Racist Rednecks Hold Tea Parties

looneyleftLast Wednesday we saw the gathering of Americans across the country in cities far and wide to protest the out of control spending and expansion of government that they feel is ruining America. I have to say that I am proud of those that did so. The protests were peaceful (which is in direct contrast to most of the liberal protests that have happened over the years). The protests were non-partisan (despite the claims of those who opposed them). The protests were controlled and organized, and from what I could see, the protests were even cleaned up after, as those who protested made sure to pick up their mess when they were done. I can tell you the one thing that the protests were not….. Covered by major media outlets. Disgraceful. And I am now watching to see the reaction from the far left to the parties. I wondered how far they would go to disgrace or demonize those who held a different opinion. And I have to tell you, the far left has not disappointed me in providing example after example of why they are despised by many in America.

We can start with the fact that the Tea Parties were not covered when they were happening. I already covered this. But it was a welcomed admission of bias to me. By making that choice, the media in unison, in my opinion, stood up and said to America, “We are biased in favor of the left. We no longer feel that we have to hide it. We are going to shout it to the heavens. A pox on the house of honest journalism,”. I believe that most of the main stream media are biased pieces of shit, who are no more interested in reporting honest news than I am interested in cutting my left arm. I applaud them for each and every thing that they do to provide me with ammunition against the idiots who want to claim I am wrong about media bias. And they gave me some good ammunition there. Thanks MSM, for making my day. 

Roesgen = Not a Journalist

Roesgen = Not a Journalist

Let’s take a look at some of the antics so far from the far left: Let’s start with CNN. In an effort to characterize the tea parties as anti-government extremists, they sent “reporter” Susan Roesgen out to harass tea party protesters. She feigned interviewing them and when they tried to state why they were there, she continually argued with them, and tried to keep him from finishing his statement. When the protester was finally allowed to speak again, he stated that people should have the right to share in the fruits of their own labor and that government should not take it. She then arrogantly stated “Wait, did you know that the state of lincoln (they were in IL) gets $50 Billion from this stimulus?” She then walked away from him and stated, “I think you get the general tenor of this. It’s anti-government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox.” She also said that she was throwing it back to the studio because this was not really family viewing. 

Personally, I think what CNN was attempting to do here was obvious and was despicable. Their intent was to attempt to portray the protests as extremists groups who were the fringe of society and should be ignored. Not only should CNN be publicly outed for doing so, I would like to see this Susan Roesgen have the testicular fortitude to go on Fox and defend her actions, or for that matter to go and defend herself in any interview that is not done by the other far left networks who will giver her a free pass on tough questioning. But understand this, she won’t. And her career will go nowhere. She was sent out there as the sacrificial lamb and her lack of journalistic integrity will limit her future dramatically.

Shuster

Shuster

Then there was the the clown brigade that attempts to call itself a news source over at MSNBC. I have to tell you, these guys annoy me to no end, because they are 100% biased 100% of the time. They no longer try to hide it. The are right out there flying the far left flag (and finishing dead last in the ratings because of it…. weird). MSNBC’s David Shuster filled in for Countdown host Keith Olbermann. He took the opportunity to show that he has not matured past puberty. The protests, he explained, amount to “Teabagging day for the right wing and they are going nuts for it.” He described the parties as simultaneously “full-throated” and “toothless,” and continued: “They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending.” Shuster also noted how the protesters “whipped out” the demonstrations this past weekend.

Maddow

Maddow

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s segments over the past week with guest, Air America’s Ana Marie Cox, would dissolve all doubt. Their on-air gymnastics, dancing around the double entendre of the week, looked like live-action Beavis and Butthead. By one count, the two of them used the word “teabag” more than 50 times on one show. And on Monday, they even let viewers who may not know what the joke was in on it– referencing Urbandictionary.com, a site which offers a number of colorful definitions for the term “teabagging.”  I can just see Butthead now, “Uh-huhuhu, she said teabag…”

On a quick side note here, is it any wonder that MSNBC continually ranks dead last in the cable network news ratings? The question I have for those who love to tell us that the conservative movement in America is dead, is why is this so? By your liberal count, we are a weak and small fringe in America, and we need to wake up and join the rest of you in seeing the reality. If this is the case why is the most far left news network continualy dead last in number of viewers? And furthermore, why is Fox News, according to you the “bastion of conservative thought”, ALWAYS #1? O’Reilly has been the number one cable news show for over 8 years running. How is that possible if it is only a “small fringe” that share this view?

In another article in the NY Times, columnist Paul Krugman critized the American people’s tea party saying, “They are AstroTurf (fake grassroots) events manufactured by usual suspects (G.O.P).” He said the tea parties are not an accurate representation of public sentiment. “These parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so,” said Krugman.

Axelrod

Axelrod

The Huffington Post, in its so-called comprehensive coverage of the Tax Day Tea Party protests, published an article entitled, “Tea Bag Error: Protests Causing Scares, Evacuations at Congressional Offices.” According to the post legislators are fleeing for their lives as concerned citizens mailed out tea bags. The article reads as follows: “Local reports indicate that the practice of mailing actual tea bags to legislators is raising security concerns, and sometimes forced the evacuation of congressional offices in anthrax-like scares.”

Today we started to get some of the big boys on board. David Axelrod, a top advisor for Obama, and one of the campaign leaders credited for his successful election, weighed in today. He also took a negative view (expectedly), and offered this: “The thing that bewilders me is this president just cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. So I think the tea bags should be directed elsewhere because he certainly understands the burden that people face,”. Axelrod was asked on CBS’ “Face the Nation” for his opinion on what the show’s host described as “this spreading and very public disaffection with not only the government, but especially the Obama administration.” Axelrod replied: “I think any time that you have severe economic conditions, there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that’s unhealthy.”

Ah, but topping my list thus far of the far left loons weighing in on the tea parties would be our one and only poster child for stupidity and ignorance, Jeanine Garofalo. Witness this exchange between her and Keith Olberman this week (I did cut parts of this out that were irrelevant. I did not do anything that would in any way influence the tone of what she was saying or make things sound better or worse):

 

garofalo-greaseJANEANE GAROFALO: Thank you, let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they’ll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become — it’s like showing Frankenstein’s monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile, because their limbic brain, we’ve discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. 

OLBERMAN: Well, what do we do about it, though? If you can’t get them to make that last leap to what are we all doing here, Howard Johnson is wrong, how do you break through that?

GAROFALO: I don’t think you do, for most of them. This is a — it’s almost pathological or elevated to a philosophy or lifestyle. And again, this is about racism. It could be any issue, any port in the storm. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House. But they immigrant bash, they pretend taxes and tea bags, and like I said, most of them probably couldn’t tell you thing one about taxation without representation, the Boston tea party, the British imperialism, whatever the history lesson has to be. But these people, all white for the most part, unless there’s some people with Stockholm syndrome there.

OLBERMANN: And, I didn’t see them, the fact that they weren’t near the cameras which is bad strategy on the part of the people that were staging this at Fox.

garofalo-heilGAROFALO: True, and Fox News loves to foment this anti-intellectualism because that’s their bread and butter. If you have a cerebral electorate, Fox news goes down the toilet, very, very fast. But it is sick and sad to see Neil Cavuto doing that. They’ve been doing it for years, that’s why Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch started this venture, is to disinform and to coarsen and dumb down a certain segment of the electorate. But what is really, I didn’t know there were so many racists left. I didn’t know that. I — you know, because as I’ve said, the Republican hype and the conservative movement has now crystallized into the white power movement.

olbermanOLBERMANN: Is that not a bad, long-term political strategy because even though your point is terrifying that there are that many racists left, the flip side of it is there aren’t that many racists left.

GAROFALO: They’re the minority, but literally tens of people showed up to this thing across the country.

OLBERMANN: But if you spear your television network or your political party towards a bunch of guys looking who are just looking for a reason to yell at the black president, eventually you will marginalize yourself out of business, won’t you?

GAROFALO: Here’s what the right-wing has in, there’s no shortage of the natural resources of ignorance, apathy, hate, fear. As long as those things are in the collective conscious and unconscious, the Republicans will have some votes. 

I can only say wow. She just comes out and says that Republicans are racists. How is that for a stance from the far left? I didn’t hear a single racist statement made in regard to the tea parties or from any of the people that attended them. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t there. Oh, and before you bring it up Ray, the watermelon sign is a whole different thing than what you are trying to make it out to be. Watermelon is the analogy for the Environmental groups using global warming for gaining control. Green (environmental) on the outside, Red (Communist) on the inside. It isn’t about race. 

I have to imagine that the reactions that we are seeing from the far left (and lets be clear here that I don’t have an issue with the left, but I do have an issue with the far left) are the result of fear. They are starting to realize that perhaps the rest of America isn’t as stupid as they once thought. Sure there are lots of dumb Americans. But until now, the left had a monopoly on persuading them to follow. All of the sudden they are afraid an alternative viewpoint might actually have a voice in the debate. People like Garofalo are typical of the far left. Make no bones about it. They are not friends of America. The Far left is the most dangerous group of people in this country in terms of individual liberty. They are communists at heart.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Another great article US Weapon and I am glad you wrote it. I agree it does boil down to the left being scared. I think they fear that their grassroots efforts now has a formidable match and are trying desperately to convince the good sheople that it is an extreme and ‘bad’ movement.

    I’m looking forward to the comments today!

    • This is all about racisism and the media and government is pumping it through our veins. During the election they made it a racial race. Do you not think they are trying to put whites, blacks, Hispanics, ect against one another to push their agenda of socialism/Fascism/New World Order (One World Government) and keep us distracted? Think about it…Due to the amnesty bill, Americans are shunning Hispanics away because we fear that they will take our jobs, lower our wages, ect. Hispanics fearful of both blacks and whites because of the amnesty bill. The mainstream media is trying to play on “right-wing extremist” as white supremacy groups that are against Obama and the black community, The black community is looking at the Caucasian community as being racist because they are against there president. Look at this…we are all getting played by the government and the media. All of us, blacks, whites, Hispanic, Asians, ect will need to come together as a whole to bring the change the silent majority is screaming about. This is not going to be easy because we are against one another right now. Just the way the government wants us to be. What do you think?

      • esomhillgazette says:

        I think you’re right Nubian. But how can we fix it? Because of the MSM playing us against each other, it’s going to be hard to fix. And all the while the government is steadily trying to get their agenda in place as Law.

        If BF is right, it’s already too late to stave off the disaster. Not saying it’s useless to try, just that it’s going to be very difficult to do. Maybe if more Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, and Asians felt like you and I it wouldn’t be, but as it is, I can’t say whether it’s possible or not.

        I do think that the MSM playing the race card is dispicable. There is and always will be idiotic racists in the world. We can only teach our children what is right. It’s too bad our own media is propagating the very thing they preach against!

        It’s hard enough getting all sides to see that there really are no sides. We are all God’s people. We are all Human Beings on this earth who have to live together. There are good and bad in all Races. Any INTELLIGENT, thinking person knows that.

        Well, I’ve preached long enough.
        God Bless

        • Most African-Americans are too far BW or conditioned to even began to grasp the idea of what is going on. I try but get my feelings hurt alot. A good example is below, I sent her a copy of Anne Wortham document. Her response is below as well as mine!

        • USWeapon says:

          Well this is what I am trying to do here Esom, create a site where all views can come together and talk to each other respectfully and find our similarities to move forward with. Unfortunately too many find fault with certain ideas and then write off the group as radicals.

      • Richmond and others,
        I just want to show the thought process of Black Americans when you present them with the truth. I sent my sister and law the article of Anne Wortham posted on this forum. This is what my sister and law sent me back:

        My sister and law: Don’t take offense Sissy but give me a break with this really because you are really sounding like a hypocrite right now. You just traveled across the country screaming yes we can to witness this same history 3 months ago while telling me that it was a MUST that you experience it and that I should too, so excuse me if I’m not moved by this honey. Maybe you should have done your research on the man before you voted for him and before you jumped on that bandwagon to D.C. I voted for Obama because he was MY candidate of preference and writing in a name would have done nothing but give me a reason to make noise like this woman and everyone else that wants to STAND for something. I’d much rather Obama than McCain and since we have no other option, like I said to you before, I will continue to support MY president and pray for his strength and that he is a great leader and there is nothing any scholar or radical can do to make me change my mind. He may not be able to make this world a better place, but Jesus tries and he can’t either. I’m not really all THAT into politics so I really don’t care to receive this kind of email from you. I love you but this is a little ridiculous to me. Seriously.

        Nubian response:I don’t take it offense. If you want to call me a hypocrite that is fine, it doesn’t bother me one bit. Thank you for sharing your opinion. It’s not about being a hypocrite it is about making wrong right. You will understand once you see how this will affect (daughter’s names) but maybe you want because like you said, you don’t care. And that’s the problem. I have never asked you to stop supporting Obama, I have never asked you to jump on a bandwagon, I haven’t ask you to change your mind about anything, all I have asked you to do is educate yourself. Learn about the policies, law, and regulations…nothing more or less. Am sorry you feel the way you do…

        Yeah and I was dead wrong like many other Americans. I will announce that to the world and have to several people that I speak with. I am not ashamed because we all make mistakes and bad decisions. The bigger person takes that mistake or bad decision and make it right. So now that I know his plan, I have researched all of his policies, all of the Executive orders put in place, and now that I know my vote was wrong and I am trying to make it right. I can back everything I tell you with facts 100%. I understand you don’t want to hear it and like I said you want here it again, I thought you might have found that article interesting and at least begin to think about things because this is just not my opinion. But the opinion of over 60 million Americans of all race and creeds.

        You are right, I should have done more research about him as a person which I did but ignored or dismissed 50% of what I read because he preached CHANGE “against Bush”. I voted for Obama because I thought he was going to bring “American values back” and reverse what Bush did…his rhetoric and charismatic personality was another reason…And your right, whether it was Obama or McCain the same agenda was set in place and the torch would have been passed. I am not bashing Obama but the agenda he is pushing will only enslave your children and their children. It’s not his agenda…it’s the agenda of the elite. Nothing he promised us has come to pass because he is not on his agenda. I listened and now I watch and I am ashamed to say that it’s a bamboozle. I am concerned about my daughter, I could care less about anybody grown that aren’t willing to open there eyes to what is going on and seek and find the truth. It just goes to show that people aren’t awake and when you present them with the truth they see it as a lie and dismiss what you try to tell them because they are too BW.

        Ridiculous…okay! Hey, time will tell you better. And I promise you on my life and Parris I will never send you anything else pertaining to this. I have informed and you have dismissed; The bloodshed want be on my hands as I am very aware of what is going on and I will continue to toot my horn loud and clear whether you take heed is the next man problem.

        • I highly recommend the book ‘Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. It explains how we are all prone to self justification. Those of us that question ourelves, like you and most of us here do, are those that can transcend this human tendency. Those that don’t, well…….
          The book was originally on Oprah’s bookclub list (before her Obama days) and was recommended to me by a Black American co-worker.
          I am Hispanic (Cuban) and already see this divisiveness splitting our community.
          I believe you are totally correct that it’s all about keeping up the chaos in order to keep us distracted from the real issues–gov’t taking away individual rights.

        • Kathleen Blue says:

          It is very admirable for you to support your vote. I fear that your dedication to him and this administration is ill thought.

          The first thing, you might want to deliberate on is: It is not us who needs to back him it is he who needs to back us.

          Secondly, The racism arguments are hogwash. He is not the first Black president. He is biracial. What happened to the other half of his genetics here?

          Whoever said the races are divided is exactly right. The Black are under some misnomer that he is black. Had history been different and the whites accepted biracial children he would not have been catorgorized as black.

          Biracial, is actually an ethinic background of itself.

          Hispanics, are taking over this country. Not only are they taking jobs but they are recieving health care at no cost’s. They collect double welfare checks on hyphenated names. They pay no taxes. Hippa laws protect this.

          If your average American could make 10.oo tax free instead of minimum wage taxed. Would thier quality of life be different.

          We need to have an independent party. We need to have men and woman who have worked in society hold these offices.

          The first step would be to cap terms. No one should hold a government seat for longer than 5 years. Too much corruption and incestial behaviors develop.

          Secondly, campaign contributions need to go out the door. It is this lobbying that has destroyed this country as a whole.

          • Late response, but had to say – where were all you people when the Republicans were lining the pockets of their corporate buddies and keeping the lobbyists comfortably employed? When they turned a blind eye to the out of control corporations that have destroyed our economy? This is not the fault of the current administration, it is the culmination of years of out-of-control spending and excess. It was un-Patriotic to disagree with the Republican administration on any of their policies – show some respect to our current President as he tries to salvage what remains of our nation. I’m sure neither you or I would be any more successful given the myriad of problems we face. oh, and to “nubian” – go back to school and learn grammar and spelling. I’m sure then you could make a better argument to your “sister and law”. At least Obama worked to educate himself before trying to run the country.

            • VAGirl,

              “Idol” worship will get you nothing.

              The problems of the country are directly the result of politician men believing THEY have the knowledge, talent, skill and failing that, the access to legal violence to fix human problems.

              All such men are conceited and vain – and evil and dangerous.

              Obama is such a man.

              (But so was Bush, and all the rest)

            • VAgirl,

              How sad to see you so absolutely lost in the political world. You are talking about things of which you have absolutely zero knowledge about. I would reply to your points, but they are so inherently false, and hypocritical, and you are so totally sucked in and clueless, that I would be wasting my time.

      • USWeapon says:

        Amen Sister. You are talking my language. We all need to come together to change the path this country is on. Right, left, black, white, hispanic, poor and middle class, united as one. But Ray called me a right wing extremist and now I don’t know if we can be friends, LOL

        • Kathleen Blue says:

          Who ahh for the white wing extremist Veteran. That was the first slip up in this administration. They gave themselves away in thier intentions to socialism. Even the draft dodging Bill Clinton was never stupid enough to go that far.

      • Nubian,
        I agree with you. I’ve put forward the same concept; that the American electorate is being deliberately divided by politcians to keep us fighting each other, rather than focusing on what the politicians are really up to. Needless to say I was dismissed as a conspiracy theory hack. So now, I pretty much keep it to myself and wait for the day when reality hits the willfully ignorant square in the pants. I’m even considering go passive-aggressive about it. Since our nation is determined to self destruct, I think we should help it along. That way there will likely be enough of us left to start over. The longer the end takes to arrive, the fewer of us there will be. I believe Liberalism is born of luxury and complacency. So until liberals feel the pain of their ideaology, they will continue marching on. Hang in there, Sister. You are not alone.

  2. Thanks for explaining the “watermelon” issue. Things are crazy enough without misinterpreting an image of fruit as some kind of racist slam / statement. How quick people are to assume.

    It is just like the campaign…when the term “welfare” brought accusations of “racism”. Never in my entire life have I EVER connected those two words together, it simply never occurred to me.

  3. Comments comming from these people are of no surprise to me at all. I’d bet that not one single one of these whacked out liberals have ever smelled military service. And those of us who served simply don’t have time for racism.

    Garofalo commenting about the brain and the frontal lobe was about as absurd as me saying I can cure cancer. In a sense, it was all very comical to read these baseless comments. It’s even funnier that Olberman actually agreed, which shows his lack of intelect. Maddow on the otherhand, has no business on TV to begin with. She’s an Olberman clone gone bad!

    With all this knowledge being bestowed on me by people that can’t spell my screen name, I guess I’ll have to just accept that I am now a “radical, exremist, racist” that clings to my religion and guns and all my “white power” friends. NOT!

    Think these folks are alittle worried? They should be!

    G!

  4. RWBoveroux says:

    These folks (radical left) may be scared and worried, but what really concerns me is what they are going to do about it. When an animal is cornered, there are two impulses. The first is flight (and they are not about to fold their tents and slip away in the night), and the second is fight. It is their method of fighting that has me concerned because in some means, they have the upper hand.

    • RW, I would agree that flight is not going to happen soon. As far as fight, they can only rely on fear. That is their fight. I spend many weekends in the mountains of Pennsylvania. Last Saturday night, about 20 of us were by the campfire discussing the current political situation. The unanimus choice was that if it came down to violent confrontation, they (the radical liberals) would get their butts kicked. These men and women varied in ages, mostly above 40 yrs old, and 3/4 of us were vets and hunters. If the “fight” would occur, they would end up with their tail between their legs heading for the nearest safe zone. The freedon loving Americans will stand up, because maybe it’s us with our backs to wall!

      G!

  5. Thanks for another great post, US. Garofalo and Olberman come across as kooks and a little scary. However, the one that really scares me is Mr. Axelrod. He’s in a position of real power and his disdain for the American people is very obvious. I have hope that the old addage of ‘the bigger they are, the harder they fall’ still holds true.

    • I agree, OR, I was very disturbed by Axelrod’s “unhealthy” comment, as he is in a position to do something about us “extremists”. I think the overwhelming turnout took the far left and the Adm. by surprise this time, but they will now be ready and their version of being ready, is what concerns me.

      • Kathy, I think it would benefit all of us if the Government overreacted, and I mean bigtime. I could handle a night in jail for engaging in a peaceful protest, which is our RIGHT!

        G!

        • They will not throw us in jail; that would put people into the position of choosing sides and potentially revolting against the government in larger numbers. They will declare an emergency and commandeer the internet, which they know is the primary mode of spreading the word of the opposition in the absence of a fair and balanced MSM. This would have the same effect as disarming an enemy. We have to consider ways to stay in touch should this tactic be utilized. A bill has already been introduced in the legislature which would give the President the power to do this.

          • MadMom,

            Do you have a bill number for that. I would be highly interested in researching it. Shut down the internet. Who do they think they are? What would I do with my time?

  6. esomhillgazette says:

    The fact that they (far left wacko liberals)make these comments does not suprise me. AT ALL!!! If that’s the best defense they can come up with, well then they are in for a big suprise when, far from going away, this shift to the right just gets bigger!

    I loved that Susan Roesgen pointed out the fact that IL was getting 50 Billion from the Stimulus Bill. Talk about missing the point! It only shows that she, along with the others, just don’t get it. The Stimulus and Bailouts are what has gotten us all concerned with the Spending to begin with. Her pointing that out to that man probably just proved his point for him. Her point was on the top of her head! Another told one of the protesters that they were going to get a $400.00 check from the government. Oh come on! Four Hundred Dollars? For one, they can keep it. And for another that’s not enough money to do anything with except MAYBE pay a couple of small bills.

    The one thing that does concern me though is the fact that our esteemed politicians in D.C. either ignored or made dismissive remarks about them. Ignoring us is not as bad in my eyes as being dismissive. Obama and Pelosi did this and that’s a bad sign. Robert “talking parrot” Gibbs said that he didn’t understand what we were upset about. That The President is cutting taxes for 95% of the Country. Oh really? The only thing I have seen Obama do is RAISE taxes. Maybe someone needs to tell Gibbs that Congress has already taken out those Tax cuts Obama had in his budget. And someone needs to tell them that raising gas and cigarette taxes is not cutting taxes for anyone. Pelosi looked like a deer in the headlights as she just outright dismissed the parties as “a few right wing radicals”.

    I wonder how many of us will have to be in the streets before we’ll be taken seriously? I also wonder if it won’t be too late before they do. If that budget is passed then we are well and truly screwed. I am afraid that when it finally occurs to Washington that we are headed in the wrong direction, there will be no chance to turn around. We’re on a slippery slope to hell now, and the grade is getting steeper every day.

    • How funny… 400 won’t even cover the energy tax increase that the poor will be paying…so comical that the media thinks Americans are so dumb that they can lead us all around by the nose and that we are not smart enough to see what the media is doing.

  7. I was just informed that DHS was monitoring the crowd at our Tea Party in RI. They also stopped a man who had written information about the tea party on the windows of his vehicle twice before the event; they wore plainclothes, showed no ID, and drove black vehicles with tinted mirrors. In addition, town workers were busy the past couple of weeks taking down all signs we posted about the tea party throughout the state, while leaving the signs for missing animals, work at home scams, ED treatments intact. This is our own government subverting Freedom of Speech through overt intimidation and actions to stifle dissemination of information about the event. Between our government and the media, we have a tough battle. But they underestimate the quiet determination of the people.

    • Further to my experiences, here is a report that shows tea party participants were being spied on all over the country. http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=2659

      • Wow, that’s quite an article. Keep us posted as you get more info on the RI situation.

      • I sent this article to my father, who will have it nationwide by tonight, knowing him LOL.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Hmmm – if it was a protest comprised of all Muslims that were advocating extradition of waterboarders to Muslim nations for trial would feel the same way?

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Hmmm, would I feel the same way? NO. We are Americans. We do not want the government to be extradited to another country for trial. We simply want them to stop the spendapalooza they are on.

        Why should the government be spying on us for having peaceful demonstrations? Do they have something to hide? Or maybe they’re doing something wrong? Paranoia? Or could be that they don’t like those who disagree with the direction of the Nation.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          So you’re a lawful protest of Muslim Americans would rate differently than the TEA parties – in the former it is ok for DHS to monitor? Why the double standard?

        • TexasChem says:

          Ummmm… why would a patriotic American Muslim want to extradite an American citizen to another country to stand trial under sharia law?Why would a patriotic American Muslim even want to protest?You amaze me Ray.The CIA uses approved interrogation methods against what are essentially war criminals since they were linked in some manner to our cause against the war on terror.Obama released the interrogation methods but he did not release the information memos that would prove the methods used did in fact obtain information important to national security.And why do you always bring up something about the Muslims anyway in your posts?

          Oh and yes there are Muslim protests happening in the U.S. so don’t worry about their rights there…JEESH

          http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/01/times-square-ny.html

      • USWeapon says:

        Feel what way? That they have a right to protest for what they believe? I absolutely would feel that way. They have every right to protest for that very thing if they like. And I would be willing to fight for their right to do so.

  8. Oh, Obama isn’t ignoring the Tea Parties, he’s just not going to overtly address them.

    In the news this morning Obama is talking about making an attempt to find 100 million they can cut from the budget because, you know Obama, he cares. Nice Try.

    Does he really think Americans are dumb enough to be appeased by 100 Million when we’re concerned about the 9 TRILLION! This is precisly what we have to expect. Our dear Lawmakers will do certain things to fast talk and make gestures, but they really have no interest in losing power do they?

    When Washington returns to the Rule of Law and Constitutionally Limited government, then we will be “appeased” and not before.

    As for the media, I think we can pretty much discount them. They are actively doing the best they can to drive themselves out of business–they will probably be the next big bailout. Frankly there’s nothing we could do to improve on their strategy of self-destruction.

    • Bama dad says:

      The only place he will cut a 100 million from is the military or border security.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      This is nuts, pure insanity. Its great that this has turned into a complainers paradise. So where do you suggest Obama start with his cuts? How about we cut infrastructure spending so we can have more bridge collapses. Your family die in a bridge mishap? Tough shit – no one had enough money to repair the damn things – the Feds don’t collect taxes anymore, the State – nope not them either, the locals? Nope – they’re too busy with education now. There is a reason that many of the posters on this board are derided as far right extremists – you’re the same as the far left – no workable solutions, no compromise, everything is black and white with no context or depth.

      • Ray,
        How about the 200 million for the mall lawn? Destroyed by his supporters during his inaugural event.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        How about 90 Mil to study Cow farts on the environment?

      • As we spend more money in this area lets start here.

        Culture of entitlement is an expression meant to encapsulate the social norm whereby a society comes to expect government entitlement programs to correct inequalities in employment opportunities, access to adequate health care, or any other inequity caused by bias in access to things that are perceived by the common public as basic human right. In the United States, the basic rights of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are guaranteed by the United States Constitution and clarified in the first ten amendments to the same, commonly called the “United States Bill of Rights”. (See Social Safety Net)
        The expression is often used to criticize perceived abuses or expansion of entitlement programs as a result of the general expectation of government intervention in protecting access to basic services. Critics of a culture of entitlement often believe that the free market in general, or the rewards of personal responsibility, is the most responsible approach to correcting these inequities. The connotation of the phrase often implies that the recipients of government entitlements are individuals that do not deserve to receive such benefits or entitlements. The expression may be contrasted with a “culture of merit”, where individuals are rewarded due to ability or achievement (cf. meritocracy). Advocates of a culture of merit state that the free market and individual responsibility for themselves and their community provide a culture of ownership whereby individuals take full responsibility of themselves, their family, and their community. In a culture of ownership, it is believed that there is a stronger relationship between cause and effect, between risk and reward, and between investment and return on investment.

        I have watched this grow from a small part of the US budget in the 1960’s to an 800 pound gorilla now.
        We used to be able to afford investments in infrastructure before all this social spending.

      • USWeapon says:

        Interesting strategy as well Ray… Offer up a cut that no one but BF would give and use the emotion around losing a family to make it seem ridiculous. I would begin with cutting welfare programs. I would then move to cutting tons of pork that is being spent by both sides of the aisle. How about the couple hundred million Pelosi got for birth control in SF. Dude there are tons of places where government is being expanded by this administration. We could cut cut 25% off this budget by not even “cutting spending” on government agencies versus last year, instead only not expanding spending on them. But you don’t want to hear any of that? We have solutions, just none that those on the left are willing to hear. You sound like Pelosi and Company…. When conservatives have a plan, you shut it out and then tell the public that Republicans don’t have one. I am not a far right extremist….

        • Here’s a funny one…a SC researcher received over $200k in federal funds to study a beaver family. Driving down HWY378 the other week, I passed two squished beavers. Does the money get returned, or spent on an autopsy?

          While $200,000 may not seem like a lot of money, there are thousands of these sorts of projects throughout the nation…and that adds up to several millions. Just in my area alone, our representative is a BBQ master. How much money needs to be spent on studying a Revolutionary War battlefield, that has been picked and combed over for almost a century? Particularly when the field has been the site of reenactments for decades? What’s left to study in an area smaller than the highschool football field?

          • The MSM will sing to the heavens that Obama IS cutting the budget. They’ll just leave out that he is cuttng 1/35,000th of the budget. And the same people who insist that he is giving 95% of Americans a tax cut will tout his fiscal responsibility. It must take a lot of effort to ignore reality so wholeheartedly.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Would you be happier if he simply said “hey Tim, screw it all – cut everything 50% – give them what they want. Hell, they accuse me of not making enough change in the blink of an eye I’ve been here, so let’s play their game and slash her up real good. Let the chips fall where they may.”

              C’mon MadMom – if you’re employer cut your salary by double digits what would you do? How easy could you adjust?

          • Rowe,

            Dead animals get a necropsy. Your squished beavers comment made me laugh out loud. I needed that. Thank you!

            ;o)

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          This is a topic that comes up time and time again in the various posts here – and let me be clear – perpetual spending to sustain welfare programs is a zero sum game. However, short of ‘cut the spending and cut it now’, the problem is that nothing offered by the right makes a lick of sense on how to break free of the cycle and back out of the hole we’re in. Stopping the checks is simpleton answer the speaks to nothing but emotional shallowness. My point in criticism of the TEA party was that the potential to harness something great will likely die off into a ‘remember when’ and nothing to show for it – maybe I am wrong, but where is the MoveOn.org of the right? Where is the SUSTAINED grass roots movement that can marshal people and marshal resources? Where is the $$$ of the right wing donors to support sustained media, pervasive movement, robust organization….

          A guy like me says “aw piss on it” when I see a haphazard ad hoc seat of the pants bitching fest that was supposed to convince me to change my mind? And then we all turn into TEA party nuthuggers with no platform, no agenda, no next steps, no success criteria, no plan – just a bunch of ‘hell yeahs!”. Pile on that the fringe players that show up to the events looking like complete jackasses (and, mind you, guilt by association) and you have a big ole FUBAR. Correct me if I got it wrong – maybe I’m tweeting the wrong people or am on the wrong mailing list – maybe I expected more and walked away bummed that I opened my mind and nothing of value came in.

          • I was under the impression that the Tea Parties were simply to let government know that we are tired of the outrageous spending. Not to have an agenda or a platform, we’re not running for office here. We’re just free thinking Americans who are sick to death of government, be it Republican or Democrat, spending money they don’t have to spend. What is so damned hard to comprehend about that?

  9. TexasChem says:

    These tea party bashing incidents were just the leftist controlled medias attempt at swaying public opinion in their direction and failed miserably and did more to hinder their whacked out cause than help it.They tried everything from playing the race card to using celebritys’, to trying to incite a social class split.I just hope the average American can see the big picture and understand who called the shots that these biased views held by the leftists are promoting.

    • Bama dad says:

      I worry/am scared that the average American is starting to become numb to all the crap that is out there and will just let events pass them by. As a whole how many people honestly look at what is going on. I must confess until a couple of years ago I was just voting and went with the flow. Thought I was doing good. I now try to be more informed and always attempt to learn about what is going on. Unless things change I fear for my country, I feel like I am swimming against the current.

      • BAMA, I’ve been going through life the same way. The bailout mess really woke me up last fall. I’m not sure yet what they woke up, but I’ll find out as time goes on.

        G!

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Bama, I was like you then and like you now. I feel like I am trying to swim against the current here. I talk and preach to my friends and family continuously to wake up! I talk to anyone who will listen. It seems like I am getting nowhere. I’m not about to quit as long as I have breath, but it seems as though people are asleep and are unwilling to wake the hell up. Just waiting for the next election ain’t gonna cut it this time. We’ve got to stop this crazy government now!

  10. Black Flag says:

    Remember, conflict creates power.

    As long as this group defines itself singularly, as does the ‘other’ group, the elite will consistently grow in their power from the energy of your conflict.

    The elite knows this, and purposely fuels it via the media.

    Back away from ‘us’ vs ‘them’ mentality.

    Recognize that it is a game played at your expense regardless of who is in holds government

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      A society in which Government is not required because people live by the rule “do whatever you want as long as it is not harming anyone else” sounds like a wonderful place.

      There are several reasons why this would never happen, but I will stick with giving the most obvious.

      Man, in spite of his ability to “reason”, in spite of his ability to be “moral” and in spite of his ability to “have a conscience” is, at root, still a member of the animal kingdom.

      In the animal kingdom, the strong will always dominate the weak. The strong will attempt to control the supply of food, the supply of mates, and the supply of shelter. They will do so through violence. It is simply natural, it is what animals do.

      In a human society, it would be necessary to ensure that everyone had absolutely equal resources as far as food, mates, shelter, and all the basics in order for “Do whatever you want as long as it does not harm anyone else” to actually work.

      In the absence of a Government, who is going to ensure that everyone in the society has equal resources? Is man simply going to come up with that system magically on his own? I would argue no, because the natural tendency is for the strong to take what they can (by use of force if necessary) and defend what they have (again by use of force).

      In order to prevent the strong from attempting to dominate the weak, there would have to be some sort of body that would determine what actions constitue “harm” and what the penalties would be for causing “harm”, but then you would have… wait for it… A GOVERNMENT!

      I went to a small Liberal Arts College for four years (about 2000 students total). The only real rule we had at that college was literally, “do whatever you want as long as you are not harming anyone else”. Let me tell you, this was a FUN college to attend! This system worked at the college because all 2000 students were very intelligent, in the same age-bracket, and from largely similar socio-economic backgrounds. We did not have to worry about where our food was coming from, we had dorms to live in, and mating certainly wasn’t any problem for the vast majority of us either, so there was no need for any competition for available resources. We all had what we needed on a daily basis, so “Do whatever you want as long as it isn’t harming anyone” was a logical system that worked.

      Take that same system and try to apply it to the “real world” where people have many differences and there is a need to compete for available resources, and that system goes out the window.

      Unless someone invents “replicators” that will supply everyone’s needs and wants whenever people need or want something, “Morally Informed Anarchy” on a global scale is simply a pipe-dream. Currently it would require an over-arching entity to ensure that all people had all of their needs and wants equally supplied at all times in order for the “golden rule” to actually work. This was actually the goal of Communism. Give all the people what they need and want equally, and when everyone is equally happy and has what they need, the need for Government will disappear.

      Unfortunately we have found that the strong dominate production and government in Communism and fail to actually distribute the resources equally, so Communism never progresses into “benevolent anarchy” as it was theorized to do.

      Don’t get me wrong… Benevolent Anarchy where everyone lives by the “golden rule” is great. After having lived under that system for 4 years in college, I can attest that it is a happy way to live. Unfortunately it requires the consent of THE ENTIRE POPULATION in order for it to work, and in the vast majority of human society, that just ain’t gonna happen.

      Since it ain’t gonna happen, we have to live with government, and try to limit it as much as we can. We can choose not to participate, or choose to limit our participation to the local and maybe State level, or we can strive to be as fully involved as possible and do whatever we can to try to limit the government on the local, State, AND National level. We can recognize that by Constitutional intent, the National Government should never have gotten this out of control in the first place, and we can try to do something about that realization.

      We basically have to see government as a “necessary evil” and try to keep as many limits on the growth of that “necessary evil” as possible.

      I realize that that was a huge diatribe that was not a direct response to Black Flag’s post… it was more of a response to the totality of his posts that I have read since joining the site.

      Final thought for the day: If Black Flag ever goes solo will he have to change his posting name to “The Rollins Band”? Bonus points to anyone who “gets that”.

      • Kristian says:

        Peter,

        I think that is the first time I have ever seen anyone answer BF with such logic. That made so much sense to me it’s scary!

  11. USWeapon,
    I wish you would stop pimpimg your blog on other sites.
    Thanks

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Why? People “pimp” their own blogs on other websites all the time.

      If you can point to anything specifically that is WRONG with the practice of doing that, please do. Otherwise your wish will remain just a wish i am afraid. LOL

      • just spam that offers nothing to the discussion. Wrong? don’t know. Rude? i think so.

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Well..Anonymous…You should stop being rude then!

          Kind Regards,
          RS

          • point made.

            Regards

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Hello Anonymous,

              From your comment, I’m not sure if you are saying that “you are in agreement that you are being rude in THIS site”…

              OR

              If your comment (“Point Made”) indicates that you feel that you made your 1st point more clear to us by coming in on this site and making posts that were totally unrelated (i.e. Trolling) which in turn compelled a few others at this site to reply to your post. Please help me understand…Do you think that US Weapon is “trolling” at other sites?….

              OR

              Is your “Point Made” something else that I just don’t get?

              ************

              I can assure that US Weapon is not a “Troller”. As he mentions below, he prefaces his posts with a brief AND VERY RESPECTFUL opinion on the topic at hand. On his posts at other sites, I’ve never seen him be “rude”.

              US Weapon provides at this site, a platform where folks of all beliefs can voice their opinions on a variety of topics. I for one am SO GRATEFUL the day that I decided to click on his link to get here. I’m now a daily visitor and I feel respected by others at this site EVEN if they don’t agree with me. US Weapon’s site is different from the “Quickie” Posts that can be found at the various news outlets — which are full of vitriol and non-sense (no matter what you believe).

              Asking/Wishing him to stop pimping his site is just plain silly and I also feel that your initial comment was meant to troll — if you had a personal issue with US Weapon, you could have used the About/Contact Author link.

              If you have opinions that you want heard here (and debated), then everyone here will agree that you are welcome…US Weapon does have rules though in regards to having manners in how you deal with others at this site. If interested, you should contact him (via the About/Contact Author link) to get more details.

              Try staying a while, you really might enjoy it!

              Kind Regards,
              RS

              • Hello RS,
                 
                The simple answer is yes.
                 
                The longer answer is yes, I do think my initial post was rude and yes, I do think that was reinforcing my original point and yes, there was something else. That being that I didn’t intend to make huge deal of it, just a minor deal, and go off-topic for an extended period.
                 
                In other words, “you have a point about me being rude”, “i’ve made my point”, and “the point has been made… moving on”.
                 
                In the spirit of moving on, I won’t go into the rest of your message, unless you request more, other than to say that I was not accusing USW of “trolling”, as I understand that term.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                I wish you the best then. Take care and kind regards.

              • USWeapon says:

                Thanks for the feedback Anon. I appreciate your position. However I have tons of readers who have come from those invitations that I put on the forums and who are grateful that they did. As I said, I attempt to add thoughts to each one of the invitations that I put out there.

          • Kristian says:

            Oh, that was a good one. ROFLMAO!

        • USWeapon says:

          I disagree. I always offer some aspect of the topic at hand as the first line. Rarely I will not do so, but that is not the norm. You could just scroll on past it if you aren’t interested in the more civil conversation that is offered here as opposed to the tone of discussion where you saw that post.

    • I think USW’s attempt at getting some more people to visit here is a good idea. It helps all of us to understand differing views on the various subjects. Most of the self-proclaimed liberals have been very polite and intelligent, expressing their views in an adult manner. My guess is that your referring to FOX forum, and some of the not so nice posters there. They have not been an issue here, I think Black Flag helps by keeping them totally confused!! RLMAO!!!

      G!

    • Black Flag says:

      Freedom of Speech, Anon.

      Which is why you can ‘Anti-Pimp’ this blog site, on this blog.

      • “Anti-Pimp”, Nice!
        not sure, does Free Speech cover advertisements.

        just expressing a wish, US can do with it as s/he wishes.

  12. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    What is perhaps even more frightening than the fact that these left-wing radicals control the media is that it is the same type of people who control “public education”.

    Unless we can control what our own children are being taught, there is a great danger that they will become government sheep. You will notice that sheep do not really care what the shepherd is doing or why he is doing it, as long as they are alive and have a reasonable amount of safety and comfort.

    People are no different. If you teach them that whatever the government is doing, don’t worry about it, it is for your own good, and then you make sure that they have reasonable safety and comfort, most people are just going to go on with their lives in relative unconcern.

    I would love to see a survey of anyone under the age of 40 who attended public schools where the only question asked was, “Do you give a crap what the Government does?” I bet an alarming percentage would simply answer “No.”

  13. Black Flag says:

    I, for one, believe the Tea Party activism so easy to target and for others to dismiss and ridicule it is because it is so hypocritical.

    Here “you” are at the Tea Party, pretending to be principled opponents of government power.

    Suddenly, after 8 years of government oppression, immoral, criminal, and tyrannical behavior – the ‘Conservative’ Movement suddenly comes alive against government!

    Obama hasn’t done a single thing that Bush didn’t do, or begin to do.

    The EPA ruling was a process started under Bush’s OK.

    The bailouts was a Bush plan. Bush nationalized the Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac’s!!

    The wars were started by Bush .etc.etc.

    So, suddenly, all of this is now an issue for the ‘Conservatives’? Where were they a year ago, or two, or 5???

    The hypocritical stance exposes the root.

    Because the ‘Conservative’ movement lacks a consistent intellectual framework, it instead fixates on personalities rather than policies.

    They support the exact same policies enforced during the ‘Conservative’ era that they are now protesting in the ‘Liberal’ era.

    So, it is very easy for the media to say – “Yep, they are merely angry that a Black Man is elected” because that must be the only reason. It can’t be policy because these are the policies they started or
    enacted!

    Until the Conservative movement achieves consistency in opposing government intrusions – including those impositions enacted by their own Conservation Movement, these protests are merely a massive public embarrassment for the participants.

    Consistency – and now we see some of the consequences because of the lack of it.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Many “Conservatives” were against all of these things under Bush, as well as they are against them when they are continued and further expanded on by Obama.

      A lot of Conservatives are not necessarily hypocrites (they didn’t support Bush doing these things, they also don’t support Obama doing these things).

      I personally thought George W. Bush was an idiot. I thought he was LESS of an idiot than Al Gore or John Kerry, but an idiot nonetheless.

      It is easy for the media to PORTRAY Conservatives as hypocrites because we didn’t have any TEA Parties while Bush was in office. Just because we weren’t having protest parties doesn’t mean that Conservatives supported everything that Bush did.

      In large part, if you give a Conservative 2 idiots to vote for, the Conservative will vote for the idiot that they hope will screw up the least of the two idiots in question. We know that both idiots are going to screw up, and screw up BADLY, we just vote for the one that we hope is JUST A BIT LESS OF A SCREW-UP.

      Now, if you presented Conservatives with a candidate that appreared to genuinely support conservative ideals, and then the Conservatives still supported the guy even when he decided to grow the Government like crazy, then we would indeed be hypocrites. Many Conservatives bashed Bush for growing the Government; we just didn’t have huge TEA Parties about it.

      Obama has grown the Government 3x more than Bush did already. He has done so in about 80 days, compared to Bush taking 8 years. At that rate, after only 4 years of Obama, the Government will be 18 times larger than it was under Bush. I guess Conservatives thought that protest-worthy finally.

      It is easy to portray Conservatives as hypocrites simply because we were not nearly as VOCAL in opposition to what Bush did. Most of us still opposed it though!

      • Black Flag says:

        Exactly my point.

        When the exact same issues were under a Conservative administration – conservatives may have been opposed but remained quite.

        Suddenly, the same issues under a Liberal administration – and suddenly they are vocal.

        Therefore, it is not the policy that created the vocalization – but the very slight difference in skin color? or very slight difference ideology?

        • Black Flag, I think it’s because Obama has done these things so quickly and so brazenly. Under previous administrations, both Rep and Dem, things have moved more slowly and subtly. We had a chance to get used to them. A little tax hike, a expansion of a govt dept, a controversial law here and there, a judge legislating from the bench. All these things happened and they were objectionable, but they happened little by little, so we just kept voting and hoping. (For the record I voted Constitution Party because of my disgust with the Republican Party)

          I think people woke up in large numbers because of the pace, not necessarily because these were different policies. I became less and less pleased with Bush over the years, but I didn’t start a blog, or start reading other people’s blogs, or become obsessive about the news or write my representatives and sign petitions until around March of this year.

          Is it because Obama is black? a democrat? NO! It’s because when all this happens so quickly it’s much easier to see the trend of big government, freedom lost, and besides lots of other normal half-asleep or powerless feeling people finaly got pushed to the edge.

          It’s easier to jump on the bandwagon of a movement than to create a movement. The fact that so many people jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon means that these people had these core values all along, but thought they were alone or in a tiny minority. That’s how I felt anyway.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          I have to agree with Michelle here BF. The problem with Obama is not his color at all. It’s not even his politics. He has been spouting this garbage for 2 years. Since he began to run for President. Most didn’t pay attention to him until he began to get so popular. I know I didn’t. But then he went from nobody to the Dem Candidate. That’s when I began to take notice.

          Then there’s the fact that since elected, he has done so much in such a small time frame, only 3 or 4 months. There’s also the small problem of his having such a Majority in Congress, that he can get all or most of this crap passed into law.

          I have been more and more vocal as I have seen all this happening. Other changes before have been more gradual in previous Administrations. He would have more success if he slowed down. More success for him that is not us. These proposals will be the end. No Hope, and Change for the Worse.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Your statement that the Bush administration was a Conservative administration is a fallacy. At BEST Bush was a Republican. His claim to being a “Compassionate Conservative” was complete BS, and Conservatives knew that before we voted for him. We just thought that Al Gore would be and even WORSE choice!

          “All Politicians lie; I just like Republican lies better than Democrat Lies” – Bob Dornan, former member of the House of Representatives, R-CA.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            I’m no longer Republican because of that. I’m a member of the VLDG Party! But I don’t know if it will make a difference by 2012! I don’t think we have that much time.

        • USWeapon says:

          Or the very difference in scope and size? C’mon BF, you are smarter than this. Government has ramped up spending at an unprecedented level in the last year and people are fed up with it and scared, so they took to the streets. You are trying to turn this into a race issue when it isn’t. Stop it.

          • Black Flag says:

            What scale difference?

            The bailout is Bush’s idea….

            Further, it may not be a race issue – but it is merely a shirt color issue.

            It’s the typical ..when we do it, its good…when they do it, its bad.

            • BF: If you truly believe that for a majority of those who are now fed up and demonstrating then you are not nearly as smart as I thought you were.

              You know full well that emotions in people who are normally in the “silent majority” build slowly. These are the folks who listened to the civics indoctrination and beleive in the system and that there dissatisfaction can be addressed within the system.

              My observations conclude Michelle is spot on here. A slow building boil then someone turned up the heat and it boiled over. Just had this discussion today with psych type and economic type. Same conclusion, if they did all this in 8 years the “conservatives” would have continued to swallow it. They moved to fast.

              Now the real question. These are smart people and they study how voters react. They would have to know that they could slowly convert us to total socialism if it was dressed up pretty. They have apparent control of the public’s opinion and congress. So why the big damn hurry????? Did they just fall victim to pent up frustration and the need for revenge? Or, do they think something is coming and they don’t have 8 or more years? I wonder……………..

        • I think BF that is a combo affect. The economy is bad….people are without work…banks are failing….they have lost their retirements and Childrens college funds….and then they watch billions go out the government door. It was a wake up call for me. I had never seen our government jump out and spend so many tax dollars on bail outs. IT WAS SCARY! Once most people figured out what was really going on it was not a racial issue…it is a congressional issue. Our president does not have the kind of power people seem to think he does. I don’t care who is president…it is the idiots running congress that are ruining America. It was crazy for people to put the Obama issue in the tax and bail out discussion because changing the president will not stop what is going on. If we look at this carefully I think this can be controlled alot easier on a state basis….elect congressmen and senators that believe that change means smaller non-interferring government.

          • The last two years of Bush and a liberal congress was akin to the little frog in a pot of cool water, slowly being brought to 110 degrees – a little too warm for most tastes, but bathable. The last 80 days has shown the frog stuffed into a boiling pot, with the lid clamped tight.

        • Exact same issues? Perhaps you are sitting a little too far back to adequately judge the sentiment of the people who attended these rallies. Some of the issues are the same, albeit turbo-charged since the inauguration. Some are not. Bottom line is that people of ALL political ideologies came out in droves to protest against big government gone wild, straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back style. If you don’t believe me, I invite you to come to RI and see if you can find more than 13 people who call themselves “conservatives”. That’s akin to calling someone a sex offender up here. You are way off and misinformed on this one. Better stick to what you know because you haven’t a clue about this movement.

        • Lets get this straight. Bush is/was not a consevative, he may have be a social consevative, but he is not a fiscal consevative.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hi Black Flag,

      I for one am totally willing to say that I am somewhat immature in my political awareness (and I’ll admit that I have a long way to go — that’s assuming that I’ll ever attain a maturity!). I’ll even admit that after being on this blog for about 1-2 months now — and now that my eyes are starting to open, I feel as though I’ve been somewhat hypocritical due to my ignorance. Some of my past attempts at debating with my liberal friends don’t really hold water, but some do (from my perspective); most likely through my own growth I will have moments where I am hypocritical…

      I personally feel that I have to start somewhere…that is why I attended the Tea Party. I do get what you say though…For once I actually understand your point!

      Kind Regards,
      RS

    • Government last 8 years mostly bad.
      Government last 8 weeks a disaster.
      That is why I have become more involved and better educated. If this continues I will never be able to retire and my children and their children will never be out of this government debt. The American dream has always been that your children would have a better life than you did. I am afraid that ended with my generation.

  14. Ray Hawkins says:

    Hmmm – good strategy – isolate and ostracize so the only opinion heard is that to which there is agreement – I’ll respond in kind as my work day permits……so…..here is some retort

    1. I’m not sure what the relevance is of whether MSNBC or FIXED News has the lead in ratings. There are other media outlets which and information conduits that are used perhaps more effectively than television. There is a reason that Karl Rove is Twitter-friending as many people as he can (or whoever is doing it for him). And as my own sidenote – and you may consider it token conservatism – but last I checked we do get to see folks like Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and Michael Smerconish on a regular basis. I’m not sure whether Fixed News plays to both sides or not because I don’t watch them on a regular basis.

    2. The watermelon – I’m not going to sit here an argue about what a particular sign meant when the imagery of a watermelon is used in the context of a protesting the current President and his policies and actions. There is resounding failure at sensitivity at multiple levels to think that a symbol as such does not have an underlying meaning, much the same as other pictures I saw depicting him with excessively large lips. I find it astonishing that you, USW, cannot look at such a symbol usage objectively and offer that if nothing else it is in bad taste. It is the same reason people show offense at Swastikas and the Confederate flag (and no apologies here as I know there is at least one regular here proud of that Confederate Flag). I gave the TEA party a hard time because of bs like this – a great opportunity to extend ideas and concepts to people in the moderate zones such as me – wasted away by childish and churlish excuses on how it is the MTM media fault.

    Perhaps you guys should use your activist muscles with the MTM much the same way you portend to do so with the political leaders. Perhaps you should consider that there was a lack of coverage because – there was no unified message and it came across maybe as Fixed News event rather than what it should have been – honest Americans, my neighbors, that allowed what could have been a good thing to be politicized by the same type of d-heads (Fox News) from the right that are criticized when they are on the left.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The watermelon has been a symbol pertaining to environmental wackos for quite some time now. They present a “green” exterior to the public but have a LARGE pink interior (that is, for you normal folks out there… THEY ARE SOCIALISTS/COMMUNISTS!).

      That the mainstream media would try to associate this symbol as somehow being “racist” shows just how far they are willing to push their own agenda.

      One of my favorite comedians of all time has to be Gallagher, simply for his repeated willingness to smash watermelons with large sledge-hammers.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        The swastika was also meant to represent far different things.

        • Ray, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say “just maybe he is correct”. My thinking goes beyond a conservative or liberal issue to the issue at hand which is things are not to good right now (economically speaking) lots of people have lost their retirements, their homes, their jobs ect. Everyone one in this country has to live inside some kind of budget…that is unless you are the government. Now…the government is bailing out banks, car industry ect…but they are not bailing out Sue who is now on the street….or Bob who has no food for his kids. Our congress is spending alot of money that is not for infrastructure, or helping the people losing their homes…or even putting food on bare tables. They are blowing it. Now they gave the people 400 but their energy costs are going up way more than the 400 so they will lose even more of their meager spendable income. Now….the President although he can lead can not vote…so to say this is all his fault (whether you talk about Bush or Obama) is crazy. It is the fault of our Congressmen and Senator, period. So under this congress…spending has tripled…tax payers now own defunct banks and car industries and Congress and certain media think we should be cheering our good fortune. Now…everytime one of my rights were in the position of being taken away I let my Represenatives in congress know how I felt…most people were to busy making a living to notice what government has been doing for years. But suddenly they have lots of time on their hands because they are unable to make a living. It is not because of the president…they are just now realizing what is really been going on for years. But because some people think the president is leader they should take out their anger on him….wrong! He can do nothing without the signature stamp of our reps. So yes there are some people who are just now waking up….there are some people who are hurting and they are lashing out at the only one they think can “change” things….the president. But there are others, small that they maybe in number, that have been sounding the alarm for years and were ignored.
          But you can bet on this….the media…no matter which one you talk about, has an agenda…so for the public to rely on the media to tell them everthing is just plain dumb….most people have no idea what is in a bill, or even how their Rep. voted…no idea at all! That is sad really sad…our government wastes billions of dollars and they don’t even know where they spent them….can you imagin running your household like that? Somebody has to pay that debt…..who is it gonna be?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Non-sequiter has what to do with anything?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            One day, the swastika and the watermelon got together, and the swastika said, “You know, I used to be a symbol of peace and harmony, and now I am a symbol of one of the most hated regimes in all of histroy! No one even associates me with my original symbolic meaning anymore!”

            The watermelon replied, “Well, some people dreamed me up to be a symbol of racism, since I am a food that black people eat at a picnic. Never mind that white people eat watermelon at picnics too, somehow displaying me on a sign was determined to be racist. Then someone decided I would make a good symbol of people in the environmental movement because they appear green on the outside, but beneath that thin green rind they are a big mess-o-pink on the inside! Now, when predominantly white people at a protest rally display a watermelon sign, no one seems to know whether they are being racist, trying to protest a big energy tax hike that is supported by the environmentalists, or BOTH! And since the new President is black, that just adds to the confusion!”

            The swastika replied, “Damn dude, I thought _I_ had it rough!”

    • esomhillgazette says:

      WOW Ray! Nasty today ain’t we? Yes I am proud of that Confederate Flag. You gave the Tea Parties a hard time because you don’t agree with them. A lot of Liberals are like that. If they don’t agree with Conservatives they react with venom and spite. Just like the MSM did. But that’s OK. We love you anyway!

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi Esom…

        Let’s go in together and get Ray some Decaf!

        (Ray…just joking!)

        RS

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Sorry RS, we may no longer be able to afford to buy anything with decaff. The FDA has decided they want to tax anything with caffiene in it because it is “Unhealthy”!

      • Esom, Alot of people equate the Confederate flag with slavery. I was born and raised in the North, and history tells me that “Confederate Flag = slavery = BULLDOOKEY!

        • esomhillgazette says:

          A lot of people are wrong! The Civil War was not fought over Slavery. I was born and raised in the South. And History tells ME that “Confederate Flag = State’s Rights = PRIDE!!!” LOL

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            It doesn’t matter that the war was fought over relative to the flag – it has come to represent something very evil in the hearts and minds of many people.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Esom,

              As much as it pains me, I need to take the side of Ray here.

              I do agree with you ESOM, that the CSA Flag was a symbol of state rights, but I also agree with Ray that the “non-history” books used in school have acclimated our current society to believe that it is a symbol of slavery. Because of the latter part, I believe that it has become an inflammatory symbol.

              In my mind, I will always equate the Bonnie Blue with States’ Rights.

              One of the best things I ever saw was here in Richmond. The City was opening a Canal Walk. There were murals painted and hung from the Walk of historical figures. One of those historical figures was Robert E. Lee. Believe me, there was controversy over Robert E. Lee being on display (it was in the news for weeks).

              On the opening day, city and state dignataries were riding in the canal boats to dedicate the Walk. Upon approaching the Walk, one of our past Govenors, Douglas Wilder, stood up and saluted Robert E. Lee. Of course, it caused him (Wilder) great controversy, but what people didn’t understand is that Wilder was saluting a great leader who played a part in our history. What a gentleman Doug Wilder is.

              Kind Regards,
              RS

              • Spitfire,

                I hope you will reconsider your position. If what is “perceived” is false, should we not stand up for the truth?

                You have heard the story of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned? The fiddle was not invented until 1,000 years later. Nero was out of town, rushed back, and assisted. He gave food, water and shelter to thousands out of his own pocket.
                But that’s not the story we hear.
                And what will they say about Lee, Wilder or the CSA flag?

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Hi LOI,

                I understand your point…and I do my best to “educate” people on the reasons for the Civil War. Also…thank you for the lesson on Nero…I did not know that!

                While I think that our history and heritage is to be cherished there are some symbols that some people find painful.

                I “personally” feel that there is too much at stake to alienate a large group of people who can provide benefit to and receive benefit from the VLDG Cause. I would certainly hate for a group of people to be “turned off” to a gathering such as a Tea Party over a symbol.

                So, I doubt that I will rethink my position on this.

                With great respect to both you and Esom,
                RS

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                I wish like hell the history books would have gotten it right – I spent 5 years in GA then moved to PA as a 7th grader. Kids immediately accosted me as a racist and klansman simply because of where I was from and the Skynrd jacket I wore ever so briefly. It sucked and took me a long time to convince people I was not a racist.

              • TexasChem says:
                Here Ray let me help you with your history… A Confederate Catcheism 1. What was the cause of secession in 1861? It was the yoking together of two jarring nations having different interests which were repeatedly brought to the breaking point by selfish and unconstitutional acts of the North. The breaking point was nearly reached in 1786, when the North tried to give away the Mississippi River to Spain; in 1790, when the North by Congressional act forced the South to pay the Revolutionary debts of the North; in 1801, when they tried to upset the presidential ticket and make Aaron Burr President; and in 1828 and 1832, when they imposed upon the South high protective tariffs for the benefit of Northern manufacturers. The breaking point was finally reached in 1861, when after flagrant nullification of the Constitution by personal liberty laws and underground railroads, resulting in John Brown’s assassinations, a Northern President was elected by strictly Northern votes upon a platform which announced the resolve never to submit to a decision of the highest court in the land. This decision (the Dred Scott Case, 1856), in permitting Southern men to go with their slaves into the Territories, gave no advantage to the South, as none of the territorial domain remaining was in any way fit for agriculture, but the South regarded the opposition to it of the Lincoln party as a determination on the part of the North to govern the Union thereafter by virtue of its numerical majority, without any regard whatever to constitutional limitations. The literature of those times shows that such mutual and mortal hatred existed as in the language of Jefferson to “render separation preferable to eternal discord.” 2. Was slavery the cause of secession or the war? No. Slavery existed previous to the Constitution, and the Union was formed in spite of it. Both from the standpoint of the Constitution and sound statesmanship it was not slavery, but the vindictive, intemperate antislavery movement that was at the bottom of all the troubles. The North having formed a union with a lot of States inheriting slavery, common honesty dictated that it should respect the institutions of the South, or, in case of a change of conscience, should secede from the Union. But it did neither. Having possessed itself of the Federal Government, it set up as its particular champion, made war upon the South, freed the negroes without regard to time or consequences, and held the South as conquered territory. 3. Was the extension of slavery the purpose of secession? No. When South Carolina seceded she had no certainty that any other Southern State would follow her example. By her act she absolutely shut herself out from the territories and thereby limited rather than extended slavery. The same may be said of the other seceding States who joined her. 4. Was secession the cause of the war? No. Secession is a mere civil process having no necessary connection with war. Norway seceded from Sweden, and there was no war. The attempted linking of slavery and secession with war is merely an effort to obscure the issue – “a red herring drawn across the trail.” Secession was based (1) upon the natural right of self-government, (2) upon the reservation to the States in the Constitution of all powers not expressly granted to the Federal government. Secession was such a power, being expressly excepted in the ratifications of the Constitution by Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York. (3) Upon the right of the principal to recall the powers vested in the agent; and upon (4) the inherent nature of all partnerships, which carries with them the right of withdrawal. The States were partners in the Union, and no partnership is irrevocable. The “more perfect Union” spoken of in the Preamble to the Constitution was the expression merely of a hope and wish. No rights of sovereignty whatever could exist without the right of secession. 5. What then was the cause of the war? The cause of the war was (1) the rejection of the right of peaceable secession of eleven sovereign States by Lincoln, and (2) the denial of self-government to 8,000,000 of people, occupying a territory half the size of Europe. Fitness is necessary for the assertion of the right, and Lincoln himself said of these people that they possessed as much moral sense and as much devotion to law and order as “any other civilized and patriotic people.” Without consulting Congress, Lincoln sent great armies to the South, and it was the war of a president elected by a minority of the people of the North. In the great World War Woodrow Wilson declared that “No people must be forced under sovereignty under which it does not choose to live.” When in 1903 Panama seceded from Colombia, the United States sided with Panama against Colombia, thereby encouraging secession. 6. Did the South fight for slavery or the extension of slavery ? No; for had Lincoln not sent armies to the South, that country would have done no fighting at all. 7. Did the South fight for the overthrow of the United States Government? No; the South fought to establish its own government. Secession did not destroy the Union, but merely reduced its territorial extent. The United States existed when there were only thirteen States, and it would have existed when there were twenty States left. The charge brought by Lincoln that the aim of the Southerners was to overthrow the government was no more true than if King George III had said that the secession of the American colonies from Great Britain had in view the destruction of the British Government. The government of Great Britain was not destroyed by the success of the American States in 1783. Nor would the government of the United States have been destroyed if the Southern States had succeeded in repelling the attacks of the North in 1861- 1865. Had the North refrained from conquest, its example would have been felt by Germany and there would have been no World War costing millions of lives. A group of Northern States in 1861-65 assumed the imperialistic attitude of Great Britain in 1776 and Germany in 1914, and substituted the armed fist for the American principle of self government. Universal peace will never ensue till the principle of self- government, which requires no armies to maintain it, is recognized throughout the world. 8. What did the South fight for? IT FOUGHT TO REPEL INVASION AND FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT, JUST AS THE FATHERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION HAD DONE. Lincoln himself confessed at first that he had no constitutional right to make war against a State, so he resorted to the subterfuge of calling for troops to suppress “combinations” of persons in the Southern States “too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary” processes. It is impossible to understand how the Southern States could have proceeded in a more regular and formal manner than they did to show they acted as States and not as mere “combinations.” It shows the lack of principle that characterized Lincoln when later he referred to the Southern States as “insurrectionary States.” If the Federal Government had no power to make war upon a State, how could it be called insurrectionary? 9. Did the South in firing on Fort Sumter begin the war? No. Various hostile acts had been committed before this took place. The first hostile act was committed by the Federal government when Major Robert Anderson secretly removed his garrison at night from Fort Moultrie, a weak fort in Charleston harbor, to Fort Sumter, a very strong fort. Shortly after, the government, under James Buchanan, sent the Star of the West with troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, but she was driven off. If South Carolina had a right to secede, she had a right to all the public buildings upon her territory, saving her responsibility for the cost of construction, which she readily recognized. She took over Fort Moultrie and other buildings and she was joined by other Southern States. Nevertheless no one was hurt, there was no war, and Virginia interposed with her Peace Conference, originated and presided over by John Tyler. After Lincoln came in, the peace apparently continued for four or five weeks, but secretly Lincoln took means to bring on war.. Despite the assurances of Seward, the Secretary of State, assurances made with Lincoln’s full knowledge,* that the status would not be disturbed at Fort Pickens, and in violation of a truce existing there between the Federals and Confederates, Lincoln sent secret orders for the landing of troops, but Adams, the Federal commander of the squadron before Fort Pickens, refused to land the troops, declaring that it would be a breach of faith to do so, and that it would bring on war. This was before Sumter was fired on, and Fort Sumter was fired on only when an armed squadron, prepared, also with great secrecy, was dispatched with troops to supply that fort also. But firing upon Fort Sumter did not in any case necessarily mean war. No one was hurt by the firing, and Lincoln knew that all the Confederates wanted was a fort that commanded the Metropolitan city of South Carolina – a fort which had been erected for the defense of that city. He knew that they had no desire to engage in a war with the United States. Not every hostile act justifies war, and in the World War this country submitted to having its flag filled full of holes and scores of its citizens destroyed before it went to war. Lincoln, without any violation of his views of government, had an obvious alternative in putting the question of war up to Congress, which could have been called in ten days. But he did not do it, and assumed the powers of Congress in making laws, besides enforcing them as an executive. By his mere authority he enormously increased the Federal army, marched it to the South, blockaded Southern ports, and declared Southern privateersmen pirates. Every clause of Jefferson’s tremendous indictment against King George in 1776 was true of Lincoln in 1861-1865. *See J.C. Welling, New York Natton, Vol. XXIX. p. 383. 10. Why did Lincoln break the truce at Fort Pickens and precipitate the war by sending troops to Fort Sumter? Lincoln did not think that war would result by sending troops to Fort Pickens, and it would give him the appearance of asserting the national authority. But he knew that hostilities would certainly ensue if he attempted to reinforce Fort Sumter. He was, therefore, at first in favor of withdrawing the troops from that Fort, and allowed assurances to that effect to be given out by Seward, his Secretary of State. But the deciding factor with him was the tariff question. In three separate interviews, he asked what would become of his revenue if he allowed the government at Montgomery to go on with their ten per cent tariff. He asked, “What would become of his tariff (about 90 per cent on the cost of goods) if he allowed those people at Montgomery to go on with their ten per cent tariff.” (See authorities cited in Tyler, Tyler versus Lincoln, p. 4.) Final action was taken when nine Governors of high tariff States waited upon Lincoln and offered him men and supplies. The protective tariff had almost driven the country to war in 1833; it is not surprising that it brought war in 1861. Indeed, this spirit of spoliation was so apparent from the beginning that, at the very first Congress, Grayson, one of our two first Virginia Senators, predicted that the fate reserved to the South was to be “the milch-cow of the Union.” The New York Times, after having on March 21, 1861, declared for separation, took the ground nine days later that the material interests of the North would not allow of an independent South! 11. Did Lincoln carry on the war for the purpose of freeing the slaves? No; he frequently denied that that was his purpose in waging war. He claimed that he fought the South in order to preserve the Union. Before the war Lincoln declared himself in favor of the enforcement of the fugitive slave act, and he once figured as an attorney to drag back a runaway negro into slavery. When he became President he professed himself in his inaugural willing to support an amendment guaranteeing slavery in the States where it existed. Wendell Phillips, the abolitionist, called him a “slave hound.” Of course, Lincoln’s proposed amendment, if it had any chance at all with the States, did not meet the question at issue. No one except the abolitionists disputed the right of the Southern people to hold slaves in the States where it existed. And an amendment would not have been regarded by the abolitionists, who spit upon the Constitution itself. The immediate question at issue was submission to the decision of the Supreme Court in relation to the territories. The pecuniary value of the slaves cut no figure at all, and Lincoln’s proposed amendment was an insult to the South. 12. Did Lincoln, by his conquest of the South, save the Union? No. The old Union was a union of consent; the present Union is one of force. For many years after the war the South was held as a subject province, and any privileges it now enjoys are mere concessions from its conquerors, not rights inherited from the Constitution. The North after the war had in domestic negro rule a whip which England never had over Ireland. To escape from it, the South became grateful for any kind of government. The present Union is a great Northern nation based on force and controlled by Northern majorities, to which the South, as a conquered province, has had to conform all its policies and ideals. The Federal authority is only Northern authority. Today (1935) the Executive, the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, the Ministers at foreign courts are all Northern men. The South has as little share in the government, and as little chance of furnishing a President, as Norway or Switzerland. 13. Could Lincoln have “saved” the Union by some other method than war? Yes. If he had given his influence to the resolutions offered in the Senate by John J. Crittenden, the difficulties in 1861 would have been peaceably settled. These resolutions extended the line of the Missouri Compromise through the territories, but gave nothing to the South, save the abstract right to carry slaves to New Mexico. But most of New Mexico was too barren for agriculture, and not ten slaves had been carried there in ten years. The resolutions received the approval of the Southern Senators and, had they been submitted to the people, would have received their approval both North and South. Slavery in a short time would have met a peaceful and natural death with the development of machinery consequent upon Cyrus H. McCormick’s great invention of the reaper. The question in 1861 with the South as to the territories was one of wounded pride rather than any material advantage. It was the intemperate, arrogant, and self-righteous attitude of Lincoln and his party that made any peaceable constructive solution of the Territorial question impossible. In rejecting the Crittenden resolutions, Lincoln, a minority president, and the Republicans, a minority party, placed themselves on record as virtually preferring the slaughter of 400,000 men of the flower of the land and the sacrifice of billions of dollars of property to a compromise involving a mere abstraction. This abstraction did not even contemplate a real object like New Mexico, for Lincoln in a private letter admitted that there was no danger there. Lincoln stirred up a ghost and professed to find in the annexation of Cuba a pretext for imperiling the Union. It is needless to say that no such ghost could ever have materialized in the presence of Northern majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. (Nicolay and Hay, Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, I, pp. 664, 669.) 14. Does any present or future prosperity of the South justify the War of 1861-1865? No; no present or future prosperity can make past wrong right, for the end can never justify the means. The war was a colossal crime, and the most astounding case of self-stultification on the part of any government recorded in history. The war itself was conducted on the most barbarous principles and involved the wholesale destruction of property and human lives. That there must be no humanity in war was, according to Charles Francis Adams, “the accepted policy of Lincoln’s government during the last stages of the war.” (Adams, Studies Military and Diplomatic, p. 266.) 15. Had the South gained its independence, would it have proved a failure? No. General Grant has said in his Memoirs that it would have established “a real and respected nation.” The States of the South would have been bound together by fear of the great Northern Republic and by a similarity of economic conditions. They would have had laws suited to their own circumstances, and developed accordingly. They would not have lived under Northern laws and had to conform their policy to them, as they have been compelled to do. A low tariff would have attracted the trade of the world to the South, and its cities would have become great and important centers of commerce. A fear of this prosperity induced Lincoln to make war upon the South. The Southern Confederacy, instead of being a failure, would have been a great outstanding figure in the affairs of the world. The statement sometimes made that the Confederacy “died of too much States Rights,” as instanced in the opposition to President Davis in Georgia and North Carolina, fails to notice that Lincoln’s imperialism did not prevent far more serious opposition to Lincoln in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. And yet at the time the South was under much greater pressure than the North. 16. Were the Southerners “rebels” in seceding from the Federal Union? The term “rebel” had no application to the Southern people, however much it applied to the American colonists. These last called themselves “Patriots,” not rebels. Both Southerners in 1861 and Americans in 1776 acted under the authority of their State governments. But while the colonies were mere departments of the British Union, the American States were creators of the Federal Union. The Federal government was the agent of the States for the purposes expressed in the Constitution, and it is absurd to say that the principal can rebel against the agent. President Jackson threatened war with South Carolina in 1833, but admitted that in such an event South Carolinians taken prisoners would not be “rebels” but prisoners of war. The Freesoilers in Kansas and John Brown at Harper’s Ferry were undoubtedly “rebels,” for they acted without any lawful authority whatever in using force against the Federal Government, and Lincoln and the Republican party, in approving a platform which sympathized with the Freesoilers and bitterly denounced the Federal Government, were rebels and traitors at heart. 17. Did the South, as alleged by Lincoln in his messages and in his Gettysburg speech, fight to destroy popular government throughout the world? No; the charge was absurd. Had the South succeeded, the United States would still have enjoyed all its liberties, and so would Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, and all other peoples. The danger to popular government came from Lincoln himself. In conducting the war, Lincoln talked about “democracy” and “the plain people,” but adopted the rules of despotism and autocracy, and under the fiction of “war powers” virtually abrogated the Constitution, which he had sworn to support. 18. Was Lincoln’s proclamation freeing the slaves worthy of the praise which it has received? No; his proclamation was a war measure merely. He had no humanitarian purpose in view, and only ten days before its issuance he declared that “the possible consequences of insurrection and massacre in the Southern States” would not deter him from its use, whenever he should deem it necessary for military purposes. (Nicolay and Hay, Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, I/, p. 235.) 19. Is there any truth in the statement that the South seceded from the Union because it saw itself menaced with the loss of the rule which it had enjoyed from the beginning? None whatever. The Southerners never ruled the Union in any real sense. They controlled the executive department, but this department was confined to giving directions to the foreign relations and to executing the laws made by Congress. And this body, the lawmaking – the real ruler – was managed by the North from the very start. With the aid of a few delinquent Southern votes the North could always count upon a majority in Congress. The revenue was chiefly levied on the products of the South, and it was mainly disbursed in the North. Never once did the South use the machinery of the Federal Government to enrich herself at the expense of the North. The funding of the National debt, the assumption of the State debts, the bounties for shipping, tonnage duties, bounties for the fishermen, the restrictions on foreign trade, the National bank, the tariff, the pensions, land grants, internal improvement, etc., were all in interest of the North. And this one-sided development remains today [1935] exactly like it was of old. The South is still “the milch-cow of the Union.” 20. What has been the effects of the abolition of slavery? The negro question has been one of much exaggeration and slighting of facts. The wicked method in which abolition was accomplished was a terrible injury both to whites and blacks. It raised race animosities that have not yet passed away. It threw the South back a hundred years. All the Northern States had rid themselves of slavery by laws contemplating gradual emancipation, and Lincoln at Peoria in 1854 admitted that, “if all earthly power was given him, he would not know what to do as to the existing institution.” His action, therefore, in 1862 in trying suddenly to abolish slavery without regard to time or consequences made him self-convicted as a great criminal. As a war measure it involved the danger of massacre and insurrection, and was, therefore, forbidden by the international law, that massacre did not occur does not lessen the guilt of Lincoln. Ten days before his proclamation he declared that he would not be deterred from its use by apprehension of massacre or insurrection. We are told by Gideon Welles, Lincoln’s Secretary of the Navy, that the North had the belief that “a civil war would inevitably lead to servile insurrection, and that the slave owners would have their hands full to keep the slaves in subjection after hostilities commenced,” (Welles,Diary,!!, p. 278.) Lincoln undoubtedly shared in this expectation, and six days after the issuance of the proclamation he wrote to Hannibal Hamlin: “The time for its effect southward has not come, but northward its effect should be instantaneous.” It appears that he was looking to some effect in the South. What “effect” could this have been save a saturnalia of murder, arson and rape and atrocities unspeakable? Lincoln, by the abolition in the manner done, was the true parent of reconstruction, legislative robbery, negro supremacy, cheating at the polls, rapes of white women, lynching, and the acts of the Ku Klux Klan. 21. How has the abolition of slavery affected the labor system? It is absurd to say that slavery was a failure as a labor system. The military system is a form of slavery in which the best results ensue when the discipline is strictest. Freedom is not necessarily a panacea. The negro’s idea of freedom is to do as little work as possible. One works now (1935) where five worked before the war. All that has been accomplished in the South since the war has been by the white people, but it has been at the expense of that splendid leisure that enabled the South to take the lead in Congress and in the Nation. What statesmen have we now to compare with the statesmen of old? None. What scientist to compare with McCormick, Maury, or Ruffin? None. What magazines to compare with the Southern Quarterly Review, the Southern Literary Messenger, Ruffin’s Farmers’ Register, and DeBow’s Economic Review? None. 22. Did Lincoln at any time offer any terms of peace? None except absolute submission. He refused to see formally or informally the Southern commissioners sent to Washington before the war began on the childest legalism that they claimed to be agents of an independent power, thus mimicking the arrogant attitude of the British Commissioners in 1776 who refused to treat with Congress as a political authority. This attitude was not kept up by the British but was persevered in by Lincoln to the end. Congress breathed out threatenings of death and confiscations to all concerned in the Confederacy, and Lincoln in a paper December 8, 1863, pretending to be a proclamation of pardon, but which was much more a menace than a pardon, left under the penalties imposed by Congress everybody of any consequence in the South. This was in contrast to the British proclamations during the American Revolution which made absolutely no exceptions. 23. Did the South make any efforts for peace during this time? The South made several efforts to open peace negotiations with the authorities in Washington, but were rudely repulsed. But by August, 1864, the Northern people had become tired of Lincoln and the war, and the unhappy President had to change to some extent his policy. He addressed a letter to his Cabinet that he had no hope of a reelection. There was a general cry for peace, and Lincoln gave permission to various persons, at their eager intercession, to visit Richmond to ascertain the views of President Davis. Shortly afterwards came the victories of Sherman and Sheridan which ensured Lincoln’s election, and Lincoln’s spirit rose again. In his annual message December 6, 1864, Lincoln said: “On careful consideration of all the evidence accessible, it seems to me that no attempt at negotiation with the insurgents could result in any good.” But the South was not conquered, and the prospect of war for some indefinite time induced him to listen favorably to the renewed solicitations of the Confederates for negotiations. It took, however, the added influence of General Grant in favor of peace to induce him to come himself to Old Point in person on February 3rd, to meet the Confederate Commissioners, Alexander H. Stephens, R.M. T. Hunter and John A. Campbell. 24. What happened at the meeting at Old Point? At this meeting Mr. Lincoln’s course was exactly the reverse of the humane attitude of the British commissioners in 1778. They proposed an armistice and the concession to the Americans of everything short of independence. Lincoln would consent to no suspension of hostilities and declined to make any stipulations. There must be absolute submission, and a trust in his mercy, but even this mercy was confined to an expression of his disposition (no promise) to execute in a very liberal manner the laws of Congress, denouncing death, imprisonment and confiscation of property on all Rebels. 25. Was any importance to be attached to Lincoln’s assurances? None. As a matter of fact Lincoln as President had very little authority, as pitted against his Cabinet and Congress. And he had not the backbone of Andrew Johnson. How very little could be expected of him was amply illustrated at a meeting of the Cabinet a few days later. The President repeated a proposition of Horace Greely to pay the Southern States $400,000,000 if they would stop fighting and come back into the Union. Lincoln’s proffer was only a war measure, though of a different turn, from his Emancipation Proclamation. There was no suggestion of kindness or mercy, nothing save the practical arithmetical calculation that the war was costing $3,000,000 a day, besides all the lives, and a hundred days more of war would cost nearly the sum proposed. But the Cabinet unanimously refused to agree to the proposition, and Lincoln readily submitted. If he meant it why did he not stand up resolutely for it? What Congress would have done had the proposal been made to them is scarcely in doubt. They had been too long accustomed to taxing the South for the benefit of the North to turn around and tax the North for the benefit of the South. The vindictiveness of the leaders in Congress was so great that voluntary submission would never have saved the South from the horrors of reconstruction, and Lincoln would have submitted as he had done before. Lincoln is claimed to have had a keen insight into human nature, but he did not show it in this proposal to pay the Southern people for their slaves. They would have scorned his proposal to pay them, as they were not fighting for the money value of slaves, but in defense of their Fatherland and self-government. Had he had the bravery to promise to protect the Southern States by his veto against vindictive legislation interfering with their local government, however futile the promise may have been, the war at this time may have been brought to an end. The very last act of Lincoln showed how absurd is the idea that Lincoln was a friend of the South. Whatever he may have said, he always continued to line up with the worst enemies of the South. Upon the evacuation of Richmond, Lincoln made haste to visit the city which had defied him so long. In his joy over the event he gave permission for the old Virginia Legislature to assemble. But when he got back to Washington he was met with the determined opposition of Sumner and his Cabinet, whereupon, at the vehement protest of Stanton, he sent a telegram in the very words that Stanton suggested withdrawing his permission. (Connor, Life of John A. Campbell, p. 182.) It is claimed that Lincoln would have made things easy for the South after the war. But does not this instance show that he was too feeble a man to have dared such a thing? 26. What was the condition of things in the South in 1861? The South was very flourishing. The most prosperous decade in the history of the South was the decade between 1850 and 1860. Up to 1850 the South lived in a Union hostile to her development. But during this decade the South enjoyed the advantage of a free trade tariff and of the Independent Treasury, which divorced the government from the control of the Northern banks. It was the first time that the South had a fair deal in finance. It was a period in which the South took the lead in using improved machinery and improved methods of farming. Great sums of money were spent on highways, canals, and railroads. Factories in which white labor was wholly employed began to spring up all over the South, thus affording ample opportunities of employment for the poorer classes of white people. The census shows that in this decade Virginia increased 84 per cent in wealth, South Carolina 90 per cent, and Georgia 92 per cent, while Massachusetts increased only 42 per cent and. New York 71 per cent. Dr. Avery Odell Craven, Professor of History in the University of Chicago, declares in his work on “Soil Exhaustion” in Maryland and Virginia that in no section of the nation and in no period of its history were greater agricultural advances made or greater difficulties overcome than in Virginia and Maryland. The future was bright with hope, but Lincoln, by his war and the sudden emancipation of the slaves without regard to time or consequences, put back the South 100 years. This is readily shown by comparing the census of 1860 with that of 1920. If we make allowance for the depreciation of money (4 to 1) and the increase in the population (about 3 to 1) there is less of wealth per head today than in 1860, counting the negro in the population and excluding him from the property. There is no evidence whatever that if slavery had continued, the South would have fewer factories and spindles than it has today. Before 1860 it had been found that negroes free or slaves, were not fitted for the mills. There is no evidence that the industrial system might not have developed side by side with the plantation system. 27. Did the South ever try to dictate to any territory whether it should have slavery or not? No. All that the Southerners ever asked was to be permitted to go into the Territories with their slaves, subject to the action of the citizens there, when they formed a State Constitution. The Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case in 1856 that such was their right. The Northern speakers spoke of this as an “extension” of slavery, and the word was unfairly used to imply an increase in the number of slaves, but, of course, this would not have added a single slave to the number already in the United States. It was merely a transfer of population. 28. Was it superior humanity that actuated the Northern people in 1861? No. There was no reason whatever to suppose that the Northern people were more humane than the Southern people. During the war for Southern independence the Northern generals everywhere disregarded the international law. The policy everywhere was cruel imprisonment, waste and destruction. Unlike General Lee, Lincoln reveled in using hard language – “Rebels,” “Insurgent Rebels,” “Insurgents,” etc., occur everywhere in his speeches, letters, and messages. Because these terms are recognized as insulting, the present generation of enlightened Northern people has abandoned the use of them. Such words were greatly objected to by our Revolutionary fathers, and a committee of the Continental Congress imputed to this habit of the British the licentious conduct of the British soldiers. They were taught by these words to look down upon the Americans, to despise them as inferior creatures. And the same influences operated upon the Northern soldiers, who plundered the South. Lincoln taught them. The North having no just cause for the invasion and destruction of the South, which only asked to be let alone, has ceaselessly tried to hide its crime by talking “slavery.” But logically flowing from this attitude is the idea that slavery deprived the South of every right whatever, which was the doctrine of the assassin, John Brown. General Sheridan’s philosophy of war was “to leave to the people nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war.” General Sherman’s, “to destroy the roads, houses, people, and repopulate the country.” General Grant’s to leave the Valley “a barren waste” and shoot “guerrillas without trial”; and President Lincoln’s the adoption of “emancipation and every other policy calculated to weaken the moral and physical forces of the rebellion.” (Nicolay and Hay, Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, II, p. 565.) The damage done by the German troops in France was a trifle compared with the damage done by the Northern troops in the South. 29. Was it love that controlled the North in its attitude toward the negro? No. The New England shipping was the chief sinner in bringing negroes to the South. And when the constitution was formed in 1787, New England delegates voted a continuance of the slave trade for twenty years. This fixed slavery on the South. The feelings of Virginia in opposition were voiced by John Tyler, Sr. (father of ex-President John Tyler), in the State Convention (1788) that “he wanted it handed down to posterity that he opposed that wicked clause permitting the slave trade.” There was a sectional rivalry from the first which manifested itself in such dissimilar measures as the location of the National Capital, the assumption of the State debts, the navigation of the Mississippi, the national bank, etc. Agitation in 1820 over the admission of Missouri with slavery was only a new form of this antagonism, and it is a mistake to suppose that it arose out of any particular sympathy for the negro. It was rather an expression of the hatred which the free labor system of the North had begun to have for the rival system of negro labor in the South. The former system persuaded itself that slave labor placed free labor at a disadvantage. Slave labor asked no wages and remained quiet and peaceable, which was in contrast to the turmoil in the North, where there was a riot of some sort nearly every year. Then the Northern politician, observing the leisure enjoyed by his Southern competitor which gave the latter superior opportunities for culture and education, became exceedingly jealous. Their able speakers pleaded morality and humanity, but that this must not be taken seriously is shown by the fact that none of the so-called free States of the West permitted the presence of the negroes there, and there was not one of the Northern States that treated the negroes on an equality with the whites. They do not do so even now. 30. Has the decision of the great Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case ever been overruled? No. When the case was decided, the Northern States resorted to every form of nullification of the Federal laws and Constitution, and there was no limit to their abuse of the Supreme Court. But the principles of the case both as to the original status of the negro as property and the application of the general clauses in the Constitution to the Territories have been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court over and over again. See Osgood vs. Nicholson (1871), 13 Wallace, p. 661; Bryce vs. Tabb (1873), 18 Wallace, p. 546; White vs. Hart, 13 Wallace, p. 649, and see Ewing, Legal and Historical Status of the Dred Scott Case, pp. 180, 181, etc. 31. Would Lincoln have saved the South from the horrors of Reconstruction if he had survived? I. The North has become ashamed of the manner in which the South has been treated and it is now pretty unanimous in calling Reconstruction “a dark blot upon the history of the country,” but it tries to win over the South to recognizing Lincoln as a national hero by claiming that Lincoln was a friend of the South and that if Lincoln had survived the war, the South would have had no trouble. This claim is based on mere words – passages in his messages and reported conversations, but no one of his admirers has been able to produce any real act of kindness done by Lincoln. And words with Lincoln were mere playthings. As a matter of fact, Lincoln’s speeches, addresses, and conversations are scarcely more than a collection of sophisms in which a flourish of words is substituted for the truth. He was a word juggler and tried to fool people instead of convincing them by sound logic. Some examples may be given. Lincoln argued that “the States have their status in the Union and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can do so only against law and by revolution. The Union is older than the States and it indeed created them as States.” In this remarkable casuistry Lincoln makes the Union a corporate entity which, of course, it was not, but a mere condition or cooperation of certain thirteen unities, each independent of the other. If thirteen slaves united to resist their master and by their joint efforts achieved their independence, could it be said that they had individually no right to their liberty, and, like the Siamese twins, were inseparably joined together forever? II. Again Lincoln argued: “If one State may secede, so may another, and when all shall secede, none is left to pay the debts of the Union. Is this quite fair to creditors?” Of course, it did not follow that all the States would secede if one did, nor that any State was relieved of its share of the public debt by secession. Any schoolboy could have told Lincoln that the States would have been obligated to pay the debts even if all did secede. No more wicked violation of the Constitution was ever devised than the creation of West Virginia out of the territory of the Commonwealth of Virginia. To justify his course, Lincoln got off this grotesque stunt: “It is said that the admission of West Virginia is secession and only tolerated because it is our secession. Well, if we call it by that name, there is still difference enough between secession for the Constitution and secession against the Constitution.” Lincoln had declared secession “anarchy,” and it seems that anarchy had no terrors when it sub served his purposes. As a real truth, there was no such thing as either secession for the Constitution or secession against it. There was action in accordance with the Constitution and action in violation of it, and undoubtedly Lincoln’s action was in gross violation of his oath to act in accordance with it. Lincoln was simply trifling, and just as trifling in its essential character was his Gettysburg speech. Because the words have a resonance about them that appeals to the ear and the imagination, it has been glorified beyond anything. Truthfully speaking, it is a mere rhetorical flourish based upon a dishonest assumption implied and not directly expressed. That assumption is that if the South had succeeded, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people would have perished from the earth.” Nothing is more absurd. The real danger came from Lincoln himself. The Gettysburg address was a gilded fraud. No true fame can be had unless founded on TRUTH. The suspicion that words in the mouth of Lincoln had little or no weight is proved by his second inaugural, which, next to his Gettysburg address, has caught most the fancy of his admirers. In this paper, while professing “malice to none and charity to all,” he showed the greatest malice and uncharitableness possible in describing the slave owner as an incarnate demon, who did nothing but lash his slaves, without giving the least requital for their service of 250 years! The negroes were the most spoiled domestics in the world. The Southerners took the negro as a barbarian and cannibal, civilized him, supported him, clothed him, and turned him out a better Christian than Abraham Lincoln, who was a free thinker, if not an atheist. Booker T. Washington admitted that the negro was the beneficiary rather than the victim of slavery. His successor, Moton, just the other day declared that contact with the white race has been of the greatest advantage to the negro. The fact is that the South’s taking ignorant negroes and making them work was no more criminal violation of democracy or self-government than the government is guilty of today (1935) in keeping the Porto Ricans and Filipinos under political slavery. The excuse of the present United States Government is exactly that of the old slave masters: “The Porto Ricans and Filipinos are not fit for freedom. ” 32. It is often said that Lincoln, in sending armies to the South, acted only in obedience to his oath “to take care that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed.” Is this true? I. No. The Constitution required him to take an oath “to execute the office of President,” and, “to the best of his ability, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Now the Southern States were either in the Union or out of it. If the ordinances of secession were void, then the President was limited by the acts of Congress, which, under the Constitution, had the whole military power. Now the only act which authorized him to employ the militia or the regular army to suppress obstruction to the laws was the act of 1807, which required that he must “first observe all the prerequisites of law in that respect.” These were the issuance of a writ by a United States judge and a call from the marshal, if he found it impossible to execute the writ. But no call was made upon Lincoln, and only Congress could supply defects in the law. Lincoln, therefore, not only sent the troops without authority, but in raising the army far above the limit fixed by Congress, in declaring a blockade, and in denouncing Confederate privateersmen as pirates, he usurped the powers of Congress. His action, therefore, instead of being in conformity with his oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” was in plain violation of it. (See speech of Stephen A. Douglas, Congressional Globe, Part 2, 36th Cong., 2nd Session, p. 1455.) On the other hand, if the secession ordinances were valid, and the States were out of the Union, then his acts were acts of war, and he as plainly violated his oath, for only Congress can declare war and make the laws necessary thereto. Lincoln claimed that his duty was to preserve the Union, but he had taken no oath to do that, and a Union apart from the Constitution was never thought of by the Fathers. Worse than that, Lincoln admitted in Seward’s official letters to the United States Ministers at London and Paris (April 10 and April 22, 1861) that the government had no power to war upon a State; so to justify his employment of troops, he invented the idea of “a combination of persons” resisting the laws, though it was impossible to show how the Southern people could have proceeded more formally than they did to show that they were acting as States; but as the war progressed he spoke of “insurrectionary States,” thus exposing his own insincerity. II. Lincoln attempted to excuse himself at the beginning by asking (Message, July 4,1861): “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?” The answer is that the Constitution was a chain of power and the breaking of one link left the chain as inefficient as if a dozen links had been broken. There was the additional fact that Lincoln knowingly violated his oath, while the Southerners thought they had conscientiously absolved themselves from any obedience to it by secession. Of course, the success of the South did not mean a dissolution of the government of the United States. As a matter of fact, Lincoln throughout his administration treated the Constitution as a door-mat and wiped his feet upon it. On the other hand, there are the facts displayed, first, in his beginning an unnecessary war, and, second, in conducting it with a ruthlessness which has never been surpassed. His proclamation of December 8, 1862, which has been called an amnesty proclamation, was more like one of menace and threat of punishment, for instead of offering pardon to everyone who would submit as the British General Howe had done when American affairs in 1776 were at their lowest ebb, Lincoln excepted from his pardon everyone of any acknowledged consequence in the South. When Richmond fell, Lincoln had an opportunity to show real statesmanship by inviting all the leading men in the South to aid him in restoring peace to the distracted South. This is what the British did in South Africa. But this never occurred to him, and such a man as Lee, who would have contributed most to heal the wounds of the country, was not asked to assist. Neither did it occur to Johnson, who issued a proclamation like Lincoln had done. But beyond this it is absurd to ascribe Andrew Johnson’s policy of reconstruction to Lincoln, for Lincoln in his proclamation of July 8, 1864, declared that he was not bound up to any fixed plan whatever, and Woodburn, in his Life of Thaddeus Stevens, states his belief that “no doubt Lincoln would have cooperated with Congress and the States in carrying out such plan as Congress had proposed if a change of circumstances had made his cooperation desirable.” III. Indeed, the character of the men with whom Lincoln was most familiar is an overwhelming argument against the idea that he would have stood up for the South against any serious opposition in Cabinet or Congress. One of these was Benjamin Butler, commonly known as “Beast Butler,” and the other was Edwin M. Stanton, his Secretary of War. Both wanted to treat the South as conquered territory. Dr. John Fiske said of Butler that “he could not have understood in the faintest degree the feelings of gentlemen.” Nevertheless Lincoln wanted Butler to run on the same ticket with him as Vice President. According to Welles, Lincoln spent most of the time in Stanton’s room in the War Department. It is to the honor of President Johnson that he kicked this ruffian out of his cabinet. It is inconceivable that Lincoln would have done so. Johnson was far from an ideal, and he blackened his first year as President in wickedly consenting to the murder of Mrs. Surratt and Major Henry Wirz by courts martial sitting after all hostilities had ceased, and to the shackling of President Davis. But there were things about him that command some respect. In spite of his coarseness and animosities, he showed a nerve in resisting the program of reconstruction that placed him far above Lincoln. He had a superior sense of honor. When informed by Dana of Lincoln’s buying votes in Congress, he declared that such conduct “tended to immorality.” (Dana, Recollections of the War, pp. 173-178.) 33. What were the main features of Lincoln’s “friendship” for the South? A statement of the main features is as follows: (1) The sacking and burning of homes and towns, and the general destruction of fences, crops, stock, and farm implements; (2) the expulsion from their homes of all persons, including women and children and non-combatants, unless an oath of allegiance was taken. This was as if the German commanders in the World War had required every Frenchman in the occupied territory to swear allegiance to the Kaiser. Sherman drove the white population from Atlanta without even allowing this alternative. Not even the British in the Revolution ever issued any order like this. They exacted paroles of the inhabitants, it is true, but this, though a violation of the international law, acknowledged the Americans as enemies, not merely Rebels. (3) The precipitation upon the South of emancipation with apparently absolute indifference whether it created massacre or not, and (4) the subordination of the lives of prisoners to military success which occasioned the deaths of thousands of poor fellows on both sides. The volume of suffering covers the whole war, and there is not a particle of evidence of the humanitarian intervention of Lincoln with either his Cabinet officers or generals in the field. The truth is the Reconstruction era was the logical result of the Lincoln era, when the Chief Justice, in standing by the Constitution, apprehended his own arrest by the minions of the President. 34. Explain more fully the course of Lincoln as to Exchanges. Lincoln’s friends have tried to hold the Confederates responsible for deaths in Southern prisons. But it was clearly by the action of Lincoln that this mortality occurred. His policy was to starve the South by the blockade, a measure involving women and children; to destroy all the grain, stock, and farming utensils; to take from the people of the South and from their own prisoners all protection from disease by making medicines and medical appliances contraband of war; to force the crowding of prisoners into remote prisons by the continual advance of his armies, before other prisons could be erected; and then, by refusing all exchanges – not even taking the sick when offered free or permitting the admission of medicines for them- to hold the South responsible for the sufferings of prisoners! Such a friend of the South was Lincoln that his government visited upon the helpless prisoners of the South in the North punishment for the result of its own policy in the South. He humiliated them by appointing negro soldiers as their guards, who reviled and insulted them. The fare of prisoners was reduced 20 per cent; all but the sick were deprived of coffee, tea, and sugar, and all supplies by gift or purchase were prohibited. (Rhodes, History of the United States, V, p. 505.) To my knowledge there were no such orders issued by the Germans in the World War. The Northern historian, Rhodes, says: “The fact stands out conspicuously that in 1864 the Confederate authorities were eager to make exchanges, their interest being on the side of humanity.” 35. What were the results of Lincoln’s policy as to Confederate prisoners? The result was that owing to this policy of “retaliation” urged upon Lincoln by many newspapers, the sufferings of the Confederate prisoners in a land of plenty was simply incredible, and the mortality, as shown by the reports of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, and Surgeon General Barnes, of the United States Army, was far greater than the mortality of Federal soldiers in the South. Lincoln threw every obstacle in the way of exchanges by appointing Benjamin F. Butler Commissioner of Exchanges, a man whom the Confederates had outlawed for base conduct at New Orleans, and by appointing General Grant as his successor, who was opposed to all exchanges, on the ground apparently of the superior patriotism of the Southern men, who, he thought, if exchanged, would hasten to rejoin their regiments. The question for history to decide is whether it was not Lincoln and Grant who should have been hanged instead of the unfortunate Major Henry Wirz, who did all he could for his prisoners. (Read “Andersonville Prison,” by Page and Healey, two Federal soldiers.) In this matter, General Grant presented a marked contrast to another Northern man, Nathaniel Greene, of Rhode Island, whose name is dear to all in the South! This noble General of the Revolution had the same problem as to exchanges presented to him as General Grant. He knew that any American freed would go home, his term having expired; but all the British prisoners would join the British army. Nevertheless he scorned to win success, as desirable as success was in his great necessity, by keeping the American prisoners in the dreadful British prison ships, and agreed to a cartel of exchange, with ‘all the advantages against him. (Johnson, Life of Nathaniel Greene.) This was, the course taken by Washington, and the Americans of 1776 are free from censure as to the treatment of prisoners, except in connection with the Saratoga prisoners. 36. What was the personal attitude of Lincoln on this policy of Grant in regard to exchanges? Lincoln’s personal attitude was shown by his non-interference and a letter which he wrote to Grant, when his Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, who was a man of some humanity, though of not much personal force, negotiated with the Confederate Government an exchange of all Marine prisoners. (War of Rebellion Records, Series II, Vol. VII, p. 924.) In this letter Lincoln admitted that he did not see any objection to Welles’ exchanges, but that Welles had acted without his authority and that he, Grant, was at liberty to set aside the whole operation. His attitude was further shown when a delegation of Andersonville prisoners, with the permission of President Davis, arrived in Washington to pray, in behalf of the 30,000 prisoners at Andersonville, that exchanges might be resumed. Their heartrending petition was published in the New York and Washington papers, but Lincoln, unwilling to interfere with Grant’s inhuman determination, turned a deaf ear. On the whole subject of exchanges the language of Charles A. Dana, the Assistant Secretary of War, ought to be conclusive. He was the man who, in order to celebrate the triumph of his government, did the inconceivably mean act of putting fetters upon Jefferson Davis, who, for four years representing the great Southern people, met in combat the vastly superior forces of the United States. It was this man, certainly no friend of the South, who said that “the evidence proves that it was not the Confederates who insisted on keeping our prisoners in distress, want and disease, but the commander of our armies.” (Treatment of Prisoners During the War Between the States, Southern Historical Papers, Vol. I, pp. 112.327.) The Southern Government gave their prisoners the same rations as it gave its own soldiers, and there is absolutely no proof, except that of violent enemies, that the Southern officials were guilty of any inhumanity to Federal soldiers. 37. Was Lincoln a hero? I. The thing next most remarkable to posing Lincoln as a friend of the South is the attempt to pose him as a hero. This, however, had been attempted in favor of John Brown, whose hands were red with the blood of innocent people. In those days, when Lincoln was first coming to the front, hatred of the South was so extreme that, as Wendell Phillips tells us, the first words of everybody in Massachusetts, of every party, that was met by him in the streets or street-cars, on the occasion of the news at Harper’s Ferry, were that “they were sorry that he (Brown) had not succeeded” (Phillips, p. 280), and Welles tells us, as we have seen, that negro insurrections were counted on at the North, when the war began, as something certain to keep the Southern soldiers engaged. That a great negro uprising would occur was undoubtedly the expectation of Lincoln and his Cabinet when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. Lincoln was not personally a murderer, though his actions brought death to thousands of poor people in both the North and the South. But was he a hero? His early life is set forth by his friends, Lamon and Herndon, and it is impossible to see in it anything else than the very reverse of a hero. Beginning with his passing counterfeit money at 19 (Lamon, p. 71) and sewing up hogs’ eyes for a more ready transportation of them across the river at 21 (Lamon, p. 82; Herndon and Weik, I, p. 74), we are told of his writing anonymous letters at 33, and when challenged to a duel by the man whom he thus secretly defamed, violated all codes by insisting on a weapon that left his brave and honorable opponent at a fatal disadvantage (Lamon, p. 260). He is pictured by these and other friends as slipshod, slovenly, and shiftless to such an appalling degree that some of his debts remain still unpaid. We are told by them of Lincoln’s passion for funny stories, particularly for dirty ones; of a repellent poem he wrote, a salacious wedding burlesque too indecent to quote; of a letter that he wrote to a Mrs. Browning, shamelessly burlesquing a woman to whom he had proposed and by whom he had been rejected (this at the age of 28, an age when William Pitt and James Madison had already attained high honors and distinction); of his scoffing at the Bible, etc. According to these friends, Lincoln’s tactics as legislator were certainly not of an heroic nature. He log-rolled and traded in the offices (Sandbergh, p. 194) and joined in tricking a Democratic paper into publishing an article which Lincoln was foremost in denouncing after the publication (Herndon, II, p. 370). There are a thousand other details reflecting upon Lincoln that have been verified by Albert J. Beveridge and set out in his incomplete Life of Abraham Lincoln. (See Major Rupert Hughes’ Review of Beveridge’s Work in the Chicago Tribune, December 8, 1928.) II. Nor did the responsibilities of high office raise Lincoln above these objectionable habits. Chandler, in his Life of Governor Andrew, relates a story how the war governor of Massachusetts, in pressing a matter upon Lincoln, was put off with a smutty joke, and Hugh McCulloch, who was Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury, is a witness to the unrefined conduct of the President in a stormy contest with Randall, his Postmaster General after the report of Sheridan’s victory in the Valley was received (Rice, Reminiscences, p. 419). His trading in the offices was kept up to the last. Both Lamon (p. 450) and Herndon (III, p. 471) declare his nomination as President was secured by his managers through promises of cabinet appointment which Lincoln afterwards fulfilled. To secure the admission of Nevada, he promised in return for heir votes to three Democratic Congressmen lucrative appointments – one worth $20,000 a year (C.A. Dana, Recollections of the War, pp. 175-178), and to get rid of Salmon P. Chase, his chief competitor for the presidency, he appointed him Chief Justice, who, though a good financier, had no great reputation as a lawyer at the time (McClure, Lincoln and Men of Wartime, p. 123; Warden, Life of Chase; Rhodes, History of United States, Vol. V, p. 45; Pierce, Sumner, IV, p. 207). Lincoln strictly enforced the draft which forced other people’s sons into the army but kept his own son at college till near the end of the war. Then his (alleged) letter of November 21, 1864 John Hay really wrote it), to poor Mrs. Bixby, who lost five dear boys in the war* appears a positive cruel mockery after reading Lincoln’s letter to General Grant of January 19, 1865, about keeping his own (Lincoln’s) son out of the ranks. III United with high moral qualities a hero should have exceptional ability; but Lincoln, though a shrewd trader in votes and political trickery, had nothing of the sort. No constructive measure stands to his credit at any period in his history. He signed important papers without reading them (Welles, Diary, I, pp. 16-32), and John Hay states that he trusted to him the answering of his correspondence. Hay states that Lincoln was exceedingly “unmethodical” (Hay, in Herndon and Weik’s Life of Lincoln, II/, p. 515). Welles shows that there was absolutely no system during his presidency in the administration of affairs, and every cabinet officer was practically independent of the other and of the President, for whom they had no great opinion, especially Stanton, Seward, and Chase. At the cabinet meetings Seward took the lead, and Lincoln was treated as a kind of junior partner in the concern. Instead of expediting the war he put it back by bad appointments and constant interference with his generals in the field. One instance alone is sufficient to show Lincoln’s incapacity: Upon the retreat of General McClellan to Harrison’s Landing on James River, General Lee marched with most of his army to attack Pope, who was advancing from Washington. This left Richmond with only 30,000 men. McClellan had 100,000, and he asked permission to attack that city. But Lincoln, fearful for his capital, refused, through Halleck, to grant permission, and soon after removed McClellan and recalled his army, when it had attained the best possible position for future operations. Unfriendly as the historian Rhodes is to the memory of McClellan, he is compelled to confess that the move proposed by McClellan was “the most promising strategy of the whole campaign, both for the security of Washington and for possible results.” Lincoln by this act put back the war two years. Lincoln had behind him a population four times greater than the South, an old established government which had the recognition of the powers of the world, an established army and navy, credit with the bankers, etc., and yet to win success he had to hire thousands of foreigners and to force the Southern negroes into his army. He was reduced to the ignominious confession that without the 200,000 negroes he had in his army, he would have “to abandon the war in three weeks.” (Nicolay and Hay, Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, II, p.562.) Contrasted with this was the great ability shown by Mr. Davis and his cabinet, who out of nothing created an organization that for four years carried on a war that their own enemies were forced to confess was up to that time the greatest war of all the ages. General Lee said of Mr. Davis that “few men could have done as well and none could have done better.” Nevertheless had a really competent President like Andrew Jackson, been in the place of Lincoln, with a cabinet led by an Edward Livingston or William L. Marcy, instead of such marplots as Seward and Stanton, the South would have been suppressed in eighteen months. 38. What importance should be placed upon the statements of Rhett, Yancey, and other Southern extremists? None. Their talk was purely defensive, and had a fair set off in the ravings of the abolitionists who declared that the Constitution was “a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.” In no official declaration did the Southern Confederacy ever say that its purpose was to perpetuate slavery, or establish a slave empire. At all times and all places it proclaimed its purpose was to establish its independence and exercise the right of self-government. It is a curious fact that in 1833, in a solemn judicial opinion, Judge Henry Baldwin, a Pennsylvanian, and Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, declared that “the cornerstone of the American Union was slavery .” 39. Was it Lincoln s desire to preserve the Union that influenced him in violating the Constitution and resorting to barbarous methods of warfare? No. If the preservation of the Union had been the controlling idea with Lincoln he would have encouraged the efforts of John J. Crittenden and John Tyler to compromise the issues. But he was a thorough sectional party man, and he did not dare to offend those who had made him President. The turning point of his policy was the tariff, a thorough sectional measure, and he determined to make war in order to fix the tariff for protection forever on the South. Having begun the war, he knew that he would be a ruined politician if he failed, hence his a
        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I have to agree with G-Man here. If someone displays a Confederate Flag, they are automatically equated with being a racist to the point of perhaps even supporting a return to slavery. Perhaps this is true in a minority of cases, but in general it is the aforementioned Bulldookey.

          The Confederate Flag is a symbol of the right of the people (and the States) to throw off a government that is no longer governing in their best interests. The South was essentially exercising its rights as described in the Declaration of Independence.

          Slavery became a huge and hugely visible pawn in this war. The North could claim it had the moral high-ground because it wanted to abolish slavery. In reality, this was Bulldookey. Slavery had very little to do with the war at all, at least initially.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            Wait a minute Peter. Who are you agreeing with? It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. After all, it’s just an old flag from an Extinct Nation (or is it?) But go back and read what you wrote. You said you agreed with G, but wrote agreement with me. Fess up Pete! Are you a Yankee or a Closet Rebel? LMAO!

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              I guess technically I was agreeing with both of you, although I think you and I were writing responses to G-Man at about the same time 🙂

              At any rate, I am technically a Yankee, but I am willing to concede that Jefferson Davis and “them other rebels” did have a valid point.

              I guess you cannot be a big supporter of TJ and his Declaration of Independence without coming to the realization that it is hypocritical to say that the South was completely unjustified in 1860.

              Some people say that the Constitution is what defines this country because it is “the rule of law”. I tend to think the DoI is what defines this country, because it is all about why we even BECAME a country in the first place.

              • esomhillgazette says:

                To tell the truth Peter. I always told my boys that I was glad the South lost the War. Because if they hadn’t, we would not have the great Nation we have today.

                But since I have been coming here and to other Conservative sites, I am starting to rethink that. Was the C.S.A losing such a good thing? Abe Lincoln wasn’t the great man I always thought he was. Even being from where I’m from, I have never thought slavery was good.

                But now that Big Government has come to the fore, and since he started the NO States Rights movement of that big govt, I’m starting to wonder.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Confed Flag = Swastika

            It all depends on perspective I suppose – but boy how easily do we dismiss because ‘someone’ just doesn’t get it eh?

            • Now wait a minute guys…are you saying that because some one perceives that a symbol is something that it is not then I lose my right to have it? So if someone “perceives” that the southern flag represents slavery, although the truth says other wise…I lose my right to fly it? So if watermelons are “perceived” to represent a slander on blacks I lose my right to eat one, or grow one? Now there are Certain symbols that history tells us represents exactly what they represent, Christain symbols, Swastika (german flag)ect those are not percieved those are what they are…..under this thinking as long as someone percieves it to be something (even if they are wrong) it is ok and everyone should percieve it that way. I am sorry I do not understand this line of reason it is not rational. Sorry

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                I say use common sense – don’t be naive as to what the multiple meanings are for these things. Many people own war memorabilia and aren’t Nazi sympathizers. Wear the SS coat to jewelers row and now we’re talking something altogether different. It is unfortunate but a fact of life.

        • Bama dad says:

          Besides the confederate flag of today is not the original stars and bars of the south. Study your history.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            Aw Bama! Don’t tell them that! That was supposed to be the South’s little secret. Here in GA we just exchanged the Confederate battle flag for the Confederate National Flag and most didn’t even realize it. Even those who said the Battle Flag represented slavery to them! It just shows how much History most folks know.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Esom – I merely disagree with putting such effort into something that was over-politicized by the far right and turned into wasted opportunity (at least it seems that way). I’m not sure I disagree with the TEA parties as I am not sure precisely what the purpose was.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Ah Ray! It doesn’t matter to me. I wasn’t offended. You should see that from the way I poked the bear! (so to speak) And about the flag. The controversy over what, to me, is simply a flag of my ancestry, is why I changed it to a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag. Sometimes on different computers, it still shows the Battle flag. I don’t know why. As for my own site though, I will continue to fly the flag of MY choosing. What anyone takes from that I can’t help. I am not racist and get slightly ill when people take the flight of a flag for racism.

  15. I’ve talked with both of my girls, they are 14 and 18, and the 14 year old seems to have the clearest idea about what is going on. The 18 year old really doesn’t seem to care. She has told me that had she been old enough to vote she would have voted for Obama. When I asked her why, she couldn’t really come up with an answer. Because her father and I are divorced and she lives with him she doesn’t really have a political view point. My youngest daughter though spends a great deal of time with me and does have an opinion. Of course she is a very opinionated young lady! Can’t imagine where she gets that from!

  16. gypsypiney says:

    I was proud to attend the Tea Party at the Alamo. One issue that I feel needs more attention is this bogus ” tax cut for 95% of workers” people have been conned by. This is an out right LIE! The so called “Payroll Tax” is for Social Security and Medicare programs. Both of which demonstrate the governments ability to manage money. And this money is offset for lower income people already by the Earned Income Credit anyway.
    All this “Tax Cut” is the government leaving a dollar on the dresser after raping us.

    • I researched the tax tables for ’08 and ’09. The ’09 was predicted, but was the same as ’08 (for my tax liability). I’ve been telling people that are on the bubble of get alittle/pay alittle, and told them about this. It isn’t a tax cut, but just taking less Fed taxes out of paycheck. The tax liability remains the same. I woder how many people are going to be shocked when they do their taxes next year?

    • You really can’t cut taxes for people who don’t pay them. A tax cut for 95% of workers is just false. This is the govt raising taxes on the achievers to give it to the non-achievers, plain and simple. Hell, I’m a “middle income worker”, where’s my check?

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Tex, as I understand it, they’re going to give it back over 12 mo. on your paycheck so that you will never see it. Only those woh don’t pay them to begin with will get a “check”.

  17. Black Flag says:

    Bama Dad,

    You will not be able to retire – prepare for this. It will be at least 3 to 4 generations from now before the concept of ‘retirement’ is reestablished (if ever).

    Government debt is not an issue at all. Never was, except to divert attention away from the real and dangerous policies of government. Think about it. Government debt has been waved in front of our faces for over 40 decades – each administration has flagged it as imminent disaster and has offered their platform as a solution. Yet, every administration has expanded the debt – and the government is still here.

    Think about this: If you were able to grow money on a tree, would you be worried about your credit card debt?

    Of course not! If a credit card company demanded payment, you simply go to the tree, tear off some money, and give it to them.

    Government prints its own money. Should anyone demand payment, it simply cuts down a tree, turns into paper, puts some green ink on it in special places, and calls it ‘money’, and pays them off.

    Inflation, and most dangerously, hyper-inflation is deadly. It erodes the national wealth and can permanently destroy the nation.

    People think 3% inflation is ‘not bad’. What if, instead, I said that in 24 years, you’d lose half your wealth – does that change your perspective?

    People will tolerate 10% inflation. Yet, what if I said that every 7 years you lost half your wealth – how tolerant are you?

    We’ve had 20% inflation – what if I told you that every 3 years you lost half your wealth?

    We can expect 100% inflation – what if I said every 5 months, you’d lose half your wealth?

    What if we go post-WW1 Germany or modern Zimbabwe – 1,000% inflation or higher… what if I said every week you lost half your wealth?

    The debt is only bad IF the Government monetizes the debt, that is – inflates it away.

    They will be forced to do that soon – since China and others are starting to no longer accept US$ in trade for real goods.

    • Black Flag says:

      40 years, or 4 decades — not 40 decades LoL 😉

    • Black Flag says:

      PS: Zimbabwe has over 1,000,000% inflation – that is, they lost half their wealth……. every 30 minutes.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Dang it BF! That made so much sense it just plain depressed me! You’re right. This has been going on so long it is bound to collapse on us before much longer. It’s just that it’s accelerated so fast in the 4 mo. since Obama was elected that it’s really starting to be noticable. I’m starting to feel like the boy with his finger in the dike, trying in vain to stop the leaky dam.

    • I agree, the govt, is not at all concerned with the debt. They just print more money. We the people should be concerned with the debt, though, because they just print more money.

      Good point BF.

    • Thanks to some good discussion a short time ago about hyperinflation, I would retire and become self sustaining, because I could not afford to go to work, much less make enough money to buy anything. Retirement may just not be voluntary.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      To my knowledge, there are no “major” currencies in the world that are still backed by anything other than a piece of paper and a smile.

      Obama is doing one “smart” thing. He is encouraging the rest of the world to print money like crazy in lock-step with the US. Since the US Dollar is only valued in relation to other currencies (a dollar will get you 100 yen, 1 euro will get you $1.25, etc), this causes the ILLUSION of economic stability.

      Billions of Yen, Billions of Euros, and Billions of Dollars are all being printed up even as we speak. All currencies are being devalued at APPROXIMATELY THE SAME RATE, so it APPEARS that there is no inflation or hyperinflation.

      The problem is, once the reality of all of this hits the markets is that in theory, gold should rize to about $20,000 per ounce, and oil should rize to about $1000 per barrel. I doubt that this will happen (because of government intervention of some sort to prevent it), but if you do the math, gold and oil should be shooting up like crazy at the moment. Oil is not shooting up due to the market being oversupplied at the moment, but I have no idea what is holding the price of gold down at the moment… perhaps it is just the fact that in spite of all this new money going into the system, no one actually has any money to buy gold with currently… not sure on that one.

      • Black Flag says:

        Gold Prices

        It is a bit deep to explain so bear with me.

        Most of the gold in the world is held in India’s dowries.

        Second to that, it is/was held by central banks.

        As government’s expanded their money supply to pay for their programs, the threat of inflation based on gold was real.

        To resist this, central banks went to war against the Gold Bugs.

        Central banks do not use their gold reserves to back their currency, they use their gold reserves as a hedge against their currency.

        Central banks could not sell their gold to the market – any country that did would suddenly have a run on their currency OR have to base their currency on another national currency that did have gold. USA holds more gold as a hedge than any other country – hence, many countries based their currency on the US$ and have little or no gold.

        http://www.reserveasset.gold.org/

        (If you register here, you can get the reports on holdings)

        But how does a central bank hold DOWN the gold price without selling gold?

        They played a neat trick. The central banks founded what are called “Bullion banks”. Then they lent these Bullion banks by contract their gold – tonnes of the stuff – at 1/3% interest – the cheapest money on earth. These Bullion banks then sold the gold on he market, and took the funds and invested them in other securities, earning 5%-15%. Easy money, but trust me, no regular human being can participate – this trick was reserved only for banks and the super wealthy. This ‘play’ has resulted in a massive sell-off of gold reserves held by the central banks. However, this fact is not noted in the reserves. Since this was a loan the Central banks are still recording the gold as in reserve, even though – physically – it isn’t there.

        This ‘play’ works well as long as the price of gold is stable – but if the price starts to rise, Bullion banks have a big problem. They borrowed gold bars – and must repay in gold bars. If the banks demand repayment, the bullion banks need to buy gold on the market to return to the banks. This will cause the price to rise – making it more and more expensive for the Bullion banks to repay – up to a point, which they are at now, that they cannot buy the gold back to repay. They go bankrupt.

        If they go bankrupt, and there is no return of the physical gold, the people find out that there is no gold in the Central Bank, the global currency markets will evaporate overnight.

        Thus, the Central Banks are in trouble. The Bullion banks cannot return the gold – therefore, the banks cannot ask for it back and somehow must drive the price down for the bullion banks to repay.

        They do this two ways:
        announce they will sell gold. The IMF, last week, pre-announced a sale of 400 tonnes of gold. They did not sell one ounce. The price fell $75.

        actually sell gold. Whoa, but wait…. what gold? They’ve lent the physical stuff out, haven’t they? Yep!! So they sell certificates — and futures. As long as no one actually demands delivery of the physical ore, no one is the wiser. The mere act of selling certificates, representing large quantities of ore, will force the price down. This allows Bullion banks to purchase and accept delivery of the real ore, if necessary – and even more important –purchase the paper issued by the banks themselves. They then deliver the piece of paper back to the bank to redeem it, which the bank simply uses to cancel the loan to the bullion bank. No real physical ore is transferred.

        The only problem with this game is India.

        When gold falls to about $825/oz. Indian father’s begin massive purchases (and we are talking, literally, tonnes of the stuff) to fund their daughter’s dowries. They do demand physical gold. So, the price – which the banks worked so hard in driving down – starts to go up…. with real delivery demanded … no paper please!

        So, what happened last week was the IMF announced the sale of 400 tonnes. The price fell. Today, the US has given its permission to the IMF to actually sell the gold. Remember, not one oz. has yet to trade hands…. and the price today spiked up nearly $50.

        The banks are slowly losing complete control over the gold market. The will lose, they cannot win.

        Less than 1% of Americans own gold – only a handful of gold bugs, and mostly in gold coin for collections.

        If that percentage went to 10%, and those 10% held merely 5% of their cash assets in ore – gold would jump up to $15,000 an oz. overnight.

        THERE IS NO CAPACITY in the gold market to absorb a sudden rush to gold.

        The daily trade in gold is 1600 tonnes per day — the 400 tonnes of the IMF would be absorbed without a blip.

        Almost all of the 1600 tonnes is certificates. As soon as delivery is demanded – all hell will break loose.

        If you wait for the masses to find gold, you will find none.

        PS: Eisenhower demanded an audit of the US gold holdings. The Federal Reserve refused.

        There has been no audit of the physical gold held at either Fort Knox, nor at the Federal Reserve on Wall Street – ever –

        How many of you believe there is any gold there?

    • Black Flag says:

      So the question is, what will you do now, knowing that this inflation is coming?

      If it hits 5%, start your action plan, because if it hits 10%, the rest of the masses will figure it out, and they will then start theirs – and you cannot compete with the masses.

      If it hits 10%, you must follow – even as a charade – what the masses do; you cannot let them know you were ahead of the game – they will hunt you down and destroy you.

      When it hits 25%, batten down the hatches. The government will have lost complete control over the currency and it will begin to rapidly dissolve all around them – and you.

      If it hits 100% or higher – society will collapse into total chaos.

      • Bama dad says:

        So the question is, what will you do now, knowing that this inflation is coming?

        I have been stockpiling the necessities for life for me and my family.

    • Bama dad says:

      BF agree with you 100% about hyper-inflation. With all the printed unbacked money that is what is going to happen. That is why I am jumping up and down and screaming about all this government spending.

      For the record I have no debt. If I can’t pay cash for it I don’t get it.

  18. I have been looking at the talking heads on the boob tube lately. Then I read what Ray has had to say on this post. Along with the lone troller known as anon. And I have to ask myself the same question about all of them . . . . . ;

    ARE THEY DRUNK, ON DRUGS, OR JUST PLAIN STUPID!?!

    BTW, anon, you can find that entire article on my blog just by clicking on my name here . . . 😉

    Did not see any covert surveillance anywhere near Lake Havasu City, just about 2000 of us radical right wing extremists who were upset and angry about the misdirection our country is being shoved and were very polite to the three police officers assigned to “crowd control”.

    FYI – If you are EVER approached by someone who says he is a plain clothes law enforcement officer from ANY agency(especially a fed) and he does not show you an ID . . . CALL 911 IMMEDIATELY! He is not a cop. Real cops LOVE to take down phony’s, I do mean LOVE to!

    • G.A.

      Much worse. Drunk, drugged or stupid would be fired.

      extremism; term used to describe the actions or IDEOLOGIES of individuals or groups.

      Edmund Burke is credited with coining the term “Fourth Estate” after the French Revolution.

      Public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by SEEKING TRUTH & PROVIDE A FAIR & COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT of the EVENTS and ISSUES.
      PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY is the CORNERSTONE of a JOURNALISTS CREDIBILITY.

      As US has written, there is little credibility left in the media. The majority of them have an agenda that means more than professional integrity. They are using their position to advance their ideologies.
      And just as any other zealot, they can justify their means, by the end goal.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Be more specific if you want me to explain myself – otherwise you’re just name calling.

  19. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    BF,

    Very good information on Gold. I need to buy some now before it does go to $20K per ounce i think… lol.

    I heard just a few years ago that all of the physical gold that has ever been mined in the world would make a solid-gold object that is the size of a regulation tennis court and only 6 stories high. If that is accurate, it really doesn’t represent all that much physical gold. Gold is a pretty darn dense metal, so it probably does represent maybe 10,000 to 25,000 tonnes or so (would have to do actual math using the dimensions of a tennis court, just how high 6-stories is, and the density of gold to figure it out, and I am too lazy to do that right now 🙂 ) but there is obviously NO WAY that any government/banking system would survive for long if there were a run on gold. They can survive a run on CURRENCY to an extent (after all, that is just paper), but a run on the real stuff would be catastrophic.

  20. CanadianFox says:

    USW, I had a chance to read this one but not the one you posted on Friday ( I believe I will have some time tonight or tomorrow). A couple of moderate thoughts on this post. One, I believe that the comment on Fox News being number one is simply because that most everyone who thinks in that type of conservative mode, chooses to watch that network. The other more “liberal” networks split their viewer percentages. However, it is still the minority view considering last fall’s election results. Number two, is that most people (unless you are extreme left in your thinking) pay no attention to Garofalo, Huffington and the like . Just like they would pay no attention to Limabaugh and Coulter etc. But here is a more moderate “opinion” concerning the tea parties. In business there is always the management onslaught of “morale building” programs we are subjected to. Those that attend those events always come out of them all fired up and are going to “change their world” and it lasts for a week maybe a month at the most. That is why I call these things a “non-event” event because I do not really think anything, or much of anything, will come of it. One thing I did see on the coverage of that day make me shake my head and laugh. There was good old boy Dick Armey in a cowboy hat trying to make a case of how the tobacco taxes were wrong etc. Now right there is to me the epitome of the Republican Party’s problem. Dinosaurs like him. Does he not know that that tax only affects roughly 10% of the nation but is one of the main contributing reasons of higher health care costs? People like him are just plain out of touch with main street America.

    • CFox,

      Call me a dinosaur. I am do not use tobacco, but feel the PRINCIPAL of the tax is wrong. Any freedom the government can take from your neighbor, is a freedom the can take from you. So what will be next? Oregon is considering a 150% beer tax. Several large cities are considering ways to tax “fast food”.

      I think you and the media and most elected officials are out of touch with main street America. I do not like paying taxes, but can abide by doing so if I feel it is for the betterment of the nation.

      I cannot abide my tax money being squandered without accountability. Chris Dodd had the AIG bonuses added to the spendulous bill. And why was the media attention on the AIG executives and not him?

      Freddie/Frannie got 210 million in bonuses. Obama wants to cut 100 million from his administration? A little late for that. Who awarded those bonuses? Someone who is buying their re-election?

      The outrage at these tea parties is because of the
      discriminary taxation. And discriminary spending.

      Our money is to be spent on a 7 billion tram from LA to Vegas. Does that help this country? Is that infrastructure? Oh, and “shovel ready”.

      We almost lost a town of 50,000 last month. I don’t live near Fargo, but it seems they have infrastructure that could use a few shovels and a little cash. But who would that get elected?

    • USWeapon says:

      How do you figure it only affects 10% of the nation? 20% of Americans smoke. And the claim that it is “one of the main contributing reasons of higher health care costs” is a fallacy. Try backing that up with a statistic. It cannot be done because there are no statistics to back it up. You are falling for a trick there. Heart disease is a leading killer in the United States, and obesity is strongly linked to heart disease. 60% of America is overweight. And you think taxing the smokers is the right move? Are you OK with moving forward with a Fat Tax?

      • CanadianFox says:

        USW, the last time I checked that percentage had come down quite a bit. Maybe closer to 15%. A fallacy about tobacco related illnesses? You talk to my wife who is a Director of Surgical Services that includes the oncology department. I know she would set you real straight, real quick on that one. She has seen the direct result of tobacco related illnesses every day of her 35 year career. A Fat tax? If I am not mistaken the airlines are thinking about requiring overweight people to purchase two seats. I think that would be a great idea and send a real good message to those who refuse to take care of themselves physically.

        • USWeapon says:

          The fallacy is not that smoking cause health issues. The fallacy that smoking is one of the major contributors to health care costs in America. They love to tell us that this is the case because it makes us submit to the higher taxes, because they are justified in that way. But the reality is that those who don’t have smoking related illnesses generall fall victim to other ones like other cancers or alzheimers or pick a disease. The health care costs in America are largely unaffected by the percentage of the population that smokes. That is what I was refuting, not whether smoking is healthy.

          And for the record, I appreciate that she has witnessed a lot in her time in the industry, but don’t assume that the rest of us don’t have those same advantages. My wife works in FDA submission for Pharma, my mother is a doctor turned hospital administrator and has worked in the industry for over 40 years. My brother in law is a virologist for Glaxo, My Aunt is a retired VP from there as well. In fact I have TONS of medical folks in my and my wife’s family. I am not trying to diminish the insight your wife can add, but don’t assume that we don’t all have access to that insight. Thanks!

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Is smoking related to heart disease as well? Just asking.

        • I believe that it can be Ray. I also believe that despite what we think we know, we cannot be sure of how much relationship exists. What we can be sure of is this: Regardless of the fact that less than half the percentage of the population smokes than was the case 40 years ago, it has shown no impact what-so-ever on health care costs. So reducing the amount of smoking has not shown a decrease in health care costs. So how then can we justify the claim that it is Ok to tax smokers because they are increasing the cost of health care.

          • CanadianFox says:

            No matter what you say USW, smoking is like playing Russian Roulette with only one empty chamber. I am not sure where you are getting your stats on smoking related diseases in relation to health care costs, but it sounds like to me it is the same place the tobacco lobbies and institute’s get theirs. A) when there are as many people with no health insurance because they cannot afford it, I do not believe it is realistic to think that the government won’t get involved in some manner AND B) If they are involved they will have a definite say in how tobacco seriously affects health care costs. As they should. Sorry, but I am a realist.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              If the Government were interested in eliminating increased health-care costs incurred because of smoking/second-hand smoke, they would simply make smoking and other tobacco products ILLEGAL.

              By keeping these products legal but taxing the $hit out of them, they are simply using them as a cash-cow. I would LOVE to see what percentage of tobacco tax money has EVER gone to anything health-care related. My guess is next to none of it.

    • CF, you said;

      “But here is a more moderate “opinion” concerning the tea parties. In business there is always the management onslaught of “morale building” programs we are subjected to. Those that attend those events always come out of them all fired up and are going to “change their world” and it lasts for a week maybe a month at the most.”

      AMWAY used to do just that for many years . . . Now they are a globally diversified corporation. In Japan, the most successful businesses require that their managers attend those type of conferences each and every year – one of those companies is Mitsubishi Industries, and they just happen to have the market one up on robotic components. FYI – Japan is the nation that leads the world in robotics. Not too bad for one of the losers of WW2. And the fact that there are more Japanese made cars on U.S. roads today than U.S. made cars.

      BTW – We right wing radical extremists are here to stay. We will not go quietly into the night. Get used to it.

      • CanadianFox says:

        G.A., But those companies are more organized, focused and pretty much have their employees as a captive audience. I understand that you won’t go quietly into the night, but you have all ready torn apart the one party that would have you and are slowly but surely becoming a smaller and shriller minority. I think that is something that you will have to get used to. The “numbers” that attended those “tea parties” just aren’t there when you consider the population of voters as a whole.

        • We are no longer a minority, actually never was a minority. We are the silent majority that are silent no more.

          We are not small, nor shrill. We are loud, in your face, and we will stay there.

          This protest is not about any particular party, it is about the wrong direction of where our government is taking this country. Socialism/Fascism is not the answer. Mega spending us into a third world status is not the answer. Freedom, of not only the individual but of companies, banks, and other businesses to succeed or fail IS the answer.

          As far as numbers are concerned . . . Gallup and other pollsters use a very small percentage of the population to effect their polls, much smaller than the numbers that showed up for the protest and more often than not, they are pretty close to what really does happen.

          • CanadianFox says:

            GA, I understand what you are saying and somewhat understand your frustration and anger. But the last time I checked the only way to get things accomplished is through our current political system. At one time it consisted of two strong parties. It no longer does. And if you try to form an offshoot party you might as well forgot about this country remaining the top super power in the world. The reason is, it divides people too much and if you do not like compromise now, within the party that is closest to your beliefs, you would absolutely hate it in the future. I personally think we are headed for a “modified form” of capitalism. The current administration will not mess with the “basic fundamentals” of our country’s success. But because we are now in a global economy, we have far more people than 30 years ago, of which many cannot even afford basic health care – there will be more government involvement and intervention. It is inevitable when civilizations grow and age. Now it all depends on how we handle this “together” as to how it turns out. Splintering off into shrill minorities will not get it done. I do not for one instance believe there is a “conspiracy” on the numbers reported. It is simple math. Number of “participants” divide by the population.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              CF,

              There are so many logical fallacies in your argument that I fail to even find a place to begin its refutation.

              If you choose to believe that patriotic, freedom-loving Americans are a shrill and small minority, and if you choose to believe that the the only way to solve problems is through the 2 major political parties that currently exist, then that is your choice.

              Enjoy those beliefs!

  21. First let me say I think the tea parties were a great idea and I wish I was in the states on the 15th to attend one (over seas for work at the moment). I think that although a great movement and from what it sounded like many of the larger cities had good turnouts their are a couple of flaws on how they were run.

    First is the new tax issue. I believe (like most of is I think from reading various blogs) that the spending that congress is doing is going to lead to higher taxes in the future. However as it stands the media is going to continue to push “Obama cut taxes on 95% of the population” line. Thus making that point of the parties seem silly. They should have had the focus on the over spending and stuck to that.

    Second is focus. Although the tea parties were mainly about taxes and spending from what I’ve seen in pictures many of the signs appeared to be of different issues. Think of protests in the past.. Code pink, pro-life, pro-choice, the million man march, womens rights movement, gay rights.. and countless others have all had a single focus and a clear message. Not having that focus gives the media ammunition to try and make this seem like this is a red-neck tea-bagging party.

    I could be 100% wrong about this as I was not at any of the parties and do not have first hand experience. I hope that this movement continues on and more and more people who were unsure of weather or not to show-up do. Also having them on a non-workday would probably help the numbers and really piss off the opposition. As long as they remain peaceful and don’t go down the path of violence then the less ammunition we give the MSM.

    Just my 2 cents.

    • In the code pink, etc type demos the signs were professionally made to fit the protest the organizers wanted – such as the day without a Mexican protest and the recent one in Phoenix about immigration reform – The signs you have seen in the tea party protest were all hand made and they accurately reflect the mood of the individual protester. Do not mistake this for disunity, for it is far from it. This was in fact a grass roots event that was spontaneously sparked and attended by those who think like individuals, not just a bunch of lemmings being pulled along over the edge by their handlers.

  22. marshall says:

    it amazes me how inteligent garofalo can be. and yet be so ignorant at the same time.

    • Marshall,
      She is a extremists. Present her with a fact that goes against her ideologies, and she will respond with obsentities.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi LOI,

        Marshall has a point. IF I were a younger person, of whom Barfafolo appeals to me ’cause she seems cool (and she’s a Hollywood star and I like saw her in this great movie that I just loved), I would have looked at that interview and thought, “Wow, she really knows her $hit, ’cause she’s talking about all this brain structure stuff…she must be really, really smart”!.

        Of course, at the end, she messed it up and just looked stoooopid, but I imagine she did sucker some suckers in with this interview!

        Regards,
        RS

        • Spitfire,
          You & Marshall both have valid points. I didn’t make my point very clear. There are some books out on people adopting a belief system.
          I “believe in God and Jesus”. I can defend that belief with some logic, but mostly it comes down to faith.

          Some people believed in Hitler. I won’t expand on that one.

          Some people “believe” in global warming. They do not have facts or figures to back their reasoning. But because Al Gore or someone else told them the world would end if we don’t stop these crazy Republican’s.

          It seems many of those who voted for Obama fell for his promises,
          but those who remain steadfast in their support must “believe” in him. So when their personal god bows to a foreign king, they make excuses. When that deity, who promised transparency, forces through the largest spending bill in the history of the world, without the signers reading it, they make excuses. To his true believers like Maddow, he could rape Miss America on the front lawn of the white house, and they would talk about how good he looked, how perfect his form was, and no that was clearly a scream of pleasure.

          And some believe in the Liberal, Progressive, or Conservative cause. I am a fiscal conservative. Its not because Glenn Beck told me to think this way, or anyone else. I have studied the issues through as many independent sources as time and a short attention span allow. I think most here are the same. But if you venture to a liberal site, you will find a different breed.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I can’t even watch her – too far far to the left. As nutty as Newt or Rush.

        • Ray,

          I can’t put Newt in that class. As a historian, he has made some excellent comments that provoke thought. But with all commentators, I will listen, research and then form my own conclusions. For that matter, Maddow could inform me of a issue, unlikely, but I am open minded.

  23. Black Flag says:

    PeterB in Indianapolis

    Man, in spite of his ability to “reason”, in spite of his ability to be “moral” and in spite of his ability to “have a conscience” is, at root, still a member of the animal kingdom.

    Civilization exists.
    Civilization is not created by animals.
    Civlization is created by reason and intelluct.

    Humans, therefore, have choice.

    We can organize ourselves like animals – and lose civilization.

    We can organize ourselves like humans with intellect – and save civilization.

    They will do so through violence. It is simply natural, it is what animals do.

    All true – which is why government exists. As I’ve said many times before;

    Violence is profitable

    As long as it remains so, there will be a class of humans that chose to use violence to obtain the resources they need to live.

    Howeverand here is the point – the rest of us do not have to legitimize this theft.

    We can see that it is evil – and deal with it as evil.

    Government, however, legitimizes theft. We can as easily remove this legitimization as we gave it.

    In a human society, it would be necessary to ensure that everyone had absolutely equal resources as far as food, mates, shelter, and all the basics in order for “Do whatever you want as long as it does not harm anyone else” to actually work.

    NO! NO! NO!

    With this thinking of yours, you must therefore believe that laws stop crime.

    But of course it does not.

    So why do you insist on demanding that, somehow, a principled way of determining legitimate action must also, by magic, fix brain damaged people?

    The difference between Black Flag and you, is that you, seeing someone attack non-violent people, call this action legitimate. I see the attack as evil. The attack happened – neither your philosophy nor mine prevents evil – but it is vital in determining morals.

    If you see violence as legitimate, you will accept it, and allow it to continue.

    If you see violence as illegitimate, you will not accept it, and work to not allow it to continue.

    This is what you do today.

    Black Flag sees any violence on non-violent people as illegitimate.

    You see government violence on non-violent people as legitimate. Therefore, you do not act to stop it. Therefore, it perpetuates and grows.

    In the absence of a Government, who is going to ensure that everyone in the society has equal resources?

    There is no right to equal resource of anything.

    “Equal” is a matter of opinion of “need”.

    “Need” is wholly subjective.

    Is man simply going to come up with that system magically on his own? I would argue no, because the natural tendency is for the strong to take what they can (by use of force if necessary) and defend what they have (again by use of force).

    Or, more easily, trade for it.

    There are two ways to obtain resources for one’s survival:

    1) earn it – called the “economic way”
    2) steal it – called the “political way”

    In order to prevent he strong from attempting to dominate the weak, there would have to be some sort of body that would determine what actions constitue “harm” and what the penalties would be for causing “harm”, but then you would have… wait for it… A GOVERNMENT!

    I’m not sure why you need someone to tell you the difference between “harming” and “not harming”.

    Are you saying you cannot figure that out for yourself????

    Take that same system and try to apply it to the “real world” where people have many differences and there is a need to compete for available resources, and that system goes out the window.

    Of course not!!

    We do that today!!

    Do you go about your daily task “harming” people??? Do you survive?? Of course!!

    To claim that this ‘system’ does not exist is bogus. You live it.

    What you are, though, is inconsistent.

    If you saw your fellow student attack another, you would be aghast – call the attack “wrong”.

    But when you see the government do the same thing – you meekly agree that it is the government that is ‘right’ and the student ‘wrong’.

    That is our only difference, sir.

    I do not see any right for anyone to attack an innocent person.

    You do.

    You, like many, are confused about what it means to be “Free”.

    Freedom does not prevent crime. But neither does your government.

    Freedom does not end poverty. But neither does your government.

    Freedom does not prevent disasters. But neither does your government.

    Freedom does not prevent sadness, sickness, disease, war, earthquakes, drunkenness…. but neither does your government.

    Knowing you are Free means you are able to recognize evil – and act against it without claiming such evil has a right to act.

    Your government believes it has a right to use evil.

    I do not legitimize such actions, nor give it my consent to do so.

    You do.

    That is our difference.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      Your assumption that I legitimize anything is, just that, an assumption. You know what happens when you assume, right?

      “I do not see any right for anyone to attack an innocent person. ”

      However, you do see the right for anyone to attack a non-innocent person since you did not include the non-innocent person in this statement. Therefore, you condone violence, but only upon the non-innocent.

      “Knowing you are Free means you are able to recognize evil – and act against it without claiming such evil has a right to act.”

      You see, here is where you get into trouble. You assume that any free man will have the same definition of evil. Good luck with that. So, if I perceive abortion to be evil, and I choose to act against a doctor who has performed an abortion, it is my right, as a free man, to act in this case, because I recognize this act as evil.

      On the other hand, if another free man perceives that it is the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion because it is her body and her right to do with it what she pleases, then that free man would percieve my act of acting against the doctor as “evil” and would, by his rights as a free man be able to act against me.

      Now, I am certain at this point that you will attempt to argue that only ONE of these viewpoints is correct, and so only one of the free men was ACTUALLY ENTITLED TO ACT in this case.

      However, there are MANY issues on which many men will argue that there is NOT one clear-cut side of the issue which can be said to be “GOOD” and one other clear-cut side of the issue that can be said to be “EVIL”

      Therefore, since we live in a world with precious few (if any) moral absolutes, and there seem to be fewer of these moral absolutes all the time, under your own argument, free men would be able to act against other free men any time one of them perceived another of them to be “evil”.

      As your own parable below points out, that leads to a lot of dead husbands and kids and a lot of weeping wives.

      You are essentially advocating violence on an uncontrolled basis (anyone can commit violence anytime, as long as they are acting against “evil”).

      Works great as long as everyone agrees on what is evil and what is not. Doesn’t work at all otherwise.

      The problem is you are arguing on an inconsistent basis yourself, because there is almost always grey area in what is perceived as “good” and what is perceived as “evil”.

      Let’s say, in your hypothetical world, a man named James did violence against your brother. As far as you are aware, your brother was an innocent man, and had done nothing to deserve this; therefore, you, as a free man who abhors violence against the innocent, are now justified in acting to stop James from being violent. In acting to stop James from being violent, it is most likely you perform a violent act on him as well. (Or you could just sit him down for tea and ask politely that he not do that anymore I suppose).

      It turns out that in reality, your brother had done something to harm James in the first place, but neither your brother or James shared this information with anyone else. Because of this, your assumption that your brother was an innocent person that had violence performed against him was now faulty, and because YOU performed a violent act against James (who we now realize was simply the innocent victim here), the family of James has the right to stop you from performing further acts of violence.

      Welcome to the Hatfields vs. the McCoys.

  24. Black Flag says:

    When you understand the meaning of this parable, you understand freedom:

    There was a woman weeping beside a grave.

    A stranger happened by and asked what happened.

    “My son was just killed by a bear in the forest, like my husband was last month – I am now alone”

    The stranger said, “But why don’t you live in the village behinds its walls and be protected from the wild beasts?”

    “Because, here, we are free”.

  25. I’ve had enough. I’ve already liquidated what I’ve got left in the world…sold my house, my cars, cashed in the 401K, the stocks…what’s left, bonds, silver, pulled my accounts, paid off the bills and at 60 years old I’m taking my early retirement and moving to the islands for good.
    I can’t take this fighting, this division in our country anymore. It’s going to go down. I fought for nothing, and the liberals are going to give this country away to illegal immigrants and thugs and freeloaders. The new presidnet is a marxist and most can’t even see it coming. Get ready for the “new” America…given to us by the liberal media…lke that whacked out Garofalo. There’s thousands like her being bred and among you, and her ilk are destroying the country and defying common sense. Good luck.

    • Seriously Joe? I’m not kidding. I’m currently in Oceania and am looking around for a new home. What islands are you talking about?

      • Cyndi: don’t move to any Island where you are less than 100 feet above seal level. This assumes a 20 to 30 foot rise in ocean level and 70 foot tidal wave. Of course the tsunami could be much higher.

        If I were looking I would be considering inland locations on larger landmasses, such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada

        They all speak the language and are more than happy to have hard working immigrants who bring their own money.

        JAC

        • Hi JAC,

          Thanks for the advice but you’re too late. I’m on a low atoll. Supposedly we’re safe from tsunamis because the surrounding ocean is literally thousands of feet deep less than a quarter mile off the reef wall. The theory is that the energy travels along the ocean bottom and just goes around the atoll. I think Wikipedia has a good explaination of it. I feel perfectly safe here, at least in that respect. Its the new Hope-n-Change US government that scares me. America is heading down a path I have no interest in going down. Guess I’ll have to be an ex-pat somewhere. But where? Canada and Australia are further along the path than the US. I think the people of NZ still have brains and that might be an option. I’m very fond of the small island nations but their immigration policies are pretty strict. I guess America is the only country in the world expected to allow anyone in, no questions asked and to provide all benefits of citizenship.

  26. WOW! I respect liberals when they present thier views in a sane way, and don’t make completely rediculous statements. The liberal media dosn’t do any of those things. So, I don’t respect them. They are on the payroll of Obama, maybe not monetarily, but in other ways: ie GE owns NBC, so the CEO gets political cover from Obama, and in exchange all the NBC programs are liberal!

%d bloggers like this: