Sunday, July 31, 2011
-- Charles Scaliger, The New American, July 26, 2011.
Well here's Boehner's "compromise"; what it does is:
- Lie once again about "cutting spending." It does no such thing. It increases spending - every year. Bogus and outright-fraudulent "baseline budgeting" means that if they intended to boost spending $300 billion but only increase it $200, that's a $100 billion "cut." If you ran your household like this you'd be broke in a week. For the US, it will take a bit longer.
- No tax increases. That's nice, but let's not forget that while the Democrats scream about the "Bush Tax Cuts" the FICA tax cut was theirs. Obama signed it. You cannot keep reducing income and increasing spending forever.
- The cuts, fraudulent though they are, aren't even real anyway - and not binding either. There's nothing before 2013, which means a downgrade is almost certain. Further, raising the debt ceiling now for the whole among but allegedly finding the "cuts" over 10 years is an outright fraud by a ratio of 10:1.
- A 2013 timeline for actual changes means nothing, since the next Congress is not bound by what this one does. Period.
- Sequesterization didn't work in 1997. It won't work in 2011 either.
- We failed to get to $4 trillion. That's what S&P said they needed, and they said they needed to see that within the next three years. Now we find out if S&P has any balls.
We also get to find out if the so-called "Tea Party" is worthy of the name. Yeah, I posted that my opinions change when facts do, and they appeared to.
Boehner needs to be ejected from Congress in the next election, and the remaining "mainstream" Republicans must go with him, along with any claiming to be "Tea Partiers" who vote for this abortion.
All of them.
In the meantime, kill this bill and by doing so balance the budget in three days.
NC Illegal Alien Crime Report: 67 pages of rape, murder and mayhem committed against NC citizens in July
North Carolinians For Immigration Reform and Enforcement
NCFIRE Hotline: 1-888-885-0879
The emancipation issue promoted by the fanatical wing of Lincoln’s party caused the predicted rupture within ranks, and revealed the true extent of party concern for the welfare of the African. The Massachusetts governor mentioned below did not want the black man in his “strange land and climate,” but gladly accepted them to fight as mercenaries against the South and as substitutes for the white men of his State. It is recalled that Massachusetts was a slave trading and slave holding colony, and later State, and not the strange land and climate as the governor claimed.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Confirmed Prejudices and Opinions Up North:
“The threat of a black “invasion” (or “Africanization”) of the North was a dominant theme in anti-emancipationist rhetoric. Politicians and editors predicted that three hundred thousand freedmen would “invade” Ohio alone, competing with white labor, filling up the poor houses and jails, and generally degrading society. In a June 1862 referendum, by a majority of more than two to one, Illinois voters endorsed a clause in a proposed State constitution that would exclude blacks from moving into the State.
This issue cut across party lines. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, a former Democrat, now a Unionist, explained “there is a very great aversion in the West – I know it is so in my State – against having free Negroes come among us. Our people want nothing to do with the Negroes.”
One Unionist editor told [Secretary of the Treasury] Salmon P. Chase that the best strategy was to declare that blacks “don’t want to come north and we don’t want them unless their coming will promote the conclusion of the war…” Chase himself, while a fervent advocate of emancipation, shared the common assumption that blacks were inherently unsuited to the colder northern climate. “Let, therefore, the South be open to Negro emigration by emancipation along the Gulf,” he suggested, “and it is easy to see that the blacks of the North will slide southward, and leave no question to quarrel about as far as they are concerned.”
Chase was not the only radical in the Republican party who worried about the political consequences of the “Africanization” issue in the run-up to the fall 1862 elections. Even Governor John A. Andrew of Massachusetts, whose antislavery credentials had been amply demonstrated three years earlier when he had given tacit support of John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, became embroiled in the issue.
In September 1862, Major General John A. Dix wrote to the governors of three New England States asking them to accept into their States a group of two thousand ex-slaves who had sought refuge with the Union army. Governor Andrew responded with a strongly argued letter, soon leaked to the public, in which he explained that Massachusetts was, for blacks, “a strange land and climate” in which the newcomers would “be incapable of self-help – a course certain to demoralize them and endanger others.’ Such an event would be a handle to all traitors and to all persons evilly disposed.”
With timing that was appalling for the [Lincoln] administration, the black migration issue became a crisis in Illinois at about the same time the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was issued. The army had been sending refugee slaves to the military headquarters at Cairo – the southernmost town in Illinois. Secretary of War Stanton issued an order allowing these freedmen to be dispersed throughout the State. This appeared to violate the State’s “Negro Exclusion” law and which was certainly anathema to mainstream public opinion. One Republican wrote to Governor Richard Yates that “the scattering of those black throngs should not be allowed if it can be avoided. The view…here is that if the country should become full of them they may never be removed and with the confirmed prejudices and opinions of our people against the mingling of blacks among us we shall always have trouble.”
(No Party Now, Politics in the Civil War North, Adam I.P. Smith, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 54-56
Confirmed Prejudices and Opinions Up North
“After almost a lifetime of considering what historianship is, I am satisfied that what it is or should be is storytelling. Assuredly it can’t be a scientific experiment, nor a logical proposition, nor the illustration of a theory. Our existence is drama, that is, a story, taking place in the mind of God. Through history we have our only knowledge of the mysterious drama of our existence beyond what has been granted us as Revelation.
I like the delightful saying of the English historian Veronica Wedgewood: “History is not a science – it is an art, like all the other sciences.” Or more seriously, we can make the same point by calling on John Lukac’s perfect definition: “History is a kind of memory, organized and supported by evidence.” With emphasis on the evidence. In asserting that history is not certainty, I don’t deny that there are varying degrees of honesty and competence in the handling of evidence that allow us to judge the quality of a historian’s work.
If history is best understood as a story, at least two things follow. First, a story – like that of the Alamo – is somebody’s story – it is not everybody’s story as is claimed by those with an agenda, whether they be nationalist ideologues or multiculturalists. Everybody can learn from a story, but if it is to be real and valid, it is some people’s story. It follows that American in our time cannot have a real history because America today does not have a real people.
There was a time, peaking in the World War II era, when the inhabitants of this vast and diverse nation-state almost mingled into one people. That opportunity is now past. The inhabitants of the United States are corralled under the same territorial monopoly of force and exploitation; they share the same bread and circuses.
They are not a people, only the motley subjects of an empire. Aggregations of Oprah watchers, sports fans, and mall shoppers do not make a people. After Augustus the story of Rome ceases to be the story of a heroic and patriotic people. The Roman people pass from sight. The history of Rome becomes only an account of more or less evil emperors and a chaos of peoples without stories. Such is American in the era of Bush. The future history of the last national election can be written only as a meaningless contest in which the jocks barely beat out the nerds for possession of the imperial palace.
Most of the work of academic historians today can portray the American story in no other terms except as an abstract fantasy of oppressors and oppressed. No society has ever had more professional historians and devoted more resources to historical work of all kinds than modern America – or produced so many useless, irrelevant, and downright pernicious products. I know a historian who teaches that the great Virginians of the American Revolution were like the Taliban. Presumably because they carried weapons and were not feminists. This is to reduce human experience to a paltry and partial perspective, to remove from it everything that is worthwhile and ennobling, usable and true. But this is what academic historians mostly do these days.
A historian should be trying to say something true and useful about human beings, and doing so modestly and cautiously. No historian can discover indisputable truth, at least not about anything important. But that is what historians are claiming to do these days by reducing the drama of human experience to abstract, supposedly universal theory.”
(Defending Dixie, Searching for Fleas: American Historians and Their History, excerpt, Clyde N. Wilson, Foundation for American Education, 2006, pp. 44-45)
American Historians and Their History
The book is about Jackson’s beliefs as he sought to bring the word of God to the slaves of the antebellum era, furnishing the fuel for the fire of salvation. "Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man’s Friend" was written by Richard G. Williams, Jr. with a foreword by James I. Robertson, Jr.
Historians and history buffs alike have long struggled with the ambivalence of a man of Jackson’s moral fiber, who came from a slave holding family, owned slaves himself, and yet broke the prevailing laws of Virginia to conduct a weekly Colored Sabbath School, where slaves were taught to read and write while bringing them to a personal knowledge of the Christ.
Contradictory as that may seem to many, Williams’ book reconciles the contradiction. It begins with the uncertain years of Jackson’s orphan-like childhood and his devotion to “Miss Fanny,” who raised him from childhood into his teenage years and then on to his years at West Point and the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia. Each aspect of his life showed his relationships with and care for the slave families he was exposed to.
General Stonewall Jackson: "Black man's friend
Christian Tybring-Gjedde, member of the Norwegian Parliament, has publicly condemned multiculturalism, or, Muslim pandering. In a dramatically frank speak last May, he declared that Norwegian blonde girls are harassed into dying their hair dark, to avoid persecution. That says it all. He blames, not the Muslims, but the Norwegian Labor Party–the Communist, “liberal” party for their extremism in purposely allowing this cultural genocide of Norway, and denying any opportunity to resist it. In Orwellian terms, Tybring-Gjedde declared himself a “revolutionist.” He will resist the destruction of his own people and his own country.
Christian Tybring-Gjedde, fighting
for Norway, for his people, his nation,
and this culture.
Here is an excerpt from a classic speech he delivered recently, (together with the transcript:
The only "untold" history I'm aware of is the fact that they, in conjunction with their Yankee counterparts, massacred our American Indians of all ages and sexes, using expertise perfected during the WBTS.
My Suggestion For Equal Time For The S&S
Once again, I recommend doing NOTHING:
→ Don’t work at a job – draw unemployment then switch to welfare when that runs out.
→ Refuse to pay any tax that you can avoid.
→ Stockpile what necessities (and guns/ammunition) you can afford then convert any remaining assets you have to precious metals (which you then hide as best you can).
→ Do anything you can to passively clog the workings of government – such as using your new-found free time to jam the halls of state and federal government facilities. Not carrying signs or shouting slogans – instead, simply getting in the way
Guns "should be illegal for all but properly constituted, trained and controlled agencies of governments."
The irresponsible argument of the American gun lobby – that it is not guns that kill, but the people who handle them – is the first point to contest: if Anders Behring Breivik had carried only a knife or a wooden club, he would have been severely restricted in the harm he could do. The same would have been true at Hungerford and Dunblane, at Columbine High School and *Kent State University; the agonies of Darfur and Helmand would be vastly less; in fact the world would be a different and happier place if guns were few and their possession a matter of strict official control.*Dingbat
Gunwalker: Open letter to Arizona AG Tom Horne: prosecute the ATF people responsible for Fast and Furious under state law
Arizona Attorney General
Re: ATF Fast and Furious
Dear Mr. Horne
As you are aware, ATF ran a program called “Fast and Furious” out of their Phoenix office whereby the let assault rifles “walk” into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels and various border bandits.
Two of those ATF “walked” guns, which were sold by a Phoenix area gun shop with the knowledge of ATF, were found at the murder scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
While various investigations are on-going at the federal level, there appear to be important state law issues involved in this situation.
I specifically call your attention to Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13 Section 1201 “Endangerment”
13-1201. Endangerment; classification
A. A person commits endangerment by recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury.
B. Endangerment involving a substantial risk of imminent death is a class 6 felony. In all other cases, it is a class 1 misdemeanor.
Evidence is mounting that field agents within the Phoenix office of ATF warned their superiors that the “walking” of guns could lead to the deaths of, among others, federal agents.
The warnings of these dedicated and honorable law enforcement officers were ignored by their superiors. The end result was Border Patrol agent Brian Terry died as a result of these “walked” guns.
Arguably senior officials in ATF are chargeable for endangerment under state law.
I would urge you and your staff to look into the record that has been developed so far by the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the sworn testimony by various ATF employees with an eye on what, if any, state criminal laws were violated in the course of the “Fast and Furious” project.
No worries, mate...it's a Glock.
Went fishing yesterday. nice thing about living here is that you can hop on your mountain bike, pedal across town and be waist deep in primo fishing waters in about twenty minutes. Usually when I’m doing that sort of thing I take one of the Glocks and tuck it into a UM84 holster and attach it to my belt with a pistol lanyard. This way, if I slip on the slick river rocks and take a swim, I dont lose my gun. Which, actually, is exactly what happened.
As I was trying to wade back to the shore, the current (which was rather strong) pushed me off balance and I was up to my neck in the river. Not a big deal, I can swim and the water wasn't deep. But…everything from the neck down was soaked. That's the nice thing about the Glock…it gets completely submerged under water and all you have to do is shake the water out of it, tuck it back in the wet holster, and it’ll be fine. I’d say ‘Try that with your 1911 some time’ but most folks would blanch at the thought of dunking their 1911 under water and then leaving it in a wet holster for a few hours.