Liberal Logic – Talking Points: I’m pro-choice

10400055_10153194399313598_5473502152612928775_n

See also Liberal Logic – Talking Points: It’s a Choice

Liberals love to claim the label of the ‘Pro-Choice Party.’

Using the word ‘choice’ to refer to abortion makes them feel nice, warm, and fuzzy. It erases the guilt of supporting organized mass murder for profit from their conscience, and instead replaces it with the happy feeling of doing something good by supporting a woman’s so-called ‘right to choose.’

The only problem with this is that liberals are only the ‘party of choice’ when that choice adheres to their preconceived agendas. Specifically, liberals only support ‘choice’ when it comes to a woman’s decision to abort (read kill) an unborn child. Continue reading →

Liberal Logic – Talking Points: It’s a choice

360px-Prochoice.svg

See also Name-calling

This is easily the most cited argument in support of what the blogger Matt Walsh has called “the highest sacrament in the Church of Liberalism.” (Matt Walsh on TheBlaze) Namely, abortion.

Many liberals seem intellectually unable to come up with better support of one of their most prized social reforms. Granted, there are some truly intelligent liberals, but they are rare and few in between. Continue reading →

The Supreme Court and Democracy

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.”

— Antonin Scalia in Obergefell v. Hodges

Why I’m against NSA spying

2000px-Flag_of_the_United_States_National_Security_Agency.svg

The National Security Agency is headed by Admiral Michael Rogers, and is tasked with global monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes. It has recently become very controversial, as information has been leaked showing that the NSA has been systematically spying on and violating the privacy of America’s own citizens. Continue reading →

ProPublica – Claim on “Attacks Thwarted” by NSA Spreads Despite Lack of Evidence

nsa-54-lead-image630x420

by Justin Elliott and Theodoric Meyer, ProPublica, Oct. 23, 2013, 8:59 a.m.

UPDATE Dec. 17, 2013: In a new ruling that calls the NSA’s phone metadata surveillance likely unconstitutional, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon cited this article in his assessment of the agency’s claims about thwarted terrorist attacks. Read the ruling here


Two weeks after Edward Snowden’s first revelations about sweeping government surveillance, President Obama shot back. “We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information not just in the United States, but, in some cases, threats here in Germany,” Obama said during a visit to Berlin in June. “So lives have been saved.”

In the months since, intelligence officials, media outlets, and members of Congress from both parties all repeated versions of the claim that NSA surveillance has stopped more than 50 terrorist attacks. The figure has become a key talking point in the debate around the spying programs.

“Fifty-four times this and the other program stopped and thwarted terrorist attacks both here and in Europe 2014 saving real lives,” Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said on the House floor in July, referring to programs authorized by a pair of post-9/11 laws. “This isn’t a game. This is real.”

But there’s no evidence that the oft-cited figure is accurate.

Continue reading →