Tag Archives: obama

Leftist teachers getting mugged by reality

Public school teachers, who are mostly Leftists, are getting mugged by reality. Why? Because the Obama administration’s Department of Education required equal racial outcomes for student discipline.  Of course, student behavior is similar to criminal behavior in that it is much more dependent on home life (i.e., no solid male presence at home) than race.  Via School discipline issues reach fever pitch as districts fear the racial bean counters:

The bane of “racial proportionality,” which in many ways personified the Obama administration, continues to burden school districts across the country.

Over the last decade, school officials have loosened the “discipline grip,” so to speak, out of fear their schools’ racial percentages may not be viewed as “correct” by government bureaucrats.

Ironically, it’s that very reliable Democratic voting bloc — teachers — which have borne the brunt of this slackening, which no doubt explains why even they frowned upon the previous Department of Education’s race-based “discipline” measures.

Take a recent story from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: City schools have lost almost four dozen teachers since July due to what they deem as “an unprecedented level of misbehavior among children” . . .

So whenever a student misbehaves the teachers must clairvoyantly know the racial discipline ratios to date for their school and/or district to know if they can punish the student.  And you can imagine how quickly the students will pick up on that.  If they know the minority quotas have been achieved then they can do almost anything without getting punished.

Maybe the teachers will reconsider their political views. The elites don’t care if teachers suffer as long as they prop up the charade that disparate outcomes are always driven by discrimination.

And what about the poor students who can be victimized at will by those who aren’t permitted to be punished?  Hopefully their parents will protect them by home schooling or at least protesting — and voting for true conservatives!

And this would be a good time to remind the elites of the one set of disparate outcomes that they ignore: Blacks are aborted at three times the rate of whites and Hispanics at twice the rate. Why not oppose abortion because of that?

This is one of the many reasons we should eliminate the Department of Education to save money and improve schools.  Polices like this are transparently ridiculous and, ironically, racist at their core.  Parents should know that if their children chronically misbehave then the rest of us are under no obligation to fund their education.

When a “Christian” Leftist starts to explain the “real” meaning of Christmas, prepare to be lied to

As if you if you needed more evidenced that Obama is not a Christian, watch how he and his wife explain the “real” meaning of Christmas.
Yes, it is typical “Christian” Left gibberish. Look, if they don’t want to be Christians, that’s up to them. But don’t lie and claim the label while stating the opposite of what the Bible does on every key doctrine.
The only good part of this is that it shows how powerful real Christianity is. For example, I can easily and accurately state Muslim beliefs because these are simply facts of history (i.e., they think Allah is the true God, that Mohammad was his messenger, that Jesus did not die on a cross, etc.).
But the “Christian” Left and more explicit anti-Christians can’t even spell out what we really believe — even if they don’t believe it themselves — namely, that we believe that Jesus is divine, that He died on a cross to bear our sins, that He rose again on the third day, that only those who trust in his name are saved, etc.
What was so hard about that?  Nothing, in the sense of how simple and well-documented the concepts are, but everything, in the sense that deep down they know it is the truth and they are actively rejecting it.
They are so desperate to deny it that they don’t even want the words repeated.  It reminds me of a New Age person who would have visceral reactions when I quoted scripture even if she didn’t know it was scripture.  The demon(s) in her knew what it was.

Meme of the Month: Why don’t Leftists worry about Obama forcing his “Christianity” on others?

There was a murder case where the victim was considered missing for weeks until they found her body.  The man they found guilty, based on circumstantial evidence, maintains his innocence to this day.  Perhaps he isn’t guilty, but one thing about the case always stuck out to me: He would often text and call the victim, but stopped immediately after she was dead.  If he didn’t know she was dead, wouldn’t he have still tried to contact her?  Maybe there was a good reason, but when he was asked the question he was tongue-tied.  I think his inside knowledge changed his behavior.  He covered things up as best he could, but never thought to call or text someone he knew was dead.

In the same way, when the Left — and especially the “Christian” Left — worries about real Christians in office, they completely tip their hands.

Some memes are much more accurate and powerful than others.  This one speaks volumes.

b

 

If they were truly concerned about religious beliefs in the public square, they would have the same concerns about Obama, Hillary and other Leftists pretending to care about what Jesus said.  But everyone on their side is in on the charade.  They know they are just faking it — or that they really worship the fake Jesus of Jeremiah Wright, Chuck Currie, Mark Sandlin, etc. — so they don’t care.

I realize that people can fake it on the right as well, but you don’t catch those people trying to dismiss the Leftist “Christians” because of their religious beliefs.

The reason that Whoopi et al don’t fret about Obama’s “Christianity” — you know, the faith they get so wounded about if you dare question it — is that they know it is false.  But their words betray them when they hold conservatives to an entirely different standard.

One of my favorite things to do when people play the “You’re forcing your religious views on me” card is to ask them to point me to anywhere where they have been equally strident in opposing the religious Left. After all, if “forcing religious views” was such a horrible thing, they should be actively protesting the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, all the fake Christian denominations pushing taxpayer-funded abortion and oxymoronic “same-sex marriage,” increased taxes, etc.

I’ve yet to get anything besides crickets chirping in response.

Really, I’m pro-choice.

pro-choice-baby.jpgPro-choice for whom one should legally marry (i.e., no forced marriages).

Pro-choice for legal “sexual orientation change.”

Pro-choice for choosing your religion (or lack of one).

Pro-school choice (whether it is the choice of which public school to attend or the option of home schooling).

Pro-choice of parents to know if their children are receiving birth control at school.

Pro-choice of parents to know if their children are having an abortion, which involves great physical and mental risks to their daughters in addition to destroying their grandchildren.

Pro-choice for medical professionals not to perform abortions or dispense abortion pills.

Pro-choice to own guns.

Pro-choice of the unborn to determine if they can live.

Pro-choice for secret union ballots.

Pro-choice to access conservative radio shows.

Pro-choice to teach the flaws of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Pro-choice of people to choose how they want health care insured or provided.

Pro-choice on the voters of America to decide social issues instead of having judges ignore the will of the people.

And so on. So yeah, I’m pretty pro-choice.

Oh, wait, you meant “pro-choice to crush and dismember the unborn, who we know from science are most definitely human beings?”

No, I don’t think people should have that choice unless it is to save the life of the mother.

The “Christian” Left is against all those choices, except the one that results in this and this.

I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.

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

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

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

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

—–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really, don’t pay to have your grandchildren destroyed

Despite all the talk about women’s right to choose to have their unborn children killed, they often feel like they have no choice.  Many times they are being pressured by boyfriends (who will leave anyway 90% of the time*) and their parents (including parents who claim to be Christians).

Here’s an example I came across:

A lot of women don’t know. That’s so in my case, even through my daughter argued with me. She understood my motivation, but she was right and I was wrong!

Once they know, I totally agree. I’m a father who took his daughter to get an abortion; I had never considered anything about abortion; I just knew I wanted my daughter to have a chance at a good life and that I was already grieving for her.

The really horrible regret didn’t come for about 7 or 8 years, but when it did, I went reeling into a horrible depression realizing what I had done. As a Christian, I now know I’m forgiven, but I also have to carry what the consequences are . . . . one of which, I believe, is why my daughter still hates me.

No matter how bad things are, killing your children (or grandchildren) is not going to make things better.  There is a better way.  Start with your local Pregnancy Resource Center (aka Crisis Pregnancy Center).  They have lots of help to offer and all for free.

And if you did something you regret, please know that there is forgiveness, hope and healing in Jesus.  Abortion is not the unforgivable sin.  The blood of the cross covers it as well, but you must repent and believe.

*Let’s just say that guys who want to have their children killed aren’t the best marriage prospects anyway.

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.