Ken Burns, Creator of Yankee Propaganda Film "The Civil War," Endorses Obama

More than twenty years ago, Ken Burns produced the TV series "The Civil War."  It was a complete whitewash of the Lincoln's invasion of the South in 1861 - 1865.  Many Southerners and others were disgusted with the distorted views of that propaganda effort.

Now Burns is endorsing Barack Obama for president.  Apparently, his knowledge of current events is on a par with his knowledge of history.

Read his absurd endorsement here.

"Despising Dixie" -- A Friendly Yankee Responds to Anti-South Book "Better Off Without 'Em"

Daniel J. Flynn, a writer at the American Spectator, takes author Chuck Thompson to the woodshed for "despising Dixie."  Thompson is the author who wrote the stupid little book, "Better Off Without 'Em," which I panned in a prior post.

Flynn defends the Southern contribution to America, and writes:

Even a Yankee unable to pronounce the letter "r" can articulate the charms of the drawling South. America's military heroes, from George Washington to Alvin York to Dakota Meyer, have disproportionately come from below the Mason-Dixon line. Whether one drinks Coke or Pepsi, Jack Daniel's or Jim Beam, one drinks to the South. Has the CNN travel writer traveled to Savannah, Charleston, or Nashville? The musicians who invented rock 'n' roll -- Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Fats Domino, Jerry Lee Lewis, the Everly Brothers -- all hailed from the South. It's also a fact that the South has better fiction: Flannery O'Connor, Zora Neale Hurston, William Faulkner, etc.

Who but a hater wants to discard all that?

Read it all here.

Hat tip to Stacy McCain for the link.

More Nonsense on Spielberg's Fictional "Lincoln"

There's another discussion online about director Steven Spielberg's new movie, "Lincoln."  I commented there, for anyone who's interested.  See the discussion here.

Having watched the latest ads about this monstrous distortion of history, i.e. Spielberg's "Lincoln," I fear for the future of the American republic.  Many Americans are totally ignorant of the most basic facts of history, and they will readily swallow this Hollywood malarkey as truth.  So much easier to watch a movie than read a book.

The new ads show Lincoln as a passionate purveyor of equality for blacks in America, motivated only by his deep convictions of freedom for slaves and his love of a suffering humanity, with emancipation his major, overriding goal.

In truth, the slaves were not much of a consideration while Lincoln was using military force to destroy Southern independence.  To Lincoln, the slaves were both a nuisance and a political tool; he didn't care for blacks at all, considered them an inferior race, and wanted to get rid of them by deporting them to Africa or Central America.  His attitude per Spielberg was "Oh, let's free black people and make them our social and political equals!"  His actual attitude was, "Let's get these damn inferior Negros outta here."

The facts show that Lincoln was utterly ruthless, politically ambitious and even dictatorial in office.  He knowingly and enthusiastically supported war on civilians, the burning of private homes and universities, and he hoped for a slave rebellion that would murder Southerners in their beds (thus saving him the trouble).  However, that's reality.  Spielberg's fictional Lincoln was a caring, weeping, meek and mild messianic figure who wanted to end the scourge of slavery, all out of the goodness of his heart, for justice, mercy, equality, for puppy dogs and butterflies, for tulips in spring and peppermint candy canes at Christmas.  It's enough to gag a mule.

Update:  This Canadian website has an interesting essay on the Lincoln myth, "Lincoln:  An Invented Hero."

Dick Morris TV: "A Bold New Theory on What Caused the Civil War"

Dick Morris discusses a new book and a "new theory" of what caused the Civil War.

Hmm, that's funny, I always thought it was the North's invasion.

Watch Morris's discussion here.

Spielberg's "Lincoln" Another Myth-Making Whitewash of America's Bloodiest President

Steven Spielberg, a liberal supporter of Barack Obama, does his best to give new life to the Lincoln myth.  Once again, Old Abe is shown as a sage, a saint, Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi and the Apostle Paul all rolled into one.

Spielberg's Lincoln is all about "ending slavery," and pictured as a sensitive, caring soul, almost a wimp.  The real Lincoln didn't give a hoot in hell about ending slavery; he only wanted to drag the bleeding South back into a Union it no longer wanted, a Union that was no longer voluntary, all so Abe could keep his tax revenues.  Also, Dishonest Abe detested black people, swore like a sailor, didn't believe in the Bible, and told ribald jokes.  That probably won't be in the film.  Also, don't count on the film showing his anti-black speeches in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, or his lecture to blacks visiting the White House (on how inferior they were to whites), or his letter to Horace Greeley regarding his non-stance on slavery.  Also, there is little possibility of the film showing Lincoln approving of total war, the use of Confederate officers as a shield against artillery, the burning of private homes, farms and universities or the random shelling of civilians in Charleston.  No, I suspect the Spielberg Lincoln will be too busy weeping for suffering mankind, feeling deep emotions, and emoting like a bleeding heart on steroids.

We will never be rid of the Lincoln myth.  It will be with us always, like flies on cow pies, mosquitoes in July and ants at a picnic.  Have a look at the trailer below but try not to vomit.

Has America Passed the Point of No Return? Will Secession Again Be Necessary?

John Hinderaker at Powerline has a rather sobering post today:  Why Is This Election Close?

John believes that the country may have passed a point of no return.  He writes:

On paper, given Obama’s record, this election should be a cakewalk for the Republicans. Why isn’t it? I am afraid the answer may be that the country is closer to the point of no return than most of us believed. With over 100 million Americans receiving federal welfare benefits, millions more going on Social Security disability, and many millions on top of that living on entitlement programs–not to mention enormous numbers of public employees–we may have gotten to the point where the government economy is more important, in the short term, than the real economy. My father, the least cynical of men, used to quote a political philosopher to the effect that democracy will work until people figure out they can vote themselves money. I fear that time may have come.

Hinderaker quotes Andy McCarthy at National Review, who implicitly believes that the Gramsci vision has been realized, that the "long march through the institutions" has been accomplished, and that a large part of our country's culture and institutions, namely the media and academia, are in the firm control of the Left.  What's worse, is that the Republican establishment cannot fight them because it has accepted the Progressive framework, not arguing for its abolishment, but only that it be better executed.  McCarthy writes:

It has always been possible to run against elite opinion and win — if you make a compelling counter-case...Today’s Republicans do not. Indeed, they cannot, because they have accepted the progressive framework. Their argument is not that the welfare state, deficit spending, federalized education, sharia-democracy promotion, and the rest are bad policies. Their argument is not that Washington needs to be dramatically downsized. It is that progressive governance is fine but needs to be better executed.

My friend Lawrence Auster at View From the Right has long argued the same thing -- that the Republican establishment seeks a slightly different approach to liberalism, but not its defeat.  This is a very pessimistic view, but no doubt it contains a lot of truth.

If we do indeed lose the nation to another four years of progressive destruction, it may be time to consider some radical alternatives, e.g. a new political party, state nullification of unconstitutional laws, and even secession.

Read Hinderaker's article here.

Read McCarthy's article here.

Co-Posted at Saber Point

Dumb-Ass Yankee Runs Down the South in "Better Off Without 'Em"

Some Northern jackass has written a book urging that Southern secession finally be allowed to proceed.  Chuck Thompson, a self-proclaimed liberal, believes the South is so backward and culturally inferior that the North would be "Better Off Without 'Em," which is the title of his poisonous little tome.

Thompson toured the South looking for evidence that his preconceived notions and prejudices were true all along.  Southerners are people who believe (bwa-ha-ha!) in God, Fox News and the Republican Party.  How backward can you get?  Don't the Southrons know that such things are uncool in the snooty cocktail parties of Boston and New York?

"Better Off Without "Em" is a narcissistic, Northern exercise in snobbery and conceit, a way of saying "Look how COOL, sophisticated, enlightened and educated WE ARE compared to these laughable Southerners!  We are just SO SUPERIOR!"  However, Thompson's orgy of self-congratulation does underscore an important difference between Yankees and Southrons.  The former (like Thompson) care deeply about their social standing, and desperately need validation, esteem and acceptance from other "sophisticates."  In order to achieve this high level of snobbery, it is important to go to the right schools, hold the right opinions, and vote for the right (which means left) candidates.  Southrons just don't give a damn, viewing such values as superficial and such attitudes as nonsense.

In spite of the book's rampant bigotry, however, it does reach a point we can all agree with.  The South would be much "better off without 'em."  However, the corollary isn't true.  Just as Lincoln could not let the South go, neither can the modern day liberals and leftists of  today, and for the same reason:  they need our tax revenues.  Parasites cannot survive without a host.

Update:  See also the Wall Street Journal's review, reprinted in Southern Partisan.

Hate Watch 2: Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center (Photoshop)

                                                 The Southern Poverty Law Center

General Biden Plans Re-Burning of North Carolina...er...Georgia...Whatever

Joe Biden, V.P. of Union Forces in the South and a reincarnation of General William Tecumseh Sherman, wants to repeat his past successes.

The other day, while speaking at a political rally, General Biden opined that he believed the forces of Obama-Biden could once again win in North Carolina.  The only problem was that he was speaking in Virginia.  Whoops!

To further demonstrate his agility with a crowd, General Biden then told a largely black audience in Virginia that Romney-Ryan wanted "to put them back in chains."  The NAACP later stated, that although most everything offends them mightily, this remark did not, since it was made by a political ally who is sworn to giving them free goodies and perpetuating their holy victimhood status.

To further demonstrate his racial sensitivity, General Biden then distributed free watermelons to the crowd, emblazoned with Obama-Biden 2012 bumper stickers. Remember, the next time you want a fiery path burned through the South (not to mention the U.S. economy), you can count on General William Tecumseh Biden.

General Biden is the only known general to march through Georgia with his boot firmly planted in his mouth.  He might have burned it too, but the high command knew better than to trust him with matches.

Abraham Lincoln Reacts To Dixie Going Republican

Abe Reacts to Southern Capture
of the Republicans

No, the South has not become Republican; the Republican Party has become Southern.

We have not been captured by Abe's party; we have captured HIS party.

Our special reporter contacted Old Abe in the Netherworld to get his reaction to this happy circumstance.  His response is noted at left.

Meanwhile, read all about it here.

U.S. Army Preparing For Next Civil War?

Some retired Army officer, one Colonel Kevin Benson, has written an article for Small Wars Journal (referenced by the Washington Times) advocating US military preparation for putting down a future rebellion of American citizens.  In other words, some people believe that a new Civil War is possible in our increasingly divided nation, and want to prepare for its suppression.

The Colonel's fictitious scenario involves wicked Tea Partiers taking forcible control of local governments, arresting local politicians and rounding up illegal aliens for deportation.  So far, I'm in with the plan (just kidding).

As our increasingly statist, overreaching federal leviathan slowly imposes socialism on us, removes more of our rights, confiscates our guns and taxes us to the point of desperation, some sort of rebellion is indeed possible (and in my opinion, desirable).  However, such a rebellion, to be effective, should be done through our political leaders at the state level, and preferably in an entirely peaceful manner, such as through nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and even secession.  Of course, it might not remain peaceful, when the federals again try to force their will on the people of the states through armed conflict.

The Washington Times article states:

The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

Yeah, who knows.  It might even lead to secession.

Read it all here.