Sunday, September 28, 2014

NC: Baby´s Coming Home Again

Via comment by Sioux on CBM: Over The Rainbow - Band of Oz

The U.S. Forest Service Wants to Fine You $1,000 for Taking Pictures in the Forest

Via Cousin John 


Nice photo. That'll be $1,000, please.

This week's most profoundly wrongheaded display of nonviolent press infringement comes from an unlikely source: The U.S. Forest Service. New rules being finalized in November state that across this country's gloriously beautiful, endlessly photogenic, 193 million acres of designated wilderness area administered by the USFS, members of the press who happen upon it will need permits to photograph or shoot video.

And yes, it does sound like one of the dumbest things you've ever read.
"It's pretty clearly unconstitutional," said Gregg Leslie, legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Alexandria, Va. "They would have to show an important need to justify these limits, and they just can't."
Wait! It gets better.

More @ Cosmopolitan

French President Hollande Says "ISIS Terror Caused by Global Warming"

Via Lone Voice Blog

The most interesting intersection ever – where the War on Terror meets Climate Change…

The hype surrounding ISIS/ISIL is being ramped-up in North America and Europe, with the chief driver of the fear being an alleged series of beheadings that no one can rightly verify as real. Real or fake, the beheading videos were used as a powerful public relations springboard to market ‘fresh airstrikes’ in Iraq and Syria to emotionally vulnerable western audiences.

There’s also intense media speculation about the amount of black market oil money ISIS terror gangs are making in Syria and Iraq, and huge hype around ‘Coalition efforts to cut off the terror dollars’. It’s a mess, but we’ll give you some key answers here.

As this year’s UNGA 2014 gets underway, the French leader is really stretching it in an attempt to bring the world together in group fear moment…

The Killing of Herve Gourdel

New York’s Notorious Slave Ships

In the post-Revolution era, African slavery was waning as cotton production was a laborious task and not worth cultivating on a large scale until Eli Whitney of Massachusetts revolutionized the industry in 1793. Thereafter, New England mills could not live without raw slave-produced cotton, Manhattan lenders ensured plantation owners that money was available for plantation expansion, and New England slavers continued to import the labor supply.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

New York’s Notorious Slave Ships

“In the decade 1850-1860 Great Britain maintained consulates in six Southern ports: Norfolk, -- changed to Richmond in 1856 – Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, New Orleans and Galveston.

[Consul G.P.R.] James [in Norfolk and Richmond] . . . considered that Virginians were very kind to their slaves and that slavery was an injury to masters rather than Negroes. One of the proprietors of the Richmond “slave warehouse” was, wrote his son Charles later, an “unmistakable Yankee,” said to be very humane to his charges, “but the business was regarded as infamous.  I heard a respectable man denounced for accepting his hospitality.”
At Niagara Falls, James saw a runaway Negro belonging to one of his Norfolk neighbors; he had found it difficult to make a living and was cold and he begged the consul to ask his owner to take him back.

[Consul] Henry G. Kuper of Baltimore gave assurance that the slave trade was being extensively carried on by many American citizens, especially in New York . . . with the connivance of Spanish authorities in Cuba where most of the cargoes were conveyed . . . Consul Edward W. Mark wrote from Baltimore that at any moment twenty vessels might be found under construction at that port, admirably adapted for the slave trade. Some were built expressly for the trade by “respectable houses,” which would not enter the trade themselves but merely executed the orders they received.
Mark believed, however, that in Baltimore little countenance was given to the trade. It was carried on rather “from New York and the eastern parts of the Union . . . and generally by New England and foreign firms.”

[In 1858 Consul] Molyneaux of Savannah told the story of a Charleston mercantile house . . . which proposed to send the ship Richard Cobden . . . on a [suspicious] voyage to Africa to bring “free emigrants” to a United States port. The collector of the port appealed to United States Secretary of the Treasury Howell Cobb who pronounced the proposal illegal. 

About the same time the Lydia Gibbs, a vessel of one-hundred and fourteen tons of Northern build, sailed from Charleston under one Watson, a Scotchman naturalized in the United States. He took it to Havana where it was sold to unknown persons for $12,000.  Watson was to receive $6,000 more if he escaped detection, and in addition a certain percentage of the slaves he should succeed in landing in Cuba. 

[In July 1858 Charleston Consul Robert Bunch] wrote that the brig Frances Ellen had cleared from Charleston for Africa, supposedly to engage in the slave trade; that the firm of Ponjand and Lalas, two Spaniards, which sent it out, was believed to be regularly engaged in this traffic [and] intended to land five or six cargoes in Texas . . . 

In December, 1859, the South Carolina legislature received from the New York assembly a set of resolutions passed by the latter body, condemning the slave trade and urging the Southern States not to connive at or encourage the odious traffic.  South Carolina returned the resolutions to the senders without comment and Bunch, though agreeing with the New York sentiments, dryly noted that the action was not “happily received,” “as it is notorious that, during the present year, at least ten slavers have been fitted out in New York for one in the entire South.” 

(The South in the 1850’s as Seen by British Consuls, Laura A. White, The Journal of Southern History, February 1935, excerpts, pp. 29, 31, 36-41)

Congressmen Rake In $608 an Hour

The U.S. House will be in session for only eight days during a 102-day span between August 1 and November 12, which means that based on their $174,000 annual salary, lawmakers will earn $608 an hour during those days in the nation's capital.

That figure was calculated by liberal activist Ralph Nader, assuming 10-hour workdays. He sent a letter to Speaker John Boehner on Monday, writing: "While millions of Americans are working more and more for less and less, you and your House of Representatives seem to have no problem working less and less for more and more."

The House took a five-week vacation from Washington on August 1 and returned on September 8.

After two four-day workweeks, members left Washington again on September 18 and are not due to return until November 12 for a lame-duck session following the midterm elections.

Their hourly wage for the eight days is several times the hourly compensation of anesthesiologists, one of the country's highest-paid professions at an average of $113 an hour, The Hill reported.

The Senate took the same break in August and also worked just two weeks in September before leaving to campaign for the elections.

Legislators and their aides argue that time spent in Washington constitutes only part of their job, and they also spend considerable time meeting with and serving constituents in their home districts and states, The Hill noted.

But Nader said in an interview: "You are paid by the taxpayer to work in Congress at least a 40-hour week. If you want to do anything back home after that, that's discretionary time. They don't pay you to campaign for your re-election."

Even when they are in Washington, lawmakers devote much time to non-legislative matters. After the 2012 elections, new members of Congress were reportedly advised to set aside four hours a day for fundraising phone calls during their 10-hour workday.

Nader's letter comes in the wake of a Gallup poll showing that in August just 13 percent of Americans approved of the way Congress is handling its job, while 83 percent disapproved — and 53 percent said they "strongly disapprove."

The last time Congress' approval rating was over 50 percent in a Gallup poll was in April 2003, at 58 percent, during President George W. Bush's first term.

The approval rating stood at 84 percent in October 2001, immediately following the 9/11 attacks.

“Copblock” Is a TERRORIST Site, And People Who Visit It Are Terrorists

Via avordvet


The ongoing disintegration of what was once a free country into an authoritarian fascist police state under the helm of El Presidente Barack Obama is now evolving. With Barry exercising the divine right of a king in launching yet another war in the Middle East - without the approval of Congress - the forces of government must be free to operate with total impunity in The Homeland. The war on terror which is now well into its second decade has served to restrict civil liberties, enable a criminal government, justify the expansion of a massive surveillance state and transform a good number of our law enforcement personnel into thugs.

Now I am going to be right up front with my standard disclaimer that not all cops are bad. The vast majority are good people tasked with doing a dangerous and thankless job. But there are increasingly more exceptions in the post 9/11 era. The federal government bears a large brunt of the responsibility for encouraging the locals to militarize through the 1033 Program as well the exertion of fed influence through the proliferation of fusion centers.

1968 Shelby GT500 Fastback 428 CI, 4-Speed

Shelby serial number 1854, this 1968 Shelby GT500 Fastback was produced on February 8, 1968 and rolled off the assembly line finished in delicious Candyapple Red and packing the Shelby-tuned 428 CI Police Interceptor engine mated to a 4-speed manual transmission. One of only 405 built with that powertrain combination, it also incorporated a 3.50:1 rear axle ratio, power front disc brakes and power steering, Interior D├ęcor Group with Sport Deck rear seat, tilt-away steering column, AM radio, extra cooling package and wheel lip moldings.

More @ MECUM

North Carolina’s Horrid Fragment of Feudal Despotism

Holden Impeachment

"Holden's impeachment is demanded by a sense of public virtue and due regard to the honor of the state. He is an exceedingly corrupt man and ought to be placed before the people as a public example of a tyrant condemned and punished."

Constitutional scholar and lawyer R. Carter Pittman (1898-1972) wrote that “Philosophy and sociology have always been the tamper tools that have sprung institutions of liberty out of alignment. Historical research and common sense born of experience, have always been the tools to spring them back into place. Doctors of pseudo-socio-science have always been the apes of tyranny.

”He viewed the “all men are created equal” phrases in State constitutions as being “forced upon the people . . . by carpetbag doctors of pseudo-socio-science, while Federal bayonets held the outraged white people at bay. As soon as those doctors were run out, nearly all the States returned to George Mason’s phrase: "That all men are born equally free and independent." 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

North Carolina’s Horrid Fragment of Feudal Despotism

“Inequality will exist as long as liberty exists.  It unavoidably results from that very liberty itself.” Alexander Hamilton, 26 June 1787

“American high school and college textbooks are loaded with equalitarian propaganda, all pointing to the Declaration of Independence equality clause as the “American dream” or the “American creed.”

No one questions the right of all men to equal justice under law, but propagandists have carried the doctrine beyond equality of rights to equality of things . . . 

The Declaration of Independence never became living law in America, and no provision of the Federal Constitution or Bill of Rights can be traced to it and . . . its influence on State constitutions and bills rights has been insignificant. 

It was written to serve the temporary purposes of a sanguinary conflict.  It was and perhaps will always be history’s most effective piece of propaganda, but it neither grants nor protects human rights.  The Declaration of Independence does not say that all men are equal.  It says they were “created” equal.  There equality ends.

The [United States] Constitution proclaims in its preamble that it was established “to . . . insure domestic tranquility . . . and secure the blessings of liberty.”  Nowhere does it hint a purpose to insure or impose equality of men or things. 

For decades after 1776 North Carolina’s Bill of Rights proclaimed “that all men are born equally free and independent.”  There must surely be some explanation as to why people who had lived under the maxims of George Mason since 1776 should suddenly change in 1868.

The Constitution of 1868 was framed in a convention called under the reconstruction acts of [the Northern] Congress, by Major General [Edward] Canby.  It assembled at Raleigh, January 14, 1868.  Federal soldiers stood guard over deliberations. The same equality clause was inserted in the bills or rights of many Southern States while the natural leaders of the white people were held at bay by Federal bayonets. See for examples, the Alabama Bill of Rights, the Louisiana Bill of Rights of 1868, South Carolina’s of 1868 and Florida’s of 1868. 

As is well-known by those the least familiar with American history, shortly after the Federal troops were withdrawn [in 1877], the white people of the South quickly expelled the carpetbaggers and subdued the scalawags and recaptured the State governments. Every one of those States, with one exception, promptly called a constitutional convention according to its own wishes in place of those imposed upon it by military might.

All struck the doctrine of human equality from their constitutions, except North Carolina. Why North Carolina should have retained that doctrine in her Bill of Rights is a mystery.  There it stands on parchments as a horrid fragment of feudal despotism imposed on a proud and helpless people by superior force.”

(Equality Versus Liberty, the Eternal Conflict, R. Carter Pittman, August, 1960;

Why did the Nazis attack the Soviet Union?


As with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, once more, what seems foolhardy to Americans in the 21st century may not have seemed so to Nazi Germany.

True, the Germans each month were receiving generously priced Soviet products, many on credit; but Hitler (wrongly) felt that he could nevertheless steal food, fuel and raw materials from the east more cheaply than buying them. And while the Germans were paranoid about opening a two-front war – like the one that had plagued them between late 1914 and 1917 – Hitler argued that the western front was all but somnolent. British strategic bombing in 1941, remember, was still mostly erratic and ineffective.

In any case, Hitler was more paranoid about a British embargo and blockade that might cut off fuel and food in the manner of 1918; with the acquisition of the great natural reserves of the Soviet Union, especially its Caucasian oil, the Nazis believed they would become immune from the effects of a maritime blockade.

More @ WND

CBM: Over The Rainbow - Band of Oz

Band of Oz has been making Beach Music special since the mid '60. Here I have shared two versions of Over the Rainbow to show how they have evolved yet remained constant for the past 45+ years.