Tag Archives: civil war

You can smoke those bath salts or you can listen to Jim DeMint

Jim DeMint is president of The Heritage Foundation.

The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies…

Funny thing about that, we never hear DeMint mention that he runs an “educational institution.” Perhaps the devout Christian would not want God cleaving his forsaken skull with a lightning bolt:

Newcombe: What if somebody, let’s say you’re talking with a liberal person and they were to turn around and say, ‘that Founding Fathers thing worked out really well, look at that Civil War we had eighty years later.’

DeMint: Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people.

I’d appreciate it if Jim could educate me as to how a constitution that the secessionists voided and replaced ultimately swayed their Christian consciences. Here’s the preamble to the upgrade:

“We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.”

The part about “in order to form a permanent federal government” makes it clear the South thought the original constitution muddled and temporary. Perhaps a Foundation man gets so busy lecturing others he no longer remembers what the hell he’s talking about. More DeMint:

Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God.

Nice try – that equality stuff is not in the Constitution. It’s in the Declaration of Independence. And of course the slaveholders improved on it as well – oops – with their own version. Because this stuff they weren’t so hot on:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Right, no thanks. They did think the Declaration established their fundamental rights, but not by way of any of that namby-pamby crap. These were the parts they favored:

“…they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.”

They further solemnly declared that whenever any “form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government.”

So, all men being equal? I’ll pass. Violent revolt? I’ll take it.

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted.

And the former senator should know all this by heart because it was South Carolina legislators who wrote it. DeMint doesn’t come off like your typical president of a “research and educational institution,” does he? Not exactly:

But a lot of the move to free the slaves came from the people, it did not come from the federal government. It came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. People like Wilberforce who persisted for years because of his faith and because of his love for people.

The great evangelist William Wilberforce. Who lived in Britain. Who died 28 years before South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter. Very odd that Jim can’t recall someone a little more locally and temporally relevant to the Civil War, not to mention somebody who was an American. Somebody like, say, the great Fredrick Douglass. Very peculiar…

So no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves. In fact, it was Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican, who took this on as a cause and a lot of it was based on a love in his heart that comes from God…

What about this Lincoln fella? What did he do again? What sort of job did he have? He was a legendary right-wing orator, and a popular one at that, who by the power of his words brought down slavery. Ta-daaa. And, so, That was the end of That. As to that vestigial hurly-burly with the artillery and millions of soldiers crawling across the continent, I couldn’t really tell you what any of that was much about. But you can rest assured there were a great many silly people back then, not like today…

Share

The anti-government bunch motivated mostly by loyalty

A January survey of 1500 adults by the Pew Center tells us that distrust in the federal government is at an all-time high. 53% of the respondents say the government threatens their personal rights:

I’m not surprised, and you’re not surprised. Right-wing media have been shrieking about the imminent deaths of America and its patriots ever since Barack Obama took office. A consistent coast-to-coast effort like that should have measurable public effects. But how much of the perception can be traced to conservative hysteria? Pretty much all of it:

The growing view that the federal government threatens personal rights and freedoms has been led by conservative Republicans. Currently 76% of conservative Republicans say that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms and 54% describe the government as a “major” threat. Three years ago, 62% of conservative Republicans said the government was a threat to their freedom; 47% said it was a major threat.

By comparison, there has been little change in opinions among Democrats; 38% say the government poses a threat to personal rights and freedoms and just 16% view it as a major threat.

There’s virtually no connection between what the government does and how its perceived. Almost all the movement in polling can be rooted in partisan right-wing politics.

After September 11th, the Bush administration signed the Patriot Act into law. The legislation enabled the federal government to intercept your phone calls, monitor your e-mails, obtain no-knock warrants against you and your living quarters, and pore over your library reading lists. The government later argued it had the right to kidnap and imprison anyone it deemed an enemy outside its borders, even American citizens, and then try them in extra-civilian courts. You would be hard-pressed to find any other era in American history where the government so damaged personal rights.

But look at the concurrent yes/no polling vis-a-vis bad government: 30/67, 32/63 and 45/54. While the Bush administration trampled all over the freedoms of its citizens, conservatives were unconcerned. But now that the anti-torture politically moderate lecturer on constitutional law, Barack Obama, is in charge, they’re howling about the necessity of civil war to defend themselves. They don’t even know how or why the government is dangerous, they only know they hate it and the President as well.

Share

Gun nut Matt Barber will probably soon kill you

Law professor at Liberty University, Matt Barber: “Civil War’s A-Brewin.”

. . not so fast, cupcake. As the U.S. Constitution guarantees – and as the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It ain’t, “should not be infringed,” or “shall finally be infringed once ‘progressives’ have assumed total dominance.”

No, “shall not” means shall not.

There’s only one way to take my guns, slick, and that’s through a constitutional amendment – an amendment that will never happen – ever. Try it any other way and we have a problem.

He knows the law, libtards. Oh maybe not. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

For my dollars, Scalia’s District of Columbia v. Heller opinion sheds more light on the Second Amendment than Matt’s promises to shoot his neighbors. The ruling struck down a provision demanding guns in D.C. homes be unloaded or bound by a trigger lock. In it, Scalia went out of his way to reaffirm two centuries of American law and life: You do not have the right to own any gun you like, to own one for whatever reason you like, to buy one without regulations or conditions, to own a “dangerous or unusual weapon,” or to wield it wherever you like, Matt. The Second Amendment has forever been limited, and it always will be. For a lawyer whose milieu is Constitutional Law, you’re not just unhinged with respect to the subject, you’re unintelligent to boot.

I really, really hope this president and his authoritarian cohorts in Congress will slow down, take a deep breath and realize that, right now, they’re playing a very dangerous game of chicken. If they try what I think they might, but hope they don’t, I fear this nation – already on the precipice of widespread civil unrest and economic disaster – might finally spiral into to utter chaos, into a second civil war.

Threats of violence are appreciated as well.

Share

I’m a winner things are gonna change I can feel it

Happy New Year. Another one! Greetings.

May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind always be at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face
and rains fall soft upon your fields.
And until we meet again
may God the Aviating Pasta Anomaly hold you in the palm of His hand. Noodle?

Peace be with you.

There’s a reason thousands of Americans have been purchasing guns of all description and laying up stores of ammunition and it may go beyond concerns of gun bans. A lot of patriots think that 2013 could turn very ugly, very fast, with fears of martial law, Homeland Security goons, mass arrests, secret incarcerations, and worse.

This is your fault.

What stands between most Americans and those who might wish to engineer the end to the Constitution is the fact that America is home to hundreds of thousands of hunters who comprise, by virtue of being armed, the largest army in the world . . Revolution is never pretty, but Americans did it once and can do it again to protect the Constitution and our rights.

So they’re coming to shoot you. Wonderful! Anything else?


2013! Totally new and improved.

Share

White secession and civil war, the modern argument

Revolution Monday. I take this screed to be some sort of counter-threat meant to stop the cheering of Obama’s mocha millions. Blogger Vox Day, Mensa member and self-described “Internet Superintelligence,” warns they shouldn’t get too full of their ethnic selves. If you keep pushing white people around, we’ll start another civil war. Now that I think about it, would that be so bad?

But first, let’s cheer Britain’s far-right United Kingdom Independence Party. They have despised the variety pack of foreign faces and tongues known as the European Union, and good for them.

Whether it is politically sensible for the prime minister to attack the only party defending British sovereignty against the technocratic fascists of the European Union will, in time, become clear. But it does point to the way in which the ridicule of the major political parties and mainstream media is manifestly impotent when it comes to defeating a growing desire for secession and self-determination in a democratic society.

The tsunami of nativism in Britain has grown so large that the UKIP may someday win a seat in the House of Commons. Ignore this at your own peril.

There can be little doubt that Cameron’s opinion of UKIP is but a pale shadow of the U.S. bifactional ruling party’s hatred and contempt for white Americans who still hold to traditional values, believe in their constitutional liberties and derive their sense of identity from historical America. They mock the secessionist petitioners in Texas and other states, celebrate the infestation of even the smallest American heartland towns by African, Asian and Aztec cultures, and engage in ruthless doublethink as they worship at the altar of a false and entirely nonexistent equality.

Is that a great paragraph or what? Living in L.A. I can tell you about the infestation of Aztec culture here. My next door neighbor wears a big headdress and carries around a beautiful unconscious lady all day. I can’t pronounce his name because ‘X’s are bowling scores, not sounds.

And yet, they are afraid and they threaten every American who dares to think the unthinkable and speak the unspeakable. Why? Because they know time, history and socionomics are not on their side.

Is the secession of several American states truly unthinkable? Is the breakup of the United States of America really outside the boundaries of historically reasonable possibility?

Secession is not unthinkable, no, because it was tried before. And it failed, leaving hundreds of thousands dead, blind, and amputated. What a good sales pitch. I’d be interested to see how Vox’s patriots stacked up against our federal forces, with their rockets and jets. Talk about superintelligence.

Share

First, we kill many of you. Then, things gets better.

“How would Lincoln vote in the 2012 election?” The right Reverend Michael Bresciani blogs this at Renew America. It is something he’d like to know. Not really, oh gee, the title’s a ruse. Michael already knows all about the Gentle Man with the Terrycloth Hands from the days when Folks Sat Around Playing Solitaire In Chains.

Any normal school student could research and find the heart of the Lincoln administration and of Lincoln himself, in very short time . . Only a cursory comparison of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama would force any discerning mind to a singular conclusion. One President was the great unifier and the other is the great divider.

I am no expert on Abraham Lincoln. I am hesitant to criticize. But there’s just, well, something about Michael’s argument. Something out of kilter. What is it?

Barack Obama has managed to set brother against brother, women against men and the rich against the poor.

Not sure what it is. Maybe you guys can see it. The devil if I can figure it out.

He has, with the help of the democratically controlled senate and Harry Reid managed to pit the senate against the congress. He has strangled bi-partisan political cooperation to the point of death.

…strange-looking president. Perfect opposition. Howls of victimization. Hysterical rage…

Creating warfare among citizen groups, sectors and individuals has been the hallmark of Barack Obama’s administration. This is hard to understand in view of the fact Obama has stated both that he would like to be a president like Lincoln . .

NOPE. There it goes, lost it. Damn. It was, like, right there and then it was *poof*.

Share

History weighs in, heavily: Conservatives are the racists

I am so sick of reading this revisionist crap.

Drop the Racial Rhetoric
Obama should blow his own dog whistle and tell his partisans to desist.
By Deroy Murdock | National Review

Congressman-for-Life Charles Rangel blah blah . .

Oh I’m sure the President has got a dog whistle of his own he can blow. Ugh. And everyone will know it’s time to stop the bigoted anti-racial farce or something. Anyway, here comes the lying again.

Biden’s comments were just a bizarre and crude effort to scare black people into voting Democrat, again. . .

While one may disagree with Romney, his running mate Paul Ryan, and every Republican on Capitol Hill, the notion that the GOP is itching to re-enslave blacks is an outrageous, disgusting lie that utterly mutilates American history. As most students learn in junior high school, abolitionists launched the Republican party to end slavery. Republicans defeated the Confederacy and then spent Reconstruction trying to incorporate blacks into American society. Democrats fought them at every turn.

After the War of Northern Aggression, after the waves of cursed reconstructionists and carpetbaggers receded, the Republican Party was unwelcome in the South. All politics was conducted through the Democratic Party. It was both conservative and liberal, left and right (but mostly waaay right). During the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 21 of the 22 senators that represented the South were Democrats. 87 of 94 Southern members of the House were Dems.

Saying your party wasn’t guilty of Southern racism while your party was exiled from the possibility is no argument at all. Murdock plays games with words like “Democrat.” The Southern Republican may have barely existed but the familiar reactionary conservatism was certainly there. To this point, look at the differences between voting patterns North and South regarding that historic act:

On the Senate version, the Northern Democrats voted 45 -1 for it and the Southern Democrats voted 20 -1 against it. It didn’t particularly matter what party you said you belonged to, once you got below the Mason-Dixon line you were a right winger. And do you remember the powerful voting bloc the Southern politicians composed at the time?

In the United States, the conservative coalition was an unofficial Congressional coalition bringing together the conservative majority of the Republican Party and the conservative, mostly Southern, wing of the Democratic Party. It was dominant in Congress from 1937 to 1963 and remained a political force until the mid 1980s, eventually dying out in the 1990s.

These were America’s most conservative politicians: Southern Democrats. To say they were or are linked to liberal or progressive politics in any way is to lie. These were the racist white supremacists, like Strom Thurmond, that the GOP received with open arms after the successes of the civil rights movement.

And the “Southern Manifesto,” remember that?

The Declaration of Constitutional Principles (known informally as the Southern Manifesto) was a document written in February and March 1956, in the United States Congress, in opposition to racial integration of public places. The manifesto was signed by 99 politicians (97 Democrats) from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The Congressmen drafted the document to counter the landmark Supreme Court 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which determined that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional.

How’s that for Originalist States’ Rights Tea Party activism?

The Southern Manifesto accused the Supreme Court of “clear abuse of judicial power.” It promised to use “all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.” The Manifesto suggested that the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution should limit the reach of the Supreme Court on such issues.

Tenthers. You get my point. Back to hooray! Deroy:

President Ronald Reagan named General Colin Powell to be America’s first black national security adviser and authorized the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday.

My butt. Presidents authorize no such thing. They either sign or veto the legislation, and Reagan wanted to veto it.

Reagan staunchly opposed the King Holiday bill. And he did not oppose it as later historical revisionists claim solely for cost reasons, that is that the federal government couldn’t afford to give federal employees another day off. This is the politically palatable cover.

At a press conference October 19 two weeks before he grudgingly signed the bill he quipped that he’d sign it only “since Congress seemed bent on making it a national holiday.” It took every ounce of the congressional bent that Reagan ridiculed to get him to put his signature on the bill. Congress passed the bill with an overwhelming veto-proof majority (338 to 90 in the House of Representatives and 78 to 22 in the Senate).

And don’t forget:

Reagan revealed even more of his true thinking about King in a letter to ultra-conservative former New Hampshire governor Meldrim Thompson. He unapologetically told Thompson that the public’s view of King was “based on image, not reality.” Reagan was roundly criticized for besmirching King, and he subsequently publicly apologized to King’s widow, Coretta Scott King. In assailing King, Reagan simply followed the well-worn ultra-conservative and racist script that King was a radical, racial agitator, and a closet communist.

Got it, Deroy? Reagan had to apologize to Mrs. King for being a stupid ass. For being your typical commie-baiter of the conservative Republican sort that is still found flogging his race jitters today. All of a dozen days ago Rep. Todd Akin said he was open to repealing both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So enough of your garbage, Murdock.


ADD . . This is good:

Mr. Reagan’s letter replied to one he received from former New Hampshire Gov. Meldrim Thomson, who asked the President to veto the bill. In the letter, Mr. Thomson called Dr. King “a man of immoral character whose frequent association with leading agents of communism is well established.”

Mr. Reagan replied, “I have the same reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on image, not reality.”

Mr. Reagan telephoned Mrs. King before leaving for a weekend of golf at the Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia, which has no black members.

Yes, your precious Ronnie really cared about the likes of you Deroy.

Share

Arizona pol says gay marriage will kill the country

Let’s take an Arizona politician seriously, for a second. Let’s listen to the duly elected leader of a great vacuous, deserted state.

Rep. Trent Franks (R — Stupefy) worries about trouble. Global warming, unemployment, mortgage fraud, fracturing of the middle class, I’m kidding. He’s obsessed with wingnut fairy tales. For instance, the Black American holocaust:

“Half of all black children are aborted. Far more of the African American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by the policies of slavery.”

Just look around you. Politics, business, the arts, education, Black people are being devastated. Michael Jackson, for instance, he’s dead. George Washington Carver, look what they did to him. They aborted parts of Mr. T’s hair. You think they’ll stop there? They’re just warming up.

Who are these people? Gila Monster Americans. They’ve been shivering for a while, but it’s now Satan’s morning in America. There they are, sunning themselves all over Arizona’s rocks. And now that the blood’s finally running to their brains, it occurs to them: Lesbians should honeymoon. They should do it in Phoenix, maybe in Trent Franks’ bed. Trent, buddy, where’s your dildo?

“. . it not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

See? Fairy tales. The foundational unit will die.

Where are ‘foundational units’ assembled? Chinese prisons, I assume. Trent answers ‘Marriage!’ (*cough*). How many of these units are gay? Used to be zero, now there are a few. So, now that there are extra units, they’re going to die. Marriages are like lemmings, apparently, you get too many of them and “together with voles and muskrats, they make up the subfamily Arvicolinae, which forms part of the largest mammal radiation by far, the superfamily Muroidea, which also includes rats, mice, hamsters, and gerbils.”

I thought about Franks’ warning. It’s impossible to believe, but this post took longer than the obvious seconds of punishing work. Gay people are, what, 2% of the population? I looked up the 1860 census, and it says there were 31,443,321 Americans. The Civil War killed around 625,000 of us. That was 2% of the population, and America barely blinked. But if 2% of our marriages are evil, we die? No, Franks seems to be warning us of something more troublesome: the 2%, once married, will kill the other 98%. The homo brain is a mysterious, violent wonder.

So that’s the real story behind gay marriage. You know how I know? Because when the queers are about to kill you, they won’t tell you. They’re not going to say a word. Would they? Would you? No. Have your gay pals mentioned it? No.

Share

UCLA frat boy Chris Jeon joins Libyan rebels, may die this weekend

Do we wonder what his former SAE frat brothers are thinking? Thinking? No, of course not. But Chris Jeon’s perhaps temporary media existence strikes us as making Greek wanker sense, doesn’t it? Puts the a-hole world right in a perverse way. “Dude, what a tits Summer break. Shooting up stuff all over Labia.”

And then the idiot goes out and gets shot, presumably? Luck forbid. Bro-ham speaks:

“At spring break I told my friends a ‘sick’ vacation would be to come here and fight with the rebels,” he told a Christian Monitor reporter.

There it is. Nothing I can make up is more tragic or more hysterical than Chris’ actual, perhaps short life. What a dumb young man. And how he personifies the donkey-brained chargers of our existence; improvising mortgage bankers come to mind. God knows we’ve known the type too long. We recall the test dummys from our college years who clambered up a sorority drain pipe but fell only two stories up the task.

“How do you fire this thing?” he asked on Wednesday as a bearded rebel handed him an AK-47.

Who cares? It’s all about the initial impulse. Me? I saw the coverage, imagined myself there, thought about it. Chris thought about it. I certainly could get there. Chris could get there. But there are bullets, mortars and hopelessly violent lunatics everywhere. And I’m a good person, with a decent life. Chris:

“I want to fight in Sirte!” he proclaimed, using hand gestures and pointing west towards Sirte. Whether the rebels understood him was far from clear. “It’s hard to communicate. I don’t really speak any Arabic,” he said.

Dude.

Though Jeon told his friend [Peter Duan] that he was taking the trip to “see a revolution from the ground up,” Duan is worried that he may be in over his head — traversing a political and religious world with which he has no familiarity or ties.

“I definitely think he would shoot somebody,” says Duan. “He told me, ‘If a rebel’s running at me with a gun, I won’t hesitate to shoot his head off.’”

NO, you cat-brain. Aim for the Qaddafi forces. Shoot the loyalists. Don’t take one in the face because you shouldered your weapon and then turned around on your rebel pals to ask how the safety works. Dumbass.

Share

The sad spawn of American History’s biggest losers celebrate secession

150 years later, these idiots still can’t grasp reality?

At Charleston’s Secession Ball, divided opinions on the spirit of S.C.
By Manuel Roig-Franzia | Washington Post | December 22, 2010

. . “We are very proud of who we are,” said Chip Limehouse, a South Carolina legislator who rented a historically accurate suit and vest for the formal ball celebrating the anniversary. “This is in our DNA.”

Great-great-great-granddad fought the Yankees, lost his plantation, was bathed in glory, the men and women at the ball like to say. They’re proud of their ancestors, they declare, and that’s why they paid $100 apiece to take part in an event touted as a “joyous night of music, dancing, food and drink.”

600,000 fatalities because we defended genocide. And now, a toast.

Someone in the audience yelled “You’re a liar” when Riley told the crowd that South Carolinians were motivated to secede, in part, by a desire to preserve slavery. Riley has invited President Obama to narrate portions of Abraham Lincoln’s greatest speeches in an observance of the firing on Fort Sumter; it’s unclear whether he will accept.

It’s similarly unclear whether he will participate in a re-enacted lynching. Or whether he will sign an executive order tearing the nation to bits, just for a few minutes. Or command the Army to burn Atlanta to the ground. Some commemorations should be historically accurate?

“Impeach,” one of the actors called out. Lincoln and the North were responsible for “vulgar tyranny,” the actors said. A narrator intoned that the 169 South Carolina men who voted unanimously to secede were “compelled by the same sublime courage” as the men who fought against Britain in the Revolutionary War the century before. Slavery was mentioned, but the main reasons for secession were portrayed as high tariffs and Northern states using Southern tax money to build their own infrastructure.

Slavery had nothing to do with it: this madness is the South’s latest veneer of bullshit. Their ancestors couldn’t be homicidal because they were men of virtue, in mind and character. True, blue-blooded Americans, they were unmatched in uncounted ways, incapable of the imprisonment, torture and slaughter of thousands.

Slavery was really nothing more than background noise, like the hum of machines in a factory. Hummm-hummmm buzzzz-buzzzzz I CAN”T HEAR YOU. Nobody got wound up about this hocus-pocus in the face of abolition.

The rest of us, we snotty Americans with our hysteria, and our Historians, and our Black friends who tell us about their ancestors, don’t know anything about actual Southern society and its ways. We just invoke a ridiculous drama to satisfy our bleeding hearts.

And here’s the proof: after the Civil War, did you really see Southerners take any notice? Did you see them vilify or accost these former ‘slaves’? Form groups to oppose them? Run them out of their towns? Did anyone go out of their way to cause them harm?

Of course not. Slavery was invisible to the Southern gentleman. He would look at the laborers on his plantation, the people who provided him the vast majority of his wealth, and ask himself “What the hell are those people doing on my property?”

The Civil War was really about complicated Northern/Southern power politics. And I’m not going to go any further into it because you’re frankly too stupid to understand.

John B. Hines, a wealthy Texas oilman and cattle rancher, helped, too. He sent a $5,000 sponsorship for the affair because he loves the Old South: “They created a society far and above anything else on Earth.”

Far and above the abolitionists, surely.

Share

Lob the Heritage Foundation a softball on the Fourth of July, and they whiff like geeks

Heritge Foundation

all american cheer. . this hilariously dubious offering of patriotism comes from, I assume, some sort of mini-skirted spirit-leader for America! over at The Heritage Foundation.

Like any other reader of that blog, simply remind yourself that you, the captain of our football team, aren’t about to edit some wobbly facts when you’re only getting a love letter:

Morning Bell: Reclaiming Our Founding Principles

Posted July 5th, 2010 at 8:45am
by Julia Shaw

Happy Birthday America! America is 234 years old. She was born on July 4, 1776, with the passage of the Declaration of Independence. Since then, America has grown from thirteen colonies on the east coast to fill a vast continent.

Actually, Canada is bigger than we are. So, they’re better at ‘filling’ the continent. We’re certainly less than half-filling the vastness.

Her economic and military power is envied around the world.

Perhaps some of her things are envied around the world? Her school system certainly isn’t. Sadly, Julia Shaw, the writer, are mocked for her incompetence.

And the American people are hardworking, churchgoing, affluent, and generous.

Shall we go any further? Many, but nowhere near all, of her people are churchgoing. Ditto for hardworking (conservative bloggers being a durable exception). And something like 14 million children live in poverty in the U.S. What is that — 20%?

declaration-of-independenceThe Declaration of Independence serves as a philosophical statement of America’s first principles. As Matthew Spalding describes, the Declaration affirms that all men are created equal. By nature, men have a right to liberty that is unalienable, meaning it cannot be given up or taken away.

Philosophically speaking, yes, but certainly not in reality. The Indians and the Blacks and the Mexicans and the Women and the Gays . .

And because individuals equally possess such inalienable rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. The purpose of government is to secure these fundamental rights, and the people retain the right to alter or abolish a government that fails to do so.

HAHAHA . . hoo! You’d think so, wouldn’t you? The Negroes waited a couple centuries before invoking that casual right, by getting a few hundred thousand white folks to die for them in a breezy war.

These principles have made America the great nation it is today.

More elementally: it is the willingness of a brave few people to hold the nation to these routinely unpopular principles that has made America the great nation it is today. Huuuuge difference.

But, since the early 20th century, these principles have been under attack in the academy, the media, and popular culture. So-called progressives have rejected the existence of self-evident truths—in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere. Instead, they embrace the notion of “Progress” that is constant change towards an unspecified end. From these faulty principles, it follows that, all men are not created equal; some people are further along in the historical process than others. There are not permanent rights with which man is endowed. Government creates rights, and these rights evolve according to the demands of the time. There is no need for consent of the governed, just experts who will tell us how to live and how to progress.

This is a serious attack on our principles, but not an insurmountable one.

No, it was the progressives — they better understood American principles and fought for poor individuals during the Great Republican Depression of the thirties, employing them with the New Deal and giving their grandparents food money with Social Security. It was the actual America-savvy people who fought for civil rights in the sixties and who opposed thecivil-rights-movement slaughter of the Vietnamese. It was those same leftists that backed feminism and saw that gays would rightly demand their civil rights as well. It was those people that saw Cesar Chavez for the hero he was.

What are we up to, now — the second half of the twentieth century? It’s the liberals who square the behavior of the United States with your precious Constitution. It’s the Heritage Foundation that opposes this, repeatedly, by calling themselves more patriotic than the few people who can qualify as patriots. It takes a lot more than some pom-poms and a blog page to force America to deliver on the Founding Fathers’ promises.

Share
Next