Liberal Quarantine Zone For Starters

Via The Lonely Libertarian

Woodstock is MIA

Via The Lonely Libertarian

 

"Constitution For Dummies" by Judge Andrew Napolitano

DHS Ammunition Stockpile: Over A Dozen Congressmen Demanding Investigation

 

Just a couple of days ago, I reported on two congressmen who were demanding that the Department of Homeland Security explain their solicitations of 1.6 billion bullets for purchase. Congressman Leonard Lance (R-NJ) and Representative Timothy Huelscamp (R-KS) both want answers to why DHS needs to be purchasing that much ammunition, seeing that they are a domestic agency.

Congressman Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) along with 14 other House representatives have written a letter to DHS wanting to know what the Federal agency is buying so many rounds of ammunition and whether or not they are doing it deliberately to restrict the supply to the American people.

That’s right friends. With the main stream wanting to poo poo this story, it is finally making its way to House Representatives and there are finally voices calling for accountability.

“The extraordinary level of ammunition purchases made by Homeland Security seems to have, in states such as my own, created an extreme shortage of ammunition to the point where many gun owners are unable to purchase any,” LaMalfa wrote in the letter.

LaMalfa pointed out that there are spending cuts, which I’ve pointed out are not any real cuts, across the board, so he wants to know why nearly 2 billion rounds of ammunition, enough for a 24 year war, were being solicited by DHS. “In light of these developments, the lack of transparency and questions that have been raised pertaining to these purchases,” Representative LaMalfa asked the following of DHS:

1. More @ Freedom Outpost

".........the difference (was) between martyrdom and suicide.”

The United States Constitution defines treason as waging war against a State or adhering to its enemies, and protects each State from invasion. Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence frames the American republic as one that can change its constituent member States, should the will of the people of any State desire it.  All this was turned upside down by a political party which had seized unlimited power through Lincoln. After the war, Radical Republican strategy for political hegemony was to register all Southern black males using the infamous Union and Loyal Leagues as whips, and disenfranchise white voters who defended their country, the Confederate States. 

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman

North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission

www.ncwbts150.com

"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

Constitutional Liberty Quivered in its Death Throes:

“With only a woebegone corporal’s guard of Democrats to oppose them, the Republicans proceeded to enact their own reconstruction program for the South. Embodied in a series of bills passed from March 1867, to February 1868, congressional Reconstruction mandated a series of requirements before a State could be readmitted to the Union. 

The “unreconstructed” South – all the States but Tennessee – was divided into five military districts, each commanded by a general supported with troops. The [President Andrew] Johnson State governments were abolished, and under the supervision of the district commanders the States were required to register all adult males and all eligible whites not falling under the office-exclusion ban of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. These voters would elect a constitutional convention, which in turn had to write a new State constitution with provision for black suffrage.  The legislature thus elected then had to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment…[and] Only then could a State apply for readmission to the Union. 

{Stephen’s said], “Our political doom is inevitable….we might just as well stand still and take what comes”…..[Benjamin] Hill and anyone else could do as they pleased as far as Stephens was concerned. He had lost all hope. Constitutional liberty quivered in its death throes. The South’s inevitable ruin must eventually spread north.  Neither accepting nor rejecting the congressional plan would make any difference. The difference between the two, he said, was akin “to the difference between martyrdom and suicide.”  Like Caesar, he said, he would wrap himself in his mantle and take the fatal blows without protest. 

The two races could not possibly coexist peacefully in the South, Stephens said, much less cooperate politically. He never wanted to take part in public affairs again under such conditions. “We are fast abandoning the teutonic systems on which our institutions are based and are rushing fast into the Asian system of empire.”

Stephens could not register to vote for the State constitutional convention…[though] he required every black on his property to register. “Bye and bye,” he told a New York Times reporter, “they will come and ask me how to vote. What can I tell them but to go with their race?”

Everything in Georgia was wretched, he told the Philadelphia Enquirer in February, 1868. 

“Incendiaries, the offscouring of the earth,” had moved in to stir up strife. If blacks got control of the State, whites would abandon it, he predicted. He couldn’t really blame the poor credulous blacks, though. They had been victimized by “political emissaries,” “reckless partisans,” “a class of insane politicians like Thad. Stevens,”  

“Madness reigns,” he said. “We are about to destroy freedom, to build up a [Republican] party and a government that will devour us.” The blacks had been completely demoralized by registration, he told another reporter. Most showed little interest in working to prepare next season’s crops. Under such conditions, race war was inevitable.” 

(Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, A Biography, Thomas E. Schott, LSU Press, 1988, pp. 472-476)  

"General, I would like very well to bury the whole lot of you.”

Via SHNV

At Catholic Cemetery on Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, his gravesite is easy to spot. It is marked by a stark white marble cross and slab lying underneath a flying Christian flag.

But it was another flag – the flag of the Confederacy – that helped make a name for Father Abram Joseph Ryan, the “poet-priest of the South” who considered Mobile home enough to want to be buried here.

In a Tennessee rectory just after the South surrendered, the Catholic priest wrote an epitaph for a fallen nation called “The Conquered Banner.” At one point in time, it was required reading for schoolchildren.

In part, it says:

*“Furl that Banner, for ‘tis weary;

Round its staff ‘tis drooping dreary;

Furl it, fold it, it is best:

For there’s not a man to wave it,

And there’s not a sword to save it,

And there’s not one left to lave it

In the blood which heroes gave it;

And its foes now scorn and brave it;

Furl it, hide it – let it rest.”

More @ AL

* One of the many poems I recited in front of the UDC at the Baptist Church in Marshall, Virginia as a child. "I'm A Good Old Rebel."

Texas Mom Finds Son Being Taught That US Brought 9/11 on Itself

A Facebook post of a Texas fifth-grader’s test purportedly blaming the United States for 9/11 has gone viral.

Kara Sands of Corpus Christi was looking over one of her son’s test and was bothered by one of the questions: Why might the United States be a target for terrorism? The correct answer was “Decisions we made in the United States have had negative effects on people elsewhere.”

“I’m not going to justify radical terrorists by saying we did anything to deserve that, over 3,000 people died,” the Flour Bluff Independent School District mom told Kristv.com.

More @ Conservative Videos

Senate Votes Overwhelmingly To Repeal Key Obamacare Tax

Republican Stampede to Amnesty? Nothing Could Be Dumber

Mike Scruggs

     Recent academic research from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) confirms previous studies over more than two decades that Republicans cannot win more Hispanic votes by supporting amnesty and other liberal immigration legislation. Moreover, voting for liberal immigration policies hurts them significantly with non-Hispanic conservatives. This CIS research paper, Pro-Immigration Congressional Republicans Do Not Perform Better Among Latino Voters, by Dr. George Hawley of the University of Houston, was also published in the academic journal, Social Science Quarterly.

     An August 2001 CIS report by Karen Kaufmann and James G. Gimpel reached similar conclusions. This report, entitled Impossible Dream or Distant Reality? Republican Efforts to Attract Latino Voters, should have been sobering news for the Bush administration, which formulated its immigration policies based on anecdotal myths rather than statistical reality. The Bush policy of negligible internal and workplace enforcement earned no Hispanic respect, resulted in a doubling of illegal immigration, hurt American workers and taxpayers, and accelerated the growth of a strongly Democrat voting bloc that threatens eventual Democrat dominance in national elections. 

     Hispanics have a strong tradition of Democrat Party loyalty and support because they favor big government and liberal social-welfare and healthcare spending. According to a 2011 Pew Research poll, 75 percent of Hispanics favor big government with more services versus only 41 percent for the general U.S. population. Support for big government runs to 81 percent among immigrant Hispanics. They are also unresponsive to Republican calls for lower taxes. Pew research indicated that 69 percent of Hispanics favored Obamacare, and 71 percent voted for Obama.

     According to Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute and many other researchers, the Hispanic reputation for social conservatism is at least two generations out of date. Social conservatism has become a minority position among Hispanic voters. Recent Hispanic statistics on out-of-wedlock births and abortions are about twice as high as non-Hispanic whites. 

    There are conservative components of the Hispanic vote: Republicans tend to lead Democrats among Cubans by about 6 percent. Cubans are important in Florida but are only about 5 percent of the nation’s voters. G. W. Bush got 56 percent of Hispanic Protestants (32 percent of Hispanic voters) in 2004 but only 33 percent of Hispanic Catholics. Many Hispanic conservatives, however, have strong objections to amnesty and other liberal immigration policies.

     In October, Pew Research also found that while 34 percent of Latino (Hispanic) registered voters say immigration is extremely important to them, immigration ranks only fifth in their priority of issues. Education, jobs and the economy, and healthcare all ranked much higher with over 50 percent seeing them as extremely important.  Even the Federal budget deficit was more important at 36 percent. Only taxes, a Republican issue, ranked lower at 33 percent.

     The new CIS report supports three highly probable results of Republican support for amnesty and other liberal immigration programs. (1) Republicans would NOT see a net gain in Hispanic votes. (2) Amnesty, however, would result in millions of new voters leaning three to one or better toward the Democrat Party. (3) It would significantly diminish conservative support for Republicans. This drop would probably come in the form of lower conservative voter turnout.

     My own analysis of Hawley’s data, indicates an approximate drop of 10 percent in conservative support for Republicans who vote for amnesty or other liberal immigration legislation. This translates into a 4.0 percent drop in the total vote for Republicans, but it could easily be much higher if voters paid more attention to candidate positions and used a little discernment in distinguishing truth from double-talk.  Should Republicans stampede to amnesty? Nothing could be dumber.

     Amnesty by whatever name or subterfuge always results in more illegal immigration.  Because of the 1965 “Reform” Act’s Chain Migration effect, it also results in excessive legal immigration. The excess supply of labor also displaces Americans and legal immigrants from jobs and depresses the wages of American workers. The greatest negative impact is suffered by our poorest people. Yet there is little talk in the media of compassion for them. They are the forgotten Americans. Pro-amnesty and cheap-labor advocate propaganda has been successful in encouraging more compassion for those who are using identity theft and document fraud to gain their way. Over eight million illegal immigrants hold jobs, while more than 20 million Americans who want full time work cannot find it. Does anybody really care about them?  Moreover, the fiscal deficits and tax burdens resulting from illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration far outweigh any net benefit of our present uncontrolled immigration. 

     The bottom line politically on amnesty and its equivalents is that it would in just a few years completely and permanently tip the balance of power to an increasingly radical Democrat Party. That will mean that almost every issue will be dominated by a more powerful, big government, socialist, and anti-Christian Left. Unfortunately, the Left is being aided by quite a few unthinking or money-corrupted Republicans.

     Where then will be right-to-life, family values, the institution of marriage, and religious freedom? Who will be the next generation of U.S. Supreme Court justices and other federal and state judges? Will the Second Amendment be able to withstand an increasingly unsympathetic new electorate and future judicial appointments?  The Schumer-Rubio-McCain-Graham (Gang-of-8) amnesty is almost identical to the Obama amnesty plan. If it passes, we will soon live in a very different America that might seem a nightmare to those who hold conservative political, economic, social, and religious values.

     The push for amnesty is backed by powerful financial and political forces. Yet most Americans are not well informed on immigration issues and have no idea what irreparable and catastrophic political, economic, social, and cultural consequences would follow a huge amnesty. Crucial votes are only months away. We had better educate ourselves on immigration issues and get ready to defend our freedoms, or they will soon be suppressed history.

NRA joins lawsuit challenging New York's gun control law

Via avordvet

 

 The National Rifle Association on Thursday joined the the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, other sportsmen's groups, firearms businesses and individual gun owners in a lawsuit challenging the state's strict new gun control law.

The federal suit, filed in Buffalo, said the law violates the constitutional rights of "law-abiding citizens to keep commonly possessed firearms in the home for defense of self and family and for other lawful purposes."

In announcing the NRA's support for the lawsuit, Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said Gov. Andrew Cuomo "usurped the legislative and democratic process" in passing the measures without sufficient input from the public.

“Despite the wishes of Governor Cuomo, law-abiding citizens have a fundamental right to keep commonly possessed firearms for defense of themselves and their families and for other lawful purposes including the enjoyment of New York’s rich hunting and sporting heritage,” Cox said in a news release.

 More @ Fox