Yom HaShoah

Tonight is Yom HaShoah which marks the day that evil imperialistic American troops liberated the first Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald, Germany.

“I made the visit deliberately (to the concentration camps), in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.'"

- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim. Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty. This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it ... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end"

- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

On a related note, here's a little pop quiz. Can you guess which of the images from the above picture are from Nazi era anti-Semitic propaganda films, and which one is from campaign literature from our liberal progressive friends in San Francisco? Actually, it doesn't really matter. Anyway, for those interested here is the answer.

Below is the video of the "unproven mythical claim" taken by Eisenhower's staff at the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp on April 12, 1945.

Liberal Safari # 2

Here is a quick rundown of an interaction I just had with the idiots over at PoliticusUSA. In this article, the author Rmuse repeated the long ago debunked myth that Romney was receiving a shoeshine on the tarmac before boarding his flight. You can read a quick summary of the details here at NPR.

Unfortunately the article has now been updated based on my helpful feedback. The first paragraph originally read thusly:

"Throughout the long Republican presidential primary, Willard Romney has attempted to identify himself as a regular guy who understands the working class, but regardless taking his tie off and donning denim pants, there is the iconic photo of him sitting next to a private jet while one of his staff members gives him a shoeshine."

DISCLAIMER: I can’t remember the exact phrasing used, but it definitely said something very close to that, specifically mentioning Romney getting a shoeshine.I am currently trying to find a cached version of the page.

Well, here’s what it now reads:

"Throughout the long Republican presidential primary, Willard Romney has attempted to identify himself as a regular guy who understands the working class, but regardless taking his tie off and donning denim pants, there is the iconic photo of him sitting next to a private jet while he receives private security screening and avoids an average Americans’ wait to go through airport security."

 This magical change occurred about 20 minutes after I posted this to the comments section:

Winston: Good lord, how did you people not get the memo that Romney is not getting a shoeshine in that picture? You people are like 2 months behind every single issue. You were still reporting about how it was weird that Santorum brought his dead child home a week after even major news organizations were admitting that this was actually the recommended practice, last week you were still referring to the truncated Zimmerman 911 transcript days after NBC had fired an editor for deceptive editing, and now you are running a photo of Romney getting a security check and calling it a shoe shine literally months after that lie had been debunked. Read the news, learn the facts, and then you will naturally start voting Republican. Anyway, good luck.

Now, I had also recently been on this same author’s case a few days ago when in this article he wrote the following:

There is also a racial element to Zimmerman’s intent in the 911 call because he says, “he’s a black male…Something’s wrong with him…These assholes, they always get away.”

To which I replied:

Winston: Well, Mr. Rmuse you are a shameless liar. Here is the transcript of what Zimmerman said:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

Funny, it appears as if you spliced together three completely disparate pieces of the conversation to make Zimmerman look like a racist. You also failed to mention that the “He’s a black male” comment was in response to the 911 dispatcher specifically asking the race of the individual Zimmerman was reporting.

Seriously, how dare you.

I look forward to you posting a correction and an apology. Also, if I were Zimmerman, I would sue you for defamation. Maybe he will.

Now, back to today’s exchange. I finally got a response from the shameless liar, Rmuse:

Rmuse: Winston, an error is not a lie, but making that accusation is an error and you will be banned. Intelligent discourse and critical analysis are welcomed here and get better results. But, it means reading in context for a theme and not focusing on one phrase. It is a FOX News trait and does not speak well of a person’s comprehensive ability. It also explains voting Republican.

You see that folks? Pointing out egregious factual errors is not “intelligent discourse”, but apparently lying is. Also, notice how he whines that I’m unfairly focusing on the facts..what a pathetic douche. Lastly, how laughable is it that he claims they welcome discourse, yet are banning the only person on the entire site with a differing opinion solely because I had the audacity to point out that he was clearly factually incorrect. This is liberals in a nutshell.

I replied back:

Winston: Fine Rmuse, errors should be updated to show the original mistake.

I am willing to accept this was a mistake, but you still haven’t answered for your editing of the Zimmerman transcript the other day. I called you a liar because I have noticed a pattern of deception. Maybe both were honest mistakes, I have no idea. I don’t understand why I should be banned for pointing out the truth. Seems like you are afraid that I may catch more “mistakes”.

You won’t see this though in the comments, since most of what I wrote has now been scrubbed, including some wonderful side jabs at the other assorted idiots on the site who were trying to argue that Rmuse’s lie doesn’t matter because the spirit of what he was saying in the whole article is true. Similar to what Rmuse said in his response to me. You know, it’s the whole “fake but true” defense that the media loves to employ when lying and smearing Republicans.

UPDATE: Rmuse has also scrubbed his reply to me, since it is basically an admission that he altered his post rather than updating it as someone with integrity would do. 

Narratives, Narratives, Narratives

The nation is all abuzz about George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin shooting. Well, let’s do a quick rundown of the media/leftist lies that have been served to the public in an attempt to continue the narrative that America is a hopelessly racist nation.

Lie # 1: George Zimmerman weighs 240 pounds, while Trayvon Martin is just a small child of 140 pounds. 

There’s plenty of examples of the media pushing this meme, but here’s what this petition calling for the arrest of Zimmerman states:

"So far I have tried to be as objective as I can in forming this petition, however Zimmerman's claim of self-defense just doesn't hold water. Zimmerman, a man in his late 20's weighing approximately 240 pounds and armed with a 9mm handgun, confronted and killed Trayvon, an unarmed 17 year old weighing 140 pounds who was just trying to get home."

 Unfortunately, the New York Times accidentally let the cat out of the bag:

"However it started, witnesses described to the 911 dispatcher what resulted: the neighborhood watch coordinator, 5-foot-9 and 170 pounds, and the visitor, 6-foot-1 and 150, wrestling on the ground."

You can also reference the picture posted above this post. Notice how Martin is always depicted with a 3-4 year old picture making him look like a little boy, while Zimmerman is shown in his mug shot looking like a big fat mean behemoth. Why didn't they instead use these pictures below for Martin and Zimmerman?

Again, the media pushes narratives, not the truth.

Lie #2: George Zimmerman's 911 call proves his crime was racially motivated.

Here's a quote provided by NBC of Zimmerman during the 911 call:

 Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Here's the actual quote from the full 911 transcript:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. 
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

Don't worry though, NBC is launching an investigation to find out just how this sort of thing could have possibly happened. I mean, you could just ask any conservative in the nation or basically anyone with common sense, but hey they need an investigation.

Lie # 3: Zimmerman is white.

This lie has of course been pushed from the start. It is true that Zimmerman is half white and half Hispanic, but does anyone actually believe that if it were Zimmerman who had been murdered by an anglo-white neighborhood watchman he would be described as “White Hispanic”? Of course not.

Ok, so now we know that Zimmerman is hispanic. We also know that Martin and Zimmerman were about the same size (with Martin having a huge height advantage), and we know that Zimmerman's 911 call does not show racist intent, but Zimmerman could still be a racist right? Well, this one seems to be falling apart also. Here's a quote from a letter that a confirmed Zimmerman family member wrote to the NAACP:

“You will recall the incident of the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer. The beating sparked outrage in the community but there were very few that stepped up to do anything about it. I would presume the inaction was because of the fact that he was homeless not because he was black. Do you know the individual who stepped up when no one else in the black community would? Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church-goers to get out of church so that he could hand them flyers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8, 2011 at Sanford City Hall?? That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.”

Yikes. If the media is willing to present a 170 pound Hispanic with a history of significant community activism on behalf of African Americans, as a 240 pound white racist, just to push the narrative of "white racist America", what won’t they lie about? 

We have also seen the beginning of the usual next step in these sorts of events where the leftists and the media inevitable put the blame on conservatives in general. They are attempting to push this regardless of the fact that Zimmerman is a registered Democrat. sigh.

Am I psychic, or are liberal newagers just that predictable?

I have previously mentioned the liberal newage religious rally atheist rally, called "The Reason Rally", which is set to kick off tomorrow in D.C.. Apparently all of these atheists liberal babies are going to meet in D.C., shit in their diapers, and complain about how nobody likes them because they are so much smarter and better than the rest of us. Well, I study the liberal and I know that atheists are just another sect of the far reaching liberal newage cult. Therefore, I was certain that when I took a look at the "Reason Rally" schedule I would almost instantly find evidence of some sort of newage douchebaggery contained within. So, I started a stopwatch and clicked on the "Reason Rally" schedule located here. Exactly, 3.1 seconds later I saw this gem "6:00 pm: Close and Hugs With Everyone". Ok, so that's typical newage speak, but not a slam dunk or anything, but I knew now I had caught the scent. At time 5.4 seconds, I noticed a familiar name just dangling in the middle of the schedule, one Senator Tom Harkin. Ah yes, there it is. Tom Harkin, the man chiefly responsible for the formation of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institute of Health. So, these "atheists" who are meeting to showcase the awesome power of their "scientific reasoning", which they have declared anyone who is not a liberal atheist like themselves lack, are giving a platform to the man who is responsible for the scientific and medical atrocity that is the NCCAM. Once again, "atheists" have been exposed as nothing more than liberal newage religious fanatics.

UPDATE* Well, holy shit. I should have looked even more closely at this newage rally's list of guests. Turns out Bill Maher, you know the guy who spoke out against western medicine and questioned the efficacy of vaccinations, also finds himself in attendance. You really can't make this stuff up.

Dancing TV Monkey, Stephan Colbert: The Taliban has a better track record with women than Rush Limbaugh.

I think the girl pictured above (who had acid thrown in her face by the Taliban) may disagree with this smug fuck’s assessment. Apparently Colbert finds marginalizing unimaginable brutality to be just so damn funny. Ok, now make a silly face at the camera Stephan, so we all know that it’s time to laugh. 

H/T Newsbusters 

Breaking: United Nations to continue policy of being stupid and useless

The racist hate group known as the NAACP has petitioned the United Nations Human Rights Council to look into U.S. state voter ID laws to determine if these laws violate the human rights of minorities. Just to bring you all up to speed on voter ID laws, they are basically what the name implies. They are simply laws that require you to show an ID before you vote in order to protect against voter fraud. However, liberals have a severe problem with these laws because it prevents them from using widespread fraud to win elections, they are racist! You know, just like that constant racism that minorities are subjected to when they buy a 6-pack or a pack of smokes. RACISTS! Hmm, I wonder why the liberals aren't challenging the fact that you need to show an ID before purchasing a firearm? Like the right to vote, the right to bear arms is a specifically enumerated right enshrined in the constitution, so isn't this policy equally racist? Anyway, I'm really looking forward to what Saudi Arabia (a member of the Human Rights Council) has to say about how these voter ID laws violate human rights, you know after they finish up their latest beheading for the practice of witchcraft. 

I wonder if liberals would change their minds if there were some sort of concrete video like evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud in the U.S.? I mean, something as concrete as this, for example:

Today's Liberals in the News.

Let's start this off with an Occupy Rape Street Update. This movement is really gaining traction in America, mostly because they keep jumping from triumph to triumph as they bring their message of "more rapes" to every corner of the nation. Here's their most recent success story: Woman Raped at Occupy New Haven:

A member of the Occupy New Haven movement was raped in a tent at the Occupy camp late on Monday night or early Tuesday morning, police said.Police said a woman went to find the victim on Tuesday afternoon because she had not seen her.She went to the woman’s tent and called for her, but there was no answer, so she looked inside the tent and found the woman, police said.The victim wasn’t able to respond, police said, so the witness yelled out to other Occupiers to call police and emergency medical services.At some point, the victim told the witness she had been raped in a tent at the camp, police said.Police responded to the camp at 3:25 p.m. The victim was brought to Yale-New Haven Hospital and police charged England Gamble, 53, of New Haven, with first-degree sexual assault and first-degree unlawful restraint.

Alright let's move on to this Planned Parenthood update coming out of Lubbock, Texas: President & CEO of Texas Planned Parenthood Arrested for Indecent Exposure:

The president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood abortion business in Lubbock, Texas was arrested yesterday for indecent exposure at a local baseball field where children play. As KCBD reports, “According to Lubbock Police, Tony Ray Thornton, 56, was arrested at the baseball fields inside of Mackenzie Park. According to the incident report, Thornton was taken into custody at 3:25 Monday afternoon. He was booked into the Lubbock County Detention Center and released from jail Tuesday morning around 11 a.m.” The news station reports that Thornton has worked with the abortion business for several years and the Lubbock Planned Parenthood has had its share of problems. Previously, the Planned Parenthood facility in Lubbock, Texas threw away medical records in a trash bin outside the building.

I think I get it now. Planned Parenthood kills children in order to reduce the number of children that have to experience having a planned parenthood employee flash their dick at them. I guess I was wrong, planned parenthood is a noble institution after all. They're just trying to reduce pedophilia, that's all.

Ok, let's finish things off with this fluff piece about Obama's corrupt butt buddy, Rod Blagojevich, as he gets carted off to prison: last-day-free-blagojevich-offers-last-words. Oh yea, go ahead and scan the article for the word "Democrat" or any indication of Big Rod's party affiliation. Meh, I'll just go ahead and end the suspense, it's not there.

Shock of the Century: Liberals intolerant of opposing views online

It turns out that liberals are intolerant of opposing viewpoints. I know, I know....this is a lot to process all at once. Just take a seat and have a few sips of water and the shock and awe should subside momentarily.Here is a brief summary:

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

I was once unfriended by a liberal for posting a picture of Obama wearing a dress. Prior to unfriending me though, she sent me this bizarre message saying that I dont understand Koch Postulates and Bradford-Hill Criteria and that I was unable to think critically. Yea, it turns out she was taking a master's course in epidemiology so I suppose this was her typical liberal way of trying to prove she was smarter than me or something. Be on the look out for this behavior. Liberals will often pursue a master's degree in something easy becasue they think having a master's degree makes them the undisputed authority on everything...and no, it doesn't even matter if you also have a master's degree or even a Ph.D becasue you are a conservative and therefore not as smart as them. 

Attack of the clones.

Dr. Steve Landsburg, an economics professor at the University of Rochester weighed in on the Limbaugh/Fluke fake controversy the other day by stating the following:

"Rush Limbaugh is under fire for responding in trademark fashion to the congressional testimony of Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who wants you to pay for her contraception. If the rest of us are to share in the costs of Ms. Fluke’s sex life, says Rush, we should also share in the benefits, via the magic of online video. For this, Rush is accused of denying Ms. Fluke her due respect. But while Ms. Fluke herself deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being, her position — which is what’s at issue here — deserves none whatsoever. It deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered. To treat it with respect would be a travesty. I expect there are respectable arguments for subsidizing contraception (though I am skeptical that there are arguments sufficiently respectable to win me over), but Ms. Fluke made no such argument. All she said, in effect, was that she and others want contraception and they don’t want to pay for it."

Mr. Landsberg is basically stating the obvious here; Sandra Fluke's testimony was a joke and her arguments are laughable. He did however state that, "Ms. Fluke herself deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being". Ok, so Landsburg disagrees with Sandra Fluke, but his comments aren't mean spirited. That's allowed right? I mean the left has no problem with opposing opinions, they just want the tone of the argument to be appropriate, right? Not so much:

UR President Joel Seligman sharply criticized the professor, Steven Landsburg. Seligman’s statement, which was included in a Wednesday email of college news sent to faculty and staff, said that he is “outraged that any professor would demean a student in this fashion.”

There's that word again, OUTRAGE. Muslim extremists become outraged when a Danish cartoonist draws a picture of Mohammed. Liberal extremists experience similar outrage when their religion is attacked by someone disagreeing with them. It get's better though:

Protesting students entered Landsburg’s room at the beginning of his mid-afternoon class.“They formed a line between him and the class. And he continued to lecture,” said UR spokeswoman Sharon Dickman, who noted a couple of University Security officers were on the scene but didn’t need to take any action. After about 15 minutes, the protesters left but returned about 45 minutes later for the end of the class, which Landsburg dismissed about five minutes early.

Send in the clone army! Silence the non-believers!

I used to think the idea of tenure didn't really make any sense. I mean, this isn't the age of Copernicus. Academics don't really need to worry that their views could result in punitive actions being taken against them. The very thought that anyone would ever fire a college professor simply for stating an idea seemed medieval and absurd. Well, when I got to graduate school I quickly realized that I was dead wrong. Conservative students and faculty are actively and shamelessly intimidated and silenced in our universities. The very existence of the widespread term, "closet conservative", being used on our campuses is proof of this. There's plenty more proof though. Conservative speakers are rarely invited to speak at universities and when they are, the liberal cult army does their best to silence them. Here's a couple of quick examples of that, here and here. I have personally experienced this sort of institutionalized blacklisting on multiple occasions both in medical school and in graduate school. Furthermore, when not actively intimidating conservatives, university officials and professors simply marginalize conservatives. For example, at my medical school, extra credit was given for attending the "Medical Student's for Choice" club, but no extra credit was given to the "Medical Student's for Life" club. I sent an e-mail to the professor of the class about this double standard and was told that the Pro-life club did not contain any "medically related education". Yea right, fuck you.

So, getting back to my point, tenure is absolutely necessary because there is no question that professors like Landsburg would be immediately terminated if they didn't have this protection. Similarly, the entire Rush controversy is about nothing else other than attempting to silence conservative speech and this whole fabricated controversy was just a way to get Rush off the airwaves. Remember, liberalism is their religion and their outrage is not about women's health, or tone, or this or that, they are simply outraged that they have to live amongst non-believers. That's it.

This generation's Mother Teresa, Sandra Fluke

Here’s todays bit of propaganda from state run media: Fluke says, "I would do this again", despite Limbaugh attacks.

Yes we are still talking about Sandra Fluke. She has now reached Joan of Arc status amongst the liberals. Apparently in progressive circles, sauntering your big ass up to capital hill to demand that strangers fork up the $1 a day for your birth control pills is worthy of being canonized.

Just check out that title; Fluke says, “I would do this again” despite Limbaugh attacks. Have your ever seen something so ridiculous? They act like this woman was shot down while flying sorties over Da Nang and spent 2 years in a Vietnamese prison camp and after escaping requested that she be allowed to return to the fight. All she did was demand free shit.

This sort of hero worship is common amongst the left though. All you need to do is look at the 2008 election when Obama was basically elevated to messiah status. I’ve already talked about the absurd double standard the left uses when it comes to verbal attacks, but it’s not that they just look the other way when a conservative woman is attacked or when it’s one of their fellow liberals saying something inappropriate. It’s much more than that. You see, when a liberal calls a tea partier a “terrorist”, or takes joy in Breitbart’s death, or makes a death threat against Bush or Limbaugh, or calls Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut”, well that is all just damn justified because these people are all enemies of the liberal faith. They are non-believers and therefore evil and deserving of contempt. These are the people that are not worthy to pass through the gates to progressive paradise.

On the other hand, when a liberal is the target of even the softest ridicule from the right, they feel outrage and indignation because their faith is being attacked; A faith that cannot be wrong. Basically, it is blasphemy to attack liberalism. It’s precisely the same mentality that leads a Muslim extremist to riot because a Koran was burned, but believe burning a bible is God’s work. Many on the right have trouble understanding how liberals can be so hypocritical and not see it. Well, that is because most on the right don’t see liberalism for what it is, a religion. If you look at the left in the context of religious extremism, then you will fully understand what motivates them.

No Man is Safe When Congress is in Session.

So let's imagine we have a problem. The problem is that some women want birth control and can't afford it. The government identifies this problem and then formulates a solution. The government then implements its solution. A category 5 disastrous unworkable shit storm ensues.


Now let’s imagine the free market identifies the same problem and realizes they could make a profit by solving it. *Poof*, $9 per month birth control pills.


Even better, the free market identified and solved the problem years ago only to now have the government swing by and fuck everything up trying to solve a problem that no longer exists.


Your government is retarded.

Uh Oh, the Liberals are like so OUTRAGED again

Well, the left is still feeling feelings of outrageous outrage over Rush Limbaugh calling some democratic operative law student a "slut". Well, here's a good review of some of the non-sexist, non-misogynistic things that liberal politicians, journalists, comedians, etc. have said over the years: Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist. The only difference being that Rush is a conservative and therefore has to be held accountable. The left is of course just a bunch of screaming retarded children, so it wouldn't really be fair to hold them to any kind of standard. Also, we have to let it go when Obama calls an entire segment of the U.S. population "tea baggers" because again, Obama is a weak babbling imbecile and isn't really responsible for the stupid shit that comes out of his mouth.

So, some of Rush's sponsors are pulling out due to the screeching coming from the left side of the political aisle.  Well, this got me thinking that we on the right need to start making things much more personal as well. It's not enough to disagree with the liberals politically, it is also important that we start punishing them personally. I don't mean physically of course, because that sort of nonsense is reserved for liberals. As an aside, here's a nice list of some of the left's recent violent handiwork: OWS rapes, murders, assaults, etc.. No, what I mean is that conservatives need to stop frequenting businesses that don't share their values. You know, maybe get your coffee somewhere other than Starbucks from now on and don't do your food shopping at Whole Foods. If the pizza delivery guy shows up with an "Obama 2012" sticker on his truck, send him on his way without a tip.  Looking to hire a new person?, well maybe put that liberal's resume at the bottom of the pile. If a liberal asks you the time or for some directions, pretend that you don't speak English. You can also start by never again doing business with the following list of spineless douchebags who pulled their sponsorships from Rush's show:

1. mortgage lender Quicken Loans
2.mattress retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number
3. software maker Citrix Systems Inc.
4. online data backup service provider Carbonite
5. online legal document services company LegalZoom. 
6. Proflower

By the way, I'm kidding. No, we on the right shouldn't do any of the things listed above because we aren't totalitarians. We don't go after people personally because they disagree with us politically. We don't try and use the power of the state and the power of the mob to silence opposing viewpoints. Lastly, we don't make politics personal because conservatism is not our religion and our political party isn't our family.  You see, it's this sort of deranged attitude that leads liberal graduate students to ask me, "Are you a closet conservative", without the slightest hint of shame that they have created such a hostile cultist environment that closet conservatives actually exist. Fuck them all, but whatever you do, don't become like them.

There's one for you, nineteen for me.

It appears that the liberal princes, dutchesses, and other assorted lesser nobility of the God King are sending out the warning that although they are fair and just rulers to the serfs, their patience and generosity has limits. They have decreed that any serf who finds himself contributing to Republican candidates may incur the King's wrath via severe retribution from the royal tax collectors.

Democrats on K Street are warning their corporate clients: Give to Republican challengers in the 2012 election, and you’ll regret it come tax reform time. Lobbyists are getting that message from allies of powerful Democrats such as Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is closely watching support for Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican challenging Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). Baucus supporters fear that if Rehberg ousts Tester, Baucus could be next to face a serious Republican challenge in the state.

One K-Streeter close to the Baucus operation said the senator considers a gift to Rehberg a contribution against him. Another Democratic lobbyist told a client to take his name off a Rehberg fundraising event because it would be hurtful to his company, according to sources.

The case K-Streeters are making to their clients: It will be a hard sell next year to get Baucus’s support on business-friendly tax perks set to expire or the Bush-era tax cuts that must get through his committee.

So, I thought it was the position of our liberal friends that tax collection was a benevolent operation meant to collect funds for the common good. I would say it looks more like taxes are yet another weapon to consolidate power in the federal government and to harass and intimidate the citizenry. We have already seen nearly the complete demise of our federalist system due to the exorbitant amount of funds that our federal government collects each year. The states are now so enslaved to receiving their piece of this federal money that they have little to no will to oppose the federal government out of fear of losing these funds.

Here is what the tenth amendment says:

 “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Here is how it should read:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, unless the federal government successfully uses taxation to intimidate the states and the people from exercising such powers."

So, as I have outlined above, phase I of removing all powers from the states has effectivly been completed. Now it’s time to move onto phase II, removing all remaining powers left with the people. It’s ok, though. Don’t worry. Your liberal betters know how to run your life better than you do, so just be thankful, keep quiet, and wait in line for your government cheese.

Goodnight, Sweet Prince

Well everyone, our point man is gone. Here's a nice tribute from Greg Gutfeld:

I met Andrew Breitbart in 2005 when I was asked to write for the Huffingtpon Post. He was running the show. Everyone who knew him - left and right - said he was brilliant, eccentric, one of a kind. I instantly fell in love with the guy. To this day, I've never met anyone as fearless. He was my first guest on Redeye, a show I got largely because he told people about me. He became a cheerleader for my work, but more important, a dear close friend I could confide in, about anything. My wife called him the wizard, for he could conjure up anything at any time with limitless energy.

He's the only person I know who operated without a safety net. He always knew things would turn out the way they were supposed to - so he didn't worry about money or, i guess, his health, too much.

He was the spiritual leader of the modern conservative, libertarian cause. He was immersed in pop culture and wished to drag the right into the modern world - knowing this is how America speaks to the world. He was the heart of the matter. The fighter. Losing him is like a fiery planet going dark. 

My heart felt condolences go out to Susie and the kids.

As much as Andrew would have appreciated this statement from Gutfeld, I think he would have rolled around and basted in these words being said by our leftist friends. Liberals just don't get it; To be an object of their deranged hatred is a point of extreme pride for conservative heroes like Breitbart. In the end it is the liberals that presented Andrew with the greatest eulogy of all.

It's a sad day, but this video of Andrew will forever bring a smile to my face:

The logical conclusion to an illogical premise

This blog is mainly dedicated to exposing liberalism as a religion. This religion, like many others, holds certain beliefs to be the ironclad truth and all of their subsequent ideas and actions flow from this foundation of belief. Most people recognize that religious fanatics are in fact able to think logically, particularly when they are dealing with a problem or issue that is unrelated to their religious beliefs. However, one thing that is rarely acknowledged is that these same religious fanatics can also be extremely rational in taking their religious beliefs to their logical conclusion.

Basically, what I'm saying is that when a person holds the false belief A, their subsequent realization of ideas B and C may flow logically from A, but the entire sequence of A->B->C is of course false because their starting premise was untrue.

I believe this describes the very essence of the liberal religion. Almost every liberal idea would make sense if the underlying belief acting as the motivation for their ideas weren't so horribly flawed. What follows is the most extreme example of this phenomenon:

The liberal believes that a fetus is not a person and that the mother's vague right to "choice" trumps any rights of what they consider to be a non-person. The problem of course with this premise is that besides the absolute starting point of human development (i.e. conception) there is no logical event or process that determines when a fetal or embryonic "non-person" magically blinks into existence as a human. However, all fetuses eventually become full grown adults, so the dividing line must logically exist. But where? At birth? Is the definition of human life based literally on geographical location, or does the liberal believe in a vagina fairy that sprinkles each of us with our humanity as we travel through the birth canal? What about newborns? Even a newborn baby has very poorly developed frontal lobe activity, so does that mean they too are "non-persons"? In fact, frontal lobe development isn't completed until well after puberty, so is that the dividing line, puberty? My point is, if you accept the liberal starting premise, the logical conclusion is that newborns and maybe even adolescents aren't fully human and therefore it is morally permissible to exterminate them.

You might say, but Winston you are being ridiculous. Nobody would argue that killing newborns is morally permissible. I mean that would just be absolutely fucking deranged. Well, here you go folks, from the article:

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

 Well holy shit! That's certainly an interesting idea! Please tell me more!

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” 

Awesome newspeak, please continue!

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

 Fuck yea!, we threw in some eugenics in there as well. Fire up those gas chambers boys!

They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

Well of course early term abortions are preferable, I mean it's not like we are unreasonable people or anything.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.”

Ha! morally relevant shmorally shmelevent. We won't let those right wing nuts shove their morality down our throats!

Anyway, you can read the rest of this grotesque piece of uber fucking bullshit during your spare time. Would you believe however that it actually gets worse? The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics that published this garbage has this to say to you pro-life fascists out there: (Warning- the all consuming irony of the following statement may cause your brain to explode)

What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.

What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.

You hear that fuckheads? Arguing that we should kill children is proper academic discussion, but arguing that we shouldn't kill children reveals the "deep disorder of the modern world". You crazies need to stop with your fanatical opposition to killing babies. What the fuck is wrong with you people!

I'm seriously starting to believe that this has to be a hoax because it really is beyond comprehension. I think my favorite part of the editor's statement is her unapologetic admission that infanticide is a liberal value. Well, no shit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Again, I'm going to go on the record as saying that this must be a hoax. I mean this is worse than any snide intentionally obnoxious caricature I could ever come up with for a liberal. If it isn't a hoax, well I guess I can just shut this blog down because really what other point about the derangement of the liberal is there to make?*

It's not easy being green

Well, it's looking like members of Iran's Green Revolution did indeed ask for help from the U.S. way back in 2009. It seems to have occurred right around the same time that his excellency King Obama I, was demonstrating his sharp intellect and foreign policy acumen with his precision tactic of saying and doing nothing during the brutal 2009 crackdown on the Greens. After the massacre was over, his majesty  assured his subjects that his court had never received a single correspondence from the Greens, implying that if he had, the same royal generosity that his own subjects enjoy would have been equally lavished upon the Green peasants abroad.

Not to worry though. If the Ayatollahs do acquire a nuclear weapon, the God King will simply use his divine powers of speech to knock these weapons from the sky and restore peace and harmony to the world for ages to come.

If that plan fails, the following quote from the Greens will have textbooks devoted to it in the future:

“Will (the countries of the West) continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late?”

Liberal Safari # 1

Here is a new segment where I share some of my internet encounters with the Liberalis Fucktardus species. This first one is short, but enjoy!

Winston: "It doesn’t really seem like the cost of contraceptives is causing some huge gap in access. I mean, there’s like 90 Million prescriptions for contraceptives filled yearly, which seems fairly universal. For the few who can’t afford it, couldn’t the HHS simply have ordered Medicaid to end co-pays for contraceptives? Why not end co-pays for Lipitor?...I guess it’s because “Obama Protects Women!” looks better than “Obama Helps Manage Your Cholesterol!” in a campaign ad."

Useless Liberal Retard: "Winston, you seem pretty bitter about the fact that poor women now have more control of their reproductive health".

Interesting. Notice how liberalis fucktardus has evolved to be unable to comprehend the third sentence that I wrote, which directly addresses the issue of poor women. Instead, fucktardus instinctively retreats to its religious belief that as a conservative I must hate women. Therefore,  fucktardus, also being unable to think for itself, restates an asinine liberal talking point that it saw in the Huffington Post and attempts to ass-jam it into a conversation where it makes zero sense whatsoever.

That's all for today.

Sunday Journal Club

I figured it was about time I started actually reading up a bit on this whole Global Warming Climate Change thing, so let's start with this paper from science, which has this interesting statement included within:

“Over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a distinct interval of variable and, overall, reduced solar output".

Hmm, could it be that the giant nuclear fireball in the sky may actually be affecting temperatures here on planet Earth? I don't know, I guess you will have to read the paper to find out.

As I have stated before, I am fairly ignorant of the global warming climate change science, but there are a few things I do know, including the following:

1. Throughout history people have made enormous fools of themselves trying to predict the weather and also trying to predict the end of the world. Global warming climate change theory attempts to predict both.

2. Liberals are extremely shrieky about global warming climate change and every issue in human history that has had a liberal shrieking in its favor has turned out to be exceedingly wrong and stupid.

There's a straw man waiting in the sky, he'd like to come and meet us, but he thinks he'd blow our minds

Check out this worthless greasy idiot.

First off, this isn't even funny. Second, if we really want to talk about stupidity, how about the breathtaking stupidity required for someone to not even recognize his own strawman arguments. Protesting "health care"? That doesn't even make any sense. People were protesting a health care LAW because they believed it would add to costs and decrease the quality of the health care they received. This is the usual attitude of the arrogant inept liberal. When they are losing an argument, rather than recognize that perhaps their position is false or at the very least requires some amount of calibration, they ludicrously assume that the person they are arguing with is too dumb to recognize the correctness of their position. If those people truly are dumb however, how does the liberal explain that they are losing the argument to these so called dummies in the first place?

Yea, Bill Maher is a real intellect. It takes a super amount of brain power to assign your opponent a simplistic idiotic position, he or she doesn't even hold, and then point out the simplicity and idiocy of said position. What a douchebag. Also check out the title of the video assigned by his fellow brain dead liberal idiots at yahoo: "Bill Maher takes on health care haters". Health care haters?....Again, what a bunch of fucking imbeciles the modern day liberals have become.

Reichskonkordat

The following is not an attempt to equate liberals with Nazis because comparisons such as that are idiotic and therefore only made by liberals formulating arguments against Republican tax and budget proposals.

The purpose of this post is to highlight how fanatical religious like political movements, such as liberalism, attempt to remove competing religious views from the national discourse. This is because ultimately the liberal seeks to create a "religion of the state", meaning that devotions to the old religions get replaced with devotion to the state and to the political party in power. This is what is behind the selective accusations against the Catholic Church of 1st amendment violations, that I outlined previously.

Let's look at what the 1st amendment actually says, focusing on the part about the relationship between church and state:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

These words are crystal clear. There isn't much interpretation to be made here. Basically, the government will not establish a state religion and will not interfere with the free practice of religion. Notice how the words say what the government shall not do. It says absolutely nothing about what the members of a religion can and cannot do. The 1st amendment was absolutely never meant to muzzle members of a religion when it came to their right to petition their government just as any other citizen would. Notice how the right to free speech comes immediately afterwords in the text. I think the order that these rights were listed may not have been random. I say this because the liberal interpretation of the 1st amendment has increasingly been that religions and religious people are not permitted to petition their government based on points of view that are in any way derived from their religious beliefs. This line of thought is in direct opposition to what the 1st amendment is saying because this would in effect "prohibit the free exercise" of their religion by forcing these people to give up other enumerated rights in order to be permitted to continue practicing their religion.

The recent contraception mandate is an obvious example of what I am saying. The government made a law that the Catholic Church is fiercely opposed to. Catholics voiced their opposition by petitioning their elected representatives. Liberals then accused the Catholic Church of violating the separation of church and state because they were somehow infusing their religious beliefs into politics. Even if we ignore the numerous secular arguments against the contraception mandate, (chief amongst them being that access to birth control is not an issue for the vast majority of women and there are already multiple programs available to help poor women obtain birth control, which is why birth control is available to 99% of women who want it according to the CDC) and assume that opposition to the mandate is based purely on religious ideology, this still doesn't change the fact that these religious people have every right to lobby against the new law, as guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

What makes this line of attack against Catholics even more disturbing is that it is applied selectively. I have already discussed this in a previous post, but the basics of what I said were that liberals only roll out this argument when a particular religious institution is lobbying against their proposal. However, when a religious group agrees with their proposal, such as in the case of ObamaCare, there are absolutely no complaints from the left. Conversely, notice how Republicans never once cited 1st amendment violations when the Catholics lobbied on behalf of ObamaCare.

The Reichskonkordat, was an agreement between the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in 1933 that effectively guaranteed religious freedom to the Catholic Church in Germany if the Church agreed to stop any form of "Political Catholicism" within Germany. This was meant to remove Catholic opposition to Nazi policies and to ensure that the loyalty of the citizens of Germany would not be split between the church and the party. This is basically the same vision liberals have for religion in the United States; Tolerated so long as their viewpoints do not interfere with the Church of Liberalism. 

As an aside, the history of the Catholic Church and Nazism is an interesting read, and is a history that has long been perverted by liberals.

You damn dirty Catholic Firsters!

Hey Papists, Chris Mathews thinks you need to stop being dirty bigots.

The schizophrenia that the liberals display with their attitude towards Catholics is astounding. Liberals didn't seem to have a problem when Ra-Obama secured the Catholic vote by a 9 point margin in 2008. Also, during the Obamacare fiasco, liberals went on this strange campaign to remove the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church because they participate in "political lobbying", until of course the abortion question was sort-of-kind-of resolved, and the Catholic Church became a primary champion of Obamacare. Suddenly the calls to remove the Catholic Church's tax exempt status went silent. Strange, isn't supporting Obamacare also political lobbying? It just shows that liberals have no problem using the power of the state to silence political opposition.

Also, as far as the opposition to gay marriage goes, I'm pretty sure that almost every single religion on the planet opposes gay marriage. So, why are we strangely singling out the Catholic Church? Could it be (and I know this is just a super duper ridiculous long shot) that it's because the Catholics were the most vocal in recent opposition to his majesty's proclamation that all religious groups shall provide contraception and abortifacients to their employees? I know....I know, I'm just being paranoid again. I mean, how inappropriate would it be for a journalist to unfairly smear an entire religion in order to intimidate them into removing their opposition to the sitting Democratic president's legislative proposal? I mean, shit like that only happens in places with state controlled media, right?

A new victim group in the making.

The liberal newage religious sect that goes by the name "atheists" are marching on D.C. because of all the horrible discrimination they are facing. Awwww. *sniff*, *sniff*...poor guys. Here's a quote from one of these unfortunate souls, bravely soldiering on in the face of extreme hardship:

“There are more atheists in the country right now than Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists combined and doubled – that’s a lot of people, and we are the most hated … for no reason other than pure and simple religious bigotry, spurned by ignorance”

Can we please be serious for a second? Nobody gives a fuck whether you are an atheist or not. This is that whole lame ass, "yea, we are totally freaking out the squares, man", mentality. You know, that inflated sense of self importance where you actually believe other people are all sitting around thinking and talking about you.

It's more than that though. It's also an attempt by yet another group of fucking assholes to carve themselves out a piece of that "victim group" pie. That way these losers can be comfortable in the belief that they are special and have a harder go of it than the rest of us in society. You know, without actually having to accomplish anything or experience any true hardship that would make them legitimately deserving of special recognition.

Also, do these dipshits actually think that questioning the existence of God is some sort of miraculous quantum leap in the history of human thought and therefore deserving of special praise? I'm pretty sure that the great majority of us have pondered that possibility at some point in our lives. They also seem to think that we are living in the age of Copernicus and by declaring themselves atheists they are fearlessly exposing themselves to the wrath of the unenlightened masses (Which reminds me..where did I put my stack of burning people at the stake kindling?). Well not to worry, nobody actually gives a shit. Plus you aren't even atheists anyway.

Are you a looter or a producer...or just a parasite?

Here's the quick background; A man named Mr. Ahadzi was somehow convinced to let #Occupy Rape Street use his home for a publicity stunt last December. The basic idea was that members of ORS would take over Mr. Ahadzi's house while he was negotiating foreclosure with his bank. ORS planned, with the help of Democratic councilman Charles Barron, to find a homeless family to move into the house. Presumably they hoped this stunt would would put banks on the defensive by creating a miniature anecdote that they could then exploit for some sort of political gain. Well, the actual result was pretty much as expected for anyone who has been following ORS; They completely gutted and destroyed everything (including literally the kitchen sink), so now nobody can live there. Isn't this pretty much how liberalism works? They claim some vague noble cause as a smokescreen for their parasitic looting of everything good and decent in society.

Anyway, a world in which liberals have a free run on things can be summed up pretty succinctly with the lyrics of "Mile End" by Pulp. It's a good song, itunes it:

We didn't have no where to live, / we didn't have nowhere to go
'til someone said / "I know this place off Burditt Road."
It was on the fifteenth floor, / it had a board across the door.
It took an hour / to pry it off and get inside. / It smelt as if someone had died;
the living-room was full of flies, / the kitchen sink was blocked,
the bathroom sink not there at all. / Ooh, / it's a mess alright, / yes it's
Mile End. / And now we're living in the sky! / I'd never thought I'd live so
high, / just like Heaven / (if it didn't look like Hell.)
The lift is always full of piss, / the fifth floor landing smells of fish
(not just on Friday, / every single other day.)
Below the kids come out tonight, / they kick a ball and have a fight
and maybe shoot somebody if they lose at pool.
Ooh, / it's a mess alright, / yes it's / Mile End.
Oo-ooh / Nobody wants to be your friend
'cause you're not from round here, / ooh / as if that was
something to be proud about. / The pearly king of the Isle of Dogs
feels up children in the bogs. / Down by the playing fields,
someone sets a car on fire I guess you have to go right down
before you understand just how, / how low,
how low a human being can go. / Ooh, / it's a mess alright, / yes it's
Mile End. / (don't do that! Leave it out!)

Where have all the richly deserved ass beatings gone?

This story is kind of old, but worth a revisit. Basically, members of a nationwide rape gang, who go by the name "Occupy Wall Street", threw a bunch of condoms at Catholic school girls during a pro-life event in Rhode Island. Many people have voiced their disgust at this behavior wondering exactly what kind of weak demented brain would lead a person to do this, but I think questioning the motives of Occupy Rape Street is hugely missing the point. The real story is that these weak pathetic parasites went through all this trouble to guarantee that they would be the recipient of a mammoth sized ass beating, yet were unjustly denied said ass beating. The fact that that these liberals could throw condoms at children and not a single person kicked the shit out of them is the real sign of a nation in decline.

After seeing this story, I started to think about how previous generation of Americans would have dealt with this situation, specifically the WWII generation. I tried to imagine what my grandfather's reaction would be if some random disgusting liberal pervert threw a condom at one of his daughters. I concluded that someone would have needed a technologically advanced high speed camera capable of high resolution at over 100,000 frames per second if they wanted to record the lightening speed coma beating that would have been presented to each and every liberal within a 10 mile radius.

Don't Touch My Shit

I found this above one of the postdoc's benches in my lab today. If only I could slap this passive-aggressive note above America, as a reminder to liberals to leave us all the fuck alone.

Atheist = NewAger

Atheists are in actuality newagers. Obviously this is not always true, but it is definitely true of the atheists who make the news. You know, the ones who are always suing over streets being named after a Catholic saint, or a cross at the 9/11 memorial, or a nativity scene being located anywhere, or a prayer being said before a public high school football game.

Let's take that last one (a prayer at a public high school football game) and do a little compare and contrast. I wonder why on earth I have never heard shit from any atheist about this garbage, which has already spread to hundreds of PUBLIC schools and is growing exponentially. The liberal newager, er.. atheist, will reply that yoga is not religion, it's exercise. Exercise you say? Let's see what some of the benefits of yoga are according to the yogaed website:

Yoga expands and enriches awareness and sense of self
Yoga brings inner harmony through experience and connection
Yoga serves as the counter pose to the challenges of modern life 

Oh, I must have been misinformed, that doesn't sound like newage bullshit at all! Alright, I'm already thoroughly convinced that yoga is just so totally on the up and up, but why don't we check in with one of the big atheist blogs and get an even more convincing argument:

"In my own Ashtanga-style classes, I've been very comfortable with my instructor's approach to teaching. Like many instructors, she promotes and supports each student's personal journey--both in the physical and meditative aspects. We chant an occasional om and offer namaste at the end of class, and that doesn't bother me"

Meditative journey you say!? Totally legit! No religion there.

During my first class, I felt a little uncomfortable with this concept, but then I realized that the "intuition" of my "third eye" can easily be compared to the emotional brain that is described in Jonah Leher's book How We Decide.

 Oh, i see what you did there, you threw in a plug for the newage self help movement, that you are clearly not a part of because you're a super logical atheist liberal douche. I know, I know, Leher's book is science not self help. Very convenient the way these newagers always seem to find a way to claim that their deranged beliefs are actually science isn't it? Hey just look at homeopathy...that's as sciency as science gets! Now, let's all go to Whole Foods!!!