Democrat governor sexually harassed multiple women, covered it up, retaliated

Should women be allowed to have jobs without being sexually assaulted or raped by male bosses? Democrat voters seem to think that it’s fine for male supervisors to sexually harass, sexually assault, and even rape their female subordinates – judging from their voting. This has been a problem as far back as Bill Clinton, but it just keeps happening over and over. Now it’s New York’s governor.

Daily Wire reports:

A New York Attorney General report released Tuesday chronicles complaints against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo from 11 women including a sheriff’s deputy who served on Cuomo’s own security detail.

The AG’s report… found that “Cuomo harassed multiple women, many of whom were young women, by engaging in unwanted groping, kisses, hugging, and by making inappropriate comments,” according to Attorney General Leticia James. The behavior showed a “pattern,” the investigators said, they “found all 11 women to be credible.”

[…]Most of the accusers chose to remain anonymous but the nine individuals employed by the State of New York are identified by their position within the administration, including one “executive assistant” who accused Cuomo of “aggressive” groping.

That portion of the report verifies a claim made to the Albany Times-Union back in March.

[…]“The direct contact with intimate body parts—including the touching of Executive Assistant #1’s breast, the grabbing and touching of the butts of various women…—unquestionably amounted to sexual harassment,” the Attorney General’s report noted.

A state trooper assigned to Cuomo’s detail described being asked by the governor to help him find a new girlfriend who “can handle pain.”

[…]The trooper also reported that Cuomo touched her inappropriately.

The accusers were silenced:

The women who complained also said that Cuomo’s workplace “culture” fostered the governor’s behavior and ultimately silenced his accusers.

“The complainants also described how the culture within the Executive Chamber—rife with fear and intimidation and accompanied by a consistent overlooking of inappropriate flirtations and other sexually suggestive and gender-based comments by the Governor—enabled the above-described instances of harassment to occur and created a hostile work environment overall,” the report said.

What would happen if I asked a young, unmarried Democrat voter in New York to explain her support for Cuomo? I guess she would say “rape is OK if it’s a rapist who supports abortion rights”, or something. I don’t really understand how Democrat voters reason, or if they reason. Here, we have credible accusations from many women who were willing to come forward, but it doesn’t mean anything (apparently) to young female Democrats.

Cuomo also retaliated against one of the women, and used his power to cover up the scandal.

The New York Post reports:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his team tried to cover up the sex-harassment allegations against him by ignoring reporting procedures — while he personally plotted to “discredit and disparage” an accuser, probers said Tuesday.

[…]The trio of aides had screened Bennett’s initial complaint, which was that Cuomo’s flirtatious behavior toward her made her uncomfortable — and that he was “grooming” her for sex, the document said. The staffers then had her transferred to another position, where she would no longer have to interact with the governor.

[…]Meanwhile Cuomo himself was involved in the dirty work of a smear campaign against Lindsey Boylan, a former top aide in the state’s Economic Development Office, according to the official report.

“Governor Cuomo, himself, and the Executive Chamber engaged in ‘retaliatory behavior’ by ‘intend[ing] to discredit and disparage’ a former employee that came forward with her story of harassment,” the report said.

Earlier this year, Boylan, 37, published an online essay in which she accused Cuomo, 63, of repeatedly harassing her, leading to a flood of similar allegations from current and former aides. She previously tweeted that Cuomo sexually harassed her.

Cover-up and retaliation.

When Bill Clinton was accused of rape and sexual assault by female subordinates, a female journalist famous said that she didn’t care, and would happily give him oral sex if he would keep abortion legal. I guess she speaks for all young, unmarried Democrat women voters. Maybe they actually find men like this attractive? They certainly keep voting for these men.

Dr. Tim Stratton on the Apologetics 315 podcast to discuss free will and divine sovereignty

I really enjoyed this interview of Dr. Stratton from the Apologetics 315 podcast. I’ve had non-Christians in previous workplaces raise the problem of free will vs divine sovereignty. After all, they say, how can humans be responsible for their choices if God is all-powerful? If God is all-powerful, then surely he must control everything, and there’s no space for free will. Right?

The episode can be heard here.

Here is the show description:

In this episode, Brian Auten and Chad Gross interview Tim Stratton of Free Thinking Ministries. They discuss the topic of Molinism as it relates to God’s sovereignty, human free will, and why it matters. Tim’s book on the subject is Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism: A Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Philosophical Analysis.

1:03 – Intro to Tim Stratton
1:41 – Why Molinism on the podcast?
3:20 – Welcome to Tim Stratton
3:54 – How Tim became a Christian
9:37 – God as a maximally great being
10:43 – Tim’s dissertation
11:18 – What does Tim find compelling about Molinism?
12:42 – The Mere Molinism Facebook group
16:14 – What is the problem that Molinism is trying to solve?
22:47 – How to briefly summarize Molinism?
23:41 – Defining terms: Middle knowledge and counterfactuals
31:39 – Scriptures that affirm counterfactuals / middle knowledge
41:53 – Why us the term “mere” Molinism?
46:22 – Can Molinism be applied to salvation?
48:21 – Does this chess analogy work?
52:10 – Objection: Molinism is not derived from scripture
58:23 – Objection: Who cares? That’s just for scholars and theologians
1:02:45 – How Molinism saved Tim’s marriage
1:06:20 – Where to find Tim’s resources

Tim Stratton’s reconciliation of divine sovereignty and free will is interesting to me. He keeps God as the sole initiator of salvation. And that’s good. But it also makes sure that human who resist God’s leading are responsible for their choice to resist God, and that’s also good. We want salvation to be 100% by faith alone in Christ alone. But we don’t want God to be the cause of people not being saved. On Stratton’s view, God wants everyone to be saved. If anyone is saved, it’s because God did ALL THE WORK to lead them and secure their salvation with the death of Jesus on the cross. But, on Stratton’s view, humans do get a choice – the choice to trust God or not. And so, if a person is not saved, then it’s their fault – not God’s.

If you hear this challenge from non-Christians, be sure to listen to the podcast. You can find a written version of his argument on his web site, Free Thinking Ministries.

Is the acceleration of the universe’s expansion compatible with Hinduism?

Christianity and the progress of science
Christianity and the progress of science

First, a news story – and then we’ll see how the accelerating universe relates to the existence of God.


Three astrophysicists who discovered that the universe’s expansion is accelerating rather than decelerating, as had been expected, win the Nobel Prize in physics.

Adam Riess was sure he’d spotted a blatant error in his results. It was 1997, and the young post-doc’s measurements of distant, exploding stars implied that the universe was expanding at a faster and faster rate, instead of slowing down, as he had expected.

It wasn’t an error at all. Instead, what was at fault were some basic assumptions about the workings of the universe.

On Tuesday, the Johns Hopkins University astrophysicist received the Nobel Prize in physics for the revolutionary discovery and its implications, along with team leader Brian Schmidt of Australian National University and astrophysicist Saul Perlmutter of UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who had reached the same conclusion independently.

At the time of their work, astrophysicists believed that the rate of expansion of the universe — set in motion by the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago — would be slowing down as matter was pulled together by gravity. The goal at the time was to figure out how rapid the deceleration was.

What the two teams found instead was that the expansion of the universe was accelerating — an observation that could best be explained by the existence of a mysterious “dark energy” that pushes matter farther and farther apart.

Many scientists had thought that, just as the universe started with the Big Bang, it would end with a Big Crunch — with gravity pulling all the matter in the universe inward.

Does anyone remember that week that I wrote those posts about “Why I am not a… <insert some religion here>”? I explained why I was not all kinds of different religions and denominations, including Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, etc. Everyone was offended and we fought about it. Ah, I remember it well.

Now let’s apply science to the Hindu religion and see if they go together, especially this new discovery about the expansion of the universe.

Why I am not a Hindu

  1. Hindu cosmology teaches that the universe cycles between creation and destruction, through infinite time.
  2. The closest cosmological model conforming to Hindu Scriptures is the eternally “oscillating” model of the universe.
  3. The “oscillating” model requires that the universe exist eternally into the past.
  4. But the evidence today shows the the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.
  5. The “oscillating” model requires that the expansion of the universe reverse into a collapse, (= crunch).
  6. In 1998, the discovery of the year was that the universe would expand forever. There will be no crunch.
  7. Therefore, the oscillating model is disconfirmed by observations.
  8. The oscillating model also faces theoretical problems with the “bounce” mechanism.

So that’s one reason why I am not a Hindu. And now we have more scientific confirmation that there is no cycle of universes coming into being and going out of being.

The absolute origin of the universe out of nothing is also incompatible with Buddhism and Mormonism and maybe other religions. They also require an eternally existing universe.

And modern cosmology disagrees with atheism, too

I think it’s important for all of you to be familiar with the scientific evidence for the Big Bang. It will help you with your cosmological argument, and it will help you to refute many, many other religions that require eternal universes, including atheism.

I wrote about how the Big Bang cosmology falsifies atheism before.


According to the Secular Humanist Manifesto, atheism is committed to an eternally existing universe, (See the first item: “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”). If something non-material brought all existing matter into being, that would be a supernatural cause, and atheists deny that anything supernatural exists. The standard Big Bang theory requires that all the matter in the universe come into being out of nothing. The Big Bang has been confirmed by experimental evidence such as redshift measurements, light element abundances and the cosmic microwave background radiation. This falsifies eternal models of the universe, which are required by atheist Scriptures.

The experimental evidence that confirms the Big Bang creation out of nothing falsifies many worldviews. Those who care about evidence will have to choose some other religion that is compatible with what we know from science today.

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

%d bloggers like this: