By Al Benson Jr.
There was an Internet article on http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com
the headline of which read “Confederate Flag’s Re-emergence: Racism or Regional Pride?” To those of you who follow this sort of thing, you already know where this article is going. It’s one among scores that seem to appear every week across the country. Someone, somewhere waves a Confederate flag and the “news” (what a laugh) media is there to shout “KKK Invasion!” It would be ludicrous if it were not so sad. A public-school-“educated” populace is so completely befuddled that many of them actually take this stuff seriously.
According to this article Confederate flags seem to have made a re-emergence in the Philadelphia area—a region those of Yankee/Marxist mentality thought they had sewed up. Turns out they might be in error.
The article notes: “It’s been spotted on license plates in Atlantic City and Collingdale, draped across a truck in a Kohl’s parking lot and flying on poles outside homes in Montgomery and Chester counties.” Someone saw one handing “inside an apartment near Capitolo Playground in South Philly.” Hanging inside an apartment where people going by might be able to see it and become “offended.” There’s a hanging offense if ever there was one! And I’m sure there are lots of folks around that are just waiting to be offended so they can get their “fifteen minutes of fame” with the local “news” media. You’d be surprised how many people there are that get “offended” when they see a Confederate flag somewhere they can complain about. It’s the high point of their lives! And it’s even being displayed at “…country-rock tailgate parties outside the Susquehanna Bank Center. Why that’s almost too much! Has it ever occurred to anyone that all these folks, especially in South Philly, can’t be Southerners?
I’d even be willing to bet that some of the flag poles that sport Confederate flags belong to Northern folks who have managed, in spite of the media drivel, to find out what the Confederate flag really means and they agree with it. Such a thought has to drive the politically correct mavens absolutely up the wall.
A black man quoted in the article said: “It offends a lot of people,. White folks too. Slavery is over. This is the new millennium. The South lost. The states are united.” Really? I don’t doubt for a minute this man’s sincerity, but his grasp of history is, like the Platte River, “a mile wide and an inch deep.” But, then, part of the agenda is “keep ‘em ignorant and keep ‘em worked up just enough that they will respond to the hot button issues you want to push.”
If anyone wants to talk about “racist flags” then go check the Internet and find some old photos of KKK rallies during the 1930s and 40s. The Klan literally draped themselves in United States flags. So, according to our now-compliant media, that should make the US flag a “racist” emblem, right? Well, it doesn’t quite work that way. The agenda is to portray the Confederate flag as “racist” and ignore the evidence that the KKK carried US flags in many of their rallies and parades. The public doesn’t need to know that. And besides, if the Confederate flag was so “racist” then why did the US flag fly over all the slave ships that brought slaves over here? And why did most of those ships come from New England? Yeah, I already know the line—we just don’t talk about that.
I found it interesting that while Communism was struggling in Eastern Europe in the 1990s there was an “emergence” of Confederate flags over there. The media didn’t spread that around, but I saw photos, some of which were undoubtedly “missed” by the “lamestream” media. In fact, when we lived in Illinois my wife worked in an office with a girl from Romania. Now my wife had a small Confederate Battle Flag taped to the front of her desk, and when the Romanian girl first came in she said to my wife “You have a freedom flag on the front of your desk.” That’s what the Confederate flag meant to her. She’d seen it in her own country and it was carried by those espousing freedom from Communism for Romanians. I doubt the Romanians thought too much about the race question.
And most folks who fly it in the South here don’t think too much about the race questions either. That’s not where they are coming from. But, according to the current politically correct “logic” if anything “offends” someone they need to remove it immediately if not sooner. I have often wondered, as we pulled up to a car with some hlack kid in it and his rap music is blasting so loud that it literally jars my insides, if he would turn it down if I told him that kind of music offends me. Yeas, right. He’s probably just give me the proverbial “finger” and drive off. You see this offense thing only works one way. That’s the agenda. White offences are magnified. Black offenses are ignored. That’s the way this game is played. Folks better wake up and realize that.
I don’t intentionally try to be offensive to anyone but I don’t intend to remove the symbols of my culture and bury them just because someone decides he doesn’t like them—especially when he is not willing to do what he expects me to do. Folks, what we need to start doing is politely, but firmly, just telling these politically correct types that “No, I’m sorry if you don’t like this but I am not taking it down.”
by: Joan Hough
How we whites are hated---most especially we Southern Christian folks! Who stirs the hate cauldron? Why the New World Order gang determined to erase our borders and change our language from English to Spanish or Arabic. They will drag our unwilling bodies first into the North American Union and then into their brave New World Order of global control and sophisticated Communism. They reign supreme in both major political parties.
There is no Party differentiate even involving ceaseless war.
Is it not an aspect of hate how folks who write our national news relish the Communist-created United Nations' propaganda designed to destroy the American family unit of man-woman and their offspring? Somebody hates the traditional family.
Judging by Mrs. Clinton’s views, the “village” must raise our children by the rules of all-powerful government and, just as desired by Karl Marx, the family unit must be destroyed.[i]
Marriages, blessed by the God of our Fathers, must be eliminated--sexual perversions -- legalized, sanitized and sanctified! Masturbation must be taught in Kindergarten. Prostitution and hedonism must be celebrated. The Communist Manifesto must be the new bible-- all-powerful government, the new god. “Tradition” is to be detested, the culture of the South, destroyed.
In the New World Order, so revered by America’s leading Republicans and Democrats, average white American folks, must by denigrated—hated-- for their kin seceded from the world’s most powerful government and then created the greatest nation on earth. White male Christians designed a government completely based on written law. It was not a democracy—not a socialist-Communist government, not a monarchy, or an oligarchy, but a Republic. They created a government in which minorities (even small states) could not be run over by the majority. The so-called “popular” vote was disallowed. They designed a government in which one cowboy, mistakenly riding across the land of a big rancher, could not be assigned to death by the POPULAR VOTE of other cowboys.
If only Americans would learn the evils of Democracy before they vote another man into the u.S.[ii]
Senate--learn of that time when we, the “people” controlled our national Senators, learn how Commies manipulated Americans into relinquishing this control and accept instead the Popular Vote as the means of electing u.S. Senators. Not only did each state lose control over its senators, but so did the people. Senators, once elected by POPULAR vote, became free to sell themselves to any person or group, and to be blackmailed, threatened, and bribed. Our Republic sank further into the mire called Democracy.[iii]
The Communists insist that Democracy is their gateway to world control. Highly educated 1848'ers, “New Germans,” the original American Marxists, arrived here in 1849 with plans to initiate war against the men of the South. Their major goal, to replace the nation’s original form of government with a Democracy, could only be achieved by destroying the political power and lives of the genius Southerners dedicated to the preservation of the Constitutional Republic. Marxists succeeded. They established the gateway to their New World Communist Order. They altered the original definition of "civil war" to cover their sins and gave as their purpose the myth that their war was for the purpose of giving freedom to slaves.
The Marxists, so carefully referred to by politically correct historians as “Radical Republicans,” birthed the Republican Party, shredded the Constitution, and created a democracy
. They hushed the voices of wisdom (Southern voices) with genocide and a holocaust. With murdered Confederates barely in the ground, they resolutely installed a brainwashing program in the South and then throughout America.
Their Communist War in America was against religion—most especially against Southern Christianity. One of the Marxists’ honored disciples (General Sherman) declared the war a "holy war” —inferring that he was doing God’s will. That arsonist-atheist strove to make the remnants of a Christian population in his north believe his version of truth. Strangely, Sherman, although detesting Southern planters, failed to voice the Marxist Republican Party’s cover-up story that “the war was to free the slaves,” instead he declared Southerners’ treason the reason for the north’s Invasion of the South. He claimed that no state could constitutionally leave its creator—that the Union birthed the states. He, his Republican Senator brother, and Lincoln all told that same lies, including the one “that the South was openly, manifestly the aggressor.” [iv] With the take over of the minds of generations of American children, the desires of the 1848er Communists became law; Democracy was entrenched in America. Future voters were deliberately fed lies as truths for so long that few Americans today remain capable of digesting truth
How many Americans comprehend that all of the Communists' TEN COMMANDMENTS are now incorporated into the laws of the uSA? The Communist backed laws are a rung on the New World Order ladder and are direct attacks on States Rights. They were originally enumerated in Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto written in 1848 at the behest of the European Illuminati.
A number of the Communist commandments were illegally added as amendments to the u.S. Constitution. Among them are ones authorizing income tax, and the popular election of U. S. Senators and certain amendments declared passed immediately after the War of Northern Aggression although not legally ratified as required by the Constitution.
Ninety-nine percent of our present politicians fail to utter a single word of truth about our altered government; they persist in spending our bucks (and bullets) to “teach the world to sing of Democracy.” At least that’s the motive they profess in support of the New World Order. Perhaps because of their Communist controlled education they are unaware that the word “democracy” appears nowhere in any official document of the founding fathers—not in the state constitutions (written before the Marxist-Republicans forced their rewriting)--not in the Declaration of Independence, or the Articles of Confederation, and not in the u.S. Constitution. Democracy was a type of government viewed as an anathema by the founding fathers.
Is it not appalling that our modern elected leaders have never mentioned any of the truths revealed in this message? Presidential candidate Ron Paul did, so the Republican elites necessarily declared him a nut and shut the mouths of his legal, supporters at the Republican Primary Convention—and in the doing, lost their chance, perhaps forever, to take back the White House.
The actions of the Republican leaders gives credence to the belief that both parties are controlled by precisely the same people—Republican and Democrat elites, holding hands and playing "kissey-kissey" in the clubs of the Unholy Foursome -- The Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, The Bilderberg Group, and The International Bankers controlling the so-called Federal Reserve Bank.
How many Americans know that beginning in 1861 there was a significant presence of Communism in the u.S. government? How many know that Mr. Lincoln’s “Eyes and Ears of the Union,” his Assistant Secretary of War—Charles Dana, a born in America Communist, was a close buddy and deciple of Marx and Engels?
Who has bothered to learn that Dana, sent by the New York Tribune to cover the 1848 Socialist (Communist) Revolution in Europe, became enthralled with Europe’s Communism and Marx? Upon returning home he, with Horace Greeley, hired Marx as a foreign correspondent for their New York Tribune, the Union’s most widely read paper.[v]
For ten years Marx wrote for the Tribune and received byline credit for over 350 articles. To his displeasure, many of his other works were published, sans bylines, as editorials.[vi]
Certainly men all over the north, including newspaper addict Lincoln, soaked up Marx’s Communism.
The Marxian diatribes of the Tribune were eclipsed by the filthy propaganda cranked out by Dana and by Edwin Stanton, the U.S. Secretary of War. The War Department’s evil tidings flooded the north,[vii]
fueling Yankee refusals of Southern peace offers, arousing undeserved, fury-filled hatred for Southern planters, and causing Lincoln’s U.S. Senate to order deliberate torture of all captive Southerners held in Yankee prisons.
With propaganda, Lincoln and his Edwin Stanton-Charles Dana controlled War Department made acceptable to northerners (1) the U.S. government’s barbaric War on civilians (deliberate killing/kidnapping of Women, children, the sick, the handicapped, and old folks and (2) tortures on helpless, imprisoned Confederate soldiers (some young as 12). The tortures were far worst than anything done at Guantanamo Bay
Yankee inflicted Southern genocide and Holocaust should be remembered as a direct result of carefully orchestrated, carefully stirred hate. The Marxists’ poison pens produced an eternally full cauldron of hate-- never ceasing today to attract eager stirrers in classes ranging from ditch diggers to University professors and U.S. Presidents. [i]
Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto. (New York, New York: New American Library, 1998). [ii]
The lower case “u” is employed to emphasize the truth that in the original documents of this nation, the words “united States” were not begun with a capital letter because each state was a separate, sovereign nation, maintaining that sovereignty except for the limited amount each transferred to the central government. [iii]
Frederic Bastiat, The Law.
(Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1979). [iv]
W. T. Sherman, Sherman: Memoirs of General W. T. Sherman
(New York, New York: Literary Classics of the United States,Inc., 1990). p., 187 [v]
Al Benson, Jr. and Walter Donald Kennedy, Lincoln’s Marxists. (Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, Inc., 2011). [vi]
James Ledbetter, ed., Karl Marx: Dispatches for the New York Tribune: Selected Journalism of Karl Marx
. (New York: Penguin Group (USA) Inc, 2007). [vii]
Frank Conner, The South under Siege 1830 – 2000.: A History of the Relations Between the North and the South. (Newnan, Georgia: Collards Publishing Company, 2002).
By Al Benson Jr
Over the years I have heard several sermons preached on Romans, chapter 13, and the Christian response to that portion of God's Word. Most of what I have heard has advocated blind, unquestioning obedience to government, no matter what the situation might be. Since most Christians today, not having been taught to think critically, reason that government is the "lawful authority" they next reason that they are bound to obey it in all instances no matter what. Suffice it to say that I disagree. I do not advocate revolution and I do not advocate overthrow of the government, rather I advocate that we look anew at what Romans 13 really says.
Romans 13 is a statement that declares the limits of government. It sets out the proper role of the magistrate as God's minister. In other words, the magistrate should only be doing what God allows him to do within the limits of his office, and for him to go further than that is usurpation.
Pastor Steve Wilkins of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana has noted: "If you think Nero was pleased to read Romans 13, think again. Romans 13 is a declaration of the proper role of the civil magistrate [i.e. that he is a 'minister' of God] - this was viewed by Nero as high treason. He was not encouraged by Paul's instruction [if he ever read it.] Paul is in fact bringing a scathing indictment against the Roman emperor and the divine state [i.e. he contradicts every claim made by the Roman state.] Jesus did the same when He said 'Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's, BUT render unto God the things that are God's. This was a treasonous statement given the divine claims of the Roman emperor, who believed nothing belonged to any God apart from himself."
Pastor Wilkins observed that the Christians did not promote bloody revolts against Rome as did some, including apostate Jews, rather they did something else that was, in the long run, more devastating to Rome. They preached the Word of God and told men to repent of their sins and to trust "in the only name given among men whereby they must be saved." And that name was Jesus Christ. However, even that was considered treasonous, considering that the same claim was made by one of the early Roman emperors. Romans 13 points out that the state isn't God. It points out that the current ruler in any State anywhere is not God on earth. The ruler has to be limited in his authority and, according to God's Word, strictly limited in his power, given the propensity of human nature to always grasp for more power than is allowed. The ruler's authority is limited and the obligation to obey him is also limited to those areas where he rightly exercises his God-given authority. Pastor Wilkins has said that: "Any covenant head who rebels against his God-ordained position may be lawfully opposed [always and only, however, in lawful ways - i.e. no sinning against him - which rules out lawless revoltion."
It would seem that today, in light of where government, especially at the federal level, has taken us since the advent of the Lincoln administration, we should begin anew to consider the implications of Romans 13. What would Romans 13 have had to say to the actions of the Lincoln administration, had anyone at that time thought to ask the question? Truly, at that point, the federal government went well beyond the limited scope of what its activities should have been. Lincoln claimed that he did what he did to "preserve the Union." However, given the nature of how the federal government was set up and the restrictions placed upon its powers by the Constitution, did he go beyong the scope of the powers allowed? In no place in the Constitution was secession mentioned as being illegal, yet Lincoln moved to combat secession by invading the Southern states and terming their lawful secession as a "rebellion" which really is was not. The Southern states did not attempt to depart from the Union through lawless revolution, nor did they attempt to overthrow the federal government in Washington. All they did was, in their respective states, to vote to secede and depart from the Union. Of course, since the South paid the Lion's share of expenses for the govenrment via the tariff, while the North got most of the benefits from that, Lincoln could not have been expected to let them depart in peace. The money interests in the North that got Lincoln elected would not have been happy with him, so he had to do something, even if it was unlawful, given the limits of his authority, both federally and what was God-ordained. In the War of Northern Aggresion, Mr. Lincoln was the real revolutionary, not the South.
And today, we are faced with a situation where our federal government, in the name of "fighting terrorism" has usurped even more of our rights, has exceeded its constitutional authority by leaps and bounds, and has left the God-ordained limits on government somewhere back in the dust!
Rather than trying to understand this and to point it out, most Christians have defended and cheered the Bush administration on as it gobbles up what little remains of our personal liberties. It would be an interesting and worthwhile study to check out, from the Lincoln administration up to the present one, where the federal government has gone way beyong what Romans 13 allows for it to be doing. Does the State today consider itself to be divine, God walking upon the earth? While our federal officials don't come out and blatantly make such a statement [yet] it seems more and more that this is the way they think and act.
by Kevin Carroll:
On the night of September 14, 1862 Confederate General Robert E. Lee, realizing that the forces of General George McClellan’s Army of the Potomac were forcing the gaps along South Mountain, quickly directly his scattered Army of Northern Virginia to the defensive high ground along the fields north and west of Sharpsburg.
Historians often wondered why Lee would risk his entire army by posting them with their backs to the Potomac and only a small cross able ford in their rear thus creating inherent risk in the selection of the ground of his choosing.
Lee understood his opponent, McClellan, was a very cautious man and had driven him onto the James River earlier in the year during the Seven Day’s battles and having selected good ground of his own choosing was willing to offer battle on his terms to the Union general not wishing to retire back to Virginia without fighting that battle.
Lee's confidence in the army was very high after a successful summer campaign where he had driven both McClellan and General Pope back into Washington. Now the Union Army was coming on fast after pushing the thin defenses of D.H. Hill out of the South Mountain gaps on the 14th, and heavy skirmishing took place near Sharpsburg on the 16th.
Those same historians, often infamous for their revisionist slant on the battle and war, easily bought the Union story-line that Lee was defeated at Sharpsburg by the fact that he left the field on the 19th, two days after the battle.
President Lincoln desperate for a victory after a summer of failure, quickly declared success for the Union Army (although he scrapped his General) and issued the emancipation proclamation thereby freeing slaves in the Confederacy while at the same time retaining their servitude in the Yankee areas.
Earlier in the year he had freed the slaves in Washington partly due to the hypocritical charges of northern abolitionists against him who saw slave labor in the current construction of the future Capital Building as an odd irony. In fear of losing neutral border States to the Confederacy, Lincoln restricted the order to Confederate States that were under Union control at the time. His motivation was in attempting to create a slave revolt in the CSA. In fact many of these liberated areas, the Union Army conscripted the slaves to build their field works thereby freeing more soldiers for the front lines. Many of the slaves willfully complied but those who wished to return South to their homes were not allowed to do so under orders of execution for leaving their new masters.
General Lee had allowed his soldiers without shoes (no small number) to stay behind in Virginia as he marched into Maryland earlier in the month because he realized the macadamized roads of Maryland would tear his men’s bare feet apart. The soft clay dirt roads of Virginia were easier on his men and those who fell out would be there to reinforce him upon his return to the Old Dominion. By the time the battle of Sharpsburg/Antietam took place, Lee reported scarcely 38,000 arrayed for battle against a foe with nearly triple his numbers. Lee fought his entire army while McClellan Fifth Corps under Porter and the Sixth under Franklin had little work.
The battle of Sharpsburg was in fact three separate battles fought in one day. At dawn Hooker’s First Corps came storming out of the cornfields later supported by Mansfield’s Twelfth Corps and were repulsed by Stonewall Jackson, with the aid of J.B. Hood’s Division as well as an enfilading cannonade under the direction of Jeb Stuart. The combat was a bloody slug fest each side driving the other back over cornfields and woods until the ground was littered with the bodies of thousands of dead and dying men. The fighting here started to wane around 9am after over fours hours of constant bloody struggle. The Confederate line, while batten mauled had held its ground.
The battle shifted to the bloody sunken lane, manned mostly by North Carolinian’s and Georgian’s when it came under heavy assault shortly past 9am. Sumner’s Second Corps, supported by the Mansfield on their right, came on in waves and the Irish Brigade under Meagher got into a flanking position and enfiladed D.H. Hill’s men with deadly salvos of “buck and ball”. The Confederates began to fall back and it appeared the day was won for the Union. Several savage small Confederate counterattacks along with heavy blasts of canister from their field artillery, one of the batteries manned by Longstreet and his staff officers, shocked the blue wave and forced them back. It had been the opinion of the Union general staff that the Confederates under Lee had many more in numbers than were actually present. It was the “Confederate ghost in the woods” that often prevented them from exploiting momentary opportunity as it was presented during battle.
As the battle in the center slowed down to sporadic fire, the third act of the day opened on the Confederate extreme right near Burnside’s Bridge where the Corps under that general attempted to cross the Antietam and flank Lee’s Army with the intentions of severing his escape route to Virginia by taking the Shepardstown Road. The bridge was thinly defended by a brigade of Georgians who had stubbornly resisted the crossing of Burnside’s Ninth Corps. Burnside dispatched nearly half of his command, the Kanawha Division under Scammon and the Third Division under Rodman, 2 miles down river to cross behind the Confederates at Snavely’s ford. During the time he awaited for the later to cross the Antietam, he attacked with his other two Divisions across the bridge and after several failed attempts they succeeded in crossing and finally driving the Confederates back towards Sharpsburg. Just as it appeared that Burnside has turned Lee’s right flank, A.P. Hill arrived on the field with his Light Division, after a forced march up from Harper’s Ferry, and slammed into the left of Burnside. That shock buckled the Union line and forced them back over the Antietam to their starting positions.
The battle of Antietam is a story of missed opportunities and a desperate fight for survival. Throughout the day McClellan’s uncoordinated attacks allowed for General Lee to use his interior lines to fortify his battle line at the next hot spot prior to the assault which he knew was coming- it were as if he had a chair at McClellan’s command post. At any time McClellan could have deployed the remaining forces and swept the field and quite possible won the war that day but he was forever haunted by the “Confederate ghosts in the woods.” The Union pell-mell and disjointed attacks came at a heavy price. The Union lost 12,400 and the Confederates lost 10,300. Nearly 23,000 which is more than Pearl Harbor, D-day and 9-11 combined!
The Confederate General staff was alarmed that Lee would not give up the field after that terrible day and he ordered his men to prepare to receive battle yet again on the 18th but McClellan would have none of it. Both sides exchanged sniper fire on the 18th but no major effort was made by either side that day to attack the other. On the night of the 18th, the Army of Virginia, bloodied but not broken, crossed over the Potomac near Shepardstown and onto Virginian soil.
CHRISTIANITY VERSUS THE u.S. GOVERNMENT AND ITS NEW WORLD ORDER
All persons in what General Sherman’s “boys” referred to as “the Bible thumping South” should now be aware that in the year of our Lord, 2013, the, unconstitutional, almost all-powerful central government of the united States is waging war against Christianity. The governments most aimed at target are Christianity’s presence in that segment of America, known as our Southern States.
Christians have for centuries viewed as abominations practices that the u.S. Government is now introducing in classrooms throughout the land, from kindergarten up, as not only “normal” forms of behavior, but as behaviors greatly to be desired. There can be absolutely no reason to doubt that the three branches of u.S. Government are determined to win their battle against the Christian religion, the Christian culture, and the down through the centuries Christian definition of what is normality, what are acceptable personal and social behaviors, and what is sinful. The Greatest Battle of the 21st Century has begun.
In our South, Christianity has always been the stabilizing factor that kept Southerners from tossing wildly about in turbulent waters. Even persons without any belief in a power outside themselves have benefitted by living among Southerners who believe in the Trinity, or, at the least, in Deism. The acceptance of the Christian mores has resulted in the development of a culture of civilized behavior which has made life in the South something that in the past, ushered happiness and contentment into being for an entire populace. For outsiders to even begin to understand the importance of Christianity in the Confederate South-- they should tour the South’s oldest cemeteries and read a few of the stones of the ancestors of many of the present day Southerners.
Southerners certainly realized that self-control was not a natural developmental thing occurring in the young, but was something that adults must help each child learn. The Christian religion was seen as a vital, contributing factor in the learning process; Southern children were taught responsibility, decency, cleanliness, compassion, honesty, the importance of self-control, and they developed a Christian conscience –which, without question, made the world a better place for humans. Interestingly, our U.S. Marines are determined specialists in self-discipline (self-control) and since the 1800s; most of the Marines were once children of the South.
Homosexuality, Lesbianism and transvestitism, etc. are now declared by u.S law to be “normal.” In California teen-aged males may say today that they “feel” themselves to be females and the government then gives them access to sit down pee places with “other” girls in tax paid for school rest rooms. Tomorrow, those same males, declaring themselves males (for the day) can be stand-up boys at the urinals where the boys meet and greet.
In other American schools, nutty parents have shoved aside the wisdom of the ages regarding the teaching of the child his sexual and social role by providing models and guidance. These parents insist that their children be allowed to “decide” just what sex they wish to be and that the school bow to the child’s decision, a decision which is really the parents’ creation and which will, more than likely, murder their child’s future happiness and hope.
What a fine world we live in – one in which tolerance has become lethal and laisser-fair,
fatal. As President Bush I. so gleefully exclaimed during his one term in office, “The New World Order is here!”
The harsh American reality of today is: All that once never WAS, now IS—that is, that which for centuries has been condemned by Christians as that which was not normal behavior is now declared normal by the men and women in the American Psychological Association and those in charge of the u.S. Government. These people are attempting to force all Christians to accept concepts of twisted bizarreness as perfect normality. After centuries of being atypical, an anomaly, an abnormality—a neuroses—each type of sexual perversion has suddenly been determined by the so-called “experts” to be mere bits of normal human behavior—each as respectable, as normal, as desirable as is heterosexuality. If an American rejects the idea that homosexuality is desirable and normal, he is slapped with the label of a mental illness termed homophobia.
To refresh your memory on just how this all came to be, read the out of print, but still available, history of the legalization of homosexuality. This amazing historical truth is revealed in former Congressman William Dannemeyer’s book, Shadow in the Land
. Read it and learn just who to thank for the “new age of enlightenment” in which the abnormal became normal. http://books.google.com/books/about/Shadow_in_the_land.html?id=ISwbAAAAYAAJ
Our American politicians and their Communistic NEW WORLD ORDER are the ones responsible for turning our Christian culture upside down. They are our chosen leaders whose words we much obey. They include Georgia’s Hank Johnson of “Guam will sink if too many sailors and Marines go ashore” brilliance. (His more intelligent aids attempted in vain to cover his stupidity by having him claim that he was talking about the island’s ecosystem suffering if the land were overpopulated.)
Another stalwart member of the chosen ones is Nancy Pelosi of “we must pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” fame. She proved herself qualified to be Speaker of the House when she was asked if something she was voting for was constitutional and she responded with “you’ve gotta be kidding me.” She presented further proof when she presented her highly garbled, weirdly distorted version of Constitutional law. Her antics resulted in articles such as: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/14/the-prosecution-of-nancy-pelos
And then there are all the other wonderful Democrat and Republican Senators and Representatives who swore a sacred oath to uphold the law of the land—that is, the U.S. Constitution and at the very moment their oath-taking hand came down, they joined the treasonous actions of “domestics” attacking that document and our nation.
We now are expected to be convinced that all politicians, once elected to office or selected by Presidential appointment, are the most brilliant, wisest men/women our world has ever known---that the men and women declared geniuses in the world’s past were mentally retarded folks—that only those people in today’s u.S. Government—people such as Georgia’s Hank and California’s Nancy have any “smarts.”
We are advised that the sharpest minds on the globe have always been those of Mr. Obama’s Muslims. This must be true, because President Obama tells us that Muslims contributed magnificently in the creation of our American Republic form of government—that without them there would be no united States. Mr. Obama may be unaware of exactly how many states are in our nation—how many stars are on our flag- and what each star stands for, and may believe that the united States Marine Corps is a body of the dead, a corpse—but no highly educated, in Indonesia and at Harvard, U.S. President ever lies about anything. Does he?
Due to the efforts of our intelligent politicians and their gift to us of a multitude of wonderful laws supporting perversions, perverts viewed for centuries by Christians as abominations must now be given a multitudinous amount of very special privileges. They have suddenly, just as envisioned by George Orwell in his Animal Farm
, become “more equal” than the rest of us. Americans see the proof of this in the amazing “Hate Bill.” http://www.hatecrimesbill.org
If the Man-Boy Association, the one that marched in the Gay New York Parade, triumph as expected, soon pedophilia will be declared normal and protected. Just as is happening in America now where governmental approval is given a certain religion, which allows adults males to take babies as wives, the U.S. government will not frown on the sexual practices advocated by the M-B Association. The desired unions will be considered as adult homosexuality is now, not just a legal joy of sexual right, but as something the government-recommends for all men and boys should try.
In America, children were once shielded from folks attempting to rush them into sexual maturity. That shield, the Republican and Democratic sanctioned United Nations has crushed into non-existence. The United Nations has already put its plan for the sexual education of America’s youngest school children into some classrooms. The children, even at the kindergarten level will be taught the delights of masturbation. Americans may expect soon to see children involved in the new York “Gay” parades which contain such cheerful, happy “gays” –some clad all in chains while others carried nice whips and indulged in kissing and an interesting variety of usually non-public type behaviors. Undoubtedly Americans will grow accustomed to the public sight of vast numbers of sexual spectaculars.
The next phase of the Republican and Democratic Leaders in Congress attack on Christianity involves the legal recognition of Atheism as a religion. After centuries of being considered the enemy of religion, Atheism will become protected, as are other non-Christian religions in America. How about them apples? They are rotten to the core, and so is any judge who says otherwise.
Communism obviously embraces atheism and Communists are proponents of that religion. In 1848, as the Communist/Socialist fought and lost their first Socialist Revolution in Europe, the European Illuminati hired two writers to pen a book of rules, their holy bible. The Commie’s holy bible was, primarily, the work of a fallen away Jew by name of Karl Marx. Marx, with more than one rabbi in his family tree, was well versed in the Holy Bible’s Old Testament, so he and his good buddy Friedrich Engels stole from it the concept of “ten commandments.” They wrote their own Communist Ten Commandments and placed them in their Marxist bible, The Communist Manifesto
. Check them out here- http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61
See them with your own eyes. Their god is the one still worshipped by all good American Socialist/Communists in both American Political Parties today--- the all-powerful State (the nation).
American Communists of today, just as they did in the 1800s, pay homage to all-powerful central government. They deny that the central government of the united States was originally created by the states--created as only a minor component in the Republican form of government. They deny that the nation’s founding fathers so detested and loathed democracy that they refused to place the word “democracy” in a single one of the nation’s original documents. Communists ignore the fact that the word does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the individual, original constitutions of the states. They reject the truth that our nation’s founding fathers designed the central government to be subservient to the states. They deny that states rights had a major place in the Constitution and were the very foundation of the government.
In order to achieve their international dream of The New World Order, Communists acclaimed their absolute need of Democracy as the type of government and from that time of their en masse arrival on the North American Continent in 1849, worked to eradicate the Republic type of government and replace it with Democracy. People who understand the differences in a Democracy and a Republic find those differences an easy explanation for the Communists need to achieve a conversion. It is easily seen why the destruction of the Constitutional loving, Republic loving South had to be accomplished. http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/20121116_TheLaw.pdf
The war against our South and Southerners devoted to a Constitutional form of government was successful. The Marxist victors propagandized so skillfully that all Americans now believe it the duty of the nation to wage wars across the globe in order to make the entire world “safe for DEMOCRACY.” Since the 1800s America’s Communists, infiltrated into both political parties have managed to smear states’ rights falsely with accusations of racism and slavery; they have cleverly concealed the truth as to the real reason the Republicans invaded the Confederate States of America. Americans remain unaware that the War of Northern Aggression was waged to destroy the u.S. Republican, Constitutional form of government and replace it with the Communists’ Democracy, their gateway to the New World Order. The erasure of Christianity in the South was another goal of the Communists. Their capture of the South’s educational system was another rung up for them on the NWO ladder to global control.
Does religious freedom mean that Communists and other atheists should be allowed to flaunt their religion in public schools where Christ’s name is unmentionable? Wake up! Communists already do just that. Atheism and another recent to America religion, highly approved by the President, are well on the way to becoming the only two U.S. government sanctioned religions. “God bless you,” is on the way out in public schools. There is a definite “destroy Christianity” national movement aided and abetted by both the Democratic politicians and many Republican ones. People disliking the truth that Jesus was white join them. Communists, in the name of “Reconstruction, ” seized the minds of both the white and the black children of the South and soon controlled all schools in the nation. They still do.
The occult Wicca religion has already been allowed access to the minds of children. A short time back some schoolteacher in the New England area wrote Wicca words to the Christmas Carols and taught her pupils to sing them. Parents in her school district, evidently, did not complain much—but then Yankees since the early 1800s have been noted for creating or adopting some rather strange cultist religions that Southerners termed forms of “humanism.”
Rituals emerged this very year that should make normal people acknowledge that the anti-Christ movement has emerged worldwide. In one of the recent rituals occurring in Mexico, the mama of a little five-year-old boy plucked out his eyeballs while members of her family encouraged her. Down in New Orleans a woman was found with numbers of carcasses of dead monkeys in her home. Used, she claimed, in religious rituals. The Mexican woman may be among America’s latest specially approved by the President and Congress’s immigrants. Probably the Louisiana woman is with us due to the good works of Lyndon B. Johnson’s promotion of priority placement of third world natives at the head of America’s citizenship lines.
Some types of so-called religious rituals tend to cause normal Americans to wonder how long it will be before Sadism becomes a legally recognized religion, followed, of course, on/under its heels by masochism. Can Cannibalism be far behind? There still exists some religions that condone such: CNN..reported such in a ghastly video of a Syrian civil war incident. A man, said to be a well-known rebel fighter, carves into the body of a government soldier and cuts out his heart and liver. "I swear to [Allah] we will eat your hearts out, you soldiers of Bashar. You dogs. [Allah] is greater!" the man says. Heroes of Baba Amr ... we will take out their hearts to eat them." http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/u-s-military-doesnt-want-fight-christian-killing-jihadists-syria/#ixzz2drQzEg9z http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/u-s-military-doesnt-want-fight-christian-killing-jihadists-syria/#o2S20pvYORIPoCzD.99
The ritualistic worship of “hedonism” apparently has been underway by “sophisticated, well-heeled” Americans for some time. In fact many of the nation’s highest of the high “leaders” have caroused gleefully and ritualistically in places such as California’s Bohemian Gardens. http://www.infowars.com/bg1.html
Will there eventually appear on the market religious trinkets for sale such as Marquis de Sade inspired lampshades concocted from baby skins? There should be a bounteous amount of human material available from the U.S. government-approved abortionists.
Christianity should have, but does not have the degree of governmental devotion and protection that gives special treatment to members of a new to America religion; Christianity has no special privileges at airports. Christianity doe not have the degree of protection even accorded the long in America, Jewish religion.
Why is this so? Because Christians do not demand what is their absolute right. Christian preachers no longer possess even one shred of the devotion to Christ seen in northern Christians such as that Methodist-Episcopal minister by name of Henry Clay Dean whose preaching of truth had him imprisoned by the anti-Christ. Dean was an American with the intestinal fortitude to tell the truth about a corrupt U.S. government and the wicked men who ran it. http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-civil-curse-funding-system/dp/B006ORAG5W
Individual families who attempt to stand up for their Christian beliefs have something like this happen: http://godfatherpolitics.com/12392/homosexuals-drive-christian-bakers-business/
Only in numbers is there strength. Christians must stand together.
The weaknesses of our “in command” leaders are completely revealed by the strange foreign bedfellows they have chosen. Behaviors of their Middle East buddies are the substance of true tales of horror—yet according to our leaders, it continues to be our nation’s duty to spread Democracy through that area. We must continue, also to support the great United Nations which, just as FD Roosevelt and Alger Hiss promised when they brought it into being, has stopped all wars. Of course it has. http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/obama-backed-syrian-jihadists-behead-christian-feed-his-body-to-dogs/
By: Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission "Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty" www.ncwbts150.com "The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
The United States is not now and has never been a republic. It is a federation of states, each one of which, in Article IV of the Constitution, is guaranteed a republican form of government. But a federation of republics is not itself a republic any more than a federation of nations in the United Nations, or in the European Union, is a nation.
Whatever else a republic might be, it is not a service agency of something else. So instead of talking about “restoring the old Republic,” we should talk of restoring republicanism in a federation of states. And this can only mean recalling the vast domain of enumerated powers that the Constitution reserves to the states and which have been usurped by that artificial corporation, known as the United States, created by the states for their welfare.
This is not a quibble with words. To talk of the Republic inclines one to think of America as a single political society in the manner of Joseph Story, Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln. In this view, the states are service agencies created by the sovereign will of the American people in the aggregate. That will is expressed through the central government, which, for all practical purposes, has the final say on the limits of its power.
This means that the states are merely administrative units of a unitary American state. If so, they are not republics at all, but counties. This is how Lincoln viewed them. He asked, “What is this particular sacredness of a State? . . . If a State, in one instance, and a county, in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in number of people, where is that State any better than a county?”
Lincoln was tone deaf to the deep social bonds that made it rational for Socrates to take the hemlock and Jefferson Davis to say that if his state seceded he would “hug [Mississippi] to his heart,” and Robert E. Lee to risk all to protect his beloved Virginia.
A Lincoln scholar, and an admirer, recently acknowledged that “[Lincoln] was intimately attached to almost no one, and this was how he believed community relationships -- local, state, and national – should best function . . . Lincoln imagined America was a nation of strangers.” This is a perfect picture of a modern unitary state, modeled on that of Thomas Hobbs, with an all-powerful central authority guaranteeing rootless and egoistic individuals their “civil rights.”
It is this unitary state, “one and indivisible,” that Lincoln and the Republican party meant when they spoke of “the Republic.” But such a regime is no more a republic than is the “republic” of the French Revolution or the Peoples’ Republic of China. When Lincoln looked at Virginia he could not see a genuine political society two-and-a-half centuries old; one that was the leader in forming the American federation; fable in song and story; and known as the mother of presidents and the mother of states [including Lincoln’s own).
All he could see was an aggregate of individuals in rebellion against “the Republic” – the central government of a would-be Hobbesian unitary state.
Before Lincoln’s “republican” rhetoric, Americans most often described their polity as a “union,” a “federation,” or a “confederation.” And when it was described as a “republic” or a “nation,” it was usually understood to mean a federation or a union.
For example, in a speech celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Constitution, John Quincy Adams describes America as a “confederated nation,” held together by “kindly sympathies” and “common interests.” And he went on to say that, should these social bonds fail, “far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.”
Thirteen years later Adams would sign a document stating that the annexation of Texas would justify the secession of New England. That is the spirit of American republicanism – rooted, as it must be, in a bold acknowledgment of state and local sovereignty.
The first step toward restoring genuine republicanism is to invert the Lincolnian inversion of republican language by describing America as a federation, not a republic. Today, such speech might appear odd and even radical. But there is no alternative. Talk of “restoring the Republic” cannot escape connotations of the inverted Lincolnian “Republic.” But that regime does not need restoration. Not only is it flourishing, it is now on steroids.”
(Is America a Republic?, Dr. Donald Livingston; Chronicles Magazine, May 2009, pp. 17-18)
By: Thomas DiLorenzo
In his famous essay, “War is the Health of the State,” Randolph Bourne made an important distinction between country and state. One’s country is “an inescapable group into which we re born.” As such, “there is no more feeling of rivalry with other peoples than there is in our feeling for our family.” Country is “a concept of peace, of tolerance, of living and letting live,” wrote Bourne.
The state, on the other hand, “is essentially a concept of power, of competition.” Conflating the two concepts – country and state – sends one into a hopeless and very dangerous confusion. For the history of the American country is one of “conquest of the land, of the growth of wealth, of the enterprise of education, and the carrying out of spiritual ideals.”
The history of the American state
, by contrast, is one of “making war, obstructing international trade, preventing itself from being split to pieces, punishing those citizens whom society agrees are offensive, and collecting money to pay for it all.
In peacetime the state “has almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions,” wrote Bourne. The average citizen largely ignores the state. For example, at the outset of the American “Civil War” the only connection the average citizen had with the federal government was though the post office and paying about $45/year in taxes. This of course is considered to be a disaster or a calamity by all statists.
“With the shock of war,” however, “the state comes into its own again.” War is the health of the state. It is the reason given for high taxes, internal revenue bureaucracies, pervasive spying, censorship, military conscription, the abolition of civil liberties, heavy debt, an explosive growth of government spending and borrowing, extensive excise taxation, nationalization of industries, socialist central planning, massive public indoctrination campaigns, the punishment and imprisonment of dissenters to the state’s rule, the shooting of deserters from its armies, the conquest of other countries, inflation of the currency, demonization of private enterprise and the civil society for being insufficiently “patriotic,” the growth of a military/industrial complex, a vast expansion of governmental pork barrel spending, the demonization of the ideas of freedom and individualism and those who espouse them, and a never-ending celebration, if not deification, of statism and militarism.
The average citizen has no interest in any of this. The average citizen of a militaristic empire is nothing more than a taxpayer/supplier of cannon fodder in the eyes of the state. Therein lies the state’s biggest conundrum: How to go about getting the masses to go along with their own self enslavement as taxpayers and cannon fodder and cheerleaders for war. The answer to this conundrum has always been the crafting of a series of lies about the “imperative” to wage war. For as Bourne also wrote: “[A]ll foreign policy, the diplomatic negotiations which produce or forestall war are . . . the private property of the Executive part of the Government, and are equally exposed to no check whatever from popular bodies, or the people voting as a mass themselves.”
Most people are “rationally ignorant” of almost all of what government does, and they are the most ignorant about foreign policy. This allows politicians to lie nations into war with impunity, for they have always understood that “the moment war is declared . . . the mass of the people through some spiritual alchemy, become convinced that they
have willed and executed the deed [of starting a war] themselves (emphasis added).” At that point “the citizen throws off his contempt and indifference to Government, identifies himself with its purposes, revives all his military memories and symbols, and the state once more walks in august presence, through the imaginations of men.” Most destructively, “the patriot loses all sense of the distinction between state, nation, and government.”LYING AMERICANS INTO WAR
As this is being written the U.S. government is spreading the tall tale that the Syrian government allegedly killed some 100 of its own citizens with poison gas. President Obama announced last year, quite conveniently, that that is what would cause him to “cross the line” and wage war on the Syrian government despite the fact that the Syrian government poses no threat of harm to any American. It is a replay of the last lie to start a war – the Bush administration’s lie that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction” that somehow threatened Americans. That was quickly proven to be a lie, but it was too late. As Randolph Bourne wrote, once a war is started most Americans become slavishly obedient to the warfare state and tend to believe all of is lies, no matter how spectacular they may be. (The first Persian Gulf War of the early 1990s was partly “justified” by the lie that Iraqi soldiers were pulling the plugs in hospital nurseries where prematurely-born Kuwaiti babies were dying).The War of 1812
Barely twenty years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified the “virus of imperialism” infected quite a few American politicians who believed it was their “manifest destiny” to invade and conquer Canada. One of the congressional leaders of the early nineteenth-century war party, Henry Clay, celebrated the declaration of war on June 4, 1812, by declaring that “Every patriot bosom must throb with anxious solicitude for the result. Every patriot arm will assist in making that result conducive to the glory of our beloved country” (David and Jeane Heidler, Henry Clay: The Essential American
, p. 98).
Among the “official reasons” for the invasion of Canada in 1812 were the alleged “impressment” of American sailors by the British government, but that had been going on for decades, as Justin Raimondo has pointed out. The tall tale was also broadcast that the “evil” British were encouraging Indians to attack American settlers. The real reason for the war, however, was an impulse to grow the state with an imperialistic war of conquest. The result of the war was a disaster – the British burned down the White House, the Library of Congress, and much of Washington, D.C. Americans were saddled with a huge war debt that was used as an excuse to resurrect the corrupt and economically destabilizing Bank of the United States, a precursor of the Fed.The Mexican-American War
When James K. Polk became president in 1845 he announced to his cabinet that one of his chief objectives was to acquire California, which was then a part of Mexico. As he wrote in his diary (online as “The Diary of James K. Polk”), “I stated to the cabinet that up to this time as they knew, we had heard of no open act of aggression by the Mexican army, but that the danger was imminent that such acts would be committed. I said that in my opinion we had ample cause of war.”
Thus, long before the presidency of George W. Bush, James K, Polk advocated the neocon notion of “pre-emptive war.” Polk recognized that the Mexican army had not committed any “act of aggression,” so set out to provoke one by sending American troops to the border of Mexico in territory that historians agree was “disputed territory” at the time because of a very dubious claim by the U.S. government. None other than Ulysses S. Grant wrote in his memoirs that, as a young soldier serving under the command of General Zachary Taylor during the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, he understood that he had been sent there to provoke a fight:
“The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. I was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive [President Polk] could announce, ‘Whereas war exist by the acts of, etc.’ and prosecute the contest with vigor.”
Polk’s gambit worked; he did
provoke the Mexican army. In his war message to Congress he then declared that “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. . . . As war exists . . . by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon by every consideration of duty and patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country.” This con game of provoking a war by showing up on another nation’s border, heavily armed with weapons aimed at the hoped-for belligerent, would be repeated many times in subsequent generations, right up to today’s provocation of a war in Syria.
The invasion and conquest of Mexico enabled the U.S. government to acquire California and New Mexico at the cost of some 15,000 American lives and at least 25,000 Mexican casualties. It was an aggressive war of conquest and imperialism.The American “Civil War”
In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln threatened “invasion” and “bloodshed” (his exact words) in any state that refused to collect the federal tariff tax on imports, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier. At the time, tariffs accounted for more than 90 percent of all federal tax revenue, so this was a gigantic tax increase. This is how Lincoln threatened war in his first official oration:
“The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”
But of course the states of the lower South, having seceded, did not intend to “collect the duties and imposts” and send the money to Washington, D.C. Lincoln committed treason (as defined by Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution) by levying war upon the free and independent states, which he always considered to be a part of the American union. By his own admission (and his subsequent actions), he invaded his own country over tax collection.
The Republican Party of 1860 was the party of protectionism and high tariffs. The Confederate Constitution had outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether. The result would have been a massive diversion of world trade to the Southern ports which would have forced the U.S. government to reduce its desired 50 percent average tariff rate to competitive levels (10-15 percent), depriving Northern manufacturers of this veiled form of corporate welfare, and depriving the government of the revenue it needed to pursue its “manifest destiny” of a mercantilist empire complete with massive subsidies for railroad corporations (among others).
Lincoln’s dilemma was that he knew he would be condemned worldwide for waging a bloody war over tax collection. Another excuse for war had to be invented, so he invented the notion of the “mystical,” permanent, and non-voluntary union. He did not want to be seen as the aggressor in his war for tariff revenue, so he hatched a plot to trick Southerners into firing the first shot by sending American warships to Charleston Harbor while steadfastly refusing to meet with Confederate peace commissioners or discuss the purchase of federal property by the Confederate government. He understood that the Confederates would not tolerate a foreign fort on their property any more than George Washington would have tolerated a British fort in New York or Boston Harbors.
Quite a few Northern
newspapers recognized the game Lincoln was playing. On April 16, 1861the Buffalo Daily Courier
editorialized that “The affair at Fort Sumter . . has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified” (Howard Cecil Perkis, Northern Editorials on Secession
). The New York Evening Day Book
wrote on April 17, 1861, that the event at Fort Sumter was “a cunningly devised scheme” contrived “to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.” “Look at the facts,” the Providence Daily Post
wrote on April 13, 1861. “For three weeks the [Lincoln] administration newspapers have been assuring us that Ford Sumter would be abandoned,” but “Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor.” The Jersey City American Standard
editorialized that “there is a madness and ruthlessness” in Lincoln’s behavior, concluding that Lincolns sending of ships to Charleston Harbor was “a pretext for letting loose the horrors of war.”
After Fort Sumter, on May 1, 1861, Lincoln wrote to his naval commander, Captain Gustavus Fox, to say that “You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country [i.e., a civil war] would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.” He was thanking Captain Fox for his role in duping the Confederates into firing upon Fort Sumter (where no one was either killed or wounded). He was thanking Captain Fox for his assistance in
starting the war. Lincoln responded with a full-scale invasion of all the Southern states and a four-year war that, according to the latest research, was responsible for as many as 850,000 American deaths with more than double that number maimed for life.The Spanish-American War
Immediately after the “Civil War” the U.S. government waged a twenty-five-year war of genocide against the Plains Indians “to make way for the railroad corporations,” as General Sherman declared (See my Independent Review
article, “Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality”). Then by the late 1880s American imperialists wanted to kick the Spanish out of Cuba where American business interests had invested in sugar and tobacco plantations. An American warship, the U.S.S. Maine, was sent to Havana in January of 1898 to supposedly protect American business interests from an insurrection. On February 15, 1898, a mysterious explosion sunk the ship, killing 270 sailors. The Spanish were blamed for the explosion despite a lack of incriminating evidence. “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war,” newspaperman William Randolph Hearst famously said to the artist Frederic Remington, implying that, armed with the artist’s illustrations, his newspapers would generate war propaganda. The U.S. government waged war with Spain occupied Cuba for the next four years, making the world safe for American sugar and tobacco corporations.World War I
In 1915 a German submarine sunk the RMS Lusitania, a British ship that was supposedly a civilian cruise ship. About one-hundred Americans were on board, which enabled President Woodrow Wilson to copy Lincoln’s war tactic and use the sinking of the ship to argue for war. Before the sinking of the Lusitania Wilson knew that the ship was carrying arms but refused to issue warnings to American passengers that, since Britain and Germany were at war, it could be risky to be a passenger on the Lusitania. He used the sinking of the ship to excite anti-German hysteria and persuade the Congress to have the U.S enter the European war. In 2008 a diving expedition discovered that the Lusitania held more than four million rounds of rifle ammunition, much of which was packed away in boxes labeled “cheese” or “butter” or “oysters.”The Pearl Harbor Deception
Robert Stinnett, author of Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor
, is a World War II veteran who had a career as a journalist with the Oakland Tribune
and BBC for several decades after the war. He researched his book upon discovering, in 1993, that the U.S. Naval Security Group Command had decided to place into public archives at the University of Maryland hundreds of thousands of Japanese military messages obtained by U.S. monitoring/spying stations prior to Pearl Harbor. These records had not been seen by anyone since 1941.
What Stinnett found was that, just as the vast majority of Northerners did not favor war on the eve of Fort Sumter in 1861, the vast majority of Americans eighty years later supported the America First non-interventionist movement led by Charles Lindbergh. Eighty percent of the American public was non-interventionist in 1940-1941. After Germany “made a strategic error” by signing a treaty with Japan,, a U.S. Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of Naval Intelligence apparently saw an opportunity to counter the America First movement by provoking Japan into attacking the United States and getting the public behind war.
Using the government’s own sources, Stinnett found that President Franklin D. Roosevelt adopted an Office of Naval Intelligence plan to provoke Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor with an eight-point plan, the most important of which was keeping most of the U.S. fleet parked as sitting ducks at Pearl Harbor. When the commander of the U.S. fleet, Admiral James Richardson, objected to allowing his sailors to be slaughtered by the Japanese, FDR fired Richardson and replaced him with Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel.
FDR implemented the entire eight-point plan but kept Admiral Kimmel and General Walter Short, commander of U.S. Army troops in Hawaii, in the dark. Over 1,000 Japanese messages per day were intercepted by the U.S. Navy, which knew in advance everything the Japanese were doing in the Pacific on their way to Pearl Harbor. They knew in advance that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Kimmel and Short were even given direct orders by FDR himself, Stinnett found, to “remain in a defensive posture” because “the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act.”
On October 30, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act that, among many other things, acknowledged that Kimmel and Short were denied crucial military intelligence about the Japanese fleet prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Kimmel and Short were fired by FDR after the attack, but were exonerated fifty-nine years later.The Gulf of Tonkin “Incidents”
Shortly before his assassination in November of 1963 President John F. Kennedy had begun recalling U.S. military “advisors” from Vietnam. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, was hell bent on waging total war in Vietnam. Once again the American public had little interest in a civil war thousands of miles away in Asia, but were easily duped into acquiescing in one. Once again the ruse involved mysterious occurrences involving battle ships in the middle of nowhere, where the only accounts of the incidents came from the U.S government.
The U.S. government began “covertly” supplying gunboats to the South Vietnamese army which were used to attack the coast of North Vietnam. This was acknowledged in 1964 by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. In addition,
American warships hovered around North Vietnamese ports. This included the USS Maddox. Placing the ships in harm’s way was Johnson’s FDR-type strategy to provoke an attack by the North Vietnamese, and it succeeded.
Johnson falsely claimed that there was a second attack on the USS Maddox, but that is acknowledged to be a hoax. Naval sonar picked up American propeller noise, and radar showed images caused by bad weather, not North Vietnamese gunboats. Johnson nevertheless made a radio speech describing a second “attack” and called for military retaliation. Soon thereafter he ordered air strikes. In a 2003 television documentary entitled “The Fog of War” Robert McNamara admitted that the second attack on the Maddox “never happened.”
It may seem trite, but it is nevertheless true that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat its mistakes. Americans are about to repeat the same mistake of squandering their blood and treasure on another military adventure (in Syria) that has nothing whatsoever to do with defending American freedom – or anyone else’s.
To study imperialism and anti-imperialism more intensely, consider signing up for my new five-week online course on the subject through the Mises Academy beginning the evening of September 9.