Confederate Society
 
Picture
Savannah Rep. Jesse Petrea and the other sponsors of a bill to create Confederate History Month in Georgia should do so post haste in the name of historical truth. Other Southern States should do so as well.

Not only should the Georgia legislature pass Petrea's bill, they should guarantee that the Southern view of the War Between the States is presented unashamedly in Confederate History Month because it has not been told fairly or truthfully in a long time.

What has been taught for the past few decades is a politically correct fraud that supports the racist identity politics of the Democrat Party. It nowhere resembles truth.

One of the most prominent American historians to ever live, Eugene Genovese (Roll, Jordan, Roll, et al.) said in 1994:

"The history of the Old South is now often taught at leading universities, when it is taught at all, as a prolonged guilt-trip, not to say a prologue to the history of Nazi Germany. . . . To speak positively about any part of this Southern tradition is to invite charges of being a racist and an apologist for slavery and segregation. We are witnessing a cultural and political atrocity."

Dr. Genovese goes on to say that this cultural and political atrocity is being forced on us by "the media and an academic elite."

The Savannah Morning News just proved Dr. Genovese correct in their editorial of March 26, 2017 entitled "Teach more than myth on the Confederacy".

I am going to expose some of the deceit of the Savannah Morning News below but first, let me mention that my book, Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument. (218 footnotes, 207 sources in the bibliography, 86 sample pages on www.BonnieBluePublishing.com) makes the "conclusive case" that slavery was not the cause of the war.

Dr. Clyde N. Wilson, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of History of the University of South Carolina and primary editor of the Papers of John C. Calhoun writes about my book:

"Historians used to know - and it was not too long ago - that the War Between the States had more to do with economics than it did with slavery. The current obsession with slavery as the “cause” of the war rests not on evidence but on ideological considerations of the present day. Gene Kizer has provided us with the conclusive case that the invasion of the Southern States by Lincoln and his party (a minority of the American people) was due to an agenda of economic domination and not to some benevolent concern for slaves. This book is rich in evidence and telling quotations and ought to be on every Southern bookshelf."

Please buy my book and get it into the hands of legislators across the South who can craft legislation to get historical truth out there and stop the PC fraud parading as history today.

When these bills are crafted, they must guarantee that the Southern view of the causes of the War Between the States is presented. This history can not be told by academia and the news media, which have proven themselves to be complete frauds out for their own political advantage and not the truth of history.

These bills should guarantee that organizations such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans oversee the history or at least have significant input. The Sons of Confederate Veterans is descended from the United Confederate Veterans founded in the 1890s by soldiers who fought for the South: doctors, lawyers, generals, legislators, the most brilliant people in the South including legions of average soldiers whom I might remind people are AMERICAN VETERANS.

The Confederacy was the Confederate States of AMERICA.

Confederate soldiers are American soldiers whose ancestors fought the British in the American Revolution and won our independence. They deserve the same respect as all American soldiers.

I gave a radio interview that was broadcast live March 21st on iHeart station WHO in Des Moines, Iowa with Jan Mickelson. Just click this link which Mickelson entitled:

"Was the Civil War about Slavery?"

The condescending Savannah Morning News warns Rep. Petrea and the other sponsors of Confederate History Month in Georgia that they must preach the version of history promoted by the Savannah Morning News, and if they don't, they "should be ashamed of themselves for trying to perpetuate a distorted view of history with no care for the ignorance they spread or the pain they cause million of Georgians who wish the Confederacy would die, once and for all, or at least not be glorified."

The Savannah Morning News wishes the Confederacy would die once and for all.

The Southern history which they hate belongs to 80,000,000 Americans alive today who are descended from people who endured the invasion and destruction of the South by the Union Army for no reason except that the South wanted to govern itself.

Maybe the Savannah Morning News should read its own pages from the time period of the War Between the States. The Savannah Morning News was founded in 1850. There is no question that the Savannah Morning News of the 1850s to the 1970s would tell a far more truthful story of Southern history than its politically correct iteration of today.

In fact, Georgians should do research and publish the words of the Savannah Morning News when it was more truthful, and contrast those words with the politically correct Savannah Morning News of today.

It is provable beyond the shadow of a doubt that the North did not go to war to end slavery or free the slaves. They went to war to preserve the Union as Abraham Lincoln said over and over. The Union was essential to the North because their economy was dependent on manufacturing for the South and shipping Southern cotton. They became rich and powerful doing so. Without the South, the North was dead.

Without the North, the South was in great shape with control of the most demanded commodity on the planet: cotton.

Southerners seceded because they were fed up with Northern hate and terrorism such as promoted by John Brown and lauded in the North, as well as the Republican Party's adoption of Hinton Helper's The Impending Crisis which called for the throats of white Southerners to be cut. The Republican Party printed hundreds of thousands of The Impending Crisis and distributed them to all corners of the country.

Southerners were not about to be ruled over by terrorists who hated them and wanted their throats cut.

That was a far more motivational factor than slavery, which was totally protected by the Constitution and in no danger in the Union.

The no-extension-of-slavery-in-the-West argument makes the North look moral but it was not moral, it was racist. Northerners did not want slavery in the West because they did not want blacks in the West. There is overwhelming proof to this effect. Northern anti-slavery included mostly people who wanted tariffs, bounties and subsidies for their business, or free land in the West. Historian Charles P. Roland said "There was a significant economic dimension in the Northern antislavery sentiment" and "a racial factor contributed to the Northern attitude" because:

"Many Northerners objected to the presence of slavery in their midst, in part, because they objected to the presence of blacks there."

Most Northern and Western states including Lincoln's Illinois had laws on the books forbidding free blacks from living there or even being there longer than a few days. Historian David M. Potter states that Northern anti-slavery was "not in any clear-cut sense a pro-Negro movement but actually had an anti-Negro aspect and was designed to get rid of the Negro."

So, let's look closer at the Savannah Morning News editorial.

They cherry-pick that tired old Cornerstone quote of Alexander Stephens, who, by the way, was a Unionist who did not even want to secede. People should read that entire speech because it is as brilliant as any ever written in American history on our foundation, constitution, etc.

The Savannah Morning News states:

"The Confederacy's 'cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. Slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition,' the newly named vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, explained in an 1861 speech in Savannah."

Abraham Lincoln states:

"I will say then that 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, [applause] - 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."

This comes from Lincoln's Charleston, Illinois speech of Saturday, September 18, 1858, as quoted in black scholar Lerone Bennett's great book: Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream (Chicago: Johnson Publishing Company, 2000), 208.

What is the difference in Lincoln and Stephens? There isn't any, but nobody wants to stop studying Lincoln or tear his monuments down.

Lincoln strongly favored the Corwin Amendment which left black people in slavery forever, in places where slavery existed, even beyond the reach of Congress.

And Lincoln favored recolonizing blacks back to Africa his whole life. He wrote in the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of September, 1862 that "recolonization efforts would continue." This was three months before the actual Emancipation Proclamation, and speaking of the Emancipation Proclamation, it freed no slaves or few.

The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately left almost a million blacks in slavery in the five Union slave states - YES, I said UNION SLAVE STATES because when the guns of Fort Sumter sounded, there were more slave states in the Union (eight, soon to be nine) than in the Confederacy (seven).

Four slave states fought for the North throughout the war (Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky), and West Virginia came into the Union as a slave state during the war. This alone proves that ending slavery was not the mission of the North or cause of the war. If it had been, the North would have freed the slaves in its own country before worrying about the South.

Maybe the Savannah Morning News should talk about why the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves and indeed left almost a million black people in slavery in the Union slave states. The EP specifically exempted the Union slave states and other areas from freeing their slaves. It freed only the slaves in places where Lincoln had no control. Charles Dickens laughed at Lincoln as did his own secretary of state, William H. Seward, who 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."

The Savannah Morning News talks about Georgia's Declaration of the Causes of Secession:

"That's a lengthy discourse of complaints, mostly related to the North's attempts to curtail slavery. When the document gets around to a simple list of reasons, the first is this: Northern "rulers. . . have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property," meaning slaves."

That's fake history to go along with SMN's fake news.

The Georgia Declaration of Causes of Secession is talking about slavery in the West and the whole statement is "they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union;".

Outlawing slavery in the West was an insult to Southerners because the states are supposed to be equal, and arguably, more Southern than Northern blood and treasure had been spent winning the Western lands, where slavery was legal.

As stated, the North was not trying to curtail slavery so they could help black people but because they were racists, by today's standard, who did not want slavery in the West because they did not want blacks in the West.

The Savannah Morning News should mention that too.

Besides, slavery was not extending into the West. One historians called it a bogus issue because it was about an imaginary Negro in an impossible place. The West had been open to slavery for 10 years and there were 24 slaves in one territory and 29 in the other. Slavery was not expanding. It only worked on rich cotton soil, usually along rivers, where cotton could be transported.

The Industrial Revolution would have destroyed slavery without 800,000 men being killed and another million wounded on battlefields all over the country. Technological advances in farm machinery within 20 years of the end of the war would have enabled cotton planters to pick cotton much faster at a fraction of the cost of slavery.

Many historians agree that the War Between the States was a completely unnecessary war, and I am one of them.

Georgia's Declaration of the Causes of Secession is mostly concerned with Northern terrorism and how Southerners were not going to be ruled over by terrorists, though there is not a single word about that by the Savannah Morning News. The SMN left this out:

"For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these effort have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican Party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates."

And it ends:

"Their [Republican Party] avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility. [Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861]"

There is also much in Georgia's Declaration of Causes of Secession on the economic unfairness in the Union, again ignored by the Savannah Morning News:

"The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day."

The Savannah Morning News with their PC slavery red herring does not mention any of this and to make matters worse, 3/4th of the federal treasury was paid by the South, yet 3/4ths of the tax money in the treasury was spent in the North.

How long do you think Northerners would pay 3/4ths of the taxes if 3/4ths of the tax money was being spent in the South?

Other proof abounds of the economic unfairness of the Union. Texas Representative John H. Reagan told Northern representatives in Congress in early 1861: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers."

Two other famous Georgians chimed in. Senator Robert Toombs called it a suction pump sucking wealth out of the South and depositing it in the North, and it was made up of:

"Bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands."

Henry L. Benning, one of Robert E. Lee's most able brigadier generals and for whom Fort Benning, Georgia is named, said $85,000,000, a gargantuan sum in those days, was the amount flowing continually through Robert Toombs's suction pump: "Eighty-five millions is the amount of the drains from the South to the North in one year, - drains in return for which the South receives nothing." The prescient Benning also said:

"The North cut off from Southern cotton, rice, tobacco, and other Southern products would lose three fourths of her commerce, and a very large proportion of her manufactures. And thus those great fountains of finance would sink very low. . . . Would the North in such a condition as that declare war against the South?"

The Savannah Morning Fake News with its fake half-history really cheats Georgians who are glad to take their share of blame for slavery but will no longer tolerate their ancestors insulted by the politically correct liberal fraud in academia and the media.

The Savannah Morning Fake News does get one thing right. They state:

"To be sure, many of the brave Georgians who fought for the Confederacy did so not to preserve slavery but to defend the dignity of the South against an arrogant North" [and also to defend Georgia against the bloody invasion of the Union Army].

"Most of the CSA's soldiers owned no slaves . . . ."

Another thing proves slavery was not the cause of the war. When the seven cotton states seceded and formed the Confederacy, four states initially rejected secession: Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee. They did not secede until after Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South, and their reason for seceding was federal coercion. They did not believe the federal government had a right to invade a sovereign state.

In Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee lived 52.4% of white Southerners, which means a majority of Southerners in power in 1861 seceded over federal coercion and NOT slavery.

Please buy my book and get it into the hands of legislators across the South and other leaders. It is time to strike a hard blow against the fake news and fake history promoted by PC liberals in academia and the media.

Gene Kizer, Jr. 
Author 
Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States 
The Irrefutable Argument.



 
 
Picture
by Al Benson Jr.

February was black history month and if you are like me, you heard about it until it was coming out your ears. The “fake news” media never ceased to deliver unto us some little tidbit that had to do with some aspect of black history. And it didn’t all cease on the 28th of the month either.

April is Confederate History Month and I’d be willing to bet you haven’t heard the first word about it from the “fake news” media. This is one of those things that they, in their unending wisdom, have deemed you don’t need to know anything about and so the MSM will do as much as possible to make sure you remain totally unaware of this. It’s called “selective reporting 101.”

There was a time when some Southern governors would issue proclamations noting the observation of Confederate history month. However, in the past few years, most Southern governors seem to have developed a severe case of political intestinal discharge when it comes to acknowledging that anything Southern or Confederate is even fit to exst.

The governor of Mississippi seems to have been the one exception to this rule, for which I applaud him. If there are others that have issued proclamations that I am not aware of, I apologize to them for omitting mention of them.

Confederate and Southern history and heritage groups usually have various events during the month of April to mark Confederate history month. Their having such events and observations has become even more critical and important in a day when the cultural Marxists are busily trying to tear down any remembrance of Confederate history, from our flags to our monuments, even to school and street names. I have said it before (maybe some have grown tired of hearing me say it) but it still needs to be said. “Those people” (the cultural Marxists) want us all gone and forgotten and they are prepared to labor to make that happen. If you have observed the blatant cultural genocide being practiced upon us in the past couple years, you have to be aware of that.

I can’t speak too much for what goes on in other states, except possibly for Virginia, with the Virginia Flaggers. Those folks fight the good fight every month of the year and they must be doing something right because they get lots of flack. Here in Louisiana, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, as well as others who believe in preserving their heritage from the Leftist onslaught, take part in several events in April that highlight their preservation efforts.

A couple weeks ago there was a big Confederate flag caravan that drove all the way from Shreveport, Louisiana to Vicksburg, Mississippi and back again. This was on a Saturday afternoon and lots of folks on Route 20 saw all those cars, motorcycles and Confederate flags–going and coming. I understand another group did the exact same thing on Route 10 in South Louisiana.

Another event that occurs on a yearly basis here in North Louisiana is one called Flags Across the Ouachita. Those who support Confederate heritage and history gather on the Lea Joyner Bridge over the Ouachita River, with all manner of Confederate flags at rush hour on a Friday afternoon You cross over this bridge to get to West Monroe, Louisiana from Monroe, Louisiana, and it’s pretty busy during rush hour on a Friday, so lots of commuters get to see all those folks with their Confederate flags. And lots of folks honk their horns and give us a “thumbs up” to show their appreciation–which shows that, in spite of all the cultural Marxist efforts in this area, a goodly number of folks just haven’t bought into that agenda. These, and other efforts, let the cultural Marxists know that “we ain’t goin’ away easy.”

This year, a lady reporter and a cameraman from a local TV station happened by and stopped to talk to several of us and interviewed a couple of us. I let her know that all of us standing there holding Confederate flags were not native Southerners. I told her I was originally from New England and the next man up from me was from Ohio. This seemed to surprise her somewhat, but as we talked to her, we tried to convey the truth that this was, at root, more than a North-South issue–this is a cultural issue, and good sincere folks from the North who understand that, almost inevitably end up supporting the Southern right to celebrate and promote their culture.

So, folks, keep your ear to the ground. You just may find out that more of such events go on than you are aware of–and we don’t do them just in April That would give the cultural Marxists the other eleven months of free time to work at destroying our culture. So these events will take place when and where needed. One final thought–don’t depend on the MSM to enlighten you about such things. They have a vested interest in keeping you in the dark.


 
 
Picture
by Al Benson Jr.

We have been duly informed by the politically correct, the cultural Marxists among us, that anyone politically to the right of Ho Chi Minh or Fidel Castro is a “deplorable” racist. Evidence  for this accusation?  Well, who needs evidence? Just say it long enough and loud enough and people will believe it. The Social Justice warriors way over on the Far Left fringe have decreed it. Ain’t that enough? After all, who would even think of questioning “social justice” or its  provocateurs?

However, in recent days the social justice campaign seems to have reached new and more glorious  heights. According to the website Intellihub the animal rights group PETA has continued to add to its list of “unusual” claims, and this time they have put out a video that literally claims that drinking milk just might mean you are a closet racist. Intellihub recently said: “The group posted the video on Friday in a Tweet that reads, ‘Did you know that milk has long been a symbol used by white supremacists?”

Wow, I didn’t know that did you? Well, they say you learn something new every day (even if it is slightly off the wall). So now we have had the ultimate tool of the Far Right white supremacy crowd exposed for what it really is–Milk, white milk! Well, if it’s white it must be “racist” right?  I mean, everything white is racist isn’t it? Makes you wonder about snow doesn’t it?

So I thought, in view of this startling revelation that we ought to take this whole racist scenario one step further and expose yet another layer of deep-rooted racism–Cows!

I mean, after all, the brown cow eats green grass but she gives white milk, so it stands to reason, at least among the progressive Left, that the cow is racist too. Doesn’t it? What other logical conclusion could a devout cultural Marxist come up with? If she wasn’t racist couldn’t we, at least once in awhile, depend on chocolate milk from her? The fact that she continually provides only white milk must indicate that the cow, knowingly or not, has deep racist tendencies.  And what about her owner? He has to be a flaming racist too. Do we dare ask how many cows he has that only give white milk? Is there a right-wing conspiracy here among the agricultural set to flood the country with white milk? If so, this needs to be exposed. The Communist News Network should send out some hot-shot reporter, have him sneak around the dairy farm and get some samples of that white milk. Then he could have them tested for the amount of inherent racism they might contain. Anything over 50 grams per udderful would be enough to seal his journalistic career forever.

We must realize that this is a serious problem!  Racist milk from racist cows is flooding the country. Valiant anti-racists just can’t obtain brown, yellow, red, or black milk–all these miserable bovines today provide for us is this insipid, racist white stuff. Why it’s enough to gag a maggot!

The social justice folks need to start scratching around under the rocks and barrels to see if they can find a friend somewhere in Congress, one who might be ready to expose all this. Once they produce such a specimen he could introduce mandatory legislation nationwide that would force all daily farmers to inoculate their cows with something approved by the FDA that would turn the color of the milk given by cows into something besides white. I imagine, to the Flakes over on the leftist fringe, that would seem to be a reasonable solution to this horrible problem.

Seem to me I have seen an article or two in the local LameStream Media outlets that discussed in depth the traumatic experiences undergone by those that were forced to drink white milk. Having to drink white milk was more traumatic for them than someone having tipped over their little red wagons when they were three years old.

I know you can get chocolate and strawberry milk flavorings at the local super market, but even if you buy and use them, somehow it just isn’t the same when you realize the milk was white to begin with.

So there has to be some solution that could be introduced that would call for more federal regulation and at least one more layer of bureaucracy to ease the unemployment problems that Obama’s stimulus packages didn’t quite take care of.

I can see it now–pre-planned spontaneous street demonstrations all across the country, with people marching and carrying signs that say “White is Right; Strawberry is Red; and Chocolate is—whatever!” And you thought Trump’s Russian scenario was something!  Brother, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!


 
 
Picture






From Hisotry.com:
On April 9, 1865, near Appomattox Court House, Virginia, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia to Union General Ulysses S. Grant. Days earlier, Lee had abandoned the Confederate capital of Richmond and the city of Petersburg; his goal was to rally the remnants of his beleaguered troops, meet Confederate reinforcements in North Carolina and resume fighting. The resulting Battle of Appomattox Court House, which lasted only a few hours, effectively brought the four-year Civil War to an end
. Editors note: The Confederate Government however did not surrender and went into exile. President Davis would not yield in his imprisonment and the Union Government dare not risk in a trial what was won on the battlefield. 

BATTLE OF APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE:In retreat from the Union army’s Appomattox campaign, which began in March 1865, the Army of Northern Virginia, stumbled westward through the Virginia countryside stripped of food and supplies. At one point, Union cavalry forces under General Philip Sheridan had outrun Lee’s troops, blocking their retreat and taking approximately 6,000 prisoners at Sayler’s Creek.

Confederate desertions were mounting daily, and by April 8 the Rebels were almost completely surrounded. Nonetheless, early on the morning of April 9, Confederate troops led by Major General John B. Gordon mounted a last-ditch offensive that was initially successful. Soon, however, the Confederates saw that they were hopelessly outnumbered by two corps of Union soldiers who had marched all night to cut off the Confederate advance.

Later that morning, Lee—cut off from all provisions and all support—famously declared that “there is nothing left me to do but to go and see Gen. Grant, and I would rather die a thousand deaths.” But Lee also knew his remaining troops, numbering about 28,000, would quickly turn to pillaging the countryside in order to survive.

With no remaining options, Lee sent a message to General Ulysses Grant announcing his willingness to surrender the Army of Northern Virginia. The two war-weary generals met in the front parlor of Wilmer McLean’s home at one o’clock that afternoon.

Lee asked for the terms of surrender, and Grant hurriedly wrote them out. Generously, all officers and men were to be pardoned, and they would be sent home with their private property–most important to the men were the horses, which could be used for a late spring planting. Officers would keep their side arms, and Lee’s starving men would be given Union rations.

Quieting a band that had begun to play in celebration, Grant told his officers, “The war is over. The Rebels are our countrymen again.” Although scattered resistance continued for several weeks—the final skirmish of the Civil War occurred on May 12 and 13 at the Battle of Palmito Ranch near Brownsville, Texas—for all practical purposes the Civil War had come to an end.



 
 
Picture
Despite the widespread hope among libertarians, classical liberals, non-interventionists, progressive peaceniks, and all those opposed to the US Empire that it may have some of its murderous reins pulled in with the election of Donald Trump, it appears that such optimism has now been dashed.  While the hope for a less meddlesome US foreign policy is not completely extinguished and would never have existed had the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua been elected, a number of President Trump’s foreign policy actions, so far, have been little different than his recent predecessors.

President Trump’s biggest blunder was his acquiesce to the Deep State’s coup of General Michael Flynn, the most Russian friendly among Trump’s foreign policy entourage.  Since Flynn’s abrupt departure, there has been little talk of a rapprochement with Russia, but instead there has been continued saber rattling by the war mongers that Trump has, unfortunately, chosen to surround himself with.

The most recent Russian badgering has come from Secretary of Defense, James “Mad Dog” Mattis who wrongly accused it of “bad behavior:” “Russia’s violations of international law are now a matter of record from what happened with Crimea to other aspects of their behavior in mucking around other people’s elections and that sort of thing.”* Of course, the US has never tried to influence the outcomes of elections or “mucked around” in the affairs of sovereign countries, heaven forbid!

While candidate Trump correctly spoke of the Iraqi War as a disaster and US Middle Eastern policy as a failure, he has done little to alter course in the region, but continues to follow and has, in some instances, escalated tensions.  Some ominous examples:

Bombing raids of Mosul killing over 200 civilians

The deployment of another 1,000 ground troops to Syria

Additional US ground troops “expected” to be deployed to Afghanistan

Continuous threats to Iran – “put on notice”

In the Far East, President Trump has done little to alleviate hostilities.  In a belligerent March tweet during Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson’s trip to the region, he wrote: “North Korea is behaving very badly.  They have been ‘playing’ the United States for years.  China has done little to help.”**

A number of perceptive commentators think otherwise and have shown that it has been the US over the years that has acted disingenuously.  “Despite Western media demonization of North Korea as some kind of crazy rogue state,” Finian Cunningham points out, “the people there are not fools.  They know from family histories the atrocious cost of American war.  And they know that any nation perceived as weak by Washington will be bombed back to the Stone Age.”***

These trends, and the President’s unnecessary request for increased “defense spending,” all point to more of the same for US overseas relations.  In fact, there will most likely be continued military escalation if the likes of General “Mad Dog” Mattis get their way.

It is now apparent that the only way in which significant change will come about in American foreign affairs will be if there is a severe financial crisis which impairs the nation enough so that it can no longer bankroll its military adventurism.  History has a number of examples of this.

Great Britain, who the US Empire is largely patterned after, lost its empire when it became financially exhausted due, in large part, to its insane decision to enter the two World Wars of the past century.  To fight in those conflagrations drained Britain of its wealth and devastated it demographically which it, and the rest of Europe, has never recovered.

The US is heading down a similar path of decline as it has squandered its wealth and treasure in the maintenance of an overseas empire while it has expanded its welfare state at home, meaning less wealth which can be tapped from an increasingly unproductive and parasitic populace.  Couple this with an onerous tax burden, an inflationist monetary policy which has destroyed the purchasing power of the dollar, and gargantuan public debt and you have primed the country for a financial cataclysm.

Despite the dramatic fall in the standard of living and the immense social strife and unrest that an economic collapse would bring about, there is a silver lining.  Like Great Britain before it, a financial crisis and/or the loss of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency would force the US to abandon its overseas empire – closing bases, bringing troops home, and stopping intervention in the myriad of arenas across the planet.

A defunct US Empire would also be bad news and mean grisly retribution for all those lackeys and puppets who have been supported and propped up by American might: another positive aspect to the end of the Empire.

The collapse will mean America, too, will face reprisals from all those who have suffered under its hegemony.  The payback will come from both economic warfare as the US has used through its “Dollar Diplomacy” to control and manipulate foreign economies and by some sort of military humiliation.

The impact of an economic collapse could be mitigated somewhat if the US abandoned its role as global policeman as resources squandered abroad could be then available for the rebuilding of the domestic economy while, at the same time, hostility with America’s adversaries would be reduced.

Unless President Trump replaces the warmongers and interventionists which he has unwisely surrounded himself with and return to his wildly popular campaign promise of an American First foreign policy, the US Empire will remain the greatest threat to world peace that currently exists.  If things continue as such, it will only be through the comeuppance of Economic Mother Nature when She bursts the American bubble economy that the Empire upon which it rests will, at long last, come to a fitting and much needed end!

*Ellen Mitchell, “Mattis Says Response Coming Soon on Russia Arms Treaty Violation.”  The Hill.  31 March 2017.

**Pamela Engel, “Trump: North Korea is ‘Behaing Very Badly,’ and China ‘Has Done Little to Help.'”  Business Insider.  17 March 2017.

***Finian Cunningham, “Only a Fool Would Trust Rogue State USA.”  Sputnik Internaional.  19 March 2017.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas


 
 
Picture
Editors note: This article could also be called the political duopoly- 2 sides of the same coin- Republicans and Democrats. 

By Laurence M. Vance

Reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com

It’s déjà vu all over again.

The inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20 means that, once again, the Republicans have absolute control of the government. The Republicans regained control of the Congress that they had lost during the last two years of the presidency of George W. Bush when House Republicans won a majority of seats in the 2010 midyear elections and Senate Republicans won a majority of seats in the 2014 midyear elections. Just like when the Republicans held a majority in both Houses of Congress during the last six years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, all that was lacking was a Republican president “to make America great again.”

This happened two other times in recent history. Republicans had a majority in Congress for the first two years of Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency (1953-1955). They also had a majority in Congress for over four years under George W. Bush. Here is why it was not for an even four or six years. At the time of Bush’s inauguration in 2001, the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress. The Republicans held on to their majority in the Senate until May 24, 2001, when Republican senator Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent and ended Republican control of the Senate. Republicans regained control of the Senate in the 2002 midterm elections, and then remained in control of both Houses of Congress until their defeat in the 2006 midterm elections.

And what did the Republicans do when they were in charge?

If ever Roosevelt’s New Deal could have been repealed in its entirety, it was when the Republicans had absolute control of the government under President Eisenhower. They, of course, did nothing. And even if the Republicans in Congress had tried to do something, it would have been squelched by Eisenhower, who wrote in a 1954 letter:

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this — in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything — even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

It was even worse when Republicans were in charge under Bush. They practically doubled the budget and the national debt and as they massively increased government spending. They created the monstrous Department of Homeland Security with its groping TSA goons.They crippled corporations with the arcane Sarbanes-Oxley Act. They destroyed the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties with the draconian Patriot Act. They allowed the NSA to begin spying on every American. They increased farm subsidies and foreign aid. They greatly expanded the Department of Education. They gave us the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. Bush started two unjust, immoral, and senseless wars—accompanied by assassinations, torture, and drone strikes—with hardly a peep out of Republicans in Congress.  Bush claimed that he “abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system” with his bailout and stimulus programs “to make sure the economy doesn’t collapse.”

It has now been two months since the Trump inauguration. The Republican-controlled Congress has only sent eighteen bills to President Trump, none of them of much substance. He has signed nine of them into law:

PL 115-2, S.84, A bill to provide for an exception to a limitation against appointment of persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief from active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces.

PL 115-3, H.R.72, GAO Access and Oversight Act of 2017

PL 115-4, H.J.Res.41, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to “Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers.”

PL 115-5, H.J.Res.38, Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule.

PL 115-6, H.R.255, Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act.War, Empire, and the M...Laurence M. VanceBest Price: $16.00Buy New $13.54

PL 115-7, H.R.321, Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act.

PL 115-8, H.J.Res.40, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

PL 115-9, H.R.609, To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs health care center in Center Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, as the “Abie Abraham VA Clinic.”

PL 115-10, S.442, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017.

(PL 115-1, H.R.39, Tested Ability to Leverage Exceptional National Talent Act of 2017 or the TALENT Act of 2017, was signed into law by President Obama before he left office.)

What are the Republicans waiting for?

The Republicans claim they are the party of the Constitution, limited government, fiscal conservatism, and free markets. So what are they waiting for? Christmas?

We have a bloated, invasive, intrusive, destructive monstrosity called the U.S. federal government that is out of control. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We have a welfare state that LBJ could only have dreamed of. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We have a national debt approaching $20 trillion. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We have a federal budget of $4 trillion. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? The Constitution is violated on a daily basis. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We have massive government intervention in the economy and society. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We have a warfare state that makes terrorists, widows, and orphans. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We have a myriad of government departments, agencies, and bureaus that most Americans have never even heard of. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We live in a police state that is anything but a free society. When are the Republicans going to do something about it?

When are the Republicans going to do something to end income redistribution and crony capitalism? When are the Republicans going to do anything? Give them time, you say. They have had plenty of time and plenty of opportunities. And what have they done? Nothing but waste time and opportunities. They neither deserve nor need any more time.

The problem is not that Republicans need more time. They are not waiting for the right time to change any of these things. The problem is that Republicans are the architects and/or supporters of these nefarious things.