Democrats fret over timing of Clintons’ charity fete

Via Billy

 Their daughter?  Ugliness personified.

They fear the glitzy confab will provide fresh ammunition to Republicans, a week before the first debate between Clinton and Trump. Hundreds of corporate executives, foreign dignitaries and celebrities will pile into a Manhattan ballroom to hobnob with Bill and Chelsea Clinton next month at their charity’s keynote annual event — just days before Hillary Clinton defends herself against pay-to-play accusations from Donald Trump in their first debate.

The 12th and final annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative will showcase its philanthropic work and also the Democratic nominee’s greatest potential vulnerability — her ties to a sprawling global charity that has accepted donations from Middle Eastern governments, foreign businessmen with checkered histories and major corporations with business before the government.


Some Democratic operatives say they’re dismayed by the timing of the three-day conference Sept. 19-21 — a week before the first national debate and seven weeks before Election Day. They say it’s inevitable that having two members of the former and perhaps future first family rubbing shoulders with the well-heeled and well-connected will provide fresh ammunition to the Republican campaign, even as Hillary Clinton is off honing rebuttals to charges that donors got special consideration from the government.

More @ POLITICO

Trump to black voters: 'What the hell do you have to lose?'

Via Billy

Leaked Memo Proves Soros Ruled Ukraine In 2014: Minutes From "Breakfast With US Ambassador Pyatt"

Via Terry

We noted in a previous post how important Ukraine was to George Soros, with documents from DC Leaks that show Soros, and his Open Society NGO, scouring the Greek media and political landscape to push the benefits of his Ukraine coup upon a Russian leaning Greek society.

Now more documents, in the massive 2,500 leaked tranche, show the immense power and control Soros had over Ukraine immediately following the illegal Maidan government overthrow.

Soros and his NGO executives held detailed and extensive meetings with just about every actor involved in the Maidan coup: from US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, to Ukraine’s Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Justice, Health, and Education.

The only person missing was Victoria Nuland, though we are sure those meeting minutes are waiting to see the light of day.

More @ Zero Hedge

Wa Po: Jerry Falwell Jr.: Trump is the Churchillian leader we need

Via Billy

In the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, American voters were forced to choose between a liberal Democrat and weak establishment Republicans. Democrats won both times. In the 2010 and 2014 midterms, tired of the leftist agenda, voters sent an unmistakable message to Washington: 

Republicans took control of the Senate and filled more seats in the House than at any time since 1929. Still, nothing changed. 

In 2016, we have a clear choice.

This moment is historic because Donald Trump is not another establishment Republican.

More with video @ The Washington Post

TRUMP Takes Lead from Hillary Clinton in Latest LA Times-Daybreak Poll

Via Billy

 13.6 percent of black voters now support Donald Trump.

Duress and Trophies of the Victor

 

The United States Constitution provides that States cannot be forced, invaded, or their republican form of government changed; and the Constitution itself cannot be amended unless three-fourths of the States freely ratify the change or changes. The three postwar amendments which tremendously increased federal authority were forced upon subjugated States – ironically by the same federal agent they had granted strictly limited power to in 1787.
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com   The Great American Political Divide

Duress and Trophies of the Victor

“Time had indeed shown – a mere decade of it, from 1858 to 1868 – a Civil War and an attempted overturn of the American form of government. The South had been charged, she would “rule or ruin”; but it is shown the North, “taking over the government,” as [South Carolina Senator Hammond] stated, did “rule and ruin” nigh half a great nation.

As the truths of 1861-65 emerge, we see but a barren Pyrrhic victory won on false pretenses, and memorialized on labored perversions and obscurities, a Lincoln of fabulous creation and facultative dimensions, a false god of idolatrous devotees, and “Olympian” that never was!

In his last address Washington had cautioned against “any spirit of innovation upon the principles of the Constitution, however specious the pretexts . . . Facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and, in any event, should a modification of the Constitutional powers be necessary, it is to be made in the way the Constitution designates . . . but no change by usurpation.”

What but “usurpation” of the rights of three fourths of the States by making such changes were those three postwar amendments? Eleven States had no say whatever, except the raw pretenses of seizure of power, about their own ratifications; and these States were those most intimately and immediately affected. It would seem as if efforts to abolish republican forms of government or to destroy equality (e.g., in the Senate) should not be subject to deliberation.

Three unconstitutional amendments, incorporating the final results of the so-called “Rebellion,” are in summary the treaty between the belligerents – a duress. In them are the trophies of the victors, but no mention of the cause, the real cause, of the conflict – States’ rights. One observer commented that “. . . of the war waged ostensibly to maintain the integrity of the Union, and in denial of the dogma of State sovereignty, the future historian will not fail to note that the three amendments are silent on this subject . . .

What was to be the government and who were to comprise the constituency – hence the sovereignty – in 1866, of eleven American States? Was it proposed to take these endowments away and to install the tyrant’s whim and rule? No wonder chaos reigned in all departments of the federal government in 1865! Nothing was said then about the right of secession; if that right existed, it exists now, so far as any declaration in the organic law is concerned. It has not been renounced, and the supremacy of the “nation” has not been affirmed in the Constitution. Truth crushed to earth will rise again . . .

Determination of such a constitutional question as the permanence of the Union can never be decided by four justices [Texas vs White, 1869] of the Supreme Court, leaving unheard about forty million citizens. By the Constitution, seven men could not abolish the States of the Union, but three-fourths of those States could abolish that court and all its judges. And, along with it, all the Lincolns that ever sat in the White House and all the Sumner’s and Stevens that ever sat in the House or Senate.”

(The Constitutions of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, A Historical and Biographical Study in Contrasts, Russell Hoover Quynn, Exposition Press, 1959, pp. 45-49)

Keeping the Loyal States in Harness

 

In mid-1864 General Ulysses S. Grant was greatly concerned about massive draft resistance and the need to send troops northward despite outnumbering General Robert E. Lee at least four to one in Virginia. President Davis in April 1864 sent three commissioners and agents to Canada for the purpose of opening a northern front on the border after freeing Southern prisoners – in hopes of a negotiated peace and independence for the South. It is reported that Lincoln feared losing reelection to a Democrat, and spending the rest of his life in prison for repeated violations of the United States Constitution.
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com   The Great American Political Divide

Keeping the Loyal States in Harness

“The slow and bloody progress through Virginia to the James [River], the failure of the first assaults on Lee’s lines around Petersburg, the appearance of [General Jubal] Early before the gates of [Washington, DC], produced a greater sense of disillusionment and of disappointment than had followed Burnside’s [1862] repulse at Fredericksburg or Hooker’s [1863] failure at Chancellorsville. The New York World, which had been exceptionally friendly to the commander in chief, asked on July 11:

“Who shall revive the withered hopes that bloomed on the opening of Grant’s campaign?”

And nine days before Congress had invited the President to appoint a day for national prayer and humiliation. Horace Greeley attempted to open negotiations for peace by meeting Confederate commissioners at Niagara [Falls], and in the middle of July two other semi-official seekers of peace, James F. Jacques and J.R. Gilmore, had gone to Richmond, only to be told by the Southern President:

“If your papers tell the truth, it is your capital that is in danger, not ours . . . in a military view I should certainly say our position is better than yours.”

Greeley, despite the failure of his journey to Niagara, resumed his efforts to end the war, and on August 9, wrote to the President:

“Nine-tenths of the Whole American people, North and South, are anxious for peace – peace on almost any terms – and utterly sick of human slaughter and devastation. I beg you, implore you, to inaugurate or invite proposals for peace forthwith. And, in case peace cannot now be made, consent to an armistice of one year, each party to retain unmolested all it now holds, but the rebel ports to be opened.”

Not only was there this pressure from outside; there was discord within. [Secretary Salmon P.] Chase had resigned, a presidential election was drawing near, and there were outspoken predictions of a Republican defeat. The North was feeling as it had never felt before the strain of prolonged conflict . . . the rumblings of opposition to the draft, which had just become law, were growing daily louder [and] surely Lincoln would have been justified in [opening negotiations] in August, 1864. But what happened?

Early in August the grumblings against the draft had alarmed [General Henry] Halleck, and on the eleventh of that month he told Grant: “Pretty strong evidence is accumulating . . . to make forcible resistance to the draft in New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and perhaps some of the other States. The draft must be enforced for otherwise the army cannot be kept up. But to enforce it, it may require the withdrawal of a considerable number of troops from the field . . . ”

Four days later, on the evening of August 15, Grant answered . . . ”If there is any danger of an uprising in the North to resist the draft . . . our loyal governors ought to organize the militia at once to resist it. If we are to draw troops from the field to keep the loyal States in harness, it will prove difficult to suppress the rebellion in the disloyal States. My withdrawal from the James River would mean the defeat of Sherman.”

(A Southern View of the Invasion of the Southern States and War of 1861-65, Capt. S. A. Ashe, Raleigh, NC, 1935 pp. 66-67)

Protecting His Home and Country

Wilmington, N.C.

Aug. 12th, 1862

“A man and every man ought to render to his country volunteer service in times when civil war is showering down its drowning torrents of rain from the cloud of desolation. No death is more honorable than one on a battle-field, especially when waving the sword or charging the steel bayonette into the steady and advancing columns of an inveterate enemy. We who survive this war will not only feel proud but will be the remains of a jaded army at which our parents and relatives will feel proud. It makes me feel almost ecstatic when I think of being on a bloody battle-field and know that I have at home a brother and sister who can say that they have a brother among a band of others trying to protect his home and country.”

(Letter, to Dear Sister from Brother, Joseph Kinsey Papers, East Carolina University Manuscript Collection)

Suppressing the Consent of the Governed

 

As described below, Americans in general seem unaware of the enormity of the Southern experience 1861-1865 and the aftermath of devastating defeat and subjugation. The author’s analogy brings needed perspective to an unnecessary war and death of a million Americans, counting military and civilian casualties.
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com   The Great American Political Divide

Suppressing the Consent of the Governed

“Imagine America invaded by a foreign power, one that has quadruple the population and industrial base. Imagine that this enemy has free access to the world’s goods as well as an inexhaustible supply of cannon fodder from the proletariat of other countries, while America itself is tightly blockaded from the outside world.

New York and Cincinnati have been taken. For months, Boston and Chicago have been under constant siege, the civilian population driven from their homes. Enemy forces roam over large parts of the country burning the homes, tools and food of the noncombatants in a campaign of deliberate terrorism.

Nearly eighty-five percent of the nation’s able-bodied men (up to 50 years of age) have been called to arms. Battlefield casualties have run to 39 percent and deaths amount to half of that, far exceeding those from any other war.

On the other hand, the enemy, though its acts and domestic propaganda indicate otherwise, is telling the American population that it only wants peace and the restoration of the status quo antebellum. Lay down your arms and all will be as before. What would be our state of morale in such conditions? Americans have never suffered such misfortune, have they?

Alas, they have. This was the experience of the Southern people from 1861-1865 in their lost War for Independence.

How hard the Southerners struggled for independence from the American Empire has been, and continues to be, suppressed by a nationalist culture that can only wonder: How could any group possibly have dissented from the greatest government on earth? But a very large number of Americans did no consent that government (the regime, after all, was supposed to be founded on the consent of the governed).

They were willing to put their dissent on the line in a greater sacrifice than any large group of Americans has ever been called on to make. Until finally, as a disappointed Union officer quoted by [author Gary] Gallagher remarked: “The rebellion [was] worn out rather than suppressed.”

(An Honorable Defeat, Clyde Wilson, Chronicles, October 1998, pg. 28)

An 1870 Clipping from The Daily Phoenix newspaper 31 Mar about General Robert E. Lee

Via Billy

Ole Miss bans 'Dixie' at home football games, plans 'more inclusive' pregame show

Via Billy

The University of Mississippi took another step Friday toward distancing itself from the past by dropping the long-held tradition of playing "Dixie" at home football games beginning this fall.

In a brief statement from the athletic department, Ole Miss said the tune that is near and dear to the hearts of many will be replaced by something "more inclusive for all fans" as part of the debut of an expanded Vaught-Hemingway Stadium.

"The newly expanded and renovated Vaught-Hemingway Stadium will further highlight our best traditions and create new ones that give the Ole Miss Rebels the best home field advantage in college football," the statement reads. "Because the Pride of the South is such a large part of our overall experience and tradition, the Athletics Department asked them to create a new and modern pregame show that does not include Dixie and is more inclusive for all fans."

More @ NOLA

GOA: The Lie Behind Gun Free Zones: New 2 1/2 minute video

Via Billy

Once Again… TWITTER Caught Censoring, Deleting Donald Trump’s Tweets from Timeline

Via Billy

In July Twitter was caught censoring Donald Trump tweets.

The social media giant caught concealing Donald Trump’s tweet asking for donations.

More @ The Gateway Pundit

CHAOS IN MINNEAPOLIS: Protesters Rush Trump Motorcade, Assault Supporters

Via Billy

More @ The Vessel

'Refugees NOT welcome' as 66% of Germans turn on Merkel over migrants

Via Billy

 

GERMANY’S patience with migration is wearing thin in the wake of migrant sexual assaults and terror attacks, a devastating new poll has revealed.

 

In a nightmare scenario for German chancellor Angela Merkel, her oft-repeated phrase “we can do it”, in relation to absorbing hundreds of thousands of migrants, has been widely derided.

A YouGov tracker poll revealed how two out of three Germans don’t agree with the phrase, which now haunts Mrs Merkel, as the country creaks under the pressure of waves of newcomers.

More @ Express

Semi-Literate Mayor Of Bankrupt Petersburg, Virginia Denounces Critics As Racists

Via Billy

The Democratic mayor of Petersburg, Va., has denounced all critics of his leadership as racist Republicans in a bizarre email replete with many grammatical errors.

Petersburg, a city of just 32,000 people, is battling severe budgetary issues. It has an expected budget deficit of $12 million and over $19 million in unpaid bills. The city is even in danger of losing its garbage pick-up service because of missed payments to the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority.

But Mayor W. Howard Myers says the many people critical of his administration are simply racists out to take him. And he makes his claim in a leaked email that are suggests he is barely literate in the English language.

The letter, initially distributed only to members of the city council, is produced below:

More @ The Daily Caller

Donald Trump hits Clinton on immigration in first TV commercial

Via Billy

America’s conversion from republic to socialist democracy

Via Billy

Daily LaGrange News

A recent comment in the Albany Herald newspaper (Albany, Georgia) Squawkbox stated that America was a republic and not a democracy.

The squawker was emphatic that we should call it a republic. I regret that this is incorrect. America is a socialist democracy and rapidly moving towards totalitarian socialism.

America was founded as a constitutional federal republic composed of a limited federal government and sovereign states. The American republic died on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox, Virginia.

It is said that a lady asked Benjamin Franklin, “What kind of government have you given us?” to which he is said to have replied, “a Republic, if you can keep it.”

What led to the loss of the American republic? The socialist revolution in Europe led by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels failed in 1848.

They saw America as an opportunity to keep their socialist dream alive. In 1849 and 1850 they sent approximately 2000 primarily German socialists to America to New York City.

They joined with American socialists to form the Republican Party in 1854 which until 1877 was similar to the modern socialist Democratic Party. Prior to 1861, American socialist Horace Greeley allowed 487 of Karl Marx’s articles to be published in the New York Tribune newspaper including “The Communist Manifesto.”

By 1861 the socialist Republican Party had figured out how to start a war and  blame the South because Southern statesmen adhered to and sought to preserve and maintain the constitutional federal republic established by America’s founding fathers, who were primarily Southern gentlemen from Virginia.

Also, the Northern industrialists wanted the South’s resources, land, timber, coal and cotton for pennies on the dollar, which they got during reconstruction from 1865 to 1877 which was the plunder, pillage and rape of the Southern states.

They set up the Fort Sumter incident to provoke the South into firing the first shot so that war could be blamed on the South. The correspondence between socialist Abraham Lincoln and Naval Cmdr. Gustavus Fox has survived and says “the result, which we anticipated, has been accomplished”.

The North invaded the South and conducted a barbarian total war consisting of murder, torture, rape, arson, theft, plunder and pillaging. The South fought valiantly and heroically against the vastly greater overwhelming resources and numbers of the North to preserve the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the republic, but after a four-year struggle was forced to yield.

The socialists had prevailed and the conversion of the American government from republic to socialist democracy was set in motion and achieved in a few years. The 14th Amendment was fraudulently ratified and it eviscerated the ninth and 10th states rights amendments in the Bill of Rights and converted the constitutional federal republic to a centralized national government — a socialist democracy.

In 1892 when Socialist Francis Bellamy wrote the “pledge of allegiance to the U.S. flag” he included “to the republic for which it stands” but this was socialist deception. Over the past 150 years socialism and corruption have continued to expand and now the remaining remnants of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are being shredded.

Both democrats and republicans and Americans that elected them are at fault. Both Bush Sr. and Jr., both Clintons and Obama are New World Order One World Government advocates.

In many ways the two parties are just two wings of the same bird of prey, although the Republicans don’t try to take our guns like the Democrats — at least not yet. But progressive and critical thinker are alternate deceptive names for socialist and communist.

Donald Trump is an anomaly, and I consider him the only hope for America.

James King
SCV Camp 141 commander
Sons of Confederate Veterans
Albany, Georgia