Notice how many of them are no longer in Congress? And We the People still hate it, more now than before it was passed. It’s time for Republicans and those Democrats who like their cushy perks of Office to abort ObamaCare.
Archive for the ‘history’ Category
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2015/01/17
All you anti-Christian, anti-Semites, you can kiss my puwet. Tell your lies. They’re from Satan. I stand in solidarity with Israel, the Jews, Jesus, Providence and against Satan, who calls himself Allah among other names.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/12/22
What else can you say about a song written by a Mormon Senator from Utah with the music written by a Jewish writer of Christian Contemporary music and sung by a Syrian woman from Indiana with backup vocals by Jewish children and the Mormon Senator other than take a listen and be uplifted?
We here at Truth Before Dishonor are Conservative. We are predominantly Christian. That means beyond any shadow of a doubt we are pro-Israel and pro-Jew. This uplifting Hannukkah song is merely a representation of our love for the Jews and for Israel, and a gift to all who visit, Jew or Gentile.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/11/19
Our media, our Colleges, our public education are the most depraved, anti-American they have ever been in the history of the US. And the sad thing is…
In 15 years, I’ll be able to say the same thing with complete accuracy.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/10/28
Surely they have been called Uncle Toms, Race Traitors, Oreos, House Ni**ers, Tokens, etc by the Left already.
Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, crime, Culture, economics, Elections, history, Insanity, Liberal, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, race, society | Comments Off
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/19
The Editor of The First Street Journal found another lying Democrat. There are some rules of writing that say when a word is defined in part by a qualifier, the qualifier is unnecessarily redundant; therefore, it is unnecessarily redundant to add the qualifier “lying” to the word “Democrat”. Democrats win elections by lying. There is a good chance that Democrats would never have more than a small minority position in most State Legislatures and the US government without their lies. Republicans want to throw granny over the cliff. Republicans have a war on women. Republicans are all racists. Heck, the race card has been so overplayed as to not mean anything anymore. Democrats have fought for all the Civil Rights Laws we have in this country. The long list of proven Democrat lies could go on forever. So what’s so important that the Editor of The First Street Journal would point out another Democrat lying? It’s the Pro-Life nature of the Democrat. Or, rather, it’s the lie that he’s in any way Pro-Life at all.
Well, we have just found out how pro-life Senator Casey really is. The pro-abortion forces introduced S. 1696, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is designed to eliminate state restrictions on abortion, through the entire nine months of pregnancy. It was in response to restrictions imposed in states like Texas, where abortion clinics are required to meet rigorous safety and health standards. The Texas law1 is designed, unquestionably, to reduce the number of abortion clinics in the Lone Star State, but it was also in response to “Dr” Kermit Gosnell’s little shop of horrors. When it came time to actually vote on S. 1696, the devout Roman Catholic, pro-life Senator Casey, who represents the state in which “Dr” Gosnell was “practicing,” voted for the bill, as did every other Democrat in the Senate.2
With that vote, Senator Casey just told us, through deeds, that his words are nothing but lies. Senator Casey could have attempted to provide some “moderation,” some bit of pro-life sentiment, which he claims to have, by voting against the bill, because, in the end, the bill is both symbolic and meaningless: its chance of passage by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is infinitesimally small.
If you’re Pro-Life, you cannot vote Democrat. Because Democrats are only Pro-Life to get your vote. Afterward, they are pro-abort in every sense of the word. But you also have to be careful which Republican gets your vote. Because there’s more than one Republican who is pro-abort. And no Democrat wants you to see the photos to the left, because that might make you vote against the Democrat and against abortion on demand.
Posted in abortion, Character, Christianity, Conservative, Culture, Elections, Health Care, history, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Pro-Life, society, truth | Tagged: Democrisy, Pro-Life, Pro-Life photos, Senator Bob Casey, US Senate | 2 Comments »
Posted by DNW on 2014/05/28
This Incredible Slinking Men of the Obama Administration never cease to amaze.
Not just in their leftoid, parasitical on the productive class effrontery, but in their lack of logical acumen; their inability to recognize that in breaking legal bonds in one direction, they are broken in the other.
Or perhaps they don’t believe that there is a reciprocal dynamic between leftist conqueror and the American conquered.
As the Obamanaughts phrased it: “We rule now”. The operative term here being rule, not govern or administer. And if the legislature, that is the American Congress, will not give the Little Imperator what he wants, why he will do it by Executive Order, he threatens.
So why should we be surprised by this report which states that the Obama Administration is proposing what is basically an ethnic based regime of law in Hawaii?
Law is the embodiment of the moral sense of the people, Blackstone is alleged to have said.
Now it is proposed we accept the notion within our polity of different laws for different moral moieties; which implies, though the advocates no doubt wish to ignore it, that we have fundamentally different peoples with irreconcilably different moral sensibilities, jostling in the same political space.
This doesn’t seem to line up with leftist moral rhetoric.
But, as we have seen in the past, leftists seem incapable of grasping simple deductive inferences, so caught up are they in their “world-creating” fantasy existence.
Yeah, I remember law just like that from my school days.
“Such of the crimes as might be prosecuted by an appeal, and for which the criminal’s lands were forfeited to his lord or to the King, and his chattels taken, or for which he lost life or member, or was outlawed, were called felonies. Misdemeanours, such as were subsequently known under a fully developed common law, were practically ignored by the justices of Henry the Third’s reign, and on the eyre rolls of that period may be said not to appear. Homicide and rape are the crimes that here pass before us. The former is the only one that need be considered. In some few cases homicide was held to be justifiable, and when such happened the slayer suffered no punishment.
Neither did he where death was caused by misadventure or in self defence.
Every other case of homicide, that is, that which was neither justifiable nor excusable, was felonious.
The difference between murder and manslaughter was then unknown.
In Glanvill’s day secret homicide, which is murdrum, had to be distinguished from homicidium, but the distinction soon died away.1 The term murdrum however survived as the name of the fine paid by the hundred when a person was slain and the slayer not produced.
The law presumed that everyone killed was a foreigner unless his English birth was proved. Possibly the origin of the doctrine is to be found in the statutes of William the Conqueror, which decreed that all men whom he brought with him or who had followed him should be in his peace.
And if one of them were slain the lord of his murderer was to seize the slayer.
But if he could not do so then the lord was to pay forty-six marks of silver as long as his possessions held out, and on their exhaustion the hundred in which the killing took place was to pay in common the balance owing.
The presentment of Englishry (Englescheria), that is proving the slain to be an Englishman by birth, was at first one of the few formal badges of distinction between the conquering and conquered race. Its practical need could not have lasted long, for at the end of the twelfth century it was impossible, except in the very highest or very lowest ranks, to distinguish Norman from Englishman.” [Pleas of the Crown for the Hundred of Swineshead and the Township of Bristol by Edward James Watson]
Looks like the Obama Administration does in fact believe itself quite capable of distinguishing Saxon from non-Saxon. At least when they see a political gain in it for themselves.
So much for any notion that the left believes or ever really believed in the first place, that mankind constituted one moral species … no matter how rhetorically useful they happen to have found the spouting of Christian and natural law doctrines in order to advance their cause – at least far enough along to subvert and displace the same.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/05/20
Jesus’ return will be like the days of Lot and Noah, so Jesus proclaimed. Like the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, with their absolutely evil sexual immorality. When two angels of the Lord visited Lot, the entire town came out and raised a ruckus. Lot offered to let the town rape his two virgin daughters. They refused. They demanded to rape the men who came to visit.
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
a.1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.
Every “church” leader who declares homosexuality to be acceptable will find himself separated from the Kingdom of Providence. Every last one of them.
Take a look around the US. People are being fired from their jobs for standing up for righteous marriage and against the sexually immoral crapola that is being forced down our throats today. The US has fallen deeply into its Sodom and Gomorrah stage, and Providence will punish the US for it. We are in the End Times, just as it was prophesied, and the coming of the Lord (and the 7 year Tribulation) are close at hand.
Got a problem with that? Take it up with the man you now mock, but whom you will bow down and prostrate yourself before, while declaring him Lord over all. (Philippians 2:9-11)
Posted in Character, Christianity, history, Law, Personal Responsibility, Politically Incorrect, Religion, society, truth | Tagged: Bible quotes, End Times Prophecy, Lot, Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah | 5 Comments »
Posted by DNW on 2014/01/22
Anyone who has drunk, or imbibed since we don’t want to sound as if we are alluding to intoxication, a sufficient number of martinis to use the term “perfect martini” also knows that there is really no such thing as a perfect martini. Even martinis made to your favorite recipe will obviously vary to some significant degree with the care which one takes – or doesn’t – in making (proportioning) the drink and with the particular brands of ingredients used.
That rocks glass in your hand on the patio in July, the glass sloshingly filled with cubes and gin and vermouth and a couple of olives, and which you hold in the one hand as you flip steaks on the grill with the other, holds the same nominal drink as that carefully proportioned vodka and vermouth mix poured from a shaker into a coupe glass, and then garnished with a twist of lemon zest.
In the name of decency, there are some limits though.
For example, although either gin or vodka (or both together, Mr. Bond) may be used or substituted, most people would agree that no matter how stingy the application may be, a “martini” made without any vermouth is just not really a martini as most of us understand it.
Speaking of vermouth, many of us, myself for instance, had become comfortably accustomed to Noilly Prat only to discover a couple of years ago that something awful had happened. I first though I had gotten a bad bottle. Instead of the usual clear liquid I was used to seeing, out came a yellow-greenish fluid with a more pronounced taste, smell, and what seemed to me to be oily character. It tasted like the abominable Gallo vermouth. It made my martini undrinkable. Until recently I could not come up with a satisfactory explanation as to what went wrong. Abandoning my theory of a heat spoiled bottle at the second disappointment, I figured my memory of what I like must have been off … very off somehow.
Turns out that the company had been bought out, and the new ownership of Noilly Prat decided that Americans would henceforth receive the European version of their “dry” vermouth; which was distinctly heavier in scent and taste than that to which we were accustomed. Apparently Noilly had for some years, and long before I ever approached a martini glass, been offering a specially dry version for the North American market. After grimacing my way through those last unwitting purchases of the Euro-style and highly scented version of their “dry”, I dropped any pretense of brand loyalty and grabbed a bottle of Martini & Rossi off the shelf the next time out. According to the blog “The Gray Report” (and Gray himself actually prefers the Euro-version), many others did as well. I certainly hated it. Enough people agreed with me implies Gray, to cause sales to plummet sufficient to get management’s attention and to promise to bring back the American version to this market.
So far, I haven’t seen it. Though I can’t say I have looked very hard.
As far as the mix portions go, I for one, have over the years developed a preference for what some web sites, Vermouth101.c0m for instance, are calling a 1950’s mix … basically 3 measures of gin or vodka to one half measure (I’m not using the technical term for “measure” here) of dry vermouth. So for example, a measure might be one of those ounce-and-a-half shot glasses. Then, three full shot glasses of gin, and one half of that ounce and a half shot glass, of vermouth.
You will notice too that as Mr. Niven above protectively recoils from that bottle of vermouth proffered by the cheerfully smiling pixie, he is simultaneously cradling an almost fishbowl sized snifter, which he’s using as the martini mixing glass.
He obviously wants his martini as dry as possible. And I agree to some extent as I mentioned just above.
But I would not go so far as the version of martini supposedly liked best when I first started drinking them during that late 1980s and 1990’s era sometimes credited with the return of the cocktail to prominence. That version, was reportedly almost pure gin or vodka, and I found it as objectionable to my palate as the early 20th century version said to be preferred by FDR: a two gin to one vermouth mix with plenty of brine added. I tried it. Yech. No wonder FDR had a stroke.
Well, no accounting for the taste of certain statist liberals who smoke cigarettes from holders.
We’ve already addressed what are from my point of view the preferable proportions of the two main ingredients in the mix. How they are mixed together is another matter.
The phrase “shaken not stirred” has become a painful cliche that causes me to actually wince when hearing it. But, that doesn’t mean that I don’t prefer the drink mixed that way. In fact, while doing research – well, while idly scanning various books and other websites for confirmation of my own prejudices – I read that martinis were originally meant to be made that way: shaken.
By the time the James Bond novel Casino Royale was published for Ian Fleming in 1953, in the very year Mr. Niven was saving his bowl of gin in “The Moon is Blue” from the debasement of too much, or almost any vermouth, the mixing process seems to have changed from shaking to stirring. Or at least swirling the mix with cubes.
Which leads us to another painful cliche: one which expresses alarm over the possibility of “bruising the gin”.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, so I can’t explain it to you. And when I hear it, I can only picture some dissipated country club type given to the pointless regurgitation of current mythologies as a way of cementing his image as one who is in need of constantly cementing his image. Out of respect to our early 1950s motif here, I’ll include an image of just that type of fellow as portrayed by actor Louis Calhern, in yet another William Holden movie of that same era, “Executive Suite”.
In any event, I not only have a fictional spy on my shaken side, I apparently have the British medical establishment. You may be thinking I am referring to a recent series of articles based on the premise that James Bond liked his martinis shaken and not stirred because had he been a real person who drank as much as seemingly recorded in the spy novels he, would have had a case of the shakes which made stirring impossible … or something like that.
However, that particular bit of politically motivated kill-joy posturing by the PC crowd is not what I am referring to. What I am citing here is an article in the British Journal of Medicine titled “Shaken, not stirred: bioanalytical study of the antioxidant activities of martinis”.
Shaken martinis were more effective in deactivating hydrogen peroxide than the stirred variety, and both were more effective than gin or vermouth alone (0.072% of peroxide control for shaken martini, 0.157% for stirred v 58.3% for gin and 1.90% for vermouth). The reason for this is not clear, but it may well not involve the facile oxidation of reactive martini components: control martinis through which either oxygen or nitrogen was bubbled did not differ in their ability to deactivate hydrogen peroxide (0.061% v 0.057%) and did not differ from the shaken martini. Moreover, preliminary experiments indicate that martinis are less well endowed with polyphenols than Sauvignon white wine or Scotch whisky (0.056 mmol/l (catechin equivalents) shaken, 0.060 mmol/l stirred v 0.592 mmol/l wine, 0.575 mmol/l whisky).
With authorities like that behind you, who needs some comic book spy on your side?
How’s it to be served then? In what kind of glass? A “martini glass” obviously?
Well, there are different theories. I always specified a rocks glass in restaurants. Occasionally a self-confident middle aged waiter in the tonier kind place would good naturedly admonish me with an “Oh sir! Not really!” and I’d give in and have it in a stemmed glass. I’ve kind of gotten used to them by now. The design is supposed to have a certain logic, and I admit that the drink may taste somewhat better in one. Or at least more like an aperitif to be savored, than a concoction to be guzzled.
Still, I like a squat tumbler in some situations. Summer evening grilling is good time to load up with ice, in my opinion; and a double old fashioned glass works really well for that.
But the classic martini glass is making a bit of comeback without any assistance from me. That is to say, when I say “classic”, a sub 7 ounce capacity glass with a short pulled stem, rather than one of those 12 ounce glass funnels ill balanced on a 6 inch pillar, which has been the popular version for the last 30 or so years.
As an admirable return to basics, take this well proportioned glass sold this Christmas season as an example. Not a pulled stem coupe with that little extra cusp in the bottom (that is to say not one obviously shaped like a mold of Marie Antoinette’s left you know what …) it’s nonetheless pretty appealing all the same.
And, you can still get the champagne coupe/cocktail glasses common in the early 60’s as well. From Germany, just for you: at two for sixty or seventy dollars a pair.
So, what’s the perfect martini? I don’t know really, and haven’t the authority to say. Make it 6 to one. Vodka or gin depending on mood. Rocks or Martini glass depending. Two cubes with the former, or just a bit of cracked ice in the latter. Mix shaken, well, with ice. Poured over a stuffed olive, and a twist of zest added last. Let sit about a minute. Then …
That’s perfect enough for me.
You, are entitled to your own opinion of course.
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/11/20
Yesterday was the 150th Anniversary of the Gettysburg Address. For Lincoln to get to Gettysburg from Washington to Gettysburg, he had to travel to Baltimore and switch to yjr Northern Central RR which headed north to York, PA. But before reaching York, Lincoln had to transfer to a Railroad to Hanover, PA and then to Gettysburg.
But his transfer before York was done at a little switching station called Hanover Junction. It was there, Brady took a picture supposedly with Lincoln in the picture.
The building at Hanover Junction in 1863 still stands, and has been refurbished and brought to what it looked like in 1863. Last week, the Group “Steam into History” http://steamintohistory.com/ re-created this scene.
a href=”http://www.journal14.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/IMG_9565c1.jpg”> My photo
(This happened near where I live)