Friday, May 15, 2015

PA honors 3 terrorists who brutally murdered two Israeli reservists (Ramallah)

Here are the gory details - for which some of the participants were recently honored by our US tax-supported PA "peace partners."

The most famous of the lynch mob, the one who stood at the window triumphantly displaying the life blood of the Israelis which had seeped into the flesh of his own hands, is Aziz Salha. Along with others present in the second floor of the Ramallah police station, Salha repeatedly stabbed and strangled one of the Israelis. He rammed his hands into the innards of their body cavities, which had been ripped open. Many others did the same.

The lifeless bodies of the Israelis were dumped out the window, where more than 1000 Arabs had gathered, cheering on the carnage. The  – literally – bloodthirsty crowd was then able to join in, thrashing the already dead Israelis, pulling out their entrails, gouging out their eyes. They decapitated one the corpses and used his head like a soccer ball. One of the bodies was set on fire. The remains of the bodies were then dragged into Ramallah’s Al-Manara, the city center.

Ann Corcoran on Refugee Resettlement

Via David


Self-righteous, historically ignorant editors

Via Bernhard

A recent editorial in the Dallas Morning News (reprinted in the Wilmington, North Carolina StarNews) attempts to “place Confederate statues in context” by revising history (link below). The “context,” of course, is how the editors see history now—a politically motivated agenda in evaluating past events–not as it was. Inexcusably, with indignation, they blame the Confederacy and the Southern people for today’s irreconcilable race relations.

The editors excuse an attempt by University of Texas college students in Austin to remove a “sculpture” of the former President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis. The revisers write, “Texans have long considered it appropriate and desirable to laud” these figures, but with a sneer they add that this partly served the “purpose of giving a defeated people a purchase for their past.”

The Confederate States didn’t need to buy their history; they earned every bloody day of it in their heroic stand against overwhelming force and destruction from Northern aggression during 1861 to 1865, and the vengeance that followed.

Lt. Cunningham on his 29 Palms questionaire and more (Oath Keeper's Ceremony & Dinner+ 09/12/09 D.C.)


The Bill Ayers Connection

Via Billy

All this information is known, but put together nicely here. 

Larry Grathwohl was an undercover FBI operative who had infiltrated the infamous “Weather Underground” founded by Obama friend and mentor, Bill Ayers. If you remember, the Weather underground was a radical communist group who was responsible for bombing the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capital building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. Bill Ayers has extensive ties to the Obama administration and it is rumored that he even wrote Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father. Obama’s political career, as we all know, was launched from the living room of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn in Chicago.

After his known involvement in the communist revolutionary group, Bill now enjoys a luxurious career as a professor earning a six figure salary at the University of Chicago, where he trains the next generation of anti American radicals on the finer points of wealth inequality. What Larry Grathwohl discovered as an undercover agent in the group was shocking and may explain much of what we are witnessing today. In an interview, Grathwohl claimed that Ayers and his group had plans to eliminate 25 million Americans who they would not be able to “re-educate.”

Furthermore, he claims that they also expressed a desire to split the country into several different regions and give it the Russians, Chinese, Cubans and the Vietnamese; all communist countries mind you.

Remembering the War Between the States and its aftermath

Via Bernhard "A very interesting blog commentary in response to a recent Star News article regarding the aftermath of the 'civil war.'  Bob Smith’s articles appear often on the John Locke Foundation and Abbeville Institute’s websites, in addition to his personal blog. He is a native of New York State."

  John W. Ellis (1820-1861)

  “I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country and to this war upon the liberties of a free people.  You can get no troops from North Carolina.” 



The commentary by University of North Carolina-Wilmington history Professor Chris E. Fonvielle Jr. titled, “Why the Civil War still matters” published in the Wilmington StarNews last March caught my attention both for his review of some interesting facts, and his omissions and conflicting ideas about that historic period (link below). Prof. Fonvielle explains some of the reasons North Carolina “held events to commemorate the great watershed event in American history” during the past sesquicentennial period. He begins by saying the War ended 150 years ago, “but in many ways it is still with us.”

He is right about that. The United States were forever torn apart by that needless and destructive period thrust upon the Southern people. As Christians they might forgive, but they can’t forget—nor should they—the utter devastation and poverty imposed on them by Lincoln’s war and the hordes of Northern opportunists who descended like locusts to swarm around their culture and devour their property.

First, Dr. Fonvielle gives credit to State agencies and historic locations where “living history encampments, battle re-enactments and presentations by historians attracted thousands of people.” He notes that the North Carolina Office of Archives and History created a website “documenting the war in the state.” Yet he ignores the many encampments, re-enactments, living histories and scholarly presentations given throughout the State by private North Carolina citizens, such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the United Daughters of the Confederacy, native State re-enactors and local historians.

It’s understandable that as a State employee Fonvielle would promote the government programs, but bureaucrats often infuse political agenda into history that tends to obscure a more complete account, and distort or omit uncomfortable truths. Worse, some government-sponsored accounts actually revise history by referring to events in modern context. This “presentism” approach flaws writings about the past, especially politically-charged events.

For example, I’m told, the North Carolina OAH never offered “technical, professional and financial” assistance to the private projects of an important private sesquicentennial commission organized in this State.

Prof. Fonvielle made no mention in his article of this marvelous source for understanding the War from North Carolinians who experienced it. Both the State website he mentions and his article conspicuously omit the most important information key to the conflict from a North Carolina viewpoint: “why North Carolinians chose independence; the men who fought the Northern invasion, and the privations and suffering brought upon the civilian citizens of this State.”

That website ( (Heads above the state site and I say this not as a Commission member, but as a Tarheel. BT) presented by the North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission has been running since 2011—promoted widely in brochures and personal presentations. The Commission also sponsored numerous lectures, tours, re-enactments and living history events explaining the war from the viewpoint of the North Carolinians who fought, sacrificed and died for their homeland. This site (and associated events) operates privately without taxpayers’ subsidy.

Fonvielle correctly notes that “Southerners take a greater interest in Civil War history in part because most of the battles were fought in the region, which led to a wilderness of devastation and destruction by war’s end”—but, we must add, not of their making. North Carolina was one of the last States to withdraw from the Union with the Northern States. It did so only after Lincoln’s demand for North Carolina troops to help subjugate South Carolina. Gov. John W. Ellis refused the call:

On 1 May [1861, Governor John W. Ellis] addressed the opening session of the General Assembly. Declaring that “the right now asserted by the constituted authorities of that government [in Washington], to use military force for the purpose of coercing a State to remain in the Union against its will, finds no warrant in the Constitution,”
Ellis proceeded to demonstrate that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution gave or intended to give such authority to the central government.

Fonvielle also writes: the “South underwent a painful and often violent transformation…to a fully integrated society”—again, imposed on the South by vengeful Northern politicians. But it’s not true that this brought a “fully integrated society.” During “Reconstruction” recently freed slaves with no understanding of government were placed in political offices in Southern States under martial law—while Northern Negroes held mostly servant positions—and “carpet bagging” Yankees came to exploit the Southern people. Those damages and insults forever poisoned the well of union between the Northern and Southern States and resulted in myths about this historically tragic period.

The North was a deeply segregated society; no free Negroes were welcome to compete for jobs; and “black codes” (Jim Crow) originated in Northern States. In Connecticut it was unlawful to educate black children; there were laws against Negro assemblies; codes prohibited black immigrants from slave states; typically, Indiana and Ohio prevented free blacks from entering the State or owning property.  An 1853 law in Illinois, Lincoln’s home State, barred Negroes from living in the State. It had the most severe anti-Negro measures passed in any “free-state,” and Lincoln never spoke out against it.

Charles Adams an American historian wrote: “Free blacks (in Northern States) were shunned with much more pertinacity than in the South where blacks mixed more freely with whites.” The Frenchman, De Tocqueville, who traveled extensively and studied American society observed in 1830: Southern people were “much more tolerant and compassionate” toward blacks than were Northerners.

Self-righteous critics of Southerners have no standing based on assigning current moral purity to their ancestors.  Nothing about the myth of a “fully integrated society” has validity. To this day, despite all the “civil rights” hype, we have a volatile segregated society; witness the urban riots by blacks that still plague us—much of it in Northern cities.

I also take issue with Fonvielle’s musing about an “indivisible nation.” We are more divided now than ever because of the Leviathan growth of the federal government since the WBTS and cultural revolutions in the 1960s that have destroyed American traditions. The size of the United States as now composed makes it ungovernable. In my opinion, the South remains the only region in America with a vestige of cultural continuity.

Fonvielle writes that the “most ringing phrase” in the Declaration of Independence is “All men are created equal.” In that same paragraph it was also self-evident to the patriot authors:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

Ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment: The Radical Republican Cocktail of Civil Rights, Vengeance, Corruption, and Partisan Tyranny

 Part 2 of a series

Mike Scruggs

By the end of the “Civil” War, the Radical Republicans in Congress were already concerned about the future of the Republican Party and advancing their own political and economic agendas.  The term “radical” was a title they claimed for themselves rather than a pejorative given to them by their enemies. Their enemies, however, were happy to call them radicals. They were not friends to Lincoln, who considered both the Radical Republicans and the radical abolitionists a threat to his leadership.  Yet he knew that their support was necessary to keep a majority of Congress on his side, which was absolutely necessary to win the war.

The Radical plan for postwar America was quite different from Lincoln’s plan. The Radicals wanted to exact vengeance on the South, exploit Southern resources, and most importantly, to use the former slaves to form a Radical Republican majority in Southern states. They believed this was the only way the Republican Party could maintain an electoral majority after the war. In the 1860 Election, Lincoln received only about 40 percent of the national vote. He only won because Northern and Southern Democrats had divided over several slavery issues. The Republicans were essentially a regional party without substantial support in the South. The Radical Republicans believed that the return of the Democratic South to the Union would end their short-lived electoral majority.  Lincoln, on the other hand, believed he could successfully resurrect the old Whig coalition of Northern industrial and Southern agri-business interests with a core of Union loyalists to support a Unionist Republican Party.

The Radical Republicans favored a severe Reconstruction that would enrich Northern interests at Southern expense, assure Republican electoral  majorities in Southern states,  continue protectionist tariff policies unopposed by Southern Free-Trade demands, and generally punish the South for her rebellion against Northern political dominance.  With the exception of  protective tariffs, which Lincoln strongly favored,  the Radicals feared Lincoln would throw away the North’s  hard-won victory to pursue a softer, more tolerant reconciliation of North and South, risking renewed Southern influence and the subsequent decline of  Northern political and economic advantages.

Following Lincoln’s assassination and Andrew Johnson’s swearing in as President, the Radicals believed Reconstruction would go more their way. Johnson had been a pro-Union Tennessee Congressman before the war and had been the Union Military Governor of Tennessee during the war. He was especially noted for his harsh words for any who supported secession. But Johnson was a former populist Democrat and a strong supporter of strict Constitutional government. He was pro-Union and anti-secession but not anti-Southern. Moreover, Johnson was incorruptible and thus became a major obstacle to the Radical Republicans.

The Radical Republicans soon realized that the Thirteenth Amendment, outlawing slavery, needed to be followed by additional Reconstruction legislation. The Thirteenth Amendment did not give former slaves the right to vote, and facilitating and protecting that right was key to Republican aspirations for electoral dominance of a new South and the nation. The Republicans further argued that the civil rights of former slaves needed more protection, accusing several Southern states of restricting the civil rights of former slaves through new “Black Laws.” However, these “Black Laws” were simply a close imitation of even harsher anti-black legislation passed by many Northern states.

Indiana law codes would not allow blacks and mulattos to come into the state.  Illinois, the land of Lincoln, and Oregon prohibited blacks from entering their states without posting huge bonds. In Illinois, it was $1,000, several years’ income for most people.  Numerous other Northern states including Kansas, Michigan, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Wisconsin had rejected black voting suffrage and with it other rights and privileges of full citizenship.  

 Thus the 14th Amendment, which was really a combination of several Reconstruction bills, was born in concept.  Passing the 14th Amendment became a high priority for the Radical Republicans. So high, that they would ruthlessly violate the Constitution and engage in blatantly dishonest and despotic legislative manipulation.  Several aspects of the 14th Amendment would essentially turn the Constitution on its head and open the door for widespread Judicial, Executive, and Congressional abuse and tyranny. The shameful coercion, dishonesty, and numerous legislative and constitutional irregularities involved in passing the 14th Amendment should place its legitimacy in extreme doubt.

The Amendment consists of five sections.  The first section defines who is a citizen and overturns the Dred Scott versus Sanford Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to blacks.  It also prevented states from abridging the rights of citizens or denying any person due process and equal protection of the laws.

 Because Section 1 defines anyone born in the U.S. as a citizen, it has had vast unforeseen consequences. .Each year, more than 300,000 children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant parents are automatically counted as citizens. This entitles both the child and mother to many welfare benefits covering pregnancy and birth. The writers of the 14th Amendment never intended it to benefit illegal immigrants.

Section 2 eliminated the three-fifths rule for slaves in apportioning legislative representation—ironically increasing Southern Electoral Votes. This section allowed for reducing representation as a penalty for its violation and left the door open to abridging the rights of those who had participated in “rebellion.”  Section 3 was the most objectionable to the South.  It denied public office to any person who had previously held Federal office or State legislative, judicial, or executive office and who had supported the Confederacy during the war. 

It was not only humiliating and debilitating to the South but was also designed to guarantee Republican political hegemony in the South by limiting significant opposition.  Section 4 repudiated all Confederate debt, and legitimized the obligation of all citizens to pay for U. S. debt incurred during and after the war. Section 5 gave Congress the power to enforce the other four sections by legislation.  This was thought by many to be an open door to increasing Federal power over the States, which turned out to be quite true.

Video: Marines Practice Subduing Citizens Inside Internment Camp

Via avordvet


Alarming video footage from a U.S. Marines training drill which took place in Arizona last month shows armed troops chasing down unruly citizens inside a mock internment camp while role players chant for food and water.

The exercise, which involved U.S. Marines from 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, took place on April 18 in Yuma, Arizona and revolved around “assault support tactics” training.

The drill was part of, “standardized tactical training and certification of unit instructor qualifications to support Marine Aviation Training and Readiness,” according to the description accompanying the video.

In plain English, the exercise was about subduing, arresting and incarcerating irate citizens during a martial law-style scenario.

More with video and pictures @ Info Wars

Twenty Million Gone: The Southern Diaspora, 1900—1970

Sometimes there are significant movements in history that go unnoticed because they take place slowly over a long period of time and are marked by no major event. The Southern Diaspora of the 20th century is such a movement. Twelve million white and eight million black people left the Southern States for the Northern and Western States in the first three-quarters of the century, a significant phenomenon by any measure. It has been called one of the greatest voluntary migrations in history.

My focus today is on the white diaspora. It was less obvious and has been less studied than the Southern black migration to the Northern big cities, although it was larger. Out-migration from the South diminished after 1970, and I will not have a lot to say about more recent decades, when the rapid fracturing of American identity has rendered all generalizations questionable. Southerners moved to every part of the U.S., but the white diaspora was concentrated in the industrial Midwest and the Pacific States, including Alaska. From the 1930s to the 1970s, Southern-born people in those areas were around 12 per cent of the population. In 1970 there were more than 100,000 Southerners working in the auto industry in the Great Lakes States.

Credit Mobilier’s Gentlemen Thieves

With Southern conservatives absent from the United States Congress after the war, Whig/Republicans had free rein for legislation and schemes to benefit the corporate interests which kept them in power. Thus the Northern marriage of government and corporations gave birth to public treasury-raiding schemes like the Credit Mobilier scandal, and all under the watchful eye of President U.S. Grant.
Bernhard Thuersam,

Credit Mobilier’s Gentlemen Thieves

“The looting of the Erie Railroad was accomplished with the help of the easily corruptible legislatures of only two States, New York and New Jersey. It was a fairly simple business. But to loot the immense federal project of the Union Pacific Railroad required far more sophisticated talents. This monumental piece of thievery involved United States representatives and senators. It involved cabinet officers, the Vice-President of the United States, and a future President. The loot ran to approximately forty-four million dollars. It was removed almost painlessly from the Union Pacific’s coffers by a trick outfit with a fancy French name, the Credit Mobilier.

The Union Pacific was sponsored and financed by the United States. The purpose of the Credit Mobilier was to take over the contract for building the road. Stockholders of both companies were identical. They proceeded to contract with themselves to build the road at a cost calculated to exhaust the resources of the Union Pacific. The so-called profits were to be divided among Credit Mobilier stockholders.

Prominent in Credit Mobilier were Oakes and Oliver Ames, brothers of Easton, Massachusetts, who had inherited a business . . . [and the] Hon. Oakes Ames was a representative of the old Bay State in Congress.

From the day it was whelped, the double-jointed money-making machine worked perfectly. As the tracks of the Union Pacific pushed across the Great Plains, the Credit Mobilier collected the enormous bounty granted to the line from the public purse and domain. Mile upon mile the railroad was systematically stripped of its cash, which reappeared almost simultaneously as dividends for the happy stockholders of Credit Mobilier. It was, as the Hon. Oakes Ames told his comrades in the House, “a diamond mine.”

Yet the gentlemen-thieves of Credit Mobilier had a falling out when two factions fought for control; and the warfare gave those senators and congressmen who were not involved the courage to demand an investigation of the Union Pacific-Credit Moblier situation.

In an effort to forestall just such a possibility, the Credit Mobilier officers had been distributing free stock in the House and Senate, and elsewhere. But Congress was at last forced to act, and the revelations of its investigating committee . . . were so appalling that “all decent men trembled for the honor of the nation.”

No one was more hopelessly involved in the scandal than Vice-President Schuyler Colfax . . . except of course, Representative Oakes Ames of Massachusetts . . . along with Representative Brooks, also of Massachusetts . . .

Although the Congressional investigation resulted in an almost complete official whitewash, it did leave strong doubt in many minds regarding the character of such eminent men as James A. Garfield, James G. Blaine, and almost a score more.”

(The Age of the Moguls, Stewart H. Holbrook, Doubleday & Company, 1953, pp. 49-50)

Alumni of South Carolina school named for slave say new logo racist

Via Billy

Filed under, you can't make this stuff up....................

Alumni of a school named for a slave who later became a South Carolina congressman say the school's logo is offensive.

The school is named after Robert Smalls, a slave who escaped and later captured a Confederate ship during the Civil War. He went on to serve five terms in Congress.

The logo shows a man with a two-toned face, ponytail and colonial-era garb with the words "Robert Smalls Generals."

"It is a slap in the face to anyone who has attended Robert Smalls, and it is an insult to all of us in the Beaufort community," said Charlotte Brown, who attended Robert Smalls School from elementary school in 1955 until high school graduation in 1967. "He has earned respect, not just locally, but nationally."

More @ AL

Today,15 May is New Market Day in Virginia

Via Carl "The Battle of New Market VA 15 May 1864 was entered by the VMI Cadets 257 strong . The youngest was 15 years old and the oldest cadet was 25 years. 10 fine young Southern young men died that day and 45 were wounded. VMI cadets across the US along with other Southerns commemorate this day with celebrations on this day. God Bless the South! Long Live Dixie!" 


Via Billy

HK and Dixie at the 2004 Hunley Funeral Parade

In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2). 

(Excellent) 6 Things I Learned From An American Terrorist



Eric Rudolph is a convicted murderer currently serving time for several bombings including the 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta. Living on the run in the woods of North Carolina for years before being finally caught by a rookie local cop, Rudolph is a prolific self educated author who continues to write essays from his maximum security prison cell in Florence, Colorado.

Just as policy makers can learn from past attackers and criminals, so too can we laymen take away key lessons from one of America’s most notorious home-grown terrorists.

Beyond security awareness and debates over how to fight terrorism, there are six life lessons worth mentioning from the memoirs of a fugitive turned prisoner.

1. Education can be free


 More @ Return of Kings

Photo Gallery: 14 Amazing Engraved Guns of Gun Digest 2015


Our annual review of the finest examples of beauty and artistry in the world of custom and engraved guns.

Joe Smithson


More @ Gun Digest