Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans Issue Press Release About Spielberg's Lincoln Movie

   

PRESS RELEASE  

 

LINCOLN MOVIE MYTH EXPOSED

(Atlanta, Georgia - February 25, 2013)    After being heralded by Hollywood critics as one of the best films of 2012, Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln," starring Daniel Day Lewis in the title role, has been branded by historians as nothing more than fiction or "a good tale, not that different than the ones for which Lincoln, himself, was known in his day."  One historian went so far as to remark that Spielberg's "Lincoln" bears no more resemblance to the historical account than that of the 2012 fantasy film "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter."

Spielberg's film attempts to depict Lincoln's crusade to end slavery once and for all in these united States amidst the final months of the War for Southern Independence.  Far from being historically accurate, the film radically alters Lincoln's personal beliefs about slavery, as well as his political affairs over the issue.  As do many of the revisionist textbooks of recent years, the film portrays Lincoln's famous "Emancipation Proclamation" of January 1, 1863 as the expression of a deeply held moral, and even religious, belief about slavery that led him to bring an end to the institution wherever he had the authority to do it.  Citing the various Northern states who continued to permit slavery even after Lincoln's emancipation statement, historians point out that the declaration actually freed no slaves.  In effect, it purported to free slaves in the only region of America where Lincoln did not have authority -- the still independent Southern states of the Confederacy -- while, at the same time, freeing no slaves in the part where he did, in fact, have the authority to deal with the issue.  Many of Lincoln's day, as well as most reputable historians today, cite Lincoln's actual motivation for the Emancipation Proclamation as his desire to attempt to thwart the very real likelihood that Great Britain would intervene on the side of the Confederacy in order to protect their cotton imports from the deep South.  Knowing that the English crown had been emotionally affected by the likes of such pro-abolition works of fiction as Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, Lincoln's emancipation had the desired effect of creating a moral dilemma for Britain which ultimately kept them from entering the War.

Lincoln's true feelings about slavery are revealed in his letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, dated August 22, 1862 in which he said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."  In the light of his own words, Lincoln's true motivation behind the Emancipation Proclamation becomes crystal clear... it was a war measure designed to bring the War to an end.

As to Spielberg's fascination with Lincoln's supposed wish to forever end slavery in America by way of a Constitutional amendment and the myth that slavery was the issue over which the South seceded in the first place, again, history eludes the talented film producer.  In December of 1860, just days before South Carolina became the first Southern state to lawfully secede, Kentucky Senator John Crittenden offered what became known as the "Crittenden Compromise" which included a proposed constitutional amendment which would forever protect slavery in the states where it already existed in perpetuity.  In an effort to assure the Southern states that he did not intend to interfere with the institution of slavery after taking office, Lincoln had frequently expressed in his stump speeches the same sentiment that he demonstrated previously at a debate in Charleston in which he said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that 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. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."  Historically, the Crittenden measures failed, not because of a lack of Northern support, but because the Southern states insisted that their real concern was not what would become of slavery but, rather, what would become of the union since it was headed toward federal tyranny over the States and the rights of the people; thus they chose to secede in spite of the proposal to keep slavery.

Spielberg's Lincoln certainly does not reflect the historical Lincoln accurately by portraying that he wanted to abolish slavery for high moral reasons any more than the film, and others, depicts the South historically when it portrays Southerners as leaving the union because it wished to perpetuate slavery.  Clearly, the real issue of the War -- fear of an all-powerful federal leviathan -- has once again eluded filmmakers and, as it appears more every day, has doomed us to repeat the tragedies of the nineteenth century in our future barring a miraculous change of course.  

For interviews regarding the historical Lincoln or the causes of the War from the Southern perspective, please contact Jack Bridwell, Division Commander for the Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans at 1-866-SCV-in-GA or online at www.GeorgiaSCV.org.  Additionally, a wealth of educational information may be found online at www.GeorgiaSCV.org in both the printed and audio format.    

  

END RELEASE

 

  

Ray McBerry Enterprises is the public relations firm for the Georgia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.  

Lincoln's Crimes Against Humanity

The current issue of Confederate Veteran magazine has an article "Lincoln's War on Southern Civilians," by Walter Brian Cisco.  Intrigued, I opted to buy the longer version in his book "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians."  It is really an eye-opener.

It is impossible to read of the widespread tyranny, barbarism and mass murder of civilians that the glorious North perpetrated on the South in the War for Southern Independence.  To read the record of Northern atrocities, is to be filled with hatred and disgust for the culprits, the chief of whom was Abraham Lincoln, an odious, evil man.

Here are some extracts from Cisco's book:

To those readers who still think Lincoln a great man, I would only say this: if you knew what we know about the North's barbarous invasion of the Southern states in 1861 to 1865, you too would be Confederates.

Lincoln's Marxists

I received the text and images below in an email from agbenjamin "at" gmail.com. I had no idea that the gentleman knows the truth about Abraham Lincoln, but was pleasantly surprised to see that he does.

The truth about Lincoln is even worse than I thought, that some of his generals and supporters were Marxists or communists, at a time when Marxism was a new political phenomenon.

Read and enjoy.  --Stogie

********************************

HIS SNIPPETS SHOULD SIMPLY...BLOW THE MINDS OF READERS.

I never much liked history in high school because I chose to be ignorant about everything... Since those heady days, I decided to seek and find. And guess what I found?


           
TEACH YOUR CHILDREN

Allen Guelzo is the director of the Civil War studies department at Gettysburg College. He is the author of a magnificent new history of the Civil War and Reconstruction...He is one of thousands of fawning pot-smoking professors who fill the minds of your kids whose education cost you $100,000...and what follows is what you get for your money. I highlight for effect and the insertion of photos are mine. Note, the professor asserts at the beginning of his essay that his comments are not meant to be read as a movie review, but, Rather, Dan, as a historical one. And, as you can only read in SNIPPETS, the facts are always there for everyone to see... AGB

THE DAILY BEAST HISTORIAN GUSHES in liberal-left lingo and I highlight for a good reason as you shall see...

"Cumbersome and over-complicated as it is, Lincoln is still filled with a certain robust joy in the rough-and-tumble of American politics. In an age when so many people puffingly complain about gridlock, lobbying, campaign money, and inefficiency,Lincoln embraces all of them, and good comes out of it. It is, despite its over-length, a movie of confidence – confidence in politics, confidence in a very skilled yet principled politician, confidence in the self-created mazes of our representative democracy. And Day-Lewis’s Lincoln, haggard but smiling, tormented and yet fundamentally serene in his knowledge of doing right, carries even the slowest and most awkward moments toward a fundamental affirmation of truth and purpose.

The queue has grown longer even as I think about this. I want to tell them that Lincoln will be worth the wait, and worth the length. They are about to see what we so often deplore as mere sausage-making, and they will love it. They will see, in politics, how law and justice embrace. I step out into the chilly autumn evening, rejoicing."

AGB: especially note the words "TRUTH," "PRINCIPLED," and "LAW and JUSTICE."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/27/a-civil-war-professor-reviews-lincoln.html

You've seen the films...

Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
Steven Spielberg's: LINCOLN                   

       

You've heard the myths...
         

NEWS: The Civil War was not waged to free slaves.
The Civil War was not waged to "save" the Union.
The Civil War was waged to impose centralized socialist (Federal) control and a centralized socialist economy on all the states; and to seat the nexus of power in the executive and a small group of elites. In order to achieve that end, the north required the disarming of the south and the destruction of the southern economy.

Since 1961 there has been a progressive effort to crush the intent of the US Constitution through placing seats on the Supreme Court, in the federal legislatures, and in the controlling interests of the states by transferring not just wealth, but power and ideas. 


The nexus of socialist thinking: Communism and Socialism, was not within the Democratic Party of America in those heady days, but in the Republican Party.

That the two parties switched roles is but a late development AFTER the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (That same year the "idea" of Palestinian nationhood was born as well, as in, there is no such thing. The Palestinians, to make it short, are simply Jordanians and southern Syrians still fighting one another and the Jews for a SECOND Arab State called Palestine, as in the first Palestinian state is called and has been called Jordan. That fact is corroborated by their leadership).

Getting back to reality and the history that you had never learned in high school because the victor writes the history and the victims do not. From this story you may get a better understanding for where America is heading...

- AGB

COMMUNISTS’ EFFECT ON AMERICA

by Joan Hough

Their influence from then to now—How did it all begin? Did they leave their footprints on our nation?

Why did Lincoln and his Republicans insist on attacking the sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America? Why did Lincoln and his Republicans refuse to compromise with the South?

Perhaps the following may set you on the pathway to truth and aid you in answering both questions.

All that follows comes to us through the courtesy of Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, from their explosive, iconoclastic history text entitled RED REPUBLICANS AND LINCOLN’S MARXISTS: MARXISM IN THE CIVIL WAR (obtainable online at http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/ ). If you think what you read here is something----“you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!” Do read the book. My impression of the contents in just one of its chapters follows. 

IMPORTANT REPUBLICAN POLICY- INSTIGATORS, ‘”FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES,” --APPOINTED THERE BY ABE LINCOLN --

1. Brigadier General Joseph WEYDEMEYER of Lincoln’s army was a close friend of Karl MARX and Fredrick Engels in the London Communist League. Marx wrote Weydemeyer’s letter of introduction to Charles A. DANA—an editor of New York Times Tribune. Weydemeyer was an escapist from the Socialist/Communist Revolution. He fled to the U.S. and became very active in the just-beginning Republican Party. He supported Freeman in the Republican Party’s first election and Lincoln in its second. He was described in a Communist publication as a “PIONEER AMERICAN MARXIST.’ He wrote for and edited several radical socialist journals in the U.S. (p. 200) 

            

2. Assistant Secretary of War Charles A. DANA ---close friend of Marx, published with Joseph Weydemyer a number of Communist Journals and, also “The Communist Manifesto,” commissioned by Karl Marx. As a member of the Communist/Socialist Fourier Society in America, Dana was well acquainted with Marx and Marx’s colleague in Communism, Fredrick Engels. Dana, also, was a friend of all Marxists in Lincoln’s Republican Party, offering assistance to them almost upon their arrival on the American continent. This happened often after receiving introductory letters from Karl MARX, himself. (p. 196).

“Prior to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, no other American did more to promote the cause of communism in the United States than did Dana.” (p. 141). It was due to Dana’s close friendship and work with the New York Tribune editor, Horace Greeley, another dedicated socialist, that Greeley employed Marx as a correspondent/contributor to the U.S. newspaper. Dana became the first high-level communist in an American administration---which was the FIRST REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION in the United States of America.

3. Brigadier General Louis BLENKER, Lincoln’s army—radical socialist/Communist from Germany—was remarkably successful in encouraging German immigrants to join Lincoln’s army and the Republican party. He promised Lincoln that he could get “. . . thousands of Germans ready to fight for the preservation of the Union.”(p. xiv). He was a leader in the Revolution in Germany and fought in several battles there. When the Revolution failed, he went to Switzerland where, along with other Marxists, he was ordered to leave the country. His life in the U.S. was markedly grander than it had been previously—on a much higher social level. As a General, he offered a refuge to all Marxists. If unable to obtain a commission for them, he made a place for them as “aide-de-camp.” Great food, great drinks, great entertainment and servants were available for one and all obtained, largely by looting defenseless civilians. This practice was so flagrant, civilians who were looted, were considered “Blenkered.” Later, Blenker, under accusations of graft, resigned his commission. (p. 118)

        

THAT WAS THEN                                THIS IS NOW.....

4. Major General August WILLICH—often called “The Reddest of the Red ‘48ers” was a member of the London Communist League with Karl MARX and Fredrick ENGLES. (p. xiv) Before seeking refuge in the U.S. Willich was a personal acquaintance of Karl MARX. In fact, Marx referred to Willich as “A communist with a heart.” Willich was a Captain in the Prussian army when he met Karl Marx and became a Socialist/Communist. The Prussian Army court martialed Willich and kicked him out of the army. He, then, participated in the Socialist Revolution in Germany. He fled the nation when the revolt was crushed, and eventually wound up in the U.S. and became an editor of a newspaper in Cincinnati written in the German language. He raised volunteers from the Germans in his area and became their Captain. Eventually he became a general and was, actually, a competent commander. He never ceased indoctrinating his troops with the Socialism message. He did not like Lincoln’s ties with big business, but supported him, nevertheless. (p. 200) In Germany, he was involved with fellow radicals, Gustav Struve, Frederic Hecker, and Franz Siegel in presenting demands for the creation of a socialist government to the Frankfurt Parliament, and in Socialist Revolutionary efforts.

5. Major Robert ROSA, of Lincoln’s Army, was a proud member of the New York Communist Club. (p. xiv)

6. Colonel Richard HINTON, of Lincoln’s army was one of the Charterist Socialists who fled England. The British police raided several London places of known Chartist connections and discovered ammunition and weapons. Some Chartist followers were arrested and tried. Others made it to America where, as radical socialist/Communists they were supporters of Lincoln and involved in propaganda via writing for newspapers and other publications. Hinton was an associate of the terrorist, John Brown and after the war was a correspondent for a Boston newspaper. (p. 106)

7. Spy chief Allan PINKERTON, head of the Republican Ohio Department “spy service” under General George B. McClellan. Pinkerton was the most famous of the Charterists, a radical socialist group pursued by British agents. Pinkerton fled to the U.S., settled in Illinois where he became an operator of the Underground Railroad conveying escaped slaves to Canada. (Illinois citizens would not allow free blacks to live in their state.) Pinkerton was one of the big backers and among the financiers of John Brown and Brown’s fellow terrorists. Later Pinkerton served as Lincoln’s guard. Lincoln and Pinkerton became acquainted while Pinkerton was a detective for the Illinois Central Railroad, when Lincoln was its lawyer. It has been reported that Pinkerton’s inept intelligence gathering during the war was responsible for General McClellan always considering himself outnumbered by Confederates when he was not. (pp. 107-109)

8. Brigadier General Carl SCHURZ –as a young socialist, was noted for helping Gottfried Kinkel of Bonn escape from Spandau while imprisoned there for his socialist activities in the ’48 Revolts. Schurz came to America in 1848. He was a forty-eighter who became very active in the development of the Republican Party and in politics. He was given a high position by Lincoln in the Republican army. A great admirer of Karl Marx, Schurz was cognizant of Marx’s abrasive personality and made an effort to avoid imitation of that. He was an unsuccessful candidate for Lt. Governor in Wisconsin, and became a member of the Wisconsin bar in 1859. In 1860, he became he became a friend of Abraham Lincoln and a delegate to the Republican National Convention. Lincoln appointed him Minister to Spain in 1861. Schurz became a brigadier general in the Union Army in 1862, and was assigned to a command under John C. FREMONT and then under Franz SIEGEL. Schurz‘s Republican career continued under Rutherford B. Hayes who appointed him as Secretary of the Interior. It is believed that Schulz was a competent soldier. (p. 11). He, also, served as U.S. Senator from Missouri. (p. 198) 

9. Brigadier General Alexander Von Schimmelfenning, like most of the other MARXISTS /Socialist/Communists who came to the U.S. after their failed uprising in 1848, fled Germany, and escaped retribution for his part in the attempted overthrow. Schimmelfenning’s history as a Socialist Revolutionary was no secret in Pittsburg when the Committee, headed by Republican J. Siebnick, recommended Schimmelfenning for Colonel of the new regiment of Pittsburgh German volunteers for Lincoln’s army. Schimmelfennig was well known in the German community because of a letter of his appearing in a well known socialist- abolitionist U.S. newspaper. Schimmelfennig recruited two former Prussian Army officers to help him recruit more Germans, especially Revolutionary Socialists. Schimmelfenning was effective as a commanding officer and became a brigadier general after Carl Schurz interceded for him by contacting the Pennsylvania congressional delegation which then lobbied Edwin M. Stanton and Stanton spoke to Lincoln. Schimmelfenning will always be remembered for hiding in a ditch under a makeshift culvert during the early part of the most pivotal battle of the war, the Battle of Gettysburg.

10. Major General Franz SIEGEL, thought to be one of Lincoln’s most controversial and the poorest of his generals, was deeply involved in the German 1848 revolts as a commander of socialist troops in the failed 1849 German Revolution. A graduate of the German Military Academy, he served in the German army and the Socialist efforts to overthrow the German government. For a brief period while the overthrow was temporarily successful, he served the new Germany as minister of war. After the fall of the revolutionary government, he fled to Switzerland and on to England, then to New York and on to St. Louis, Missouri, where he became the superintendent of the public school system. One might correctly say that when socialists gain power, “the three Rs become: Red, Radical and Revolution.” (work cited p. 112) Republican “…General Hallek stated: ‘It seems little better than murder to give important commands to men such as Siegel.’”(p. 113)

11. Commander Friedrich Karl Franz HECKER, (exact military title not known) known as “Red” and “Flagrant Friedrich.” (work cited, p. 113) Educated in Germany, received his doctor of law degree in Munich. He was expelled from Prussia. Arriving in the U.S., he took part in the creation of the Republican Party, encouraged the proliferation of German newspapers carrying the Socialist propaganda, aided in the election of Lincoln, and propagandized heavily among German immigrants for volunteers for the Republican Army. He was named Commander of a regiment he raised of Germans.

12. Captain Gustav von STRUVE was born in Germany to a woman of nobility and her Russian diplomat mate. Struve was one of the leaders, along with HECKER in the uprising in Germany in 1848. After the uprising Struve tried to succeed in a second uprising, but was arrested, found guilty of high treason, and awarded solitary confinement for five years, but was freed by fellow revolutionaries from prison, went to Switzerland where authorities there expelled him. After time in France and England, he arrived in New York with his radical wife. He became a Captain in Lincoln’s New York Infantry. Resigned his commission at the urging of Louis BLENKER and not long after, returned to Germany when a general amnesty became available.

13. General John C. FREMONT was noted for his close association with all of the socialist/communists whom Lincoln placed in positions of command in his army. Fremont was the first Republican candidate for president. He was considered to be the “darling” of the most radical socialists. His chief of staff, early in the war, was a Hungarian socialist revolutionary,

14. Chief of Staff (rank not identified) Alexander ASBOTH, Socialist revolutionary born in Hungary.

15. Brevet Major General Frederick Charles SALOMON, one of a group of four radical socialist brothers, with highly similar names-- three of whom were in the group of Socialist 1848ers. Frederick began his career in Lincoln’s army as a Captain in MO, wound up as a Colonel in the Ninth Wisconsin Volunteer Regiment, then a brigadier general and a brevet major general.

16. Brevetted Brigadier General Charles E. Salomon, also started his American military career with a bunch of MO volunteers. Born in Prussia, he, also, was one of the radical socialists arriving in the U.S. after the 1848 Socialist uprising failure and was a brother to Frederick Charles.

17. Governor Edward Salomon, a third Salomon brother, also born in Prussia, did not do military service, but ran for political office in Wisconsin, was elected lieutenant governor, becoming Governor of Wisconsin when the elected Governor drowned.

18. Sergeant Herman Salomon, the fourth Salomon brother, was markedly younger than the other three Salomon, but it is thought that he, besides sharing their surname, shared their family- devotion to Communism - not confirmed.

19. Colonel Fritz ANNEKE/ANNECKE was a Forty-eighter, with a strong leftward tilt. He was a Communist League member and a Baden Revolt veteran. He and wife, Mathilde Franziska Anneke, were a team of European communists. Fritz was a highly skilled artillery officer in the Prussian army where his equal skill as a socialist ideologue caused him to lose his commission and to be confined in jail. He was later tried and condemned to death “in contumaciam” for his leadership in the Baden rebellion. One of Anneke’s adjutants during that rebellion was Carl Schurz. Both of the Fritzs wrote for newspapers and journals. Both were strong abolitionists and supporters of Lincoln’s Union. Colonel Fritz received and then lost his U.S. military commission due to his difficult Prussian personality. He and his wife went their own separate ways later with his wife, Mathilde starting her own school for girls, continuing to preachy the glories of socialism, joining with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in their feminist cause—even lobbied in Washington D.C. for the feminist cause. She was a bird of the same feathers with that particular group of women because most of them were apostates from various division of the Christian religion, while she, a “free thinker” was a fallen away Catholic –converted to Communism by her husband Fritz Anneke. 

       

20. General William Tecumseh SHERMAN. A list of “approved” socialist’ communists published by the press of the Communist Party of the United States included General Sherman’s name among other leading socialists/communists. “The editor of this communist book noted that Sherman was an “outstanding” general of the Union Army.” It should be noted that the co-founder of modern-day communism, Fredrick Engels, also saw Sherman as one of theirs. Both Gen. William Sherman and Sen. John Sherman, his brother, believed in a strong indivisible central government (p. 199) with every bit as much passion as did the announced Marxists and the still-in-the-closet Communists who, also, viewed it as a necessity for Communism (Marxism) to achieve its goal, so one can draw one’s own conclusions about the Shermans’ philosophy of government and of life.

[Although the Marxists added abolition as one of the new arrows for their bow, their true goal was not a humanitarian one, but to use slaves as a means of destroying the Christian South, which was resistant to their own religion---Communism.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{The following is from William Tecumseh Sherman’s formal dispatches; see reference at end of quote.} “the Government of the United States has ….any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war—to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything….[W]ar is simply power unrestrained by Constitution . . . . To the persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better.” (p. 54). (William Sherman in official Records War of the Rebellion Vol. XXXII, pt. II, pp. 280-81].

p. 54: “There is a class of people [Southerners], men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order. (141; Sherman, ibid.) 
http://dixieoutfitters.com/p/communist-s-effect-in-america

Obama's own Bill Ayres later doubled down on that thought when he suggested that 25 million Americans will need to be killed to achieve the socialist paradise.

See Ayres tell it in his own words in 1977 on YOU TUBE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBtANp4IKVk

As you can see, it is the counter-revolution he was afraid of. That is the SAME counter-revolution that Obama has recently set up an organization to monitor. Oh yes, the first people to be murdered are Capitalists - especially the well-educated ones from Harvard, Yale and Columbia.
          

    


--
The Unbearable Lightness of Being Liberal

The details don't really matter. Only the image does. Or the image of the image. The melange of emotion and outrage, titillation and talking down to that exercise the reptilian brain leave nothing inside it. - Dan Greenfield

The Legacy of Abraham Lincoln (Photoshop)

What a Friggin' Hero

A Great Film About Abraham Lincoln, Passed Over for an Academy Award?

I of course, refer to the film, "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter."  No, it's not really historically accurate, but not much less so than Spielberg's "Lincoln."

As a great and glorious example of moral rectitude, Lincoln was a fraud.  When I have time, I will tell you all facts about the Emancipation Proclamation that most of you never learned in school...like the fact that it didn't free a single slave -- nor was it intended to.  Perhaps our Second Coming of Lincoln will issue a Confiscation Proclamation, ending gun ownership.  But that would be unconstitutional...just like the first proclamation.  However, that is discussion for another time.

Meanwhile, when you go to the movies, pass up "Lincoln."  It is total B.S.  Believing in myths and feel-good but false history does no one any good.

In fact, "feel-good" history is often a ruse by which to justify modern politics in the here and now.  Carl Sandburg's  biography of Lincoln, written in the 1930's, was a disguised justification for FDR's New Deal.  Spielberg's "Lincoln" is presented for the same purpose, to justify Obama's overreach and suspension of the Constitution.  The more you buy in to Hollywood's phony Lincoln, the less willing you will become to oppose Obama, whose policies are probably less extreme than those of Old Abe.

So you think Old Abe was a hero, even though he started a war without the approval of Congress, arrested and imprisoned thousands of US citizens without charges or trial, illegally suspended Habeas Corpus, ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for ruling it unconstitutional, shut down hundreds of newspapers who disagreed with his policies, acquiesced in the illegal and unconstitutional deportation of an Ohio congressman (for opposing him), and issued a sweeping proclamation without the participation or agreement of Congress.

Further, he ordered Union troops to burn Southern universities, private homes and farms, to destroy livestock and confiscate medicines, and to use captured Confederate officers as human shields against artillery.  His glorious Yankees raped Southern black women, used Southern black men for target practice, and kidnapped others to be pressed into labor for the Union Army.  Other Northern troops stole private property from private homes, carrying off the silverware and candlesticks.  Think of that the next time you hear "Battle Hymn of the Republic."

Lincoln was a dictator; there is absolutely nothing about the man that can be called "American."  He operated completely outside of the law and the Constitution and managed to kill more Americans than any foreign despot ever could.  His time in office was a reign of terror, not enlightenment, not justice, not heroism and certainly not morality.

As for the weepy and wimpy Lincoln of Spielberg's propaganda, he did not exist.  Lincoln despised black people, considered them to be an inferior race that should be deported to Africa or Central America.  His opposition to slavery in the territories was for economic and racial reasons, not equality.

Lincoln's war on the South was all about preventing secession, not about emancipation.  The Northern army was called "the Union Army," not "the Abolition Army," for a reason.  This fact becomes more pertinent and important every day, now that tens of thousands of Americans in every state in the Union have petitioned Obama for the right to peacefully secede from the socialist tyranny now under construction.  When states actually do begin to secede once again, Obama will undoubtedly try to stop them by brute force...just like Lincoln did.  And if you buy into the Lincoln myth, how could you possibly oppose him?

Aha, now you see the reason for this propaganda.  You are being trained to embrace tyranny as great patriotism, and Obama as the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln.

Sean Hannity Warns of Secession Due To Radicalized Federal Government

Sean Hannity tends to be too establishment for me, but even he is seeing the writing on the wall...and it spells "Secession."

Hannity has stated that he foresees states leaving the union "if the federal government continues its 'radicalized, abusive pattern.'"  He said:

People that are fed up with a power hungry, radicalized, abusive federal government intruding into every aspect of our lives,” Hannity continued. “People are going to say they’re fed up, and states are going to want more liberty and more freedom. They’re not going to want to tax their citizens to death anymore. If this pattern continues and gets worse and worse and worse, I can see at some point the states saying, "Forget it. I don’t want to be a part of this union anymore."

And this:

Hannity rejected the idea that secession is necessarily a “radical concept,” arguing that the Declaration of Independence is itself a “radical document.”

“There is a tipping point in all of these debates,” he said. “Now, politically speaking, that means people are going to be thrown out of office, I hope. But if not, there are going to be people in more conservative states that have had enough. I can see a state like Utah saying, ‘Enough is enough,’ [and] a state like Texas saying, ‘Enough is enough.’ I absolutely can.”

Read more and watch a video of Hannity's comments at the Daily Caller, here.

Texas v White Did Not Settle the Issue of Secession

American Thinker has an article today that analyzes the legal case of Texas v (versus) White (1869).  The case has often been cited as proof that the Supreme Court declared secession to be unconstitutional, and that should settle the matter for all time.

Not so fast.  Texas v White wasn't even about secession.  Cory Genelin, writing for American Thinker, concludes:

In summary, Texas v. White, even if given the utmost respect, and considered binding precedent, does not stand for the proposition that no state may ever break its bonds with the Federal Government of the United States. At the same time, if it is considered the final word on the Federal Government's right to prohibit a state from seceding, then that right is far from established.

The article is a bit long and legalistic, but is a worthy source for any Southern scholars who stockpile intellectual ammo for fighting the Northern Myth.

Read it all here.

Six Year Old Suspended For Pointing Finger and Saying "Pow!"

The Left is insane.  They are completely bonkers, nuts, crazy and weird.

The Washington Compost has the story:

The parents of a 6-year-old Silver Spring boy are fighting the first-grader’s suspension from a Montgomery County public school for pointing his finger like a gun and saying “pow,” an incident school officials characterized in a disciplinary letter as a threat “to shoot a student.”

The first-grader was suspended for one day, Dec. 21. The family’s attorney filed an appeal Wednesday, asking that the incident be expunged from the boy’s school record amid concerns of long-term fallout.

EEEEEK!  He's Got Fingers!

Note to Leftists:  a finger is not a gun.  It cannot be loaded.  It cannot fire bullets.  In the old days, we used to call such incidents "playing."  I even had semi-realistic mock-ups of guns -- cap guns and squirt guns.  If someone brought one of those to this idiotic school, perhaps he would be convicted of a felony and imprisoned for years to come.

I have to wonder about the motivations of the school administrators for such unhinged behavior (on their part).  Did they do this because they are prone to gross overreaction and have no sense of proportion? Are they unhinged fanatics with absolutely no judgment?

Or did they do this to instill in the minds of school children that guns are so evil and terrible, that one cannot even pretend to fire one, lest he be arrested as a potential terrorist?  This would seem to be brainwashing children to become the docile adults necessary for mindless obedience to Big Brother.

Note to Parents:  Get your kids out of public school.  Stop the brainwashing!  If you can't afford private school, home school.

Department of Homeland Security: Preparing for Civil War?

The Department of Homeland Security -- Why Is It Buying Millions of Hollow Point Rounds?

It sounds incredible -- on second thought, not so incredible anymore -- that the Department of Home Security is preparing for a civil war or an economic collapse.  One website claims the DHS has purchased over a billion hollow point rounds of ammunition.  The site further claims that international law prohibits the use of hollow points by the military, and that they can only be used domestically.  Putting two and two together, one might conclude that the DHS is preparing for civil war.  See their video here.

The same video documents the massive public purchases of firearms following Obama's re-election, as well as massive buying of ammunition.  Many Americans appear to be preparing for a civil war as well....as rebels.  Much of the public instinctively knows a great internal conflict is coming and want to be ready.

The same website claims that the Illinois State legislature is planning to ram through a state law banning all firearms from the state, with confiscation to follow.

The Signs Are There:  the Federal Government Has Become a Threat to Liberty

More and more, our federal government appears to be plotting to end our freedoms and impose a form of fascism on the country.  Obama's re-election has emboldened the Left, and they appear to be seizing an historic opportunity to transform the United States into a socialist/fascist tyranny.  They have been at this for decades, but previously were content with a slow gradualism of transformation, a subtle pollution of the zeitgeist.  The metaphor most often quoted for this is "boiling the frog."  If you drop a frog into a pan of boiling water (they theory goes), it will immediately jump out to save itself.  However, if you increase the heat a degree at a time, the frog will be cooked before it realizes the danger.

We seem to be moving from slowly increasing the heat to microwaving the frog.  Feinstein's fascist gun confiscation bill is proof.  Obama, a radical punk, continues his destruction of the economy and forcing many more citizens onto the welfare rolls, making them dependents of the state.  A New York Times editorial this week advocated ending the Constitution of the United States so that government politicians can do whatever they like.

A few months ago, a military magazine carried an article advising the military on how to prepare for and fight an internal insurrection -- a civil war.  Of course, that eventuality will be moot if the populace is disarmed and unable to fight.  In any case, statists are recognizing the possibility of civil war.

Time to Bring Back the Militias?

I believe it is time to bring back the militias, and to support them and fund them.  Under Bill Clinton's regime, many concerned citizens feared the destruction of their rights, and formed unofficial and unrecognized militias.  Militias were groups of armed men who practiced target shooting together and even trained together in military tactics.  They held meetings and discussed survival tactics and techniques.  These militia members saw themselves as the "unorganized militia," as provided for in Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 13 -- United States Code.

The Left did its usual slander job on the militias following Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma.  McVeigh was not a member of any militia, nor was he acting from any philosophy or dogma put out by the militias.  Nevertheless, the Left successfully tainted the reputation of the militias, and hung the McVeigh albatross around militia members' necks.  Now when you mention "militias," many people automatically envision mass murderer Timothy McVeigh.

In spite of this, it's time to bring these militias back.  The threat of an oppressive, unconstitutional federal government is now greater than ever.  Once gun confiscation begins in mass, it will be time to fight.  We cannot give up our guns meekly.

Will the Military Step In, and If So, Whose Side Will They Take?

The U.S. Military is largely patriotic, loyal and conservative.  If civil war breaks out, will they support the federal usurpers, or will they support the Constitution and the people?  Aren't the military sworn to oppose all enemies, foreign and domestic?  If there is a domestic enemy, will they consider that enemy us, or the Democrats in office?  What about Posse Comitatus?

Since the Obama and the Democrats are already busily dismantling all of our constitutional protections, why should the Military be any different?  Military leaders should privately think on these awful possibilities, and what their reaction will be in the event of civil war.  Instead of becoming an arm of tyranny, they could become the sword of liberty, by deposing an out-of-control, leftist tyranny.

Daniel Greenfield on the Importance of Cultural Secession

A must read today is a post on the blog Sultan Knish, written by a conservative and traditional Jew, on how the right can retake the culture and the country.  It won't be easy, but it can be done.  It involves cultural secession before physical secession; it involves winning the demographic war and the cultural war.

Here are some salient quotes to whet your appetites, listed by topic:

1.  Demographics:  Third world immigration has greatly contributed to the growth and success of progressive politics:

Taking back America demographically is a matter of having enough children within a cultural structure that passes down the values of adults to the children, while focusing on limiting immigration as much as possible. This isn't an impossible task.

Greenfield gives the Amish,Orthodox Jews and Mormons as examples of tight-knit communities who are producing the children needed, while simultaneously eliminating the progressive programming for those children that occurs from both public education and Hollywood entertainment.

Many Christian families have begun doing the same, by home-schooling their children and restricting their exposure to progressive indoctrination.

2.   Culture War:  We are losing the culture war to progressive programming from media, academia and entertainment.  Forming tight-knit communities with shared traditional values is essential, as well as finding ways to substitute our own education and entertainment that is stripped of progressive content.  Winning the culture was is essential.  Greenfield writes:

The progressive agenda is to destroy the family, to undermine it, ridicule it, economically disadvantage it and burden it until it falls apart and is replaced by the Big Brother of the State. The traditional agenda is to maintain the family and pass along traditional values across the generations. That is what this cultural war is really about; whether the family or the state will the defining unit of human experience.

3.  Cultural Secession:  

Cultural secession means cutting away the educational and entertainment culture of the left out of your home. It means creating your own alternative education and entertainment and grouping in communities that act as a support structure for traditional values. Is it easy? No. It involves sacrifice. But groups such as the Amish and Orthodox Jews have done it and have thrived doing it.

Daniel Greenfield makes a lot of sense and describes the strategies needed for our cultural and demographic survival.  Read the entire article here.

Lawrence Auster on How We Can Form a New Conservative Society

Foreword:
My friend Lawrence Auster of View From the Right posted the article (reproduced below) on how we can start over again, following the loss of western civilization to the far left.  I like his description of where we are now:  free to start over, without hopelessly trying to inject some conservatism into the runaway leftism of the now dead American Republic.   We can now stop beating a dead horse and look for a new steed on which to ride.

Auster often alludes to a kind of internal secession from liberal society, wherein traditional conservatives form their own internal societies in which traditional American values and culture can be preserved, as islands in a sea of multicultualist, leftwing ideology.  From these societies we can eventually find practical ways to govern ourselves, perhaps through actual secession or by slowly retaking the country, maybe by a "reverse march" through the institutions.  All this would be determined later.

Actually, Auster's scenario has been described before, by the League of the South, who advocated such internal secession over a decade ago.  At the time, I didn't like the idea, as it seemed too passive to me, as I wanted to fight for the country.  Now I must admit that we have lost the country to a socialist/fascist ideology and that this form of passive aggression may be all we have left.

Larry concludes his remarks by denying that Lincoln destroyed the Constitutional order of the United States; I fear that Larry was (like most of us) heavily indoctrinated into the Lincoln myth at an early age.  Lincoln surely destroyed the Constitutional order, or at the very least, dealt it a fatal blow that only now is finally killing off the country envisioned by the Founding Fathers.  

Reader observations and remarks are welcome.

****

STARTING OVER AGAIN - by Lawrence Auster

A correspondent told me this evening that he is working on an article about secession in which, among other things, he will present the laws that would be needed in the new, non-liberal, breakaway society (or societies) to avoid the mistakes of the existing society. This is exactly the kind of work that is needed. It is a complement to my proposed article listing all the things about the existing America that we reject.

The trauma of the decisive takeover of this society by the left and the death of the constitutional republic has a large silver lining: we are now free intellectually of liberal America. We no longer have to keep hopelessly trying to inject some conservatism into a society that is overwhelmingly and unchallengeably liberal. Now we are free to start over again,—intellectually at first, and later, we hope, practically. What the task involves is taking the good principles and components of the old America and dispensing with the bad, and introducing new principles and components that can be the basis of a new, viable, non-liberal society.

- end of initial entry -

Ed H. writes:

Does the model of the South as it existed for almost a hundred years post-Reconstruction, pre-Civil Rights, offer anything as to what a post-liberal American political entity might look like? During that time the South was an almost a de facto separate country existing loosely within the USA. Rather than formal secession, independence was maintained by culture, local laws, and indifference to what others might think. There were no external borders, but it was a no-go zone for the federal government. Strict states rights created a unique, powerful, and defiant culture and people, defined by the principles of the 1787 Constitution and yet a place where no one dared use federal laws to distort the local religious or racial identity. We do not need to accept how liberals looked on the New South, i.e. a cauldron of bigotry, we can look at it as a non-liberal, traditionalist, highly cultured, European, white, American Republic. So we do have at least one rough but workable model from our past to go by. And this seems a much more likely and achievable first step.Arizona with its defiance of Eric Holder provides another example of how this could begin to happen today. The federal judiciary would quickly show up, pure defiance with no backing down would be inevitable.

LA replies:

I think there is much to what you are saying.I would also point out that your accurate picture of the post-Reconstruction South puts the lie to the ridiculous, brain-dead paleoconservative notion that America’s constitutional order [was] destroyed by Lincoln.

Is It Time For a New Political Party?

When anyone brings up the subject of a new political party, they are quickly drowned out with hoots and hollers from the "mainstream," who tell us that a third party can't win.  I used to agree with this.  However, I am totally fed up with the Establishment Republicans.  It would be nice to bury Lincoln's party once and for all.

This past week or so, Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House, has been removing Tea Party and conservative congressmen from key committees.  I imagine that this is so Boehner and the Establishment GOP can more easily accede to Obama's demands, spend more money and raise taxes.

Starting a new party wouldn't be easy, but what choice do we really have?  A conservative party is what we need.  Why not make the unofficial Tea Party an actual party?