Surely they have been called Uncle Toms, Race Traitors, Oreos, House Ni**ers, Tokens, etc by the Left already.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/10/28
Surely they have been called Uncle Toms, Race Traitors, Oreos, House Ni**ers, Tokens, etc by the Left already.
Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, crime, Culture, economics, Elections, history, Insanity, Liberal, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, race, society | Leave a Comment »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/09/07
From Facebook comes this gem. See how many squish Republicans are there. I saw a couple of very noteworthy Republicans in that list. And people wonder why the grass-roots are up in arms against Republicans, too.
The DEMOCRAT John McCain is on that list, as is the other Flake from Arizona and the sore loser from Alaska who needed K-Street to win as a write-in against the Republican in the race, as the Democrats jumped ship from their loser candidate to vote for her over the grass-roots Republican (who went on to snub the one person who had the king-maker mantel who could help him win). And of course, there’s Orrin Hatch, who got all wee-weed up that the grass-roots didn’t like him. Ever wonder why the grass-roots didn’t like you, lifer Orrin? (Even though I post your very worthy Hanukkah song every year.)
Posted in Character, Conservative, Constitution, Culture, economics, Elections, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, society, war | Tagged: Jeff Flake, John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Orrin Hatch, Republicans out of touch, RINO, Senator Murkowski, Veteran Pensions Cut | 1 Comment »
Posted by DNW on 2014/09/02
I’ve come to the conclusion that the tenor of some of my recent postings have done virtually no one, including myself, most especially myself, much good.
To put it in the most self-serving terms possible, this lapse has generally occurred while I was critiquing the work of leftist bloggers.
Now, when doing so you have a choice: 1, to stick to pointing out the faults of the narrative, or 2, to also if it seems justified, go after the one doing the narrating – usually by judging them by the announced standard by which they judge others.
With the left, the fundamental standards of social and political, if not all human value, are generally implied to be “intelligence” and artfulness. In their moral universe, the liberal moral universe, moral values are not discovered, but “created”. So, for example, so-called “Tea Partiers” are berated for being, not merely wrong, but for being uncouth, uncultured, generally ignorant, and above all as fundamentally unintelligent.
Obviously then, it’s quite tempting to analyze the left’s own polemics in the same terms.
And when you do so, that is to say act by not only marking their errors, but also the “reasonableness” of the errors, the transparency of the errors, and the likelihood of those falsehoods being deliberate as opposed to inadvertent, you are quite possibly tempted, as I have been, to throw up your hands and simply conclude that the liberal writers are either lying, or idiots, or both.
The recent result here has been half-a-dozen of my posts prominently featuring the term “stupid” in reference to particular persons spouting a leftist line.
Now, in the abstract, they might deserve this treatment. Or they might not.
But I am tired of seeing it in my own productions.
In fact I am going to re-title a couple of my entries and make some modest textual changes.
I don’t want to become in some measure what I am critiquing, by picking up their standards and flinging them back at them. No matter how much they may seem to deserve it..
Even though I have often accused conservatives of playing with one hand tied behind their back, and of being inhibited by limits liberals don’t share, there has to be a better way than sounding as if you have adopted leftist premises yourself.
It’s not only stupid to become the enemy, but ultimately wrong.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/09/01
FOX News is about to report on “three Atlantic City Casinos closing for good.” Good. Would that all casinos closed for good. On one side, you have immoral people preying on immoral lemmings. On the other side, you have immoral lemmings having less money than they used to. And the outcome is, they both lose. What’s not to like?
What do casinos produce? Nothing. They offer the most expensive places in the world to sit down. I suppose the entertainment value of pulling a lever and watching wheels spin can be attractive to some fools. But seriously, what uplifting value do casinos have? What societal benefit do they provide? They produce nothing. They add nothing to the growth of a community. They only take what that community provides. But the Obama Recovery (which would be a long-term recession or even depression in any other administration) means Society doesn’t have enough for the casinos to siphon.
So, the blood-suckers are dying off because there isn’t enough blood for them to suck. The tapeworms are dying because their hosts are emaciated. The Crimea River is in Atlantic City, NJ.
Posted in Culture, economics, Entertainment, Humor - For Some, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, society | Tagged: Atlantic City, casinos, FOX News, immorality, recession | Leave a Comment »
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: cheerleaders, ESPN, FOX News, homosexual agenda, Michael Sam, showering | Leave a Comment »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/17
DNW has been regaling us with the absurdity that is the Loony Left as represented by one John the Liberal, who runs American Liberal Times. Well, the clown who unfortunately shares my first name wrote an article blasting Voter ID (which is supported by a majority of each segment of each spectrum) and simultaneously calling for mandatory voting. I responded. I expected to get a message saying my comment is in moderation. I did not get that message. Instead, I got a response from the site that suggested my comment went directly into the spam filter. That response was a refreshing of the direct page without even the hint that I commented at all. Good job, DNW. Not only did you get yourself banned from the illogical, deceitful, dishonorable site, but you also got this site, which is based on Honor, banned from it. That does, indeed, show the depth of depravity, the complete inability to hear the truth, the total disregard for Honorable debate “John the Liberal” has.
Knowing there might be an issue with commenting there, I had the forethought to save what I wrote before hitting the submit button. And here it is.
You say “feel free to comment” when you actually mean “comment when and if your opinion matches my own completely off-balance opinion”. I know this to be the case because an author on my blog has attempted to enter into an intellectual and logical debate with you. What did he get in return? “La la la la la I can’t hear you.” And a “you’re not welcome” sign.
You’re not interested in the truth. While I do know Leftists who are, indeed, interested in honest debate; aphrael (the “married” homosexual Leftist at Patterico’s Pontifications) and Jeff (the Left-wing Jewish heterosexual who is down for the cause of homosexual “marriage” (something every true Christian is foursquare against) at Opinions Nobody Asked For) are two such examples, you, however are not in that crowd. I have strong respect for both aphrael and Jeff, despite their being wrong on just about every issue. They, at least, try to debate honestly. You should give it a try yourself.
The only thing that seems to happen is that the voter ID laws become ever increasingly demanding
Prove it. You won’t because you can’t. It’s just a sham you on the Left push in your efforts to make enforcement of eligibility requirements as difficult as possible. You need the fraudulent votes. You need the politicians’ lies. Without both, you lose lots of elections you’re currently winning.
You claim vote fraud is rare. The way you write suggests it’s virtually unheard of. The only reason it would be unheard of is due to the fact mainstream media works so hard to hide it. Vote fraud is hardly rare. I have personally compiled a small sampling of massive voter fraud and voter registration fraud. And it inevitably points to your side of the political spectrum. The side that has the absolute belief that there are no absolutes. (Talk about an intellectually and logically untenable position…)
While it is difficult to ascertain the depths of the vote fraud and voter registration fraud perpetrated by Democrats and Leftists, my proven documentation of Democrat officials engaging in both destroys your claims. As does the 120 percent voter registration in Indianapolis. 120 percent. When even 100 percent is statistically impossible without fraud. And the over 100 percent vote in Florida, used to unseat a black man from office because he didn’t toe the Democrat plantation line.
But your suggestion of making voting mandatory does two things I want to point out here.
1) It proves you on the Left are not at all about independence. You are not at all about individual freedom. You are about control of the people. You are fascist at the core. (That’s what mandatory voting is: Fascism. So, own it or be dishonorable and run from it.)
2) It proves you need the wholly uninformed to vote for your emotionalist scare arguments because, when it’s only the informed who vote, you lose cataclysmically. You cannot win when the people are truly informed and involved. It is impossible. Therefore, the more uninformed the people who vote, the better it is for your totalitarian side. This is proven by the results of “low voter turnout” votes. Those who “don’t get into politics”, in other words, those uninformed types, are more likely to not vote in low voter turnout elections. And low voter turnout elections tend to tilt far to the Right. Thus your need for the uninformed, uneducated, non-critical-thinking masses to be “forced” to vote.
Quite frankly, I would be happy if those who did not pay Federal taxes in the previous year or two were not permitted to vote on any issue that raised taxes on those who actually do pay taxes. Why should the leeches of society get to vote on how much they can leech off those who are forced to lend their arms for the blood-sucking? But my position would be clearly unconstitutional, so I do not advocate for it. Your position, which you are strongly advocating for, is equally unconstitutional.
But since when did the Constitution ever get in the way of you on the far Left?
Here, you can find other articles on this site that concerns voter fraud, voter registration fraud, and the like.
Posted in Blogging Matters, Constitution, Constitution Shredded, Elections, Law, Liberal, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Vote Fraud | Tagged: American Liberal Times, fascism, Unconstitutional Democrats, vote fraud, voter registration fraud | 4 Comments »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/04
Yeah, like that’s ever gonna happen. But seriously, Hamas used the media as human shields as they launched a rocket aimed at Israel from the Gaza hotel that the media uses.
On August 1, terrorists fired a rocket at Israel from the al-Mashtal hotel frequented by foreign journalists in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/FzPXrA7zs2
— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) August 4, 2014
DAILY RECAP: Day 27 of Operation Protective Edge. 108 rockets struck Israel. pic.twitter.com/M2iLIxonEF
— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) August 4, 2014
Will the media wake up to the Truth? Is the Pope Hindu?
Posted in Character, genocide, Insanity, Islam, Israel, media, military, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, society, terrorists, truth, war | Tagged: Hamas, Islamic terrorism, Israel, media as human shield, War in Gaza | Leave a Comment »
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.
Posted by DNW on 2014/07/21
You are a modern liberal
… and you don’t believe in natural rights.
Ok … let’s ask some questions which may even seem silly at first, but which, in the asking, will clear away some of the unhappy vagueness we tend to live with out of social politeness or the fear of seeming too radical.
Do you have, let’s say, a right to breathe? If so, where does this “right” come from? An act of Congress?
Do you have a right to be served by others? If so;
Do they have a right to be served by you? If so;
Do they have a right to serve themselves by not serving you?
The questions are too general or abstract or silly or provocative you say? And anyway, it all depends, you say? Alright then, “it all depends”.
In hopes of making some kind of progress, let’s wave away any of the question begging “balancing of rights” or “cultural context” distractions into which you would like segue, and try to press forward instead.
To continue on a slightly different tack.
Do you (yeah you personally) let’s say, have a right to speak freely? If the answer is “yes”, is that “right” merely a contingent legal permission – be it constitutional, statutory, whatever – which you for the time being enjoy? Can you equally well be deprived of that permission in a way which would leave you with no rational cause for complaint to someone else? If you cannot so be deprived without a rational cause for complaint to someone else, do you then claim a more basic right to that express right? If so, how, or upon what, is that claim grounded?
You are a modern liberal; and, let’s say for the sake of argument, that I am not.
And you’re determined that you are not going to “fall for” any of the questions I have asked. A “right” you insist and will boldly maintain, is nothing more than an arbitrarily recognized social permission – that tolerance or support which others are habituated or intimidated into conceding to you. Usually written down if it is to mean anything.
You then as a modern liberal, consistently and without exception or proviso do assert and affirm that the concept of “rights” really renders down to what are in essence, no more than social permissions; having no other objective grounding or reality.
So now, let’s say that you the modern liberal, and I the not-modern-liberal find ourselves on an island. One with no law books.
I’m stronger that you are and … Yeah, yeah, trust me, I am. And, and anyway as I was about to say, although there is enough for both of us to survive, if I kill you now, I can live more than just comfortably. Besides, I find your weakness and whiny-ness annoying.
If I do kill you, have I done anything objectively wrong? If so what is it, and how do you know? Have I thereby, on this law book free island, deprived you of anything that could be called “rights”? Is my killing of you, “unjust” in any sense, even though no judicial writ runs here? If so, then how so; and, how do you know?
Have you any reason to complain over an injustice in my act? Notice I said “reason”; and notice that your utility to me is not an issue here. How would all this be balanced out under a social permission theory of rights?
Well now, I don’t really expect you as a liberal to answer these questions, or to take them seriously, or even to grant that the framing of the speculations is something you would abide or tolerate.
Because of course, these questions are not really meant to change a liberal mind regarding the nature and status of rights by means of pointing out just how incoherent the liberal use of the term rights is, when the term is used in the sense conceived of, and conceded by, liberals.
I know this because I have wasted many hours attempting to get modern-liberals to explain themselves: and their strategy has been, without exception, to either refuse to do so, or to shelter behind the terminology of a moral worldview which they in fact reject.
You liberals, high-minded or low, already know all this too. You know, explicitly or implicitly that you are are spouting clandestinely self-serving rhetoric not reason, and emoting, not deducing, when you speak of “rights”.
So what’s the point?
The point is that: what this exercise is really meant to do is to remind non-liberals that, in the final analysis, modern liberals are motivated by a simple will to power and/or by urges which they themselves don’t care to justify or explore too deeply.
This is a fact of social life which non-liberals need to face, and of which they need to steadily keep reminding themselves.
Liberals are able not only to readily face this view of themselves, they ultimately embrace it; and when pushed to the wall, they will even proclaim it. They see it – entropy, inherent meaninglessness, and ultimate nothingness – as a state of affairs which grants them freedom from ultimate consequences. Insofar of course, as there is a coherent “they” to them, and insofar as “freedom” has any any meaning, insofar as consequences have any significance, and insofar, insofar, insofar …
So, isn’t it about time that conservatives become brave enough to face what it is that liberals are blithely admitting about themselves as liberals?
Its only prudent, after all.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/20
In light of Senate Democrats’ 100 percent vote to allow abortion on demand until the day a child is born, in an attempt to stop the various States from enacting any restrictions or protections, I have decided to reprint an article I wrote in 2012.
My name is Gianna Jessen… I was aborted, and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California, and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.
A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mother’s womb. The baby then gulps the solution. It burns the baby inside and out, and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.
This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE… in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me the abortionist was not yet on duty and had me transferred to the hospital.
I should be blind, burned… I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy.
When I was diagnosed with this, all I could do was lie there. They said that was all I would ever do! Through prayer and hard work by my foster mother, I was walking at age 3 ½ with the help of a walker and leg braces. At that time I was also adopted into a wonderful family. Today I am left only with a slight limp. I no longer have need of a walker or leg braces.
…Death did not prevail over me… and I am so thankful!
Teen Breaks has more stories from abortion survivors. Teen Breaks is ready, willing, and able to help teens out. You don’t have to be pregnant, or even a girl, to reach out to them. They’re there to provide a loving environment, information, and a community of support for you as you are bombarded by pressures and life’s travails. If you’re a “cutter”, cutting yourself to regain a sense of control or to zone out or to get relief from life’s stresses, you’re not alone. 1 in 200 teen girls have done it. Teen Breaks is there for you, ready to help you.
Click above to chat live or text “TEEN” to 313131.
Claire Culwell’s April 2010 story from Stand For Life:
Putting a Face To What You’re Fighting ForBy Claire Culwell
A year ago, when I was 21 years old, I met the woman who gave birth to me. I had always dreamed about the day I would meet her, and it NEVER involved the most significant part of it all…learning that I was an ABORTION SURVIVOR. She was 13 years old when she became pregnant with me and the only option she knew of (according to her mother) was abortion. She proceeded to go to an abortion clinic nearby where she had an abortion. A few weeks later she realized she was still pregnant and decided to go to an out-of-state late-term abortion clinic to have a second abortion. During her examination at the late-term abortion clinic, she was told that she had been pregnant with TWINS. One was aborted, and one survived. She was also told that it was too late to have even a late-term abortion. She decided to give me up for adoption when I was born two weeks later. If you ask her now, she will tell you that if she had known the results of abortion vs. adoption, she would have gone straight to the adoption agency instead. Putting me up for adoption (and giving me the best family I can imagine) was a life-changing decision for all of us.
Because of the abortion, I was born 2 ½ months premature and weighed 3 lbs 2 oz. I was on life support and had to stay in the hospital for 2 ½ months until I could be brought home. My hips were dislocated and my feet were turned (because during the abortion, the sac that held my body together was broken) and when I was brought home I had 2 casts on my feet and a harness. I was put in a body cast for 4 months, and I didn’t walk until I was over 2 years old. It still affects me even today.
[continue reading at the above link]
And Claire Culwell’s amazing 2011 video:
Posted in abortion, Character, Christianity, Culture, education, Elections, Health, Health Care, Law, Liberal, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Pro-Life, Real Life, society, truth, Youth | Tagged: Claire Culwell, crisis pregnancy services, cutting yourself, Gianna Jessen, Harry Reid, Option Line, Pro-Life, Senator Bob Casey, Teen Breaks, teen pregnancy, US Senate | Comments Off
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/19
The Editor of The First Street Journal found another lying Democrat. There are some rules of writing that say when a word is defined in part by a qualifier, the qualifier is unnecessarily redundant; therefore, it is unnecessarily redundant to add the qualifier “lying” to the word “Democrat”. Democrats win elections by lying. There is a good chance that Democrats would never have more than a small minority position in most State Legislatures and the US government without their lies. Republicans want to throw granny over the cliff. Republicans have a war on women. Republicans are all racists. Heck, the race card has been so overplayed as to not mean anything anymore. Democrats have fought for all the Civil Rights Laws we have in this country. The long list of proven Democrat lies could go on forever. So what’s so important that the Editor of The First Street Journal would point out another Democrat lying? It’s the Pro-Life nature of the Democrat. Or, rather, it’s the lie that he’s in any way Pro-Life at all.
Well, we have just found out how pro-life Senator Casey really is. The pro-abortion forces introduced S. 1696, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is designed to eliminate state restrictions on abortion, through the entire nine months of pregnancy. It was in response to restrictions imposed in states like Texas, where abortion clinics are required to meet rigorous safety and health standards. The Texas law1 is designed, unquestionably, to reduce the number of abortion clinics in the Lone Star State, but it was also in response to “Dr” Kermit Gosnell’s little shop of horrors. When it came time to actually vote on S. 1696, the devout Roman Catholic, pro-life Senator Casey, who represents the state in which “Dr” Gosnell was “practicing,” voted for the bill, as did every other Democrat in the Senate.2
With that vote, Senator Casey just told us, through deeds, that his words are nothing but lies. Senator Casey could have attempted to provide some “moderation,” some bit of pro-life sentiment, which he claims to have, by voting against the bill, because, in the end, the bill is both symbolic and meaningless: its chance of passage by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is infinitesimally small.
If you’re Pro-Life, you cannot vote Democrat. Because Democrats are only Pro-Life to get your vote. Afterward, they are pro-abort in every sense of the word. But you also have to be careful which Republican gets your vote. Because there’s more than one Republican who is pro-abort. And no Democrat wants you to see the photos to the left, because that might make you vote against the Democrat and against abortion on demand.
Posted in abortion, Character, Christianity, Conservative, Culture, Elections, Health Care, history, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Pro-Life, society, truth | Tagged: Democrisy, Pro-Life, Pro-Life photos, Senator Bob Casey, US Senate | 2 Comments »