Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Posts Tagged ‘Perry Hood’

Ed Morrissey Accidentally Spanks Perry Hood

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/03

As everyone who reads this site regularly knows, Perry Hood of Lewes Delaware is a lying /used female cleansing tool container/ who always ignores the facts as presented him in order to continue his malicious lie-filled attacks on anyone to the right of Mao tse Tung. He’s always spouting off about how there’s no evidence of voter fraud of any scale worth noting, and that Republicans only want to keep Democrats from voting, by use of “gasp” requiring an ID to do something! Well, Ed Morrissey just spanked Perry Hood real hard.

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

posted at 12:41 pm on April 3, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

What happens when voter-registration officials get updates on death certificates and records from other states? In North Carolina, they find massive voter fraud. As many as 35,000 North Carolina voters may have voted in another state in the 2012 election, and Republicans are claiming vindication for their efforts to tighten voter-ID checks[.]

35,000 cases of North Carolina voters registered to vote in other states, and quite a few of them availing themselves of the ability to vote in both states in the same General Election (2012). That’s just NC voters in other states. Imagine how the number would grow if each state did such an examination of voter rolls. And the Chicago Zombie voter system was spotted in NC as well — dead voters voting while dead.

Yes, Perry Hood of Lewes Delaware, when states require ID to vote, states flesh out lots of voter fraud. But lets stipulate your accusation that Voter ID is keeping the Democrat vote down. That would mean those Zombie voters (illegal and fraudulent as they are) and those double voters (illegal and fraudulent as they are) are Democrat voters voting fraudulently.

Since this is North Carolina we are talking about, I decided to see if the most beautiful North Carolina blogger had anything to say on the matter. And she did:

It’s fascinating, really. As the information was being tweeted out, liberals who have a vested interest in getting NC’s supposedly “toughest voter ID laws in the nation” tossed off the books on the grounds that they’re “racist” or something didn’t stop to consider anything but the fact that this seriously underminds (sic) their case. Keep in mind, they don’t even know if most of the people who double voted were Republicans or Democrats. In their mind, the law is racist and voter fraud doesn’t exist (except when the GOP wins elections, of course). Perhaps they assumed it was mostly Democrats who fraudulently voted in two different states and seek to change the direction of the debate. After what the left has gotten away with here and elsewhere over the last several decades come election time, can you blame them for going on the defensive?

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

The Unrepentant Tyrannical Thug

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/11/04

Perry Hood, the retired Lewes, Delaware Socialist, has repeatedly threatened another’s livelihood because Perry Hood does not like what that other person says online. He has accused another of Federal Income Tax Evasion, a felony. He goes out of his way to try to bully and intimidate his enemies, Conservatives, into silence. And he doesn’t care what rules are in place to prevent his thuggish actions.

Wagonwheelsays:

Ropelight now takes his turn:

Koolo, if Preey is taking lessons from Brett Kimberlin, The Speedway Bomber and Democrat activist, resident in the neighboring state of Maryland at last notice, you might consider notifying your local police department that SWATting could be a possibility.

It’s a good idea to be on-record if something truly dangerous might be in the offing. It’s happened to too many bloggers too many times before to ignore the possibility. No one knows the extent of the evil that lurks in the hearts of these belly crawlin’ leftist bastards.

This is typical of the venom that emanates from your blog, Mr Editor. It reflects on them, and on your blog, all because of ideological differences.

Maybe not.

I stand up for the well being of our students.

koolo’s behavior on here, if repeated in the class room, which it probably is, would constitute predatory behavior by a bully against children. Hube is in exactly the same category. As a matter of fact, Mr Editor, you yourself, by your Comment and Content Policy, have in the past exercised your prerogative to limit what you call “liberty”. So playing that card this time on me is not impressive, with all the other crap going on here on a daily basis.

Face it, the amount of abuse given me on here by these extremist ideologues, koolo, ropelight, Eric, and Hitchcock being the worst offenders (Who’s left?), is reprehensible, but is part of the rhetoric we see repeated time and again by these people, and you do nothing about it. Your own modeling of civility has been of no good influence on these people.

If I knew koolo’s identity, I would turn him in in a New York minute. Unfortunately, I don’t, so there is no threat which can be carried out. However, he considers it a threat, because he knows his behavior here would trigger an investigation, if known. We must not have a person with his obvious character deficiencies in our classrooms teaching our children, period. If he is worried about his livelihood, then he needs to demonstrate that he has gotten control of himself.

Note that even when you asked for civility on your Friday thread, koolo was unable to stifle himself, totally ignoring your request. Same with Hitchcock. Some respect they showed to you!

Koolo surely said that he would apologize, which he did not do in a timely fashion. What kind of an adult person would push the limit until caught, then apologize? This is what bullies do until they see they have caused harm, which in some cases could be serious harm, as we’ve seen reported in the news in recent years. Then they apologize, when often it is too late, the harm already done. Does koolo do this bullying in his classroom, push it to the limit, then apologize? If so, what kind of damage has he done to our children?

If this means that I am to be banned from your blog, so be it. Then your cowardly right wing friends will be most pleased, as they have been lobbying for this for many months. They can give out the heat, but they can’t stand it themselves, like crybabies. How childish and immature is that?

Does that tell you enough about Perry Hood? How about this?

Wagonwheelsays:

In case you can’t figure it out, you aren’t even in the ballpark about my professional behavior.

I’ll believe that when I see some professional behavior on here from you!

I’ll apologize to the Editor in this thread now … for hijacking the thread. But I hope he understands b/c Perry has made yet another threat to a commenter b/c he can’t stand it when his own tactics are turned against him.

Absolutely I have said that I would turn you in, based on your behavior on here vis a vis a classroom. If you have nothing to fear, then you would not be pushing back on this issue, to the extent that you would even refer to it as a “threat”. You know full well, or should know, that your behavior on here would raise questions by administrators and board members, the same questions I am raising. So clean up your act, koolo, as a demonstration of your “professional” persona!

[Comment left intact; in this, Wagonwheel has admitted that he has threatened koolo's livelihood.

It should be obvious that, if koolo is a teacher, simply a complaint made of this nature would cause serious repercussions, whether the complaint was dismissed or not. Because Wagonwheel is, himself, retired, he is immune to such threats.

We have endured many, many personal insults on this site, but only one commenter here has threatened someone else's liberty or livelihood, and that commenter, himself, has made complaints when others have published his real name, even though that commenter has no job to lose. His request for personal anonymity has been honored on this site, simply because he has requested such.

I fully recognize that there are some significant personal animosities here, and that as discussion gets more strident, those animosities accelerate. However, threatening someone's livelihood or liberty crosses the line, very blatantly. -- Editor]

That should be enough to tell you everything you need to know about the evil, hate-filled tyrant Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, Real Life, Socialists, truth, war | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

The Ram And The Rock

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/07/25

There once was a ram who lived in South Dakota. Now this ram was a nomadic, constantly traveling sort. He roamed the state, never sleeping in the same place twice. As each new day rose, the ram would arbitrarily choose a direction to travel with no real plans of ever actually getting to any particular place. He just traveled randomly.

On one such a day, the ram chose for no particular reason to travel in a particular direction. But this particular day, the ram came face-to-face with Mount Rushmore. And Mount Rushmore was standing directly in the way of the ram’s arbitrarily chosen direction of travel. Mount Rushmore was blocking the ram’s path.

So, the ram decided to get Mount Rushmore out of his way. He head-butted it, rammed it, charged it. He continued head-butting, ramming, charging all morning and well into the afternoon, with absolutely no progress. Exasperated, the ram took a step back and looked up at Mount Rushmore.

“You need to quit being so stubborn and get out of my way,” the ram yelled up to Mount Rushmore.

Mount Rushmore replied, “Perry, will you never learn? I am here, firmly embedded in this place. Here I have been since long before you arrived and here I will remain long after you are gone. You can keep charging, ramming, head-butting as long as you will, but you will not ever be able to move me. The most likely outcome of your constant rammings, chargings, head-buttings is you will be permanently brain-damaged, while I remain here firmly embedded in this place.”

The randomly wandering ram did not heed Mount Rushmore’s advice, but continued ramming, charging, head-butting the immovable object which had been there long before the ram arrived and will be there long after the ram is dead and forgotten.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy | Tagged: , | Comments Off

The Oh So Terrible Condition Of Texas

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/07/11

Perry, the radical Leftist resident of Delaware who comments at The First Street Journal, decided to spout off “facts” that somehow “prove” Texas is terrible, and worse than the rest of the country.

Well of course our Editor wants to claim a pattern here, but he isn’t willing to peel back the curtain here, realizing that there is more to the quality of life than so-called business friendliness.

Consider this:

* Unemployment is higher than the national average,

* TX has a serious budget shortfall,

* TX has had to seriously cut back on education,

* TX is running out of groundwater, with no solution in sight,

* TX is currently in the second year of a serious drought,

* cattle and grain production has dropped precipitously,

* highest uninsured health care in the country,

* TX is turning down the medicaid expansion federal money,

* John Hitchcock lives in TX,

* and the highest number of death penalties in the country.

You name it, problems in TX are severe.

“Unemployment [in Texas] is higher than the national average.” From his very comment, he includes — but does not link to — something said on CBS last autumn, which included this dandy little statement: Texas’ unemployment has nearly reached the national unemployment level. We’ll check out that claim soon, but let’s point out here that Perry Hood’s claim at the top of his comment is directly contradicted by his link-free quote (something he does with regularity, quoting something without providing a link or a name) at the bottom of his comment.


As I previously noted in an article which made “Post of the Day” at Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion on June 21, the May unemployment figures showed Texas has had a lower unemployment rate than the national average for 65 straight months (and that will only continue to be the case). It’s some strange alternate universe in which Perry the Delaware Socialist lives where Texas’ 6.9 percent May unemployment rate is somehow worse than the US 8.2 percent unemployment rate.

From June 2006 to June 2011, Texas was one of only nine states plus DC that added jobs. During that time-frame, Texas added 537,500 jobs, or over 73 percent of the total jobs added (a rate of 2,138 new jobs per 100,000 population). At the same time the US lost 4,818,000 jobs (a rate of 1,561 jobs lost per 100,000 population). And, point in fact, during 2006 and up till March, 2007, the US was still adding jobs at a rate fast enough to easily keep pace with the population growth. So that only amplifies the rate at which the US lost jobs while Democrats held control of Congress.

In an article I wrote noting again how the Leftist-ruled states of California and Illinois are shedding jobs and productive people with their tax-heavy and regulation-heavy (especially in California) agenda, I pointed out yet another Leftist state’s demise. Maryland, in its anti-Tenth Commandment “soak the rich” Class Envy and Class Warfare mentality created a new tax on the wealthy, most productive residents. What happened? They fled the state and went to more Conservative, more business-friendly, less tax-heavy states. And, in violating the Tenth Commandment, Maryland’s tax revenue stream actually shrank. By quite a bit. Maryland raised taxes on “the rich” and lost money in the process. That’s an outcome we Conservatives have been loudly declaring would be the case with the Leftists’ Class Warfare “soak the rich” mentality. Of course, the “economics experts” are completely shocked to find when the Federal Government puts policies in place that closely track what those self-same “experts” espouse, the results are very notably dismal — again and again and again and again, providing the absolutely knee-slappingly hilarious, yet sobering “unexpected” mantra that those “experts” have been everpresently spouting for the past three and a half years.

Now, Texas does have its share of problems. Barack Obama’s Contempt of Federal Court activities in shutting down off-shore oil drilling and exploration, one of Texas’ largest industries. Barack Obama’s EPA working feverishly to shut down some of Texas’ electric generating plants while Texas is growing much more quickly than the rest of the nation in terms of both population and jobs. And, of course, Texas’ decades-long (or should I say Century-Long) explosive population growth, far exceeding that of the US as a whole, which means Texas has to produce far greater numbers of jobs per 100,000 population than the US as a whole — just to keep pace with population growth.

And how is Texas doing? The state’s unemployment numbers have remained well below that of the US for years and the unemployment rate is dropping faster than the US as a whole. As forecast by the Conservatives among us.

“Texas has a serious budget shortfall.” No, that would be Illinois, California, Maryland, New York, etc, etc. Places the Democrats have run into the ground. Texas has a Constitutional requirement to run a balanced budget. And its biennial Budget is balanced and was balanced without raising taxes, much to the chagrin of Paul Burka, Leftist Senior Editor of Texas Monthly magazine, whose rants I documented and shredded in an 8,500 word article that Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion also named “Post of the Day”. If you don’t want to read the entire thing (and you should), drop down near the bottom where Paul Burka rants and raves about the absolutely demanding, governing-free Conservatives and their orgasmic feeding frenzy of not eating. It’s a real knee-slapper.

“TX has had to seriously cut back on education.” Let’s let IowaHawk handle this one. In his first article, IowaHawk provides this:

So how does brokeass, dumbass, redneck Texas stack up against progressive unionized Wisconsin?

2009 4th Grade Math

White students: Texas 254, Wisconsin 250 (national average 248)
Black students: Texas 231, Wisconsin 217 (national 222)
Hispanic students: Texas 233, Wisconsin 228 (national 227)

2009 8th Grade Math

White students: Texas 301, Wisconsin 294 (national 294)
Black students: Texas 272, Wisconsin 254 (national 260)
Hispanic students: Texas 277, Wisconsin 268 (national 260)

2009 4th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 232, Wisconsin 227 (national 229)
Black students: Texas 213, Wisconsin 192 (national 204)
Hispanic students: Texas 210, Wisconsin 202 (national 204)

2009 8th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 273, Wisconsin 271 (national 271)
Black students: Texas 249, Wisconsin 238 (national 245)
Hispanic students: Texas 251, Wisconsin 250 (national 248)

2009 4th Grade Science

White students: Texas 168, Wisconsin 164 (national 162)
Black students: Texas 139, Wisconsin 121 (national 127)
Hispanic students: Wisconsin 138, Texas 136 (national 130)

2009 8th Grade Science

White students: Texas 167, Wisconsin 165 (national 161)
Black students: Texas 133, Wisconsin 120 (national 125)
Hispanic students: Texas 141, Wisconsin 134 (national 131)

To recap: white students in Texas perform better than white students in Wisconsin, black students in Texas perform better than black students in Wisconsin, Hispanic students in Texas perform better than Hispanic students in Wisconsin. In 18 separate ethnicity-controlled comparisons, the only one where Wisconsin students performed better than their peers in Texas was 4th grade science for Hispanic students (statistically insignificant), and this was reversed by 8th grade. Further, Texas students exceeded the national average for their ethnic cohort in all 18 comparisons; Wisconsinites were below the national average in 8, above average in 8.

Perhaps the most striking thing in these numbers is the within-state gap between white and minority students. Not only did white Texas students outperform white Wisconsin students, the gap between white students and minority students in Texas was much less than the gap between white and minority students in Wisconsin. In other words, students are better off in Texas schools than in Wisconsin schools – especially minority students.

In his second article on the subject, IowaHawk provides even more evidence that destroys the Leftist meme.

Average ACT Composite Score 2010
White students: Wisconsin 23.5, Texas 23.3 (national 23.1)
Black students: Texas 17.6, Wisconsin 16.9 (national 17.5)
Hispanic students: Wisconsin 19.8, Texas 18.7 (national 19.4)

As an aside, reader Dr. William Borland (Principal Research Engineer, Georgia Institute of Technology, lah-tee-dah) points out that 2010 state-specific public high school dropout rates are now available- and bolster my case.

2010 Public High School Event Dropout Rates
White students: Wisconsin 1.4%, Texas 1.8% (national average 2.8%)
Black students: Texas 6.3%, Wisconsin 7.8% (national average 6.7%)
Hispanic students: Texas 5.3%, Wisconsin 5.4% (national average 6.0%)

While no dropout event is good, Texas is hardly the outlier national shame claimed by Krugman. In fact, it has below national average dropout rates for all 3 ethnic groups considered, consistently in both 2007 and 2010 measures. Among white students, Wisconsin had the second lowest state event dropout rate (NJ #1), where Texas was tied for 7th. Among black students, Wisconsin was #39, Texas tied for #24. Among Hispanic students, Wisconsin was tied for #21, Texas was tied for #17.

Here’s a chart from a September17, 2009 article at Demablogue:

We have been dumping more money per student into Public Education for over 40 years without seeing any improvement in test scores. Obviously, to any reasonable person, dumping even more money into the broken system will not fix the broken system. Continuing on with IowaHawk:

Hey, it’s been a fun two days based on a simple 30-minute study of educational statistics. As regards the effect of teacher collective bargaining on student learning, I wouldn’t call what I did conclusive; just pointing out the fallacy of aggregate statistical comparisons. For a definitive study of the effect, I would point to Caroline Hoxby’s (Harvard/ MIT /Stanford, lah tee dah) 1996 QJE paper [pdf], which statistically controls for additional variables. Her main conclusions: collective bargaining increases the input provided to schools (spending, construction and the like), but actual decreases school output (test scores and the like). If you don’t like Greek letters, here’s Hoxby discussing the effect on YouTube.

[Video added.]

Perry would do very well not to listen to Paul Krugman as the above very clearly shows the fraudulent huckster’s tomfoolery. Also, from IowaHawk:

But hey, if credentials and oak-framed vellum degrees are your bag, let me share this email with you:

Dear Mr. Burger:
I edit educationnext.org. I have a blog on the site. I would like to do a blog that will depends heavily on your material,quoting you at length, as I also think Krugman is a nobel prize winning fraud and because your data are intrinsically interesting… I will link the piece to your site, obviously.

Paul E. Peterson
Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government
Director, Program on Education Policy and Governance
Harvard University
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution

Degrees-y enough for you? Despite getting my name wrong, I accepted Prof. Peterson’s request and encouraged him to go at my results hammer-and-tongs. His comments are here.

As for Mr. Krugman, I’ll only note the remarks of his former ombudsman at the New York Times, Daniel Okrent:

“Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.”

No shit, Sherlock.

“TX is running out of groundwater, with no solution in sight.” “TX is currently in the second year of a serious drought.” I don’t know what “groundwater” Perry is talking about. Perhaps it’s the water that’s on the ground, which is directly affected by rain. Because there’s plenty of water under the ground. And I had to stop researching and writing this article for about 3 hours as a strong thunderstorm swept through the area, providing rivers of water running down the gravel drive and ponding heavily in the yard. But Perry doesn’t want people to know that Texas has had one of its rainiest Springs in many years, far above average precipitation.

“Cattle and grain production has dropped precipitously.” Because only Texans eat the beef from Texas cattle. There’s no export to other states or other countries. And no other states ever get effected by droughts (the Carolinas and Georgia a few years ago) or floods (the Great Plains states a few years ago). What foolish claptrap. And with the far wetter-than-average Spring, which is continuing into Summer, the cattle-and-grain issue will very easily resolve itself, without government intervention. That’s not to say the same thing about California’s very agriculturally rich Central Valley, where radical Leftist environmentalist wackos in the California EPA and the US EPA turned the water off, destroying the agriculture, destroying businesses, destroying employment, destroying private wealth, destroying lives. California’s Central Valley problem could be very easily solved. Turn the water back on, you radical Leftist nutjobs!

“Highest uninsured health care in the country.” That may or may not be the case, but Texans are a very Independent, Liberty Loving people on the whole. If they do not want to buy health insurance, that should be their prerogative, and absolutely no concern for the Socialist busy-bodies like Perry. Heck, for individual adults under 30, health insurance is a bad investment, overall. They don’t tend to get all that sick, so their overpayments just go to take care of other people and not themselves. That’s not what makes a good investment.

“TX is turning down the medicaid expansion federal money.” Imagine that. A principled position for Independence and Liberty, refusing “free” OPM (other people’s money) with all the Federal regulations, restrictions, throat-slashing strings attached, coming from an “entitlement” program that is quickly becoming bankrupt. How dare Texas stand up for fiscal responsibility, Liberty, Freedom and Principle! Texas should help bankrupt the US so we can become a Socialist dictatorship that much faster!

“John Hitchcock lives in TX.” That’s just a hate-filled personal attack coming from The First Street Journal’s resident hater. That is all.

“And the highest number of death penalties in the country.” This is a good thing. A very good thing. Violent felons who snuff out innocent lives, be warned. Try that in Texas and you lose your own life. Also, Texans are among the most heavily armed, and we have the Castle Doctrine. Enter my property uninvited after dark at your own risk.

Of course, I produced the evidence a month ago regarding Texas’ economic strength compared to the rest of the country.

The economic strength rankings of the US’s 366 metropolitan areas is out, and the Killeen-Fort Hood-Temple area (where I live and work) is 30th nationally. Dover, Delaware is ranked 158, Detroit is 215, Cleveland, Ohio is 185.

Overall, Texas is doing very well, with Austin at 5, San Antonio 10, Houston 12, Dallas-Fort Worth 14, Killeen-Temple 30, and Corpus Christi 49.

Among other things, cost of living and job growth are strongly considered to create the rankings.

Let’s do a little math. Of the 366 metropolitan areas in the US, Texas has 6 in the top 49. Washington DC, with its absolute dependence on Federal Government jobs and not economy-growing jobs, ranks number 1. With 6 metropolitan areas in the top 49, each of those six Texas metropolitan areas is guaranteed to have outperformed at least six entire states. With 4 of the top 14 metropolitan areas, each of those four Texas metropolitan areas is guaranteed to have outperformed at least 39 entire states. Is it any wonder Texas is the number one state in the Union, economically?

Posted in Conservative, economics, education, Elections, Liberal, media, Oil, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Perry Hood Reminds Me Of A Bird

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/05/09

The African Grey is an absolutely beautiful bird. Like the Great Dane, it is huge. Like the Great Dane, it is gorgeous. Neither of which are related to Perry Hood. At all. But there is a point to be had here.

The African Grey has a very expansive vocabulary. It can repeat more of what it hears than practically any other mockingbird. And it is very good at repeating what it hears, to the extent that it can fool even humans into thinking the originator is saying it. But, being a bird, it is incapable of understanding the words it says, nor can it understand the repercussions involved in what it says. It just repeats what it heard. And repeats. And repeats. And repeats. The outcome is irrelevant. Only the repetition is relevant.

And that’s how Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware, is an African Grey.

Posted in Blogging Matters | Tagged: , , , , | Comments Off

Another Leftist Shoots Herself In The Face

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/04/27

It seems to be all the craze these days. Leftists shooting themselves in the face. And they’re so proud of the fact they shot themselves in the face that they publicize it for all the world to see. Let’s take for example Molly, whose fictitious numbers Perry Hood cited and quoted. Who is Molly? Nobody, really. Some anonymous, self-proclaimed Liberal and “Progressive” (read Socialist).

Molly shot herself in the face point-blank with a sawed-off 20 gauge shotgun. If it weren’t so devastatingly distressing, it would be hilarious. The public education system, which has nothing to do with education and everything to do with indoctrination, absolutely failed to educate her but absolutely succeeded in indoctrinating her. In one of her articles (likely in all of her articles), she left her irony on, and how! You see, most people’s ironies only go up to 10 but her irony goes all the way up to 11.

Molly, in her haste to sound smart and informed and junk, decided to try to quote some famous person saying something smart and informed and junk. But she badly bastardized it.

Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.

Then she did a “header” formatting to make it bold, italicized, and blue. She quadrupled down on her dumb right there, trying to act as smart as the person whose quote she badly bastardized. How’s that irony doin’, Molly? Forgot to turn it off again as you went to buy you some genuine faux fox fur stoleds?

What was she talking about when she left her irony on? Social Security and Medicare. Remember, she’s a self-professed Liberal and “Progressive” (read Socialist). Do you think she knows anything about the history, ancient and recent and current, regarding Social Security and Medicare? Here’s a hint: she’s a self-declared Liberal and “Progressive” (read Socialist). Oh, did that irony’s dial just get turned up? Why, yes it did!

After she wrote her 9 irony article which blasted someone who had bad things to say about Social Security, another brain-dead Leftist went and turned it up to 10. He said that person who said bad things about a Government mandated Ponzi Scheme would likely give it up to invest in Bernie Madoff’s illegal Ponzi Scheme. Note to Leftists and fools (redundant, I know): All Ponzi Schemes are doomed to fail from the moment they start.

Well, being as ignorant as she is (she is, after all, a Liberal and a Socialist), she couldn’t just let that go. She had to prove how ignorant she is. And she pulled the trigger. And shot herself in the face. She whole-heartedly agreed with the absolutely ignorant Leftist, completely ignorant of history and the present, and joined in lambasting someone who stood up against the Government-mandated Ponzi Scheme and mocking the Ponzi Scheme detractor as if he were dumb enough to give money to someone who ran a Ponzi Scheme. She got her irony turned up all the way to 11! And then she left the house with her irony still turned on.

Molly, since you are totally ignorant of history, and judging by what I’ve seen out of you, totally uninterested in learning history, I’ll use your horribly bastardized quotation so I don’t hurt your itty bitty brain. (Maybe some time you’ll become curious enough to actually, you know, learn some history.)

Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.

And a bit of history that will totally destroy your Leftist, Socialist agenda, from someone who knew a lot more than you do: Colonel Congressman Davy Crockett:

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question, when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the Government was in arrears to him. This Government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the war of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor, and if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of; but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The Government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning, and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied :

“You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it.”

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished it turned to me and said:

“Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.”

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.”

“The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business, and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a Praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.”

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.”

“So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddle-bags, and put out. I had been out about a week, and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow, when I asked him if he could give me a chew of tobacco.”

“Yes,” said he, “such as we make and use in this part of the country; but it may not suit your taste, as you are probably in the habit of using better.”

“With that he pulled out of his pocket part of a twist in its natural state, and handed it to me. I took a chew, and handed it back to him. He turned to his plow, and was about to start off. I said to him: “Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted,” He replied:

“I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.”

“I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—”

“Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.”

“This was a sockdologer. I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence. I had seen enough of them to know there is a way to reach them, and was satisfied that if I could get him to talk to me I would soon have him straight. But this was entirely a different bundle of sticks. He knew me, had voted for me before, and did not intend to do it again. Something must be the matter; I could not imagine what it was. I had heard of no complaints against me, except that some of the dandies about the village ridiculed some of the wild and foolish things that I too often say and do, and said that I was not enough of a gentleman to go to Congress. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.”

“Thank you for that, but you find fault with only one vote. You know the story of Henry Clay, the old huntsman and the rifle; you wouldn’t break your gun for one snap.”

“No, nor for a dozen. As the story goes, that tack served Mr. Clay’s purpose admirably, though it really had nothing to do with the case. I would not break the gun, nor would I discard an honest representative for a mistake in judgment as a mere matter of policy. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.”

“I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.”

“No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true!”

“Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote for which anybody in the world would have found fault with.”

“Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity!”

“Here was another sockdologer; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

“Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.”

“It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the Government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the Government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right: to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive, what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”

“I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

“So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.”

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it, than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote, and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.”

“He laughingly replied: “Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go round the district, you will tell the people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, J will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.”

“If I don’t,” said I, “I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.”

“No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.”

“Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.”

“My name is Bunce.”

“Not Horatio Bunce?”

“Yes.”

“Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad that I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.”

“We shook hands and parted. “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“It is not exactly pertinent to my story, but I must tell you more about him. When I saw him with his family around him, I was not surprised that he loved to stay at home. I have never in any other family seen a manifestation of so much confidence, familiarity and freedom of manner of children toward their parents mingled with such unbounded love and respect.

“He was not at the house when I arrived, but his wife received and welcomed me with all the ease and cordiality of an old friend. She told me that her husband was engaged in some out-door business, but would be in shortly. She is a woman of fine person; her face is not what the world would at first sight esteem beautiful. In a state of rest there was too much strength and character in it for that, but when she engaged in conversation, and especially when she smiled, it softened into an expression of mingled kindness, goodness, and strength that was beautiful beyond anything I have ever seen.

“Pretty soon her husband came in, and she left us and went about her household affairs. Toward night the children–he had about seven of them– began to drop in; some from work, some from school, and the little ones from play. They were introduced to me, and met me with the same ease and grace that marked the manner of their mother. Supper came on, and then was exhibited the loveliness of the family circle in all its glow. The father turned the conversation to the matters in which the children had been interested during the day, and all, from the oldest to the youngest, took part in it. They spoke to their parents with as much familiarity and confidence as if they had been friends of their own age, yet every word and every look manifested as much respect as the humblest courtier could manifest for a king; aye, more, for it was all sincere, and strengthened by love. Verily it was the Happy Family.

“I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. When supper was over, one of the children brought him a Bible and hymn-book. He turned to me and said:

“Colonel, I have for many years been in the habit of family worship night and morning. I adopt this time for it that all may be present. If I postpone it some of us get engaged in one thing and some in another, and the little ones drop off to sleep, so that it is often difficult to get all together.”

“He then opened the Bible, and read the Twenty-third Psalm, commencing: “The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.” It is a beautiful composition, and his manner of reading it gave it new beauties. We then sang a hymn, and we all knelt down. He commenced his prayer “Our Father who art in Heaven.” No one who has not heard him pronounce those words can conceive how they thrilled through me, for I do not believe that they were ever pronounced by human lips as by him. I had heard them a thousand times from the lips of preachers of every grade and denomination, and by all sorts of professing Christians, until they had become words of course with me, but his enunciation of them gave them an import and a power of which I had never conceived. There was a grandeur of reverence, a depth of humility, a fullness of confidence and an overflowing of love which told that his spirit was communing face to face with its God. An overwhelming feeling of awe came over me, for I felt that I was in the invisible presence of Jehovah. The whole prayer was grand–grand in its simplicity, in the purity of the spirit it breathed, in its faith, its truth, and its love. I have told you he came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him–no, that is not the word–I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted–at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“Fellow-citizens–I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can to-day offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.”

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.”

“It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.”

“He came upon the stand and said:

“Fellow-citizens–It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.”

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men–men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

The hour for the meeting of the House had by this time arrived. We walked up to the Capitol together, but I said not a word to him about moving a reconsideration. I would as soon have asked a sincere Christian to abjure his religion.

I had listened to his story with an interest which was greatly increased by his manner of telling it, for, no matter what we may say of the merits of a story, a speech, or a sermon, it is a very rare production which does not derive its interest more from the manner than the matter, as some of my readers have doubtless, like the writer, proved to their cost.

As I said, most Leftists’ ironies only go to 10 but Molly is proud of her 11 irony. But Perry Hood has her beat. Perry Hood’s irony, which he leaves on all the time, goes all the way up to 12! You see, he declared that the mark of a successful blog is in the total number of comments, and not in the readership. Yet, Perry Hood used an anonymous blogger with next to no commenters as a reliable source. But Perry Hood has been shooting himself in the face with his unbeatable level of irony and absolute dishonesty since at least the onset of 2009.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Conservative, Constitution, economics, history, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Socialists, truth | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Is The Obama Economy Growing?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/04/21

Radical Leftist Socialist Democrats, such as Barack Obama and Perry Hood (Perry for those who met his lying ass years ago on Delaware Liberal or for those who met his lying ass years ago on Colossus of Rhodey (found in my side bar) or for those who met his lying ass on Common Sense Political Thought (found in my side bar), or Wagonwheel (and a sock puppet) for those who found his lying ass on The First Street Journal (found in my sidebar)), are very busily giving Barack Obama all the credit in the world for “saving the US from a second Great Depression and turning the US around.” But is it so? The turn-around, such as it is, did not begin until 2011. There may have been a deceleration in the decline in 2010, but any economist worth his salt will tell you, the closer you get to zero economic activity the harder it will be for the rate toward zero economic activity to continue. It’s only logical. No matter how difficult the times, there will still remain recession-proof jobs. People still need to eat. And after eating, they still need toilet paper. And they will still need garbage collection. So, why is it Obama and the rest of the Socialist Democrats feel worthy to claim any sort of “recovery” (such as it is, and it’s no recovery at all) which took place in 2011? It is because, for some of them, they know there are a huge number of absolutely politically ignorant people in the US who vote out of their absolute ignorance. For the rest of them, it’s due to their arrogantly ignorant and willfully ignorant hatred of anything that has a Conservative tag or an affiliation with the Founders and Framers.

Let’s look at some facts.

Wisconsin elects Governor Walker. Governor Walker keeps his campaign promises. Democrats shirk their responsibilities and flee to Illinois. The Republican agenda is passed anyway. Wisconsin citizens save money on their property taxes for the first time in years, many public schools went from deficit spending to being in the black, Wisconsin went from Democrat Deficit to Republican Balanced, Wisconsin became most improved economic outlook of all 50 states.

John Kasich, the man who became the Budget Committee Chairman after the Republican wave election of 1994 and handed Bill Clinton his “balanced” Budgets that Democrats praise, becomes Governor of Ohio. And proceeds to keep his campaign promises. Ohio’s budget goes from deficit to balanced without a tax increase. Ohio’s economy turns around much more strongly than the US economy.

A more fiscally Conservative Republican takes over for a fiscally irresponsible Democrat as Governor of Pennsylvania.

Southern states see their Legislatures become majority Republican and lose their majority Democrat status for the first time since Reformation (that would be the 1860s for the historically illiterate (read Democrats) among us). Note: that would necessarily mean majority Republican for the first time, since the Republicans supplanted the Whigs most fervently with the Abraham Lincoln election, which the southern states didn’t want.

Republican-led Texas has lowered its unemployment rate down to 7 percent — more than one full percent lower than the US average — despite Obama’s Contempt of Court actions to destroy domestic oil production and despite the Obama administration’s EPA war on Texas electric output.

Over 700 Democrat seats became Republican seats. Actually, a swing of over 700 seats net from Democrat to Republican, counting the very few seats that went from Republican to Democrat.

And after all that (and more that I didn’t list), the national economy quit sinking like a rock and showed signs of growth. And, of course, Democrats are claiming credit for all the work Republicans did. Just like during the Clinton administration, when Republicans tortured to death the Bill Clinton Big Government agenda and replaced it with a smaller (but not small), far less intrusive (but still intrusive), far more fiscally responsible (but still fiscally irresponsible) government agenda.

On the flip side, Democrat-run Illinois pumped multiple massive tax increases — the last happening 3 hours before they lost the vote power to cause it to happen, as the new Legislators would take their seats 3 hours after the vote — and Illinois went from a continuous slow uptick in total jobs in the state to a sudden retraction. After the last, and most major, tax increase from Illinois Democrats, businesses began to flee the state and jobs began to disappear. A net loss in total jobs occurred immediately after that huge tax increase on producers — people and businesses. And that net loss kept accruing for months on end. In fact, I have not seen any report that that sudden turnaround to despair has stopped or even slowed.

California has been losing huge numbers of businesses as they flee that Leftist state. In the wave TEA Party elections, California bucked the trend and pumped Democrats into office. And California’s unemployment rate is further above the national average than Texas’ is below. Businesses are fleeing California, other businesses are refusing to even bother trying to build in California, people are fleeing California.

If you look at economic activity and what rebound it has had, and you plot it according to the time it occurred and the location it occurred, you will find that growth in activity most clearly shown in states that were Republican and stayed Republican, or in states that were Democrat and became Republican. States like California and Illinois, which were Democrat and remained Democrat (doubled down on dumb-o-crap agendae), have suffered greatly. Perhaps even moreso after the 2010 TEAnami than before. Definitely the differences are stark: Conservative and Republican area has amplified its economic superiority over Socialist Democrat area. Just a quick perusal of the facts as I have noted above proves my case. A far more in-depth examination would only serve to prove my case even further. No detached logical fact-based reasoning could result in anything even remotely related to oppositional toward my declaration.

Go ahead. Look at the numbers. Look at the improvement. And look at it state by state and district by district. Or, if you’re a radical leftist like the Democrat power-brokers, don’t. Because radical Leftists will not like what they find (if they even bother to search for Truth, as they are not known for their Honor).

What caused me to write this article? The comment section on a The First Street Journal article covering vote fraud in Philadelphia. Read it.

For those legitimately wanting documentation, there are multiple articles covering Wisconsin, Illinois, Meatchicken (I’m a Buckeye through and through, so it’s excruciatingly painful to type out the name of that state), California on Truth Before Dishonor. And they have all manner of links. Of course, you could be Perry Hood, who demands documentation as a mere ploy to shut down discussion of facts he deplores and then never admits the facts absolutely support what his mortal enemy (not some foreign country but, rather, Conservatives in the US) say, in which case, don’t even bother.

Posted in Conservative, Constitution, economics, Elections, history, Liberal, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Socialists, society, TEA Party, truth | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Hold To The Bible Or The Torah? You’re An Abomination!

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/03/31

Thus saith the absolute relativist Perry Hood!

First off, let’s get a couple facts straight.
1)Falsehood is not the opposite of Truth.
2)Evil is not the opposite of Good.
Both are purity twisted to become impure. Neither evil nor falsehood can claim originality, as both have to depend on originality (that being Good and Truth) for their twisted power. And that makes it impossible for them to be the opposite of the original (since they copied and twisted the original).

I have previously shown where Perry Hood is willing to break his promises willy-nilly whenever his promises inconvenience him. I have written about his multiple years long lie that Conservatives and Libertarians don’t have a budgetary plan for the US. I have written about his hatred of Israel (and this is a Pro-Israel site (see the above blog page header)). In fact, I have written multiple articles concerning the radical Leftist and absolute relativist Perry Hood, oftentimes discussing his elitist snobbery. For instance, according to Perry Hood — who lives in the state of Delaware — there are some states that count and some states that don’t (and his state counts).

Now I get to write about his anti-Jew, anti-Christian hatred of anyone who holds the Torah or the Bible as Truth. First my comment in its entirety:

John Hitchcock says:
March 31, 2012 at 10:31

For the record, and in repetition, I hold to the Bible, which declares homosexuality to be:
1) An abomination
2) A sin against Providence, others, and your own self
3) A decision to cast out that which is natural and to replace it with that which is unnatural.

Tammy Bruce is a homosexual. And I have, multiple times, declared my high regard for her.
Aphrael is a “married” homosexual Liberal. And I have, multiple times, declared my respect for his debating.
Jeff is a strong supporter of the homosexual political agenda. And I have, multiple times, declared my respect for his debating.

Now here comes Wagonwheel, who sees the Editor write about a group of public universities which are considering the possibility of requesting an applicant provide his or her sexual preference on college application forms, and decides to comment. Does Wagonwheel say it’s none of the universities’ business what sexual preference the applicants have? No! Instead, Wagonwheel accuses the Editor — who said it’s none of the universities’ business what sexual preferences the applicants have — of being hateful in not supporting a position of DEMANDING PEOPLE DECLARE THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE in order to go to college. Talk about a warped sense of propriety! Talk about a warped mind! Wagonwheel has that, in spades! (Next up: Wagonwheel accuses me of being racist and using dog-whistles only unhinged Leftists can hear, because I used the colloquial expression “in spades”.)

Note, I am holding to both the Torah and the Bible. Not also, it’s the Torah part of the Bible that declares homosexuality to be an abomination. And here is why I said evil and falsehood are not the opposite of Good and Truth but merely a twisting of both as a result of evil and falsehood being incapable of originality. Here is Perry Hood’s comment in its entirety:

Wagonwheel says:
March 31, 2012 at 11:27

“For the record, and in repetition, I hold to the Bible, which declares homosexuality to be:
1) An abomination
2) A sin against Providence, others, and your own self
3) A decision to cast out that which is natural and to replace it with that which is unnatural.”

You are the abomination, Mr Hitchcock, for considering these words in the Bible, which has been written by men, to be some sort of a truth from god. And then you attempt to smooth over this abomination by making a list of a few homosexuals whom you tolerate. Instead of being a loving Christian, you are evil incarnate, with regard to this particular extremist attitude of yours toward homosexuality, a trait which has to do with the genetic makeup from birth. Shame on you, Mr Hitchcock!

Emphasis mine, by the way. And there you have it. Perry Hood had to make use of my language I got directly from the Torah (which is part of the Bible) in order to twist it into something it isn’t. Perry Hood had to take Truth and turn it into a Lie. Perry Hood had to take Good and turn it into evil. But the point is, while Perry Hood likes to be able to tell Christians they aren’t Christians due to their rejection of his Socialism he purports to be a position Jesus had 2,000 years ago, Perry Hood has declared all who hold to the Bible and the Torah to be abominations for holding to the Bible and the Torah.

Thus Perry Hood’s words regarding Christianity, Christians, Israel, Jews, Israelis, the Bible, the Torah can all be rejected out of hand. Because Perry Hood has absolutely no love for the Sacred Scriptures, but is, rather, full of hatred toward them as they get in his way with every step he takes and every breath he takes.

Posted in Character, Christianity, Israel, Judaism, Liberal, Philosophy, Religion, Socialists, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Word Of Honor? Or Contract?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/03/29

Which is more valuable to you? Your word of honor or a legally binding contract you sign? There is at least one modern, industrialized nation that to this day culturally values your “gentleman’s handshake” more greatly than your signature on a piece of paper. Likely, there are more than one, due to a cultural thing.

From my reading and from my experience, Japan is such a place. And I expect it’s a trans-national cultural thing, and something we used to have in the US, before people of low morals de-stigmatized breaking one’s word of honor.

In Japan, your signature on a piece of paper carries much less weight than your actual word of honor, your actual promise. If you break your promise (which would be lying), you dishonor yourself. You also dishonor your employer and your associates and your friends. But most importantly, you dishonor your family (sometimes irreparably). You become an absolute disgrace to all who have connections to you, and they will do their best to distance themselves from you. And, ya know, I think that ain’t such a bad idea, yo. If people who break promises became Pariahs, the world would become a much healthier place.

In my last Ohio job, I worked for a Japanese-owned company. A large percentage of the employees there were Japanese citizens on US work visas. They absolutely valued personal honor. They absolutely valued your word. And if you broke your word you were a disgrace, not to be trusted in anything at all.

What brought this up? That’s the wrong question, actually. As the saying goes, “the answer is only important if the right question is asked”. Who brought this up? Perry Hood brought this up. If you’ve been a follower of this site for any time, you’ll know Perry Hood is a radical Leftist “absolute relativist” who comments on The First Street Journal under the name “Wagonwheel” (generic link in deference to the blog owner, who allows anonymity, even of malignant sorts, on his site (which means this link will not trackback to any article there)). Perry Hood made a promise some time ago not to comment on my articles, in my threads. He has previously “accidentally” done so, and when called on it, he has “given permission” for me to delete his comments. But in each of the most recent three days, Perry Hood has knowingly and intentionally commented on my TFSJ articles, claiming he has chosen to retract his promise (as if that is even honorably possible).

What made the difference? Convenience. Perry Hood found it highly inconvenient to keep his promise to not comment on my articles, thus Perry Hood decided he would be Dishohorable and disgrace himself by breaking his sworn oath not to comment on my articles. And in doing so, Perry Hood tried to lay the blame on others because I have forced him to keep his promise (by deleting all or most of each of his comments) and because the site owner has given me leeway to enforce Perry Hood’s promise.

In Modern-Day Japanese culture (and likely in the culture of the entirety of the Pacific Rim, as I have found occasion to speak in-depth with a Filipino businesswoman who lives in the same culture and has traveled to the US (only to be disgusted by San Fransisco elevator eyes)), Perry Hood would be a Pariah, a disgrace to himself, his family, his associates (and his employers if he weren’t already retired), and be cast out of civilized conversation and associations, due specifically to his Dishonorable actions. But, in Modern-Day radical Leftist US culture, it’s perfectly alright to lie and make an oath that you repeatedly break later under one condition: Keeping the oath you made inconveniences you to any degree whatsoever.

So, Perry Hood, the radical Leftist, self-proclaimed “Progressive” (read Socialist) from Delaware, has declared his promises to not be worth the breath it takes to make them, if they inconvenience him in the least, and that everyone else is to blame if they even deign to hold him to his self-admitted oaths.

UPDATE
I received a query from someone on FaceBook for whom I have great respect. The query went along the lines of “Isn’t a written contract a verbal agreement, only in writing?” That is absolutely right in an American world. And the written contract holds much greater weight in an American world, because it provides proof of the agreement. I’ll note that the promise Perry Hood made was, actually, in writing and posted for the entire world to see. So, that difference does not provide a mitigating factor for Perry Hood.

But let’s take it out of the Dishonorable Perry Hood realm (where he fails on both counts) and into the hypothetical realm, comparing cultures.

In much of modern, industrialized Japan: (In many areas and in many families)

A business contract is business.
If you violate that contract, it’s business and to be dealt with as business.

If you give a personal promise, it’s you, standing there naked with just your honor to clothe you.
If you dishonor your personal promise in any way, YOU are dishonored by your own actions.
If your family does not disown you and turn you into a Pariah, your family is likewise dishonored by accepting you. And they forever live in the shame and dishonor you have heaped upon them as being family of a loathesome, dishonorable person. (Think Star Trek TNG and the Klingons.)
If your friends and acquaintances do not turn their backs on you, they, too, become dishonorable because they kept their ties with a dishonorable person.
Likewise, a business who honors the dishonorable is dishonorable.
And the snowball grows large enough to tear an automobile from the road, sending it and its occupants into destruction.

No, in some cultures, even modern industrialized cultures, it is far worse to dishonor your personal oaths than to violate your business agreements.

And that is exactly what Perry Hood did, in intentionally violating his personal oath at least 5 times in 3 consecutive days. He not only brought shame upon himself but upon all who closely affiliate themselves with him, and upon all with whom he closely affiliates himself.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Socialists, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

The Only Standards Liberals Have

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/03/09

Are Double Standards.

From ShePACTV: (And don’t watch this video at work.)

No, the stupid Liberals never went batsh!t over any of the constant vulgar attacks against Conservative women. But one Conservative calls a slut a slut on national radio and the stupid Liberals completely lose all sense of self-control! “How dare that Conservative talk in such a way toward a Leftist woman after we have been saying far worse for years against Conservative women!!! That Conservative should be thrown off the air!!

Hey, did you happen to hear Louis CK the other night? Wasn’t he just hilarious the way he talked about those Conservative tw^ts? I about dropped my beer on my girlfriend’s head I was laughing so hard!”

There is an oft-repeated truism, which I already mentioned above: If it weren’t for double standards, Liberals wouldn’t have any standards at all.

Posted in Gender Issues, Liberal, media, Obama, Palin, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Real Life, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off

They Always Resort To Vicious Threats

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/01/23

And oftentimes, actually following through on their malicious threats.

It’s happened to Patterico.
It’s happened to Professor Jacobson.
It’s happened to many, many Conservative bloggers.

Some Leftist nutjob doesn’t like what a Conservative has to say on a blog, so the Leftist nutjob threatens that Conservative’s livelihood, and maliciously attempts to destroy that Conservative’s livelihood. I previously showed Zach Edwards’ attempt to do it to Iowa’s Republican Secretary of State (and Edwards could go to prison for it). Now, we have an example that hits far closer to home.

From the keyboard of the radical Leftist Perry Hood of the state of Delaware:

Is it possible, Mr Koolo, that you are as well a hypocrite. Yes you are, we all are.

It is a demonstrable fact on this blog that you are distracted and that you are obsessively nasty in your behavior, just exactly like Hube was, all so you can “take care of Wagonwheel”.

Instead of using your school time, I want you to devote said time and energy to your teaching and your students. It is that for which I am paying you. Then in the evening you are welcome to use your free time to come on here and disgorge yourself of all the venom which you can drum up, which I will then usually ignore, because most of your remarks are personal and truly inconsequential wrt having a meaningful debate and discussion.

How would it sit with you if I forwarded a copy of some of your daytime posts, with their time stamps, to your administration? I doubt very much if you are in truth proud of them, or taking school time to send them out, therefore you would not like that I’m sure. I simply don’t know how else to deal with a bully like you, Mr Koolo, who uses school time to send this stuff out. If you have no concern about the use of school time, and you are proud of all of your posts, then we have another more complex problem here.

Let’s keep it to debates and discussions, during personal free time at home, in which case strong disagreement is to be expected based on ideological grounds, like my disagreements with our Editor. This is what this blog is supposed to be all about, according to our Editor. If he won’t enforce his own rules uniformly, I will help him to do so, knowing that I myself have been out of line on occasion, and you too Mr Koolo.

Now get back to work, Mr Koolo! We are depending on you to do a top notch job in educating our children, without stupid distractions of extreme negativity on school time.

It is very clear that the radical Leftist Perry Hood, in his great hatred for Koolo’s communications, is threatening a malicious assault on Koolo’s livelihood in an attempt to shut Koolo up.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, crime, Liberal, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Socialists, society, truth | Tagged: | 11 Comments »

Contrary To Moron Opinion…

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/10/19

… Conservative blog-owners do like Liberal commenters on their blogs. In fact, Patterico’s Pontifications, a definitely Conservative blog (although it is California Conservative, a weaker version of Conservative than fly-over Conservative), has granted a known Liberal permission to post articles of his own choosing and making on its “The Jury Talks Back” side. Conservatives know the best way to sharpen steel is with more steel.

That is also why, if you read my “about” and my “comment policy” pages (found in tabs at the top, and strongly advised), you will not see “no Liberals allowed” in any form. I welcome Liberal comment. In fact, I used to have a Liberal “Matt” who commented here rather regularly prior to TBD’s dormant stage, and I wish he would return. But there’s something Conservatives do not like. And that malignant something oft-times confronts Conservatives where it matters most: How to keep a free and open debate alive (which is what Constitutional Conservatives want) without absolutely poisoning the site and destroying its outreach.

Dana Pico is far more “generous-naive” than I am in that matter, as he has not banned a single live person from his Common Sense Political Thought site as far as I know, while I have already banned at least one Leftist blow-hard (and have another targeted for certain banning if he ever shows up (unless I’ve already banned him)). And Dana Pico’s site has suffered the consequences, losing authors and readers alike. At least two of Dana’s lost readers have found their way here, with one becoming an author here (hooray for me), but the point is there is a form of Liberal that is respect-worthy and a form of Liberal that is disdain-worthy. And Phoenician in a Time of Romans, banned by multiple Conservative sites and disdained by multiple other sites, is definitely disdain-worthy. Perry Hood, disdained by multiple sites, Conservative and Libertarian, and even smacked down by Liberals, is another disdain-worthy Liberal. (I’ve written more than one article here discussing Perry Hood’s moronacity.)

The point is, Liberals who have integrity are welcome on most Conservative sites. Liberals with integrity and who are not seeking to troll are welcome on TBD (not to be confused with the site run by the Leftist Identity Thief and Character defamer who created a false TBD for such purposes). Liberals without integrity or who solely seek to troll or push their ID-theft defamatory sites can rot in Sheol for all I care.

What brought this out? I’ll quote my comment on CSPT (where I’m one of Dana’s authors, like he’s one of my authors here) and you can goto the thread or examine further details as you desire.

You see, New Zealand Socialist book putter backer, there’s a reason I respect Jeff. He disagrees with me 80 to 95 percent of the time, oft-times vehemently. If you check out his blog, which I visited sporadically when he was more active with it (before he got his “piled higher and deeper” degree), he is nearly completely in line with the Liberal agenda on fiscal and social matters (I have a dearth of information in my mind on his Defense positions). And most of his articles are written in a flame-worthy attitude, when considering the thoughts of Conservatives such as me. For example, he is very much down with homosexuals and their cause (while not being one himself) and I believe the Bible when it says homosexuality is an abomination and when it says homosexuality is unnatural and a sin and when it says people are in bondage to their sin. So, his positions are nearly all polar opposites of mine. Note: aphrael, who used to comment here weekly or more (to my mind’s remembrance), is most definitely a Liberal. He’s also most definitely homosexual and has a “husband” (that he doesn’t use scare quotes for). I disagree with him on nearly everything as well, but I also respect him as a foil.

So, Jeff and I are almost completely polar opposites. Jeff and Conservatives are almost completely polar opposites. Yet the long-term Conservatives and Libertarians here who have experienced the more blog-active Jeff will tell you they all respect Jeff, despite his being wrong on nearly everything. And there’s a reason for that. Unlike you, New Zealand Socialist book putter backer, and unlike the race-baiter, memory-loss champion of CSPT Perry, Jeff actually takes the time to try to understand the Conservative position and to research what Conservatives say. While Jeff disagrees with nearly everything Conservative, he does so honestly and with the intent of debating honestly and with understanding. Which is more than I can say for “The Two Ps in a Pod” (a phrase Dana coined).

A couple of examples of Jeff being honest and/or working to understand positions contrary to his own: I believe it was John Adams, however it may have been a different Founder/Framer, but Jeff thought he was a Theocracy advocate. I said he was absolutely not. Jeff researched and found out I was right and retracted his position regarding the Founder/Framer. But the bigger example is an article from his own decidedly and absolutely Liberal site, an article he wrote in January, 2010. It is that article where Jeff, being Jewish, states with clarity he understands millenarian Christian theology which in itself enrages a great many in the Jewish community. The fact Jeff is not Christian (and I have no idea whether he is a religiously practicing Jew or merely an ethnic Jew, nor is it all that important) would strongly suggest he disagrees with millenarian Christian theology. But he took the time to understand it, and understand the mentality of those who believe it.

Aphrael (who is blame fool enough to not capitalize his moniker) is much the same, but in a different vein. Both aphrael and Jeff are dead wrong on just about everything. But both aphrael and Jeff take the time to actually understand the Conservative position — while vehemently disagreeing with it — and debate honestly with that understanding they have acquired. That is why I have much respect for both aphrael and Jeff when it comes down to debating. That is also why I have absolutely zero tolerance or respect for Perry, mike g, Jeromy, that csbc or whatever it is clown, or the absolute worst of them: the downright liar and most blog-destroying of radical Leftist trolls: the New Zealand Socialist book putter backer.

Jeff and aphrael will likely never (short of a Saul of Tarsus miracle) come around to the Conservative position. But unlike those Leftists I mentioned above, Jeff and aphrael debate with integrity. And that is why Conservatives like me wish for more Jeffs and aphraels on Conservative sites and less trolls like “The Two Ps in a Pod”.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Conservative, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, sports, truth | Tagged: , | 9 Comments »

A Bridge Too Far(t)

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/10/03

I had to link to PERRY HOOD‘s site because he is the very typical far-Left radical socialist who pretends “progressive” means something other than socialist. How typical is he? His site is a paid site. And a Conservative who disagrees with everything he stands for paid for it. That’s right. Perry Hood’s radical Left-wing site is paid for by a Conservative site. Granted, the Conservative only had to pay the cost tied to the name and the new page, and then piggy-backed the absolutely minimal blog activity onto his own, but the fact remains the far-Left radical Socialist Perry Hood could not come up with the money to pay for his own site and instead of using a free site, took the money from a Conservative to provide him with a free-of-charge paid site that cost Perry Hood not a single dime.

I like using the full name Perry Hood because he went ballistic after I used it on Dana Pico’s site linked above, after Perry Hood had used it himself for a long time on the blogosphere. As you can see by his continued allowance of his last name, that being Hood, to be broadcast on his own site — that a Conservative paid the costs for him to provide — his offense at his last name, which he previously used on blog sites, is wholly dishonest. He only wanted to attack a Conservative he hated (me) for using his last name on the intertubes.

And here’s a clear picture to how abysmally his radical Left-wing with the lie-filled name has done.

Nobody is buying his radical agenda.

Perry Hood started his site, paid for by someone not named Perry Hood, as a “bridging the gap” site, and he had various authors on both sides start out writing for him. It has since become the Perry Hood show because Perry Hood is not the type to actually “bridge the gap”. He has been called out by Conservatives for his absolute radical Leftism and his denial of facts and his total memory loss. He has been called out by Libertarians for his memory loss (read: lies).

But let’s take a look at Perry Hood’s “gap bridging” shall we?

From Common Sense Political Thought:

Right, a short term deal following the disastrous debt ceiling hostage taking, done by your Repubs which succeeded in lowering our credit rating and made the unstable global financial situation more unstable. Yeah, Hube, that was real responsible. And yes, don’t forget, also, your Repub party bore major responsibility for the crash of Fall 2008 with your tax cut/big spending/laissez faire policies finally coming home to roost, now followed by a do-nothing Congressional dysfunction.

You folks caused these major problems, and now attempt to blame President Obama for them! Some integrity that is. If we happen to elect you crackpot radicals back into power, we will then deserve getting more of the same dysfunction, which will then say more about the dysfunction of the American people themselves. I’m hoping that this will not be the outcome in 2012, that the American people will step up, being above and beyond having such dysfunction.

And again from Common Sense Political Thought:

“Given that any of the Republican candidates, even including Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), couldn’t possibly make a worse President than the guy who is in office now, I’d say that it’s a pragmatic position to take. “ (quoting Dana Pico)

Now I know for sure what I have suspected for several months, Dana, and that is you have lost it, totally and completely!!!

But let’s look at his “gap bridging” from his own site, which has so many “comments closed” articles (and if you refuse to allow Leftist lunatics to thread-jack, you’re violating the First Amendment you claim to love. Especially if you ban anyone).

Here’s this:

It is refreshing to have the do-nothing Republican Party countered by folks who seek after the truth in order to counter the propaganda. “Bridging the Gap” is facilitated by knowing and acknowledging the truth.

And this:

These charts, originally posted here, are well worth reposting on my blog, simply because they demonstrate graphically not only the depth of the problem that Obama inherited from Bush and his party, but also the headway he has made in setting our economy back on track. They also give the lie to the protestations and propagandizing being done on a daily basis by the right wing media.

OK Dana, in addition to what I just pointed out, let me address your constant whining that Obama is a failure

And this:

Folks need to take into account the past performance of the S&P ratings before going off half-cocked against the soundness of the United States with regard to paying our debts, that is, unless our radical Right continues in their attempts to pull the rug out from under the American people in their zeal to unseat Obama and take over both houses of Congress.

And this:

What will it take for our right wing tea party extremists to realize these pending realities?

And this:

These House Republicans, mainly, are ready and willing to send this nation over a financial cliff in order to get their way. This is a relatively small minority who have the power to say “no” because they have decided not to say “yes” to anything. Most other Republicans are also responsible, bowing to the wishes of one Grover Norquist and their signed pledge to NEVER raise taxes. These radicals, and that is exactly what they all are, would put the entire burden for deficit/debt reduction on the backs of the middle class.

And these Republicans think they are doing the Right thing, where the Right thing is utter insanity, against the best interests of the American people. Patriots these people fashion themselves to be. Patriots these people are not!!!

And this:

Furthermore, we now see these oligarchs and their sheep working hard to suppress the vote in 2012 by making it more difficult to register, among other things.

But of course, this one takes the cake:

Hatred of Obama: Is Race a Factor?

I definitely think it is, otherwise how does one explain the outright unabashed hatred of President Obama coming from regions and from those who have a history of racial prejudices, and coming from a popular right wing radio host who makes no bones about his hatred for Obama, and his racist outlook, both in general and specifically.

So, do go over to his site and read some of his “gap bridging” and his radical Leftist comics. Find a blog entry that is actually open for comments and let him know what you think of his “gap bridging”. Also let him know I sent you. He’ll like that. Or maybe not.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Liberal, media, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, race, TEA Party | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

“Where Is Your Plan?”

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/09/12

That is a lie in the form of a question the radical Left use constantly, and have been using constantly for years. Libertarians have formulated plans to rescue the nation’s economy. Conservatives have formulated plans to rescue the US economy. Those plans have been put out for public examination. Many of them have been available for examination for years. But the radical Left demand that Libertarians and Conservatives have no plan, just a raaaaacist hatred for “the black President.”

As “anecdotal” evidence of the radical Leftist mantra in action, I give you one Perry Hood, who regularly chants that mantra at Conservatives on Common Sense Political Thought. Delaware Libertarian found it necessary to write an entire article solely devoted to pointing out Perry Hood’s dishonorable lying chant.

So not only has an alternative been offered here, Perry, you went on record as agreeing with substantial parts of it–even though you seem to have … forgotten that part.

You have offered engaging insights and shown the willingness to admit that part of President Obama’s plan is a massive gamble with our future.

And you’re certainly free to disagree with anything we offer.

But please, stop suggesting that libertarians here have not been discussing solutions…

That article was written in March, 2009 so Delaware Libertarian was already tired of Perry Hood’s radical Leftist, wholly dishonest chant of “where’s your plan” way back in early 2009, right after Barack Obama was sworn in. People were tired of the lying accusation that the opposition had no plan years ago because there were plans years ago which were readily available for discussion, but Perry Hood soldiers on with his radical Leftist, dishonorable chant even to this day. Because he is incapable of allowing himself to be drawn in to discussing the various Conservative and Libertarian plans that are readily available for discussion.

Sarah Palin has a plan. Paul Ryan has a plan. Michele Bachmann (that’s one “l” and two “n”s, people) has a plan. Rick Perry has a plan. Tea Party Express has a plan. Tea Party Patriots has a plan. Contract From America has a plan. Freedom Works has a plan. Americans for Prosperity has a plan. Conservatives have plans. Libertarians have plans. Republicans have plans. There are many plans on the Conservative and Libertarian sides. There have been plans since before Obama became President. And they have been available for public discussion from the get-go. So radical Leftists like Perry Hood have to lyingly claim we have no plan in their wholly dishonorable, age-old, and worn-out chant “where’s your plan” in order to not have to discuss the plans they are dishonestly avoiding discussing.

Aside from all that, I have a question to ask the dishonorable radical Leftists like Perry Hood: Where’s your Budget? The radical Leftist Nancy Pelosi refused to even attempt a Budget from April, 2009 until the day the American people overwhelmingly threw her and the Democrats out of power in the House in the 2010 TEAnami. Despite Federal Law requiring they provide a Budget and the US Constitution giving them the responsibility of providing a Budget. To this day, Harry Reid has steadfastly refused to even attempt a Budget, again despite Federal Law requiring such and the US Constitution giving him and his fellow Democrat Senators the responsibility for such. It has been over 850 days. Where’s your Budget?

Posted in Character, Conservative, Constitution, economics, Elections, history, Law, Liberal, Obama, Personal Responsibility, politics, society, TEA Party, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Perry Hood: There Are States That Don’t Count

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/08/29

Perry Hood made this comment over at Common Sense Political Thought:

I think the American people will see through your propaganda and reelect him in large numbers in the states that really count!

Not to be confused with Texas Governor and Presidential candidate Rick Perry (R), Perry Hood is a far-Left commenter on Common Sense Political Thought and the administrator of the hilariously named “Bridging the Gap” who makes the equally laughable false claim that he’s somehow a centrist.

I responded to his remark over there.

Here’s the issue with Perry’s absolutely elitist proclamation:
1) It’s as purposely vague as a horrorscope;
2) It’s elitist because, by definition, “the states that really count” means there are states that don’t count;
3) Whatever states that Obama wins in large numbers in 2012 will then turn out to be the only states that really count.

Let me add a number 4: “Large numbers” is also hopelessly vague as it can be defined after the fact. Whatever the numbers turn out to be, they can then be defined as “large numbers” thereby fitting the prediction. But let’s look at some histo-facts, shall we? Let’s look at two chunks of data.

First off, the 2008 Presidential election state-by-state results as provided by US Election Atlas.org.

The states that RINO squish John McCain won and, by definition, do not count:
Alaska
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
Arizona
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Missouri
Arkansas
Louisiana
Kentucky
West Virginia
Tennessee
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
(22 states)

The states Obama won but got less than 50 percent of the vote thereby, by definition, not states that count:
Indiana
North Carolina

The states Obama won with less than 53 percent of the vote, thus not a large margin, and don’t count:
Florida
Virginia
Ohio

Thus, by Perry Hood’s definition and based on the 2008 election results, there are 27 states (out of 50? 57? 60?) that don’t count. If you live in the South, chances are your state doesn’t count. If you live in the bread basket, chances are your state doesn’t count. If you live in the energy producing states, chances are your state doesn’t count.

Let’s look at that second histo-fact dataset: Job Production. Dana Pico introduced a pie chart showing only nine states added jobs between June 2006 and June 2011. In the past three election cycles, New York was the only job-producing state that went Democrat. The other eight states went Republican-Republican-Republican in the last three election cycles. Only New York, the worst job producer of the nine in total jobs added and jobs added per capita, went Democrat. That means, by Perry Hood’s metric, New York was the only state that counts among the job producers.

So to recap, if you live in a job-producing state or a southern state or an energy-producing state or a bread basket state, chances are your state doesn’t really count. If you live in one of 27 states (and there really are only 50), your state doesn’t really count. As the elitist snob (who claims to be for the everyman) radical Leftist (who claims to be a centrist while using every derogatory Leftist meme to smear Republicans and Conservatives, the TEA Party included) gap builder (who claims to be a gap bridger) set down in his defining statement.

Posted in economics, Elections, history, Liberal, Obama, Oil, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, society, TEA Party, truth | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 120 other followers

%d bloggers like this: