Thursday, February 9, 2017

"If it weren't for double-standards, liberals wouldn't have any."

There is so much wrong with this editorial  Journalism in the age of Trump I don’t know where to begin, so I will begin at the beginning.

Journalists, or as I refer to them now, whore-nalists, have long-ago learned that they can affect public opinion by selective omissions, fabrications, and what they decided to cover / not cover / emphasize.

For example, consider the Tet Offensive. By any objective measurement, Tet was a catastrophic loss for the North Vietnamese. (The Viet Cong were virtually eliminated as Hanoi sent them first as they thought the South Vietnamese people would flock to them and it turned out to be quite the opposite. BT)They lost troops and equipment in huge quantities. But it was Walter Cronkite’s outright distortion of the results that affected public perception, and ended up with America losing a very winnable war. But Cronkite was a globalist, an advocate of a One World Government, and used his position to advance his political views.

Today, the vast majority of whore-nalists live in concentrated areas; New York, Los Angeles, etc. They graduate from the same schools, attend the same parties and have overlapping social circles, and because they live in these echo chambers, they believe “everyone” thinks and believes the same way. On that, most whore-nalists believe they have Divine Right to alter public perception to “save the world”. Thus, they have emotional justification to spin and even fabricate.

Trump is not “silencing” the media; he’s calling them to account. He’s identifying how wrong they were, how wrong they are, and why. As law professor Glenn Reynolds often notes, if you think of the press as propagandists for the Left with by-lines, you’re not far wrong.

CNN? The same CNN that tweeted out that Nancy Sinatra objected to Trump’s using her father’s song... only to have her tweet out that she never said that. Just one example.

During the gulf war, as reporters were actively deriding finds of WMDs even as we were finding them, the media moved from fact-checking and informers to activists. And personally, I’d have liked to have seen some of the skeptics exposed to the nerve agents we did find; watching and televising media personnel twitching and dying even as their colleagues were denying the chemicals causing their deaths would have been most amusing...

The media swallowed, whole, "if you like your health-care plan, you can keep it". They accepted at face value the claim that Benghazi was caused by a video. Dan Rather, that bastion of the news, attempted a last-minute GOTCHA on George W. Bush based on a fake. It was NBC that rigged gas tanks to explode.

Whore-nalists lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie... and then you wonder why people don't trust you, and politicians attack you.



Power, Plunder and Extended Rule,204,203,200_.jpg

Lincoln’s continued military defeats caused Radical Republicans to oppose his reelection, until Gen. George B. McClellan became the Democratic presidential nominee in 1864. As Charles Sumner put it privately, “Lincoln’s reelection would be a disaster, but McClellan’s damnation.” After winning their war against the South, Republicans extended their rule over the new empire beyond the turn of the century, except for the two terms of Democrat Grover Cleveland. For further reading on Lincoln’s opponents within his party see: Ward Hill Lamon’s “Recollections of Abraham Lincoln, 1847-1865,” published in 1895.
Bernhard Thuersam,   The Great American Political Divide

Power, Plunder and Extended Rule

“Surgeon [Francis Marion] Robertson equates the Union logic of war with that which was being espoused by a set of Union opponents of President Abraham Lincoln’s conduct of the war.

Following the long series of Federal military disasters leading up to and including their defeats in the battles of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville in 1863, there arose a movement within the Army and Federal Congress that reached a fever pitch in its call to displace President Lincoln, in effect, by the appointment of a dictator to direct the war effort.

Members of Congress called for appointing a vigilant “committee on the conduct of the war” to watch and supervise Lincoln’s movements and decisions. Supporters of this cabal included (a), political activists who sought increased military victories and preservation of their personal and party power, (b), commercial zealots who desired spoliation and plunder of the South, and (c), religious abolitionists whose sympathy for the slave had degenerated into envenomed hostility toward his owner.

These aggressive enemies of Lincoln in the North and within his own party summed up the logic of war in the comprehensive formula, “Power, plunder and extended rule.”

This phrase summarized the vindictive motivation that the seceding Southerners both expected and feared from the Union, if they should lose the war. The collection of attitudes has later been described by historians as the Radical Republican philosophies.

So Lincoln, faced with fire in both his front and rear, finally concluded that he must assert himself. Lincoln exclaimed, “This state of things shall continue no longer. I will show them at the other end of the Avenue whether I am President or not!” From soon after this moment, “his opponents and would-be masters were now, for the most part, silenced; but they hated him all the more cordially.”

In the end, after the Southern surrender and Lincoln’s assassination, the worst apprehensions of white Southerners about “power, plunder and extended rule” at the hands of the Republican North and the carpetbaggers would largely come true.”

(Resisting Sherman, A Confederate Surgeon’s Journal and the Civil War in the Carolinas, 1865, Thomas Heard Robertson, Jr., editor, Savas-Beatie, 2015, pg. 64)

“What Should the South Do?”

The following December 1859 editorial of the Wilmington (North Carolina) Daily Herald asks its readers “What Shall the South Do” after the Harper’s Ferry attack by John Brown, later found to be armed and financed by wealthy abolitionists.  The open warfare between North and South in Kansas had moved eastward, and the South questioned why their Northern brethren were unable to contain the murderous zealots of their section. The Daily Herald was edited and published by Alfred Moore Waddell, descendant of US Supreme Court Justice Alfred Moore and Revolutionary General Hugh Waddell. A staunch Unionist editor, Waddell followed his State into the Confederacy and served as Lieutenant-Colonel of the Third North Carolina Cavalry.
Bernhard Thuersam,   The Great American Political Divide

“What Should the South Do?”

“The chief actor in the affair at Harper’s Ferry has expiated his crime upon the gallows. Old Brown has been hanged. What will be the result of this enforcement of the law? Will the effect be salutary upon the minds of the Northern people? Have we any reason to suppose that it will cause them, for one moment only, to pause and reflect upon the course they have persistently followed towards the South and her institutions?

It is useless to disguise the fact, that the entire North and Northwest are hopelessly abolitionized. We want no better evidence than that presented to us by their course in this Harper’s affair. With the exception of a few papers (among them we are proud to notice that sterling Whig journal, the New York Express), that have had the manliness to denounce the act as it deserved, the great majority have either sympathized with the offenders, or maintained an ominous silence.

Let us look calmly at the case: A sovereign State [Virginia], in the peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, has been invaded by an armed force, not foreign mercenaries, but citizens of the same Confederacy, and her people shot down in the public highways. The question is a natural one — Why is this thing done? Why is murder and rapine committed? — And who are the perpetrators? — The answer is found in the fact, that the State whose territory has thus been invaded, is a Southern State in which the institution of slavery exists according to the law and the gospel; and the actors in the terrible drama were but carrying out the precepts and teachings of our Northern brethren.

The “irrepressible conflict” between the North and the South then, has already commenced; to this complexion it must come at last. It is useless to talk of the conservatism of the North. Where has there been any evidence of it? Meetings upon meetings have been held for the purpose of expressing sympathy for murderers and traitors; but none, no, not one solitary expression of horror, or disapprobation even, for the crime committed, have we yet seen from any State North of Mason & Dixon’s line.

And yet they claim to be our brethren, speak the same language, worship the same God. We yield to none in our veneration for the Union, but it is not the Union, now, as our Fathers bequeathed it to us. Then, the pulse that throbbed upon the snow-capped mountains of New Hampshire, vibrated along the Gulf and the marshes of the Mississippi; then, there was unison of feeling, brotherly kindness and affection, and the North and the South, in friendly rivalry, strove together how they could best promote the general welfare.

Now, all is changed. Do you ask why? Watch the proceedings of Congress, read the publications that are scattered by the North broadcast over the country, listen to the sentiments expressed at nearly all their public gatherings. The stereotyped cry, that these things are the work of fanatics only, will no longer answer; but if it be so, then fanaticism rules the entire North; for what has been the result of the elections held during the past summer?

Ask Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, — ask Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, and even the great State of New York; — all, all, have given in their adhesion to the “higher law” principle, and the mandate for “irrepressible conflict.” Do these things indicate affection, brotherly kindness, Union? There can be no union without affection, — there can be no Union unless this aggressive policy of the North is stopped.

We confess that we look forward with gloomy apprehension towards the future. If Congress fails to apply the remedy, then it behooves the South to act together as one man — ship our produce direct to Europe, — import our own goods, — let the hum of the spinning-wheel be heard in our homes, as in the days of the Revolution, — manufacture our own articles of necessity or luxury, and be dependent upon the North for — nothing.

If such a course does not produce a different state of affairs, then set us down as no prophet; if such a course does not cause the Conservatives of the North to give some tangible evidence of their existence, then we must of necessity conclude, that that principle has no lodgment in their midst.”

(“What Shall the South Do?”- editorial, Wilmington Daily Herald, 5 December 1859)

Congressman Introduces Bill Abolishing the Department of Education

Via Billy

Republican Introduces Bill to ABOLISH Major Federal Department, Libs Will Go Berserk

Last week I wrote about a freshman member of Congress drafting a bill to abolish the EPA. Now another Representative is proposing to do the same with the Department of Education. Neither are likely to make it to the President’s desk any time soon but only because there is still a shortage of political will to do what is right.

Representative Thomas Massey (R-KY) introduced the one sentence bill which reads “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.”
“Neither Congress nor the president, through his appointees, has the constitutional authority to dictate how and what our children must learn,” Massie said in a statement about the bill, which was significantly longer than the legislation itself.
“States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students,” he added.
The bill, co-sponsored by seven other GOP members of the House, outlines no specific plan for the department’s abolition, but came at a strange moment. On Tuesday, Betsy DeVos, a top GOP donor from Michigan, was confirmed as the department’s secretary by the Senate — with Vice President Mike Pence casting a tie-breaking vote.
More @ Red State

House moves to quash Education Department, Bureau of Land Management rules

Via Billy

House Speaker Paul Ryan along with Rep. Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce following a GOP strategy session. According to Foxx, the teacher preparation rule is "yet another example of Obama overreach." (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

House Republicans continued their push to roll back Obama administration regulations Tuesday, disapproving on party-line votes of rules concerning the Bureau of Land Management and Education Department.

Under the Congressional Review Act, lawmakers can undo rules finalized within 60 legislative days.

Up until this year, Congress only successfully eliminated one regulation using the CRA since it was enacted in the '90s.

The Education Department rules dealt with "teacher preparation issues and accountability."

The teacher-prep rule is "yet another example of Obama overreach," Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-Va., chairwoman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said on the House floor Tuesday.

"The teacher preparation rule essentially creates a federal system for evaluating teacher performance. It would be virtually impossible to implement and could lead to fewer teachers serving low-income students."

Kelly: Crime database will speed deportations

Via Billy

President Trump's team plans to use a database of crimes committed by people who entered the country illegally as a roster for facilitating deportations, according to the head of the Department of Homeland Security.

John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general who was one of Trump's first two cabinet nominees to receive Senate confirmation, told lawmakers that the office managing the database will report directly to him. In the early years of the administration, the staff will coordinate with the families of crime victims to keep them apprised of the perpetrator's case.

"And you can bet that my people will be standing there when he is paroled to take him into custody and send him back to wherever he came from," Kelly told a House Homeland Security subcommittee panel.


 Image result for grnc

With GRNC feedback and support, Representative LARRY PITTMAN (R-Cabarrus) today introduced House Bill 69 for what will be GRNC’s main legislative thrust for 2017: constitutional (permitless) carry. In addition to Rep. Pittman, primary sponsors for the bill include Reps. MICHAEL SPECIALE (R-Beaufort, Craven, Pamlico), BEVERLY BOSWELL (R-Beaufort, Dare, Hyde, Washington), and JAY ADAMS (R-Catawba).

More @ GRNC