The news media keeps telling me that Russia and Trump get along so well, but I don’t see it in the policies.
The Daily Wire has more about Trump’s record on Russia relations:
Here are some of the following actions that Trump has taken against Russia:
Trump has repeatedly enacted tough sanctions against Russia and Russian oligarchs for a wide range of offense ranging from election interference to supporting destabilizing actions in Ukraine.
Trump expelled over 60 Russian diplomats from the U.S. after Russia engaged in an assassination attempt in the U.K.
Trump played a significant role in securing an extra $100 billion in funding for NATO, which serves to counter Russian aggression.
The Trump administration killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria.
Trump has aggressively tried to prevent Russia from expanding its influence in the energy sector in Europe.
Trump proposed buying Greenland last year in an apparent attempt to counter increasing Russian aggression and influence in the arctic.
Trump has repeatedly gone after Russia’s top allies, including China, Iran, and North Korea.
With all that said, who do you think that the Russians will be supporting in 2020? Trump? Or will the support their good friend Comrade Bernie?
Federal officials have notified socialist Bernie Sanders that Russia is trying to boost his presidential campaign in an effort to impact who becomes the Democrats’ presidential nominee.
The Washington Post reported that President Donald Trump and other top lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been informed about Russia’s efforts to boost Sanders.
Top officials “have repeatedly warned that Russia has ongoing plans to interfere in U.S. elections and foster divisions among Americans, part of a strategic goal to undermine U.S. standing in the world,” The Post reported. “Some analysts believe that the Kremlin’s goal is to cause the maximum disruption within the United States, and it throws the support of its hackers and trolls behind candidates based on that goal, not any particular affinity for the persons running.”
Sanders has a long history of being cozying up to Russia, including when he was the mayor of Burlington.
Looks like the secular left has gone back to being in bed with the Russians again. Just like during the Cold War.
There is not much snark in this summary, because Crossley is a solid scholar, and very fair with the evidence.
William Lane Craig’s opening speech
There are four minimal facts that are accepted by most historians
The best explanation of the four minimal facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead
Contention 1 of 2:
Fact 1: The burial
The burial is multiply attested
The burial is based on the early source material that Mark used for his gospel
Scholars date this Markan source to within 10 years of the crucifixion
The burial is also in the early passage in 1 Cor 15:3-8
So you have 5 sources, some of which are very early
The burial is credited to a member of the Sanhedrin
the burial is probable because shows an enemy of the church doing right
this makes it unlikely to to be an invention
Fact 2: The empty tomb
The burial story supports the empty tomb
the site of Jesus’ grave was known
the disciples could not proclaim a resurrection if the body were still in it
the antagonists to the early Christians could have produced the body
The empty tomb is multiple attested
it’s mentioned explicitly in Mark
it’s in the separate sources used by Matthew and John
it’s in the early sermons documented in Acts
it’s implied by 1 Cor 15:3-8, because resurrection requires that the body is missing
The empty tomb was discovered by women
the testimony of women of women was not normally allowed in courts of law
if this story was being made up, they would have chosen male disciples
The empty tomb discover lacks legendary embellishment
there is no theological or apologetical reflection on the meaning of the tomb
The early Jewish response implies that the tomb was empty
the response was that the disciples stole the body
that requires that the tomb was found empty
Fact 3: The appearances to individuals and groups, some of the them hostile
The list of appearances is in 1 Cor 15:3-8
this material is extremely early, withing 1-3 years after the cross
James, the brother of Jesus, was not a believer when he got his appearance
Paul was hostile to the early church when he got his appearance
Specific appearances are multiply attested
Peter: attested by Luke and Paul
The twelve: attested by Luke, John and Paul
The women: attested by Matthew and John
Fact 4: The early belief in the resurrection emerged in a hostile environment
There was no background belief in a dying Messiah
There was no background belief in a single person resurrecting before the general resurrection of all of the righteous at the end of the age
The disciples were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus
The resurrection is the best explanation for the transformation of the disciples from frightened to reckless of death
Contention 2 of 2:
The resurrection is the best explanation because it passes C.B. McCullough’s six tests for historical explanations
None of the naturalistic explanations accounts for the minimal facts as well as the resurrection
James Crossley’s opening speech
Appeals to the majority of scholars doesn’t prove anything
the majority of people in the west are Christians so of course there are a majority of scholars that support the resurrection
there are Christian schools where denial of the resurrection can result in termination
The best early sources (1 Cor 15:3-8 and Mark) are not that good
1 Cor 15:3-8 doesn’t support the empty tomb
verse 4 probably does imply a bodily resurrection
the passage does have eyewitnesses to appearances of Jesus
but there are no eyewitnesses to the empty tomb in this source
appearances occur in other cultures in different times and places
Jesus viewed himself as a martyr
his followers may have had hallucinations
Mark is dated to the late 30s and early 40s
The women who discover the tomb tell no one about the empty tomb
The gospels show signs of having things added to them
Jewish story telling practices allowed the teller to make things up to enhance their hero
one example of this would be the story of the earthquake and the people coming out of their graves
that story isn’t in Mark, nor any external sources like Josephus
if there really was a mass resurrection, where are these people today?
so this passage in Matthew clearly shows that at least some parts of the New Testament could involve
what about the contradiction between the women tell NO ONE and yet other people show up at the empty tomb
the story about Jesus commissioning the early church to evangelize Gentiles was probably added
there are also discrepancies in the timing of events and appearances
why are there explicit statements of high Christology in John, but not in the earlier sources?
William Lane Craig’s first rebuttal
Crossley’s response to the burial: he accepts it
Crossley’s response to the empty tomb: he thinks it was made up
rabbinical stories are not comparable to the gospel accounts
the rabbinical stories are just anecdotal creative story-telling
the gospels are ancient biographies – the genre is completely different
the rabbinic miracle stories are recorded much later than the gospels
the rabbi’s legal and moral ideas were written down right away
the miracle stories were written down a century or two later
in contrast, the miracle stories about Jesus are in the earliest sources, like Mark
the rabbinical stories are intended as entertainment, not history
the gospels are intended as biography
just because there are some legendary/apocalyptic elements in Matthew, it doesn’t undermine things like the crucfixion that are historically accurate
Crossley’s response to the evidence for the empty tomb:
no response to the burial
the empty tomb cannot be made up, it was implied by Paul early on
the women wouldn’t have said nothing forever – they eventually talked after they arrived to where the disciples were
no response to the lack of embellishment
no response to the early Jewish polemic
Crossley’s response to the appearances
he agrees that the first followers of Jesus had experiences where they thought Jesus was still alive
Crossley’s response to the early belief in the bodily resurrection:
no response about how this belief in a resurrection could have emerged in the absence of background belief in the death of the Messiah and the resurrection of one man before the general resurrection of all the righteous at the end of the age
What about Crossley’s hallucination theory?
Crossley says that the followers of Jesus had visions, and they interpreted these visions against the story of the Maccabean martyrs who looked forward to their own resurrections
but the hallucination hypothesis doesn’t account for the empty tomb
and the Maccabean martyrs were not expecting the resurrection of one man, and certainly not the Messiah – so that story doesn’t provide the right background belief for a hallucination of a single resurrected person prior to the end of the age
if the appearances were non-physical, the disciples would not have applied the word resurrection – it would just have been a vision
the visions could easily be reconciled with the idea that somehow God was pleased with Jesus and that he had some glorified/vindicated non-corporeal existence – but not resurrection
not only that, the hallucination hypothesis doesn’t even explain the visions, because there were visions to groups, to skeptics and to enemies in several places
What about the argument that only Christians accept the resurrection?
it’s an ad hominem attack that avoids the arguments
James Crossley’s first rebuttal
Regarding the burial:
I could be persuaded of that the burial account is accurate
Regarding the non-expectation of a suffering/dying Messiah:
Jesus thought he was going to die
this thinking he was going to die overturned all previous Messianic expectations that the Messiah wouldn’t suffer or die
the early Jews could easily reconcile the idea of a suffering, dead man killed by the Romans with the power of the all-powerful Messiah who supposed to reign forever
no actually bodily resurrection would have to happen to get them to continue to identify an executed corpse with the role of Messiah
Regarding the belief in the bodily resurrection:
it would be natural for Jews, who believed in a general resurrection of all the rigtheous dead at the end of the age, to interpret a non-physical vision of one man after he died as a bodily resurrection, even though no Jew had ever considered the resurrection of one man before the general resurrection before Jesus
Regarding the testimony of the women:
Just because women were not able to testify in courts of law (unless there were no male witnesses), the early church might still invent a story where the women are the first witnesses
first, the disciples had fled the scene, so only the women were left
and it would have been a good idea for the early church to invent women as the first witnesses – the fact that they could not testify in court makes them ideal witnesses and very persuasive
also, it’s a good idea to invent women as witnesses, because the Romans had a rule that said that they never killed women, so they wouldn’t have killed these women – Romans only ever kill men
in any case, the first witness to the empty tomb is angel, so as long as people could talk to the angel as being the first witness, that’s the best story to invent
Regarding the consensus of Christian scholars:
I am not saying that Craig’s facts are wrong, just that appealing to consensus is not legitimate
he has to appeal to the evidence, not the consensus
Regarding my naturalistic bias:
I don’t know or care if naturalism is true, let’s look at the evidence
Regarding the genre of the gospels:
the creative story-telling is common in all genres, it’s not a genre in itself
stuff about Roman emperors also has creative story-telling
Regarding the legendary nature of the empty tomb in Mark:
First, Christians interpreted the visions as a bodily resurrection
Second, they invented the story of the empty tomb to go with that interpretation
Third, they died for their invention
William Lane Craig’s second rebuttal
Bill’s case doesn’t need to know the specifics of the burial, only that the location was known
the location is important because it supports the empty tomb
to proclaim a resurrection, the tomb would have to be empty
a tomb with a known location is easier to check
The empty tomb:
creative story telling was common in Judaism: retelling OT stories (midrash), romances/novels, rabbinical anecdotes
but the gospels are none of these genres – the gospels are ancient biographies
Craig also gave five arguments as to why the tomb was empty
the burial story supports the empty tomb
there is multiple independent attestation, then it cannot be a creative fiction invented in Mark alone
the witnesses were in Jerusalem, so they were in a position to know
regarding the women, even though Jesus respected the women, their testimony would not be convincing to others, so why invent a story where they are the witnesses
the male disciples did not flee the scene, for example, Peter was there to deny Jesus three times
if the story is made up, who cares what the male disciples did, just invent them on the scene anyway
the angel is not authoritative, because the angel cannot be questioned, but the women can be questioned
there was no response on the lack of embellishment
there was no response to the earliest Jewish response implying that the tomb was empty
we agree on the appearances
The early belief in the resurrection:
he says that Jesus predicted his own death
yes, but that would only cause people to think that he was a martyr, not that he was the messiah – something else is needed for them to keep their believe that he was the Messiah even after he died, because the Messiah wasn’t supposed to die
and of course, there was no expectation of a single person rising from the dead before the general resurrection, and certainly not the Messiah
The consensus of scholars:
Jewish scholars like Geza Vermes and Pinchas Lapide accept these minimal facts like the empty tomb, it’s not just Christian scholars
Against Crossley’s hallucination hypothesis:
it doesn’t explain the empty the tomb
it doesn’t explain the early belief in the resurrection
hallucinations would only lead to the idea that God had exalted/glorified Jesus, not that he was bodily raised from the dead
the hallucination theory cannot accommodate all of the different kinds of appearances; individual, group, skeptic, enemy, etc.
The pre-supposition of naturalism:
if Crossley is not committed to naturalism, then he should be open to the minimal facts and to the best explanation of those facts
the hallucination hypothesis has too many problems
the resurrection hypothesis explains everything, and well
James Crossley’s second rebuttal
well, there are lots of other religious books
those other religious books have late sources, and are filled with legends and myths, and no eyewitness testimony
so why should we trust 1 Cor 15 and the early source for Mark and the other early eyewitness testimony in the New Testament?
if other religious books can be rejected for historical reasons, then surely the New Testament can be rejected for historical reasons
the genre of ancient biography can incorporate and commonly incorporates invented legendaryt story-telling
this is common in Roman, Greek and Jewish literature and everyone accepts that
Empty tomb: multiple attestation
ok, so maybe the empty tomb is multiply attested, but that just gets back to a belief, not to a fact
multiple attestation is not the only criteria, and Craig needs to use the other criteria to make his case stronger
Empty tomb: invented
if there is a belief in the resurrection caused by the visions, then the empty tomb would have to be invented
why aren’t there more reliable stories of people visiting the empty tomb in more sources?
Empty tomb: role of the women
there are women who have an important role in the Bible, like Judith and Esther
Mark’s passage may have used women who then kept silent in order to explain why no one knew where the empty tomb was
if the fleeing of the men is plausible to explain the women, then why not use that? why appeal to the supernatural?
we should prefer any explanation that is naturalistic even if it is not as good as the supernatural explanation at explaining everything
Empty tomb: embellishment
well there is an angel there, that’s an embellishment
anyway, when you say there is no embellishment, what are you comparing it to that makes you say that?
I’ve read anthropology literature that has some cases where people have hallucinations as groups
the hallucinations would not be interpreted against the background theological beliefs that ruled out the resurrection of one man before then general resurrection of all the righteous dead
these hallucinations could have been so compelling that they made the earliest Christians, and skeptics like James, and enemies like the Pharisee Paul abandon all of their previous background beliefs, proclaim the new doctrine of a crucified and resurrected Messiah which no one had ever expected, and then gone on to die for that belief
the hallucinations could have changed all of their theology and reversed all of their beliefs about the what the word resurrection meant
William Lane Craig’s conclusion
None of the four facts are supernatural, they are natural, and ascertained by historians using normal historical methods
the supernatural part only comes in after we decide on the facts when we are deciding which explanation is the best
a tomb being found empty is not a miraculous fact
the gospels are not analagous to these rabbinical stories, the purpose and dating is different
what multiple attestation shows is that it was not made-up by Mark
and the argument was augmented with other criteria, like the criterion of embarrassment and the criterion of dissimilarity
Judith and Esther are very rare exceptions, normally women were not viewed as reliable witnesses
if the story was invented, whatever purpose the inventors had would have been better served by inventing male witnesses
Craig grants that the angel may be an embellishment for the sake of argument, but there are no other embellishments
the real embellishments occur in forged gnostic gospels in the second and third centuries, where there are theological motifs added to the bare fact of the empty tomb (e.g. – the talking cross in the Gospel of Peter)
he had no response to the earliest jewish response which implied an empty tomb
Belief in the resurrection:
there was no way for Jewish people to interpret an appearance as a bodily resurrection before the end of the world, they did not expect that
they could have imagined exaltation, but not a bodily resurrection
James Crossley’s conclusion
as long as there is any other other possible naturalistic explanation, we should prefer that, no matter how unlikely
some of these creative stories appear within the lifetimes of the people connected to the events (none mentioned)
you should compare to earlier stories when looking for embellishments, not later
and we don’t have any earlier sources, so we just don’t know the extent of the embellishment
they probably just heard about the empty tomb, and didn’t check on it, then invented the stole-the-body explanation without ever checking to see if the tomb was empty or not
This is one of the top 4 best debates that William Lane Craig has ever done in my opinion. (The other three are Craig-Millican debate and the first and second Craig-Dacey debates). If you’ve never seen Dr. Craig in a debate with a non-Christian, this one is probably the best introductory one out there. Dr. Craig is the foremost defender of Christian theism on the planet, and probably of all time.
Sinnott-Armstrong is very courteous, respectful and intelligent scholar and he is very good at defending his side. This is a very cordial and engaging debate, and because it was held in front of a church audience, it was targeted to laymen and not academics. So if you are looking for a good first debate to watch, this is it! Normally, Dr. Craig debates at major universities in front of students and faculty.
There is also a book based on this debate, published by Oxford University Press. I was actually able to find a PDF of it online. I should also remind people that you can get the wonderful Craig-Hitchens debate DVD from Amazon.com if you are looking for a debate to watch, or show in your church, this is the one to start with.
Evil is incompatible with the concept of God (three features all-powerful, all-god, all-knowing)
God’s additional attributes: eternal, effective and personal (a person)
He will be debating against the Christian God in this debate, specifically
Contention: no being has all of the three features of the concept of God
His argument: is not a deductive argument, but an inductive/probabilistic argument
Examples of pointless, unjustified suffering: a sick child who dies, earthquakes, famines
The inductive argument from evil:
If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for some adequately compensating good.
There is evil in the world.
Some of that evil is not logically necessary for some adequately compensating good.
Therefore, there can’t be a God who is all-powerful and all-good.
Evil: anything that all rational people avoid for themselves, unless they have some adequate reason to want that evil for themselves (e.g. – pain, disability, death)
Adequate reason: some evils do have an adequate reason, like going to the dentist – you avoid a worse evil by having a filling
God could prevent tooth decay with no pain
God can even change the laws of physics in order to make people not suffer
Responses by Christians:
Evil as a punishment for sin: but evil is not distributed in accordance with sin, like babies
Children who suffer will go straight to Heaven: but it would be better to go to Heaven and not suffer
Free will: this response doesn’t account for natural evil, like disease, earthquakes, lightning
Character formation theodicy: there are other ways for God to form character, by showing movies
Character formation theodicy: it’s not fair to let X suffer so that Y will know God
God allows evil to turn people towards him: God would be an egomaniac to do that
We are not in a position to know that any particular evil is pointless: if we don’t see a reason then there is no reason
Inductive evil is minor compared to the evidences for God: arguments for a Creator do not prove that God is good
WLC opening speech:
Summarizing Walter’s argument
If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist.
Gratuitous evil exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.
Gratuitous evil means evil that God has no morally sufficient reason to permit. WSA doesn’t think that all evil is incompatible with God’s existence, just gratuitous evil.
Everyone admits that there are instances of evil and suffering such that we cannot see the morally sufficient reason why God would allow it to occur.
The claim of the atheist is that if they cannot see that there is a moral justification for allowing some instance evil, then there is no moral justification for that instance of evil.
Here are three reasons why we should not expect to know the morally sufficient reasons why God permits apparently pointless evil.
the ripple effect: the morally sufficient reason for allowing some instance of evil may only be seen in another place or another time
Three Christian doctrines undermine the claim that specific evils really are gratuitous
Walter’s own premise 1 allows us to argue for God’s existence, which means that evil is not gratuitous
Christian doctrines from 2.:
The purpose of life is not happiness, and it is not God’s job to make us happy – we are here to know God. Many evils are gratuitous if we are concerned about being happy, but they are not gratuitous for producing the knowledge of God. What WSA has to show is that God could reduce the amount of suffering in the world while still retaining the same amount of knowledge of God’s existence and character.
Man is in rebellion, and many of the evils we see are caused by humans misusing their free will to harm others and cause suffering
For those who accept Christ, suffering is redeemed by eternal life with God, which is a benefit that far outweighs any sufferings and evils we experience in our earthly lives
Arguing for God in 3.
If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist.
Therefore, gratuitous evil does not exist.
Four reasons to think that God exists (premise 2 from above):
I’ve been warning people about the dangers of government healthcare for some time. In government-run health care, people pay into the system based on their earnings. But treatment is handed out based on the government’s need to buy votes. In other words, you’re not paying for care at all. You’re forced to pay into a system where bureaucrats will decide later whether you get treated.
The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) announced Tuesday that, under new rules for the agency coming in April, medical care providers can refuse to give non-critical care to patients who are “racist,” sexist,” “homophobic,” or are otherwise insulting and aggressive towards hospital staff.
Right now, the NHS can refuse to treat anyone who are “aggressive” or “violent” out of concern for the well-being of health care workers, but the new rules, set to take effect in April of 2020, expand who the NHS can turn away — though it’s not entirely clear how the NHS would know a possible patient was “racist,” sexist,” or “homophobic,” or whether there are procedures in place to separate the truly mentally ill from the merely problematic.
Sky News reports that much of the decision may be made by front-line hospital workers: “these protections will extend to any harassment, bullying or discrimination, including homophobic, sexist or racist remarks.”
So, the key point about this is that the NHS workers can ALREADY refuse service to any patient who is aggressive or violent. The new rules go beyond that, to cover patients who are racist, sexist or homophobic. And I think it’s worth it to understand what counts as racist, sexist and homophobic in the UK to understand what that means. It just means having opinions about certain issues that the secular left in the UK disagree with.
Racism in the UK
For example, do you think that it’s bad that low-skilled immigrants from Middle East countries are brought into your country, and then they go on to form grooming / sex-trafficking rings where fatherless teen girls are passed by middle-aged men to be gang-raped? If you think that, then in the UK, you’re considered a racist. The police there refuse to investigate such crimes, because they are afraid of being labeled as “racist”, and being fired from their cushy unionized jobs as ideological enforcers of secular left values. You can find a list of cities in the UK where police considered it “racist” to stop sex-trafficking of young girls, because the perpetrators were not white. So that’s “racism” in the UK. If you don’t approve of sex-trafficking by low-skilled refugees, then you aren’t allowed to have the health care that you were forced to pay for with your taxes.
Homophobia in the UK
So, in the UK, there is an epidemic of knife crime and sex-trafficking going on, but the police aren’t really concerned about it. Stabbings and rapes, who cares? The more important problem that occupies these unionized government workers with guns is the problem of offensive tweets. So, in the UK, if you tweet mild disagreement with the LGBT agenda (and I mean mild disagreement – nothing that would break any other laws about inciting violence) then you can expect armed policemen to come to your place of work to correct you about your homophobia. And if you complain about how totalitarian the gay agenda people have become, well then you’ll be denied health care from the government healthcare system. You’re good enough to pay into the secular left monopoly, but if you need healthcare from them later then you can just go die in a ditch for your wrongthink. And since you already paid once for healthcare through taxes, you’re unlikely to have enough of your earnings to fly to America and pay for actual healthcare a second time. That’s by design, by the way. That’s a feature of single player health care.
Sexism in the UK
Did you know that in the UK, if you draw attention to the differences of men and women, that’s considered sexist? Let’s say that you are a taxpayer who is paying for police services provided by a government monopoly. The government monopoly on policing does not have any competitors who might provide you with better service for less money. So, they don’t have to care about you. And what happens in the UK is that people with non-STEM degrees go into government and try to force their secular biases on everyone else by setting government policy. So, although you are paying taxes for policing, you are not entitled to quality policing. Instead, social engineers in the government lower the standards for jobs like police officer so that women can get those jobs. And if you complain about these lowered fitness tests, because a woman police officer underperformed resulting in loss of property, injury or loss of life for you, then you’re labeled “sexist”. And you can be denied health care that you were forced to pay for through taxes.
It’s important for people living in America to look at other countries where the voters have given up their liberties in order to depend on massive government welfare programs. If you like public daycare, public schools, public hospitals, public libraries, government-run policing and basically government-run anything, then just understand that there will come a time when you will not be allowed to express your religious and political convictions in public or online. You might be fined. You might be dragged in front of a human rights tribunal. You might be arrested. You might be jailed. You might be fired. You might be put under a gag order. Whatever the secular left compassion crowd decides is appropriate to deal with your offensive opinions. And you will be paying for secular left government workers to do this to you through your mandatory taxes. There is no opt out.
On Monday, Facebook decided to censor a well-known pro-lifer who had an interview with a well-known abortion survivor. I have an idea why Facebook might be interested in censoring pro-lifers in an election year. It’s because Silicon Valley / Seattle Big Tech has a preferred candidate, and he is very opposed to protecting the unborn from violence.
In yet another apparent attempt to silence pro-lifers, Facebook has removed a post created by Seth Gruber of Life Training Insitute. Gruber had interviewed abortion survivor Melissa Ohden and was sharing information about the interview on his personal Facebook page when he was sent a warning message from the social media giant — and his post was removed.
Facebook told Gruber that his Facebook post, seen below in two screenshots, went “against our community standards on spam.”
“We have these standards to help prevent people from misleading others,” the notification stated. “We may restrict your account if you violate our standards again.”
Censorship is not unusual for Facebook, especially during an election year:
Facebook has a history of censoring pro-life groups and individuals, including Live Action and Live Action President Lila Rose. Even Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg called last year’s censorship of Live Action by Facebook and its third-party abortionist fact checkers “clearly biased.”
One reason why Facebook censors might be cracking down on pro-lifers is because their preferred candidate, Pete, is so strongly in favor of abortion. So let’s look at some of Pete’s views on abortion to see why his Facebook supporters might want to censor pro-lifers in order to influence the election.
Over the weekend, pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg created a nationwide controversy when he refused to welcome pro-life Democrats into the party. Now he’s creating another controversy — by refusing to condemn infanticide.
[…]Last year, he failed to condemn legislation in two states, New York and Virginia, that legalized abortions up to birth, and even infanticide.
Pete Buttigieg wants to force American taxpayers to pay for the killing of unborn babies, not only in America but all across the world.
The former South Bend, Indiana mayor and Democrat presidential candidate spoke about his plans during a private event with Planned Parenthood abortion activists Sunday in Nevada, according to the Washington Times.
Buttigieg told the abortion activists that his plan for national health care would “support, reimburse and fund” abortions and family planning.
[…]Earlier, Buttigieg also said he would end the Mexico City policy, which prohibits U.S. international aid to groups that promote and/or provide abortions. When President Donald Trump enacted the Mexico City policy, he defunded two of the largest abortion chains in the world, Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International, of nearly $200 million American tax dollars.
Pro-life President Donald J. Trump and his Administration have established more pro-life policies than any other president in history.
In recognition of President Trump’s many pro-life achievements, on July 4, 2019, on the eve of its 49th annual convention, the National Right to Life Committee, the federation of state right-to-life affiliates and local chapters, endorsed pro-life President Donald Trump for his re-election.
On that day, Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president, said
“As our nation celebrates Independence Day, we are proud to endorse the only presidential candidate who stands for the unalienable right to life. From his first day in office, President Trump and his Administration have been dedicated to advancing policies that protect the fundamental right to life for the unborn, the elderly, and the medically dependent and disabled.”
One of the President’s first acts in office was to restore the Mexico City Policy, which prevents tax funds from being given to organizations that perform abortions or lobby to change abortion laws of host countries. Later, the president expanded this policy to prevent $9 billion in foreign aid from being used to fund the global abortion industry.
The Trump Administration also cut off funding to the United Nations Population Fund because of that agency’s involvement with China’s forced abortion program.
On this day we celebrate fewer tax dollars going toward pro-abortion policies because of President Trump’s policies.
President Trump pledged “to veto any legislation that weakens current pro-life federal policies and laws, or that encourages the destruction of innocent human life at any state.”
President Trump is committed to signing pro-life legislation, including
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act;
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act; and
The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
On this day we celebrate the lives that will be saved due to President Trump’s pro-life policies.