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?