Archive for the ‘Elections’ Category
Posted by Yorkshire on 2014/10/04
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/09/07
From Facebook comes this gem. See how many squish Republicans are there. I saw a couple of very noteworthy Republicans in that list. And people wonder why the grass-roots are up in arms against Republicans, too.
The DEMOCRAT John McCain is on that list, as is the other Flake from Arizona and the sore loser from Alaska who needed K-Street to win as a write-in against the Republican in the race, as the Democrats jumped ship from their loser candidate to vote for her over the grass-roots Republican (who went on to snub the one person who had the king-maker mantel who could help him win). And of course, there’s Orrin Hatch, who got all wee-weed up that the grass-roots didn’t like him. Ever wonder why the grass-roots didn’t like you, lifer Orrin? (Even though I post your very worthy Hanukkah song every year.)
Posted in Character, Conservative, Constitution, Culture, economics, Elections, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, society, war | Tagged: Jeff Flake, John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Orrin Hatch, Republicans out of touch, RINO, Senator Murkowski, Veteran Pensions Cut | 1 Comment »
Posted by DNW on 2014/08/25
Albania The Brave?
Great Britain no more?
Scotland is facing an independence referendum in about 23 days. And at present the news reports a 48% favorable headcount.
There are any number of implications to Scottish independence having to do with defense matters and currency, but the driving force behind the movement is from my perspective, surprising, as it is driven seemingly by the politically left-wing.
A glance at The Guardian’s article on divided families shows some very interesting opinions by those in favor of independence.
Apparently a significant number of supporters want national sovereignty, or independence, for the purpose of enhancing an already substantial Scottish welfare state. This leaning is confirmed by a look at the Scottish National Party web site.
In addition, and speaking of voting away your freedom in the name of a worry free existence, there seem to be numerous questions which would have to be resolved only after independence is declared. Sort of like ObamaCare: you know, you have to vote for it before you can find out what’s in it.
Anyway, here are a couple of pro-independence voices recorded by The Guardian. Remarkably, they do seem to channel Ms Pelosi in a number of ways.
Caroline Wylie, says:
“I’m voting yes because of many things. I think the nationalists, while they’ve been in power, have delivered things that show they can govern properly. I like the fact that I live in a country that can deliver free prescriptions and university education for its children …
The no side say they will give us fresh tax-raising powers, although they are unspecified, but if they are to be believed we will get that anyway, whether it’s yes or no. …
I have to confess, though, that until the referendum campaign I was very apolitical, whereas all the rest of my family – my mum and dad and my two sisters – were all more politically engaged than I and are all against independence.
Most politicians are selfish, I think, and purely in it for themselves, but I think the SNP are different and want to look after ordinary people. We have a chance here to throw out all the debris of Westminster; the large, corrupt and cumbersome government that does not represent the ordinary people in the street.”
So, the previously politically uninformed and disengaged Ms Wylie says that the taxing power is going to go up anyway, and she likes free government stuff, and [elsewhere] that she trusts the Nationalists to properly spend the money they take in.
Our next example is from Clare McKenna. Clare says,
I never used to be very interested in politics, as I thought that most of our politicians were just in it for themselves. Then, when I began to study social work, I began to see the negative impact of London’s policies on very many poor and vulnerable people.
I just see independence for Scotland as an opportunity to reject the neo-liberalism at the heart of Westminster politics. This is all about protecting the interests of a tiny political elite and their wealthy supporters.
You can see that in the way that the coalition government, aided and abetted by the so-called Labour party, have punished poor people and disabled people in their austerity drive.
I have seen the pain and suffering that the Westminster government has caused to vulnerable families in Scotland. And now we have been given this fantastic opportunity to reject the greed, corruption and self-interest of Westminster rule and to create a new politics in Scotland.
Like Caroline then, Clare had also been uninformed and politically disengaged. But since then, she has discovered through her government job, that she likes and that people are deserving of free things. There is at present she says, just too much London driven Classical Liberalism going on. And like Caroline again, she is certain that once Independence is achieved and the tides of English influence recede from Scotland’s shores, Scots will finally have the freedom they need to be less free and more sharing; as corruption disappears and compulsory wealth redistribution blooms.
Now, for those of us who have been reading about the dwindling away of Scotland’s population and the ratio of pensioners to workers, we wonder just how do Clare and Caroline expect this to happen?
Well, my guess is that Clare and Caroline really have no idea at all as to how this is supposed to work, since they have they admit, just begun to take an interest in politics. They cannot after all, be seriously expected to have it completely figured out. Discovering that Classical Liberalism is wasteful, corrupt, inhuman and cruel, and that Independence means compassion and caring and sharing out the wealth, is quite enough for starters.
On the other hand, the Scottish National Party has at least some notion as to how they will attempt this multiplication of loaves.
They will do it in part, by importing a replacement population, and then dressing them in kilts, or something ….
The Scottish Government’s White Paper ‘Scotland’s Future’ lays out our approach.
We plan a controlled points-based system to support the migration of skilled workers for the benefit of Scotland’s economy. An independent Scotland will have an inclusive approach to citizenship and a humane approach to asylum seekers and refugees.
The Scots are exposed to the same anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right wing press, and Nigel Farage is as ever-present on Scottish TVs as he is south of the Border.
In Scotland we have to lump inappropriate Westminster immigration laws, and we are constantly told that they must become even more restrictive to protect us from the various ‘floods’ of ‘foreigners’ who are to erode our way of life.
Scotland votes for a Government at Holyrood that couldn’t sound any more different from the UK Tory Government on immigration and we are a better country for that. The difference in how the two Governments see immigration is best demonstrated in their various responses to the annual census of net migration.
In Scotland, when we see an increase in our population given our history of depopulation, we celebrate the good news. At Westminster it couldn’t make the politicians more miserable.
Scots are also becoming increasingly aware of our own population and demographic requirements. Only 20 or so years ago there was a real fear that our population would dip below five million. Although our population is currently growing at a healthy and welcome rate, there is still a realisation that our population levels remain more fragile than south of the Border.
We can only properly deal with that if migration policy is decided in the Scottish parliament, not by Westminster.
Scotland has always accommodated new people coming to our country — and one of the greatest sayings in Scotland is that ‘we are all Jock Tamson’s bairns’.”
And all will then be well: as Caroline and Clare will henceforth be able to more fully enjoy the comfort and security and caring and sharing which they have so recently discovered they, and all others, are entitled to experience through the miracle of redistributive justice, finally, at last, enabled by “Independence” … of a sort.
Well, free to enjoy as long as the imported replacement population allows them to.
Of course nothing to worry about anyway. Those scare mongers on the other side of the debate are making false claims, claims which don’t matter even if they are true, as we SNP types eventually get around to admitting:
” … people on the state pension are not necessarily dependent. It sounds academic, but it is also common sense. Think about friends and family who are on the state pension – are they all ‘dependent’? Even if they are right that more people are reaching retirement age, this does not mean suddenly our population will be unable to produce what a country needs to prosper, or that suddenly our spending on health will increase beyond control.
As one of the report’s authors puts it: “Sometimes you hear people saying that 60 is the new 50, and that is absolutely right. The health status of people the life expectancy of 60-year-olds is pretty much the same as it would have been for 50-year-olds 20 or 30 years ago”.
Older people are not the burden that the No campaign tells us they are.
But those who work to represent older people say what we already know – that older people contribute more to society than we tend to admit, including as workers. Age Scotland said “Older people have a great deal to offer to society: as workers, active citizens, cultural contributors and carers.” They say the Edinburgh findings “will help dispel the myth that our ageing population is a burden. On the contrary, it is something to be celebrated.”
See! All you have to do is equivocate the word “dependency”, and then celebrate it, and the problem magically goes away through the miracle of subversive redefinition and (more quietly now) …. changed expectations. Ain’t that great?
Oh yeah, and don’t forget to import those foreigners. (Link within the above link:) “Our immigration policies and policies to support and encourage families could and must also address this trend.”
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/17
DNW has been regaling us with the absurdity that is the Loony Left as represented by one John the Liberal, who runs American Liberal Times. Well, the clown who unfortunately shares my first name wrote an article blasting Voter ID (which is supported by a majority of each segment of each spectrum) and simultaneously calling for mandatory voting. I responded. I expected to get a message saying my comment is in moderation. I did not get that message. Instead, I got a response from the site that suggested my comment went directly into the spam filter. That response was a refreshing of the direct page without even the hint that I commented at all. Good job, DNW. Not only did you get yourself banned from the illogical, deceitful, dishonorable site, but you also got this site, which is based on Honor, banned from it. That does, indeed, show the depth of depravity, the complete inability to hear the truth, the total disregard for Honorable debate “John the Liberal” has.
Knowing there might be an issue with commenting there, I had the forethought to save what I wrote before hitting the submit button. And here it is.
You say “feel free to comment” when you actually mean “comment when and if your opinion matches my own completely off-balance opinion”. I know this to be the case because an author on my blog has attempted to enter into an intellectual and logical debate with you. What did he get in return? “La la la la la I can’t hear you.” And a “you’re not welcome” sign.
You’re not interested in the truth. While I do know Leftists who are, indeed, interested in honest debate; aphrael (the “married” homosexual Leftist at Patterico’s Pontifications) and Jeff (the Left-wing Jewish heterosexual who is down for the cause of homosexual “marriage” (something every true Christian is foursquare against) at Opinions Nobody Asked For) are two such examples, you, however are not in that crowd. I have strong respect for both aphrael and Jeff, despite their being wrong on just about every issue. They, at least, try to debate honestly. You should give it a try yourself.
The only thing that seems to happen is that the voter ID laws become ever increasingly demanding
Prove it. You won’t because you can’t. It’s just a sham you on the Left push in your efforts to make enforcement of eligibility requirements as difficult as possible. You need the fraudulent votes. You need the politicians’ lies. Without both, you lose lots of elections you’re currently winning.
You claim vote fraud is rare. The way you write suggests it’s virtually unheard of. The only reason it would be unheard of is due to the fact mainstream media works so hard to hide it. Vote fraud is hardly rare. I have personally compiled a small sampling of massive voter fraud and voter registration fraud. And it inevitably points to your side of the political spectrum. The side that has the absolute belief that there are no absolutes. (Talk about an intellectually and logically untenable position…)
While it is difficult to ascertain the depths of the vote fraud and voter registration fraud perpetrated by Democrats and Leftists, my proven documentation of Democrat officials engaging in both destroys your claims. As does the 120 percent voter registration in Indianapolis. 120 percent. When even 100 percent is statistically impossible without fraud. And the over 100 percent vote in Florida, used to unseat a black man from office because he didn’t toe the Democrat plantation line.
But your suggestion of making voting mandatory does two things I want to point out here.
1) It proves you on the Left are not at all about independence. You are not at all about individual freedom. You are about control of the people. You are fascist at the core. (That’s what mandatory voting is: Fascism. So, own it or be dishonorable and run from it.)
2) It proves you need the wholly uninformed to vote for your emotionalist scare arguments because, when it’s only the informed who vote, you lose cataclysmically. You cannot win when the people are truly informed and involved. It is impossible. Therefore, the more uninformed the people who vote, the better it is for your totalitarian side. This is proven by the results of “low voter turnout” votes. Those who “don’t get into politics”, in other words, those uninformed types, are more likely to not vote in low voter turnout elections. And low voter turnout elections tend to tilt far to the Right. Thus your need for the uninformed, uneducated, non-critical-thinking masses to be “forced” to vote.
Quite frankly, I would be happy if those who did not pay Federal taxes in the previous year or two were not permitted to vote on any issue that raised taxes on those who actually do pay taxes. Why should the leeches of society get to vote on how much they can leech off those who are forced to lend their arms for the blood-sucking? But my position would be clearly unconstitutional, so I do not advocate for it. Your position, which you are strongly advocating for, is equally unconstitutional.
But since when did the Constitution ever get in the way of you on the far Left?
Here, you can find other articles on this site that concerns voter fraud, voter registration fraud, and the like.
Posted in Blogging Matters, Constitution, Constitution Shredded, Elections, Law, Liberal, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Vote Fraud | Tagged: American Liberal Times, fascism, Unconstitutional Democrats, vote fraud, voter registration fraud | 4 Comments »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/20
In light of Senate Democrats’ 100 percent vote to allow abortion on demand until the day a child is born, in an attempt to stop the various States from enacting any restrictions or protections, I have decided to reprint an article I wrote in 2012.
My name is Gianna Jessen… I was aborted, and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California, and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.
A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mother’s womb. The baby then gulps the solution. It burns the baby inside and out, and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.
This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE… in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me the abortionist was not yet on duty and had me transferred to the hospital.
I should be blind, burned… I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy.
When I was diagnosed with this, all I could do was lie there. They said that was all I would ever do! Through prayer and hard work by my foster mother, I was walking at age 3 ½ with the help of a walker and leg braces. At that time I was also adopted into a wonderful family. Today I am left only with a slight limp. I no longer have need of a walker or leg braces.
…Death did not prevail over me… and I am so thankful!
Teen Breaks has more stories from abortion survivors. Teen Breaks is ready, willing, and able to help teens out. You don’t have to be pregnant, or even a girl, to reach out to them. They’re there to provide a loving environment, information, and a community of support for you as you are bombarded by pressures and life’s travails. If you’re a “cutter”, cutting yourself to regain a sense of control or to zone out or to get relief from life’s stresses, you’re not alone. 1 in 200 teen girls have done it. Teen Breaks is there for you, ready to help you.
Click above to chat live or text “TEEN” to 313131.
Claire Culwell’s April 2010 story from Stand For Life:
Putting a Face To What You’re Fighting ForBy Claire Culwell
A year ago, when I was 21 years old, I met the woman who gave birth to me. I had always dreamed about the day I would meet her, and it NEVER involved the most significant part of it all…learning that I was an ABORTION SURVIVOR. She was 13 years old when she became pregnant with me and the only option she knew of (according to her mother) was abortion. She proceeded to go to an abortion clinic nearby where she had an abortion. A few weeks later she realized she was still pregnant and decided to go to an out-of-state late-term abortion clinic to have a second abortion. During her examination at the late-term abortion clinic, she was told that she had been pregnant with TWINS. One was aborted, and one survived. She was also told that it was too late to have even a late-term abortion. She decided to give me up for adoption when I was born two weeks later. If you ask her now, she will tell you that if she had known the results of abortion vs. adoption, she would have gone straight to the adoption agency instead. Putting me up for adoption (and giving me the best family I can imagine) was a life-changing decision for all of us.
Because of the abortion, I was born 2 ½ months premature and weighed 3 lbs 2 oz. I was on life support and had to stay in the hospital for 2 ½ months until I could be brought home. My hips were dislocated and my feet were turned (because during the abortion, the sac that held my body together was broken) and when I was brought home I had 2 casts on my feet and a harness. I was put in a body cast for 4 months, and I didn’t walk until I was over 2 years old. It still affects me even today.
[continue reading at the above link]
And Claire Culwell’s amazing 2011 video:
Posted in abortion, Character, Christianity, Culture, education, Elections, Health, Health Care, Law, Liberal, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Pro-Life, Real Life, society, truth, Youth | Tagged: Claire Culwell, crisis pregnancy services, cutting yourself, Gianna Jessen, Harry Reid, Option Line, Pro-Life, Senator Bob Casey, Teen Breaks, teen pregnancy, US Senate | Comments Off
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/19
The Editor of The First Street Journal found another lying Democrat. There are some rules of writing that say when a word is defined in part by a qualifier, the qualifier is unnecessarily redundant; therefore, it is unnecessarily redundant to add the qualifier “lying” to the word “Democrat”. Democrats win elections by lying. There is a good chance that Democrats would never have more than a small minority position in most State Legislatures and the US government without their lies. Republicans want to throw granny over the cliff. Republicans have a war on women. Republicans are all racists. Heck, the race card has been so overplayed as to not mean anything anymore. Democrats have fought for all the Civil Rights Laws we have in this country. The long list of proven Democrat lies could go on forever. So what’s so important that the Editor of The First Street Journal would point out another Democrat lying? It’s the Pro-Life nature of the Democrat. Or, rather, it’s the lie that he’s in any way Pro-Life at all.
Well, we have just found out how pro-life Senator Casey really is. The pro-abortion forces introduced S. 1696, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is designed to eliminate state restrictions on abortion, through the entire nine months of pregnancy. It was in response to restrictions imposed in states like Texas, where abortion clinics are required to meet rigorous safety and health standards. The Texas law1 is designed, unquestionably, to reduce the number of abortion clinics in the Lone Star State, but it was also in response to “Dr” Kermit Gosnell’s little shop of horrors. When it came time to actually vote on S. 1696, the devout Roman Catholic, pro-life Senator Casey, who represents the state in which “Dr” Gosnell was “practicing,” voted for the bill, as did every other Democrat in the Senate.2
With that vote, Senator Casey just told us, through deeds, that his words are nothing but lies. Senator Casey could have attempted to provide some “moderation,” some bit of pro-life sentiment, which he claims to have, by voting against the bill, because, in the end, the bill is both symbolic and meaningless: its chance of passage by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is infinitesimally small.
If you’re Pro-Life, you cannot vote Democrat. Because Democrats are only Pro-Life to get your vote. Afterward, they are pro-abort in every sense of the word. But you also have to be careful which Republican gets your vote. Because there’s more than one Republican who is pro-abort. And no Democrat wants you to see the photos to the left, because that might make you vote against the Democrat and against abortion on demand.
Posted in abortion, Character, Christianity, Conservative, Culture, Elections, Health Care, history, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Pro-Life, society, truth | Tagged: Democrisy, Pro-Life, Pro-Life photos, Senator Bob Casey, US Senate | 2 Comments »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/06/12
HT Bmore (Note: His link changes on a regular basis, so it won’t always show the graphs I have below.)
Take a look at these charts and tell me what correlations you found.
I suggest we amend the Second Amendment as follows: If your voting record is to the Left of The Crying Man* you are not permitted to own guns or knives or any sharp objects. What do you think? Do you think the lying liar# who “bought his way into Heaven” by lying and demagoguery would like the idea?
I know, I know. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but the Left are always misrepresenting correlations and declaring by fiat (not the decrepit car company) that their misrepresented correlations necessarily mean causation for their pet takeover desires.
#Former NYC Mayor Bloomberg
Posted in 2nd Amendment, Character, Conservative, Constitution, crime, Culture, Elections, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Law, Liberal, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Politically Incorrect, politics, Real Life, society | Tagged: causation, correlation, Democrat correlation to gun violence, Everytown against gun violence, gun violence, Michael Bloomberg | 5 Comments »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/05/28
TEA Party alive and well in Texas
Two years ago, David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz were vying for US Senate. Dewhurt’s ads were all over Conservative talk radio. And the consensus was that what Dewhurst had to do was to keep on lying about Cruz in order to be elected, but all Cruz had to do was keep on telling the truth. And we all know how that election turned out.
Yes, I’m an unabashed Ted Cruz supporter. And it looks like so are most Texas Republican voters. In a Republican run-off for Texas Lieutenant Governor, Establishment Republican favorite David Dewhurst ran up against TEA Party favored Dan Patrick. And the seat Texans had re-elected Dewhurst to previously, that seat, the Lieutenant Governor’s chair, was overwhelmingly taken away from the sitting Republican Lieutenant Governor and handed over to the TEA Party. (You might want to remind me that it was only the Republican run-off, but if you do that, I’ll remind you it’s Texas, not some state where Democrats are competitive state-wide.)
How bad was the Establishment drubbing? How easily did the TEA Party candidate win? How about by a 30 POINT MARGIN?
Note to the McConnell/Boehner camp: The rumors of our demise are greatly exaggerated.
Posted in Character, Conservative, Elections, Philosophy, politics, TEA Party, truth | Tagged: Dan Patrick, David Dewhurst, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Republican Establishment, TEA Party, Ted Cruz, Texas Lieutenant Governor run-off | 2 Comments »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/03
As everyone who reads this site regularly knows, Perry Hood of Lewes Delaware is a lying /used female cleansing tool container/ who always ignores the facts as presented him in order to continue his malicious lie-filled attacks on anyone to the right of Mao tse Tung. He’s always spouting off about how there’s no evidence of voter fraud of any scale worth noting, and that Republicans only want to keep Democrats from voting, by use of “gasp” requiring an ID to do something! Well, Ed Morrissey just spanked Perry Hood real hard.
posted at 12:41 pm on April 3, 2014 by Ed Morrissey
What happens when voter-registration officials get updates on death certificates and records from other states? In North Carolina, they find massive voter fraud. As many as 35,000 North Carolina voters may have voted in another state in the 2012 election, and Republicans are claiming vindication for their efforts to tighten voter-ID checks[.]
35,000 cases of North Carolina voters registered to vote in other states, and quite a few of them availing themselves of the ability to vote in both states in the same General Election (2012). That’s just NC voters in other states. Imagine how the number would grow if each state did such an examination of voter rolls. And the Chicago Zombie voter system was spotted in NC as well — dead voters voting while dead.
Yes, Perry Hood of Lewes Delaware, when states require ID to vote, states flesh out lots of voter fraud. But lets stipulate your accusation that Voter ID is keeping the Democrat vote down. That would mean those Zombie voters (illegal and fraudulent as they are) and those double voters (illegal and fraudulent as they are) are Democrat voters voting fraudulently.
Since this is North Carolina we are talking about, I decided to see if the most beautiful North Carolina blogger had anything to say on the matter. And she did:
It’s fascinating, really. As the information was being tweeted out, liberals who have a vested interest in getting NC’s supposedly “toughest voter ID laws in the nation” tossed off the books on the grounds that they’re “racist” or something didn’t stop to consider anything but the fact that this seriously underminds (sic) their case. Keep in mind, they don’t even know if most of the people who double voted were Republicans or Democrats. In their mind, the law is racist and voter fraud doesn’t exist (except when the GOP wins elections, of course). Perhaps they assumed it was mostly Democrats who fraudulently voted in two different states and seek to change the direction of the debate. After what the left has gotten away with here and elsewhere over the last several decades come election time, can you blame them for going on the defensive?
Posted by Yorkshire on 2014/02/13
This should be mandatory for Congress. Heard this yesterday, forgot who said it, but thanks for the tip. Congressional dress code should be as NASCAR Drivers Dress. This way, we’ll know who the Corporate and other backers are.