Monday, April 4, 2011

MOC & The Media, Ad Infinitum, Infiltrated By Marxists

They are a disgrace to our ancestors, although in one way, making the Tyrant Lincoln man of the year by the MOC could be fitting, after all, Hitler won that honor in 1939 from Time........
Go to fullsize imageGo to fullsize imageGo to fullsize image

PBS program on Lee with comments on Lincoln

To All:

The letter below letter that will be going out tomorrow to the President/CEO and the Chief Content Officer of PBS regarding a program that I happened across last night. This is the second very long letter I have written in the last three days. The other is to the Civil War Trust, but I do not intend to release that until sufficient time has passed for it to be received and for a response to be generated – assuming that one will be. If, after that time I have heard nothing, or, in the alternative, received an answer to my question, then both the letter and response – if any – will be as widely publicized as I am able to accomplish given my limited contacts in the Southern movement.

I will only say to you about the above is that I watched the program for what could have been no more than three minutes. I came in on the end of a quote by Lee (with a painting of him at about that time of his life) in which he said that he would sacrifice everything for his country but honor. Immediately the quote was finished, a black commentator appeared and assured the audience that South Carolina was planning to secede because it believed that President-elect Lincoln would interfere with slavery! It was just one vast, dumb lie too many. I turned the program off and began to compose the letter. It will go out in tomorrow’s mail. I am just so damned sick of Dr. Goebbel’s light (or dark, whichever) that I simply will not sit back and let this kind of bovine eschatology pass un-remarked.

I want to thank any of you who take the time to read it and, of course, you may comment upon it and distribute it as you will or send me the names and e-mail addresses of anyone else whom you think would like to read it. After learning today that the Museum of the Confederacy voted Lincoln “Man of the Year,” I think that it’s time for one of my chocolate-mocha-valium-vodka lattes.

Deo Vindice ~

New York

April 5th, 2011

Ms. Paula Kerger, President and Chief Executive Officer

Mr. John Boland, Chief Content Officer

Public Broadcasting Service

2100 Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202

Re: Program on General Robert E. Lee, Sunday, April 3rd

Dear Ms. Kerger and Mr. Boland:

I tuned in to a PBS program on General Robert E. Lee during which there was a quote by Lee saying that he would sacrifice everything for the nation but honor. Almost immediately a black commentator appeared and made the appallingly inaccurate statement that South Carolina wanted to secede from the Union because it believed that newly-elected Abraham Lincoln was going to interfere with slavery. Needless to say, I could take no more interest in a program that was so obviously biased as to present such a stunning falsehood as a matter of uncontested fact!

First, there abundant documented proof that Lincoln had no intention of “interfering” with slavery. True, he didn’t like the institution—and he wasn’t alone in that opinion North and South—but his only concern was to keep the Union intact. Frankly, even that sentiment was more concerned with federal revenues than national unity, but that is not the issue here. In a letter of August 22nd, 1862 to editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln declared:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” [The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume V]

In his first inaugural address on March 4th, 1861, Lincoln also stated:

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

In a letter to Williamson Durley on October 3rd, 1845, Lincoln wrote:

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone…" [The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume I)

But even if Lincoln had been noncommital about slavery, there is no question that his position on that issue was made abundantly clear in his support for (and involvement in) the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution.

In December 1860, President James Buchanan requested Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment" with regard to slavery. In the House, Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin was selected as the chairman of the committee; and in the senate, William H. Seward took the lead in sponsoring the amendment. In his correspondence during the month of December, president-elect Lincoln was adamant that there be no compromises with regard to the extension of slavery. However, in a meeting with Thurlow Weed, Seward's Republican ally in New York, Lincoln offered three compromise proposals, and Weed passed this information on to Seward. Upon his return to the Senate, Seward introduced three resolutions to the Senate committee. One resolution offered that "no amendment shall be made to the Constitution, which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish, or interfere within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In other words, the amendment would forever guarantee the right of Southerners to own slaves. With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2nd, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office.

In an unusual move, Democratic President James Buchanan signed the Corwin Amendment on March 3, 1861, his last day in office even though the Constitution does not require presidential approval for proposed amendments. It was ratified by only two states—Ohio on May 13th, 1861, and Maryland on January 10th, 1862—and therefore fell far short of the necessary three-quarters majority of states needed to become part of the U.S. Constitution. But certainly Lincoln worked hard to get it ratified in order to prevent Southern secession and its ratification would have been assured if the South had remained in the Union because Northern States did not want blacks anywhere outside of the South, one of the reasons for “keeping slavery out of the territories.”[*] Ironically, had it achieved ratification, the Corwin Amendment protecting slavery in perpetuity, would have become the Thirteenth Amendment.

In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin Amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's views on slavery and by tacitly supporting the amendment, he hoped to convince the South that he would not move to abolish the institution. So much for the supposed “fears” of South Carolina unless you suppose that all of the above took place secretly!

While it is true that slavery was a very large issue in the War—and for reasons that had more to do with Jefferson’s plaintive question, “What shall we do with the Negro?” than any egalitarian viewpoint in the North—the South’s main concern was increasing sectional acrimony and a prohibitive tariff which returned the nation to the Tariffs of Abomination that had almost resulted in secession and armed conflict 1828. And then there was the continuing marginalization of Southern political power caused by the denial of the territories to Southern settlers if they had slaves (and hence, no new States affiliated with that Section), and, finally, the use of Southern wealth to succor Northern commercial and political interests. The South was becoming impoverished as it served as nothing more than a politically impotent “cash cow” to the federal government and its commercial cronies through the American System of internal improvements. Indeed, the economic situation as it existed over 30 years before Southern secession was well summed up by Missouri Senator Thomas H. Benton speaking before Congress in 1828:

"Before the (American) revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact?....Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this."—Missouri Senator Thomas H. Benton, 1828

So to have a black man (chosen undoubtedly for the purpose of influencing the audience’s feelings) make the statement that slavery was the one and only cause of secession (and hence the war), can only mean that those involved are [1] abysmally ignorant, or [2] deluded and in denial of the facts or [3] in the business of furthering an agenda that has no more to do with reporting history than did Stalin’s removal of former-friends-now-enemies from old newspaper archives.

Few are unaware of the ongoing campaign of cultural genocide being waged against the South. Gone is “The Grand Bargain” struck in the late 18th century that attempted good will and reconciliation between the sections—and was largely successful in that effort. Gone is the respect shown to the South, its history, its heritage, its heroes and its symbols and in its place is the steady drum-beat of lies and demagoguery demanding that the South be seen as an abode of traitors and “racists”—a word coined by Leon Trotsky and used by Marxist revisionists to silence dissent. The current “establishment” will not be satisfied until everything of, for and about the South is consigned to oblivion save only a memory equating all things Confederate with slavery, treason and Nazi Germany. That is not only wrong—in the most fundamental understanding of that word—it is unacceptable to decent people of every race and section. If PBS claims to “educate,” and if by that word you mean the concept of presenting facts and such rational truths that arise as a result, then you have failed miserably in this matter and should, for the sake of justice and decency, present a factually correct version of “history” and not this malignant politically-correct claptrap.

Very truly yours,

Valerie Protopapas

New York

[* Google “black codes” in Northern states and territories and you will see that it was not slavery that was unwanted in any part of the United States outside of the South, but “the African” as he was called. That is a very different “moral message” than the nonsense we get today about the noble Union fighting to end slavery. It never happened as more than sufficient testimony from Union sources proves.]

Metal Detecting Post # 24 - Confederate Gold & Silver

If you want to get right to the nitty gritty, then go to the last one below. Fascinating, to say the least.
An absolutely amazing recovery and some amazing video. This was found two years ago near Culpeper, Virginia - where I am now on a similar hunt. You just never know where you might find Confederate gold. And no, this is not an April Fool's joke. Watch each video in the given order to get the full effect. Brought to you by Time Searcher. Six videos.

“Maryland, My Maryland”

View Image

........Saturday’s ceremony was to honor faculty member James Ryder Randall, a Maryland native who composed “Maryland, My Maryland” there in the aftermath of the Baltimore Riots on 19 April 1861. Appropriately, the ceremony commenced with flagbearers bringing forward with the colors of the United States, Louisiana, and Maryland.

Years later, Randall recalled how he came to write the verses:

“About midnight, I arose, lit a candle and went to my desk. Some powerful spirit appeared to possess me and almost involuntarily I proceeded to write the song ‘My Maryland.’ The idea appeared to take shape as music in the brain. The poem was not composed in cold blood but under what may be called a conflagration of the senses, if not an inspiration of the intellect. No one was more surprised than I, however, at the widespread and instantaneous popularity of the words I had been so strangely stimulated to write.”


“Maryland, My Maryland”
“Maryland, My Maryland”

Maryland, My Maryland

The despot's heel is on thy shore,

His torch is at thy temple door,
Avenge the patriotic gore
That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
And be the battle queen of yore,
Maryland! My Maryland!

Hark to an exiled son's appeal,

My Mother State! to thee I kneel,
For life or death, for woe or weal,
Thy peerless chivalry reveal,
And gird thy beauteous limbs with steel,
Maryland! My Maryland!

Thou wilt not cower in the dust,

Thy beaming sword shall never rust,
Remember Carroll's sacred trust,
Remember Howard's warlike thrust,-
And all thy slumberers with the just,
Maryland! My Maryland!

Come! 'tis the red dawn of the day,

Come with thy panoplied array,
With Ringgold's spirit for the fray,
With Watson's blood at Monterey,
With fearless Lowe and dashing May,
Maryland! My Maryland!

Come! for thy shield is bright and strong,

Come! for thy dalliance does thee wrong,
Come to thine own anointed throng,
Stalking with Liberty along,
And sing thy dauntless slogan song,
Maryland! My Maryland!

Dear Mother! burst the tyrant's chain,

Virginia should not call in vain,
She meets her sisters on the plain-
Sic semper! 'tis the proud refrain
That baffles minions back amain,
Arise in majesty again,
Maryland! My Maryland!

I see the blush upon thy cheek,

For thou wast ever bravely meek,
But lo! there surges forth a shriek,
From hill to hill, from creek to creek,
Potomac calls to Chesapeake,
Maryland! My Maryland!

Thou wilt not yield the Vandal toll,

Thou wilt not crook to his control,
Better the fire upon thee roll, Better the shot, the blade, the bowl,
Than crucifixion of the Soul,
Maryland! My Maryland!

I hear the distant thunder-hum,

The Old Line bugle, fife, and drum,
She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb-
Huzza! She spurns the Northern scum!
She breathes! She burns! She'll come! She'll come!
Maryland! My Maryland!

by James Ryder Randall

Barnhardt Moves To The Front

Brad Paisley Singer Brad Paisley  performs onstage at the 46th Annual Academy Of Country Music Awards held at the MGM Grand Garden Arena on April 3, 2011 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

46th Annual Academy Of Country Music Awards Show - Brad Paisley


Via email from Western Rifle Shooters Association

iOTW Interview – Ann Barnhardt – (Bumped Post – Mr. Pinko)

Judge allows federal lawsuits in Duke lacrosse case

"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck."
--Thomas Jefferson

Oleg Volk


Via Rebellion

Hip, hi, hooray!

"A federal judge is allowing three former Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape to pursue a civil lawsuit against the prosecutor and police investigators who handled their case.

U.S. District Judge James Beaty ruled Thursday that the players – Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and Dave Evans – can pursue claims such as malicious prosecution, concealment of evidence and fabrication of false evidence against former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong and a police investigator."

Is this the first ever portrait of Jesus? The incredible story of 70 ancient books hidden in a cave for nearly 2,000 years

"The image is eerily familiar: a bearded young man with flowing curly hair. After lying for nearly 2,000 years hidden in a cave in the Holy Land, the fine detail is difficult to determine. But in a certain light it is not difficult to interpret the marks around the figure’s brow as a crown of thorns.

The extraordinary picture of one of the recently discovered hoard of up to 70 lead codices – booklets – found in a cave in the hills overlooking the Sea of Galilee is one reason Bible historians are clamouring to get their hands on the ancient artefacts.

If genuine, this could be the first-ever portrait of Jesus Christ, possibly even created in the lifetime of those who knew him."

Riding With Private Malone

Splendor In The Grass

View Image


by William Wordsworth

"Though nothing can bring back the hour

Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;

We will grieve not, rather find

Strength in what remains behind;"

Dear Collectivists,

When it comes time, just remember- all your laws against "evil black rifles" won't matter to deer hunters.

..And I'd bet there are more of them who like America the way it was than the America you want to turn it into...

"This Is Not An Assault" & Gunwalker

View Image
In February, 1993, a gun battle erupted outside Waco, Texas, as federal agents attempted to search the communal residence of a religion known as the "Branch Davidians." The battle, and the following siege, was the greatest law enforcement debacle in American history, costing nearly a hundred lives.

After a criminal trial, two Cabinet-level studies, and three sets of Congressional hearings, the truth appeared to be firmly settled. A cult led by a madman had shot at federal agents and had then set themselves aflame. The issue was settled.

Then in 1999, the Waco issue exploded, with proof that the Federal agencies had lied to their own leadership, to Congress, and to the courts.

1962: The Real Extremists, Illegal Executive Orders

The US News & World Report under the leadership of Editor David Lawrence was a conservative periodical unafraid of challenging government wrongdoing. Forty-nine years ago he wrote about the illegality of the presidential “executive order” which circumvented the United States Constitution, the people, Congress, and the rule of law.

Bernhard Thuersam, Director

Cape Fear Historical Institute


View Image

The Real Extremists: by David Lawrence

“We hear a good deal nowadays about “extremists” – those who brand as Communists other persons who are not Communists. Name-calling, while deplorable, doesn’t do as much harm to the American people as a whole as do the “extremists” in public office who would disregard the Constitution.

For there is a trend today toward circumvention of the Constitution. Scarcely a month goes by that some new legislative measure or executive order isn’t proposed which seeks to “get around” the Constitution. The argument recently espoused in all seriousness as an alibi by some people inside and outside Government is that amending the Constitution is a laborious and slow process. The point is made that “times have changed” and that some of the doctrines of past decades in the field of law have become obsolete.

Oddly enough, that‘s exactly the excuse Nikita Khrushchev gives for abrogating the allied agreements made in 1945 to insure unrestricted access to Berlin. He says these agreements are outmoded. Is it right for one party to an agreement to declare arbitrarily that he will no longer abide by its terms because he decides it is obsolete?

The people of the 13 original States, by a compact with each other, gave up certain rights and delegated them to a central government. All powers not enumerated in the Constitution as having been delegated to the Federal Government were specifically “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is the language of the Tenth Amendment. Why is this agreement so persistently violated?

If the people at any time wish to change the Constitution, it can be amended by a two-thirds vote of Congress followed by acts of ratification by three-fourths of the States. But we hear today that this is “too cumbersome” a method and that “it takes too much time.” Yet some amendments have gone through from congressional action to State ratification in less than a year. The truth is that where there is substantial opposition to an amendment, it naturally isn’t approved.

Unfortunately, our record as a nation is not clean. The Fourteenth Amendment was not legally inserted in the Constitution. The same southern States which were considered eligible members of the Union when – after the Civil War was over – they ratified the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery were then punished by Congress for refusing to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. “Ratification” was accomplished by legislative coercion of the States by Congress and at the point of a bayonet by armed forces stationed in the State legislatures.

Yet this same fourteenth Amendment is the basis of most of the executive orders on “civil rights” today. The Supreme Court has never consented to pass upon the validity of the method used to “ratify” the Fourteenth Amendment, though the Court has accepted cases challenging the validity of other amendments.

Recently a new trend toward usurpation of power has arisen. It seeks by executive order, or by the passing of new laws, to thwart or ignore the plainly written provisions of the Constitution. President Kennedy sent a bill to Congress a few weeks ago proposing a far-reaching change in the handling of tariffs. The Executive would fix the duties and commodity quotas – a power granted by the Constitution only to Congress.

The bill, now before the house Ways and Means Committee, provides, moreover, that presidential determinations “shall be final and conclusive and shall not be subject to review by any court.” Why should the people be deprived of judicial review when they are the victims of illegality in the application of trade laws?

Also the Kennedy Administration has just signed treaties with 24 countries on trade relations, but does not intend to submit these agreements to the Senate for ratification by a two-thirds vote. Executive orders have been issued, moreover, in “civil rights” matters, on many of which Congress itself has refused to pass laws. Thus, by executive order, purchase contracts for goods and services can be withheld by the Government from any business which refuses to accept the Government’s dictation as to the number of employees of a particular color that the contractor or subcontractor may hire. It certainly is a form of “extremism” to substitute executive orders for the laws of Congress.

Extremism is bred by extremism. We would have less trouble with the malcontents in our midst if the spirit and letter of the Constitution were observed.

If the method of amending the document is too cumbersome, let the people by the constitutional method change it. But let’s face the fact that new “extremists” have arisen who believe that the executive order can circumvent the Constitution if the stated objective merely has “popular appeal.” This is government by emotion – by extremism. It is not a government by a written Constitution.”

(US News & World Report, April 2, 1962, page 108)