Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

#OurLeaderTheMockingjay Hunger Games Continues!

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/29

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 comes out in November, and I, for one, am waiting on pins and needles for it to come out on DVD. If you haven’t seen The Hunger Games or The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, what are you waiting for? A personal invitation? (This is it.)

Let’s just say I believe Democrats and Establishment Republicans should be fearful these movies might put ideas in the heads of We, The People. So, watch the movies.

HT The Other McCain

Posted in Character, Culture, Entertainment, Law, Movie Reviews, Philosophy, politics, society, war | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Abortion Stories As Told By Abortion Survivors

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.

From Teen Breaks.com:

Gianna Jessen
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.

Pregnant and need help?
You can talk with someone by phone, e-mail, text, chat live online or be shown where there is a pregnancy center near you. And remember, everything is confidential and free!
OptionlineLogoChatFrame

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 For

By 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: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pro-Life? Can’t Vote Democrat

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: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Wisconsin Democrat Prosecutors Not Having Fun

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/18

HT Hogewash

Wisconsin, known as “The birthplace of Progressivism” (view with a grain of salt), had recall elections that didn’t work out so well for Democrats after Governor Walker and the Republicans passed sweeping reforms that severely cut into the slush money Public Employee Unions (and their off-shoots) got out of their subjects — reforms the Democrats tried to stop by fleeing the state instead of doing their jobs.

Then came the highly partisan, highly secretive, highly unconstitutional, highly intimidating raids and political rectal exams of Conservative groups fighting the Leftist recall attempts and Leftist big money (which have never been investigated). Followed by Conservative legal pushback to protect the rights of all individuals from Fascist tyranny.

And the Democrat prosecutors, not used to having to defend their heavy-handed partisan intimidation tactics, are losing court battles and not liking it one bit.

O’Keefe and his Wisconsin Club for Growth have turned their civil rights lawsuit — a complaint many legal experts believed would be an uphill battle at best — into ground-breaking litigation to be reckoned with.

It certainly has demanded the attention of John Doe prosecutors turned defendants: Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, the Democrat who launched the secret probe into dozens of conservative organizations in the summer of 2012; two of Chisholm’s assistant DAs; John Doe special prosecutor Francis Schmitz; and Dean Nickel, a shadowy investigator contracted by the state Government Accountability Board.

Some say the prosecutors, not used to being on the defensive, are sounding a little nervous these days, maybe even hostile. Their filings in federal court of late come across as condescending, and testy.

Who could blame them? There’s much at stake for Chisholm and crew – beyond the forced termination of the probe they’ve pushed for nearly two years.

In comes Wisconsin’s Attorney General, who has declared that, according to State Law, the Government Accountability Board doesn’t have to be accountable to the general public. Orwellian barely covers what Wisconsin’s law, written by Progressives, does to actual word definitions.

MADISON, Wis. — It appears the state Government Accountability Board will be able to keep its secrets from the public eye.

In an opinion [pdf] issued Thursday, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said the GAB “may not” turn over its confidential investigative records to the Legislative Audit Bureau because “there is no specific authorization for it do so.”

Now the leaders of the Legislature’s audit committee say they might change the law to open up the records.

The Legislature has provided specific authorizations of confidential information in other circumstances, Van Hollen wrote, but the audit bureau’s right to access documents under Wisconsin statute only provides a “general right” access, and no specific authorization to access confidential records.

So, according to Wisconsin’s Attorney General, Wisconsin law states that the Government Accountability Board is not accountable to the Legislative Audit Bureau or the people who elect their government officials. Once the Federal judge who demanded the total destruction of the material unconstitutionally taken in hyper-partisan raids finds out the GAB is not releasing information, he’s going to have something to say about that.

This is Progressivism trying to hang onto its Fascist tyranny and avoid being accountable for its wholly unconstitutional intimidation of all who stand against Government Control of everything.
__________________________
For more information of who was involved in the protests, including information destroying the Leftists’ Godwinning of Walker and Republicans, see Restoring Honor Now.

Also read the 96 articles (so far) by Watchdog.org in this surreal unfolding tale of overreaching government and pushback by regular citizens.

Posted in 1st Amendment, Character, Conservative, Constitution, Constitution Shredded, crime, Culture, Elections, funny business, history, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Socialists, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Let’s Amend The Second Amendment

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.

gun violence voting record

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.

*John Boehner
#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: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Emotions as knowledge?

Posted by DNW on 2014/05/29

 

Or is it emotions, i.e., feelings, as “the only certain knowledge”?

This post is not an argument in favor of “emotional knowledge” whatever that might be taken to mean. Nor is it about some theory of psychological health, involving the integration of all aspects of the human personality.

Instead, it is a momentary reflection on the degrading effects of skepticism, both moral and perhaps epistemological as well, on the ability of the convinced skeptic – if such a term is permissible – to actually engage in moral argument.

This was brought forcefully to mind by a YouTube video posted by Yorkshire on First Street Journal.

In this video we see a youthful British woman clad in sandals and a baggy red shift-like garment reaching to well below the knees, bemoaning the manner in which radical Moslems now inhabiting her old Luton neighborhood are protesting the arrest of the wife of Moslem who had set off a bomb in Stockholm.

What seems to really upset the British girl is the Moslem vitriol; their loudly antagonistic, hateful, and contemptuously hostile way of expressing themselves with respect to the institutions of both the culture and the country which has harbored and sheltered, and if news reports are right, often literally housed and fed them.

She seems especially disturbed by the marchers’ chant that the British police should burn in hell.

Attempting to engage one contemptuous burka clad protester in conversation, she’s informed that she looks naked; and is asked if she is trying to seduce.

Put on some clothes

Put on some clothes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She is told to “Go and put on some clothes”.

She becomes indignant, sputtering, “How you chose to dress like that, I chose to dress like this”.

The British woman then protests that her female critic is “judging” her.

The female marcher cheerfully admits that she is indeed judging the indignant and whiny western woman.

The westerner babbles that she should not be judged because she is not judging the Moslem woman; just as if the Moslem woman actually believed that she and the western woman were moral peers inhabiting the same moral plane.

“I don’t judge you, because I’m above that” says the western woman, while flailing her arms about for emphasis.

“Don’t you dare speak to me like that.” she rails.  ‘This is my hometown as well”:  again, implicitly referring to a moral framework based on respect for persons – even the stupid, weak, and misguided – which assumes a vision of living space and power “sharing”,  at which the Moslems marchers obviously sneer.

The now emotionally wounded westerner continues her own feelings-jihad with, “I try my hardest to sympathize with people who may be different to me, and it’s this tiny minority …”

Ah yes, dear, please say again for the cameras how broadminded and accepting you are. I am sure that that will make the desired impression on the marchers. Once they are sure, you know, that you mean no harm and will respect them.

Hoping then to score rhetorical points along this line by appealing to a male marcher with the concept of “fairness”, she is informed in short order that it is indeed OK to shout that British police should burn in hell.  Because you see, Britain has free speech. And further, in response to your question dear lady as to whether Koran-observant Moslems ought to respect the laws of the country that hosts them?

Well, the answer is, “No”.

Eventually, she encounters some scholar type who informs her Koranic-like chapter and verse that Moslems need not observe non-Moslem law in their host countries, and, that she is going to hell to boot.

She responds with, “It hurts me to think that you think that of me because you don’t really know me …” As if that would make a difference.

To which the scholar-type replies that he knows quite enough. He knows she is not a Moslem.

Well, she tried to be understanding and fair and considerate of everyone’s feelings. What else is there to say?

A little, apparently.

She sets the tone of the wrap-up of her video adventure with a voice-over wherein she announces she, “finds it sad that anyone would preach such a damning message”.

Then, tremulously facing the camera: “To sum up in words to tell you how I’m feeling now …  I feel … gutted, completely gutted that this is happening ….”

Words failing her she goes silent; and saying no more, turns her head away from camera and toward the protesters.

A pause …. to let the profundity of the feelings sink in ….

Feelings … hurt … feelings … are her frame of reference. Along with mutual sympathy and respect for all differences; emphasizing the notion of a tolerant and accepting  “fairness” among presumed “equals”.

But she is obviously not their equal. Not in physical fact clearly, and not according to the moral theory they announce.

And what does she have in her ideological armamentarium with which to respond to them?

Feelings. She has feelings. And she wants to tell you about her feelings and how hurtful you are being to them.

I guess she imagines the Moslems must care about her feelings. Or that they should care. It is almost as if she sees her feelings as some great scale by which moral principles ought to be weighed and evaluated.

But the Moslem marchers obviously don’t care. And I don’t see how they could care, given her pathetic intellectual performance. I certainly don’t care, and like her, I am a westerner myself.

Western culture, the postmodernist, modern liberal portion of it, is not only skeptical of religious dogmatism, it is skeptical (and increasingly outright nihilistic) regarding moral knowledge in general, and quite often about the possibility of solid or enduring knowledge concerning reality itself.

Positive, empirical science, the one practice that is still thought by some of this ideological stripe to yield what can be called certain knowledge, is held by these same persons to be value free, and incapable of yielding any “is” information, which leads to “ought” conclusions.

When it comes to moral questions then, all this kind of person can do when confronted by other some person having dogmatic and insistent views is, just as C.S. Lewis and others before him long ago observed,  to remark on the state of their feelings.

Of course “way back when”, when Lewis laid out the implications of such relativism and skepticism, and then described its inevitably hapless and pathetic end-point, his reductio ad absurdum depiction had a certain flavor of the comically ironic about it. Certainly, and whatever their 20th century progressive opinion leader rhetoric, no broad segment of any society would actually embrace skepticism and relativism to a point wherein they would wind up quite so stupid and hapless in the face of a strident and mocking challenge to their assumed “values”, as we saw here?

Well, with enough propagandizing social affirmation and encouragement, they obviously can.

What then, Lewis and others presented as a warning via their careful exercises in hypothetical logic, and the inevitable conclusions of their chains of reasoning, this young woman is now living out in fact.

She embraced the skeptical milquetoast meta-values presented to her. She internalized them. She then lived comfortably among similar enabling others who had no motivation to rock or test their relativist boat,  exposing its virtually non-existent freeboard, and lack of seaworthiness.

Now however, she confronts hostile and vehement others who, in an act of modern values sacrilege, sneer at her feelings and test her values with their life and death commitments.

And all she can do is announce to the world how THAT makes her feel; and theatrically shake her head with sadness as a means of trying to elevate herself  to her lost honor and dignity. After all, she’s “above that” other stuff.

Yes … I guess she is. Just as long as those vestiges of western moral ideals more potent than the relativism and skepticism and values emotivism which she represents and lives out, continue to hold the moral barbarians somewhat at bay.

 

[Update note. I've made some wording changes in the first 2/3rds "narrative portion" of the post. Changing word order, tightening up slightly, checking punctuation and coherence, and doing the things real bloggers do when they write a draft before posting.  The more analytical remarks about postmodern culture are unchanged.]

 

 

Posted in Culture, Islam, Law, Liberal, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Religion, society, terrorists, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 7 Comments »

Obama and a Presentment of Englishry?

Posted by DNW on 2014/05/28

This Incredible Slinking Men of the Obama Administration never cease to amaze.

Not just in their leftoid, parasitical on the productive class effrontery, but in their lack of logical acumen; their inability to recognize that in breaking legal bonds in one direction, they are broken in the other.

Or perhaps they don’t believe that there is a reciprocal dynamic between leftist conqueror and the American conquered.

As the Obamanaughts phrased it: “We rule now”.  The operative term here being rule, not govern or administer. And if the legislature, that is the American Congress, will not give the Little Imperator what he wants, why he will do it by Executive Order, he threatens.

So why should we be surprised by this report which states that the Obama Administration is proposing what is basically an ethnic based regime of law in Hawaii?

AOL didn't bury this report

AOL didn’t bury this report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a few years ago no one would have believed that such a report could be credible. But now, with what we have already seen out of this administration, our natural skepticism is reduced.

Law is the embodiment of the moral sense of the people,  Blackstone is alleged to have said.

Now it is proposed we accept the notion within our polity of different laws for different moral moieties; which implies, though the advocates no doubt wish to ignore it, that we have fundamentally different peoples with irreconcilably different moral sensibilities, jostling in the same political space.

This doesn’t seem to line up with leftist moral rhetoric.

But, as we have seen in the past, leftists seem incapable of grasping simple deductive inferences, so caught up are they in their “world-creating” fantasy existence.

 

Yeah, I remember law just like that from my school days.

 

“Such of the crimes as might be prosecuted by an appeal, and for which the criminal’s lands were forfeited to his lord or to the King, and his chattels taken, or for which he lost life or member, or was outlawed, were called felonies. Misdemeanours, such as were subsequently known under a fully developed common law, were practically ignored by the justices of Henry the Third’s reign, and on the eyre rolls of that period may be said not to appear. Homicide and rape are the crimes that here pass before us. The former is the only one that need be considered. In some few cases homicide was held to be justifiable, and when such happened the slayer suffered no punishment.

Neither did he where death was caused by misadventure or in self defence.

Every other case of homicide, that is, that which was neither justifiable nor excusable, was felonious.

The difference between murder and manslaughter was then unknown.

In Glanvill’s day secret homicide, which is murdrum, had to be distinguished from homicidium, but the distinction soon died away.1 The term murdrum however survived as the name of the fine paid by the hundred when a person was slain and the slayer not produced.

The law presumed that everyone killed was a foreigner unless his English birth was proved. Possibly the origin of the doctrine is to be found in the statutes of William the Conqueror, which decreed that all men whom he brought with him or who had followed him should be in his peace.

And if one of them were slain the lord of his murderer was to seize the slayer.

But if he could not do so then the lord was to pay forty-six marks of silver as long as his possessions held out, and on their exhaustion the hundred in which the killing took place was to pay in common the balance owing.

The presentment of Englishry (Englescheria), that is proving the slain to be an Englishman by birth, was at first one of the few formal badges of distinction between the conquering and conquered race. Its practical need could not have lasted long, for at the end of the twelfth century it was impossible, except in the very highest or very lowest ranks, to distinguish Norman from Englishman.” [Pleas of the Crown for the Hundred of Swineshead and the Township of Bristol by Edward James Watson]

Looks like the Obama Administration does in fact believe itself quite capable of distinguishing Saxon from non-Saxon. At least when they see a political gain in it for themselves.

So much for any notion that the left believes or ever really believed in the first place, that mankind constituted one moral species … no matter how rhetorically useful they happen to have found the spouting of Christian and natural law doctrines in order to advance their cause – at least far enough along to subvert and displace the same.

 

 

 

Posted in Constitution Shredded, Culture, Hawai'i, history, Law, Liberal, Philosophy, politics, race, society, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Like The Days Of Sodom And Gomorrah

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/05/20

Jesus’ return will be like the days of Lot and Noah, so Jesus proclaimed. Like the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, with their absolutely evil sexual immorality. When two angels of the Lord visited Lot, the entire town came out and raised a ruckus. Lot offered to let the town rape his two virgin daughters. They refused. They demanded to rape the men who came to visit.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Footnotes:
a.1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

Every “church” leader who declares homosexuality to be acceptable will find himself separated from the Kingdom of Providence. Every last one of them.

Take a look around the US. People are being fired from their jobs for standing up for righteous marriage and against the sexually immoral crapola that is being forced down our throats today. The US has fallen deeply into its Sodom and Gomorrah stage, and Providence will punish the US for it. We are in the End Times, just as it was prophesied, and the coming of the Lord (and the 7 year Tribulation) are close at hand.

Got a problem with that? Take it up with the man you now mock, but whom you will bow down and prostrate yourself before, while declaring him Lord over all. (Philippians 2:9-11)

Posted in Character, Christianity, history, Law, Personal Responsibility, Politically Incorrect, Religion, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »

Hey Gun Grabbers

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/19

Can we at least try enforcing the laws already on the books before we go about violating the Second Amendment? Hmmm?

When you catch a violent felon violating gun laws by having one, and then let him go, this happens. He wouldn’t have kidnapped that teen-aged girl, raped her, tortured her, tied her up, imprisoned her, poured gasoline on her, and tried to set her on fire if you Leftists hadn’t released him from prison early.

This one, as usual, is on you!

Posted in Character, Constitution, crime, Culture, Law, Liberal, politically correct, politics, society | Tagged: , , | Comments Off

Ed Morrissey Accidentally Spanks Perry Hood

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.

Video: “Thousands of cases” of voter fraud in North Carolina

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 in Character, Elections, Law, politics, truth, Vote Fraud | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Cumulonimbus + AgI = ?? (revisited)

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/12/13

I’m reprinting an article I wrote 13 months ago. An article I wrote 13 months ago, I’m reprinting. An article that doesn’t even get into the most recent huge schadenfreudig spreading through the sane world. But an article I find especially prescient, given the Obama administration’s desperate efforts to prevent ObamaCare’s huge pains from actually hitting just yet…
___________________________________________

A dark cloud follows him wherever he goes.
Every cloud has a silver lining.

Farmers obviously need rain for their crops, so there are some who resort to cloud seeding, adding silver iodide to the clouds to try to force rain out of them. But it’s a bad idea to seed a thunderstorm cloud. Cumulonimbus clouds can produce nasty things like hail storms, massive lightning storms, micro-bursts, tornadoes.

And of course, there are those who always bring bad luck with them, like Bad Luck Schleprock, our current President.


 
So, today I am telling you about the seeding of a 3,000 mile wide thunderstorm cloud hanging over the US — and the silver lining that comes with it. It’s painfully schadenfreudig. Painfully schadenfreudig, indeed. (Multiple stacked redundancy intentional.) Barack Obama and the Democrats, very cynically aware that their grand scheme to shove the US headlong into Socialism could cause them to fall out of power, set up a series of Laws and programs that would save most of the very bad results until after the 2012 election. After having blamed Bush for all the Democrat-and-Socialist caused travails, they would have a way of avoiding responsibility for the looming mega-disaster. It works like this:

  • Set up a Socialist system with all the false positives front-loaded and all the negatives back-loaded.
  • Get possibly voted out of office before the negatives hit, so the Socialist-caused negatives would hit when Conservatives were in office.
  • Blame the Conservatives in office for the economic disaster the Socialists caused.
  • Get the Socialists re-elected to complete the evil transformation of the Free Market US into a Socialist state, with the Conservatives forever blemished by the results of Socialist actions.

But a strange thing happened along the way. The Socialists got re-elected by a completely ignorant, envious, slothful, free hand-out seeking crowd. And all the back-loaded disasters will hit while the Socialists are in power. (By the way, did you know that tornadoes are also backloaded? They are on the back end of cumulonimbus clouds, and not up front.)

ObamaCare is one such program. As most of it is set to kick in now that the election is over, total disaster is on the horizon. Businesses, who cannot pay the cost of ObamaCare and stay afloat at the same time, will be laying off massive numbers of workers nationwide. Other businesses will be cutting their low-level employees (the working poor) to under 30 hours a week so those businesses can stay in business. Very little expansion will be happening, if any at all. It’ll be full-on contraction.

A nice little poisonberry in ObamaCare — that “make health care cheaper for all” lie — is a 2.3 percent excise tax on all medical devices, such as crutches, wheelchairs, heart stents, etc, etc. And an excise tax is far worse than a profit tax or income tax. It hits the gross revenue and not the after-expenses cost. For example, suppose it costs a business 5,000 dollars for the raw materials to make a single product. Add in the labor costs, the health insurance costs, the retirement costs, the social security tax, the medicare tax, the property tax for the building itself, the electricity cost, the property insurance cost, the transportation cost, the bookkeeping cost, and all other costs associated with getting the already developed product to market and the final cost to the business is 6,800 dollars. The business sells the product for 7,000 dollars because that’s what the market will bear. The business gets a profit of 200 dollars per sale.

In comes the 2.3 percent excise tax. Another 161 dollars off the top. The new profit for the 7,000 dollar item falls from 200 dollars to a whopping 39 dollars (an effective tax rate of 80.5 percent of the profit). Not enough to make the company a going concern. Kill the Research and Development department of the company — the life-blood of all businesses that want to survive, for if a business is not growing and moving forward it is necessarily dying.

But it doesn’t stop there. No, not at all. That same company also has to pay the new, higher costs involved in providing ObamaCare to all its employees (instead of the less expensive insurance plans which were optional, which fair portions of employees did not opt into). That 39 dollars per product, which used to be 200 dollars per product goes negative. It costs more to produce than it can be sold for.

But, again, it doesn’t stop there. Obama’s declaration that electricity costs must necessarily skyrocket and he’ll bankrupt coal-fired electric plants necessarily means the energy-intensive manufacturing industry will get hit hard with skyrocketing overhead costs. Costs that cannot be reduced merely by laying people off. So instead, the companies will shutter its doors and either go off-shore or cease to exist, providing a double-whammy of forcing the products to become far more expensive than they are now and far more difficult to obtain.

Small businesses will collapse. The middle class will become working poor. The working poor will become the unemployable destitute. Products the middle class used to be able to afford will become luxury items. Items that were luxuries for the working poor will become nothing but unreachable pipe-dreams. Inflation will go into hyper-drive. Interest rates will climb, making the cost of borrowing prohibitive. And deficit spending, which has been kept artificially low (yeah, I said it), will explode.

How is 1.2 trillion dollars (or more) in deficit spending “artificially low”? That’s a good question. And I have a good answer for that. Two words: “debt” and “service”. Debt service.

Historical view of the Prime Rate from Forecast Chart.com (8 percent line added).

Above is a chart showing the historic levels for the Prime Rate, from Forecast Chart.com. I added a red line at 8 percent for reference. Below is a chart showing the historic levels for the Discount Rate, from a 2009 article on Apin Talisayon’s Weblog (data obtained from the Financial Forecast Center). I added a red line at 6 percent for reference.

US Discount Rate From 1950 as found on Apin Talisayon’s Weblog (6 percent red line added).

From Apin Talisayon:

As I said, central banks had recently been dropping interest rates, and so we cannot use the abnormally low prevailing interest rates (0.5%). I plotted the historical data of discount rates set by the US Federal Reserve since January 1950 from the Financial Forecast Center[.]

As you can see in the above two charts, the Prime Rate and the Discount Rate differ in levels, but mirror each other. And they’re not only at historic lows; they’re far below historic norms. That means the future necessarily will provide much higher rates on borrowing than today. And the Federal Government’s debt service costs absolutely must skyrocket. Couple that with the US credit rating crumbling — and will continue to crumble — and the interest on the debt will become astronomical. Even a fairly normal rate of 6 percent with our current 16,000,000,000,000 dollar deficit means 960 BILLION DOLLARS in interest payments alone. By 2015, our national debt will be 20 TRILLION DOLLARS and the interest on that debt will be 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS. That’s before paying for roads, bridges, high speed trains to nowhere, free birth control pills for Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling), free abortion pills for Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling), free ObamaPhones, free health care, free foodstamps, free college tuition, free housing for the poor and forever pregnant single mothers, free Big Bird, free NPR propaganda, bailing out California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, free cowboy poetry, and oh yeah, paying for our national defense.

1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO PAY FOR ALREADY SPENT MONEY WE DIDN’T HAVE BEFORE PAYING FOR ANY CURRENT PROGRAMS AND EXPENSES!!!

The Socialist who ascended the throne in DC, along with the Socialists in the US Senate who have adamantly refused to produce a Federal Budget since April, 2009, in direct violation of Federal Law and the US Constitution, have successfully Cloward-Pivened the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. The most prosperous nation this world has ever seen has been successfully brought to financial ruin by the Leftists in power who have no use for a document that is “over 100 years old”. The aim? Destroy the Free Market and implement Socialism worldwide.

The silver lining? Conservatives have not been responsible for any of it. Conservatives have not been in charge for any of it. I know, little solace for the loss of a once great and mighty and FREE nation. Will there be anything left to save by 2016? And will there be any conceivable way to save it and return to prosperity from the Abyss of Destitution Obama and the Socialist Democrats have created? Or will it already be too late? I, for one, am not looking forward to the disaster these next 10 years will provide us. (UPDATE: Nice Deb performed her Karnac impression and answered my questions before seeing them. Go to her site to read her answers.)

RELATED
This medical device tax is just not going to end well
Economics 101: Schadenfreude!
Video: What free-market medicine looks like
2013: A Century Of Progress
Gee, why do you think the Obama administration waited until after November 6th to mail these letters?

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, Conservative, Culture, economics, Elections, Health, Health Care, Law, Liberal, Obama, Over-regulation, politics, Socialists, society, Tax, truth | 3 Comments »

Obamacare is Fascism. There’s no way around it.

Posted by DNW on 2013/11/12

It’s a striking fact that the predicate of Obamacare, i.e., the premise of a redistributionist implementation of what John Rawls approvingly called, a “commitment to a shared fate” is simply, and unequivocally, fascist.

This “shared fate” social obligation, is the very principle behind Obamacare; and is rhetorically traceable among others, to the Fascist in Chief himself.

Hyperventilating lefty professors, so fond of directing the charge of “fascist” at others for whatever rhetorical effect they imagine they can leverage out of it, will continue to busily construct their self-serving political taxonomies based on wish-fulfillment listings of the supposed attributes essential to a fascist attitude and polity. These attributes, they claim, invariably involve hostility to foreigners, or the arts, or minorities.

Yet a libertarian polity or anarchist system of association with a population that manifests these three traits on average, would not thereby be transformed into a fascist solidarity or corporatist state. Something more “positive” must be added without which the fascist state cannot logically or coherently be said to officially exist.

Recall here Obama’s problem with our current charter of negative (negatively defined) liberties. The problem as he sees it, is that it defines what you are free from, not what you must do for whom, or what you are entitled to expect from others.

The individual mandate with its across the board legal transformation of freeborn men and women into social resources unconditionally available to the government for the support and maintenance of a redistributive social solidarity state, is that necessary addition. It’s what the fascist left seeks to implement. And as such it’s the manifest essence of the fascist concept.

Recall that this Obamacare individual mandate claim upon the individual is not temporary, nor based upon the necessity of a repulsion of foreign invaders by all citizens, nor upon the need to distributively protect all from some contagion that knows no distinctions of person. It is instead, based upon the presumption of one’s open-ended duty to sacrifice one’s own opportunities and life choices in order to indemnify others against the costs and consequences of being themselves.

It’s emotionally difficult – despite the occasional rhetorical exercise by those like myself warning of a possibility to the contrary – for many of us, myself included, to face the fact that people whom one has heretofore considered as probable moral fellows, are not in fact anything of the kind. Obamacare has now brought this into the sharpest relief.

They, its advocates, have now willingly and overtly become people who in active and current fact, as well as in prior principle, operate off the principle that they will now recognize no limit to their claims upon other human beings for the sake of that secularized social sodality regime which they crave, and which they feel will benefit themselves through the coerced access they gain to your life energies and expenditures.

It, sadly, is therefore not at all hyperbolic to state that the Democrats in Congress who voted for Obamacare and the individual mandate were seeking to institute or to further an already incipient social fascism in the United States. The Democrats should just rename themselves the Fascist Party, and have done with it.

This Obamacare state of affairs has long been the obvious goal of left-wing ideologues: to construct a default situation wherein there preexists a sociopolitical presumption that the individual exists for the utility of others.

The Democrat party has now explicitly advanced and endorsed this premise through Obamacare. Whether the impulse further progresses to the social  or state ownership of some or all productive resources or tools of production, as in full blown socialism, is besides the point. The point is that man has now been made by law, and by virtue of his mere existence, into a social resource upon which the state has a legally unlimited claim.

The definitional lines are drawn, and the sides chosen. How friends and relatives will react to being told to their faces that they are fascist, remains to be seen. My guess is that they could not care less what they are, or are called, as long as they get what they want out of others.

They like it that way.

And that, is not a matter of mere politics, but includes something that might almost be seen as a “spiritual dimension”.

 

Note: I wrote this out earlier today on the fly, and hit “post” rather than “save”. I’ve made a few of what I think should be improvements in clarity and precision. The labored language … well, that, I can do nothing about. LOL.

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Constitution Shredded, Health Care, Law, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, society | 7 Comments »

Liberals and rape, and the integrity of the person

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/29

Before I forget: Another reference to a conversation with the mail lady.

Make sure you use the Post office!

Make sure you use the Post office!

 

 

Concerning liberals, and rape,  and what they – or some of them – really believe about the integrity and inviolability of the human person.

I might have mentioned before that we have this rather outspoken mail carrier. She’s generally cheerful, very left-liberal, not shy about saying so,  and armed with all the usual talking points you would expect from someone for whom progressive media sources constitute the information gold standard.

Though it escapes me at the moment how the topic of the exploitation of women came up, it did. Or rather she brought it up.

Probably something about the abuse and physical exploitation which females are commonly acknowledged to suffer in the so-called third world.

I agreed with her by and large. I said so. In fact I went further. I said that rape should be absolutely intolerable. I said that it constituted a crime beyond the pale. “Yes!” she exclaimed.

“You have an absolute and inviolable moral right to your physical integrity,” I said.

“Absolutely! ” she said. “And,” she added, ” many people expect these women to bear the child of a man who has beaten and degraded them! You can’t expect a woman to allow that monster’s offspring to grow in her womb, can you?”

“You have an absolute right to your own body then? We agree on that?” I asked.

“Yes!”

“I’m glad you feel that way” I said. “Would you agree that rape should be a capital crime?”

“Oh, our justice system …” she began.

“Well hypothetically then, in a case where there was a brutal physical attack, a forcible act, …”

“There’s always doubt” she said “look at the cases where …”

“Ok, let’s limit ourselves to the question as to whether you believe that you would have the moral right to kill – a justification – in order to stop an ongoing act of violent rape being perpetrated on yourself, if: a, it was the only way to stop it, and b, you had the means, to assuredly do so.”

“If my kids were …”, she started.

“I’m not talking about your kids.”

“Well, do you mean, later?”

“Stop!” I said.  “Forget any scenario involving the legal system and mistaken identities. Forget about after the fact self-help acted out in cold blood, if that is what is also disturbing you.  “I’m asking you, you personally, as a “progressive female” if you would use lethal force on a brutalizing rapist in process, if that was the only way to get him to cease, and if you were sure to be successful in doing so. Hell, and assume it’s lawful to do so, if that helps you to come up with an answer”

“Uh, well, uh …  wellllll, uh I have to think about that. I’ll get back with you later.” she said as she sidled out the door.

Virtually identical to the words she used the last time we had this kind of a conversation. That now makes two of those “I’ll get back with you later”s she’s never gotten back with me on.

Leftists, do have different interpersonal boundaries. And for all their shrillness and squawking about domination and violation and exploitation, they, some of them, seem to think that the last thing they should be required to do, is to take an absolute stand on the only absolute locus of self which they have.

What integrity then, is it that they are trying to preserve, if they will not preserve their own?

And if they will not preserve their own if they can, why should anyone else take the care and trouble to do so for them?

 

 

Credit: The image of the two postal workers is from Ilana Cohn’s “thefunclub” parody of a USPS public service announcement featuring Tonya and CiCi, found on Cohn’s YouTube channel. It’s a bit rough for a family style blog, so I won’t link directly. Depending on your sensibilities, it might be said to be hilarious.

Posted in Character, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility | 6 Comments »

In the matter of Fascist Democrats, and Treason, and Free Speech

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/05

The title of the blog essay in question is, as a glance will tell: Fascist Democrats … Or is it Stalinist?”

The blog entry had been prompted by news reports recording prominent progressive politicians as having  labeled various conservatives who were standing on constitutional principles, and operating according to long-standing parliamentary rules, as traitors.

Which brings us to the matter of Mr. Perry Hood, a sometime blogger, and self described liberal activist.

Mr. Hood, although neither prominent nor a politician, has himself gone so far as to call on his blog for a mob to be gotten up in order to “literally” eject Ted Cruz, both a citizen and an elected Senator from Texas, from the United States.

I thought that this malevolent bit of hysteria was remarkable, even on progressive terms; since most of us had probably assumed, until relatively recently at least, that the homicidal rhetoric of the left was not quite matched by a literal, or at least immanent, intent.

Mr. Hood however, seems determined to prove otherwise.

Mr. Hood does not stop with calling for the  unlawful ejection of Senator Cruz from the United States.

But, in one of the most remarkably nonchalant examples of Orwellian doublethink I have ever witnessed out of a supposed American, Hood goes on to label anyone actively opposed to his own and the Democrat Party’s efforts to direct every aspect of our lives, as themselves totalitarian.

This remarkable accusation, as readers of the old Common Sense Political Thought blog will recall, comes from someone who has explicitly admitted that as far as he was concerned, there were in fact no legitimate moral or practical limits to the depth and extent of a government’s control of the lives of the “citizen”.

Yet, those who seek to maintain the opposing tradition, that of constitutional limits on government power and sway, and who do so while operating both within the public law and by parliamentary rules, are labeled as “totalitarian”, and as treasonous.

I commented on Mr. Hood’s remarkable attitude.

Mr. Hood, had the opportunity while visiting here to discuss or clarify his call for the illegal ejection of Mr. Cruz from the country, or to modify his accusation of treason.

Hood chose instead to repeat the treason theme, and to broaden his targeting.

Mr. Hood was admonished to address the issue or to lose his commenting privileges here, as he had already lost them on so many other forums.

Now, Mr. Hood, apparently uninterested in actually discussing the “limitless government” predicate which he assumes, finds himself frustrated, and claims that his ability to engage in “free speech” – primarily through the deposition of invective and accusation – is not being honored.

Of course, and looking at it from Mr. Hood’s likely perspective, he may believe, as his remarks have given us reason to suspect in the past, that some portions of the American population are simply behaviorally incompatible with the society he has planned, because their genetic constitutions render them less collective minded, self-sacrificing, and compliant to centralized direction, than he would permit.

If that is the case, and every time Mr. Hood opens his mouth he seems to confirm that it is, then it is little wonder that he merely wishes to use the web sites of more constitutionally minded others as a kind of perch, wherein he may eject his accumulating bile and vitriol on the heads of those who would frustrate his aims if they could.

Ahhhh ... I feel so much better now

Ahhhh … I feel so much better now

If he cannot argue his so-called principles, but only declare them, then it is no wonder that his comments, like those of so many other values nihilists, quickly degenerate into ad hominem.

In any event, there is little reason to give his malevolent and bitter gibbering an additional platform.

One of the other men he regularly reviles, is already giving him one, and a rather exclusive one, at that.

That Mr. Hood when at that home, winds up shouting to an empty room, is the fault of no one but himself.

Posted in 1st Amendment, Blogging Matters, Character, Law, Liberal, politics, Socialists | 12 Comments »

Will Obama Care “collapse of its own accord”?

Posted by DNW on 2013/09/27

 

 

A Question: Why is it expected by some that so-called Obama Care will collapse of its own accord, when its designers and promoters recognize no limits to their ability to coerce or draw upon you in order to fund and prop it up?

How exactly does that work?

Is there some length to which the progressives currently threatening social violence if their ill-begotten and legally bastard dream of punitive equity is not endowed, will henceforth refuse to go?

Is there some extractive limit beyond which, those who nonchalantly admit they recognize no limits, will not legislatively trespass if their spawn appears undernourished?

For those who think so, what real world evidence do they have to support this hope?

 

Posted in economics, Health Care, Law, Liberal, politics | 8 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 156 other followers

%d bloggers like this: