Search This Blog

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Democrats think they hold the moral high-ground

Democrats are touting themselves as the arbiters of science, law, order, and morality. They see themselves as crusaders for world peace, economic equality, and oh yes, saving the world from the evil depredations of scientific progress. They call themselves progressives, yet stand athwart progress itself. In their own fervid imaginations they must think they've seized the moral high-ground, but in reality what they've seized are the most effective modes of communication, i.e. the mainstream media and education.

On science

A group of kids hope to teach Republicans politicians a lesson about climate change on Tuesday. In an event organized by the advocacy group Avaaz, they will visit a dozen offices to ask senators—including Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul—to take a simple elementary school quiz on climate change science. Many of those senators would probably fail it. In the past, in response to questions about climate change, McConnell and Rubio have both told the press they are "not scientists."

The senators could learn something from the six students, who come from Georgia, Florida, Nebraska, and North Carolina. "When our world’s top scientists at NASA release information stating that humans are impacting the climate, I tend to believe them more," said Jack Levy, an 18-year-old student from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. "Scientists have noticed that this was a problem for a really long time, like, maybe 20 years ago? Longer than I've been alive," said Nadia Sheppard, a 16-year-old from North Carolina.
So kids with a rudimentary and as yet quite shallow education are convinced that they know the climate is changing. How do they know this? It's what they've been told by their teachers. They've read about this climate change in their textbooks. Who needs actual physical proof of climate change when the person hired to teach you facts says that climate change is a fact? Whether it's about evolution, the Big Bang theory, climate change, or any other aspect of science, liberals assume they know the truth because they've never once questioned what they've been taught. They learned by rote and when their facts are disproved by later science they cannot unlearn what they so diligently memorized.

From the fine-tuning of the universe to the most recent discovery that the Van Allen belts shield Earth from high energy particles emitted by the sun, the evidence has never been so profound that everything that is was by design, not accident. Evolutionists and Atheists refuse to entertain the slightest possibility that this is true, intransigently clinging to ever less likely theories.



On marriage and child-rearing

Fresh research has just tossed a grenade into the incendiary issue of same-sex parenting. Writing in the British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, a peer-reviewed journal, American sociologist Paul Sullins concludes that children’s “Emotional problems [are] over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents”.

He says confidently: “it is no longer accurate to claim that no study has found children in same-sex families to be disadvantaged relative to those in opposite-sex families.”

This defiant rebuttal of the “no difference” hypothesis is sure to stir up a hornet’s [nest] as the Supreme Court prepares to trawl through arguments for and against same-sex marriage. It will be impossible for critics to ignore it, as it is based on more data than any previous study -- 512 children with same-sex parents drawn from the US National Health Interview Survey. The emotional problems included misbehaviour, worrying, depression, poor relationships with peers and inability to concentrate.
Perhaps you too have been bludgeoned repeatedly with the homophobia stick? The "two consenting adults" argument and the "no studies have shown any difference argument," have been presented to courts and they have responded with a wave of orders striking down marriage laws which forbid homosexual marriage. Two homosexuals cannot conceive a child which is biologically their own. One or the other can—with the use of a sperm or uterus donor—have a child that is biologically theirs, but never both together. For male homosexuals the problem is nearly insurmountable. For gay men, the search for a willing uterus is usually a fruitless one, therefore they want to adopt. As potential adopters, they quickly discover that a marriage certificate is obligatory, thus the demand for marriage licenses has grown as exponentially as has the number of homosexuals in the population.

Liberals created a much larger problem, however, when they passed laws which financially rewarded mother when she divorced father. No-fault divorce, child support, and welfare programs are causing an exploding epidemic of single-parent homes in the poorer communities. This has in turn caused an exploding epidemic of gang activity, drug-use, and violence. Mom isn't doing a very good job raising her kids by herself.

For the liberals, the institution of traditional marriage has become a political piñata. They've been beating it to death for decades to obtain the delicious candy of political fame and fortune that keeps pouring out. Now that our country is teetering on the precipice of bankruptcy, perhaps it's a sign that the party is over and the piñata está vacía.

On law and order

There is both a book and a website called: White Girl Bleed a Lot.



What we've been seeing over and over is a vast double standard when it comes to not only enforcing law and order, but also in the way that more and more people in some of the larger cities especially, have begun to see violence against random white people as entertainment. Liberals call this social justice. More and more our country is starting to resemble the worst kind of anarchic 3rd world banana republic. The constant attempt to identify gun owners in some national database, the incessant call to ban this model of gun, this size of clip, this caliber of ammo, ad-infinitum. Liberals don't want us to be able to protect ourselves, and they already know the police can't or won't. So one can only assume that liberals must want us to be beaten, raped, and killed. What other conclusion can logic contrive?

To put the whole concept into an intellectual framework that is both apt and succinct, Democrats are the King Midases of shit. As in: everything a liberal touches immediately turns to shit. They don't hold the moral high-ground. The only high-ground they hold is a giant mountain made entirely of shit, upon which they stand as if they were kings. Meanwhile shiny green flies buzz madly around their swollen heads.

No comments:

Post a Comment