Tuesday, June 11, 2019

The Lion Sleeps Tonight


C-Ville Weekly sued by plaintiff in the city Confederate monuments lawsuit

Via Susan Lee

 

A popular Charlottesville publication is being sued for defamation.

Charlottesville Weekly is being sued by one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the city regarding the Confederate statues downtown.

Edward Dickinson Tayloe says in the suit against C-Ville Weekly he was wrongly portrayed as racist and an opponent of people of color in one of the publication's articles.

Charles Weber, a spokesperson for Tayloe, says Tayloe suffered emotional distress, humiliation, and professional and business harm.

"They investigated his family and went back centuries and depicted him as if he is in this lawsuit for the sole purpose of promoting white supremacy and continuing, as Jalene Schmidt said, to 'roil the lives of black people,'" he said.

Weber says the comments are intentionally false and misleading, which is why Tayloe filed the defamation lawsuit.

More @ CBS 19

Beijing Summons U.S. Tech Leaders to Summit With Threats of “Punishment” if They Follow Trump…

Via The Daily Timewaster


Interesting, albeit not surprising, report from the New York Times after they are debriefed by a group of U.S. tech industry executives about a compliance meeting in China.

The Beijing regime of Chairman Xi Jinping summoned leaders from the top of U.S. tech industry companies and informed them of consequences for complying with U.S. laws that relate to black-listed Chinese industry; ie. Hauwei.  It will be interesting to see how this dynamic plays out.

Beijing is counting on the far-left anti-American ideology within Silicon Valley to create a communist economic alliance on U.S. soil that will work against the interests of the American people.

DEMAND REPUBLICANS PROTECT NC'S SCHOOLS: H216 is a bill that will allow the true protection of schoolchildren…

 

The anti-gun crowd is content to posthumously praise the brave souls who throw themselves in front of innocents, or charge wicked gunmen in order to save the lives of others. Save lives these courageous people do, and heroes they are.

Yet, anyone with exceptional sense would be hard-pressed to come up with a reason why these heroes must always be unarmed, only to be seriously injured or killed while carrying out their valiant acts. Why must the fruitfulness of these acts be so limited?

The answer is simple: political leaders and activist groups have set it up that way. Those hostile to the Second Amendment are proud of having disarmed the good guys by creating “gun free” zones in schools and elsewhere, leaving adults and the children in their care to fight psychotic leviathans with staplers and pencils. Well, it doesn’t have to be this way.


More @ GRNC

Only Congress May Draw the Sword

 Image result for (Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens, Myrta L. Avary

Alexander H. Stephen’s criticism of President James Polk sending American troops to the Rio Grande in July 1845 and threatening Mexico, inspired his arraignment of Lincoln in 1861 for leading the country into an avoidable war.

In Lincoln’s case, his party’s governors provided the troops for his unconstitutional actions and invasion of Southern States, and subjugated a free people with an “oath of allegiance administered at the point of a bayonet.” Stephens foresaw the treatment the South would receive.
www.Circa1865.org   The Great American Political Divide

Only Congress May Draw the Sword

“From [his] first speech in Congress to his last before the war, his straight line of endeavor was to preserve the Union under the Constitution. His opposition to Texan annexation was not pleasing to the South . . . and the first to bring him into national prominence, contained the oft-quoted sentences which revived against him at the South the charges of abolitionism while at the North he was accused of laboring for slavery extension:

“My reason for wishing it [the slavery limit] settled in the beginning, I do not hesitate to make known. I fear the excitement growing out of the agitation hereafter may endanger the harmony and even existence of our present Union . . . I am no defender of slavery in the abstract. I would rejoice to see all the sons of Adam’s family in the enjoyment of those rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence as natural and inalienable . . .”

The right of the Union to “acquire territory” and the wisdom of doing so were questioned. He declared for expansion but against imperialism: “This [annexation] is an important step settling the principle of our future extension. We are reminded of the growth of the Roman Empire which fell of its own weight; and of England, who is hardly able to keep together her extensive parts. Rome extended her dominions by conquest, she compelled provinces to bear the yoke; England extends hers upon the principle of colonization; her distant dependencies are subject to her laws but are deprived of the rights of representation.

With us, a new system has commenced, characteristic of the age. It is a system of a Republic formed by the union of separate independent States, yielding so much of their sovereign powers as are necessary for national and foreign purposes, and retaining all others for local and domestic objects. Who shall undertake to say how far this system may not go?”

He said, speaking of Mexican territory:

“No principle is more dangerous than that of compelling other people to adopt our form of government. It is not only wrong in itself, but contrary to the whole spirit and genius of liberty we enjoy.”

Asking if the Mexican war was waged for conquest:

“If so, I protest . . . I am no enemy to the extension of our domain . . . but it is not to be accomplished by the sword. We can only properly enlarge by voluntary accessions.”

In his denunciation of [President James] Polk’s abuse of power . . . :

“Only Congress can constitutionally draw the sword. The President cannot. The war was brought upon us while Congress was in session and without our knowledge. The new and strange doctrine is put forth that Congress has nothing to do with the conduct of the war; that the President is entitled to uncontrolled management; that we can do nothing but vote men and money to whatever extent his folly and caprice may dictate.

Neighboring States may be subjugated, extensive territories annexed, provincial governments erected, the rights of conscience violated, and the oath of allegiance administered at the point of the bayonet . . .”

(Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens, Myrta L. Avary, editor, LSU Press, 1998, excerpts pp. 31-32)

Exercising All the War Powers of Congress

 Image result for (The Story of the Confederacy, Robert Selph Henry

The Founders were wary of a standing army and gave only to Congress the power to raise troops and declare war. Should a sitting president venture to call for troops at his whim, as did Lincoln, the republic of those Founders was at an end.

Lincoln and the governors of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York who supplied him with troops for the purpose of waging war against other States and adhering to their enemies, were all were guilty of treason according to Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.  There was a peaceful alternative which was not pursued by Lincoln and his party, and Southern Unionists pleas for peaceful diplomacy and compromise were ignored in favor of intentional duplicity at Charleston.
www.Circa1865.org  The Great American Political Divide

Exercising All the War Powers of Congress

“The day after Fort Sumter surrendered President Lincoln called on the several States for seventy-five thousand militia for ninety days service. The troops were to suppress “combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law, a curiously legalistic phraseology probably adopted in an attempt to bring the proclamation under the Acts of 1795 and 1807 governing the calling out of the posse comitatus.

Amid immense enthusiasm, the established militia regiments in the eastern cities moved at once. Pennsylvania troops, a few companies, reached Washington the next day; Massachusetts troops came within four days, in spite of the violent resistance to the transfer of the regiment across Baltimore between the railroad stations; New York’s first regiment was but a day behind Massachusetts.

The Governors of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Missouri sharply declined to honor the President’s requisition for troops to be used against the seven States of the Confederacy. The Governor of Delaware reported that he had no authority for raising troops.

Neither, for that matter, had President Lincoln, under strict construction of the laws. In his first proclamation he called Congress into special session, but not to meet until the Fourth of July, more than two and a half months later.

In the meanwhile, free from interference, he drove ahead to organize his war, making laws or breaking them as he had need to, creating armies, enlarging the Navy, declaring blockades, exercising all the war powers of Congress.

Before the guns spoke at Sumter and the President answered with his call for troops, there was everywhere, in the North, in the Border States unhappily torn between loyalties, and even in those States which had seceded, a strong party for peace. The fire of Sumter swept away all that in the North; the call of Lincoln for troops, in the South.

The New Orleans True Delta, which had opposed secession and sought peace, “spurned the compact with them who would enforce its free conditions with blood” — an attitude that was general among those who were not original secessionists.”

(The Story of the Confederacy, Robert Selph Henry, Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1931, excerpts pp. 34-35)

Project Veritas: Whistleblower Says Pinterest Censored Top Pro-Life Site as ‘Pornography’

 A whistleblower at Pinterest has released documents to Project Veritas that explain how the social media giant censors pro-life and Christian content, even to the extent of blacklisting a top pro-life site by labeling it as “pornography.” The whistleblower also revealed the platforms “sensitive terms list” which reveals that Pinterest considers the term “Bible verses” to be “brand unsafe.”

In an interview with watchdog Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe, the Pinterest insider said, “Somebody happened to notice that LiveAction.org was blocked.”

More @ Breitbart

Mark Steyn: "Free speech is hate speech, and hate speech is free speech" & We Must Have Free Speech

Via Paul


SOUTHERN MOMMAS SUMMER CHORES

Via Susan


Masterpiece Cakeshop Was Just Sued For 'Discrimination' For A THIRD Time

 

Masterpiece Cakeshop is again under fire, now the subject of a third discrimination lawsuit alleging that owner Jack Phillips "discriminated" against a customer by refusing to make a cake for an unspecified event.

 Phillips, of course, won at the United States Supreme Court after suing a Colorado "human rights" commission that punished him for refusing to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding in Denver, a task Phillips said violated his religious conviction that true marriage is between one man and one woman. Phillips offered to sell the couple a pre-made cake or refer them to another baker — solutions that would have allowed Phillips to avoid material participation in the same-sex wedding — but the couple wasn't satisfied and leveled a complaint with Colorado authorities.

Ammo sales rise in California ahead of new gun law

Via John

Image result for Ammo sales rise in California ahead of new gun law

People in California are reportedly stockpiling ammunition ahead of a new state law that will put stricter regulations on their purchases.

KTLA-TV notes that the law, called Proposition 63, goes into effect on July 1 and will require ammo buyers to go through a background check and show ID. 

More @ AOL