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?