Tag Archives: New York Times

Politics

Are you compliant with the EPA unicorns-per-gallon requirement?

8 Comments

Gilt statue of a unicorn on the Council House,...

OK, technically they aren’t requiring unicorns in your fuel, but they might as well be.  This is exhibit A for this month in the case of why we need need limited government (exhibit B is the ridiculous 16 oz. drink requirement in NY, which would be exhibit A if it were a Federal requirement).  Via EPA fines oil refiners for failing to use nonexistent biofuel:

Question: Do you fill your car’s tank with gasoline that is part cellulosic ethanol, an environment-friendly distillate of wood chips, corn cobs, and switch grass? Let me answer for you: No, you don’t. You couldn’t if you wanted to. Petroleum products blended with cellulosic ethanol aren’t commercially available, because the technology for mass-producing cellulosic ethanol hasn’t been perfected. None of which has stopped the Environmental Protection Agency  from imposing hefty yearly fines on oil refiners. According to the The New York Times, in 2011 automotive fuel producers were assessed $6.8 million in penalties. That amount is expected to climb dramatically this year. Guess who ends up footing the bill for the difference?

This has got to be the ultimate example of government bureaucracy gone mad.

One of my frustrations with people who should know better is when they perpetuate the straw-man argument that conservatives don’t want any government at all (“Golly, then they shouldn’t drive on roads, call 911, etc.”).  We aren’t anarchists.  We just understand the law of unintended consequences, and we know that bad things happen if you let government have too much power over your lives.

Politics

Queue the crickets on the impact of the overturned gun control laws

6 Comments

Don’t miss both important lessons here:

1. Contrary to predictions by gun control proponents, overturning gun control laws caused crime to plummet.

2. If you only consume mainstream media, you wouldn’t know that.  And that should bother anyone with intellectual integrity.  Do not pretend to be fully informed if you aren’t consuming conservative media along with your liberal media.

Via Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News:

Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C.

Politicians predicted disaster. “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence,” Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.

Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would “go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets . . . .”

The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court’s “unwise” decision that there is a right for people “to keep guns in the home.”

But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.

Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.

One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen. In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982.

 

Politics, Pro-life

Yea for sanity!

2 Comments

See New Hampshire lawmakers pass abortion parental notification bill over veto.

How hopeful is this? The New Hampshire legislature yesterday overrode Gov. John Lynch’s veto of a bill that requires abortionists to notify parents of minors 48 hours before conducting the procedure, The New York Times reports:

The House overrode the veto by a 266-102 vote; the Senate vote was 17-7. “Granite Staters believe in more parental involvement, not less,” the House speaker, William O’Brien, said in a statement.

Seems to me stakeholder “notification,” whether in personal, financial or political matters, is pretty commonly recognized as both polite and important. And don’t parents have a high stake in the health and well-being of their children (not to mention their grandchildren)? Obviously, 266 New Hampshire house members and 17 state senators think so. The legislatures of thirty-six other states thought so, too: New Hampshire becomes the 37th state to enact such a law.

What is amazing is that anyone could vote against parental notification laws.  Some oppose it because it could be due to rape or incest or because the parents might harm the child, but those are all lousy excuses.

If the parents are abusive, report it to the authorities. But don’t take the girl to kill her unborn child.   And keep in mind that the logic that “they might get abused” is never used to say that parents shouldn’t be notified of their child’s grades, bad behavior, arrests, etc.

If it was a case of rape, then go to the police! Why on earth wouldn’t the parents be notified if their child was raped?  Just because Planned Parenthood and the like hide rape doesn’t mean that schools should.

If the incest was by a father or step-father, then go to the police! In those cases incest is just a different way of saying rape.

Students literally can’t take a single Advil in most schools with the parents bringing an original bottle and a note to the school, yet the abortion lobby thinks the same kids should be able to have a risky surgery that kills an innocent human being without the parents being told.

Politics

A really bad weekend for Palin-haters

3 Comments

Update: Instead of finding evidence for her alleged stupidity, a writing analysis confirmed that she is anything but: Turns out she writes like most CEOs —  and at a higher level than a language expert who admits he wishes she would have come across as illiterate.  It was a huge backfire for the haters, but will they admit their years of mistakes?

Just a couple days ago Huffington Post followers and many other Palin-haters were practically in pants-wetting mode over the release of 24,000 pages of her emails. Oh, if only they had shown such passion for investigating the domestic terrorist connections and other issues with the Community Organizer they elected President!

So how many links does the HuffPo main page have on the emails as of this writing (June 12)? Precisely zero. Why is that? Probably because of this: Palin emails show engaged leader who sought VP nod.

There are no bombshells, no “gotcha” moments.

The emails of Sarah Palin — more than 24,000 pages of them released Friday by the state of Alaska from her first two years as governor — paint a picture of an image-conscious, driven leader, closely involved with the day-to-day duties of running the state and riding herd on the signature issues of her administration.

She angled for the vice presidential nomination months before John McCain picked her — and hinted at presidential aspirations.

Eek! A politician angling for a greater role? That’s never happened before.

The messages give a behind-the-scenes look at a politician who burst onto the national stage after serving as Wasilla mayor and less than two years as Alaska governor. They show a woman striving to balance work and home, fiercely protective of her family and highly sensitive to media coverage. She expressed a sometimes mothering side with aides but also was quick to demand answers or accountability.

Here’s a shocker: A politician who didn’t want to use state resources for political purposes. Yet people like Janeane Garafalo think that “rationale” people should support Anthony Weiner despite what he has done.

Palin’s scheduler sent her a note June 21, 2007, saying Gov. Mitt Romney — who was running for president — wanted to schedule a call to “catch up on things.” The aide said Mike Tibbles, her former chief of staff, said she probably wouldn’t be interested, and wondered how she should proceed.

“What is his number? Since it may be partisan, I should do this without state assistance. Thanks!” Palin replied.

. . .

Her supporters encouraged everyone to read the messages. “The emails detail a Governor hard at work,” said Tim Crawford, the treasurer of her political action committee, Sarah PAC, in a prepared statement.

Oh, and there were a bunch of death threats from her loving and tolerant critics.

Palin was the most popular governor in the country, she fought corruption in her own party, she took on oil company executives, she speaks plainly and isn’t an elitist, and more. Oh, and she was pro-life, having the audacity to bring a Down Syndrome child into the world. So the Palin-haters decided that she must be destroyed. The mainstream media was literally 18-to-1 negative on her. Unless you consume a balance of conservative and liberal media it is highly unlikely that you would think favorably of her.

Politics, Sexuality

What if a Republican President decided not to enforce a law he didn’t like?

5 Comments

Anyone on the Left cheering President Obama’s dropping of legal support for the Defense of Marriage Act isn’t thinking even 30 minutes into the future.  Do they really like the precedent that a President can pick what laws to enforce?  (BTW, DOMA passed by huge margins in the Senate (85 – 14) and House (342 – 67) and was signed into law by President Clinton.)  Will they just sit there when a Republican President does ignores laws he opposes?

Let’s turn to our one-stop-heresy shop, Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie, for the typical response of the theological Left (i.e., false teachers):

President Obama Does The Christian Thing In Dropping Legal Support For Defense of Marriage Act.

Really?  Got any Bible verses for that?  In addition to Jesus specifically stating that marriage was designed for one man and one woman:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to 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.

President Obama today directed the U.S. Department of Justice to stop defending theindefensible: the so called “Defense of Marriage Act” which bars federal recognition of same sex marriages.

“Indefensible?”  That’s beyond hyperbole considering what both Christian and non-Christian cultures have determined through history.  Same-sex unions by nature and design do not produce the next generation.  Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman.

This was an act of moral courage on the part of the president

That’s odd, when a Republican like Rick Perry spends time passing a sonogram law to reduce abortions and make them safer for women the Lefty criticism is that he should be working on the budget or other bigger problems (Bigger than saving lives?!).  But when Obama does something like this to cater to certain sexual preferences it is courage. Check.

The prohibition of gay marriage is the twin evil of the legal prohibition that not long ago existed that barred interracial marriages.

For the 100th time, skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not.

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ made history by becoming the first mainline Christian denomination to endorse full marriage equality in 2005.

Yes, we know you are a band of apostates.  As Glenn noted, “The United Church of Christ has again demonstrated it is more involved with the social gospel than the true gospel, and that they assist those who behave illegally.  In Chicago a UCC has given sanctuary and protected some of the Wisconsin Democrat lawmakers who are hiding from the State Patrol rather return to do the job they are being paid to do.”

The U.S. Department of Justice “will now take the position in court that the act should be struck down as a violation of same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection under the law,” according to The New York Times.  This action on the part of the president moves our nation closer to being the Beloved Community.

“Beloved community” is a classically nauseating false teacher-ism.  He’s got no Bible verses to back it up.  He makes up the phrase then pretends that his false god makes that the highest goal.  Then again, what do you expect from a “reverend” who brags about taking 6 year old girls to gay pride parades?

Roundup

Any easy way to spot pro-choice lies

10 Comments

Just count how many times they use the term “reproductive” along with “choice” or ” freedom.”  I counted nine in this pro-abortion piece alone: President Obama Notes Roe Vs Wade Anniversary; Faithful Advocates Must Double Efforts To Protect Choice.  It also used the word “choice” nine times, while conveniently failing to mention what was being chosen: The deliberate destruction of an innocent human being.

Of course, anti-science pro-abortionists use word games like “reproductive choice” or “reproductive freedom” as cheap emotional tricks.  The issue with abortion is not reproduction.  It is a scientific fact that a human being has already been reproduced.

“I am committed to protecting this constitutional right,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.”

That’s odd, because pro-aborts like Obama and the author never seem to support crisis pregnancy centers.  These organizations help women and families in need, but pro-aborts view them as the enemy.

Mr. Obama, the father of two young daughters, called on Americans to “recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

What a bizarre statement.  I didn’t realize that sons had the opportunity to destroy their children.

Mr. Obama said the 1973 Supreme Court ruling “affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”

That is the question-begging that is foundational to nearly all pro-abortion arguments: It assumes that the unborn aren’t human beings.  If you choose infanticide that isn’t a private family matter, is it?

RCRC today launched an interfaith social justice campaign – Insure Women, Ensure our Future – for full coverage of abortion services in the insurance exchanges. We act as people of faith whose strong family values are rooted in our diverse traditions and who believe that women’s lives are sacred, as are all lives, and must be protected.

That’s odd, because the RCRC (the nauseatingly named Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, whose moniker guarantees 24x7x365 blasphemy) doesn’t oppose gender selection abortions, virtually all of which destroy females for the sole reason that they are female.

Guided by compassion and our commitment to a more just world, we hold that women deserve safe medical care throughout their lives, including abortion services if and when necessary, both for their own health and for the well-being of their families.

The unborn are family members, and abortion is bad for their health.

Like many churches and religious groups, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ has offered support for reproductive choice

This is useful to spot apostate churches and teachers.  They support the murder of the unborn and cloak it in lies like “reproductive choice.”

God has given us life, and life is sacred and good.

And it is a scientific fact that the unborn are living human beings.  It is a biblical fact that God said not to shed innocent blood.

God has also given us the responsibility to  make decisions which reflect a reverence for life in circumstances when conflicting realities are present. Jesus affirmed women as full partners in the faith, capable of making decisions that  affect their lives.

Blasphemy.  Jesus never gave women  — or men — full partnership in sinful behavior.  Wanting to destroy life because your birth control didn’t work, or you didn’t take it, or you changed your mind, or whatever, is wrong.  Don’t compound it by claiming Jesus supports your sin.

There are many justice issues related to reproductive health, including access to pre- and postnatal care for all women, equal access to the full range of legal reproductive health services  including abortion, the right of women to determine when, if and how many children she should  have . . .

Can the women decide how many to have once they are outside the womb?  Of course not.  So the only question is, “What is the unborn?”  Since they are human beings we should protect them.

We should undertake our advocacy on this issue with prayer and humility.

No, you should oppose the destruction of innocent human beings.

As President Obama said today, we must “recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

Run, don’t walk, from any “reverend” or church spouting such blasphemy and anti-science nonsense.  If these people really cared about women they wouldn’t stand for the lack of regulation that resulted in the “house of horrors” (which accurately describes any abortion clinic).  They also would rail against Planned Parenthood’s serial hiding of statutory rape.

Never let pro-legalized abortionists get away with the “reproductive choice / reproductive freedom” lie.  Just ask, “But aren’t abortions designed to kill the human being that has already been reproduced?” If they accept the correction, then they were just guilty of sloppy thinking.  If they repeat it, they are deliberate liars.

Uncategorized

Ann Coulter on giving

Leave a comment

See Scrooge Was a Liberal – Ann Coulter – Townhall Conservative, where Ann does a nice job highlighting some facts about giving.

Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity — $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.

Even when it comes to purely secular charities, religious conservatives give more than other Americans, which is surprising because liberals specialize in “charities” that give them a direct benefit, such as the ballet or their children’s elite private schools.

Indeed, religious people, Brooks says, “are more charitable in every measurable nonreligious way.”

Brooks found that conservatives donate more in time, services and even blood than other Americans, noting that if liberals and moderates gave as much blood as conservatives do, the blood supply would increase by about 45 percent.

They ought to set up blood banks at tea parties.

On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more — and 50 times more to secular charities — than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income.

Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of the four groups. (Some of you may also know them as “insufferable blowhards.”) These “bleeding-heart tightwads,” as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives, who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.

Despite their wealth and advantages, secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent, less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also “significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier.” (Count Nancy Pelosi’s change carefully!)

Secular liberals are, however, 90 percent more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced redistribution of income. (That’s up 7 percent from last year!)

Needless to say, “religious liberals” made up the smallest group at just 6.4 percent of the population (for more on this, see my book, “Godless”).

Roundup

Roundup

8 Comments

Was Jesus a Liberal? – Not even close.  God is the ultimate conservative.  Really, read the book.  His moral laws don’t change.

—

From the I am not making this up category, professional climate alarmists blame snow and cold weather on global warming.  They have no shame and no reason.  And this contains the 2000 classic about how they wouldn’t have snow in England by now.

—

99% white group raising funds for abortions in predominately black communities, and yet there is no mainstream media coverage of this.  But they spent countless shows and blog posts on how the TEA Party is totally racist, right?

—

The New York Times explains why the leftist elite supports adultery and divorce – sad but typical story of two people who really like each other and must therefore dump their spouses and ignore kids because their happiness is the most important thing in the universe.

—

What Jesus didn’t say about his mother, Mary – “You know what your problem is?  You don’t think enough about my mother.” [paraphrase]

—

This is a keeper: MUST-READ: Correcting the economic myths that liberals/leftists believe – It will come in very handy when Liberals try to blame Bush for everything.  Facts are pesky things.

—

Pro-life reasoning

When pro-choice really means pro-abortion

3 Comments

More and more I see that those claiming to be pro-choice are really pro-abortion.  A typical example is shown by false teaching “Reverend” Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie.  He really shows how pro-abortion he is in “Fake Clinics: Stop Preying on Women.”

You see, if someone was truly pro-choice — and especially if that someone claimed to be a Christian — he would not oppose and would probably support Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs).  They do many great things for women and families in need, all for free.  We realize people have legal choices, and we’re merely trying to help them choose life.  Oh, and we share the Gospel if they are interested, another thing that a real Reverend would be thrilled about.

So on to the claims made in Currie’s post.  First, make no mistake: People who make lots of money  killing babies don’t mind lying to protect their business.  No kidding!  So I would never take their claims at face value.

A common misperception is that the “Christian position’ on abortion is anti-choice.

Yes, we are anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings.  Like most pro-abortionists, Chuck just doesn’t know how to finish his sentences.

The truth is that many Christian denominations support the right of women to make their own health care decisions.

Double fallacy: No one opposes women making “health care decisions.”  We do oppose women killing their unborn children, who are distinct human beings.  What about health care for the unborn, Chuck?  Why don’t you support their right to make decisions?

I recognize that the issue of abortion is a difficult one and that good people can come to very different conclusions concerning this issue.

But why is it difficult, Chuck?  Please explain.  I know why it is wrong: Abortion kills an innocent human being.  But if you disagree with that fundamental scientific fact, then why is the issue so difficult?

My own belief is that government shouldn’t be in the business of making these kinds of decisions for women.  Women should have a choice.

Tired old fallacious sound bites.  Chuck, should women have a choice to kill their toddlers?  Hopefully not.  So this isn’t about women having choices in any generic sense.  It is about a very particular choice: To have her unborn child killed.

He wants the government to make all sorts of decisions for our lives.  Shouldn’t the primary role of government be to protect human beings?  The government wouldn’t making a choice for the woman, it would be making a choice to protect innocent human life  and protect the “least of these.”

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has said:

Whereas, women and men must make decisions about unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that involve their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and …Whereas, abortion is a social justice issue, both for parents dealing with pregnancy and parenting under highly stressed circumstances, as well as for our society as a whole;

Yes, it is a social justice issue: You shouldn’t kill innocent human beings.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Sixteenth General Synod:

  • affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;

But if the life of the unborn is sacred, why not protect her?  There is no question that it is a human life.

  • encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;

But one of Chuck’s objections is that their are dangers with pregnancy.  If abortions aren’t immoral, then with Chuck’s logic they are safe and effective methods of birth control.

  • upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services, and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others;

Please explain how an abortion can ever be safe for the unborn human being.

  • urges the United Church of Christ, at all levels, to provide educational resources and programs to persons, especially young persons, to help reduce the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and to encourage responsible approaches to sexual behavior.

A reporter from The New York Times who recently visited a Crisis Pregnancy Center notes that she was provided with a pamphlet “about the risks of abortion” that “mentioned breast cancer, a link the National Cancer Institute has refuted, and something called post-abortion syndrome, for which the American Psychological Association, among others, says there is no evidence. As for the physical risks of pregnancy and childbirth? There was no pamphlet to discuss them.”

Gosh, the NCI and the APA would never buckle to political pressure, would they?  And people who kill babies for a very profitable living would never lie about it, would they?

Hey, come to think of it, Chuck is a well documented, serial, unrepentant liar.  Since when did he get so passionate about the truth?  Oh, when it advances the pro-abortion cause.

And Chuck obviously has never met many post-abortive women.  One of the many things offered by CPCs is post-abortion trauma counseling.  We have the great news of hope, forgiveness and healing in Jesus.  Too bad Chuck can’t offer that.

And of course, in his “Christian” counseling he’d tell them that killing their unborn children was blessed by Jesus.  What blasphemy!

Some authentic Christians might be pro-choice, though they are deeply, wildly, embarrassingly on the wrong side of the issue and almost universally uninformed about the key issues.   One day they will deeply regret that their laziness and refusal to be involved were the reasons abortion was made and kept legal. But you can know for sure that nearly 100% of Christians who oppose CPCs are fake.

CPCs save lives today and for eternity.  Fake Christians like Chuck and Co. are tools of Satan trying to destroy lives today and for eternity.

P.S. It is a very, very well documented fact that Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape.  If he is so concerned about the truth, why doesn’t Chuck blog about that?

Uncategorized

How to know when “pro-choice” means “pro-abortion”

Leave a comment

Every time I think false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie can’t top his earlier hypocrisy and falsehoods, he proves me wrong.  Chuck is pro-legalized abortion and wants taxpayer-funded abortions but hypocritically mentions Jesus’ concern for the “least of these” in many of his posts.

But he really shows how pro-abortion he is in “Fake Clinics: Stop Preying on Women.” You see, if someone was truly pro-choice — and especially if that someone claimed to be a Christian — he would support Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs).  They do many great things for women and families in need, all for free.  Most take zero government funding and rely solely on contributions and many volunteer hours. I expect Planned Parenthood to hate CPCs.  After all, if you make money by killing babies then anyone with a pro-life mission is your sworn enemy.  But even pro-choicers should support CPCs.

So how about the claims made in Currie’s post?  First, make no mistake: People who make lots of money  killing babies don’t mind lying to protect their business.  Really! And it is a very, very well documented fact that Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape.  Why doesn’t Chuck blog about that?

I wonder if Chuck’s opinion of Planned Parenthood would change if his daughters became clients?  History shows that if they were 13 and pregnant by 27 yr. old men that Planned Parenthood would not report the statutory rape and would coach them to lie about it.  Oh, and they would kill his grandchildren — for a large fee, of course.

Most parents would go nuts over that.  Then again, Chuck the moral freak proudly takes his young girls to gay pride prides.  What a Romans 1 poster boy.

Now to fisk Chuck’s lies and bad reasoning:

A common misperception is that the “Christian position’ on abortion is anti-choice.

Yes, we are anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings.  Like most pro-abortionists, Chuck just doesn’t know how to finish his sentences.

The truth is that many Christian denominations support the right of women to make their own health care decisions.

Double fallacy: No one opposes women making “health care decisions.”  We do oppose women killing their unborn children, who are distinct human beings.  What about health care for the unborn, Chuck?  Why don’t you support their right to make decisions?

I recognize that the issue of abortion is a difficult one and that good people can come to very different conclusions concerning this issue.

But why is it difficult, Chuck?  Please explain.  I know why it is wrong: Abortion kills an innocent human being.

My own belief is that government shouldn’t be in the business of making these kinds of decisions for women.  Women should have a choice.

Tired old fallacious sound bites.  Chuck, should women have a choice to kill their toddlers?  You want the government to make all sorts of decisions for our lives.  Shouldn’t the primary role of government be to protect human beings?  The government wouldn’t making a choice for the woman, it would be making a choice to protect innocent human life  and protect the “least of these.”

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has said:

Whereas, women and men must make decisions about unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that involve their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and …Whereas, abortion is a social justice issue, both for parents dealing with pregnancy and parenting under highly stressed circumstances, as well as for our society as a whole;

Yes, it is a social justice issue: You shouldn’t kill innocent human beings.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Sixteenth General Synod:

  • affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;

But if the life of the unborn is sacred, why not protect it?  There is no question that it is a human life.

  • encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;
  • upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services, and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others;

Please explain how an abortion can ever be safe for the unborn human being.

  • urges the United Church of Christ, at all levels, to provide educational resources and programs to persons, especially young persons, to help reduce the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and to encourage responsible approaches to sexual behavior.

A reporter from The New York Times who recently visited a Crisis Pregnancy Center notes that she was provided with a pamphlet “about the risks of abortion” that “mentioned breast cancer, a link the National Cancer Institute has refuted, and something called post-abortion syndrome, for which the American Psychological Association, among others, says there is no evidence. As for the physical risks of pregnancy and childbirth? There was no pamphlet to discuss them.”

Gosh, the NCI and the APA would never buckle to political pressure, would they?  And people who kill babies for a profitable living would never lie about it would they?

Hey, come to think of it, Chuck is a well documented, serial, unrepentant liar.  Since when did he get so passionate about the truth?  Oh, when it advances the pro-abortion cause.

And Chuck obviously has never met many post-abortive women.  Of course, in his “Christian” counseling he’d tell them that killing their unborn children was blessed by Jesus.  What blasphemy!

Some authentic Christians might be pro-choice, though they are deeply, wildly, embarrassingly on the wrong side of the issue and almost universally uninformed about the key issues.   One day they will deeply regret that their laziness and refusal to be involved were the reasons abortion was made and kept legal. But you can know for sure that nearly 100% of Christians who oppose CPCs are fake.

CPCs save lives today and for eternity.  Fake Christians like Chuck and Co. are tools of Satan trying to destroy lives today and for eternity.