Monday, April 29, 2013

Russian View of Northern Manpower Problems

 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Eduard_de_Stoeckl.jpg/220px-Eduard_de_Stoeckl.jpg

Edouard de Stoeckl served as Russian Minister at Washington during the War between the States, having first come to this country in 1841 as an embassy attaché.  He placed the blame for John Brown’s murderous rampage in 1859 on the agitation of New England abolitionists.  At the time, Stoeckl informed a Russian colleague that….“John Brown was proclaimed from the very roof tops [in the North] as the equal of our Savior. I quote these facts to point out how far Puritan fanaticism can go. Little by little the extreme doctrines of New England have spread throughout the land.”
 Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"


Russian View of Northern Manpower Problems:

”Stoeckl persisted in his belief that the North could never subjugate the South. The Union, he felt, could not endure. he was sure it was divided forever. “In my opinion, the permanent separation of the North and the South will be the inevitable consequence of the American crisis. It is difficult to witness events without being convinced that a return to the old system is impossible.”

A born aristocrat, Stoeckl blamed the plight and tragedy in which the nation found itself on the “ultra-democratic system.” He pointed out that “only a handful of demagogues were able to accomplish this work of destruction. “ He never ceased deploring the “rule of the mob.” He hoped the north would accept the inevitable and seek cooperation with the South. The sooner the bloodshed could be ended the better for all concerned. He never overlooked an opportunity to offer his services as a conciliator.

With Washington again in danger of attack, “General Halleck has been ordered to Washington to take charge of military operations.” Stoeckl wrote that Lincoln was experiencing great difficulty in replenishing the depleted military ranks. “The government has been compelled to offer a premium of twenty-five dollars a man.”
Later he reported that premiums up to fifty dollars have been offered, yet there are few volunteers. Two weeks later, Lincoln issued another call for volunteers, with premiums up to three hundred dollars.

“Mr. Lincoln told me himself one day that in case of necessity he could count upon two or three million men. Experience has demonstrated that such estimates are inaccurate….At the outset the armed services absorbed the adventurous types, the poor, the unemployed laborers and the foreigners who filled the large cities. Not many of these classes remain. The new recruits must come from the farmers, businessmen and, in general, the prosperous classes who are opposed to the war.

Those who volunteered at the outset never dreamed of the dangers and privations which awaited them. It was generally believed that the mere presence of the Northern army would coerce the South into rejoining the Union. The ever-increasing number of mangled, sick, crippled or maimed soldiers who have returned to their homes has opened the eyes of the Northerners to the horrors of war. Men no longer volunteer for military service. Bonuses of $250 to $300 are being offered to volunteers without spurring enlistments. As a result, the
government was forced to resort to conscription. But it is doubtful if the government will succeed in recruiting the number Lincoln has fixed in his call. General Halleck, now in command of federal forces, admitted to me that not more than 300,000 to 350,000 men can be recruited, the majority for a term of nine months….”

When the House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing the President to arm 150,000 Negroes, Stoeckl reported that “the Democratic Party regarded this measure as humiliating for the nation, since it was an admission that an army of a million men cannot win without the help of some 100,000 Negroes”: [Stoeckl continues] “Mr. [Thaddeus] Stevens, the author of this measure, said that the federal army scarcely numbered 500,000 men under arms; that half these troops were scheduled to return home soon since their term of service expired next May; that volunteers are no longer enlisting; and that conscription was so unpopular that the government hesitated to invoke it again.”

“In spite of all these [Northern] disasters, the federal government refuses to modify its policy with regard to the army. All the generals are politicians. McClellan is the only exception, so he has been removed from command. Burnside, Pope and Hooker owe their positions to their political connections. As for the division and brigade chiefs, they are for the most part lawyers and journalists whose only merit is that they made some contribution to putting the present administration in power.”

(Lincoln and the Russians, Albert A. Woldman, World Publishing Company, 1952, pp. 191-192; 196-197; 201, 205-206)

Guardian Against Tyranny: The Writ of Habeas Corpus

 http://anthonygregory.com/power_of_habeas_426x648.png

VERBATIM

To live under tyranny is to live in fear—especially the fear of being arrested and jailed at the whims of the rulers. This is why America’s Founders regarded the right not to be detained arbitrarily as a cornerstone of liberty, and why they cherished the legal device they believed had secured that right: 

the writ of habeas corpus. If we are to live as a free people and avoid the clutches of oppression, it is imperative that we learn the history of this Anglo-American right—a task made immensely easier with the publication of the landmark new book, The Power of Habeas Corpus in America: From the King’s Prerogative to the War on Terror, by Independent Institute Research Fellow Anthony Gregory.

Habeas corpus is often thought to have originated as an individual right against unjust detention. But Gregory shows that the truth is more complex—and far more dramatic—than the mistaken notion that habeas corpus as we know it arrived fully formed from the brows of the barons who forced King John to sign Magna Carta. The Great Writ, as scholars have called it, began as a court’s and a king’s prerogative to challenge the detainment of a particular person (hence the Latin meaning of habeas corpus: “have the body”). It evolved into a pillar of individual liberty over the course of centuries of power struggles.

The Power of Habeas Corpus in America tells the story of those struggles, offering insights on numerous pivot points of American history: how the American colonists’ overestimated the extent of the legal protections enjoyed by English citizens; why the Anti-Federalists criticized the U.S.

Constitution’s Suspension Clause; how state writs of habeas corpus were used both to support slavery and to challenge it; how Lincoln planned to escape prosecution for suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War; how the states lost their authority to use habeas against federal detention; how the Great Writ freed many immigrants who’d been detained under the Chinese Exclusion Act; how the Supreme Court rationalized the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II; why federal habeas review in the late 20th century expanded and contracted; and how the round-up of immigrants in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks underscores the importance and limitations of habeas protections. (The book devotes five of its eight appendices to dissecting Supreme Court decisions regarding the detention of suspected terrorists during the Bush and Obama administrations.)

Although Americans celebrate habeas corpus as a safeguard against tyrannical imprisonment, it has been an imperfect remedy. What would make it fully reliable? For habeas to live up to this ideal, Gregory argues, ultimately there is only one solution: legal thinkers—and the public—must champion an ethos that elevates the principle of individual liberty above government power. Readers who absorb Gregory’s nuanced and erudite book will be well equipped to articulate the value of a legal right that unfortunately remains vulnerable to the machinations of the state—and will be better able to defend liberty, too.

The Power of Habeas Corpus in America: From the King’s Prerogative to the War on Terror, by Anthony Gregory

Video: Anthony Gregory on “Waco, Twenty Years Later—What Statism Is All About” (4/17/13)

Video: Anthony Gregory on Rand Paul’s Senate Filibuster (3/8/13)

Anthony Gregory on Scott Horton’s Radio Show (4/19/13)

Goodies from Ol' Remus


1935-arkansas-tenant-farmer-kids.jpg
1935, children of an Arkansas tenant farmer 

(& proud, as they should be. BT) 

===========================


 art-link-symbol-small-rev01.jpg "Can you use a 3D printer to print a gun?" The answer to that question might come sooner than anybody expected, as Wilson says he will 3D-print an entire handgun in just a couple of weeks. If Wilson does print an entire handgun, he will reach a milestone that many thought couldn't be reached so soon, says Lorenzo Bicchierai in this article, 3D-Printed Weapons Builder Says He's Ready to Print Entire Handgun, at Mashable.

art-link-symbol-small-rev01.jpg A Skokie, Illinois police officer engaged in a gun battle with a Gangster Disciple bank robber, one highly motivated bad guy, took 13 hits from a .45 auto – including six fatals – before a trio of head shots finally put him out of the fight 56 seconds into it, in this article, Why you carry extra ammo and full capacity magazines, at Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

B-2 stealth bombers are currently dropping leaflets over the city of Pyongyang warning its citizens of an impending attack. At the time of this posting, the U.S. government or its military has not made a statement regarding this late breaking story. CNN has obtained a copy of the leaflet.
DB at investmentwatchblog.com 

 Housing is consumption, a bridge to nowhere is consumption, particle board shelving is consumption, and a $180,000 bachelor's degree in a field of study with near-zero economic premium in the real economy is also consumption. The Keynesian Cultists and their fellow apologists/neofeudal apparatchiks attempt to mystify this consumption by labeling it "investment." The misdirection may fool craven politicos seeking to buy votes, but the real world is not fooled.
Charles Smith at oftwominds.com 

Ayers recalled the fundraiser: "We were friendly, that was true; we served on a couple of boards together, that was true; he held a fundraiser in our living room, that was true." It was all true, everything that was said about Obama and Ayers back in 2008 that was denied is all true, and Ayers has now admitted it.
Rush Limbaugh at gulagbound.com  

NC: Dorkhead Barber and 16 others arrested at General Assembly protest

 Via Cousin John

Barber arrested at General Assembly

Seventeen people were arrested Monday evening during what the state chapter of the NAACP called a nonviolent "pray in" protest at the General Assembly.

The protest was directed at Republican action on health care, unemployment benefits, education and voting rights. The House passed a bill last week requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, which the NAACP views as a poll tax.

More @ WRAL

"I wonder what Clausewitz would have said."

Via WRSA


In recent years, I have seen terrorism denounced as a despicable crime. I wonder whether it shouldn’t be accepted frankly as a form of war. I am not sure why blowing up ten people in a restaurant in, say, London is more despicable than blowing up ten children in Afghanistan by a drone. (They are both despicable.) Some terrorists, such as the Unabomber, are merely freelance criminal psychopaths. 

Others, such as bin Laden, engage in terrorism for the same reason why militaries attack countries: to make the other side do what the attacker wants.

From the point of view of cost and benefit, terrorism is a brilliantly effective form of warfare, especially against heavily armed countries of the First World. The reasons are several. First, terrorism offers no target to the basically World War Two militaries of advanced countries. If five Saudis, two Pakis, a Russian and a disaffected American blow up a building in Chicago, against whom does the US seek revenge? Is it against Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States, none of whose governments had anything to do with the attack?

Second, the return on investment is phenomenal. For example, the attack on New York cost perhaps several hundred thousand dollars. Yet it drew the US into multiple drawn-out, losing wars costing hundreds of billions of dollars, and transformed America from a reasonably free country into a rapidly deepening Orwellian gloom. A tiny input, a stunningly large effect. If terrorism were a hedge fund, it would be the hottest buy on the planet.

More @ LRC

CA: "Your child belongs to the State?"


"Love this woman!"

Via The Lonely Libertarian


Bullet Chess set

Via The Lonely Libertarian

Teen Girl High On Meth Shopping At Walmart

Via The Feral Irishman


Pentagon Recruits Anti-Christian Extremist To Help Craft Tolerance Policy



On April 16th, in an article written for The Huffington Post, Mikey Weinstein says some pretty incredible things. He takes a machete to Christians and Christianity in general; rather happily slicing his way through the Christian faith and those who practice it. The following is an excerpt. It’s a bit long, but worth the read:

“Ladies and Gentlemen, let me tell you of monsters and monstrous wrongs. And let me tell you what these bloody monsters thrive on…I founded the…Military Religious Freedom Foundation to do one thing: fight those monsters who would tear down the Constitutionally-mandated wall separating church and state in the technologically most lethal entity ever created by humankind, the U.S. military…Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces…These days, when ANYone attempts to bravely stand up against virulent religious oppression, these monstrosities cry out alligator tears in overflowing torrents and scream that it is, in fact, THEY who are the dispossessed, bereft and oppressed. C’mon, really, you pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers? 

… Please, I beseech you! Let us call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters…Queasy with the bright and promising lights of the cultural realities of the present day, those evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures and their spiritual heirs have taken refuge behind flimsy, well-worn, gauze-like euphemistic facades such as ‘family values’ and ‘religious liberty.’”

Mikey goes on to compare Christians with 60′s era racists, and rip apart Christianity in the military and in general. He even suggests that chaplains who proselytize are ”treasonous,” and should be punished. Finally, he calls Christian ministry in the military “spiritual rape;” comparing it to physical, sexual assault.