Mediaboss Marketing

100 + reasons the BC Liberals mustgo.

While the BC Liberals have always been very good at shouting their real and more often allegedwins, they are by far the mastersof spin whosmoothlydeflect their failures into thin air.

The extent towhich they will do this is quite phenomenal.

In the period oftime since Christy Clarkbecame premier,her skill as a political chameleon driven to garner votes has not gone un-noticed by the press, nor the voters of B.C.

Thankfully, British Columbians have long and solid memories of the Liberal era of government.Sadly, they continue to vote for them because the NDP have never been able to show why they deserve the vote more.

Ive never been a member of any political party and I never will be,but Ive investigated, researched and covered so many stories of the current governments misdeeds, that its been my opinion they need to go.

Regular readers know that I have held both the Liberals and the NDPs feet to the fire,and will continue to do so any new government can expect my full attention to their activities in governmentas well and possibly a new list if required.But facts are facts.

The BC Liberals have fostered an environment of deception and secrecy in the BC legislature, one where the less the people know about what is going on, the better it is for their party.

In 2010, I asked my readers to see how fast they could come up with 100 reasons NOT to vote for Gordon Campbell ( and the Liberals) again. Readers rose to the challenge, and the comment sections quickly filled with concrete examples of Liberal failures that have all occurred during that Golden Decade during whichthe BCLiberalsrevealed an agenda of slice and dice vs. corporate welfare.

Ironically, our current premier Christy Clark played a large role in many of the most drastic changes to the provinces most vulnerable citizens, while she was young MLA mentoring under Campbell. Its important to remember that while Christy Clark has tried to rebrand the BC Liberal brand as new and different from Gordon Campbell how different and new can they be when all the same names,faces and donors are still there?

Deals arent made in the legislature, but back rooms of restaurants and behind closed doors.

British Columbians must not be fooled by cheeky smiles,glib responses and a well-oiled,big money campaign. Let the facts speak for themselves.

What began as a fun challenge to readers, has become a comprehensive list of100 + reasons the BC Liberals must go.

Please, feel free to continue to add to the list in the comment section below, and I simply ask that you provide concrete examples with links, if you can, so we can provide an honest and factual record of what I call the decade of deceit.

You are welcome to tweet, facebook and/or print the list for distribution I only ask that you include reference back to this page.

Thank you,

Laila Yuile

146) During the Liberal leadership race, Clark campaigned on calling an early election to get a mandate from the people in fact she said two years was too long to goto wait for an electionwith new leadership and then promptly broke that promise once in the premiers office.http://www.ipolitics.ca/2010/12/15/b-c-liberal-leadership-hopefuls-call-for-early-vote-lower-voting-age/

145) Christy Clark thought it was funny to drive through a red light, on the urging of her son, with a reporter in the car. Her son stated You always do that. Clark denied that was true,but the entire incident called into examination her judgement. https://lailayuile.com/2013/04/27/i-guess-the-message-from-our-premier-is-its-ok-to-do-it-as-long-as-you-dont-get-caught/

144)In 2001, newly elected Campbell tore up legally signed and binding contracts between the govtand the HEU, creating a rush to privatization that continues to this day.

143)Campbell gave himself a whopping raise of $ 60,951 in 2007, which works out to a crazy 48.1% hike and gave all BC MLAs a pay raise of 29% while he was at it. http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/04/29/PayRaises/

142)Drunk driving conviction in 2003 while on vacation in Hawaii http://dawn.thot.net/campbell_dui_media.html ( I feel strongly politicians who are convicted for any crime, should no longer to be able to hold office, based on the notion that they need to provide an example of a standard of integrity that is inherent to the position. )

141) Fabricating an energy crisis in BC to be solved by forcing the public utility BC Hydro to buy power at twice the market value from Liberal-stocked independent power producers and then reselling it at a loss to owners of air-conditioners in California .

140)Closed 24 of 68 courthouses so the Attorney General could meet budget targets , therefore putting excessive strain and overload on the remaining ones, and forcing people to travel further to deal with family and criminal matters.http://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/20120401-Justice-Denied-report1.pdf

139)above reduction inthe number of courthouses has now lengthened the trial wait times in some areas to years, which often results in the accused being released from all charges because of the right to a speedy trial. http://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/20120401-Justice-Denied-report1.pdf

138) Since 2001, 10 jails have been closed across the province, creating dangerously overloaded conditions in the remaining facilities,and increasing the likelihood many criminals will serve time in the community or receive suspended sentences because of that overcrowding.https://lailayuile.com/2012/02/07/never-underestimate-the-predictability-of-stupidity-or-how-the-bc-liberals-are-now-overspending-to-fix-the-corrections-crisis-they-created/

http://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/20120401-Justice-Denied-report1.pdf

137)Massive, MASSIVE cutbacks to legal aid services in this province, across the board, for the entire time the BC Liberals have been in power . More people than ever are unable to remedy family law and simple legal matters because of lack of funding and resulting closures to free clinics, help lines and offices. http://www.povnet.org/node/3629details in the reasons below.

136)85% of Legal Aid offices in BC closed,

135)reduction in 75% of staff

134)cut family law by 60%

133)Closure of LawLine, a free legal assistance number for low income people to access help and advice.

132)Closure of 5 regional Legal Aid offices in Surrey, Victoria, Kelowna, Kamloops and Prince George.

131)legislating the Paramedics working conditions. http://www.fpse.ca/news/fpse-news/free-collective-bargaining-takes-another-hit-campbell-government-legislates-paramedic

130)Campbell supports and champions the Enbridge project, and refuses to commit to protect the BC coastline from a spill like the Exxon Valdez You can read the debate here : http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th2nd/h00323p.htm#3548

129)The B.C. Liberals issued permits to a company that wanted to burn creosote soaked railway ties in the city of Kamloops without any consultation. The project was only stopped when countless community members and more than 100 Interior doctors opposed the project. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/02/15/bc-kamloops-g ( from BC NDP site)

128)Massive cuts to the Parks Budget over the years has resulted in a lack of protection for endangered ecosystems, a lack of park rangers, and unsafe and unsanitary conditions in provincial campgrounds across the province. Many free campgrounds and picnic areashave been de-commissioned over the years http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2010/report3/conservation-ecological-integrity-bc-parks-protected

127)committed to NOT introduce internet gaming in 2007, then created and introduced the new BCLC online gambling site this year, again increasing and furthering the incidence of gambling addiction and family strife, since there is no way to police it.

126)raised gambling limits to $ 9,999.00 a mere $1 below the reportablelevel to FINTRAC, the agency that monitors and polices money laundering lol. http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2010/07/explain-bc-liberals-addiction-to.html

125)raised MSP premiums, while service and wait times increased and get ready for another MSP premium increase January 1st, 2013. http://www.vancouversun.com/health/premiums+rise+second+straight+year/7987242/story.html

124)Campbell lowered tax rates the wealthy benefit the most from those rate cuts, while instituting user fees for some public services that were formerly paid out of tax revenue. This resulted in proportionally higher tax increases for the working poor struggling the hardest to make ends meet. http://www.straight.com/article-349819/vancouver/ndp-leader-carole-james-should-acknowledge-impact-personal-tax-cuts-rich

123) Charging user fees at publiclyfunded hospitals in Vancouver , even to people with insurance, for anyone requiring short term residential care to recover from a medical treatment coming soon to a hospital near you http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20101022/bc-user-fees-101022/

122)closed 176 schools between 2001 and 2009 . ONE FREAKING HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SIX SCHOOLS!!!! http://bctf.ca/SchoolClosures.aspx

121)cut funding to the Success by 6 program, an initiative which gave young children a head start through more than 400 projects in 240 communities in British Columbia, including early childhood literacy programs, music and social programs for preschoolers, mentorship programs for single mothers, and pregnancy support . http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/03/24/bc-success-by-six-cancelled.html

120)Cuts to seniors services and care http://www.hsabc.org/news/seniors-victims-long-term-care-and-home-support-cuts

119)Cuts to PACs across BC ( Parents Advisory Councils) resulting in parents struggling to make ends meet having to pay more for school related activities http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/09/09/bc-parent-advisory-council-funding-cut.html

118)Cuts to Annual Facility Grants http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2009/08/28/trustees-protest-the-cancellation-of-annual-facility-grant/

117)government continually breaks its own class size limit legislation http://bctf.ca/NewsReleases.aspx?id=20508

116)cuts to funding and programs for special needs children in schools as a result of budget cuts.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/25/bc-vancouver-special-needs.html

115)highest tuition fees ever on record , for university and colleges in BC http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2010/16/c2521.html

114)Liberalsshow theirtrue feelings about education and the future of our province, and cut $16 million dollars in student loan funds, with no warning, leaving students unable to attend classes, and wreaking havoc on families already financially strapped http://www.straight.com/article-246824/ashley-fehr-gordon-campbell-governments-cuts-devastate-postsecondary-students

113) In addition to the above loan cuts, the BC liberals also cut non-repayable grants to student, also with no warning as detailed in the above link. Some university students found out the hard way when they called Student Aid BC to find out where their grant was, after enrolling and days prior to classes commencing.

112)BC has one of the highest BC Student loan rate in the country.

111)BC post secondary students collectively pay more in fees than government collects in corporate income tax, showing whereLiberal priorities really are.

110)cuts to surgeries in BC http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/01/21/bc-oylmpics-cancelled-surgeries-dix.html

109)cuts to diagnostic and rehabilitation services http://www.hsabc.org/search/cuts%20to%20diagnostic%20and%20rehabilitation%20services

108)cuts to community outreach services http://www.nupge.ca/content/3456/bc-cuts-southern-vancouver-island-social-services

107)HORRIFIC cuts to domestic violence programs and violence against women outreach and counselling programs http://www.endingviolence.org/files/uploads/inst_women_programs_going_in_wrong_direction.pdf

106)cuts to many vital medical and health related items previously funded for those on income assistance http://willcocks.blogspot.ca/2009/07/latest-secret-cuts-hurt-those-who-most.html

105)closed CHIMO Achievement Centre, a therapeutic day program for adults with disabilities http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2010/01/fraser-health-authority-to-kill-amazing.html

104)cuts to income assistance programs http://www.bcfed.com/node/294

103) althoughthe Liberalsincreased the number of Casinos and access to other forms of gambling, continued cuts have been made to the amount of gaming grants given out to social service agencies, programs, playground and schools only a small portion were ever restored. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/03/08/bc-community-gaming-grants.html

102)Special needs assessment for children eliminated in the Fraser Health Authority, meaning families must travel to Sunnyhillat Childrens hospital for diagnostic services and care http://www.betterbc.ca/2010/05/cuts-update/

101)Autism: BCs Early Intensive Behaviour Intervention programs werecut http://www.straight.com/article-302303/vancouver/bc-coalition-protest-gordon-campbells-cuts-saturday-vancouver

100)Therewere onlyenough regulated child care spaces for 15% of children under 12 inBC http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/family/

99)elimination of conservation officers mean less enforcement and protection over larger areas, putting people and wildlife at risk http://www.nupge.ca/content/3512/bc-parks-hurt-budget-cuts-and-poor-enforcement

98)Cuts to environment ministry saw the Environmental Stewardship divisionwhich includes protection of BCs 2,000 species at risk, fish and wildlife habitat, and air and watersliced by almost $4 million http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2010/report3/conservation-ecological-integrity-bc-parks-and-protected

97) unregulated fish farms on the coast of bc and their impact on wild salmon stocks, as well as the increase in fish farm licencesthe Libs handed out during their tenure. http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/10/02/WildSalmonWipedOut/

96)the systematic rape of many rivers in BC through Independent Power Projects https://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/province-of-bc-criss-crossed-by-independent-power-projects/

95) whilethe Liberalscontinually pressed and pushed these projects as safe, clean energy, the truth is that they can, and have extremely horrific impacts on the environment around them, as detailed in this post https://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/what-the-liberals-dont-want-you-to-find-out-until-after-election-day-documents-obtained-by-cbc-news-show-run-of-the-river-projects-are-breaking-environmental-regulations/

94) The announcement by Campbell to flood hectares of prime land for yet another dam to generate power the province will sell elsewhere and Christy Clark continues the push for Site C, admitting its needed for her LNG dreams https://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/the-worst-is-yet-to-come-rafe-mair/

http://energeticcity.ca/article/news/2012/02/09/site-c-essential-lng-development-clark

93) Crown land giveawaysand contracts apparently based onpolitical donations https://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/brookfield-asset-management-gordon-campbell-and-british-columbias-best-assets/

92)clearing ALR land for development, over and over http://www.straight.com/pressure-builds-agricultural-land-reserve

http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/new-democrats-challenge-liberals-stand-agricultural-land-reserve

https://lailayuile.com/tag/falcons-follies/

91) TheLiberals admitted that during the lastelection they suppressed information showing the number of people in BC forced to apply for welfare had increased by 10,000.The information was releasedshortly after the election http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/05/22/bc-welfare-cases-up.html

90)Gordon Campbell claimed he was not aware of how bad the financial outlook of the province was prior to the election, despite the world financial crash that was well underway. ( sound familiar?)

89)The public is kept in the dark as John Les, the provinces top cop, is under police investigation for almost a year http://willcocks.blogspot.com/2009/09/creeping-pace-of-john-les-investigation.html

88)The coincidental and repeated occurrence ofdevelopment and real estate companies who donate large $$ to the Liberal party of BC, getting lucrative landdeals and approvals across the province http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2009/05/08/Builders-real-estate-firms-gave-big-to-BC-Liberals/

87)The coincidental and repeated occurence of other corporations( mining,gas, oil and independent power producers) who donate large $$ to the Liberal party of BC getting lucrative contracts, deal and approvals across the province: https://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/the-kind-of-corruption-the-media-talk-about-the-kind-the-supreme-court-was-concerned-about-involves-the-putative-sale-of-votes-in-exchange-for-campaign-contributions-james-l-buckley/

https://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/fraser-transportation-group-chosen-as-preferred-bidder-for-south-fraser-perimeter-road/

“Moral hazard is when they take your money and then are not responsible for what they do with it.”~ Gordon Gekko

86) In February 2008, the public learned that Campbells TransLink board voted themselves a 500 percent pay raise. Only a few weeks later, the premiers BC Ferries directors received an increase of up to 60 percent on April 1, 2008 the same day ferry fares were increased for British Columbians. Compare this with the fact that in 2008, more than 50,000 British Columbians worked for minimum wage or less http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/02/08/bc-translink.html

85) The very large and expensive mess that is known as BC ferries http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/11/07/BloatedFerries/

84)The very large and expensive mess that was known as the BC Transmission corporation http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/05/03/LiberalsOweApology/

83) The very large and again, expensive mess known as BC Hydro , which is on the path to financial ruin http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/08/23/BCHydroPathToRuin/ and another opinion http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_thompson_nicola/clearwatertimes/opinion/101681738.html

82) 2010 olympic debt legacy http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-government-releases-details-of-olympics-costs/article1634211/

81)Despite those tough economic times Campbell decided to appoint a larger, expanded cabinet, costing us all more ( for quite a bitless, in my opinion) http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2009/06/10/CampbellCabinet/

80)The over-inflated, expensive and relatively useless Public Affairs Bureau( otherwise known as internet trolls who monitor,watch and read everything written anywhere about Campbell and his Liberal co-horts) http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/2009/04/about-that-public-affairs-bureau-this.html

79) Die Entscheidungvon Campbell, deutsche Scheifhrschiffezu kaufen , or for those of you who do not speak German, Campbells decision to buy crappy german ferries http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/12/15/NoisyFerry/

78). Choosing to contract out the storage, handling and administration of our personal medical records to an American company,which leaves personal information potentially open to dubious uses with American law enforcement https://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/bc-citizens-assessment-of-what-the-campbell-government-has-done-to-british-columbia-so-far/

77)Campbell failed to hold regular legislature sessions- twice http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/09/10/bc-fall-legislative-session-cancelled.html

76) Christy Clark has spent so little time in the legislature,she needs a map to find her way around the building when she does show up. Only 19 days in session in one calendar year! http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/13/the-absentee-b-c-legislature/

75)Campbellsdecision to sign TILMA the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/05/07/TILMA/

74)Sold off BC Gas, now known as Terasen

73)Passed Bill 20, which prevents local municipal veto of Run of the River projects http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4659&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

72) Exporting raw logs to China and elsewhere ( a direct contradiction to a campaign promise he made prior to first being elected back in 20o1) all while closing BC mills who could process wood here. http://www.peoplesvoice.ca/articleprint21/02)_BCS_FOREST_JOBS_CRISIS.html http://store.wildernesscommittee.org/campaigns/communities/campaigns/communities/readers/raw_logs/

71)Vancouver convention centre completely ridiculous cost overruns , which technically might make it the largest screw-up in the history of BC that is, until the final and true bill for the new Port Mann bridge comes in http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/campbells-convention-centre-overruns-largest-boondoggle-bc-history

70)Sea to sky highway over-runs with no toll to cover costs . Campbell told press repeatedly at photo ops that the cost of the highway would be $800 million, yet the final cost was nearly$2 billion + http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/campbell-liberals-p3s-not-time-not-budget

Continue reading here:
100 + reasons the BC Liberals must go. Laila Yuile on ...

by Todd Wilken

When a thing grows weak and out of date, it is obviously soon going to disappear. That's also true of churches. If a church cannot change, it will eventually die.

Clearly change in both liturgy and structure is inevitable, and this change will probably be radical, if not total. the forms the Church assumed in the past inevitably must die.

One of these statements comes from a famous Christian liberal; the other comes from a famous Christian conservative.Without peeking at the footnotes, which statement belongs to the conservative and which belongs to the liberal?

You cant tell, can you?

One is against abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research and gay marriage and against removing the words under God from the Pledge of Allegiance and In God We Trust from the currency. The other is in favor of all these things. One calls himself Bible-believing. The other thinks the Bible is a myth. Yet both say that the church must change or die.

Full-blown liberal Christians are easy to spot. They will tell you up front that they dont believe what the Bible says. But what about liberals who think that they are conservative? What about the liberals who claim to be Bible-believing Christians?

Many Christians today think of themselves as conservative. They are pro-life, pro-family. They listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They watch FOX News. They vote traditional values. But can you be politically, socially and morally conservative without being theologically conservative? Oh, yes you can.

Meet the Bible-believing liberals. While they believe that the culture needs to return to its historic traditions, they think the Church needs to abandon hers. While maintaining that the Flag should be proudly displayed, they fear that a cross in Church might offend seekers. While they believe men and women have defined roles in marriage and family, they dont see why a woman cant replace a man in the pulpit. While outraged that our schools cater to the lowest-common denominator, they think our churches need to be geared toward the unchurched. They believe that public policy should be based on objective facts, but preaching should be based on felt needs. They want under God in Pledge of Allegiance, but omit the Apostles Creed from the Sunday service. They want the Ten Commandments in the public square, but are unconcerned when those commandments are replaced with principles for living in the pulpit. To the Bible-believing liberal, the ceremonies of a presidential inauguration are meaningful and inspiring, but the Sunday morning liturgy is boring. For the Bible-believing liberal, the differences between political parties are serious, but the differences between Christian denominations are petty. While they insist on a strict literal interpretation of the US Constitution, they play fast and loose with the Bible and its theology, even while maintaining its inerrancy and inspiration. These are the Bible-believing liberals.

A Contradiction in Terms

Now, I know what youre thinking. Bible-believing liberal is an oxymoron, right? You cant be truly Bible-believing and be liberal at the same time.

THAT is the point.

You see, many Christians think of themselves as conservative Christians. But they have confused cultural conservatism with theological conservatism. Theologically these Bible-believing Christians have a lot in common with liberals.

I had been thinking about this for some months. Then, during a conversation with Gene Edward Veith, he said something that made it all clear. Dr. Veith was describing the old-line liberals in the 20th century:

In the churches there was a sense of panic, that Oh people, the cultures changing! So if were gonna survive, weve got to go along with the culture. And so you had a movement in the Christian church to change Christianity according to the dominant culture And thats what liberalism is: changing your theology to fit whatever the culture is.

I suddenly realized that Dr. Veith was also describing many Bible-believing Christians today. Thats what liberalism is: changing your theology to fit whatever the culture is. He was describing Bible-believing liberals.

William Tighe recently observed of old-line liberals:

Liberals do think, since in their view there is no divine revelation with specific, objective and if one wants to use the term, propositional content, since its all a matter of feeling, you cant cling to any definitions, any confessional formulas. And since theyre always invoking the Holy Spirit, chasing the Holy Spirit since everything for them is the revelation of the Holy Spirit in the world, they play the game of here He is on the plain, here He is on the mountain, and the only thing they have to go by are social trends, which for them is where God is at, and the Church has to keep up with it.

But exactly the same thing could be said of many otherwise conservative Christians today. Yes, they still affirm the divine revelation of the Bible in principle. But theologically, they have adopted the liberals way of thinking. John Armstrong has also noticed this:

At the end of the last century theological liberalism told us that we needed to make Christianity attractive, or acceptable, to its "cultured despisers." This type of concern was not new. The very tension of "being in the world" but "not of the world" has always been with the church. What was new was the way liberalism decided to advance the church before the world, namely by reinterpreting the message of the cross in the light of the world's understanding and belief system. One of the most blatant examples of the compromise which flows out of this can be seen in 1966 World Council of Churches dictum: "The world must set the agenda for the church." I would suggest that this idea, formulated in the crucible of ecumenical dialogue between light and darkness, is not far from the "seeker sensitive" approach adopted through the Church Growth ideology of contemporary evangelicals.

The fact that so many otherwise conservative Christians fail to see the similarity between themselves and liberals is remarkable. The fact that so many Bible-believing liberals fail to see the disparity between their cultural beliefs and their theological beliefs is astonishing. But there is a reason for it.

How Bible-Believing are They?

Bible believing liberals affirm Scriptures inspiration and inerrancy. That is the main reason they consider themselves conservative Christians. After all, they think, I cant be a liberal! Liberals deny Scripture.

But there is more than one way to deny Scripture. Mike Horton has written about the practical denial of Scripture.

While evangelicals and other conservative Protestants hold to a high doctrine of Scripture in principle, the last two decades have especially seen a growing disregard for making their sermons expositions of Scripture; rather, its often the case that the Bible is used as a sourcebook of quotations for what we really want to say.

You see, you can affirm Scriptures authority in principle even while denying it in practice. Bible-believing liberals arent liberal in what they say about the Bible, Bible-believing liberals are liberal in how they use the Bible. Heres an example.

About ten years ago, G. A. Pritchard wrote a landmark book on the most influential megachurch in America, Willow Creek Community Church. He wrote of the staff and people of Willow Creek:

It would not be accurate or fair to depict them as theologically liberal. Liberal Christianity denies central Christian truth claims. However, there is a lack of emphasis on Christian truth at Willow Creek.

Nevertheless, in some cases, Willow Creeks lack of emphasis ends up looking a lot like denial as in the case of Pastor Nancy Beach. About the time Pritchard was publishing his book, Nancy Beach became one of Willow Creeks teaching pastors.

You ask, How did Bible-believing Willow Creek end up with a woman pastor? Heres how. Willow Creek had women elders since its founding. But in the mid-1990s a debate began over the inclusion of women at all levels of leadership. Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian is a founding member of Willow Creek and its resident theologian. In his 1985 book, Beyond Sex Roles,Bilezikian argued (among other things) that women should be pastors. Bilezikians method was to highlight the apparent contradictions in Pauls epistles. For example, He writes:

the juxtaposition of Paul's approval of women prophesying with this absolute command for women not to speak in church and to remain silent as a sign of their subordination constitutes a monumental contradiction that only a state of mental dislocation could explain...

In time, Bilezikians view and his way of reading the Bible won acceptance at Willow Creek:

In January 1996, John Ortberg, one of Willow Creek's teaching elders, taught a two-hour class to church ministry leaders, in which he said that staff needed to share the convictions of the church, or study until they shared those convictions; and they had a year to do so.

The result of that study was a position paper. That paper is a classic example of how liberals read the Bible:

The statement makes clear the church's belief that "when the Bible is interpreted comprehensively, it teaches the full equality of men and women in status, giftedness, and opportunity for ministry," despite "a few scriptural texts [that] appear to restrict the full ministry freedom of women."

Willow Creek affirms the authority of Scripture. But notice how they use Scripture. Pauls epistles only appear to restrict the pastoral office to men. But that appearance disappears when the Bible is interpreted comprehensively. This is just another way of saying, If we disregard the scriptural texts that say women cant be pastors, we discover that they can be pastors!

Bible-believing liberals dont deny the inerrancy or inspiration of Scripture. They just interpret the Bible comprehensively to make it say what they want. In the case of Willow Creek, interpreting the Bible comprehensively means explaining away Bible passages that forbid what you want to do. Bible-believing liberals are Bible-believing in principle, but liberal in practice.

In the 1970s liberal denominations used this reasoning to introduce the ordination of women. Today they are using the same reasoning to introduce the ordination of homosexuals. Will Bible-believing liberals follow suit?

The leaders of Willow Creek insist that these changes have nothing to do with the changing culture. But I ask, Then why have you changed your view on women in the Church? Why have you departed from the historic interpretation of Pauls teaching on women? What changed? The answer is, of course, the culture changed. The culture changes and Bible-believing liberals change to keep up with it. Remember Dr. Veiths words. Thats what liberalism is: changing your theology to fit whatever the culture is. Pritchard concludes:

A serious critique of American culture from a Christian perspective is generally absent at Willow Creek. The fundamental reason for this failure is that Creekers do not think critically with the categories and content of Christian theology

Like it or not, many Bible-believing Christians are thinking and acting just like liberals. What else do many Bible-believing Christians have in common with liberals?

In things essential, unity; in doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity. This is a truism for many Christians today. It is often attributed to Saint Augustine. But Augustine never said it. In truth, this sayings origins are more recent in early German liberalism.

The real author of this sentiment was a 17th century Lutheran, Peter Meiderlin. Meiderlins lived during a time of doctrinal compromise and unionism between Lutherans and the Reformed. Meiderlin was disturbed by the doctrinal debates taking place and thought that insistence on doctrinal purity was satanic. Meiderlin counseled a minimalist approach to doctrine: In a word, were we to observe unity in essentials, liberty in incidentals, and in all things charity, our affairs would be certainly in a most happy situation.

Liberal Christians have taken Meiderlins maxim to heart. But so have many Bible-believing Christians. When it comes to doctrine, they dont sweat the details. And, just like liberals, when Bible-believing Christians talk about unity in essentials it isnt altogether clear what those essentials are.

Bishop T. D. Jakes was the keynote speaker for Willow Creeks August 2004 Leadership Summit. Jakes is a best selling author, a megachurch pastor and a popular televangelist. Willow Creeks bookstore, Seeds, sells dozens of different books, tapes, CDs and DVDs by Jakes. The only problem is, Jakes denies the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

Is the Trinity essential or incidental at Willow Creek? To be sure, Willow Creek affirms the Trinity in its public statements. But remember: what Bible-believing liberals affirm in principle, they often deny in practice.

Meiderlins maxim assumes that false teaching is benign. Instead, the real danger comes from those who point out doctrinal error. Rick Warren has said:

Some of the most cantankerous Christians that I know are veritable storehouses of Bible knowledge, but they have not applied it. They can give you facts and quotes, and they can argue doctrine. But theyre angry; theyre very ugly people.

Weve heard liberals say it for years; now were hearing Bible-believing Christians say it: Doctrine divides. That is, insistence on doctrinal clarity and purity is divisive. On this subject, Warren echoes Meiderlins maxim: "I'm not going to get into a debate over the non-essentials. I won't try to change other denominations. Why be divisive?"

Warren downplays supposed theological conflicts between Christians. He sees them as a product of our limited knowledge of God. He dismisses such differences by appealing to how awesome God is:

On earth we see though a glass darkly so we all need a large dose of humility in dealing with our differences. Gods ways are awesome and far beyond human mental capabilities. He has no problem reconciling the supposed theological conflicts that we debate when ideas dont fit neatly into our logical, rational systems.

This sounds broadminded but is really complete nonsense. Can God reconcile a theology that says man is totally depraved with one that says he isnt? Can God reconcile a theology that teaches faith alone with one that teaches faith and works? Warrens idea would fit right in at the World Council of Churches one of their latest documents says essentially the same thing as Warren:

a more recent ecumenical vision includes the search for a new paradigm and image which could accommodate a diversity of truths under the same roof without diluting or annihilating any in the process of trying to bring them into convergence, for the sake of reaching one common and binding apostolic truth.

Weve heard liberals say it for years; now were hearing Bible-believing Christians say it: Lets agree to disagree. A Willow Creek event demonstrated recently how far this idea could go. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 2001, Bill Hybels invited a local Muslim imam, Fisal Hammouda, to speak at a weekend service. During the service the imam asserted, We [Muslims] believe in Jesus, more than you do in fact. Hybels ventured to disagree, but the misimpression stuck. "I didn't know they believed in Jesus, church member Elizabeth Perez, 60, said after the service. I thought it was interesting how much we have in common."

Don Matzat summed up the doctrinal minimalism of Bible-believing liberals well:

Successful evangelical pastors like Bill Hybels and Robert Schuller are really no different than the successful modern liberal clergy, like Sloan Coffin and Harry Enwrson Fosdick. While Coffin and Fosdick built their congregations by appealing to human reason, Hybels and Schuller "grow a church" by appealing to the feelings and experience of people. While the classic liberal pastor questioned on the basis of reason the truth of traditional Christian doctrine, the postmodern pastor ignores doctrine and focuses on methods which produce success.

In 2004 Pastor James Perry made an impassioned plea to his church:

What would it be like if we had a moratorium on issues that divide us, and spent all our time and energy focusing on reaching out to those in our world who feel like outcasts, and share Gods love with them? It is my hope that we will be more concerned about extending Gods Grace than getting it right.

Was Perry arguing for more evangelism? No. Was Perry pleading for greater mission efforts? Not really. Perry was speaking at the 2004 General Conference of the United Methodist Church in Pittsburgh, arguing for the full inclusion of active homosexuals in the church. For Perry, discussing what the Bible says about homosexuality was getting in the way of extending Gods Grace.

Weve heard liberals say it for years; now were hearing Bible-believing Christians say it: the church is justified in using whatever means it deems necessary to carry out its mission. Again, Mike Horton describes this mindset well:

Increasingly, we hear that what unites us is mission, not theology. Doctrinal diversity is encouraged, as long as we can all agree on the mission and its methods. Mission and evangelism are in danger of being exploited as get out of jail free cards for any capitulation to the culture that we can imagine.

The ecumenical movement and liberal church bodies have been doing this for decades. But today, it is common to hear the same Mission justifies the means argument from conservative Christians. Mark Mittelberg writes:

The redemptive mission of the church is simply too important to let fear and traditional strongholds keep us from examining everything in light of our biblical, God-directed vision.

Notice the phrase, our biblical God-directed vision. Whatever happened to examining everything in light of the Bible itself? The mission blueprint has replaced the Bible; it must. For the Bible-believing liberal, the mission justifies the means.

Rick Warren is famous for saying, never criticize what God is blessing. Warren uses his congregations mission success to justify the sloppy doctrine in his books:

I knew that by simplifying doctrine in a devotional format for the average person, I ran the risk of either understating or overstating some truths. I'm sure I have done that. But I decided when I planted Saddleback in 1980 that I'd rather reach large numbers of people for Christ than seek the approval of religious traditionalists. In the past eight years, we've baptized over 11,000 new adult believers at our church.

For the Bible-believing liberal, all means are neutral even understating or overstating some truths. The mission (and its apparent success) justifies it. George Barna likewise urges the Church,

It is critical that we keep in mind a fundamental principal of Christian communication: the audience, not the message, is sovereign our message has to be adapted to the needs of the audience.

Therefore, Barna sees anything but the most pragmatic concerns as a waste of time:

it behooves us to not waste time bickering about techniques and processes, but to study methods by which we can glorify our King and comply with the Great Commission.

And C. Peter Wagner, father of the church growth movement, agrees:

we ought to see clearly that the end DOES justify the means. What else possible could justify the means? If the method I am using accomplishes the goal I am aiming at, it is for that reason a good method. If, on the other hand, my method is not accomplishing the goal, how can I be justified in continuing to use it?

Among Bible-believing liberals the mission not only justifies whatever approach seems to work, it also serves as a convenient way to discredit critics. Mark Mittelberg describes those who raise concerns about the means:

For a variety of reasons, some people will be unable to go along with you and the other leaders in your efforts to reach lost people. There are some people who profess to be Christians yet who dont care one whit about people outside Gods family. They are typically self-centered people who think that the church revolves around them and exists solely to meet their needs, and everyone else can go to hell literally.

The Bible-believing liberal says, I am justified in using whatever means I deem necessary to carry out the churchs mission. If you oppose my means, you are opposing the mission.

John Shelby Spong, perhaps the most liberal Christian liberal alive today, writes:

The language of original sin and atonement has emanated from Christian circles for so long that it has achieved the status of sacred mantra. In light of new circumstances, it is merely adjusted, never reconsidered. Yet, upon closer inspection, these sacred concepts involve us in a view of human life that is no longer operative.

Joel Osteen, a Bible-believing Christian and pastor of the largest megachurch in America, says the same thing in simpler language:

Weve heard a lot about the judgment of God and what we cant do and whats going to keep us out of heaven. But its time people start hearing about the goodness of God, about a God that loves them.A God that believes in them. A God that wants to help them.

Spong wants to do away with the concept of sin altogether. Osteen simply wants to stop taking about it. Instead, Osteen wants to emphasize the goodness of God:

God wants us to have healthy, positive self-images, to see ourselves as priceless treasures. He wants us to feel good about ourselves. God knows were not perfect, that we all have faults and weaknesses; that we all make mistakes. But the good news is, God loves us anyway.

And why does the perfect and holy God love us with all our faults and weaknesses? Is it because Jesus lived a perfect life and died a perfect death in our place? No

His love for you is based on what you are, not on what you do. He created you as a unique individual there has never been, nor will there ever be, another person exactly like you Moreover, God sees you as a champion. He believes in you even more than you believe in yourself!

Apparently for Joel Osteen, sin is simply not a problem for God, or for us. Bill Hybels, on the other hand, certainly believes that sin is a problem. But what Bible-believing liberals affirm in principle, they often deny in practice. When an internal survey of Willow Creek members revealed that large percentages of singles (25 percent of singles, 38 percent of single parents, and 41 percent of divorced individuals) admitted having illicit sexual relations in the last six months, Hybels failed to focus on the seriousness of sin:

Hybels did not call the congregation to repent for their rebellion against a holy God. Instead he emphasized Gods compassionate love: We are a love-starved people, with broken hearts that need the kind of repair that only he can give long-term. We need to bring our brokenness out into the light of his grace and truth.

Yes, the members in the survey certainly might have been loved-starved people, with broken hearts, but they were also fornicators. When Bible-believing liberals dilute the Bibles message of sin, they also dilute the Bibles message of salvation. The Gospel gets reduced to God loves you. Hybels gospel often sounds largely therapeutic:

God satisfies. He does something for us and in us that we cant do for ourselves. God meets inner needs. He quiets restlessness and turmoil. He ministers to longings. He soothes wounds. He calms fears. He satisfies our souls.

All of this is true, of course, but its not the whole truth. Whats missing? In this gospel, we are presented as unsatisfied, unable, needy, restless, longing, wounded and fearful, but not sinful. This is a gospel without sin.

A gospel without sin satisfies sinners, but doesnt save them. A gospel without sin requires a God Who is merely good, not gracious and forgiving. A gospel without sin requires a Jesus who is merely sympathetic, not our substitute at the Cross. A gospel without sin is a gospel wherein Christ crucified is unnecessary. John Shelby Spong realizes this; he has done away the Cross. Maybe this is why Bible-believing liberals are doing away with it too.

The God loves you gospel is a gospel that any liberal could love. By contrast, here is what St. Paul says,

Continued here:
Bible Believing Liberals, by Todd Wilken

Liberalism can refer to a number of political philosophies derived from Classical liberalism. In this article the American political platform referred to as "liberal" within the United States is contrasted with other meanings of the word, particularly in Europe and in other parliamentary democratic systems.

In the U.S. the word liberal is usually used to describe the platform espoused by the Democratic Party, that is, support of social welfare systems, redistribution of wealth, and government regulation of the economy - combined with a certain brand of individual libertarianism, emphasizing social equality, and (to a certain extent, these days increasingly radical) rejection of traditional Judeo-Christian standards of morality as a proper justification for law.

The economic aspects of this ideology are to a large extent a product of the New Deal policies of the Great Depression era, as well as Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society." It also should be noted that a good portion of the Liberal economic philosophy has certain roots in the teachings of Karl Marx, such as the overall focus on social equality and the outrageous rejection of the Judeo-Christian morals. It should be noted, however, that Liberals are not pureblood communists: Unlike their redder brethren, Liberals are far more insidious and dangerous, as they have successfully infiltrated the American society and now threaten the American way of life.

The Democratic Party's idea of social liberty and equality, though, came much later, partly as a result of the civil rights and counterculture movements of the late 20th century. It continues to be fueled by various youth movements and the interests of numerous special interest groups.

In Europe, liberalism refers to a political position that leans toward greater individual liberties and less government intervention in general. In short, this is the philosophy closest to classical liberalism, and is commonly referred to in the United States as libertarianism. In Europe and elsewhere, then, the opposite of liberalism is not conservatism, but authoritarianism.

Because of this, the terms "conservative liberalism" and "liberal conservatism", which are seen as contradictory in the U.S., are not so in Europe. "Conservative liberalism" simply refers to a less radical libertarian philosophy, and is often referred to as "law-and-order liberalism." Liberal conservatism is simply a variant of conservatism willing to allow for individual liberties, and, in a way, describes the ideology of the American Republican Party. Such examples of this obvious line of thought include the civil rights movement, when the Republican Party (and a few southern Democrats) just wanted to maintain the African American's right to have the choice of forced segregation.

The Liberal Party of Australia is the right-leaning party, in opposition to the liberal Labor Party, and is not to be confused with liberalism as an ideology.

For more information please see: Nazism and socialism

The Ludwig von Mises Institute declares:

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.[9]

There is debate about the similarities between Nazism and socialism. Despite whether Nazism is socialist or not, they, with the help of general improvement of economic conditions in Europe, helped propel Germany out of the Great Depression with their economic policy.[10]

See also: Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism

Link:
Liberalism - Conservapedia

The latest tracking by Nanos Research for CTV News and the Globe and Mail suggests the Liberals have a seven-point lead in the closing week of the federal election campaign.

Numbers released on Oct. 14 show:

Respondents were asked: "If a federal election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences?"

Nightly tracking by Nanos Research for CTV News and the Globe and Mail, released Oct. 14. (Nanos Research)

If Canadians were voting today, the most recent results suggest they would elect a Liberal minority government, pollster Nik Nanos told CTV News Channel on Wednesday.

"With a seven-point advantage, the Liberals are in very good shape," he said. "However, there's five days left and a lot could happen."

With the campaign in its final stretch, Nanos said it will be a challenge for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to close the gap between his party and the Liberals.

"Realistically, last week was the most important week for the ad campaign because we know that people make their decision over the holiday weekend," he said. "The numbers decidedly moved in favour of the Liberals last Friday, Saturday, and Sunday."

The late shift towards Liberal support means that Harper needs more than a well-run campaign to take the lead, Nanos said.

"He needs some massive, major misstep from either the Liberal campaign or (Liberal Leader) Justin Trudeau to try and turn the current trend."

Nanos said the NDP also faces an uphill battle in the coming five days.

After a strong start to the campaign, the party has fallen to third place in the most recent Nanos tracking, almost 12 percentage points behind the Liberals.

"The story for the NDP has been that there was a lot of good will on the front end of the campaign, but as it looked like the Liberals were the only party to challenge the Conservatives, people strategically voted," Nanos said.

"So it's not a repudiation on Thomas Mulcair and the NDP, just people seeing the Liberals as the vehicle for change."

Poll methodology

A national dual-frame (land and cell) random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign using live agents. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample composed of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error 1,096 decided voters is 3.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Regional Races:

The Liberals lead in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, while the Conservatives have the lead in the Prairie provinces.

According to Nanos, the Liberals' Ontario advantage could significantly impact the election results.

"We call it a killer province in terms of the outcome of the election," Nanos said on Wednesday. "Ontario made Stephen Harper a majority government last time, and right now the Liberals have a 12-point advantage."

Meanwhile, in Quebec, the latest numbers show a tight race between the NDP and Liberals.

Nanos said the Quebec tie is the result of a "massive drop" in support for the NDP in the province.

Earlier in the campaign, the NDP was polling at approximately 50 per cent support in Quebec, Nanos said, but more recently the party's fallen to 32.6 per cent, while the Liberals are at 30.5 per cent in the province.

British Columbia is also locked in a tie, with the Conservatives and Liberals both hovering around 30 per cent.

But, Nanos said, the "party to watch" in British Columbia is the fourth-place Greens, who are currently at 13.9 per cent support in the province.

"They've been doing better in the last three or four days," he said. "Perhaps Elizabeth May might have a little company, a B.C. seat-mate."

The most recent regional numbers:

Full poll at Nanos Research

Follow @niknanos on Twitter

More:
Nanos tracking: Liberals have 7-point lead in campaign's ...

Adding to our earlier commentary Iven Plis writing at the Daily Caller reports:

Reporters Asked Pope Francis About Being Communist. Heres What He Said

And to the accusations of communism, Francis said that I havent said anything more than whats written in the social doctrine of the Church. If there are mistakes in his teaching, the pope said, they are an error of explanation, not a flaw in the teaching itself.

He joked that he could gladly clear up any misconceptions about his Catholic bona fides: If necessary, Ill recite the creed.

People are using his ill-informed words to advocate for flesh and blood policy matters on climate and economies. He cannot abjure responsibility and joke about the seriousness of getting it right and not sowing confusion.

Patriot Post writer Nate Jackson had this commentary, set forth in its entirety here with permission.

Francis Confuses Corporatism and Capitalism

Pope Francis arrived Tuesday for his first visit to the U.S. He will not only tour a Philadelphia prison and a Harlem school to showcase his trademark concern for the poor and downtrodden, but he will give the first-ever papal address to Congress Thursday on a range of topics. The political angle is that Democrats have finally found a pope with whom they can agree on the issues of climate and poverty all while ignoring traditional Catholic teaching on marriage and the sanctity of life.

Francis arrived here by way of the Communist paradise poverty-stricken totalitarian island known as Cuba, where he spent four days and met not with dissidents but with Fidel Castro whom he reportedly thanked for his contributions to world peace. Notably, Francis arrived by plane, not by homemade raft on the shores of Florida as do many of the poor people fleeing Cubas oppressive regime for the Land of Liberty.

Indeed, if Francis truly cares for the poor, he showed it quite poorly in this instance.

Of capitalism in general, he said in his recent apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape. Such an economy kills.

Its no wonder he has an eager audience in the Democrats and Castros of the world.

But its important to understand that Francis views on capitalism are informed by his experience in his home country of Argentina a nation beset with powerful families and businesses influential in government. In other words, its not the free market and its not capitalism. Its cronyism and corporatism.

Its also ironic, writes Thomas Sowell, considering Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions [Francis] is now promoting around the world.

God does warn His people about loving money, and greed and inequity are part of sinful human nature no matter the economic system. But which countrys poor are better off Cubas, Argentinas or Americas? The truth is that no economic system has done more than capitalism to lift the poor out of poverty.

Tyranny kills, not Liberty.

Furthermore, Jesus never told his followers to perform charity by giving their money to the Romans instead. Contrary to the assertions of far too many, Jesus was not a socialist He always preached individual responsibility for our brothers and sisters, not collective statist mandates.

In many respects, Francis care for the poor is welcome. All Christians ought to see every opportunity to help the disadvantaged among us. But its the popes methods we object to. He is a proponent at least tacitly of liberation theology, a synthesis of Marxism and Christianity born in South America in the 1970s and 80s. Liberation theology embraces collectivization, the subordination of the individual in favor of the group, and the forced redistribution of wealth and property without fair compensation. Furthermore, Marxism is profoundly anti-religion, making its blending with Christian teaching like mixing oil and water.

Its noteworthy that Francis has thus effectively reversed the position of John Paul II, who was a staunch opponent of such noxious theology, and, together with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, brought down the Soviet Empire. Try to imagine John Paul glad-handing Fidel Castro while dissidents languished in prison.

On the subject of climate change, the onerous regulations and top-down government solutions favored by Francis and his fellow alarmist travelers (and we do mean travelers in fuel-burning jets all over the world) are exactly the policies that will hurt the poor the most.

In his recent encyclical, Francis declared, The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. He blames the problem on consumerism, corporate greed, overreliance on technology and the poisonous political atmosphere in and among many nations. He called for a radial change in how people conduct their political and economic affairs and suggested that the time has come for each of us to alter our individual lifestyles in response to climate issues.

But The Wall Street Journal retorts, Well, he should have seen East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the air in Beijing today. Coercive governments are the worst befoulers of the environment. Democratic capitalism has created the wealth and electoral consent to clean the air and water, and only continued economic growth will create the resources to deal with climate change if it does become a serious threat to the Earth.

Francis says, Humanity is called on to be aware of the need to change lifestyles, production and consumption because the world is filled with a culture of waste. Were all for using energy judiciously and curbing waste, but not under the pretense of a UN-Vatican mandate, which is essentially the prescription Francis gives.

In short, while Francis has authority over doctrinal issues in his own church, his message on climate and economics is dead wrong and it should be rejected.

R Mall

Originally posted here:
Veritaspac.com | Defeating liberals /advocating a ...