Friday, December 28, 2012

Fighting Germany to Help Bolshevist Russia

Roosevelt the Second, as Mencken referred to FDR, maneuvered the US into war with Japan and Germany, deceiving few in the higher rungs of government and the military.  Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota said on August 4, 1941: “….And now we see America being stripped and groomed for another….war, only a more terrible and even a less justifiable one from our point of view….You know as well as I do, that this, as in the last war, has been a propaganda job. [Our government will] plunge us into the bloodiest war in history. And for what reason? To make the world safe for British Imperialism and Russian communism?” (Congressional Record, August 4, 1941)

--Bernhard Thuersam


“As time passed, it seemed clear to [FDR’s Ambassador to France Admiral William D.] Leahy that America’s support of Britain would inevitably bring the United States into war with Germany.  The sinking by a U-boat of the American freighter Robin Moor, Leahy thought, might very well “be the Lusitania incident of the present war.”  When American forces relieved British troops in Iceland, he wrote that the action “of the President appears to have moved America about a thousand miles toward the European war.”

On the morning of 22 June [1941], the Leahy’s picked up a BBC broadcast telling of the German invasion of Russia. The next day, he received Soviet Ambassador A. Bogomolov, who wanted to find out what the new American attitude would be toward Russia…..Having received no instructions, Leahy could only fence and show that he had learned the practice of diplomacy by referring to the president’s recent statements of “full sympathy with all those nations that are resisting Axis aggression.” When in doubt, quote the boss!

[In a letter to Sumner] Welles, Leahy summed up French feeling on the German invasion of the USSR. Most Frenchmen welcomed the new war, for they felt it would divert the Germans who would then leave France more to her own devices. No one expected the German venture to fail [and added] “Most of my contacts of all classes feel that a successful completion of the German campaign in Russia will be followed by peace proposals that Great Britain will accept.”

[In early 1942 it] soon appeared that Germany did not want a rupture of French-American relations. France, Hitler thought, might be useful if a negotiated peace could be worked out with the western allies. Then Germany could devote her full attention to the destruction of Bolshevist Russia…[Hitler] would like to see Frenchmen free to “volunteer” to fight against the Russians.

[In March of 1942] the Nazi’s were demanding the return to power of arch-collaborator Pierre Laval – “Black Peter” – to a major role in the [Vichy] government. “Black Peter” told Leahy that he expected to act as mediator between the United States and Germany, so that Germany would be free to devote herself to the annihilation of Bolshevism. “My policy, Laval declared, is founded on reconciliation with Germany.  Without this reconciliation, I can see no hope for peace, whether for Europe, France, or even the world.  Warming to his subject, he declared the present war was a “civil war” of which “Stalin will be the only victor if the democracies continue to fight the Reich.”

“I am convinced,” Leahy recorded, “that M. Laval is fully committed to go as far as he can in an effort to collaborate with Germany and to assist in the defeat of what he termed Soviet-British Bolshevism.  He definitely is not on our side in the war effort.” 

(Witness to Power, The Life of Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Henry H. Adams, pp. 157-158; 176-178)




A series of short articles on how the different European powers approached issues of diplomacy with both
Union and Confederate governments.
FRANCE: On April 12, 1861, the Civil War breaks out in the United States. It divides the Northern and Southern States of the Union, with the latter forming a new Confederation. The Confederate States stated willingness defend their rights by force is soon followed by a mobilization of the forces of the Northern government and a rapid blockade of the coastal ports feeding its rival. Faced with this unprecedented event, the imperial powers of Europe, Great Britain and France adopt similar, diplomatic attitudes. They decides not to take sides in the American conflict but despite a stated neutrality, recognise the right of belligerency on the Confederacy. This duality draws the anger of Washington, which considers the southern 'separatists' as mere rebels. Britain, with a long established commerce with the Southern States, turns a blind eye to the many blockade runners financed and operated by businessmen across England. France on the other hand seeks to establish rules for its maritime transport since its commerce ships are likely to come across vessels of both sides on their way to North America. To ensure its maritime fleet remains free of any harrassment, France states its reliance on the 1856 Declaration of Paris, an agreement prohibiting privateering but protecting neutral goods in case of war and recognizing only fully effective blockades. However, the application of these clauses is complex because the United States had not ratified the agreement and, due to the large expanse of coastline it was required to monitor, the validity of the blockade becomes doubtful under maritime law and difficult therefore to enforce. Finally, the French government was forced to review the cases of vessels dropping anchor in its territorial waters.
Disregarding neutrality, Napoleon III opened the shipyards of Nantes and Bordeaux to the Southerners for their ship building programme. On several occasions the Imperial Government of France attempted to propose intercession, for example in striving to overcome the serious dispute between Washington and London in the case of the Trent affair. This involved a British ship bound for Europe with two emissaries of the South being apprehended by the Federal Navy, despite the maritime rules of conflict. As the war dragged on, Napoleon III again offered his services in late 1862 and early 1863 to mediate between the North and the South - but on each occasion his proposals were dismissed and the hostilities continued.

Gradually, the Emperor who did not hide his preferences for the Southerners was tempted by the idea of recognizing their cause formally, most likely as, in addition to his sympathy for their cause, he considered that the independence of the Confederate States, seceded from the Union, would only strengthen his Mexican ambitions and the constitution of this "buffer State" offered a guarantee to protect Mexico from any annexation of its northern territories by the United States. In July 1862 and June 1863, Napoleon III unsuccessfully attempted to have England publically share his views but again, he was confronted with the disapproval of his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Thouvenel then Drouyn de Lhuys who remained hostile to the idea of a division of the American Republic.

Like so many others on both sides of the English Channel, Napoleon III was hampered and frustrated by his ministers and advisors. Unsurprisingly, his attempts to circumvent their objections by entering into direct correspondence with Ambassadors by using unofficial, personally appointed emissaries, was also doomed to failure. During the term of the American Civil War, a convoluted relationships with this major European power, demonstrated to all the deep political divisions that existed in France's government.
GREAT BRITAIN: British neutrality during the American Civil War was complicated and remains a difficult issue to analyze. Indeed, had Queen Victoria's beloved Albert not died tragically in 1861, his strong opinions and influence amongst British politicians may have swayed Britain to taking a more openly, sympathetic view of the South. As it was, at the heart of the matter lay British self-interest. If it had been advantageous for the Empire to openly support one side or the other, it would have done so. But despite the vocal support in Britain for both sides, and despite good arguments made by both U.S. and C.S. representatives, Britain did what was best for Britain, which was to keep itself carefully in the middle.

The war itself was bad news for Britain, no matter how they felt about the two sides. Both parts of America were important trading partners with Britain, and the cotton from the South was a particularly valuable commodity. Without cotton, England's massive textile industry would grind to a halt, and in fact once the Federal blockade of the Southern states became effective, the loss of a steady supply of cotton caused a major economic crisis. Nearly one thousand mills were forced to close, with over one hundred thousand workers made redundant at least temporarily. Many industrialists, seeing their empires collapsing, quickly obtained ships and crews to run the federal blockade carrying much needed materials to the South and returning with cargoes of cotton. Despite this urgency, confederate leaders, under-estimated the importance of their cotton in their determining British political policy and the fact that the North was also an important market for British industry. Even whilst English commercial interests endeavored to make the best of a bad situation, they were happy enough to build and sell the Confederates ships including the commerce raiders Alabama, Florida, and Shenandoah, whilst engaging in a lucrative arms trade with the South for most of the war. Full recognition and support for the Confederacy presented a number of nightmare scenarios for Britain’s politicians. The U.S. made not-so-subtle hints that such a situation would make legitimate targets of Britain's huge commercial maritime fleet for privateers and bring about a state of war between the two countries. The example of what a few Confederate commerce raiders were doing to U.S. shipping was incentive enough to wish avoiding a similar situation developing among British fleets. British subjects in Canada were openly worried what a conflict between the U.S. and Britain would mean for them. Britain had already assembled a considerable military force there and if it had come to war, Canada and the border would have been the main theatre of operations for a British-American war.

Great Britain also had its relationship with other European powers to consider. France generally mirrored the British view of things but at the time, France controlled Mexico; and British intervention for a ‘rebel’ nation on that border might have caused France to adopt a very different attitude. Russia, although also technically neutral, was clearly favoring the North. Russo-British relations were still a bit delicate after the Crimean War and it was desirable for Britain to avoid antagonizing the Russians unless strictly necessary to do so.

Finally, the issue of slavery presented a moral stumbling block, though it was not the most important issue to the British. Slavery had been banned throughout the British Empire in 1833 so openly supporting the slave-owning Confederacy was problematic, unless it became very clear that the South would win the war.

In the end, neither of the two sides in the conflict was very satisfied with British neutrality. The Confederacy was denied a powerful official ally, and the Union felt that Britain bent the rules to lend too much support to the South. The very declaration of neutrality, in fact, implied a certain level of recognition and Britain moved a step closer by recognizing the South as a ‘belligerent state’ thus regarding the Confederacy as a legitimate combatant and not a mere rebellion. Great Britain's problem was not to satisfy either side, but to look after British interests and under difficult circumstances, the mother country and her Empire was successful in that. At the end of the war America was desperate to rebuild and Britain was the only country able to supply the expertise to do this. With the decimation of most of America’s whaling fleets and cargo ships, the renewed Royal Navy ruled the oceans until after the end of the First World War, virtually unopposed!

Window cleaning the world's tallest building

Via The Feral Irishman

Rand Paul: “People In Congress…....Are Not To Be Trusted With Money”

rand paul 

If there is one person I love to hear speak the truth about how government isn’t functioning properly it’s Ron Paul (R-TX). Second to him, I do enjoy his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). In an interview with Fox News’ Great Van Susteren’s On The Record on Thursday, Paul told her that people in Congress “cannot be trusted” and “don’t deserve to manage any more money.”

Van Susteren questioned the Kentucky Senator as to whether the American people should be angry at the process when it comes to the fiscal cliff.

The Senator said that he was definitely “annoyed” because he was in Washington all week and said that they “did nothing all week long.”

“If the Democrats have a proposal, why don’t they put a proposal forward and let’s see if Republicans can agree to it,” Paul said. “But they need to be part of the process, and so far I haven’t seen much ‘give’ on the part of the Democrats.”

Greta then said that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the “House is acting with the dictatorship of the Speaker.” This garnered laughter from Paul as he said that he didn’t know what that means necessarily.

Paul did point out that the current tax rates are going to expire. He then used an analogy about drowning, which I think makes an excellent point.

“It’s like 100 people are drowning and you’re going to save 98 of them by only protecting them from a tax increase, you know 98%? And my question is, ‘Well, if they’re all drowning, right? Which means that raising taxes is a bad thing for everyone, so why would we only do it on two to save 98% from a tax increase? Why would drowning be our policy? Why would we be in favor of a policy of drowning?’ You know raising taxes. It sounds like it’s a bad thing for everyone. Why are they (Democrats) so insistent that we taxes on someone?”

Van Susteren asked if Paul perceived that people were actually trying to talk and negotiate in the Senate.

Senator Paul said that he thinks that it is all happening among the leadership and said that he has to “ask the media” about the fiscal cliff because many in the Senate do feel like they are a part of it.
Paul took the time to say that he was standing up for the Constitution during the week with regards to the Fourth Amendment and personal emails, texts, and internet searches. For his stance on these things we can be thankful!

When asked if he thought most Americans will see a difference between December 31, 2012 and January 1 or 2 of 2013, Paul said that he believed that some people think that since Obama won re-election there is a certain “inevitablity” that he wants to raise taxes and that he controls the Senate and the White House. “So What I keep saying,” Paul said, “is Democrats will probably win. They’ll probably get their way either this year or next year and we’ll get higher taxes, but it will be a bad thing for the economy. It will be a bad thing for job creation and in the end may not even do what he wants, because sometimes you raise rates and you get less revenue.” Paul then pointed to England as an example of raising the rates and getting less wealthy people, which resulted in less revenue. He said that England was not in the midst of “reversing course” now.

Paul pointed to the history of lowering tax rates and increasing revenue. He noted both Ronald Reagan’s approach and George W. Bush’s approach of the tax cuts that are now our current, set to expire, tax rates.

Paul was also asked about the kinds of plans that are proposed, where we hear about these plans being for “ten years.” The question is if a ten year plan is adopted is there a possibility that Congress might come back in two years with a completely different plan?

The Senator said it was possible and that there were two main problems with ten year projections. The first is that historically the federal government is “bad at projections.” Paul said, “They can’t predict what will happen next year, much less ten years.”

The second thing is “You’re right, future Congresses can change,” Paul told Van Susteren. he then gave examples of what has taken place with regards to rules concerning legislation. He said, “We just disobey the rules. We just don’t care,” referring to the attitude of many lawmakers.

Paul then addressed the debt ceiling and taxes.

“I would raise the debt ceiling on one condition and that would be a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution,” he said. “Barring that, people in Congress, those who I’ve met up here they don’t deserve to manage any more money. They’re doing a bad job managing the money they have. We should not send them any more money. They’re not to be trusted with money.“

Watch the interview @ Freedom Outpost

NC: Intruder killed in Henderson home invasion

Via Cousin John



Police are investigating a fatal shooting Sunday at a Henderson home that appeared to result from a home invasion.

Deyon Durham, 24, of 279 Faulkner St., was found shot to death at 1221 Montgomery St. shortly after 7 a.m., police said.

The initial investigation suggests that Durham was breaking and entering at the home when the homeowner, whose name was not released, shot him.

No charges have been filed. Investigators planned to consult with the district attorney's office.

Durham had convictions, starting in 2005, for indecent liberties with a minor, sexual battery, breaking and entering vehicles, larceny and failure to register as a sex offender, according to state Division of Adult Correction records.

Will Banning Guns Stop Homicides? Stats from England and Australia Show….....

Via Don

The debate on gun control is only gaining momentum. On Thursday, Senator Diane Feinstein outlined her plans to introduce sweeping legislation that includes fingerprinting and registration of all those who currently own so-called semi-automatic “assault” weapons.

Those in favor of a total ban on firearms often point to countries like England and Australia where firearms are banned or virtually impossible to possess. A look into the statistics might offer some clarity, though, about how safe such a move actually makes a country.

Let’s start at home. From 2009 to 2011, homicides overall declined slightly according to a 2011 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, with a corresponding drop in homicides by firearms.
In fact, the report says homicide is not among the top 15 leading causes of death in America. (As recently as 2009, the CDC reported that homicide was in the top 15 at #15.) Instead:
  • Accidents (unintentional deaths) were #5 and Suicide (intentional harm) has held solid as the 10th leading cause of death for several years.
  • The stats from 2009 show that homicides totaled 16,799, with 11,493 of those attributed to guns.
  • During that same year, motor vehicle deaths were nearly triple that of gun-related deaths — 34,485 vs. 11,493.
  • Death from accidental falls totaled 24,792, almost double the firearms homicide total.
The stats for gun deaths have actually shown some significant declines in the past two decades.

More @ The Blaze

The William Dorsey Pender Civil War Roundtable will sponsor a free lecture by Ed Bearss

General Pender at my "Dixieland")


THIS January 11th , Friday we will meet at Edgecombe Community College, Tarboro Campus 6:00 to 6:30 social, 6:30 to 7:00 buffet, 7:00 to 8:00 speaker. COST OF BUFFET IS $12 – PAY WHEN YOU ARRIVE LAST MEETING :

Jack Travis was with us in December to remind us of the power of Field Artillery during the Civil War. With an excellent slide presentation we were entertained and informed about the Federal and Confederate soldiers who performed with unique skill. We were glad to have Jack back for his second appearance.

NEXT MEETING The Edgecombe Community College History Department and the William Dorsey Pender Civil War Roundtable will sponsor a free lecture by Ed Bearss, National Park Historian Emeritus on Friday, Jan 11, 2013 at the Mobley Atrium in the Fleming building on the Tarboro campus of Edgecombe Community College. He will speak on Gen Pettigrew of North Carolina.

FUTURE Feb 28 Donny Taylor Bentonville
Mar 28 Bill Brown Bentonville NC Units
Apr 25 Debra Blake,
May 23 Steve Winter Chancellorsville,
June 27 Jay Peacock
Aug 22 Chris Grimes
Sep 26 Lyle Holland,
Oct John Derbyshire Medicine

Hobby Lobby to defy Obamacare mandate

Via Cousin John


Hobby Lobby, the Christian-owned company that provides hobby, arts and crafts supplies to tens of millions of customers across America, will defy the Obamacare mandate that health insurance for its employees cover “abortion-inducing drugs.”

The confirmation is from a statement released by an attorney, Kyle Duncan, who said in a website statement that, “The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees. To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”
The conflict is the latest firefight in the battle against Obama’s mandate that employers pay for abortifacients no matter their religious beliefs. The administration has argued in many of the dozens of lawsuit that have erupted over the conflict that religious people who own corporations must give up their rights to religious freedom.

Hobby Lobby’s case against the mandate remains pending in a lower court, but the statement from the attorney, who is with the Becket Fund, was released after an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected.

Officials estimate the company could face $1.3 million in daily fines for refusing to pay for abortifacients as Obama demands.

Sonya Sotomayor, who responds to emergency actions to the Supreme Court from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, simply told the company that officials could pay up for the abortifacients or face crushing penalties while its case continues in the lower courts.

Duncan’s statement confirmed those appeal efforts will continue.

“The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time. It left open the possibility of review after their appeal is completed in the 10th Circuit,” he wrote.

Sotomayor wrote in her rejection of the appeal for recognition of the Constitution’s requirement for freedom of religion that the company didn’t meet the legal standard for blocking enforcement of the Obama demand.

While the judges at the 10th Circuit had rejected the company’s request, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier handed Christians a major victory against Obama, who previously has supported extreme abortion – to the point of advocating that babies who survive abortions be left to die.
More @ WND

US Marine to Marxstein: No ma'am, I will not comply

Via The Lonely Libertarian



Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps

Then and now

Via The Lonely Libertarian

Panic buying



Local gunshop had one of those big cylindrical drink coolers on their floor .. you know the kind, you see 'em at 7-11 filled with ice and a few bottles of pop in' em ... anyway, they had one that looked like a giant shotgun shell and it was filled with AR mags. Guy walks in, bought the whole darn thing. Every one of 'em. Go figure.
Other weirdness ... one of my vendors emailed me today that they somehow have come up with in 1000 Steyr AUG magazines. WTF? How do you just magically discover a bunch of AUG magazines in your warehouse? I suspect that almost anyone buying those will be buying them on speculation since the number of guns taking AUG mags is pretty low.
I'm getting tired of answering the phone here with people asking if I have any 5.56 ammo or ARs. Part of me wants to scream at them "You had eight years to buy them, dumb-ass!" The trickle down theory is in effect too .... No guns? Get mags! No mags? Get ammo! No ammo? Get components! No components? Get primers! Expect primer availability to plunge as well.
I've seen this movie before, back in '94, so I know what to expect. This is why when the ban sunsetted in '04 I tried to get everything I could. On some things, I did really well (like the 500 + G3 mags I have for our PTR rifles) and some things I wish I had more of (never enough Glock 9mm's.) 

But at least I'm not among the idiots who suddenly realized that there might really be an end to their availability of decent rifles.

You Might Be a Gun Control Hypocrite If….....

Libertarians Not Welcome Here, Says NH State Rep

Sheriff Arpaio to Send Armed Posse to Protect Schools

In response to a nearby county’s announcement that it will arm teachers and principals to prevent a Newtown, Conn.-style massacre at its schools, America’s most famous sheriff said he will send members of his armed posse to schools around his county.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he would send members of his posse to protect the 50 schools that are located in areas that his department is singularly responsible for protecting, according to KTVK-TV in Phoenix.

“I have the authority to mobilize private citizens and fight crime in this county,” Arpaio said. “[Politicians] are going to be talking about the guns now for years. But I have certain resources at my disposal and I'm not going to talk about it. I'm going to do it.”

Arpaio created the 3,000-strong posse during the 1993 holiday season in response to violent incidents at malls. There haven’t been any violent acts in malls there since the volunteer police force was created.

More @ Newsmax

1963 Pontiac Tempest Lemans 421/535 Super Duty

S137 1963 Pontiac Tempest Lemans 421 Super Duty, 1 of 6 Produced Photo 1 


After Mickey Thompson and Royal Pontiac dominated Super Stock and A/FX in 1962 with their own specially-prepared Tempest racers, Pontiac Motor Division took direct aim at the NHRA's Factory Experimental class, building 14 special lightweight Tempest racers – six LeMans coupes, six station wagons and two standard coupes. Built on December 12th, 1962 at the Pontiac, MI assembly plant, the purpose-built LeMans coupes were all painted White and given Blue interiors with bucket seats. 

Following in Thompson’s footsteps, Pontiac Engineering endowed the cars with high compression, dual quad-equipped 421 CI Super Duty engines connected to unique rear-mounted 4-speed automatic transmissions. All used aluminum front sheet metal and brake drums, acid dipped bumpers and mounting brackets and lightweight windshield glass, resulting in almost perfect 48/52 weight distribution while keeping the cars in line with the NHRA’s 7.5 pounds-per-cubic-inch A/FX class weight limit.

One of the six built, this Tempest LeMans coupe was delivered to Stan Long Pontiac on Grand River Road in Detroit. Driver Stan Antlocer campaigned the car through a busy and successful 1963 season that included the all-important Indy Nationals. Along the way he made an important change to the car; the 4-speed transaxle accommodated only up to a 3.90 final drive ratio and was somewhat prone to breaking under the 421’s explosive power, so Antlocer replaced the factory driveline with a heavy duty Borg Warner 3-speed manual transmission and a full-size Pontiac rear end with a 4.30 gearset. The change paid off in spades, earning Antlocer the title of “World’s Fastest Tempest” after tearing off an 11.93 ET at 123.95 MPH at U.S. 131 Dragway in Martin, MI.

This record-setting Pontiac factory lightweight Tempest was restored by Scott Teimann’s renowned Super Car Specialties in Portland MI to its configuration as originally raced by Stan Antlocer, including the 421 Super Duty engine with dual inline Carter 4-barrel carburetors and unique exhaust headers built by George DeLorean, 10-inch M&H Racemaster slicks on Black painted steel wheels and graphics proclaiming Stan Long Pontiac sponsorship of the “World’s Fastest Tempest.” It holds an honored place in Pontiac’s storied drag racing history and stands as a tribute to the forward thinkers at Pontiac Engineering and racers like Stan Antlocer who competed with their creations in the heat of that era’s great A/FX battles.

 - One of six 1963 Pontiac Tempest LeMans factory lightweight 421 SD coupes
- Known as the “World’s Fastest Tempest”
- Sponsored by Stan Long Pontiac, driven by Stan Antlocer
- White with Blue bucket seat interior
- Restored by Scott Tiemann’s Super Car Specialties in Pontiac, Michigan
- Engine build and dyno by Doug Hughes, Mesa AZ
- Performance 535 HP @ 5700 RPM, 556 lb-ft @ 4300 RPM

5.45x39mm sectioned cartridge collection

Via mpopenker


TOY GUN CONTROL: Activist offers children certificates if they stop playing with fake guns


A Santa Monica, Calif. peace activist is reinvigorating his push to discourage children from playing with toy guns and parents from purchasing them.

Activist Jerry Rubin’s “Alliance for Survival” peace group is encouraging children and families to say “no” to guns with a “No Toy Guns Merit Award Project” in response to the Newton, Conn. shooting which left 20 children and six adults dead, the Santa Monica Mirror reported.

The group will offer a personalized, frameable certificate to children and families that send the alliance a letter explaining “Why I will not buy toy guns for my children” or for children, “Why I do not like to play with toy guns.”

More @The DC

Arizona Attorney General proposes arming school employees

Arizona's Attorney General has proposed a program to train one person at each school in the state to use a firearm in an effort to minimize the risk of a repetition of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

Tom Horne introduced a proposal Wednesday that would allow a school principal or designated staff member to have access to a secured firearm on school grounds and receive training in the use of firearms and emergency management.

The attorney general said in a press release that at least three Arizona sheriffs have endorsed the proposal and other sheriffs are considering participating in the program.

Horne said the state's budget constraints resulted in the legislature reducing funding for school resource officers assigned to schools throughout the state. The ideal situation, he said, would be to have an armed officer in each school.

"The next best solution is to have one person in the school trained to handle firearms, to handle emergency situations, and possessing a firearm in a secure location. This proposal is analogous to arming pilots on planes,” Horne said in a statement.

More @ Fox

Traitor John kerry has 47% favorable rating

I guess the average American is beyond hope.

President Obama has nominated Massachusetts Senator John Kerry to replace retiring Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and 47% of Likely U.S. Voters have a favorable opinion of the prospective new Cabinet member. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% view the unsuccessful 2004 Democratic presidential candidate unfavorably.

These findings include 17% with a Very Favorable opinion of Kerry and 23% with a Very Unfavorable one. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The Living Bridge

Via Cousin Colby

N.C. Democrats Push Gun Control in Wake of Newtown

Via NC Links and Thinks


Don't even think about it.

Three Democratic members of the North Carolina congressional delegation have joined President Obama in calling for more gun control as a means of preventing a mass shooting like the one Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

Meanwhile, three Republican lawmakers have said they would not support additional gun control measures, while the other seven Republicans and Democrats Kay Hagan and Mike McIntyre have not made their positions clear.

One of the most outspoken Democrats, 4th District Rep. David Price, wants to reinstate an assault weapons ban, prohibit large-capacity ammunition clips, and close the so-called gun show “loophole” that 33 states have, which allows people to buy guns from gun shows without background checks.

Grassroots North Carolina, a gun-rights advocacy group, says more guns, not fewer, are needed to prevent mass shootings, and will be pushing for legislation to arm teachers in January when the General Assembly goes back into session.


Carolina Journal asked North Carolina’s 13 U.S. House members and two senators whether they would support new gun control legislation in response to the recent shooting. Specifically, they were asked about three proposals President Obama recently said he’d like Congress to consider:

1. Banning assault weapons.
2. Restricting high capacity ammunition clips.
3. Closing the gun show "loophole" in every jurisdiction nationwide.

For those who did not respond, CJ cited public comments they had made after the Sandy Hook killings.

Opposing more gun control

• Rep. Howard Coble, R-6th District

Coble said he would not support any of the president’s three gun control proposals.

“Unfortunately, banning assault weapons, limiting high capacity clips or requiring background checks at gun shows will not reduce gun violence,” he added. “If these restrictions are enacted, assault weapons, many of which are made overseas, will still be available; criminals will continue use firearms with high or low capacity clips; and the black market for firearms will flourish.”

• Rep.-elect Richard Hudson, R-8th District

“There are no easy answers, and I do not support new restrictions on our constitutional freedoms to solve this complex societal problem.”

• Rep.-elect George Holding, R-13th District

“It would be reassuring to believe a government program could cure violence but governments have been trying — and failing — for a long time."

“When tragedies like this happen, it’s natural to want to find a cure — quick. This may be the least popular time to say gun control is not the answer — but it’s not.”

Gallup: Opposition to handgun ban hits all-time high


So how would Piers Morgan fare with his proposed constitutional amendment to repeal gun rights?  Amazingly, nearly three-quarters of Americans agree on handguns, anyway …  but not with Piers Morgan.  According to the latest Gallup survey taken within days of the Newtown massacre, a record number of Americans oppose a handgun ban, 74/24:
Despite Americans’ willingness to strengthen gun laws in the wake of Sandy Hook and other deadly mass shootings, Gallup finds public opposition to a broad ban on the possession of handguns at a record-high 74%. Conversely, the 24% in favor is the lowest recorded since Gallup first asked the question in 1959.
How about the “assault-rifle” ban?  Technically, an “assault rifle” is an automatic weapon, which is already banned.  Gallup asks respondents whether they are “for or against a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles,” which is a badly-written question in several ways.  Even so, a majority opposes such a law, by just a slightly narrower gap than a year ago:

More @ Hot Air

Gun Ban, Gun Confiscation and war in AmeriKa

Via comment by Anonymous on West Coast Armory, Bellevue, Washington 

Food for thought.

Marilyn Monroe and her communist-leaning acquaintances

FILE - In this February 26, 1962 file photo, Marilyn Monroe and Jean Pierre Piquet, left, manager of Continental Hilton Hotel, are seen lifting their champagne glasses at a reception offered to the visiting star, in Mexico City. In late 2012, the FBI has released a new version of files it kept on Monroe that reveal the names of some of her acquaintances who had drawn concern from government officials and members of her entourage over their suspected ties to communism. (AP Photo, File) 

FBI files on Marilyn Monroe that could not be located earlier this year have been found and re-issued, revealing the names of some of the movie star's communist-leaning acquaintances who drew concern from government officials and her own entourage.

But the files, which previously had been heavily redacted, do not contain any new information about Monroe's death 50 years ago. Letters and news clippings included in the file show the bureau was aware of theories the actress had been killed, but they do not show that any effort was undertaken to investigate the claims. Los Angeles authorities concluded Monroe's death was a probable suicide.

Recently obtained by The Associated Press through the Freedom of Information Act, the updated FBI files do show the extent the agency was monitoring Monroe for ties to communism in the years before her death in August 1962.

The records reveal that some in Monroe's inner circle were concerned about her association with Frederick Vanderbilt Field, who was disinherited from his wealthy family over his leftist views.
A trip to Mexico earlier that year to shop for furniture brought Monroe in contact with Field, who was living in the country with his wife in self-imposed exile. Informants reported to the FBI that a "mutual infatuation" had developed between Field and Monroe, which caused concern among some in her inner circle, including her therapist, the files state.

"This situation caused considerable dismay among Miss Monroe's entourage and also among the (American Communist Group in Mexico)," the file states. It includes references to an interior decorator who worked with Monroe's analyst reporting her connection to Field to the doctor.

More @ Yahoo




Professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has reminded us of a post he did back in 2008 whose message is perhaps more relevant now than ever before.

Given that the Republicans under Boehner can't seem to negotiate themselves and the country out of a wet paper bag, might not the best strategy be one that famous Soviet political prisoner of conscience Natan Sharansky employed when he had no power against his jailers, other than the ability to refuse to cooperate.

After all, the Democrats won't follow the law and pass a budget, will they?  They refuse to recognize the truth of the financial crisis, don't they?  Why should we cooperate at all in their calamitous rush to destroy the country?

From the article:

  "Conservatives face a choice. Yield to “progressive” policies which, once implemented will take a generation to undo, or stand on principles of free enterprise, individual liberty, and capitalism? Giving in is much easier, but in the long run more costly. We can learn a lot about the power of standing on principle from Anatoly Sharansky (see my earlier Post).
Sharansky spend almost a decade in Soviet prison because of his activities on behalf of Jews who wanted to emigrate to Israel. Sharansky was subjected to torture and other indignities, but never lost his spirit.Sharansky notoriously refused to obey even the most mundane orders from his captors. 
Sharansky understood that to compromise even a little would lead to compromising a lot. Throughout his ordeal, Sharansky kept his spirits alive by reading a small book of psalms.
As Sharansky was being led to the airplane that would take him from the Soviet Union to East Germany for the exchange, the Soviets confiscated his book of psalms.It would have been easy for Sharansky simply to keep walking towards the plane and freedom. But Sharansky understood that the Soviets confiscated his book of psalms not because they wanted the book, but because they wanted to show that even in this last moment, they were in control.
In front of reporters covering his departure, Sharansky sat in the snow refusing to move unless the Soviets gave him back his book of psalms. Here was this diminutive man, after 10 years in prison, on the verge of freedom, refusing to budge unless one of the world’s two superpowers gave him back his book. And give him back his book of psalms they did. Sharansky proceeded to the plane, where he read Psalm 30: “I will extol thee, O Lord; for thou hast lifted me up, and hast not made my foes to rejoice over me.”
Jay Nordlinger’s 2005 interview with Sharansky recounts not only the episode in the snow, but also the final moments when Sharansky walked to the car for the exchange:
Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag, a harrowing time in which he demonstrated what resistance is. More than 400 of those days were spent in punishment cells; more than 200 were spent on hunger strikes. His refusal to concede anything to the Soviet state was almost superhuman. This was true to the very last. When they relinquished him to the East Germans, they told him to walk straight to a waiting car — “Don’t make any turns.” Sharansky zig-zagged his way to that car.
Isn’t it time for conservatives and supporters of free enterprise, individual liberty, and capitalism in the Congress and elsewhere to do the political equivalent of sitting down in the snow? When told by the new administration, the majority party in Congress, and the mainstream media to walk straight, isn’t it time to zig and zag?"