Sunday, October 13, 2013
"Communists In Drag"
Via Daily Timewaster
I was born at the beginning of the Second World War into a family of high school teachers who were members of the Communist Party, and therefore were actually part of a vast conspiracy dedicated to the destruction of this country, although they would never have looked at it that way, and so-called liberals would be the first to deny it.
In those days, the schools were old fashioned enough that my parents did not use their classrooms to indoctrinate students as tens of thousands of university professors and even more K-12 teachers regularly do today. It is also an unhappy but hugely important fact that the conspiracy to which my parents belonged has steadily migrated into the heart of the Democratic Party until it now occupies the Oval Office in the person of our president, Barack Obama, and his closest advisors.
The president, his chief operative Valerie Jarrett and his chief political strategist David Axelrod all came out of the same Communist left and the same radical new left as I did, and all have remained heart and soul a part of it. As someone who turned his back on that destructive movement, I can say with confidence that they have not. If a person belongs to an organization or is the supporter of an idea that they come to see as destructive or evil, the first thing they will want to do when they leave is to warn others against it, to warn them of the dangers it represents.
If a person does not do this – that tells me that he or she hasn’t left the destructive movement or abandoned the pernicious idea but has just put another face on them. Instead of calling themselves communists or socialists they call themselves liberals and progressives. This camouflage is very old. I never once heard my parents and their party friends refer to themselves as Communists. They were progressives – and registered Democrats.
I was born at the beginning of the Second World War into a family of high school teachers who were members of the Communist Party, and therefore were actually part of a vast conspiracy dedicated to the destruction of this country, although they would never have looked at it that way, and so-called liberals would be the first to deny it.
In those days, the schools were old fashioned enough that my parents did not use their classrooms to indoctrinate students as tens of thousands of university professors and even more K-12 teachers regularly do today. It is also an unhappy but hugely important fact that the conspiracy to which my parents belonged has steadily migrated into the heart of the Democratic Party until it now occupies the Oval Office in the person of our president, Barack Obama, and his closest advisors.
The president, his chief operative Valerie Jarrett and his chief political strategist David Axelrod all came out of the same Communist left and the same radical new left as I did, and all have remained heart and soul a part of it. As someone who turned his back on that destructive movement, I can say with confidence that they have not. If a person belongs to an organization or is the supporter of an idea that they come to see as destructive or evil, the first thing they will want to do when they leave is to warn others against it, to warn them of the dangers it represents.
If a person does not do this – that tells me that he or she hasn’t left the destructive movement or abandoned the pernicious idea but has just put another face on them. Instead of calling themselves communists or socialists they call themselves liberals and progressives. This camouflage is very old. I never once heard my parents and their party friends refer to themselves as Communists. They were progressives – and registered Democrats.
More @ Front Page
JPAC admits to phony ceremonies honoring ‘returning’ remains
Via Daily Timewaster
The Department of Defense unit charged with recovering servicemembers’ remains abroad has been holding phony “arrival ceremonies” for seven years, with an honor guard carrying flag-draped coffins off of a cargo plane as though they held the remains returning that day from old battlefields.
The Department of Defense unit charged with recovering servicemembers’ remains abroad has been holding phony “arrival ceremonies” for seven years, with an honor guard carrying flag-draped coffins off of a cargo plane as though they held the remains returning that day from old battlefields.
The Pentagon acknowledged Wednesday that no honored dead were in fact
arriving, and that the planes used in the ceremonies often couldn’t even
fly, and were towed into position. The story was first reported on nbcnews.com.
More @ S&S
Protesting Veterans Tear Down DC Barricades, Chant "Shut Down The White House"
The "Million Vet March" in Washington D.C. appears to be escalating as
reports of barricades being torn down, police in riot gear and snipers
being deployed, and a growing crowd at The White House chanting for its
shut-down suggest the people are growing restless.
Veterans take back the Vietnam Memorial.
NC: Railey says some journalists do know about guns
Many gun-control opponents are quick to call members of the press naive, at best, about guns. Yes, some reporters are.
But the cartoon that runs with this column goes too far. Many, if not most, of us journalists know the difference between an assault rifle and a handgun. And a whole lot more.
I love guns. I am the proud owner of several shotguns and a .22-caliber rifle. I’d have more guns if I could. There’s an old joke: How many guns do you need? One more.
Other newspapermen share my feelings, including Scott Sexton, the Journal’s metro columnist.
I love talking guns with him and others. I love to talk barrel lengths, chokes, rifling, bullet grain sizes, and shotgun shell-pellet sizes (from birdshot to buckshot). I can tell you how short a shotgun barrel can be legally sawed off (18 inches; I had one done), and I know the difference between semi-automatic rifles (legal) and fully automatic ones (illegal unless you get a special federal permit).
I can talk about how a heavier shotgun has a lesser recoil shock, or kick, than a lighter one, and how rubber recoil pads can relieve the pain.
More @ Winston-Salem Journal
The Un-Civil War: BLACKS vs NIGGERS
A disgusted Black man boldly confronts the dysfunctional and criminal subculture (along with their apologists) that exists within the African-American community. This race-realist endeavor exposes many inconvenient truths and will certainly become a catalyst for candid conversation.
Flooded with statistics, headlines, pictures and other evidence, this book is not simply an anecdotal tale of a miserable, inner-city co-existence... it’s a war report.
@ Amazon
War for Protective Tariffs, Income Taxes and Astonishing Profits
John Jacob Astor III
The
War Between the States commenced by Lincoln immediately presented he
and his administration with the problem of a conflict the United States
could not afford. In April 1861, federal spending was only about
$172,000 a day, raised by tariffs and land sales. By the end of July
1861, Lincoln had caused this to increase to $1 million, and by the end
of December it was up to $1.5 million per day. Also in December 1861
Northern banks had to stop paying their debts in gold, with the federal
government doing the same shortly after and resorting to printing
money. The country had gone off the gold standard, Wall Street was in a
panic, and Lincoln would lament, “The bottom is out of the tub, what
shall I do?”
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
War for Protective Tariffs, Income Taxes and Astonishing Profits
“By
May 1864 [financier Jay] Cooke was selling [Northern] war bonds so
successfully that he was actually raising money as fast as the War
Department could spend it, no mean feat for that was about $2 million a
day at this point. Altogether, the North raised fully two-thirds of its
revenues by selling bonds. If Abraham Lincoln must always be given the
credit for saving the Union, there is also no doubt that the national
debt was one of the most powerful tools at his disposal for forging
victory.
Although
the [Northern] people were willing to endure very high taxes during the
war, peacetime was another matter altogether. Immediately after the war
the cry for repeal of the wartime taxes became insistent. With military
expenses quickly dropping, the problem, was what taxes to cut. American
industrialists, who had prospered greatly thanks to wartime demand and
wartime high tariffs, naturally did not want the tariffs cut. Because
the Civil War had broken the political power of the South, the center of
opposition to the tariff, they got their way.
The
tariff was kept at rates far above the government’s need for revenue as
the North industrialized at a furious pace in the last three decades of
the nineteenth century and became the greatest – and most efficient –
industrial power in the world. Of course, no matter how large,
efficient, and mature these industries became, they continued to demand
[tariff] protection, and, thanks to their wealth and political power,
get it.
As
Professor William Graham Sumner of Yale explained as early as 1885,
“The longer they live, the bigger babies they are.” It was only after
the bitter dispute between Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick caused
the astonishing profits of the privately held – and highly protected –
Carnegie Steel Company to become public knowledge, in 1899, that the
political coalition behind high tariffs began to crack.
Before
the Civil War there had been little advocacy of an income tax in this
country, at least at the federal level, although by the war six States
had implemented such taxes for their own revenue purposes. But once a
federal income tax was in place, thanks to the Civil War, it quickly
acquired advocates, as political programs always do.
These
advocates pushed the idea relentlessly . . . Republican Senator John
Sherman….said during a debate on renewing the income tax in 1872, that
“here we have in New York Mr. Astor with an income of millions derived
from real estate . . . and we have along side of him a poor man
receiving $1000 a year. [The law] is altogether against the poor
man….yet we are afraid to tax Mr. Astor. Is there any justice in it?
Why, sir, the income tax is the only one that tends to equalize these
burdens between the rich and the poor.”
(Hamilton’s Blessing, John Steele Gordon, Penguin Books, 1997, pp. 79-83)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)