Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

Who Do YOU Shower With?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/09/01

Yeah, the title is grammatically incorrect. I won’t suggest you sue me, because there are morons who do just that for other frivolous crap. (I’m looking at you, Wee Willy Widebody (and barely keeping my lunch down) and your idol, TDPK.)

So, I’m watching FOX News, and they tease an upcoming report regarding Michael Sam and ESPN. Yes, as I write this, ESPN reported on Michael Sam’s showering habits in regard to the rest of the team. And later apologized.

But that brings up an important point.

For many decades, pro sports did not allow women journalists into the locker rooms where men tend to be naked or almost naked. Likewise, pro sports did not allow their athletes to shower with the cheerleaders. Well, due to some blow-hards, there are women journalists in locker rooms with naked men. Movies like Jerry Maguire do comedic bits with this. Woman journalist asks naked man a question; woman journalist drops microphone; woman journalist looks away as she squats down and fishes for dropped microphone. But there are still rules preventing the football team from showering with the cheerleading squad.

I don’t think there is any reasonable person or group of people who would suggest the Lakers should be able to shower with the Laker Girls, or the Raiders should shower with the Raiderettes. And for good reason. Pregnant cheerleaders are kind of a turn-off. A Family Feud winner’s question session (I don’t know what they actually call it) asked 100 men about the visual rating (you know, rate a girl from 1 to 10) of a pregnant girl. It was extremely low.

Okay, there was some snark there. But it was based on the facts that are there, too. What happens when you put a bunch of naked alpha-males and a bunch of naked beautiful women in a group shower? You get a bunch of naked sex. Not every time, but it will happen.

There is also the morality aspect. Millennia of moral standards say women and men should not do such a thing. It will inevitably lead to the slippery slope of immorality. Yes, the slippery slope is real; thus, not a logic fallacy.

But what does the Cavaliers showering with the Cavalier Girls have to do with Michael Sam showering with his teammates? As “The Plague” said to “Zero Cool”, “think about it.” If you are against homosexual “marriage” (like me) or you are for it; if you think the Bible is truthful in calling homosexuality an abomination (like me) or you disregard the Bible; if you think homosexuality is abnormal (like me) or you think it’s normal, you have to agree that homosexual people showering with those of the same sex (the people they are attracted to) has to be a bad idea, because of what can result.

What can result if men and women shower together? Sex. Rape. Assaualt and battery. Murder. Self-defense – caused death. Appropriately modest people having to decide to stay stinky or violate their own modesty rules. Ostracization due to a person’s modesty. Ostracization due to a person’s lack of modesty. Ostracization due to a person’s Christian values. Ostracization due to a person’s refusal to bow down to the Leftist PC bovine byproduct.

Why should Michael Sam not have the option to shower with other football players? He is sexually attracted to what is between their legs. It’s the very same reason no football team should have the option to shower with the cheerleaders. They are sexually attracted to what is between the cheerleaders’ legs.

And, quite frankly, I should not have to shower with someone who is sexually attracted to sexual parts people of my sex have. Women should not have to shower with someone who is sexually attracted to their sexual parts. And women have no business being in a locker room full of men who are fully or partially naked.

Period. (For you Limeys who frequent this site, that means Full Stop.)

Posted in 1st Amendment, Character, Christianity, Constitution, Culture, funny business, Law, Liberal, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

All Multi-Nationals Should Invert Away From US

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/28

If you are a multi-national corporation headquartered in X country, you pay that country’s corporate tax for the business you do there and you pay the corporate tax in each other country for the business you do there with the exception of one industrialized country. If you are headquartered in the industrialized world’s highest corporate tax country, not only do you pay that country’s highest in the industrialized world for the business you do there but you also pay that country’s highest in the industrialized world for business you do anywhere else. You do get a tax credit for paying taxes elsewhere, but you also still pay taxes in that country for business you do in other countries.

Now, why would any fiscally responsible corporation spend more than double its by-nation required corporate taxes if it could just as easily cut it down to the actual rate of said country? If Canada has a 15 percent corporate tax rate (it does), then why would a corporation pay the offending country’s 35 percent corporate tax on business done in Canada, just because the business is headquartered in that offending country? It makes no fiscal sense whatsoever. Especially when it is possible to work the laws to divest yourself of insane tax requirements for doing business elsewhere in the world.

That’s exactly what Burger King (owned in a very large part by a Brazilian) did. (And I have a major issue with Burger King’s rainbow whoppers, but that’s beside the point here.)

Meanwhile, Forbes reported three days ago on the prospective merger and said:

Burger King’s majority owner, the Brazilian private-equity firm 3G Capital, would hold the majority of shares in the combined company, their statement said.

These Brazilians need to get patriotic and pay their absurdly high American tax rates.

See, Burger King’s majority owner, a Brazilian company, did what it took to get out of the outrageously high taxes the US put on it. That’s right. The United States has the industrialized world’s highest corporate tax, and is also the only nation in the industrialized world to force its outrageous taxes on business done in other countries.

Never mind Michelle Obama will never allow Burger King to sell its product in American schools, and would rather Burger King ceased to exist, the Loony Left are all up in arms about a business deciding it’s not a good idea to overpay their taxes.

Posted in economics, food, Law, Liberal, Over-regulation, Philosophy, politics, Socialists, Tax | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

I Have An Idea Putin Will Love!

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/28

Putin has this idea that he can invade sovereign nations that have Russian speakers if those Russian speakers are “threatened.” Sounds very Hitleresque, don’t ya think? Even Stalinesque, as Hitler and Stalin agreed to sub-divide Poland before Hitler decided to kill Russians.

In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet “spheres of influence“, anticipating potential “territorial and political rearrangements” of these countries. Thereafter, Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. After the Soviet-Japanese ceasefire agreement took effect on 16 September, Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland on 17 September.[3] Part of southeastern (Karelia) and Salla region in Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region).

The pact remained in force until the German government broke it by invading the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941.

Of the territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union between 1939 and 1940, the region around Białystok and a minor part of Galicia east of the San river around Przemyśl were the only ones returned to the Polish state at the end of World War II. Of all other territories annexed by the USSR in 1939–40, the ones detached from Finland (Karelia, Petsamo), Estonia (Ingrian area and Petseri County) and Latvia (Abrene) remained part of the Russian Federation, the successor state of the Soviet Union, after 1991. Northern Bukovina, Southern Bessarabia and Hertza remain part of Ukraine.

I know that’s a wiki source, and it only a little more trustable than a Leftist, but it is a source that provides other sources (eventually), and everyone knows by now Communist Russia (hello, Putin and American Leftists) and National Socialist Germany (hello, neo-Nazis and American Leftists) divvied up eastern Europe before Germany invaded Poland, and that’s why Germany deemed it safe to invade Poland to begin with. Also note how Communist Russia had an officer-depleted military due to Stalin purges. Anyone else see anything familiar happening now? (Hello, Obama, you formerly official member of Socialists in the US.) Here’s an article from The History Channel (and it is still less than honest in favor of a Leftist retelling of history).

The former KGB agent who is trying to reconstitute the old Soviet Union, with whom Hillary Clinton had that horrendously failed “RESET BUTTON” and to whom the formerly official and still Socialist Barack Obama (link, link, link) said he will have more flexibility, has decided any who “speak Russian” are reasons to invade sovereign nations. So, once we throw the known Socialist out of office and put a patriot in office, maybe we can declare any English speaker who is “threatened” gives the US reason enough to invade Socialist and Islamist nations. Vladimir Putin, the former KGB Colonel, has given us precedents (as opposed to precedence (a singular term)).

Posted in Character, Islam, Law, Liberal, Obama, Philosophy, politics, Socialists, truth, war | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Just A Thought

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/24

If you’re going to falsely accuse someone of pedophilia, you might not want your IP randomizer to point to a nation which is protecting a notorious criminal who drugged and then anally raped a child. Just a thought.

This message brought as a PSA to the noted anti-Semite whose IP randomizer seems to be heavily centered on Europe.

Posted in Blogging Matters, crime, Law | 2 Comments »

The Burka Cannot Cover Perry

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/21

No, I am not talking about Perry Hood, the (near?) octogenarian insane socialist from Lewes, Delaware, although I would pay a Philippine Peso to see him in a burqa. No, this is about Texas Governor Rick Perry and the completely out of control, criminal, corrupt, Left-Wing lunatics in Austin. (There’s a reason “they” say “Keep Austin Weird.”)

In case you have been living under a rock, Travis County DA Lehmberg got busted driving on the wrong side of the road with a BAC of .238, or nearly 3 times the legal limit. She then tried to use her position of authority as a bludgeon to get out of her criminality. Among other things, “get me your boss”, spitting at people, kicking things, having to be placed in full restraints while seated all describe Travis County DA Lehmberg’s activities while drunk.

“You’re going to ruin my political career.” Yeah, I think you did that yourself, you belligerent fool, other than the fact you work in Travis County. Keep Austin Weird. “I’m a District Attorney, I’m a District Attorney.” Continuous power-play by the drunk criminal DA of Austin.

And Travis County DA Lehmberg refused to resign her position as chief Law Enforcement Officer in Austin, and head of the “kill the political corruption” unit for the whole of Texas. Governor Perry declared she needs to go, or her office will not get the money for the “kill the political corruption” unit that is normally sent from the budget of the State of Texas to the budget of the DA of Travis County. Imagine that. A convicted criminal is ordered to step aside or money from all the taxpayers of the entire state of Texas won’t be sent to the convicted criminal. And since the convicted criminal doesn’t like when the Governor tells her she is in no position to judge whether other politicians are corrupt, she decides to work to file bogus Felony charges against the person who thinks a convicted criminal is not the type of person who should be looking for corrupt politicians.

I have come up with a solution of my own. Move the “investigate corrupt politicians” unit to neighboring Bell County. It’s right next door to Travis County. And it’s growing rapidly. And it’s not hyper-Left-Wing. Just take the power completely away from those who destroyed Tom DeLay for purely political reasons, and is trying to destroy Rick Perry for purely political reasons. There are multiple years of evidence Travis County (Keep Austin Weird) cannot be expected to have integrity or Honor in their investigations.

So, how did I come up with the title of this article? Where does the Burka come in? Well, now that you asked, Paul Burka is an editor of a dead-tree magazine in Travis County, more notably called Austin, Texas. Keep Austin weird. Two years ago, Paul Burka wrote an amazingly dishonest and agenda-fed article attacking, among others, Governor Rick Perry. Rick Perry, who was the Texas campaign chief for Algore’s campaign to be President. Rick Perry, who just a few short years ago was a card-carrying Democrat. Rick Perry, who dead-tree-magazine editor Paul Burka declared a radical Right-Wing insurgent with no civic interest.

And here’s how I fisked Paul Burka’s article two years ago:
______________________________________

Editor/Journalist/Pundit Paul Burka ( @paulburka ): Research 0, Integrity 0, Propaganda 100

 

(This article made “Post of the Day” for Monday, July 9 at Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion.  Professor Jacobson called it “What’s under that Burka?”)

 

Paul Burka is the Senior Executive Editor of Texas Monthly, a dead tree magazine with an online footprint. And Paul Burka likes to think of himself as better than us plebes. I’ll show you that very clearly throughout this article. But first, let’s quantify Paul Burka just a wee bit, shall we? In writing about the Ted Cruz/David Dewhurst debate in which Burka declared Dewhurst the winner, Burka had this little gem which gives everyone a glimpse into his heart and soul:

[I just want to point out here that the bailouts worked extremely well, that they kept the American automobile industry alive through the worst of the recession, that most, if not all, of the money has been paid back, not only in the auto industry but also in the financial industry, and that the opposition to them is an example of how ideology can be blinding, even when we know all of the facts. Isn't it clear to everyone by now that the bailouts saved the international financial system?--pb]

That is indeed the position of the radical Leftist establishment, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Mainstream Media, and propagandists (brought to you in triplicate by the Redundant Department of Redundancy). That is not at all the position of Conservatives, mainstream Republicans, or even Ruling Class Republicans. It is also not at all true. Ford did not take any Government bailout and it’s doing just fine, thank you very much. The fact Obama threw the entirety of the bankruptcy Laws in the trash heap in order to feed the United Auto Workers Union meant that grandma and grandpa lost a lot of their retirement investments, permanently. And it is a stone-cold fact that GM paid it’s Government loans with Government money and not its own. And the Government still has tens of billions of dollars stuck in GM today. And, no, these bailouts did not at all “save the international financial system”. It is still a mess, and will be an even bigger mess since Government is still getting in the way of Free Market corrections and eliminations of wasteful and failed agendas. The bailouts only made matters worse.

Now that we’re a bit more clear on just who this clown Paul Burka is (he’s clearly a Liberal), let’s get down to Fisking his article in the July, 2012 print edition of Texas Monthly, which I have in my currently nicotine-stained fingers. *crinkle*crinkle*crinkle* It is available online if you’re registered. I’m not registered, so I’ll use the print version. (I trust it more, anyway, because lamestream media outlets are notorious in stealth changes to their articles, or memory-holing them in their entireties.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Character, charitible organizations, Conservative, Constitution, Constitution Shredded, Culture, Elections, funny business, history, Insanity, Law, Liberal, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Socialists, society, TEA Party, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

I Wrote A Comment At American Liberal Times

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: , , , , | 4 Comments »

Speaking of leftist, stupid, and apparently illiterate: Benjamin Crump, anyone?

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/15

From his website: Intellectual powerhouse Benjamin Crump.

How did this clown ever get a law degree?

How did this clown ever get a law degree?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read the screen capture below and weep for civilization.

Three so-called “Esquires”, all signing off on a contemptibly inflammatory polemic intended to shift attention away from what appears to be a steadily creeping indictment of the moral character of the late Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri.

And all they succeed in demonstrating is their own moral and intellectual incompetence.

See the first paragraph issued by these legal geniuses: “piece mil” for “piecemeal”.  Unfortunately for them, it is the kind of error spell check won’t catch; since, both “piece” and “mil” are real words.

So three activist lawyers rush to the scene of a fiasco, put their demonstrably sub-par heads together, and that is what results.

 

Crump the illiterate crop

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did they write the nonsense they published above? Who knows? But it appears over Crump’s name.

 

Did they read it? Again, who knows? But one is justified in presuming that material published over a man’s name has at least been read by him.

 

Three blow-hard publicity seeking bomb throwing lawyers, and apparently not one of the sons-of-bitches could spell “piecemeal”.

 

And just in case people are wondering if some AOL typist is responsible for the error in the statement:

 

Crump Esquire's statement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kind of sums it up, doesn’t it?

Posted in Culture, education, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Law, Liberal, media, politics, society | 2 Comments »

Ohio Aborts Abortion Mill

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/02

An “women’s health clinic” (read: abortion mill) got closed down because it grossly failed its health inspection. A Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Northeast Ohio got a big, fat fine because it failed its health inspection.

It’s not like it was a surprise what they needed to do. They have all the regulations available to them. It’s an open-book exam. And, apparently, an open-and-shut case.

(I’m allowed to mix my metaphors because my brother’s the University English professor, not me.)

Posted in abortion, Character, Health, Health Care, Law, Personal Responsibility, Pro-Life, society | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

#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: , | 1 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 »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 211 other followers

%d bloggers like this: