Tag Archives: White House

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.

Roundup

A brief history of sex ed: How we reached today’s madness — good summary.  Where will it end?

Speaking of sex ed, did you see where Planned Parenthood paid $1.4 for commiting Medicaid fraud?  Oddly enough, people who kill babies for all living seem to break all sorts of rules.

Never heard of this guy but liked this quote I saw on Facebook.

Because the gospel is not just salvation from sin but salvation from self-righteousness, we don’t need to worry about filling every spare second with unrestful duties, even ones we think are in service to God. God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Matt. 9:13). Christ made the sacrifice sufficient.   Jared C. Wilson

Obviously: White House meets with celebs on how they can help promote ObamaCare to young people

When it comes to persuading young people between the ages of eighteen and about thirty five that they should voluntarily shoulder the higher costs of the inherently riskier insurance pools being peddled to them through the auspices of ObamaCare — without whose participation the system’s already rising costs will skyrocket all the further — the usual dry, boring government stuff just isn’t going to cut it. . . .

New Documents Show NBA Player J. J. Redick Pressured Girlfriend to Have Abortion — He certainly had the “Bro-choice” philosophy.  The link has images of creepy emails where they hashed out the legal agreement requiring her to abort.  Note that the abortionist did the procedure even though she checked the “forced into it” box.  Tell me more about how abortion is good for women . . .

Science Shows New Atheists to be Mean and Closed-Minded — If the new atheists are so reason-based, why do they always resort to personal attacks?

Emergent Monday: Joel Osteen – Pantheist, Pagan, Agent of Satan — Osteen is so much worse than most people think.  He may wave a Bible around but he’s a fake.  It is bizarre that the people who made the recent movie about the Bible would have him as a consultant.  He has zero training!

John MacArthur put it best when talking about Osteen’s message:

You need to understand that he is a pagan religionist in every sense.  He’s a quasi-pantheist.  Jesus is a footnote that satisfies his critics and deceives his followers.  The idea of his whole thing is that men have the power in themselves to change their lives.  In his definitive book Your Best Life Now, he says, and that ought to be a dead giveaway since the only way this could be your best life is if you’re going to hell.  He says, “that anyone can create by faith and words the dreams he desires.  Health, wealth, happiness success”…the list is always the same…
MacArthur continues, “What is the source of this?  Where does this come from?  Answer…Satan. This is not just off-center.  This is satanic.  Why do I say that?  Because health, wealth, prosperity, the fulfillment of all your dreams and desires…that’s what Satan always offers.  That’s called temptation based on the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.  That’s exactly what corrupt, fallen, unregenerate people want.  That’s why it works so well, right.  You can go right into Satan’s system make everybody feel religious and turn their desires, their temptations into somehow honorable desires.

So where does being a bible college dropout with no biblical teaching and a satanic message of prosperity get you? If you’re Joel Osteen it gets you a position with the history channel as Biblical and Theology advisor to their production of The Bible. (Which explains why it was not so biblical)

New CDC report finds soaring rates of HIV among men who have sex with men — The CDC is obviously homophobic.  Seriously, if you really love people won’t you want to warn them of dangers like this?

United Church of Christ claims that God is calling the church to a new vocation. Seriously.

As if these wolves / goatherds listen to him on anything else!  Their new hobby horse is divesting from fossil fuel investments.  How much money does this shrinking denomination have, anyway?  Uh, shouldn’t they be using it to care for the “least of these?”  That’s pretty capitalistic of them!

Via Why We Divested:

As soon as I read Bill McKibben’s Rolling Stone article on the terrifying math of global warming it was clear to me that the church needed to provide leadership. Bill and I had been arrested twice at the White House protesting the Keystone XL pipeline, and the three days we spent in jail further clarified for me that in response to the reality of climate change, God is calling the church to a new vocation.

The UCC employs people like false teaching, race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie, so expectations are obviously low for them.  Their “God is still speaking,” mantra is comical, considering that they typically do the opposite of what He said in the Bible.

IRS leader visited Obama 157 times, but they never discussed targeting Conservatives? Sure.

Yeah, it is only 157 times more than the previous Commissioner visited with President Bush in his last 4 years.  And of course Obama learned about the targeting from the media.

Seriously, if you don’t see the problem then you are part of the problem.  Even if this was the only scandal in the Obama administration it would be worthy of impeachment.

But again, remember that the biggest issues we should emphasize here aren’t Obama’s incompetence, maliciousness, lying and law-breaking.  The issues to emphasize are the dangers of expecting government to solve all of our problems and trusting it to be better than the free market to choose winners and losers.  Point to the doctrine of original sin and how giving unchecked power to anyone is a bad idea.

Via Politics: Former IRS head visited Obama White House a staggering 157 times.

Even though we know at least two Senators pushed the IRS to target the left’s political enemies, and despite the fact that White House council knew about it weeks – maybe months – before it appeared in the papers, the official line is that Obama learned of the IRS scandal only when it appeared in the media.  He’s a busy guy and, since the agents involved were just “low-level rogues,” it was impossible for the President to hear about the targeted auditing of Tea Party groups.

It’s not like he’s being directly briefed by the head of the IRS on a regular basis.  He has no time for that.

Except, for some reason, former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman was spending a staggering amount of time at the White House. According to a Daily Caller analysis of public records, he visited at least a whopping 157 times.

To put that in perspective, he enjoyed more White House visits that Secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry combined.  He was there three times as often as Kathleen Sebelius, the HHS secretary who’s been instrumental in the Obamacare fiasco.  Heck, it’s more than twice the number of appearances made by our resident gun-runner, Eric Holder.

 

Former IRS head visited Obama White House a staggering 157 times

Roundup

Gun registries and background checks are either meaningless or malicious.

Meaningless: The criminals won’t participate, so all you have is an expensive, burdensome process to gather a list of law-abiding citizens.  And even if they worked on guns, they would do nothing about knives, clubs, pressure cookers, etc.

Malicious: The lists will ultimately be used to disarm law-abiding citizens.  Anyone denying that is part of the problem — either via evil intentions or via naiveté and/or ignorance of history.

Mark Steyn nails it, as usual.

In America, all atrocities are not equal: Minutes after the Senate declined to support so-called gun control in the wake of the Newtown massacre, the president rushed ill-advisedly on air to give a whiny, petulant performance predicated on the proposition that one man’s mass infanticide should call into question the constitutional right to bear arms.

Simultaneously, the media remain terrified that another man’s mass infanticide might lead you gullible rubes to question the constitutional right to abortion, so the ongoing Kermit Gosnell trial in Philadelphia has barely made the papers — even though it involves large numbers of fully delivered babies who were decapitated and had their feet chopped off and kept in pickling jars. Which would normally be enough to guarantee a perpetrator front-page coverage for weeks on end.

In the most recent testimony, one of the “clinic”‘s “nurses” testified that she saw a baby delivered into the toilet, where his little arms and feet flapped around as if trying to swim to safety.

Then another “women’s health worker” reached in and, in the procedure’s preferred euphemism, “snipped” the baby’s neck — i.e., severed his spinal column.

“Doctor” Gosnell seems likely to prove America’s all-time champion mass murderer. But his victims are ideologically problematic for the media, and so the poor blood-soaked monster will never get his moment in the spotlight.

Hey, don’t miss Fossil Freedom Day of Action this year!  I wonder how the participants will get there, because they would never be hypocritical and use fossil fuels to go to an event dedicated to not using fossil fuels.  Right?!

20 Questions Liberals Can’t Answer

Ben Carson Silenced, Bill Ayers Given Podium

Inspiring role model Ben Carson was forced to cancel a commencement speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, despite being director of the school’s Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery, because he does not endorse the grotesque blasphemy of homosexual “marriage.” In stark contrast, unrepentant communist terrorist Bill Ayers — best known for his involvement in bombing the Pentagon, the Capitol, and NYPD Police Headquarters; for encouraging his followers to “kill all the rich people” and “kill your parents”; and for still more damagingly launching the career of Barack Hussein Obama from his living room — was well received last spring at the University of Oregon, where he crowed that America is in decline . . .

The USA is declining, all right. What healthy country would silence Ben Carson, while tolerating an evil freak like Bill Ayers, even electing his protégé to the White House?

But the decline can be reversed, so long as people remember the principles that prevailed when America was great, and are willing to fight to restore them.

Good commentary on original sin.  Or just funny.

Pearls Before Swine

Planned Parenthood agrees with them as well, as do many false teachers.  Oh, and they all want them to be funded by taxpayers.

This was floating around last week, which no Christian should ever use.  Real Christians know that praying to any other “god” is not only useless but blasphemous.

902718_849210977950_649796047_o

But it gets better: In a bit of morbid irony in the midst of this tragedy, the car hijacked by the terrorists had a COEXIST bumper sticker.  Talk about being mugged by reality!

More from Mark Steyn on the COEXIST bumper sticker from the car the terrorists hijacked:

I wonder, when the “CO-EXIST” car is returned to its owner, whether he or she will keep the bumper sticker in place. One would not expect him to conclude, as the gays of Amsterdam and the Jews of Toulouse and the Christians of Egypt have bleakly done, that if it weren’t for that Islamic crescent you wouldn’t need a bumper sticker at all. But he may perhaps have learned that life is all a bit more complicated than the smiley-face banalities of the multiculturalists.

Did FDR help end the Depression or prolong it?  The pesky Law of Intended Consequences resulted in the latter.

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

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.

Guess which candidate got 20% of his record funding from Wall Street?

You guessed right!  Seems kinda hypocritical to me for the President to bash Wall Street now.  Have your preferred media sources told you this?

See Obama attacks banks while raking in Wall Street dough:

Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.

In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters.

When asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obama’s credibility when it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply.

Shocking!

Fleischer continued by saying that President Obama and Democrats, such as New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who has received approximately $8.7 million from Wall Street since 1989, should stop taking campaign donations from Wall Street banks if they are so offended by their actions.

“They can’t say we hate Wall Street, but we love their money,” Fleischer said.

 

. . . the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks lobbyist spending and influence in both parties, found that President Obama has received more money from Bank of America than any other candidate dating back to 1991.

 

The story within the story on the Operation Fast & Furious cover-up

Why are Department of Justice and White House personnel yelling and screaming at a reporter over her coverage of the Operation Fast & Furious cover-up? Via Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith requests Special Counsel on possible Eric Holder perjury:

[Laura] Ingraham: So they were literally screaming at you?
[Sharyl] Attkisson: Yes. Well the DOJ woman was just yelling at me. The guy from the White House on Friday night literally screamed at me and cussed at me. [Laura: Who was the person? Who was the person at Justice screaming?] Eric Schultz. Oh, the person screaming was [DOJ spokeswoman] Tracy Schmaler, she was yelling not screaming. And the person who screamed at me was Eric Schultz at the White House.”

It isn’t just the obvious perjury of Eric Holder about when he knew of the program.  It is how these high level Obama officials assume that they can tell the media what they can and can’t report — as if that’s what they’ve been doing since he’s been in office!

Solyndra

Here is a great timeline on the Solyndra scandal, courtesy of Verum Serum.  It is already a little dated, though, as it doesn’t include how the Solyndra executives promised to testify yet are now refusing.

This is pure crony capitalism and political payoffs.  It also highlights the foolishness of much of the Green movement.  Hopefully this gets to where the mainstream media can’t ignore it (though MSNBC is trying by not mentioning it in prime time).

Note how the Bush administration rejected them but the Obama administration wasted half a billion dollars on them.  Coincidentally, of course, a major Obama fundraiser and donor was involved on the Solyndra side.

Also see the timeline of how Obama is using GM (“Government Motors”) to manipulate the electorate.

Our financial crisis is your fault!

You should have elected a luckier President.  See Obama Creates His Own Luck (emphasis added):

Today in Iowa, Barack Obama proved once and for all that he does not understand how the economy works:

At a town hall meeting on his campaign-style tour of the Midwest, President Obama claimed that his economic program “reversed the recession” until recovery was frustrated by events overseas.  And then, Obama said, with the economy in an increasingly precarious position, the recovery suffered another blow when Republicans pressed the White House for federal spending cuts in exchange for an increase in the national debt limit, resulting in a deal Obama called a “debacle.”

“We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again,” Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa.  “But over the last six months we’ve had a run of bad luck.”  Obama listed three events overseas — the Arab Spring uprisings, the tsunami in Japan, and the European debt crises — which set the economy back.

If the issue wasn’t so serious you could just laugh off this childish leader who blames everyone but himself.  Corporate CEOs would have been fired by now for the lack of results and the lack of personal responsibility.

How liars play the “hate group” card

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie shows you how in GOP 2012 Field Looks To Tea Party For Inspiration.  It is a simple two-step process:

1. Find a group that labels as a “hate group” any organization that teaches the truth of the Bible, namely that homosexual behavior is a sin.

2. Refer to that organization as a “hate group” as if they were akin to the KKK.

It is just that easy!   And just that dishonest!

Also, it helps to be a hypocrite like Chuck who criticizes Rick Perry for — eek! — hosting a prayer conference as an alleged “separation” issue.  See Hypocrisy: Houston Prayers Violate Church & State but Jim Wallis at the White House Does Not? and ask why Chuck didn’t have a problem with this:

In contrast, the Religious Left has applauded Sojourners chief Jim Wallis’ “Circle of Protection,” a Christians-only coalition that met with President Obama to defend welfare programs from Republican budget cutters. Supposedly the prayer summit, according to liberal critics like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was “exclusive” and theocratic. But the White House summit, despite its specific political and partisan goal, was widely lauded.

Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis is as fake as Chuck, taking big $$ from atheist George Soros.  The National Council of (apostate) Churches also takes secular Leftist funds.  Somehow Chuck & Co. never point that out.

The faux-reverend Chuck is also a good little political hack, spouting all the talking points of the Left –“Tea Party downgrade” (because the problem definitely isn’t spending 70% more than we take in!), “extremist,” “increasing taxes” (aka coveting the wealth of others), “Religious right” (double eek!), etc.  He ghoulishly blamed Sarah Palin for allegedly violent speech before the Arizona bodies were cold yet has been not-so-strangely silent on the “Tea Partiers are terrorists” comments from Biden et al.  What a hypocrite.

I’m glad to see the new group CASE (Christians for A Sustainable Economy), which will help real Christians protect the poor from the likes of Currie, Obama, etc. who prefer to keep them enslaved.

Good news: 65% of Americans haven’t lost their minds. Yet.

See 65% of Americans reject gay-affirmative lessons in elementary school: poll | LifeSiteNews.com.  Emphasis added:

A recent poll released by Wenzel Strategies and World Net Daily indicates that a large majority of Americans – 65 percent – do not approve of gay-affirmative lessons in grade schools.

The poll was conducted for World Net Daily by the public-opinion and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.  The telephone survey conducted April 19-21 asked the question: “Do you believe elementary school children should be taught that homosexuality is a normal alternative lifestyle?”

Only 22 percent of respondents said they believe such teaching would be right, while another 13 percent said they were unsure.  The vast majority – 65 percent – said they do not approve of such teaching.

“Whether they object on moral grounds or simply out of concern that many U.S. schools are failing in their core missions of teaching basics doesn’t really matter – the vast majority of American adults want this type of curriculum kept out of the classroom,” Wenzel chief Fritz Wenzel said.

“Americans are particularly averse to the introduction of gay issues into the curriculum of the nation’s elementary schools,” Wenzel said. “Even among Democrats, who have been much more sympathetic to the promotion of gay issues, just 32 percent said they believe this should be taught to elementary school students. Just 11 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of political independents said the same thing.”

. . .

To the question, “Should students be taught how to perform gay sex acts as part of ‘safe sex’ lessons in school?” more than 73 percent of respondents said no.

This isn’t some made-up issue, by the way.  It is the logical consequence of making civil rights out of sexual preferences.

The issue of pro-homosexual teaching in schools has had renewed debate recently in California with a bill that would mandate such teaching in the curriculum.

Many have also noted the renewed vigor with which gay issues are being promoted in schools following the appointment by President Barack Obama of well-known gay rights activist and founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Kevin Jennings, as assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

. . .

“Teaching children sexual techniques is simply not appropriate. Unfortunately, it is part of a consistent pattern by some homosexual activists to promote underage homosexuality while pretending that their mission is simply to promote tolerance for so-called alternative lifestyles,” the newspaper said.

“It is outrageous that someone involved in this scandal is being paid by the taxpayers to serve in a high-powered position at the Education Department, of all places. At some point, [Education Secretary Arne] Duncan, Mr. Jennings, Obama administration spokesmen and the president himself are going to have to start answering questions about all this. Refusing to do so won’t make the issue go away.”

Good news from the House: “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” passes

Hopefully it can pass the Senate and get past Obama’s veto.  This will save lives and not force pro-lifers to fund abortions.  (I thought pro-legalized abortionists were pro-choice?  Why don’t they want pro-lifers to have the choice of whether to pay to kill the unborn?)

See House Republicans unanimously support No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act « Wintery Knight.

The White House strongly opposes the bill. In a policy statement, the administration wrote that the bill “intrudes on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care; increases the tax burden on many Americans; unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that consumers have today; and restricts the District of Columbia’s use of local funds, which undermines home rule.”

“Reproductive freedom” is one of those deadly inaccurate sound bites.  Here’s a scientific fact for the President: If someone wants an abortion, they have already reproduced.

How odd that he cares about the tax burdens, especially when this is the equation: More dead babies = less taxes.  I’m all for low taxes, but not by killing unwanted human beings.  His moral schizophrenia never fails to disappoint.

Life News reports that the public supports banning funding for abortions:

A majority of Americans object to the use of taxpayer money for funding abortion, according to numerous polls — including a survey CNN conducted in early April showing Americans oppose public funding of abortion by a margin of 61% to 35%.

That’s a pretty big majority.  Hopefully the Democratic Senators will realize they’ll be handing their opponents a gift if they vote against it.

And also notes that cutting off funding makes a big difference in the number of abortions:

Congressman Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who is the lead sponsor of the bill, informed the House that a study by the Guttmacher Institute, the pro-abortion former research apparatus of Planned Parenthood, released a study noting that one-quarter of women who otherwise would have had abortions chose to give birth when taxpayer dollars were not available to pay for abortions of their children.

And I think that some behaviors may change if they know the government won’t pay for abortions.

Some solutions are simple: End the drilling moratorium to increase employment, reduce the deficit, help the hungry and cut gas prices

Unemployment has a compounding effect in either direction: More unemployed means less people paying taxes and less people with spending power, which leads to more unemployment.  The reverse is true as well: Ending the drilling moratorium would increase jobs, reduce the tax burdens for supporting the unemployed, give those people more money to spend, and increase employment for those providing goods and services to those employees.

It would also lower gas prices very quickly, and not just because of the increased supply.  The Middle East plays us like the (collective) fools we are.  If we get serious about drilling, prices will go down.

High fuel prices have all sorts of unintended adverse consequences.  They are very inflationary because the cost of nearly everything else goes up.  The poor suffer because what used to be used as food is now sometimes used as fuel (my wife was just reading about how this is happening in Kenyan slums).

But that isn’t happening: See Good News! Obama To Authorize Tons Of Drilling Permits To Lower Gas Prices : Stop The ACLU (the title is being sarcastic, of course).

Drill now, and see benefits now and later.  If you want to help the poor, reduce unemployment, reduce the deficit and cut gas prices, then drill now.

Bidens make $379,000 and donate $5,360

Wow, a whole 1.3%.  How generous for a guy who wants to take money from neighbor A by force to “give” to neighbor B and claim it as a virtue on his account.  And that doesn’t even take into account how much free stuff and extravagant benefits the guy gets.  See Obama’s tax return: Income down — to $1.7 million.

I was glad to see the President finally upped his donation percentage.  He used to give just 1%.  Yes, the same guy who says we have to give more, be our brothers’ keeper (even though he isn’t his own brothers’ keeper), etc. has been really cheap with his own wallet until just recently.

He says his proposed tax increases will affect him, but he failed to take advantage of the opportunity to pay extra anyway.  All these millionaires who are asking to be taxed more can self-tax all the like.  It is completely legal.  I’ll wait here . . .

Liberals who don’t give generously should not even be listened to. Their foundational hypocrisy proves their untrustworthiness.  Obama, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry . . . it is a long list.  It is truly an upside down world when they are considered to be the generous ones for giving away other people’s money.