November 4: An important date for electing two-term Presidents

Leave a comment

This IS from the National Constitution Center.

Some presidential election trivia.

Since 1845, when Congress set an official date for presidential elections, November 4th has held a special role as a day when two-term Presidents get elected to the White House.











Since then, 11 Presidents have been elected to serve two terms in office. Of those 11 Presidents, eight were able to serve two full terms in the White House, and of those eight Presidents, four were elected on a November 4th.

Link: List of presidential election dates

If you’re curious, the four two-term Presidents elected to a first term on November 4th were Grover Cleveland, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Other Presidents elected on a November 4th were Calvin Coolidge (his first full term) in 1925 and James Buchanan in 1856.

And if you are extra curious, next year’s presidential election takes place on November 8, 2016. Franklin Roosevelt is the only two-term President first elected on that date since 1845, but John Kennedy and George H.W. Bush were elected to single terms on a November 8th.

Also, the next election scheduled for a November 4th date is in the year 2036.

Here is a breakdown of the 11 Presidents elected to two terms since 1845, and how their terms fared.

Ulysses Grant (first elected Nov. 3, 1868). Grant served two full terms and tried unsuccessfully for a third term in 1880.

Grover Cleveland (first elected Nov. 4, 1884). Cleveland lost a re-election bid in 1888 in the Electoral College, despite taking the popular vote. He won a second term in 1892.

William McKinley (first elected Nov. 3, 1896). McKinley twice defeated William Jennings Bryan but was assassinated at the start of his second term in 1901.

Woodrow Wilson (first elected Nov. 5, 1912). Wilson served two full terms but was incapacitated at times during his second term after suffering a strike.

Franklin Roosevelt (first elected Nov. 8, 1932). FDR is the only President to win four elections by popular vote and in the Electoral College. He died shortly after his final term started in 1945.

Dwight Eisenhower (first elected Nov. 4, 1952). Eisenhower served two full terms after a long, distinguished military career.

Richard Nixon (first elected Nov. 5, 1968). Nixon easily won re-election in 1972 but his term was cut short by a resignation related to the Watergate affair.

Ronald Reagan (first elected Nov. 4, 1980). ). Reagan served two full terms after he defeated an incumbent elected President, Jimmy Carter.

Bill Clinton (first elected Nov. 3, 1992). Clinton served two full terms after he defeated an incumbent elected President, George H.W. Bush.

George W. Bush (first elected Nov. 7, 2000). Bush served two full terms, after defeating Al Gore in an election that needed a Supreme Court ruling to sort out contested results in Florida.

Barack Obama (first elected Nov. 4, 2008). Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries and John McCain in the general election to become the first elected black President.


Woodrow Wilson: Progressive Racist Democrat Scum

Leave a comment

This is from The Black Sphere.

Will the left demand Woodrow Wilson’s name be removed from schools, government buildings  etc ?

I seriously doubt it as Wilson is a Communist Progressive Hero.

A letter to the NAACP of Portsmouth, VA, by Robert Oliver:

There is a school in your area, called Woodrow Wilson High School, and that school has a majority black student population. Those black children live under oppression that you have chosen to ignore.

Many (Democrat, ergo progressive) Americans consider Woodrow Wilson to be one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history.  Wilson is associated with progressives and with the League of Nations.  However, there is a side of him that is not discussed in academia, and certainly not in the racially-charged time we live in today. So I have decided to present a few facts on Wilson for your consumption.

The Federal Highway Administration’s website reported:

“According to Wilson biographer Arthur S. Link, African-Americans strongly supported Wilson for President in the hope that he would treat them with compassion. In supporting Wilson, African-Americans had to overlook the fears raised by his Virginia birth. They also had to overlook the fact that as president of Princeton University he had prevented African-Americans from enrolling and that as a professor, university president, and Governor of New Jersey, he had never ‘lifted his voice in defense of the minority race,’ as Link put it.

“At one point, he released a statement to the National Colored Democratic League assuring the members that he opposed ‘unfair discriminating laws against any class or race’ and believed ‘that the qualifications for voting should be the same for all men.’ ”

And if that’s not bad enough, according to PBS:

“In 1912 Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate for president, promised fairness and justice for blacks if elected. In a letter to a black church official, Wilson wrote, ‘Should I become President of the United States they may count upon me for absolute fair dealing  for everything by which I could assist in advancing their interests of the race.’ “

 “But after the election, Wilson changed his tune.  He dismissed 15 out of 17 black supervisors who had been previously appointed to federal jobs, segregating their departments.  Throughout the countryblacks were segregated or dismissed from federal positions.” 

“In Georgia, the head of the Internal Revenue division fired all black employees: ‘There are no government positions for Negroes in the South. A Negro’s place is in the corn field.’ he said. The President’s wife, Ellen Wilson, was said to have had a hand in segregating employees in Washington, encouraging department chiefs to assign blacks separate working, eating, and toilet facilities. To justify segregation, officials publicized complaints by white women, who were thought to be threatened by black men’s sexuality and disease.”

Why did Wilson change?

Woodrow Wilson was not an advocate for civil rights as assumed or as inferred, but ACTIVELY practiced racial segregation in the federal government after his inauguration in 1913:

“Wilson’s historical reputation is that of a far-sighted progressive. That role has been assigned to him by historians based on his battle for the League of Nations, and the opposition he faced from isolationist Republicans…Domestically, however, Wilson was a racist retrograde, one who attempted to engineer the diminution of both justice and democracy for American blacks—who were enjoying little of either to begin with….”

“Upon taking power in Washington, Wilson and the many other Southerners he brought into his cabinet were disturbed at the way the federal government went about its own business. One legacy of post-Civil War Republican ascendancy was that Washington’s large black populace had access to federal jobs, and worked with whites in largely integrated circumstances. Wilson’s cabinet put an end to that, bringing Jim Crow to Washington.”

“Wilson allowed various officials to segregate the toilets, cafeterias, and work areas of their departments. One justification involved health: white government workers had to be protected from contagious diseases, especially venereal diseases, that racists imagined were being spread by blacks. In extreme cases, federal officials built separate structures to house black workers. Most black diplomats were replaced by whites; numerous black federal officials in the South were removed from their posts; the local Washington police force and fire department stopped hiring blacks. Wilson’s own view, as he expressed it to intimates, was that ‘federal segregation was an act of kindness.’ ”

Did Wilson love black people? No. He loved black votes.

The website of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library reports:

Wilson permitted segregation in federal offices soon after becoming president, treating it, he said, not as an instrument of humiliation, but as a means to ease racial tensions.  W.E.B. Dubois and like- minded thinkers disagreed heartily with Wilson’s choice, petitioning repeatedly for the suspension of the practice. Wilson refused.

Wilson refused to suspend segregation.  The April 1959 issue of the Journal of Negro History stated:

“When Woodrow Wilson assumed the presidency in 1913 many Negroes believed that he would champion their cause for advancement.  An unprecedented number of Negroes had cast their vote for Wilson, ridicule from others of their race for so departing from the ranks of the Republican Party. This deviation from the traditional line of Negro support was nurtured by discontent with the Republican and Progressive candidates, Taft and (Theodore) Roosevelt, and their platforms. It was spurred by the stirring assurances of wholehearted support to the Negro race by Woodrow Wilson.”

“Yet it was in Woodrow Wilson’s administration that the most bitter blow to Negro hopes of advancement fell.”

To repeat, when he was president of Princeton University, Wilson barred blacks from admission. Yet many blacks voted for him anyway, against their own self-interests. Why?

In a society where in many places segregation, discrimination and Jim Crow were legal, black people had hope that things were going to change. NAACP officer W.E.B. Du Bois, also editor of the NAACP publication The Crisis, expressed hopes in Wilson.  He wrote to President Wilson in March 1913:

“Sir: Your inauguration to the Presidency of the United States is to the colored people, to the white South and to the nation a momentous occasion. For the first time since the emancipation of slaves the government of this nation — the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives — passes on the 4th of March into the hands of the party which a half century ago fought desperately to keep black men as real estate in the eyes of the law.”

“Your elevation to the chief magistracy of the nation at this time shows not simply a splendid national faith in the perpetuity of free government in this land, but even more, a personal faith in you.”

“We black men by our votes helped to put you in your high position. It is true that in your overwhelming triumph at the polls that you might have succeeded without our aid, but the fact remains that our votes helped elect you this time, and that the time may easily come in the near future when without our 500,000 ballots neither you nor your party can control the government.”

“True as this is, we would not be misunderstood. We do not ask or expect special consideration or treatment in return for our franchises. We did not vote for you and your party because you represented our best judgment. It was not because we loved Democrats more, but Republicans less and Roosevelt least, that led to our action… We want to be treated as men. We want to vote. We want our children educated. We want lynching stopped. We want no longer to be herded as cattle on street cars and railroads. We want the right to earn a living, to own our own property and to spend our income unhindered and uncursed. Your power is limited? We know that, but the power of the American people is unlimited. Today you embody that power, you typify its ideals. In the name then of that common country for which your fathers and ours have bled and toiled, be not untrue, President Wilson, to the highest ideals of American Democracy.”

However, just six months after Wilson’s inauguration, Du Bois wrote to Wilson

“Sir, you have now been President of the United States for six months and what is the result? It is no exaggeration to say that every enemy of the Negro race is greatly encouraged; that every man who dreams of making the Negro race a group of menials and pariahs is alert and hopeful. Vardaman, Tillman, Hoke Smith, Cole Blease, and Burleson are evidently assuming that their theory of the place and destiny of the Negro race is the theory of your administration. They and others are assuming this because not a single act and not a single word of yours since election has given anyone reason to infer that you have the slightest interest in the colored people or desire to alleviate their intolerable position… To this negative appearance of indifference has been added positive action on the part of your advisers, with or without your knowledge, which constitutes the gravest attack on the liberties of our people since emancipation, public segregation of civil servants in government employ, necessarily involving personal insult and humiliation, has for the first time in history been made the policy of the United States government.”

“In the Treasury and Post Office Departments colored clerks have been herded to themselves as though they were not human beings. We are told that one colored clerk who could not actually be segregated on account of the nature of his work has consequently had a cage built around him to separate him from his white companions of many years. Mr. Wilson, do you know these things? Are you responsible for them? Did you advise them? Do you not know that no other group of American citizens has ever been treated in this way and that no President of the United States ever dared to propose such treatment? Here is a plain, flat, disgraceful spitting in the face of people whose darkened countenances are already dark with the slime of insult. Do you consent to this, President Wilson? Do you believe in it? Have you been able to persuade yourself that national insult is best for a people struggling into self-respect?”

Did Du Bois and the entire American black voting population have “voter’s remorse”?  Does it seem possible that they all thought “What have we done?” It must have pained Du Bois to think about what he wrote to Wilson: “We black men by our votes helped to put you in your high position.” Did Du Bois have mental anguish in thinking that he helped to bring more misery to his own people by supporting Wilson?

Paula Span on explains:

“Black leaders subsequently declined to support [Wilson’s] reelection. ‘We need scarcely to say that you have grievously disappointed us,’ Du Bois wrote.”

” ‘By any reasonable standards anyone would apply today, I think it’s fair to say Woodrow Wilson was a racist’, (University of Wisconsin historian John Milton Cooper, author of several Wilson biographies) Cooper acknowledges, regretfully.”

(In other words, Woodrow Wilson did not care about black people, Kanye West.)

In 1956, Du Bois admitted:

“In 1912 I wanted to support Theodore Roosevelt, but his Bull Moose convention dodged the Negro problem and I tried to help elect Wilson as a liberal Southerner. Under Wilson came the worst attempt at Jim Crow legislation and discrimination in civil service that we had experienced since the Civil War.”

Black educator Booker T. Washington said of his visit to Washington, D.C. in the summer of 1913, just a few months after Wilson’s inauguration:

I have never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time.”

Discouraged? Bitter? Why were they bitter?

 Could it be that Wilson promised before his election: 

I want to assure them through you that should I become President of the United States, they may count upon me for absolute fair dealing and for everything by which I could assist in advancing the interests of their race in the United States.?

Well, you know better when politicians make promises. Right?

I understand there was a Wilson campaign slogan: “He Kept Us Out of War!”  I wonder if many black Americans at that time said: “He Kept Us Out of Everything–Period!”

Were Du Bois and the rest of the black voters who voted for Wilson bamboozled and hoodwinked?  Did they discover that they were worse off under Wilson than under any other previous president?

So why is this white supremacist and racist Woodrow Wilson still considered a “hero” by those who claim to eschew white supremacy and racism?

According to the U.S. history book Land of Promise:

“Woodrow Wilson’s administration was openly hostile to black people. Wilson was an outspoken white supremacist who believed that black people were inferior. During his campaign for the presidency, Wilson promised to press for civil rights. But once in office he forgot his promises. Instead, Wilson ordered that white and black workers in federal government jobs be segregated from one another. This was the first time such segregation had existed since Reconstruction! When black federal employees in Southern cities protested the order, Wilson had the protesters fired. In November, 1914, a black delegation asked the President to reverse his policies. Wilson was rude and hostile and refused their demands.”

To sum up: “Wilson was…antiblack.” The only motion picture I know of that made heroes of white supremacists was D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation.  Ironically, it was screened in the White House when Wilson was president. Woodrow Wilson, a “racist retrograde” Democrat who brought Jim Crow to Washington.

Now that you know all the facts, should all the institutions named after Wilson, institutions that “honor” him, reconsider retaining his name?


UNCOVERING LIES: ‘Progressive’ Dems, Repub ‘War Mongers’


This is from Clash Daily.


Progressive” Democrats and Republican “War Mongers”

Woodrow Wilson: Declared war on Germany, involving the U.S. in WWI — Progressive; Mr. New World Order

FDR: Declared war on Japan, involving the U.S. in WWII Progressive — Mr. New Deal; Made Depression worse

Harry Truman: Ordered two nuclear weapons detonated in Japan — Democrat

Harry Truman: Involved U.S. in the Korean War — Democrat

JFK: Initiated U.S. involvement in Vietnam — Democrat

LBJ: Escalated the Vietnam War, mismanaged it, lost it — Democrat

Jimmy Carter: Projected weakness, encouraged Jihad — Democrat

Bill Clinton: Did nothing about genocide in Rwanda, bombed Kosovo, further encouraged Jihad projecting weakness, leading to 9/11 — Democrat

Barack Obama: Combines pacifism, globalism, communism, projecting weakness and retreat and surrender, allowing for escalations of global jihad in every direction, destroyed the economy — Democrat/Progressive/Communist/Globalist

Every Democrat President since 1900 has promoted centralized power in Washington, entitlements, deficit spending, high taxes, globalism, socialism, and foreign policies injurious to the national interest. Perhaps American voters have had enough.

High Ironies
Eisenhower liberated Europe, then came home to preside over a great period of peace and prosperity. Nixon, with all his faults and failures, ended the Vietnam War, opened China, improved our standing internationally, forwarded arms control, made Egypt an ally, and came to the aid of Israel. Nixon was viciously condemned by the liberal media, as he is to this day. Reagan restored economic strength, liberated the Eastern Block and indeed the world, without firing a shot, and he was called a war monger. George H.W. Bush liberated Kuwait and contained Saddam and he was called a war monger. George W. Bush liberated Afghanistan and Iraq and effectively confronted Jihad for years while securing the homeland, and he was called a war monger.

High Crimes
Barack Obama destroys our economy, insults and shames the U.S. on the world stage, engages criminality and lawlessness, sparks serial scandals, demoralizes the country, totally alienates Congress, promotes divisiveness, neglects border security, encourages illegal immigration, makes room for Chinese and Russian aggression, ignores militarization in South America, causes wars in various places, aids and funds Jihad, then drops a couple bombs in Iraq, and he is called hero, a humanitarian and a peacemaker.


How Americans fought to restore Veterans Day to November

1 Comment

This is from Yahoo News.

The American people come together to stop the

lunacy of Congress and restored Vetrans Day.

So why  the Hell won’t they come together and stop

the lunacy known as Obamacae?


This Monday, millions of Americans will take time out to honor our military on the traditional time of 11:11 a.m. on November 11. But there was a time when Congress tried to move the holiday, only to face several years of strong public resistance.

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kleynia R. McKnight via Wikimedia Commons

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kleynia R. McKnight via Wikimedia Commons

You may recall from history or civics class that the holiday was first called Armistice Day. It was established after World War I to remember the “war to end all wars,” and it was pegged to the time that a cease-fire, or armistice, that occurred in Europe on November 11, 1918. (World War I officially ended when the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919 in France.)

A year later, President Woodrow Wilson said the armistice anniversary deserved recognition.

“To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations,” he said.

Armistice Day officially received its name through a congressional resolution that was passed on June 4, 1926. By that time, 27 states had made Armistice Day a legal holiday.

Then, in 1938, Armistice Day officially became a national holiday by law, when an act was passed on May 13, 1938, that made November 11 in each year a legal holiday: “a day to be dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be thereafter celebrated and known as “Armistice Day.”

After World War II, the act was amended to honor veterans of World War II and Korea, and the name of the holiday was changed to Veterans Day in 1954. President Dwight D. Eisenhower marked the occasion with a special proclamation.

However, controversy came to the universally recognized holiday in 1968, when Congress tried to change when Veterans Day was celebrated as a national holiday, by moving the holiday to a Monday at the end of October.

The Uniform Monday Holiday Act was signed on June 28, 1968, and it changed the traditional days for Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day, to ensure that the holidays fell on a Monday, giving federal employees a three-day weekend.

The bill moved Veterans Day, at least on a federal level, to the last Monday in October, with the first observance of the new date in 1971.

Veterans groups moved quickly to oppose the date switch, and two states refused to switch their dates in 1971. By 1974, there was confusion over the two dates and most states took a pass on commemorating the holiday in October.

In a typical editorial of the era, the Weirton, West Virginia Daily Times explained why the holiday switch wasn’t working.

“Congress has no choice now but to enact legislation restoring Nov 11 as Veterans Day. The majority of the states have spoken and the Congress should heed their preference. There’s too much confusion over the two dates,” says an editorial from October 28, 1974.  “All veterans organizations retain the original date.”

A few months after that editorial ran,  46 of the 50 states decided to ignore the federal celebration in October, by either switching back to November 11 or refusing to change the holiday.

By the middle of 1975, Congress had seen enough, and it amended the Uniform Monday Holiday Act to move Veterans Day back to November 11. President Gerald Ford signed the act on September 20, 1975, which called for the move to happen in 1978.

That November, the Carroll Daily Times Herald in Iowa said it was about time Congress did the right thing.

“[Veterans] deserve to be honored on their special day, not as an adjunct to a weekend holiday as Washington tried to force on us,” the newspaper commented.


The Constitution’s Worst Amendment


This is from Town Hall Finance.

The second worst amendment is the seventeenth.

The American people in 1912 got sold a line of BS so they

would ratify the seventeenth amendment.

Just like the BS to ratify the sixteenth amendment. 


The worst amendment to the Constitution is also one of the vaguest. The right to keep and bear arms might be simplistic, but it is direct. Our first amendment is mildly long winded and grotesquely misunderstood. However, the 16th amendment, ratified in 1913, stands as one of the most viscous deteriorations of the American Experiment. Stating simply “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration” the amendment grants to the Federal government powers typically reserved for serfdom or British ruled colonies.

It’s not tax collection is inherently evil, or that a personal income tax of some nature is abhorrent to Constitutional values, but the 16th Amendment marked the beginnings of progressive dominance in political discourse. Direct taxation (which was expressly prohibited in the Constitution) endangers personal property, privacy and anonymity.

In 1894 Democrat President Grover Cleveland – with support from Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress – declared a 2 percent tax on those evil “one percenters.” (It turns out Grover might be a good mascot for the Occupy Wall street crowd. Just a thought.) However pathetic a 2 percent tax on Mitt Romney might seem by today’s debate standards, the tax was contentious and immediately challenged in court. As any good historian would note, the US Constitution only allows for certain types of taxation. . . And any “direct” tax, such as poll taxes, head taxes, or income taxes, are explicitly prohibited. Of course, even in 1894, few progressives allowed that pesky founding document to get in their way.

Republican President William Howard Taft – influenced heavily by the “progressive” wing of the Republican Party and Theodore Roosevelt – pushed for a change to our constitution. By the end of his term, with help from Progressive Republicans (who supported things like gun control, Keynesian economics, and even fascism) and Democrats in congress, the 16th Amendment was ratified. Horrifically, the Democrat controlled houses of Congress, and the new Progressive President Woodrow Wilson, immediately passed a progressive income tax.

The tax rates ballooned from a top marginal rate of 7 percent under Wilson, to over 70 percent in WWI. Amazed, and no doubt bewildered, Democrats and progressives screamed for even higher tax rates as revenue to the federal government failed to match the exponential rate increases. By WWII, tax rates had been hiked up to a top marginal rate of 94 percent. Even middle class families faced rates as high as 23 percent. The number of tax brackets had swollen from less than a dozen to nearly two dozen. As more of the nation’s wealthy moved their wealth into various tax havens and tax advantaged vehicles (yes. . . They had a complex web of deductions and exemptions back then as well) revenue plummeted. Mixed with a staggering economy that was burdened by soaring national debt and an ever-increasing entitlement state, rates were unlikely to lower anytime soon.

As the decades trudged on, rates went up and down with “loopholes” being closed and opened repeatedly. Our tax code seemed to be a cancer on our American experiment as the number of words used to print the code began to outpace the total works of William Shakespeare. We can thank reluctant Democrats such as JFK, and conservative Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, for lowering the rates near the level they are today. Of course, we can also thank the Democrat majorities for Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid and the ever increasing web of social entitlement programs that overwhelm our federal budget. During Clinton’s tenure, the “negative tax” was a major point of contention. . . A process where people paying no federal income tax are eligible for “refunds” of money they never paid. Our tax code today serves as a massive redistributive Rube-Goldberg machine without sufficiently funding our treasury for repayment of the trillions we borrow.

The US tax code, as it stands today, is a perfect example of runaway government. A one sentence Amendment led to nearly 74,000 pages of rules and regulations in an attempt to separate Americans from a portion of their hard earned money.

Moreover, the tax system no longer achieves its main purpose. Internal revenue is designed to supply the government with the funds needed to keep government operations functioning. Our tax system, since its modern inception in 1913, has been designed to spread “equality” by treating wealthy people differently than the poor; and “spreading the wealth around”. Of course this attempt at wealth redistribution is ineffective and burdensome. The wealthy, and the influential, continue to avoid proportionately higher taxation by the simple virtue that they have more money to dispose at avoidance. (Just ask Warren Buffet. . . His secretary saw a tax increase when Obama and the Democrats allowed the payroll tax cut to expire. But he sure didn’t.) The system, however, does continue to feed into emotions of envy, jealousy and victimhood.

The reason our current system is such a danger to Americanism, is because it is arbitrary and cumbersome. It is so unwieldy and complex, any citizen can (and probably will) find themselves in violation at one point or another. The system necessary to enforce such a massive and overreaching set of regulations, rules and data is intrusive and brutal. While the recent IRS targeting of conservative groups is legally questionable and morally reprehensible, it is only conceivable because of the system we have in place for tax collection. While Americans rant to their neighbor about the intrusive nature of the NSA, they should consider for a minute how much their local IRS agent knows about their life. Our IRS was not selected to enforce Obamacare because of any demonstrable competency, but because they already have information pertaining to every facet of every American’s life.

The 16th Amendment gave birth to the idea that what someone earns is first property of the government. It gave birth to the “progressive” notion that some of us owe our government more than a pound of flesh because of our success, or wealth. It opened up the door to envy politics, and class warfare. It gave rise to the “progressive” notion of “fairness” and redistribution of wealth. It deteriorated our traditional sense of private property, private information, and private affairs.

Perhaps the worst part about the 16th Amendment is not within its actual text. (After all, we can all agree government is in need of revenue for legitimate functions.) Its problem relies on a tax system put in place 100 years ago by redistributive Democrats and progressive Republicans. So, when you hear the “Progressives” talk about increasing taxes on the rich, increasing the number of tax brackets, or increasing credits to certain groups of Americans, just remember: We’ve been doing this since 1913. There is nothing “forward” looking, or “progressive” about continuing a century of failed ideas.


Democrats Vs Republicans on the Issue of Civil Rights Since 1789

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

A history lesson.


Written on Friday, June 21, 2013 by 

Screen Shot 2013-06-17 at 10.49.10 AM

“Let’s rename the Democratic party the Progressive party, and the Republican party the Regressive party.”

Dear Bob:

Let’s review the facts of your Democratic Party:

1789-1865: Nickname of the Democratic Party, THE SLAVE PARTY

1861-1865: Majority of the Democratic Party engages in open rebellion and therefore treason against the United States.

The Republican Party supports preserving the union and fights the insurrection and wins the American Civil War.

1864 Election: Republican Abraham Lincoln wins re-election and proposes and gains the passage of the 13th amendment, granting freedom to all black Americans held in bondage.

His opponent was disgraced former union George Brinton McClellan who runs repudiating the PEACE DEMOCRATS. His party was ready to give the south their independence while at the same time, giving southern blacks perpetual enslavement.

1866-Today: Democrats organized a social club of former Confederates officers known as the Ku Klux Klan. “As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans.”

1915: Birth of a Nation is released as a tribute to the KKK. D.W. Griffith’s aggressive promotion of the Klan was praised by Democrat Woodrow Wilson as a great triumph. “Under President Woodrow Wilson, it was the first motion picture to be shown at the White House.”

1964-65: Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson cannot pass the civil rights bill even though Democrats control both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The president turns to Senator Everett Dirksen and his Republican caucus for the needed votes to carry the bill over the finish line.

Summer of 1964: Democratic President Lyndon Johnson misleads the American public vis-à-vis the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and launches America into a bloody war that kills 56,000 Americans.

By 1975, the North Vietnamese renege on the Peace Treaty negotiated by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in 1973. The Democratic majorities of both Houses refused to enforce the treaty and the south is invaded again and crushed.

In 1975 the Khmer Rouge took control of Cambodia – it was formed in 1968 as an offshoot of the Vietnam People’s Army from North Vietnam.

It was the ruling party in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, led by Pol Pot…(t)he organization is remembered especially for orchestrating the Cambodian Genocide…(b)y 1979, the Khmer Rouge had fled the country…(t)he U.S. State Department-funded Yale Cambodian Genocide Project estimates approximately 1.7 million…” Cambodians died from the rule of the Khmer Rouge that is, from the instability of Southeast Asia caused by the refusal of Democrats in Congress to enforce the Peace treaty between the United States and North Vietnam.

I could go on regarding how Democratic social policies have obliterated the black family in America to the point that today 72% of black children are born illegitimately. The results of that fact are seen everywhere – in education, the prison systems et cetera.

Today, the Democrats now own a $17 trillion debt. Bob, I think I’ve made my point – stop inhaling canisters of “Reddi Wip” and try to treat your opposition with a semblance of respect.

Read more:


Bradlee Dean: Know Your History/ Study The Past

Leave a comment

This is from Patriot Update.

This comment says it all.

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

Ronald Reagan

– Inscription on the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
Love him or hate him, President Woodrow Wilson rightly stated, “A nation that does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we have come from, or what we have been about… America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.”

Recently, while doing a radio interview I was asked my what my opinion was concerning immoral issues that are taking place in our country. I said, “My ‘opinion’ doesn’t matter any more than your ‘opinion’ does.” I said, “It is OK for us to have different opinions as long as we are rooted in the same principles.”
And herein lies America’s problems.

When we are no longer rooted in the same principles, corruption seeps in and begins to divide and conquer through outlets such as the media, public schools and colleges.

For example, most young people think America is a democracy. Yet, when saying the Pledge of Allegiance, you recite, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the UNITED States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, indivisible (cannot be divided, separated or broken), with liberty and justice for all.”

President Andrew Jackson said, “The Bible is the rock upon which our republic rests.” And these are the principles that keep us united.

I can just now hear the media, the teacher, the “well-educated” college professor or the philosopher (using big words with common-sense meanings) decry, “We are not a Christian nation.” They then complain about the government that will not be ruled by Law (God gave government through Moses – Exodus 18:21).
In their confusion they blurt out the truth: They would rather listen to man’s 10,000 commandments than to God’s Ten Commandments, which only produce liberty when you love God with your whole heart, mind, soul, and strength.

In essence, the unprincipled in America are at war with God and His Law, which commanded we should not kill, commit adultery, steal, lie or covet. They seem to forget that “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins”… and tyranny is what you are dealing with today, because most people do not know their history.
America, how is it that the left (as it is called) knows how to lie better than the right knows how to tell the truth?

The remedy: know your history
The University of Houston political science professors searched to find where the Founding Fathers chose their ideas:
They assembled 15,000 writings from the era of the founders.
They researched for 10 years, isolated 3,154 direct quotes and identified the source of the quotes:

8.3 percent were quotes from Baron Charles de Montesquieu;
7.9 percent were quotes from Sir William Blackstone;
2.9 percent were from John Locke;
34 percent of their quotes came directly from the Bible – and when researching where Montesquieu, Blackstone and Locke got their ideas, they found that theirs came from the Bible as well.

Here is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible concerning America’s Christian heritage:
Separation of powers: Jeremiah 17:9
Immigration laws: Leviticus 19:34
President must be natural born citizen: Deuteronomy 17:15
Witness and capital punishment: Deuteronomy 17:6
Three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22
Tax exemptions for churches: Ezra 7:24
Republicanism: Exodus 18:21

Watch the undisputable symbolism of America’s Christian Heritage

Watch the prayer that literally rocked the Capitol as Bradlee lays out our foundation to the Minnesota State Legislature:

Read more:


Leave a comment

This is from Patriot Update.

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill


The on-going debate on gun control shows that history does repeat itself. Time passes, and memory dims. Events that once shook the world are now nothing more than forgotten horrors to be read in old history books. These books and the old bodies moldering in their graves seem to have no impact on today’s world, where new generations enjoy the fruits of their forgotten sacrifices. People today enjoy the benefits that were long ago paid for with spilled blood, while having to spill none of their own.

We are living in a time of a “gimme generation,” a generation that seems to want everything for nothing, and they want it now. They demand instant gratification for their every desire – after all, the world owes them a living, right? So in attempting to achieve their Utopia on Earth, they are willing to sacrifice a few basic rights in exchange for a temporary sense of safety, and fairness, while getting all their free stuff, without having to pay for it or make any sacrifices of their own.

Today’s politician simply has to tell the masses what they want to hear, with pretty words, while telling them something is for their own safety or the public good. But while people are enjoying their easy life and free stuff, they don’t remember that everything comes with a price, and there really isn’t any free stuff. The Government cannot give you anything that it does not first take away from someone else, but it can control your life through laws, regulations, and taxation.

The main topic of discussion these days is gun control. Liberal progressive politicians are trying hard to convince people to give up their guns in order to stop violence. You know the mantra: Guns are bad and hurt people, so give up your guns while we all sing Kumbaya. Without guns it will be a safer world for everyone. But there is a problem with this mantra: Do you really think criminals will give up their guns? Each gun law seems to just give birth to yet more gun laws. When the citizens’ guns are gone and only the government has guns, what then? We will be at the mercy and control of the prevailing regime of the time, with no means to resist. When this happens, the government is no longer the servant, but the master. It will then enact even more laws for “your protection” and the sheeple will have no choice but to fall in lock step and obey.

Consider the following historical facts:

1929 – the USSR established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

1911 – Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1928 – Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1935 – China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

1956 – Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977 one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

1964 – Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, one hundred thousand Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

1970 – Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979 three hundred thousand Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

The body count is not yet in on the number of Serbs who were unable to defend themselves and were exterminated, but the television images should still be fresh in your mind. Adding the victims of genocide in Barundi, Darfur, and Iraq brings the total number of victims who lost their lives because of gun control to approximately 100 million people in the last century. These are cold, hard facts.

Every time gun registration has been enacted “for the safety of citizens,” it has led to gun confiscation.
We should learn from the mistakes of the past: the next time someone speaks out in favor of gun control, ask which group of citizens they want to see exterminated.

Rights are lost in small, insidious increments that seem inconsequential at the time, but they are never regained. Compare the erosion of rights to the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon was not formed in one fell swoop, but little by little, day by day, grain of sand by grain of sand until finally there was a gaping chasm. Rights that were paid for in blood are now being frittered away by a generation that has never had to sacrifices (with the exception of the few and the proud who voluntarily join the military). How many of these individuals has ever stood graveside to accept a folded flag “On behalf of a grateful nation”?

Even the leader of the greatest nation on earth has never spent a day in the armed service of his country. Yet the “gimme generation” saw nothing wrong with this and elected him to the highest office in the land-not once but twice. The Oval Office where Obama puts his feet on the desk is the same Oval Office where Woodrow Wilson guided the country during WWI, Franklin Roosevelt steadied the helm during the dark days of WWII, Harry Truman gave the orders to load the Enola Gay and Bock’s Car with Little Boy and Fat Man; and where Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon set the course that took us into and out of Viet Nam. It is the same office where President George Bush drew a line in the sand and put an end to the atrocities of Saddam Hussein. That Office and all those events were bought and paid for in American blood.

If you make a lie big enough and repeat it often enough, people will believe it and the myth becomes reality. Gun control is NOT for the ‘good of the people’; gun control is about one thing and one thing only: government control!

Wake up America!!!!

Read more:



1 Comment

This is from Patriot Update.

Like the author of this article I have several physical problems.

I have had seven back surgeries,right hip replacement and bilateral knee replacement,

I have also have had a cervical fusion.So my defense abilities are limited.

So I carry a Glock model 22 .40 cal  locked and loaded with almost 80 rounds.

I also carry a variety of knives and a steel expandable baton.

I do want is needed to protect myself and my family.


My name is Frank J. Dmuchowski. I carry a gun. I carry a loaded gun, with a bullet in the chamber at all times. In fact, I carry a 45 .cal semiautomatic pistol. I carry this gun all the time and to every place I am legally allowed to carry it. At night it rests inches away from me, at the ready. I have already used the gun for self defense without drawing it or firing it; more about that later.

I also own other firearms, some for hunting and others for the defense of myself, my family and my property. They stay locked up in a fortified gun safe made with one and one half inch steel walls and three inch door.

I have received extensive (more than 50 hours) training in the safe, legal, defensive use of the gun. I spend hours at the range shooting at paper targets, putting hundreds of bullets through my weapons each month to improve my marksmanship and defensive use skills.

I am now sixty six years old. I am an above the knee amputee. I walk with the aid of a prosthetic left leg. I am a polio survivor, having had all four extremities paralyzed, for a time, at three years old. Although I was able to regain the use of my limbs, when in my thirties, I learned that I suffer from Post Polio Syndrome. This entails damage to my trunk nerves due to overuse as I aged, resulting in muscle loss and weakness. Bottom line is: I am no longer, physically, capable of adequately defending myself, my family and my property. However, my gun acts as an equalizer in defending myself from, say, a bulked up, twenty something thug.

I have never been arrested for anything. Yeah, I have had a few speeding tickets, but I respect the Law and firmly believe in the Rule of Law. I am a Christian and do not believe in violence. In the 60’s I marched in Washington against the Viet Nam war, but always loved and still love the warriors.

I consider myself to be a Patriot. I fly the flag every day in front of my home. I am a Conservative, Constitutional Restorationist. I believe that the Founding Fathers got it right the first time. Our unalienable Rights come from God and not the government. The government is to operate only by the consent of the PEOPLE and not the corrupt political ruling class.

This country must be returned to operate once again under the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as established by the Founders and not the current system. America has been hijacked by Progressive/Liberals starting with Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt in the first half of the twentieth century, continuing with Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton through and on up to Obama. As a Patriot and if necessary, I am ready and willing to give my life to help restore America to its Founding principles.

The first thing that Michael Bender, the instructor of the first of five six hour classes I took to learn about the defensive use of a gun, said to the class was: “My goal today is the help you decide never to use your gun.” He followed this by saying: “Always bring a gun to a gun fight.”

What he was saying by these seemingly contradictory statements is always carry a gun but hope and pray you never have to use it. Michael also talked about becoming sheepdogs as opposed to being sheep. Sheepdogs are equipped at all times to take on the wolf if necessary. A wolf very rarely preys on sheepdogs, but does not hesitate to go after the defenseless sheep. This brings me to explaining how I used my gun to defend myself without drawing or firing it.

I was walking my dog Buster last winter. We live on the outskirts of a town in Wisconsin whose streets are not brightly lighted. While Buster was busy analyzing the smells of all the other dogs and people who recently had been by the corner we were stopped at, I noticed an older red van stopped at the stop sign kitty corner to where we were.

It was about 11 p.m. After a minute or so, the van crossed the street and slowly drove by us. All the windows had smoked glass. As it passed, warning alarms went off in my head as it felt that I was being carefully looked over. It passed us, and then turned left into the first driveway to the east, about fifty feet from where we stood. As the alarms were going off in my head, I opened my jacket, pulled it over my holster, exposing the gun, and then unfastened the safety strap.

turned toward the van so that they could clearly see my holstered gun as we were under the corner street light. I dropped the dog’s leash freeing up my other hand, which I used to take out my cell phone and dialed 9, 1 with my finger at the ready to press the last 1. I stood still with my head turned toward the van so I could watch what they were up to.

After a few moments the van quickly backed out of the driveway and drove to the east away from my position. I am certain that the occupants of the van were up to no good; wolves hunting sheep. Making it clear to the potential bad guys that I was no easy target, they apparently decided to hunt elsewhere. How many hunters would hunt deer if they knew the deer could shoot back? Not very many I am sure.

That night I believe the wolf, instead of finding a sheep, found a sheepdog, and so he moved on to find sheep elsewhere.
I am Frank J. Dmuchowski. I am a gun carrying Patriot.

Read more:



Ranchers, farmers brace for ‘death tax’ impact

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.


More victims in the war on the rich.

It is obvious the moochers are winning.

The DemocRats promise to punish the greedy wealthy.

How many DemocRats are poor?

The answer is none of them are poor they are multimillionaires.

Yet they have convinced their sheeple they are looking out for them.

The Russians and the Chicoms have eliminated the death tax.


Rancher Kevin Kester works dawn to dusk, drives a 12-year-old pick-up truck and earns less than a typical bureaucrat in Washington D.C., yet the federal government considers him rich enough to pay the estate tax — also known as the “death tax.”

And with that tax set to soar at the beginning of 2013 without some kind of intervention from Congress, farmers and ranchers like Kester are waiting anxiously.

“There is no way financially my kids can pay what the IRS is going to demand from them nine months after death and keep this ranch intact for their generation and future generations,” said Kester, of the Bear Valley Ranch in Central California.

Two decades ago, Kester paid the IRS $2 million when he inherited a 22,000-acre cattle ranch from his grandfather. Come January, the tax burden on his children will be more than $13 million.

For supporters of a high estate tax, which is imposed on somebody’s estate after death, Kester is the kind of person they rarely mention. He doesn’t own a mansion. He’s not the CEO of a multi-national. But because of his line of work, he owns a lot of property that would be subject to a lot of tax.

“Our number one goal is to repeal the estate tax, to get rid of it, not have it for every generation, when I die and my kids die and so on,” he told Fox News. “For everyone to have to re-purchase the ranch or farm over and over for each generation, that’s inherently unjust. So what we’re doing is asking our politicians to understand that and repeal the estate tax.”

That, however, is unlikely. Currently, the federal government taxes estates worth $5 million dollars and up at 35 percent. When the Bush-era tax rates expire in January, rates increase to 55 percent on estates of $1 million or more. While some Republicans want to eliminate the death tax entirely, President Obama has proposed a 45 percent rate on estates of $3.5 million and up.

“The idea behind the estate tax is to prevent the very wealthy among us from accumulating vast fortunes that they can pass along to the next generation,” said Patrick Lester, director of Federal Fiscal Policy with the progressive think tank — OMB Watch. “The poster child for the estate tax is Paris Hilton — the celebrity and hotel heiress. That’s who this is targeted at, not ordinary Americans.”

But according to the American Farm Bureau, up to 97 percent of American farms and ranches will be subject to an estate tax where the exemption is set at $1 million. At that rate, the federal government will pocket $40 billion in 2013 and up to $86 million in 2021. That contrasts with just $12 billion this year.

Many Democrats argue the tax promotes equality among classes, especially in capital gains — or stocks passed from one generation to another. Since stocks are only taxed when they are sold, the government can’t profit from long-term investments without the estate tax.

“Very large portions of very wealthy estates are tied up in stocks and they have never been taxed,” said Lester. “The estate tax is one of the ways we make sure the wealthy pay a little bit more as an overall share of their wealth and income compared to low-income individuals.”

Many Republicans argue the opposite. Because the estate tax falls on assets, they say it hampers investment by reducing incentives to save and invest. A pending estate tax could become a disincentive to invest in an otherwise viable business, forcing older people to liquidate or shift resources out of an ongoing business and into a trust or tax-free investment.

“We’re not millionaires in the terms of making a million dollars a year,” said Kester who lives in a modest home and whose family — not outsiders or a corporation — runs his ranch. “I have a half-a-million dollars in soil.”

Kester can’t spend it, without selling land. But by selling the land, each year the ranch would become less viable.

The estate tax dates back to 1916 when then-President Woodrow Wilson imposed the tax of 1 to 10 percent on the wealthy because World War I reduced federal government revenues. Under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the tax rose to 77 percent, as Congress tried to prevent wealth from becoming concentrated among a few powerful and super-rich families.

Ironically, many nations historically more concerned with class and wealth — namely Russia and China — have since abandoned their estate taxes.

Read more:


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: