mrs. Evans has made a career out of being an “ex-evangelical” (sort of like Bart Ehrman, except he’s a bit more honest than she is).  She mocks the word of God for profit and once again insists that the Bible’s authors were blasphemous liars and that the text did not turn out as God wanted it to.  After all, if the Holy Spirit had been involved then she wouldn’t have to edit it.

The world loves her messages because she poses as a Christian who tells them just what they want to hear, namely that the Bible is a silly book that they do not need to read or take seriously.  And of course she fights for legalized abortion to the child’s 1st breath (and without anesthetic, of course, because compassion), is wildly pro-LGBTQX, etc.  Her primary self-description is “doubt-filled believer,” but she has no doubts that her conscience trumps (heh) the Bible and that Jesus agrees with all of her Leftist politics.  This is the “Christian” who demands that her conscience be the guide as to what is really from God.

Here’s a sample from her latest book.

Got that?  Your conscience is God, and it sits in judgment of the Bible.  What could go wrong?  It is classic “Christian” Left rationalizing and creating a god in her own image. The real Jesus doesn’t fit her sensibilities, so He must be wrong. Uh, sure.

Her followers will think it is so poetic blah blah blah but it is the same old rebellion.  She can’t possibly see how God just might understand something better than her.

Isaiah 55:8–9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Also see the end of Job. Did he get to understand everything about God’s ways?  (Ironically, she appeals to the story of Job for why she gets to demand answers from God.  Did she read the beginning or ending of Job?  Not sure that will turn out for her like she planned . . .)

She blasphemously claims the following:

It [the Bible] fails massively at getting to the point.

That is spoken like a non-Christian. Here’s a simple example: The Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation (it isn’t just John 14:6, though that would be enough). What could be more clear? But a spiritually blind wolf like Evans can’t see that — and obviously doesn’t believe it.

And she is wildly pro-LGBTQX perversions, even though the Bible couldn’t be more clear and consistent about God’s views on sex.  Consider the following truths and how Evans’ perversion-affirming god teaches the opposite:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Even two out of three types of pro–gay theologians* concede those points, yet the “doubt-filled” Evans has zero doubts about affirming every sexual perversion in the LTBTQX spectrum.

And note how she insists that her sitting in judgment of the Bible is what it truly prescribes, as if we should all trust our consciences.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Here’s more:

Non-Christian Mrs. Evans quotes non-Christian Thomas Paine to attack the Bible. Seems about right.  No, wait, at least Paine was honest about his beliefs. I’d take Richard Dawkins over Evans any day – at least you know where he really stands.

This isn’t a nuanced debate on a meaning of a Hebrew word. We all agree that the text says God said to clear out the Promised Land, among other things. But Evans’ sleight of hand is to conflate her conscientious objections with the fact that there are some legitimate debates on some Bible passages.  But the net of it is that she claims those are blasphemous lies that don’t belong in the text.  And we aren’t talking about a couple verses, but literally many hundreds of verses tied to the prediction, execution and references back to the taking of the Promised Land.

So once again Mrs. Evans claims that the Holy Spirit did not inspire the writings and that the human authors were blasphemous liars. That’s her prerogative. We even have a precise theological term for people like her: Non-Christian.

Jesus affirmed the Old Testament and authorized the New Testament. You can agree with him or you can agree with Mrs. Evans and the “Christian” Left. Choose carefully.

Mrs. Evans et al are such transparent wolves.  They must have gotten too warm, because they took off the sheep’s clothing long ago.  Their followers are getting what they deserve.

At least that’s why my God-given conscience tells me, so I must be right!


*Pro-gay theology tends to fall into one of three categories. They are all wrong, but for varying reasons. Sometimes they overlap categories.

  1. The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t. This view claims that we can ignore the prohibitions against homosexual behavior because they were written by homophobic Jews.
  2. The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong. This view holds that people just aren’t reading the Bible properly, and that God’s Word is actually affirming of gay relationships.
  3. The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describe gay behavior as sinful. However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable. This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships.

Update: Truly sad that she died, especially having young kids.  But I have to be candid: When I read the comments of those who supported her and were affirmed by her, I am reminded at how wicked her “ministry” was. These were typical:

Be mad at God. Be mad at the Universe. Be mad. Be mad. Be mad.

4 hours ago   I had permission to explore LGBTQ+ affirming theology & eventually come out as bisexual. She was one of the first affirming Christians I encountered in my research, & her loud support is directly tied to who I am today.

37 minutes ago The door she opened for me by saying it’s okay to be angry at the church and it’s okay to leave, led to a thousand other open doors and new pathways that created who I am now: a queer Christian woman who no longer fears the white cisheteropatriarchy.

3 hours ago   I first started exploring Side A theology, which has led to me being in a wonderful, loving, gay relationship. I’m able to be myself and live my best life because of her opening my eyes.

4 hours ago  I’m an openly queer woman serving as an elder in my church . I never could have reconciled feminism and Christianity all those years ago without her.

If that’s what she encouraged people to do then it is a tragic legacy.

Someone wrote this in response to a blog post noting Evans’ bad theology:

Rude. Heartless. So inappropriate. Can you picture Christ responding like this – calling someone an apostate immediately after their untimely death? I don’t think so. I don’t know what god you guys are serving, but it doesn’t reflect the God that I know.

The commenter was tone-deaf to the fact that that’s exactly how Jesus will respond when someone dies — either with judgment or with “well done, good and faithful servant.” Someone rightly pointed out what Jesus said about untimely deaths:

Luke 13:1–5 There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Not surprisingly, Evan’s fans reject what Jesus said.

The mind-numbingly bad “gender pay-equity” myth

How many 2014 Democratic incumbents have gender pay-equity gaps? – Anyone promoting the “77 cents” argument should be ignored for at least one election cycle, because it means they are either wildly ignorant and/or malicious liars.  Republicans should fight back against this as Cruz is doing.

Cruz: “Under President Obama, 3.7 million women have moved into poverty.”

Earlier today, Glenn Kessler predicted that Democrats would find the 77-cent lie too irresistible to jettison. Perhaps a dose of their own medicine might cure them.

. . .

It turns out President Obama isn’t the only hypocritical Democrat, in fact Senate Democrats have their own problems when it comes to equal pay.  We pulled the official payroll records of various offices and calculated the average pay for men and women in each office for the most recent 6 month period available. Since some employees only worked a portion of the six month period, we calculated how much each person was paid per day in order to give an accurate representation.  Here’s what we found:

  • Mark Udall pays women 91 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
  • Mary Landrieu pays women 88 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
  • Mark Begich pays women 82 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
  • Mark Warner pays women 75 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
  • Gary Peters pays women 67 cents for every dollar that a man makes.

That means on average, these five Democrats on the ballot in battleground states pay women in their office 79 cents for every dollar made by a male employee.  All Republicans support equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender or race for working families, mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers. Democrats, on the other hand, don’t practice what they preach.  They’re hypocrites.

Assuming this is accurate, only Landrieu and Udall even make it to the White House’s level of failure on the issue [see update below]. Warner (D-VA) pays less than the 77-cent bogus metric derided by the White House (using their same calculation), while House Democrat Gary Peters — who has declared his candidacy for the retiring Carl Levin’s Senate seat — falls a full ten cents below the national average.

The answer to this is, just as it is in the rest of the country, that men and women have different priorities and desires in the marketplace.

 

 

Detroit: The petri dish of Leftist politics, education and unions. And bankruptcies.

Just updating this in honor recognition of Detroit’s bankruptcy.

Best line I’ve seen on Facebook lately: If Obama had a city, it would look like Detroit.

I saw an item where a 50 yr. old lamented that he might not be able to retire this year as planned.  He filled potholes in Detroit for a living.  That is important and honorable work, but the idea that it would prosper one to be able to retire at that age is symptomatic of a much larger problem.

Leftist polices are poison.

As you probably read recently, Detroit has a 47% illiteracy rate.  Forty-seven percent!  Less than 2% of their students could do college work.

Ideas have consequences.  Please watch Steven Crowder’s analysis of Detroit and how the policies that ruined it are spreading to the rest of the country.  Democrats have had a virtual monopoly on inner city politics, education and unions for over 50 years and today’s Detroit is the result.  I think that all Liberal members of Congress should have to live there for a year — with the same un-Constitutional gun control laws they want to force on others.

More details here: Why did Detroit go bankrupt? Who is to blame? Whose fault was it?

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

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.

Is this Planned Parenthood representative extra-evil, or just remarkably consistent?

Planned Parenthood kills babies for a living, they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking, they encourage kids to have all sorts of out-of-wedlock sex and pretend that it can be done without risks, and so much more.  Yet one of their representatives managed to shock people during a public hearing. Watch it yourself:

She and Planned Parenthood, like Barack Obama before her, are fighting the restrictions against withholding medical care and killing infants who survive abortions.  She specifically says that the decision regarding what to do about the baby on the table is between the mother and the “healthcare provider.”  (She initially said the family, then thought better of those implications and reverted to just the mother later in her testimony).  And while this question may not have been asked, presumably she would insist that taxpayers fund the killing of the baby on the table.

Apparently the horrors of being a little too far away from a hospital were too much for Planned Parenthood to take, so speaking like Dr. Nick Riviera of The Simpsons, just to be on the safe side they need to be allowed to kill the baby.

Of course it is spectacularly evil to withhold care or directly kill a baby on a table.  Just because the abortionist failed on the first try doesn’t mean he deserves a second shot.  Anyone without a warped moral compass would agree.  But who are the inconsistent ones?  I submit that she is entirely consistent with the Democrats’ platform of abortions without restrictions, funded by taxpayers.

Remember, the successful abortion would have had the mother and child in the same room, with an irrelevant change in the distance between them.  Everyone in the video seems to concede that.  This Planned Parenthood representative would have been entirely consistent in saying the following (channeling Hillary Clinton):

With all due respect, the fact is we end up with a dead baby who wasn’t wanted by her mother. Was it because she was killed slightly inside the mother or slightly outside? What difference at this point does it make?

And she would be right.  While killing the baby on the table seems worse, it is morally equal to the abortion.  (Speaking of red equal signs . . .)

And if those babies can be killed, why not any baby delivered naturally?

Predictable wolves focus solely on banning guns

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to ghoulishly capitalize on the Newtown tragedy to advance his leftist anti-gun agenda.

His “sermon” title was as deceptive as it was silly: O’ Come, O’ Come, Emmanuel: Work to End Gun Violence With Impatience.  Emmanuel means “God with us,” and Chuck and his fellow theological liberals explicitly deny the deity of Christ.  Here’s an example:

In the Christian tradition, we follow people like John the Baptist and Jesus, people who showed such impatience with the world that they were put to death for their ministry.

Chuck is still spiritually dead and has no idea why Jesus really died.  All he “knows” is that he is really sure that the Bible is wrong.

He thinks impatience will end these shootings?!  We need more guns, not less.  Note how dishonest he was in failing to mention what prevented the Oregon shootings from being far worse: A brave and wise citizen with a concealed carry weapon!

The glory-seeking cowards who perpetuate these killings quickly kill themselves once they realize someone else is about to limit their fame by taking them out first.  The killers are aided by people like Currie who make “gun free” zones the 2nd most dangerous places in America (a mother’s womb is the most dangerous place, also thanks to theological liberals).

Chuck’s “Advent” sermon was just politics barely disguised as religion.

Worst of all, radical pro-aborts like Chuck and Obama — or anyone who agrees with the Democrats’ platform — would have applauded the allegedly Constitutional and biblical right of the parents to have each of those children killed while still partially inside the mother.  And they insist that all taxpayers fund any abortions, including partial-birth abortions.  When they pretend to care about children they are just following in the footsteps of their real leader, the father of lies.

False teachers want to reduce abortions by increasing abortions. Or something like that.

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to spread disinformation about how Contraception Reduces Abortion Rate.

It is a classically disingenuous move on his part.  Pro-aborts like him pretend to want to reduce abortions, but everyone who supports the Democrats is explicitly in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions that will obviously increase the number of abortions (duh).  So if they really wanted to reduce them then why take the money of pro-lifers by force to increase them?

And he ignores that half of abortions occur while women are on birth control.  The rate of failure is highest for teens.

Reducing the number of abortions is a cause most people of faith share but not all people of faith believe women should have access to contraception – some believe such access should be difficult or even illegal.

That is a straw-man argument.  Just because we didn’t buy Sandra Fluke’s nonsense doesn’t mean we want birth control to be illegal.  She’s a 31 yr. old law student managing to finance a $50,000 /yr. education and she can’t get her boyfriends to pool $10/month for birth control?  It was one of the most Prozac-inducing parts of the campaign watching so many people side with her.  Is it so hard to see the difference between access and forcing others to pay?

And isn’t it just possible that all the great pro-life laws (ultrasounds, informed consent, parental notification, etc.) put into place have helped reduce abortions?  Remember that pro-aborts strenuously oppose all of those.

Such thinking increases the need for abortion.  Groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice work to promote contraception.  We need more voices joining with RCRC.

The RCRC is all about abortion.  “Reproductive Choice” is a fallacious term, as all abortions kill humans who have already been reproduced.

At the same time, faith communities need to be fighting hard for quality sex education in our public schools and to be providing such education in our churches.  A great resource for churches is the Our Whole Lives curriculum developed by the United Church of Christ and Unitarian Universialist Association.

I can only imagine what perversities that Chuck and the Unitarians have cooked up for these poor young people.  Remember, Chuck is so eager to show how “progressive” he is that he uses his 6 yr. old daughters as props to take to gay pride parades.  That’s sick, but he is a perfect picture of the “Christian” Left (Read: Wolves in sheep’s clothing).

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like this and the denominations that support them.

Government & bedrooms

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.

Roundup

The pastoral “call,” and how there isn’t one — The “called to _____” is one of the most common examples of sloppy God talk.  People often ignore the clear requirements for pastors and elders and lead with vague statements about feelings.  They let their self-validation trump what the Bible says, which, ironically enough, should be evidence that they aren’t “called.”

They were chuckling and sharing the story of how one of them felt, as a (young!) teenager and a brand-new convert, that he “had the call,” meaning “the call” to preach. So he announced his call one week, and got up to preach the next. Period. No training, no apprenticeship, no evidence, no clue as to what it meant Biblically to preach (let alone be a pastor). He attributes this to a move of the Lord at that time in that location, as He reportedly grabbed up a lot of young men and “called” them to preach.

The brothers clarified that in their culture, all one need to is announce that he has “the call,” and he is to preach. Like, right away.

—–

Nature publishes discovery of fossil with complex brain dated just after the Cambrian explosion — Once again, evidence that Intelligent Design would predict and Darwinism would not.  The Darwin lobby will ignore this or try to pretend that it supports evolution — even though it is the opposite of everything they’ve claimed for 150 years.

—–

A great video for Christians, Democrats and especially black Christians.

—–

As I’ve said before, Detroit is the petri dish of Liberalism.  Now police are warning people not to enter Detroit because it is so unsafe.  If you want your city to be like Detroit, then vote Democrat.

—–

Undercover Sting Reveals Eagerness of Obama Camp to Facilitate Voter Fraud — just more evidence when they lie about fraud not existing.  Remember this when people claim that we don’t need voter ID or that it is somehow racist (Project Veritas has more videos like this).

—–

Officer Has Career Destroyed for Acknowledging Islamic Enemy — this is part of the deadliness of political correctness.

How much success would we have had in World War II if politically servile top brass had punished military officers for failing to whitewash Nazi ideology? The answer sheds light on our current difficulties:

During a press briefing, Army General Martin Dempsey, President Barack Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly lambasted Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Matthew Dooley, a 1994 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and a highly decorated combat veteran. His reason: The course on Islamic Radicalism which LTC Dooley was teaching at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) of the National Defense University was offensive to Muslims, according to a statement released on Monday by officials from a public-interest law firm in Michigan.

—–

Obamunists Call for Vandalizing Cars With Romney Stickers — I wish I was surprised by this.  Even sadder are the people promising to riot if Romney wins.  This all stems from the sense of entitlement brought by Liberalism and appealing to the lowest common denominators of coveting and instant gratification.

If you put a Romney sticker on your car and it is subsequently vandalized by the lower grade of human that is attracted to the Democrat Party, you can’t say you weren’t warned. Twitchy reports:

As Twitchy has reported, unhinged supporters of President Barack Obama are stealing, defacing, and urinating on pro-Mitt Romney yard signs and bumper stickers.

—–

Joel Osteen, Rick Warren and Oprah — need I say more?

—–

I’m not into marching band stuff, but this was very impressive.  Go Bucks!

Boomerang.

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.

Oops!

Sometimes I say too much and forget that the best strategy is often to sit back and watch your ideological enemies self-destruct.  Therefore, I take back my criticisms of Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie and his People Of Faith Support President On Contraception Fight Despite Lawsuit post.

Chuck clearly has a well thought out, rational idea. Keep the “war on women” meme going, because it definitely isn’t another one of Obama’s boomerangs.  It certainly isn’t condescending to women — especially religious women — to tell them that they must rely on the government for everything and that it is OK to trample religious freedoms to ensure that all women — and not just 90%+ — have “free” birth control.  After all, Chuck & Co. know that not only is it impossible for women to be self-sufficient, but that they aren’t even capable of buying birth control!

So preach on, Chuck!

Via Video: House Republican women make their case « Hot Air.

That’s what makes the Democrats’ message to American women so strange and unsettling. For the past few months, the Democrats have been accusing Republicans of waging a “war on women” as if some honest disagreements between the parties — over matters like how an “Obamacare” mandate should affect religious institutions or the proper scope of federal law on tribal land — constitute a deliberate GOP campaign to take away women’s rights.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and Republican women have been at the forefront exposing these myths. Let’s face it: Republican women — like us — would never be part of a party that didn’t believe in women’s rights, equal pay for equal work and strong laws against sexual violence. The Republican Party believes in all of those things.

We also believe in something else: We believe that women want to be empowered. We believe that women want independence. We want opportunities. We want an equal chance to succeed — no special favors and no glass ceilings. We want our daughters to have those same opportunities, that same chance to live the American dream. We want our sons to have it, too.

What policies promote freedom, opportunity and self-ownership? Certainly not the Democrats’ Big Government policies. The Democrats showed their hand recently with their “Life of Julia” infographic. The Obama campaign used this to illustrate how a typical woman is dependent on government programs from birth to death — and how the GOP is supposedly undermining those programs.

The ultimate Liberal tautology: You are racist for not voting for a black man and you are racist for voting for a black man

Alternate title: “Can a media personality say something more stupid than this? Probably not.”

A tautology is an essentially meaningless statement where all instances are true, such as, “It will rain today or it won’t.” I say without exaggeration that Janeane Garofalo’s version is that Republicans are racist for voting against a (half) black man (Obama) and they are racist for supporting Herman Cain.

It is obvious who the real racist is: Garofalo. She is so cynical that she’ll play the race card to manipulate people even though she has no evidence that Tea Partiers are racist for supporting Cain.

In an appearance on Wednesday night’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on Current TV, Garofalo explained her theory.

“Herman Cain is probably well-liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican Party, conservative movement and tea party movement,” Garofalo said.

“People like Karl Rove like to keep the racism very covert and so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity so he can say, ‘Look: This is not a racist anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look: We have a black man.’ And look he’s polling well and he won a straw poll.”

Note to Janeane: Please meditate on these facts . . .

  • Abortion rates in the black community are 3x that of whites. Liberals want taxpayer-funded abortions, which will only increase that ratio. Republicans oppose this. How does that fit in with your “Republicans are racist and Democrats are not” meme?
  • Democrats have had virtual monopolies on inner-city politics and education for over 50 years. How is that working out for black people?
  • Black unemployment has gone up dramatically under President Obama. Will another half-trillion of political payoffs help reduce that?

Via Garofalo: Cain’s rise in support proves Republican racism, or something « Hot Air.

Ponzi schemes: Illegal for Bernie Madoff but not the government

As I noted in Repeat after me: There is no Social Security “trust fund”:

There is no trust fund.  No. Trust. Fund. Anyone claiming there is such a thing is ignorant and/or trying to deceive you.

The government does not have the capability to set aside funds in a bank account like we do.  When the Social Security funds come in they are spent on Social Security, or, as they have done for decades, on other spending projects they didn’t want to raise taxes to fund.  Decades of dishonesty and financial mismanagement by both parties are becoming more visible.

If Social Security taxes stopped today there wouldn’t be a penny saved to meet the commitments the government made.  It is the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.

If some of these Social Security funds went to private investments that you could control then that would limit how much the politicians could abuse.  But they don’t want to lose control, so they play on your fears that something bad will happen.

Yes, the market could crash and you could lose your investments.  It is a risky world.  But think about this: Whether your private account crashed or not it isn’t like the government is saving our taxes today to pay out tomorrow.  Either way the payouts they will make 10 years from now will come from taxes paid 10 years from now.

Simply put, we can’t lose by having at least part of current contributions devoted to private accounts.  The politicians will lose because they’ll have to find a way to fund current spending, or not spend the money at all.

Don’t let fear-mongering by politicians fool you.  The system has been broken for a long time.  Democrats didn’t want you to be informed and Republicans didn’t try hard enough to inform you.  But it isn’t that complicated.

Here are some great ideas from Time to Opt Out of the Social Security Ponzi Scheme.  I urge you to the whole thing.  Now is the time to educate people on how Social works, why it is doomed to fail, and what we can do about it now.  Those young people who swallowed Obama’s lies and are now unemployed and saddled with massive college debts may be willing to listen to some truth now.  Same thing for middle-aged people who will realize that they will spend their careers paying into a system that will be beyond bankrupt when they retire.

The Social Security Ponzi scheme is perhaps the most consequential government infringement upon our lives.  Conservatives are justifiably outraged that Obama egregiously mandated that we purchase health insurance.  However, the individual mandate is not nearly as meddlesome and tyrannical as the government’s complete control over our retirement security.  The only reason why these two programs are regarded differently by the public, is because Social Security has been around for 75 years.  Consequently, most Americans are conditioned to believe that a person’s retirement is indissolubly tied to government-run Social Security.

Now that Social Security is running a perennial deficit and is facing insolvency, conservatives have an opportunity to reverse one of the most flagrant violations of our property rights, by offering workers the option to opt out of the Madoff-style program.

As the unfunded liability for Social Security balloons to $21.4 trillion over the next 20 years, it is painfully obvious to young workers that they will not enjoy much retirement security, if any, from the government program.  Democrats are totally apathetic to their grim future; they will be long retired by then, enjoying the full array of government benefits that they secured for themselves.  Meanwhile, they would rather demagogue the issue, using fallacious scare tactics to stir up current retirees.  Accordingly, we should harness the Democrats’ Mediscare demagoguery towards seniors, and direct it towards younger Americans.  If Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan will push granny over the hill, the status quo of the Democrats’ Ponzi scheme will prevent the grandchild from making it up the hill.

With high unemployment and polls showing a precipitous drop in support for Obama among young voters, now is the time to reach out to those voters.  Congressman Pete Sessions is proposing the SAFE ACT (HR 2109), which would allow younger workers to control all of their retirement savings.  Here are some of the key details of the proposal:

  • Every American would be able to opt out of the current system and direct the full 6.2% of payroll taxes to a personal retirement account beginning January 1, 2012.  Conversely, anyone who wishes to remain in the current system would not be affected.  An employee who chooses to opt for the SAFE account can switch back to the current system during the first five years after opting out.
  • After 15 years of the bill’s enactment, employers would be able to contribute “their share” of payroll taxes to the employee’s SAFE account.
  • Self-employed individuals would be able to divert the full amount of their payroll taxes to a SAFE account.
  • The SAFE accounts would be tax free and any cash contributions would be tax deductible.   Also, all post-retirement distributions from the account would be tax free.  Any pre-retirement distributions would be taxed as income.
  • Upon the death of the account beneficiary, irrespective of his/her age, the inheritors of the estate will be able to assume full ownership of the account.

. . .

So, young Obama zombies with skulls full of mush; with whom do you trust your retirement security: your bank account or Obama’s defunct ATM?  How about Bernie Madoff?