Global warming? Did I say global warming? What I really meant to say was global freezing.

Will the public school children who were forced to watch An Inconvenient Truth be getting an apology from Al Gore and everyone else involved in that escapade?

It is bad news for the global warming / global climate change fraud perpetrators when parts of the mainstream media can’t ignore the truth any longer: Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again). But this is very good news for those who may be saved from the unprecedented money and power grab that is “global climate change.”

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

I think we should take this advice: Scientists to Politicians: Let’s Put Climate Alarmism on Hold for 50 Years

It is very illuminating that the Darwin lobby is now branching out to support the climate change hoax.  The parallels are so similar: lack of evidence or even contrary evidence, threats to punish dissenters, deep desire to indoctrinate kids and not let them consider contrary views, etc.

Hat tip: John

It isn’t just about love and hate, but about truth and lies and right and wrong

The Left reflexively plays the hate card when dealing with LGBTQ issues.  Sadly, too many  Bible-believing people fall prey to the trick and it silences them.  But it isn’t just about love and hate, but about truth and lies and right and wrong.

Consider these four possibilities:

1. You believe homosexual behavior is a sin and you share what you think is the truth, as appropriate.
2. You believe homosexual behavior is a sin and you do not share what you think is the truth, as appropriate.
3. You believe homosexual behavior is a not a sin and you share what you think is the truth, as appropriate.
4. You believe homosexual behavior is not a sin and you do not share what you think is the truth, as appropriate.

Before you can talk of love and hate, you’d need to understand right and wrong — or at least the perception of it by those in question.

Options 1 and 3 would be be acting in love (defined in the sense of having people’s long-term best interests at heart and not in the worldly sense of pampering people). Options 2 and 4 would be acting out of hate, or at least selfishness or indifference.

So it if you think homosexual behavior is a sin and don’t speak the truth, then you are acting hatefully — even if you were wrong in assessing the Bible (which you wouldn’t be).

The Bible couldn’t be more clear.  Even non-Christians and two out of the three types of pro-gay theologians can see these truths:

  • 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.

So even in some bizarre hypothetical where the Bible actually supported homosexual behavior and Leviticus, Romans, all the verses on parenting and marriage, etc. stated the opposite of what they do, it wouldn’t be hateful to describe LGBTQ behavior as sinful. It would only be hate if someone “knew” the Bible said homosexual behavior was acceptable and taught otherwise.

In the same way, it is loving to remove false teachers from the church when they are advancing falsehoods with pro-gay theology.  It is a virtue to protect people.

And it would be un-loving to reject people just because they struggle with a sin that isn’t a temptation for you.  If people recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and aren’t teaching the opposite, they should be welcomed in church. You should be willing to pray for them and be friends with them.

The hate card assumes motives and judges the hearts of others.  In some cases it is probably accurate to define people as haters, such as with Democrat Fred Phelps and his “church.”  But it is a cheap trick to use it against everyone you disagree with — and especially right after all your other arguments have been exposed as faulty.

The real haters are those that know what the Bible really says yet value their own popularity over the physical, emotional and spiritual health of others. They would rather be politically correct than tell you the truth. That’s love of self, not love of others.

The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.

Also see Responding to Pro-Gay Theology.

Quick thoughts on the candidates

To state the obvious: all of these are much better than President Obama.  The Liberal entitlements and unfunded liabilities that began with Roosevelt have doomed the country (anyone who thinks we aren’t headed in the direction of Greece is mistaken), but Obama & Co. are destroying it much faster than it would have otherwise, and they have all the wrong positions on social issues.

Sarah Palin — would have been the best candidate, but sadly the liberal media destroyed the chances of that in 2008.

Rick Perry — wasn’t well prepared but had the right views on the size of government and would have been good on social issues.

Rick Santorum — unlikely to get elected, but the guy I’d vote for today.  The correct positions on social issues but unfortunately not a small government guy.  I’d like to see him as VP.

Paul — the “cool” choice of college kids with some interesting ideas, but overall not someone I’d want to be President and also not electable.

Gingrich — brilliant guy but very flawed.  If you got the best of him it would be great, but that would be naive to expect.

Romney — not that much better than Obama, but I do see Ann Coulter’s points that he is strong against illegal immigration (assuming he’d actually do something about it).

Cain — could have been good.  Sin has consequences.

Bachmann — would like to see her somewhere in a Republican administration.

End of an era

We canceled our subscription to the Houston Chronicle (at least the daily portion; we may keep the Sunday paper). I have read the newspaper daily since I was 10. But I noticed that we were reading it less and less and some days I almost “precycled” it by putting it in the recycling bin without reading it.

I’ve been displeased with the Chronicle for years. The leftist mentality pervades everything, including the Lifestyle section. They have run multiple nostalgic fluff-pieces on things like Playboy magazine and the Deep Throat movie. Seriously.

But I get much more accurate news online via blogs and such.  Yes, the Internet has a lot of nonsense, but one of the beauties of it is that over time you can determine which sites are credible and then have a package of blogs and sites that you can trust.  The system works.  I stay well informed on both sides (you can’t escape the Leftist media).  Sadly, too many people only read the Liberal media and their stereotypes of conservatives.

And we’ll save a few bucks as well.

Quote of the day about the Planned Parenthood website

I’m pretty sure that’s where Satan lives.

Source: My favorite blogger

Seriously, some sites are so evil you can feel it.  Go check out their Teenwire site where they actively encourage teens to do whatever they like, without consulting parents or their religion.

Side note: I’ve yet to come across a single pro-Planned Parenthood “pastor” who wasn’t a false teacher.

Responding to a common pro-gay theology argument

My post asking if the Bible was unclear on homosexuality brought this somewhat predictable comment. It never made reference to the Bible, it just repeated all sorts of un-biblical fallacies.  Sadly, this is no straw man comment.  Lots of people claiming the name of Christ repeat these arguments.

quite a few of my friends are gay. I am not. But knowing them, i know with all my heart they were born – created – gay. It is not something they chose to be.

I’ve had a lot of gay friends as well.  I don’t get in their face about it any more than I do that with the sins of heterosexual friends.  But I also don’t teach that any sins of my friends are acceptable to God.

You “know” that with your “heart?”  Emotions are nice, but not a good way to make decisions.  Please consider Paul’s prayer in Philippians 1:9-11 –  And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

Please note how he links love with knowledge and discernment.

I encourage you to read some research on the causes of homosexuality.  It is not genetic.

And even if they were “born that way,” it is a biblical concept that we are born with a sinful nature.  We don’t get an “ought” from an “is.”  Sadly, I’ve been really effective at coveting, pride and selfishness since I was little, but I don’t get a pass on those sins because I was “born that way.”

God is LOVE. God loves all of us. How could He not love people HE created gay?

I mean this in a most serious and kind way: How much of the Bible have you studied?  Do you not see how you could apply that to any sin?  Do you not see how seriously God treats sin?  My #1 recommendation to anyone debating any topic on Christianity is to read the Bible more.

God wants US to love one another. Treat one another with love and acceptance.

That argument assumes that homosexuality isn’t sinful, but it doesn’t explain why we should hold that view.  Can you show me in the Bible where we are taught to accept any sin?  How about 1 Corinthians 5?

I do not believe it is the right of any of us to judge any other person – only God.

But aren’t you judging me and others who hold the view that homosexual behavior is a sin (along with many other behaviors)?

I do not believe it’s about whether their behaviour is sinful or not. Who of us is without sin?

But it is about whether the behavior is sinful.  That’s the point of the discussion, and you’ve already claimed it isn’t sinful. But the burden of proof is on you to reason your case from the Bible.

The fact that we are all sinners doesn’t mean that we would encourage people to remain in sin.

The really Christian thing to do is love your neighbour. I love my gay friends, and they are beautiful and in some cases deeply Christian – more Christian than many so called Christians who have rejected them for their sexuality.

Your love for your friends isn’t the Biblical love of having their long-term best interests at heart.  If anyone teaches the opposite of the Bible then I don’t think it is correct to describe them as “deeply Christian.”

We don’t reject them for their sexuality, we love them enough to speak the truth.  I urge you to read the Bible thoroughly and reconsider your views.

A few money-saving tips

I’m a big fan of living below your means and the reduced stress and peace that come with it.  I’m also a big fan of saving money and making the most of what we’ve been blessed with.

How to save at Target — If my family misses a week at Target they send us get well cards.  You can get their “Red Card” credit card and save 5% on everything in the store and online.  You also get free shipping, which makes it handy for sending gifts.  And you can have 1% go to a school of your choice.  And if you use eBates you can get an extra 3% off online — so that is 8% off online purchases plus free shipping.

How to save on Amazon — Get the Amazon VISA and you get 3% off Amazon purchases and 1% on everything else you use it for (the credits are applied to your Amazon account so they are nearly as good as cash).  Also be sure to use the “Subscribe and save” feature where you can. You get 15% off on things you buy regularly, such as batteries, and they deliver them every X months. You get to pick the delivery schedule, it is easy to skip shipments if you don’t need them and easy to cancel.  We use Amazon a lot so the Prime membership (free two-day shipping on almost everything) is a great value.

Bing travel - I have found that their price indicators (guidance on whether prices are likely to increase or decrease) have been accurate.

Credit cards: Have the full balance paid from your checking account if you can (Chase and  Target do, for example).  That way you are never late and you don’t have to spend money on checks and stamps.

Note: Captain Obvious says that the suggestions on credit cards only work if you don’t buy anything you weren’t going to buy already.

If the media hadn’t died in 2008 . . .

. . . and weren’t so hopelessly biased, perhaps they would be asking Obama some different questions.  Don’t miss all of 15 Questions The Mainstream Media Would Ask Barack Obama If He Were A Republican. (Hat tip: Glenn)

I would add to this list: “How can your supporters call pro-lifers “zealots” when you were the lone voice against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?  Aren’t you zealous, even for a pro-legalized abortionist, to fight for the right to kill infants who survived abortions?  And isn’t it zealous of you to fight for taxpayer-funded abortions that will make abortions far less rare and force pro-lifers to pay for them?”

During the practically endless series of Republican debates, we have heard almost every question imaginable asked to Republican candidates – if by every question imaginable, you mean horribly slanted, often irrelevant questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We’ve heard questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt’s angry ex-wife, Gardasil, etc., etc., etc. So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack Obama the exact same way that they treat Republicans? The questions might sound a little something like this.

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been killed with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware that was going on and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them. What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means, you and your allies in Congress managed to push through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democratic Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won’t lower costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald’s say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Since the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn’t do what you said it would, shouldn’t you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

. . .

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we’ve had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn’t that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing?

Roundup

UK midwives protest ruling forcing them to perform abortions – this is getting more and more common.  Religious freedom: You’re doin’ it wrong.  The Obama administration is forcing religious organizations to pay for birth control, some of which are abortifacients.  This is unconscionable.  At least the Supreme Court got one thing right as far as the hiring practices of religious groups.

A summary of Dr. Laura’s Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands – this is just the intro — be sure to read the entire post.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger has written another book that deserves a place on the best seller list with six of her other books, such as Ten Stupid Things Women Do to Mess Up Their Lives and Ten Stupid Things Men Do to Mess Up Their Lives. The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, from this unmarried man’s perspective, is an excellent manual for women on how to get want they want from men and marriage and, generally, how to be happy. Dr. Laura makes a number of important, practical points, based on her experience in private practice, from advising her radio callers, and from literally hundreds of letters and emails she received from men and women while she was writing the book.

Barack Obama fought the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which protected infants who survived abortions from being murdered, but the media calls Rick Santorum the extremist?!

Peer-reviewed paper in medical journal challenges Darwinian evolution – Wait, that can’t be right!  Everyone knows that there is no such thing as that.

A new article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center, appearing in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution. Titled “Dissecting Darwinism,” the paper begins by recounting some of the arguments raised during the Texas State Board of Education debate that challenged chemical and biological evolution. Those challenges include:

1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.

Why do people hate Tim Tebow? Why do people want Tim Tebow to fail? – It is interesting watching the haters get so riled up about Tim Tebow.  Why wouldn’t feminists want a guy like Tebow, who would be faithful to them, have their long-term best interests at heart, not want to take away their purity, not risk them having to get a disease, an abortion or to be a single parent?  One pro-abortion group tried to raise funds by asking people to donate money for each touchdown pass Tebow makes, so they could somehow profit from his success.  He is similar to Sarah Palin in that his life and story mock the pro-abortion theme that we need to kill the unborn if they aren’t perfect or wanted.

Your tax dollars at work: The administration of the most pro-abortion President ever thought that taxpayer-funded abortions in the U.S. weren’t enough.  They needed to increase abortions in Kenya as well and hired surrogates to spread their message.  It stills sickens me to hear alleged pro-lifers rationalize their vote for Obama.

Stan does his usual excellent work in examining this comment by William Lane Craig:

The counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which confront Him are outside His control. [God] has to play with the hand He has been dealt. — William Lane Craig

Craig is really good but isn’t perfect.  That was a truly odd comment of him to make, but when you peel back the layers it is actually consistent with his worldview.  Whether it is Arminianism or Molinism, they leave the final say to humans on many issues.

MLK, Jr believed homosexuals could –and should– change – Oh noes — what will the fake Christians do with that fact? Oh, they’ll just say he would have changed his mind, just like Jesse went from pro-life to pro-abortion.

Is the Bible unclear on homosexuality?

Some false teachers act as if it is a toss-up, offering self-refuting falsely humble lines about how both sides are just expressing an opinion and that we can’t be sure, and that it is bad to have certainly about your position.  But does the mere existence of multiple viewpoints mean the case isn’t clear?

What is interesting is that of the three types of pro-gay theology – all of which are wrong — only one claims that we are misunderstanding the text. The other two concede what authentic Christians and even most atheists and other non-believers know, namely that it clearly defines homosexual behavior as sinful.

Type 1: The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t. This view claims that we can ignore the prohibitions against homosexual behavior because they were written by homophobic Jews.

Type 2: The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong. This view holds that people just aren’t reading the Bible properly, and that God’s Word is actually affirming of gay relationships.

Type 3: The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describe gay behavior as sinful. However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable. This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships.

I don’t know the precise percentages of people in each group. Sometimes they shift between categories in a contradictory attempt to make their case.  In my experience the first group is the largest, the second is next and then the third.  No matter how you slice it, two of the types concede what the Bible really says.

Then add to that how most atheists agree that the Bible says that homosexual behavior is sinful.  I realize they don’t have the gift of the Holy Spirit, but many things are plain from the text.

So you have all the Bible-believing Christians plus two out of three types of pro-gay theologians plus most atheists all agreeing that the Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Should you listen to them or to the pro-gay theology subset that insists that Jews misunderstood the issue for 2,000 years and then the Christians for another 2,000 years, only to have a subset of Western Christianity discover the “truth” a couple decades ago?

The Bible is very, very clear.  Don’t be fooled into thinking it isn’t.

  • 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.

See Responding to Pro-Gay Theology for concise yet thorough replies to the common objections to the text.

Aside from the Bible, consider how atheist countries like the former U.S.S.R., China, etc. all consider marriage to be between one man and one woman and hold that homosexual behavior is wrong.  Then add in the Buddhists, Hindus and especially the Muslims.  Good luck dismissing them for their “Christian” beliefs on marriage.

An easy way to spot a false teacher

Today was Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.  So what did false teachers communicate?

Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis‘ blog had nothing to say about the human beings destroyed around the world each day. Nothing.

That’s typical of the “social justice” crowd.  What could be more unjust than ignoring that 3,000+ human beings are crushed and dismembered each day in the U.S. alone just because they are unwanted?  What about the tens of millions of gender selection abortions that kill females for the sole reason that they are female? What about 90% of Down Syndrome children killed because they are a little different?

Wallis has a big microphone but just uses it to advance his politics-disguised-as-religion wealth redistribution schemes.

I have yet to find a pro-abortion “reverend” who isn’t a fake.  Case in point: Race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie.  He and his fellow false teachers aren’t just pro-choice, they are pro-abortion, because they advocate for taxpayer-funded abortions.  These will obviously increase the number of abortions, so he can’t even play the lame “safe (uh, except for the unborn), legal and rare” card.  And his policies will certainly increase the rate of abortions in the black community, which is already 3x that of whites.  It is the ultimate racism.

See “Observe the Roe v. Wade Anniversary by Staying Vigilant and Taking Action” for a shining example.

As the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice celebrates the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the war on women rages on,

War on women?  What about gender selection abortions that have killed tens of millions of females for the sole reason that they are female?  What about the women pressured to have abortions by family members and the fathers of the children?

and we who trust women and respect their decisions

Those are empty words.  What if the women wanted to kill their toddlers?  Would you trust and respect those decisions?

must renew our commitment to protecting this landmark Supreme Court ruling. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court said, in simple terms, that women have a constitutional right to privacy to make decisions about whether to have an abortion. Because this decision involves moral as well as medical considerations, the Court ruled, a woman has the right to consider her personal circumstances and the dictates of her conscience.

Again, if her conscience permits her to kill her toddler is that adequate?  Of course not.  So the only question is, “What is the unborn?”  The scientific fact is that they are human beings.

It’s especially important for the pro-faith community to speak out now.

Read: Fake Christians.

For the past year, zealots in Congress and state legislatures

So trying to save the lives of innocent human beings makes one a zealot, but President Obama’s fight to be able to kill those who survive abortions is not zealotry?   Chuck seems pretty zealous about wanting to have even more unborn human beings killed, at your expense!

– many of whom preach the sanctity of privacy and freedom from government –

Can women kill their toddler’s in private?  No, so privacy isn’t the issue.

“Freedom from the government” ignores that they are protecting a human life who should be free from being crushed and dismembered.  One of the main roles of government is to protect human life.

have relentlessly waged a vicious war on women’s access to health care.

Crushing and dismembering innocent human beings is not health care.

More than 1,000 bills were introduced in state legislatures, including the Ohio “heartbeat” bill banning abortion after the 6th or 7th week of gestation, and numerous bills requiring pregnant women to have ultrasounds. In 2011, 92 anti-abortion provisions were enacted – the most in any year since Roe v. Wade was decided!

Yea!  Keep up the fight, pro-lifers!  That is great progress.

“Darwin’s Heretic: Did the Co-Founder of Evolution Embrace Intelligent Design?”

He was way ahead of his time.  The reaction of Darwin & Co. show how they weren’t driven by science, but by their materialistic ideology.  Little has changed.

Hat tip: Uncommon Descent

Ask Them What They Mean by “Choice” Day

When people say they are pro-choice, ask them what they mean by that.  Why don’t they finish the sentence?

Pro-choice for education?  Careers?  Whom to marry? Whether to buy health insurance?  Whether to own a gun?  Whether to home school your children?  Those are fine.

Oh, you meant, “Pro-choice to kill an innocent but unwanted human being?”  I can’t go for that.

People who favor pro-legalized-abortion are skilled at the name game.  If you didn’t know better you’d think they didn’t know how to complete a sentence.  They will do anything to avoid the word abortion.  It is always, “choice,” “reproductive freedom,” “women’s rights,” etc.  And they call us “anti-choice.”

I’d be OK with any of those labels provided that they completed the sentence for a change:

- Anti-choice to crush and dismember an innocent human being

- Pro-choice to kill an innocent yet unwanted human being

- A woman’s right to have her unborn child destroyed (but not a man’s right)

- Pro-reproductive freedom to kill an innocent human being after she has been reproduced, up to and including partial birth abortion (and after, if your last name is Obama) [Never let them get away with using "reproductive freedom" in relation to abortion, as it is a scientific fact that abortions kill human beings that have already been reproduced.]

- and so on.

And do they really want choice, or do they want abortions?  Courtesy of Duane, read about the 14 yr. old girl who had to sue her family to prevent them from forcing to kill her child — and their grandchild!  Why hasn’t this made front-page news and lit up the pro-”choice” blogs?

A theologically liberal blogger commented on another site about choice:

As to the abortion issue, as ___ raises it, he is exactly right. That’s the whole point of being “pro-choice”. I can’t speak for anyone else, so I’ll just say that, being pro-choice means just that. Gov. Palin and her husband are to be admired for their decision, even after it was revealed the baby would have Down’s, to continue with the pregnancy and add a fifth child at such a late point in their lives. Another couple might have made another choice, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that because I do not live their lives, and cannot make their moral or family choices for them.

As with most pro-legalized-abortion arguments he ignores the obvious: The Palin’s can’t legally choose to destroy the Down Syndrom child once he is outside the womb (at least not yet).  So the only question is, “What is the unborn?”  Hint: Scientifically speaking, he is a human being.  So we shouldn’t give anyone the choice to kill him.

I saw this a while back: Adoption: The choice where no one dies.

Via SUNDAY! Ask Them What They Mean by “Choice” Day – Jill Stanek.

Don’t be fooled by the income inequality red herring

Via On Income Inequality:.

It is certainly worth investigating why income and wealth inequality are increasing, but only to better understand the global economy and to help determine how to increase the income and wealth of the poor even faster. The real question is not how to reduce income and wealth inequality but how to increase the income and wealth of everyone. Increasing income and wealth inequality is not a problem if real income and wealth are also increasing at all levels, as is the case now. Leftists, who dislike capitalism and envy the rich, want everyone to be focused on the wrong issue (income inequality) in order to avoid talking about the fact that the free market has succeeded in increasing real incomes at all levels.

The income and standard of living of the poor and the “poor” (i.e., those who make less than average but have remarkably higher standards of living than most of the planet) have risen dramatically over the last 200 years.

When politicians of a certain political party are destroying the wealth for everyone — not just the rich — they like to change the subject by encouraging coveting and envy.  Their trick du jour is to talk about income inequality.  Just remind them of the facts of history and then ask how spending over 50% more than you take in is helping the situation.

And you can also point out that confiscating the wealth of all billionaires and professional athletes barely makes a dent in the deficit.

Other than being overpriced, unhealthy and supporting a bad organization, Girl Scout cookies are a great idea

I wish I would have had this article when the little girl and her grandma came to the door last week – Say no to Girl Scout cookies.  I caved and bought one box of the kind my wife likes.  I’ll give the grandma a copy when she delivers it.

I knew the Girl Scouts had issues but it has gotten much worse: Radically pro-abortion and pro-Planned Parenthood-style sex education and more.  Please read the entire link and stop supporting this organization.

When our sweet little neighbor in her brown camp uniform came knocking on our door this year, we had to say no. I told her mother that I didn’t want to hurt Katie’s feelings, but I couldn’t support the Girl Scout cookie sale anymore because I’d learned too much about the organizers’ agenda, primarily their support for abortion and partnership with Planned Parenthood.

I worried that my “political” stand would cause uneasiness between us, but her response put me at ease: “Well,” she said, “they do use unpaid child labor to make their sales, and the troop only gets 10 percent of the revenues anyway.”

Or is it? Cathy Ruse argues that Girl Scouts’ ties with abortion giant Planned Parenthood, and a morally “progressive” agenda discounts it from receiving our support.

True. According to the Girl Scouts’ website, the lion’s share of the money goes not to the troop but to bureaucrats up the chain of command in multicounty councils. The national office gets a piece of the pie, too, in the form of royalties based on gross annual sales volume – about 200 million boxes per year.

. . .

Last year, the Girl Scouts decided to admit boys who dress as girls. . . . Perpetuating this cruel charade on the little boy and forcing little girls to participate in it is “inclusiveness” to the Girl Scouts. To others, it’s child abuse.

But it shouldn’t be surprising: The Girl Scouts have a cross-dresser in the front office.

Ten years ago, Girl Scouts media relations officer Joshua Ackley was frontman for the “homopunk” band the Dead Betties. In publicity shots, he’s dressed in women’s clothing, and in music videos, he appears to be naked and feigning masturbation. The video for “Hellevator” portrays a woman being strangled in an elevator shaft while Mr. Ackley flashes a menacing grin.

Today he issues press releases, posts news and views on the Girl Scouts’ blog, and tries to mollify moms who are concerned about Girl Scout ties with Planned Parenthood. In fact, it was Mr. Ackley who facilitated the Girl Scouts’ “no adults allowed” workshop at the United Nations – the workshop in which the Planned Parenthood sex brochure “Healthy, Happy, and Hot” was offered, although part of Mr. Ackley’s job is to deny it.

It wouldn’t be a surprise if someone like Mr. Ackley was behind the Girl Scouts’ recent scandal: a guidebook that tells girls to check with the leftist, George Soros-funded Media Matters before believing what they read in the news.

. . . Several years ago. a quarter of the Girl Scout councils nationwide admitted to partnering with Planned Parenthood, the nation’s abortion giant. When questioned about the affiliation on NBC’s “Today Show,” Girl Scout CEO Kathy Cloninger had no compunction in confirming it.

The Girl Scouts have been “pro-choice” for years, but now they’ve been caught supporting promiscuous sex for girls. The Planned Parenthood sex guide offered at that “girls only” U.N. meeting offered this advice on Page 11: “Some people have sex when they have been drinking alcohol or using drugs. This is your choice. … If you want to have sex and think you might get drunk or high, plan ahead by bringing condoms and lube or putting them close to where you usually have sex.”

Heard enough? There’s a lot more at 100questionsforthegirlscouts.org.

Earlier this month, a young Girl Scout employee, Renise Rodriguez, made the mistake of stopping by the office to do extra work on her own time in a T-shirt bearing the words: “Pray to End Abortion.” A supervisor ordered her to turn the shirt inside out or leave the office. She left, for good.

So should we all.

Hat tip for the link: My favorite blogger