News

FBI found 14,900 more emails that Hillary Clinton didn’t turn over to them

1 Comment
Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help
Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help

This is from the radically leftist Washington Post, of all places:

The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.

Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton’s work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among “tens of thousands” of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.

[…]Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, are negotiating a plan for the release of the emails in a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.

[…]Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in May 2015 after disclosures that Clinton had exclusively used a personal email server while secretary of state. Judicial Watch had sought all emails sent or received by Clinton at the State Department in a request made under the federal Freedom of Information Act, which covers the release of public records.

Hillary is the first Secretary of State to have a private e-mail server hidden from her employers, which she kept in her home. Hillary withheld more of her emails from investigators as “personal and private”, and released less than half of them to the State Department. She deleted more e-mails than she turned over to the State Department.

I work for a major company. About 1 out of every 1000 e-mails I send is personal, and it is usually a reminder that I sent to myself (and CC my Dad) to bring coffee creamer to work because I ran out. I assume that my employers have access to my work e-mail, which is why I don’t put anything sensitive and personal in it. In any big company, all your work e-mails are subject to investigation if anything goes wrong… which is why Hillary didn’t want her employer having access to hers.

Hillary has been trying to blame her decision to hide her e-mails from her employer on Colin Powell, of all people.

CNN says Powell denies everything she is saying:

Colin Powell is pushing back on reports suggesting that he might have given Hillary Clinton the idea to use a private email account as Secretary of State, telling media outlets that “her people are trying to pin it on me.”

[…]”The truth is, she was using (the private email server) for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did,” Powell said.

CNN has reached out to the Clinton campaign, as well as representatives for Powell, and has not yet received a response.

Powell, who endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 and 2012, has not yet made a formal endorsement in the 2016 presidential election.

Now, I know what Democrat voters will say to this because I’ve talked to some Democrat voters that I know. They’re not going to care. They don’t have any moral sense to see anything wrong with what Clinton did. What is important to them is that their pro-abortion, anti-religious liberty agenda move forward. Little things like transparency and accountability in government don’t matter. Who cares about morality, the Democrat voters say – just give us our fun and give us our stuff.

I was listening to the Ben Shapiro show Monday night, and he gave his best guess about why Hillary had a private e-mail server. His guess, which surprises no one, is that Hillary sold her authority at the State Department for money. She got contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and enormous speaking fees from banks, foreign corporations, etc. She’s raised half a billion dollars for her campaign. I guess that’s what the Presidency costs these days. And why we can’t get any honest candidates.

News

J. Warner Wallace: different answers to the question “why are you a Christian?”

5 Comments
This assault rifle is OK, but apologetics is better
This assault rifle is OK, but apologetics is better

I sometimes think about the horrible experiences I had encountering “normal” Christians in American churches after having become a Christian on my own through reading the New Testament, reading apologetics, and watching William Lane Craig debates. I heard a lot of different reasons from the church Christians, and what struck was 1) their reason had nothing to do with objective truth, and 2) their reason hasn’t resulted in them training themselves to explain to a non-Christian why they ought to be a Christian.

Well, J. Warner Wallace recently tweeted an episode of his podcast (the new 30-minute format) and I thought to myself that this might be useful to people who were confused by what they found in the church.

Here is the video:

And he has a blog post about it, where he explains all the responses to the question “why are you a Christian?” which he got from the church – none of which were like his answer for why he became a Christian.

Here are some answers that were not like his answer:

I Didn’t Become a Christian Because I Was Raised in the Church
I didn’t come from a Christian family. I wasn’t raised in the church or by people who attended church regularly. While students often tell me this is the reason they’re Christians, this wasn’t the case for me.

I Didn’t Become a Christian Because My Friends Were Christians
I also didn’t know any Christians. I was never invited to church by anyone as a child, and although I knew Christians in my college years, none of these folks ever invited me to church either. My friends were all happy atheists. I didn’t become a Christian to be part of a club.

I Didn’t Become a Christian Because I Wanted to Know God
I can honestly say I had no interest in God growing up, while in college, or while a young married man. I felt no “hole” in my life, had no yearning for the transcendent, no sense something was missing. I was happy and content. I didn’t become a Christian to fulfill some need.

I Didn’t Become a Christian Because I Wanted to Go to Heaven
I was also comfortable with my own mortality. Sure it would be nice if we could all live forever, but that’s just not the way it is. Live life to the fullest, enjoy your friends and family while you have them, and stop whining. I didn’t become a Christian because I was afraid of dying.

I Didn’t Become a Christian Because I Needed to Change My Life
My life prior to becoming a Christian was great. I had a meaningful and fulfilling career, a beautiful family, an incredible wife, and lots of friends. I wasn’t struggling and looking for a solution. I didn’t become a Christian to stop beating my wife or to sober up.

I’m sure that all my readers know that Wallace is a homicide detective, and an evidentialist. He handles evidence and builds cases with evidence, and that’s how he approaches his worldview as well. So he didn’t answer any of those.

Wallace’s answer was different:

[…][A]lthough these reasons might motivate students to start their journey, I hope these aren’t the only reasons they’re still here. I’m not sure any of these motivations will suffice when push comes to shove, times get tough or students face the challenges of university life. In the end,truth matters more than anything else. I’m not looking for a useful delusion, a convenient social network, or an empty promise. I just want to know what’s true. I think the students I met in Montreal resonated with this approach to Christianity. They are already members of the Church, have friends in the group, understand the importance of a relationship with God and the promise of Heaven. Now they want to know if any of this stuff is true. It’s our job, as Christian Case Makers, to provide them with the answer.

I’m actually much harder on church Christians than he is, because I found that the more fideistic the Churchian, the less you could count on them to act like authentic Christians. I have never met an evidential apologist who was soft on moral questions or tough theology, for example. To me, if you have an evidentialist approach to Christianity, then you have no problem with things like a bodily resurrection of Jesus, with exclusive salvation through faith alone in Christ alone, with a literal eternal separation from God called Hell, and so on. A truth-centered approach makes you indifferent to what people think of you. The important thing is that something is true, not who is or is not offended by it.

What I found is that the anti-intellectual approach to Christianity is correlated with a liberal approach to Christianity. That annoys me because I don’t see liberal Christians as reliable allies. The safest and funnest place for me to be is in the company of self-sacrificial, committed Christians. That’s where I can let my guard down among my true friends. My closest friends all have some sort of plan and some skin in the game. They are evidence-driven and truth-focused. We are not interested in Christianity as fun, good feelings and community. We are interested in Christianity as truth, and that truth creates obligations on us to study, debate and serve self-sacrificially. You can trust an evidence-driven, truth-centered Christian to stand up for what they believe in.

Positive arguments for Christian theism

News

Global warming alarmists demand government discourage child births

Leave a comment
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood

This is from the Washington Times.

It says:

Climate-change activists are mobilizing to cut the birthrate, arguing that richer nations should discourage people having children in order to protect them from the ravages of global warming and reduce emissions.

Travis Rieder, assistant director of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University, told NPR that bringing down global fertility by half a child per woman “could be the thing that saves us.”

“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” said Mr. Rieder, who has one child.

He proposed procreation disincentives such as government tax breaks for poor people and tax penalties for rich people, a kind of “carbon tax on kids.”

Poor nations would be cut slack “because they’re still developing, and because their per capita emissions are a sliver of the developed world’s. Plus, it just doesn’t look good for rich, Western nations to tell people in poor ones not to have kids,” NPR said.

His paper, “Population Engineering and the Fight Against Climate Change,” written with two Georgetown University professors, is scheduled to be published in October.

Their work coincides with that of Conceivable Future, a New Hampshire-basednonprofit founded on the premise that “the climate crisis is a reproductive crisis.”

This sounds to me a lot like China’s one-child policy, which resulted in the government getting involved in all kinds of human rights abuses – coerced abortions, etc. But this isn’t surprising.

Remember when Obama was elected, and he chose a science czar named John Holdren? That science czar had advocated for a “world police” that would restrict the number of children that people can have, in order to stop global warming:

President Obama’s “science czar,” John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet — controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.

[…][M]any of Holdren’s radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.

The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.

The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.”

[…]Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for “coercive,” “involuntary fertility control,” including “a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child,” which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.

What specifically did the authors recommend to solve the overpopulation “problem”?

Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.

To help achieve those goals, they formulate a “world government scheme” they call the Planetary Regime, which  would administer the world’s resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an “armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force” to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.

Holdren also predicted that global warming would kill 1 billion people by 2020. That’s the level of scientific illiteracy and ignorance we are dealing with when dealing with the Democrat party. They will literally say and do anything to manipulate the voters into supporting a socialist agenda.