This story comes from Right Wing Watch.Org and discusses how..
“…every time Lou Engle leads a The Call prayer rally, the future of America is at stake. Later this month, Engle will be bringing The Call to Fredericksburg, Virginia, this time with the help of televangelist Pat Robertson. Engle said that his rally intends to “intercede on behalf of the blood that has been shed as a result of racism and abortion and ask for God’s mercy on behalf of our nation” by praying at Civil War sites, and Robertson claimed the event is part of a “spiritual battle which can only be won by overwhelming prayer”.
I wonder why in a 150 years of the American people, someone did not think of this before…it is so simple…I mean all I need to do is pray over and over that Neo-Confederates like Connie Chastain/Ward/Reb could somehow understand the history of the conflict and all the racism and hatred that she will not denounce would just wash away.
Also it appears that God is now channeling Abraham Lincoln according to event planner Lou Engle…
“The word Lou received from God is, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.””
It appears all the Lost Causers were right about the sainthood of Lincoln…but they were just a bit off…Lincoln was not canonized by the North, he damn well took the thrown himself and is now talking to evangelicals.
May God (and Lincoln if he can) help us all!
I hate to rain on your parade, but I don’t see how it is possible to forgive and forget when lincoln lovers never admit the wrongs done or repent, but just keep on repeating their lies and myths, like forgetting the Corwin Law.
Linclon was a tyrant. The situation at that time is so aptly put by Bob Livingston in his article Does The Republican Establishment Want To Lose?
30April2012. The War isn’t over because it isn’t over.
a short history lesson is in order.
“The Republican Party grew out of the ashes of the Whig Party. The Whig Party was a single-minded proponent of what party leader Henry Clay called the American System: protectionism, government control of the money supply through a central bank and government subsidies for railroads, shipping and other favored industry. It was a corporatist or fascist system based on British mercantilism.
As economist Murray N. Rothbard wrote in The Logic of Action II, it was “a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.”[i]
Edgar Lee Masters described the Whig Party thusly:
Clay was the champion of that political system which doles favors to the strong in order to win and to keep their adherence to the government. His system offered shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises… He was the beloved son [figuratively speaking] of Alexander Hamilton with his corrupt funding schemes, his superstitions concerning the advantage of a public debt, and a people taxed to make profits for enterprises that cannot stand alone. His example and his doctrines led to the creation of a party that had no platform to announce, because its principals were plunder and nothing else.[ii]
Or as U.S. Senator John Taylor of Virginia (1753-1824) put it in his book Tyranny Unmasked, it was a system that benefited a “monied aristocracy.”
Abraham Lincoln was a Whig who idolized Clay. He served as a Presidential elector for the Whigs in 1840 and 1844. When the Whig Party imploded in the 1850s, Lincoln switched to the Republican Party but assured Illinois constituents there was no difference between the two parties.[iii] He brought the American System along with him, and it has formed the basis for the actions of the Republican Party ever since, years of vacuous rhetoric from Republicans as being the Party of small government and a foil to Democrat nanny-state big government policies notwithstanding.
For years, the monied aristocracy used the Republican Party and its statism (or corporatism or fascism, whichever is your favored word) to benefit its friends and partners. Now the monied aristocracy has a new use for the Republican Party.
They — the monied aristocracy — believe the time is ripe to end the faux two-party system, remove all pretenses that the United States is a republican government and usher in the age of direct democracy. Another loss by the Republican Party because of an unpalatable, unelectable candidate may well do this.
The elites have been laying the groundwork for this for some time. All of the elites in government — both Rs and Ds — and in the media tell us each day that the United States is a democracy. This has been going on for years. It was no accident that they have used this word. They have used it for so long now that it is rarely challenged.”
Josephine,
All great history, but sadly for you this does not have much to do with secession in the south in the winter of 1860-61. So now I must ask the question…what is you point to all of the stuff you just wrote?
The way I see it: The cause of Secession by the Confederate States of America is not that they left because they didn’t like the president, (seriously,I have seen such posted on blogs) or the sole issue was slavery. From these and other comments they post it is clear that our educational system is biased and a failure, riddled with pc myths about the great Lincoln emancipator. A little history of his Whig background to show where he was coming from was written in order to educate others and you, who may have forgotten.
The purpose or agenda all along was to sway the people to accept a despotic, tyrannical government (ref: Lincoln’s Marxist friends in his government and army) in place of the democratic republic they then had, and throw the Southerners under the bus. This new type of government would do away with slavery in the South, because this system would make a new form of slavery of all citizens throughout the land (see Sen Lindberg of Minnesota’s treatise on the Fed Res Bank). Save the Union for What? For Who? Ask yourself these questions and Follow the Money.
The Confederate States of America left the compact because staying in this compact with the ex-Whigs holding sway would mean being reduced to a colony of the NE money changers. Lincoln’s basic ideas of how the country should be went against everything they believed and fought for in the First War for Independence.
Josephine,
You are going to need to provide sources to this type of nonsense…otherwise your days of posting here are at an end. You have shown over and over a complete lack of knowledge of the time period and the issues faced by the nation at that time. I am not going to waste my time arguing with you over stuff that holds not historical water.
I don’t think God would channel any human, much less a bloodthirsty psychopath like Abraham Lincoln.
Still waiting for you sources for the other information you posted…or is this comment on a different subject an admition of failure to have any actual sources? I won’t bother giving your above statement the time of day because it is so moronic.
I have no obligation to supply you with information that is, for the most part, ubiquitous and freely available.
Really, Corey, do your own homework.
Pat,
As a High School history teacher, trust me I have done my own research. But your comment is only an excuse for not being able to refute anything I have said. You are not able to provide sources and you can just admit that you cannot meet the standard of proof.
Mr. Hines,
Stating that one has “no obligation to supply you with information” is simply and admission of “I don’t know and I don’t care to.”
Sincerely,
Neil Hamilton
And you are outta here…thanks for stopping by.
josephinesouthern,
Certainty is not proof.
Insistence is not fact.
Opinion is not evidence.
Your posts should and are subjected to the above and come away with much certainty, insistence at all time, and are filled with opinion, but very little evidence.
Your emotional attachement to a failed rebellion is duly noted, but so are the othere areas noted.
Neil Hamilton
So to combat the propagation of disorders of human sexuality, Mr. Engle would have us emulate seditionists and criminals like Lee and Jackson, whose treasonous actions caused the death of hundreds of thousands of their fellow Americans in order that their fellow aristocrats in the South could continue to practice their “peculiar institution” of chattel slavery???
… and not only that, but Engle raises Lee and Jackson to the level of “anointed” prophets???!!!
This man truly has his priorities upside down, in a manner reminiscent of CS Lewis’s observation concerning Satan, who, Lewis posited, “would be quite content to see your chilblains cured if he was allowed, in return, to give you cancer”!
Neither Robert E. Lee nor Thomas J. Jackson committed treason of any kind.
It was Lincoln that was a traitor. The US Constitution defines treason as making war against a state, which Lincoln clearly initiated against the seceded states. Lincoln and everyone associated with him was a traitor; they elected to wage a war that murdered nearly one million Americans.
Defending your homeland against an invading army is not treason, it is heroic. It is honorable.
The whole of America lost when Lincoln and his corporate sponsors won the War For Southern Freedom.
Pat,
How can Lincoln commit treason by invading a state when that state, SC, had seceded. It was no longer part of the Constitution, so treason did not apply to it any longer.
Also, could you provide names of those corporate sponsors and site some references?
“The US Constitution defines treason as making war against a state, which Lincoln clearly initiated against the seceded states.”
The actual wording is, “against the United States,” with no reference to making war against individual states. If you’re going to go around citing the Constitution, Pat, you might as well get it right.
In any case, you’ve argued vigorously elsewhere on this blog that South Carolina ceased being part of the United States on December 20, 1860, so your position here that Lincoln’s actions after that date amounted to making war “against the United States” is contradictory on its face. Either South Carolina was part of the Union at that point, or it was not. You cannot simultaneously claim no longer to be part of the United States, and but nonetheless under protection of its Constitution.
Pick one and stick with it, please.
Lincoln claimed the seceded states remained a part of the United States, his advancing idea of the Union being older than the states (yes, I know how absurd this claim was, but Lincoln made it nonetheless) and then invaded them.
“levying war against them”, means making war against ANY state, at any time.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section3
Remember, when that was written, all states were considered sovereign as they created the US government by creating the Constitution. No state could make war against another state as a ratifying state.
Your position, ridiculous as it is, would apply had the seceded states attacked the United States. There is a reason none of the Confederate Army officers nor Jefferson Davis were tried for treason. That reason is that none of them committed treason and would have won their independence in court.
Of course, the Radical Republicans, America’s proto-progressive/fascists, wanted it both ways. The seceded states never left the United States, but had to perform certain acts to be “readmitted” to it. Corruption personified.
God channeling Lincoln?
Blasphemy.
“… all I need to do is pray … that…Connie Chastain/Ward/Reb could somehow understand… all the racism and hatred that she will not renounce …”
I understand hatred and so-called racism but I have never embraced them so I can’t renounce them. Renounce means to give up or put aside… Like, a non-drinker can’t renounce alcohol, capisce?
Did you happen to mean denounce, i.e., to condemn or censure? I have denounced hatred and so-called racism. That you don’t know about it (or maybe ignore it) doesn’t mean I haven’t done it. You need to realize that your very, very limited knowledge is not total and universal…and that your perception and agenda distort the little knowledge that you have acquired about certain people and subjects…
Yes, I did mean Denounce..thanks. But regardless of the word, you still do not denounce people like Michael Hill who heads the League of the South and wants a white south and will allow minorities to live there if they assimilate to the white way of doing things. Can we say Antebellum south?
It is also very telling that you call it “so-called” racism…it shows your refusal to see it for what it is!
Corey sez: “… you still do not denounce people like Michael Hill who heads the League of the South and wants a white south and will allow minorities to live there if they assimilate to the white way of doing things.”
I’ve never seen where he said he wants a white South. How is one man gonna allow or not allow people to live somewhere? You are intentionally misunderstanding what he says.
I also haven’t denounced black nationalists, either, not even the odious Jeremiah Wright. You have never seen me criticize anything about the NAACP except their cusade against Confederate symbols and history. I denounce ideas or behaviors, beliefs or attitudes, etc… It’s you liberals who are the ones interested in denouncing and condemning PEOPLE in order to enforce control over them.
“Can we say Antebellum south?”
Sure we can say it. There, I just said it. Did you hear me? I can write it, too. See? “Antebellum South.” So what? It’s irrelevant to the League of the South’s vision of an independent South.
“It is also very telling that you call it ‘so-called’ racism…it shows your refusal to see it for what it is!”
Nope. I know, and see, very clearly what it is. My use of the term “so-called racism” is to indicate the way in which YOU and your liberal, Dixie-bashing blogger buddies — and countless other cowed or indoctrinated people in the USA — use it. It has no objective meaning anymore that we can all agree on and understand. It means whatever accusation the person using it intends for it to mean. Thus, disagreement with is racism. Disapproval of is racism. Criticism of is racism. So, it has become meaningless except for use as a verbal bludgeon, and I’m not going to legitimize that usage of it by responding to it.
I’m under no obligation to you self-appointed liberal thought police to justify myself to you — to “denounce” or give up something I’ve never embraced simply because you falsely accuse me of it. Your accusations are not based on reality, but on your agenda-driven distortions and fantasies and your deliberate misinterpretation of what’s said and written by people you don’t like. You folks would absolutely have loved living in Europe and Massachusetts during the era of witch-hunting…
Connie,
It is very obvious you have not listen to or read much of your good friend Hill’s work with the League of the South. I suggest you hop on over to their site and read some of his rantings…they are very pro-south and very pro-white.
Dr. Michael Hill is one of the finest men I know. He’s worked tirelessly for almost two decades now to free the south from the Yankee Empire.
I’m pleased to say I’ve supported his activities for more than a decade and plan to support them well into the future.
The League of the South is a most honorable institution, unlike the Southern Poverty Law Center you repeatedly quote. SPLC is a scam for fools.
Pat,
I did not quote the SPLC, I quoted Dr. Michael Hill. The quote came from the SPLC site, but it is the words of Hill!
“Dr. Michael Hill is one of the finest men I know. He’s worked tirelessly for almost two decades now to free the south from the Yankee Empire.”
Hill has been consistent and explicit for years that his core interest lies in preserving the political, cultural, and social dominance of white, European Christians. He even subordinates the core principle of democracy to his goal of preserving that supremacy. Hill may not used the same rhetoric or symbols that some other extremist groups do, but that’s a difference of tactics, not policy.
Corey sez, “It is very obvious you have not listen to or read much of your good friend Hill’s work with the League of the South.”
I have. I just don’t agree that it means what you think it does.
Corey sez, “I suggest you hop on over to their site and read some of his rantings…they are very pro-south and very pro-white.”
OH, GOD FORBID being pro-South and pro-white. That’s the absoluted most dastardly, diabolical thing a human being can be, huh, Corey?
Gimme a break.
Corey, can you tell the difference between normal, healthy immigration policy, which this country had for years, and “being overrun by hordes of non-white immigrants” — particularly when it is being done deliberately to alter the ethnicity of the country — i.e., to MAKE white people a minority? Is that what YOU want? Do you think it would be a good thing? How about in reverse? What if white Americans started immigrating to nonwhite countries and replacing their populations? Why, we’d never hear the end of the complaints.
In fact, something on a smaller scale has happened in the USA and oh, the teeth-gnashing it has caused. Decades ago, liberals denounced “white flight” from urban areas which turned them into nonwhite ghettos. Now whites are moving back to the cities, reclaiming and revitalizing neighborhoods, and, oh, the liberal teeth-gnashing over “gentrification.”
Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. Do you see why I don’t take seriously charges of “racism” from people of your ilk? Whatever white people do, it will be called racist. It will be DELIBERATELY misconstrued, the way you are deliberately misconstruing Dr. Hill’s statements.
I asked you once if you believe a preference for the dissimilar is morally superior to a preference for the similar. You couldn’t even comprehend what I was talking about. Dr. Hill believes a preference for the similar — one’s own kind — is superior because the alternative is extinction. “No group can survive for long if its members do not prefer their own over others.”
But then, maybe that’s what you prefer? The extinction of white Southerners? Or white people altogether?
Connie,
Just a quick note before I address the above. I would like to thank you for commenting here, I have been so distraught over not being able to bug you on Facebook I have had all of these problems…Depression, Not thinking clearly, Fatigue, Irritability, Jumpiness or shakiness, Mood swing,s Nightmares, Clammy skin, Enlarged (dilated) pupils, Headache, Insomnia (sleeping difficulty), Loss of appetite, Nausea and vomiting, Pallor, Rapid heart rate, Sweating, Tremor of the hands or other body parts, Agitation, Severe confusion, Seeing or feeling things that aren’t there (hallucinations), Fever, Seizures… I also shit myself once, but I don’t think it was related to you. Wink Wink.
I don’t have a problem with you being for whites or southerners just like Mike Hill is…What I have a problem with is your preference for the similar at the expense of those not like you or Mr. Hill
This is utter bullshit and you damn well know it…but I would not expect less from you and your racist ilk.
So, Andy Hall, do YOU believe a preference for the dissimilar is morally superior to a preference for the similar? Why or why not?
And your dearly beloved SPLC is now part of the USA Government.
Josephine,
How is the SPLC part of the government…please explain. And again…I was not quoting the SPLC, I was and still am quoting Dr. Michael Hill.
The $PLC has been on the FBI payroll for years, if not decades.
I agree with Dr. Hill that we need less democracy, not more. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule.
Personally, I’d bring back property ownership as a requirement to vote, residency within the state for at least ten years, and no immigrant from a foreign nation would EVER be granted the voting privilege, only their children would be granted that privilege and only if their parents were legal immigrant citizens.
The idea that a college student can attend school in South Carolina and vote here after 30 days residency is completely sbsurd.
I recommend Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order for answers to stopping democracy.
Wow…you would love to turn back the clock wouldn’t you…sad. So, how long have your ancestors been here?
Er, no, that wouldn’t be “turning back the clock” on anything.
Progressive/fascism has been experimented with for just over 100 years, it’s a proven failure now.
So, we’re going back to a Republic and in a more refined form.
So, yes, less democracy will be a major improvement.
The SPLC lies, Corey. You told me to trip over to the League’s website, but then you quote something filtered through the SPLC liars? And yes, they are affiliated with the Dept of Homeland Security — a bestial mutation of an agency that shouldn’t exist in a nation with our Constitution… of course, our Constitution is no longer in effect….
Connie,
The quote was not filtered by the SPLC…it is straight from the Ass’ mouth!
Our Constitution is dead…really…ask the people in NC if the Constitution is dead? You can marry your cousin in NC, but you cannot marry your gay cousin…go figure.
If you took the $PLC’s word for anything, you’re on a fool’s errand.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001573
Corey, marriage is not a Constitutional issue — it’s a state matter — so even if the Constitution was still functional, it wouldn’t apply in this case.
Sure you can marry your gay cousin in South Carolina, as long as your gay cousin is of the opposite sex from you.
Connie,
It is North Carolina, not south…and it is a Constitutional issue when it comes down to it being a Civil Right. If the states cannot protect the person’s civil rights, the federal government can.
Corey, it is not a civil rights issue. Does the Constitution protect the “right” of siblings to marry each other? Or for a daughter to marry her father? Or a man to marry an animal? States have the right and authority to define marriage as between a male human and a female human.
They could also define it to include same sex marriage. We or I am not talking about incest…which brings to mind you lengthy comment on it…Creepy…but we or I am talking about people unrelated having the right to marry. How is it going to hurt anything. We will most likely discover that they will get divorced at the same rate as hetero’s…just like regular people.
Connie,
Did you see my comment which include you list of problems I am going to have not being able to contact you via Facebook….I can still see what you write on Backsass etc.
Corey, the problem you and your fellow travelers have with Dr. Hill is that you’re looking at what he says through white-evil-colored glasses. You have evidently lapped up the white-evil meme like a kitten lapping cream. Yum yum. You self-hating whites can’t get enough.
Of course, what makes race-based self-hatred more palatable is that you can point to white Southerners as the epitome of white evil and say, “Well, at least I’m not THAT bad!” Historically, Northern white evil was “mitigated” by the north’s war on the South. Rob Baker even says, preposterously, that the north “shed” its sins of slavery and racism … Presumably he believes “redemption” comes through widespread killing and destruction and imposing political and economic oppression….
In any case, people like you and Andy and Cousin Perfesser totally define whites, especially white Southerners, by racism. The occasional bleedin’ heart dogooder anti-racist is the very rare exception that proves the rule. You seem incapable of admitting whites are capable of anything but evil. You’ve bought into the liberal notion that whites have caused all the world’s woes throughout the history of mankind.
You do whatever it takes to maintain that view.
In order to perceive and portray people as racists, you attempt to lump people together based on how they are similar but completely ignore how they are different — thus, if Dr. Hill says something similar to what some racist has said, that’s all the proof you need — you refuse to look at what makes them DIFFERENT, but that’s AT LEAST as important as how they are similar, is it not?
Moreover, you focus on white evil and ignore, almost totally, all the good white people have done that has benefited the entire human race. You’d rather take a beating than admit white-good… Besides, you don’t have time … your time is all taken up lapping up white evil, huh, kitty cat?
http://www.conniechastain.com/trauma.html
Connie,
I am proud to be a white person…can’t be anything but…however I do not have to degrade others who are non-white or claim they are criminals to be proud like you and Mr. Hill.
I will play your game here…
Prove where I have said this.
Corey, I don’t degrade others who are non-white in order to be proud. I don’t think Dr. Hill does, either.
The reason to call someone a criminal — white or non-white — is because they’ve committed a crime or crimes. What would you have us call them? Apples? Solar flares? Trombones? That crime is so widespread among non-whites is not something I or Dr. Hill fabricated in order to “be proud” or for any other reason.
You say, “Prove where I have said this.”
I didn’t claim you said it. It’s just a conclusion I’ve drawn based upon your blog posts and comments you’ve made elsewhere, over time. Is my conclusion erroneous? Do you not define whites, especially Southern whites, by racism? Do you reject the liberal notion that whites have caused all the world’s problems throughout history?
Corey sez, “The quote was not filtered by the SPLC…it is straight from the Ass’ mouth!”
How do you know it wasn’t filtered by the SPLC? You’d have to have read the original quote to know that it hasn’t been altered. Have you seen the original quote?