Liberalism and poverty: The cause, not the cure

False teacher Chuck Currie’s piece on How To End Homelessness: Fight Poverty reminded me of when Homer Simpson said, “Beer: The cause of . . . and cure for all life’s problems.”  Only in this case, Liberalism just causes poverty, it doesn’t cure it.  If people graduate high school and don’t have sex outside of marriage their odds of being poor are very low.  Yet Chuck et al are the cheerleaders for the anti-God Planned Parenthood-style sexual mores that are destroying this country.  If you really want to fight poverty you’ll spread the Gospel.  Transformed hearts and minds lead to a more moral society, which reduces poverty.

Ending homelessness, Currie says, will take a massive push on curbing poverty . . .

So there is a connection between people not having money and being homeless?  Who knew?!

– including not only creating jobs, but also preparing workers for those jobs –

So why do Liberals oppose all the ways we could create jobs in this country?  Why don’t they support more oil drilling and the Keystone Pipeline, which would reduce energy costs for everyone and make homes more affordable and provide jobs that would increase tax revenues?  Or how about merely not aggressively killing the coal industry? (Sadly, that is one promise Obama is keeping.)

and on making huge investments in affordable housing

Details, please.  What are these “huge” investments and how do they make housing affordable?  Is that code for taking from neighbor A by force to “give” to neighbor B?

and building up programs for in-home support of the elderly, those with physical disabilities and those suffering from other health, mental health and addiction problems.

Yes, many homeless have mental problems and will never be able to maintain a residence in their current state.  But try to institutionalize them and watch the lawsuits fly.

. . . The Half in Ten Campaign is advancing progressive economic policies to reduce poverty that stand in stark contrast to the budget proposal put forward by Paul Ryan and adopted this week by the U.S. House that would increase poverty and homelessness, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

And you can totally trust that source, especially when it is proven that Liberals fail at basic economics.

President Obama’s budget proposals move us in a much better direction.

Yes, and that’s why his budget didn’t get one single vote from Republicans OR Democrats.  I repeat: Not a single vote from Democrats!

I remain strongly convinced from the polls and my own experiences that we Americans are a compassionate people who want our government to advance policies that promote the common good over the needs of the special interests or the wealthiest and most powerful among us. We can end homelessness. We simply need to make the moral investment.

And we should all take seriously the moral claims from someone who thinks that one of our problems is that we don’t have enough abortions in this country. You see, fake Reverend Chuck is pro-taxpayer funded abortions.  As with most liberals, he thinks that killing unwanted human beings reduces poverty.  While pretending to oppose the powerful they think people should have the power to destroy the unwanted.

Weekly roundup

The Doctrine of the Trinity: No Christianity Without It – a superb overview of the Trinity — read and enjoy!

This is great news: Congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood: What to expect

Abortion proponent “thrilled” by an abortion on “Grey’s Anatomy” – great analysis of the moral schizophrenia of the pro-abortion movement.

One of many problems abortion proponents have is sending mixed messages about getting one.  Whether to act glib and risk offending normal sensibilities, or to act serious and risk humanizing the baby, that is the question.

. . .

And then the abortion. It ends up only looking sick and pathetic for a father to go so far as to willingly watch the baby he loves and wants being killed, all to support that child’s mother. And why all the drama if it isn’t human children being killed by abortion?

Scott Klusendorf is one of the world’s best pro-life apologists.  He had a good analysis of Ray Comfort’s 180 movie (go watch it if you haven’t yet).  You can only put so much in a 30 minute movie, so here are some things to be aware of if people have questions about the movie.  (Scott had lots of good things to say as well.  I just included the critiques here.)

My concern: The film overlooked some important distinctions:

1) The distinction between people in the film (Venice Beach?) and the public at large—The sample used in the film is not only small; it’s not where most people are in terms of historical knowledge. . . .

2) The distinction between shouting a conclusion and establishing one–A sharp abortion-choicer could easily say, “Ya, I value human life. What Hitler did to Jews was wrong, but the unborn are not valuable human beings, so the comparison fails.” To succeed, pro-lifers must first establish that the unborn are indeed human (which the film does through images rather than scientific evidence), but then show that none of the differences between the embryos we once were and the adults we are today justify killing us at that earlier stage of development. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, are not value giving in the way that abortion-advocates need them to be in order to make their case. In short, jumping from killing Jews for bad reasons to killing the unborn for those same reasons leaves out important premises in the pro-life argument.

3) The distinction between killing a “baby” and unjustly killing human beings—Perhaps I am nitpicking here, but I think Comfort asks the wrong question when he points to a 6-week fetus and says, “Doesn’t that look like a baby?” What if the critic says “no?” End of discussion. . . .

4) The distinction between voting for pro-life candidates and voting pro-life–Put simply, what does it really mean to vote pro-life? . . .

5) The distinction between intentional killing and killing that is merely foreseen–Is it always wrong to kill an innocent human being? What about ectopic pregnancy? . . .

Despite these concerns, the film is worth seeing and Comfort gets huge accolades for his courage in confronting abortion head-on. Say what you want, at least he’s doing something about it and for that I am immensely grateful. Before ripping him, his evangelical critics need to ask themselves what they are doing to stop the bloodshed. Are they taking this holocaust as seriously as Comfort does? I can only pray that one day they will.

The dealth penalty and deterrence: what the research shows – contrary to myths, the death penalty is a deterrent.  The question is whether it is appropriate as a deterrent (I think it is).  After all, capital punishment for speeding would be a deterrent, but perhaps over the top.

Random thought about evolution by Glenn — good stuff!  My favorite, which the Darwinists typically gloss over or ignore:

DNA can only be produced with the help of at least 20 different types of protiens.  But these proteins can only be produced at the direction of DNA.  Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other.  Apparently, this entire manufacturing system came into existence simultaneously.  This implies Creation. (Walter T. Brown, Jr., In the Beginning, p.6)

False teacher Chuck Currie named Associate Director of False Teacher (Westar) Institute

San Francisco Values: White ‘Master,’ Black ‘Slave’ Adorn Cover of Folsom Street Fair 2011 Program Guide – This goes on in Nancy Pelosi’s district.  The police do nothing to stop it.  The Left doesn’t protest it.

False ‘it gets better’ promise claims a victim

Homosexual activists Dan Savage and Lady Gaga should be brought up on charges of murder for issuing wholesale false promises and lies to young people confused about their sexuality.