Tag Archive: History


Outside Thinking In

Outside Thinking In

It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution – not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to administer it – the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be “questioned” as to any disposal they make of them.

Thus the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6) provides that, “for any speech or debate (or vote), in either house, they (the senators and representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place.”

The whole law-making power is given to these senators and representatives (when acting by a two-thirds vote); and this provision protects them from all responsibility for the laws they make.

Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the men holding this absolute, irresponsible power, must be men chosen by the people (or portions of them) to hold it. A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible.

The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property, and the right of property is the right of absolute, irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily implies the other. Neither can exist without the other. If, therefore, Congress has that absolute and irresponsible law-making power, which the Constitution – according to their interpretation of it – gives them, it can only be because they own us as property. If they own us as property, they are our masters, and their will is our law. If they do not own us as property, they are not our masters, and their will, as such, is of no authority over us.

But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put in his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? Or a limited and responsible one?

For still another reason they are neither our servants, agents, attorneys, nor representatives. And that reason is that we do not make ourselves responsible for their acts. If a man is my servant, agent, or attorney, I necessarily make myself responsible for all his acts done within the limits of the power I have entrusted to him. If I have entrusted him, as my agent, with either absolute power, or any power at all, over the persons or properties of other men than myself, I thereby necessarily make myself responsible to those other persons for any injuries he may do them, so long as he acts within the limits of the power I have granted him. But no individual who may be injured in his person or property, by acts of Congress, can come to the individual electors, and hold them responsible for these acts of their so-called agents or representatives. This fact proves that these pretended agents of the people, of everybody, are really the agents of nobody.

If, then, nobody is individually responsible for the acts of Congress, the members of Congress are nobody’s agents. And if they are nobody’s agents, they are themselves individually responsible for their own acts, and for the acts of all whom they employ. And the authority they are exercising is simply their own individual authority; and, by the law of nature – the highest of all laws – anybody injured by their acts, anybody who is deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has the same right to hold them individually responsible, that he has to hold any other trespasser individually responsible. He has the same right to resist them, and their agents, that he has to resist any other trespassers.
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago.

Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.
The above writings are from “No Treason The Constitution of No Authority” by Lysander Spooner in 1869.

The more I study and research the constitution the more I realize without it we would be better off today. Without it there would be no substantial all powerful federal government breathing down our necks. Without it the states would still be sovereign nations with the ability to make law among themselves for the good of the residents. Without it there would be no imperial wars of aggression only protection of boarders. Without it there would be no central banking with enslavement to debt fiat currency.
Without it …………………….

Advertisements

For Whom the Bell Tolled

Assassinations:

president

When you look at a list of the people that committed assassinations you have to wonder where the notion came from, where they set up as patsy’s. More or less put up to their despicable deeds done dirt cheap, by an inside/outside source.  Not committed on their own accord. Will we ever know, No, their dead. At the same time we have to ask our self’s what about the witnesses of certain modern day events. Have they been suicided or disappeared due to the official story? Again, we will never know, dead men don’t speak.

A very solid segment of the below listed culprits have been proven to of had an in/outside influence. Such as governmental cabinet members and cia /fbi agents or unknown agencies involved with the banking cartels and members of the secret second government (black ops).  Some even said to be part of the MK-Ultra (mind control 1960/80’s) project to carry out a specific mission. How do we know? We don’t.

What follows is what I think is an interesting list of assassination or attempted assassination history. This is a primer to do your own investigation into the unknown history we didn’t learn in the controlled public dumb us down schools.

20th Century:

Giuseppe Zangara (F. Roosevelt, 1933) was born Sept. 7, 1900, in Italy, immigrated at age 23. Even by assassins’ standards he was short, just 5” Don’t forget the “New Deal” was a really a “RAW DEAL”.  It changed our free country as  much as the tyrant Lincoln did. Did Zangara know this and was used for the event.

Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola (Truman, 1950), born 1915 and 1927 respectively, were both Puerto Rican. Collazo was the youngest of 14. Both came to the U.S. , Collazo after his father’s death, to work; Torresola, at 18, to work for the Nationalists. Both were short by U.S. standards, but typical of smaller statured Puerto Ricans, Collazo 5’6” and Torresola 5’5”. Both had daughters from 1st marriages. Both knew extreme poverty. Did they lose family during the war?

Lee Harvey Oswald (J.F. Kennedy, 1963) was born Oct. 18, 1939, in New Orleans, of medium height, slight build. The 3rd child of 3, born to two fathers. His father died before he was born. His mother, who married, separated, reconciled, then divorced while Lee was young, found the children too much for her, sent them to orphanages, boarding schools, and finally the military. Oswald, was killed by Jack Ruby (Rubenstein) a Zionist mafia night club owner  before standing trial. The Warren Commission was called to investigate Kennedy’s death and found that Oswald had acted alone to kill Kennedy, we now know different. JFK made a lot of enemies by trying to do better for the union of states, particularly with the central banking system and Israel nuclear weapons program, which they have at least 400 now and have not signed any treaties.

James Earl Ray ( M.L.King, Jr., 1968), born Mar. 10, 1928, on the Illinois/Missouri border, of the American “poor white” parents; his father was an escaped prisoner; thus, they moved around a lot. Ray was very small; once squeezed through blades of fan to rob a bar. He had a few casual relationships, but the only close friends were his brothers; a loner, the 1st of 9 children. It has now come to light the cia was heavily involved. King was murdered because the trouble he was causing with the vote manipulation. Believe it or no,t the US did not want black votes counting in an election.

Sirhan Sirhan (R. Kennedy, 1968), was born Mar. 19, 1944, in Jerusalem to Palestinian Christians. His father was a successful civil servant, until Jerusalem was taken by Israel. The family had to flee, becoming refugees for 9 years before coming to U.S., when Sirhan was 14 the 5th of 7 children. Their father abandoned them and returned to Palestine. Again, we find inside maneuvering by governmental agencies. Bobby had plans to continue in his brothers footsteps.

Sara Jane Moore (Ford, 1975), born Feb. 13, 1930, Charleston, WV, American (half-Jewish) family, 2nd of 5 children. She was a short,slim, attractive young woman, dumpy as she grew older. She married 5 times, had 3 children (left with her parents),

John Hinckley (Reagan, 1981), born May 29, 1955, in Ardmore, OK, 3rd of 3 children; “short,” from 160 lbs to overweight; no real friendships or relationships apart from his obsession with actress Jody Foster. Reagan was shot because he wanted to know where the gold of Fort Knox was and what the hell was going on in area 51. He never mentioned either again, he was in his place.

Frank Corder (Clinton, 1994), born May 26, 1956, 2nd of 2 children. Recently divorced. Father died of cancer year before attempt. The Clintons have left a lot of bodies behind in their aftermath to the top. I’m surprised they have lived this long, with all those enemies.

Arthur Bremer (Wallace, 1972), born Aug. 21, 1950, in Milwaukee, short, pudgy, and a social outcast, no social skills and no successful relationships. He was 4th of 5 children of an alcoholic father and a mother, a “foundling,” ever emotionally distant. TPTB wanted him gone because he knew what was happening in the WH.

Leon Czolgosz  (William McKinley)  was shot two times by anarchist Czolgosz while the president was visiting the Pan-American Exhibit in Buffalo, New York on September 6, 1901. He died on September 14, 1901. Czolgosz stated that he shot McKinley because he was an enemy of working people. He was convicted of the murder and electrocuted on October 29, 1901.

19th century

Charles Guiteau, (James Garfield) In the spring of 1881, Guiteau, who had been a Republican Party supporter, became embittered after being refused a government job. He decided to assassinate President Garfield, and began tracking his movements. On July 2, 1881, Garfield was at a railroad station in Washington, D.C., planning to board a train to travel to a speaking engagement. Guiteau, armed with a large caliber revolver, came up behind Garfield and shot him twice, once in the arm and once in the back. I guess he couldn’t hold onto that large cal. Revolver.

John Wilkes Booth (Abraham Lincoln) On April 14, 1865, Lincoln was assassinated while attending a play at Ford’s Theater in Washington, D.C. Actor John Wilkes Booth shot him in the back of the head before jumping onto the stage and escaping to Maryland. Lincoln died on April 15th. April 26th, Booth was found hiding in a barn which was set on fire. He was then shot and killed. Eight conspirators were punished for their roles. Read “Lincoln , Unmasked” and you will know why.

Richard Lawrence, (Andrew Jackson) On January 30, 1835, Jackson was attending a funeral for Congressman Warren Davis. Lawrence, attempted to shoot him with two different derringers, each of which misfired. He was tried for the attempted assassination but was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He spent the rest of his life in an insane asylum. This sounds just like what happens today when the fbi foils a bombing plot, they set it up to look like the good guys.

History is a great subject as soon as you learn how to read between the lines.

On this date in 1865 the war ended and a new war began.

There was even more to “The War Between The states” then meets the eye. The states united changed drastically during and shortly there after. Prior to this war of aggression each state was it’s own country as determined by thats states constitutions. What we as Americans live in now as a country is not what you think it is. The people have been dumbed down to preserve our situation as what it is not. We are slaves to the bankers and will remain as such un til we decide and learn that the so-called money we use is nothing more than pieces of worthless paper. All wars are banker wars. The central bankers don’t fight in these wars, they finance both sides and let their slaves die for the riches they acquire. Those riches are then used to develop more power and control of vast amounts of people and their labor. Creating more wealth and power. We have to ask ourselves, what does the average person accomplish in their life time? We work most of our better years of life, raise families that will do the same giving much of their small wealth to the bankers and governments. It seems with every passing generation we lose more and more of self and well-being, to become controlled carbon forms of life and labor. It’s a sad time we live in.

The Victors Write the War History but Should Their Lies be Immortal?

Posted at: http://www.veteranstoday.com/

[Editors Note: I was 46 before I learned that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave anywhere. We are re-running Steve’s article for Confederate Heritage Month – April, 2013, because it is a classic ….Jim W. Dean]

                 … by  Steve Scroggins

The most persistent and pernicious Big Lie regarding the so-called “Civil War”— more properly called the “War to Prevent Southern Independence”— is this:

Noble and saintly Yankees fought the war to abolish slavery; evil Confederates fought to preserve it.

The historical record incontrovertibly refutes this Big Lie and yet it lives on, repeated incessantly by many who know better, and by many, many more who accept without challenge what they were taught in government schools.

The proverbial phrase “the victors write the history” was well-known well before the war.

In fact, General Patrick R. Cleburne, arguing for freeing slaves in exchange for military service, warned what would happen should the South’s bid for independence fail:

“… Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late. … It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for their derision. …to establish sectional superiority and a more centralised form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” –Major General Patrick Cleburne, C.S.A. (Jan. 2, 1864)

Cleburne’s warning was indeed prophetic. The Big Lie is the official myth taught in virtually every public school in the country. Jim Dean noted this above, and he even went to a fancy prep school for two years in Massachusetts.

It is the myth believed and repeated incessantly by most Americans who never looked any deeper than the textbook they were issued in junior high history class. And when FDR’s New Dealers migrated from government service to academia in Southern universities, they made sure the Big Lie was taught down here in the South.

The facts and the historical record, which we will review below, are widely and easily available, but unfortunately most Americans don’t see it as their duty to understand American history in more depth than was offered in the superficial, comic-book summary they heard in government schools.

“It is a testament to the effectiveness of 140 years of government propaganda that a 308 page book filled with true facts about Lincoln could be entitled “The Lincoln No One Knows.” It is not a matter of a poorly-performing government education system but quite the opposite:

The government schools have performed superbly in indoctrinating generations of American school children with a pack of lies, myths, omissions, and falsehoods about Lincoln and his war of conquest.

As Richard Bensel wrote in Yankee Leviathan, any study of the American state should begin in 1865. The power of any state ultimately rests upon a series of government-sponsored myths, and there is none more prominent than the Lincoln Myth.” –Thomas DiLorenzo, from The Unknown Lincoln

The Sons of Confederate Veterans has as its mission statement what is commonly called “The Charge,” issued by General Stephen Dill Lee, who was then the Commander General of the United Confederate Veterans.

The Charge is a reflection of Cleburne’s warning above, and a stated desire to keep alive the memory of the Confederate soldier’s true history and motivation and the founding principles he fought to defend.

” To you Sons of Confederate Veterans, we submit the vindication of the cause for which we fought; to your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldiers’ good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles he loved and which made him glorious and which you also cherish.

Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the south is presented to future generations.” —Lt. General Stephen Dill Lee, Commander General, United Confederate Veterans, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1906

______________________________________

First, let’s establish HOW the war was started, then we’ll proceed to WHY.

South Carolina seceded December 20th, 1860. Major Robert Anderson, commanding U.S. forces in Charleston, moved the garrison in Fort Moultrie (Sullivan’s Island across the harbor East of Charleston proper) –which he deemed indefensible– to Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. He made this move in stealth in the middle of the night on December 26th.

South Carolina officials were understandably infuriated, but Anderson refused to evacuate Sumter. President Buchanan was a lame duck; he didn’t want a war started on his watch, but refused to issue orders either way.

South Carolina officials made clear that the U.S. Army staying in Sumter was NOT an option and that resupply or reinforcements would be viewed as a hostile act.

On January 9th, an unarmed steamer, the Star of the West, approached Charleston harbor intent on reinforcing Sumter with more troops and ammunition (see diagram below). Charleston batteries fired warning shots near the ship and the Star of the West turned and fled.

By February, South Carolina had joined six other states in the Confederate States of America. Confederate officials pressed for the evacuation of Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens (Pensacola, FL). Buchanan stonewalled and the crisis escalated. Lincoln would inherit the crisis March 4th.

“[T]he Union … will constitutionally defend and maintain itself… In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority.

The power confided to 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.” –Abraham Lincoln, from inaugural address, March 4, 1861.

Lincoln essentially declared war in his inaugural address March 4th in which he promised not to invade or attack any one EXCEPT…EXCEPT to hold the forts and property of the U.S. government for the purpose of collecting tariffs. In essence, he was denying the right of secession and promising to invade the southern states and force them back into the Union.

Lincoln refused to meet with Confederate emissaries sent to negotiate full payment for U.S. properties now within the jurisdiction of the C.S.A. Secretary of State Seward gave mixed signals, suggesting that evacuation of the forts was likely — in fact, all senior U.S. military officers recommended immediate evacuation to Lincoln.

Instead, Lincoln ordered a flotilla of war ships with additional troops and supplies to Charleston, then advised Confederate officials that it was coming to “resupply” Sumter, “by force if necessary.”

Rather than wait for war ships and the greater likelihood of loss of life on both sides, the Confederates decided to force a surrender before they arrived. Anderson was given a final chance to evacuate Sumter, given a deadline and told when the bombardment would commence. He replied that he would not evacuate.

The bombardment commenced on April 12th and Anderson surrendered on April 14th due to fears the magazine (with powder and ordnance) would ignite. No one was killed during the bombardment and Anderson’s garrison was allowed to peacefully leave the fort .

Though he made force necessary, Lincoln had succeeded in provoking the Confederates to fire the first shots and it had the desired effect: it incited a war fever in the North. On April 15th, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the southern states to force their return to the Union, or as he phrased it, to quell “a rebellion.”

As a result of Lincoln’s call for a coercive force, four more states seceded in protest to join forces with the C.S.A. Virginia seceded April 17th and North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee followed in short order.

The stealthy taking of Fort Sumter was an act of war. The stated intention to insert more men and ammunition BY FORCE was another act of war. The bombardment of Fort Sumter to force its surrender was an act of war, but it was NOT the first act of war in the conflict.

________________________________________

Now, let’s review the WHY of the war.

There would have been no war if Lincoln had not ordered invasions and naval blockades of southern states. The southern states made known they wanted a peaceful separation. The answer to WHY the southern states fought the war is painfully obvious: Self Defense. Duh! Because their country was being invaded!

In the same Inaugural Address (March 4th, 1861) in which Lincoln promised to use force to collect the tariffs (protect U.S. tax revenues), Lincoln reiterated his previous statements that he had no intent, no lawful right and no inclination to interfere with slavery where it existed.

He went on to say that he supported the proposed Constitutional Amendment (the Corwin Amendment) that would constitutionally enshrine slavery beyond the reach of the U.S. Congress.

The proposed amendment reads as follows:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
As noted earlier, Lincoln called for troops to launch an invasion April 15th. He ordered a naval blockade, and made various preparations for war beginning April 15th without a Congressional declaration of war. When Congress finally convened in July, it basically rubber-stamped his actions thus far.

But Congress also approved the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution on July 25th, specifically stating the purpose of the war was to reunite the southern states into the U.S.A. It was clearly stated the war’s purpose was to “preserve the Union” and NOT to overthrow or interfere with “the rights or established institutions of the states” (slavery). This unequivocal statement from Congress and Lincoln’s unequivocal support for the Corwin Amendment directly contradict the official Big Lie. But there’s more. As you’ll see below, Lincoln’s stated purpose remains the same 16 months into the war.

At this point (July 1861), it seems clear that if the Confederate States’ purpose was merely to “preserve slavery,” then its best option would have been to end hostilities and rejoin the Union. It was independence the South was committed to maintain and it was Southern Independence that the North intended to prevent by force if persuasion failed.
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” –Abraham Lincoln, from letter to Horace Greeley, Aug. 22, 1862
___________________________________

Horace Greeley

Over 16 months after the war began (Aug. 22, 1862), Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley of The New York Tribune, an open letter in response to a Greeley editorial, in which Lincoln essentially said that slavery was not relevant to the war.
He stated that his “paramount object” was to “preserve the union,” and that slavery had no bearing on the war effort.

This was just days before the Emancipation Proclamation extended the offer, once again, to preserve slavery if the southern states would simply lay down their arms and return to the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free any slaves in any territory controlled by the U.S. government. It was generally seen as a farce by both Americans and the British press.
“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.” —Secretary of State William Seward

“The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.” –London Spectator, 1862

Right up to very near the end of the war, the South could have saved slavery simply by returning to the Union. Independence was the southern goal.

General John B. Gordon, in his book Reminiscences of the Civil War (p. 19) summarized it this way:

General John B. Gordon

“But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its defense on the other, was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work.

I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned to the witness-stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country.

….No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.” —General John B. Gordon, from Reminiscences of the Civil War, page 19

The North’s primary purpose was to prevent southern independence. It’s the North that betrayed the Founding principle of “consent of the governed” from that celebrated secession document, the Declaration of Independence.
How can any American deny the right of secession and at the same time celebrate Independence Day and the principle it embodies? As Greeley put it in his editorial in the New York Tribune December 17th, 1860:

If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession of 3,000,000 colonists in 1776, I do not see why the Constitution ratified by the same men should not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of the Southerners from the Federal Union in 1861…

We have repeatedly said, and we once more insist that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that government derives its power from the consent of the governed is sound and just, then if the Cotton States, the Gulf States or any other States choose to form an independent nation they have a clear right to do it…

And when a section of our Union resolves to go out, we shall resist any coercive acts to keep it in. We hope never to live in a Republic where one section is pinned to the other section by bayonets.” —Horace Greeley, NewYork Tribune, Dec. 17, 1860.

In December of 1860 and January of 1861, many newspapers across the North and Midwest echoed Greeley’s sentiments to “let the South go in peace.” But the bankers, railroads and shippers soon informed the press of the financial implications of southern independence.

The editorial tune changed dramatically in February and March of 1861 to “No, we must NOT let the South go,” and “what about our shipping?” and “what about our revenue?” As the New York Times noted on March 30th, “We were divided and confused until our pockets were touched.” [ See Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965 — See Sample editorials here. ]

All the powder keg needed was a spark to ignite a war. Lincoln sent the war ship flotilla to Charleston and it was on. Lincoln had his excuse.

There you have it. The North prevented southern independence because it threatened their financial interests. The South wanted independence for its own best interests, in the tradition of the American Founders. It sought peaceful separation, but fought in self-defense when invaded and blockaded.

The current best estimate for death toll of the war is 750,000 American soldiers and at least 50,000 southern civilians. Adjusted to current population, that’s the equivalent today of 8 million Americans dying in four years.

The Official Big Lie was created and maintained to obscure the overthrow of the Founding Principles, and the true motivations that resulted in tragic and unnecessary death on an epic scale.

Editing:  Jim W. Dean

The United Confederate Veterans – Reunion Time

Some reply fromthe author:

Steve Scroggins

Obviously, the war could have been worse.  Had the powers followed the Sherman plan, every last southern man, woman and child would have been wiped out.  Sherman famously said that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.”  He wrote more or less the same thing about the southern people and it’s documented in The Offical Record of the Rebellion published by the U.S. Government.  Of course, the survivors would have scattered to the hills and a decades long guerilla war would have ensued.

Lincoln’s stated objective was to “preserve the Union” but his true objective (achieved!) was to effect a “total transformation” to borrow an Obama phrase.  He converted a decentralized republic of republics into a centralized empire ruled from D.C. that controlled the money and banks, that set about building the transcontinental railroad with taxpayer subsidy and established a police state mentality.  Trampling the Constituion at will, Lincoln shut down or destroyed newspapers at the drop of a hat.  He had thousands of northern citizens imprisoned without trial, at the nod of a head or snap of the fingers from the king’s men.  He had thousands of southern civilians bombarded, looted, burned out and left to starve.  He revelled in stories of their suffering; Sherman and Grant both noted that he always asked to hear such stories.

Lincoln was a tyrant in every way and yet modern Americans consistently rank him among the “greatest” presidents.  THAT is an indication of the staying power of the Lincoln Myth.  Adolf Hitler also warmly approved of Lincoln’s conduct and centralizing policies… Lincoln inspired Hitler and Marx.  The evidence is in Mein Kampf.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo20.html

Socialism and centralization were the rage in Europe during our war and many refugees from the failed German revolution ended up in the U.S. Army.  The grandson of Francis Scott Key (author of the Star Spangled Banner), Francis Key Howard, was a Baltimore newspaper editor held as a political prisoner in Fort McHenry… and wrote of a Union officer with a thick German accent lecturing him on what it means to be a “good American.”  Howard was arrested for criticizing Lincoln in an editorial (Baltimore Exchange) — specifically he was criticizing Lincoln’s suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (See Ex Parte Merryman).   Most of the Maryland legislature were also arrested to prevent their voting on secession.

What Americans hear in government schools, of course, is of Lincoln the “Great Emancipator” and Lincoln the “humanitarian.”

Steve Scroggins

In 1871, most southern states were still under military occupation, that happy time known as “Reconstruction.”  The years immediately after the war was the time when the southern states did not have “state” status… at least not until they ratified the “Reconstruction Amendments” at the point of a bayonet.  So how exactly can a state that is not really a state ratify anything?  The 14th Amendment was declared ratified when in fact it never met the requirements (3/4 of the states).  The 14th Amendment is often cited as the authority for all manner of trampling on state’s rights.

Incidentally, 1871 was the year when Nathan Bedford Forrest testified before Congress that he was not a member or founder, nor was he ever a leader of the Ku Klux Klan.  These members of Congress (Sherman, et al) were not friends of Forrest, but they were satisfied with the testimony.  That myth about Forrest lives on.

It was 1913 when the 16th Amendment to introduce an income tax was allegedly ratified.  Then the U.S. government designated the Federal Reserve Bank as the controller of U.S. currency and money supply.  Southerners had fought the establishment of central banks for decades after the founding, but after 1913, a cartel of international bankers were inside the henhouse.

I have not watched this yet but, might be interesting with the zionist Larry King being a moderator.

 

What They Fought For This is an idea thats been rattling around my head for some time. So, it’s ongoing research.

Founding Fathers – Fact or Fiction

Is it possible that the Founding Fathers were not what they seemed to be, should we take a more objectionable look at this era in time? School indoctrinate history books reference a lot of hero’s from the beginning of this once great land and the Revolutionary time which are still promoted today. But, was the Revolution about freeing the new world people from British oppression or was it all about installing a new structure of control.

Previous decades leading to the Revolution were discord with rebellions, not against the British but, against a powerful American aristocracy. These men of wealth journeyed to the new world to stake their claim to land and power. The new rich land owners used the labor of the local poor whites, blacks and native people to create more wealth for themselves and their families. When the people working the land realized they where being used for the benefit of the land barons there was a powerful motive to not do the work of the rich controllers any longer. The wealthy produced nothing and only consumed the material resource of the new world, off the laboring backs of the working class poor and downtrodden.

When the elite aristocracy found that their servitude where waking up to the fact they where being played and used to the benefit of their wealth they had to do something. The downtrodden began joining forces, talking among themselves and planning the demise of the elitist wealth. The elitist could not have the poor whites, blacks and Indians joining forces. This action would deter their plans of conquest as it had been done in Europe. I have to ask, is history repeating itself today? Have these very same elite become aware of an awakening of the common’s.

Remedy to the situation was a concerning one for the new American aristocracy, they had to come up with a program to defuse any uprising against their order. The idea that those people would rebel was a chilling one to the elite land owners. There where so many more of them then there was wealthy land owners. Back then there was no problem in stringing them up from a tree. The elitist plan came together when they decided they had to direct the wrath of the working people away from their self serving empire. Given that the new American landowners didn’t have much appreciative feelings for the British Crown directing their every move and requiring the payment of taxes to the British the ultimate plan developed. Place the blame on the British Crown, tell the people it wasn’t them making their lives miserable. This conniving plan united the poor and middle class against a common enemy with the illusion of a common purpose. In reality the purpose was to expand the wealth of the elite new world land barons.

In reality the “founding founders” when they wrote the Constitution actually ended a great deal of state rights and dramatically increased the prominence of and creating a Federal Government. What the Constitution actually became was to form the beginnings of a large and powerful Federal controlled Government, that had the ability to tax the people, control their liberties and freedoms among other things. We now see what all this planning and manipulation brought forth. This strong federal government contained the appropriate checks and balances to effectively govern their people. This elitist control has been going on for decades under the noses of the working class, to the benefit and growth of corporate conception. It appears that this plan is still in place by giving the masses an enemy other than where the fault belongs.

  • Still researching this history, which is well hidden from the indoctrinate masses. More to come.

Think about this: What do our elected officials really want? There’s 300,000,000 of us and 545 of them and look who’s in charge.

  • You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.
  • You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
  • You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does (with the help and support of central banks).
  • You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
  • You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.