The Truth the radical Left (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Democrats, Mainstream Media) don’t want you to know.
Archive for the ‘truth’ Category
Posted by DNW on 2013/07/14
UPDATE. The following changes illustrated by the strikeouts have been made out of a respect for accuracy and fairness, something we, especially those on my side of the Martin-Zimmerman news reporting fiasco issue should be highly mindful of – even if the attempt to be accurate and fair seems to fly in the face of what seems to be self-evident: i.e., in this case the “CBS This Morning” logo. See the latest posting on this matter.
Second update. It appears that our scrupulosity was was uncalled for.
CBS News was in fact responsible for the computer generated video insert in their report which portrayed George Zimmerman shooting down an non-aggressive and child-like Trayvon Martin (dressed in short pants) from a distance . CBS, through one of their employees had denied that the video, or the segment, “belonged” to them, but rather to Reuters, whatever “belonged” was supposed to mean in their usage. I was never able to clarify it with them, and and continued attempts to do so became pointless in the face of the evidence, still available, that it was they who had in fact had published the recklessly misleading and prejudicial account of the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
According to CBS News … Or, maybe not CBS, but Reuters ….
This is John’s blog, so I hesitate to quote commenter Eric on another blog accurately if vulgarly referring to leftists as being lower than snake shit.
But frankly, how could anyone deny it? How could anyone who as been watching the lead-up to the Zimmerman trial possibly argue that they, the members of the mainstream, left-leaning, almost completely populated by Democrats media, have any interest in presenting an accurate recounting of facts?
Time after time, they persistently demonstrate they have no such interest in getting the details right, and that they will elide, insinuate, and even deceptively edit the record for effect; as NBC News did with the police department recording of Zimmerman speaking to the Sanford Police Department dispatcher.
Exactness, or even accuracy and truth mean nothing to them when their narrative is at stake.
They won’t even get the petty details correct for fear that exposing these details might redound negatively upon the story line they are attempting to push.
Over at the Huffington Post for example, with the trial over and while they are covering the verdict wrap-up, they are still saying Trayvon bought an “iced tea”. Whether they never paid close enough attention to the police photos to notice what it was Martin actually bought, or whether they are sensitive to either a potential racial stereotyping of the purchase, or the possible drug use implications of what it was that he did buy, in each and/or any event, they are perpetrating a fraud on those readers seeking objective information, and a truthful recounting.
“Objective and truthful”: That would be a recounting on which civil peace and other human lives might even depend.
Below is another example of the journalistic malpractice that has gone on during this case. It is illustrated by a screen capture I managed to make some months ago, and which I recently had to do a computer file search on, in order to find again.
This is the same screen capture I had mentioned in an earlier posting as not being ready to hand.
This looked to be
is taken from a “CBS This Morning” computer animation of the shooting which was Reuters apparently allowed to be re-presented on Yahoo:
Look what’s being shown here for God’s sake: Zimmerman, gunning down a kid in short pants from yards away. No wonder the low information types went out of their minds.
And here is a capture of the web address …
And this is a close up of the logo,
And here is the link: news.yahoo.com/family-florida-boy-killed-neighborhood-watch-seeks-arrest-044537742.html
Try it for yourself, and see what you come up with.
So now, what do we have here? We have as everyone already knows, a clear pattern of the news media attempting to inflame passions and railroad a verdict with a grave indifference to the false narrative they were constructing. It may have been motivated by ideology in some cases, racial animus in others, or a “mere” desire to profit from whatever outrage and attention could be stimulated or provoked in others.
What possible excuse though could these sub-moral creatures offer up for their behavior?
Well, my experiences in dealing with the type convince me that their nihilism is so deep that they are indifferent to the harm they might wreak, and the very idea of excusing their behavior would seem as alien to them as considering it within a framework of “right and wrong” in the first place.
That, is what we are dealing with folks. We need to remember that always. As if we could ever forget, that is.
Posted by DNW on 2013/06/17
When someone, in this instance Katie Halper of Salon, is caught out playing fast and loose with facts in a transparent attempt to whip up a little progressive mob action, how are we to judge the author and her intentions? Barely sublimated narrative malice is after all, the common coin of progressive political narration. The disposition toward malice is taken for granted by most alert readers as being part of the architecture of the run-of-the-mill leftist mind. So, when we come across news articles which in passing misrepresent the facts of some leftist cause de jour, we tend not to blink.
When however, the construction of the false narrative is rather more elaborate than usual, we pause.
Wandering from news link to news link recently, I came across this mess , ” ‘Stand your ground’ law helps white defendants a lot more than black ones” Double standards and all of that .
In her essay, Halper poses two Florida cases, “Wald” and “Alexander”, as examples of notorious and especially invidious legal outcomes resulting from what is generally called a no retreat self-defense or “stand your ground” plea.
Wald, who was a white male, got off on a justifiable force plea after killing an intruder in his house. This was bad. Alexander, who is black, went to jail for for assultively firing a gun in a house she had once shared with her spouse. This is however not good, but also bad. But perhaps we are getting a little ahead of ourselves …
The relevant Florida statute reads in part:
1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
Halper’s narrative strategy is to illustrate her double standard contention with descriptions of what she offers up as two relevant paradigm cases. Halper concludes that the divergent outcomes for defendants Ralph Wald and Marissa Alexander (in these purportedly legally comparable events) is attributable to the race of the defendants. Halper writes:
“The disparity between these outcomes should be shocking. But, sadly, it’s not, once you take into account the fact that Wald is white and Alexander is black.”
Now, it soon enough becomes apparent that Halper’s real purpose is not so much retrospective and legal as proactive and political. She wishes to use these cases to sound a more particular alarm: warning the progressive troops that while no “stand your ground” claim has yet been made in the Martin-Zimmerman case, as ” Zimmerman waived his right to a “stand your ground” pretrial hearing …” she nonetheless considers it ” is likely that ‘stand your ground’ will come up during the actual trial.” And, Halper wonders, ” If it does, [and ] … the defense is successful. Will Zimmerman end up a free man, like Wald?”
So it’s to prime the troops for a little, or a lot of, anti-Zimmerman street action as much as any other reason that this is written. But the obvious poisoning of the well aside, what author and left-wing activist Katie Halper more overtly purports to do, is to draw a contrast in supposedly egregious judicial outcomes between two putatively legally alike cases.
So, just as an exercise, let’s place Halper’s preemptive attempt to de-legitimize a defense which Zimmerman’s defense team has not in fact made, aside for a moment. Let’s instead consider whether the two exemplar cases she cites are even truly alike. In aid of doing so, we ask: is her presentation of the material anything like honest or evenhanded?
Let’s review the first instance in Halper’s parable of racial disparity, injustice, and unequal treatment, which centers on Ralph Wald.
Katie Halper introduces Wald thus,
“On March 10 of this year, around midnight, Ralph Wald, 70, of Brandon, Fla., got out of bed to get a drink and found Walter Conley, 32, having sex with his wife, Johanna Lynn Flores, 41, in the living room. He immediately went back into his bedroom, grabbed his gun and shot Conley three times.”
Now, the “Think Progress” site, which Halper cites twice in succession as an authority for Conley being Flores’ lover, establishes the background somewhat differently:
“Ralph Wald, a 70-year-old Vietnam veteran, walked into his home around midnight, and less than ten seconds later, fired three shots at Walter Conley, according to ABC News.” Italicized divergences.
Halper, unfortunately, does not bother to inform us as to why she believes the Think Progress site was a trustworthy source for information on Conley and Flores’ status lovers, but not for a description of the exact circumstances proximate to the shooting.
1. Did Wald walk into his house as Think Progress has it, or did he arise from sleep? Halper does not follow Think Progress there, but does not say why.
2. We also note that as part of the process of establishing context or characterization, Think Progress thought fit to include the factoid that Wald was a Vietnam veteran. This, Halper either also fails to notice, or dismisses without explanation. Her mind is obviously focused elsewhere.
But, as we see when reviewing a number of other articles, besides being as Halper describes him, an impotent 70 year old white man, Wald was 1. a Vietnam veteran, 2. a retired Lieutenant Colonel, and 3. the father of a then 20 year old daughter from a previous marriage.
To then recap the fact situation somewhat more comprehensively (and comparably, as we will see later): It was midnight and retired Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Wald, a 70 year old Vietnam veteran, and father of an adult daughter, had been sleeping in his house. Wald awoke from his sleep only to find a man on top of his wife in his own living room. Wald reportedly retrieved a gun from his bedroom, returned, and shot the man three times.
The man was apparently so preoccupied with his activities, or indifferent to their discovery, that he never bothered to decouple and decamp when Wald retreated to his bedroom in order to arm himself against the intruder.
The sticking points for Halper’s moral slide rule seem to be Wald’s age and impotence, along with the reported fact that the man having sex with, or raping, Wald’s wife on the living room floor of Wald’s house in the middle of the night, was a sometime current neighbor, and her one time boyfriend. Apparently Halper believes that this past association somehow made the neighbor’s presence in both Wald’s house and wife, excusable; or at least nonthreatening in some way.
Unfortunately for Halper’s insinuated no-harm no-foul thesis, Wald’s wife Johnna Lynn Flores, the actual recepient of Conley’s living room floor delivered sexual attentions, is not of much assistance in granting us this particular progressive reassurance. The Tampa Bay reports:
“Flores, the surviving central actor in the episode besides Wald, testified she was “black-out” drunk the night of the shooting after consuming a large quantity of cognac and remembered almost nothing.”
Halper seems wary that this “minor detail” might imply trouble for her theory, as she defensively admits,
“… while the fact that the two were lovers doesn’t imply consent, Flores has never accused Conley of rape — nor do prosecutors buy that that’s what Wald actually thought was happening.”
No, she is right in this; it does not imply consent. Flores was, on her own testimony blacked out and incapable of remembering anything.
We naturally suspect that if this sexual episode had taken place on, say, a college campus, with Flores an alcohol or drug besotted and blacked out coed, that Halper would be asserting there was a prima facie case that Flores had been de facto , if somehow not legally, raped. We would tend to agree. And note too, Halper’s trust of the prosecutors’ judgment with this statement:
” Flores has never accused Conley of rape — nor do prosecutors buy that that’s what Wald actually thought was happening”.
This trusting attitude will be much less evident later, once Halper begins work arranging her version of the Alexander case. And, while Halper makes much of the fact that the deceased was a former boyfriend of Flores, and an apparently occasional next door neighbor whom Wald might have recognized – and then presumably spared – Wald’s wife Johanna Flores, the recipient of Conley’s sexual attentions, had a somewhat different view of the outcome.
What was Johanna Flores’ own verdict on the verdict? “
“I am elated, absolutely elated,” Flores said outside the Tampa courtroom where her spouse, retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ralph Wald, 70, was acquitted of second-degree murder Thursday. Once Wald was released from jail, she said, he had promised her a special celebration. “Because my husband puts me first, he’s taking me to the Waffle House,” Flores said.” Tampa Bay Times
What then of Conley?
In the second instance of Katie Halper’s parable, the moral character of both Marissa Alexander the shooter, and Rico Gray the abusive husband will become hammering points as she labors to establish exculpating factors in the Alexander case which will help to prove racial bias. So, what of Conley’s character then? Why has that not been introduced more thoroughly? We do remember him. He is after all, the dead “lover” in the Wald case. And Halper even thought fit to include the fact that he had a tattoo honoring Johanna.
Well, in the words of a Mail Online article which Halper cited for the authority that Wald showed no remorse in killing Conley, but which she failed to actually quote, we find this eminently quotable nugget:
“Ms Flores was arrested last October – just two weeks before she and Wald were married – for allegedly firing a shot of Conley. She said he came over and refused to leave. Conley told police Flores invited him back to the home they used to share. She and Conley, who had a record of petty thefts and worked as a laborer, had shared a house next door to Wald in the community of Brandon. Flores allegedly shot at Conley at 3am on October 19. She and Wald were dating then and he bailed her out of jail. Those charges were later dropped. Ms Flores and Wald married on October 25. Wald, a U.S. Army veteran, has a 20-year-old daughter with a previous wife.“
So, in order to drive him away, and in a period prior her marriage to Wald, Johanna Flores had herself shot at Conley – months before her husband finally killed him using the same technique.
Wald, a retired – if 70 and impotent- Lieutenant Colonel; Conley, a petty thief killed while shagging the “blacked out” wife (who had already shot at him) of another man, in the middle of the night, in that man’s own house, in that man’s own living room.
In the Alexander case, as sad as the eventual legal outcome was for Marissa Alexander, the facts on the ground, and the proximate circumstances, are clearly different. But before we start in on the physical facts, let’s make specific note of how Halper introduces Marissa Alexander:
“On Aug. 1, 2010, Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, with a master’s degree and no criminal record, was working for a payroll software company in Jacksonville.”
Compare that again with the treatment she delivers Wald, “On March 10 of this year, around midnight, Ralph Wald, 70, of Brandon, Fla., got out of bed to get a drink and…”
Again, for Wald, no “Vietnam veteran”; no, father of a daughter; no, retired Lieutenant Colonel; and no mention of a previously clean legal record. Just a description of a supposedly cuckolded and impotent old man, who killed his wife’s lover in a fit of jealousy, when in search of a drink, he got out of bed and discovered them.
On then, to the description of setting in the Alexander case.
First, although the way Halper describes the context in Alexander’s case is jarringly sketchy and telegraphic, it is still clear enough to show that when Marissa Alexander committed aggravated assault with a firearm, the location in which the event occurred was not her current home, and she was not confronting an unrelated midnight intruder. Instead, Alexander (on testimony and report) went to a dwelling which she had once shared with her spouse Rico Gray.
Thus, according to Halper’s own account, Marissa Alexander ” … went to their former house to get some belongings.” Halper asserts Marissa Alexander did this thinking, “he [Rico Gray] was not at home”. However, “he”, her estranged husband Rico Gray, was home; whether she knew it or not.
Halper, now switching to one of those really neat passive voices wherein shit just magically happens, says, “The two got into an argument.” And, “Alexander says that Gray threatened her and she feared for her life.”
Ok … Halper then does something seemingly odd for anyone looking to present an objective and informative version of events, but something which makes sense for a polemicist trying to be clever. She angles to base her exculpatory recounting of Marissa Alexander’s actions not on neutral police reports, but on the testimony of the formally aggrieved party: performing a little rhetorical judo so to speak.
In this instance the legally aggrieved party of record is ostensibly Rico Gray, the husband of Alexander. It is Gray who is posited (his kids actually are) as the victim of the aggravated assault charge involving Alexander’s felonious use of a firearm.
Halper aims to undermine the State of Florida aggravated assault charge against Alexander by impeaching her husband Gray with his own words. But now remember, it is really the kids who are the state’s main motivation in bringing charges. Halper then, ostensibly referencing Rico Gray’s deposition of the encounter, tells us,
“When Alexander retreated into the bathroom, Gray tried to break the door. She ran into the garage, but couldn’t leave because it was locked. She came back, he said, with a registered gun, which she legally owned …”
At a glance, we therefore assume Halper is quoting Gray’s damning admissions in the deposition document directly. The elisions are naturally taken to be all Halper’s. Thus Halper, superficially quoting Gray’s deposition, writes:
” I called her a whore and bitch and … I told her … if I can’t have you, nobody going to have you,” he said, in a deposition.”
But for anyone who actually bothers to check the link under the words “he said”, he finds not a legal deposition, but an outraged opinion piece written by Fred Grimm of the Miami Herald. Here is how Grimm wrote it up:
“Sitting in the State Attorney’s Office, Gray described how he had erupted in anger when he discovered text messages on his wife’s phone to another man. (Alexander had moved out, but had come home briefly that day to retrieve her clothes.) “I was in a rage. I called her a whore and bitch and . . . I told her, you know, I used to always tell her that, if I can’t have you, nobody going to have you. It was not the first time of ever saying it to her.”
Halper did then add an ellipsis to those Grimm used; but she might better have helped the cause of truth if she had quoted Grimm a little more extensively rather than elliptically:
“Marissa fired the gun twice that day into the wall. No one was injured. But the State Attorney’s Office said the reckless discharge of a firearm endangered the children. A jury (never told about the mandatory 20-year sentence) agreed. Circuit Judge James Daniel, handing down the verdict, noted that because of the state law, the sentencing decision “has been entirely taken out of my hands.” emphasis added.
Oh yeah, there were those kids in the room. Halper does of course mention them as being there; almost in passing as part of Grays self-critical depositional assessment of his own behavior. But she does not clearly stipulate why Alexander was really charged as she was: which was because the shots were discharged in a dwelling in the presence of kids (one of whom a little research will show was apparently next to the man whom Alexander was trying to impress with her no retreat seriousness of purpose). Or as one news source put it:
“Alexander, 31, claims she fired a shot from a handgun into the wall to protect herself during a confrontation with her husband, who she said had abused her. Because his two children were with them when she fired a shot in his direction, she was charged with three counts of aggravated assault.”2012 by News4Jax.com. All rights reserved Emphaisis added
Nor in Halper’s attempt to establish this as a legally comparable case to Wald which ended in racially motivated and disproportionate justice, does Halper mention the following “little fact”: After the shooting event of August 10 2010, and after her booking on the aggravated assault charge, Marissa Alexander was freed on bond.
Ordered to stay away from her ex husband, she nonetheless, 5 months later on December 30th of the same year violated her probation, and was arrested on a charge of domestic violence for assaulting Rico Gray at his Brockett Way home address.
Photographs were taken into evidence of his [in my view relatively minor] facial abrasions and swelling.
Marissa Alexander was then contacted by the police via phone; and, after initially claiming she had an “alibi”, eventually consented to meet with an officer: She was arrested and remained jailed until her trial over the aggravated assault charge involving the children.
In perusing the various news accounts it appears that Alexander could have made a defensive pleading at trial on a basis other than “stand your ground”, but chose not to do so. She opted to try for the so-called “stand your ground” defense instead.
However, ” … a Duval circuit judge rejected her Stand Your Ground defense. The judge decided that Alexander could have fled instead of running into the garage and fetching the pistol from her car. ‘This is inconsistent with a person in genuine fear of his or her life,’ the judge ruled — illustrating, if nothing else, that the effectiveness of the controversial self-defense statute varies wildly from one Florida circuit to the next.”
Whether it affected the judge’s decision or not, it is interesting to note how the law reads regarding the presumptive coverage of the right. It says,
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or …
It should also be noted that despite all this, Alexander was offered a reduced three year sentence plea by the same prosecutor who is in now charge of the Zimmerman case, Angela Corey.
Corey further indicated that she might have offered an even greater reduction (than three years instead of a potential 20) but it was Marissa Alexander’s violation of the terms of her probation over the outstanding aggravated assault charge, a bond violation which also resulted in her arrest for domestic battery, which made an even greater reduction of sentence offer on the part of prosecutors problematical.
In any event Alexander turned the 3 year offer of reduced time down. And now, unfortunately, she is in jail, sentenced to 20 years. But it is not because she’s black.
Where does all this leave Katie Halper? It leaves her holding title to what can only be, given the sources she herself cites, a deliberately deceitful narrative; a narrative intended to poison the well of public and perhaps even judicial opinion, in order to harm a third party’s interests.
That Halper has done this, is clear evidence of malice. That she has done it so blatantly, and expected it to pass, is persuasive evidence of stupidity.
Halper certainly looks guilty on both counts.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/11/07
Weimar Germany had an economic crisis.
The Germans elected a bunch of politicians who scapegoated large groups of Germans, pitting Germans against each other.
German political leaders turned their backs on their Constitution, and the German people followed along, like sheep, out of a sense of expediency and crisis.
Free Germany then collapsed into a totalitarian state, which soon crumbled into total devastation, but only after tens of millions of lives were lost.
We are repeating history. But this time, there’s no gleaming beacon on the hill to come to the rescue. We are the last bastion of Freedom left in the world. And We The People are willfully letting that freedom vanish.
DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT
Posted in Constitution Shredded, economics, Elections, history, Law, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Poetry, politics, society, truth, war | Tagged: Dylan Thomas, expediency, freedom lost, Germany, history repeats itself, Weimar Republic | 1 Comment »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/11/07
We tried and failed. We on the Right worked hard to rid our government of the man who would deign to utter the words “The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam”, in complete rejection of our First Amendment and complete rejection of Judaism and Christianity. We tried and failed.
And just as we Christians and the practicing Jews here in the US are having our Religious Freedoms stripped from us by the Obama administration are left further unprotected and unsafe and unfree, so are you, Israel. You’re on your own. For the next four years, you cannot count on the US to help keep you safe from the Mohammedan terrorists surrounding you who want nothing less than your total annihilation.
You are now “a nation of unwalled cities” and only Providence can help you now. You have no friendly nations to come to your rescue.
But you still have many millions of people here in the US who are praying vehemently to Adonai on your behalf. The US will fail you, and just did. But Yahweh will not. Even as the followers of the evil, genocidal, pedophiliac, burning in Sheol Mohammed redouble their efforts to destroy you, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph will be there for you. As He promised.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/11/03
HT Jazz Shaw
Perrysburg police arrested four Toledo area men early Friday morning on charges of stealing Mitt Romney campaign signs in Wood and Lucas counties in Northwest Ohio.
The signs were found in a pickup truck owned by Sheet Metal Workers International, Union Local 33 in Parma, according to the police report.
Many of the signs — some measuring as large as 4 feet by 8 feet — were believed to have been put up by members of Northwest Ohio Conservative Coalition, said John McAvoy, the group’s president.
I was a member of the Sheet Metal Workers International for over eight years in Ohio. My Union dues helped get Barack Obama elected. My Union dues helped get Sherrod Brown elected. My Union dues helped get Ted Strickland elected. All of whom I have always vehemently opposed.
So, why did I remain in that Union for so long?
1) Ohio is NOT a Right to Work state.
2) I needed the job for my own survival.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/11/02
On September 10, 1989, my second-born daughter Audréy Renée-Maree Hitchcock died. And life went on. For me, that meant I went to work on the day she died, after spending the night in a hospital basically waiting for her to die. I didn’t have a choice.
Back then, I had a sub-contractor job of stuffing and delivering 1,100 advertisement bags door-to-door. The bags got stuffed on Friday and delivered Saturday and Sunday. Half the bags got delivered Saturday, then Saturday night, Audréy went to the emergency room at Knox Community Hospital, then life-flighted to Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. Sunday, she died, all her organs failing. Sunday afternoon I was back in Mount Vernon, delivering those blasted MIDS bags.
Because people depended on those free bags, and the death of my daughter impacted their lives not at all. On the worst, most evil day of my life, I soldiered on. Because I had to.
Run the New Jerk City marathon as scheduled and quit crying that the police won’t be there for when New Yorkers do what New Yorkers do 365 days a year anyway.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/11/01
Robert Stacy McCain provides more evidence that the Leftists are not carriers of a disease, but are in fact the essence of the disease themselves. (Republished in its entirety, with explicit permission from RS McCain himself.*)
Posted on | November 1, 2012 | 18 Comments and 33 Reactions
Evidently, the polls in the Missouri Senate race — which show Claire McCaskill at only 45% and Todd Akin within 2 points — have unhinged Democrats, who have adopted a “kill-the-messenger” frenzy against St. Louis-based Dana Loesch:
Why does Twitter @Support permit vile monsters like @KognitiveDiss to use their service, and thereby make Twitter such a toxic pool of filth? This isn’t about “Free Speech.” The First Amendment imposes no requirement on commercial providers to allow their services to be abused in this digusting manner. Dana Loesch’s political opinions — she wrote about the Missouri Senate race yesterday — should not make her an open target for these kind of hatefully obscene attacks from troll accounts.
UPDATE: Here’s a nice video from Glenn Beck’s “American Voices” series in which Dana Loesch explains who she is:
What kind of wicked person — what kind of vicious twisted soul — would say the hateful things about her that @KognitiveDiss has said? And why would Twitter @Support not automatically delete that kind of troll account?
*Permission declaration. (And could someone explain to this neophyte how to do a proper twitter blockquote? I’m blockquoting RS McCain’s article in visual and not text, which I tried to do with the tweets.)
10:01 PM – 1 Nov 12 ·
Tweet text Reply to @TruthBeforeDis @rsmccain @Dloesh @KognitiveDissImage will appear as a link
@TruthBeforeDis Sure. Just give us a link.
UPDATE: I had a brief twitter convo with the Leftist disease. And I hate what 140-char limits do to writing.
John Hitchcock @TruthBeforeDis 01 Nov @KognitiveDiss FYI, U’r not from hum civ either. U love the idea of Conserv women being ravaged and brutalized. U’r a disease 2b vanquished.
Kognitive Diss @KognitiveDiss @TruthBeforeDis You’d be truly surprised at how many of those same conservative women want nothing more than to be ravaged. #50Shades ofGrey 11:22 PM – 01 Nov 12
Is there any doubt, any doubt at all, that Leftism is a disease?
Posted in Character, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, society, terrorists, truth | Tagged: Dana Loesh, hate-filled Liberals, hate-filled tweets, KognitiveDiss, Robert Stacy McCain | Comments Off
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/10/22
Barack Obama is pro-abortion. He’s so pro-abortion that he voted against the partial birth abortion ban, which prevents murderers from delivering 90 percent of a baby, sucking that baby’s brains out, then delivering the rest of the baby. He’s also so pro-abortion that he voted against a law that requires doctors and nurses to care for a baby born alive after an attempted abortion, purposefully allowing that living, breathing baby to die.
From On The Issues.org:
1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion
In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238-239 , Aug 1, 2008
Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 , Aug 1, 2008
When you vote for Barack Obama, you vote for this evil monstrosity and this crime against humanity.
Posted in abortion, Character, Elections, Health Care, Law, Liberal, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Photography, politically correct, politics, society, truth | Tagged: aborting born babies, Barack Obama, Born Alive Act | 1 Comment »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/10/18
Bristol Palin got voted off Dancing With the Stars, All-Stars season. I had hoped she could continue further, but I am not surprised she is done after getting to Week Four.
Bristol was better than half the celebrities during her regular season on DWTS, but she was not third best. While I was rooting for her to win it all, she was not third best. There were more than two better than her. But she was better than half of the ones there.
Bristol was also better than two of the All-Stars, one of which still remains. Even so, she lasted longer than her dancing talent alone could carry her in an All-Star season. Wow, can those celebrities dance! I love it! And I loved watching Bristol out there on the dance floor, too.
But the point is Bristol outperformed her ability level. And there’s a reason for that. Oh, the hateful, criminal, terroristic Left can blame it all on the TEA Party, but that’s not the reason. The reason for Bristol’s success on Dancing With The Stars is the hate-filled, criminal, terroristic Left were being hate-filled, criminal and terroristic. That’s the reason. And the TEA Party came to her rescue against the criminal, hate-filled, terroristic Left. That’s it. That’s why Bristol Palin — who is a far better dancer than I ever will be, and a better dancer than many of her opponents — lasted longer than talent alone could take her.
When you hate-filled criminals and terrorists on the Left force a celebrity TV show to provide extra security because you’re sending death threats to a now-22 year old woman, wishing her dead, sending white powder in envelopes to her, what do you expect normal human beings to do? You’re blame right we pushed back against your satanic evil and your criminal actions! We came to the rescue of an innocent young lady you sought to terrorize!
You sphincters on the Left can only blame yourselves for the wild success Bristol is having, despite all your criminal actions. Actually, because of your criminal actions.
Posted in Character, crime, Entertainment, Liberal, Palin, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Real Life, society, TEA Party, truth | Tagged: Bristol Palin, criminal activity, Dancing With The Stars, death threats, terrorism, white powder | 1 Comment »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/10/18
What better way for a white person born over a century after slavery was abolished to pay reparations to a black woman born roughly a century after slavery was abolished than to perform slave labor for that black woman?
Look at all those young men with “fun bags” (according to Pennsylvania Legislator Babette Josephs, D – Phila)!!!
By the way, normal people call them “responsible, politically astute young adults”. We all know Leftists have all manner of different terms for them, many of which would not survive the moderation filter here at Truth Before Dishonor.
Also note: Truth Before Dishonor officially endorsed Mayor Mia Love for Congress many months ago, prior to her winning her Primary in Nevada’s 4th Congressional District.
Posted in Conservative, Elections, Gender Issues, Humor - For Some, Liberal, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Politically Incorrect, politics, race, society, stereotype, TEA Party, truth, Youth | Tagged: 2012 House election, endorsements, Mia Love, Nevada 4th Congressional District | Comments Off
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/10/16
Tonight is the second of three Presidential debates this campaign season. It is in a moderated and moderator-directed “townhall-lite” format. A great many sites will be all over all of Obama’s lies, whether it’s lying about what Romney actually said (and there are many of those Obama lies) or lying about Romney’s actual recort (and there are many of those Obama lies) or lying about what Obama himself actually said (and there are many of those Obama lies) or lying about what Obama himself actually accomplished (and there are many of those Obama lies) or any other manner of Obama lies. There is a lot of meat for honest fact-checkers to have very long-winded articles shredding the heavy amount of falsehoods Obama has put out in this debate.
There will also be a great many people on the Left and the Right who will have plenty negative to say about Romney. For one, Romney’s no Conservative, as his statements in this debate have proven.
As I said, you will be able to find all that information and more on a great many other sites. So I will not cover them in this article. What I want to point out, something that was very obvious for the 45 minutes I listened to the debate on my drive home from work, is the civility or incivility involved in the debate. The respectfulness or lack thereof.
***For the record, and to be perfectly clear, Truth Before Dishonor has never endorsed Mitt Romney. Dana Pico has endorsed him on this site and I have written scathing articles against Romney on this site, but Dana Pico and I will both agree that while Mitt Romney is no Conservative, he’s far better than the Socialist Barack Obama.
But re-listen to the debate in the memory banks of your mind. When it was Barack Obama’s turn to talk, Mitt Romney listened quietly and allowed Barack Obama to say whatever he wanted without interruption. But when it was Mitt Romney’s turn to talk, Barack Obama was constantly interrupting and trying to talk over top of Mitt Romney, trying to prevent Mitt Romney from saying whatever it was Romney was saying.
Who was the more respectful, more Presidential, more civil, more professional debater? Very clearly, it was Mitt Romney.
Who was the more impertinent, more disrespectful, more rabble-rousing, less civil, less professional debater? Very clearly, it was Barack Obama.
That is what I heard. And if you replay the debate in your mind’s memory banks, that is what you will hear, too. That is, if you’re being Truthful to yourself.
UPDATE: I said other sites would be chronicling the massive number of Obama lies in last night’s debate, and JE Dyer did just that. I also said people on the right would be dinging Romney, and she did that, too.
Posted in Elections, Obama, Philosophy, politics, truth | Tagged: 2012 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, civility, lack of respect, Mitt Romney, Presidential debate, respectful behavior, the new civility | 2 Comments »