Copy Lincoln

The failure to respect Ullah’s rights because he has said he was inspired by a foreign power would commence a slippery and horrific slope, down which any person who is hated or feared or appears foreign or different or misunderstood at any given moment might be pushed.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsFor anything to be a human “right” it must be universal–applicable to all men in all places and at all times. And, contrary to the propaganda camp version, the constitution does NOT “give” anybody their rights. God does that. But supposedly, the constitution guarantees those rights.  I say “supposedly” because those guarantees have, over time, become virtually meaningless.

It’s time boys! jtl, 419

Here We Go Again  By via LewRockwell.com

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteFor the second time in two months, someone who has pledged allegiance to the Islamic State has plotted to kill innocents in New York City and has executed his plot.

According to police, at the height of the Monday morning rush hour this week, in an underground pedestrian walkway that I have used many times, in the middle of Manhattan, a permanent legal resident of the United States named Akayed Ullah detonated a bomb he had strapped to his torso in an effort to kill fellow commuters and disrupt massively life in New York.

Combat Shooter's HandbookThe bomb was inartfully constructed, and it injured slightly four people nearby and Ullah himself seriously. He survived, was captured on the spot and is now in the joint custody of the New York Police Department and the FBI in the prison ward of Bellevue Hospital.

Ullah’s wounds had barely been addressed by emergency room physicians when the calls began to resonate in the government and in the media to strip him of his constitutional rights and ship him to a military facility in South Carolina or at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewThese voices argued without access to any evidence that because the Islamic State is a foreign power with an army that has sworn to do harm to Americans and destroy our way of life, its soldiers have no constitutional protections when they go about their destruction. Ullah is a soldier of this foreign army, this argument goes, and should be treated as a soldier under the Geneva Conventions. That means he should be removed from the civilian judicial system and interrogated and tried by the military.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)This argument essentially suggests that the police in New York or the FBI or the president somehow possesses the lawful authority from some unstated source, before guilt has been adjudicated, to suspend Ullah’s fundamental rights. This view of human liberty treats personal rights — even those guaranteed by the Constitution — as if they were gifts from the government offered in return for good behavior. Yet it defies history and the plain meaning of the Constitution.

Ullah’s rights to legal counsel and to a jury trial are expressly guaranteed by the Constitution; hence, no government official, no matter how powerful or well-intended, can interfere with them. The right to counsel attaches whenever anyone is confined against his will, charged with a crime or interrogated by authorities — whichever occurs first. The right to a jury trial attaches whenever the government wants the life, liberty or property of any person. The constitutional language guarantees these rights to every “person” — not citizens, not Americans and not just good people.

In Ullah’s case, the harm authorities say he caused occurred in the U.S. — while he was physically and lawfully in the U.S., where he was apprehended — so it is extremely unlikely that the crowd that denies the supremacy of the Constitution will get its way.

The failure to respect Ullah’s rights because he has said he was inspired by a foreign power would commence a slippery and horrific slope, down which any person who is hated or feared or appears foreign or different or misunderstood at any given moment might be pushed.

As a practical matter, the NYPD and the FBI are far better at gathering evidence than the military, and federal prosecutors are far better at getting convictions than are their military counterparts. It is a Hollywood-infused myth that Guantanamo Bay produces results. It does not. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been waiting in Gitmo for 15 years for his military trial.

When voices in the government clamor for the removal of fundamental liberties, it is often to mask the government’s own failures. I have argued for many years that government surveillance will turn us into East Germany — a modern-day totalitarian society that collapsed in 1989. I have also argued that surveillance doesn’t work. The place in which the Monday explosion occurred is one of the most video-surveilled in New York. Do the police watch these videos in real time as was promised when the cameras were installed? They do not.

As well, Ullah’s mobile phone recorded his whereabouts and communications prior to the explosion, also in real time, and the National Security Agency had all this, in real time. Did the NSA share it with the NYPD? It did not.

Some in government have asked what good the Constitution is if it fails to keep us safe. That is a bit silly, isn’t it? The Constitution is a piece of paper on which is written the supreme law of the land. Its purpose was to establish the federal government and to limit all government. But it is only as valuable to personal freedom as is the fidelity to it of those in whose hands we repose it for safekeeping. If the people we have hired to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution can cut corners to get to bad people, what will protect us when they want to cut corners to get to the rest of us?

When President Abraham Lincoln cut constitutional corners during the Civil War, he was unanimously rebuffed by the Supreme Court. The case, Ex parte Milligan, involved a civilian whom the government sought to try in a military court. The high court wrote: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”

This danger of the mob’s approving the curtailment of constitutional protections for unpopular monsters is as real today as it was after the Civil War. We must vigorously guard against it.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The Best of Andrew P. Napolitano

 

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes from the three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.

Advertisements
Posted in Constitutional Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Moral Values and Customs

Unfortunately, customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we’re paying the price — and that includes the recent revelations regarding the treatment of women.

Well…it depends on what your definition of “is” “is.” Sigh… jtl, 419

By Walter E. Williams

I’m approaching my 82nd birthday, and my daughter will occasionally suggest that modernity is perplexing to me because I’m from prehistoric times. As such, it points to one of the unavoidable problems of youth — namely, the temptation to think that today’s behavioral standards have always been. Let’s look at a few of the differences between yesteryear and today.

One of those differences is the treatment of women. There are awesome physical strength differences between men and women. To create and maintain civil relationships between the sexes is to drum into boys, starting from very young ages, that they are not to use violence against a woman for any reason. Special respect is given women. Yesteryear even the lowest of lowdown men would not curse or use foul language to or in the presence of women. To see a man sitting on a crowded bus or trolley car while a woman is standing used to be unthinkable. It was deemed common decency for a man to give up his seat for a woman or elderly person.

Today young people use foul language in front of — and often to — adults and teachers. It’s not just foul language. Many youngsters feel that it’s acceptable to assault teachers. Just recently, 45 Pennsylvania teachers resigned because of student violence (http://tinyurl.com/yacmn5dz). Back in what my daughter calls prehistoric times, the use of foul language to an adult or teacher would have meant a smack across the face. Of course, today a parent taking such corrective action risks being reported to a local child protective service and even being arrested. The modern parental or teacher response to misbehavior is to call for “time out.” In other words, what we’ve taught miscreants of all ages is that they can impose physical pain on others and not suffer physical pain themselves. That’s an open invitation to bad behavior.

It has always been considered a good idea to refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage or at least adulthood. During the sexual revolution of the 1960s, lessons of abstinence were ridiculed, considered passe and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortion. Out-of-wedlock childbirths are no longer seen as shameful and a disgrace. As a result, the rate of illegitimate births among whites is over 30 percent, and among blacks, it’s over 70 percent.

For over a half-century, the nation’s liberals — along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts — have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. Many in today’s generation have been counseled to believe that there are no moral absolutes. Instead, what’s moral or immoral, right or wrong, is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or what is or is not criminal.

Society’s first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions and moral values. Customs, traditions and moral values are those important thou-shalt-nots, such as thou shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and shalt not cheat. They also include respect for parents, teachers and others in authority, plus those courtesies one might read in Emily Post’s rules of etiquette. These behavioral norms — mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience, trial and error, and looking at what works and what doesn’t.

The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody’s watching. There are not enough cops. Laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct in producing a civilized society. At best, the police and the criminal justice system are the last desperate lines of defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we’re paying the price — and that includes the recent revelations regarding the treatment of women.

The Best of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page.

Copyright © 2017 Creators.com

Previous article by Walter E. Williams: Independence for Catalonia, Bavaria, Veneto

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) 

 

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Combat Shooter's HandbookCombat Shooter’s Handbook. Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first. So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU This Handbook is intended to help you exercise that right and meet that responsibility. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

Posted in Culture War, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

America, Mind Your Own Business

 Both these conflicts reveal underlying realities that help explain America’s 21st-century long retreat. We face allies and antagonists who are more willing than are we to take risks, endure pain, persevere and fight to prevail.

I hope he is right! Are Southerners (and Flyover Country folks) more willing than Yankees (and Urban Marxists) to take risks, endure pain, preserve and fight to prevail? I think so. Think secession! – jtl, 419

By via LewRockwell.com

“We will never accept Russia’s occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea,” declaimed Rex Tillerson last week in Vienna.

“Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns full control of the peninsula to Ukraine.”

Tillerson’s principled rejection of the seizure of land by military force — “never accept” — came just one day after President Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and pledged to move our embassy there.

How did Israel gain title to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Golan Heights? Invasion, occupation, colonization, annexation.

Those lands are the spoils of victory from Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War.

Is Israel being severely sanctioned like Russia? Not quite.

Her yearly U.S. stipend is almost $4 billion, as she builds settlement after settlement on occupied land despite America’s feeble protests.

What Bibi Netanyahu just demonstrated is that, when dealing with the Americans and defending what is vital to Israel, perseverance pays off. Given time, the Americans will accept the new reality.

Like Bibi, Vladimir Putin is a nationalist. For him, the recapture of Crimea was the achievement of his presidency. For two centuries that peninsula had been home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and critical to her security.

Putin is not going to return Crimea to Kiev, and, eventually, we will accept this new reality as well.

For while whose flag flies over Crimea has never been crucial to us, it is to Putin. And like Israelis, Russians are resolute when it comes to taking and holding what they see as rightly theirs.

Both these conflicts reveal underlying realities that help explain America’s 21st-century long retreat. We face allies and antagonists who are more willing than are we to take risks, endure pain, persevere and fight to prevail.

This month, just days after North Korea tested a new ICBM, national security adviser H. R. McMaster declared that Trump “is committed to the total denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

If so, we are committed to a goal we almost surely are not going to achieve. For, short of a war that could go nuclear, Kim Jong Un is not going to yield to our demands.

For Kim, nuclear weapons are not an option.

He knows that Saddam Hussein, who had given up his WMD, was hanged after the Americans attacked. He knows the grisly fate of Moammar Gadhafi, after he invited the West into Libya to dismantle his nuclear program and disarm him of any WMD.

Kim knows that if he surrenders his nuclear weapons, he has nothing to deter the Americans should they choose to use their arsenal on his armed forces, his regime, and him.

North Korea may enter talks, but Kim will never surrender the missiles and nukes that guarantee his survival. Look for the Americans to find a way to accommodate him.

Consider, too, China’s proclaimed ownership of the South China Sea and her building on reefs and rocks in that sea, of artificial islands that are becoming air, missile and naval bases.

Hawkish voices are being raised that this is intolerable and U.S. air and naval power must be used if necessary to force a rollback of China’s annexation and militarization of the South China Sea.
Why is this not going to happen?

While this area is regarded as vital to China, it is not to us. And while China, a littoral state that controls Hainan Island in that sea, is a legitimate claimant to many of its islets, we are claimants to none.

Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan are the other claimants. But though their interests in the fishing grounds and seabed resources may be as great as China’s, none has seen fit to challenge Beijing’s hegemony.

Why should we risk war with China to validate the claims of Communist Vietnam or Rodrigo Duterte’s ruthless regime in Manila? Why should their fight become our fight?

China’s interests in the sea are as crucial to her as were U.S. interests in the Caribbean when, a rising power in 1823, we declared the Monroe Doctrine. Over time, the world’s powers came to recognize and respect U.S. special interests in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.

Given the steady rise of Chinese military power, the proximity of the islets to mainland China, the relative weakness and reluctance to confront of the other claimants, China will likely become the controlling power in the South China Sea, as we came to be the predominant power in the Western Hemisphere.

What we are witnessing in Crimea, across the Middle East, in the South China Sea, on the Korean peninsula, are nations more willing than we to sacrifice and take risks, because their interests there are far greater than ours.

What America needs is a new national consensus on what is vital to us and what is not, what we are willing to fight to defend and what we are not.

For this generation of Americans is not going to risk war, indefinitely, to sustain some Beltway elite’s idea of a “rules-based new world order.” After the Cold War, we entered a new world — and we need new red lines to replace the old.

The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

 A Handbook for Ranch Managers  Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes from the three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What’s really behind the ‘War on Drugs’

The war on drugs is sham and a scam and federal agents, federal agencies are corrupted by it, as are states and municipalities and their LEOs. Meanwhile, U.S. prisons and cemeteries are overflowing with the victims.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsYep, the War on Drugs will never be “won” because it was not designed to be “won” — there is just too much pork in that there barrel. — jtl, 419

by Bob Livingston via The Bob Livingston Letter

There is perhaps no issue that misleads, confuses and bedevils concerned citizens of all political stripes than the so-called “War on Drugs.” The Republi-crat government oligarchy is well aware of this fact, and so it uses a trumped-up, false war on drugs to deceive the masses, to deceive and to wear out taxpayers, to paramilitarize and enlarge law enforcement and government, and to promote the two-party/left-right/conservative-liberal false paradigm.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The war on drugs is not a war by public officials against criminals at all, but a war for drugs. It is the way public officials profit from criminality, expand their kingdoms and overrule the rule of law and the Constitution. In my unending research into this conspiracy, I have learned that this kind of tyrannical control is possible only by mass deception. It is a total control over governmental and political processes to the detriment of the people in every category of the nation’s and local interests. It is raw power exercised by today’s single-party-dressed-as-two.

Combat Shooter's HandbookFalse, universal religion is the chief means of this mass deception, followed by the protection of particular elements to induce confusion, including drugs and the “war on drugs,” a controlled mass media to spread government propaganda, and politics-as-usual non-solutions.

Government strategy is to invade our privacy and freedom under the pretext of protecting us from terrorism, drug traffickers and all kinds of booger bears. Politicians-as-usual all protect and enlarge the government’s drug trade while pretending to do precisely the opposite. Such “opposite behavior” is the proof of a conspiracy against Americans.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewRepublican politicians, for example, profess pro-Christian, anti-big government ideals but join the Democrats in faith-destroying, socialist legislation to expand the welfare state. The “war on drugs” helps justify it. Democrats, for example, claim to protect the working man while joining Republicans and multinational mega-corporations to pass “free trade” legislation, thus destroying the middle class, farming families and the American industrial and agricultural sectors.

The war on drugs is used as justification for the passage of a host of liberty-stealing laws. A few among the many are these:

  • The federal government removed from circulation all bills above $100 and is moving stealthily toward eliminating cash altogether. In truth, this is not about fighting drug trafficking, but is about driving Americans into an economy in which all financial transactions are electronic transactions for tracking and taxing purposes.
  • Banks are required by law to file Suspicious Activity Reports on customers who engage in any “suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation.” What does this mean? The law compels banks to report any transactions that have no “apparent lawful purpose or are not the sort in which the particular customer would normally be expected to engage.” This, of course, is an entirely subjective judgment, and banks are apt to err on the side of caution (which means that they can be expected to report anything and everything that seems the slightest bit out of the ordinary).
  • Banks are required by law to provide the federal government with “Currency Transaction Report” (CTR) forms on customers who engage in transactions involving $10,000 or more. And those suspect individuals who have several such reports filed on them may be audited by the IRS or investigated for dealing drugs.
  • Massachusetts lawmakers are considering a bill that would put a ban on adding hidden compartments to vehicles in order to secure private property like guns, money or other valuables. And the law would empower LEOs to seize any vehicle so outfitted. The law also includes a two-year mandatory prison sentence and five years for subsequent offenses.
  • In Oklahoma it is against the law to fortify a home “for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access by a law enforcement officer.” According to the statute, it is illegal to “construct, install, position, use or hold any material or device designed … to strengthen, defend, restrict or obstruct any door, window, or other opening into a dwelling, structure, building or other place to any extent beyond the security provided by a commercial alarm system, lock or deadbolt, or a combination of alarm, lock, or deadbolt.”

The war on drugs has resulted in a rising militancy and militarized gestapo-like mindset among LEOs (legally entitled to oppress) from the local, small town street cop to the FBI to the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)  Attorney General Jeff Session is a big fan of asset forfeiture, the process by which LEOs confiscate people’s money and property for their own personal use. Innocent civilians whose only crime is having in their possession more money that the LEOs think is warranted at the time, lose their cash, their cars and even their houses without ever being convicted — or even charged — with a crime; all under the auspices of the war on drugs.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualThe drug war corrupts the justice system. In 2013, workers at the Massachusetts crime lab were caught conspiring with prosecutors in that state by tampering with samples and intentionally forging signatures. As many as 40,000 cases may have had their evidence tainted. Chemist Annie Dookhan pleaded guilty to all 27 counts of altering drug evidence and obstructing justice that prosecutors had filed against her, was a crime lab chemist for nine years. Her tampered evidence has put thousands of innocent people behind bars, and thousands more have had their sentences lengthened based on her fake “evidence.”

Following Dookhan’s guilty plea, a second Massachusetts crime lab “chemist” was been fired after investigators determined she had fabricated her educational credentials. Kate Corbett worked alongside Dookhan and testified as a “chemistry expert” in dozens of court cases that led to convictions — even though her degree is in sociology. Defense attorneys argue that as many 180,000 Massachusetts drug cases may be tainted by the two women’s actions.

The federal government has been known to pick winners and losers in the Mexico’s drug war by allowing some cartels free reign to commit murder within the United States and transport multi-ton quantities of drugs across the U.S. border with impunity. These revelations come from emails hacked from the security firm Stratfor and released by WikiLeaks and from Federal court filings.

In the emails, a Mexican diplomat dubbed MX1 wrote that both Mexican and American authorities have been negotiating deals with the larger cartels, tolerating their cross-border trafficking and encouraging them to take out the smaller cartels in the belief that fewer cartels would be able to negotiate their differences peaceably. “They want the CARTELS to negotiate with EACH Other. The idea is that if they can do this, violence will drop and the governments will allow controlled drug trades,” the email stated.

Another leaked email from a federal law enforcement supervisor stated: “Regarding ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] screwing up informants: They [ICE] were handling big hit men from Juarez and letting them kill in the U.S.”

In Federal court filings, Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla (said to be the “logistics coordinator” for Sinaloa, a major Mexican cartel) claimed the U.S. government had offered his organization virtual immunity to import tons of drugs across the border. He also claimed that in exchange for information on rival cartels, the Sinaloa cartel was armed by federal agents and aided in avoiding Mexican authorities.

The “Fast and Furious” gun running scandal under President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder also armed drug cartels, and those weapons have been used in numerous crimes including the murder of American border agents and the robbery and murder of American citizens in the U.S.

The U.S. military, since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, has stood watch over Afghani poppy fields and turned a blind eye — when it wasn’t directly facilitating them — to the operations of Afghan drug traffickers. Afghanistan provides 90 percent of the world’s supply of opium poppy, making the U.S. government a co-conspirator in the rising U.S. opium epidemic along with the prescribing physicians and the legal U.S. drug cartel known as Big Pharma.

The CIA has a long history of trafficking in drugs to fund its operations.

The result of the war on drugs is that the U.S. has six to 12 times as many incarcerated people per capita as does Australia, Canada, France Germany, Japan or the United Kingdom. The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population, 25 percent of its incarcerated people and half of the world’s academically qualified lawyers. Those lawyers consume about 10 percent of America’s gross domestic product.

There are about 2.3 million people populating America’s 1,719 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 942 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,283 local jails and 79 Indian Country jails as well as in military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centers and prisons in the U.S. territories. In the U.S., people go to jail about 11 million times each year. Another 7 million are on parole or probation.

There is no question that America is a prison nation, and the overwhelming majority of people in prisons are there for non-violent crimes — about 20 percent of them for drug crimes. One in three Americans will be arrested by the age of 23.

The faux war on drugs has ensnared millions of Americans for the non-crime of possessing parts of a plant.

The war on drugs is sham and a scam and federal agents, federal agencies are corrupted by it, as are states and municipalities and their LEOs. Meanwhile, U.S. prisons and cemeteries are overflowing with the victims.

The constant success of government criminality in this regard is so staggering that one can only conclude that the DOJ and its controllers in Congress and the White House are satanic. The United States of the Constitution is dead; “Long live the United States!,” cry the deceived masses and their rulers.

Dropping all pretense, the truth is that the government is at war with you. The criminal element is the excuse. Besides, the government and the criminal element are one. Otherwise, why would they protect criminals?

Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston
Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteAll unclassified Army and Marine Cops manuals and correspondence courses are products of the US Federal Government. They are NOT subject to copyright and can be freely copied and redistributed.

The Marine Corps Institute (MCI) develops correspondence courses for Marines with all kinds of Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) on all manner of subjects. This is one of those courses.

The print is relatively small because that is the way it was in the original and this is an exact reproduction. Also, as a tribute to the individual (and a touch of reality), you will notice that the editorial pencil marks and underlined passages that were put there by the Marine that took this course. They were intentionally left in the reproduction.

This version of the course was authorized in September of 1984. With the exception the development of Infrared technology, it contains information and techniques that have changed very little since the Vietnam war. These battle proven tactics are as valid today as they were in Quang Nam province in 1968.

They will maintain their validity during the upcoming inevitable event of total economic, political and social collapse. Yours for freedom in our lifetimes. jtl, 419

Posted in The War on Drugs, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Mueller Probe, Political Bias, And Deep State Sabotage

News and commentary that will shatter your illusion of knowledge. NewsWithViews.com is updated daily with columns by writers such as Devvy Kidd, Kelleigh Nelson…

Source: Mueller Probe, Political Bias, And Deep State Sabotage

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not

Comprehensive research has shown not only that Washington knew in advance of the attack, but that it deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the “surprise” attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsDecember 7, 1941 was the day the Marxist Franklin Deleno Roosevelt murdered some 2,300 Americans. — jtl, 419

Written by  James Perloff at The New American

Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not

On Sunday, December 7, 1941, Japan launched a sneak attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, shattering the peace of a beautiful Hawaiian morning and leaving much of the fleet broken and burning. The destruction and death that the Japanese military visited upon Pearl Harbor that day — 18 naval vessels (including eight battleships) sunk or heavily damaged, 188 planes destroyed, over 2,000 servicemen killed — were exacerbated by the fact that American commanders in Hawaii were caught by surprise. But that was not the case in Washington.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute Comprehensive research has shown not only that Washington knew in advance of the attack, but that it deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the “surprise” attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II. Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, stated in 1944: “Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war.”

Combat Shooter's HandbookAlthough FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewBut privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: “The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power.” William Stevenson noted in A Man Called Intrepid that American-British military staff talks began that same month under “utmost secrecy,” which, he clarified, “meant preventing disclosure to the American public.” Even Robert Sherwood, the president’s friendly biographer, said: “If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land.”

Background to Betrayal

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) Roosevelt’s intentions were nearly exposed in 1940 when Tyler Kent, a code clerk at the U.S. embassy in London, discovered secret dispatches between Roosevelt and Churchill. These revealed that FDR — despite contrary campaign promises — was determined to engage America in the war. Kent smuggled some of the documents out of the embassy, hoping to alert the American public — but was caught. With U.S. government approval, he was tried in a secret British court and confined to a British prison until the war’s end.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualDuring World War II’s early days, the president offered numerous provocations to Germany: freezing its assets; shipping 50 destroyers to Britain; and depth-charging U-boats. The Germans did not retaliate, however. They knew America’s entry into World War I had shifted the balance of power against them, and they shunned a repeat of that scenario. FDR therefore switched his focus to Japan. Japan had signed a mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy (the Tripartite Treaty). Roosevelt knew that if Japan went to war with the United States, Germany and Italy would be compelled to declare war on America — thus entangling us in the European conflict by the back door. As Harold Ickes, secretary of the Interior, said in October 1941: “For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan.”

Much new light has been shed on Pearl Harbor through the recent work of Robert B. Stinnett, a World War II Navy veteran. Stinnett has obtained numerous relevant documents through the Freedom of Information Act. In Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (2000), the book so brusquely dismissed by director Bruckheimer, Stinnett reveals that Roosevelt’s plan to provoke Japan began with a memorandum from Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The memorandum advocated eight actions predicted to lead Japan into attacking the United States. McCollum wrote: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.” FDR enacted all eight of McCollum’s provocative steps — and more.

While no one can excuse Japan’s belligerence in those days, it is also true that our government provoked that country in various ways — freezing her assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy.

After meeting with President Roosevelt on October 16, 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary: “We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move — overt move.” On November 25, the day before the ultimatum was sent to Japan’s ambassadors, Stimson wrote in his diary: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot….”

The bait offered Japan was our Pacific Fleet. In 1940, Admiral J.O. Richardson, the fleet’s commander, flew to Washington to protest FDR’s decision to permanently base the fleet in Hawaii instead of its normal berthing on the U.S. West Coast. The admiral had sound reasons: Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to attack, being approachable from any direction; it could not be effectively rigged with nets and baffles to defend against torpedo planes; and in Hawaii it would be hard to supply and train crews for his undermanned vessels. Pearl Harbor also lacked adequate fuel supplies and dry docks, and keeping men far from their families would create morale problems. The argument became heated. Said Richardson: “I came away with the impression that, despite his spoken word, the President was fully determined to put the United States into the war if Great Britain could hold out until he was reelected.”

Richardson was quickly relieved of command. Replacing him was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Kimmel also informed Roosevelt of Pearl Harbor’s deficiencies, but accepted placement there, trusting that Washington would notify him of any intelligence pointing to attack. This proved to be misplaced trust. As Washington watched Japan preparing to assault Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel, as well as his Army counterpart in Hawaii, General Walter C. Short, were completely sealed off from the information pipeline.

Prior Knowledge

One of the most important elements in America’s foreknowledge of Japan’s intentions was our government’s success in cracking Japan’s secret diplomatic code known as “Purple.” Tokyo used it to communicate to its embassies and consulates, including those in Washington and Hawaii. The code was so complex that it was enciphered and deciphered by machine. A talented group of American cryptoanalysts broke the code in 1940 and devised a facsimile of the Japanese machine. These, utilized by the intelligence sections of both the War and Navy departments, swiftly revealed Japan’s diplomatic messages. The deciphered texts were nicknamed “Magic.”

Copies of Magic were always promptly delivered in locked pouches to President Roosevelt, and the secretaries of State, War, and Navy. They also went to Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall and to the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold Stark. However, although three Purple decoding machines were allotted to Britain, none was sent to Pearl Harbor. Intercepts of ciphered messages radioed between Tokyo and its Honolulu consulate had to be forwarded to Washington for decrypting. Thus Kimmel and Short, the Hawaiian commanders, were at the mercy of Washington for feedback. A request for their own decoding machine was rebuffed on the grounds that diplomatic traffic was of insufficient interest to soldiers.

How untrue that was! On October 9, 1941, the War Department decoded a Tokyo-to-Honolulu dispatch instructing the Consul General to divide Pearl Harbor into five specified areas and to report the exact locations of American ships therein.

There is nothing unusual about spies watching ship movements — but reporting precise whereabouts of ships in dock has only one implication. Charles Willoughby, Douglas MacArthur’s chief of intelligence, later wrote that the “reports were on a grid system of the inner harbor with coordinate locations of American men of war … coordinate grid is the classical method for pinpoint target designation; our battleships had suddenly become targets.” This information was never sent to Kimmel or Short.

Additional intercepts were decoded by Washington, all within one day of their original transmission:

• November 5th: Tokyo notified its Washington ambassadors that November 25th was the deadline for an agreement with the U.S.

• November 11th: They were warned, “The situation is nearing a climax, and the time is getting short.”

• November 16th: The deadline was pushed up to November 29th. “The deadline absolutely cannot be changed,” the dispatch said. “After that, things are automatically going to happen.”

• November 29th (the U.S. ultimatum had now been received): The ambassadors were told a rupture in negotiations was “inevitable,” but that Japan’s leaders “do not wish you to give the impression that negotiations are broken off.”

• November 30th: Tokyo ordered its Berlin embassy to inform the Germans that “the breaking out of war may come quicker than anyone dreams.”

• December 1st: The deadline was again moved ahead. “[T]o prevent the United States from becoming unduly suspicious, we have been advising the press and others that … the negotiations are continuing.”

• December 1st-2nd: The Japanese embassies in non-Axis nations around the world were directed to dispose of their secret documents and all but one copy of their codes. (This was for a reason easy to fathom — when war breaks out, the diplomatic offices of a hostile state lose their immunity and are normally overtaken. One copy of code was retained so that final instructions could be received, after which the last code copy would be destroyed.)

An additional warning came via the so-called “winds” message. A November 18th intercept indicated that, if a break in U.S. relations were forthcoming, Tokyo would issue a special radio warning. This would not be in the Purple code, as it was intended to reach consulates and lesser agencies of Japan not equipped with the code or one of its machines. The message, to be repeated three times during a weather report, was “Higashi no kaze ame,” meaning “East wind, rain.” “East wind” signified the United States; “rain” signified diplomatic split — in effect, war.

This prospective message was deemed so significant that U.S. radio monitors were constantly watching for it, and the Navy Department typed it up on special reminder cards. On December 4th, “Higashi no kaze ame” was indeed broadcast and picked up by Washington intelligence.

On three different occasions since 1894, Japan had made surprise attacks coinciding with breaks in diplomatic relations. This history was not lost on President Roosevelt. Secretary Stimson, describing FDR’s White House conference of November 25th, noted: “The President said the Japanese were notorious for making an attack without warning and stated that we might be attacked, say next Monday, for example.” Nor was it lost on Washington’s senior military officers, all of them War College graduates.

As Robert Stinnett has revealed, Washington was not only deciphering Japanese diplomatic messages, but naval dispatches as well. President Roosevelt had access to these intercepts via his routing officer, Lieutenant Commander McCollum, who had authored the original eight-point plan of provocation to Japan. So much secrecy has surrounded these naval dispatches that their existence was not revealed during any of the ten Pearl Harbor investigations, even the mini-probe Congress conducted in 1995. Most of Stinnett’s requests for documents concerning Pearl Harbor have been denied as still classified, even under the Freedom of Information Act.

It was long presumed that as the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor, it maintained complete radio silence. This is untrue. The fleet barely observed discretion, let alone silence. Naval intelligence intercepted and translated numerous dispatches, some clearly revealing that Pearl Harbor had been targeted. The most significant was the following, sent by Admiral Yamamoto to the Japanese First Air Fleet on November 26, 1941:

The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.

So much official secrecy continues to surround the translations of the intercepted Japanese naval dispatches that it is not known if the foregoing message was sent to McCollum or seen by FDR. It is not even known who originally translated the intercept. One thing, however, is certain: The message’s significance could not have been lost on the translator.

1941 also witnessed the following:

On January 27th, our ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, sent a message to Washington stating: “The Peruvian Minister has informed a member of my staff that he has heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor with all their strength….”

On November 3rd, still relying on informants, Grew notified Secretary of State Cordell Hull: “War with the United States may come with dramatic and dangerous suddenness.” He sent an even stronger warning on November 17th.

Congressman Martin Dies would write:

Early in 1941 the Dies Committee came into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor. The strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military Intelligence Department. As soon as I received the document I telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull and told him what I had. Secretary Hull directed me not to let anyone know about the map and stated that he would call me as soon as he talked to President Roosevelt. In about an hour he telephoned to say that he had talked to Roosevelt and they agreed that it would be very serious if any information concerning this map reached the news services…. I told him it was a grave responsibility to withhold such vital information from the public. The Secretary assured me that he and Roosevelt considered it essential to national defense.

Dusko Popov was a Yugoslav who worked as a double agent for both Germany and Britain. His true allegiance was to the Allies. In the summer of 1941, the Nazis ordered Popov to Hawaii to make a detailed study of Pearl Harbor and its nearby airfields. The agent deduced that the mission betokened a surprise attack by the Japanese. In August, he fully reported this to the FBI in New York. J. Edgar Hoover later bitterly recalled that he had provided warnings to FDR about Pearl Harbor, but that Roosevelt told him not to pass the information any further and to just leave it in his (the president’s) hands.

Kilsoo Haan, of the Sino-Korean People’s League, received definite word from the Korean underground that the Japanese were planning to assault Hawaii “before Christmas.” In November, after getting nowhere with the State Department, Haan convinced Iowa Senator Guy Gillette of his claim’s merit. Gillette briefed the president, who laconically thanked him and said it would be looked into.

In Java, in early December, the Dutch Army decoded a dispatch from Tokyo to its Bangkok embassy, forecasting attacks on four sites including Hawaii. The Dutch passed the information to Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe, the U.S. military observer. Thorpe sent Washington a total of four warnings. The last went to General Marshall’s intelligence chief. Thorpe was ordered to send no further messages concerning the matter. The Dutch also had their Washington military attaché, Colonel Weijerman, personally warn General Marshall.

Captain Johann Ranneft, the Dutch naval attaché in Washington, who was awarded the Legion of Merit for his services to America, recorded revealing details in his diary. On December 2nd, he visited the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Ranneft inquired about the Pacific. An American officer, pointing to a wall map, said, “This is the Japanese Task Force proceeding East.” It was a spot midway between Japan and Hawaii. On December 6th, Ranneft returned and asked where the Japanese carriers were. He was shown a position on the map about 300-400 miles northwest of Pearl Harbor. Ranneft wrote: “I ask what is the meaning of these carriers at this location; whereupon I receive the answer that it is probably in connection with Japanese reports of eventual American action…. I myself do not think about it because I believe that everyone in Honolulu is 100 percent on the alert, just like everyone here at O.N.I.”

On November 29th, Secretary of State Cordell Hull secretly met with freelance newspaper writer Joseph Leib. Leib had formerly held several posts in the Roosevelt administration. Hull knew him and felt he was one newsman he could trust. The secretary of state handed him copies of some of the Tokyo intercepts concerning Pearl Harbor. He said the Japanese were planning to strike the base and that FDR planned to let it happen. Hull made Leib pledge to keep his name out of it, but hoped he could blow the story sky-high in the newspapers.

Leib ran to the office of his friend Lyle Wilson, the Washington bureau chief of United Press. While keeping his pledge to Hull, he told Wilson the details and showed him the intercepts. Wilson replied that the story was ludicrous and refused to run it. Through connections, Leib managed to get a hurried version onto UP’s foreign cable, but only one newspaper carried any part of it.

After Pearl Harbor, Lyle Wilson called Leib to his office. He handed him a copy of FDR’s just-released “day of infamy” speech. The two men wept. Leib recounted his story in the History Channel documentary, “Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor.”

The foregoing represents just a sampling of evidence that Washington knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack. For additional evidences, see Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Toland, and Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.* So certain was the data that, at a private press briefing in November 1941, General George Marshall confidently predicted that a Japanese-American war would break out during the “first ten days of December.”

However, none of this information was passed to our commanders in Hawaii, Kimmel and Short, with the exception of Ambassador Grew’s January warning, a copy of which reached Kimmel on February 1st. To allay any concerns, Lieutenant Commander McCollum — who originated the plan to incite Japan to war — wrote Kimmel: “Naval Intelligence places no credence in these rumors. Furthermore, based on known data regarding the present disposition and deployment of Japanese naval and army forces, no move against Pearl Harbor appears imminent or planned for in the foreseeable future.”

Sitting Ducks

To ensure a successful Japanese attack — one that would enrage America into joining the war — it was vital to keep Kimmel and Short out of the intelligence loop. However, Washington did far more than this to facilitate the Japanese assault.

On November 25th, approximately one hour after the Japanese attack force left port for Hawaii, the U.S. Navy issued an order forbidding U.S. and Allied shipping to travel via the North Pacific. All transpacific shipping was rerouted through the South Pacific. This order was even applied to Russian ships docked on the American west coast. The purpose is easy to fathom. If any commercial ship accidentally stumbled on the Japanese task force, it might alert Pearl Harbor. As Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner, the Navy’s War Plans officer in 1941, frankly stated: “We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war was imminent. We sent the traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic.”

The Hawaiian commanders have traditionally been censured for failing to detect the approaching Japanese carriers. What goes unsaid is that Washington denied them the means to do so. An army marching overland toward a target is easily spotted. But Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean. Its approaches are limitless and uninhabited. During the week before December 7th, naval aircraft searched more than two million square miles of the Pacific — but never saw the Japanese force. This is because Kimmel and Short had only enough planes to survey one-third of the 360-degree arc around them, and intelligence had advised (incorrectly) that they should concentrate on the Southwest.

Radar, too, was insufficient. There were not enough trained surveillance pilots. Many of the reconnaissance craft were old and suffered from a lack of spare parts. The commanders’ repeated requests to Washington for additional patrol planes were turned down. Rear Admiral Edward T. Layton, who served at Pearl Harbor, summed it up in his book And I Was There: “There was never any hint in any intelligence received by the local command of any Japanese threat to Hawaii. Our air defenses were stripped on orders from the army chief himself. Of the twelve B-17s on the island, only six could be kept in the air by cannibalizing the others for spare parts.”

The Navy has traditionally followed the rule that, when international relations are critical, the fleet puts to sea. That is exactly what Admiral Kimmel did. Aware that U.S.-Japanese relations were deteriorating, he sent 46 warships safely into the North Pacific in late November 1941 — without notifying Washington. He even ordered the fleet to conduct a mock air raid on Pearl Harbor, clairvoyantly selecting the same launch site Admiral Yamamoto chose two weeks later.

When the White House learned of Kimmel’s move it countermanded his orders and ordered all ships returned to dock, using the dubious excuse that Kimmel’s action might provoke the Japanese. Washington knew that if the two fleets met at sea, and engaged each other, there might be questions about who fired the first shot.

Kimmel did not give up, however. With the exercise canceled, his carrier chief, Vice Admiral William “Bull” Halsey, issued plans for a 25-ship task force to guard against an “enemy air and submarine attack” on Pearl Harbor. The plan never went into effect. On November 26th, Admiral Stark, Washington’s Chief of Naval Operations, ordered Halsey to use his carriers to transport fighter planes to Wake and Midway islands — further depleting Pearl Harbor’s air defenses.

It was clear, of course, that once disaster struck Pearl Harbor, there would be demands for accountability. Washington seemed to artfully take this into account by sending an ambiguous “war warning” to Kimmel, and a similar one to Short, on November 27th. This has been used for years by Washington apologists to allege that the commanders should have been ready for the Japanese.

Indeed, the message began conspicuously: “This dispatch is to be considered a war warning.” But it went on to state: “The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organizations of naval task forces indicates an amphibious expedition against the Philippines, Thai or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo.” None of these areas was closer than 5,000 miles to Hawaii! No threat to Pearl Harbor was hinted at. It ended with the words: “Continental districts, Guam, Samoa take measures against sabotage.” The message further stated that “measures should be carried out so as not repeat not to alarm civil population.” Both commanders reported the actions taken to Washington. Short followed through with sabotage precautions, bunching his planes together (which hinders saboteurs but makes ideal targets for bombers), and Kimmel stepped up air surveillance and sub searches. If their response to the “war warning” was insufficient, Washington said nothing. The next day, a follow-up message from Marshall’s adjutant general to Short warned only: “Initiate forthwith all additional measures necessary to provide for protection of your establishments, property, and equipment against sabotage, protection of your personnel against subversive propaganda and protection of all activities against espionage.”

Thus things stood as Japan prepared to strike. Using the Purple code, Tokyo sent a formal statement to its Washington ambassadors. It was to be conveyed to the American Secretary of State on Sunday, December 7th. The statement terminated relations and was tantamount to a declaration of war. On December 6th, in Washington, the War and Navy departments had already decrypted the first 13 parts of this 14-part message. Although the final passage officially severing ties had not yet come through, the fiery wording made its meaning obvious. Later that day, when Lieutenant Lester Schulz delivered to President Roosevelt his copy of the intercept, Schulz heard FDR say to his advisor, Harry Hopkins, “This means war.”

During subsequent Pearl Harbor investigations, both General Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, and Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, denied any recollection of where they had been on the evening of December 6th — despite Marshall’s reputation for a photographic memory. But James G. Stahlman, a close friend of Navy Secretary Frank Knox, said Knox told him FDR convened a high-level meeting at the White House that evening. Knox, Marshall, Stark, and War Secretary Stimson attended. Indeed, with the nation on war’s threshold, such a conference only made sense. That same evening, the Navy Department received a request from Stimson for a list of the whereabouts of all ships in the Pacific.

On the morning of December 7th, the final portion of Japan’s lengthy message to the U.S. government was decoded. Tokyo added two special directives to its ambassadors. The first directive, which the message called “very important,” was to deliver the statement at 1 p.m. The second directive ordered that the last copy of code, and the machine that went with it, be destroyed. The gravity of this was immediately recognized in the Navy Department: Japan had a long history of synchronizing attacks with breaks in relations; Sunday was an abnormal day to deliver diplomatic messages — but the best for trying to catch U.S. armed forces at low vigilance; and 1 p.m. in Washington was shortly after dawn in Hawaii!

Admiral Stark arrived at his office at 9:25 a.m. He was shown the message and the important delivery time. One junior officer pointed out the possibility of an attack on Hawaii; another urged that Kimmel be notified. But Stark refused; he did nothing all morning. Years later, he told the press that his conscience was clear concerning Pearl Harbor because all his actions had been dictated by a “higher authority.” As Chief of Naval Operations, Stark had only one higher authority: Roosevelt.

In the War Department, where the 14-part statement had also been decoded, Colonel Rufus Bratton, head of the Army’s Far Eastern section, discerned the message’s significance. But the chief of intelligence told him nothing could be done until Marshall arrived. Bratton tried reaching Marshall at home, but was repeatedly told the general was out horseback riding. The horseback ride turned out to be a long one. When Bratton finally reached Marshall by phone and told him of the emergency, Marshall said he would come to the War Department. Marshall took 75 minutes to make the 10-minute drive. He didn’t come to his office until 11:25 a.m. — an extremely late hour with the nation on the brink of war. He perused the Japanese message and was shown the delivery time. Every officer in Marshall’s office agreed these indicated an attack in the Pacific at about 1 p.m. EST. The general finally agreed that Hawaii should be alerted, but time was running out.

Marshall had only to pick up his desk phone to reach Pearl Harbor on the transpacific line. Doing so would not have averted the attack, but at least our men would have been at their battle stations. Instead, the general wrote a dispatch. After it was encoded it went to the Washington office of Western Union. From there it was relayed to San Francisco. From San Francisco it was transmitted via RCA commercial radio to Honolulu. General Short received it six hours after the attack. Two hours later it reached Kimmel. One can imagine their exasperation on reading it.

Despite all the evidence accrued through Magic and other sources during the previous months, Marshall had never warned Hawaii. To historians — ignorant of that classified evidence — it would appear the general had tried to save Pearl Harbor, “but alas, too late.” Similarly, FDR sent a last-minute plea for peace to Emperor Hirohito. Although written a week earlier, he did not send it until the evening of December 6th. It was to be delivered by Ambassador Grew, who would be unable to receive an audience with the emperor before December 8th. Thus the message could not conceivably have forestalled the attack — but posterity would think that FDR, too, had made “a valiant, last effort.”

The Roberts Commission, assigned to investigate the Japanese attack, consisted of personal cronies of Roosevelt and Marshall. The Commission fully absolved Washington and declared that America was caught off guard due to “dereliction of duty” by Kimmel and Short. The wrath of America for these two was exceeded only by its wrath for Tokyo. To this day, many believe it was negligence by the Hawaii commanders that made the Pearl Harbor disaster possible.

*Though a major exposer of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy, Robert Stinnett is sympathetic regarding FDR’s motives. He writes in his book: “As a veteran of the Pacific War, I felt a sense of outrage as I uncovered secrets that had been hidden from Americans for more than fifty years. But I understood the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom.” In our view, a government that is allowed to operate in such fashion is a government that has embarked on a dangerous, slippery slope toward dictatorship. Nonetheless, Stinnett’s position on FDR’s motives makes his exposé of FDR’s actions all the more compelling.

This article, slightly revised, originally appeared under the title “Pearl Harbor: The Facts Behind the Fiction” in the June 4, 2001 issue of The New American.

Photo at top: AP Images

Related articles:

Pearl Harbor: Motives Behind the Betrayal

Pearl Harbor: Scapegoating Kimmel and Short

 

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits. Although woven around the experiences and adventures of one man, this is also the story of the people who lived during the period of time in American history that an entire generation was betrayed It is the story of the dramatically changing times in which this personal odyssey took place. It is the story of the betrayal of an entire generation of Americans and particularly the 40% (of the military aged males) of that generation that fought the Vietnam war.

 

Posted in History, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is Feminism Ruining Relationships?

Sex in the workplace is nothing new.  In fact, it has for decades destroyed more marriages than Hustler Magazine. Satan himself was the first single guy in recorded history to hit on another man’s wife and his philandering led to the downfall of the entire human race.

I never thought about it like that…but it makes sense. And is also funny. lol — jtl, 419

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)I have to confess that all of this talk about sexual harassment of women is driving me a bit crazy.  I also know that it is getting more and more risky to speak out against the established narrative as presented to us by the national thought police.

I know I’m in danger of being called a misogynist, but my tongue is beginning to swell from being gnawed on by my recently crowned molars.  At the risk of opening myself up to criticism from the feminazi mafia I have made the decision to choose my own manner of mutilation.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The soon-to-be slings and arrows hurled my way by the man haters lurking in the etherzone will be much less painful than the self-flagellation that comes from\personal censorship.  A wise man once said “to thine own self be true” and with that thought in mind I am going to attempt to draw first blood.

In all of the cackling about equality, and equal rights I find it amusing that we allow the fall-back position of so many “strong” women to be “he harassed me.”  Sex was designed to be a participatory exercise and in a nation that now declares all “genders” equal how are women able to get away with playing the role of the helpless, weaker victim in this charade of sexual victimization?

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)Whoa Nelly.  Before you start accusing me of being soft on rape, please understand that I think I know what rape looks like and agree with the Biblical standard of rape being a death penalty crime.  But “sexual harassment” is not rape…so spare me the moralizing, please.

Sex in the workplace is nothing new.  In fact, it has for decades destroyed more marriages than Hustler Magazine. Satan himself was the first single guy in recorded history to hit on another man’s wife and his philandering led to the downfall of the entire human race.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View Yes, my friends, all adultery begins with flirtation and, like it or not, many a romance began with a pat on the rump or the twist of a tongue.  If Adam had simply manned up and defended his wife’s honor perhaps Matt Lauer would still have a job.  In sexually liberated America fornication has replaced bobbing for apples as the activity of choice of most unmarried couples.

Combat Shooter's HandbookI wonder how many of the “strong” women that Lauer “victimized” took his bait in hopes of trading a little affection for a possible career boost.  Sex is often about power and you will never convince me that modern professional women are not aware of the power that lies a few inches below their belly button.  For every woman that was appalled by Lauer’s advances there were probably ten who swallowed the hook.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute Puhleeze…spare me the “he took advantage of me” sob stories. I was in attendance at the Million Woman March in Washington and I saw a boo-coo number of signs extolling “P-ssy Power.”  (Those were their words not\mine.)  So evidently our feline friends understand a bit more than they let on about the concealed weapon they carry in their pant suits.

Look folks, as much as we would like to we cannot have it both ways.  We can’t have our cake and eat it too.  How in the world can the “liberated” American female cry inequality while holding the power of sex like the sword of Damocles of their male co-workers?  Sorry to be so pig-headed, but I think men deserve better treatment than that.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsIt takes two to tango and a woman can say “no” just as easily as a man can.  One can only imagine the number of men in the work place who have been jerked around by some pretty thing batting her eyes and swinging her hips only to receive a face-palm when they “misread” the bread crumbs that she dropped as she walked by.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualLet me drop\another truth crumb and then you are free to hurl your epithets my way.  Modesty is a thing of the past in America.   When fornication has become nothing more than another social activity it is apparent that women are not always offended by WHAT a man says to her in the workplace, but rather WHO the man is that says it.  If she likes the dude it is flirting.  If she doesn’t, it is harassment.

I recently saw a statistic that explained that nearly 70% of men under the age of 30 are not married.  As the old saying goes, “why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free?”  In this age of “P-ssy Power” the charge of sexual exploitation begins to ring hollow.  Are we to believe that ALL American women are virtuous?

We are going to have to make a decision here in the good ole US of A?  Are men and women equal or not?  This selective outrage regarding pre-fornication dialogue is not going to end well.

Why do you think the girls loved to hang around Al Franken?  Remember, the old commercial, “membership has its privileges?”   How does one defend himself from sex charges when all he was doing was putting some bait in the traps?

Feminism is ruining relationships.

No wonder pornography and blow-up sex dolls are becoming so popular.

© 2017 Dave Daubenmire – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Dave Daubenmire: ptsalt@gmail.com

Click Here For Mass Emailing

Dave Daubenmire
Author Email: coach@ptsalt.com

Dave Daubenmire is a veteran 35 year high school football coach who was spurred to action when attacked and sued by the ACLU in the late 1990s for praying with his high school football team. After a two year battle for his 1st amendment rights, the ACLU relented and offered coach an out of court settlement. Challenging the “church of the Status Quo”, Pass The Salt Ministries is calling Christians to wake up and engage the culture. By taking the fight to the enemy, Coach Daubenmire has become a recognizable voice in the media as he is an unashamed, articulate, apologist for the Christian worldview. A popular, high-energy speaker, Coach Daubenmire’s motivational lectures, laced with powerful and relevant Scripture, is challenging Americans all across the country. E-Mail: coach@ptsalt.com Web: http://saltandlightbrigade.org Web: http://www.CoachDaveLive.com

Author Email: coach@ptsalt.com

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Combat Shooter's HandbookCombat Shooter’s Handbook. Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first. So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU This Handbook is intended to help you exercise that right and meet that responsibility. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

Posted in Radical Feminism, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Man, Economy, and Sexual Harassment

Employers are likely to hire the candidate less aligned with state-sanctioned victim status and the legal favoritism and potential costs it brings.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsJust like the minimum wage, this is a classic case of: If the American economy is the 7th Wonder of the World, then American economic ignorance must be the 8th.

by Christopher Westley  via Mises Wire

When reading about the curious case of Garrison Keillor, the public radio icon fired for what he considers an innocent misunderstanding—or was it payback for his defense of Senator Al Franken?—I noticed a line in a comments section about where today’s raging response to sexual harassment (among other fruits of the sexual revolution) is likely to lead.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe commenter, michaeljames49, said: “Best advice if you own a business, hire men.”

So went several comments on the theme that sexual harassment and other egregious acts, many scores more serious than what Keillor has been accused of, is just what happens when men and women work together, that this cannot be avoided, and that, moving forward, it would be better to simply avoid integrating men and women in workplaces. The conclusion: Hiring all men or all women would save a lot of grief.

Combat Shooter's HandbookWhile I believe freedom of association is a natural right, I’m not so sure michaeljames49 and his interlocutors had Lysander Spooner in mind when making their point. Yet, I believe they inadvertently fell onto a likely end of our era’s anti-harassment zeitgeist, namely, that the workplace of the future will be less woman-friendly. There is sound economic logic leading to this state of affairs.

The Cost of State-Sanctioned Victim Status

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewConsider the case of two applicants of equal talent applying for the same job. Although both are likely to add the same level of revenue to the firm, one’s chromosomal composition is xx while the other’s is xy, a distinction that matters more today than it did a year ago. Employers are likely to hire the candidate less aligned with state-sanctioned victim status and the legal favoritism and potential costs it brings.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)The argument is no different from the one used by many disability rights organizations that agitate for the end of the Americans with Disabilities Act out of the belief that that intervention increased the cost to hiring disabled workers and caused employers to hire less of them. The result was what Lew Rockwell called “a human rights disaster” and “the longest slide in disabled employment ever recorded, according to five different measures used to record unemployment among the disabled.”

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualIn the same way, when anti-harassment lawsuits are filed and when state oversight of the workplace is increased even further than today’s level, female job applicants will inevitably seem bring additional costs to the hiring decision. Private-sector employers—at least those without deep pockets to finance vast HR and legal bureaucracies—will avoid hiring women to avoid litigation.

Such logic explains the explosive growth of the temp-worker staffing firm, Manpower, whose 4.4 million workers ranks it among the largest employers in the world. Its size is directly related to the increasing costs of labor imposed by governments. This intervention into the workplace rewards firms for using capital-intensive production techniques when labor-intensive production might have been just as feasible. The loss in labor flexibility means that employers are less able to take advantage of profit opportunities that arise when market conditions call for increased production of goods. The loss in flexibility also means that employers are less able to scale back their workforces when reduced production is called for as well.

Such a situation benefits large firms because it increases the cost to smaller competitors. Indeed, it reduces the degree of competition and entrepreneurial activity in general because the regulatory framework is biased toward the big, established firms that can afford to comply with the costs.

If the current wave of righteous disgust toward workplace harassment leads to new rounds of workplace interventions—think of a female-focused Civil Rights Act of 2019—I’d expect adverse impacts on workforce options available to women as employers respond to increased costs associated with their hiring. Some employers may very well decide to segregate workers by gender as a cost-saving measure (as suggested by michaeljames49). But more generally, others will simply resist hiring workers they believe carry special risks to their profitability.

This would be bad for many reasons, and not only because it would hinder the free movement of women into the labor force and restrict the division of labor. It would also distract from what I think is the most important aspect of this Age of Anti-Harassment, namely that it should be a Rothbardian teachable moment.

What Would Murray Say?

Let’s remember that an act is not harassment unless it is unwanted, at which point it becomes a violation of one’s property rights over his or her body. “In a free society,” said Rothbard in Man, Economy, and State, “as we have stated, every man is a self-owner. No man is allowed to own the body or mind of another, that being the essence of slavery.” In all of the cases of harassment about which we have read in recent weeks, the common denominator is that one party felt unable to opt out of a confrontation, while the perpetrator attempted to take advantage of this perceived inability.

Since all rights have their basis in property rights, charges of harassment stem from the aggressor party employing coercion and compulsion against another. The problem is not in aggressive actions per se, but in the inability, perceived or actual, of the targeted party to assume ownership of her body and walk away.

That many are doing so today is due to the market system itself. An important factor enabling women to opt out of such confrontations, identify their transgressors and (possibly) take them to court, lies in the fact that the division of labor has so expanded that this is now possible in ways unknown to previous generations. An aggrieved worker no longer requires employment with a Weinstein Company or NBC, a Fox or Minnesota Public Radio. The more alternatives provided by the market, the less likely these workers are to tolerate boorish and or even criminal behavior, while giving their employers greater incentives to root it out.

The role of the market in enabling today’s anti-harassment movement seems universally ignored. If anything, whenever markets are brought up, it is to demonstrate their failures in allowing harassment and justify further government intervention. Yet it is no mistake the harassment complaints we’re reading about occur in crony firms and cartelized industries. More competitive firms simply cannot afford to lose good workers due to insecure work environments and have greater incentives not to tolerate them, relative to less competitive and more protected firms.

Perhaps Garrison Keillor’s biggest mistake was associating with a de facto state bureaucracy such as Minnesota Public Radio in the first place. Notwithstanding his exemplary skills as a writer and performer, he was also a lifelong defender of the modern liberalism that gave birth to public radio, such that the attacks on Senator Franken were of concern to him to the extent that they threatened other statist causes.

But statism, like sexual harassment, employs tools of compulsion and coercion to achieve some desired end. One hopes Keillor comes to appreciate the value of secession, of opting out, and of walking away.

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Combat Shooter's HandbookCombat Shooter’s Handbook. Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first. So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU This Handbook is intended to help you exercise that right and meet that responsibility. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

Posted in Austrian Economic Theory, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Prosecutors shared recorded attorney-client jail phone calls with defense in NV Bunkerville case

Nevada’s U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro has yet to rule on Payne’s motion to dismiss stemming from the sharing of privileged attorney-client jail calls…The recording of attorney-client jail calls is a violation and a big deal, according to Oregon prosecutors and defense lawyers.

Anybody want to make book on whether or not Navarro will rule favorably (to the defendant) on the motion? Not me. — jtl, 419

Defense lawyers in the Bunkerville standoff case were stunned last month to receive recorded phone calls between co-defendant Blaine Cooper and his Oregon defense lawyer from federal prosecutors who had previously denied possessing any attorney-client privileged jailhouse calls.

Prosecutors shared 12 recorded jail phone calls between Cooper and Portland lawyer Krista Shipsey with defense lawyers for co-defendants Cliven Bundy, his two sons and Ryan Payne, who are now on trial in federal court in Las Vegas.

Cooper has pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges in both the 2014 standoff with federal agents near Bunkerville, Nevada, and in the 2016 Oregon armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. He is cooperating with the government and was a government witness in this year’s Oregon trial.

The recordings captured calls Cooper made to his lawyer while in custody at the Las Vegas City jail between Jan. 22 and Feb. 17, 2017. The conversations related to the Bunkerville case, including discussions about preparation, the criminal allegations and strategy, according to court documents.

“I didn’t know, nor did Blaine,” Shipsey said in a recent interview. “It’s extremely concerning. We were assured those conversations would be confidential.”

Assistant federal public defenders Brenda Weksler and Ryan Norwood, who represent Payne in Nevada, have called for the dismissal of the case, alleging the prosecution has acted with “flagrant misconduct,” based on the “government’s misrepresentations regarding the most sacrosanct of client communications.”

Shipsey also last week asked to review copies of the recorded calls with her client that were shared.

“It is negligence at its best and deliberate indifference to a defendant’s substantive rights at its worst,” Weksler and Norwood wrote in motions to the court.

Payne’s lawyers cited the sharing of Cooper’s privileged calls to his attorney with co-defendants as just one in a series of discovery blunders by prosecutors in the Bunkerville case. In the days leading up to trial and even once trial started, prosecutors have been ordered to turn over emails and other evidence — regarding the FBI’s use of a camera outside the Bundy Ranch, FBI surveillance of the residence and threat assessments made before the 2014 standoff — that they previously did not share or said didn’t exist.

Prosecutors this week countered that even were the defense to show the government violated an attorney-client privilege by sharing Cooper’s calls, Payne’s lawyers have failed to show that Payne or any other defendant on trial has been prejudiced in any way by the sharing of the calls or that their ability to defend themselves has been impaired.

A so-called taint team of FBI agents, set up to act separately and apart from the FBI agents on the prosecution team, reviewed all recorded jail calls and identified relevant nonprivileged calls. They then provided to the prosecution team a summary of the content of those calls, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Nadia Ahmed.

The taint team further identified privileged calls between defendants and their lawyers. Once they determined a call was between a defendant and their lawyer, the agents on the team “did no further review, did not listen to the call and therefore did not summarize the contents,” Ahmed wrote in a response.

Those privileged calls were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and characterized as “minimized,” meaning the agents did not further review the call’s contents, Ahmed wrote. The FBI agent on the taint team classified Cooper’s calls with his lawyer under the name “Christa,” presumably referring to defense lawyer Krista Shipsey.

Yet the prosecution team shared Cooper’s privileged calls with his co-defendants and their lawyers in September. Last month, Payne’s lawyers discovered them among hundreds of phone calls the government turned over relating to potential trial witnesses.

Federal prosecutors say they haven’t listened to the Cooper calls.

“To date, no one on the prosecution team has listened to Mr. Cooper’s privileged attorney-client calls or was aware of such calls,” Ahmed wrote in her response filed late Monday night. “No one on the prosecution team intends to listen to the attorney-client calls. The prosecution cannot direct the jail not to record such calls or force the jail to review them and weed such calls out before providing them to the government.”

Payne’s defense lawyers continue to question if the government has obtained recorded phone calls between Payne and his lawyers. They had initially asked prosecutors if they had any recorded attorney-client phone calls involving Payne in October 2016 after learning of another attorney’s calls with an inmate at the Nevada Southern Detention Center in Pahrump, Nevada, that prosecutors had obtained in an unrelated federal criminal case. By mid-November 2016, federal prosecutors in the Bunkerville case responded to Payne’s lawyers that the government had “no recordings of conversations between Payne and his counsel or between Payne’s co-defendants and their counsel.”

“It has become abundantly clear that the government and the agents who they are supervising concerning these matters, are not taking the necessary precautions to ensure that attorney-client phone calls are not recorded or disbursed to co-defendants or government counsel,” Weksler wrote in a court filing.

Nevada’s U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro has yet to rule on Payne’s motion to dismiss stemming from the sharing of privileged attorney-client jail calls.

The recording of attorney-client jail calls is a violation and a big deal, according to Oregon prosecutors and defense lawyers.

Cooper, whose calls were recorded with his attorney and shared, would have standing to allege his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated, Portland criminal defense lawyer Lisa Ludwig said.

Kevin Sali, a Portland criminal defense lawyer not involved in either the Oregon or Nevada cases, said he believes it will be harder for the rest of the Nevada defense team to show Payne or the others on trial now have been harmed. The government’s use of a special taint team to review calls is a common practice. And it will be hard to show how Payne or Cliven Bundy or his two sons were prejudiced by having recorded jail calls involving Cooper, who is not on trial and is cooperating with the government.

The federal government’s possession of attorney-client jail calls arose in the high-profile federal prosecution in Oregon of Joey Pedersen in a quadruple murder case and led to a stinging rebuke by a federal judge in 2014, but in that case the investigating detective kept recordings of the privileged attorney-client calls. A similar misstep occurred in a federal case in Las Vegas in October 2016, where a federal prosecutor admitted she inadvertently obtained recordings of confidential jailhouse phone conversations between a bank robbery defendant and his lawyer.

— Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) 

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. This is the volume that pulls it all together. With reference  to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s description of Murray Rothbard’s work, it is a “unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.” Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History and The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty

Posted in Public Lands, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Tyrant Abe

This liberalized version of history does not chronicle the political shenanigans that were undertaken by groups to harden their centralized (federal) grasp on power, as is still the case today.

Indeed it is. Today it is the West’s turn to be “reconstructed.”

I remain UN-reconstructedly yours.

jtl, 419

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsAbraham Lincoln was the best U.S. President, motivated by a patriotic and Christian desire to preserve the union of states and free the slaves. At least that is what modern textbooks suggest. There is a bigger story to the 16th President of the United States than the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation. A whitewashed version of the man is all that we learned about him in school. It is what our children and grandchildren are still being taught. Public school districts and universities have been dutifully parroting that the Southern states of Lincoln’s era had a perverse culture, while Northern society was superior. This became the politically-correct mantra when ‘teaching’ about Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War for generations after the Civil Rights Movement. The identity politics is only getting worse, and more blatant.

Combat Shooter's Handbook The narrative is not only infused heavily with a liberal bias, but moreover, it is entirely wrong. Far too many Americans, both current students and adults, believe that the Civil War was a war about slavery. This liberalized version of history does not chronicle the political shenanigans that were undertaken by groups to harden their centralized (federal) grasp on power, as is still the case today. Most Americans do not believe that this issue was at play during Lincoln’s era, but they are so very wrong. The current political atmosphere in America is a testament to how ignorance of history forces a people to repeat it.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstitutePresident Abraham Lincoln should not be revered as a hallowed figure. “Honest Abe” was a mere man; one who made mistakes and decisions based on his own self-interest. Some of his choices did benefit America, but the benefits were often a positive byproduct of his political self-interest, not benevolence.

Abraham Lincoln’s Flopping Stance on Slavery

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewThe liberal Republicans of the time, who eventually touted Lincoln as a champion of freedom, steadfastly demanded the media and citizens not “paint him with an Abolitionist brush,” during his first inaugural address. Abraham Lincoln did not wish to be known as anti-slavery after putting his hand on the Bible and taking the oath of office. Also, during his first inaugural address, President Lincoln declared that he had absolutely no legal authority to interfere with the practice of slavery in states where it already existed. He then went on to boldly say that he would be enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. The federal law mandated the return of runaway slaves who had fled slave states to seek safety and freedom in the North.

Defending Dixie: Essay… Clyde N. Wilson Best Price: $15.77 Buy New $20.00 (as of 03:20 EST – Details) 

Although the history textbooks tend to gloss over such facts, slavery did once exist in the North. The practice of owning human beings had ended throughout the Northern states by 1804. Even after slavery was abolished in the North, racial discrimination still heavily existed in workplaces, schools, and communities. The idea of a little white girl sitting next to a little black girl, or a black man and a white woman courting was still not accepted by the ‘tolerant’ North or ‘freedom-loving’ elites, who were hurling hateful rhetoric toward the South. Meanwhile, indentured servitude in the North, which was a big step but not a leap up from slavery, remained legal. Equally legal was the use of children as the North’s virtual slave labor inside its factories. Many of whom were worked to death, and usually had a poorer quality of life than the average Southern slave.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)Politics, money, and power were just as intrinsically woven during the 1860’s as they are today. Some of the most fervent and vocal anti-slavery Northerners, who pushed for an end to slavery, were not doing it entirely from a human rights sentiment. Many wealthy businessmen in the North were pressuring politicians to force the South into submission over slavery, because they felt that it created unfair competition in the marketplace. With slavery existing in the Southern states, Northern businessmen were being forced to compete against free labor. Even child laborers had to be paid something, after all.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers  Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Congress was fiercely divided over the issue of slavery during the months prior to the election of Abraham Lincoln. Heated arguments over the Thirteenth Amendment occurred on a daily basis in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The furious debates continued during the early stages of Lincoln’s presidency.

The Thirteenth Amendment that most Americans associate with Abraham Lincoln was passed at the end of the Civil War, in 1865. However, there was a previous version of the Thirteenth Amendment that had a polar-opposite intent. Lincoln publicly supported the former version during his swearing-in ceremony. This original version of the Thirteenth Amendment was meant to enshrine the practice of slavery as immutable. It would have amended the Constitution to pro-actively prevent any future legislature from ever attempting to outlaw the ownership of human beings. This version of what would have become the Thirteenth Amendment, if it had passed, is now often referred to as the Corwin Amendment. Thomas Corwin, an Ohio Republican Representative and a Lincoln supporter, sponsored the bill.

“I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable,” Lincoln said when referencing Corwin’s proposal, according to a report by Constitution Daily.

The Political Landscape Before Lincoln’s Election

To truly understand what actually caused the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln’s massive flip-flop on slavery, we must understand what happened during the 10 years that led up to his election, and the split in the Democrat Party, which occurred at its convention to select a presidental candidate to oppose the Republicans.

In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed. This law permitted each new state coming into the United States to decide for itself whether or not slavery would be legal inside its borders. It was sponsored by the wing of Republicans to which Lincoln belonged. The legislation overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had banned slavery north of Maryland’s southern border. This delineation is commonly known as the Mason-Dixon line.

For decades before Lincoln’s election, the Southern states had been responsible for most of the federal government’s revenue. The South had stringent tariffs forced upon it by Northern lawmakers, who in-turn gave about 80 percent of the funds to enhance public works in their states and bolster the struggling economy of the North. There was no income tax in the United States at that time, nor had there ever been an income tax, as it is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. About 85 percent of the revenue that the federal government had at its disposal came in the form of tariffs that were levied on goods and services from the South. The high taxes that Southerners paid helped to build railroads, roads, manufacturing complexes, and canals in the North.

Before 1812, the tariffs levied were between 15 and 20 percent. The funds garnered by these tariffs were enough to keep the federal government fully functional, without placing an excessive burden on any specific region of the country. When the War of 1812 broke out, the tariffs upon Southern businesses were increased up to 26 percent by Congress, with the net profits being funneled to aid manufacturers in the North.

With a new tariff in 1828, the economy of South Carolina took the biggest hit and lost 25 percent of its export business in just 24 months. In the Southern newspapers, the tariff was nicknamed “Tariff of Abominations”. The U.S. Congress was dominated by Whig Party members from the North, who had passed the tariff, increasing the amount that the South had to pay on exported goods up to 50 percent.

The Real Lincoln: A Ne… Thomas J. Dilorenzo Best Price: $4.61 Buy New $8.50 (as of 02:00 EST – Details)

In 1832, South Carolina officials called for a state convention to nullify both the tariff of 1828 and another tariff that had been enacted earlier that same year, by arguing that the tariffs were unconstitutional. Unfair taxation was one of the premises that had sparked America’s War of Independence against England, and it seemed as if the same issue was going to prompt a Civil War in the still-young nation.In early 1860, the Morrill Tariff was passed. Even though the tariffs being collected from the South now totaled about 87 percent of the federal government’s revenue. The bill was named after Northern steel manufacturer and Republican Congressman, Justin Morrill. The legislation levied up to a 47 percent tariff increase on exported goods over the course of three years. The burden of this new tariff fell squarely on the shoulders of the South. The industrial businesses of the North were largely domestic sellers. The Morrill Tariff decreased the trade value of agricultural exports overseas, causing a gigantic blow to the Southern economy. Abraham Lincoln campaigned as a supporter of the tariff.

Thaddeus Stevens, a Lincoln supporter and Republican Congressman, co-authored the Morrill Tariff. During the campaign season, the iron manufacturer from Pennsylvania said that the two most important issues of the 1860 election were increasing tariffs and putting an end to slavery. Stevens also told a New York crowd that the new tariff would financially cripple the South and the West, but it would enrich the North. He claimed that it would increase the wages of Northern industrial workers and help America achieve greatness.

Henry Clay, who was the leader of the Whig Party, which held the majority in Congress, was able to implement an export tariff of 36 percent, in 1861. The economy of the North began to boom, because the bulk of its industrial goods were sold domestically. The Southern economy began a downward spiral, as the vast majority of its revenue was based upon the exportation of cotton and tobacco to Europe.

Henry Clay speaking before the U.S. Congress about taxing the Southern states more.

Former President and South Carolina Senator, John C. Calhoun, was able to negotiate a compromise that would roll back the tariffs to their former 15 percent range over the course of several years. Henry Clay (a man whom Lincoln greatly admired) and his Whig party were infuriated at being forced into a compromise with the South. It meant the loss of money that was to be ultimately funneled, at least in part, to their campaign supporters.

If Southern officials had tried to resist the tariffs, they would have been herded up and hanged as enemies of the state. Thaddeus Stevens was a powerful leader within the Republican party, and by some accounts, he ran the nation after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. His open hostility toward the South and vindictiveness explains the North’s punitive tone during the Reconstruction Era.

The 1860 Presidential Election

Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election, but the why and how have been left out of most history books, and this is causing the mis-education of millions of Americans.

The Democrat Party split along geographical lines during its presidential convention. A northern faction and a southern faction emerged. The convention ended without the nomination of a candidate to run on the ticket. When the Democrats met in Charleston, South Carolina to hold their convention in April, tensions swirled and boiled over rather quickly. Northern party leaders felt that Stephen Douglas was their best chance to defeat the “Black Republicans” seeking to end or limit slavery. Southern Democrats largely deemed Douglas to be unfit, because he believed that the federal government had no right to determine the legality of slavery. Douglas maintained that the issue should remain a state decision. Six weeks after the Southern Democrats walked out of the convention without a vote being held, Stephen Douglas was nominated during a second convention that was held in the North. Southern Democrats also held a second convention and nominated the sitting Vice President, John Breckenridge, to lead the ticket.

With the Democrat Party split in half and in chaos, Republicans felt that they would have an edge in the presidential race during their convention, which they held in Chicago the following month. Republicans needed a candidate who would garner the Electoral College votes of the North. Such a scenario would require carrying Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, and Indiana.

After intense debate over a slew of possible candidates, Abraham Lincoln, after three votes were taken, received the nomination. During his one term in the Senate, the press had cast Lincoln as a strong all-American man, with an inspiring pull-yourself-up by the bootstraps story. He had become the darling of the Northern press during his bitter debates with Stephen Douglas earlier the same year. News coverage of the debates was spread nationwide at a time when the telegraph was still in its infancy.

When a 3-way race for the presidency turned into a 4-man contest, Abraham Lincoln’s party felt that their candidate would be a shoe-in, if given the right press coverage. John Bell, a wealthy Tennessee plantation owner, was nominated as the candidate for the newly-created Constitutional Union Party. The political group was largely composed of community pillars and former politicians. They described themselves as moderates. They believed that the best way to calm the nation and win the election was to avoid the issue of slavery altogether.

As a presidential candidate, Lincoln supported the deportation of all Negroes to an unpopulated zone outside of America. This was euphemistically described as a policy of “colonization”. As late as December of 1862, Lincoln was continuing to promote his idea of ridding the U.S. mainland of all Negroes, even as the Civil War raged on. This stance, which was one that was taken by some of the most conservative members of his political party, did not endear him to either abolitionists or Southern voters.

When Lincoln ran for the highest office in the land in 1860, it was the first time that “sectional” (regional) parties were involved in a presidential race. It was also the first time that the South was not represented on either the top or the bottom of a winning presidential ticket. Abraham Lincoln did not win a single Electoral College vote from either a Southern or a border state. In fact, he won the election with only 39 percent of the popular vote. The message was clear to Southerners: the North, and only the North, would determine the president.

“I will say then, that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the Negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, of having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.”

— Abraham Lincoln, 1858, Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Abraham Lincoln’s Early Months in the Presidency

Southerners perceived the election of Abraham Lincoln as the solidification of Northern dominance over nearly every aspect of their lives. It took only a day for Americans in South Carolina and multiple Gulf Coast states to call for secession.

Despite the mounting tensions between the North and South, Lincoln did not have a single man who lived below the Mason-Dixon line on his cabinet as an adviser, nor did he take a meeting with any Southern lawmakers from the time that he was elected up through the beginning of the Civil War.

If the preservation of the Union was a top priority for Lincoln, he should have attempted to prevent the mounting hostilities, addressed the concerns that the South had been battling against for more than a decade, and tried to prevent the fever pitch from growing louder. But he did not. Lincoln ignored the South’s economic and states’ rights worries repeatedly, so their distrust of the new president increased dramatically.

Instead of attempting to meet with Southerners to calm their fears over continued tariff increases, or working toward eventually ending slavery peaceably, Lincoln signed the Morrill Tariff into law. Taking his power a step further, the new president vowed that he would ensure enforcement of the high tariff on Southern states that seceded from the United States. It signaled to the Southern states that they were trapped in a position of perpetual servitude to produce federal revenue.

President Lincoln was essentially calling the South out, but Southerners were not bluffing. They had lost patience in having taxation without representation for the sole benefit of the North, and so they seceded, with South Carolina being the first state to exit the Union. Northern members of Congress began preparing for a military campaign, as their Southern peers were packing up their Washington, D.C. offices for train rides home.

James Buchanan alongside other current and former politicians of the time reached out to the South, as well as the incoming administration to engage in a constitutional convention that was to be followed by a direct-vote national vote on the divisive issues threatening to tear apart the country. It was a Kansas Senator, John Crittenden, not Abraham Lincoln, who took bold steps to preserve the Union and prevent a Civil War that would ultimately take more than 650,000 American lives. Modern history books ignore the Kansas Senator’s noble efforts, as well as the decision by Lincoln and his party to embrace bloodshed.

The Crittenden Compromise called for immediate legislation to create a far more permanent solution, by way of constitutional amendments, for the issues dividing the nation. The compromise called for extending the slavery boundaries established by the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which had been terminated by the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act. This was the North’s proverbial fig leaf, which was being offered to appease Southerners, in the hope that friendly relations could be renewed. The act, which did get some support from powerful Senators in the North, was sent to a special committee. However, it died when some of Lincoln’s most staunch supporters quickly rejected the Crittenden Compromise. “History is to record us,” the Kansas Senator cautioned Congress when presenting his bill. “Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?”

When elected officials from Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida received no communication from President Lincoln to assure them that the fiscal attacks on the South would come to an end, they also voted to secede. North Carolina was the last to leave, and it ultimately lost the most men to the war.

President Lincoln’s War

Every newspaper in the country ran headlines about the South’s secession. Neither the press nor the Northeastern public disputed the right of the states to legally and peaceably withdraw from the United States, at least not initially. When a member of Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet suggested that they just let the South leave peaceably, the president has been quoted as replying, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!” Respect for the South’s right to secede soon vanished, not because of a more in-depth look at our Constitution, but because wealthy Northern business leaders suddenly realized that they would soon be competing in a truly free market (sans high tariffs) against the South. This fact, on top of worries about the massive loss of annual revenues resulting from lost tariffs, soon caused saber rattling of epic proportions.

President Lincoln finally took a meeting, a covert one, with a Southerner. He met with Virginia Secession Convention delegate Colonel John Baldwin. The colonel, like many of his peers, preferred for his state to remain a part of the United States if a compromise could be reached. During the April 4th, 1861 meeting, Colonel Baldwin learned that the president was already plotting a military assault against the South at Fort Sumter. The Virginia delegate tried to convince Lincoln that any such action would force the Southern states into an all-out war with the North. The colonel also told the president that if the South were permitted to leave the Union peaceably, economic and historical ties would ultimately bring the two geographical factions back together again.

Another point of fact that modern history textbooks omit is why Fort Sumter was the place that Lincoln chose to make a stand. It was not merely a military fort. Fort Sumter was a tariff collection facility. The president’s attempt to terrorize the South into submission by assaulting Fort Sumter was an epic and very bloody failure.

Colonel Baldwin responded to a letter that was sent by a Northern politician asking what would become of Union men in Virginia after the battle of Fort Sumter. “There are now no Union men in Virginia. But those who were Union men will stand to their arms, and make a fight which shall go down in history as an illustration of what a brave people can do in defense of their liberties, after having exhausted every means of pacification.”

After losing the early battles of the Civil War, Lincoln and his supporters, both in industry and the Senate, began to anguish over the possibility that England and European nations would send military support to the South, since his administration was viewed throughout the world as a despotic regime. There was concern that the Republican leadership would be tried like war criminals. Threats and a naval blockade ensued to preemptively thwart interventions by other nations. Lincoln even threatened war against any nation that sought to provide humanitarian aid.

Author Charles Dickens penned a now obscure but relevant opinion piece about the Civil War in a London newspaper during the final weeks of 1861. “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.”

Infamous socialist Karl Marx also saw the Civil War for exactly what it was. He wrote, “The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.”

During his first four months as President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln trampled the U.S. Constitution to create the military dictatorship that was necessary to wage and win a war against his own people.

Abraham Lincoln’s Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes

  1. Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army — 75,000 men initially.
  2. He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
  3. Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
  4. In an escalation of Lincoln’s starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed “Burning Sherman”, because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America’s first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed significantly more people in the Civil War than combat.
  5. Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
  6. Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the “New World” was under British control.
  7. Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
  8. There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
  9. President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
  10. Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
  11. The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
  12. Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.

Concluding the War of Northern Aggression

What occurred in 1861 still festers to this day, and almost all of it has been cloaked in politically-expedient lies. A tyrannical, centralized government that was hell-bent on dominating the Southern states was coalesced by the election of Abraham Lincoln. What was known as the War of Northern Aggression throughout the world gave birth to an overbearing federal government that is answerable to no one, a false supremacy of the federal government over the states, a government that cannot control its own growth or spending, the principle that agents of the federal government are above the law, a government that does not obey its own Constitution, and it spawned a perpetual cycle of servitude for all Americans in the form of income tax. That national tax system requires the tracking of everything that every American does. They did it for the money and it was only the money.

The Northern troops were enraged and their army began experiencing increased desertions when, in the middle of the war, the Northern politicians reinvented the war as a crusade against slavery, for political capital, and as a means to further punish the South. Northern soldiers were deeply disturbed by this new narrative, which stated that they were expected to continue killing their own countrymen for the sole benefit of the Negroes. It was not what they had enlisted for. Meanwhile, many (if not most) of the freed slaves had to be driven from their plantations by Northern soldiers, for they were afraid to leave the only places that they knew to be their homes. Most of the slaves had come to consider their owners as family and this feeling was often mutual. Allowing the slaves to voluntarily remain looked terrible politically and the press would have had a heyday if the overwhelming majority had remained. So, slaves were driven into the wilderness with very few options for their survival, other than crime. In response to the rampant crime by former slaves (who sadly had no other way to survive) the Ku Klux Klan was formed as a vigilante organization, but it quickly spiraled out of control with the growing racial tensions. At no point in this catastrophe was genuinely helping the “colored” a goal of the North’s war machine.

America’s Founding Fathers labored over what might be the most important document that will ever be written by man, only to be gutted less than 100 years later, by a president who is falsely revered. Lincoln may have taken actions that ultimately brought the broken Union back together, but the aftermath of his role as a despot and military dictator marks him as the worst enemy that the United States has ever known. Lincoln came closer to completely destroying the United States than anyone else. The institution of slavery would have ended soon, with or without a war. If Lincoln had chosen the without option, or if the South had been allowed to participate in the presidential election, then America would not have had its cultural and economic base obliterated. The U.S. would have advanced centuries beyond where it is now, and race relations would be good. Instead, most of America was sent back to the Stone Age, and the flames of racial hatred were fanned in a way that may never be truly quenched. Lincoln never expressed remorse for any of it. He was, by every definition, a sociopath. He would be at home in today’s liberal politics.

Lessons to Be Learned

The history of the American Civil War ought to provide us with some important lessons, and it is easy to understand why the lessons are avoided by today’s leftist educators. The American Civil War was a dire warning about the destiny of any welfare state. In the early stages of the disease, the U.S. political system was brought to its knees by class warfare. Eventually, as the class system ever polarized, one group became entirely responsible for financially supporting another. America became the first welfare state, with the South providing the welfare benefits to the North. The North was the South’s ungrateful and jealous welfare child. Eventually, the North shifted from simple ingratitude to full-fledged resentment against the hand that fed it. This irrational resentment is the eventual consequence of all welfare systems, whenever they are continued for long enough. The solution to the North’s jealousy and resentment was violence, which it justified through rationalizations of injustices by the very people whom it had developed a parasitic relationship with. Everything collapsed once the North ran out of other peoples’ money. It had behaved as if there had been no need for thriftiness, since more money could always be taken, but there isn’t always more. Compare this to the politics of today. Very little has actually changed. Between all the political correctness, socialist movement, race baiting, and identity politics of liberalism today, we still find that we destroy the character and spirit of a people whenever we are too generous. Through our excessive generosity, we encourage the beneficiaries of our philanthropy to develop a sense of entitlement and a belief in the righteousness of theft.

Reprinted with permission from The Health Wyze Report.

 

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II (The Economics of Liberty)The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty Volume II will introduce the reader to the fundamental principles of the Austrian School of Economics. The Austrian School traces its origins back to the Scholastics of Medieval Spain. But its lineage actually began with Carl Menger and continued on through Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others. It is the one and only true private property based, free market line of economic thought. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History  and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.

Posted in Uncategorized, War of Yankee Aggression | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment