Archive for the ‘Liberal Agenda’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

STUNNING NEW DEVELOPMENT!!! MEDIA CALLS TRUMP RACIST

Monday, June 13th, 2016

Ann Coulter
June 8, 2016

Annoyed at federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel’s persistent rulings against him in the Trump University case (brought by a law firm that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches by Bill and Hillary), Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that maybe it’s because the judge is a second-generation Mexican immigrant.

The entire media — and most of the GOP — have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he’ll build a wall. Now they’re outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he’ll build a wall.

Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens’ “human rights” are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — “La Raza” meaning THE RACE.

Let’s pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people — much less one with the words “THE RACE” in its title.

The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.

Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I’ve done some research and it turns out … THAT’S ALL WE’VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking “white judges” and “all-white” juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.

Two weeks ago — that’s not an error; I didn’t mean to type “decades” and it came out “weeks” — the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: “All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence.”

In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the “perception” of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.

Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck’s entire career of springing criminals would be gone if it were generally accepted that we can’t question judges or juries based on race or ethnicity. Writing about the release of Glenn Ford, a black man convicted of robbing a jewelry store and murdering the owner, Scheck claimed that one of the most important factors in Ford’s death sentence was the “all-white jury.”

On the other hand, the evidence against Ford included: His two black friends telling police he’d shown them jewelry the day of the murder, another Ford acquaintance swearing he’d had a .38 in his waistband — the murder weapon was a .38 — and the gunshot residue on Ford’s hand. His conviction was overturned many years later, on the theory that his black friends had committed the murder, then framed him.

So we know 1) the “real killers” were also black; and 2) any jury would have convicted Ford on that evidence.

Here’s how the Times described Ford’s trial: “A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in Louisiana in 1984 and sentenced to die, tapped into an equally old and painful vein of race.”

I have approximately 1 million more examples of the media going mental about a “white judge” or “all-white jury,” and guess what? In none of them were any of the white people involved members of organizations dedicated to promoting white people, called “THE RACE.”

Say, does anyone remember if it ever came up that the Ferguson police force was all white? Someone check that.

I don’t want to upset you New York Times editorial board, but perhaps we should revisit the results of the Nuremberg trials. Those were presided over by – TRIGGER WARNING! – “all white” juries. (How do we really know if Hermann Göring was guilty without hearing women’s and Latino voices?)

The model of a fair jury was the O.J. trial. Nine blacks, one Hispanic and two whites, who had made up their minds before the lawyers’ opening statements. (For my younger readers: O.J. was guilty; the jury acquitted him after 20 seconds of deliberation.) At the end of the trial, one juror gave O.J. the black power salute. Nothing to see here. It was Mark Fuhrman’s fault!

In defiance of everyday experience, known facts and common sense, we are all required to publicly endorse the left’s religious belief that whites are always racist, but women and minorities are incapable of any form of bias. If you say otherwise, well, that’s “textbook racism,” according to Paul Ryan.

At least when we’re talking about American blacks, there’s a history of white racism, so the double standard is not so enraging. What did we ever do to Mexicans? Note to Hispanics, Muslims, women, immigrants and gays: You’re not black.

Other than a few right-wingers, no one denounced now-sitting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her “wise Latina” speech, in which she said “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

But Trump is a “racist” for saying the same thing.

Six months ago, a Times editorial demanded that the Republican Senate confirm Obama judicial nominee Luis Felipe Restrepo, on the grounds that “[a]s a Hispanic,” Restrepo would bring “ethnic … diversity to the court.”

You see how confusing this is. On one hand, it’s vital that we have more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can’t be trusted to be fair. But to suggest that women and Latinos could ever be unfair in the way that white men can, well, that’s “racist.”

The effrontery of this double standard is so blinding, that the only way liberals can bluff their way through it is with indignation. DO I HEAR YOU RIGHT? ARE YOU SAYING A JUDGE’S ETHNICITY COULD INFLUENCE HIS DECISIONS? (Please, please, please don’t bring up everything we’ve said about white judges and juries for the past four decades.)

They’re betting they can intimidate Republicans — and boy, are they right!

The entire Republican Brain Trust has joined the media in their denunciations of Trump for his crazy idea that anyone other than white men can be biased. That’s right, Wolf, I don’t have any common sense. Would it help if the GOP donated to Hillary?

The NeverTrump crowd is going to get a real workout if they plan to do this every week between now and the election.

What do Republicans think they’re getting out of this appeasement? Proving to voters that elected Republicans are pathetic, impotent media suck-ups is, surprisingly, not hurting Trump.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-06-08.html

Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias | Comments Closed

Protect Your Kids From The Tyrant Known As Obama

Tuesday, May 31st, 2016

Posted By James Dobson On 05/30/2016 @ 2:22 pm

When I was in the third grade, I raised my hand one day and asked the teacher for permission to “go to the bathroom.” She nodded, and I hurried down the hall to the door designated “Boys.” When I had relieved myself, I headed back in the direction of my homeroom. As bad luck would have it, the doors in the hallway all looked alike, and I opened the wrong one. Two second-grade girls were standing there with their mouths open in disbelief. Then they both screamed and pointed at me. The loudest one said, “You’re in BIG trouble!” The other shouted, “Get out of here!” Sweet kids.

I was mortified beyond belief. I sneaked back into class and looked at the floor, wondering who might have witnessed my unthinkable crime. That was decades ago, but I haven’t forgotten my humiliation. The cardinal rule is that boys and girls never entered each others private facilities. Never!

How the world has changed! Who would have believed a day would come during my lifetime when boys could meander into the private sanctuary of girls’ toilets, or that it would someday be a civil right for men to use women’s locker rooms and showers without permission or apology? Imagine sex-absorbed junior high boys ogling the bodies of developing pubescent girls or standing beside them in their showers. Have we gone absolutely mad? What ever happened to modesty, safety, and Christian morals?

Did it upset you when the president of the United States ordered every public school in America to open all its bathroom facilities including those that are in use by a member of the opposite sex? The president’s order made me furious, and then sick to my stomach. How dare this man do something so audacious and unthinkable! His letter from the White House carried an implied threat to withhold federal money from local schools, which rocked the halls of public education. Who is this politician that is spending your hard-earned tax dollars to manipulate school officials, anyway? Who is it that warping our children? It is Barack Obama, one of the worst presidents in American history, and it is time we stood up and said so!

Obama, acting like a king, is wielding dictatorial powers never envisioned in the law. He is determined to change the way males and females relate to one another, and worse, how children perceive themselves. If you are a married man with any gumption, surely you will defend your wife’s privacy and security in restroom facilities. Would you remain passive after knowing that a strange-looking man, dressed like a woman, has been peering over toilet cubicles to watch your wife in a private moment? What should be done to the pervert who was using mirrors to watch women and girls in their stalls? If you are a dad, I pray you will protect your little girls from men who walk in unannounced, unzip their pants and urinate in front of them. If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot. Where is today’s manhood? God help us!

(You are probably aware that Target has taken a stand to allow persons who “self-identify” as a man or woman to use the restroom of their choice. In addition to Target Stores, the following retailers have also decided, against the objection of their customers, to create “gender neutral” bathrooms: Starbucks, Ross, Walgreens, Toys “R” Us, and Barnes & Noble. My wife, Shirley, and I will no longer patronize these stores, and I hope millions of others will do likewise.)

Let’s talk more about Barack Obama, who is a tyrant in many ways. How dare he assault centuries of modesty and moral beliefs! By what authority does he tell parents and school officials what to teach children under their care? Christian parents, does this outrageous order violate something deep within your sense of propriety? The president has already maneuvered the courts to undermine a 5,000-year-old definition of marriage, after experiencing his infamous epiphany. Now he is determined to change Western civilization forever. He becomes more reckless and defiant as his second term comes to an end. Never has an American president been so absorbed with the use and abuse of power, and unfortunately, he still has seven months to go. What is next?

I grew up respecting the authority and dignity of the nation’s presidents. Each of them was tasked to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to protect our rights as citizens. That is what I was taught. My fourth grade teacher, Mrs. Harris, described for us the three branches of government, and how each division has the authority to restrain the other two according to a principle known as “checks and balances.” It made America unique among nations. But, with the complete refusal of the U.S. Congress to restrain the presidency or to curtail a runaway judiciary that is itself drunk with power, “we the people” are victimized by those who steal our freedom. Our Founding Fathers would be shocked to learn how the safeguards on our freedom have been abandoned.

My friend Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council recently said he is often asked, “Why is the Obama administration trying to mainstream ‘transgenderism’ and force schools to accommodate students who want to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex?” Tony’s answer gets to the heart of the motive: “It’s all part of a radical movement trying to destroy the fact that God created man and woman – and that somehow people can choose what gender they want to be. The ultimate goal is to break down all sexual inhibition and morality – a goal that would result in social chaos.”

This is what influential feminist Dale O’Leary had to say on the issue of gender and its meaning in her publication, “Gender: The Deconstruction of Women: Analysis of the Gender Perspective in Preparation for the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China.” She wrote, “Although many people think that men and women are the natural expression of a genetic blueprint, gender is a product of human thought and culture, a social construction that creates the ‘true nature’ of all individuals.”

Do you understand what she was saying? Gender is not determined by your chromosomes. It is a product of culture. If a man thinks like a woman, he IS a woman. Furthermore, if we protect children from social and religious conditioning, people will be free to move into and out of existing gender roles at will. Taking that concept to its logical conclusion, the feminists and LGBT activists want to dissolve the traditional roles of mothers and fathers and, in time, eliminate references to wife, husband, son, daughter, sister, brother, manhood, womanhood, boy, girl, masculine and feminine. These activists want us to replace age-old terminology with neutral terms, such as significant other, spouse, parent, child and sibling. You’ll see that happening in the near future. The bottom line is that they want to destroy human sexuality and take with it the foundation of the family. That is their goal, and they have a president in office who is willing to use his executive authority to force this nonsense on us all.

Clearly, there are serious implications here for mothers and fathers. I urge you to protect your boys and girls from those who are espousing these views. Shield them from gender feminism and from those who would confuse their sexuality. They will be under increasing political pressure in years to come.

It is also important for us as adults to understand our own sexual identities. If we don’t know who we are, our kids will be doubly confused about who they are. Any uncertainty, any ambiguity in that assignment must be seen as damaging not only to our sons and daughters but also to the long-term stability of society itself.

I urge you to base your teachings about sexuality on the Scriptures, which tell us, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). Jesus, who was the first Jewish leader to give dignity and status to women, said, “Haven’t you read … that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’” and, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Matthew 19:4-5). That is the divine plan. It leaves no doubt that the Creator made not one sex but two, each beautifully crafted to “fit with” and meet the needs of the other. Any effort to teach children differently is certain to produce turmoil in the soul of a child.

We must fight to protect our homes and families from politically correct politicians who would create new entitlements that take away our liberties. There is no time to lose. Our children hang in the balance.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/protect-your-kids-from-tyrant-obama/

 

 

 

Tags:
Posted in Liberal Agenda | Comments Closed

Attacking Our Nation’s Founders

Sunday, April 17th, 2016

Attacking Our Nation’s Founders

By Walter Williams

Published April 13, 2016

During Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign visit to Liberty University, he told the students that our nation was created on racist principles. Students at a Christian-based university, such as Liberty, do not often hear the founders-as-racists argument. But it is featured at many other universities, as well as primary and secondary schools. Most often, the hate-America teachings are centered on the fact that slavery is a part of our history. What is left untaught is: Slavery was a routine part of human history. Blacks were the last people to be enslaved. Plus, our Founding Fathers struggled mightily over the issue of slavery. Let us look at some of that struggle.

George Washington said, “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.” Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Patrick Henry and others were highly critical of slavery, describing it as a “disease of ignorance,” “an inconsistency not to be excused” and a “lamentable evil.” George Mason said, “The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind.” James Madison, in a speech at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, declared, “We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” Benjamin Rush said: “Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. … It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father.”

In their effort to create a union, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had to negotiate many contentious, deal-breaking issues. Slavery was chief among them. Southern states made clear that they would not vote to ratify a constitution that abolished slavery or ended the slave trade. Northern delegates wanted to end slave trading and did not want slaves counted at all for congressional apportionment. Southern delegates wanted slaves counted as whole people. That would have given the South greater political power in the House of Representatives.

Convention delegate James Wilson offered a compromise whereby each slave would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining the number of representatives a state would have in the House. This rule applied only to slaves. Freemen, whether black or white, would be counted as whole people. Another compromise was to set 1808 as the year to abolish the slave trade.

Contrary to what academic hustlers teach, the Three-Fifths Compromise was not a statement about human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the pro-slavery representation in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied a greater number of representatives in Congress and hence electoral votes for selecting a president.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams041316.php3#hwwtM6sivlfd38Ck.99

Posted in Liberal Agenda | Comments Closed

Think about it ….

Friday, December 4th, 2015

1944: 18-20-year-olds stormed enemy beaches, parachuted behind enemy lines, charged into battle and almost certain death.

2015: 18-20-year-olds need “safe zones” on college campuses to protect their fragile little emotions from offensive “WORDS”.

Tags:,
Posted in Liberal Agenda | Comments Closed

Historical Ignorance II

Thursday, October 29th, 2015

Historical Ignorance II
Walter E. Williams | Jul 22, 2015

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let’s look at his words. 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, Illinois, speech, he explained: “My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot 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 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.”

What about Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: “I view the matter (of slaves’ emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union. London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states “in rebellion against the United States.” Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the secession of Texas from Mexico.

Why didn’t Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation’s history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Tags:,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias | Comments Closed

Historical Ignorance

Thursday, October 29th, 2015

Historical Ignorance
Walter E. Williams | Jul 15, 2015

The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain. Its first article declared the 13 colonies “to be free, sovereign and independent states.” These 13 sovereign nations came together in 1787 as principals and created the federal government as their agent. Principals have always held the right to fire agents. In other words, states held a right to withdraw from the pact — secede.
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, “A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.

On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, “No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”

Both Northern Democratic and Republican Parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”

The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution’s limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias | Comments Closed

Oh, Obama … What a Chump

Saturday, October 3rd, 2015

Here he goes again. Never miss an opportunity to exploit a tragedy for personal political gain, right? Our pathetic loser, the coward-in-chief community organizer, the least qualified of all presidents ever to serve, again seeks to curtail the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Using the Oregon college campus tragedy as a springboard, our shameless president once again prostitutes himself in front of the American public.

Why oh why do these pathetic left wing looney liberals believe that there is any correlation between legal gun ownership and violent crime? As if pencils misspell words?  Cars kill people. Really? Can it be any more simplistic?

Has anyone ever noticed that the gun control proposals by these worshipers of hollywood and all things of european “enlightenment” are always aimed at curtailing the rights of the law-abiding citizens? Have these ideologues ever proposed any law that would serve to more severely punish those who illegally use weapons? If they have, it has never made the news.

So the left-wing’s “answer” remains the same. Curtail the rights of those who do no wrong. Do not seek to punish those who would harm innocents. Could it be because so many of those violent criminals are democrats? Or at a minimum are more closely affiliated with minority coalitions? But, we cannot speak of such things, right?

Or can we? Why do you think that the left-wing political correctness machine is so laser-focused on making it socially unacceptable to discuss the differences and realities that so obviously contribute to violence in America? If you mention in public that blacks and hispanics make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population, or God forbid try to connect the dots between black teen pregnancy and crime, you are a racist.

Civil War history?  It never happened. The north really could not have imported slaves from africa to sell to the south in order that the south could farm the crops in order to sell all the cotton and tobacco back to the north, right? Because abolitionism was in vogue before the Civil War began?  Wasn’t it?

Reality dose … Abraham Lincoln never mentioned slavery in his declaration letters on the war. He always focused on the financial implications of the war. His emancipation proclamation did not even free all the northern slaves, just the south’s. The “great emancipator” legacy remains today as the man single handedly responsible for more American deaths that anyone else in history.

In sum, it is a sad direction our nation takes. When we have more takers than contributors in society, that society is heading for hell.

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal Agenda | Comments Closed

Historical Ignorance

Friday, July 17th, 2015

Historical Ignorance
By Walter Williams
Published July 15, 2015

The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain. Its first article declared the 13 colonies “to be free, sovereign and independent states.” These 13 sovereign nations came together in 1787 as principals and created the federal government as their agent. Principals have always held the right to fire agents. In other words, states held a right to withdraw from the pact — secede.

During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, “A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.

On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, “No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”

Both Northern Democratic and Republican Parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede.

New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”

The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution’s limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.

Tags:,
Posted in Liberal Agenda | Comments Closed

Cultural Fascism

Sunday, June 28th, 2015

 

Our politicians and the nation’s largest corporations run from truth, common sense and moral responsibility like cockroaches when faced with even the remote prospect of being targeted by the PC fascists … Knee jerk hysteria at its finest. Kids, save your money. Rather than earn your MBA, simply become a community organizer. There you will learn all that you need to know, according to the new world order.

The Confederate flag and cultural fascism
By Brent Bozell
Published June 26, 2015

(The Associated Press)

You cultural fascists have struck again…

You have shown you will say most anything, and do most anything to advance your radical agenda. But that’s not enough, is it? Your intent is to ban any opposition. Your goal is to ban even the expression of dissension.

You’re doing it everywhere. You are insisting scientists skeptical of global warming be banned from symposia discussing the subject. You shout down, even physically attack conservatives who dare express opinions on college campuses – that is, if you don’t succeed in banning them altogether. You demand TV networks fire Christians who dare to quote Scripture publicly. You pressure advertisers to stop their sponsorship of conservative talk shows, inventing scandals to justify your campaigns. You pressure businesses to fire employee for supporting traditional marriage. You call on government to imprison Christians who will not abide by the gay agenda.

Now it’s the Confederate flag.

I don’t know what’s more offensive, your disgusting character assassination or the outright embarrassment of politicians and businesses quaking in their shoes at the thought they might be next on your hit list.

As usual, you are using a horrific event, and the victims of that horror, as your excuse, just as you used a pro-life extremist detonating a bomb to smear the entire pro-life movement, just as you used a crazed gunman opening fire in a movie theater to advance your radical agenda to ban all guns.

You demand it be banned from society because you insist society accept your definition of what it represents. As usual, you are using a horrific event, and the victims of that horror, as your excuse, just as you used a pro-life extremist detonating a bomb to smear the entire pro-life movement, just as you used a crazed gunman opening fire in a movie theater to advance your radical agenda to ban all guns.

Now it’s Dylann Roof. He commits an unspeakable act of racist violence. What does the Confederate flag have to do with it? It is the symbol you’re using to suggest America is, and always has been racist.

So many are so intimidated and run away like an Iraqi army.

The Confederate flag has been removed from the Dukes of Hazzard’s “General Lee” car. We will no longer sell that horrible thing! declare Apple, Sears, eBay, Amazon, and the rest about the Confederate flag.

What frauds. Up until last week none had a problem in the world with that flag. The racially-sensitive folks at Amazon still sell Nazi and apartheid memorabilia. Sen. Lindsey Graham cynically whines, “God help South Carolina” if it continues flying the flag he has repeatedly defended.

Cowards all.

Let me tell you who you’re tarring with your smear campaign. Charlie Daniels is a friend of mine. I know and am friends with members of The Outlaws. I’ve met the Lynyrd Skynyrd band. I’ve seen The Allman Brothers in concert. They all sing about the South. Their millions of fans wear caps emblazoned with the Confederate flag. The Stars and Bars waves throughout the arenas.

You’ve called them all racists.

Racists? How dare you. They are celebrating Southern rock music – period.

You are insulting millions of NASCAR fans who do the same simply as a celebration of their Southern heritage. You are besmirching the memory of the thousands of Confederates who fought for their right to secede – and openly opposed slavery. Start with Robert E. Lee.

You will use this – you know you will – to tar any conservative you can tie to the evil you’ve invented. You’ll declare that person a racist if he doesn’t publicly agree with you, won’t you?

What’s next? How long will it take for you to demand that the American flag be removed? It’s a natural progression.

You’ll talk about Abu Ghraib. You’ll reach back to the My Lai massacre. You’ll find any excuse to besmirch the Stars and Stripes.

What about the Cross? You think it’s a symbol of religious oppression. The KKK solemnly sets it ablaze in their ceremonies. You’ll want that banned, too. In fact President Obama has already demanded it be covered if he speaks in front of one.

Tear down your own damn flags. The “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski was a terrorist, and a murderer, and a supporter of Greenpeace. Tear down your environmentalist flags. There are black racists waving black power flags. Tear them all down.

A gay fanatic shot and grievously wounded a security guard at the Family Research Council. His intent was to murder as many employees as possible. Tear down all LGBT flags.

But you won’t, of course. You cultural fascists are also raving hypocrites.

I have a Confederate flag proudly displayed in my home. It’ll stay. This afternoon I’m going to buy two or three more. Why? Just to defy you.

Brent Bozell is chairman of ForAmerica, the nation’s largest active online conservative network with over 7.3 million supporters.

Tags:
Posted in Conservative Values, Liberal Agenda | Comments Closed

Confederate Flag & Monument-Sound Bite History: A Tool to Inflame the Ignorant

Friday, June 26th, 2015

Confederate Flag & Monument-Sound Bite History: A Tool to Inflame the Ignorant

By Capt. Phil Walters

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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 inasmuch 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. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
Future President Abraham Lincoln 1858

American History is a wide, rich and often conflicting mosaic of information. It can be difficult to dive into it and comprehend it’s meaning without a deeper understanding of human nature and the course humans have chartered since recorded time. Many in today’s “I want it NOW” self centered society attempt to interpret those who created the American legacy within the confines of today’s mores and “flash” values, often for political or self serving purposes. That is a disservice to the great people who provided to us the foundation for our prosperity, freedom and happiness we enjoy today.

The topic of “All Things Confederate are Evil” is a flash mob of cultural cleansing perpetrated by a small, self-serving portion of society determined to enflame the ignorant via “Sound Bite History” without any effort to put it into perspective or have educational dialog on the topic. This purging and cleansing with the resulting “good feeling by removing controversial sights so as not to offend” will not solve one problem or issue. I ask the question, where will the “offending” stop as there is plenty of ugly within the soul of mankind and the history of this great nation?

“The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, are hereby expelled from the Department.”
General Ulysses S. Grant General Order #11 December 17, 1862

The divisive root of evil & sin of this conversation is slavery, of which is constantly directed to the Southern states and the Confederacy in general. Slavery is a human condition still practiced around the world and was instituted in each of the original 13 states. (Even still today in corners of this country as “human trafficking.”) To add some balance to the discussion, I pose these questions:

A) Who, for centuries captured, chained & sold the poor native Africans to the Dutch, Portuguese, British, Spanish, French and later AMERICAN traders for transit to the New World?
B) What part of America greatly profited from the “Golden Triangle” slave trade and used this acquired wealth to build their industrial base? (Hint: It’s not the South)
C) What impact did the Morrill Tariff, a Republican tax doubling the import/exports of the South have upon the Southern economy? Why did President Lincoln state the purpose of raising troops to suppress the Southern “Rebellion” was to preserve the Union and COLLECT the Tariff? (Remember, the war was fought to free slaves, right?) Note: 65% of the Federal revenue was generated & paid by the South with little of these funds returned to South for roads, bridges, ports, railroads or proposed allocated to free those in bondage. Why?
D) Explain Washington DC’s “Compensated Emancipation” Act of 1862 purchasing the freedom of slaves in Washington DC? Why wasn’t this offered to the rest of the Country, North & South? Could it be only to benefit the Washington elite and politically connected? Not in this country, right?
E) If the war was a crusade solely to end slavery, why did the slaves in the Union States receive their freedom AFTER those in the defeated South ?
F) Why was it offered by the Lincoln Administration, should the Southern States in Rebellion return to the Union prior to January 1, 1863, pay their 40% Morrill Tariff, that they could keep their slaves for an extended period of time? Thought the war’s sole purpose was to free them?
G) Why don’t we learn about the country’s greatest & deadliest race riot, the “1863 Draft Riots of New York” where over 100 black folks were lynched simply because they were black?
H) Why many Northern states had “Freedman Laws” limiting the time former slaves could visit the state before being removed?
I) Why did General Sherman order the pontoon bridge over Ebenezer Creek pulled out from under hundreds of Freedmen waiting to cross the river, resulting in the deaths of many of them from drowning?
J) If only 7-9% of Southerners owned slaves, why did 91-93% that did not own anyone go to war to keep the rich plantation owner in “High Cotton” resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties?
K) Why did the MILLIONS of slaves in bondage across the remainder of the New World gain their freedom without a war?
L) Why did the US military pay it’s black soldiers 2/3 of a white soldiers pay (when the US military finally accepted blacks) while the Confederate Congress mandated equal pay for black & white servicemen?

Simply stating the “Civil War” was fought by the moral & benevolent North to free the slaves in the South from the evil slaveholder is a simplistic statement. There’s much information available to those that search offering sound and strong rebuttals to the statement and plenty of interesting facts to the contrary. However, discussing these topics to the layman who has not sought comprehension of the period and is judging the past via today’s interpretation is a discussion similar to one with an intoxicated 4th of July Revelers who stated “since the rocket went up, just add more powder to it to get to the moon.” Additionally, these topics do not quickly pop up in Google searches, you really have to dig to find them. Of course, in this Country we would NEVER suppress information from the citizens that might conflict with the “Pop Culture” progressive narrative villainizing a specific & targeted portion of the Country; the South.

When you read un-sanitized history, trends emerge that assist you to comprehend that history definitely has a “cause & effect” as very little is random in human activity. Attempting to inflame people via their ignorance is a horrible manipulation. When you compare the history of the world to our great society, we should all be very thankful for being Americans here in America and thankful for the actions of our ancestors as THEY BUILT THE FOUNDATION for us, as imperfect and flawed as they were.

“There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.”
General Robert E. Lee 1862 after freeing the slaves he inherited

Across the globe, war, famine, slavery, genocide, tribal conflicts, religious persecution and ethnic cleansing along with a multitude of other miseries are alive and well producing millions of casualties each year. We have nearly eliminated these sad experiences in America due to the fact we are a country of good people, willing to correct a wrong and also help the downtrodden. If you wake each morning and chose to either be offended or disturbed by history, then you must not be thankful for our blessings of peace, harmony & prosperity but choose to seek unhappiness. Maybe this is due to “The grass is always greener…” or ignorance of the human experience or that we are constantly fed a diet of sanitized, Politically Correct” selective view of history, or rather “Sound Bite History” for divisive purposes.

Take note and pride that America IS the EXCEPTION to the rest of the world and has worked hard to change evil tendencies found in mankind. In many parts of the world, dissent is not allowed & if practiced could cost you & your family their lives. (Think ISIS & Sharia for example) Please let the wave of divisiveness & cultural cleansing pass and leave our historic symbols alone; however please take the time and effort to learn more of our unfiltered history. Leave the Confederate monuments & flags where they are! If we don’t learn from history’s’ lessons, we WILL REPEAT them.

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It
means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be
trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the
war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as
traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are
fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is
not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority
and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”
Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864

Capt. Phil Walters
1st LCDR Judah P. Benjamin camp #2210 Sons of Confederate Veterans-Tampa.
I have over 30 Confederates in my lineage, none researched owned slaves. I take offense at my ancestors being called racists & traitors, generally by the same folks propagating “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”

Tags:
Posted in Conservative Values, Liberal Agenda | Comments Closed

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »