Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

In case you wondered what left-fascism actually looked like.

Posted by DNW on 2014/11/18

A reminder that big business and the free market are not the same thing, as we see the Lords of Crony Capitalism collaborate with Welfare State Diktat, and declare it “Good”.

“Insurers and the government have developed a symbiotic relationship, nurtured by tens of billions of dollars that flow from the federal Treasury to insurers each year,” said Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

So much so, in fact, that insurers may soon be on a collision course with the Republican majority in the new Congress. Insurers, often aligned with Republicans in the past, have built their business plans around the law and will strenuously resist Republican efforts to dismantle it. Since Mr. Obama signed the law, share prices for four of the major insurance companies — Aetna, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth — have more than doubled, while the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has increased about 70 percent.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/politics/health-law-turns-obama-and-insurers-into-allies.html

 

Posted in Constitution Shredded, economics, Health Care, Law, politics, society | 1 Comment »

We Could Annex The Northern Half Of It

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/11/16

Back when we had control of the northern half of it, we should’ve annexed it then. But we didn’t, and we’ve been suffering for it since. And what is “it”, you ask? “It” is this.

And I know certain empty heads will esplode because I wrote this.

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, crime, Culture, economics, Humor - For Some, Law, Politically Incorrect, politics, society | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why #Obama Might Not Pardon His Peeps

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/11/10

Baraka Obama, like all good tyrants and criminals, is adept at the Olympic sport of “Under Bus Tossing”. In order to protect himself, he is willing to sacrifice any and every person around him. And, since he’s a narcissist on steroids, it is not in any way a sacrifice to him. At all. Consider this scenario:

1) Baraka Obama pardons all his Czars and Cabinet officials.
2) The Republican Congress calls each and every pardoned person to testify.
3a) The pardoned people refuse to testify.
4a) Congress hits them with Contempt of Congress and Obstruction of Justice charges.
3b) The pardoned people lie to protect the agenda.
4b) Congress hits them with Perjury charges.
5) Obama’s peeps are thrown in jail for crimes committed after their pardons.
6) Obama is implicated for crimes he committed, due to evidence found in the questioning and trials of his peeps.
7) Obama faces criminal charges, including treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

No, Obama would not be a wise tyrant and narcissist if he pardoned his peeps. It would be better for Obama to not pardon anyone in his circle. That way, his peeps could exercise their Fifth Amendment rights, found in a document they despise, so they wouldn’t go to prison; thereby, insulating him from the prison he deserves. His best chance to avoid what he deserves is to guarantee everyone around him will get what they deserve if he gets his.

Posted in Character, Constitution, crime, funny business, Law, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, Socialists, society | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hey, @voxdotcom, #Stereotype Much? #Wrong Much?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/11/10

Go take their “quiz” and see for yourself how wrong VOX is. As is normal for VOX. They’re never, ever, and I do mean ever, right about anything. Even people on the Left are laughing at VOX over this one.

How did I do? Anyone who knows me will see what a bunch of hooey the VOX thing is.

Screenshot (1)

Screenshot (2)

Screenshot (3)

Screenshot (4)

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, humor, Liberal, media, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Religion, society | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Let’s #Compromise!

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/11/10

Now that Republicans have won, the Democrats are no longer saying “we won” but have switched to that all-familiar refrain of theirs when they lose: let’s compromise! I agree. Let’s compromise. To compromise, both sides need to give up something they want to get something else they want.

Let’s start the compromising by forcing the Democrats to finally live up to their past agreements.

For the Reagan 100 billion dollar tax hike, the Democrats must now provide the 300 billion dollars of non-defense budget cuts (in 1986 value dollars).

For the George Herbert Walker Bush tax hike, the Democrats must now provide the agreed upon non-defense budget cuts (in 1990 value dollars).

For the Reagan amnesty, the Democrats must now secure the southern border.

Once the above 3 compromises are finally met, we can talk… about other compromises the Democrats have not yet followed through on. There should be no further offers of compromise until the Democrats actually follow through on old promises they made and, to this point, welched on.

Posted in Character, economics, Elections, history, Law, Philosophy, Politically Incorrect, politics, Socialists, society | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Difference Between 1994 And Today Is Democrats Have Obama

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/11/05

I have been told that the GOP has a larger advantage in the US House than any Party since World War II. That is decidedly untrue. The Democrats have had a larger majority many times since World War II ended. But this is indeed the largest Republican majority since World War II. But let’s examine Baraka Obama’s infamous quote, shall we? And his impact on Democrat elections.

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Democrats have Obama
2009 Democrats 257 Republicans 178
2011 Democrats 193 Republicans 242 Republican gain of 64
2013 Democrats 201 Republicans 234 Democrat gain of 8
2015 Democrats 179 Republicans 243 13 seats currently undecided with 5 Republicans currently leading

That’s a Republican gain of 65 at a minimum, and a possible Republican gain of 70.

The Clinton years
1993 Democrats 258 Republicans 176
1995 Democrats 206 Republicans 228 Republican gain of 52
1997 Democrats 207 Republicans 226 Democrat gain of 1, Republican loss of 2
1999 Democrats 211 Republicans 223 Democrat gain of 4, Republican loss of 3

That’s a Republican gain of 47.

The difference between the Clinton years and the Obama years is Republicans gained a minimum of 18 more House seats under Obama, possibly as many as 23 more seats.

Source: US House of Representatives
Source: Real Clear Politics

US SENATE
The Obama years
2009 Democrats 60* Republicans 40* (see below-noted source)
2011 Democrats 53* Republicans 47 Republican gain of 7
2013 Democrats 55* Republicans 45 Democrat gain of 2
2015 Democrats 45* Republicans 52 Republican gain of 7, with 3 to be decided. Likely Republican gain of 8 or 9.

That’s a Republican gain of 12 to 14 Senate seats.

The Clinton years
1993 Democrats 57 Republicans 43
1995 Democrats 48 Republicans 52 Republican gain of 9
1997 Democrats 45 Republicans 55 Republican gain of 3
1999 Democrats 45 Republicans 55 No gain

That’s a Republican gain of 12 seats.

The difference between Obama and Clinton in the Senate? Obama hopes it’s a wash, but it’s much more likely that Republicans will gain more Senate seats under Obama than under Clinton.

Source: US Senate
Source: Real Clear Politics

Clearly, the difference between the Obama years and the Clinton years is Republicans gained more seats overall under Obama. And the reason is very clear. When Clinton got shellacked in 1994, he learned. He triangulated. He moved toward the center. He stole Republican agenda items for himself, even items Republicans had to force onto him. And he made the Democrats sound less Socialist and anti-American in the process. Furthermore, Clinton was a much better showman, a much better politician, a much better salesman than Obama could ever be.

Obama learned at the feet of a man who dedicated his book to Satan, a man who set off bombs inside the US in order to attempt to get the US government to bend to his will, two Ivy League professors who suggested the total overburdening of the freebie system to collapse the government budget and usher in Socialism. Obama and Clinton both have been shown incapable of telling the truth, but Clinton can actually make people buy his lies.

Clinton blinked, moved away from the Big Government Socialism he came in with, and the Democrats recovered better than Obama’s “I can’t learn anything from these elections” approach.

The difference between the Clinton years and the Obama years? Americans are not, in general, Socialist.

Posted in Character, Culture, Elections, history, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, Socialists, society | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

Taking Their Chains Off

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/10/28

HT OLLPOH

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 »

Ferguson, and Michael Brown: Why the proximate facts of the shooting don’t matter …

Posted by DNW on 2014/10/18

… really, to the Activist Left.

With the most recent publication of the New York Times article on the Grand Jury findings and the likely Justice Department decision not to prosecute Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting of Michael Brown, it would seem that with a large portion of the uncertainty surrounding this event dissipating, so too would the causes for emotional inflammation lessen at least proportionally.

The Times reports:

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform.

Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck. This is the first public account of Officer Wilson’s testimony to investigators …”

So,  Officer Wilson’s testimony does at this point seem consistent with the forensic results.

But, says the Times, “ … it does not explain why, after he emerged from his vehicle, he fired at Mr. Brown multiple times.”

Now let’s just stop here for a moment and consider where we are even if we discount not only Piaget Crenshaw and Tiffany Mitchell’s versions of the encounter at the police car, but also Dorian Johnson’s potential “spin”.  After all, Dorian Johnson was an accomplice in Michael Brown’s moments-before robbery of Ferguson Market and Liquors . So, just for the sake of argument, let’s also suppose that Johnson’s version of Officer Wilson’s reaching up and out through the police SUV window, and grabbing the 6’4″ tall, 300 lbs,  Michel Brown by the scruff of the neck with one hand , and drawing him back into the police vehicle in order to shoot him, is discounted.

Let’s suppose instead, and based on videotaped fact quite reasonably, that Brown, highly conscious of the strong arm robbery he had just perpetrated, and of the success he had just had in assaulting and technically battering the store clerk into submission during the robbery, figured he would try the same technique on the cop who was trying to tell him to get out of the middle of the road and to stop blocking traffic; a cop who in returning to deal with Brown’s refusal, and while in radio contact with headquarters, would in all probability become more curious regarding Brown’s recent activities and current motives.

Let’s suppose then, that Wilson is telling the substantial truth: that Michael Brown, knocking Officer Wilson back into the SUV as he attempted to emerge, went himself partly in through the car door window in order to batter Wilson into submission. And, that during the course of Brown’s battering Wilson, Wilson and Brown struggled for control of Wilson’s gun, and that, as the forensics show, the gun was discharged twice in the vehicle, spattering the vehicle interior as well as Brown and Wilson, with blood from Brown’s arm.

At which point Brown wounded once in the arm, takes off running; and Wilson, battered about the head and face emerges from the vehicle in pursuit.

Ok …

The first point to make here is that many on the left would object to Wilson shooting Brown under any circumstances: even to save his life in the midst of a potentially life or death struggle.

How do we know this? We know this, because in what they are positing as roughly parallel cases, wherein there was perhaps even  more existential provocation for shooting an assailant, such as for instance, having your head smashed on a concrete walk, leftists and race hustlers have in fact vehemently objected.

In the specific instance just now referenced, the case of Zimmerman-Martin, even after it was demonstrated through imagery, and geometrically, and through the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s so-called “girlfriend”, that Trayvon had to have doubled back on Zimmerman in order to assault him; even after Zimmerman’s bloody skull and broken nose were finally shown to the public; even after the ballistics showed that Zimmerman shot up into Trayvon’s chest while, or virtually while, being battered by Trayvon, the blase’ response of the left – agreed to by our friend the Old Gap Bridger for another example – was that Zimmerman had earlier invaded Trayvon’s space, deserved an assault and battery in response, and should therefore have “taken his beating like a man”.

In other words, to some on the left who still like to pose as fellow citizens instead of declaring as outright enemies, it doesn’t matter if you are being maimed or killed by a member of the imagined victim class. You are to passively suffer it; or maybe, flee. The victim classes’ “right” to inflict mayhem on you, trumps your very right to life.

Now in the case of Officer Wilson and Michael Brown, it is apparent, even according to our hypothetical scenario here, that Brown was shot multiple more times after Officer Wilson drove off Brown’s initial attack.  This additional shooting occurred after Officer Wilson extricated himself from the vehicle and, as was his duty, set off in hot pursuit of the man who had mere seconds before been battering him.

It is at this juncture that (generalizing) a further supposition of the activist left comes into play.  Already under their scheme of things, you are presumed to be obligated to to suffer a beating at the hands of a member of an official victim class without responding with fatal or potentially fatal force. At the very least, the moment any such assailant pauses in his attack on you,  he is presumed immune from any retaliation.

In the specific case of Brown and Wilson, Brown (under our assumed scenario) having unsuccessfully attempted to batter and or kill Officer Wilson in Wilson’s car, was fleeing the failed attempt, and thereby had under collectivist moral sensibility become immune from the leveling of deadly force in retaliation. It would not matter if Brown had just 5 seconds before gouged Wilson’s left eye out and ripped off his right ear. As the leftist activist sees it, the perpetrator is morally immunized [legally is another matter] from physical retaliation through the act of flight.

Furthermore, even if Brown ceased flight, not in order to surrender, but only to resume his assault under the transparent pretext of pretending to surrender, the left would still assert that to kill the assailant prior to a repeat of physical contact, no matter how many warnings to halt were given, was “unjust”.

Why?

The reason is that under their scheme of interpretation, neither Wilson, nor Zimmerman, nor any other person not a member of an official victim class, is even entitled to self-defense.  More broadly, no one is under the leftist system, actually.  But this most especially applies to all such people already considered guilty of capitalism, and economic privilege, and of engaging in the pursuit of self-interest. Those, thinks the leftist, of this bourgeois kind, who are not yet the recipients of an assault or battery or murder, are only awaiting their turn at a proper fate.

Unfortunately this attitude, more broadly predicated and subtly construed, at least superficially, has been creeping steadily into law over some generations now.

There can, it is plain, be no real reasoning across this kind of moral gulf.

One can only resist, or submit.

Posted in Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, politically correct, politics | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Deploying the National Guard overseas on the basis of an Executive Order?

Posted by DNW on 2014/10/16

NBC News reports

“President Barack Obama is expected to issue an executive order Thursday paving the way for the deployment of National Guard forces to Liberia to help contain the Ebola outbreak there, sources told NBC News.

The sources said that eight engineers and logistical specialists from the Guard, both active-duty and reservists, would probably be included in the first deployment. They are expected to help build 17 Ebola treatment centers, with 100 beds apiece. The sources said that no decision had been made.

Defense Department officials said that the executive order was necessary to speed the deployments, and would allow the president to send additional forces as needed. Health officials have recorded more than 2,400 Ebola deaths in Liberia, the highest of any country.”

The National Guard? There have undoubtedly been numerous changes for the worse in our laws in recent years, but when did the President get the authority to call up National Guardsmen for duty beyond our borders on his own imperial say so?

What the hell has this country, and have its people, become?

UPDATE:

In partial answer to my own question we have this from the Heritage Foundation. I have made paragraphs in some cases where none were before in order to emphasize certain points.:

“In the 1980s, governors again resisted a presidential call for the militia (National Guard). Some of them objected to the deployment of their states’ National Guard troops to Central America. Led by Minnesota governor Rudy Perpich, these governors withheld their consent to federally ordered National Guard active duty training, as was their prerogative under then current federal law.

In response, Congress enacted the Montgomery Amendment, which prohibited governors from withholding consent for National Guard active duty service outside the United States.

Perpich filed suit against the Department of Defense, arguing that the Montgomery Amendment was unconstitutional because it infringed on the militia training authority granted to the states under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

Perpich also sought to enjoin the use of Minnesota National Guard troops in any training outside the United States that did not have the governor’s consent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of presidential control over the operations of the militia when called into actual service of the United States.

Like James Monroe and Justice Joseph Story, the Court held that a state governor could not veto the use of a state militia when called upon by the nation in accordance with Congress’s constitutional power and the President’s constitutional authority.

Recent Presidents have made more use of the National Guard as a reserve, calling units up for long periods of duty abroad, in actions in the two Gulf Wars, Bosnia, and Afghanistan.”

All this still leaves open the matter of Congressional assent, and under what legal authority the militia is being “called into the actual service of the United States”.

My, what a race of serfs we have become.

Posted in Constitution, Constitution Shredded, Culture, Insanity, Law, Liberal, military, politics | Leave a Comment »

Alton Nolen’s Mother speaks out

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/29

In an update to the Alton Nolen story, we have his mother’s assurance that it was not him, or the real him, that was there when this thing “happened”.

He was raised in a loving home, you see.

And Mom says, he believed in God.

Though that is not quite what is at issue: since no one disputes that Alton Nolen believed in a god of some sort; just not the Christian God his mother and sister appear to – sincerely – profess.

No, the god Alton Nolen professed was the god Muslim faithful refer to as “Allah”. And it was apparently Alton Nolen’s belief in Allah and in the Koran as the word of Allah, that led Nolen to argue that women should be stoned for certain offenses, and is probably why he beheaded the woman he chose as one of his slashing victims.

But you know, Alton’s mom is, perhaps understandably, having a hard time dealing with this.

 

“Relatives of the main suspect in an Oklahoma workplace beheading insist that he is a good person and would never hurt anyone.

Mother Joyce Nolen and sister Megan Nolen made the emotional claims in a video posted Saturday to Facebook. Accused killer Alton Nolen has a violent criminal past and has spent multiple stints in prison, records have shown.

My son was a good kid,” said Joyce Nolen. “I know what they saying that he done, but I’m gonna tell you this – that’s not my son.”

 

Listening to the audio we hear this from his mother, transcribed below as accurately as possible without resorting to a phonetically reproduced “dialect” style of quoting:

 

“This uh I would like to make a statement on behalf of my son Alton Nolen …. my heart is just [undecipherable] right now

Uh, I know my son, my son was raised up in a lovin home. My son was raised up believing in God, that’s what he believed in. My son was a good kid.

You know, I know what they saying he done, but I’m gonna tell you this; that’s not my son.

There’s two sides to every story. And, we’re only hearing one.

His family, our hearts bleed right now, because what they saying Alton has done.

I wanta apologize to both families, because this is not Alton.

But I just … I’m praying that justice will prevail; the whole story will come out; the whole story.

 

There's two sides to every story ...

There’s two sides to every story …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“There’s two sides to every story and we’re hearing only one …”

“I’m praying that justice will prevail. The whole story will come out … the whole story … “

 

Yeah, Alton  was a good kid. Probably no “serious felonies” as they say in Ferguson.

Their hearts are bleeding too, figuratively speaking. Almost as much as the decapitated body of Alton’s victim did literally.

But remember! The whole story has not come out! Who are we to judge his acts before “the other side” ( whatever that might be) is heard?

 

Now, as regards Alton’s assaults on police officers? The prison time?

Well as sis puts it: “Alton my brother has always been a great person, a loving person, he’s always been a people person, he’s never been a violent person … so, for something like this to have happened …. [note the use of the passive voice]… And we are all  still in shock right now, we’re all still in shock …”

Well, that settles that.

He was a good kid, done wrong. Fired. Driven to act out in a way contrary to his loving God believing nature and upbringing.

The solution is obvious. Call in Sharpton  and …

Burn down Oklahoma.

 

 

Posted in crime, Culture, Insanity, Islam, Liberal, media, Personal Responsibility, politics, society | Leave a Comment »

But did he have his hands up in surrender?

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/26

Guest Posting from: The Progressive Center for Liberal-Islamic Solidarity and Sharia Justice.

 

“You have all seen this picture.

Greetings from the religion of peace

Greetings from the religion of peace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is not the same picture we see!

Yes, so you say a woman was slaughtered with a knife, being decapitated in fact.  So you say the Muslim man who did this was caught in the process of attempting  to slaughter another. So you say he was shouting Islamic slogans as he engaged in this activity.

What’s any of that prove?

How can we Progressives who stand in solidarity with the oppressed and ignored of the world expect anything less, in this, a country so rife with injustice and bigotry and white hetero-normative privilege?

The important question, the question all good Progressives will instantly want to know is: “How come Alton Nolen was shot three times? And with a rifle!”

Was it because of his religion? Was it because he was black?

Imagining for a moment that there is some shred of truth to the corporate media line: Did he not pause even long enough to receive a fair warning? Were others proven to be in immanent danger of being harmed? How do those who say so, claim to know for sure?  Can their bigotry give them the power of reading minds?

What exactly has the alleged killing of one person, got to do with leveling lethal force against Alton Nolen when we do not yet know if there were any witnesses to the alleged first killing?

Why was Alton Nolen then made the repeated victim of potentially lethal force, when it has not even been proven that he intended to kill the one person with whom he was actually (and allegedly) witnessed to be in a tussle with?

What right had some uninvolved third party to interfere in this dispute and then to level potentially fatal violence against Alton, when they could not possibly have known what led to the altercation in the first place, and whether his actions in allegedly striking back against the power, were undoubtedly justified?

Instead Alton was ruthlessly gunned down … shot three times when he was virtually unarmed in comparison to a trigger happy corporate lackey with a rifle!!!

Alton had only, allegedly, a knife. The so-called knife was not even his own according to the initial reports. It was owned by the CORPORATION!

We suspect that what we have here is another instance of some rent-a-cop taking advantage of a power imbalance in order to lash out and victimize a person of color and a member of a maligned religious group, just because he was able to do so.

We demand information on exactly who the shooter was, and why he was armed in the first place! We demand to know who his parents are and where his wife and children live!

Who gave the would-be murderer of Alton Nolen a rifle? Who told him he was allowed to shoot Black men and Muslims? What right had the gunman to assume that the first (and remember it is only alleged) “beheading” was the work of Alton, and that the altercation which he did witness was not merely Alton defending himself, while uttering sacred prayers for deliverance, against an insufferable systemic provocation and disrespect?

Was the shooter even properly trained and licensed? Has he any indications in his background that he might be prejudiced against Muslims?

WHY … why we demand to know, did he shoot three times?!!! Was not one shot tearing into the helpless body of this poor, marginalized victim of capitalism, racism, and western imperialism  not enough?

 

Innocent!!!!

Innocent!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We demand the immediate involvement of Eric Holder, and the avenging of the attempted murder of Alton Nolen: victim of capitalism, religious bigotry, western imperialism, and hetero-normative race privilege!!!  “

 

 

 

The above opinion does not necessarily reflect the views of Truth Before Dishonor, its writers, contributors, employees, nor any sane person in the universe.

 

Posted in crime, Culture, Islam, Law, Liberal, politically correct, politics, race, Religion, Socialists | 6 Comments »

Scotch Socialists

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/16

Just trying to keep things straight here in case of potential developments in the Still Somewhat United Kingdom: but, if Scotland declares its independence in order to form a more perfect collectivist state, is Scotland somehow automatically grandfathered in on the various agreements and crap we have with Great Britain?

I mean, like, man, how could this legally be? Wouldn’t Scotland then be a brand new country, with no treaties or agreements with anyone and no membership in any international organizations?

So … then Scotland wouldn’t even be a member of the United Nations, right? And the United States, for example, would have neither direct nor indirect obligations or arrangements with the Scotch – assuming they even exist for much longer before turning their country over to foreign laborers in return for a promise that their pensions will be paid until they die, or whatever.

But think for a minute.  What if Denmark invaded Scotland? Would anyone be legally obligated to respond in its defense? What if Donald Trump invaded … with the intention of turning the whole place into a game preserve?

And, in somewhat happier terms, might this mean in a legal context, for example,  that any annoying  socialist son-of-a-bitch you might run across, would be –  as long as he was Scotch – virtually outside the law … if that is, you could catch it off its home turf?

Now, “Why in the world … “, you might ask ” .. would I even wonder about something like that”? Especially as I am always carping in favor of freedom and self-determination?

The answer is obvious: Alex Salmond.

Speaking of punchable faces

Speaking of punchable faces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that Alex Salmond, pictured above. (Though you might be forgiven for mistaking him for that other tubby leftist Scotch miscreant George Galloway.)

I’ve been doing a little reading about the Scottish Independence referendum, and it is clear that a great deal of what has been driving it, unfortunately, is not a desire for more freedom, but a demand for less.

And who is especially in favor of it? Well, according to those profiled in The Guardian, it’s those who have heretofore had little or no interest in politics, and but who presently draw checks from it.

Sort of like Alex Salmond and his 17 years older wife, and his parents.

So what we have here in the Scotch Independence Movement, is a movement that appears to be largely by and for those who draw their meal tickets from the government and who are determined to make sure that if England is infected by “neo-liberal” ideas of the kind that spell individual rights and less government direction, they will not be part of it.

Of course others have a different opinion. Some see it, and speaking of Donald Trump, as part of a vast right wing conspiracy for which Salmond is acting as crony or front man.

Who can say really. All we really know is what the Scotch in favor of the movement say, and that is that they want less dangerous classical liberalism and more guaranteed welfare statism, even if it means paying for their “Independence” by importing a non-Scots replacement population in order to to underwrite it all.

Why don’t they just put guns to their heads and pull the triggers?

The Nazis, famous for being infamous,  were once also famous for complaining that many of the most vigorous of the German nationality had emigrated to America; leaving behind a more stolid and less heroic population than was necessary for an anti-classical liberal national revivification of the kind they envisioned. Their proposed solution was the organized militarization of their political culture, and the expulsion (or murder) all non-Germans in the perfervid  hope of reinvigorating their “people”.

The Scotch solution to an endemic national ennui and the threat of encroaching classical liberalism, is to declare independence from the source of the individual self-direction taint (England), and turn the country over to immigrants who will, they hope, underwrite the comfort of the present pensioner class.

Talk about two suicidal extremes proposed as answers to what was essentially the same question …

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, Humor - For Some, Law, Liberal, politics, society, We Won't Miss You | 3 Comments »

Senators Who Voted To Cut Military Veterans’ Pensions

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: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

American “Poor” vs Filipino Working Class

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/09/05

In the Philippines, it is easy to find people making 8000 PHP (Philippine Pesos) per month. Very easy. At the current rate of roughly 43.60 PHP per USD, that comes out to about 183.50 dollars per month. Let me repeat that. It is easy to find a Pinoy or a Pinay (not derogatory at all) who makes less than 200 US Dollars per month. At 50 pesos per day, or roughly 1.20 dollars per day, a Pinoy phone can be unli. That’s unlimited. So, that’s 1500 pesos per month, or 18.75 percent of their monthly pay. More than 5 and a half days a month working, just for an entire month of unlimited cell phone service. So, they do not unli their phones every day. Only when necessary. Does anyone work more than 5.5 days a month just to pay for their cell phone in the US? No? Then sit down and shut up.

A brand new cell phone costs 2400 PHP, and it doesn’t even have a motion sensor to turn the image sideways when you turn your phone. That’s nearly 1/3 of a month of pay. Did you pay more than an entire week’s worth of wages for your even better phone? No? Then sit down and shut up.

Going to the cinema, it costs 150 PHP for a 2-D movie, or more than half a day’s pay (less than 4 bucks), based on working 30 days a month. Half a day’s pay. Does anyone working at McDonalds have to work an entire day in order to make enough money to buy two tickets to the movie theater? No? Then shut up about being poor. I mean, seriously.

I saw a report about a proposed new, lower graduated income tax law for the Philippines. If I remember correctly, 500k was where the absolute top rate kicked in. 500,000 Philippine Pesos. 11,468 US Dollars. For a top rate of close to 1/3 of your pay. Do you pay close to 1/3 of your pay in income taxes if you make 12,000 USD? No? Then sit the fornicate down and shut the sheol up.

America’s “poor” are not poor. I have no respect for and no empathy for fast food workers who think they can commit crimes in order to do anything their Socialist puppeteers want. Period.

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, Culture, economics, Personal Responsibility, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Real Life, Socialists, society, Travel, truth | Tagged: , , | Comments Off

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: , , , , , | Comments Off

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 235 other followers

%d bloggers like this: