Scott Walker defends himself against media lies
Please pass this around.
Excerpt:
The truth on the widely covered “John Doe” is that two judges, one state and one federal, reviewed the accusations of partisans within a Democrat District Attorney’s Office and determined their theories have no merit or basis in law.
Each of these judges explicitly issued judicial orders that these partisan prosecutors must end their investigation immediately.
These are the truths that need to be stated over and over again to fight the slander directed at me and our campaign by my political opponents.
Still, many in the media proceed as though the opinion of the partisan prosecutors is new information and ignore the truths I have stated above. It is not. It is old news that has already been discounted by two judges. No charges. No case.
In reaction to the information that was released to the public and seized on by the media, the federal judge just this week sharply criticized the prosecutors. He said that they are now seeking “refuge in the Court of Public Opinion, having lost in this Court on the law.”
Watching the media frenzy it is clear that this is what happens when someone takes on the big government special interests. They push back. No wonder so many politicians are afraid to make tough decisions.
That last point is a very good one: this not only was intended to have an effect on Walker, but this and other baseless charges promulgated by the MSM have an effect on anyone who would run for office on the right.
Walker is one brave guy. I wrote in January of 2014 that he was my favorite so far for president in 2016. He still is.
As I wrote about a different attack on Walker back in February:
The whole thing also works on the low information voter, who (outside Wisconsin) doesn’t know much about Walker yet and might even like him if he/she learned something about him. Might even vote for him, for goodness’ sake. So the idea is to get in on the ground floor, to brand Walker as corrupt and get people to form a negative opinion of him before they know much else.
It works. The template, of course, is what happened to Sarah Palin at the hands of Democrats and the MSM during the campaign of 2008. I saw and heard it occur in real time, and it happened quickly and was incredibly effective.
They are starting earlier now, that’s all. And although Walker’s life doesn’t give them much ammunition, they will find what they can and make the most of it.
It wasn’t rocket science to make that prediction, which I had also made a bit earlier:
The Christie brouhaha and the Walker aide investigation not only have the goal of trying to bring these particular men down. They also serve as notice to anyone else even thinking of running on the Republican side, letting them know what’s ahead for them, no matter how uncorrupted they may appear to be or how uncorrupted they think they actually are.
Walker is the man. It’s a toss up, for me, between him and Cruz, but what a complete difference and smell from Obama.
There’s something “right” about Walker. And Cruz, funny how we’re talking modes of ambulation where with Obama were talking what? Kneeling down and putting you butt in the air. Submission?
Now that’s just not nice. Cruel even, I suppose. Who am I to disparage Obama. But he just doesn’t feel “right” for us. America and Obama go together like ice cream and ketchup. One is tolerance; the other is blood; one is cream and sugar; the other is mashed vegetable and sugar. Obama belongs in Kenya.
Walker, on the hand, is pure cool. He is the real cool, not Obama. He is the one who persevered under fire and prevailed. And all this without a college degree, oh my! Isn’t he a victim? No. He’s not. He’s a victor.
The idea is just to smear him in the minds of independents and low info voters.
Same deal with Christie.
The politics of personal destruction. It worked with Palin. It worked with Romney. It’ll probably work with Walker because the only counter to it is an honest MSM. The MSM and their democrat allies have had a long running campaign to smear Fox News, the only half way honest news source. That’s even gained some ground.
I’ll send this far and wide. And hope that it works.
Chrispy Chreme needs to be smeared like a bug on the windshield of a car travelling 60 m.p.h. His gun grabbing stance seals the deal for me: I’ll not vote if he gets the nod. In the truest sense of the phrase: What difference would it make?
I think a better example of a smear for the LIVs is what the media did to Sarah Palin. That was and is unconscionable. Her uterus certainly was not off limits — literally. The smearing lies were so bad that Geraldine Ferraro, not one of my favorite people, even stood up for her against the misogyny so prevalent when the media ‘discussed’ Palin.
“That last point is a very good one: this not only was intended to have an effect on Walker, but this and other baseless charges promulgated by the MSM have an effect on anyone who would run for office on the right.”
Part of the pattern. Kiss the 1st Amendment goodbye. You’d still have it in theory but in practice any commencement speaker you invite has an unamproved narrative you must dis invite, if your football team has a name that has become offensive to some a government agency can strip you of its registration. Eat a poptart into the shape of a gun and you’re suspended from school, you will forever live on egg shells wondering which word or gesture you express has been outlawed by any particular group and if you belong to any group or associate yourself with others who object to government wielding all this power they originally werent intended to have, the IRS can put a lid on you and lie about doing it without any recourse and the watch-dog press will be conveniently be looking elsewhere echoing the governments line that the only ones that could possibly complain about that are a bunch of right-wing nuts conspiratorists of whom the Justice Department will look into as possible anti-government terrorist groups. Meanwhile their reach into your pockets, your livelihood and your mind continues.
Welcome to the new utopia.
Neo:”I wrote in January of 2014 that he was my favorite so far for president in 2016. He still is.”
Me too.
Waitforit. I like what Cruz says; but, for me Executive experience is critical. I want someone who has proven to be able to deal with ambiguity and make decisions. Legislators have too much wiggle room to talk the talk without having to face the consequences of their actions in my opinion.
“although Walker’s life doesn’t give them much ammunition, they will find what they can and make the most of it.”
They’ll do far more than make the most of what they can find. They’ll invent outright lies, out of whole cloth.
If the left continues this long enough, there will be an inevitable consequence to these lawless machinations. Once hope for redress of grievance is undeniably futile and hopeless, armed rebellion becomes inevitable and unavoidable. At some point that will happen if the lawlessness continues unabated after 2016.
Unlike our last civil war, this conflict will not feature vast armies confronting each other on the field of honor. It will instead be an asymmetric war. What is known as a fourth generation conflict.
Tyrants beware. 4th Generation Warfare: How the next civil war will be fought.
“They [the government] will fight to the last ATF agent or to the last oath-breaking soldier. Will they fight to the first senior bureaucrat, the second Congressman, the third newspaper editor, the fourth Senator, the fifth White House aide?”
A perfect example of the first senior bureaucrat that would be targeted is that paragon of condescending arrogance IRS head John Koskinen. An example of a WH aide that would be targeted is Jay Carney. Both of these people are not mere drones doing their jobs, Carney was and Koskinen is an active collaborator in lawbreaking that is actively dismantling the nation’s societal coherence.
Ultimately, that is the fire that Obama and the left are playing with and they’re too ideological to grasp that. It’s one thing to win fairly on the battlefield of ideas, regardless of how bad ‘the winning idea’ may actually be but entirely another to seize dominance through lawlessness. That guarantees conflict, in fact no better formula for arousing conflict exists. Which given the militarization of the police and federal agencies may be the ultimate intent of this administration’s lawlessness.
We’re all going to need to develop a relish for combat, in all arenas.
And we’re going to have to start telling the Leftist goon squads to Naff Off.
Geoffrey Britain:
I don’t think they usually invent outright lies. They take a fact (like for instance, the prosecution’s arguments made against Walker in the lawsuit) and present it very incorrectly and deceptively. Or they take an actual rumor or source that’s gossiping, and give it far more credence than it deserves. Or they omit something that would exonerate the person they are trying to destroy. Or they take a quote and delete part of it to make it seem to be saying something very very different from what was actually said.
That way they try to maintain some molecule of a semblance of being honest brokers. But they are not.
RickZ:
Oh, so you think Bridgegate was a really important issue that needed to be hyped to death by the MSM because you don’t like Christie on gun control? I say if you don’t like Christie on gun control, attack his stance on gun control, don’t “smear” him.
And because you don’t like his stance on gun control, if he ran against Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren you wouldn’t vote for him because you think his election wouldn’t be different from theirs?
I think that’s destructive of your own agenda, among other things.
Neo, “Or they omit something that would exonerate the person they are trying to destroy. Or they take a quote and delete part of it to make it seem to be saying something very very different from what was actually said.”
These are both forms of lying. The first is by omission. Remember that the oath on the witness stand begins by promising to tell the whole truth. The second is just outright lying. It was used by NBC to smear George Zimmerman when they doctored his 911 call describing Trayvon Martin’s suspicious behavior.
That’s a good qualifier, Old Flyer.
But because of Cruz’es father and his intelligence, I wouldn’t hold it against him. I mean, yeah, yes, management experience, but does that mean we necessarily exclude professionals like doctors and lawyers? As a rule, I say yes, but with Cruz, he transcends that.
Neo,
Oh I agree, they don’t usually invent outright lies. And they do try to maintain some molecule of a semblance of being honest brokers. That’s just good C-y-a.
But make no mistake, if in their view the situation warrants it, they won’t hesitate a NY minute to do so. In such a case their only concern will be to decide if it is a plausible enough lie to escape quick detection by the low-info voter.
And if I might interject, in regards to not voting for a RINO like Christie. It’s NOT their stance on a particular issue. It’s when the stance taken reveals the truth of where a candidate actually stands.
Example; Ryan, Rubio and Boehner’s support for amnesty. They know that Obama and the democrats won’t honor any agreement’s particulars that obstruct 11-33 million ‘undocumented’ democrats from voting in future elections. They know that Obama and the democrats won’t honor any legislation to stop illegal immigration through our borders. They know that amnesty means permanent one-party rule in America. Yet they support it. With not one word acknowledging these facts, much less stating how they’ll counteract them.
That’s not ‘compromise’, that’s collaboration.
In war, the collaborator that turns you in is just as guilty as the tyrant he betrays you to and, we are in an undeclared war, for while we are not interested in war, they are at war with us. They have not merely broken our social contract as Americans, they are using that contract and our Constitution to destroy us.
I wish I could accept your argument that voting for the lesser of two evils gives us time. 20 years ago, fine. Even 5 years ago, OK. I did vote for both McCain and Romney. And I’ll vote for your RINO if you can demonstrate how we get the GOP to finally stand up for America. Because if the next President doesn’t, it’s all over.
And here’s two final critical points. Vote for a RINO as President and the GOP has zero incentive to change. Secondly and in the long run even more importantly, voting for a RINO means shared responsibility when it all falls apart. And, shared responsibility allows the dems, through the MSM’s assistance, to escape all responsibility in the eyes of the duped low-info voter. Which ensures that the dems win once again. But this time it won’t be another battle they win, it will be the war.
Smart to omit the Lincoln quote about “truth”, being that Lincoln was the guy who intentionally provoked a war that killed or maimed over One Million Americans and then, when Congress asked for the Truth that would vindicate the CSA (i.e., the record outlining how Lincoln had provoked the firing on Fort Sumter four months AFTER South Carolina’s secession), he hid behind “executive privilege”, claiming that the Truth (i.e., the evidence) would not comport with the public interest.
That so many Americans have bought into the deification of a war criminal – thanks to a re-write of history by the “victors” of the Civil War, endless parroting of his empty rhetoric and irrational white guilt over the slavery issue – shows why this nation will never, ever find the backbone to stand up to an Obama as he openly, actively destroys what remains of the Founders’ creation.
No, it doesn’t matter who’s in power if it all falls apart. In all such instances, Democrats win. Why?
When a population is in dire need, the party that promises them the most help wins. That would be Democrats. Even if there is no means to pay for the help, even if it was Democrat policy that caused the impoverishment in the first place, the population would applaud the fact that Democrats are “trying to help.” They have populist appeal and that’s why they usually win elections. Whereas, as demonstrated by many commentators here whom I do respect, Republicans can’t even get their own constituency to vote for them.
Paul in Boston:
They are indeed forms of lying, as I tried to make clear. But I don’t think they are “outright lying,” which to me signifies making something up out of the whole cloth.
For example, this.
neo-neocon,
Chrispy Chreme is a wonderful example of the RINO mentality that hurts this Nation. Bridgegate, smidgegatge. The media will never give Republicans a fair shake. To seek otherwise is a fool’s errand.
Bridgegate is nothing compared to his other views.
As for not voting for him: Why? Just to delay the inevitable a little longer? If we’re going to have a big government RINO (remember the wet kisses Chrispy Chreme gave Owebama after Sandy), why bother? Better to get the pain over with, like quickly ripping off a bandaid than the slow agony of deterioration. Look at Orange Weepy, a man who criticizes at every opportunity the very people (the TEA Party) who elevated him to the Speakership.
I’m tired of them begging for my vote while ignoring my voice. In other words, I’m done with being a RINO’s doormat.
I think you have to look farther back than Sarah Palin. Every single Obama campaign has featured the politics of personal destruction. Take a look at His first campaign for the Illinois State Senate. The opponent’s sealed divorce records were unsealed as a resut of efforts by David Axelrod. Axelrod has honed this approach into a fine art form. Take a look at every Obama opponent and see what happened to them. Do you remember the smearing of Herman Cain? Whatever happened to those accusers? Never heard from again. I believe at least one of them lived in the same building as David Axelrod
Behind all of this is Obama’s personal Rasputin, Valerie Jarrett. She with her own secret service detail.
It is time for the Republicans to fight fire with fire. Find every smidgeon of dirt on the Obamas and enhance it.
Also, a lesson I learned long ago – NEVER LET A LIE STAND. Respond instantly, forcefully and with the facts. With social media, we no longer need the Candy Crowleys of this world.
” . . .but this and other baseless charges promulgated by the MSM have an effect on anyone who would run for office on the right.”
This, so much this!
How many good guys have decided to not enter politics, and we are the worse for it, because they put their family’s well being above public service.
I know that I wouldn’t want my family subject to the abuse heaped upon Republican party candidates by the MSM.
Kudos to Walker for standing up to them. He is a brave man indeed.
nkbay99 don’t you lose that passion that dancing that member of the club cause I can’t stand what they’re doing and don’t you remember when they threatened you?
Suppose I said “I realize you’re all I ever wanted” America?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvTwFl6OIAk
Let’s stand up, huh, and tell them who are our friends and family that they have fucked up.
(i.e., the record outlining how Lincoln had provoked the firing on Fort Sumter four months AFTER South Carolina’s secession) goy
“On December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first Southern state to declare its secession and later formed the Confederacy.
On December 26, 1860, U.S. Major Robert Anderson surreptitiously moved his small command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie on Sullivan’s Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor.
An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson, using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West, failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area, except for Fort Sumter.
[Lincoln wasn’t sworn in as President until March 4, 1861]
During the early months of 1861, the situation around Fort Sumter increasingly began to resemble a siege. In March, Brig. Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard, the first general officer of the newly formed Confederate States of America, was placed in command of Confederate forces in Charleston. Beauregard energetically directed the strengthening of batteries around Charleston harbor aimed at Fort Sumter.
Conditions in the fort grew dire as the Union soldiers rushed to complete the installation of additional guns. Anderson was short of men, food, and supplies.
The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of President Abraham Lincoln. He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Major Anderson refused to surrender. Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor.”
The Confederates started the war. They fired the first shots. Neither Lincoln nor anyone else ‘made’ them do it.
You have a perfect right to your opinion. You do not have a right to your own set of facts.
Anyone who lived in Wisconsin from 2002 (when Walker was elected Milwaukee County Executive) forward — as I did until 2010 — is well aware of the visceral hatred and rage lefties in that state harbor against Walker. This long predates the John Doe, the failed recall, or the Madison protests in the Spring of 2011. All those events only intensified and nationalized the rage. It is above and beyond the ordinary scorn, mockery and anger directed at Republicans in general. It is at the same level as Bush or Palin.
And yet, Walker remains unflappable. He always appears to be a happy warrior; has he ever lost his temper or appeared even a little unhinged in public? If so, I’ve never seen it. While he would make a fine President, I sincerely hope he doesn’t run. First, a Walker nomination would mobilize the left more than any other politician, save Palin. Second, I want him to stay as governor, and I do not want his future efforts and influence diminished by a failed Presidential run. Quite frankly, I consider Washington beyond hope or redemption, the federal bureaucracy utterly incorrigible, regardless of which party holds the White House or Congress. Our only hope will come from the states. Walker is leading the way and setting a magnificent example. I want him to continue to do so well into the 2020s (Wisconsin does not have term limits)
Geoffrey Britain-
Thanks for the “real facts” on Fort Sumter.
Commenter “Goy” gave us a perfect illustration of Leftoids’ smear campaigns, didn’t he? We were discussing the way they targeted Scott Walker, and lo! Mr. Dingleberry presents us with a perfect example of EXACTLY how it’s done.
Thanks, Dingle. Now go away.
One has to keep in mind that Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha counties are solid Democrat enclaves. The are merely parts of the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Most of the Evil in this state can be traced back to Milwaukee County, as the Democrats play by Chicago rules there.
Walker is my favorite, too, and would love to see a Badger in the White House, but am unsure we Wisconsinites can afford to lose him as our Badger Leader, for the Democratic Weasels would come rushing back in.
@Geoffrey Britain
Yes, everyone is schooled from kindergarten with the “victors’ ” version of events that led to the death and maiming of over one million Americans in an illegal, needless war provoked by Lincoln. We’re brainwashed from birth, parroting those cherry-picked details. So don’t feel badly – it’s the only “truth” you (choose to) know. Millions raised under Stalin were of the same sort of mind.
Walker starts his defense with exactly this sort of mindless parroting without realizing how destructive that quote is to his own (righteous) case. The enormous irony in that quote from Lincoln is that Lincoln himself REFUSED to allow the Truth to vindicate the South when he hid the record of his military provocation from the public.
The fact is that an agreement was in place between the U.S Federal Govermnent, per Buchanan, and the then-still-sovereign State of South Carolina, that no armed reinforcement of the fort would take place. Lincoln later referred to this agreement as a “quasi armistice” in his efforts to avoid examination of his provocation by Congress.
Lincoln – who also famously, publicly stated during the Douglas debates that he felt blacks were inferior to whites, and that black slaves should be “colonized” back to Africa (Liberia – look it up), putting the lie to the notion that he pursued war to “free the slaves” – consciously chose to ignore that agreement and send a fleet of warships to Charleston Harbor, knowing that this wold be seen as an act of war, would provoke an armed response and THAT armed response would give him a cause to pursue war against the southern civilian population. It was an act dripping with deceit.
The record on this – the detailed memoranda outlining the orders under which this act was perpetrated – was sealed by Lincoln himself. When Congress requested the evidence, they were rebuked using one of the first cases of “executive privilege” on record. And it IS on the record, i.e., “… it is believed the communication of the information called for would not, at this time, comport with the public interest.”
@Mouse – you correctly, if only accidentally, used scare quotes to call out the irrelevant factoids presented by Geoffrey – none of which refute the historical fact that Lincoln provoked and pursued an illegal war against another country in order to recapture the federal revenue he’d lost via their secession – revenue he desperately needed to repay the cronies who’d gotten him elected.
Here’s the real point that so many knee-jerk, quasi-conservatives like you miss, Mouse, because you don’t recognize how destructive Lincoln’s war really was: the outcome of Lincoln’s illegal war ultimately created the inverted quasi-Republic in which we live today, where the States are subordinate to D.C. and the federal government – not the States, themselves – determines the limits of the federal government’s authority. This circular, inverted arrangement is exactly what has made the Leftoids’ march through the institutions – and destruction of our society – possible.
@Geoffrey Britain
Sorry, I hadn’t had my second cup of coffee before replying to your copied/pasted propaganda, above.
If I had, I’d have noticed sooner that you simply plagiarized the B.S. from wikipedia to make your “case”. Wikipedia? Really??!???
As such – and by neglecting to note where you stole the quote from – you made my point about parroting the P.C. version of Sumter for me. Thanks for that.
putting the lie to the notion that he pursued war to “free the slaves”
That’s like saying Bush pursued Afgahnistan to free women. Ancillary benefits don’t get erased just because the primary reason the South started the war was slavery.
Another brainwashed mess of the Democrats here.
The PC version of Fort Sumter was that it is Northern and Lincoln Tyrant aggression. Coincidentally, that was also the Southern aristocrat, landowning, pro slavery faction’s point of view as well. The anti slavery faction in the South, the non existent Republicans but the existing General Lees, didn’t fight for slavery. They were ordered to fight by the Southern states or else. The South could only secede for slavery by destroying the freedom of Southern patriots that wanted peace and an end to slavery.
And that’s supposed to be anti PC, when the primary proponent of PC mind control are Democrats today? People don’t know their history. Your chances of defeating the Leftist alliance is Zero.
@Ymarsakar
“That’s like saying Bush pursued Afgahnistan to free women.”
Funny, but ridiculous. But the simple fact is that no one has ever made this claim.
Conversely, no matter what criticisim is legitimately leveled at Lincoln, the universal, mindless response is either that “he freed the slaves” or “he saved the Union” – i.e., the ends justify the means. But the simple fact is that neither of these claims is true. So you’ve piled a false analogy onto a flat out lie.
“The PC version of Fort Sumter was that it is Northern and Lincoln Tyrant aggression.”
Hardly. The politically correct version of Lincoln’s provocation has stood for over 150 years: i.e., that the South fired “first”. The fact that they did so IN RESPONSE to what Lincoln knew would be seen as an act of war has been completely airbrushed from our national consciousness.
http://neoneocon.com/2014/06/19/texas-defends-itself-against-the-tide-of-illegal-immigrants-and-against-obama/#comment-794532
Blert has a slightly different version, the engineered war pretext version that is.
But the simple fact is that no one has ever made this claim.
And you think someone made the claim Lincoln was fighting slavery in 1861 because….
South Carolina was planning on generating a pretext for secession since long before Lincoln was on the election rolls.
The Democrat aristocracy believed in only one thing. Only white land owners deserved free time and luxury. Everybody else, women, blacks, and homosexuals, were born inferior. If democratic elections, using 3/5ths of the black slave vote for Southern states, couldn’t get them control of the political structure, they would break off, re negotiate things with the help of Northern Democrats, and then come back Full Force, ala Chicago 2010.
@Ymarsakar
“And you think …”
No. That’s not what I think. I refer to the P.C. version as cited TODAY, by the hopelessly brainwashed “citizens” (federal subjects) of TODAY.
“South Carolina was planning on generating a pretext for secession since long before Lincoln was on the election rolls.”
Really? According to whom? You?
Here’s the truth: So. Carolina OPENLY threatened secession in 1832, in response to the FIRST federal push to damage the South economically while simultaneously coddling northern interests. What happened then? The feds backed down and rolled back the tariff. This, as it turns out, is exactly how the Founders intended things to work, i.e., that the federal government’s authority is determined by the States which grant it.
Utterly irrelevant opinions regarding what “Democrat aristocracy” believed in the 1850s aside, Lincoln was elected in large part – through securing electoral votes from large States like PA – because he supported renewal of another destructive tariff aimed at the South, which would end up providing some 75% of federal revenue. That’s why his election precipitated the southern secession.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
People weren’t alive back then, so they mostly rely on modern propaganda now, which is mostly false. So it’s time to go back to the source, the actual real sources.
December 24, 1860
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
1852. in 1860.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
There was a fundamental and mutually exclusive dichotomy back then. Slaves were considered property, yet SC wanted the North to treat slaves as people, like outlaws or something, and return the property. Except how come property can vote? The blacks couldn’t vote, but they were counted as 3/5ths of a person for the voting bloc of South Carolina’s land owners. What would a white person, like Lee that didn’t own slaves, be able to vote with then? 1% of the South owned slaves, yet 1% told the 99% what they were going to die for and in what war. Vote on secession? This was nothing but dictatorship by the white slave owners.
The US Constitution, in order to kick the can down the road, left this mutual contradiction stand, until 1860.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
So SC’s primary problem wasn’t with the federal government, which they recognize as passing fugitive laws that favor returning slaves. Their problem was the OTHER states exercising their state’s rights, and making laws that their own people wanted. So the Civil War was about state’s rights and freeing the South? Hell no.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Well, when you’re independent and can wage war, guess what. Other people can wage war on you. Mission accomplished, as they say.
SC’s secession document did not mention one word about tariffs. They might have talked about it before, but it was clear it wasn’t the big issue they were considering.
Facts meet history.
“So it’s time to go back to the source…”
So you’re claiming you read all that nonsense about “Democrat aristocracy” in this declaration??? Really???
Got it. Thanks for making my point. Again.
As for your rather novel (read: imbecilic) reading of the quoted material, when you write “…SC wanted the North to treat slaves as people, like outlaws or something, and return the property,” you reveal an inability to understand what’s written. Worse, you reveal your total ignorance of the Constitution every State ratified upon entry into the “Union”.
The fact is that the Constitution itself clearly outlined each State’s responsibility regarding fugitive slaves. Without an amendment to alter that responsibility, South Carolina’s position was legally sound, i.e., the other States had no “right” to violate the clear language of the Constitution regarding fugitives while, at the same time, using their electoral numbers to economically punish the South with a damaging tariff.
SC’s declaration didn’t need to mention the tariff.
A. The tariff was a “lawful”, if corrupt result of the electoral process the North was using to enrich itself at the expense of the South.
B. The South had sufficient cause to secede given northern States’ refusal to comply with the clear language of the Constitution.
Pretty simple. Facts indeed.
Hah, the Founding Fathers listed a lot more than that. But SC gets to be lazy, because they are Democrats and own slaves. Try another one.
So you’re claiming you read all that nonsense about “Democrat aristocracy” in this declaration??? Really???
That was in another source book written before the Klu Klux Klan got their hands on whites and blacks, so to speak.
“the Founding Fathers listed a lot more than that.”
Yes, they did. And every State ratified the result upon entry into The United States. Clearly, it’ll be for the first time, so you might want to take a moment to go actually READ the Constitution and, specifically, what it had to say about fugitive slaves (i.e., “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State…).
YMarsakar, please try not to take this personally, but what you’re writing here provides a perfect example of the sort of willful, blind ignorance and inability to think critically that the Left has managed to engineer into our society through its corruption of education, ongoing since the 1930s – even (especially) among self-labeled “conservatives”.
What you’ve written here indicates an inability to address specific points (you keep changing the subject), an inability to comprehend what’s written (the Constitution specifically required States to deal with fugitive slaves), an inability to draw a rational conclusion (inclusion of the “full power to levy war” was a re-assertion of States’ rights that were abandoned through ratification of the Constitution, not an invitation for others to wage war) and a completely closed mind that is incapable of entertaining new information if it results in ANY degree of cognitive dissonance when it bangs up against your P.C. programming.
The fact that self-labeled “conservatives” are utterly incapable of recognizing the damage Lincoln’s illegal war did to our Republic – i.e., the manner in which his totalitarian vision of an all-powerful D.C. concentrated power in the hands of the feds, thereby ultimately empowering the totalitarian Left who have used it to implement their “progressive” ideology – is emblematic of why so-called “conservatives” will never, ever find the backbone to stand up to an Obama, or a Hillary, or whichever despot follows them on the U.S.’ path to becoming the USSA.
“That was in another source book…”
Heh. Of course it was.
Read Tom DiLorenzo’s works on Lincoln. Be sure to check out ALL of his various references. THEN go read the many attacks written by his so-called “critics”.
Read Diana West’s work as well – same deal with HER references and her critics. We see the same resistance to the truth emotionally displayed by so-called “conservatives” in response to her iconoclastic work regarding a completely different topic.
The conservative mind is shut tight. The Left relies on this. Those of us who were Democrats (some quite radical) before we woke up recognize this, for all the good it does.
YMarsakar, please try not to take this personally, but what you’re writing here provides a perfect example of the sort of willful
When I start taking things personally, it’s obvious. So far, not yet. We, meaning some other people here, have already had this issue of conflict at hand, so this is relatively old territory in dispute. If 150+ years can be considered “not old” at least.
When people and cultures become invested in a narrative, they won’t let it go. That part in your thesis is not incorrect. However, where things differ is where the preponderance of the truth lies, on your side or on your opponent’s side.
You think you know the true nature of the Left, where they came from, and the Democrat party. Yet you ignore the history at your feat, that is in clear sight. That is not the path to the truth, and it won’t be enough to pierce the Left’s veil of illusion either.
Many of the issues being fought in 21st century US is undoubtedly a problem that first originated before 1860 and was never resolved after 1864.
Whether you believe that or not, doesn’t matter. The Leftist alliance has already benefited and will continue to wage their war.
Those of us who were Democrats (some quite radical) before we woke up recognize this, for all the good it does.
Yet you believe in the same Democrat propaganda that the South believed in, as they funded the KKK to kill black Republicans, vote 99% Democrat right up until Reagan and WWII came along.
Your claims belie the actions and facts here. Dana West would find similar things if she set her sights on the Southern history, but so far she hasn’t agreed with your propaganda views of 1860. Her critics are communists and Democrats, who want a monopoly on Soviet Russian research and credentials.
The Democrat party has convinced blacks that Lincoln was a Democrat and convinced lots of other people that he was the tyrant to blame for the South’s rush to war. The Democrats always blame their enemies for what the Dems were planning to do all along. And yet you refuse to see. You are the example of what you fight, for you are your own worst enemy.
go actually READ the Constitution and, specifically, what it had to say about fugitive slaves (i.e., “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State…).
So a person is a property, like a gun, that runs off and the federal government should use their power to HAMMER AND FORCE the Northern states to give it back?
What hypocrisy. This brainwashed mess of yours is getting more disgusting and wasteful of internet bandwidth as the time ticks past.
I’d further respond to your rantings goy if I thought that facts and reason had even the slightest chance of persuasion but its obvious through your comments to Ymarsakar that it is you with the closed mind. You’ve latched on to some half truths and blown them into ‘the truth’. It’s not an uncommon pathology. As prima facie evidence, I would simply ask you to reconcile the portrait you paint of Lincoln with the man who wrote the Gettysburg Address…
They are not and could not be the same man.
Judge Peterson was assigned to adjudicate the five-county John Doe 2 investigation. He specifically picked Francis Schmitz astheDA to head the John Doe 2.
His decision–
“The prosecutors failed to show evidence of probable cause that a crime had been committed, Judge Peterson wrote, because the political groups engaged exclusively in issue advocacy, which is protected by the First Amendment. “Before there is coordination, there must be political purposes,” the judge wrote. “Without political purposes, coordination is not a crime.”
After reading through some of the newly released documents, here are my concerns and questions:
R.J. Johnson is on record that he bragged he ran Wisconsin Club for Growth (WiCFG). R.J. Johnson is and has been Scott Walker’s political strategist. Deborah Jordahl also works for Scott Walker and with R. J. Johnson as an assistant political co-ordinator, fundraiser. Deborah Jordahl writes the checks for WiCFG (from the released documents).
So, how can Judge Peterson dismiss political purpose from the equation when these two political strategists are working for BOTH Scott Walker AND involved in running WiCFG? Also, how can an organization be represented as dealing in only “issue advocacy” when two of the main players for that organization are on Scott Walkers payroll as re-election staff members?
The Wisconsin Club for Growth is a Nonprofit 501(c)4 Social Welfare Organization
This non-profit is not actually a Political Action Committee at all.
Instead the IRS recognizes 501(c)4 Tax Exempt Social Welfare
Organizations as formed for the purpose of improving the Social Welfare of society. There are also some limited cases where 501(c)5 (Union) or 501(c)6 (Business) Organizations are also formed for similar purposes. These organizations may use their funds for political advertising that supports their purpose as long as that political activity is not the “primary purpose” of the exempt organization. These types of organizations have no limits on the dollar amount of contributions. 501(c)4 Social Welfare Organizations also differ dramatically from Political Action Committees, Super PACs and 527 Hybrid Super PACs in
their ability to accept contributions that are not disclosed publicly.
So my questions are….how can R.J. Johnson and Deborah Jordahl claim to run this Social Welfare Organization and write checks for this Social Welfare Organization and at the same time be members of Scott Walker’s re-election team?
How can WiCFG be a top political donor (9 million during the recall
elections) and at the same time be merely a Social Welfare organization? This “Social Welfare Organization” has numerous and byzantine ties with major PACS.
@Ymarsakar – “So a person is a property, like a gun”
According to the Constitution as originally written, yes, that’s exactly right. What’s more, the Constitution specifically assigned the authority over this issue TO THE STATES: “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof…”.
And that’s the fundamental concept that ALL of the States involved in the “Civil” War openly agreed upon and ratified.
Don’t like it? Me either. But whether or not we agree with that concept today changes absolutely nothing.
You want to judge the issues and actions of 1850s America using today’s sensibilities, and I understand that. The problem is, you can’t. When you do, you end up attributing motivation to the North that simply didn’t exist. Northerners wanted to halt the spread of blacks (i.e., cheap labor) into their States and into the Territories. Period. Several of them passed immigration laws aimed at blacks for precisely this purpose, demonstrating that this was their primary motivation for seeking to bar slavery from the Territories, not some altruistic objection to slavery, per se. The very idea that a society would send its sons to die in order to “free the slaves” and then turn around and decimate the native population of the country in which they lived using the very same military force is utterly absurd on its face. But that is the absurd notion that prevails after 150 years of propaganda deifying Lincoln and the war he provoked.
@Geoffrey Britain – “…I would simply ask you to reconcile the portrait you paint of Lincoln with the man who wrote the Gettysburg Address… ”
Excuse me, but it seems that those defending Lincoln’s documented record of overreach are the ones who need to figure out how to reconcile his lofty rhetoric with this destructive acts. Hint: it can’t be done. When an individual’s words can’t be reconciled with their actions, that simply indicates that the words are meaningless, no matter how profoundly they may ring.
As prima facie evidence, simply try to reconcile Obama’s actions with any of his lofty rhetoric. You can’t. You and I see right through it, and call him on it, but of course our comments are lazily and sophomorically referred to as “rantings” and “pathology” by the millions who still support him. Why? Because they’re programmed with a perception of him that’s driven by the lofty rhetoric he’s spewed, not the obvious damage he’s wrought, which they simply refuse to acknowledge. The erroneous perception of Lincoln and his destruction of the Republic is no different.
The conflict Lincoln provoked – by intentionally violating his predecessor’s agreement with South Carolina and unilaterally pursuing a course that could only be seen as a clear Act of War (and later hiding the evidence from Congress) – resulted in the death and/or maiming of over one million Americans, including every life and limb lost at Gettysburg. Lincoln had no business even setting foot there, much less invoking a back-handed consecration with a performance that only lacked a TelePrompTer to match the deceit Obama has exhibited at various events over the past 6 years.
Whether he genuinely believe his own B.S. or not, Lincoln’s speech at Gettysburg is “prima facie” evidence of the depths to which he would stoop to rationalize war against civilians simply to preserve federal revenue for his (formerly) Whig cronies, and simultaneously destroy the federalism and dual sovereignty that had previously held the federal government in check, by design.
Lincoln swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not to “save the Union”. Few people today want to acknowledge, much less try to understand the difference, but there is one. In fact, he did neither. He violated the Constitution at every turn and, in doing so, fundamentally transformed what had become two separate nations into an empire ruled by D.C. using threat of military force – a far cry from the Republic comprised of sovereign States, founded only 70 years prior. 150 years later, all the so-called “progressives” have had to do is get hold of the reins of power in D.C. in order to bend the citizens of every State – the entire nation – to their unsustainable, socially suicidal ideology. They’ve been using Lincoln’s destruction of the Republic to achieve their ends since the Wilson administration.