All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

Is Joe Biden a Roman Catholic? Where does he stand on abortion and religious liberty?

12 Comments
Major pro-abortion group endorses Joe Biden for President
Major pro-abortion group endorses Joe Biden for President

What does Joe Biden think about Roman Catholics? He might like you to believe that he’s a great friend of Catholics, so he can get their votes. But he’s very strongly in favor of abortion and infanticide. And he’s also opposed to religious liberty for Roman Catholics. How do I know? Because he said so himself.

Here’s the story from The Federalist:

Biden’s record is one of attacking nuns, not defending them. Last month, he pledged to overturn a Supreme Court decision that affirmed a group of nuns’ right to deny contraceptive coverage based on their sincerely-held religious beliefs. The Little Sisters of the Poor are a Catholic order that has existed since 1839 and serves impovrished elderly in over 30 countries, including the United States. In 2013, the Little Sisters sued the Obama-Biden administration’s Health and Human Services, seeking a religious exemption to providing contraceptives and abortifacients that went against their beliefs. After three years of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled in the Little Sisters’ favor in 2016.

When the Trump administration issued a new rule that expanded religious exemptions to include the Little Sisters, the state of Pennsylvania interfered, suing the administration to take protections away from the nuns. That case also made it to the Supreme Court, which again decided in favor of the Little Sisters in July 2020.

But the day the Supreme Court issued its ruling, Biden promised to take away the nuns’ hard-fought exemption if elected president.

“I am disappointed in today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision,” Biden said in response. “If I am elected I will restore the Obama-Biden policy.”

So, not good on religious liberty, especially for Roman Catholics.

And here’s an interesting article from Life News, about Biden’s support for abortion. Is he a moderate?

NARAL, the pro-abortion political and lobbying organization, yesterday announced its endorsement of pro-abortion former vice president Joe Biden, the presumptive Democrat nominee, for president.

If elected, Biden has promised to:

  • enshrine Roe v. Wade in federal law;
  • appoint justices who will uphold abortion on demand;
  • reverse the Trump Administration’s pro-life policies;
  • reverse President Trump’s Title X rule that prevents pro-abortion groups from promoting or referring for abortions;
  • promote abortion around the world by reversing the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance program which prevents federal taxpayer dollars from being used by abortion groups to perform or promote abortion overseas;
  • abolish the Hyde Amendment which prevents federal tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Joe Biden isn’t a Roman Catholic. Like all other Democrats, he’s an atheist. He doesn’t think that the Bible is an authority on truth or morality. I know, because I looked at his actions. His actions declare that he’s a pro-abortion, anti-Christian bigot.

News

Four reasons why you should vote Democrat in November 2020

4 Comments
What would the Democrats do if they won in November?
What would the Democrats do if they won in November?

I found four interesting news stories last night that have really shown some of the wonderful benefits that you’ll get from voting Democrat in November 2020. First, the FBI won’t try to overthrow elections. Law enforcement won’t early-release convicted criminals. Women athletes will be able to play sports. Rioters and looters will be much more civil. It will be awesome!

Let’s start with this article from Just The News about the wonderful non-partisan FBI:

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Sunday released a document it says shows the FBI misled senators on the Intelligence Committee during the Russia probe by falsely suggesting Christopher Steele’s dossier was backed up by one of his key sources.

“Somebody needs to go to jail for this,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the panel’s chairman, told the Fox News program Sunday Futures with Maria Bartiromo. “This is a second lie. This is a second crime. They lied to the FISA court. They got rebuked, the FBI did, in 2019 by the FISA court, putting in doubt all FISA applications.

“A year before, they’re lying to the Senate Intel Committee. It’s just amazing the compounding of the lies,” Graham added.

The document in question contains the draft talking points the FBI used to brief the Senate Intelligence Committee in February 2018, including an assessment that the primary sub-source of the information contained in the Steele dossier had backed up the former MI-6 agent’s reporting.

The primary sub-source “did not cite any significant concerns with the way his reporting was characterized in the dossier to the extent he could identify it,” the FBI memo claimed. “…At minimum, our discussions with [the Primary Sub-source] confirm that the dossier was not fabricated by Steele.”

[…]In fact, by the time the FBI provided senators the briefing, agents had already interviewed Steele’s primary sub-source who disavowed much of what was attributed to him in the dossier as in “jest” or containing uncorroborated allegations.

Agents also had been warned by the CIA that Steele’s memos contained disinformation fed to him by Russian intelligence services, and had created a spreadsheet showing most of the claims in the dossier were either debunked, unable to be corroborated or Internet rumor.

Graham said the document is so misleading he is demanding FBI Director Chris Wray identify the names of those involved in the briefing. “They misled the hell out of them,” he said.

Fair and balanced. You can count on people like Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe to enforce the law fairly, and not to try to overturn the results of an election they lost using the FBI as a weapon against their political opponents. Because that never happened under Obama when he used the IRS to attack conservative groups in an election year.

And look at this example of Democrats being tough on crime:

Ibrahim Bouaichi, the Maryland man suspected of murdering Karla Elizabeth Dominguez Gonzalez in the West End last week, was released from jail on bond earlier this year while awaiting trial on charges that he attacked and raped her last fall, according to court records.

Gonzalez was shot and killed on July 29 at around 6 a.m. outside her home on S. Greenmount Drive in the West End. Soon after her death, Alexandria Police identified Bouaichi as a suspect and said that he was armed and dangerous.

Law enforcement is a big priority for Maryland Democrats, and they’ll always choose to protect the people who pay their salaries from criminals.

Democrats are so pro-woman, that they are willing to protect women athletes:

Outsports, an LGBTQ website affiliated with Vox just doxxed the names of over-300 collegiate and professional athletes that signed a letter vouching for biological women in sports. The letter was sent to the National College Athletic Association Board of Governors last week and lauded Idaho’s “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which supports women in sports.

Doxing people is awesome, and definitely not creepy and fascistic. And those Democrat feminists were right to do it. If you can’t win an argument, then definitely resort to fascism, vandalism, violence, and death threats. Democrats don’t have any mental illnesses, you know. They’re totally sane.

Expect rioters and looters to be more civil under a Biden administration. Portland, Oregon is dominated from top to bottom by Democrats, and look at how moral people are there:

Amid the rioting and vandalism at the precinct, KOIN-TV reported that officers were hit with projectiles that included glass bottles and rocks — and cops said one officer was severely injured after taking a large rock to the shoulder.

In the middle of all that, the station said an elderly woman who said she lives in the neighborhood pleaded with the group to stop the vandalism and stood in the way of those who were splashing paint on the plywood outside the building.

But they splashed paint on her too, KOIN noted.

Rather than realizing how far out of hand they’ve gotten, the violent left-wingers started yelling at the elderly woman: “This isn’t your world anymore!”

Yeah, way to stick it to the man, brave Democrats. Speak truth to power! I think everyone on the right needs to give the Democrats a chance. They have an excellent record to run on.

News

Ryan T. Anderson lectures on marriage and why it matters

1 Comment
A family praying and reading the Bible
A family praying and reading the Bible

Here’s the lecture:

About the speaker:

Ryan T. Anderson researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory.

Anderson, who joined the leading Washington think tank’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society in 2012, also is the editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, N.J.

Anderson’s recent work at Heritage focuses on the constitutional questions surrounding same-sex “marriage.” He is the co-author with Princeton’s Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis of the acclaimed book “What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” (Encounter Books, December 2012).

The lecture starts at 7:20 in. The lecture ends at 49:35. There are 32 minutes of Q&A.

Introduction:

  • When talking about marriage in public, we should talk about philosophy, sociology and public policy
  • Gay marriage proponents need to be pressed to define what marriage is, on their view
  • Every definition of marriage is going to include some relationships, and exclude others
  • It’s meaningless to portray one side as nice and the other mean
  • Typically, marriage redefiners view marriage as a more intense emotional relationship
  • Marriage redefiners should be challenged in three ways:
  • 1) Does the redefined version of marriage have a public policy reason to prefer only two people?
  • 2) Does the redefined version of marriage have a reason to prefer permanence?
  • 3) Does the redefined version of marriage have a reason to prefer sexual exclusivity?
  • Also, if marriage is just about romance, then why is the state getting involved in recognizing it?
  • The talk: 1) What marriage is, 2) Why marriage matters, 3) What are the consequences of redefining marriage?

What marriage is:

  • Marriage unites spouses – hearts, minds and bodies
  • Marriage unites spouses to perform a good: creating a human being and raising that human being
  • Marriage is a commitment: permanent and exclusive
  • Male and female natures are distinct and complementary

The public purpose of marriage:

  • to attach men and women to each other
  • to attach mothers and fathers to their children
  • there is no such thing as parenting, there is only mothering and fathering
  • the evidence shows that children benefit from mothering and fathering
  • boys who grow up without fathers are more likely to commit crimes
  • girls who grow up without fathers are more likely to have sex earlier
  • Children benefit from having a mother and a father
  • can’t say that fathers are essential for children if we support gay marriage, which makes fathers optional
  • without marriage: child poverty increases, crime increases, social mobility decreases, welfare spending increases
  • when government encourages marriage, then government has less do to – stays smaller, spends less
  • if we promote marriage as an idea, we are not excluding gay relationships or even partner benefits
  • finally, gay marriage has shown itself to be hostile to religious liberty

Consequences redefining marriage:

  • it undermines the norm in public like that kids deserve a mom and a dad – moms and dads are interchangeable
  • it changes the institution of marriage away from the needs of children, and towards the needs of adults
  • it undermines the norm of permanence
  • we learned what happens when marriage is redefined before: with no-fault divorce
  • no-fault divorce: after this became law, divorce rates doubled – the law changed society
  • gay marriage would teach society that mothers and fathers are optional when raising children
  • if marriage is what people with intense feelings do, then how can you rationally limit marriage to only two people?
  • if marriage is what people with intense feelings do, then if other people cause intense feelings, there’s no fidelity
  • if marriage is what people with intense feelings do, then if the feelings go away, there is no permanence
  • the public policy consequences to undermining the norms of exclusivity and permanence = fatherless children and fragmented families
  • a final consequences is the decline and elimination of religious liberty – e.g. – adoption agencies closing, businesses being sued

We’re doing very well on abortion, but we need to get better at knowing how to discuss marriage. If you’re looking for something short to read, click here. If you want to read a long paper that his book is based on.