Sunday, July 1, 2012

US judge temporarily blocks Mississippi abortion law

Via Southern Nationalist Network

A federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked enforcement of a Mississippi law that could shut down the only abortion clinic in the state.

U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan in Jackson issued a temporary restraining order the day the new law took effect.

He set a July 11 hearing to determine whether to block the law for a longer time.

‘‘Though the debate over abortion continues, there exists legal precedent the court must follow,’’ Jordan wrote.

The law requires anyone performing abortions at the state’s only clinic to be an OB-GYN with privileges to admit patients to a local hospital. Such privileges can be difficult to obtain, and the clinic contends the mandate is designed to put it out of business. A clinic spokeswoman, Betty Thompson, has said the two physicians who do abortions there are OB-GYNs who travel from other states.

The clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, filed a lawsuit seeking to block the law. The suit says the admitting privileges requirement is not medically necessary and is designed to put the clinic out of business.

If Jackson Women’s Health Organization closes, Mississippi would be the only state without an abortion clinic.

When Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed the law, House Bill 1390, he said he wants Mississippi to be ‘‘abortion-free.’’

More @

Veterans respond to court overturning lying law

Retired Army Lt. Hal Fritz said the court treated those medals as something abstract. But for him, it's a memory.

Fritz was leading a seven-vehicle armored column down a Vietnam highway in 1969 when enemy combatants launched a surprise attack from all sides. Fritz was seriously wounded in the crossfire, but ran through the machine gun blasts to rally his troops. After his platoon survived the first wave, Fritz charged into a second enemy advancement armed with only a pistol and a bayonet. He was seriously wounded, but refused medical attention until all of his men had been cared for. He was awarded the Medal of Honor in 1971.

"We would disagree with the majority saying lying about receiving the medals doesn't devalue them," said Fritz, 68, who now lives in Illinois. "I would say go back with me to Vietnam dragging the dead and dying off the battlefield."

More @ SF Gate

When Dissent Failed

NC Renegade

While the nation has been focused on the Supreme Court’s decision on healthcare, we have neglected to read the dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia on this case. Here is a portion of the dissent written by Judge Scalia concerning healthcare:

The dissent claims that we “fail to explain why the individual mandate threatens our constitutional order.” But we have done so. It threatens that order because it gives such an expansive meaning to the Commerce Clause that all private conduct (including failure to act) becomes subject to federal control, effectively destroying the Constitution’s division of governmental powers. Thus the dissent, on the theories proposed for the validity of the Mandate, would alter the accepted constitutional relation between the individual and the National Government.

Three points for consideration:

1. The legislation threatens our constitutional order.

2. The relationship between the individual and government has been altered.

3. The “dissent” phrasing shows that the dissenting opinion became the majority opinion at some point after the case was decided.

The following highlights from the original majority decision (which at some point became the minority decision) proves that healthcare is illegal under the Constitution. Once the Supreme Court failed to uphold the Constitution (the highest law of the land), this branch of government has abrogated its responsibility to the nation. Since the president announced his intentions to bypass Congress in his 2012 State of the Union address, the executive branch also has abandoned the Constitution.

At some point we have to see reality: the government has abandoned the Constitution and we are living in a country where the rule of law is dictated by the political whims of vain and aspiring men.

The illogical basis of the Gettysburg Address

28. “Lincoln’s war implied, and theGettysburg Address set to words, a firm message to the States of the Union, ‘I love you all, and if you leave me, I’ll hunt you down and kill you.’ The Address was not the sagely comments of a wise statesman, rather the vain, obsessive ranting of a power-hungry demon engaging in a blood-thirsty mission of self-aggrandizement, no matter the volume of corpses required to attain it.”
--Lewis Goldburg

The Salisbury Post

Toward the end of June 1863, warm summer breezes blew across farm lands of southern Pennsylvania near a little town called Gettysburg. By July 1, Gen. Robert E. Lee, Commanding, Army of Northern Virginia, had established his headquarters in a small farmhouse. Sporadic cannon fire echoed across the hills as Union and Confederate troops struggled for positions on strategic grounds.

Hundreds of miles south, the Siege of Vicksburg, Miss., began May 18, and in another stroke of irony would end on July 4, 1863, one day after Confederate forces took a brutal three-day beating at Gettysburg. Events of July 3 and 4 would be a turning point of the war, giving control of the Mississippi River to the Union and severing communications with the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department.

Both sides suffered enormous losses. Thousands of men lay wounded or dead under the sun’s searing glare. Future generations would ask how President Abraham Lincoln, without the consent of Congress, could have set such an illegal force in motion. But what was this “civil war” about? Even potential allies of the Confederacy, the British especially, agreed that slavery was on its last legs in the South, so surely slavery wasn’t the reason.

Lincoln had said, “I will proclaim emancipation entirely, or partially, or not at all, according to whichever of these measures shall seem best for the Union.” A man of many faces, Lincoln wrote in 1855: “I think I am a Whig, but others say there are no Whigs, and that I am an abolitionist … I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery ….” Typical of Whigs, Lincoln favored high tariffs, a strong centralized government, and a loose interpretation of the Constitution.

As shown by his statement on the floor of Congress on Jan. 12, 1848 concerning the secession of Texas from Mexico, there was a time when he approved of secession: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better...” (Edgar Lee Masters, “Lincoln the Man,” 1931.)

In 1861, the majority of Americans agreed the Constitution granted the right of secession to individual states. Principles of secession were taught at the antebellum West Point. In their articles of ratification, Virginia and New York included provisions for withdrawal from the Union if dissatisfaction arose from constitutional government. Arguments for New York accepting the compact produced the Federalist Papers. However, immediately upon taking office, Lincoln launched a series of unconstitutional acts that still stun historians.

On Thursday, Nov. 19, 1863, four and a half months after the Battle of Gettysburg, a group convened to dedicate the Soldiers’ National Cemetery at Gettysburg. Important Washington dignitaries were present. The keynote speaker was the prominent Edward Everett of Massachusetts, who spoke for two hours and received a strong ovation. President Lincoln, who sat with the audience, was not on the program. But as a matter of protocol, he was asked to say a few words. His 300 words took just a few minutes, followed by faint applause.

From this point, I borrow heavily from Charles Adams’ classic, “When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession.” Adams is from Canada and was living in New York when he published his book in 2000. He recalls a college class in logic in which the Gettysburg Address was analyzed.

“Four score and seven years ago…”

Simple math dictates the year would have been 1776. The Declaration of Independence was signed, the Revolutionary War started. The declaration only explained why the 13 colonies separated from Great Britain. It did not create a government or contain any provision for government power. The articles stated this confederation was established by “sovereign states.” To be accurate, Lincoln should have said “four score and two years ago,” or better still, “three score and fourteen years ago,” moving the date up to the time of the Constitution.

Northern newspapers, such as the “New York World” challenged Lincoln with sharp criticism for the historical stupidity: “This United States was not created by the Declaration of Independence but resulted from the ratification of the compact known as the Constitution.” Others accused Lincoln of “gross ignorance or willful misstatement.” Yet today, that gross ignorance is literally chiseled in stone as if having been delivered from Mt. Sinai.

“Our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation…”

The federal compact among the former 13 colonies, the new “sovereign states” as defined in the Articles of Confederation in 1781, was not a nation as that term was and is currently used. Actually, each state was a nation, as in John Adams referring to “My nation of Massachusetts.”

Dr. Carl Degler, professor of history at Stanford University, lecturing at Gettysburg College in 1990, explained: “The Civil War, in short, was not a struggle to save a failed union, but to create a nation that until then had not come into being.”

Lincoln’s “new nation” came about by force of arms in the War Between the States. And, according to Degler, Lincoln had much in common with Germany’s Otto von Bismarck, who, in the 19th century, built a united Germany believing that “blood and iron” were the main force for national policy.

Northern peace Democrats called for “the Constitution as it is; the Union as it was,” which made sense. But wanting no part of it, Lincoln tightened control over the federal government. Created by “blood and iron,” Lincoln’s new nation had no constitutional basis, no peaceful legal process. When it came to blood, Lincoln surpassed all. On a proportionate basis, the slaughter of Confederate men matched the losses incurred only by the Russians and Germans in World War II.

Just as Julius Caesar created an imperial order out of a republic, Lincoln created a nation out of a compact among states, and both men used their military forces to do so. Lincoln’s Gettysburg reference to the Founders having created a new nation simply was not true. The scorched-earth campaigns practiced by Generals W.T. Sherman and U.S. Grant also affected the North, with Grant having been responsible for killing nearly a generation of Northern youth.

“Conceived in liberty…”

The British still direct criticism to us for the absurdity of the Declaration of Independence. The term “all men” meant all white men, as white women weren’t much better off than blacks.

Scarcely known is that when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation — another widely misinterpreted document — women’s rights groups asked, How about us, too? So the declaration that Lincoln refers to in his address was not conceived in liberty or dedicated to the proposition that all of humankind were created equal.

“Today we are engaged in a great civil war…”

We have never had a “civil war” in America, unless you count the American Revolution as a civil war. A civil war consists of two factions trying to seize control of the same government, which happened in Russia in 1917 and China in 1948. The same is happening today in Syria where President Bashar al-Assad is sanctioning the Syrian Army in killing his own people — much as Lincoln sanctioned Sherman and Grant in riding roughshod over the South in 1861 to 1865.

In 1861 there wasn’t a “civil war,” because the South wanted nothing to do with the Washington government except to enjoy a peaceful separation and coexistence. The South wanted to go its way in peace and sent a delegation to Washington to discuss how the two regions could work together and complement each other. Lincoln refused to see the delegation. The war could have been prevented right there.

But the war did happen, and in the North, it was called the War of Rebellion, when it was really a War for Southern Independence. The Southern states had withdrawn from the Union by democratic process, the same used to join the union. Getting down to bare basics, the war was one of conquest by the North meant to destroy the Confederacy and establish a new political leadership over the conquered territories.

Illiterate former slaves were given the vote. The rest of Southern Society, the former governing groups, was disenfranchised. Poor, mostly illiterate, blacks were told how to vote by Union soldiers, and they did so. Many of the same blacks were appointed to positions of responsibility, in some cases, high offices, with the power to carry out orders from their white, Northern puppet-masters. This infuriated the conquered people, creating a fanaticism for white supremacy and Jim Crow laws that were passed down for generations. Reconstruction became a prolonged period of disunity. Only in our present time has that zeal started losing its grip on Southern Society.

“Testing whether that nation can long endure…”

That statement seems to presuppose that the South wanted to conquer the Northern federation, an absurdity as great as to say the revolting colonies in 1776 were out to destroy the British nation. The 13 colonies’ withdrawal from the British Empire in 1776 was the same as the attempt of the Southern states to withdraw in 1861 from the 1789 federation. Realistically, the 1789 federation was not in any danger; it would have endured with secession. Unlike Grant, Lee was not out to conquer the North. This logic was as absurd as the rest of Lincoln’s speech.

“A final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live…”

Again, “that nation” was not in danger of dying — that was not the Southern Confederate policy and Lincoln knew it.

“And that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the Earth….”

Why did Lincoln even suggest that secession by the Southern states would mean democracy would perish from the earth — in America or elsewhere? That was nonsense and Lincoln knew it. But no one would rebut his argument. To have countered Lincoln on any point meant risking arrest by Union soldiers and indefinite internment in an unidentified prison.

Professor Jeffrey Hummel in his Civil War book, “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,” wrote: “[It] just is plain nonsense,” Lincoln’s repeated assertion that secession would amount to a failure of the American experiment with democracy and liberty.

The “London Times” best understood what was going on in America with Lincoln’s illegal Northern invasion to prevent secession: “If Northerners … had peacefully allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy. [B]ut Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war … Democracy broke down … when it was upheld … by force of arms.”

• • •

Bill Ward is a writer and historian living in Salisbury. Contact him at wardwriters

1,200 Sons of Confederate Veterans Here July 11-14


The members of Sons of Confederate Veterans Murfreesboro Camp # 33 will be hosting approximately 1,200 visitors for the 117th SCV National Reunion. It will be July 11th through the 14th at the Embassy Suites Hotel and Conference Center here in Murfreesboro.

This is the first time the organization has held a national Reunion in Murfreesboro. The Tennessee State legislature has passed Senate joint resolution No. 526 making July 8-14, 2012 Sons of Confederate Veterans week in Tennessee.

History Comes Alive

The Reunion will begin on Wednesday, July 11th with a tour of the Sam Davis Home and Museum in Smyrna, and will include a memorial service at the grave of Confederate hero Sam Davis. That evening there will be a program by Colonel Tom McKinney on his book Jack Hinson’s One-Man War. After Hinson’s sons were murdered by a Union patrol, Hinson waged war on Union soldiers, killing over 100 with his custom-made sniper rifle. The actual rifle will be on display for the program. A concert by the Band of Rabble will conclude the evening, with local musicians including SCV Camp #33 member John Frost.

The official opening ceremony for the Reunion will take place on Thursday morning. A flag ceremony will be held for the posting of the colors and several state and local dignitaries will offer greetings to the SCV members. Also on Thursday morning, the ladies tour will take a historic route to Wartrace for a stop at the Blockade Runner Civil War Sutler and then to Bell Buckle for shopping. The Heritage luncheon at the conference hotel will feature nationally recognized historian Thomas Cartwright as the guest speaker. Confederate artifacts from the Tennessee State Museum will be on display during the day. An afternoon tour will include Elm Springs, the SCV Headquarters, in Columbia, the Nathan Bedford Forrest boyhood home in Chapel Hill and the dedication of a new Confederate monument at the Eagleville City Hall. On Thursday evening there will be a program by Confederate flag expert Gregg Biggs on the flags in the Tennessee State Museum collection. A concert by Ross Moore will conclude the evening.

The 150th anniversary of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Murfreesboro Raid of July 13, 1862 will take place on Friday, beginning with the annual Forrest Cavalry breakfast. The Awards Luncheon will have music by The Coleman Scouts featuring several Southern tunes. To commemorate Forrest’s Murfreesboro Raid, a tour will include: the Rutherford County Courthouse for the National Memorial Service, Confederate Circle in Evergreen Cemetery which is the final resting place of approximately 2,000 Confederates killed in Rutherford County during the war and Oakland’s Historic House Museum where Forrest accepted the surrender of Murfreesboro. Guests will dine on black-eyed peas and sweet potatoes, the same meal offered to Forrest following the raid. There will also be plenty of barbecue for the guests. There will be music on Friday night by the band Old South followed by the annual oratory contest, where members can demonstrate their speaking skills.

On Saturday the final business sessions will be held, followed by the election of National officers. A motorcycle show for the SCV mechanized Cavalry will be held at Bumpus Harley-Davidson during the day. A tour of the Battle of Murfreesboro will take members and guests to sites around and inside the Stones River National Battlefield. That evening the grand finale will be the Grand Banquet and Ball with the presentation of the Debutantes and music by the 52nd Tennessee String Band.

Local SCV

With a membership of 180, Murfreesboro SCV Camp # 33 is the second largest in the Tennessee Division and ranks among the top ten Camps in the national organization. This Reunion has been in the planning stages since 2007. With this being one of the Sesquicentennial years of the War Between the States, some 1500 SCV members and guests are expected to attend. This will be the week of the 150th anniversary of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Murfreesboro raid and 2012 is the 150th anniversary year of the Battle of Murfreesboro. Chairman of the Reunion Planning Committee James Patterson stated, "We have 1,200 members and guest registered from 27 states from across the U.S. This should be an exciting week for everyone who attends the 117th SCV National Reunion, since there is so much Civil War history in Rutherford County."

More Information

The Sons of Confederate Veterans is the oldest Confederate Veterans descendant organization with over 30,000 members worldwide. Membership is available to any male descendant of a Confederate soldier that served honorably in the Confederate military. Anyone who is interested in joining the SCV can find more information at

If you have any questions regarding the Reunion, contact James G. Patterson, 2102 SCV Reunion chairman, at 615-812-0206 or

77% of JP Morgan’s Net Income Comes from Government Subsidies

Via NC Renegade

How convenient having a corrupt government propping you up.

JP Morgan’s credit rating would be much lower without government backing.

As Bloomberg noted last week:

JPMorgan benefited from the assumption that there’s a “very high likelihood” the U.S. government would back the bank’s bondholders and creditors if it defaulted on its debt, according to the statement. Without the implied federal backing, JPMorgan’s long-term deposit rating would have been three levels lower and its senior debt would have dropped two more steps, Moody’s said.

And as the editors of Bloomberg pointed out a couple of weeks ago:

JPMorgan receives a government subsidy worth about $14 billion a year, according to research published by the International Monetary Fundand our own analysis of bank balance sheets. The money helps the bank pay big salaries and bonuses. More important, it distorts markets, fueling crises such as the recent subprime-lending disaster and the sovereign-debt debacle that is now threatening to destroy the euro and sink the global economy.

More @ Zero Hedge

75 years of unconstitutional government

Liberty Classroom

Kevin Gutzman is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Constitution and James Madison and the Making of America, among other titles. He also teaches U.S. history for us here at Liberty Classroom. He recently weighed in on the Obamacare decision:

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act did not surprise me. I predicted it. I thought that the four liberals plus Kennedy guaranteed five votes, and that Chief Justice Roberts was a possible sixth.

Roberts’ vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act in part rested on the taxing power. I thought that in light of the precedents, this was the strongest argument the government had for the law’s constitutionality. While the federal courts have occasionally found limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, the taxing power has been seen as essentially unlimited.

Some have speculated in the days since the decision’s announcement that Roberts joined the liberals in order to provide a limitation on the Commerce Clause power. Now that the Court has officially rejected President Obama’s contention that the individual mandate is not a tax, the story goes, he will have a hard time on the hustings betwixt now and November. Perhaps.

More important to me, however, is that the Court predictably held back from doing what it could have done: return to a pre-Revolution of 1937 day when Congress’s spending and regulatory powers were said to have some limits. I don’t think a fine can seriously be said to be a tax, and so the majority’s position in the Obamacare case strikes me as yet another in 75 years’ worth of rationalizations of unlimited congressional authority — which is to say, unconstitutional government.

Chief Justice Roberts Jokes of Trip to 'Impregnable Island Fortress'

Making light of his unconstitutional decision. May he rot in hell.

Verbatim Post

In the wake of his decisive vote upholding Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts joked that now the Supreme Court has finished its session he will go to an "impregnable island fortress.”

Roberts made the remarks during an appearance on a panel at a judicial conference in Pennsylvania, The Hill reported. He was asked if he planned to go to Disney World now that the Court was no longer in session and said he planned to teach a class in Malta, an island nation in the Mediterranean, south of Italy.

“Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a good idea,” he joked to the 300 or so judges and attorneys in the audience, The Hill reported.

Roberts has come under intense fire from conservatives for siding with the liberal wing of the court in the ruling announced Thursday that upheld President Barack Obama's healthcare initiative.

How a Motley Crew of Counterfeiters Saved George Washington, the Continental Army, and the USA

Via Borepatch

Henry Dawkins was always a bit of a scoundrel. In the spring of 1776, he finished a long prison tenure and was let back onto the streets. Although free, he was not a changed man. Dawkins continued committing crimes. His knack for law breaking, however, inadvertently saved the USA.

After leaving prison, the ex-con rented a room on Long Island. He told his landlords, Isaac and Israel Youngs, that he was going to start a printing business. (He left out what he’d be printing—counterfeit money.) The brothers loaned Dawkins some dough for a printing press. Dawkins bought the machine under a fake name and hid it in the Youngs’ attic. In mid-May, Dawkins asked his friend Isaac Ketcham to buy rolls of currency paper. Ketcham purchased the paper, and a suspicious salesman reported him to the authorities. Days later, Dawkins was back behind bars. This time, Ketcham and the Youngs brothers were with him.

Ketcham was assigned to a cell brimming with loyalists—Americans who supported the monarchy. Ketcham befriended some of the Tories and eavesdropped on their conversations. The prisoners treated him to the freshest British intelligence, and he learned about multiple plots to capture Manhattan.

Ketcham was desperate to get out of jail, and he knew that digging up dirt on the Brits could be his ticket out. He secretly petitioned the Provincial Congress—the same people who convicted him—and asked to be freed. “I…have something to [tell] to the hounorable house,” he said. “It is nothing concerning my own affair, but entirely on another subject.”

Congress took the hint. Ketcham was quickly called in for questioning, but was sent right back to jail. This time, however, he wasn’t there as a prisoner. He was now a spy.

Inside Info

David Yeagley interviews with the Washington Times

England’s Slave Trade Guilt

The origin of African slavery in North America was the English colonial system and the need for large labor forces to cultivate land and generate products for the benefit of the British Empire. And to add fuel to the transatlantic slave trade, the Muslim kings in Africa’s Gulf of Guinea thought nothing of selling their subjects to European traders; slavery in Africa was a widespread institution and existed in the Sudan, Senegambia, Upper Gambia and along the Niger River. The Northern abolitionists might have adopted Wilberforce’s peaceful campaign to eradicate slavery, and repaid humanity for the sins of their own New England slave trading fathers.

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

England’s Slave Trade Guilt:

(Speech in the House of Commons by William Wilberforce, 12 May, 1789)

“When we consider the vastness of the continent of Africa; when we reflect how all other countries have some centuries past been advancing in happiness and civilization; when we think how in this same period all improvement in Africa has been defeated in her intercourse with Britain;

[W]hen we reflect that it is we ourselves that have degraded them to that wretched brutishness and barbarity which we now plead as the justification of our guilt; how the slave trade has enslaved their minds, blackened their character…..What a mortification must we feel at having so long neglected to think of our guilt, or attempt any reparation!

It seems, indeed, as if we had determined to forbear from all interference [with slavery] until the measure of our folly and wickedness was so full and complete; until the impolicy which eventually belongs to vice was become so plain and glaring that not an individual in the country should refuse to join in the abolition; it seems as if we had waited until the persons most interested should be tired out with the folly and nefariousness of the trade, and should unite in petitioning against it.

Let us then make such amends as we can for the mischiefs we have done to the unhappy continent; let us recollect what Europe itself was no longer ago than three or four centuries.

What if I should be able to show this House [of Commons] that in a civilized part of Europe, in the time of Henry VII, there were people who actually sold their own children? What if I should tell them that England itself was that country? What if I should point out to them that the very place where this inhuman traffic was carried on was the city of Bristol?

Ireland at that time used to drive a considerable trade in slaves with these neighboring barbarians; but the great plague having infested the country, the Irish were struck with a panic, suspected (I am sure very properly) that the plague was a punishment sent from heaven for the sin of the slave trade, and therefore abolished it.

All I ask, therefore, of the people of Bristol is, that they would become as civilized now as Irishmen were four hundred years ago. Let us put an end at once to this inhuman traffic – let us stop this effusion of human blood.”

(The World’s Famous Orations, William Jennings Bryan, editor, Funk and Wagnalls, 1906, pp. 66-68)

England’s Slave Trade Guilt

WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making Less Than $120K a Year

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

More @ CBS


To characterize the Supreme Court as some great upholder of the rule of law in spite of it being a pillar in the state apparatus is insulting to any decent person that has a basic understanding of justice. In lieu of the upholding of the Affordable Care Act, it's now worth asking what the U.S. government can't do to Americans.
James Miller at

But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.
Justice Roberts at

The Obamacare decision has revealed the Supreme Court for the fraud it is. They bound and gagged the Constitution long ago, embezzled its authority and now speak for it rather than from it. It's a Medieval priesthood overawing the citizenry with imagined infallibility, but at ground level these cocktail-circuit Big Thinkers enable and shield DC's most conspicuous assaults on the rightful liberty of the people.

The deciding vote was cast by Chief Justice Roberts, a Bush appointee whose confirmation Obama opposed, which shows DC as it really is, an evil carnival of political chameleons imposing their dark fantasies on the rest of us, corrupt and convoluted beyond even its own understanding, a brittle and bankrupt fear-machine clanking from crisis to crisis, sniffing for advantage. DC is run largely off the books by psychopaths and the irretrievably compromised and they mean to make outsiders of us, with all the rights of uninvited spectators.

More @ Ol' Remus

Battle of Stalingrad and Afrikaner Genocide Museum

Via Ol' Remus

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B28822, Russland, Kampf um Stalingrad, Infanterie.jpg

art-link-symbol-small.jpg When the Russians do something, they do it on a grand scale. See photos of a movie set recreating the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942-1943 for the documentary Life and Fate, by Sasha Siniy at Livejournal. Text is in Russian.

art-link-symbol-small.jpg A photo site documenting the genocide in South Africa, at Afrikaner Genocide Museum. If you doubt what White Privilege, gang assaults and all the rest are slavering for, doubt no longer. This is not the usual warning for sheltered wussies: graphic in the extreme.

Swine Control

Whatever one’s views on today’s Middle Eastern regimes, we can all agree that violent rioting is not a system of governance. But how can raucous street demonstrations be prevented from deteriorating into endless anarchy? The existing methods of suppression are clearly insufficient. Deadly force quickly produces martyrs and often only exacerbates violence. Nor are tear gas, rubber bullets, or truncheons particularly effective. Demonstrators retreat momentarily, regroup, and then pelt police with rocks and Molotov cocktails. This can continue for days, even months. And forget about Mace and Tasers for large crowds. Angry mobs should be able to express their discontent but at some point, enough is enough and politics should replace street violence.

Let me suggest a cheap, nonviolent way to control fanatical Muslims with an appetite for nonstop turmoil—weaponized pork. Muslims hate pork. Merely mentioning pork, let alone physical contact with it, strikes terror into the hearts of even the most committed “living martyr.” When confronting rioting Islamic fundamentalists, pork is perfect.

More @ Taki's


Via SF Medic

My Photo

Another "Caucasian" arrested; this time for Money Laundering


Via The People’s Cube

SCOTUS and Saiga 12

Via Oleg Volk
I am not much of a legal expert, so my comments on the recent Supreme Court decision would be by analogy. US has had similar levels of idiocy before, in particular during WW2 and again during the 1970s. Remember "wage and price controls"? I don't know history well enough to tell by what mechanism those specific impositions were dismantled back then, but it would make for a useful study.

My point is that this isn't the end of the world, merely a gradual impoverishment of the population combined with a massive reduction of personal freedom. Much like East Germany, not quite on level with North Korea. The difference from East Germany is that emigration is still legal (though IRS wants to tax expats almost forever) but the similarity is that Fedgov is trying to make everyone either join Stasi equivalent organizations or fink for them freelance. The pernicious effect of providing monetary incentives for informing on fellow Americans to the Big Brother or the state-level "friends of the people" is going to be a longer-lasting, more detrimental cultural effect than the economic damage itself.

We've been through this before with the 1850-1861 events. We've also seen wartime laws against spies and alien sympathizers used to quash domestic dissent during both Wold Wars. Somehow, this country survived and even some of its culture. At this time, censorship isn't yet in full swing, so we better use the opportunity to interest our friends and neighbors in that quaint notion of "live and let live".

Short-barreled Saiga 12 with a 20-round drum magazine is fun. And, thanks to gas operated autoloading, it doesn't kick much even with buckshot. Fired by Linoge, the author of Walls of the City blog.

I have a regular Saiga with a TAPCO stock and it kicks like hell!

“Independence Day”—What a laugh!


During the first week of July we celebrate July 4th, which has come to be called “Independence Day.” There was a time when that had meaning, but no more. Now it is a pathetic joke. Most Americans take a day off from work, light a few fireworks, roast a few hot dogs and boast about their :”freedom.” Another sick joke! We are “free” to do what the federal government tells us we must do and we are “free” to avoid those things they tell us we must not do and that is the sum total of the “freedom” we have left. The pathetic thing is that most people can not discern that fact.

The Supreme Court just handed down a ringing endorsement of Obamacare, which says, basically, that the federal government can compel you to buy health insurance whether you want it or not and then can tax you (penalize you) if you don’t buy it. Obama wanted this; Congress voted to give it to him so we “could find out what’s in the bill” and the Supreme Court upheld all this legal chicanery and we are still dumb enough to call ourselves free?

In April of 1776 American patriots stood at Lexington Green and Concord and faced British muskets to resist tyranny. Did they do what they did so we could end up being compelled to take part in Obamacare or so that the freedoms they fought for could be swallowed up by the Patriot Act? If they did, then the “history” we’ve been taught is a ludicrous joke. Of course much of the “history” we’ve been taught is a joke anyway.

The truth is that those men, for all their imperfections, had a vision for true liberty that we can’t even begin to conceive of. During our first War for Independence (the second war of independence was the War for Southern Independence) we had ministers in our churches that boldly proclaimed to their congregations what the issues were and what should be done. Thanks to 501 C3 that situation doesn’t even exist today. Many, if not most, of our church pastors have no real grasp of history and so they usually come down on the wrong side of most political issues. They are just not historically equipped to deal with them and so they don’t bother. They mouth something like “Romans 13 says to obey the higher authorities no matter what” and with that they move on to other issues and they hope you will to. If you persist in dealing the these issues you shortly get a reputation in your church and no one will talk with you seriously about anything except who might win the world series or whether it might rain day after tomorrow.

More @ Revised History

NC Dixie Pride Store Vandalized, Owner Believes He Was Targeted With a ‘Hate Crime’


Harmon’s Dixie Pride, a historic building located at 471 W. King St. in downtown Boone, was vandalized with spray paint in the early hours of Saturday morning in an attack owner Bradford Harmon felt was akin to a hate crime.

“Obama 2012” was tagged across the side of the building, but Harmon said he was was more disturbed by the graffiti across the right front window of the building, which contained obscene language visible from King St.

Harmon’s Dixie Pride, whose building once housed the second President of Appalachian State University, offers civil war clothing and supplies and historical photographs as well as guns and ammo. The store flies the Gadsden Flag and the Rebel Flag and is covered in Confederate signs and memorabilia.

More @ HC Press

Pelosi is 'delusional'

Rep. Allen West on Friday called Nancy Pelosi “somewhat delusional” for refusing to say that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act constitutes a tax, and likened the mandate to forcing people to “buy a 9mm Glock.”

“I think that former Speaker Pelosi is somewhat delusional,” West said on Fox News. “You have to remember that this is the person who said that we have to pass this bill in order to find out what is in his bill. So there has been a deception against the American people from the onset.”

More @ Politico

Approval Ratings for Supreme Court Slip Following Health Care Ruling

Can't imagine why........



Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.

A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.

The second coming of President Jimmy Carter:)



Reps. West, Walsh: Cut Off Aid to Egypt

Congressmen Allen West and Joe Walsh are calling on the Obama administration to cut off all American aid to Egypt following the election of Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi as the nation’s president.

Walsh, an Illinois Republican, noted that the Muslim Brotherhood has said it would reassess Egypt’s Camp David peace treaty with Israel, and that Morsi plans to restore long-severed ties with Iran.

Walsh said in a statement: “The sole purpose for providing Egypt with over $2 billion a year in U.S. taxpayer dollars was to maintain the peace treaty with Israel and promote stability in the region.

“With the Muslim brotherhood now calling on closer ties to Iran and a redo of the peace treaty with Israel, I see no reason to send one more dollar of U.S aid to Egypt. Every dollar wasted propping up this new government is a dollar wasted that should be going to paying down our debt or providing tax relief to struggling American families.”

West, a Florida Republican, said in a statement on his Facebook page: “A year ago there were those of us who warned the Obama Administration of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt. We were castigated as alarmists and loose cannons.

“Today our predictions have come to reality and the ominous specter reminding us of the Iranian revolution is evident. The Muslim Brotherhood claimed they would not run a presidential candidate. Clearly the Arab Spring is nothing more than a radical Islamic nightmare.”

President Obama congratulated Morsi after his election victory, and White House press secretary Jay Carney called the win a milestone in Egypt's transition to democracy.

West stated: “What an incredible foreign policy faux pas by the second coming of President Jimmy Carter, the Obama Administration. I call upon President Barack Obama to cut off American foreign aid to Egypt, denounce the results of this election, repudiate the Muslim Brotherhood, and all radical Islamist political entities.”