Tag Archives: democrats

Another blasphemous book by Rachel Held Evans

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 her).  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 . . .)

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 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!

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.