Reverse missionaries & the Great De-Commission

u-turn.jpgA favorite updated for your reading pleasure.

Typical evangelism for any religion involves someone going out at some degree of expense and risk to share what one believes to be true.  It is a pretty simple and logical concept: If you think you know the true path to forgiveness, joy, peace and eternal life and you truly care about others, then of course you’ll want to share the Good News (regardless of how you define it).

However, some people hold the view that all religions are equally valid paths to God.  As I was reflecting on the discussions on the Jesus is still the only way thread, I was reminded that people who hold the “all religions are valid” view should have a completely different model of evangelism.  Wouldn’t it be most loving for them to send “reverse missionaries” to encourage everyone to follow their local religions?  After all, consider the persecuted people around the world who could avoid pain, suffering, economic loss, prison and even death if they just held beliefs more palatable to their culture.

For example, you’d want to send people to Christians in India, N. Korea, China, all Arab countries and more to explain to them that Hinduism/Islam/Buddhism/etc. are just as good and that they should leave Christianity to maximize their comfort and happiness.  If you follow any organizations like Voice of the Martyrs you are probably familiar with how much Christians suffer for their faith in many parts of the world.  Why suffer like that if other religions are just as good?

And loving universalists (those who believe everyone is going to Heaven, regardless of what they believe) should go to China to encourage people to be atheists.

What a tragedy that hundreds of thousands or even millions of Christians died unnecessarily for their faith over the centuries.  They should have just recanted and gone with the local religion, right?

What I’ve found is that religious pluralists and universalists do no such thing. They typically think their “home religion” is correct (why else would they belong to those denominations?) but are afraid to offend someone or risk rejection for sharing their view, or perhaps are unwilling to work to learn their beliefs well enough to defend them.

Shouldn’t false teachers who insist that all religions lead to God lend their time and money to being reverse missionaries?  Yet I never hear of them undertaking such efforts to reduce the “needless” suffering of Christians around the world.  Real faith is behaving as if what you say you believe is true.  Yet these folks don’t follow through to the logical consequences of their worldview.  This is one of the easiest ways to spot false teachers.

Of course, since I hold the view that Jesus is the one way to salvation then it is on my heart to share that with people.

If you encounter “Christians” claiming that other or even all religions are valid paths to God, ask them simply and politely if that means we should end Christian evangelism efforts and “evangelize” people to follow whatever “valid” religion will result in the least persecution for them.  It will help expose their false view and hopefully encourage them to think more carefully.  They shouldn’t judge God for “only” providing one way to salvation, they should be eternally grateful that He offered a way at all.

Roundup

Dem Pol Explains Why Women Should Not Be Allowed to Defend Themselves From Rapists – Now that’s a war on women.  If a Republican would have said those things he would have been appropriately skewered.  Yet this guy is getting a pass.  Do they think women are capable of defending themselves and making choices or not?

How China Plans to Wipe Out House Churches – persecution appears to be getting even worse there.

From the I am not making this up category: Massachusetts Education Policy Mandates Allowing Boys in Girls’ Restrooms.  Yep, this is what “same-sex marriage” and political correctness will get you.  You wish the quotes in the article were part of some overdone parody, but they are real.

The Massachusetts Commissioner of Education has released an outline of its new school policy regarding gender equality, mandating that boys be allowed to use girls restrooms and locker rooms — and vice versa — if they contend that they prefer to identify with the opposite gender.

The 11-page document, written by Mitchell Chester, is stated to be in response to a gender identity law that was passed last July in the state.

“This guidance is intended to help school and district administrators take steps to create a culture in which transgender and gender nonconforming students feel safe, supported, and fully included, and to meet each school’s obligation to provide equal educational opportunities for all students, in compliance with G.L. c. 76, §5 and the state regulations,” it states.

As part of the outline, entitled Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity, Chester explains that students need to be permitted to use whichever bathroom or locker room they wish. He states that as long as the child asserts that they would rather identify with the  opposite gender, they should have the access that they desire.

“The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student,” Chester states. “A school should accept a student’s assertion of his or her gender identity when there is … ‘evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person’s core identity.’”

Hat tip: The Bumbling Genius

Christian Arrested for Speaking Against Homosexuality – coming soon to a country near you.  What is even more ridiculous is that the debate hinges on whether he said something loudly or not, or in his sermon or not.  Sadly, that means they already lost the major battle.  It shouldn’t matter legally if he yelled it or not.  Speech is free or not.

 

A Christian man preaching in the street in Cumbria, England, was arrested by a homosexual police officer after he listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in the Bible. He was locked up for seven hours and charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress,” according to The Examiner.

Dale McAlpine, 42, said he has been preaching in his hometown of Cumbria for years. On April 20, he was handing out leaflets when a woman engaged him in a private debate. During the conversation, McAlpine said he believed homosexuality went against the Word of God. After the conversation, a police support community officer, who identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police, told McAlpine he could be arrested for using homophobic language.

After the conversation, McAlpine got on a stepladder and preached a 20-minute sermon, in which he says he did not mention homosexuality. However, after the sermon, a number of police gathered and arrested him for using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act, which was originally created to deal with soccer hooligans.

Officers claimed McAlpine was speaking in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others during his conversation with the woman. McAlpine said he used a quiet voice.

Teen lost parts of both legs after failed abortion: pursues wrestling dream anyway – great story!

Poll Worker Melowese Richardson Apparently Cast Six Votes for Obama

“Yes, I voted twice,” Richardson told WCPO-TV. “I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls.”

Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.

For every Obamunist who publicly admits to voter fraud, there are tens of thousands either not quite dumb enough or too busy watching the massive, extravagantly expensive televisions favored by welfare recipients.

As Obama voters were casting multiple ballots, Romney voters had theirs thrown out. In the opposite corner of the state, 21 Cleveland districts recorded not a single vote for Romney.

That’s how elections work in a country that has been “fundamentally transformed” into a second-rate banana republic. Happy now, libs?

How Do We Break the Cycle of Higher Tuition and More Debt?Subsidies for college funding make it more expensive, not less.  Too many people drop out who should have never been there to begin with.  We’d be much better off without the “everyone should go to college” mantra.  There is nothing wrong – and many things right – about more focus on trade schools.

When “same-sex marriage” becomes the law

    • Religious liberty and freedom of conscience (i.e., the freedom to oppose homosexuality) will be repressed by the state in the name of “gay rights”; Illinois has already experienced this under our “Civil Unions” law [see the case of the Walders' bed-and-breakfast in Paxton, IL].  Despite the current bill being amended to protect churches and religious institutions, business owners — even devout Christians — who cater to weddings (such as banquet hall owners and photographers) could be forced to use their facilities or expertise to celebrate homosexual “marriages”;
    • Liberal teachers, especially in public schools, will be emboldened to promote homosexual relationships to students in the classroom; homosexual teachers will be given a platform to discuss their “marriages” and to model homosexuality as normal, natural and good to students. Parents will have a harder time stopping the promotion of homosexuality in schools;
    • Homosexual “sex ed” will gain ground in Illinois schools. Under the radical egalitarian idea that all relationships are morally “equal” and worthy of marriage, “safer gay sex” will be taught non-judgmentally alongside (normal) heterosexual sex. “Abstinence until marriage” (which regrettably is not the norm but only the ideal for most Illinois health classrooms) would apply to homosexual- and bisexual- as well as “straight” students — despite the reality that all homosexual sex is inherently immoral.  High-risk and unnatural practices like anal sex will be mainstreamed in our schools. (Could teaching the truth that sex between men is linked disproportionately to HIV and various sexually-transmitted diseases lead to charges of “anti-gay discrimination”?) And deviant lesbian sex will be taught for girls who in the future might “marry” a woman.
    • Businessmen will be forced to recognize and subsidize their employees’ immoral same-sex “marriages”; a form of this is already happening under Illinois’ “Civil Unions” law;
    • Society will be corrupted as unequal things are treated as equal; children will be further confused as the law (which is a teacher, as the saying goes) creates a Brave New Morality that officially “weds” sinful, unnatural and changeable behavior to the noble and life-sustaining institution of marriage;
    • Homosexual activists will be energized to use the homosexual “marriage” law to pressure citizens to approve of their lifestyle and step up their crusade to stigmatize, demonize and discredit pro-family Christians and moral opponents of homosexuality.  Groups like AFTAH that embrace wholesome, godly morality will be vilified as “hateful and bigoted.” And, as we have witnessed in Massachusetts, the push for ever more extreme “LGBT rights” would be propelled by enactment of “same-sex marriage” — including “transgender” activism in schools.
    • Legalized homosexual “marriage” will help “normalize” homosexual adoption, thus consigning greater numbers of innocent children to be raised in households that are motherless or fatherless by design.

The President of the United States, in some of his rare votes in the Illinois Senate, voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act three times. He knew what it was about, and he spoke out against it.  This is who was elected as our President. 

Newtown Shooter Picked School As It Was The “Easiest Target” – all the laws being proposed will take away guns from law-abiding citizens, leave them in the hands of criminals, and do nothing to prevent deaths like those in Newtown.

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.

Reverse missionaries

u-turn.jpgTypical evangelism for any religion involves someone going out at some degree of expense and risk to share what one believes to be true.  It is a pretty simple and logical concept: If you think you know the true path to forgiveness, joy, peace and eternal life and you truly care about others, then of course you’ll want to share the Good News (regardless of how you define it).

However, some people hold the view that all religions are equally valid paths to God.  As I was reflecting on the discussions on the Jesus is still the only way thread, I was reminded that people who hold that view should have a completely different model of evangelism.  Wouldn’t it be most loving for them to send “reverse missionaries” to encourage everyone to follow their local religions?  After all, consider the persecuted people around the world who could avoid pain, suffering, economic loss, prison and even death if they just held beliefs more palatable to their culture.

For example, you’d want to send people to Christians in India, N. Korea, China, all Arab countries and more to explain to them that Hinduism/Islam/Buddhism/etc. are just as good and that they should leave Christianity to maximize their comfort and happiness.  If you follow any organizations like Voice of the Martyrs you are probably familiar with how much Christians suffer for their faith in many parts of the world.  Why suffer like that if other religions are just as good?

And loving universalists (those who believe everyone is going to Heaven, regardless of what they believe) should go to China to encourage people to be atheists.

What a tragedy that hundreds of thousands or even millions of Christians died unnecessarily for their faith over the centuries.  They should have just recanted and gone with the local religion, right?

What I’ve found is that religious pluralists and universalists do no such thing. They typically think their “home religion” is correct (why else would they belong to those denominations?) but are afraid to offend someone or risk rejection for sharing their view, or perhaps are unwilling to work to learn their beliefs well enough to defend them.

Shouldn’t false teachers who insist that all religions lead to God lend their time and money to being reverse missionaries?  Yet I never hear of them undertaking such efforts to reduce the “needless” suffering of Christians around the world.  Real faith is behaving as if what you say you believe is true.  Yet these folks don’t follow through to the logical consequences of their worldview.  This is one of the easiest ways to spot false teachers.

Of course, since I hold the view that Jesus is the one way to salvation then it is on my heart to share that with people.

If you encounter “Christians” claiming that other or even all religions are valid paths to God, ask them simply and politely if that means we should end Christian evangelism efforts and “evangelize” people to follow whatever “valid” religion will result in the least persecution for them.

Reminders about the Human-caused Global Warming / Global Climate Change hoax

Significant global warming / global climate change isn’t true, but if it was, it wouldn’t necessarily be bad.

Even if it was true and bad, we don’t have evidence that humans are causing it

Even if it was true and bad and true that humans were causing it, it still doesn’t mean we can make China and the rest of the world change things to make a difference.

Oh, and did I mention the hypocrites like Al Gore living in multiple mansions, flying personal jets, fathering 4 children, etc., who make hundreds of millions off of this scam, all the while telling you not to do those things?

Why does the Leftist skepticism disappear with those who want to give the government a permanent and unlimited blank check to control your lives?

Why do these people exhibit such transparent coveting?  Remember, coveting isn’t just wanting more, it is wanting to have more than others.  Think about all the politicians and profiteers who have so much yet don’t want the poor of the world to improve their lot in life.

Oh, but X% (insert really big number for “X”) of “real” scientists agree about global warming!!  Yes, they say that because they know their careers will be destroyed if they don’t.

From Ann Coulter:

CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on “global climate analysis” — including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.

. . .

Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.

This video is a great overview of the issue.  Get educated, folks!

Hat tip: Red State

Answer: More than Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot combined.

Question: How many females have been killed by gender-selection abortions since the 1970’s?  The total is estimated to be 163,000,000.  Yes, 163 million.

Gender-selection abortions tie pro-legalized abortionists in knots.  Deep down they know how wrong they are, but they can’t really say so without conceding that it would also be wrong to kill them “just” for being generically unwanted rather than being unwanted because of their gender.  After all, once you establish that you shouldn’t kill unborn girls because of their gender, it makes it hard to say that it is OK if they are boys, or will be an economic burden, or have Down Syndrome, etc.

Also, it takes away one of their favorite sound bites, namely that pro-lifers are anti-women.  That fails on many levels, but especially so when you ask them, “So, do you think gender-selection abortions, which kill females for the sole reason that they are female, should be illegal?  I do.  It is the ultimate misogyny.  Now tell me more about how anti-women I am . . .”  Watch them freak out after that.

The consequences go beyond the deaths of the innocent.  I encourage you to read it all, but here are some snippets from The War Against Girls, a review of Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men By Mara Hvistendahl:

In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad. Between 104 and 106 is the normal range, and that’s as far as the natural window goes. Any other number is the result of unnatural events.

Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China’s and India’s populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107. But the imbalance is not only in Asia. Azerbaijan stands at 115, Georgia at 118 and Armenia at 120.

What is causing the skewed ratio: abortion. If the male number in the sex ratio is above 106, it means that couples are having abortions when they find out the mother is carrying a girl. By Ms. Hvistendahl’s counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence.

Amniocentesis and ultrasounds led to the dramatic increase in gender-selection abortions.
But oddly enough, Ms. Hvistendahl notes, it is usually a country’s rich, not its poor, who lead the way in choosing against girls. . . . Even more unexpectedly, the decision to abort baby girls is usually made by women—either by the mother or, sometimes, the mother-in-law.

If you peer hard enough at the data, you can actually see parents demanding boys. Take South Korea. In 1989, the sex ratio for first births there was 104 boys for every 100 girls—perfectly normal. But couples who had a girl became increasingly desperate to acquire a boy. For second births, the male number climbed to 113; for third, to 185. Among fourth-born children, it was a mind-boggling 209. Even more alarming is that people maintain their cultural assumptions even in the diaspora; research shows a similar birth-preference pattern among couples of Chinese, Indian and Korean descent right here in America.

Hvistendahl notes how these imbalances result in all sorts of societal problems, such as increased violence.

Today in India, the best predictor of violence and crime for any given area is not income but sex ratio.

. . .

And to beat the “marriage squeeze” caused by skewed sex ratios, men in wealthier imbalanced countries poach women from poorer ones.

. . .

A 17-year-old girl in a developing country is in no position to capture her own value. Instead, a young woman may well become chattel, providing income either for their families or for pimps. As Columbia economics professor Lena Edlund observes: “The greatest danger associated with prenatal sex determination is the propagation of a female underclass,” that a small but still significant group of the world’s women will end up being stolen or sold from their homes and forced into prostitution or marriage.

. . .

Ms. Hvistendahl also dredges up plenty of unpleasant documents from Western actors like the Ford Foundation, the United Nations and Planned Parenthood, showing how they pushed sex-selective abortion as a means of controlling population growth. In 1976, for instance, the medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Malcom Potts, wrote that, when it came to developing nations, abortion was even better than birth control: “Early abortion is safe, effective, cheap and potentially the easiest method to administer.”

The following year another Planned Parenthood official celebrated China’s coercive methods of family planning, noting that “persuasion and motivation [are] very effective in a society in which social sanctions can be applied against those who fail to cooperate in the construction of the socialist state.”

Did you catch that?  One more reason to be disgusted by Planned Parenthood: They push abortion as birth control and supported China’s coercive one-child policy.

Then it takes a turn . . .

Ms. Hvistendahl is particularly worried that the “right wing” or the “Christian right”—as she labels those whose politics differ from her own—will use sex-selective abortion as part of a wider war on abortion itself. She believes that something must be done about the purposeful aborting of female babies or it could lead to “feminists’ worst nightmare: a ban on all abortions.”

Now that is ironic!

It is telling that Ms. Hvistendahl identifies a ban on abortion—and not the killing of tens of millions of unborn girls—as the “worst nightmare” of feminism. Even though 163 million girls have been denied life solely because of their gender, she can’t help seeing the problem through the lens of an American political issue. Yet, while she is not willing to say that something has gone terribly wrong with the pro-abortion movement, she does recognize that two ideas are coming into conflict: “After decades of fighting for a woman’s right to choose the outcome of her own pregnancy, it is difficult to turn around and point out that women are abusing that right.”

Yep.

Late in “Unnatural Selection,” Ms. Hvistendahl makes some suggestions as to how such “abuse” might be curbed without infringing on a woman’s right to have an abortion. In attempting to serve these two diametrically opposed ideas, she proposes banning the common practice of revealing the sex of a baby to parents during ultrasound testing. And not just ban it, but have rigorous government enforcement, which would include nationwide sting operations designed to send doctors and ultrasound techs and nurses who reveal the sex of babies to jail. Beyond the police surveillance of obstetrics facilities, doctors would be required to “investigate women carrying female fetuses more thoroughly” when they request abortions, in order to ensure that their motives are not illegal.

Yeah, that’ll work!  By which I mean, it won’t work at all.  How sad that after she diagnoses the problem so well she fails on how to solve it: Make it illegal to kill unwanted human beings.

. . .

Despite the author’s intentions, “Unnatural Selection” might be one of the most consequential books ever written in the campaign against abortion. It is aimed, like a heat-seeking missile, against the entire intellectual framework of “choice.” For if “choice” is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against “gendercide.” Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother’s “mental health” requires it. Choice is choice. One Indian abortionist tells Ms. Hvistendahl: “I have patients who come and say ‘I want to abort because if this baby is born it will be a Gemini, but I want a Libra.’ “

This is where choice leads. This is where choice has already led. Ms. Hvistendahl may wish the matter otherwise, but there are only two alternatives: Restrict abortion or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it.

Exactly.  Gender-selection abortions are legal in this country because abortions are legal.  They happen because of radical feminism, and wimpy or fake Christians who vote for pro-legalized abortion politicians.

Some comments deserve their own post: Great questions for climate alarmists

I appreciated RightKlik‘s comments on the Human-caused Global Warming / Global Climate Change: Still a hoax by any name post so much that I wanted to highlight them here.  I urge you to keep these handy to politely ask the climate alarmists you meet.  Oh, and read his blog, too.  Consistently good stuff.

Too bad the mainstream media doesn’t ask questions like this.  Instead, expect them to just ask “gotcha” questions to make Republicans look like they are environment-hating baby seal killers.

For anyone fortunate enough to ask a politician/candidate at a town hall meeting, here are a few suggested questions:

How cool do you want the world to be? What is the ideal temperature for the earth?

What are the criteria for determining the ideal temperature of the earth?

Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad? Are there any potential benefits?

How can we ensure that efforts to stabilize the earth’s temperature don’t backfire, resulting in a larger-than-intended drop in the earth’s average temperature?

At what temperature would the earth be too cold?

Can you be sure that reductions in CO2 emissions will result in a significant and helpful change in temperatures?

What if industrial and automotive CO2 emissions are cut to nearly zero and the earth continues to warm…what do we do then?

Some have said that “It’s not called American warming, it’s called global warming.” What if heavily industrialized nations manage to make painful cuts in CO2 emissions only to see those cuts dwarfed by increases in emissions by China and other developing economies?

How long should man try to control the world’s average temperature?
A. For the next hundred years?
B. For the next thousand years?
C. Forever?

Can we be absolutely confident that global climate changes aren’t mostly the result of that giant fireball in the sky ― you know ― the sun?

Scientists are very good at using statistical analysis to calculate certainty. Approximately how certain are we that we have the correct answers to global warming questions?
A. 50 percent?
B. 80 percent?
C. 95 percent?

I would emphasize the question above about how to deal with countries that don’t reduce emissions.  What should we do, go to war with them until they do as we say?

And I would add this question: Will there ever be a time when we won’t need the government to micro-manage all of our personal energy consumption, or is this unlimited power grab going to be permanent?

Your tax dollars at work: Forced abortions and more in China

Via China: Family planning official stabs man to death — the impacts of China’s One Child Policy are horrific and far reaching, and we’re a part of it.

On March 21, 2011, Family Planning Officials entered the home of Xu Shuaishuai to seize his sister for a forced sterilization. Unable to find her, they beat Xu’s father. When Xu defended his father, one of the Family Planning Officials stabbed him twice in the heart with a long knife. Xu died on the way to the hospital.

This murder is a shocking and extreme example of how coercive family planning presses fear into the hearts of the Chinese people every day. Women who become pregnant without a birth permit – illegally pregnant – are terrified of discovery and forced abortion. Fathers feel helpless to protect their wives and children. Paid informants – friends, neighbors, co-workers – tear down trust in Chinese society. Family members are detained and tortured.

The One Child Policy, moreover, is causing a demographic disaster for China. Due to the traditional preference for boys, girls are disproportionately aborted. This “gendercide” has given rise to a critical gender imbalance: there are now an estimated 37 million more men than women in China. This gender imbalance is a driving force behind sexual slavery, not only in China but in the surrounding countries as well.

How does this affect us? We (the people of the United States, England, and other nations) are helping finance the infrastructure used in coercive family planning in China. The international community funds UNFPA, United Nations Family Planning Fund, as well as IPPF, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and Marie Stopes International. These organizations are operative “abortion providers” in China. How many of these abortions are forced?

Roundup

Texas doctors opting out of Medicare at alarming rate — just more of the Law of Unintended Consequences at work.  Guess what? If the government makes bad laws and tries to stiff people then behavior changes.  But of course, the 2,000+ page health care bill that none of its supporters actually read won’t have any negative consequences . . .

Naked liberalism: The desire for Congressional mandates to have conservative web sites link to liberal sites. Give it a listen.  It is ridiculous on multiple levels.  Aside from the pesky un-Constitutionality, how would you possibly measure and enforce it?

What is morbidly ironic is Obama’s chiding to listen to opposing views.  That is a two-way street.  I love asking liberals how much conservative media they consume (other than the extremely well informed Libs that hang out here ;-)).  It is usually something in the neighborhood of zero.

Also fun is asking them to state your positions, even though they disagree with you.  For example, I know all the most popular pro-abortion arguments and am glad to debunk them.  No straw men required.  But it is very rare to see a pro-abort be able to articulate the views of pro-lifers, even though they disagree with them.

Be sure to get the Stand to Reason iPhone app!

Check out Roxanne’s post on Throwing Women Under the Socialist/Progressive Bus.  Just a sample:

Then there’s the complete disregard for women’s health and well-being.  The Left is furious that crisis pregnancy centres do not provide abortions nor refer women to them; nevertheless, they seem to not care that Planned Parenthood promotes abortion and will refuse to provide adoption referrals and gives almost no prenatal care to pregnant women.

The Left cares no more about women’s health than about their reproductive autonomy. Although the link between abortion and breast cancer has been well-established (and studies that find anything else are methodologically unsound ), Obama’s change.org toutedRep. Harry Waxman’s report which criticised crisis pregnancy centres for mentioning the connection – and justified themselves with one single report from 1997.  They also claim that women who abort do not experience future fertility problems, despite the fact that women who have abortions are three times as likely to deliver a premature baby in the future,first-trimester abortions are associated with a higher rate of subsequent miscarriages, and abortion can cause infertility, PID, and a host of other problems.  The Leftist’s claim that abortion does not cause psychological distress would be comical, if not for the horrible pain that women experience post-abortion.

Brrrr… Scientists Issue New Warning of Imminent Food & Ethanol Shortages Due to Global Cooling – Shocking!  But those scientists couldn’t be wrong.  Hat tip: Wes

It is truly a bizarre, upside down world in international politics: Iran was elected to the United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women.

Then the U.S. representative apologizes to China for our “human rights abuses” in Arizona.  Hey, just ask China what they do if people come into their country without paperwork and demand free food, clothing and education.  Ask them about the North Korean refugees they send back to certain brutal deaths.

And more and more Obama representatives admit they haven’t even read Arizona’s bill — even though they condemn it.

Great response from Arizona to Los Angeles over their boycott — Paraphrase: “Hey, we supply 25% of your power, so if you are serious about your convictions then we’ll send the electrons elsewhere.

SNL Takes A Swipe At Obama Over China Trip

Go see the full transcript at SNL Takes A Swipe At Obama Over China Trip [Video]. Very funny and pointed.  I didn’t think they still had it in them.

INTERPRETER: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to add that I completely understand why you feel entitled to come here and lecture China on our shortcomings. After all, my country does owe the United States a great deal of money. Oh, wait. Hold on a moment. I believe I had that backwards. In fact, now that I think about it, it is your country that owes us a large sum of money. Is this correct?

OBAMA: Uh… yes.

. . .

INTERPRETER: Are we? Are we going to get our money? Because from what I read your country is in the middle of a serious recession.

OBAMA: Uh, while this is true, there are signs that our bailout has steadied the financial markets and our stimulus package has been effective in fixing the job crisis.

(Hu Jintao “speaks.”)

INTERPRETER: I’m curious. How many jobs has it created?

OBAMA: Uh, so far, none.

. . .

OBAMA: But our health care reform plan, we’re confident, is going to lead to enormous savings.

(Hu Jintao “speaks.”)

INTERPRETER: How exactly is extending health care coverage to 30 million people going to save you money?

OBAMA: I… don’t know.