UPDATE 2 ~ UPDATE 2 ~ UPDATE 2 ~ UPDATE 2
Now we have this exchange at Crossroads:
Simpson has been notified on this blog numerous times of errors he needs to correct, and didn't correct them. For example, when lying to his peanut gallery about my views on Emmett Till, he deliberately left out my statement that Till's murder was an atrocity.When called on it here on Backsass, he did nothing,
Similarly, when I stated that the heroes and heroines in my novels are white Southerners, he changed that to ALL my characters in ALL my writing. Big lie, because they're not. I've said so here on Backsass, and he know it, but refused to correct his "error" (deliberate lie).
And, of course, every statement he's ever made about my novels has been made from sheer ignorance and sheer hatred of the author, since he hasn't read them.
Numerous lies he's told about me have been identified here on Backsass, but he has refused to correct them, which, by his own, uh, standard, makes him a liar.
Another sneaky, patootie-covering tactic by this liar is the disabling of timestamps from his posts and comments. Without that, I can't prove that he posted Border Ruffian's comment after I posted the scorching observations in Update 1 below, but then, he can't prove that it was posted earlier than my observations.
Border Ruffian is the soul of integrity compared to Brooks Simson, Liar.
Another interesting thing is to see is the floggerette response to my "camp" comments. I guess I shamed and embarrassed them (except for those who are incapable of feeling shame).. I'm quite certain they all know what "camp" meant in BR's comment, but ignored it in order to lie about him. When called on it, some have attempted to cover their butts by fleeing into attempted comedic ridicule, rather that face up to their slimy mendacity. Doesn't work. They're just making themselves look stupider, and more hateful.
Simpson has posted about Border Ruffian, who sometimes comments here, and at other blogs. Simp sez, "He’s prone to make claims that all too often he can’t support..."
Actually, Simpson does that far, far more than Border Ruffian.
But I want to point something out that I've blogged about recently -- the willingness of these ... academics ... to diminish their own intellect in order to do what they love best -- denigrate somebody they don't like.
To continue Simpson's post:
Camp. Camp. CAMP.
Do you suppose a man with advanced degrees, a professor at a major state university DOESN'T KNOW THE MEANING OF "CAMP" as Border Ruffian used it? Well, maybe he needs some remedial edu-ma-cation. So here ya' go, um, uh, Learned Professor:
Camp -- a group supporting a given doctrine or theory
Or do you suppose he ignored Camp Camp CAMP in order to manipulate his readers into THINKING Border Ruffian said that about Simpson/Levin/Hall specifically? I mean, even though the word is right there for anyone to see... Camp Camp CAMP. Maybe he thinks his floggerette peanut gallery is easy to persuade and will believe him before they believe their own lyin' eyes?
And flogger hate just keeps on comin'.....
Now we have this exchange at Crossroads:
Let me clarify- By “camp” I mean among those who regularly post on your blogs. Typically the types who give gushing approval to everything you write.My post at deadconfederates did not denigrate US veterans. Just an observation of the reaction from the “camp.”*Battalion???
Brooks D. SimpsonNope, at the time he posted it here, he was telling the truth. If later information requires one to post a correction or be a liar, then my title for this post applies to Simpson dozens of times over.
Let’s note that you then whined elsewhere:
“Please note that Border Ruffian doesn’t say Simpson (or Levin or Hall) has done that. He referred to members of the Simpson/Levin/Hall camp.”Now you know that’s not true, and yet you didn’t correct that claim, either. So you’ve lied again. What a pathetic piece of work you are. No wonder Chastain supports you.
Thats the explanation I gave to Simpson at his flog.
He hasn’t posted it so I suppose he sent it to the cornfield.
Simpson has been notified on this blog numerous times of errors he needs to correct, and didn't correct them. For example, when lying to his peanut gallery about my views on Emmett Till, he deliberately left out my statement that Till's murder was an atrocity.When called on it here on Backsass, he did nothing,
Similarly, when I stated that the heroes and heroines in my novels are white Southerners, he changed that to ALL my characters in ALL my writing. Big lie, because they're not. I've said so here on Backsass, and he know it, but refused to correct his "error" (deliberate lie).
And, of course, every statement he's ever made about my novels has been made from sheer ignorance and sheer hatred of the author, since he hasn't read them.
Numerous lies he's told about me have been identified here on Backsass, but he has refused to correct them, which, by his own, uh, standard, makes him a liar.
Another sneaky, patootie-covering tactic by this liar is the disabling of timestamps from his posts and comments. Without that, I can't prove that he posted Border Ruffian's comment after I posted the scorching observations in Update 1 below, but then, he can't prove that it was posted earlier than my observations.
Border Ruffian is the soul of integrity compared to Brooks Simson, Liar.
Another interesting thing is to see is the floggerette response to my "camp" comments. I guess I shamed and embarrassed them (except for those who are incapable of feeling shame).. I'm quite certain they all know what "camp" meant in BR's comment, but ignored it in order to lie about him. When called on it, some have attempted to cover their butts by fleeing into attempted comedic ridicule, rather that face up to their slimy mendacity. Doesn't work. They're just making themselves look stupider, and more hateful.
UPDATE 1 ~ UPDATE 1 ~ UPDATE 1 ~ UPDATE 1
s Simpson has posted about Border Ruffian, who sometimes comments here, and at other blogs. Simp sez, "He’s prone to make claims that all too often he can’t support..."
Actually, Simpson does that far, far more than Border Ruffian.
But I want to point something out that I've blogged about recently -- the willingness of these ... academics ... to diminish their own intellect in order to do what they love best -- denigrate somebody they don't like.
To continue Simpson's post:
Recently in the comments section of Andy Hall’s Dead Confederates BR/B made the following assertion in an effort to defend the denigration of United States veterans:Please note that Border Ruffian doesn't say Simpson (or Levin or Hall) has done that. He referred to members of the Simpson/Levin/Hall camp.
How many times have I seen members of the Simpson/Levin/Hall camp refer to the Confederates of the 1860s as “terrorists.” And how many times have I seen them refer to Confederate heritage groups as “Nazis,” the “Taliban,” etc.
Well, BR/B, please cite a single time when I’ve done this.
Camp. Camp. CAMP.
Do you suppose a man with advanced degrees, a professor at a major state university DOESN'T KNOW THE MEANING OF "CAMP" as Border Ruffian used it? Well, maybe he needs some remedial edu-ma-cation. So here ya' go, um, uh, Learned Professor:
From Dictionary.com, World English Dictionary --One more time, so you don't miss it:
camp
1 [kamp] noun
6. a group supporting a given doctrine or theory
Camp -- a group supporting a given doctrine or theory
Or do you suppose he ignored Camp Camp CAMP in order to manipulate his readers into THINKING Border Ruffian said that about Simpson/Levin/Hall specifically? I mean, even though the word is right there for anyone to see... Camp Camp CAMP. Maybe he thinks his floggerette peanut gallery is easy to persuade and will believe him before they believe their own lyin' eyes?
And flogger hate just keeps on comin'.....
Question 1. Is Tripp Lewis a Virginia Flagger?
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2. Did Tripp Lewis call Matt Heimbach a "Good Guy"?
Question 3. Since Matt's opinions have been discovered, has the Va. Flaggers refuted Matt for those opinion or have they continued to embrace him as a Friend on FB?
Yes or No answers will do.
Nothing the VaFlaggers have done indicates he is a favorite (i.e., regarded with special favor or preference). They have never "embraced" him. He attended a couple of VaFlagger events. That's pretty much the extent of their contact with him.
ReplyDeleteSimpson is a liar.
You did not answer my question with a yes or no.
ReplyDeleteCorey, what exactly do you hope to accomplish by posting here?
ReplyDeleteNo, Corey, I sure didn't.
ReplyDeleteDon't come in here and make demands, capisce?
Connie-
ReplyDelete"Please note that Border Ruffian doesn't say Simpson (or Levin or Hall) has done that. He referred to members of the Simpson/Levin/Hall camp."
Thats the explanation I gave to Simpson at his flog.
He hasn't posted it so I suppose he sent it to the cornfield.
Anyway, thanks for your support.
You're welcome, Border Ruffian.
ReplyDeleteSimpson is just slimy that way....
Border Ruffian, Simpson has done a CYA and posted your comment -- probably after reading my scorching blast at his mendacity so now, because you haven't acknowledged that he did so, he's claiming you're a liar. (I note he's not even good at CYA.)
ReplyDeleteI have documented throughout Backsass his lies and attacks and his attempts to hurt people and cause them harm.
Meanwhile the floggerette bots in the peanut gallery are gushing about how he has never called people "terrorists." I would think gushing requires greater accomplishment than not calling people terrorist who are not terrorists -- but with that bunch, who knows?
Connie:
ReplyDelete"Simpson has done a CYA and posted your comment -- probably after reading my scorching blast at his mendacity"
Exactly. It wasn't posted until several hours later.
At first the post sequence was (#1) "Jim" and (#2) "Schroeder" then later my post suddenly appears between the two.
I find it quiet odd that the little jerk off Corey Darling never answered my questions! He doesn't deserve any answers, and if he asks a question you can bet it is usually for the purpose of trying to attack someone....
ReplyDeleteSo Corey Darling; what about your little hero McPherson being a Marxist? I showed you the evidence and facts, and you ran like a dawg with your tail tucked between your legs. My point being YOU, Bwooks, Robocop and the rest of your gang are Marxists too! Hard core...... Hey man you're not fooling us, so lay off the excuses of not being a Marxist, but run if you must! It's always been a battle of Sovereigns against the Yankees, the Yankees being the original Marxists.
Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur
Michael, I'd have to say these characters are Yankee supremacists above all. Nothing annoys Yankees more than being disobeyed or ignored. Which is why Southern Herritage/Nationalism bothers them so. It's galling to fight a war, kill thousands, conquor a whole nation., and still not be worshiped as lord and master of all. Deep down, they're afraid we'll cut off the gas, oil and food. They're afraid their country is losing its power over the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteJames Owen, you are SOOO right. These people are still pissed off because Confederates didn't grovel after the war. Oh, how they hate our defiance....
ReplyDeleteMichael Lamb....LOL...I didn't answer your question because calling McPherson or any of the Civil War Bloggers a Marxist is laughable, absurd and just down right stupid.
ReplyDeleteBullshit like that does not deserve an answer.
Connie,
ReplyDeleteYou are actually quite wrong about groveling and defiance. When the war was over most Confederates did like Lee instructed them...they went back to being good citizens.
Other ex-Confederates went on to form groups that are now like a disease on our country...groups like the KKK and their off-shoot the neo-nazi's...you know groups that flagger darling Matt Heimbach now openly embraces.
So as usual Connie, you fail to understand the simple history.
Corey, they couldn't have GONE BACK to being good citizens, because they never left being good citizens. IN any case, that does not constitute groveling. I understand history; what YOU don't don't understand, or have even the simplest appreciation for, is truth.
ReplyDeleteI never said it was groveling...
ReplyDeleteThose former soldiers went home a acted as good citizens of the USA and did not push the CSA idea any longer.
It is the neo-confederate of today that is pushing the idea that their ancestors let go of.
Corey: "I never said it was groveling..."
ReplyDeleteYou implied it by saying I was wrong in my claim that they DIDN'T grovel, and your "proof" was ."...they went back to being good citizens."
Recap:
Me: These people (Yankee supremacists) are still pissed off because Confederates didn't grovel after the war.
Corey: You are actually quite wrong about groveling and defiance. When the war was over ...they went back to being good citizens.
Me: that does not constitute groveling.
Corey: I never said it was groveling...
My comment about defiance refers to we Southern heritage folks today, not Confederates. It is in response to James Owens' comment. He said, "They're afraid their country is losing its power over the rest of us," and my response to that was, "Oh, how they hate our defiance."
Okay, if I'm wrong in saying Confederates didn't grovel after the war, give some examples of their groveling.
Confederates had no choice but to do what they did after the war. That doesn't mean they liked it or were happy about it.
Part 1 James and Corey Darling
ReplyDeleteYup James, I've heard similar said also. Know that in order for Marxism to succeed, there must be so many people or regions and lands available that is making the profits in order that those not making any money or profit will have something. Or say, there must be so many have's paying the have-nots.
In effect this also equals a certain amount of people, those making the profits and money becoming slaves in order to feed, shelter and look after those that do not have money. It modern day slavery by democratic vote, which is exactly what Karl Marx thought was the best form of government, a democracy. But we know that a democracy is nothing more than 3 foxes and a chicken voting on what's for dinner; don't we?
And the above is the very reason we have Yankees, which are today's democrats and yesterday's progressives, all of which are the Marxists from Karl Marx philosophy and ideology concerning Marxism.
So, back in 1860 somebody had to pay the taxes for the us gommit to start all these construction programs and paying the Northern States bills from their indebtedness. The businessmen needed extra money for investments as well as protection for their expensive goods which weren't as good as the European products and higher.
Yet those businessmen hired workers cheaper than Southern Plantation owners could keep slaves! And at the end of a 12 or 16 hour day, the workers were free to sleep on the streets until their next shift! It has been wrote about many times, the working and living conditions of the Northern worker were actually much worse than those of the Southern slaves. Yet who was taking advantage of whom?
But the point is, money. The Yankees ALWAYS needs money to pay for their great social programs. Whether they are a Progressive from last century or a modern day liberal, they always need money! And not only money, they need the resources to make that money, such as, cotton, oil, food, raw materials and a CHEAP labor force!
The Yankees under Lincoln and the Northern Bankers couldn't let the South go because they would be broke. Even Lincoln is quoted as saying this. So they had to invent ghosts, excuses and bully their way into TAKING what wasn't legally theirs. And we see the exact same things today with Obama and the Yankee Democrats!
What they can't legally get, they steal. Whether it be the vote or the Affordable Healthcare Act, aka ObamaCare, which is neither affordable or honest. Just know, the Yankees will never let a state secede of its' own accord, legally, especially if it is a money producing state. But even the poor states won't leave because their votes are needed to sure up the Marxist numbers game. Plus such states wouldn't leave because of all the free money being pumped into them.
In regards to Corey Darling laughing at my comments. The truth speaks volumes. There can be no reply to what I posted without one condemning themself to being a Marxist. So he must simply deny my comments and laugh in order not to label himself.
But it is sad and odd that such people have such a hard time acknowledging their own beliefs.
End Part 1
Part 2 James and Corey Daroling
ReplyDeleteIt's really quiet simple to tell who is a Marxist. Simply ask how they believe the US Constitution is to be read; Literal or figurative? All true Southerners, including every last one of us here today that are conservative by nature will say the US Constitution is to be strictly read and interpreted. The Yankees will ALWAYS claim the US Constitution is to be read loosely and figuratively, RELEVANT to the times and the people reading and interpreting it.
A perfect example is the secession question; is it legal? A Yankee will say no and ALL people who believe in the strict interpretation of the US Constitution will say yes. Strictly speaking secession is legal because the US Constitution doesn't prohibit it. No reasons need be given by any state to secede either.
But this understanding of interpretation was a problem long before Lincoln's War, when the Federalists and then the Whigs, both staunchly embedded in the New England states, tried many times to loosely or figuratively interpret the US Constitution only to be shot down by the Democrat-Republicans at first and then the Democrats as the Republican Party began absorbing the remnants of the Federalist and Whig Parties.
It was during this same time, the 1840s and 50s, the Republican Party absorbed 10s of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Marxists that were fleeing from Europe and their failed Marxist Revolution there. Many Union General and officers were refugees from the failed Marxist Revolution that was forced out of Europe. Even Karl Marx played a part in working with Lincoln to get these people over here and into the union army. And this doesn't even include the political office positions that some of these Marxists ended up with, including one who became a governor. All these Marxists became *good* Republicans and then Progressives, supporting the Radical (now Liberal) Republican policies of their day.
Corey Darling has it wrote all over his little face. He's simply a hard core Marxist. Sadly he don't know a Marxist from a communist; but does it matter to him as he will deny both? The company he keeps with Bwook and RoboCop bears out the same tale. They're all Marxists who despises anything of Southern values since such values runs completely counter to the Marxist agenda they commit their endeavors towards. Simply put they hate us, all traditional Southerners and all we stand for, because we stand for freedom whereas they are the ones covering up their lies in efforts to make slaves out of all of us! And in order to do that they MUST keep all of us subdued and under their control. This means NO seceding states, not taking anything away from their control.
Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur
Michael, I know what you're saying. I've read up on it. I do believe that Yankees have trouble with the Constitution and laws. They were, after all, written by Southrons and based on the statutes and ordinances of the Virginia Legislature. Which existed before there was any such thing as Massachusetts or Illinois. Yankee law books probably have blank pages. Since the meaning of the law changes according to the circumstances. I'm reading; Washington: A Life. It makes it fairly clear that America was founded in Virginia and the Carolinas, not at Plymouth Rock. Another good book is: "The Dixie Frontier." Which makes it obvious that Dixie was a settled civilisation when places like Michigan were still empty, frozen wilderness. Even in 1790, Jefferson and others recognised that the North was a foreign nation with a different culture and political objectives. It still is. I believe that Yankees use Marxism, social engineering, etc., like we use hammers and wrenches. They're tools of power and dominance. They'll change their tune at the drop of a hat, if it suits their purposes. Whatever advances Yankee supremacy, that'll be their ideology of the month. Had there been no Blacks in America, there still would have been a war. The Yankees always have an excuse or a scapegoat. But it's easy for them to think as they do, since they think they are America, and the rest of us are colonial subjects.
ReplyDeleteJames, ABSOLUTELY, I do believe there would have been a war regardless of slavery. That's a reason we Southerners always maintain slavery wasn't the reason for the war.
ReplyDeleteI've read much on the religion of the New England States, especially the Puritans and the Quakers. Their ideas and beliefs concerning faith paved the way for the culture you see there today and sadly their dominating attitude has changed the religion of the entire country for the worse. It is the reason we see so many cults today in this country as well as the *feel good* and dispensationalist churches and so called preachers. It is a major reason for the downfall of Christianity and Western Civilization itself.
It is also the reason we have terms such as *American Exceptionalism*. Do note that the first and most all instances of socialism being practiced in the young USofA was by splinter groups from these religions as they changed their attitudes and ambitions on creating a USofA that was to be molded after them and their beliefs. Problem was their beliefs changed like the wind and Scripture never retained its' original meaning or truths, and they applied this same philosophy to government. Socialistic concepts in the usa had its' origin with these people, and it has grown ever since, whether by the vote, by swindle or by force, their power keeps increasing and their socialistic concepts always garners votes from people wanting something for nothing.
An unknown fact is Quakers then and today are not actually a Christian denomination. Many Quakers will even deny being a Christian. And this is the mindset that wanted to own the whole country and use their version of interpreting the US Constitution.
The Puritans and Quakers actually forced their way into power in the New England States by DRIVING out anyone they disagreed with. At one time New York State was actually based more upon Southern principles and governance than New England itself. Most New Yorkers would be offended at being called a Yankee. But by 1800 most such New Yorkers had been changed over or driven off, and the ones left had lost any ability by their vote.
I share no real commonalities with these people. OTOH I do share as many commonalities with them as I do Germans, Englishmen or Russians. It is just not possible to call them my countrymen, nor will I ever fight for them.
Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur
Some good and quick articles of interest to this are:
ReplyDeletehttp://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/conspiracies-do-exist-in-spite-of-what-the-government-tells-you/#comments
Be sure and read the comment from Albarrs below the article.
and:
"The Yankee Problem in America" by Clyde Wilson, here:
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson12.html
I find it odd, but I had already come to the same conclusion that Clyde Wilson wrote about long before I ever read his article. He just stated things more clearly with extra details. We are DEFINITELY not the same people and I want no part of them.
Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur
Thanks Michael. I'm a big fan of Professor Wilson. There's a good audio file at the Abbeville Institute site. It's called: "Yankee in Rebel Clothing: Fundimentalism in the South." "Yankee Babylon" is a book I highly recommend. Professor Yearly, at Badeagle.com has a few things to say about the VBF and Yankee/Leftists. In 6th grade, American History to 1820, my teacher pointed out the New England bias. In 7th grade, Texas History put the nails in the Yankee coffin for me. That was over thirty three years ago. There is no argument they can make to justify their claims of moral superiority. Nor is there any legitimate reason why sixteen states, with 38% of the population, should have nearly 100% of political power and special rights, privileges and exemptions, that the other thirty four don't. Bill Maher's saying the Constitution is outdated, sums up the Yankee position neatly. The way Yankees view the constitution is noted in "The Cliches of Socialism." The North is a hostile, foreign nation and nothing convinces me otherwise. Granny Clampett saying; The "Civil War" was when the Yankees invaded America," is more than a joke.
ReplyDeleteJames, thanks for the reference. I will bookmark it and check it out.
ReplyDeleteI just received this daily email from the Confederate Society of America today. Craig Maus is the president and has proven to be quit a writer, although once in awhile, as with anyone, I catch something I have to question him about regarding authenticity. This email article goes right in hand about the Yankee problem and how it relates in DC today. The Confederate Society of America actually best suits my form of political history and science as it addresses past problems and how it has shaped our future.
To me it is just more proof of vast differences between Southerners and Northerners and Yankees. We are nowhere near being the same type of people, nor would I want to be like them. I mean; why would I want to send my soul to h3ll as they are doing?
The article is somewhat long, so I'll start here and also post a part 2, 3 and 4.
Part 1
Dear Patriots (bcc herein w/permission to forward),
I never cease to be amazed by the incessant lies Washington and their Special Interest Legions continue to wage upon our Confederacy in order to ‘sustain’ & advance their Hegemony of Deceit.
Our noble soldiers died for a belief that Their Countries, the States they were citizens of, was far more important than the Voluntary Union they were FREE Members of.
Thus those TWO differences, fueled by a Corrupt Federal Government of that time intent on creating the Central State that would supersede the Sovereigns, (some things never change) would eventually claim the lives of more than 650,000 men on both sides thanks to a Marxist presence of 15 men within Lincoln’s cabinet.
'Those same People’ and their Special Interest Legions, 150 years later, have exasperated to their satisfaction this Republic that which their ‘boy’ created 150 years earlier.
In so doing, they have advanced their Ideology built upon Lies and Deception coupled with their customary Divisionary Tactics, this time employing & using current Demographics & Entitlement proxies to further their Political Agendas over a Republic they have been Marginalizing over multiple decades.
The blatant omission and deletion associated with Their Political Usurpation of this Republic over the last 150 years is this side of unbelievable!
So here’s a some little known facts that I would like to share with y’all because it serves to refute ‘Those Peoples’ ‘ Lies and is intended to Compare and Contrast several elements, particularly two men:
Generals Robert E. Lee & William T. Sherman.
During the 3-day Battle at Gettysburg, nearly 53,000 men on both sides were killed. This does NOT include the many maimed & wounded and represents the total loss of our Boys in VietNam over a ten years period.
53,000 men in 3-days.
And yet “Those People” in Washington, along with their revised & altered history, coupled with their bought & paid for Special Interest Groups would have you believe these men Died fighting over a single issue when more than 90% on each side had absolutely NO involvement whatsoever with the institution of slavery.
Equally, what has also been withheld from most, is that the slavery was NOT solely indigenous to the South, but Existed in the North as well.
Many Yankee-Marxist Bankers and Ship-Building magnates not only engaged in the purchase of slaves, but owned & sold them in the North as well.
I find the absence of this in Their ‘History’ books to be most remarkable.
A War to save the ‘Union’ is what the Country was told & sold in the North….. until 1863 when the ‘Emancipator’ issued what has become the Canonized Version for why the War was fought- his Emancipation Proclamation.
This ‘Proclamation’ nearly ended in revolt in the Union Army with MOST demanding Explanation for this ‘Proclamation’.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteA clear indictment of the modern-day LIE that the War was entirely fought over Slavery when it is clear that its stated Purpose was to ‘Save the Union’.
It was NEVER, EVER about slavery.
In fact several Union Regiments from Pennsylvania ended their fight immediately and laid down their weapons to never fight further.
This created an enormous problem for old abe because Pennsylvania was supplying many men and munitions for his War. These regiments received a variety of charges not the least of which were Dis-honorable dismissals that didn’t sit too well with the FOLKS in PA.
It wasn’t until 1904 that these Regiments were posthumously recognize with rank, service and war pensions returned by an ‘Act of Congress’.
Nevertheless, I digress but it is worth noting these things:
A) You should read this FLAWED document called the Emancipation Proclamation and read what it contains as it has been held up above your heads for over 157 years being used to extend a LIE that slavery was the ONLY Issue of this War.
B) Because of it, Lincoln freed the slaves NOT in the North but in the South- A Country to this day that still has NOT had its day in court with respect to Its Constitutional Right to secede, as was Guaranteed under the 10th Amendment, and a Country that Lincoln had NO legal justification in which to pass any mandate.
C) Rather, the intentions of his ‘proclamation’ were for purposes of tactical reasons.
D) He had hoped for a Slave Uprising in the South that would have forced our Confederate Military to withdraw troops from the front lines and return them home to put down abe’s hopeful uprising because and in fact, we were beating him up to this point.
E) The slave uprising never materialized and, in Fact, ‘went the other way’ with most slaves protecting their so-called ‘masters’ or mistresses as all men were off fighting.
F) Curious departure from that which YOU have been ‘educated’ to believe I’d say.
G) Additionally, YOU might want to read about the 1863 Draft Riots in New York City that his ‘proclamation’ did create. I think YOU will be surprised to see who was killing Blacks in New York City at the time AND the REASONS for this wherein the phrase ‘Rich Man’s War and Poor Man’s Fight’ arose from.
H) Did YOU know that $300.00 could buy YOU out of conscription?
I) The Irishmen coming from abroad found that out the hard way as they were Immediately conscripted into abe’s army.
J) Their argument was: How could YOU? We’re NOT your citizens to wit ole ‘abe’ had Congress pass a law stating that “Anyone coming to America “suggested their intentions to become citizens, and therefore gave Washington the right to DRAFT them even though they had yet to become citizens.”
Yeah, as YOU can see, Washington hasn’t changed much a lick since!
Bet Y’all didn’t know about ‘little things’ like this, did YOU?
Elements conveniently deleted from THEIR ‘History’ Books over the years. Gee, I wonder WHY. Are Y’all ‘Connecting the Dots’?
Now the Comparison and Contrast between a Gentleman General, Robert E. Lee and the War Criminal, General William T. Sherman.
K) During Gettysburg, what many do NOT consider beyond the Inordinate Death Toll of this amount of men, was the loss of Livestock, particularly horses which were in the multi, multi thousands.
L) These unfortunate animals were needed for Wagons of many types & for the many Cannons & Limbers along with the mounts required for the Cavalry.
M) The Confederate Military commandeered, as did the Union Military, these essential needs from the civilian populations.
N) On this one occasion in Gettysburg, a single horse was taken from a Woman by the Confederacy. It happened to be her sole horse she needed for plowing and planting as all other livestock has been earlier taken by the Union Army.
O) So, with hat in hand, she went to General Robert E. Lee where she was greeted and received by this extraordinary man.
Part 3 To END.....
ReplyDeleteShe essentially pleaded with him NOT to take her only horse and despite the need for it, General Lee instructed his men to escort her back to her home with horse in tow.
During a time in which there was such incredible blood-letting, General Robert E. Lee, a man of devout Christian Faith and Belief, found time to STOP and consider this woman’s plight and pleas.
I think that this is the side of REMARKABLE MAN AND CONFEDERATE & FAR FROM THAT CONTRAST WE CONFEDERATES HAVE BEEN PORTRAYED AS!
P) Now let us look at Sherman and compare Lincoln’s hero to General Lee:
1) Here is man who had serious mental problems ( a matter of record) wherein the War probably saved his ‘mind’ as it gave him a new reason for being and living;
2) Here is a man who is QUOTED as saying that “We need to eradicate EVERY man, woman and child of Southern descent & Heritage so we can wipe the slate clean!”;
3) That was yesterday’s speak for what we call GENOCIDE today!;
4) In his Total War Campaign across the South wherein NO Confederate Army stood in his WAY, he plundered, butchered, burnt and allowed his men to rape Southern women- ALL of whom were citizens who couldn’t fight back.
Q) A far cry from anything YOU have read in your ‘History’ books I would presume again?
R) So for that which he did that has remained unaccounted for to this very day, he was declared by the Yankee-Marxists in Lincoln’s cabinet a War Hero and accorded ALL the ‘honor’s’ that go with it.
I would describe this piece of human dong as a War Criminal but again, to the Victor goes the Spoils.
Now these are just SOME of the many things WE Confederates know YOU have NOT been told about.
So, in having said this, WHY do YOU suppose this Country is in the MESS it is today?
The 2-Party Duopoly of today is merely the offspring of both parties of long ago who have combined to alter YOUR Country by clouding, distorting and outright altering YOUR HISTORY allowing them province to Invade ALL other aspects of this Republic’s being.
“The TRUE American History of the Past is but a Reflection of Our Future.
If the Moral Compass of that Past is in any way subjected to Political Alteration, it will tear at the very fiber of our Republic’s Foundation,
until such time when ANY Originality to its formation will be made Invisible resulting from the dereliction created by an Altered Government.”
“ The Eloquence of Common Sense should NOT be over-ridden by another’s self-proclaimed ‘intellect’ that allows them the sole Province of Decision.”
c. maus
When the Confederation of the Republic Lost, so TOO did TWO Countries- but Only WE Confederates knew it at the time….and still do!
WE MUST SEPARATE.
Craig Maus,
President, The Confederate Society of America
www.deovindice.org
Will Y’all Join Us Now?
...END...
Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur
Goof material, Michael, and much appreciated..
ReplyDeleteWow and I thought the Tornado that went through central Illinois the other day was a big wind.
ReplyDeleteAll you have done in these post Michael is made a fool of yourself and proved without a shadow of doubt that you 1. do not have a grasp of the historiography of the war 2. an understanding of the writings of the secessionist 3. any understanding of me and my beliefs or political views.
I just keep laughing.
"Wow and I thought the Tornado that went through central Illinois the other day was a big wind."
ReplyDeleteWhat else can you do? You can't do anything other than laugh it off because to say anything else of substance would only incriminate you.
Your lame excuses concerning the 3 points shows how little you are now regulated into defending yourself and attacking me. What I know of history, secessionists or your political viewpoints is not related to the philosophy and faith you hold within yourself. You still fail to accept that what you write belies you.
I really don't care what politics you claim. Nor do I care what you believe about my knowledge. That is irrelevant to the claims you make concerning yourself, which you cannot and will not prove. And that is besides the point concerning claims I point out, which you espouse.
The question really is; what type of Marxist you really are? Are you; Leninist, Trotskyist, Maoist, Revolutionary Marxist, Social Anarchism, Fabian Marxist, Pure Marxist, Utopian Socialist, Stalinist, Council Communist/Socialist, Reform Socialist, Fascist (Yes, Fascism is a form of Marxism.), and there are dozens more variants. Or maybe just a plain ole Democrat or Republican Socialist? The point is, you are anything but pro capitalist and or Constitutionalist. You have your choice and anything condemns you, showing you are not what you openly claim. Keep on laughing, as it is all you can do in your defense.
Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur
Say goodnight Michael...
ReplyDeleteCorey Meyer said...
ReplyDelete"Say goodnight Michael..."
As I reflect on what a short vilifying comment you made, it still only proves my contentions against you.
I think back to your latest hateful and spiteful attacks on Ms Connie concerning "The Merger", and how you and RoboCop make a mountain out of nothing concerning, what you claim is, Photoshopping a picture. And I think of how you claim you don't hate, which is a lie in itself.
Corey Darling, you hate and you hate *passionately*. That is why you go to so much trouble attacking and vilifying anyone who you disagree with. Only an obsessed fool would make a case concerning Photoshopping a caption. But OTOH this is nothing new for you, Bwooks and your minions, you do such continuously concerning anything you can ridicule and vilify regardless to merits or individual choice. The real you do this is because, as I said before, you're a socialist and Marxist. You are *committed* on creating a *homogenized* society with NO diversity and NO freedom of choice in letting people be themselves.
This is nothing more than a act of tyranny on personal level and it shows your deeper principles and beliefs, if you could practice them on a larger scale. But it also shows your hatred for what you despise, you going to such great lengths attacking others and their personal viewpoints, including how they wish to live their life. It shows your *intolerance* for others that will not follow and accept whatever you say, and because they won't you *HATE* what they stand for and what they are.
There is no doubt in my mind, that if you had your way you would make it a crime to oppose the system concerning what to believe and how one must act in accordance with what they are told, even in their thoughts. Corey Darling, this has Marxism wrote all over it and you're a big supporter of those reforms. That is the reason I can easily say you are my enemy and I have NO respect for you. You are not just my enemy but an enemy to everyone who simply desires to live and let live. I sincerely believe that if God Himself told you something and you disagreed, you would be among the first to condemn God for Him claiming something you disagree with. (Not that you actually believe in such a Higher Power, but rather I'm showing you will never consider the thoughts of others and accept them if it goes against your wishes and desires.)
Yet, as ignorant and as bad as you are, there are others who are much worse. Bwooks and McPherson for example, they know much of what this entails, the real motivating factors behind what they say and claim than you do. It is also why people like Bwooks will not tolerate dissenting comments to any extent. He simply does not wish to explain his deeper thoughts and beliefs. Fore he knows that anyone challenging his comments to such an extent will eventually challenge him on his principles and beliefs, and from where they originate. Do you remember my essay, "Collectivism by Force"? You name is all over it, just as much as Bwook's name actually appears in it. Let's post it again for your convenience; shall we?
Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur
Collectivism by Force --PART 1
ReplyDeleteCollectivism by Force, The Mindset of Liberals in Relation to the Federal Government --The Stage Setup
To those who have ridiculed and vilified me on Missouri 10th because of my article against Brooks Simpson. I have a special article for you. While you will disagree and attack me over my latest article, that is alright. There will be many other people who will understand it perfectly, even guests passing through, curious as to what all the fuss is over.
Most all people miss the deeper understanding of the liberal mindset, such as that of the past and present Yankees. Oh, I understand the liberal mindset perfectly and I know all the reasons they deny the truth that others so obviously see. But for me to tell you those reasons, or anyone, you have to believe and or accept some other concepts regarding man.
One of those concepts is evil and sin. Of course full-fledged Marxists don’t believe in sin or evil as defined by Biblical standards. To not accept this difference automatically puts one in contempt of most everything John Locke ever wrote, which includes the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution itself. This also includes many other philosophers that one would also be in opposition too, including Aristotle, Cato as well as Hume.
Another concept is the duality of man. And finally one has to accept the fallibility of man. These are the main differences distinguishing liberals from anyone else. (The religion and philosophy of Islam does not count as it is so radically different. Western philosophy and ideology cannot be applied to it in any way, which is why Islam and Muslims cannot and will not mix well with most Americans.)
Man has a dual nature, and that nature can be accounted for by God or indirectly by the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. Man can be classified into two distinct categories: Good and evil, right and wrong, givers and takers, moral and immoral, righteous and self-righteous, reasonable and unreasonable, heroes and cowards, unselfish and selfish, meek and arrogant, and most any other opposing concepts. Sin is the result of evil. Evil is the thoughts all humans carry within them that contradicts good. Simply stated, if it’s not good, then it’s evil. Sin is evil stressed or shown by the physical results. To deny good by actions, even by words is sin.
In man’s sub-conscience there is a will, a philosophy so-to-speak, that identifies him as a person, a distinct individual. We normally only see a small part of man’s will as many factors precludes and limits him from showing his true being, but each person does in fact show bits and pieces of his innermost self, and we witness this by his actions and comments as well as how he personally upholds himself.
No man can reason with evil, we can only try and reason with the sin or at least confront it and limit it. Man still retains his thoughts of evil and the thought of evil denies the truth. Fore if this was not true than you could reason with anyone and they would accept the facts they could not disprove, or at least acknowledge them as being valid. Humanists in general are a good example of people who cannot be reasoned with. Yet on certain topics they seem to be most reasonable. The reason for this is, if a humanist is open to reason on a certain topic, it merely means the topic was favorable to him from the beginning, which means it is more of a matter of degree of the evil or sin being discussed than it is the morality or right or wrong of the topic.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteLiberals cannot see, understand, or much less accept the facts of most conservative viewpoints and concepts because it is contrary, somewhere, in their sub-conscience, concerning their philosophy and acceptance of life. It matters NOT to the amount of facts presented or the logic involved, if a person wants and believes in something deeply enough, he will NOT change his opinion. In holding such a dogmatic view, what I would call a non-factual, non-basis dogmatic view of life, that person has to have deeper underlying motives that are based upon evil. Greed, selfishness, arrogance, power, money, self-righteousness, lust, you name it. If it’s a wrong, immoral or bad concept, its’ basis lies in evil and we see it as the denial of the truth.
So the question becomes: How can a person change these concepts in another in order they may see the truth and logically submit to it? You can’t, and no amount of arguing is going to change this. It’s simply because of the nature of that person and what lies within them.
I am referring to my critics and opponents as well as anyone who supports the Federal Government over the Sovereignty of States. They can’t see themselves in the article above, but yet there they are supporting the collective over the individual rights. Self-Determination becomes a collective principle. It’s easier to think of these people as “takers” and “self-righteous”, as they claim with their self-righteousness the collective rights to take at will by a common vote, anyone who produces anything. They claim the Federal Government as the highest authority because as a collective the Federal Government can take and redistribute your wealth at will by a simple vote. And this is the same thing Lincoln done in 1861 in order that the Federal Government survive its’ crisis. They looted the wealth of another country by force in order to keep their government afloat. Only difference was, Lincoln done this without any vote.
Today the results of this are clear. There is no doubt that Lincoln changed the fundamental basis of interpreting the US Constitution and what relationship the states played in relation to the Federal Government. He set the precedents for a collective society to emerge which eventually would completely negate all aspects of the US Constitution and all principles that pertained to the original Republic, replacing it with a Democracy that would allow the takers to vote themselves all the largess of the government, and to the point of bankruptcy.
Now you attack me, the Missouri 10th and every other pro Sovereignty based organization in order that you can keep on taking what is not yours. You want it all, even if it means genocide against all those that oppose you. Nor do I mean oppose you by force but rather opposing you by simply wanting separate from you peacefully while taking what is duly ours. It never registers with you that you can survive just as well with half the land area that we both now have. That is because you are the takers wanting it all for yourselves just as you took from us app 150 years ago. It is easy to see where you fit into place from my reference concerning man’s dual nature, from the top of the article. You and your kind are takers, evil, wrong, immoral, self-righteous, unreasonable, cowards, selfish, arrogant and any other negative concept that one can add. Oddly even most liberals don't see the connection that they are following the humanistic teachings of Marxism. But would they care, regardless to it being Marxist? NOPE, because they "want" too badly to care about what it is called!
Collectivism by Force -- Attack from Simpson and Response --PART 3
ReplyDeleteIn addressing Simpson’s post concerning me at his blog, which can be found here:
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/it-takes-all-kinds/#comments
Simpson has went one bridge too far. This continual perversion of random thoughts, all the while trying to belittle and poke fun at anyone who doesn’t match “his” intelligence is quiet pitiful. We have a person who claims so many titles of merit, yet cannot get his ego under control, with so much vileness, arrogance and disgust showing in his attacks on so many people and groups.
What is it that drives a man insane because of a war and the country that lost that war 150 years ago? It is said that a definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Does Simpson expect the decedents of those conquered people to roll over and kiss his feet when he antagonizes, belittles and ridicules them? Does he have a secret desire to be worshiped as a conquering king, that his word is law? He can’t say in fairness that he corrects both sides and is fair to
both sides, because the numbers of his articles and posts does not bear this out. Why is it that it is only one type of people, from one part of the country? Maybe it is time to look at Simpson’s bigotry and prejudice for a change? I wonder what skeletons will be found in his closet when the door is opened?
Is Simpson’s mockery and hostility towards pro-Southern groups and individuals a form of flattery? Or is it his signs of deepest discontent and disgust with anything identified as pro-Southern? Regardless to the answer it is made clear that he carries much bigotry and prejudice. BOTH terms aptly and justly applies, and can be made to stick.
Now Simpson’s latest gaffe is another mockery of another pro-Southerner, me! Simpson has a proven history of picking out what he considers weak statements which he assumes would be hard for the author to defend. Most times he picks simple mistakes such as names, dates and places and uses such mistakes to disqualify the author from having any merits or credibility relating to the entire subject of pro-Southern history, heritage and culture. Yet it is Simpson who has the log in his eye and is also subject to mistakes. Mistakes much worse than from those people he singles out. Yet sadly, he gets away with this every day. It’s time to come clean Simpson! It’s time to show off that log in your eye!
So Simpson, you “cheery pick” quotes from me in my article at Missouri 10th in order to disqualify and vilify me? You’ll have to do much better than what you’ve shown so far against me, as you’re only boxing yourself in a corner that you cannot get out of!
You didn’t comment on my 1st paragraph. Why did you pull that 2nd debate from your Crossroads blog?
Does your mind need refreshing concerning that 2nd exchange/debate? And why should I or anyone allow their children to be taught by Marxists and revisionists such as you? Yes I can most definitely make the term “Marxist” apply and stick to you, and John Lucas has NOTHING to do with that!
And Simpson pretends he doesn’t know he is a Marxist? Better stated according to Simpson’s own response is, he doesn’t have the knowledge to understand his own Marxist philosophy and ideology. A person cannot grasp the concepts of history regardless to the simple facts concerning dates, names and places unless they also know and understand the philosophy used in forming and applying concepts as a basis of Political Science. Simpson proves he can remember simplistic dates, names, places, documents…etc.., but he fails miserably in relating all these things in the study of Political Science.
PART 4
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginnings of written history there has been a plethora of writings concerning government and the body politics. Even the Christian Scriptures references governments and the relationship to a moral society. There are many hundreds of philosophers to draw information from throughout history in helping understand and in forming opinions as to how politics and government best serves the people. For the sake of simplicity I’m going to use mainly two philosophers, John Locke and Karl Marx, both representing the culmination of their respective philosophies and ideologies. (Note to the reader: I refer to both philosophy and ideology as both are related. Philosophy being the faith and understanding one holds while ideology is the practice of it. It’s very similar to faith and religion, with religion being the practice of one’s faith.)
Simpson asks; “I’d love to know what makes me a Marxist. Heck, it would be interesting to see whether Mike Lamb understands what it means to be a Marxist.” I don’t need anyone telling me what a Marxist is, nor do you unless you are really that ignorant. Yet there you are playing naïve and ignorant, asking the question. Which is it; Are you actually ignorant? Or are you being coy and pretending to be ignorant? You’ve read John Locke just as I have. How much is another question? And how much you agree with John Locke is another question? You’ve also read Karl Marx and Engels just as I have. Again how much I don’t know. But it is obvious that you agree with much of his writings because your ideology concerning revisionist history and political science agrees with much of Marx’s and Engel’s writings.
Therefore it becomes a moot point in me explaining to you what Marxism entails, as you already know what it entails. If you don’t know what Marxism entails, then all the more reason you don’t qualify for the position you now claim.
Let’s cut the chase Simpson; Why don’t you just tell us how many planks of the Communist Manifesto you agree, in part or in full? While that is only a small scratch of the surface concerning Marxism, it goes far in defining what a person believes in their other opinions concerning political science, religions including humanism and Christianity as well all their beliefs concerning life. If you disagree and deny any claims to the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto, then we can ascertain what you believe concerning John Locke, Natural Law and self-determination. But then again I already know you don’t believe in self-determination as the free will of man, but rather as the “collective” form of man, once again drawing upon Marx as a collective. Of which we also already know, you think there is nothing wrong with Marxism!
Of course I don’t know what I’m talking about according to Simpson and his minions. No Southerner knows anything compared to any Yankee and that’s a point that has been pushed down all of America’s throats for the past 150 years. It’s another form of control over your enemies. There is nothing I can say short of agreeing with Simpson on practically everything he says that would change his opinion of me, and then I’d have reservations on that opinion simply because I’m a Southerner. (Spouses don’t count!)
I don’t claim any special privileges by government education. Yet all that I can be attacked with is by insults, ad homineum style. I find it a shame and pity that a man making such claims of educational knowledge as Simpson cannot handle himself any better that what he has shown against me and other Southerners who have never benefited from the “higher” education he has been privileged to receive.
PART 5 to END
ReplyDeleteSadder still is the fact he uses his claimed talents to teach and train other young adults to be good socialists just like him. In return Simpson receives a university salary, speaking fees for speaking around the world, promotional fees and most likely other revenue from activities we know nothing about, and people calls this patriotism. People don’t know real patriotism because people such as Simpson have been teaching their version of what is patriotism, and not what patriotism really is! All because the world has one group of people that wishes to control and force their views onto everyone else while forcing those people to pay for it. It is nothing short of forced slavery by mob rule through a tyrannical Federal Government.
Michael—Deo Vindicabamur
PS Corey Darling, this also has your name all over it, although I won't go so far as giving you as much credit as Bwooks, because for one reason, I seriously doubt that you've read anything concerning Marx and Engels, except maybe some quick references and articles by others on Marx and Engels. Well, you also have no where near the hours of reading time as does Bwooks. He's had a lifetime to learn the finer aspects of Marxism, and how to pull the wool over the sheep's eyes, as well as learning to terminate anyone who is able to challenge his real motives.