Reductio ad Moroni

The Empire Struck Back this morning. Naturally, with no defense for Mr. Romney’s indefensible stance on the attacks on U.S. embassies, deciding to play politics on 9-11 after eschewing this course as fundamentally offensive to the American people mourning their dead, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post absurdly attack the “main stream media.”

Gots news for youse, keeds: you ARE the mainstream media. Motes and planks. We turn to the Book of WSJ, Chapter and Verse, from the anonymous assassins on the editorial board:

Romney Offends the Pundits
Doesn’t he know he’s not supposed to debate foreign policy?
[no byline]

Tuesday’s assaults on the U.S. Embassies in Benghazi and Cairo have injected foreign policy into the Presidential campaign, but suddenly the parsons of the press corps are offended by the debate. They’re upset that Mitt Romney had the gall to criticize the State Department for a statement that the White House itself disavowed.

We’re referring to the statement issued Tuesday under the headline “U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement.” The statement came in response to Muslim protests against a 13-minute anti-Islamic video making the rounds on YouTube.

In response to anger in Egypt at the video, the Embassy in Cairo issued its statement saying that “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” It added that, “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

But it gets worse.

One problem is that the statement came not long before Egyptian protestors stormed the Embassy and some of them made it over a wall and into the compound. An Embassy Twitter post after the assault said its earlier statement “still stands.”

Mr. Romney reacted late Tuesday with his own statement: “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” He followed Wednesday with a press conference reinforcing his criticisms of the Administration’s “mixed signals” on “our values.” [...]

OK, I guess. If that’s the gun you want to put to your head, Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ (and New York Post), then pull the trigger whenever it’s convenient for you.

The notion of “religious tolerance” is offensive to Mr. Romney and the Wall Street Journal. Remember that.

Mitt Doubles Down (video)

If you want to go down the “kill the messenger” road, while completely ignoring the deeply offensive political use of 9-11 and shooting off one’s mouth even AS the attacks were taking place; if you want to ignore 230+ years of American tradition and practice that “politics ends at the waters’ edge,” that’s fine.

The WSJ is, after all, one of those horrible, biased mainstream media joints (highest circulation of any newspaper in America) filled with those awful pundits they hate so much. There you go.

But listen:

His political faux pas was to offend a pundit class that wants to cede the foreign policy debate to Mr. Obama without thinking seriously about the trouble for America that is building in the world.

A version of this article appeared September 13, 2012, on page A14 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Romney Offends the Pundits.

This absurd use of the idiotic rhetorical question in place of an argument only reveals how threadbare their “defense of the Mittwit” whole cloth really is.

In order to pretend that what Romney did WASN’T offensive, they must dismiss every thinking American, every Republican politician who criticized Romney’s astonishingly naked and self-serving act of borderline treason against the nation he would purport to govern, and pretend that the great straw man (the phony Action Figure they have constructed) of the “Biased Liberal Media” is solely to blame, and, by implication, NO ONE ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN OFFENDED by Mr. Romney’s naked use of 9-11 to attempt to advance his personal agenda, even as Americans were being killed and threatened in service to our nation.

Well, at least he’s consistent.

(I’ll pass over the Usual Suspects of the Flying Monkey Corps, squealing their “MEETOO!”s to the world, because they all take their marching orders from the same central point — probably Karl Rove’s office and Rupert Murdoch’s fax machine — and are, from the evidence, incapable of original thought. An echo machine is, after all, an echo machine and not an orchestra.)

I can’t imagine that they actually thought this through. After all, if being a “pundit” is automatically a cause for disdain and dismissal, then I guess there are a lot of cracks in the glass walls of their own glass house. But, worse, I can’t imagine that Romney bothered thinking this through. Let’s engage in a little Reductio ad Moroni, shall we?

Mr. Romney’s complaint that this statement on religious tolerance, issued six hours before the protests at the Cairo Embassy boils down to this: It is an “apology” for “American values,” and, thus, is a shameful act in our American name, created through reverse causality by President Barack Obama HIMSELF:

“It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Here is that “sympathizing” per the WSJ:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” It added that, “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

We may, therefore, deductively conclude that the First Amendment trumps any condemnation of religious beliefs and that such condemnation, no matter how out of bounds is entirely legitimate and is defended by Mr. Romney, the Mormon heretic who follows the teachings of Joseph Smith, who had sex with goats.

And let us not forget Brigham Young, who regularly engaged in anal rape with small boys.

Joseph Smith

Neither of these statements are true, in any sense, but Mr. Romney has taken the position that it doesn’t matter AND that such scurrilous attacks on religious freedom and tolerance are “American values,” and than any condemnation of my admitted lies about the satanic cult of Mormonism would be “shameful.”

(This is also not my position, but is an intentional lie and libel against Mormons, please note.)

This is what Mitt Romney said, doubling down yesterday morning (9-12):

“I think it’s a terrible course for America to apologize for our values,” Romney said, referring to the original U.S. Embassy Cairo statement on the protests there, which was issued before protesters broached the embassy compound walls Tuesday. “They clearly sent mixed messages to the world. And the statement that came from the administration — and the embassy is the administration … was a statement which is akin to apology and I think was a severe miscalculation.“

Because we are not talking about what I think. We are talking about what someone who hates Mormons with a purple passion might think, and, therefore, are “American values,” that it would be “disgraceful” to rebut or condemn.

Which is what we must conclude about an evil, secretive cult that steals Christian babies to sacrifice in their dark rituals to their lord and master, the Devil, personification of evil. (Again, a lie, but no matter how offensive, Mr. Romney believes this to be an “American value” that it would be shameful to disagree with.)

Brigham Young

“Ye Mormon swives ye devil’s wives,” saith the National Lampoon (The Judeo-Christian Tradition, December 1974, Vol. 1, No. 57), and, we must leave it at that.

Because Mitt Romney speaks FOR the Mormon Church, by his own reasoning (quoted by Bill O’Reilly, who is a SUPER-expert and never inaccurate):

“They clearly sent mixed messages to the world. And the statement that came from the administration, and the embassy is the administration, the statement that came from the administration was a statement which was akin to apology. And I think was a severe miscalculation.”

Mr. Romney speaks for the Mormon Church, having been a bishop and a missionary, and, by his own reasoning, the Mormon Church, therefore, believes that the most offensive possible criticism of a religion is an “American value,” and “religious tolerance” is “akin” to an apology.

Detail from Mormon Temple Art

Therefore, since we all know that Mormonism is an evil, godless cult, in which “magic underwear” is worn so that believers can identify corpses NOT to be mutilated after the armageddon against all other religions preached by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, slandering Mormons and their heathen ways is an American value for which NO APOLOGY should ever be issued.

Because that would be a sign of weakness, and we all know how the Devil hates weakness, unless that weakness can be exploited for His Gain.

(Again, all of the above are lies, libels and not my beliefs, but Mitt Romney is in favor of defending them, because they are “American values.”)

And, by his own reasoning, the Mormon church believes this too.

So, you can make up any kind of slander you want against the non-Christian Mormon cult (this last, however, IS official Catholic doctrine):

While the Catholic Church would reject nothing that is true or good in Mormonism or any other world religion, Catholic theology would have to note that there is a tremendous amount in Mormonism that is neither true nor good. Further, because Mormonism presents itself as a form of Christianity yet is incompatible with the historic Christian faith, sound pastoral practice would need to warn the Christian faithful: Mormon theology is blasphemous, polytheistic, and cannot be considered on par with the theology of other Christian groups.

[For a discussion of the Catholic position on Mormonism, see here, an 18 page pamphlet declared "nihil obstat" and "free from doctrinal error." Or see here, in which I discuss it at length, "Sorry: Glenn Beck is NOT a Catholic"]

But I have strayed into factual territory. Mea culpa.

We were talking about:

1. Slandering the religious beliefs of others is “akin” to an apology and, therefore not an “American value.” and

2. Because one is a member of any hierarchical order, any statement from a lower rung of the hierarchy is, BY DEFINITION, the official position of the entire hierarchy.

Thus, the Official Position of the Mormon Church is that they defend anyone’s right in America to make the ugliest possible slanders against their Mormon religion.

Which is, of course, a cult spawned by Satan, for whom Mitt Romney works.

Which is why he defends your right to say so, whether it is true or not, and whether you believe it or not.

After all, in this election, on the Republican side of the equation, facts and reasoning do not matter, and if the “pundits” notice the Mittwit doing something offensive, then surely it is the pundits who are to blame.

We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Which Mitt Romney REJECTS.

Courage.

About these ads