Tuesday, January 19, 2021
God, I feel like hell tonight
God, I feel like hell tonight
Tears of rage I cannot fight
I'd be the last to help you understand
Are you strong enough to be my man, my man?
Nothing's true and nothing's right
So let me be alone tonight
Cause you can't change the way I am
Are you strong enough to be my man?
Lie to me
I promise I'll believe
Lie to me
But please don't leave, don't leave
Thank You Sir.
Yankee Doodle - The First Deplorable....
A Short Analysis of the ‘Yankee Doodle’ Song
‘Yankee Doodle’ is a classic American song, a patriotic tune that is also the state anthem of Connecticut. But where did the words to ‘Yankee Doodle’ come from? And what is the history of this popular tune? Before we delve into an analysis of these issues, here’s a reminder of the best-known verse of ‘Yankee Doodle’:
Yankee Doodle came to town,
Riding on a pony;
He stuck a feather in his cap
And called it macaroni.
But then, following the British troop’s rather Pyrrhic victory at the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775, something appears to have changed. The American troops appropriated – or, perhaps more accurately, re-appropriated – the song and began revelling in it as a paean to their national identity. The Opies quote from a British officer, who observed in 1777 that ‘the Americans gloried in it’ and that ‘Yankee Doodle’ was ‘played in their army, esteemed as warlike as the Grenadiers’ March’.
So much for the history of the song itself. But what is a ‘Yankee’ and, for that matter, a ‘Doodle’? Let’s take the last of these first. The word ‘Doodle’ first turns up in English in the early seventeenth century, probably derived from the Low German dudel, meaning ‘playing music badly’. So, the figure named in the song is named for an incompetent musician, although there may also be a link with the German Dödel, denoting a fool or simpleton. ‘Yankee’ is of uncertain origins, but the most plausible suggestion is that it comes from the Dutch Janke, a diminutive of the name Jan (i.e. John), which was a mocking name given to Dutch and English settlers in New England in the seventeenth century.
So much for the history of the song itself. But what is a ‘Yankee’ and, for that matter, a ‘Doodle’? Let’s take the last of these first. The word ‘Doodle’ first turns up in English in the early seventeenth century, probably derived from the Low German dudel, meaning ‘playing music badly’. So, the figure named in the song is named for an incompetent musician, although there may also be a link with the German Dödel, denoting a fool or simpleton. ‘Yankee’ is of uncertain origins, but the most plausible suggestion is that it comes from the Dutch Janke, a diminutive of the name Jan (i.e. John), which was a mocking name given to Dutch and English settlers in New England in the seventeenth century.
Waiting To Add Senators To This WE WILL NEVER FORGET LIST
Are Mitch McConnell and His Wife Financially Tied to Communist China?
Following the money has always been the surest way to finding where a politician’s true loyalties lie.
Peter Schweizer, a senior contributor for Breitbart and author of such exposés as Clinton Cash and Profiles in Corruption, said on Fox News’ The Next Revolution that McConnell’s “position on China has softened over the years,” a change Schweizer attributed to the growing relationship between the Chinese government and the Chao family’s company.
“Really, it goes to the fact that Mitch McConnell and Elaine Chao, his wife, are financially tied to the Chinese government,” Schweizer explained. “And it comes through the shipbuilding company that Elaine Chao’s family owns. That relationship was forged in December of 1993 when James Chao, Elaine Chao’s father, Elaine Chao, and the new son-in-law, Senator Mitch McConnell, visited Beijing, China, at the invitation of the China state shipbuilding corporation.”
“This was a coup to Beijing because Tiananmen square had happened just four years earlier. Very few high officials went there,” the author continued. “The result of that meeting and the deals that followed is that today the Chinese government finances the construction of the ships for the shipbuilding company, they build the ships, they provide the crews for the ship, and they provide the cargo for the ship.”
He went on to explain that Beijing could immediately end its dealings with the shipbuilding corporation if it wanted to, which would be bad for McConnell. The Chinese government, according to Schweizer, only does business with this corporation because of McConnell’s role as a powerful U.S. Senator.
“So, the Chinese government could pull the plug tomorrow on this business. And the reason they’re doing business with them, let’s make it clear, is because Mitch McConnell is a very powerful figure in Washington, D.C. And the problem is … that his position on China has softened over the years the closer that this commercial relationship has become, and he’s a direct beneficiary of what this business does.”
Per Schweizer, this is the “strategy” communist China uses around the world. “They seek out political elites and give them commercial deals,” he said, adding that the McConnells are “wedded to the Chinese. They don’t want to anger the Chinese because they could destroy their families financially.”
McConnell will remain Majority Leader until noon on January 20, with the inauguration of Joe Biden. Kamala Harris’ ascendance to the vice presidency will give Democrats (due to the vice president’s role as president of the Senate with tie-breaking ability) the voting majority they need to assume control of the chamber.
As The New American has previously reported, McConnell is apparently pleased with the impeachment of President Trump, seeing it as a way to purge the party of him.
Nevertheless, in the battle for the hearts of Republican voters, Donald Trump remains the unquestioned victor. Polling shows that a solid majority of the base still supports the president’s recent behavior and would like him to be the 2024 presidential candidate.
It should be noted that McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, was until recently President Trump’s secretary of transportation. She resigned from the post in response to the Capitol breach on January 6.
“Yesterday our country experienced a traumatic and entirely avoidable event as supporters of the President stormed the Capitol following a rally he addressed,” wrote Chao in a letter to colleagues in the Department of Transportation. “As I’m sure is the case with many of you, it has deeply troubled me in a way that I simply cannot set aside.”
McConnell has shown himself to be, if anything, an astute and cunning politician who knows how to stay at the center of Washington politics and use the influence of his office for his own financial benefit, constantly winning over the...
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose...
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose
Nothin', don't mean nothin' hon' if it ain't free, no no
And feelin' good was easy, Lord, when he sang the blues
You know, feelin' good was good enough for me
Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee
Why the Left Has to Suppress Free Speech
Let us begin with this fact: The left always suppresses speech. Since Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, there has been no example of the left in control and not crushing dissent.
That is one of the important differences between liberal and left: Liberalism and liberals believe in free speech. (The present leftist threat to freedom in America, the greatest threat to freedom in American history, is made possible because liberals think they have more to fear from conservatives than from the left. Liberals do not understand that the left regards liberals as their useful idiots.)
The Left Controls Just About Everything
The left controls universities. There is little or no dissent allowed at universities.
The left controls nearly every “news” medium. There is little or no dissent in the mainstream media — not in the “news” sections and not in the opinion sections.
The left controls Hollywood. No dissent is allowed in Hollywood.
That is why we have “cancel culture” — the silencing and firing of anyone who publicly dissents from the left, and even “publicly” is no longer necessary. The National Association of Realtors has just announced that if you express dissenting views (on race, especially) in private, you may be fined and lose your membership in the organization — which effectively ends your career as a realtor.
The left controls universities. There is little or no dissent allowed at universities.
The left controls nearly every “news” medium. There is little or no dissent in the mainstream media — not in the “news” sections and not in the opinion sections.
The left controls Hollywood. No dissent is allowed in Hollywood.
That is why we have “cancel culture” — the silencing and firing of anyone who publicly dissents from the left, and even “publicly” is no longer necessary. The National Association of Realtors has just announced that if you express dissenting views (on race, especially) in private, you may be fined and lose your membership in the organization — which effectively ends your career as a realtor.
The Left Fears Dissent
So, we return to the opening question: Why does the left need to crush all dissent? This is a question made all the more stark because there is no parallel on the right: Conservatives do not shut down dissent or debate.
The answer, though the left will not acknowledge it, is the left fears dissent. And they do so for good reason. Leftism is essentially a giant balloon filled with nothing but hot air. Therefore, no matter how big the balloon — the Democratic Party, The New York Times, Yale University — all it takes is a mere pin to burst it.
Leftism is venerated by intellectuals. But there is little intellectual substance to leftism. It is a combination of doctrine and emotion. The proof? Those with intellectual depth do not stifle dissent; they welcome it.
So, we return to the opening question: Why does the left need to crush all dissent? This is a question made all the more stark because there is no parallel on the right: Conservatives do not shut down dissent or debate.
The answer, though the left will not acknowledge it, is the left fears dissent. And they do so for good reason. Leftism is essentially a giant balloon filled with nothing but hot air. Therefore, no matter how big the balloon — the Democratic Party, The New York Times, Yale University — all it takes is a mere pin to burst it.
Leftism is venerated by intellectuals. But there is little intellectual substance to leftism. It is a combination of doctrine and emotion. The proof? Those with intellectual depth do not stifle dissent; they welcome it.
Fear Stifles Free Speech at Universities
That is why universities are so opposed to conservatives coming to speak on campus. One articulate conservative can undo years of left-wing indoctrination in a one-hour talk or Q and A. I know this from personal experience on campuses. You can, too. Watch the speeches given by any conservatives allowed to speak on a campus — many of these talks are still on YouTube — and you will see large halls filled with students yearning to hear something other than left-wing pablum. Look at their faces, filled with rapt attention to ideas they never heard that are clearly having an impact. Universities are entirely right to fear our coming to speak. We come with the pin that bursts their $50,000-a-year balloon.
That is why universities are so opposed to conservatives coming to speak on campus. One articulate conservative can undo years of left-wing indoctrination in a one-hour talk or Q and A. I know this from personal experience on campuses. You can, too. Watch the speeches given by any conservatives allowed to speak on a campus — many of these talks are still on YouTube — and you will see large halls filled with students yearning to hear something other than left-wing pablum. Look at their faces, filled with rapt attention to ideas they never heard that are clearly having an impact. Universities are entirely right to fear our coming to speak. We come with the pin that bursts their $50,000-a-year balloon.
Fear Keeps Leftists From Debate
That is also why it is so hard to get any of them to debate any of us. In 35 years of radio, I have never mistreated or bullied a guest. I was unfailingly polite to an icon of the left, Howard Zinn, the America-hating author of the America-hating A People’s History of the United States.
I even invited a UCLA political science professor and violinist, one of seven members of the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra who refused to play when I conducted the orchestra in a Joseph Haydn symphony in the Disney Concert Hall — solely because I’m a conservative. Despite his public letter, in which he accused me of holding “horribly bigoted positions” and wrote, “Please urge your friends to not attend this concert, which helps normalize bigotry in our community,” I nevertheless invited him on my national radio show. He agreed. I had him in studio for an entire hour and treated him and his wife (who accompanied him) with great respect, despite my contempt for his false accusations and his advocacy of the cancel culture. Every American should hear...
That is also why it is so hard to get any of them to debate any of us. In 35 years of radio, I have never mistreated or bullied a guest. I was unfailingly polite to an icon of the left, Howard Zinn, the America-hating author of the America-hating A People’s History of the United States.
I even invited a UCLA political science professor and violinist, one of seven members of the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra who refused to play when I conducted the orchestra in a Joseph Haydn symphony in the Disney Concert Hall — solely because I’m a conservative. Despite his public letter, in which he accused me of holding “horribly bigoted positions” and wrote, “Please urge your friends to not attend this concert, which helps normalize bigotry in our community,” I nevertheless invited him on my national radio show. He agreed. I had him in studio for an entire hour and treated him and his wife (who accompanied him) with great respect, despite my contempt for his false accusations and his advocacy of the cancel culture. Every American should hear...
Duke, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins Experts: COVID Lockdowns Will Cause ONE MILLION Excess Deaths
“We interpret these results as a strong indication that policymakers should take into consideration the severe, long-run implications of such a large economic recession on people’s lives when deliberating on COVID-19 recovery and containment measures.”
Academics from Duke, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins have concluded that there could be around a million excess deaths over the next two decades as a result of lockdowns.
A NBER working paper titled The Long-Term Impact Of The Covid-19 Unemployment Shock On life Expectancy And Mortality Rates suggests that “For the overall population, the increase in the death rate following the COVID-19 pandemic implies a staggering 0.89 and 1.37 million excess deaths over the next 15 and 20 years, respectively.”
The paper was written by Francesco Bianchi, an economist at Duke University, Giada Bianchi, an MD in the Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Harvard Medical School, and Dongho Song, an economist at the Johns Hopkins University’s Carey Business School.
The study into how unemployment affects mortality and life expectancy was centred around 67 years of data about unemployment, life expectancy, and death rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The paper suggests that deaths caused by the economic and societal decline as a result of lockdowns may “far exceed those immediately related to the acute COVID-19 critical illness.”
“The recession caused by the pandemic can jeopardize population health for the next two decades,” they add.
The paper explains:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)