Monday, March 12, 2012

Free Market Capitalism is an Economy Driven by the 99%

I’ve watched the Occupy movement with quite a lot of interest. I hung out for a day in October at McPherson Square with the Occupy DC folks. I was even on NPR for two seconds as they identified me as someone who was sympathetic to the TEA Party and also interested in what OWS had to say.

I was at CPAC and literally right next to Andrew Breitbart (coincidentally—we weren’t hanging out) as he traded words with Occupy.

Later that night I took part in the impromptu “beer summit” at CPAC where TEA Partiers basically bought drinks for a group of Occupy people and we traded ideas civilly.

I’ve read plenty of Marx, and Chomsky. My favorite class in college was a seminar I took on revolution.

The point is I have a decent sense of where Occupy is coming from and though I don’t agree with much that I hear from Occupy, I respect the noise. It is good for the Republic to have people yelling at the top of their lungs.

But there is one vital point that Occupy does not get. Markets and free market capitalism are the best things that ever happened for the “99%.”

That is a ridiculous statement Nick! How can you possibly say that? Look around. There is poverty everywhere. Kids graduating from college are saddled with horrible debt. Look at the wars and the war profiteering! Look at Wal-Mart and its exploitation of its workers!

Thing is, if one looks closely, it is the hand of the state that is behind these perceived injustices not the invisible one.

The poverty one sees in the United States is perpetuated by a highly inefficient welfare system.


An Assessment of the Direness of our Situation

Conservative Heritage Times


Periodically I get heavily emotionally invested in a Republican campaign when there is a candidate that I think is truly different and better represents my brand of conservatism – Pat Buchanan ’92 and ’96, Ray McBerry ’10 (Governor of Georgia), Roy Moore ’06 and ’10 (Governor of Alabama) and Ron Paul ’08 and ’12 come to mind. (For the record, McBerry’s campaign imploded for reasons beyond an unreceptive electorate, but I’m not inclined to go into those details here.) I consider myself very much a realist about the ultimate electoral prospects of these candidates as I explain here, but it is one thing to be a realist on an intellectual level; it is another thing to come to terms with it on an emotional level. While I never believed Paul could win the nomination, there was part of me that thought/hoped Paul could really win Iowa. There was part of me that thought he could win or do very well in the Idaho caucus. There was part of me that hoped he would emerge as the last standing alternative to Romney. None of those things happened. While Paul has improved on his 2008 performance almost everywhere so far, there is clearly a ceiling to his support in GOP primaries, and that ceiling appears to be lower in my beloved South.

The reason I’m depressed, other than the fact that I’m in the process of swearing off that highly addictive drug known as Diet Coke (don’t let anyone tell you different), is because this primary season has brought home emotionally the direness of our situation. Let’s look at a few examples.

Romney comes rolling into South Carolina off a virtual tie in Iowa and a win in New Hampshire. So the Republican primary electorate of South Carolina, arguably the most conservative state in the Union, was going to stick it in the eye of the Establishment RINO front-runner Romney and give their support to a conservative alternative. So how did they do this? A healthy plurality voted for Newt Gingrich, that’s how. Newt Gingrich? Really?

Now I have long had an acute awareness of and visceral disdain for Gingrich because I am from Georgia and used to live in his district so I don’t expect everyone to be as familiar with Gingrich’s failings as a conservative as I am, but is it asking too much for them to have some discernment? Gingrich is a buffoonish pseudoconservative who has no grasp whatsoever of enumerated powers and represents in caricature everything that is wrong with modern “movement conservatism.”

And how did Ron Paul fair in South Carolina, this supposed bastion of conservatism? Paul had come in a competitive third with 21.43% in the prairie state of Iowa. He came in second in the Damn Yankee state of New Hampshire with 22.9%. But in the conservative firewall Southern state of South Carolina he came in dead last of the four remaining candidates with 13%. Should I be surprised? In 2008 South Carolina went for John McCain and basically handed him the nomination. In ’96 they pulled Bob Dole’s rear end out the fire by giving him a win over Pat Buchanan. Way to stick it in the eye of the Establishment there boys. And so you know I’m not just picking on South Carolina, on Super Tuesday my home state of Georgia gave a victory to it’s “native son” Newt Gingrich, a man whose ideological version of “conservatism” is as Yankeefied as it is possible to be. Ron Paul was fourth with 6.1%. (I have some thoughts on why Southerners vote this way, but that is for another essay.) It will be interesting to see how Paul does in Alabama and Mississippi on Tuesday.

And so you know that I’m not just picking on my own South, lets look at Idaho, that bastion of Western rugged individualism, a state that is reportedly teaming with “anti-government extremists.” There was talk that Ron Paul might even win Idaho. What happened? Romney won with 61.6% of the vote, allegedly helped by the state’s large Mormon population. Paul came in third with 18.1% barely behind Santorum with 18.2%. This was actually worse than the 24% he garnered in 2008, and that was a primary.

In the rugged individualist state of Wyoming Romney won 39.0%. Paul was third with 20.8%. It will be interesting to see how Paul does in the Montana caucus.

Also contributing to my despair is the inexorable drift of the country and the populace to the “tolerant” (read anti-Christian) left on such issues as gay marriage as illustrated by the outrage over Kirk Cameron’s “anti-gay” remarks. This reflects the underlying de-Christianization of the culture, and we are deluding ourselves if we deny this.

To be clear, I am not criticizing Paul. If anything, I’m criticizing the voters, particularly GOP primary voters. So what is the point of this despairing rant then? I think our type of conservatives - traditionalist, paleo, constitutionalist, non-interventionist – need to face facts. We have limited electoral prospects for the indefinite future. Maybe not on certain issues like immigration, but on the package as a whole.

Now some of my third party friends will tell me this illustrates that the GOP is not reformable and that we are wasting our time trying, and I don’t necessarily disagree. I’m not sure the Republican Party is reformable either. But if we can’t get voters in the supposedly conservative party to vote essentially farther to the right, how do my third party friends think we are going to create a formidable party to challenge the Republicans based on the premise that the Republican Party is not far enough right? Where are the voters for this third party going to come from if not from people who already identify as conservative but who we think aren’t enough so? You could conceivably create a third party that is based on a different coalition and issues cluster that might be preferable, but that would involve trade offs. I think there might be room for a more economically populist party which would, for example, reject the corporatism masquerading as free market advocacy that currently characterizes the GOP, but it would also likely include advocacy of greater regulation, higher taxes on the rich, etc. as well.

Also, some of my friends will surely tell me that this illustrate that the current federal system is corrupt and not worth the effort of trying to reform, and I agree. The current system is corrupt and not reformable. But I don’t understand what plan arises from this realization. If we can’t get a majority of South Carolina’s self identified most conservative citizens (GOP primary voters) to vote for Ron Paul, how do you start a political movement to dismantle the Federal beast? Where are the supporters of this mass movement going to come from? 40.4% of them just voted for Newt “Moon Base” Gingrich!

So what is my take home point? First of all, no useful political reform is going to happen until we first have a revival of the Faith. That said, I don’t discourage people who are trying to drag the GOP to the right from continuing their efforts. I don’t discourage people who are so inclined to keep plugging away doing that hard and thankless task of trying to build a third party. Nor do I discourage people who believe the current federal system is broken beyond repair from doing what they can to dismantle it. My point is they need to do this with the realization that their efforts are unlikely to reap fruit for the indefinite future. They need to realize that at this point our efforts are primarily educational, not political. We must create a climate ripe for our reforms before we can expect our reforms to prevail.

And while I don’t discourage our candidates from pursuing elective office, they should do so under the realization that they are primarily message candidates. One practical application of this realization is that we might be better off spending more time on issues advocacy, rather than spending it supporting “our” candidates. Also we need to increase our focus on education intended to move the people to the right and focus less on jousting at windmills in the political arena. (Although I think there is something to be said for the educational value of message candidates.)

Personally, I am going to attempt to write more serious pieces aimed to educate, rather than following political horse races as much. I’m also going to try to do more persuading the public and less preaching to the choir.

I know this is heavy? Thoughts?

The Man Who Quit Money

Via Survival

"There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our (the United States) overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing."
-- Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837

More than a decade ago, Daniel Suelo closed his bank account and moved into a desert cave. Here's how he eats, sleeps, and evades the law.

"Our whole society is designed so that you have to have money," Daniel Suelo says. "You have to be a part of the capitalist system. It's illegal to live outside of it."

Suelo has defied these laws. His primary residence is the canyons near Arches National Park, where he has lived in a dozen caves tucked into sandstone nooks. In the fall of 2002, two years after quitting money, he homesteaded a majestic alcove high on a cliff, two hundred feet across and fifty feet tall. Sitting inside and gazing into the gorge below felt like heralding himself to the world from inside the bell of a trumpet.

Suelo's grotto was a two-hour walk from pavement, and he settled in for the long haul. He chipped at the rocky ground to create a wide, flat bed, and lined it with tarps and pads and sleeping bags that had been left out with someone else's trash. He built wood-burning cook-stoves from old tin cans. He learned to forage for cactus pods, yucca seeds, wildflowers, and the watercress that grew in the creek. He drank from springs, bathed in the creek. From a chunk of talus he carved a statue, a ponderous head like some monolith from Easter Island.

In warm months the cave attracted occasional hikers, and when Suelo was away, he left a note. Feel free to camp here. What's mine is yours. Eat any of my food. Read my books. Take them with you if you'd like. Visitors left notes in return, saying they were pleased with his caretaking.


Dixie: Beeldmateriaal LKK concert 16 April 2011, The Norman Luboff Choir

No Voter ID Law Means More Democrat Voters in November

The Justice Department’s civil rights division shot down a new photo ID requirement for voters in because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification. A similar edict from the Justice Department was leveled against .

When I saw the doctor yesterday to be treated for a sinus infection, I had to show my driver’s license and insurance card. Two days ago, the police set up a road block to check proof of insurance and a valid driver’s license. I wonder if the Hispanics didn’t have to stop to show whether they had a license. (Of course, I’m not in favor of random ID checks. I only mention this to make a point.)

Early last month I flew to Las Vegas for a speaking engagement. I had to show my ID two times before I could board the plane. When I checked into the hotel, I was asked for my ID and a valid credit card. While in Las Vegas, I set up two business bank accounts. They wanted a whole lot of IDs. Last week I went to a different bank branch to cash a check, and the teller asked for my ID and wrote my license number on the check.

Here’s a convenient list of where you will need an ID:



Mission-Specific Blog Available

On 12 March 1894 Coca-Cola was first sold in bottles, at Vicksburg, Mississippi. That was the genius act of re-packaging that made Coke's success. Of course, some people might claim it was the cocaine in the recipe, but the company says nothing about that. Cocaine was, by the way, perfectly legal in the 1880s & 1890s, and along with alcohol, morphine, heroin, & cannabis wasn't required to be noted on the product label until the Pure Food & Drug Act in 1906. Here's another Milestone of Success for government "protection" and control. Do y'all reckon there were more drug addicts in 1906, or in 2012? Asking the question answers it.
--The Moneychanger


I currently have the "authorship rights" blog at .

I do not have time to push this effort as much as it could / should be pushed.

If you want to run this blog and you have a blogger account, or if you're willing to start a blogger account and take the reins, please drop me a note in the comments or through the contact form on the right sidebar.

I'm not really sure how to transfer "ownership" of a Blogger site, but it likely isn't too hard.

If you're interested, let me know.


Iran: '11,000 missiles ready' if U.S. attacks

In December it emerged that China sold Iran, for $11 billion, advanced DF-31 ICBMs which are capable of reaching U.S. soil with nuclear warheads. North Korean engineers are helping to get the missile system up and running.
Gee, this should work out swell.......


The Iranian newspaper Kayhan reported Thursday that in the first minutes of any American conflict with Iran, “Israel and all U.S. interests around the world will be targeted.”

The newspaper, which is under the supervision of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ran the story under the headline “11,000 Missiles Ready to Launch.”

And on Saturday, Tehran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Qazanfar Roknabadi, confirmed during a public roundtable event that the Islamic regime is prepared to attack both Israel and U.S. bases in the region if its nuclear facilities are attacked.

Citing comments from Gen. Zakaraia Hossein, the former head of the superior academy of Egypt, the Kayhan report added that “America fully knows that Iran is not Iraq” and that “a war with Iran would jeopardize all its interests in the region.”

The Kayhan report emphasized that the leaders of the Islamic regime have successfully thwarted American and Israeli threats over its illicit nuclear program. But given Iran’s missile capabilities, it said, any aggression on its soil will be met with the launch of 11,000 missiles against Israel and U.S. interests in the region.

The report said Iran had successfully launched three intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) during recent war games exercises. Though this has not been reported by other sources, such capability could drastically change the balance of power in the region and further escalate existing tensions.


Our Choice – Impeachment or Dictatorship

Via Looking in the Mirror

Tancredo urges House to begin proceedings against Obama ASAP

Almost every week brings a new reason for the United States House of Representatives to bring impeachment charges against President Obama. The question of the day is not why he should be impeached but why it hasn’t already been done.

This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations. This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.

Well, really, folks: Is Obama’s disregard of the Constitution really news? No. He has done it so many times it doesn’t make news anymore. Democrats approve it and Republicans in Congress appear to accept it – not all Republicans, of course, but far too many.

The list of Obama’s constitutional violations is growing by the day and ought to be the topic of not only nightly news commentary but citizens’ town-hall meetings and protest rallies.

President Obama can only be emboldened by the lack of impeachment proceedings. His violations typically arouse a short-lived tempest among some conservatives, yet impeachment is not generally advocated by his critics as a realistic recourse. That must change.

That Obama can be voted out of office in eight months is not a reason to hold back on impeachment. Formal impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives would help alert the nation’s 120 million likely voters that more is at stake in Obama’s power grabs than Syrian human rights and contraception subsidies for college students.


Vetting Obama’s Pastor

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.
--Patrick Henry

“I have been affiliated with the Cuba Council of Churches since the 1980s,” boasted Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a sermon on July 16th, 2006. “I have several close Cuban friends (italics added) who work with the Cuba Council of Churches and you have heard me preach about our affiliation and the Black Theology Project’s trips to Cuba. The Cuban Council of Churches has been a non-partisan global mission partner for decades. I have worked with them for two decades.”

“Non-partisan,” Reverend Wright?

Not according to Cuban intelligence defector Juan Vives, who from hands-on experience reports that the Cuba Council of Churches is in fact an arm of Cuba’s ICAP (Instituto Cubano de Amistad con los Pueblos) itself an arm of Cuba’s KGB-founded and mentored DGI (Directorio General de Inteligencia.) The ICAP’s long-time chieftan was Rene Cruz Rodriguez, by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s own admission perhaps one of his “friends.”

Rodriguez’ meteoric rise through Cuba’s Stalinist bureaucracy was facilitated by his diligence as an early executioner, often beating out Che Guevara and Raul Castro themselves in his zeal to shatter the firing-squad victim’s skull with a coup d’ grace from his .45. (Here is some dramatic proof of Rene Cruz Rodriguez’ zeal. That’s him on the right giving the firing squad their order of “FUEGO!”)


The winning 'green' light bulb costs $50!

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.” There was also a “Buy America” component. Portions of the bulb would have to be made in the United States.

Now the winning bulb is on the market.

The price is $50.

Retailers said the bulb, made by Philips, is likely to be too pricey to have broad appeal. (Uh, duh.)

Texas teen pees in court trash can during trial

Old, but first time I've seen it.

Via Occidental Dissent

Dreams of My Daughters

President Barack Obama surprised even battle-hardened pro-life Americans with his official remarks on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that has, since 1973, littered garbage dumps across America with the corpses of 50 million babies, 32 percent of them African-American. In a White House press release praising the landmark case (notable both for its outcome and for the way it squeezed blood out of the turnip of constitutional penumbrae), the President pledged to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

The statement on its surface reads like a PSA from the Disney Channel, a favorite of Mr. Obama’s daughters Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10: Follow your dreams, dream big, let nothing stand in the way of your dreams. Yet underneath is the simmering stench of latex and death.

Babies get in the way of dreams.


The Resistance Rises: Reinstating the "Castle Doctrine"

When a cop invades a home without legal authority, he is acting as a criminal, rather than a peace officer. SB 1 recognizes that principle by focusing on the act of illegal entry, rather than the identity of the aggressor


As the lower house of the Indiana State Legislature approved Senate Bill 1 on March 1, Representative Linda Lawson lamented that if it were passed the measure would signal that it’s “open season on law enforcement.”

“You have men and women in your community who are willing to die for you, willing to die for your family,” insisted Lawson, who – as a former police officer herself –spoke on behalf of 15,000 members of the police union. The only suitable way to display proper gratitude to the heroic paladins of public order, according to Lawson, is to protect their purported authority to invade your home and kill you with impunity – a privilege that would be undermined by SB 1.

The text of SB 1 states that its legislative purpose “is to protect citizens from unlawful entry into their homes by law enforcement officers or persons pretending to be law enforcement officers. Both citizens and law enforcement officers benefit from clear guidance about the parameters of lawful home entry, which will reduce the potential for violence and respect the privacy and property of citizens.”

To that end, the bill recognizes that an individual “may use force … to prevent or terminate a law enforcement officer’s unlawful entry.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Attacking Iran "Is Not In Our Interest"

How many words do you know?

Via Oleg Volk

Oleg got 50,062, so I feel pretty good at 45,507 and one click from the top.

Try it HERE


Truth Is Not True

The truth is never true. There are too many perspectives, too many definitions and too many diviners of truth for it to matter. A leftist truth is too harsh and unyielding to their enemies and so it is with the right. There is something between capitalist greed and socialist utopia.

Tom Baugh recently issued a quiz, which most Constitutionalists, as I claim to be, would find initially erroneous on a couple of points, but the overall truth of it is valid. Our republic was founded upon certain documents that no president has followed, not even the revered George Washington, but their initial instincts were not wrong because they, when in power, proved their own thesis. Government itself, every one of them, is the evil to be quelled. That doesn't make me anti-government, it makes me a realist about government.

Governments attract people willing to dictate rules to others.

Just War and the Iran Crisis Plus Only two Just Wars

Via Patriot's Lament

It would be wrong for the United States to engage at this time in an attack on Iran or to participate substantially in an Israeli action.

Before launching an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, we must pause to reflect on whether such military action is morally justifiable. As heirs of the West, we Americans have the privilege of drawing upon a tradition of moral reflection on war that is at least 2000 years old. The greatest philosophers and theologians of our history have contributed to the “just war” theory, including Cicero, Ambrose, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Vitoria, and Suarez, and this tradition has been embraced by a broad consensus of theologians and moral theorists from many religious and secular backgrounds. Just war theory embodies two principal ideas: the sacredness of human life, and the impermissibility of “doing evil that good may come” (as St. Paul put it in Romans chapter 3).

For the sake of argument, I will assume in this essay the worst possible case: namely, that the Iranian government is intent on pursuing the creation of nuclear weapons, and that there is a significant likelihood that Iran would either use these weapons directly against the United States or Israel, or give them to hostile terrorist groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah. Since a good end, no matter how important, cannot justify evil means, we must look to the just war theory for guidance in discerning what means for self-defense are permissible.



Just War

Much of "classical international law" theory, developed by the Catholic Scholastics, notably the 16th-century Spanish Scholastics such as Vitoria and Suarez, and then the Dutch Protestant Scholastic Grotius and by 18th- and 19th-century jurists, was an explanation of the criteria for a just war. For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.

My own view of war can be put simply: a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them.

During my lifetime, my ideological and political activism has focused on opposition to America's wars, first because I have believed our waging them to be unjust, and, second, because war, in the penetrating phrase of the libertarian Randolph Bourne in World War I, has always been "the health of the State," an instrument for the aggrandizement of State power over the health, the lives, and the prosperity, of their subject citizens and social institutions. Even a just war cannot be entered into lightly; an unjust one must therefore be anathema.

There have been only two wars in American history that were, in my view, assuredly and unquestionably proper and just; not only that, the opposing side waged a war that was clearly and notably unjust. Why? Because we did not have to question whether a threat against our liberty and property was clear or present; in both of these wars, Americans were trying to rid themselves of an unwanted domination by another people. And in both cases, the other side ferociously tried to maintain their coercive rule over Americans. In each case, one side — "our side" if you will — was notably just, the other side — "their side" — unjust.

To be specific, the two just wars in American history were the American Revolution and the War for Southern Independence.


Scary Cars? Yes, Just Like Those Scary Guns!

Via Oleg Volk

The original muffler manufacturer made a variety of products for all needs

Steam-powered street vehicles first appeared in noticeable numbers in England in the 1830s. They were eventually driven out of common use by legislation backed by their competitors and “self-propelled carriages” did not reappear until the late 1890s. At the time, gasoline and alcohol powered cars were not the obvious choice over the steam and electric competitors. While they had many advantages, they also suffered from a great disadvantage — the noise of un-muffled engines. The requirement for cars to stop upon encountering horses was based in part on the noise emitted and the possibility of it spooking the animals. The first US patent for a muffler was filed in 1897, and the classic Maxim Silencer mufflers were invented in 1902. At the time, the process of obtaining a muffler for a firearm involved sending funds to the manufacturer and receiving a tube containing the muffler by mail. Most of the early mufflers were eccentric, with the bulk of the device hanging below the bore line to enable the use of stock sights.

Bruce Springsteen: A liberal tax-dodging fake farmer

Bruce Springsteen is a man of the people. He stands up for the little guy. A regular blue-collar Joe. A union man. A bona fide working-class hero.

And, when he’s not busy being all that... he’s a tax-dodging liberal hypocrite worth over $200 million who pretends to be a farmer to save hundreds of thousands of dollars on his property taxes that would have otherwise funded the welfare programs he pretends to care about.

That’s right. Mr. “Union Man, Blue Collar” Springsteen is a total fraud, as I explain in my brand-new book Hollywood Hypocrites: The Devastating Truth About Obama’s Biggest Backers.

Recall that Springsteen actively campaigned for Obama in 2008, hosting free concerts that attracted tens of thousands of people in key battleground states. Springsteen’s song, “The Rising,” became a campaign staple for Obama’s speech venues and culminated in him playing for Obama’s Inauguration. And this time around, the White House plans on using the aging rocker's new politically-motivated track, “We Take Care of Our Own,” to warm up crowds as the re-election bid kicks into high gear.

An authentic rectangular Battle Flag that is not a Naval Jack


The flag was donated to the museum by members of the Davis family of Alabama. It had been passed down for 145 years through generations of the family since their great-great-grandfather, 65th Georgia Infantry color bearer Private John Davis, brought it home from the Civil War.

Siblings Don Davis, Pete Davis, both of Alabama, and Rhonda Davis of Tennessee, donated the flag to the museum in downtown Kennesaw because they thought it was appropriate to share it.

Through a telegram and soldiers letters, Gregg Biggs, a Tennessee historian of Civil War flags, pinpointed the flag’s birth to Augusta in January 1864.

Interestingly, although the Confederacy lost the war, the flag was not surrendered.

John Davis carried it rolled up and tucked into his boot to save it from capture or destruction, according to historians.

The flag had been carried by its unit throughout the Atlanta campaign, traveling with the Confederacy’s principal army in the western theater, the Army of Tennessee, after the fall of Atlanta to the Union. The 65th Georgia regiment, which was part of the Army of Tennessee, would have been composed of about 1,000 soldiers.

It was also carried on November 30, 1864, at the Battle of Franklin in Tennessee, an engagement in which one-quarter of the 27,000-man army was killed or wounded in three hours, including six generals.

John Davis was the final color bearer for the flag at the Battle of Franklin. But the blood stains are believed by historians to have come from its first color bearer, William Martin. When Martin was killed at Franklin, the regiment’s commander, Capt. William G. Foster, picked up the banner and was quickly wounded. That’s when Davis is said to have taken it up.

To carry such a flag in war was a unique honor, said Dr. Keith Bohannon, a University of West Georgia associate professor of history.

Civil War HistoryMobile at VMI March 21-22


LEXINGTON, Va., March 2, 2012 – An 18-wheel museum on wheels will visit Virginia Military Institute later this month.

The Civil War 150 HistoryMobile will be parked in front of Preston Library and open for touring from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 21, and from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Thursday, March 22. The exhibit is an initiative of the Virginia Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War Commission, whose 2012 signature conference, “Leadership and Generalship in the Civil War,” will take place March 22 in VMI’s Marshall Hall conference center.

Also that week is the 2012 Stonewall Jackson Symposium, sponsored by VMI’s Stonewall Jackson House, with a daytime event Friday, March 24, “Lexington’s Civil War,” that is open to the public. The Symposium continues Saturday, March 25, by registration only. Information is available at

Premiere Source: Totally Bogus that 98 Advertisers are Targeting Hannity, Beck, Levin

Reports this weekend that as many as 98 major advertisers are asking not to air their ads on conservative radio shows are "totally bogus," a source close to Premiere Networks told Newsmax Sunday night.

Premiere Networks syndicates top-rated shows like those hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck.

This past weekend, news reports on sites like Politico and the Huffington Post are suggesting that as many as 98 major brands and major businesses are asking that their ads not run on such conservative talk programs. The reports suggest the advertisers are taking the action in the wake of comments made by Rush Limbaugh about a female Georgetown law student.

"The fact is that these advertisers, with a few exceptions, have never been advertising on Premiere's conservative shows," the source said.

It is well known that major companies and brands often shun both conservative and liberal shows and outlets, as Madison Avenue advertising firms keep "do not buy" lists of programs they believe may upset their client's customers.

"Most of these 98 firms don't air on liberal MSNBC or radio shows like Ed Schultz's. There is nothing new here," the source said.

Tea Party groups pressure House GOP leaders to rev up Fast and Furious probe

Local Tea Party activists are pressing House Republican leaders to pursue their investigation into the Operation Fast and Furious gun-tracking effort more aggressively.

The top three House Republicans have been slow to lead the charge of the GOP’s criticism of the botched operation.

As a result, local Tea Party groups in the home districts of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) are turning up the heat on the lawmakers.

The groups say their representatives maintain the most powerful positions in the lower chamber and should be more critical of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

The president of the local Dayton Tea Party in Boehner’s home district has criticized the lawmaker repeatedly over his silence on Fast and Furious. Local Tea Party candidate David Lewis hammered Boehner on the issue during his campaign to oust the top ranking Republican, though he only managed to garner 16 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s primary.


New Age Tow Truck

Roundabout via Cousin Colby

Texas State Fair "Teeter Totter" Dodge "Bull" Ride

Roundabout via Cousin Colby



Via The Bonnie Blue Blog

The implant is specifically designed to be injected in the forehead.

When properly installed, it will allow the foreign and/or domestic enemies of the Constitution to speak to God.

Microchips come in a wide variety of sizes (and insertion devices).