Tuesday, January 22, 2013

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.

Friday, January 11, 2013

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.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

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.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

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.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

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.