Monday, September 28, 2009

American History 101

All right, people, settle down! Class is in session!

I learned some very interesting things at my monthly Sons of Confederate Veteran's meeting last week which impressed me enough for me to want to share them with whoever reads my blog, so here they are. And, if you know me by reading my blog, then you'll know that the information I'm about to bless you with is the actual truth and not the "Reconstructed" or "Yankee" version of American history now being taught - or rather, not being taught - in our public schools.

Thanks to the teachings in our public schools, the South and the Confederacy are widely considered to be the "villians" in the war, responsible for all of the bad things that took place. The Federal government, along with the Northern troops and people, on the other hand, have been portrayed as righteous, caring, compassionate people who never, ever did anything wrong.

Which any true student of American history will know is total bullshit.

The speaker at my SCV meeting was a very knowledgeable lady who has written a book entitled, "No More Sacred Piece of Ground," and it's a history of Southern monuments to Confederate war dead and Confederate veterans. During her presentation she told us some things about the monuments at Gettysburg that I found quite profound.

After the battle, the Federal forces immediately began to collect their dead for identification and burial. Once they were identified, they were either buried right there at the battlefield or sent back to their home state for burial. The bodies that were buried on the battlefield were buried on the section that was earmarked as the new National Cemetary, the one where Lincoln gave his famous "Gettysburg Address" at the grand opening ceremonies.

The Confederate dead, however, were either buried where they fell with little or no efforts being made to identify them, or gathered up and buried in mass graves - again, with little or no efforts being made to identify them. So as Lincoln was giving his soon to be famous speech honoring the "gallant dead" of the battlefield, the Confederacy's gallant dead were, for the most part, lying together in mass graves, the bodies unidentified and the families in the South left wondering what happened to their sons, husbands, and fathers.

Soon after that, several groups of Southern ladies from the different states (women's support groups were VERY popular during the war) petitioned Lincoln and the Federal government to let them travel up North to Gettysburg and collect their dead; Lincoln immediately denied all such requests. The first Confederate dead weren't recovered from the battlefield and taken back home to the South until 1867, four years after the battle.

But we were talking about monuments and markers, weren't we?

The rush to start erecting monuments and markers began almost immediately after the gunsmoke cleared from the field. Of course, this rush was by the Northern states - the Southern states were still kinda busy trying to win their independence. And once the war was over and Reconstruction was in full swing, the Southern states were too broke to be able to even think about erecting monuments at Gettysburg. Soon the battlefield was littered with monuments, all of them to Northern units and troops, while the equally-brave and gallant Southern troops lay buried in unmarked, mass graves.

Nice. Very nice.

With the approach of the 25th Anniversary of the battle, some of the Southern states attempted to put up some monuments to their honored dead; however, two things stood in their way. First, they were still broke, and second, the surviving Union veterans screamed and hollered so loudly in objection to this idea that the Federal government denied any and all requests from Southern states to erect any monuments in Gettysburg. It took FIFTY YEARS for the "caring and compassionate" people of the North to finally relent and allow the Southern states to erect monuments to their dead at Gettysburg. Virginia was first, erecting a statue of General Robert E. Lee on his mount, "Traveller." But this didn't take place until 1917, a full fifty four years after the battle!

In the South during Reconstruction, things weren't much better. The Southern people immediately began to make plans to erect monuments in their home states to their Confederate dead, but they all had the same obstacle to overcome - the Federal military governor of each state. In most of the Southern states, any monument that was erected during Reconstruction could not contain any reference to the Confederacy or the South in any way, at the direction of the military governors. If you've ever seen an old Confederate monument in any of the Southern states that simply stated, "TO OUR HONORED WAR DEAD" or "TO OUR HONORED DEAD," this is why.

Another interesting factoid about those Southern monuments concerns the dress, pose, and direction of the soldiers on top of them. Monuments that were built during Reconstruction and prior to 1903 that had soldiers on top of them all had the soldier dressed in the uniform he would have worn during the war; he would also be posed in such a manner as to be "at the ready," rifle held in both hands across his body in an "on guard" pose, or with the butt on the ground, bayonet fixed, as he would have stood when on "picket" (guard) duty. And without fail, the soldier would have been facing North - guarding the South against another invasion.

Around 1903 the Confederate veterans started passing away, so a few things about the monuments changed. The first was the wording - instead of saying "To Our Honored Dead," the wording would say something like, "To Our Honored Veterans" or "To Our Confederate Veterans." (By 1903 it was OK to use the word "Confederate" in the wording since Reconstruction was long gone and the Southern states were being controlled by Southerners.)

Another thing that changed was the dress of the soldier on top of the monument - now he would be wearing what came to be the standard uniform of the United Confederate Veterans, that being a long frock coat and slouch hat. The pose of the soldier also changed, going from an aggressive "on guard" pose with rifle at the ready, to an "at ease" pose, rifle butt on the ground, no bayonet, with the soldiers standing in a relaxed stance with one knee bent, hands on top of the muzzle. Lastly, the soldiers were sometimes placed facing South, looking towards the land they defended and loved instead of watching the North for another invasion.

Kinda makes you look at that old monument in the town square in a different way, doesn't it? We have one of those old monuments in the town where I live, and I now know that it was erected after 1903 because it honors "Our Confederate Veterans." There's no soldier on top; not now, anyway. Not sure if there ever was, but maybe I'll do some digging and see what I can find out about that....should be interesting.

And that's it for today, boys and girls. Class dismissed!

IHC

Friday, September 25, 2009

Some Random Thoughts on a Friday Morning

Had a few things running through my head this morning and couldn't decide which one to post, so I decided to post all of them. (Hey, it's my blog, I can do that!)

MacKenzie Phillips let her drug problem interfere with her career.

Wow! Really? No kidding? You mean you're just now figuring that one out, MacKenzie? I would have thought that getting fired from a #1 TV show because you were always late because you were high, and couldn't act because you were high, and kept on missing shoots because you were high would have been a BIG clue! Guess it just runs in the family, huh? (If you're too young to know who her dad was, he was John Phillips of the '60s band "The Mamas and the Papas" and was one of THE biggest druggies of the era.)

Manson follower Susan Atkins dies in prison from brain cancer.

I can think of no more fitting ending to this woman's life than this...except for the ride on "Ol' Sparky" she was sentenced to in 1971, that is, which was amended to life when the Supreme Court struck down the national death penalty law in 1972.

For those of you who were either too young to remember or can't remember the '60s (ala John Phillips), allow me to enlighten you: Susan Atkins was a follower of Charles Manson, and on a summer night in 1969 Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle, Charles "Tex" Watkins, and Leslie Van Houten broke into the home of actress Sharon Tate, wife of director Roman Polanski, and killed everyone in the house. Polanski was out of town, but Tate was killed along with Voytek Frykowski, Jay Sebring (a popular hair stylest of the time), Abigail Folger (heiress to the Folger coffee fortune), and Steven Parent, a poor kid who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was leaving the grounds after having visited the ground's caretaker and stumbled across the murderers as they walked down the drive. He was the first to die. Abigail Folger was chased from the house and killed on the front lawn, having been stabbed so many times that the white nightgown she was wearing was mistakenly thought to be red by the cops. Jay Sebring was hung from the rafters in the living room after being stabbed, and Frykowski was stabbed 41 times.

Oh, and did I mention that Tate was eight months pregnant at the time? Atkins held Tate down and stabbed her 16 times, and when Tate begged for the life of her unborn child, Atkins told Tate, "I have no mercy for you!" After this, Atkins wrote the word "PIG" over the doorway to the house in Tate's blood.

The next night the same group broke into another home in LA, that of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, and murdered them as well. Leno was left lying on the floor on his back, a barbecue fork sticking out of his stomach. All of this was done as a part of Manson's plan to incite a "race war" among blacks and whites. (Yeah, he's nuts. He's also in prison for life, thank God and the State of California.)

I therefore think it fitting and just that the State of California had no mercy on Atkins, denying her 13th parole request last month so she could die outside of prison. This murdering bitch deserved to die in prison, I don't care how many times she was "born again" or how good a "model prisoner" she was! Paul Tate - the name that the baby would have had - would be 40 years old this year, had he been allowed to be born. Atkins took care of that, so I think for her to die in prison and of brain cancer is a richly deserved fate.

Iran has a second nuclear facility and is "breaking the rules" while possibly developing nuclear weapons

Well, no shit! Now tell us something we DON'T know! I think the only people who DIDN'T know that Iran was doing whatever the hell it wanted to, rules be damned, while developing nuclear weapons capabilities are the people of Iran, who are told only what the government and the lunatic president of Iran wants them to hear.

I'm so disgusted on this one that words fail me. I could write about this one all day long, but in short all I'll say is this: if Ahmadinejad wants a nuclear device, then fine - give him one.

Right over Tehran.

As they say in some parts of the South, "That boy just needs killin'."

IHC

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Can you say "HYPOCRISY?" How about "HYPOCRITE?"

This is the question I would ask some of the leading anti-gunners in our nation, specifically Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Frank Lautenberg, and just for fun, NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg. And, of course, two things would happen: they wouldn't have a clue as to what I was talking about (or would claim not to, anyway), and if they did, they'd give me another convoluted, misconstrued, "mis-spoken" answer to my questions.

So just what is it that has irked me this time, you ask? The answer is simple, so allow me to explain.

Remember waaaaaay back in 1994 when "Slick Willy" Clinton thought it would be a dandy good idea to declare illegal a whole different bunch of guns in the name of "reducing crime?" Well, five of these "Six Stooges" were the frontrunners in the campaign, all of them - except for Bloomberg - being some of the main architects of Clinton's disastrous and completely ineffective bill. At that point in time these mental giants were demanding that every gun owner in every state be licensed and controlled by the Federal governent, totally overriding the individual state's right to pass its own laws and regulate its people. They wanted all gun owners nationwide, regardless of the state in which they lived and the laws of said state, to provide the Federal government the information on all of the firearms they owned so it could be entered into a Federally-controlled and regulated system. They also wanted to close down all gun shows nationwide, citing the now-infamous and non-existent "gun show loophole" that the failed Brady Bill didn't address.

In short, in the name of "reducing crime" and "keeping the people safe," these five clowns wanted to totally and completely override the rights of the individual states to enact and/or enforce legislation in its own territorial boundaries, imposing instead Federal laws and programs that they, of course, would design and control. (Just the thought of that gives me the willys!)

Can you say, "STATE'S RIGHTS?" I can, and that's exatly what these five morons were going to cast by the wayside with their ill-conceived "gun control" plans.

Well, now it's 15 years later, the Brady Bill has been proven to have been a complete and utter failure and has been allowed to expire, and new FBI statistics show that the drop in crime nationwide is in direct correlation to the increase in both private weapon ownership and the passing of "must issue" laws in 38 of the 50 states. Seems that everywhere that there are more licensed concealed weapons permits being issued, crime is plummeting. (Gee, I wonder why that is?) On the tail of this resurgence of law and order at the hands of the citizenry, a bill was introduced in Congress that if passed into law, would require nationwide reciprocity of concealed weapons permits issued by the individual states. Sounds like a good idea, right? I thought so.

But guess who is jumping up and down hollering, "STATE'S RIGHTS! YOU CAN'T DO THAT! STATE'S RIGHTS!"

Yep, you guessed it - Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Durbin, Lautenberg, and now Bloomberg. These "Six Stooges" are vehemently opposed to this legislation, stating that it would "usurp the rights of the individual states" to pass legislation on their own, and they are opposing ANY Federal legislation that violates the state's rights on this topic.

There are two things in life I absolutely abhorr, those being a liar and a thief. Running a very close third behind that is a hypocrite (which is one of the many reasons I loathe Rosie O'Donnell), and these six asswipes have proven themselves to be just that - a bunch of hypocrites. These six "public servants" are all ready to trample and run roughshod over the individual state's rights when it suits their agenda, yet they turn around and become the champion of state's rights when it suits their agenda.

And worse yet, they expect us to swallow it!

Am I the only one who sees just how full of crap these people are?? (I know, Bulldog, you see it too!)

Make no mistake about it, friends and neighbors, these six clowns are NOT your friends! They are NOT doing anything for your benefit! They have an agenda, that agenda being the total elimination of the Second Amendment, and they have proven that they will do anything or say anything to accomplish that agenda. They are all willing participants in the movement to socialize America and make us all totally dependent upon the Federal government for everything, and anyone who has studied history knows that the first step in conquering the people is to disarm them. The next step, in case you were curious, is to control the media.

In other words, first the Second Amendment goes, and after that, the First Amendment. All of the others would shortly follow suit.

I'm not going to give up my God-given right to defend myself, my family, and my property for NOBODY, and until I'm 100% convinced that there is NO threat left to the Second Amendment and to the rest of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, I'm going to continue to scream loud, long, and often.

And I'm going to continue to vote against ANYONE who makes me think for even a millisecond that they're going to do ANYTHING to infringe on that right.

If you believe in the Second Amendment as I do but you're not a member of the National Rifle Association or the Gun Owners of America, you need to join one or the other - or better yet, both.

TODAY.

NOW.

IHC

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Jimmy Carter is an idiot!

After much thought and careful deliberation over the course of the past 30+ years, I've come to the conclusion that former President Jimmy "Mr. Peanut" Carter is a total and complete fuckin' idiot.

Actually, I came to that conclusion a very long time ago - just about the time he killed the B-1 Bomber project, denied the US Military a pay raise for 3 years, and sat on his hands while Iranian students overran our embassy and held our citizens hostage for 444 days. The latest statement from Mr. Peanut only convinces me that I'm right.

I've been keeping abreast of the opposition on Obama's health care plan, and for the life of me I can't see anything that has been said by anyone anywhere at any time and in any forum that would make me think that racism is involved. Where this lame-brained moron comes up with the idea that people are opposing Obama's programs simply because he's black is both stupid AND unfounded.

Personally, I think Carter has insulted the citizens of the United States of America. This nation finally succeeded in electing a black (I absolutely REFUSE to use the hyphenated term) President, and good ol' Mr. Peanut tells us all that no, we're not as diverse as we think we are, and race relations haven't come as far as we think they have, and white folk in America are still holding the black man down.

All of which is pure bullshit, of course, and all of which I take as an insult.

Now, I'm not gonna be naive and/or stupid enough to tell you that racism doesn't exist in America. It most certainly does, but what Jimmy "I haven't got a clue" Carter and a whole lot of other people don't realize is that racism goes both ways. When I say that racism exists in America, I mean that both blacks AND whites are discriminated against in our nation based upon the color of their skin. (Only difference is, when a white man is discriminated against, it's called "equal opportunity.")

And have you noticed that with the noteable exception of Jimmy "I'm too senile to be speaking in public" Carter, the ONLY people who are screaming "racism" are black? First, there's Rep. Clyburne from South Carolina, who says that Rep. Joe Wilson's remarks were based upon race. He and Jimmy "I've sinned in my heart" Carter must subscribe to the same magazine. Then, there's the representative from Georgia - Carter's home state - who says that if the Congress didn't censure Wilson, "the KKK will ride through the countryside" wearing white hoods and robes again.

WHAT??? Where in the living HELL did THAT come from??

Personally, I think Jimmy "I'm not the President anymore" Carter owes us all an apology. After that, he needs to STFU and go away. And Rep Clyburne and the other idiot from Georgia need a dose of reality, and quick. Then they, too, need to STFU and go away.

We now live in a nation where it has become acceptable for any black person to be able to say whatever they want or do whatever they want and get away with it simply because they're black, and make unfounded accusations of racism simply because it's the easy way out, and can do so without fear of retribution lest someone be accused of being a "racist." At the same time, a white person cannot say anything critical in any way, shape, or form about a black person lest he be publicly and loudly labeled a "racist." Forty-five years ago the black population of America was fighting for equality, and it was justly deserved; now, forty-five years later, the tables have turned and pretty soon it's going to be the white population fighting for equality. There nothing "equal" in how the white and black races are being treated these days.

Want some examples? Okay, here's some for you right out of the headlines of the not-too-distant past.

A white Congressman calls the black President a liar, and is branded a racist in the press.

A black rap star grabs the microphone from a white country star who's making her acceptance speech and begins a drunken tirade about how good a fellow black artist is, and how SHE deserved to win. Nobody slaps the "racist" label on him.

In Atlanta, a white man and a black woman get into an argument and the white man assaults the black woman. The FBI launches an investigation into whether or not this was a "hate crime," and whether or not the woman's "civil rights" were violated.

In New York City, a white teenage boy is dating a black teenage girl. Seven black boys from her neighborhood beat the white boy into a bloody pulp, and the Justic Departments of both New York and the Federal Government refuse to investigate it as a "hate crime."

Tell me I'm wrong, I dare ya.

I fully believe that sooner or later, life comes full circle and things have a tendency to repeat themselves. In this particular instance, I really hope I'm wrong - and if I'm not, I hope I'm dead by the time THIS little dancing bear comes back around, because when it happens, it's gonna be ugly.

IHC

Sunday, September 13, 2009

A collection of random thoughts

Nothing earth-shaking or vitally important to get up on the soapbox about today, just a collection of random thoughts that I've been writing down for the past month or so. Figured when I had enough to make a decent sized post I'd put them up; well, I do, so here they are.

Why is it that when a black man is denied a job because of the color of his skin it's called "racism," but when a white man is denied a job because of the color of his skin it's called "affirmative action?"

This is America; why should I have to "press 1 for English?"

I have to pass a drug screening test in order to get a job, so why shouldn't someone else have to pass a drug screening test to collect unemployment or welfare?

No lazy bastard should ever be rewarded for intentionally being unemployed. Ever.

Being a member of a minority group doesn't automatically make you a victim entitled to special treatment and/or priviledges.

Law Enforcement officers at every level of government should be immune from civil suits unless convicted of a criminal offense.

Prisons should be for punishment, not "rehabilitation." Prison should be a place so bad you'd do anything to keep from going back - including going straight.

Parole should be abolished. Period.

It should be a Federal offense to burn an American flag in protest of anything.

NO, the First Amendment doesn't say that. Go read it again.

I shouldn't need a permit to carry a pistol for protection. Ever heard of the Second Amendment?

The only "free" anything an illegal immigrant should get is a free ride back to the border in a Border Patrol paddy wagon.

The "anchor baby" law should be repealed. Yesterday.

"Equal rights" means equal across the board - equal qualifications, equal standards of performance (including physical), and equal pay. What's good for one should be good for all.

Welfare should be a one-time thing and should last for no longer than three months with NO possiblilty of extention.

Why is it that when you or I tell a lie, it's called "lying" but when Hillary Clinton does it, it's called "mis-speaking?"

Pull your pants up. You look like an idiot.

This is America. We speak English here. Learn it or go back to wherever the hell you came from.

Military pay should be totally tax-free, period.

No professional athlete should make more than the President of the United States, I don't care how good you are or who you play for.

We aren't getting our money's worth out of Congress. It's time for a pay cut.

The President has a term limit, so why shouldn't Congress?

Pensions for members of Congress should be eliminated. Let them invest in a 401K and live off of that and Social Security like the rest of us.

Nobody forced you to smoke, so why should someone else pay for your health care now that you've got cancer?

If you're old enough to fight and die for your country, then you should be old enough to go into a bar and have a damned drink when you want one.

It's "homosexual," not "gay."

I don't care if you're a homosexual, just don't shove it in my face and tell me I have to "accept" either it or you.

Being a celebrity doesn't make you an expert on politics, religion, or world affairs.

Just because someone flies the Confederate Battle Flag doesn't automatically mean they're a racist.

And that's about it for now. Time to ride!

IHC

Friday, September 11, 2009

Have you forgotten?









I sure as hell haven't.
Please take a moment out of your day today to remember the 2,752 innocent Americans who were murdered on this day eight years ago.
IHC

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Somebody looks pretty foolish today

And that somebody would be all of the doomsayers who said that the President was going to begin "brainwashing" America's youth with Socialist propaganda during his speech last night.

Didn't happen.

But that doesn't change the fact that America still doesn't trust its elected President, does it?

So one big speech is over, and another takes place tonight. I, for one, plan to watch it, because I want to hear from The Great Pretender's own mouth what exactly his health care plan is all about and, more importantly, how he's going to pay for it.

Stay tuned, America. This should be good.

IHC

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Much ado about nothing?

So now it's all over the news that everyone is up in arms that President Obama wants to address the nation's schoolchildren. And to be honest, I think everyone is getting upset for the wrong reason.

If the President of the United States wants to address the nation's schoolchildren, then he should be afforded every opportunity and every chance to do so. Additionally, it should be REQUIRED that the schoolchildren view the broadcast. I mean, seriously, just how many times in this nation's history has the sitting President wanted to address the nation's schoolchildren? I can remember two times in my lifetime, and nobody had a problem with it then.

So why do people have a problem with it now? Simple - they don't trust him. They think he's going to try to "indoctrinate" them with some kind of super-ultra-secret socialist propaganda. While I'll be the first to say that I don't like Obama, I didn't vote for him, I wouldn't EVER vote for him, and I am against just about every single thing he thinks is a good idea, in this particular instance I'm all in favor of letting him address the nation's schoolchildren.

I mean, think about it...one of two things is gonna happen: he's either gonna talk about the benefits of staying in school and do his best to motivate the kids into making something of their lives, at which point everyone who was dead-set against him speaking is gonna look like a total idiot, or he's gonna spout out the socialist propaganda that everyone is afraid he's gonna do, and then the people of the nation are going to turn on him like a pack of rabid jackals. Not even his most staunch supporters in Congress would dare put their own political careers in jeopardy by coming to his defense, not after he proves to the entire world that everything the so-called "radical conservatives" were saying about him was true after all. For all intents and purposes, it would be the end of his effectiveness as President. And honestly, I don't think the man is that stupid. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Either way, in all fairness the man deserves to be given the chance to prove someone right, and prove someone wrong. He deserves the chance to speak to the nation at any time, simply because he is the President of the United States.

And THAT, friends and neighbors, is the point that concerns me, the point that I think people are missing in all this.

For the first time that I can remember, a sitting President of the United States has such a low level of trust with the American people that they're publicly voicing their opposition to him giving a speech to schoolkids. To me, that says something...and it ain't good. Even in the last years of his presidency, people didn't express this kind of mistrust and public outrage at former President Bush, did they? Nobody may have listened to his speeches, but they didn't scream and holler at the thought of him giving them, either. The simple fact of the matter is that the office of the President of the United States has lost so much inherent trust and inherent respect in the eyes of the American people that they're in an uproar that he wants to speak to their kids.

And that says volumes to me.

As much as the Democrats and the Obamabots may want to try, you can't blame THIS one on George Bush. He ain't the President anymore, in case you didn't notice...this one belongs solely to Barack Hussein Obama, and no one else.

It saddens me to no end to see this low level of faith and trust in the office of President of the United States, and I certainly hope that Obama does something to change it.

Somehow, I don't think THIS was the "change" everyone was "hoping" for.

IHC

Friday, September 4, 2009

A very short paragraph that speaks volumes!

This short little paragraph speaks volumes in both its simplicity and its unquestionable accuracy.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Dr. Adrian Rogers

'Nuff said.

IHC