This is the one election that in all of our history is a fork in the road that we had better choose wisely.
That alone should be enough to make everyone sit up and take notice.
If HRC is allowed to stack that Supreme Court, the country is gone.
It is that serious. There is no turning back, none.
We will not have the luxury to say, we can hang for another 4 years.
The communist planks are all in place…
...that ball is at the finish line and just needs that last punt over the goal posts and it is game over.
That one issue will have ramifications for decades.
Your children and grandkids will experience the full weight of that one issue alone.
Friday, April 29, 2011
"........all that really matters is that everybody knows that the invaders have committed themselves to a raid. Then, each civilian sniper individually rolls a six sided dice. (die) If they are disciplined, and they must be to trust their fate to chance, they will attack as follows:
|Attack the target from the NW|
|Attack the target from the NE|
|Attack the target from the SW|
|Attack the target from the SE|
|Attack the nearest freeway offramp from the lef|
|Attack the nearest freeway offramp from the right |
|Jack Hinson's One-Man War, A Confederate Sniper|
In nearly every yankee oriented newspaper we read on April 29, 1861:
“In Montgomery, Ala., during an address to a special session of the Confederate Congress, President Jefferson Davis asked for the authority to wage war.”
This same statement (do a Google search) is repeated ad nauseam.
What President Davis actually said:
"The declaration of war made against this Confederacy by Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, in his proclamation issued on the 15th day of the present month, rendered it necessary, in my judgment, that you should convene at the earliest practicable moment to devise the measures necessary for the defense of the country."
In addition Davis says "in the inaugural address delivered by President Lincoln in March last, he asserts as an axiom, which he plainly deems to be undeniable, of constitutional authority, that the theory of the Constitution requires that in all cases the majority shall govern; and in another memorable instance the same Chief Magistrate did not hesitate to liken the relations between a State and the United States to those which exist between a county and the State in which it is situated and by which it was created. This is the lamentable and fundamental error on which rests the policy that has culminated in his declaration of war against these Confederate States. In addition to the long-continued and deep-seated resentment felt by the Southern States at the persistent abuse of the powers they had delegated to the Congress, for the purpose of enriching the manufacturing and shipping classes of the North at the expense of the South"
After this Davis also "adds" slavery - the issue, the spark that fired an already loaded gun."
Tell me again who is revising history?
Jamey B Creel
The Code Duello, covering the practice of dueling and points of honor, was drawn up and settled at Clonmel Summer Assizes, 1777, by gentlemen-delegates of Tipperary, Galway, Sligo, Mayo and Roscommon, and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ireland. The Code was generally also followed in England and on the Continent with some slight variations. In America, the principal rules were followed, although occasionally there were some glaring deviations.
Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.
Rule 2. But if the parties would rather fight on, then after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologize afterward.
N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offenses in retort not of stronger class than the example.
Rule 3. If a doubt exist who gave the first offense, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won't decide, or can't agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit, if the challenger require it.
Rule 4. When the lie direct is the first offense, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms; exchange two shots previous to apology; or three shots followed up by explanation; or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.
Rule 5. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore -- the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane.
If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.
N.B. A disarm is considered the same as a disable. The disarmer may (strictly) break his adversary's sword; but if it be the challenger who is disarmed, it is considered as ungenerous to do so.
In the case the challenged be disarmed and refuses to ask pardon or atone, he must not be killed, as formerly; but the challenger may lay his own sword on the aggressor's shoulder, then break the aggressor's sword and say, "I spare your life!" The challenged can never revive the quarrel -- the challenger may.
Rule 6. If A gives B the lie, and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offenses), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges each, or a severe hit; after which B may beg A's pardon humbly for the blow and then A may explain simply for the lie; because a blow is never allowable, and the offense of the lie, therefore, merges in it. (See preceding rules.)
N.B. Challenges for undivulged causes may be reconciled on the ground, after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be sufficient in such cases, because no personal offense transpired.
Rule 7. But no apology can be received, in any case, after the parties have actually taken ground, without exchange of fires.
Rule 8. In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of challenge (if private) unless required by the challenged so to do before their meeting.
Rule 9. All imputations of cheating at play, races, etc., to be considered equivalent to a blow; but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.
Rule 10. Any insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection to be considered as, by one degree, a greater offense than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.
Rule 11. Offenses originating or accruing from the support of ladies' reputations, to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the aggressor: this to be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favorable to the lady.
Rule 12. In simple, unpremeditated recontres with the smallsword, or couteau de chasse, the rule is -- first draw, first sheath, unless blood is drawn; then both sheath, and proceed to investigation.
Rule 13. No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children's play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.
Rule 14. Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend, inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a principal, and equality is indispensible.
Rule 15. Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intend leaving the place of offense before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.
Rule 16. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which, however, he can decline any second species of weapon proposed by the challenged.
Rule 17. The challenged chooses his ground; the challenger chooses his distance; the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.
Rule 18. The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honors they have charged smooth and single, which should be held sufficient.
Rule 19. Firing may be regulated -- first by signal; secondly, by word of command; or thirdly, at pleasure -- as may be agreeable to the parties. In the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable leisure, but second presents and rests are strictly prohibited.
Rule 20. In all cases a miss-fire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap or non-cock is to be considered as a miss-fire.
Rule 21. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.
Rule 22. Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake, must end the business for that day.
Rule 23. If the cause of the meeting be of such a nature that no apology or explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground, and calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses; in such cases, firing at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.
Rule 24. In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one pistol; but in gross cases, two, holding another case ready charged in reserve.
Rule 25. Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals, thus:
If with swords, side by side, with five paces interval.
N.B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned will be explained and cleared up by application to the committee
Reprinted from "American Duels and Hostile Encounters," Chilton Books, 1963.
|Code Duello: The Rules Of Dueling|
"Newly released documents from Barack Obama Sr.'s immigration file, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, justify "birther" doubts about the nativity story on which Barack Obama based his presidential campaign.
The documents were posted Thursday in an article by Heather Smathers on the Arizona Independent web site. When I checked with Brian Wedemeyer, the Independent's managing editor, he confirmed, "They are legitimate documents."
A memo dated Aug. 31, 1961, from William Wood of the Immigration and Naturalization Services, does verify that Barack Obama, Sr. fathered a son, Barack Obama II, who was born in Honolulu on Aug, 4, 1961. For the record, most birthers of my acquaintance believe that Obama was born in the United States. That is not their issue.
Wood adds, however, that the child is "living with mother (she lives with her parents & subject resides at 1482 Alencastre St.)." He adds that Obama's citizen spouse plans "to go to Washington State University next semester."
This document thoroughly undermines the Obama nativity story, a story that has been told almost as often as Jesus's but with nowhere near the accuracy. Obama led with it in his 2004 convention speech and repeated it in the first sentence of his 2008 speech."
--Frederick Douglass, 1861
"Kinda cool, if you ask me.
Music for unrepentant (edit: unReconstructed...I like that better...) Confederates, (in location and in spirit) I think. Guess I live about 3500 miles too far north...I couldn't take the southern heat, anyway...
Check out the music of Celtic Confederate."
"Raise Your Battleflag,
show your Southern pride.
Every flag they burn,
thousands more will rise.
And in Heaven the soldiers will give a salute."
1947 Talbot-Lago T26 Figoni et Falaschi 4-Seat Cabriolet
There's an old saying: When the facts support your position, use them. When they don't, or when you get caught lying, throw crap at the wall and hope something sticks!
The latest is the National Review which had this to say about my analysis on the birth certificate:
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
This is what happens when you don't bother actually watching the video I posted, or looking into the provenance of what you're arguing over - you just throw crap at the wall. Nathan goes on to post a PDF that he scanned which shows his "layers."
Unfortunately, in doing so, he proved that I'm correct.
See, the issue isn't layers. Yes, the layers are suspicious, but they're not the smoking gun. The smoking gun is that there are no chromatic artifacts in the Obama document, but the document is allegedly a color scan of an actual piece of paper, and we know it had to be a color scan because the background is allegedly color safety paper.
National Review's document, unsurprisingly, is a scan of a color document. How do we know? Because if you simply pull it up in your web browser (which will open the embedded Acrobat Reader) and zoom it up, you will see this:
Note the chromatic aberration. This document is in fact a color scan.
Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
Barbarian Conquest of Americans:
“Wendell Phillips, who, before the blood began to flow, eloquently declared that the South was in the right, that Lincoln had no right to send armed men to coerce her, after battles begun seemed to become drunk on the fumes of blood and mad for more than battlefields afforded. In a speech delivered in [Henry Ward] Beecher’s church, to a large and presumably a Christian congregation, Phillips made the following remarkable declaration:
“I do not believe in battles ending this war. You may plant a fort in every district of the South, you may take possession of her capitals and hold them with your armies, but you have not begun to subdue her people. I know it seems something like absolute barbarian conquest, I allow it, but I do not believe there will be any peace until 347,000 men of the South are either hanged or exiled.” (Cheers).
Why the precise number, 347,000, does not appear. If the hanging at one fell swoop of 347,000 men and women seemed to Phillips something like barbarian conquest, it would be interesting to know what would have appeared truly barbarian. History records some crimes of such stupendous magnitude, even to this day men shudder at their mention.”
(Facts and Falsehoods, Concerning the War on the South, George Edmonds, Spence Hall Lamb, 1904, pp. 235-236)
Barbarian Conquest of Americans
Constitutional theorist Daniel Dreisbach writes, many Americans “made salient contributions in thought, word, and deed to the construction of America’s republican institutions.” One of them was Hugh Williamson. Few today have heard of him, and almost everyone overlooks this founding father when trying to learn of the “original intent” of the Constitution. That's a mistake. To ignore Williamson (and founders other than the usual five or six historical figures) is an inadequate approach to understand proper originalism.
When bypassing those lesser-known founders, we view the past through a distorted lens. And despite our best efforts, that view will be at best an image with a fuzzy outline that prevents us from seeing otherwise distinguishing and valuable features.
“Original intent,” then, mistakenly becomes nothing other than the opinions of a handful, and we ignore the role of the ratifying conventions and the wisdom of other leading public figures in understanding the process of ratification and the federal underpinnings of our government.
An examination of Hugh Williamson and his ideas sheds more light on the path to understanding “original intent.” Why? He was one of the most active delegates at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, and his opinions were respected across America.
Recognizing a Forgotten N.C. Founder
HIGH SPRINGS - "Two Confederate memorial services, complete with the firing of cannons and re-enactors dressed in Civil War clothing, will be held Sunday, May 1.
The 2nd Florida Calvary Camp will have the first service that Sunday at 1 p.m. at Forest Grove Baptist Church Cemetery in honor and in memory of Commander Buddy Burch's great grandfather, Private Sumpter Balnton, a Confederate soldier.
Following the ceremony, lunch will be served at Forest Grove Baptist Church. Those attending are asked to bring a covered dish.
At 4 p.m., a Confederate Memorial Service for Franklin (Jeff) Williams of High Springs will be held at Pine Hill Cemetery.
Williams graduated from Mebane High School, played briefly for the Minnesota Vikings and was a descendent of a black Confederate soldier."