DID SECESSION HASTEN THE END OF SLAVERY?

*Author’s note: There is a question which deserves much more attention than it receives: Considering Lincoln was willing to make slavery perpetual and to remove it from even congressional action with the Corwin amendment in order to “preserve the Union,” had the Southern states repealed their secession, when would slavery have ended? Not rejoining a Union in which slavery would be perpetual is proof positive the war was not about slavery, nor did the South secede to protect slavery. I believe a substantial case can be made that had the Southern states not seceded and had in fact rejoined Lincoln’s precious Union, slavery would have existed much longer in this country than it did.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

When Abraham Lincoln took office in March of 1861, this country had observed as legal the institution of chattel slavery for its entire existence. President Lincoln, having secured not one electoral vote from the Southern States declared in his First Inaugural Address that it was his full intention to use the power of the presidency to perpetuate and protect that onerous institution “in the states where it exists.”

Certainly not taught in our government schools is the fact that two days before Lincoln took the Oath of Office of President, a proposed amendment to the Constitution referred to as the Corwin Amendment passed both houses of Congress and was being sent to the states for ratification. Lincoln spoke of his support for this amendment in his Inaugural address on March 4.

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

History shows that Lincoln was not being truthful when he stated he had not seen the proposed amendment which had passed both houses of congress. Author Doris Kearns-Goodwin in her “political biography” of Abraham Lincoln titled Team of Rivals states the following on page 296.

“He [Lincoln] instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield. The first resolved that ‘the Constitution should never be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states.’ Another recommendation that he instructed Seward to get through Congress was that ‘all state personal liberty laws in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law be repealed.”

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked declared that Lincoln not only was aware of the proposed amendment but, was in fact, its author. Below is the text of that amendment which was authored/endorsed by Lincoln, passed by both houses of congress and sent personally to the governor of each state by Lincoln himself, proof of which was discovered in 2006 in a museum in Allentown, PA.  This critical piece of history is available in the records of the U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America, Doc. No. 106-214.

“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.”

Prior to Lincoln’s military invasion of the South, Lincoln had done everything within his power to make chattel slavery perpetual throughout the entire country. He had also instructed his Secretary of State William H. Seward to work on federal legislation that would outlaw any attempts to nullify the Fugitive Slave law. Several states in the North had passed laws to prohibit the federally mandated return of fugitive slaves. Lincoln wanted a federal law that would counter such legislation by the states.

Lincoln was more than willing to make the enslavement of the black race perpetual–if it would preserve the Union.

Looked upon by an intelligent eye rather than an emotional one, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which he issued twice, must be seen as simply another political maneuver to preserve/restore the union.

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. …What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.” ~Lincoln in an open letter to Horace Greeley, which appeared in the New York Tribune on August 22, 1862.

Here, again, in his own words, Lincoln states that Slavery was not his primary interest. Lincoln’s primary goal was the preservation of the Union which would protect the interests of the Socialists in his cabinet and armed forces who were the founders of the Republican Party.

The now grossly misunderstood and misrepresented Emancipation Proclamation was political BS plain and simple. The edict freed only the slaves in the states in which Lincoln had no control. It did not free any of the slaves that were currently under the control of the Union Army in occupied territory in any of the Southern states. The questions must be asked: if the Union forces had not achieved what Lincoln considered to be a victory at Antietam, would he have issued the proclamation? If the Army of Virginia had won a demonstrative victory at Antietam, when would Lincoln have issued such a proclamation, if ever?

In Lincoln’s own words to Greeley, he stated he would willingly continue slavery if it would lead to the preservation of the Union. Prior to the beginning of the war, Lincoln wrote and endorsed a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would have prohibited Congress from ever abolishing or interfering with the institution of slavery. In addition, he ordered the effort be made to create a federal law that would nullify any state law that prohibited the return of fugitive slaves. The fact this same man is now referred to as the “Great Emancipator” is a great illustration of the gullibility and ignorance of the masses in our country. Adolph Hitler had the misfortune of coming to power in the wrong country.

Still, the most important question that could be asked is this; If the Southern states had not seceded; if the Union had been preserved without a war; at what point in the history of this country would a new constitutional amendment have been proposed and passed that would have freed the slaves?

Simply stated, if the South had not seceded and defended themselves from the invasion of Union forces, slavery would have been extended in our country indefinitely; the Corwin Amendment guaranteed that. It was the threat of a break-up of the Union and not any act by Abraham Lincoln and his socialist cronies that led to emancipation.

The credit for emancipation should be given to those who challenged and fought against Lincoln, not to the president who “destroyed the Constitution in order to preserve it.” Lincoln’s actions and a war that killed almost a million Americans; a war to ensure a country indivisible, were praised by Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler–need I say more?

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo:

“Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government…” This is certainly a strong statement, but in fact Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln’s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln’s unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.”

Lincoln and the radical republicans who put him into office held our Constitution in contempt. They knew the Southern states were seceding because of the government’s unconstitutional actions. The South was willing to leave the Union in order to protect their rights under the Constitution.

OK, Rebel, where is your proof Lincoln and the republicans held our Constitution in contempt and as an impediment to their goals and agenda? As the saying goes, “read em and weep.”

Members of Lincoln’s cabinet referred to the Constitution as “the tail of a paper kite” and “the rotten tail of a Virginia abstraction.” The above are credited to Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, as is this quote from Stanton, “A written constitution is dangerous to those of the North, for the South is using it as a shield.”

Wendell Phillips, a Boston lawyer and abolitionist said this of the North and the US Constitution, “We confess that we intend to trample underfoot the Constitution of this country.”  Phillips also quoted Daniel Webster as saying the “people of New England are a law-abiding people.” To this Phillips stated, “But I say we are not a law-abiding community. God be thanked for it.”

Thaddeus Stevens, a radical republican member of the US House of Representatives from Pennsylvania was even more emphatic. “The talk of restoring the Union like it was, and the Constitution as it is, is one of the absurdities which I have heard repeated until I have become sick of it. There are many things which make such an event impossible. This Union never shall, with my consent, be restored under the constitution as it is …” “The Union as it was and the Constitution as it is–God forbid it. We must conquer the Southern states and hold them as conquered provinces.”

So, the war was not about slavery, it was about collecting a protectionist tariff and the destruction of the country “under the Constitution.” Those who continue to parrot the opposite are physical slaves to a godless, constitution–less, government and its willing shills and sycophants. More alarming, they are also mental slaves.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

 

POSITIVISM AND INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE: AMERICA’S KRYPTONITE

 

“As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose–that it may violate property instead of protecting it–then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.”  ~Frederic Bastiat

Positivism is the legal philosophy that laws need not pass any type of muster such as adherence to a constitution, justice, fairness or the laws of humanity, sometimes better known as Natural rights, to be binding and enforceable on the citizens of the affected country. The belief that law is whatever the legislature proposes, the executive signs and the judicial approves, or in other words, law is whatever the government says it is, has been the precursor to the most tyrannical and heinous regimes in history. Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Mao’s China and Kampuchea under Pol Pot are prime examples. It is not mere coincidence that positivist regimes eventually involve mass execution of the innocents at the hands of those in charge of the government.

Bastiat wrote the quote that began this article something over 160 years ago; so how was he able to see with such clarity the type of oppressive government we have in America today? How did he know that “…everyone will want to participate in making the law…?” How does the government get those who are the most adversely affected by its policies to “participate” in the creation of laws that basically enslave them while destroying their Natural rights?

The history of the past 60 or so years in our country alone illustrates how easy it is for the government to entice everyone to participate in making laws and regulations that are the very basis of the destruction of their individual liberties. All that is required is either an emotional or a financial attachment to the actions of that governing body.

A great example of financial attachment to government is the wonderfully failed Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. This odious piece of progressive, socialistic legislation has had to be revamped (read bailed out) over 20 times since its inception. Yet, if one were to judge from the political ads on TV, even the so-called “conservative” Republicans support overwhelmingly the continuance of an obviously failed concept. Republicans and Democrats are more than willing to financially obligate our posterity to this program because they believe they should be able to recover their investment made over many years, even though they had no choice in the matter. Had these same people lost their money in real estate or the stock market, to whom would they look for satisfaction? Tyrannical government perpetuates itself with the mistaken belief that it “guarantees” a return on monies seized by force and coercion from the masses.

Obviously, an openly despotic government that continues unabated in its destruction of our personal liberty, watches our every move, reads our emails and texts, sends our loved ones to die and be maimed in unprovoked wars, places us and our posterity in smothering debt and dictates how much water goes into our toilets is acceptable as long as we believe it owes us some money; money that will be stolen from our grandchildren, plus operating expenses of course.

While the financial aspect of wanting to be involved with and even support out of control government is understandable, possibly the most virulent form of support comes through the emotional channels. First of all is the polarization of factions within our country. The government is continually promoting hate and distrust among various groups. These can be political, race-based, religious based polarization or perhaps even heritage based differences. There is hardly anyone alive who would not embrace an unconstitutional act or law by our government if it was thought that act or law would be used against those we emotionally oppose.

(In theory) Republicans would gladly support any act or law that would depose our current president while any Democrat would have been equally as happy if the act or law had gotten rid of Bush. Blacks would gladly support legislation that would help them get even with the white oppressor and whites would be equally content to bring down those who believe they are owed a living because their ancestors of 150 years ago were slaves.

Author Andrew Napolitano accurately describes Positivism thusly:

“No matter how ill-advised, unnatural, or immoral; how unlawful, unconstitutional, or hateful; how biased, self-serving, or fraudulent; under Positivism, the majority that lawfully controls the government lawfully gets its way.”

The one emotion the government cherishes and uses more than others is FEAR! They keep the populace on edge with threats of terrorism from groups that our tax dollars have created and financed. We are engaged in a never-ending war on terror, yet how many are even aware that the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom, recently stated the following: “[B]y any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”

Now, of course, we face the threat of deadly viruses known as Ebola or Zika. Every news broadcast cites more and more the need for alarm and government mandated vaccinations. Does it concern anyone that the U.S. Department of Health holds a patent on an Ebola Virus? Here, take a look for yourself. Does it bother anyone that the Rockefeller Foundation owns the patent on the Zika virus? Seeing as how patents routinely cover inventions, what does this say about the US Department of Health, the Ebola virus and the Rockefeller Foundation and the Zika virus?

Now, for Intellectual Cowardice and how that plays into the mix: What is the definition of Intellectual Cowardice and how does that relate to how people rationalize their support of unconstitutional, tyrannical government?  Intellectual cowards are most often champions of Positivism which is simply Progressivism or Neoconservatism with lipstick. Seeing as how their religion is based on the principles of whatever the government says is gospel, their only arguments must be grounded in emotions rather than intellect.

When challenged on those beliefs with ideas, possibilities based on history, verifiable facts or our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Positivist/Progressive must resort to emotional responses since their position is completely devoid of intellect. We have all encountered their patented responses. Ad hominem attacks are their weapon of choice. Anytime facts and evidence cannot be countered with intellect, the Positivist/Progressive seeks to destroy facts with emotionally based name calling. The most common are, conspiracy nut, racist, homophobe, Neoconfederate and the ever popular, anarchist. Once those magical words are uttered, the discussion is over in the mind of the Positivist/Progressive/Neocon.

We can succumb to the siren song of comfortable living espoused by the Positivist/Progressives until such time as our government, like all governments before it, becomes completely despotic. Positivist/Progressives/Neocons live quite comfortably supporting laws that take from others and destroy liberty until such time the government they support realizes the absolute need for concentration camps, firing squads, forced mass inoculations, and large ovens.

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair” ~C.S. Lewis

COMPLAINING OF SYMPTOMS, IGNORING THE CAUSE

 

Arguably, the greatest form of mental illness in this country is cognitive disconnect. People get totally lost when it comes to being able to rationally address cause and effect. Of course, mental acuity, when saturated with liberal doses of emotionalism and group think becomes feeble to non-existent. The symptom I wish to address specifically is one that has been on the political table for decades: immigration. The causes, which are all too often ignored, are directly related to unconstitutional acts by our government. Many times these unconstitutional acts are wildly supported by a constitutionally ignorant population.

First, let us take a look at the out of control illegal immigration into our country from our neighbor to the South, Mexico. Almost all of this illegal activity can be attributed to our unconstitutional drug laws and the vaunted “war on drugs’ that has emaciated our Bill of Rights to a disease ridden skeleton of what was intended by those we call Anti-federalists in our founding history.

If there was ever a litmus test for those who claim to be “constitutionalists,” it would be their stance on drug laws. As stated in previous rants, as a country we believed an amendment to our Constitution was required to prohibit sale, possession, and consumption of alcohol; thus passage of the 18th Amendment. After 13 years of rampant crime and the establishment of very organized criminal elements who were buying cops, judges, and assorted politicians, the 18th was repealed by the 21st. The people of this country recognized the futility of any attempt to legislate morals but witnessed the accompanying loss of individual rights and the rise of the police state with more and more powers specifically designed to increase powers of the government at the cost of personal freedoms. We completely ignored all the lessons learned from this debacle in the prosecution of the “war on drugs.”

I believe it would be safe to say that people who simply illegally walk across our Southern border do so for one of three reasons. First, many are seeking to escape the Narco-state government of Mexico, a government that is predominantly bought and paid for by drug cartels, much as our government was bought and paid for by the organized crime during prohibition and its attendant violence. Violence directly related to the drug cartels in Mexico is pandemic. How could anyone not understand the basic human desire to escape such violence?

Secondly, many of those who illegally enter our country do so to profit from the drug trade. They bring the violence of Mexico to the streets of our country. If you doubt this for a second just tune into the news of any metropolitan area and watch and listen to the crimes perpetrated on good citizens and check the ethnicity of those who are charged with those crimes. I can remember at one time when our family lived in Tucson Arizona, the “10 most wanted” fugitives from justice were all illegal aliens. I would assume it is not much different in most towns and cities today.  Of course, political correctness demands such things as citizenship status not be mentioned in the reporting of these multitudes of crimes against legal citizens and their property.

Third, there are those who simply come to this country to feast and live on another unconstitutional act by our government; to wit, social welfare programs. As was stated by Libertarian writer Hans Herman Hoppe, when one lives in a country that has welfare programs, immigration rapidly becomes an invasion. There is a provision in our Constitution that requires our government protect each and every state from invasion (Article IV, section IV) but it has been ignored in favor of unconstitutional acts such as welfare and the so-called war on drugs.

Now, the internet and social media are alive with the discussion of immigrants fleeing to countries in Europe with our country now announcing plans to accept a few hundred thousand of these folks as well. But, there is very little discussion of why those folks are leaving their home country by the millions. Think about it: how hard would it be for you to just pull up stakes and start walking to another country? How bad would things have to be for you to undertake such an action? Could it be the illegal, unconstitutional, immoral wars you have been supporting for the past 14 plus years in the Middle East might be the root cause of this massive immigration? It is inherent in the human mind to flee from violence and migrate toward freedom. A close examination of why our ancestors migrated to this country might hold some answers. What is that inscription again on the Statue of Liberty by Emma Lazarus?

“Give me your tired, your poor, 
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Are we not even more responsible for those people considering our unconstitutional military intervention and the asinine belief in American exceptionalism which created the “tired, poor, huddled masses, yearning to breathe free?” For those of you who cannot seem to grasp the true meaning of American exceptionalism, it is when the acts of others, countries or politicians, are considered criminal, but if America does the same thing it is both correct and laudable.

The very real result of our support for unconstitutional acts such as welfare programs, drug wars and immoral military actions are the migration of vast numbers of people who do not simply seek to “breathe free” but seek to inflict retribution on the people they see as the ones who caused them to flee their home countries. Has anyone else noticed the large numbers of young military-aged men who are among those fleeing wars in the Middle East? One must ask themselves: are any of those young men relatives or friends of those who have died at the hands of those we support militarily in the Middle East or perhaps our own soldiers? Could there be relatives or friends of those who have perished during drone attacks such as those at a wedding in Pakistan or the hospital in Afghanistan? Does the story of the Trojan Horse or a study of 3rd or 4th Generation Warfare have validity here?

There are pertinent idioms pertaining to this issue: “You reap what you sow,” “Actions have consequences,” and “It is time to pay the fiddler.”

We have supported and defended unconstitutional acts because it gave us some emotional feeling of compassion, righting wrongs, leveling the playing field or that age-old prescription for destruction, “working for the greater good.” Unfortunately, ignoring the basic principles of our country for such an extended period of time has brought the “chickens home to roost.”

We will soon be awash in the results of ignoring our Constitution and Bill of Rights. All of these immigrants will bring on crime and violence of an unparalleled level which will require even more welfare and more police state activities with a subsequent total loss of individual liberty. Imagine if you will, Chicago on a summer holiday weekend played out in every community in this country.

We have traded away our rights as granted by our Creator for a few decades of feel-good emotionalism. The resultant “feelings” from our unconstitutional acts will require a very high price in the not too distant future. There will be much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth and little consolation can be found in the fact we supported it all through blind passion, emotionalism, ignorance, and worship of the American state.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

WORKING WITH THE BAMBOOZLED.

Over the past few decades, I have learned of the dangers of contesting on intellectual grounds those who have a firm emotional opinion on any subject, especially on those of a political nature. I have witnessed the vitriol firsthand, up-close and personal. Similar criticisms have come rushing to the forefront again as I face those who have taken great exception to my lack of support for Donald Trump. One critic even went so far as to say that I was “letting” Hillary win. Never knew I had that kind of influence.

I wrote a series of questions for folks in which I asked “when the election is over” what will you do then? One man wrote that if his vote for Trump did not work out as planned that he would embark on a letter writing campaign to members of Congress. When I asked him to please provide evidence that tactic or strategy has ever worked, he became quite profane and broke off the email exchange. Oh, the vagaries of adolescence. All too many folks find it impossible to move beyond the concrete stage of human development.

I have devoted quite some time to providing an explanation of why I do not support Trump for those who are stuck on an emotional or religious attachment to government and the wild belief that one person can change the political mess which has metastasized into a life-threatening disease, not only in our country but the entire world.

So, I will endeavor to make this analogy, although I am uncertain as to whether logic, even at this level, will be able to penetrate the ecclesiastical mindset harbored by so many toward government.

Imagine if you will that you developed while taking into consideration many failed attempts, a recipe for the perfect soup. You wrote down this recipe and even started your own business specializing in this soup. As you branched out your now successful business, you insisted that all who worked for you followed this recipe for soup to the letter—no additions—no subtractions.

A few years pass and you become aware that some of your business locations are not doing as well as you had hoped. A thorough investigation into why this was happening reveals that the store manager was adding or subtracting ingredients from your recipe and customers were not liking the end product. So, you fire the manager and replace him/her with the admonition the new manager strictly adheres to the mandates of the recipe. You go so far as to have them take an oath that they will do as directed in this regard. But, your competition down the street at several locations is able to buy off several of your managers and have them constantly change the recipe so as to promote their businesses and steal your customers.

Therefore, you do a wholesale change in the management at those locations. You, incorrectly believe the answer to your problem is to replace your management team and bring in more new employees. Unfortunately for you, these new people succumb to the temptation and accept your competitor’s money and fail to follow the original recipe you worked so hard and long to create.

Finally, in disgust, you forget even asking new employees to follow the original recipe and just try to find anyone who will keep the doors open to your businesses. Predictably, your business continues to fail and you are on the precipice of complete and total bankruptcy. But–you continue to believe if you could just find one good manager who would not give in to the temptations of money and power, you could turn this thing around. You have placed more value on the manager than you have the recipe that brought you success in the beginning. You have forgotten your success depended on strict adherence to the dictates of your original recipe and that even good managers when they could be found, were not successful operating on their own. Good managers who did not follow the dictates of the recipe were as unsuccessful as the bad managers who were bought off by your competitors.

Now that I have most people thoroughly confused, let us replace the recipe in the above scenario with our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Let us also replace the “managers” with elected officials and government employees. It makes little to no difference which “managers” you hire or elect, if they do not follow the dictates of the recipe to the letter, your business will fail. We haven’t had an elected or appointed manager who followed the recipe to the letter in over 150 years but somehow we believe if we could just find the right person, even if they didn’t follow the recipe, our business (government) would flourish. This belief has destroyed the Republic that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers.

If we have the tiniest chance of turning this rapidly sinking ship around, our only hope is to return to the original recipe, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, place the entire emphasis on those, along with the principles of our Declaration of Independence, and quit worrying about hiring a good manager. When we do select a person to manage the affairs of state, it is imperative we find one who will follow the dictates of the recipe to the letter, one who is totally familiar with the original recipe and not for a manager who is the lesser of two evils. This plan will offer our only chance of enjoying the fruits of Freedom and Liberty.

Of all of the things that I see posted every day about Donald Trump, there is seldom if ever any mention of him being even remotely aware of the ingredients required to make the desired soup. (Our Constitution) Yet, since he is not the other candidate for manager, we will hire him and HOPE somewhere along the line he stumbles upon the original recipe. Good luck with that!

As I have asked several of my critics, please show me where your business plan has ever been successful? What is it Einstein said about insanity? Was it the fact those who try the same failed business plan over and over, each time expecting a different result are, in fact, insane?

People, until we return to the mandates of our Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, it matters not who sits in the Whitehouse, in Congress or in the Supreme Court. The soup will always be rancid and unpalatable.

As long as the bamboozled reign supreme in this country, we will continue to swirl down the drain of history. A totally failed experiment in Freedom and Liberty, not because the recipe was bad, but because the people themselves didn’t care about the recipe as long as their chosen candidate gets elected to manage the store. In this regard, the “winners” will always be the “losers.”

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

 

 

 

A CONFLICT IN THE MIND

 

“There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don’t know”~ Ambrose Bierce

To say I have been heavily involved in the movement for Constitutional government, Liberty, and Freedom for the better part of three decades would pretty well cover the subject of this rant.

A very wise man once defined Freedom as “a mind free of conflict.” Perhaps this would explain a great many of the folks who while claiming to be “conservatives” find themselves in constant disagreement with those who support our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as ratified–in its entirety–not just the parts that happen to be popular at the moment. This was well illustrated with those on the political right who became most vocal in support for the Second Amendment but seem to forget there are nine other amendments that are equally important.

A prime example of the mind in conflict paradigm are those on the political right who speak and write frequently of the principles of Nullification, yet stand proudly and recite the Pledge of Allegiance; a catchy little incantation written by a defrocked, socialist minister who composed the pledge in part to support the anti-nullification theories embraced by Abraham Lincoln, Karl Marx, and Adolf Hitler. “One nation…indivisible” is totally contradictory to the intent of our founders as the theory of a national government was repeatedly voted down in favor of a Constitutional Republic at the Convention of 1787. As can be readily seen, the pledge is itself in conflict for it mentions both a Republic and an indivisible Nation, political ideals which are diametrically opposed; one embracing nullification and the other denying it.

Interestingly, the phrase “under God” was added during the McCarthy communism scare era in 1954, but somehow the fact the author of the original pledge was himself an avowed socialist seemed to have escaped historical examination.

Pledging allegiance to a symbol, as opposed to a founding creed or Declaration is also characteristic of a nationalist form of government; the huge displays of German flags containing a Swastika during Hitler’s reign are certainly representative of this type of nationalistic worship and devotion.

This is why Hitler referred favorably to the policies of Abraham Lincoln in his seminal work, Mein Kampf. Both tyrants were violent opponents of Nullification and States’ Rights. Consequently, both were also willing to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in order to accomplish their political goals.

The Left Liberal in America, who most often finds political refuge and consolation in the Democratic Party, readily embraces a theory of mind in conflict when they expound that government should have as its goal the extension of welfare, education and morality throughout our country. As stated in our Declaration of Independence, government was “instituted among men” to secure their rights, not to provide social justice; something that does not exist in nature.  Here we find the bottom line to our overwhelming debt; no amount of money can purchase that which does not exist, but Left Liberals will never be convinced of this axiom because they feel much more than they think.

So-called Right Conservatives have fallen prey to the exact freedom killing dynamic; emotion over intellect when confronted with the villain du jour paradigm which has been in vogue in the Republican Party for several decades. The government provides the necessary villain; Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Assad, Putin, al Qaeda, al Nusra, ISIS or Muslims in general to elicit the correct fear response. When activated, this fear-driven reaction leads to rampant Nationalistic flag-waving fervor and a willingness to send unlimited sons and daughters, along with all the money that can be printed or borrowed in order to secure something else that does not exist in nature: security.

Forgotten in the rush of emotions are all historical facts and cause and effect doctrines. There is a government inspired boogeyman under my bed–somebody please do something! The government which has created this problem then offers the solution, and of course, they are the only entity that can, in theory, accomplish the required goals. This solution will require copious amounts of taxpayer dollars and sons, fathers, brothers, sisters, mothers, and daughters in uniform, a good portion who, if they return, will never be the same, especially mentally. Wave that flag, Elmer!!!!

The above is a perfect example of the Socialist Hegelian Dialectic in practice.

My final example of the mind in conflict for this rant will center on the government who sends its children off to war and cares not if they are left behind in the hands of the enemy they went to fight.

There is irrefutable evidence; evidence in our National Archives and other government facilities which proves our government not only left tens of thousands of our military personnel in the hands of their enemies and created huge bureaucratic mazes to obscure the fact our government was complicit in leaving them there, but also by telling family members and this country’s citizens they were no longer alive.

  1. Hundreds from WWI, in the hands of the Russians
  2. At least 22,000 in the hands of the Russians after WWII who were “liberated” from the German POW camps and taken by troop trains to Siberia and other locations. FDR and General Eisenhower knew they were taken and did nothing so as to not upset our Russian allies. General Patton may have been killed for his knowledge of this fact, that and the powers that be had prolonged the war for a year or more in order to allow the Russian agents who had subverted FDR’s administration to secure most of Europe. Regardless of how one looks at it, the real winners in WWII were the Soviets. If you doubt that compare the land area and governments they controlled before the war with what they controlled after. For those who poo-poo such thoughts, a few hours spent with the book, Stalin’s Secret Agents: The subversion of Roosevelt’s government, should give you pause. Not only was the U.S. government penetrated at the highest level by these enemy agents but this organized Communist network also apparently controlled key positions in the U.S. opinion-molding business. (read the news media)

3. Over 8,000 left in the hands of the Communist Chinese and Russians at the end of the Korean War. So, Eisenhower’s name appears again in this issue; this time as president. From CNN, Sept. 1996: “The public didn’t know about those left behind, but it is clear that Eisenhower did. Five months after the war, in a document dated December 22, 1953, Army Secretary Robert Stevens met with President Eisenhower and told him the Defense Department had the names of 610 Army people and over 300 Air Force prisoners still held by the North Koreans. A number of people confirmed the reports, citing their own experiences. Retired Colonel Phillip Corso, a former intelligence aide to Eisenhower, watched the exchange of prisoners at Panmunjon, and talked with some of those who came back. “Our own boys told me there were sick and wounded American boys not 10 miles from the camp, and they were not exchanged,” he said.”

4. Those left behind in the hands of the Communists after Vietnam (North Vietnamese, Chinese, Pathet Lao, and Russians.) As explained by Col Millard Peck, who ran the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) POW/MIA office in 1989-1991, “The issue is being manipulated by unscrupulous people in the Government, or associated with the Government . [they] have maintained their distance and remained hidden in the shadows. this issue is being manipulated and controlled at a higher level, not with the goal of resolving it, but more to obfuscate the question of live prisoners and give the illusion of progress through hyperactivity. From what I have witnessed, it appears that any soldier left in Vietnam, even inadvertently, was, in fact, abandoned years ago, and that the farce that is being played is no more than political legerdemain done with “smoke and mirrors”, to stall the issue until it dies a natural death.” And from former POW, Captain Eugene “Red” McDaniel, “I was prepared to fight, to be wounded, to be captured, and even prepared to die, but I was not prepared to be abandoned.”

For the better part of three decades I have been called a conspiracy-nut, in need of a tin-foil hat and a lot of other things that could not be mentioned in polite company. But, being a hard-headed Rebel by birth, I just keep on keeping on.

I will leave you as we rapidly approach Veteran’s Day 2016 with a simple question: What about a government that would leave its fighting men behind in the hands of our enemies to be tortured and/or killed, then lie to cover it up for almost a century, would lead anyone to believe this same government would not be complicit and cover up their involvement in blowing-up buildings; shooting children and adults in schools and theaters and planting bombs at sporting events in pursuit of their socialist agenda?

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN IT’S OVER?

Well, it is almost over; presidential campaigns began well over one year ago. There were 17 candidates from the Republican side when it started and just three viable Democrats. But, sometime in December, (19th) when the Electoral College submits the results of their votes to the president of the United States Senate, we will have a new president.

So, all of you folks who are going to vote for Trump, primarily because he is not Hillary, what are you going to do if Trump wins? Are you going to go back to sleep and believe that Trump will follow through with all his campaign promises–you know—-like all of the presidents in the past who have made all kinds of promises which fell into the dust of victory and were also soon being rationalized away by those who voted for them? If he doesn’t follow through on those promises, what will you do then? Ignore what happens and just try to rationalize it away and then, if that doesn’t work, trot out the old reliable, “well he is better than Hillary would have been.” How does one quantify that remark? If anyone’s only attribute is they are better than Hillary, then they too are unqualified to hold any position of power and authority over others.

Then, perhaps, the tired old canard of who would be best to appoint new members to the Supreme Court will go through a test or two. Most of the die-hard Trump supporters, you remember, those who claim he will restore constitutional governance, have claimed he will appoint “constitutionalists” to the bench. Where will he find such an animal? Our Constitution as ratified has not been taught in the law schools in this country for many decades. It’s not about what our founders said, or the delegates to the ratification conventions were promised, it is about what previous clowns in black gowns have “ruled” our Constitution means (precedent), which is completely opposite of how Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stated such decisions should be determined. We place so much confidence in a group of people (black-robed oligarchy) whom Thomas Jefferson despised. How did that happen? Was Jefferson wrong and we are much smarter than he was? If the Supreme Court had not usurped its power and was acting within the constraints of the Constitution, why would we place so much importance in them?

What if Trump wins but the Democrats gain control of the Senate or the House? How many so-called conservative Republicans who hold seats in the Congress are really just like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell,Lindsey Graham and John McCain? What chance will Trump have of getting anything meaningful through Congress when he will find his programs attacked by Democrats and Republicans alike? If Trump is for real, and I personally doubt that, the entrenched cabal that runs our government from behind the scenes will not allow him to upset the apple cart they have been working decades to solidify. If you believe differently, perhaps you could find some time to thoroughly research what happened to JFK when he challenged the military/industrial/banking cabal which Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address, right before JFK took office.

What if Trump wins and the inner cities break out into violence? What if that violence spreads to more rural parts of America. If you think that will not happen, check the social welfare rolls in your county. You might be amazed at the number of people who could/would become very upset if their “entitlements” were taken away. There are currently 41 million people in this country on food stamps. How many live in your area?

What if Trump wins and nothing really changes? Where do you go politically? Do you revert right back to the “acceptable” Republicans like those mentioned above? If not, then where? History tells us that if you will just hang on until 2020, there will be some new hot-shot politician promising you whatever it takes to get your vote. Who will that be?

Hillary was asked very early in the campaign if she could be any president who would she be? She, of course, said “Abraham Lincoln.” While speaking in the black church in Detroit, Trump stated he was honored to be the nominee of the “Party of Lincoln” and wanted to “build the future of the party (Republican) on the legacy of Lincoln.” Just a small question here: If Lincoln is really Hillary’s presidential idol and Trump wants to build the party on the legacy of Lincoln, where is the difference?

All those folks who claim to support the principles and ideals of the South and fly their Confederate Battle Flags and state they are going to vote for Trump have some “splaining” to do, Lucy. I can’t imagine trying to explain to my Confederate ancestors who left their homes and families to fight against the “legacy of Lincoln,” why I voted for a man who claimed his intention to build on that legacy.  So, what is really more important to the people of the South, standing by principles or voting for a candidate who is not Hillary?

The greater majority of the folks who will vote for Trump voted for Romney and Ryan in 2012 and for McCain and Palin in 08. What about those folks judgment in picking good candidates for president and VP should I trust? Would they be supporting Jeb Bush with just as much spirit had he prevailed over Trump? How can I trust their judgment? But, they would tell me—-he is better than Hillary!!

Now, where do you turn if Hillary wins? Is there any chance at all that new groups like the Tea Party and 9/12 groups will see a resurgence? Will they sell out to the Republican Party again if they do? Where else could they turn? What if it becomes obvious the election was stolen? Who do you depend on for action, the government, The FBI who aided Hillary, or the media that helped steal the election? Good luck with that! Don’t forget for a moment that Hillary has the support of the Neocon branch of the Republican Party. How many of those have you voted for?

What if five decades or more of voter ignorance is about to totally destroy this country? Will more voter ignorance make it better? McCain was opposed in 2008 by Ron Paul who is the closest thing to an “Originalist” when it comes to our Constitution anyone has seen in their lifetimes. You smart folks went for McCain. Now you realize he was a warmongering liar. How were you fooled into supporting him over Ron Paul? Ah, Ron Paul didn’t have an acceptable foreign policy which can be translated as he didn’t support unconstitutional, tyrannical wars. Why did you vote for McCain anyway?

In 2012, the voters again rejected constitutionalist Ron Paul in favor of Willard Romney who wasn’t any different from Obama philosophically. You Second Amendment folks fell all over yourselves voting for the only presidential candidate who had signed an assault weapons bill into law. Why did you vote for him? How can I trust those of you who voted for McCain and Romney when you tell me I must vote for Trump?

Many of the people who are telling me for the sake of the country I must vote for Trump are the same people who were telling me in 2008 that I needed to drop my support for the constitutionalist candidate (Ron Paul) and vote for John McCain. Then in 2012, they were insisting I vote for Romney because their philosophy was “Anybody but Obama.” Are we not in the same place with the same tenet that I should vote for Trump because he is not Hillary?

Sadly, I do not believe I will live long enough to see an election in which the candidates are supported because of their knowledge and support of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It will not happen because the majority of people in this country allow the bought and paid for media to direct what issues are germane to the election process.Besides that, most folks have no concept of what the people of the various ratifying conventions were told the limits on the Constitution were. Many believe that if they carry a little book on the Constitution in their pocket, by osmosis, the knowledge of why that document is important will be absorbed by their brain. After all, for many years folks could not differentiate between a constitutionalist and a Republican.

While I am in great admiration of Donald Trump for exposing the hypocrisy and mendacity of the media and the Neocons within the Republican Party, I hardly find that justification for voting for him for any public office. While I also refuse to vote for the spawn of satan, like the last four presidential elections I will be forced to sit this one out. But, I will enjoy watching the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth when the new president is finally seated.

While Trump is certainly not Hillary, neither are over 300 million other Americans. There has to be a constitutionalist somewhere within that vast number. Why don’t we know who they are and why aren’t we voting for them? Short answer: the masses don’t care!

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

OLD JACK HINSON, AN ACCIDENTAL TERRORIST

What is the point of no return? What could possibly happen to an individual that would cause them to abandon all sense of order and seek instead violent and deadly revenge against another human being or group of people, many of whom are personally unknown to the perpetrator(s) of violence? Is this human action a devotion to some fanatical practice of religion or simply a reaction to violent stimuli?

If religious fanaticism is the answer, is it possible such religious fervor exhibited in the acts of the “terrorist” creates in its opponent an overwhelming desire to abandon their professed religion? If we are truly fighting a war against radical Islam, is it OK to abandon the tenets of Christianity, a faith professed by the great majority of the so-called conservatives who support the perpetual war for peace paradigm of our government? If that has actually occurred, have the radical terrorists not already won the war? What else could constitute acceptance of the deaths of hundreds of thousands; many of them civilians, to prosecute wars we know are based on lies hatched in the halls of our own government and nurtured to maturity by a state-owned and controlled media?

This past week I read an email written by a professed man of the cloth writing in support of one of his military heroes who is credited with killing several hundred of our “enemy” as a sniper. His statement was “we can only imagine how many soldier’s lives were saved by this man’s actions.” Unwittingly, this preacher struck at the very core of the issue. To support the actions of a government we personally claim to abhor when it comes to our individual liberty, imaginations must be employed in order to salve our collective conscience as we go about supporting wars perpetrated on government lies, deception and propaganda.

It has been stated facts are the basis for rational thought, therefore supporting wars based on official government prevarication that creates more terrorists than it eliminates requires irrational thought and/or a very healthy imagination. Supporting these wars that make slaves of us and our posterity could only qualify as some form of mental illness. Could this be the exhibition of the Stockholm syndrome on a national scale with the government as kidnapper and the citizens the kidnaped?

Only a people suffering from such an affliction could believe that a people who lose those they love such as those killed in drone strikes on wedding parties could ever embrace the tenets of our government or our faith. It is really hard to accept a “democracy” when the promoters of that form of government killed your family and blew up your country.

Over 70% of the people who died so far in Iraq as the result of our war were civilians. What kind of hate and desire for revenge resides in the relatives of those civilians? Where in our religious beliefs is there any justification for such mass genocide? We euphemistically refer to these deaths as “collateral damage,” while the people in Iraq referred to them as family, friends, and neighbors.

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets,” rings rather hollow, does it not?

The history of America contains similar stories and reactions to the violence of war inflicted on the innocent.

John W. (Old Jack) Hinson just wanted to be left alone. As a farmer in Tennessee, he cared nothing for the war between the North and the South and even opposed secession. He just wanted to get on with his life, enjoy his family and farm his land.

At some point in time, the area around the Hinson farm was occupied by Union forces. Occupation by armed forces in any area is not unlike occupying someone’s home by force. It just doesn’t sit well. The occupiers don’t want to be there and the occupied resent their presence. Perfect ingredients for an act of violence.

Somehow, Hinson’s two teenage sons came to be at odds with the Union soldiers. The reports of the day indicate the soldiers accused the two boys of being bushwhackers. Subsequently, the soldiers killed the two boys, beheaded them and placed their heads on poles near the entrance to their father’s farm. I’m sure the man of the cloth previously mentioned above would defend such action claiming he could only imagine how many Union soldiers lives were saved by this heinous act. After all, were these Union soldiers not wearing the uniform of the same military that now occupies much of the Middle East?

Obviously, Old Jack Hinson was traumatized by the death and beheading of his two sons. His hatred and desire for revenge led him to have a special long-range rifle constructed and he then set out to avenge the death of his sons by becoming a sniper, directing his assaults on the occupying army that had taken the lives of his sons. According to available records, at no time did Hinson engage civilians in his quest for revenge. His preference gravitated to Union officers in uniform.

I’m absolutely positive the US government and Union forces saw Old Jack Hinson as a “terrorist” or “insurgent” as he went about summarily killing more than one hundred Union soldiers and was also credited with single-handedly capturing a Union transport ship. Union Infantry and Cavalry forces and a specially equipped marine task force tried in vain to locate and eliminate Old Jack Hinson, who by all records always operated alone and was able to elude all Union forces for the duration of the war, even though he was near 60 years old at the time.

Occupying forces wearing the uniform of the United States military have created hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in the wars being prosecuted in the Middle East. If only a small minority of their family and friends have the dedication and resolve of Old Jack Hinson, we have created a whirlwind of violence that will last for decades. Now, many officials in our government, supported by the pleas of plastic talking heads in the media and academia want to bring those people to our country and pay them money when they arrive. Where, indeed, is a better definition of insanity?

It is imperative that we understand that wars for empire, barely concealed by the rhetoric of wars to implement democracy, are in truth unwinnable on any level. As a supposed “Christian” nation we must also come to the realization that blind patriotism and Christianity are totally incompatible.

Perhaps a movie glorifying the exploits of Old Jack Hinson would constitute a beginning of understanding! How many would stand and cheer?

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” ~ James Madison said by many to be the Father of our Constitution (Emphasis added)

“Continual warfare” and freedom cannot exist on the same plane. The last 15 years of continual warfare and the subsequent loss of Liberty and the creation of a police state unequivocally prove Madison’s warning to be true.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

THE SPECIES IGNORAMUS AMERICANUS

The evil that is in this world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.” ~ Albert Camus

For quite some time now I have referred to the majority of Americans, especially those who vote, as the species “Ignoramus Americanus.” Some have taken exception to this, but, so far they have been found guilty of assuming facts not in evidence.

This morning, on social media, there was a posting which stated, “If a 12-year term limit was ratified today, 227 members of Congress would not be eligible for re-election. Time to clean up DC! Do you agree? The absolute insanity of this post is overwhelming to anyone with a basic understanding of how government and voting are supposed to function.

Perhaps this post would have been better stated thusly, “Please help me, for decades now I have voted for the lesser of two evils and now the resulting evil is destroying everything I hold dear. Would everyone please ratify an amendment to our Constitution which would enable me to protect myself and those I care about from my own ignorance and cowardice!”

Another post on social media came from someone who claimed that a vote for Donald Trump was a vote to restore our Constitution and Bill of Rights. A simple question to the one who posted this claim asking documentation of when Trump has discussed in detail any limits the Constitution and Bill of Rights places on government actions, especially the Executive Branch, or how any of his opponents promises are outside of constitutional limits, went unanswered.

Completely overlooked, especially to those who claim to support the principles of the South, was Trump’s promise to the people in the black church in Detroit: “Becoming the nominee of the Party of Abraham Lincoln — a lot of people don’t realize that Abraham Lincoln, the great Abraham Lincoln was a Republican — has been the greatest honor of my life. It is on his legacy that I hope to build the future of the Party but more important the future of the country and the community.” (Emphasis mine)

If this statement alone does not scare the bejeezus out of any person who claims any fealty at all to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, we as a relevant country are well on our way to extinction. No president in the history of this country did more to destroy the principles of our Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence than did “Honest Abe.” The current occupant of the people’s house in the District of Criminals and his eight years of mendacity can’t hold a candle to Lincoln’s full frontal assaults on the government of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Monroe, John Taylor of Caroline and others of our founders who stood for Liberty and Freedom.

Abraham Lincoln perpetrated war on the people of the North as well as the people of the South. All too many, thanks to revisionist history, are unaware of Lincoln’s military invasions of the states of New York, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware. This was done to achieve military control of the voting process and oppose lawful dissent. Today this is not needed as the voters opt for tyranny on a regular basis every two years at the voting booth.

The sordid 12 years of history known as “Reconstruction” set the template for the total destruction of any government operating within the framework of “consent of the governed.” This was all perpetrated on the people of the South by the “Party of Lincoln” which Donald Trump is so honored to be a part of. Obviously, his knowledge of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is severely limited as is his knowledge of history.

I have had people who have defended Trump’s remarks to the black folks in Detroit as necessary to gain their votes. Wow, if anyone supports a candidate they know will lie to gain votes, how does that separate them from the liberal progressives they claim to despise?

How about my Southern brethren? How many of them will vote for a candidate who promises to bring them the government of Lincoln they have been writing and complaining about for 150+ years? Possibly, as one Magna Cum Laude graduate of the college of institutionalized ignorance wrote to me recently, “Well, I guess your criticism of Trump means you are a Hillary supporter!” No, I am not a supporter of the female spawn of satan in a jumpsuit, but as a true Southron I cannot despoil the sacrifices of my ancestors by voting for a candidate who has promised to bring me and my fellow Southerners a replica of the government they fought and died to protect their homes, country, and progeny, from assuming control of their lives, property, and fortunes.

So, what to do, exclaims the right-wing of the species Ignoramus Americanus? Well, folks, behold the end result of supporting political party over the principles of our founders for the past five or six decades. Have you not noticed the candidate you avidly supported for Vice President just four short years ago is not a “conservative” but is indeed just as bad politically as the man who won that election? Have you perhaps noticed the man you swore “kept you safe” for eight years, the brilliant man who claimed God told him to invade Iraq, is not the wonderful conservative you thought he was? Has he and his family not embraced the aforementioned female spawn of satan for the office of president? Ask yourself, how could you have been so blind to support him and his draconian, unconstitutional government for eight years? Are you not using the same criteria you used to vote for him now in your support for Trump? Four or eight years from now, if this country still exists, will you be asking yourself the same questions about Trump you are now asking about Ryan and Bush?

Only the institutionalized ignorant could believe that voting for a candidate who has little to no concept of the history and restraints of our Constitution and Bill of Rights will somehow magically produce constitutional governance with its attendant principles of Liberty and Freedom. Dream on broomstick cowboy.

One of my favorite writers in defense of Southern principles and history is Clyde Wilson. Here, in his words, are some of the reasons that define how we got in this mess in which a candidate who promises to bring to us the horrors of Lincoln is the best we have to choose from for the highest office in the land. Pay heed–professor Wilson nails it.

“Always, if you possibly can, avoid singing the praises of people who

—launch aggressive wars unrelated to national defense and in callous disregard of the suffering of innocents: Attila the Hun, the first French emperor, the chancellor of the German Third Reich,  U.S. Presidents Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Clinton, Bush II, etc.

—spend profligately and burden future generations with immense debts: the U.S. Congress.

—deliberately misuse and undermine the vital foundational principles and texts of a society: the Supreme Soviet, the U.S. Supreme Court, televangelists, the Hague Tribunal, etc.

—systematically distort and misrepresent public events and persons with malice aforethought:
Joseph Goebels. Pravda, U.S. television news, multicultural historians, etc.

—glorify selfish, immoral, vulgar, and decadent behaviour: U.S. entertainment media and professional sports industry.”

Ah, the total impossibility of being ignorant and free. Jefferson said it was impossible, but Ignoramus Americanus is determined to prove him wrong.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

 

AND THEY CALL ME A CONSPIRACY NUT

*Author’s note: I wrote this article several years ago but find it to be relevant today as well. If our government stays true to form there will soon be another False Flag event in this country to take Ignoramus Americanus’s mind off the fact we are totally broke and this election, which is being turned into a modern-day soap opera (entertainment), has been choreographed by the power cabal known as the military/industrial/international bankers/national security complex. This government has been involved in more conspiracies against its own citizens, including the military than most are aware. Here are some of the most egregious.

“For you see, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” ~Benjamin Disraeli

“The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.” ~Justice Felix Frankfurter

“The three aims of the tyrant are, one, the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; two, the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not to be overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another — and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also because they are too loyal to one another and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men — three, the tyrant desires that all his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny if they are powerless.” ~Aristotle

I openly admit I do not believe our government or their media lapdogs when it comes to what really happened involving TWA 800, the Oklahoma City Bombing, 9/11, Waco, the shootings in Aurora or Sandy Hook, the bombing in Boston or the bombing at the fertilizer plant in Waco and many other of their False Flag operations.

Sure, the easy way out is to believe anything the government says is gospel; that requires very little cognitive discourse and of course the last thing Boobus wants is anything that might require the use of a few cells in the gray matter. Not when there are sports on TV.

There are a multitude of reasons I disbelieve our government and the media when it comes to events such as those named above, but, for brevity’s sake, I will mention only one in this writing. What positive can be said or what integrity granted to a government that willingly leaves its military personnel behind in the hands of the enemy, then, not only makes no attempt to gain their freedom but instead fabricates lies to cover their crimes of omission and discredits those who attempt to reveal the truth? A government that would leave its military personnel behind to face torture and death at the hands of their enemy is totally undeserving of not only trust but even the slightest benefit of the doubt.

This pattern of overwhelming and continuous mendacity relating to our Missing in Action and Prisoners of War began almost 100 years ago in 1920. Shortly after WWI, Russia was in the midst of a terrible famine. Although previously denying they held any American POWs from WWI, when offered food and medicines, the Russians released 100 captive Americans after the first shipment of provisions. Although more food was shipped to Russia, no additional POWs were released. Rather than admit to their lack of diligence in securing the release of those POWs after the war, government officials simply declared there were no more being held; a tactic that would continue for decades.

In 1945, while marching to take Berlin, in large part due to political/military considerations granted to the Soviets by the socialist dominated FDR administration, some 25,000 American POWs were “liberated” into the hands of the Russian Army. Of that 25,000, only 4,165 of our military personnel were actually repatriated from the camp at Reisa. The Russians put the remaining 21,000+ on troop trains and took them into Russia where they were used for slave labor, medical experiments, human guinea pigs and other fates much worse than death on the battlefield. Allied political sources then went to work to alter intelligence reports to cover up these heinous acts. Both FDR and Truman issued directives there would be “no criticism of treatment by the Russians” and “no retaliatory action to Russian failure to cooperate.” (Source: A Chain of Prisoners: from Yalta to Vietnam, by John Brown and Ted Ashworth)

General George Patton knew of this betrayal of American military personnel and is reported to have confronted General Eisenhower at a train station in Germany where the argument became most heated according to an eyewitness. (Source: Bert C. Roosen an interpreter on Eisenhower’s staff) Speculation exists that this may have been the reason for Patton’s assassination. (Source: Target Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton by Robert K. Wilcox) Our political leadership fell all over themselves to assure the Russians were never accused of anything untoward and that millions in Eastern Europe were delivered into their hands at the end of the war.

The release of the information about 21,000+ Americans being left to a terrible fate at the hands of the Russians would have been a death knell to any political aspirations of those covering up these crimes; obviously, Eisenhower would have never been elected to the presidency.

As president, Eisenhower would continue to cover up the fate of those left to the Russians which would later necessitate a similar cover-up of those left to the Chinese and North Koreans during the Korean War. These prisoners too were used for torture, biological and chemical agent experiments as well as mind control operations. Colonel Phil Corso, a member of Eisenhower’s White House staff, would later speak to these cover ups. He would state it became a matter of national policy to ignore all intelligence concerning these acts and to simply deny any POWs were left behind.

Then came Vietnam and the madness and deceit would continue. In 1973, after Operation Homecoming, Dr. Roger Shields of the Department of Defense would tell President Nixon, “Mr. President, we have two missing for every man who came back home.” Nixon ignored the statement and then like those lying bastards before him, issued a statement that “all our POWs are home.”

To completely cover the POW/MIA issue would require a volume of books. The mendacity, prevarication and possible assassinations by our government surrounding this subject is emotionally overwhelming; that is if you care one scintilla about what happens to those we blindly send into the jaws of hell for political expediency after being driven into a patriotic frenzy by the same devils who create False Flag events which take the lives of thousands, many of them innocent children.

Hand me my Tin Foil Hat; I wear it proudly. I do not blindly believe the words of master politicians who have never seen a shot fired in anger and who are more than willing to see their fellow Americans not only die in battle but be used for torture and medical experiments after the wars are “over” for others, all in the name of “national security.” Always remember when they speak of “security” it is always their security and never yours they speak of.

If you feel compelled to believe everything the politicians and the lapdog media tell you about Aurora, Sandy Hook, 9/11, OKC bombing and the Boston Marathon bombing because you lack the courage to face the truth, you have become one of the “splendid dupes” mentioned by Chesterton: “Evil always wins through the strength of its splendid dupes; and there has in all ages been a disastrous alliance between abnormal innocence and abnormal sin.”

I find little truth or consolation in the facts presented by a government who would leave its own military personnel in the hands of its enemies to be tortured and subjected to all forms of heinous experimentation. Perhaps if it had been your brother, sister, father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, or friend who had been left to this fate worse than death by the government you view as trustworthy, you might not blindly believe everything you hear coming from the mouths of politicians and talking heads on the lobotomy box.

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” ~William Colby, Former Director, CIA.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

  • Foot note: In the 1980’s, I was a Board Member with the American Foundation for Accountability of Prisoners of War and Missing in Action based in Arlington, Virginia. (AFFA POW/MIA)

DEMONIZATION OF A STATES RIGHTS ICON

Author’s note* I wrote this article some time back but since it is now full-blown election season and the Black Lives Matter movement indicates that race’s preference for segregation, this may be more relevant today than it was when I wrote it originally.

“There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties” ~George Wallace, 1966-1968

Arguably, one could state the above quote by the late iconic political figure, George Wallace, was the very epitome of the “separate but equal” legal doctrine that has been used as a political football by the American Oligarchy I have referred to as “Clowns in Black Gowns.” As it has done hundreds of times, the US Supreme Court reversed itself from a previous ruling in Plessy v Ferguson 1896 to Brown v Board of Education in 1953-54. The numerous vacillations of the black-robed oligarchs demonstrates vividly our Constitution is subject to the arbitrary political agendas of nine people with questionable agendas and frequently ignores the hundreds who participated in the State Ratification conventions in 1788-89.

If the Supremes reverse themselves, which ruling was constitutional and which was not?

In the interest of full disclosure, I will state that I totally agree with Governor Wallace’s assessment of our two major political parties in 1966 and 1968 and believe that statement to be true today even more so than when he made it.

George Wallace garnered almost 10 million votes in his quest for the presidency back in 1968 running on the American Independent Party ticket. Wallace carried 5 Southern states with the attendant 45 electoral votes. Wallace’s realistic goal was to gain enough electoral votes to throw the election into the House of Representatives. He failed to accomplish this goal.

While there are very few people today who will remember Wallace’s quote above, many more will remember another quote from his gubernatorial inaugural address in January of 1963 in which Wallace would say, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.” This statement would forever brand Wallace as a “racist” and a “bigot.”

To understand this article one must have a working knowledge of the word, segregation. Segregation is defined as “the action or state of setting something apart from other people or things.” Would any form of segregation constitute racism or bigotry? Can a segregationist act by one group which is considered racist or bigoted by popular definition be seen as acceptable by another or is that the very definition of hypocrisy? Let’s examine a few possibilities.

  • If one group or race of people has a month set aside to honor their history when others do not, is that not segregation?
  • If one group or race of people is allowed to form a congressional caucus exclusive to their race, religion or ethnicity, does that not constitute segregation?
  • If one group or race of people is allowed to have a college fund designated specifically for members of their race or group, does that not constitute segregation by definition?
  • If a group or race of people can establish Chambers of Commerce specifically to address issues relative to their group or race, does that not constitute segregation?
  • If a group or race of people is allowed to form an association that specifically addresses advancement of their race or group, does that not constitute segregation?
  • If a group or race of people have institutions of higher learning that cater specifically to their own race to the exclusion of others, is this not segregation?

Had George C. Wallace stated in his Inaugural address in January of 1963:

“Black History Month, Congressional Black Caucus, United Negro College Fund, The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the top 25 Colleges for Black Students; today, tomorrow and forever,” would he have been labeled a racist and a bigot? Why not? All of the above certainly meets the definition of a segregationist organization, do they not?

George C. Wallace was not feared by the power cabal because he was a racist or a bigot; Wallace was feared because of his unflinching support for State’s Rights and his utter disdain and condemnation of interference in the affairs of the states by the federal government, especially the federal courts.

While all of the government lapdogs, both in and out of the media, demonized Wallace for being racist, their true fear was his growing popularity among the common man and woman in America. Historically, the power elite has always feared such an awakening. This growing fear would eventually lead to a felt need to eliminate the man behind the movement.

Various statements from Wallace’s address before assuming the office of Governor of Alabama loomed much more dangerous to the powers that be more than any statement about segregation. Are Wallace’s words of 1963 relevant in this country today?

“People produce wealth; Free people. And as they learn there is little reward for ambition – that it requires faith to risk, and they have none – as the government must restrict and penalize and tax incentive and endeavor and must increase its expenditure of bounties, then this government must assume more and more police powers and we find we are becoming a government-fearing people, not God-fearing people. We find we have replaced faith with fear. And though we may give lip-service to the Almighty, in reality, the government has become our god. It is therefore basically ungodly government and its appeal to the pseudo-intellectual and the politician is to change their status from servant of the people to master of the people—to play at being God—without faith in God—and without the wisdom of GodIts pseudo-liberal spokesmen and some Harvard advocates have never examined the logic of its substitution of what it calls ‘human rights’ for ‘individual rights,’ for its propaganda play upon words has appeal for the unthinking.” (Emphasis added)

“Let us send the message back to Washington by our representatives who are with us today. That from this day we are standing up, and the heel of tyranny does not fit an upright man…”

“It is an idea of government that encourages our fears and destroys our faith; for where there is faith, there is no fear, and where there is fear, there is no faith. In encouraging our fears of economic insecurity it demands we place that economic management and control with government; in encouraging our fear of educational development it demands that we place that education and the minds of our children under management and control of government, and even feeding our fears of physical infirmities and declining years, it offers and demands to father us through it all and even into the grave. It is a government that claims to us that it is bountiful as it buys its power from us with the fruits of its rapaciousness of the wealth that free men before it have produced and builds on crumbling credit without responsibilities to the debtors—our children.”

I recommend you read the address in its entirety, for in it you will find a description of basically what has happened to our country during most of our lives that have led us to a government of, by and for the privileged elite.

George C. Wallace was shot in Maryland in May of 1972 by Arthur Bremer. The circumstances around this attempted assassination, the growing popularity of Wallace’s message, the possible involvement of several government agencies and President Nixon’s “plumbers,” who would later become famous in the conspiracy that was Watergate, and the circumstances of the mysterious death of J. Edgar Hoover just weeks before, make for very interesting reading.

I certainly do not have the time or the space to pursue all of the possibilities of a conspiracy to eliminate Wallace from political power, but the following information about Arthur Bremer, the alleged shooter, should suffice to peak interest in the particulars of this event.

The income tax returns found in Bremer’s apartment after his arrest shows a previous year’s income of $1611.00. Remember that he had to pay for rent and food out of that amount. In the months before the assassination attempt Bremer paid cash for a car; paid for a plane ticket to New York where he stayed at the Waldorf Astoria; drove back and forth to Ottawa, Canada where he stayed at The Lord Elgin, where coincidentally the US Secret Service was staying at the time; bought three firearms; took a helicopter ride in NYC; paid for a chauffeured limousine and tipped a lady who gave him a massage $30.

The powers that be decided that the life and ideals of George C. Wallace presented impediments to their agenda that had to be eliminated. They saw that their demonization of Wallace as a racist and a bigot had not gained the necessary traction, so other means to accomplish their goals had to be implemented.

When you read the entirety of Wallace’s address you will notice many references to the dedication and history of the people of the South, especially those who were instrumental in the founding of our country.

No country can long endure whose government politically and legislatively promotes the destruction of the heritage, both cultural and racial, of its founding generation. Since the 1860’s those in power in this country have worked tirelessly to destroy the very concepts of Liberty espoused by Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Monroe, and others.

George Washington is alleged to have said of government:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Whether Washington actually said this or not does not detract from its basic truths. What another Southerner named George said in the frigid temperatures of January in 1963 have also proven true. Since 1861, the government of our country has used force to accomplish its goals of total domination using draconian unconstitutional laws and a compliant media in that pursuit.

The goals of tyrannical government are diametrically opposed to the culture and principles of the founders of our once free country. The ideals of Jefferson, Henry, Samuel Adams and other men of Liberty have long since fallen victim to progressivism, diversity, and a socialist agenda.

No matter what the endeavor, if it was successful at one time, but is currently in decline, the only way to recover that success is to return to the basics which led to the previous accomplishments and prosperity. Continuing down the path of Nationalism/Socialism will never lead to such a recovery, no matter which party you support or which candidate you vote for. A recovery of this once great country will only be accomplished with a return to virtue, morality and unwavering support for our Bill of Rights.

Freedom of thought and the right of private judgment, in matters of conscience, driven from every other corner of the earth, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.” ~Samuel Adams

The “happy country” mentioned by Adams was not at all unlike the country Wallace yearned to return to in his 1963 Inaugural Address. It certainly does not exist now.

RIP, George C. Wallace

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY