Angry Clingers UNITE!Reaganite Republican ^ | 12 July 2014 | Reaganite RepublicanPosted on 7/12/2014, 7:19:24 AM by Reaganite RepublicanA quick look around the righty-blogosphere at Reaganite Republican…
GUNNY G: “THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG HAS BECOME THE SYMBOL OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY ALL OVER THE GLOBE!”
THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG HAS BECOME THE SYMBOL OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY ALL OVER THE GLOBE!
- GUNNY G: BB ORWELL 1984+
- GUNNY G: P!SSED YET, PILGRIM?
- GUNNY G: NOTHING BY ACCIDENT…
- GUNNY G: THE PEOPLE WHO CAST THE VOTES…
- GUNNY G: BLOGGING BAD!
- GUNNY G BLOGS, ETC.
* GUNNY G *: “The Confederate battle flag has become a worldwide symbol of opposition to state tyranny. It has been flown in the former Soviet republics and in many other places where there are opposition movements to centralized state oppression. That is why self-described communists like Vanderbilt University Professor Jonathan Farley are so opposed to it to the point of hysteria.December 6, 2002Thomas J. DiLorenzo ” ~ Private Property and the American Heritage by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
The Confederate battle flag has become a worldwide symbol of opposition to state tyranny.
It has been flown in the former Soviet republics and in many other places where there are opposition movements to centralized state oppression.
That is why self-described communists like Vanderbilt University Professor Jonathan Farley are so opposed to it to the point of hysteria.
GUNNY G: ARTICLES, ETC…”Is Magnetic North Wandering South? Yes, and the entire magnetic field is weakening, which could spell trouble.” ~ LewRockwell.com…
GUNNY G: ARTICLES, ETC… ~ “The Presidency Is Murder, Inc.As the drone memo shows.” ~ LewRockwell.com
The Presidency Is Murder, Inc.As the drone memo shows.
The Rutherford InstituteJune 17, 2014Email PrintFacebookTwitterShare
In fact, although the DHS’ governmental bureaucracy may at times appear to be inept and bungling, it is ruthlessly efficient when it comes to building what the Founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.
The third largest federal agency behind the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense, the DHS—with its 240,000 full-time workers, $61 billion budget and sub-agencies that include the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration TSA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA—has been aptly dubbed a “runaway train.”
GUNNY G: ARTICLES, ETC. !!!!!! @ LewRockwell.com… “USG, Keep Your Bloody Mitts Off IraqYou’ve done quite enough damage, says Ron Paul.”
USG, Keep Your Bloody Mitts Off IraqYou’ve done quite enough damage, says Ron Paul.
What Rights?Eric Peters on why he threw the constitution out years ago.
No-Knock SWAT RaidersKill Texas father….
Question is…just how much gubmint can ya stand…and…for how long…????
Re The Enemy Within…
May 26, 2014
One of the tenets of militaristic fascism in America is the oft-repeated slogan that “you don’t have to agree with the wars to honor those who fight them for us.”
Something to this effect is repeated thousands of times during Memorial Day bloviations all across the fruited plain.
And it is all complete nonsense. “Honoring” paid killers for the state for participating in non-defensive, unjust wars only serves to make it more likely that there will be even more unjust wars in the future.
And it rewards individuals for engaging in some of the most sinful and reprehensible behavior known to mankind.
“Was Hitler Inspired by Lincoln’s Army? Tom DiLorenzo on the Indian holocaust.” ~ ARTICLES: LewRockwell.com…
Tom DiLorenzo on the Indian holocaust.
The 4th Turning Is Upon Us
The nation may be torn apart, but the state will not emerge victorious, says Jim Quinn.
By Doug Hagmann Monday, October 7, 2013
Since arriving on the national stage, many educated people have compared Barack Hussein Obama to Abraham Lincoln in glowing terms. Obama himself has an interesting, if not peculiar, love affair with the nation’s 16th president. From quoting Lincoln to emulating his historic activities, such as his 2007 speech on the steps of the Springfield Capitol and his 2009 train ride to history, Obama seems to have embraced and even assumed the persona of Lincoln.
Gunny G: If Americans Were Only Less Ennamoured With Our Present “Constitution” As A Love Story (Perverted as it is) , And, Perhaps More Acquainted With The TRUTH of Our Founding….
CAUTION: Thinkers Only ~ No AINOs!
Hasta La Vista
By Anthony Wile
Well, it has been a great ride. Much has been accomplished at The Daily Bell and I, as founder and chief editor, have decided it is time to allow The Daily Bell to stand as is, as a historical testimony describing our current troubled and exciting times.
Content on TheDailyBell.com shall remain available as an educational and research tool. I and all the elves are humbled by what we have been able to contribute during this Internet Era, surely one of humanity’s most significant epochs.
The struggle for freedom, especially today, continues to be both a challenge and a promise. The Austrian-oriented Daily Bell has pioneered insights such as the concept of the Internet Reformation and contributed to the understanding of how globalists use fear-based scarcity promotions to frighten middle classes into accepting international solutions such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.
The Daily Bell helped expose the real agenda of the Soros-funded Occupy Wall Street movement, which apparently remains intent on generating what could be a French Revolution-style bloodbath aimed at the “one percent.” The Daily Bell has also relentlessly exposed the “public banking” promotion aimed at making quasi-private central banks the exclusive province of the state. The idea here is that globalists sponsoring this promotion, including the idea of a “living wage,” remain in charge of monopoly money creation behind the veil of the state. It provides further cover.
Finally, The Daily Bell regularly exposed the hoax of central banking itself, the idea that a group of good, gray men can efficiently fix the value and price of money and produce anything other than serial disasters and increasing ruin.
Go Back to the Original Constitution? –… “The State in America was brought into being in 1789 by a coup d’état.”
By Michael S. Rozeff
July 16, 2013
A great many Americans who are dissatisfied with various facets of America’s political system, laws, rights, and justice system think that a solution is somehow to go back to the original Constitution. They do not understand that the original Constitution is a major cause of the present woes and troubles. One man who recognized and explained this and related developments many years ago is Albert Jay Nock in his 1935 book, Our Enemy the State.
My intent in what follows is to present a few of Nock’s important ideas in brief statements. All occasional observations of my own are placed in brackets.
Every increase in State power necessarily accompanies a decrease in social power.
Increases in State power reduce the disposition among people to use social power and indoctrinate the idea that social power is no longer called for.
The Founding Fathers of Constitutional Subversion
America’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, did a much better job of limiting the tyrannical proclivities of government than the U.S. Constitution ever did, and it did so while permitting enough governmental power to field an army that defeated the British Empire. The limits on government that the Articles contained outraged the advocates of unlimited governmental powers, such as Alexander Hamilton, which is why the “Perpetual Union” that was created by the Articles was abolished as all the states peacefully seceded from that union
The constitutional convention was Hamilton’s idea as much as anyone’s. Upon arriving at the convention Hamilton laid out the plan of his fellow nationalists: a permanent president or king, who would appoint all governors, who would have veto power over all state legislation. This monopoly government would then impose on the entire nation a British-style mercantilist empire without Great Britain, complete with massive corporate welfare subsidies, a large public debt, protectionist tariffs, and a central bank modeled after the Bank of England that would inflate the currency to finance the empire.
Conspiracy and the Constitution… “Where Smith had taken the first tentative steps towards working out an economic and political conspiracy thesis concerning the establishment of the Constitution, Algie Simons in 1912 presented this new interpretation quite forcefully, saying: “The organic law of this nation was formulated in secret session by a body called into existence through a conspiratory trick, and (it) was forced upon a disfranchised people by means of dishonest apportionment in order that the interests of a small body of wealthy rulers might be served.”2″
…..Smith was even more alarmed by what he thought were the antidemocratic sentiments of the delegates. Whereas he had only intimated at a possible conspiracy along economic lines, he more fully developed the notion that there was a political conspiracy.
He charged that “democracy … was not the object which the framers of the American Constitution had in view, but the very thing they wished to avoid … the efforts of the Constitutional Convention were directed to the task of devising a system of government which was just popular enough not to excite popular opposition and which at the same time gave the people as little as possible of the substance of political power.”1
“During the weeks following the  election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed.”
~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession, p. 10
The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the “free and independent” states, as they are called in the Declaration.
Copperhead: Words That Got a U.S. Congressman Deported… “Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham D-Ohio was the original American “whistleblower.” Serving as a member of Congress from Dayton, Ohio during the War to Prevent Southern Independence, his criticisms of the Lincoln regime earned him the reputation as the leader of the Democratic opposition. The Republican Party smeared him and all…” by Thomas DiLorenzo
” Serving as a member of Congress from Dayton, Ohio during the War to Prevent Southern Independence, his criticisms of the Lincoln regime earned him the reputation as the leader of the Democratic opposition.
The Republican Party smeared him and all other opponents as a “copperhead” a.k.a. snake in the grass. On May 5, 1863, sixty-seven heavily-armed soldiers broke into his home in the middle of the night and dragged him off to a military prison. This was done without any due process, as Lincoln had long ago illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus.
He was said to be guilty of “discouraging enlistments” in the army with his criticisms of the Lincoln regime. A military order issued in the state of Ohio declared all such speech to be illegal, and military officers were to have dictatorial powers in deciding what kind of speech would be permitted there.
All of this was of course done at the direction of Abraham Lincoln.Lincoln apparently wanted Northerners to believe that all such critics were spies and traitors, so Congressman Vallandigham was deported to the state of Tennessee and placed in the hands of a Confederate Army commander.
The Real Lincoln in His Own Words by Thomas DiLorenzo… ” “Lincoln was not America’s Messiah. He was America’s Lenin, complete with a party dictatorship, centralized economy, and total war.” These are undeniable historical facts. “
ALTHOUGH HE NEVER BECAME A CHRISTIAN, LINCOLN CLAIMED TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE MIND OF GOD AND BLAMED THE WAR ON HIM, ABSOLVING HIMSELF OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT, IN ORDER TO BAMBOOZLE THE RELIGIOUS POPULATION OF THE NORTH”
[I]t is peculiarly fit for us to recognize the hand of God in this terrible visitation [i.e. the war].” CW, Vol. IV, p. 482.
“You all may recollect that in taking up the sword thus forced into my hands this Government . . . placed its whole dependence upon the favor of God.” CW, Vol. V., p. 212.
“God wills this contest [the war].” CW, Vol. V, p. 404.”If I had my way, this war would never have been commenced . . . but . . . we must believe that He permits it for some wise purpose of his own, mysterious and unknown to us . . .” CW, Vol. V, p. 478.”
The Daily Bell – Thomas DiLorenzo: More on the Myth of Lincoln, Secession and the ‘Civil War’… “The Daily Bell is pleased to present this exclusive interview with Thomas DiLorenzo.”
Thomas DiLorenzo: More on the Myth of Lincoln, Secession and the ‘Civil War’
With Anthony Wile
Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo
The Daily Bell is pleased to present this exclusive interview with Thomas DiLorenzo.
Introduction: Thomas DiLorenzo is an American economics professor at Loyola University Maryland. He is also a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South, and the Abbeville Institute.
He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Virginia Tech. DiLorenzo has authored at least ten books, including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (2003), Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution and What It Means for Americans Today (2009), How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present (2005), Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe (2007) and most recently, Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government (2012). Thomas DiLorenzo is a frequent columnist for LewRockwell.com, lectures widely and is a frequent speaker at Mises Institute events.
Daily Bell: Remind our readers about one of your central intellectual passions, which is confronting academic “Lincoln revisionism.” Who was Lincoln really and why have you spent so much of your career trying to return Lincoln’s academic profile to reality?
Limbaugh’s ‘Big Lie’ Strategy….. “Limbaugh’s ‘Big Lie’ Technique Tom DiLorenzo on the smear of Ron Paul-supporter Michael Scheuer.”
Rush Limbugh recently threw a fit on his radio show over an appearance by Michael Scheuer on the FOX News Channel (as did Sean Hannity, who was even more apoplectic than Limbaugh). Michael Scheuer is the former CIA head of the bin Laden unit. Limbaugh was at his sarcastic and bombastic name-calling worst in responding to Scheuer’s comments.
What on earth did Michael Scheuer say to cause such an emotional explosion of bombast?, one might ask. Well, when asked by the host of a FOX News show about what might motivate Muslims from the Middle East to harm Americans, the man the CIA put in charge of the “bin Laden unit” said,
“People don’t like being invaded or bombed,” and they sometimes retaliate. This of course is perfectly reasonable and understandable. It’s called “blowback.”
He reminded the FOX host that Muslims have long protested the American military presence in the Muslim country of Saudi Arabia; the invasion and occupation of Iraq; the killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians; the statement by U.N. Ambasador Albright that a half million dead Iraqi children was “a price we are willing to pay” to achieve our political objectives; the U.S. government’s support for the government of Israel in its wars against Muslims; and the bombing and killing of civilians in numerous other Muslim countries, most recently in Mali and Libya under the Obama regime.
Home | Blog | Subscribe | Podcasts | Donate
Chicago School ‘Market Socialism‘
Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: Allen Guelzo Misinforms the World Socialist Movement About Lincoln
In the April 8 issue of the Wall Street Journal George Schultz and Gary Becker advocated a massive new carbon tax. Their arguments are based on very poor economic reasoning and an extremely naïve view of politics and politicians.
Schultz and Becker argue for a “revenue-neutral” tax on all forms of energy that burn carbon. “Revenue neutrality” is Washington-speak for the notion that a change in tax policy should neither increase nor decrease total tax revenue collected by government. It is a pure fantasy, in other words. No central planners in world history have ever been so brilliant and so omniscient as to be able to restructure a major portion of the tax system in a country of more than 300 million people in a way that produces exactly the same revenue next year as this year. In reality, “revenue neutrality” is always just a smokescreen for “tax increase.” Politicians will always “err” on the side of raising taxes despite all their diversionary lingo.
because it is a classic ….Jim W. Dean]
… by Steve Scroggins
Lincoln’s Proclamation Did Not Free a Single Slave
Noble and saintly Yankees fought the war to abolish slavery; evil Confederates fought to preserve it.
The historical record incontrovertibly refutes this Big Lie and yet it lives on, repeated incessantly by many who know better, and by many, many more who accept without challenge what they were taught in government schools.
Paul Krugman Proves Himself To Be a Fraud (Again) … “The purpose of all the over-the-top smears, as outlined in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the “bible” of Obammunists like Krugman, is to censor public criticism of healthcare socialism in particular and Big, Out-of-Control Government in general.” ~ by Thomas DiLorenzo
Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: The Sales Tax Price-Fixing Conspiracy Act of 2013
A couple of years ago when I appeared as one of Ron Paul‘s witnesses (the first one, actually) during his House of Representatives hearings on the Fed, the Democrats got the biggest leftist on the committee to smear, libel, and slander me by repeating the smears, libels, and slanders about me (and virtually all other libertarians and conservatives) by the left-wing hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The hate group’s typical line is this: 1) DiLorenzo wrote a book critical of Lincoln’s economic policies; 2) Therefore, he must want to bring back slavery. Since we now live in a nation of morons, the SPLC is able to raise millions of dollars in contributions from below-50-I.Q. liberals and leftists with such smears.
“Send us money and we will keep an eye on these people,” they say. (This is the same group of communistic crackpots who convinced Big Sister Janet Napolitano to publicly announce that people with Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars may be considered potential terrorists by her Department of Fatherland Security).
What Hamilton Has Wrought… “When Hamilton and George Washington led some 15,000 conscripts into Pennsylvania to enforce the whiskey tax, the purpose was not only to collect the tax and reassure bondholders, but also to send a message to any future tax resisters.” …by Thomas DiLorenzo
The current economic crisis is the inevitable consequence of what I call Hamilton’s Curse in my new book of that name. It is the legacy of Alexander Hamilton and his political, economic, and constitutional philosophy. As George Will once wrote, Americans are fond of quoting Jefferson, but we live in Hamilton’s country.
The great debate between Hamilton and Jefferson over the purpose of government, which animates American politics to this day, was very much about economic policy. Hamilton was a compulsive statist who wanted to bring the corrupt British mercantilist system — the very system the American Revolution was fought to escape from — to America. He fought fiercely for his program of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, public debt, pervasive taxation, and a central bank run by politicians and their appointees out of the nation’s capital.
Jefferson and his followers opposed him every step of the way because they understood that Hamilton’s agenda was totally destructive of liberty. And unlike Hamilton, they took Adam Smith’s warnings against economic interventionism seriously.
Hamilton complained to George Washington that “we need a government of more energy” and expressed disgust over “an excessive concern for liberty in public men” like Jefferson. Hamilton “had perhaps the highest respect for government of any important American political thinker who ever lived,” wrote Hamilton biographer Clinton Rossiter.
Hamilton and his political compatriots, the Federalists, understood that a mercantilist empire is a very bad thing if you are on the paying end, as the colonists were. But if you are on the receiving end, that’s altogether different. It’s good to be the king, as Mel Brooks would say.
Hamilton was neither the inventor of capitalism in America nor “the prophet of the capitalist revolution in America,” as biographer Ron Chernow ludicrously asserts. He was the instigator of “crony capitalism,” or government primarily for the benefit of the well-connected business class. Far from advocating capitalism, Hamilton was “befogged in the mists of mercantilism” according to the great late nineteenth century sociologist William Graham Sumner.
The Curse of Government Debt
In a lengthy “report” to Congress on the topic of the public debt Hamilton said that “a national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a public blessing.” He would spend the rest of his life politicking for excessive government spending — and debt. The reason Hamilton gave for favoring a large public debt was not to finance any particular project, or to stabilize financial markets, but to combine the interests of the affluent people of the country — particularly business people — to the government. As the owners of government bonds, he reasoned, they would forever support his agenda of higher taxes and bigger government. (He condemned Jefferson’s first inaugural address and its minimal government message as “the symptom of a pygmy mind.”) No wonder one historian entitled his book on Hamilton “American Machiavelli.”
Wall Street financiers naturally took an immediate liking to Hamilton’s idea, and became the financial cornerstone of the Federalist Party (and later, the Whigs and Republicans). When Hamilton engineered the nationalization of the states’ debt as treasury secretary — something that was totally unnecessary since many states like Virginia had nearly paid off their war debts — the plan was to cash out much of the old debt at face value. This immediately became public knowledge in New York City, but the news spread ever so slowly to the rest of the country.
In an essay entitled “Lincoln, the Declaration, and Secular Puritanism: A Rhetoric for Continuing Revolution,” the late literary scholar Mel Bradford explained the ideological genesis of American military and foreign policy that has prevailed since 1863.
English: Author at CPAC in .
English: Author at CPAC in . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Lincoln’s “erroneous understanding of the Declaration of Independence” as espoused in The Gettysburg Address, wrote Bradford, established “a rhetoric for continuing revolution” and “set us forever to ‘trampling out the grapes of wrath.’”
What Bradford meant by this is the way in which Lincoln quoted the “all men are created equal” line from the Declaration and reinterpreted it to mean that it was somehow the duty of Americans to stamp out all sin in the world, wherever it may be found, so that ALL MEN everywhere could share in equal freedom.
Part 5 of “The Secession Tradition in America,” a paper presented at the 1995 Mises Institute conference, “Secession, State, and Economy.” Click here for Part 4, “Peaceful Disunion in Europe.”
The moral grandeur of Lincoln is rooted in the myth that he made a war on the South to abolish slavery. This is, at most, a Platonic noble lie designed to legitimate the Unionist regime. Lincoln thought that slavery was immoral, but so did Robert E. Lee.
And Lee, at his own expense, freed the slaves he had inherited, through marriage, from the family of George Washington. Only around fifteen percent of southerners even owned slaves, and the great majority of these had holdings of one to six. Jefferson Davis was an enlightened slave holder who said that once the Confederacy gained its independence, it would mean the end of slavery. The Confederate Cabinet agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the cessation of hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France. Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery, but simply and solely because they were being invaded. And the North certainly did not invade to abolish slavery.
…..It would require a brutal, uncompromising dictator to overthrow the federal system and adopt a British-style consolidated, mercantilist empire. As Taylor wrote (p. 237): “It seems to be nature’s law, that every species of concentrated sovereignty over extensive territories, whether monarchical, aristocratical, democratical, or mixed, must be despotick.
In no case has a concentrated power over great territories been sustained, except by mercenary armies; and whenever power is thus sustained, despotism is the consequence.” Furthermore, “the ignorance and partiality of a concentrated form of government, can only be enforced by armies; and the peculiar ability of the states to resist, promises that resistance would be violent; so that a national government must be either precarious or despotick” (p. 238).
Yates’s notes quote James Madison as warning at the constitutional convention that “the great danger to our federal government, is the great northern and southern interests of the continent being opposed to each other” (Taylor, p. 248). Taylor quotes Madison to predict the War for Southern Independence, which would occur almost four decades later.
If northern, southern, or western interests are in sharp conflict, he wrote, and “if either can acquire local advantages from a national supremacy, it will aggravate the geographical danger apprehended by a Mr. Madison, a perpetual warfare of intrigues will ensue, and a dissolution of the union will result” (p. 249).
Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln has been a box-office hit and nominated for 12 Academy Awards, including best picture, best director and best actor for Daniel Day-Lewis, who portrayed our 16th president. I haven’t seen the movie; therefore, this column is not about the movie but about a man deified by many.
My colleague Thomas DiLorenzo, economics professor at Loyola University Maryland, exposed some of the Lincoln myth in his 2006 book, Lincoln Unmasked. Now comes Joseph Fallon, cultural intelligence analyst and former U.S. Army Intelligence Center instructor, with his new e-book, Lincoln Uncensored. Fallon’s book examines 10 volumes of collected writings and speeches of Lincoln’s, which include passages on slavery, secession, equality of blacks and emancipation. We don’t have to rely upon anyone’s interpretation. Just read his words to see what you make of them.
In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Ill., speech, he explained, “My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood.
I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of … making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution by Thomas DiLorenzo « AMERICAN BLOGGER: GUNNY.G ~ WEBLOG.EMAIL
In his 1850 Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun argued that a written constitution would never be sufficient to contain the plundering proclivities of a central government. Some mechanisms for assuring consensus among the citizens of the states regarding “federal” laws would be necessary.
Consequently, Calhoun proposed giving citizens of the states veto power over federal laws that they believed were unconstitutional (the “concurrent majority”). He also championed the Jeffersonian idea of nullification. To Calhoun (and Jefferson), states’ rights meant that the citizens of the states were sovereign over the central government that they created as their agent, and could only be so if such mechanisms — including the right of secession — existed.
» More Religious Bigotry from New York “Liberals” Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!
January 31, 2013
A few days ago Sports Illustrated (owned by Time/Warner) published what turns out to be a bogus story about Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis. The author claimed that in recuperating from a torn tricep this football season Lewis utilized a sports medicine made from deer antlers that comes in a spray, and that it contains a growth hormone banned by the NFL. SI apparently did not bother to consult with any medical research professionals before publishing the smear, because researchers at Johns Hopkins hospital who have been conducting research on human growth hormones for the past several decades immediately commented that there is no way that the human body could absorb the banned substance (which is generated naturally in our bodies, by the way) from deer spray.
The substance must be injected into the body with a shot. And besides, Lewis denies even using the “deer antler spray.”
» Free Speech Zones: King Lincoln vs. King Obama (Thomas DiLorenzo) Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!
January 22, 2013
During today’s coronation of King Obama His Majesty graciously set aside a small “strip of [Freedom] plaza” in D.C. as a “free speech zone.” In keeping with the theme of Coronation Week, I can’t help thinking of the comparison to King Lincoln, whose own free speech zones were prisons like Fort Lafayette in New York harbor, where civilian dissenters to the Lincoln regime were imprisoned. Having illegally suspended Habeas Corpus, the Lincoln regime rounded up tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including elected officials, newspaper editors and owners, and just about anyone overheard criticizing Lincoln or his regime.
…..If Americans ever began celebrating the real meaning of the Declaration of Independence, then they would embrace the Jeffersonian rights of secession and nullification as a means of fighting back against governmental tyranny.
They would also withdraw their support for the U.S. government’s aggressive wars of imperialism in the Middle East and elsewhere, along with its hundreds of military bases on every continent on the planet.
…….After familiarizing myself with this stomach-turning literature (you cannot really understand the essence of socialism without it), it struck me that there is a glaring omission. According to this scholarship, “democide” occurs because of a desire on the part of a ruling regime to eliminate its opposition; to eliminate all challenges to its “absolutist ideology”; to exterminate a social group whose very existence is incompatible with the regime’s goals or ideology; and often occurs disguised by a war or a rebellion that provides a convenient excuse.
Be Patriotic: Become a Secessionst
Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: Spielberg’s Upside-Down History: The Myth of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment
Abraham Lincoln, his administration, and members of the U.S. Congress committed treason when they levied war against the Southern states in 1861-1865. This fact is clearly proven by the plain words of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution that defines treason as follows:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them , or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” (emphasis added).
As in all the founding documents, the phrase “United States” is in the plural, signifying the free, independent and sovereign states. The free and independent states were united in ratifying the Constitution and delegating a few powers to the national government (Article 1, Section 8), while reserving all others for the people, respectively, or the states, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. If the American people were to be the masters rather than the servants of their national government, the only way they could do so would be through political communities organized at the state and local levels.
This of course is how the Constitution was ratified – by political conventions of the states, as directed by Article 7 of the Constitution. Since Lincoln never admitted that secession was legal or constitutional, and insisted that the Southern states had never actually left the American union, he knowingly committed treason as defined by the Constitution by invading the Southern states.
Of course, Lincoln’s “save the Union” rhetoric was always outrageous nonsense. The original American union of the founding fathers was a voluntary union based on the Jeffersonian notion in the Declaration of Independence that the just powers of government result only from the consent of the governed, and whenever that consent was withdrawn, it was the duty of the governed to abolish that government.
It was nothing more than a practical political arrangement and not some magical, mystical, sacred union that “justified” the mass murder of more than 350,000 Southerners to “save” it. Indeed, the founding fathers would probably have thought such a thing to be perhaps the biggest atrocity in world history.
Lincoln: The Movie
As I walked away from the movie, an older man behind me whispered to his friend: “that movie should have come out ten years ago. What a needed story for our time.”
Needed? I’m not so sure. But the timing was impeccable. With the recent talk of frustrated citizens storming the White House petition website demanding the allowance of secession http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/14/white-house-secede-petitions-reach-660000-signatures-50-state-participation .
Tom DiLorenzo is a well-known author for, among other things, his work regarding Abraham Lincoln. I have read and can highly recommend his two books regarding Lincoln, The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked.
Since the election there has been much discussion of the future of the Republican party. Can it ever again win a national election, or is it doomed to permanent minority status? The most common response has been that the party must “reach out” (i.e., compete in the offer of bribes) to the exploding Hispanic population. Rather neatly and deceitfully avoiding the obvious fact that Republican sponsorship of mass immigration is the cause of their minority status.
A few fringe commentators have urged that the party instead do more for its core constituency of conservative white people. But the party leadership has already repudiated this alternative in both word and deed. They have apologized for “the Southern strategy” ( though not for the numerous elections that it won for them). The alternative strategy would not be respectable, and no people are more terrified of being thought unrespectable than the Republican leadership. The world view of the Sixties revolutionaries is now the mainstream, and to challenge it identifies one at once as a clueless or malevolent occupant of the disreputable fringe.
Conspicuously absent from this discussion is any explanation of why the Republican party should continue to survive at all, must less flourish. Why should we care?
Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: The Forgotten Men You Should Know About
“Who freed the slaves? To the extent that they were ever ‘freed,’ they were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment, which was authored and pressured into existence not by Lincoln but by the great emancipators nobody knows, the abolitionists and congressional leaders who created the climate and generated the pressure that goaded, prodded, drove, forced Lincoln into glory by associating him with a policy that he adamantly opposed for at least fifty-four of his fifty-six years of his life.”
The Forgotten Men You Should Know About (“Forgotten Conservatives You Should Remember Versus the neocons you should forget”) by Thomas DiLorenzo
Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: Time’s Rx: More Politics, More Politicians, More Lincoln Worship
In their new book, Forgotten Conservatives in American History, Brion McClanahan and the great Clyde Wilson discuss how the Machiavellian-minded connivers and plotters known as “neoconservatives” weaseled their way into the Reagan administration and hence “became the accepted, respectable Right in American discourse . . .” Genuine conservatives, which during the ‘60s and ‘70s included traditionalists, libertarians, anti-communists, and other opponents of leftism, “became an irrelevant and possibly dangerous fringe, disdained by all decent people. . . ” This latter category would include most readers of LewRockwell.com and certainly all the writers.
…..The purpose of the Lincoln legend has always been to assert that our “salvation” lies in politics, not in God. Lincoln is our secular “god,” and our rulers will never let us forget it.
That is why the U.S. government has spent millions over the past several years on the publication of dozens of books, conferences, movies, documentaries, plays, etc. to commemorate Abe’s 200th birthday (That was 2009 and the “celebration” is still going strong). That is the purpose of the upcoming Spielberg movie and its celebration in Time and elsewhere.
Neo-Confederate views and the Republican Party
Historian Nancy MacLean writes that “since the 1960s the party of Lincoln has become the haven of neo-Confederacy. Having long priding itself on saving the Union, the Republican Party has become home to those who lionize the slaveholding South and romanticize the Jim CrowSouth.”
This embrace of neo-Confederate views is not exclusively about race, but is related to a pragmatic political realization that the “retrospective romanticization of the Old South” and secession presented many possible themes that could be used as conservatives attempted to reverse the national changes initiated by the New Deal.
After the defeat of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election and the successes of the Civil Rights Movement, national conservative leaders distanced themselves from racial issues, but continued to support a “color blind” version of neo-Confederatism. MacLean writes that “even into the twenty-first century mainstream conservative Republican politicians continued to associate themselves with issues, symbols, and organizations inspired by the neo-Confederate Right.”