Liberty & Tyranny

[leVieux]

Just finished Mark Levin's book, "Liberty & Tyranny"; what an excellent analysis of how F/U'd the liberals have the USA.

We must be more active in insisting that our government follow our Constitution and in deprogramming our children and grandchildren from all the B.S. fed them in our schools.

Daddy was an American intelligence officer in WW-II and frequently told stories of how evil FDR & Eleanor were. FDR is the lib's darling.

Also have been doing some reading on the political situation and causes leading up to our "Civil War" or War of Northern Aggression. Seems that a lot of our current problems have been with us for 100 or 150 years or more. It is eerie how similar our current situation is to the South in the late 1850's.

Obama is certainly out to destroy the USA. We MUST stop him. Reasonable democrats are bailing left & right; rats leaving the sinking ship of BHO.

This is not an one-issue deal, either. The liberal "statists" are out to destroy all personal freedoms; guns are just their starting point. They will destroy religion, self-reliance, The Bill of Rights, and everything that our America stands for.

We have no time to waste in our defense of our Country and our Constitution.

leVieux

Comments?

 

[SpeedRacer]

I agree with alot of the things Mr. Levin says, but damn that guy annoys the **** out of me.

 

[XD-GEM]

I've been meaning to read this one. Thanks for the recommendation.

Now, how do we get the rest of the country to come to their senses?

 

[CEHollier]

I'm going to have to get the book. I have been saying it for a while. Bad behavior is rewarded and good behavior is punished. If we go back to the founding fathers origional blueprint the fed will shring dramatically in size and power. I hope the election of BHO woke many Americans up. Their logic defies common sense.

 

[JustinB]

Book is as dry as a bucket of sand but its good.

 

[legg86]

I've got a copy, if anyone wants it let me know, can get it free . gotta come to me though, not shipping a free book lol.

 

[leVieux]

It is difficult, somewhat "dry" reading, but well-orgainized and very logical. Good historical and constitutional references.
We all should read it.
leVieux

 

[Doug.38PR]

Try The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo. Or The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods for a good outline of American History in general.

Good books on how we got to where we are now.


If at first you don't secede...try try again.


BTW, LeVeiux,
You should do some reading on how the so-called Federal Government treated your "Chocolate City" when the US Army took it over during the War of Northern Agression. Gen. Benjamin "Beast" Butler.

 

[Doug.38PR]

Well, if you're into Roosevelt-bashing, read "The Imperial Cruise" by James Bradley.

It puts TR in a whole new light.

.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods79.html

Incidentally, I just watched the movie Rough Riders the other night. A good movie about the American soldier during the Spanish-American War...even though they were conned into it by Big Government politicians and News Media sensationalists (what we would now call Neocons, Neoconservatives or Neoconartists)

Whenever I'd see William Hearst or Stephen Crane, I'd think military wannabes and groupies like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that mouth off about how "we" need to go bomb or kill ________________

Whenever I'd see Theodore Roosevelt, I'd think about John Bolton or Geo. W. Bush on how we need to go Bomb or kill _________________ to Roosevelt's credit though, he did don the uniform and pick up a gun and go into battle with the men.

 

[dangermoney]

I highly recommend "Tyranny Unmasked" by John Taylor of Caroline (one of the founding fathers) if you're interested in learning about liberty vs tyranny as it applied to our country in the early pivotal years. You will come to realize the primary ideological faction that has been responsible for the gradual undermining and destruction of our liberty, from the very beginning of our country through present day.

 

[legg86]

two things:
1: Not trying to flame you, but is "the war of northern agression" really needed? I mean, "the civil war" doesnt cover it? Again, not trying to be a Dbag, i really would like an honest, non inflamitory opinion.

2: another couple of really good reads are (don't flame me) Glenn Beck's An Inconvienent Book, Argueing with idiots, and Common Sense.
So are Patriots ( James Rawles), One Second After (dont remember the author), and The Last Centurian (John Ringo, personal favorite of all time).

 

[leVieux]

Tiens, What in the hell was "Civil" about that nasty War?
If you understood the problems and events leading up to that War, you wouldn't ask that.

I am speaking to Southern Patriots. We are not ashamed of our history or ancestors and will not accept the current descriptions of what went on in the South in the 1860's.

There are lots of good books on these subjects. The more that I learn, the more I realize that some of our current problems are not of recent origin. Misguided people have been trying to destroy our Nation and Constitution since its founding. The secessions and formation of the Confederacy were major efforts to preserve American values in the face of major tyranny.

Read the postings of Doug.38pr; he understands these things and provides some relevant references.

May GOD bless the USA AND the CSA.

leVieux

 

[dangermoney]

The more that I learn, the more I realize that some of our current problems are not of recent origin. Misguided people have been trying to destroy our Nation and Constitution since its founding. The secessions and formation of the Confederacy were major efforts to preserve American values in the face of major tyranny.

This is a given for those of us who have taken the time to research and re-acquire this long, lost knowledge. The "war of northern aggression" works for me.

 

[Mjolnir]

I hope the election of BHO woke many Americans up...

That.

 

[leVieux]

Prodigal Son, Legg, et al,
Those currently in power, especially in the "educational establishment", would have us believe that the entire "Civil War" episode was over the single issue of legal slavery. Even I once believed that was mostly correct. However, a lifetime of reading and study has convinced me that the issues were a lot more complex that that.
For one, several of the largest slave-holders in the antebellum Louisiana were "Free Men of Color", or, Black Americans. One of the largest slave dealers in the South, right here in New Orleans, was a half-Mexican, half Black African "Colored Creole".
Louisiana was represented in the Confederacy by three separate Black Volunteer military companies, one of which was self-funded. Volunteer companies of "Free Men of Color" and their own slaves, that is.
I could go on and on; better you research this for yourself. But, how does the above square with what you thought that you know about those times?
Other facts are that the abolitionist North had only recently abandoned its own slavery and several Union States kept their slaves during most of the conflict. The great Northern change of heart conveniently occurred just as the "Industrial Revolution" had rendered use of slaves in manufacturing obsolete and counter-productive. Slavery in the South would have fallen soon, for the same reasons, without the bloody conflict.
Or, you could read Lincoln's speeches, in which he freely admits that Slavery was not the issue.
Welcome to Louisiana and to Dixie. We should not allow misrepresentations of our history continue to be sources of discord. We are, after all, now in the same leaky boat and all should be bailing.
I wish you and yours well here in our home.
leVieux

 

[legg86]

Prodigal Son, Legg, et al,
Those currently in power, especially in the "educational establishment", would have us believe that the entire "Civil War" episode was over the single issue of legal slavery. Even I once believed that was mostly correct. However, a lifetime of reading and study has convinced me that the issues were a lot more complex that that.
For one, several of the largest slave-holders in the antebellum Louisiana were "Free Men of Color", or, Black Americans. One of the largest slave dealers in the South, right here in New Orleans, was a half-Mexican, half Black African "Colored Creole".
Louisiana was represented in the Confederacy by three separate Black Volunteer military companies, one of which was self-funded. Volunteer companies of "Free Men of Color" and their own slaves, that is.
I could go on and on; better you research this for yourself. But, how does the above square with what you thought that you know about those times?
Other facts are that the abolitionist North had only recently abandoned its own slavery and several Union States kept their slaves during most of the conflict. The great Northern change of heart conveniently occurred just as the "Industrial Revolution" had rendered use of slaves in manufacturing obsolete and counter-productive. Slavery in the South would have fallen soon, for the same reasons, without the bloody conflict.
Or, you could read Lincoln's speeches, in which he freely admits that Slavery was not the issue.
Welcome to Louisiana and to Dixie. We should not allow misrepresentations of our history continue to be sources of discord. We are, after all, now in the same leaky boat and all should be bailing.
I wish you and yours well here in our home.
leVieux

Actually, I knew most of that except the "self funded" black company, and anything particularly dealing with LA. From Texas, not really up on my LA history lol. I took a class on it in college. I would even go farther and say the issue of slavery wasn't even A cause for the war, much less The cause. It was public pandering, imo. Abolition of slavery was used as a weapon against the South, not because it was particularly moral. That's my take on the slavery issue, anyway. The causes for the war had much more to do with economics, culture, and the 9th/10th amendments. I fully agree that pushing the South into the position they were in around '57-'61 was a bad idea, but, there's no stipulation in the Constitution that says the states could leave the union (except Texas, we had legal authority in that case).

 

[leVieux]

Actually, I knew most of that except the "self funded" black company, and anything particularly dealing with LA. From Texas, not really up on my LA history lol. I took a class on it in college. I would even go farther and say the issue of slavery wasn't even A cause for the war, much less The cause. It was public pandering, imo. Abolition of slavery was used as a weapon against the South, not because it was particularly moral. That's my take on the slavery issue, anyway. The causes for the war had much more to do with economics, culture, and the 9th/10th amendments. I fully agree that pushing the South into the position they were in around '57-'61 was a bad idea, but, there's no stipulation in the Constitution that says the states could leave the union (except Texas, we had legal authority in that case).

Tiens, I have no problem with any of that. You seem to understand.
Texas history is also pretty complicated. Texas is the only independent nation to join the USA. It may well be the only independent nation to leave the USA. If so, I'm gonna be on that side of the Sabine, too.
leVieux

 

[dangermoney]

I fully agree that pushing the South into the position they were in around '57-'61 was a bad idea, but, there's no stipulation in the Constitution that says the states could leave the union (except Texas, we had legal authority in that case).

The original intent of the Constitution was to enumerate those powers that the Federal Government was explicitly granted by the States. Specifically, the 10th amendment states that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people. That is why there is no stipulation in the Constitution that explicitly legalizes secession - the Federal Government was not explicitly granted the power to prevent it - it was a state right.

So, it could be argued that up until the War Between the States, any state could elect to leave the union, which some chose to do, and they were quashed by a tyrannical regime for reasons cited above. However, after the War, and especially with the ratification of the 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution in 1913, no state (including Texas) has the legal right to secede.

 

[legg86]

The original intent of the Constitution was to enumerate those powers that the Federal Government was explicitly granted by the States. Specifically, the 10th amendment states that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people. That is why there is no stipulation in the Constitution that explicitly legalizes secession - the Federal Government was not explicitly granted the power to prevent it - it was a state right.

So, it could be argued that up until the War Between the States, any state could elect to leave the union, which some chose to do, and they were quashed by a tyrannical regime for reasons cited above. However, after the War, and especially with the ratification of the 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution in 1913, no state (including Texas) has the legal right to secede.

....what? the 16th am. is about income tax, and the 17th is about senatorial elections... has nothing to do with Texas. Or secession.

 

[Mjolnir]

Prodigal Son, Legg, et al,
Those currently in power, especially in the "educational establishment", would have us believe that the entire "Civil War" episode was over the single issue of legal slavery. Even I once believed that was mostly correct. However, a lifetime of reading and study has convinced me that the issues were a lot more complex that that.

For one, several of the largest slave-holders in the antebellum Louisiana were "Free Men of Color", or, Black Americans. One of the largest slave dealers in the South, right here in New Orleans, was a half-Mexican, half Black African "Colored Creole".

Louisiana was represented in the Confederacy by three separate Black Volunteer military companies, one of which was self-funded. Volunteer companies of "Free Men of Color" and their own slaves, that is.

I could go on and on; better you research this for yourself. But, how does the above square with what you thought that you know about those times?
Other facts are that the abolitionist North had only recently abandoned its own slavery and several Union States kept their slaves during most of the conflict. The great Northern change of heart conveniently occurred just as the "Industrial Revolution" had rendered use of slaves in manufacturing obsolete and counter-productive. Slavery in the South would have fallen soon, for the same reasons, without the bloody conflict.

Or, you could read Lincoln's speeches, in which he freely admits that Slavery was not the issue.

Welcome to Louisiana and to Dixie. We should not allow misrepresentations of our history continue to be sources of discord. We are, after all, now in the same leaky boat and all should be bailing.

I wish you and yours well here in our home.
leVieux

I was well aware of the tidbits you offered. Most aren't aware though. There are other interesting tidbits that aren't taught, either, but I won't ruin the thread.

On the Black Confederate issue it in no way absolves or invalidates the Chattel Slavery issue. That was but one of several issues - all economic - that brought the nation to the brink of disaster. Research the British Crown and the Rothschilds' involvement in the US Civil War. Slavery was an abomination. It didn't begin overnight and it didn't end overnight. Neither will residual racism. To expect any social phenomena that took generations to become "accepted" to disappear with the stroke of a pen is "pure genius".

P.S.

I'm from Baton Rouge. I merely lived "up North" for a spell.