« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Do you support Senator Jim Inhofe’s Angry Reaction to EPA “Crucify” American Energy Companies Plan?

The outrage, is that there’s not more outrage from Christians.  The most toned down I can get on the question of Obama Administration official who revealed that their policy is to use the terrorist tactic of crucifixion on businessmen to force them to stop trying to supply Americans with lower cost energy in the quantities needed is to say it is irreverent and should provoke Christians.

How about sacrilege, profanity, blasphemy, to describe what Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz said is the Obama Administration’s policy towards American citizens they do not like?

This is wrong on so many fronts and in so many ways that it is difficult to see where to begin until one steps back and realizes that they crucified my Lord Jesus Christ, using the most painful and humiliating method of torturing someone to death that was known in the history of mankind until that date.

It was a tactic to terrorize, leaving someone on public display to die slowly and painfully, unable to even breath air without having to painfully lift yourself up on your feet that were nailed to the cross, causing more pain as the price of getting another breath of air.  The way that crucified people died was when they literally no longer had the strength to lift themselves up for another breath of air, they finally died of asphyxiation.

What is known by most people that this is a most inhumane way to die.  What people do not realize about what this Obama Administration official was saying is that his purpose in “crucifying” American businessmen was to terrorize ALL of them by what he was doing to a few.

In this regard, the Obama Administration acts exactly as do terrorists who don’t mean anything personal when they kill innocent civilians – they are seeking to TERRORIZE with fright, the rest of us, who are the real target.

The Obama “crucify” strategy is the same – the real target is ALL American business, especially energy producers.

And so it is entirely appropriate that Senator James Inhofe has demanded hearings to investigate how such terror tactics have been used on Americans during the past year since those words were spoken in 2010 and placed on youtube.

An apology and quick removal of the words of the EPA Official from youtube who said this is simply a cover up of what actually happened, not a cancellation of what happened.  No doubt any criminal caught in the act of his crime would prefer to erase all evidence of his crime and say “I am sorry lets forget about it.”

But every American concerned about a government which is so willing to ignore the constraints of the Bill of Rights and to even adopt “crucifixion” tactics on Americans should be demanding such a hearing and investigation and in fact, we should be asking what criminal investigation is being launched against Al Armendariz and anyone else engaged in what he says was the Obama Administration’s policy.

Lest the casual or uninformed reader imagine my concern on this subject is overrated you need to read carefully exactly what Armendariz said on the now removed youtube video which came to the attention of U.S. Senator Inhofe and so provoked his anger:

Our general Philosophy

“But as I said, oil and gas is an enforcement priority [...] I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said.  It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean.  They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them.  And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years [...] So, that’s our general philosophy.

No doubt he is sorry but the most instructive words there are: “that’s our general philosophy.”  Is it now?

Senator Inhofe is on the right track in simply saying to the Obama Administration, “tell us more” and do it under oath please.  I wish that the House of Representatives would launch companion hearings on this topic as well, since they have the Constitutional authority to fund – or to defund – the very activities which are guided by this “general philosophy.”

And there is no doubt that the three states most immediately and directly impacted – and which are named below – ought also to conduct their own independent hearings to determine how the Obama Administration’s official “general” policy hurt their citizens and their economy.

Inhofe recognizes that the so called “apology” is meaningless and said so.

Inhofe noted that the Obama Administration did not apologize or provide financial reimbursement to the companies it had ruined or caused massive financial losses to using these terrorist tactics, such as Range Resources  in Parker County, Texas.

Their misdeeds are simply covered up when they silently withdraw their false complaints against companies, leaving damaged, wounded and sometimes mortally wounded companies in their wake, and a growing number of other companies living in terror that it could very well happen to them next.

This is a policy which will make the radical liberal left delirious with joy and no doubt will provoke exclamations and excited columns in the corridors of the Huffington Post, the Daily KOS, Media Matters and on the Rachel “madcow” Maddow TV show where anyone who tears down American business and demonizes energy companies is an instant hero.

Writing as a Christian conservative from Pennsylvania I have rarely seen more of a confluence of my three major interests in one story than this one, plus the bonus that those who I have no use for (see paragraph above!!) are all jumping up and down on the other side of this issue.

Not long after EPA Administrator Armendariz made his 2010 video taped remarks revealing “our general philosophy” the EPA embarked on a campaign of terror to do exactly what he said in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.

The EPA tactic was – as is the case with all terrorists – to go for the headlines by making inflammatory accusations against American energy producers claiming they are the cause of water contamination and suggesting that criminal penalties would be in order.

Despite not having any evidence that this in fact was the case, they pursued the headlines, crippling and damaging companies and causing untold costs and embarrassment to Americans, effectively punishing them without a trial and without even enough evidence to indict anyone.

When the Obama EPA investigation against weakened and damaged companies was underway of course, those companies could always make it stop by simply surrendering – known as a “consent order” where the victim gets the pain (ie. crucifixion) to stop by surrendering and admitting to a lesser “crime” so that they can then go off and lick their wounds while EPA goes on to the next crucifixion victim.

When EPA’s “crucifixion” terrorist tactics did not produce either a surrender, the destruction of the targeted company or industry, or even any new evidence to support unwarranted accusations, they simply withdrew the charges and released late night or Friday afternoon media statements of withdrawal, and then went on to their next victim.

To date there has never been an apology or payment of damages to the companies they hurt.

To date, there has never been any penalty or punishment of those who engage in what I will bluntly call criminal terrorist blackmail tactics against Americans, under color of law.

Of course if it is a baby human under 9 months of age, an American businessman, an American soldier, or an American conservative, it seems anything goes – murder, terror tactics, false accusations.  It is only terrorists, enemy combatants and baby seals who seem to merit the sympathy of the radical anti-America leftists.

Senator Inhofe is looking to investigate three specific examples of how the EPA unfairly used its power to “crucify” American energy companies in Texas, Wyoming and Pennsylvania (details HERE).

Dimock, Pennsylvania was one of the targets of EPA where they reversed their earlier announcement that despite hydraulic fracturing there had caused no problems with groundwater which was still safe for drinking (the State EPA declared this on Dec. 2, 2011).

The PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Secretary Michael Krancer accused the Obama EPA of having a “rudimentary” understanding “of the facts and history of the region’s water.”

The only issues with local water in Dimock, PA are naturally occurring throughout this area and have nothing at all to do with “fracking.”

Yet the EPA proceeded on the attack against the local business which was developing this energy resource, completely ignoring the facts and history, the state DEP, the local government, and even due process of law in its zeal to pursue its crucifixion strategy against Pennsylvania energy producers.

Senator Jim Inhofe’s U.S. Senate investigation should be mirrored by a similar investigation by the Pennsylvania state legislature.

On the grounds of the 10th amendment – which reserves those powers not expressly identified in the Constitution to the states – such a Pennsylvania legislative hearing should be pursued.

On the basis of the demonization of Pennsylvania business in pursuit of a radical, anti-business, anti-free enterprise “crucifixion” strategy, this Pennsylvania legislative hearing should be pursued.

On the basis of the violation of due process of law and equal protection under the law – those pesky things we call “The Bill of Rights” constraining government from doing what we see the Obama administration here doing, there should be a Pennsylvania legislative hearing.

I have to ask, aren’t there Pennsylvania laws which have been violated in this over zealous and I say criminal conduct to hurt Americans who did nothing to warrant such persecution – such “crucifixion.”??

If you agree that both the U.S. Senate and House, as well as the Pennsylvania legislature, should conduct hearings and inquire of Obama administration officials how they used this crucifixion terrorist strategy against American energy producers without due process of law then please take the following actions.

First please pass this article along to your friends, “like” it on your facebook page, pass the word every way that you can.

If you are on Facebook go to Senator Inhofe’s page and “like” – https://www.facebook.com/jiminhofe

You can leave a written message electronically for Sen. Inhofe to encourage him to press on: HERE.

If you wish to be extra-industrious on this topic you may telephone either (or both) of two Inhofe Staffers on that Senate Committee to ask them to convey to their boss your THANKS for his being so outspoken on this topic – Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-9797 and/or Katie Brown Katie_Brown@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-2160

You can write to U.S. Senator Pat Toomey of PA asking him to support the Inhofe investigation:  (202) 224-4254, and/or email form: click HERE

The liberal Democrat who poses as a conservative from PA is Senator Bob Casey and you can call him to ask him to defend his state from the President of his party, (202) 224-6324 and/or email form HERE.

To demand that the Pennsylvania State legislature also call hearings to investigate the EPA’s use of crucify terrorist tactics against Americans in their state, write your own legislators, and/or also contact:

State Rep. Scott E. Hutchinson, Chairman, Environmental Resources & Energy Committee (717) 783-8188.  Email form HERE.

and

State Rep. Garth D. Everett, Subcommittee Chairman on Energy (of the Environmental Resources & Energy Committee) (717) 787-5270 and/or email form HERE.

and

State Rep. Jeffrey P. Pyle, Subcommittee Chairman on Mining (of the Environmental Resources & Energy Committee)  (717) 783-5327  and/or Email form HERE.

Senator Inhofe said after the phony apology, “we’re not going to let them get away with it.”

This is an outrage not just because the crucifixion-terrorist policy of the Obama Administration is directly responsible for the increasing gas and energy prices but because there really ought to be a line drawn on the ground where Christians of all political persuasions say “this has gone too far and is over the line” for civilized political discourse.

The only way that you can send a real message is to take action and that means the more you do, the better a result you can help us attain.

I hope you go well beyond “like” and make a few phone calls, take a few minutes to write a few messages, and sound off.  This is too far and a simple apology doesn’t begin to atone for the wrong which has been done.

This article contains enough information and links and suggestions as to constitute an ACTION KIT in its own right on this one topic.  I hope some of my readers and friends will make use of this resource, with or without credit to the undersigned, and please do feel free to post the link to anything you write, especially describing or sharing any response you get.

Additional online resources on this subject (several of which have already been mentioned above):

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/26/epa-official-apologizes-for-call-to-crucify-oil-companies-senator-investigating/#ixzz1tDZqWybG

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/26/epa-official-apologizes-for-call-to-crucify-oil-companies-senator-investigating/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297103/crucify-them-obama-way-michelle-malkin

https://www.facebook.com/jiminhofe

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/sen-inhofe-rips-epas-crucify-approach/?cat_orig=us

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46289

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/26/inhofe-on-epa-officials-apology-for-crucify-comments-meaningless-get-real/#ixzz1tDbt1V1E

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/epa-official-al-armendariz-crucify-oil-companies

It is no longer on youtube but you can still watch the original video here:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/27/youtube-pulls-armendariz-crucify-them-video/

Sen. Inhofe announces investigation into EPA “Crucify Them”

Senator Inhofe rejects the EPA Administrator’s phony apology

The Washington Times denounced EPA crucify plan against business (editorial)  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/25/obama-crucifies-business/  

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/26/inhofe-on-epa-officials-apology-for-crucify-comments-meaningless-get-real/

Inhofe: EPA Apologized for “Crucify” Words Not Actions

Whatever you do I’d love to hear more – anything else you find out – here in this space or if you create your own article or diary entry feel free to post a link in the comment section below.

**

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there. You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania.  I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do.  And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section. 

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • acat

    A view that I don’t share, but .. to quote Beaglescout yet again, “Voters are impure”, and if the idea that an EPA drone using a crucifixion metaphor gets people to vote GOP, I’ll take it.

    I also find the lack of reaction by the religious right to obvious abuses of power to be … confusing. I’m pleased to find I’m not the only one confused by the apparent disconnect.

    My only critique is that shorter would have been better.

    Repair Man Jack and Steve “Vladimir” Maley both covered the same EPA epic failure.

    By referencing either or both early on, your piece could have maintained its’ focus on the religious call to action – something neither Jack nor Vladimir mentioned – and been much shorter.

    Brevity, as the bard put it, is the soul of wit.

    Mew

    • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

      …. yes yes I know you will deny it. Another amusement for anyone who reads this far is how the liberal-left loves to use the word “hater” on conservatives in general and on Christian conservatives in particular, while engaging in repetitive, non-specific ad hominum attacks, ie. “they are all hypocrites” and “they do not love the Constitution” etc. It is a bit boring except the sheer repetition of this sort of attack is rather amusing. And you don’t need to go thru all this “I am confused” sort of thing, your posts at Red State are very repetitive and very obviously confused, ie. if we take your word for it you are a poor lost soul wandering around these quarters aiming barbs at Christian conservatives. Or else you using a figure of speech when you say you are “confused” about something a Christian-conservative writes. Let me clear this up for you if you are in fact confused. Defense oriented conservatives think the other folk don’t focus enough on defense. Economics conservatives think the others don’t focus enough on the foundation of freedom, our economic system. Values voters think the other groups don’t spend enough time concerning themselves on the foundation issue. And people like me want to get along with everyone, even as I do tend to focus on one area.

      If you want to launch such broad based attacks on the entire values voters segment why don’t you simply write your own column or start a blog or go right back to Daily Kos, Media Matters, Huffington Post or any of those websites where that sort of thing would fit in nicely? Of course, since I do visit those sites I do recognize that a lot of your general attacks on Christian conservatives are always used there. But no specifics.

      You are worried that we Christians who created the Bill of Rights with its constraints against the government, do not “react” to obvious abuses of power? I recommend a little bit less Rachell Maddow, and a little bit more Human Events/Red State/Fox TV to balance things out, and then you will see, understanding will come even to you little puddy cat.

      • acat

        I do have to question what you’re on about.

        I am a libertarian-leaning conservative, primarily concerned with fiscal and national defense matters. I am not a christian.

        It does not follow that I “hate” the social conservatives, nor that I am a liberal, nor that I would be “comfortable” on left-leaning sites.

        If you have this reaction to everyone who disagrees with you in part but not in the main, hanoverhenry, I do not see you doing well in the political realm.

        Mew

        • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

          you’ve done that repeatedly in response to my articles here, using the strawman method to respond to what I did not say, and then when you are called out on it you simply continue the personal insult while taking great umbrage at having had your tactic called.

          For example, you did not cite any example when you complained “I also find the lack of reaction by the religious right to obvious abuses of power to be

        • conservativerock5

          You can absolutely be libertarian and Christian. As I am. Libertarian does not mean libertine.

          Sorry to butt in, but I have seen too many misconceptions before so I must nip it in the bud.

          • acat

            I am not one of them.

            I have no objection to christianity *as a religion*, although I do not buy into it.

            I have a rather large objection to using christianity (or any religion) for political gain.

            I am not interested in telling christians (or any other sociological group) to shut up, nor am I saying religion has no role in politics .. I am saying that the two are separate, and using religion to drive political change has a long history of ending badly.

            Mew

          • Dave_A

            So long as you don’t subscribe to the more radical ‘libertarian’ views that tend to see it as OK to ignore any law one thinks ‘violates his natural rights’….

            The conflict, is between Libertarianism and Conservatism… It’s irreconcilable, and kept on back-burner ONLY because of the fact that (A) Conservatives hold almost all of the non-Leftist positions of power in the US, and (B) the Left is seen as a greater problem by both groups…

            And that’s without getting into the other, external philosophies that hitch-hike on each ideology – such as economics (Monetarism vs the Austrian school), and so on…

            For example, the two of us will never agree on monetary policy, foreign policy, or domestic law enforcement policy…

            We might agree on trade policy (since most libertarians are free-traders), and non-monetary economic policy, but that’s about it…

            And those two issues are not enough to form a governing coalition around, UNLESS there is a greater adversary in play (the Left)….

  • johngaltwasright

    Rush Limbaugh ran a longer quote than the one you have here and in it, Armendariz specifically states that his “crucifixion” strategy is aimed at “those who break the law.” For me that makes a difference. Seems like a perfectly normal prosecutorial tactic at the federal, state, and local level, otherwise known as making an example of someone, and not even partisan.

    As for the offense to your Christian sensibilities, the original reference was to the Romans, and rightly so, and had nothing whatever to do with Jesus Christ until you decided that it did.

    I can’t wait until this pathetic administration is turned out on its collective ear in November, but the outrage over this recording seems manufactured to me.

    Also must agree with acat, brevity is always better.

    • demsaresatanic

      to make into a partisan issue. It evokes strong emotion, and emotion trumps reason in elections.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        the purpose of the “crucifixion” strategy is of course, partison. Rebutting it could be construed as partisan I suppose but one of my points is that speaking of this terrorist tactic as if that is a normal and ordinary way of conducting your political business as the administration is doing may not be offensive to non-Christians like the puddy-cat critic but others ought to take offense, and in fact should be very angry about this “general” policy to “crucify” American energy providers. It is a terrorist tactic and it is not something to make light of.

  • zachv

    It also a word that means to cruelly treat someone, or to torment them. I don’t feel the word has only a specific religious connotation outside of the fact that the Romans crucified our Lord. If the EPA meant to evoke an analogy of some sort, that’d be different.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    Thank you. It is of course, always amusing to me to see liberal-left criticism of conservatives and Christians taken so seriously by some less traveled in our cause. Of course such critics do not think their banter about crucifixion is any sort of a problem.. It is the sort of thing one can banter about in normal discourse so long as you are speaking of businessmen, American military, conservatives, conservative women or blacks. Imagine the howls if such personal torture methods of putting somebody to death were spoken of by lets us say, Rush Limbaugh, about the Lady Fluke. But of course he referred to her behavior with a word that ended up giving the critics something to howl about and I would imagine that my critics here who object to my objection to “crucifixion” being bantered about as a “manufactured” issue were silent a few weeks back during that attack on Rush. It is only when we conservatives object that they complain, and only when we – in this case Rush Limbaugh – make such a mistake that the liberal-left goes on the attack. That you for showing exactly my point.

    I did also find it amusing that my critics complain about the entire Christian right while at the same time ignoring the little detail that I did cite my objections to this “crucifixion” strategy on both constitutional and specifically on civil liberty grounds. What rankles the liberal-left is that both of those grounds are rooted in the work of men who believed that our liberties which they sought to protect are God given and that they were for the most part either strong Christians or people allied to, respectful of and friends with strong Christians.

    And but of course, those who do not agree with us will as you have done, not even keep track of their criticisms which are sometimes internally inconsistent. In this case you both offer up suggestions of what else I should have included in my writing, while simultaneously complaining it was too long.

    May I suggest that if you think brevity is the soul of wit you might spend a little less time complaining about conservative and Christian offerings on RED STATE and a little bit more time writing your own original offerings, albeit short such witticisms. My purpose here is not to be witty or brief. I am of the older generation, you know, those folks who read those long things called books, which you may have heard of? We use large screens called PC’s, and full keyboards using all fingers of both hands. Oh my what a fuddy duddy some of us are, speaking in complete sentences, and writing essays of 2300 words. I would hate for my critics to get eye strain reading so much before they can attack. But then, I’ve not read much here that indicates much more was read than the opening paragraph. Happily, the 32 people who “liked” the article vs the 2 who are my critics, don’t appear to agree. I thank you for keeping things lively by your appearance here.

    • acat

      Second, your reply indicates you either have no clue who you’re speaking to, or you’ve got quite an anti-youth bias.

      I’ve been posting on Red State for a while, so .. if I’m a leftist, I’ve managed to fly under the moderators’ radar .. perhaps you should use your senior wisdom and ask that they go ahead and ban me.

      Or .. you could – ironically – act like an adult and own that your assumptions could be in error.

      Mew

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        … and you really do like to dish it out while showing how thin skinned you are. You answered nothing at all of what I wrote, and have made clear that you have no clue about the matters where you are posing as a critic, ie. your expertise about the vast Christian conspiracy which you claim isn’t protesting the attack on our rights. And that is now the second time you have begged me to ask the moderator to ban you. Do you have a ban fetish? you could ironically act like an adult instead of like a cat, you are so very testy.

        • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

          and if someone uses the same arguments against conservatives that anyone can read on those leftwing websites which I cited, (a) it is only fair to note this truth, and (b) YOU are the one who is acting/speaking in a way that matches up with those leftwing sources (c) I did not in fact here, or any of the other instances in which you so bitterly complain about the same thing, ever call you a leftist. I said what I said, and it speaks for itself. You are once again as you have done repeatedly, simply creating a strawman and then attacking it, ie. claiming that you were called a leftist in your bitter attack on Christian conservatives here. You may carry on but your whining sounds rather pathetic, especially considering how merrily you dish it out while whining so much. no mew there at all.

          • aesthete

            Just you. You shower anyone with the slightest disagreement from you with ridiculous accusations of closet leftist sympathies or brainwashing, and cover yourself with (mostly out of context) scripture to defend your overwhelming egoism. Given your many lengthy, ad hom-filled, and substanceless replies, I’d say this is a classic case of the lady doth protest.

            TLDR version: Get over yourself, jerk.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            …where is there any reference to your leftist sympathies and/or your brainwashing? Once again you created a strawman and then (in your own opinion) offered up a clever rebuttal. Sounds exactly like listening to Obama speak about conservatives. Same two steps. Same target, same demonizing, same ego. Thanks for the smile.

            Substantless? I haven’t yet read any critique of my writing by you which indicates you actually read anything that I wrote. You clearly read something else or made something else, about which, you are clearly excited. You also don’t like having your rudeness called out, and get increasingly frantic when that happens to you.

          • aesthete
  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    since your main thing is to be a critic, pardon me if I make a little suggestion back to you… for example, the idea that I did not cite somebody else’s writing is a rather hilarious criticism. First, out of 2,288 words surely you could do better than that? And second, your critique that I did not in my writing offer up a link to two other writers is hilarious because I placed 14 specific links for interested readers, which out of 48 articles I have posted here in 9 weeks, is (a) the first time someone suggested I needed MORE links (I often do place citations) and also, the MOST links of anything I’ve done so far. I do not know if somebody pays you by the criticism you file here at RED STATE but they are not getting their money’s worth if that’s the best you can do?

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    since you are doing all the complaining (often) and the request to be banned (repeatedly) please allow me to smile little Cat, about your repetitions. Not so very clever at all. When someone has chosen to use a “reply” at the end here instead of after your message perhaps (a) that is their choice, (b) they would prefer to deal with several topics at once, and (c) go ahead and get me banned since this seems to make you so upset and since that is your favorite “literary device.” My my what a sadly bitter little puddy cat. Why not relax dear?

    • acat

      Had you chosen to participate in said community, rather than merely using it to attract attention to your blog, you would have known how reply-to-many is usually done. (hint – most will say “This reply is to person a and person b” – you did not)

      Had you used the handy dandy search box in the top right corner to look up my years of posts here, you would know that your accusations are almost completely in error. I say almost because it’s quite true that I am not familiar with the inside workings of the religious right . If I thought you were an example, I would be very concerned. Fortunately, you’re in the minority on Red State.

      Had you participated in conversations on other diaries, you may have noticed there just aren’t that many leftists around Red State… and should have concluded someone with my posting history might be a heterodox conservative, but not a leftist.

      Had you been willing to discuss politics, we could have had an interesting conversation – not religion, you have a right to believe whatever you want in this country. Too bad you’re unable to carry on a conversation with someone who disagrees with you and instead need to shout them down… you may win more converts the other way.

      I offered you a critique on your writing style, hanoverhenry, because getting excited over 32 likes is *embarrassing* and I’d like to see every conservative – even ones I don’t agree with – succeed.

      Clearly, hanoverhenry, you need to get your own blog and – digitally speaking – get out more. There’s a whole rough-and-tumble world out there that could use what you know, but you’re going about sharing your wisdom so very wrongly it’s .. just sad.

      Mew

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    thank you for your self promo of your wisdom and great writings. Just as you do not spend a lot of time reading the Bible because you think it is not of interest to you, I am also rather selective in how I spend my reading time and do not spend as much time reading what sounds like leftwing attacks on Christian conservatives.

    However, if I were to go by what you write as “comments” on some of my offerings, it seems we differ in a few key ways. I actually do read an entire article before I would criticize it, I do read essays larger than a few paragraphs, I do not mistake rudeness for wit, I don’t get excited by 2 critics when there are 32 contrasting “likes” and I do recognize that there are other parts of the conservative community besides the narrow version or world you live in.

    While I appreciate any comments about my articles, such offerings would be taken more seriously if there was some indication that the writer had actually read what was posted instead of what you did, attack the “religious right” and claim how confused you are. Such a witty but oh-so-very-experienced Red Stater you are, to hear you tell it.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    …in using the usual tactic of “make it personal” and demonize your opponent. As I keep saying, if you make use of the tactics and language of the left to criticize the favorite target of the left- conservative writers- then it is what it is and your wails and moans of protest don’t change. It has nothing to do at all with what I wrote. You two simply come in here and start complaining about things that have nothing to do with me but are simply generalized complaints against conservatives and then you offer up how witty and smart you are, and how dumb someone is who does not agree with you. No experienced conservative can fail to notice how you ape the left. If you are not of the left (which I no where wrote despite your constant whinings) one would never know from your use of their tactics and your choice of targets.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    I’ve differed with each of them on various issues, particularly with regard to social issues or with the method by which we should address social issues politically. Neither have ever been disrespectful in our disagreements (with the exception of the one time acat made a comment to someone else for which he apologized).

    I read your article, and I agree with acat’s analysis in his first comment.. It seems to me that you jumped to conclusions that are not based in anything factual, and your assertions that acat and aesthete are liberal or using Alinksy tactics are laughable. Now go ahead and try to smear me if you want, but there is absolutely nothing in my posting history that isn’t conservative.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    if someone uses those tactics of claiming what was said and then rebutting it, no amount of repeating it alters the fact. You are now repeating that I said someone is a liberal, and claiming that I will next call you a liberal. No one can cite where I said that because I did not. I said that the tactics are the same as employed by Alinsky and on those leftwing sites. The target – a Christian conservative – is the same. If you choose to identify yourself as a liberal or as a conservative is your business but I am simply calling attention to the fact that even if this new attack on me, there’s not a single word of what I wrote that you are criticizing. You are instead, criticizing something I did not write, and attributing to me your claim that I said this. It is an effective tactic which the liberal-left uses all the time. It is recommended by Saul Alinsky, and it is adopted from long-used Communist tactics. That is the truth. You have but to read your words to verify the truth of what I am writing now, and to verify the falsity of the claims against me, compare what you write to what I write and you see yours has nothing to do at all, with my writing. For example, your friend acat claims that Christians aren’t sufficiently exorcised by government power grabs. But that is precisely what I wrote about. In the liberal-left narrative it does not really matter what a conservative says. When it is their turn to speak they are going to attack us for what they CLAIM we said, no matter what we actually wrote or said. For any student of Alinsky they will recognize these tactics being employed by a handful of people here. But again, I thank you for driving up my “comments” numbers here and hence, the readership of my original article which you keep attacking without having read.

    • acat

      Since Red State automatically links to all your diaries, hanoverhenry, your inability to carry out a civil conversation with people who do not share your precise viewpoint can be read by anyone, as can your attempts to shout down dissent.

      Or, as aesthete put it, “There he goes again”.

      Mew

      • funwithknives

        is he not?

        HH, we are all on the same side here. I, for one look for your posts and use the links.
        {thnks for the Inhofe link .used it}

        You do get awful uppity at times, though….
        How ’bout a tutorial, HH style and your own brand of ‘gettin’ along with your fellow man’ ? T’would be nice…….

        Takes all kinds Henry. But I Got 2 cats and don’t take the cheap feline shots lightly. Your book link sucked, big ones. HISSSSTT…!

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    Q.E.D. – the conclusion is evident. You exactly restated my point, as I have said some 10x here and 20 or 40x in the past. Your “conversation” has nothing to do at all with the article I wrote. It is simply an attack on something you are mad about and which does not relate to my writing. I dissent from your method, which as I have said repeatedly, are the methods taught by Saul Alinsky and in practice at so many leftwing hate sites which smear conservatives. There’s no “conversation” there. Your last simply restates the smear. If someone can find any link between your personal attacks (aka Alinsky method) on me and on what I wrote I’d love to hear about it. Q.E.D. very exactly. Scroll up from this, to yours, Q.E.D. Scroll up from ANYTHING you wrote here, to my original article, no connection. Q.E.D. Thus the left always does for the simple reason: they cannot compete using rationale discourse and so must resort to smear and attack. Whether you are a leftist or not (and you keep repeating that I said you are as if YOUR FEELING so, makes it so) begs the question as to (a) what has all of this to do with what I wrote and (b) you are simply attacking me without any connection to what I wrote, Q.E.D.

    • acat

      you could go start your own blog…

      I promise not to follow.

      Mew

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    I think that marks 3x you’ve claimed I wanted to get you banned and invited me to ask, and that was the 3rd time you requested that I should follow your advise and start my own blog which you promise not to read. I also note that you either blocked me from reading any of your supposed posts here at RED STATE or else there aren’t any. So as you keep repeating your attacks again and again, which I keep repeating have nothing to do at all with what I wrote but are simply personal attacks, I am wondering.

    What reason would a conservative ever want to listen to either (a) a liberal-leftist, or (b) someone who doesn’t like what he writes and believes, or (c) someone who is all of the above? It is always amazing to me how many conservatives will sit there listening to this sort of silliness. I take advise from friends and well-wishers. I get amusement from little puddy cats telling me what I need to do. Thanks anyway puddy cat but since you’ve been posting this silliness the readership of my original article – you know that long thing you cannot/will not read but are in such a hurry to criticize – has actually increased today. I thank the 2 new people who clicked “like” to recommend that original article to their Facebook friend list, two days after the original date/time that I posted it.

    And I know you are a little bit (ok… I meant A LOT) logic impaired so scroll up, read carefully: that last para. didn’t say you are a liberal-leftist, though I concede you may very well be. Yet you’ve claimed at least a half dozen times in the past few weeks of your criticisms that is what I have said. I think you are surelyl the most thin-skinned critic at Red State and I hereby nominate you for such recognition.

    You clearly are also one of the most math challenged since you keep telling me that 2 or 3 people who hate appear to intensely dislike Christian-conservative articles here, and who post 20 to 30 or more repetitive attack comments on some of my articles which have NOTHING to do with what I wrote, should be listened to more than the 30 to 80 people who clicked LIKE.

    Thank you acat and no, I won’t scat, you silly acat. But I am amused at how many times and different ways you can say the same thing, (a) you are not a Christian, (b) you prefer not to hear about it, (c) you are here reading my articles anyway, you claim but (d) you are a critic but don’t have much to say at all about what I wrote, (e) you love doing that strawman/strawcat thing you do, attributing to me and to my article(s) that which I never said or wrote and then attacking that, and (f) you don’t like it when I reject your rude and illogical criticisms, actions which you think are rude of me to do.

    Thanks for building my readership. 32 “likes” changed to 34 today since you did so. QED.

    • acat

      Either (a) you hate the button or (b) you can’t see the button or (c) both.

      I didn’t say you’re blind ..

      Your sad excuse for “not calling people leftists” (but leaving no doubt in the reader’s mind that you’re thinking it…) is neither clever nor novel.

      Your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you “is a leftist or is using leftist tactics” is getting stale.

      Mew

      • Stricia

        (d) this cheap-ass system RedState uses does not always work correctly. You know that and every other regular poster knows what a crappy comment and reply system this is!
        And furthermore, when you start resorting to pointing out inane crap like “reply” buttons — this is when we all know you are losing your end of the discussion. Reply button, indeed!

        • acat

          . . .

        • gekster

          It is obviously you havn’t mastered it.
          Take it for what it’s worth.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            …I had been under the impression that a sign of intelligence “around here” is to actually read the articles before attacking the author but silly me… I have now learned from my critics here that the number of people who “like” an article isn’t relevant (one of them had ZERO such “likes” for most all of their “articles” – some of which are two paragraphs long)… that having several critics make personal insult 3 to 8 times each counts as a reverse popularity test of some kind… that which “button” you click is an intelligence test… oh my the level of discourse here is rather funny… or is that silly? But certainly not any sign of intelligence, at least, not by normal standards and, I really do not think that the editors of Red State would count any of this silliness as any intelligence test. Why not read the article before criticizing it? Why not write your own article if what I wrote is so irritating to you?

        • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

          …you broke up the rather boring monotony of seeing repetitive “comments” in here which simply keep making the same complaints which have nothing to do with what the original article states. The prize has to go to our friend who thinks my failure to provide two links to 2 people who wrote on this subject, means I was not being fair, despite having posted 14 links to other writings on this topic. I suspect there were no other articles which appeared this month or perhaps this year with as many specific citations but, in the zeal to tear down one writer these folks do not like they even cited THAT as a reason to attack. You should note that when I say “repetitive” you can go back and find acat complaining about most everything several times before, including the “reply” button, so this appears to be nothing personal to me or to this article, even though that is one of the standard complaints (ie. per Alinsky: always make it personal).

  • Stricia

    but then again … we’re talking about a freaking cat. If I were in charge of a website like this — I would only let humans post. I know it is kind of discriminatory and such, but honestly — even the brightest of cats are pretty clueless.

    • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

      …and I know it is so because look, I goggled it… found “101 Uses for a Dead Cat” – see http://www.amazon.com/101-Uses-Dead-Simon-Bond/dp/0517545160

      Thanks for the comic relief from the hilariously repetitive and irrelevant attacks.

  • Pingback: gsdfghsdkflhgksdfl

  • Pingback: Website

  • Pingback: getwhgdrthfyjfygujfuyg

  • Pingback: peasant dress

  • Pingback: Extreme weight loss diet

  • Pingback: imitation goyard purses

  • Pingback: Discover More

  • Pingback: right here

  • Pingback: projekty sklep�w

  • Pingback: KSL Squaw

  • Pingback: Full Report

  • Pingback: gratis online rubrikkannonser liste

  • Pingback: look what I found

  • Pingback: paleo recipe book pdf

  • Pingback: Universitas Terbaik

  • Pingback: aparate foto profesionale

  • Pingback: leappad

  • Pingback: Make money Youtube video

  • Pingback: lainaa

  • Pingback: ugg pas cher

  • Pingback: Home Page

  • Pingback: rank site SEO

  • Pingback: shipping policy

  • Pingback: mastercard casino

  • Pingback: pond5 promo code

  • Pingback: Recommended Reading

  • Pingback: acheter casque beat

  • Pingback: sushi catering Somerville ma

  • Pingback: seo fabrikasi

  • Pingback: Alec Lothamer

  • Pingback: stables

  • Pingback: real estate in dubai

  • Pingback: monoloop.com

  • Pingback: paleo breakfast recipes

  • Pingback: Go to web design

  • Pingback: legal steroids

  • Pingback: check this out

  • Pingback: muscle gain supplements

  • Pingback: Discover More Here

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: dianabol

  • Pingback: gadgets

  • Pingback: tube8

  • Pingback: buy synthol

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: Trade In Wheels

  • Pingback: history science

  • Pingback: sources

  • Pingback: battery tips

  • Pingback: astral projection vibration

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: estate agents glasgow

  • Pingback: mature webcams

  • Pingback: gay

  • Pingback: check my website

  • Pingback: gutters tampa fl

  • Pingback: Read Even more

  • Pingback: green coffee bean max

  • Pingback: supply chain disruption

  • Pingback: Full Article

  • Pingback: sea water

  • Pingback: Best Credit Repair

  • Pingback: laptop battery

  • Pingback: swissdent

  • Pingback: here

  • Pingback: plumbers toronto

  • Pingback: Macho Camacho

  • Pingback: visit site

  • Pingback: Investment

  • Pingback: sushi delivery Somerville ma

  • Pingback: tas import

  • Pingback: Make Money Youtube

  • Pingback: get more followers on tumblr

  • Pingback: twitter news

  • Pingback: Remote Control

  • Pingback: noclegi roztocze

  • Pingback: lecteur datamatrix

  • Pingback: explanation

  • Pingback: "???"

  • Pingback: ecologia

  • Pingback: real active instagram followers

  • Pingback: mold

  • Pingback: Deliver my Dumpster

  • Pingback: Dumpsters

  • Pingback: Dumpster Rentals

  • Pingback: samsung galaxy s3

  • Pingback: land of nod coupon codes

  • Pingback: nsa hookups

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: bear grylls messer

  • Pingback: Ramona Kuhry

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: cheapest car insurance quotes

  • Pingback: HD Wide Screen

  • Pingback: gigi spice pics

  • Pingback: boardman Chiropractic

  • Pingback: Marketing a Medical Practice

  • Pingback: texas driver education

  • Pingback: Medical Marketing

  • Pingback: watch this video

  • Pingback: Read This

  • Pingback: look what I found

  • Pingback: wellnesshotel