Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Scottish Secession and American Self-Government
Via Kearney
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Scotland voted “No” to independence. The media will have you believe this was a crushing victory. After all, only 45 percent of the Scottish people voted for secession. We should flip that on its head.
45 percent of the nearly 90 percent of eligible voters voted FOR self-determination. The “No” vote barely won, and the aftermath is going to be dramatic. Several European secession movements have used the publicity of the Scottish referendum to push their own cause. Among these are the Flemish in Belgium, Catalonia in Spain, the Veneto and Lombardy in Italy, Bavaria in Germany, and many more.
The time of the large “indivisible” unitary state is over. A new demand for self-government has emerged either in the form of political independence or for “quasi-independence” in the form of greater state or provincial autonomy. Quebec failed to secede in 1995 in a close vote of 51-49. As a consequence, they received sufficient autonomy that, for the moment, there is little interest in secession.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Scotland voted “No” to independence. The media will have you believe this was a crushing victory. After all, only 45 percent of the Scottish people voted for secession. We should flip that on its head.
45 percent of the nearly 90 percent of eligible voters voted FOR self-determination. The “No” vote barely won, and the aftermath is going to be dramatic. Several European secession movements have used the publicity of the Scottish referendum to push their own cause. Among these are the Flemish in Belgium, Catalonia in Spain, the Veneto and Lombardy in Italy, Bavaria in Germany, and many more.
The time of the large “indivisible” unitary state is over. A new demand for self-government has emerged either in the form of political independence or for “quasi-independence” in the form of greater state or provincial autonomy. Quebec failed to secede in 1995 in a close vote of 51-49. As a consequence, they received sufficient autonomy that, for the moment, there is little interest in secession.
More @ The Abbeville Institute
How I detest thee, let me count the ways.........
Via comment by Sioux on 9-year-old black child shot to death in hail of bu...
President Obama returned a formal military salute by saluting with a
coffee cup he had in his hand as he stepped off his U.S. Marine Corps
helicopter in New York on Sunday.
A video of the gesture that some are calling the “latte salute” was uploaded to the White House Instagram account.
“President Obama just landed in New York for #UNGA2014,” the caption reads.
A video of the gesture that some are calling the “latte salute” was uploaded to the White House Instagram account.
“
More with video @ The Washington Times
9-year-old black child shot to death in hail of bullets, MSM, black leaders mum
Brave boys........
The main, overarching tragedy in this story is that a 9-year-old boy is dead, gunned down by Chicago gang members who believed he was a lookout for a rival gang. The secondary tragedy is that the violent death of Antonio Smith, Jr., has been relegated to the back pages of the Chicago Tribune and other mainstream outlets that have carried the story of his murder.
The main reason for the silence of Al Sharpton and other race hucksters is that the four men charged with the boy’s murder — Jabari Williams, 22, Michael D. Baker, Paris Denard, and Derrick Allmon, all 19 — are black.
More @ Liberty Unyielding
Will GOP Use Its Silver Bullet to Win Senate?
Mike Scruggs
According to recent Washington Post/ABC, Rasmussen, and IBD/TIPP
polls, President Obama’s weakest policy vulnerability is immigration.
Americans have never favored illegal immigration, amnesty, or bringing
in so many immigrant workers that it hurt American wages and job
prospects. Immigration is an issue that is important to most grassroots
Republicans and other conservatives, but since 2000, GOP national
leadership has tended to suppress the importance of the issue. This has
worked out well for the Democrats. In fact, it is a major part of the
reason Barack Obama is President. Illegal immigration has been a major
problem since 1965, but it accelerated after the 1986 amnesty, and even
more in 2001 under the administration of Republican President George W.
Bush, who embraced amnesty and reduced immigration enforcement, hoping
to gain the favor of ethnic voters and expand the base of the GOP.
A
little homework on immigration issues and the socio-economic values and
political leanings of both legal and illegal recent immigrants would
have prevented what the American public now believes are two of our
biggest problems: illegal immigration and too much legal immigration.
But most politicians don’t like homework. They tend to concentrate more
on big campaign donations and favorable mainstream media press. So
Congress passes momentous legislative disasters without even reading
them, much less thinking a couple steps ahead about their consequences.
However, good government and sound immigration policy require honest
homework and principled dedication to the best interests of all
Americans.
The
damage being done to American wage earners, small businesses, and
taxpayers by deliberate failure to enforce our immigration laws had not
been common public knowledge until President Obama began to go far
beyond his Constitutional authority in his arrogant disregard for law
and order and Congress in shaping immigration policy to his own
political agenda to stack the electoral deck for permanent Democratic
Party control of the U.S. The last straw was perhaps his recent use of
Central American children in a sympathy play to accomplish his amnesty
agenda. The Obama-created Texas border crisis outraged most decent and
reasonable people. Finally, the people are paying attention, wising up,
and pushing back. In fact, even the left-leaning Washington Post and Politico believe it has opened the opportunity for Republicans to crush the Democrats in the 2014 general elections.
The Washington Post
poll, in close agreement with the others, shows that 42 percent of
registered voters strongly oppose President Obama’s immigration
policies. Another 18 percent somewhat oppose his policies. Only 13
percent strongly approve. The total opposed come to 60 percent versus 34
percent approval. The poll also shows that 85 percent of Republicans
strongly oppose the President’s immigration policies—an excellent
opportunity to get out the base vote. What scares the Democrats the most
is that 40 percent of independents fall in the strongly oppose
category. Even eighteen percent of Democrats strongly oppose
presidential immigration policies. Thirty-three percent of Hispanics
strongly oppose Obama’s immigration policies, and another 21 percent
somewhat oppose them, bringing the overall Hispanic leanings to 54
percent oppose and 40 percent approve. Only 20 percent of Hispanic
voters strongly approve the President’s immigration policies.
In
general, the polls show that swing voters are intensely hostile to
Obama’s immigration policies. Only 21 percent of independents, 32
percent of moderates, and 23 percent of whites approve his immigration
policies. He does have the support of 62 percent of democrats and 61
percent of blacks.
Blacks, however, are the group whose job prospects
and wages are most damaged by illegal immigration and excess legal
immigration. They are waking up, however. Before the Texas border
crisis, over 80 percent of blacks approved his immigration policies. The
extremely high level of strong opposition among swing voters is of
paramount importance, because strong opposition usually determines a
person’s vote.
It
should be noted here that only 23 percent of voters strongly approve
what they perceive as current GOP immigration policies. In fact, only 22
percent of Republican voters approve. This is the legacy of two
attempted amnesties and a sharp decline in immigration enforcement under
George W. Bush; continued amnesty efforts led by John McCain, Lindsey
Graham and a dozen GOP backers in the Senate; continuous flirtation with
compromise on the Obama amnesty agenda by Republican Speaker John
Boehner and his leadership team despite the opposition of at least 75
percent of GOP House members; and the pro-amnesty mindset of RNC
Chairman Reince Priebus. The predominant motivation for amnesty and soft
immigration policy is big money donated by large corporations and
business associations that benefit enormously from cheap foreign labor
at the expense of American workers, small businesses, and taxpayers.
The
weak immigration stance of Republican leadership in Congress and the
RNC is hurting the Republican image with voters, especially Republican
conservatives. Compare the 22 percent of Republicans who strongly
approve GOP immigration policy with the 85 percent who strongly oppose
Obama’s amnesty. The GOP is shooting itself in both feet by not firmly
opposing amnesty and excessive importation of cheap foreign labor. The
Senate amnesty and foreign worker surge bill, S.744, now hanging over
Congress would also more than double the annual number of legal foreign
workers and guest-workers admitted to the U.S.
This is when we have 20
million Americans who want a full time job and cannot find one. The
Senate amnesty and immigration expansion bill’s deceptive and arrogant
disregard for American workers promises far more harm to the nation than
Obamacare ever could. It is also a suicide pistol aimed at the head of
the GOP elephant and the heart of America. Amnesty and a new 20 to 30
million surge of immigrants and guest-workers will bring new
big-government leaning voters to the Democrats and more cheap labor
campaign donations to the Republicans. This tradeoff is suicide for the
Republican Party. Can the GOP survive this kind of leadership?
Republicans
could crush the Democrats by using Obama’s unlawful amnesty and the
evils of illegal immigration against them. But will they use this
Democrat-expelling “silver bullet,” as Breitbart News and Robert
Patterson have called it? Many guilty Democrats, who voted for S.744,
like Kay Hagan, of North Carolina, are trying to cover up their
legislative record. Recent Senate race polls, however, indicate
Republican hopes for a Senate majority are faltering, and their lack of
attention to the stinging facts about illegal immigration and the
consequences of amnesty run strongly against the public outrage over
unenforced immigration laws and dictatorial Executive amnesty. The
Republicans had better take a tough stance on illegal immigration and
amnesty, especially President Obama’s arrogant unconstitutional
usurpation of immigration law-making, or they may not be a viable party
in 2016.
NC: Patriots of '61 -- Capt. George Thomas Parker of Gates County
He was a brave soldier, a good husband and father, a true citizen, and a devout Christian gentleman. Freed from his rundown house of clay, he lives in a glorious body in the “house of many mansions.” He served his day and generation well and has gone to reap the reward – the crown of rejoicing and the presence of his God forever.
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial
“Unsurpassed Valor, Courage, and devotion to liberty” www.ncwbts150.com
“The Official Website of the North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission”
Captain George Thomas Parker of Gates County
George
Thomas Parker served with the Fifth North Carolina Regiment for the
duration of the war, originally enlisting with Company G at Camp Winslow
in Halifax County on 20 June 1861 and appointed First Sergeant. The
Fifth Regiment mustered into Confederate service on 15 July 1861 and
left for Virginia the same day. It arrived at Manassas Junction on 16 July
and was assigned to the Fourth Brigade of Brigadier-General James
Longstreet and marched to Mitchell’s Ford on Bull Run Creek where it saw
its baptism under fire at First Manassas. Promoted to regimental
Sergeant-Major, he returned to Company G as a second lieutenant, then
transferred to Company H on 15 January 1862; first lieutenant to rank
from 12 October 1862; and captain to rank from 15 June 1863.
From
northern Virginia the regiment was sent to the Williamsburg area to
resist enemy invasion in March and April 1862. Parker was wounded
during Gen. Joseph E. Johnston’s offensive at Seven Pines in May 1862
but returned to duty to participate at King’s School House, Cold Harbor,
Gaines Mill, Frayser’s Farm, Seven Days, South Mountain, Sharpsburg,
Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Mine Run and Spotsylvania,
where Parker was wounded in the right thigh in May or June 1864. He
was reported as “absent wounded” through December 1864, returned to
Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and paroled at Appomattox on 9 April
1865.
Brothers
David Wood and James Robert also served the Confederacy, as well as
Joseph John Parker who died of typhoid fever in October 1861. This
“camp fever” was ubiquitous and usually the result of exposure to the
elements and poor camp sanitation. Parker was paroled at Appomattox in
April 1865.
Capt.
Parker returned home after Appomattox “so ragged and dirty they put him
in the smokehouse to take a bath. He threw away all the clothes he had
on and left his pistol out there,” according to daughter Julia in a 1954
interview. Parker married Eunice Katherine Riddick on 2 December 1865
and their union produced six children, including Julia.
A
dedicated member of the United Confederate Veterans after the war,
Parker served as commander of the Tom Smith Camp of the UCV in Suffolk,
Virginia where he had made his home. After several years of illness and
then paralysis, he passed away at age 74 on 18 January 1911; wife
Eunice followed him in death on 10 February 1931.
Capt.
Parker’s obituary described a faithful Christian and member of his
congregation, a superior role model for his children and future
generations:
“A
consistent and faithful member of Main Street Methodist Church, he was
always found at his post of duty in the choir and the other activities
of his church, taking great interest in all things which pertained to
the moral and spiritual uplift of the community. He was a brave
soldier, a good husband and father, a true citizen, and a devout
Christian gentleman. Freed from his rundown house of clay, he lives in a
glorious body in the “house of many mansions.” He served his day and
generation well and has gone to reap the reward – the crown of rejoicing
and the presence of his God forever.”
Sources:
Confederate
Images, C.E. Avery, Confederate Veteran, Volume 6, 2000, pg. 9; North
Carolina Troops, 1861-1865, A Roster, Volume IV, Weymouth T. Jordan
Unearthed footage of the fall of Saigon shows desperate father throwing his wife and children onto U.S. ship - then jumping out as he ditched helicopter
Via WiscoDave
This isn't new at all, but worth a re-post. The pilot that landed his family on board in his Bird Dog is a good one also.
This isn't new at all, but worth a re-post. The pilot that landed his family on board in his Bird Dog is a good one also.
=================================
A heroic
Vietnamese helicopter pilot saved his family - and cheated death - by
hurling his wife children onto a fleeing U.S. warship during the Fall of
Saigon, then leaping into the sea as the aircraft plunged into the
waters behind him.
New
footage has emerged showing his daring escape as the U.S.military
withdrew from Vietnam in the face of advancing communist forces.
The
pilot was one of several Vietnamese helicopter pilots who piled in
during the United States' evacuation of all its personnel in Vietnam in
April 1970.
More @ Daily Mail
Scotland had the right to secede? Interesting
Via Mike
One
interesting angle on the recent vote in Scotland, which has been largely
ignored by the mainstream media, is the utter absence of analysis of
the issue involving secession.
Even those who were most adamantly urging a “no” vote did not deny Scotland the right to decide its own fate.
What
a contrast to strident Unionists in this country, who vehemently deny
that the South, or Vermont, or any of the many factions in this country
seeking independence, past or present, have the right to determine their
governmental fate.
England
didn’t threaten to send troops, or state that having in 1707 agreed to
the complete joining of the two countries, Scotland had lost its right
to autonomy.
No,
while they were certainly anxious about the election, there were no
military threats or cries of treason. What a contrast to the handling of
our Late Unpleasantness.
