Monday, April 30, 2012
A federal judge today ruled against Texas in its attempt to revoke taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business through its statewide family planning and women’s health program.
Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against Texas contending that the new law prohibiting it from participating in the Women’s Health Program is unconstitutional discrimination. The lawsuit asked the court for an injunction to stop enforcement of the rules preventing Planned Parenthood from getting taxpayer funding via the program , saying the rules violate their rights by putting an “unconstitutional condition on their participation” in the Women’s Health Program.
The lawsuit also alleges the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, which is enforcing the rule, “overstepped its authority in adopting a rule that conflicts with the purpose of the laws that created the program.”
Today, Federal District Judge Lee Yeakel today ruled in favor of nine Planned Parenthood affiliates — giving them a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the law and requiring the state to continue funding the abortion business until the lawsuit is fully adjudicated.
“It is well-established that the government is entitled to define the limits of a publicly funded program,” Yeakel wrote. “But the government may not condition participation in a government program or receipt of a government benefit upon an applicants exercise of protected rights.”
Instead of an eagle’s majesty gracing our national symbols, we’ll have a Planned Parenthood garbage bag. What a fitting symbol that is.
When Progressives don’t like a word, they change the meaning of it. The latest victim of the English language is “illegal.” Apparently, there are a whole group of people who take umbrage at being defined as an “illegal,” particularly the kind who come from other countries. Here is the definition of illegal:
1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.
1. forbidden by law; unlawful; illicit
2. unauthorized or prohibited by a code of official or accepted rules
a person who has entered or attempted to enter a country illegally
So, if you are in the United States without permission, by definition you are here illegally. But the preferred word is “undocumented.”
F.A. Hayek wrote about the perversion of the language in his work, “The Road to Serfdom.”
FOREWARD TO THE 1956 AMERICAN PAPERBACK EDITION:
The fact that this book was originally written with only the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term “liberal” in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that “liberal” has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensible term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.
He also wrote:
If one has not one’s self experienced this process, it is difficult to appreciate the magnitude of this change of the meaning of words, the confusion which it causes, and the barriers to any rational discussion which it creates. It has to be seen to be understood how, if one of two brothers embraces the new faith, after a short while he appears to speak a different language which makes any real communication between them impossible. And the confusion becomes worse because this change of meaning of the words describing political ideals is not a single event but a continuous process, a technique employed consciously or unconsciously to direct the people. Gradually, as this process continues, the whole language becomes despoiled, and words become empty shells deprived of any definite meaning, as capable of denoting one thing as its opposite and used solely for the emotional associations which still adhere to them.
After they banish “illegal” from the lexicon, let’s guess which words will be considered offensive by the PC crowd. Will it be American? How about citizen? Wait, how about putting the two together: American citizen. Now, that’s offensive.
Here is a video that explains the dire circumstances the United States is in. After you watch this, you’ll understand why the Democrats in the Senate refuse to pass a budget. The federal government is out of control. Their spending and borrowing is a national disgrace.
The U.S.S. Titanic is on a collision course with a Grecian iceberg. And we too, will experience a societal breakdown.
What these politicians have done is criminal. And they’ll walk away unscathed while the rest of us are rummaging through trash cans.
H/T: NC Renegade
Here is one of the best propaganda videos that $16 trillion can buy. It’s amazing what a president can accomplish without a budget, and a printing press running 24/7.
Are you better off 3 years and $5 trillion ago? NO WE AIN’T!
Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.
By the article establishing the executive department it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The circumstances under which I now meet you will acquit me from entering into that subject further than to refer to the great constitutional charter under which you are assembled, and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given. It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications I behold the surest pledges that as on one side no local prejudices or attachments, no separate views nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests, so, on another, that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire, since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the system, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them. Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good; for I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an united and effective government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience, a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen and a regard for the public harmony will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be impregnably fortified or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.
To the foregoing observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honored with a call into the service of my country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed; and being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself any share in the personal emoluments which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the executive department, and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the station in which I am placed may during my continuance in it be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.
Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.
There are a lot of references to God in that speech. Will the ACLU sue and have all references to a higher being striken from our historical records? I wouldn’t pass them.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Kimmel had better hope that Obama's reign of terror is a one term proposition. He might receive an audit after that roast.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Radical Muslims aren’t the only terrorist Americans have to worry about. We have a federal government whose bureaucrats are bragging about their own special brand of jihad. A top EPA official likens his enforcers to a band of Roman soldiers crucifying villagers as a means to instill fear and submission to their will. The above video is a couple of years old, but is making its way into the daylight.
To add insult to injury, this same agency wants more enforcers to inflict its brand of compliance, and at substantial cost to the taxpayer.
The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be “absurd” in application and “impossible to administer” by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.
More soldiers so as to litter the Apian Way with the carcasses of the innocent. Who is Spartacus? I am Spartacus!
In Kansas, Cherokee County Farm Bureau president Jeff Clark was out in the field — literally on a tractor — when TheDC reached him. He said if Solis’s regulations are implemented, farming families’ labor losses from their children will only be part of the problem.
“What would be more of a blow,” he said, “is not teaching our kids the values of working on a farm.”
The Environmental Protection Agency reports that the average age of the American farmer is now over 50.
“Losing that work-ethic — it’s so hard to pick this up later in life,” Clark said. “There’s other ways to learn how to farm, but it’s so hard. You can learn so much more working on the farm when you’re 12, 13, 14 years old.”
Any effort at land reform must go through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But the bureau, originally part of the War Department and one of the federal government’s oldest agencies, isn’t about to pave the way for its own demise by signing off on an effort to privatize reservation land. The bureau faced this situation before: Under the 1887 Dawes Act, land could be allotted to individual Indians, but by 1934 so much land had been privatized that Congress reversed course and communal tribal property was back in favor. “Allotment threatened the bureau so it had an incentive to end the process,” says Dominic Parker, an economics professor at Montana State University. In any event, tribal councils wouldn’t be keen to give up the patronage and power that controlling vast amounts of land gives them. And the $2.5 billion a year that Washington spends on programs for Native Americans is a powerful deterrent to change. “For the bureau and other narrow interests, staying with the convoluted system of land ownership is safer than improving property rights,” he says. The bureau declined to comment.
Once the work ethic is lost, it’s hard to get back. As one tribal member states:
“Privatizing land is fine but it falls far short of the answer,” says Yellowtail. “Our people don’t understand business. After 10 or 15 generations of not being involved in business, they’ve lost their feel for it. Capitalism is considered threatening to our identity, our traditions. Successful entrepreneurs are considered sell-outs, they’re ostracized. We have to promote the dignity of self-sufficiency among Indians. Instead we have a culture of malaise: ‘The tribe will take care of us.’ We accept the myth of communalism. And we don’t value education. We resist it.”
The United Nations Human Rights Council is scheduled to investigate the plight of the U.S. indigenous population. I wonder if they’ll question the role of the Interior Department. In another 50 years, this same agency will probably investigate the plight of the American farmer.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
It's pretty much official: Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee. Time to start the "Stupid is not Economically Viable" campaign.
"The Armenian Reporter" news site has repeatedly and forcefully condemned what it mockingly calls "amnesia" on the part of Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who as senators co-sponsored a resolution calling for the use of the term "genocide" when discussing the tragedy.
On Oct. 2, 2008, the paper published a letter from then-candidate Obama in which he trumpeted "my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence."
"The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy," Obama wrote. "As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."
The chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, Ken Hachikian, issued a blistering denunciation of Obama's latest statement, saying it made "a stark lie" out of his 2008 campaign pledge and charged it "represents the very opposite of the principled and honest change he promised to Armenian Americans and to all the citizens of our nation."
Isn’t it interesting that Barack Obama made promises to this “subset group” of Americans? Yet, one of his first official visits as president of the United States was to Turkey. Prime Minister Erdogan has since become a confidant and close personal friend of our so-called president. Obama named him one of his top five international friends.
Prime Minister Erdogan is a notorious Islamist and Jew hater. As they say, birds of a feather flock together.
The dates were picked to run from the feast day of martyrs St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More to Independence Day. “This special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty,” the bishops said.
That sums up the progressive experiment. The state will decide what the common good is, and who will participate.
All patriots should proclaim themselves Catholics during this Fortnight for Freedom; for all of our sakes.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation’s 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama’s new heath care reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees.
“Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church,” said Catholic League head Bill Donohue.
Already Archbishop Timothy Dolan has spoken out against the law and priests around the country have mobilized, reading letters from the pulpit. Donohue said Catholic officials will stop at nothing to put a stop to it.
“This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets,” Donohue said.
Congratulations Obama. You have just united the cafeteria Catholics. Let’s take a look at how they voted in the past three general elections, courtesy of the Pew Research Center:
Sunday, April 22, 2012
It’s time to tear the mask off of this movement.
H/T: Lonely Conservative
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today in recognition of Earth Day, which falls on Sunday, April 22:
How dare Nancy Pelosi take away my filthy water and dirty air. We have rights too you know.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
The big bugaboo with these control freaks is your car. Your vehicle is a symbol of choice and independence; the escape pod from their smart growth mother ship. And like the days of yore, these feudal lords will devise all sorts of schemes to keep the serfs on the manor grounds.
Have you noticed that you can’t find an affordable used car as of late? Well, we can thank the Cash for Clunkers program for that. You’ll find all sorts of articles by the cheerleaders in the press pontificating on the low inventory, except of course the most obvious and destructive program that led to this mess. Not only did the Cash for Clunkers eliminate an affordable alternative for transportation, it also destroyed the used parts market.
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations that President Obama announced last summer will make it impossible for 7 million lower income consumers to buy a new car according to a National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) study released today.
“While you can mandate what automakers must build, you can’t dictate what customers will buy, nor can you dictate if a bank will make a loan,” New Mexico Ford dealer Don Chalmers said today.
Obama's proposed CAFE standards, which will begin taking effect in 2017, raise minimum average vehicle fleet fuel efficiency to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimate that this regulation will raise the average price of passenger cars and light trucks by $3,000.
“The unintended consequences of the proposed fuel economy increases are clear,” NADA Used Car Guide analyst David Wagner said. “If the price of a vehicle goes up by the government estimate of almost $3,000, millions of people will no longer be able to finance a new vehicle.”
But that’s okay. The urban serfs have buses and light-rail to get around on. Just don’t make any plans to leave the manor grounds.
Here we are on the verge of another government sponsored bubble. What the feds did to the housing market, they’re doing to college education. Do easy credit, low interest rates, and soaring prices sound familiar? It should. Just turn around and look at your overvalued house.
Barack Obama announced in his weekly address, that he wants Congress to prevent interest rates on federally funded student loans from doubling in July; at the same time, he wants to come up with a solution to make college education affordable:
In America, higher education cannot be a luxury. It’s an economic imperative that every family must be able to afford. That’s why next week I’ll be visiting colleges across the country, talking to students about how we can make higher education more affordable – and what’s at stake right now if Congress doesn’t do something about it. You see, if Congress doesn’t act, on July 1st interest rates on some student loans will double. Nearly seven and half million students will end up owing more on their loan payments. That would be a tremendous blow. And it’s completely preventable.
This issue didn’t come out of nowhere. For some time now, I’ve been calling on Congress to take steps to make higher education more affordable – to prevent these interest rates from doubling, to extend the tuition tax credit that has saved middle-class families millions of dollars, and to double the number of work-study jobs over the next five years.
This kind of rhetoric reminds me of the Clinton-era affordable housing initiative. And guess what? The results are about the same. Last year, outstanding student loans passed the trillion dollar mark. Do you hear that bubble being stretched?
Of course, big government politicians like Barack Obama, seldom see the consequences of their actions. Their policies have flooded universities with easy cash. As a result, tuition has skyrocketed. Soon, we’ll witness a tsunami of bankruptcies, and the taxpayers will suffer another round of debt forgiveness spankings.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Move over Mr. Toad, Barack Obama has a wilder ride than you. The commander in thief is leaving a vapor trail of debt unseen in human history. Check out the below video. I’ve been on some memorable road trips, but this is something else.
The Obama’s are notorious for their taxpayer funded vacations. Unfortunately, the American people are forced into steerage on the U.S.S. National Debt, while the Obama’s paddles away in their safety boat funded by you know who: Us!
(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was the “worst” decision since the court upheld racist segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson.
“The point I’d make here – and that’s why a constitutional amendment shouldn’t be necessary but is – there’s balance in every amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. You can’t falsely scream fire. We have anti-pornography laws. We have libel laws, and what more important balance than to keep the wellspring of our democracy?
“Citizens United was an outgrowth of this. It is the worst decision since Plessy v. Ferguson – I believe that – of the United States Supreme Court,” Schumer said Wednesday at a conference of Democratic members of Congress and liberal groups focusing on amending the Constitution to repeal Citizens United.
So, political speech by an entity that Senator Schumer doesn’t agree with is pornography and a violation of his civil rights. But Mr. Super Genius isn’t through. He also invokes Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to make his case:
Schumer said that a constitutional amendment was needed to roll back the free-speech rights expanded by the court since Buckley, particularly the free-speech rights granted to political activist groups by Citizens United.
“This constitutional amendment is a moral, political, and substantive imperative,” he said. “And frankly, if Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton – both sides of the equation – were looking down on this room, they’d say ‘Go forward, right on,’ because our democracy is being ruined by these decisions.”
Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.
Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."
Adams responded to Hamilton’s slurs calling him…”an intriguant, the greatest in the world…a man devoid of every moral principal…a bastard.”
Even the universally worshipped George Washington was not off limits. Benjamin Franklin’s grandson declared…”if ever a nation has been debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by Washington.”
Alexander Hamilton also hated Aaron Burr. His attacks on the future Vice-President were relentless for years. During those years Burr seems to have either ignored Hamilton or was simply too busy with his own intrigues to care. But all this changed in 1804. Burr lost his election for Governor of New York, and Alexander Hamilton was one of the reasons. A letter appeared in the Albany register which proclaimed Burr was “a dangerous man who ought not to be trusted.” Not remarkable for the times until the letter writer declared “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.”
This called for clarification from Aaron Burr. Historians are not certain as to the “despicable opinions” are but some believe he claimed Burr having an incestuous relationship with his own daughter.
Burr called Hamilton out and Hamilton agreed to an “interview” (duel).
On the morning of July 11, 1804, the men settled their differences as Vice-President Aaron Burr put a one ounce slug into Alexander Hamilton’s liver. Hamilton died the next day.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
And let’s make no mistake about who is responsible for Solyndra:
Of course Obama exudes true leadership skills in a crisis:
Can we afford another four years?
Michael Coren of Sun News and Pamela Geller provide an update on the Islamic caliphate and their worldwide expansionist aspirations. You’ll hear some good along with the bad. It seems Europe is waking up. But is it too late? Time will tell.
The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014
Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier. The CBO projected that one in seven U.S. residents received food stamps last year.
In a report, the CBO said roughly two-thirds of jump in spending was tied to an increase in the number of people participating in the program, which provides access to food for the poor, elderly, and disabled. It said another 20% “of the growth in spending can be attributed to temporarily higher benefit amounts enacted in the” 2009 stimulus law.
In the meantime, we have democratic politicians and their surrogates spinning the virtue of dependency, while denigrating those who actually provide jobs. Here is Jesse Jackson hailing the food stamp president:
Here is Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D) trying to deflect Obama's dismal record on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Here is a chart putting his assertions into perspective:
Nancy Pelosi and coterie of communist are introducing a constitutional amendment that would stifle the political speech of businesses and associations. I wonder if their proposal includes state sponsored organizations like Planned Parenthood. Somehow, I doubt it.
Having failed to stop free speech through the legislative process, the democrats are making a frontal assault on our rights. Of course, they use flowery language to deceive the gullible.
“I've introduced a People's Rights Amendment, which is very simple and straightforward,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) said at the forum. “It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights.
“It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and nonprofits, in the same way, as artificial creatures of the state that we, the people, govern, not the other way around,” said McGovern.
Rep. Donna Edwards (D.-Md.) explained the basic principle this move to amend the Constitution is advancing.
“In Citizens United, what the court said is that Congress has no authority to regulate this kind of political speech,” said Edwards. “And so all of these constitutional amendments go to this question of giving Congress the authority that the Supreme Court, I think wrongly, decided isn't within Congress's constitutional--our constitutional purview.
“And so, you know, the traditional rights of free speech that we have known as citizens would not be disturbed by any of these constitutional amendments,” said Edwards. “But what it would do is it would say, all of the speech in which, whether it's corporations or campaign committees and others engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress and--and under our Constitution.”
We’ve already seen what has happened to “traditional rights.” Progressives have used the tax code to suppress the political speech of churches. The Revenue Acts of 1894 and 1913 squashed their free speech rights. The IRS is harassing tea party associations at the behest of democratic senators; and now they are going after dissent in corporate America.
Anyone who believes the Democratic Party is looking after the “people” are fooling themselves. The only “people” Nancy Pelosi and coterie of communist are looking after is themselves and their political future.
Here is an excerpt from Rebels and Redcoats describing the retreat of the British regulars:
Our men had very few opportunities of getting shots at the rebels, as they hardly ever fired but under cover of a stone wall, from behind a tree, or out of a house, and the moment they had fired they lay down out of sight until they had loaded again or the column had passed, In the road indeed in our rear, they were most numerous and came on pretty close, frequently calling out “King Hancock forever!” Many of them were killed in the houses on the roadside from whence they fired; in some of them seven or eight men were destroyed. Some houses were forced open in which no person could be discovered, but when the column had passed, numbers sallied out from some place in which they had lain concealed, fired at our rear guard and augmented the numbers which followed us. If we had had time to set fire to those houses, many rebels must have perished in them, but as night drew on Lord Percy thought it best to continue to march. Many houses were plundered by the soldiers, notwithstanding the efforts of the officers to prevent it. I have no doubt this inflamed the rebels and made many of them follow us farther than they would otherwise have done. By all accounts some soldiers stayed too long in the houses were killed in the very act of plundering by those who lay concealed in them. We brought in about ten prisoners, some of whom were taken in arms. One or two more were killed on the march while prisoners by the fire of their own people.
Even some women got into the fight:
….even women had firelocks. One was seen to fire a blunderbuss between her father and husband from their windows. There they three, with an infant child, soon suffered the fury of the day. In another house which was long defended by eight resolute fellows, the grenadiers at last got possession, when after having run their bayonets into seven, the eighth continued to abuse them with all the [beastlike] rage of a true Cromwellian, and but a moment before he quitted this world applied such epithets as I must leave unmentioned….
And for the progressives, here is a little primer to help you along on American history:
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
I think a congressional hearing is warranted. This war on fertile women cannot go unanswered.
Every year National Taxpayers Union (NTU) rates U.S. Representatives and Senators on their actual votes--every vote that affects taxes, spending, and debt. Unlike most organizations that publish ratings, we refuse to play the "rating game" of focusing on only a handful of congressional votes on selected issues. The NTU voting study is the fairest and most accurate guide available on congressional spending. It is a completely unbiased accounting of votes.
NTU assigned weights to the votes, reflecting the importance of each vote's effect on federal spending.
NTU has no partisan axe to grind. All members of Congress are treated the same regardless of political affiliation. Our only constituency is the overburdened American taxpayer. Grades are given impartially, based on the Taxpayer Score.
The Taxpayer Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending and opposing higher taxes. In general, a higher score is better because it means a member of Congress vote to spend less money.
2nd District Renee Elmers (R) 73% #150
3rd District Walter B. Jones (R) 58% #239
4th District David Price (D) 12% #379
5th District Virginia Foxx (R) 82%
6th District Howard Coble (R) 84%
7th District Mike McIntyre (D) 43% #243
8th District Larry Kissell (D) 21% #269
9th District Sue Myrick (R) 78%
10th District Patrick McHentry (R) 84%
11th District Heath Shuler (D) 28% 258th
12th District Mel Watt (D) 11% 405th
Senator Richard Burr (R) 87%
Senator Kay Hagan (D) 12%
When is Kay Hagan up for reelection? It can’t be soon enough.
ALEC, a nonpartisan organization advocating federalism and limited government, gave low scores to North Carolina for its policies on personal income taxes, both on the rate and the progressivity in tax liability. The state is ranked 36th for its 7.75 percent Top Marginal Personal Income Tax Rate. For each $1,000 increase in personal income, the tax liability rises by $11.06, placing North Carolina 33rd.
Two variables in which the state ranks first are Right-to-Work and State Minimum Wage, both of which are considered pro-growth policies. North Carolina is one of 22 right-to-work states, meaning employees at a unionized workplace can keep their jobs even if they choose not to join the union and not pay dues. The state’s minimum wage is $7.25, the same as the federal.
One of the key factors for North Carolina’s low ranking is the imposition of a death tax. States like Tennessee are looking to repeal this abomination. And because of this consideration, the volunteer state has an economic outlook rating of 12, as opposed to North Carolina’s 23.
There is something inherently wrong with taking a dead man’s property and business via taxes simply because he passed his assets onto his family. I believe the word “ghoulish” comes to mind.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Since 2006, the federal government had effectively banned American slaughterhouses from processing horse meat by defunding the Agriculture Department’s ability to inspect plants that butchered horses for consumption. Without inspections, the meat couldn’t be sold.
But last June a report by the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s chief investigative arm, found that rather than improving conditions for horses, the domestic ban backfired.
It depressed prices for horses in the U.S. and led to a surge in reports of neglect or abuse as owners of older horses had no way of disposing of them, short of selling them to “foreign slaughtering facilities where U.S. humane slaughtering protections do not apply.”
Late last year Mr. Obama signed a spending bill that stripped out the defunding language, effectively clearing the way for U.S. slaughterhouses to ramp up horse butchering again.
You've got to hand it to the Obama administration; they have found a way to fight global warming by displacing flatulent cows with an animal that hasn’t been relevant since the buggy days.
Christians are under attack throughout the world. We in the United States have witnessed the secularist assault the Catholics and Protestants by denying them their First Amendment rights. These godless heathens will not be satisfied until all Christians are cloistered in their homes worshipping in the dark. Do you think that is farfetched? Well, that is exactly what is happening in Islamic countries as we speak.
The Arab spring has turned into a fanatical nightmare. Coptic Christians are being murdered in mass. Their churches burnt to the ground, and now they are being hunted down as they pray within their homes.
A global jihad is underway and the world is looking to the Obama administration for succor. But he and his minions are too busy with their own jihad. Just ask the Catholic Church, they’ll tell you.
What I do know is the cost of beef is skyrocketing. The price for a pound of hamburger is outrageous. And it doesn’t look like it will abate any time soon:
The price of beef has hit an all-time high in each of the last four months. Experts expect cattle prices to rise even more throughout 2012 -- and, if conditions don't improve -- beyond.
The cause is what Mark Miller, of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, called a "perfect storm of elements" that show the convolutions of the global economy as effectively as any PowerPoint on the European debt crisis.
"Last year, we averaged $4.83 a pound," Ronald Plain, an agricultural economist at the University of Missouri, told The Huffington Post. "And I expect we're going to average $5.10 and $5.15 in 2012."
Going into 2011, American cattle stock was already thin. Meat-eaters had been moving away from beef, toward chicken, for decades, so ranchers had cut output accordingly. The shift gained momentum in the mid-2000s, when the Bush administration mandated the inclusion of corn ethanol in gasoline. Cattlemen got outbid for corn by SUV drivers. The price of feed skyrocketed and livestock profits fell.
Beef was especially hard hit, Plain explained, because cattle require more feed per pound of growth than do hogs or poultry. Farmers responded by raising fewer cattle.
I’ll always have fond memories of you beef pot pie. Soon, your memory will be relegated to a myth; a mere folklore to be told around the campfire.
Out of all of the major newspapers that litter North Carolina, the News and Observer is the only one that reported it:
A member of the party’s executive committee, Watt Jones, sent a complaint to Party Chairman David Parker in March asking about the allegations and financial settlement with the former employee, urging him to “clean up this mess before it gets worse.”
“If this hits the media, the Democratic Party, our candidates and our credibility are doomed in this election,” wrote Jones, according to a copy obtained by The News & Observer
The staffer’s firing has caused consternation within the party ranks for months. A party spokesman told The News & Observer in December he could not comment on an internal personnel matter.
Soon after the staffer left, former longtime party administrator Sallie Leslie quit. “The unethical actions by party leadership, of which I will not be a part of or have my reputation be associated with such” caused her to leave, she told The News & Observer on Friday.
Let’s get this straight. The News and Observer knew about this back in December and didn’t report it. If this had been the Republican Party, these leftist rags would have headlined this scandal all the way to November.
The Democratic Party isn’t the only organization that has a credibility problem; so do the newspapers in North Carolina.
Friday, April 13, 2012
“It’s about fairness,” Secretary Solis said while explaining President Obama’s re-election platform. “It’s about fairness in the workplace; it’s about fairness in education; and it’s about fairness in terms of what services are provided by government. And if we can’t have say-so in that, then this isn’t the dream that all of us have aspired to be a part of.”
“If people aren’t paying their taxes, those that can afford it, the billionaires and millionaires — even the folks as you’ve heard yesterday that were in the White House that agreed to pay more. They want to pay more because they know it’s their obligation!” she added:
“That’s why he’s putting forward an agenda that says he wants to see an America, an America that helps every single one of us. Not those that are privileged, not those that can afford fancy lawyers and lobbyists but people, everyday people.”
“An America, as he says it, that is built to last for every single one of us and our children and our grandchildren,” she added.
The Labor Secretary continued:
President Obama has said that in the face of our challenges we’re going to have to answer a central question as a country: can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do increasingly well while a growing number struggle to get by?
Or are we better off when everyone gets a fair shot and everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same rules?
That is what is at the heart of this national debate that the president has brought us into –and the other side of the aisle — because this is where we know we have to go. We have to have this discussion.
So I want to ask you if you’re going to help us march again. I want to ask you if you’re going to help us organize and I want to make sure that we’re accountable and that we are out there and that we not just fire ourselves up, you know, get excited, but I mean that we give it all that we got.
Who knew that thuggery is a virtue, when fairness is applied? Progressives are notorious for co-opting words and distorting the language. Let’s take a look at the definition of fairness by the American Heritage Dictionary:
1) free of obstacles
2) free of favoritism or bias; impartial
3) just to all parties; equitable
4) Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics
I don’t believe Secretary Solis had any of the above in mind when she made her speech. Wait a minute. I didn’t look down far enough in the dictionary. I do believe this is what her definition of fairness is:
Lawful to hunt or attack: fair game
Yes, that is more like it.