Put Your Heart In.... | home
Commentary of the Week | Headlines From Around the CSA | NO VOTES FOR TURNCOATS! | Counter-Boycott | Has History Been Rewritten? | Secession yesterday and today | Secession Yesterday and Today pg. 2 | Secession Supplement | From: The Southron Nation Website | Did You Also Know? | Opinions That Matter pg. 1 | Opinions That Matter pg. 2 | Photo Commentaries | Family Events Photo Album | How The SC Scalawags voted | Favorite Links | Contact Us
Has History Been Rewritten?
By A.J. Rock
___________
![]()
___________
OnLine Edition
Virgil H. Huston, Jr.: Editorial: We are a nation at war
We are a nation. It is time we start acting like one. We have specific national origins that differ from those of the north. We have a unique culture, despite the widespread attempts to force us into the mainstream liberal vision of what an ‘American’ is. That widespread vision, by the way, does not include anything even remotely resembling Southern.
Our nation is under what is now a very open attack. Up until quite recently, the war was what a military strategist might call low intensity conflict. It was hard to see. Now, it is clear to anyone. Now there is a clear battlefield and our enemy is moving in the open. We can no longer afford to be nice. We must fight back.
That means many things. Those of you who have never flown a Confederate Flag because it might offend your neighbors must realize that this is the least you can do. And I don’t mean the First National, which no one knows. It must be a recognizable flag because you are making a statement. You are firing a shot in this war. Use the Battle Flag, square or rectangular, or the only national flag that still counts, the Third National.
We must put our symbols everywhere. If the enemy doesn’t like one flag, put ten in their face. If they don’t like our monuments, make the monuments more visible. This is war, folks. It’s time we start acting like it.
_______________
Journal: FOSTERING DEPENDENCY: Democrats no friend to blacks Palo Alto, Calif.
(Democrats) "If we keep 'em dumb, then they won't know any better than to vote for us...he, he, he".
_________
![]() WE'RE CREATING HISTORICAL ILLITERATES
Copyright © 2000
by Ray Thomas
Posted 06.07.00
HISTORY'S MISTAKES
"Those who cannot remember the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them." I can't even remember who said that, because I was not any great shakes as a history student --- and that was back when they were still teaching history.
A MOST PROFOUND QUOTE
But the quote has stayed with me all these years because I've seen few quotes that are more profound, and because the looters in our government are both aware of the meaning of the quote and are working feverishly to use it to their advantage.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS
That's one of the reasons for the dumbing down of our students. The looters figure (and rightly so) that if the students never learn the lessons of history, they will not have the knowledge required to put a stop to what they (the looters) are doing. So they continue to promote programs that guarantee historical ignorance.
THE IGNORANCE LEAVES YOU BREATHLESS
So today, the abysmal ignorance about history leaves you breathless. David McCullough, the renowned historian and author of Truman, once asked a group of honors history majors at a prominent college in New England who George Marshall was. Now General George Marshall was the author of the famed Marshall Plan that helped rebuild Europe after World War II. This man was a seminal figure in history [Even I, as a miserable history student, know that. -RT]. Only one of these honors students in history had any idea who he was --- and that one wasn't sure. I recently mentioned the word "Gestapo" to a man who had discussed things with me quite a lot recently, and he asked: "What is Gestapo?" I almost had a stroke.
IS HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE EVEN IMPORTANT?
The looters make sure that our educational bureaucrats are spending most of their time arguing over whether or not it is even important to know about history! One only has to refer to the quote above to answer that question --- but our nation's best minds are arguing about it!
MAJORITY HISTORICALLY ILLITERATE
So today, the Department of Education conducts a nationwide test and finds that a majority of 12th graders --- 57% --- did not even have a basic understanding of American history. From this he deduces: We are raising a generation of Americans who are historically illiterate. And right on schedule for the socialist looters. The less we know, the less we can do anything to put a stop to their cons and scams.
THE SELF-ESTEEM SCAM
What is the scam that has accomplished this? It's Self-esteem. They're constantly lowering the bar in schools because they say we don't want to bruise a student's fragile ego by marking him/her wrong or holding him /her back. If it's too tough for the student to get, make it easier. If he can't get it at all, no matter how easy you make it, pass him/her anyway.
FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE GRADUATES
The fact that he or she graduates as a functional illiterate doesn't seem to bother them at all. The less he/she knows, the more they (the looters) can get away with. So now they're teaching them such things as conflict resolution, world cultures (preparing them for world government), psychology, and values clarification (whatever that is), instead of real history.
CONDITIONING
That's what it is, in a nutshell. Conditioning to believe that to steal from the producer and give to the non-producer (that's what forced altruism and socialism really is) is what's right. To convince them that they should not only not fight what the looters are doing, but should join in and wholeheartedly work to accomplish it.
TEACHERS DON'T KNOW
Since teachers today are the product of such schools, they themselves don't even have a firm understanding of what they are teaching! Today, the teaching of history has reached the point where people who want to be sports coaches become history teachers because they believe that anybody can teach history who can read the textbook.
HONOR STUDENT? REALLY?
So when I see those bumper stickers touting the fact that "MY CHILD IS AN HONOR STUDENT AT...", I just don't believe that's important any more. They've made being an honor student unimportant by reducing the qualifications to the point where anybody can do it. I've even seen an honest bumper sticker by a school that said: "ALL OUR CHILDREN ARE HONOR STUDENTS." If anybody can do it, why bother? If you can be an honor student without working at it, why work at it? Why bother to learn?
Cuttin' Thru the Bull
A Weekly Column
A Nevada Corporation
by Ray Thomas
Previous Columns:
Something Rotten in Massachusetts
May 30, 2000
Definitions of a Dictatorship
May 26, 2000
The "Evita Factor"
May 18, 2000
The Basic Con
May 10, 2000
Jack-Booted Thugs
May 01, 2000
Bottom Line: Power
April 24, 2000
Conditioning the Children
April 18, 2000
Not Guns: Self-Defense
April 14, 2000
Killer Cops
April 7, 2000
No Accountability
April 03, 2000
Race Baiting
March 25, 2000
Free The Children!
March 13, 2000
Drop in & Yak for a Few
Publishing &
Communication Associates
A Subsidiary of
J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc.
1970 N. Leslie Suite 204
Pahrump, NV 89041
Office: 775.727.06
Fax: 413.581.5806
Articles & Editorials:
We receive numerous requests to forward Sierra Times articles and editorials to other news outlets, or to publish them on websites.
Permission granted, with the as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL.
www.SierraTimes.com
All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are
© 2000 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
-----------------------------
Believing The Propaganda
Henrietta Bowman - Posted: 08.22.00
"Before the Civil War, the Democratic Party championed chattel slavery and southern authoritarian slavocracies. Democratic southern state governments would attempt to hinder the free market as a means of preserving the authoritarian plantation system. Many southern states succeeded from the Union to preserve this barbarous institution and an agrarian-feudal way of life. This stood in sharp contrast to the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, which stood for free market Capitalism, the Constitution, and abolition of slavery."
Evidently, Chuck Morse soaked up too much of the propaganda that passes for education in today's government schools. One of my pet peeves is to hear "the party of Lincoln" phrase
.
Lincoln was a Whig until the death of Henry Clay and the demise of the Whig Party. Lincoln's policies were those of his mentor, Clay and were the true cause of the war. Lincoln personally didn't care about freeing the slaves as he considered blacks an inferior race.
Whigs turned Republicans were protectionists in favor of high tariffs
beneficial to the north and crippling to the south, while the southern states were pro-free trade.
In the new March issue of The Ludwig Von Mises Institute's "The Free Market", pp. 7-8, ["Henry Clay: National Socialist"] Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo (economics teacher at Loyola College), explains how Lincoln fully implemented Henry Clay's "American System" of promoting mercantilism, corporate subsidies, protectionism with high tariffs, inflationary finance through central banking, and other centralized government measures.
Henry Clay has now been touted by those conservatives at the "Weekly Standard" as their first political icon. "Clay was a 'corrupt statist' who upon first entering Congress in 1811 he helped persuade the government to attempt to conquer Canada, which it tried to do three times. He waged a thirty-year battle with James Madison, John C. Calhoun, Andrew Jackson, and other defenders of the Constitution over federally funded corporate welfare... He used his power as Speaker of the House in the early 1820s to push through the first protectionist trade bill in U.S. history."
As Dr. DiLorenzo writes: "Lincoln was the first Republican president and considered himself the political heir to Clay, whom Lincoln eulogized in 1852 as 'the beau ideal of a statesman' and the 'great parent of Whig Principles'. 'During my whole political life', Lincoln stated, 'I have loved and revered [Clay] as a teacher and leader'."
" 'From the moment Lincoln first entered political life', writes Lincoln
biographer Robert W. Johannsen, 'he had demonstrated an unswerving fidelity to the party of Henry Clay and to Clay's American System, the program of internal improvements [i.e., corporate welfare for railroad and steamship businesses], protective tariffs, and centralized banking."
"Henry Clay died in 1852 without seeing his 'American System' put fully into place. But the man who eulogized him at his Washington, DC, funeral service, Abraham Lincoln, implemented it fully during his administration."
"The National Currency Act of 1862 established central banking and fiat currency; massive subsidies were given to railroads, the steamship industry, and hundreds of other rent-seeking businesses; tariffs were increased threefold and remained high for decades; an internal revenue bureaucracy was created; and the federal government was massively centralized."
DiLorenzo also writes at http://www.libertyhaven.com/thinkers/georgewythe/traderise.shtml
There has always been a collection of men in America who wanted to bring the British mercantilist system here precisely because it was so destructive of freedom. They figured to be the commanders of the system and its chief beneficiaries. As John Taylor of Caroline observed, these men "included Hamilton and the Federalists and later, the politicians of the Era of Good Feelings in the 1820s who eventually became Whigs."22 These men "sought to bring the British system to America, along with its national debt, political corruption, and Court party."23
Taylor, a noted Anti-Federalist, was a lifelong critic of mercantilism, who laid out his criticisms in his 1822 book, Tyranny Unmasked. Like Bastiat, Taylor saw protectionism as an assault on private property that was diametrically opposed to the freedom the American revolutionaries had fought and died for. Taylor sought to "unmask" the tyranny of the fables and lies that the mercantilists had devised to promote their system of plunder. If one looked at England's mercantilist policies, Taylor wrote, "No equal mode of enriching the party of government, and impoverishing the party of people, has
ever been discovered."24 He wrote of the "indissoluble conexions" between both "the freedom of industry and national prosperity" and also "between national distress and protecting duties, bounties, exclusive privileges, and heavy taxation."25 The former produces national happiness, whereas the latter produces national misery, according to Taylor. In pointing out the folly of economic autarky (self-sufficiency) he asked:
Will Alabama want nothing but cotton, should that State select this species of labour for its staple? Can she eat, drink, and ride her cotton? Can she manufacture it into tools, cheese, fish, nun [sic], wine, sugar, and tea?
.... Is not Georgia a market for manufacturers, and Rhode-Island a market for cotton, in consequence of the division of labor?26
Many of Taylor's arguments were adopted and expanded on by the South Carolinian statesman John C. Calhoun during the struggle over the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which a South Carolina political convention voted to nullify. The confrontation between that state, which was very heavily dependent on imports, as was most of the South, and the federal government over the Tariff of Abominations almost led to the state's secession some 30 years before the War Between the States. The federal government backed down
and reduced the tariff rate in 1833.
The northern manufacturers who wanted to impose British-style mercantilism on the country did not give up, however; they formed the American Whig party, which advocated three mercantilist schemes: protectionism, corporate welfare, and a central bank to pay for it all. From 1832 until 1852 the Whigs, led by Henry Clay and later by Abraham Lincoln, fought mightily in the political arena to bring seventeenth-century mercantilism to America.27
The party died in 1852, but the Whigs simply began calling themselves Republicans. The tariff was the centerpiece of the Republican party platform of 1860, as it had been when the same collection of northern economic interests called itself "Whigs" during the previous 30 years.
By 1857 the level of tariffs had been reduced to the lowest level since 1815, according to Frank Taussig in his classic Tariff History of the United States.28 But when the Republicans controlled the White House and the southern Democrats left the Congress, the Republicans, as former Whigs, did what they had been itching to do for decades: go on a protectionist frenzy.
In his first inaugural address Lincoln stated that he had no intention to
disturb slavery in the southern states and even if he did, there would be no constitutional basis for doing so. But he promised a military invasion if tariff revenues were not collected. Unlike Andrew Jackson, he would not back down from the South Carolinian tariff nullifiers.
By 1862 the average tariff rate had crept up to 47.06 percent, the highest level ever to that point, even higher than the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. These high rates lasted for decades after the war.
Many of the newspapers that supported the Republican party openly called for a military invasion of southern ports to keep the South from adopting free trade, which was written into the Confederate Constitution of 1861. On March 12, 1861, for example, the New York Post advocated that the U.S. Navy "abolish all ports of entry" in the South.29 On April 2, 1861, the Newark Daily Advertiser in New Jersey warned ominously that southerners had "apparently taken to their bosoms the liberal and popular doctrine of free trade" and that free trade "must operate to the serious disadvantage of the North" as "commerce will be largely diverted to Southern cities." The "chief
instigator" of "the present troubles," South Carolina, has all along been "preparing the way for the adoption of free trade" and must be stopped by "the closing of the ports" by military force.30
As mentioned above, by 1860 England itself had moved to complete free trade; France sharply reduced her tariff rates in that very year; and the free-trade movement started by Bastiat was spreading throughout Europe. Only the northern United States was clinging steadfastly to seventeenth-century mercantilism.
After the war the northern manufacturing interests who financed and
controlled the Republican party "ushered in a long period of high tariffs.
With the tariff of 1897, protection reached an average level of 57
percent."31 This political plunder continued for about 50 years after the war, at which time international competition forced tariff rates down moderately. By 1913 the average tariff rate in the United States had declined to 29 percent.
---------
ABE LINCOLN QUOTES
Abe Lincoln:
In order to coalesce the forces in the North, Lincoln had to stage an
incident to inflame the populace, which he did. The firing on Sumter was by his own admission a setup for just such action. Lincoln was aware that provisioning Sumter could provoke a war.
Abraham Lincoln said the following on September 18, 1858 in a speech in Charleston, Illinois:
about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the
white race." Abe Lincoln
To Horace Greeley
compromise delegation, March 1861
.
justification except as a war measure."
Letter to Sec. of Treas. Salmon P. Chase; 3 Sep 1863
Under Lincoln's definition silence became an act of treason.
'ands' he cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by imprisonment or death) this man will actively commit treason. Arbitrary arrests are not made for the treason defined in the Constitution, but to prevent treason."
blacks to move to Illinois. The Illinois state constitution, adopted in
1848, called for laws to "effectually prohibit free persons of color from
immigrating to and settling in this state."
race among us there could not be a war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another."
slaves, and send them to Liberia - to their own native land." In 1860,
Lincoln called for the "emancipation and deportation" of slaves.
In short, Licoln was a racist not overly concerned with Constitutional
authority. He had more in common with today's tax and spend crowd.
-----------------------------
![]() J.J. Johnson
Sierra Times.com
The Confederate Flag: Should We get rid of it?
By J.J. Johnson - SierraTimes.com Editor-n-Chief
Okay, so what’s wrong with me? In celebration of slain Civil Rights Leader Martin Luther King’s day (week?) if I watch enough news, I should be out there with my black brethren yelling, screaming and looking to burn every free waving Southern Cross I run across. So what’s wrong? Shouldn’t I be offended as well?
In a way, yes. I am. And here’s why:
I had ancestors who fought on both sides of that war – which was anything but civil.
Surprised?
Yes, in Northern Mississippi in fact. Cousin against cousin. One man trying to protect what was his, and one who escaped slavery only to be drafted into taking his cousin’s land away. This little fact, along with all the arguments about Southern Heritage, Southern Pride and Remembering the Gentlemen who in died war gets lost in all the noise about why it’s so
“insensitive.”
…And I am just fed up with it.
More than that, I’m fed up with the yellow-bellied, white guys who don’t have the guts to fight back on the issue. I know, no one wants to get labeled the “R” word. To politicians, it’s a label that’s worse than being called a liar, an adultorer or a draft dodger. And heaven knows, you white guys in the public sector better not even bring it up at work or in public. There’s a civil rights lawsuit with your name on it. Yet, I know how many of you – especially you folks south of the Mason-Dixon line must feel right now.
Wanna fight back?
Hold my coat for a minute…
Where were these protests against OUR Confederate battle flag for the last 135 years? Why are these black people allowing themselves to be manipulated by the media and their left-wing, so-called "black leadership?" Whenever I hear a black person talk about this flag issue, I ask them the same questions. Do you know how long that flag has been flying over those state
capitals? Haven’t you seen them there before? The answer from most blacks I talk to out west is, “who cares?”
Not good enough for the National Association for the Advancement of Career Politicians (NAACP). Not good enough for these modern-day “Plantation Pimps” who can’t find any other juvenile criminals to fight for so now they retaliate by “dissing” a great hunk of American culture. This is ONLY being done to pander to black voters this political season. You see, back in 1992, folks just decided to burn down Los Angeles while liberal politicians mailed
gasoline to the rioters. This time, let’s burn down a heritage instead.
I hope some black person is reading this right now and fuming. You should be. If you think the Confederate flag is insulting to you, you are being used, or as we say it in the hood, you bein’ played – for a fool. By who? Not by those evil conservatives, but by the liberal white man. The ones who’ ll take your votes, then tell you you’re not good enough to make it on your own.
But there is no sense giving you the same argument many of the Southern Ladies and Gentleman are trying to give now. You don’t want to hear them, anyway.
Let’s talk about “insensitivity,” shall we?
If you don’t mind, some of us with southern roots are going to find every Vietnamese American citizen in this country, bus them to Washington, D.C. and protest to have the Vietnam Memorial removed from the park. Why stop there? On the way to Washington, we might as well grab every citizen with German or Japanese ancestors. With enough noise, we can get rid of that World War II Memorial, too. After all, These people all had relatives who were killed by the men and women America honors at those Memorials. You liberal, nothing-else-better-to-do black folks wouldn’t mind, would you?
Yes. Let that sink in real good. That’s what you’re doing to these good people of the South. You are DESECRATING THEIR MEMORIAL… Check that – Our Memorial.
What ever happened to Diversity? Tolerance? Must be a one sided thing.
Don’t give me that “Symbol of Slavery” bull****. If that were the case, turn in all those 1, 20, 50, and 100 dollar bills. The faces on these bills were men who were leaders when many blacks were slaves. But let’s get down and dirty, shall we?
The worst riot in American history was not in Los Angeles. It was in New York, back in 1863. You see, there were a bunch of people who, like during Vietnam, didn’t want be conscripted (read: drafted) to serve in an unjust war. Talk to your President about that. Over 1200 people died in just two days. Most when President Lincoln sent federal troops in to put down the
“rebellion.” Oh, by the way, 83 blacks were lynched in those two days – right there in The Big Apple. So, which flag do you really want taken down?
But since we’re all told to boycott, will those leftist, black elected leaders in South Carolina boycott the Statehouse while its in session? I doubt it. Will they avoid buying goods in their own state? Doubt it. Our forefathers who wrote the Constitution gave all of us a way to deal with a state’s policies we didn’t like. That’s what the South was fighting for. It was not about slavery. If that were the case, we’d be bombing China right now, and we would not accept license plates made with prison labor right here in the good ol’ USA.
Oh…What’s the black population percentage in prison these days, anyway?
The multicultural extremists can’t call me racist, but in the black socialist community, they have even uglier words for people who refuse to live on that “plantation,” such as me. Just ask Clarence Thomas.
So let that flag wave proudly as a monument to the last Army in this country that actually fought for the Constitution. I am proud to have ancestors who fought with them. And for those people who don’t want their state to fly the Southern Cross, here a solution that’s much easier that protesting…
…leave.
There’s a term for it. Its called “white flight.”
J.J. Johnson – Proud Black American
And Editor-n-Chief
Back to Top
|
|||||||||