YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #humor #loonylibs #charliekirk #illegalaliens #tpusa #bigfoot #socialists #deportthemall #blackamerica #commieleft #buy #sell #lyinglibs #shemales #trannies
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Day mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 y

The Virginia Battles That Decided the Civil War
Favicon 
spectator.org

The Virginia Battles That Decided the Civil War

One hundred sixty years ago, a series of battles and engagements in Virginia between the Rapidan and James Rivers determined the outcome of America’s Civil War. It is known as the Overland Campaign, and it was fought between the Union Army of the Potomac and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Those two armies had met on the well-known battlefields of Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg, and each time after grueling fighting and heavy casualties the armies separated for months until engaging in the next battle. The battles of the Overland Campaign would be different because, in 1864, Union forces in Virginia were under the overall command of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: Jimmy Carter’s Foreign Policy Was Not a Success Grant had won victories in the western theater, including at Forts Henry and Donelson, Shiloh, Stones River, Chattanooga and, most important, Vicksburg. But the battles in the eastern theater of the war did not go as well, and President Abraham Lincoln was disappointed in the generalship of Gens. Pope, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, and Meade. Lincoln ordered Grant to come east to finish off Gen. Robert E. Lee’s army. Lincoln’s instructions to Grant were simple: “Lee’s army will be your objective point. Wherever Lee goes, there you will go also.” Grant responded that he would undertake “active and continuous operations of all the troops that could be brought into the field, regardless of season and weather” and would “concentrate all the force possible against the Confederate armies in the field.” It was to be a battle of attrition — a struggle in which the more numerous and better supplied Union Army had the advantage. Grant would emerge victorious, but the cost in casualties was massive, and he would later be labeled a “butcher.” The best history of this most important Civil War campaign is the five-volume work of Gordon Rhea. Rhea is a lawyer, former federal prosecutor, and historian who frequently writes and lectures on Civil War topics, but the Overland Campaign is his historical masterpiece. Rhea’s first volume is The Battle of the Wilderness (1994), a battle fought in a densely wooded area, which Rhea described as “a broad stretch of impenetrable thickets and dense second growth” situated in the direction in which Grant’s forces were moving. Lee wanted to fight in that strong defensive terrain. In some respects, it was like fighting in a jungle. The Wilderness was also located near Chancellorsville, the site of Lee’s perhaps most impressive victory in the war in May 1863. Rhea notes that in passing by that battlefield, troops on both sides saw skulls, leg bones, and other skeletal remains that protruded from shallow graves dug in haste after the battle. Rhea estimates that total Union forces numbered some 99,000, while Lee’s army stood at about 65,000. On May 5, 1864, troops emerged from the Orange Turnpike and Orange Plank Road and fought savagely in places like Saunder’s Field — which Rhea notes was the scene of “some of the Civil War’s most brutal fighting” — Parker’s Store, and Chewning farm. During some of the fighting, the underbrush caught fire, and some soldiers burned and roasted to death. There was hand-to-hand fighting, and visibility was limited due to the dense, forest-like environment. The result of the fighting along the Orange Plank Road on May 5 was stalemate, and skirmishing continued into the evening hours. But, Rhea writes, “a distinctive mode of combat was emerging. The grinding, relentless waves of attack … hour after hour had no precedent, unless it lay in the same single-minded determination that had starved Vicksburg into submission.” Grant had brought this mode of combat to the eastern theater in the spring of 1864. The casualties would mount, but eventually Lee’s army would wither under this relentless attack. Grant resumed the attack the next day. Union forces were met by Confederates led by Gen. James Longstreet, who successfully counterattacked and “dramatically reversed the battle’s momentum.” “Longstreet,” Rhea writes, “had brought nearly five … Union divisions to a standstill, mauling several so badly that they had ceased to function as combat units.” In the end, both sides fought to exhaustion and formed defensive works that Rhea describes as “a no-man’s-land of snipers and death.” The Battle of the Wilderness resulted in more than 17,500 Union casualties (dead, wounded, missing, captured) to Confederate losses of about 11,000. But this was just the beginning. Longstreet had warned Lee that Grant “will fight us every day and every hour till the end of the war.” The town of Spotsylvania Court House was just 10 miles away from the edge of the Wilderness. It would be the scene of the next battle and perhaps the most ferocious combat of the war. Rhea’s second volume, The Battle for Spotsylvania Court House and the Road to Yellow Tavern (1997), covers the time period May 7–12, 1864. It was the very definition of a slugfest, as Lee constructed formidable defensive works which Grant attacked beginning on May 10. Much of the attack centered on a Confederate salient in the shape of a mule shoe. Over the next three days, Grant launched repeated assaults on this position. The May 12 assault was especially bloody and deadly. One Confederate soldier described it as “blood and death, and indescribable pandemonium.” One Union officer characterized it as the “fiercest hand-to-hand fighting of the war.” One location of the mule shoe salient earned the moniker the “Bloody Angle,” where, according to one combatant, “the ground seemed covered with dead, dying, and wounded.” It was, one Union soldier remarked, “a literal saturnalia of blood.” The Bloody Angle, Rhea writes, “had become a killing ground.” By dawn on May 13, the Bloody Angle was one large gravesite — a cemetery of piled-up bodies with torn and mangled flesh. The butcher’s bill for the Overland Campaign had increased to approximately 33,000 Union casualties and about 23,000 Confederate losses since May 5. Previous Union generals in the east would likely have retreated north, licked their wounds, rested for several months, then go back on the attack. Not Grant. Spotsylvania Court House tested Grant’s mettle as never before, but after that slaughter he remarked, “I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.” Rhea’s next book, To the North Anna River (2000), covers the movement of the two armies between May 13 and May 25, ending at the Battle of the North Anna River. Grant’s army moved south and attacked Lee’s entrenched lines with little success on May 17 and 18. Union losses were about 1500; Confederate losses were much fewer. Grant’s plan was to force Lee to leave his entrenched positions and fight out in the open by threatening Richmond, the Confederate capital. This resulted in a series of small battles or skirmishes that Rhea describes in meticulous detail and with great skill. Grant’s army looped southward toward the North Anna River followed by Lee’s army in a sort of combat minuet to see who could reach the North Anna first. Lee’s army got there first. On May 22, Grant’s armies reached the North Anna and attacked the next day. In the fighting at the North Anna, Lee emerged victorious by stopping Grant’s advance. Each side suffered about 2,000 casualties. But, as Rhea notes, while thus far in the campaign Lee won most of the battles, “Grant was winning the campaign.” On May 26, Grant wrote Washington that “Lee’s army is really whipped.” He would learn otherwise at a place named Cold Harbor. Rhea’s fourth volume, Cold Harbor (2002), covers the fighting between May 26 and June 3, 1864. Grant crossed the North Anna and continued to move south, while Lee’s army positioned itself along Totopotomy Creek. The fighting there was followed by a cavalry skirmish at Haw’s Shop, fighting at Bethesda Church and Matadequin Creek, and by June 1 both armies were at Cold Harbor, a crossroads located near some of the sites of the Seven Days Battles where Lee had bested McClellan and saved Richmond from capture in 1862. Grant attacked at Cold Harbor that afternoon with some success. He renewed attacks the next two days, and it was on June 3 that he ordered repeated assaults against entrenched Confederate positions that he later judged to be his greatest mistake of the war. Even today, you can walk the ground where Union forces attacked and see the trenches from where Lee’s army mauled the attacking troops. It was a massacre, where thousands of Union soldiers fell within a few hours’ time. Lee had defeated Grant again. Total Union losses between May 26 and June 3 were about 12,000, while Lee’s army suffered about 4,000 casualties. Undeterred by those losses, Grant chose Petersburg as his next objective. Rhea’s fifth volume, On to Petersburg, describes the fighting by the armies between June 4 and 15 — fighting that was indecisive and that set the stage for the lengthy siege of Petersburg. Rhea describes the crossing of the Chickahominy River, battles and skirmishes at Riddell’s Shop, White Oak Bridge, Matedequin Creek, Baylor’s Farm, and the Dimmock Line, noting that Union forces were poorly coordinated when they crossed the James River and reached the outskirts of Petersburg which for a time was lightly defended. Grant’s failure to immediately take Petersburg ended the Overland Campaign. Since May 5, Union forces had suffered some 55,000 casualties (dead, wounded, missing, captured) to the Confederates’ approximately 33,000 casualties. Those were forces, however, that the Union could readily replace. Lee’s army was in different circumstances. The Overland Campaign followed by the siege of Petersburg bled Lee’s army to the point where ultimately it could not defend Richmond and spent its last days moving west towards its final destination Appomattox Court House. The Overland Campaign combined with Gen. William Sherman’s seizure of Atlanta and march to the sea, Gen. George Thomas’ victory at Nashville, Gen. Philip Sheridan’s Shenandoah Valley campaign, and the Union blockade brought the Confederacy to its knees. The post The Virginia Battles That Decided the Civil War appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 y

Making It Easier to Make Things in America
Favicon 
spectator.org

Making It Easier to Make Things in America

With more tariffs on electric vehicles and an election featuring two pro-tariff presidential candidates on the way, the debate about how best to support and strengthen the U.S. manufacturing sector is back. Some argue, mistakenly, that the key to protecting American industries and manufacturing jobs is a set of tariffs on industrial imports. This approach is ultimately counterproductive. There are better ways to help American manufacturing, not the least of which is to remove regulatory barriers and reform the tax code. READ MORE from Veronique de Rugy: Why No Politician Can ‘Fix’ Prices (And Why That’s OK) U.S. tariffs — taxes on Americans’ purchases of imports — are touted as a means of “leveling the playing field” by protecting domestic manufacturers from foreign competition. But this view overlooks the fact that tariffs raise costs not only for consumers but also for American businesses that use imports as inputs. Further, tariffs disrupt supply chains and cause trading partners to impose retaliatory tariffs on our exports. Even more significantly, tariffs do little to address the underlying factors that make it difficult for U.S. manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace. Instead, manufacturers need a more favorable regulatory and tax environment. It should be obvious that excessive regulations place significant burdens on businesses, increasing compliance costs, stifling innovation and making it harder for companies to adapt to changing market conditions. And boy, does manufacturing suffer from excessive regulations. From environmental regulations like the National Environmental Policy Act to labor regulations like the Occupational Safety and Health Act to consumer protection and product safety regulations to financial and accounting regulations like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, manufacturers in America face an unnecessarily onerous burden. In a recent paper titled “Industrial Headwinds: Reducing the Burden of Regulations on U.S. Manufacturers,” published in the May 2024 Club for Growth Policy Handbook, economist Daniel Ikenson writes, “For manufacturing firms, the cost of federal regulations in 2022 was roughly $350 billion, or 13.5% of the sector’s GDP — a burden 26% greater than the inflation-adjusted cost of regulatory compliance in 2012.” He adds that while the average U.S. company pays a regulatory compliance price of $13,000 per employee, large manufacturers shoulder a cost more than twice as much — $29,100. However, even some small-sized manufacturers face annual compliance costs of $50,100 per employee. This helps explain why manufacturing automation is so popular and why our fastest-growing companies are in service-sector tech, not manufacturing. One wonders how small manufacturers even stay in business. And yet, this much is sure: U.S. manufactures are still successful. This is remarkable given that they’re so heavily encumbered by government regulations. Ikenson reminds us that “despite the varied accumulating impositions thrust upon US manufacturers … in 2022, ‘real manufacturing GDP’ reached a record high of $2.28 billion. Sector value added per worker also reached a record high of nearly $142,000, which was 50 percent more than South Korea, who landed second for that metric.” Imagine America’s industrial might with streamlined, simplified regulations. While still maintaining necessary protections for workers, consumers and the environment, the government can reduce the barriers to entry and growth for manufacturers. Many states have taken real steps in this direction. In addition, making the tax code simpler and more transparent would provide a significant boost to manufacturing. In her chapter of the handbook, the Tax Foundation’s Erica York explains that our tax code is punishing capital-intensive sectors like manufacturing. Capital investments, such as machinery and equipment, are subject to overly long depreciation schedules for tax purposes. These schedules often require businesses to deduct the cost of these investments over an extended period, which can be much longer than the useful life of the assets. The result is that manufacturers might not be able to fully recover the cost of their investments in a timely manner, tying up capital that could otherwise be used for growth or innovation. The U.S. tax code often puts domestic manufacturers at a disadvantage compared to their foreign counterparts. Some countries, including China, offer more favorable tax treatment for capital investments, such as faster depreciation schedules or more generous expensing provisions, which make it more attractive for companies to invest in those jurisdictions. By lowering corporate tax rates, allowing for full and immediate expensing of capital investments, and reducing the tax burden, the government can encourage economic growth. Tariffs only hamper such efforts. Instead of erecting barriers to trade, policymakers should focus on creating an environment more conducive for manufacturing growth and competitiveness. This is where America’s been falling behind. It’s time we do more about it. Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Making It Easier to Make Things in America appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
Like
Comment
Share
Mad Mad World
Mad Mad World
1 y Wild & Crazy

rumbleOdysee
Biden Tried to Kill Trump ReeEEeE Stream 05-22-24
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
1 y

Death of Iranian President Carries Gold, Copper to New Record Highs
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

Death of Iranian President Carries Gold, Copper to New Record Highs

by Peter Schiff, Schiff Gold: Amid ongoing tension in the Middle East, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and the foreign minister have been confirmed dead Monday after a helicopter crash. The officials’ shocking demise casts additional investor doubt on a region already plagued by economic upheaval, with supply chain uncertainties fueling record-high metal prices this week. Inside Iranian […]
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
1 y

With $500 Million In Revenue, End Times Villain Klaus Schwab Choses To Step Back From Executive Leadership Of The Dystopian World Economic Forum
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

With $500 Million In Revenue, End Times Villain Klaus Schwab Choses To Step Back From Executive Leadership Of The Dystopian World Economic Forum

by Geoffrey Grinder, Now The End Begins: World Economic Forum founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab will be stepping back from his role running the global gathering since he founded it in 1971. There is perhaps no name more associated with these crazy times we live in than that of Klaus Schwab. With his thick German […]
Like
Comment
Share
Country Roundup
Country Roundup
1 y ·Youtube Music

YouTube
Ricky Stenhouse Jr. Gets Shocking NASCAR Fine for Huge Brawl
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 y ·Youtube Politics

YouTube
Diddy's Narcissistic Apology, and "Domestic Labor" in Marriage, w/ Allie Beth Stuckey & Britt Mayer
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 y

Biden Severely Mocked After Painfully Wrong Pronunciation - 'Can't String a Sentence Together'
Favicon 
www.westernjournal.com

Biden Severely Mocked After Painfully Wrong Pronunciation - 'Can't String a Sentence Together'

President Joe Biden has once again lapsed into incomprehensible confusion in an official speech, where he seemed to have no idea what he was talking about and appeared incapable of being able to "string a sentence together." The president took the podium in New Hampshire on Wednesday where he tried...
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 y ·Youtube Politics

YouTube
Mark Endorses Rep. Claudia Tenney
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 y ·Youtube Politics

YouTube
Mark Levin Audio Rewind - 5/22/24
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 69207 out of 97035
  • 69203
  • 69204
  • 69205
  • 69206
  • 69207
  • 69208
  • 69209
  • 69210
  • 69211
  • 69212
  • 69213
  • 69214
  • 69215
  • 69216
  • 69217
  • 69218
  • 69219
  • 69220
  • 69221
  • 69222
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund