Hilarious blog post of the Puffington Post, where the argument is clearly made that the fact God has put the baby in the womb means God has given the woman the right to decide whether she wants to kill him or not. The Feminazi’s “to do list” includes the literal words:
“Abortion can be a difficult decision, we agree, but God obviously trusted women to make that decision: look where She put the embryo”.
This is beyond parody (have you noted God is “She”? Capitalised, even. Such a devoted follower. I am moved). Still, let us follow this Nazi logic and let us see where it leads us.
If the logic is to work, then slavery must be perfectly legitimate, provided the baby is born from a slave in, say, Alabama ca. 1840. There can be no doubt she-god put him there: in that womb, in that plantation, in that legal status.
Or you could make the case for infanticide: she-god has obviously made the baby as harmless and as dependent from the care of the mother in his first weeks and months of life, as he was in the womb. Actually, it is factually much easier to kill a baby after birth than it is to smash his skull and tear his limbs in the womb (this is what happens as a result of a late “difficult decision”, by the way). Following the logic of our Nazi-ette, it’s obvious her she-god wants the mother to be free to decide whether the baby shall live or, say, have his skull smashed in exactly the same way as with a late term abortion, but at no danger or physical discomfort to her.
Many permutations of this Nazi logic are thinkable, but I would like to mention just a third one: if this logic applies, the Holocaust of German and Austrian Jews is perfectly justified, because it is obvious she-god wanted for them to find themselves in the Third Reich; in the womb, so to speak, of Nazi Germany by 1933 for many of them, and by 1938 at the latest for th eothers. On reflection, the same reasoning can be applied to, say, Polish and Russian Jews, whose falling within the Third Reich by way of invasion was certainly known to she-god from before all time.
What shocks more of these people is not the logical non-existence of their childish arguments; you read a lot of childish arguments on liberal blogs. No: it is the cold-blooded, shocking cruelty inhabiting their minds; the deep Nazism of their thinking without even the extenuating circumstance of the unceasing propaganda and the suffocation of every alternative opinion that the likes of Dr Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler created in Germany.
The Nazis are among us.
The picture above comes from a Puffington Post blogger.
The blogger must be three, four at the most.
Two of her comments:
“This specific lamb also makes him the HAPPIEST POPE IN THE WORLD. Just look:”
“All we know for sure is that the baby lamb and the pope will never forget this glorious day”.
I know this must be a blog for little children; but really, there should be a limit to this sugary nonsense; otherwise the children will grow up stupid.
Children should never be allowed near the PuffPo anyway.
I did not know there are people as stupid as that, but evidently I was wrong.
The Poofington Post has an article about a kind of vegan/affirmation cafe shop clearly riding the wave of the many people thinking they can solve their problems, or their existential questions, with extremely gay new age bollocks.
Can you imagine a grown man going to a cafe and ordering his product saying “I am peace” instead of saying what he wants? Apparently, the server answers with “you are peace”, or the like, not only to confirm the – exclusively Vegan; only bad people like Jesus eat meat – order, but clearly mainly to let the sixty-Eighter in front of him feel so good with himself.
These people must be three years old. Five, tops.
The entire linked article is an involuntary parody of liberal America. The chaps “give thanks” to the neighbourhood supporting them. What? Is this Thanksgiving? I assumed that to be grateful to God for your prospering business on occasion of Thanksgiving would be so… un-Vegan.
The shop owners talk like post-lesbian feminists just back from their last Indian trip. They talk of their business as “making a difference”, which means every greengrocer was always a benefactor of humanity without knowing it. The entire thing stinks to the skies of the main ingredient of every conversation among liberals: the desperate desire to feel good with themselves, and to make themselves beautiful with others. No surprise the business is good: the target audience in Southern California must be huge. Ehy, the omnipresent “celebrities” visit! So it must be cool! I wish one day someone would make a census of “celebrities”, and tell us why we should care about what they do. Don’t hold your breath.
The liberal way is obvious: do not care for your salvation. Follow every stupid fad. Behave like a faggot in front of an audience. Praise yourself without ceasing. And most of all, think happy thoughts. It’ll give you a mini-fix for the next two minutes as you keep sliding away in a life without Christ, but making you ohh so thankful to your cat for making your life so wonderfully unique.
From the favourite outlet of liberal cretins, and those who would love to become it:
This week we saw reports about Pope Francis cryptically acknowledging the existence of a “gay lobby” in the Vatican, about which he supposedly believes something has to be done. But if I were on a crusade against gay marriage, like Maggie Gallagher or Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage (both devout Catholics), I don’t think I’d be very happy with this pope so far. In fact, I’d say he stinks.
[several Countries introduced measure to favour perversion] And Pope Francis had nothing publicly to say about any of it. Zero. Zilch. Nada. He was busy washing the feet of the poor and tweeting about how selflessness is a virtue. Go figure.
Back when Spain passed marriage equality in 2005, Pope Benedict whirled himself into a frenzy, railing against it regularly. He told Catholic officials there that any support of the law would cost them their jobs and told secular public servants who are Catholic to flout the law and refuse to marry gays. He traveled to Spain and railed some more, oblivious to protests of his trip. From then on, he regularly attacked gay marriage, even calling it a “threat to the future of humanity.”
Read the rest here.
Even the leftist retards at the HuffPo have started to notice that Pope Francis is doing perfectly nothing against the legalisation of perversion, and the perversion of marriage, whilst the entire planet is swept by a wave of sodomitical madness.
The words “go figure” about a Pope waffling around whilst Christianity burns are extremely fitting, and well describe what this Pontificate has given us in these three months. What the author of the article hasn’t said is that this Pope has scandalised and offended orthodox Catholics like, very probably, no Pope before him, at least in the first three months of his Pontificate.
But hey, he smiles a lot. Must be a good Pope, then.
Mala tempora currunt.
Shocking affirmation of the newly appointed chaplain of the United States Congress; unsurprisingly, a Jesuit.
Rev. Patrick Conroy is on record saying:
I never pray in the name of Jesus — except when I’m doing something Catholic — saying Mass, for example.
This would look like a serious case of schizophrenia, if it wasn’t just a normal case of being a Jesuit. A Jesuit like the chap tolerating homo masses in Manhattan, or like the chaps leading universities with links to Planned Parenthood, or like the chap denying the existence of Hell.
Interviewed for the liberal Huffington Post and – being a Jesuit – wanting to accommodate everyone and the devil, our hero of the day basically says that he prays in the name of Jesus only when he really must because of his profession but otherwise, hey, he is far too inclusive for narrow-minded acts like……… praying in the name of Jesus.
Someone of his confreres should explain to him the origin of his order’s name. If anyone still remembers it, or was taught it in the first place.
So we have a Jesuit appointed to a prestigious and exposed position, saying that Jesus for him is confined to the realm of strict professional duty. When he prays alone, or when he talks to others, he will simply ignore Jesus and pray – who knows – some other non specified, politically correct, inclusive, huffington-post-approved deity instead.
What this Jesuit (who might or might not be a Christian, but I doubt it) is basically doing, is:
1) denying Jesus in a way which, he thinks, wouldn’t automatically cost him his habit; he might be, unfortunately, right on his assumption, though if the Jesuits were still Christians I think the matter would look entirely different.
2) making of Jesus an embarrassment that he is ready to push out of the way whenever halfway practicable; and
3) making a clear statement of Assisi-I-style religious syncretism, in which Jesus is nothing more than a badge to wear on certain occasions, a particular aspect of one way to pray; basically, an option.
Of course, one must hope that the usual clarification will now hit the computer screens, explaining to us what a horrible misunderstanding this is and how “white” has clearly being misunderstood as “white” when it is clear that it means “black” instead. Only, no one – not even one who has probably long begun to forget what Christianity is, as I bet most Jesuit are doing – could have possibly conceived such an utterance without having a very clear idea of what the implications are and without asking for the text to be modified or, failing that, issuing a clarification together with the interview.
This has not happened; which means that Rev. Conroy is either blissfully unaware of what he has said, or doesn’t care a straw.
Yep, he must be a Jesuit.