this "lincoln" thing is getting out of hand.

[chad]

now, they are going to be screening the lincoln movie in the senate:

http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/lincoln-senate-screening-steven-spielberg-harry-reid/

2 weeks ago, spielberg took it to the white house for the obama's to screen in private. the "obama is the new lincoln" meme is all over the internet and news as well.

it's like they are getting ready for a giant civil war with obama as the new lincoln who is going to save the country.

[horseshoe3]

Obama IS the new Lincoln. But that's not a good thing.

[Carl]

I guess they gotta distract from Berry being the new FDR/Stalin/Lenin/Marx

[mamboni]

These fuckers are totaly shameless in how they play the American people for knaves, suckers and fools.

[Dogman]

For the easily influenced and ignorant , it is what it is! Most people are like cattle and you can if done right lead them in what ever direction you want.

[EE_]

Abraham Lincoln's Dark Side: How Lincoln Could Haunt America Today
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TYvlC8IxUPM/Szuq-5J8kEI/AAAAAAAAD6U/JOGpss3Y2vI/s1600-h/abrahamlincoln.gif

For many years of my life I looked at Abraham Lincoln as an American Hero. But now, with a greater understanding of the Constitution and state’s rights, I see I am a victim of American revisionism of history in American classrooms. Abraham Lincoln cared nothing about the slaves, he only cared about expanding the powers of the federal government and the taxes the federal government received from the south, who rightfully seceded from the union. For Lincoln’s greed for power and taxes, led to a war that killed 93,000 Confederate troops and 110,000 Union troops in combat. (Most of the deaths during the Civil War, totaling over 620,000 people was because of disease.)

During the last couple decades, the spin has been against waving the Confederate flag is if it’s some kind of racial symbol. I now believe this is a careful plan by the Federal Government who knows the greatest threat to their power are educated people willing to stand up against their quest for power. The Confederate flag is really a symbol of state’s rights and sovereignty—bad words in today’s America according to the Department of Homeland Security. When you start looking at the truth behind the Southern States, you soon discover the Confederate Constitution.

For years, the most basic lesson of the Civil War taught you empty minds the war was a battle for slavery. The Northern States fought for freedom while the Southern States fought for slavery.

Yet, Article 1, Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution reads: 1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. How many new the Southern State’s Constitution had a provision to stop the African slave trade.

So I think we should take a different look at Lincoln. Let’s throw out this glorified image of freedom associated with Lincoln as the Great Emancipator who kept the union together. Rather, let’s look how Lincoln increased slavery in the United States by destroying states rights, the union, and creating a huge federal government that began looking at the states as a nation rather than sovereign states that worked together for commerce and defense. Abraham Lincoln is the father of big government.

For far too many years, the Southern States have been portrayed as the antagonist, the villain. How could they break up the union? In reality they are the protagonist of this period in history. They had every right to secede from the union and the fact Lincoln fought a war to pull them back into the union in not only a violation of the Constitution specifically dealing with state’s rights, but also proves Lincoln’s disregard of the founding fathers and suggests Lincoln was somewhat tyrannical in his decisions. Sure the Confederates fired the first shots, but Lincoln made the decision to send Union Troops to Fort Sumter to bully the Confederates to surrender Fort Sumter in South Carolina.

The initial shot was consistent with Lincoln’s word. Lincoln said he would do whatever it took to keep the Union together, including war, but it would have to be the South that fired first. Lincoln’s troops may not have fired the first shot, but they instigated the first shot.

So what interest did Lincoln have in keeping the Union together? What was so important about the south that he would send the Secretary of War to Fort Sumter to agitate Confederate soldiers? The answer is not based on the moral quest to end slavery as the history books have fooled Americans in to believing. In fact, it’s quite the opposite as documented in a letter to Horace Greeley and Lincoln’s original intent as he sent troops to Fort Sumter—to save the Union—not free the slaves. Lincoln didn’t care one way or another if the slaves were freed. This was about economics and of course we see the outcome of that today as the federal government continues to put the Treasury before the people.

The fact is redistribution of wealth was already occurring in the United States before the Civil War, and it was done through unfair taxation. The South was exporting its agriculture and making huge profits with their crops. The Northern States found a way to dip into the pockets of Southerners through heavy taxation. Former Vice-President John C. Calhoun put it this way, "The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North… the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue."

This is the main reason the South left the union. It had nothing to do with slavery. The issue of slavery transferred the South from the protagonist to the antagonist in our history books. Under the Bill of Rights, the South had every right to escape this unfair taxation through secession, just like any state has the right to leave the union today. Notice how the federal government and the mainstream media brainwash people today into believing secession is bad.

In fact, when the taxes from the South dried up in Northern states, things became dire for the remaining United States. A March 1861 New York Evening Post describes just how bad it got once the taxes dried up from Southern States.

That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

The tariffs imposed on the South, affectionately known as the "Tariff of Abomination" pushed by Henry Clay ranged from 20 to 30%. When Lincoln took office he immediately raised these tariffs through the Morrill Tariff Act, and the South began their secession. There is an amazing irony between Lincoln and Barack Obama that goes much farther than the role of Great Emancipator and free black man, which Obama played upon prior to his inauguration.

Just the fact Obama identifies with Lincoln proves Obama knows little about American history in terms of black history but how much he does know about getting away with unconstitutional actions. Obama's chosen connection to Abraham Lincoln is a slap in the face to all black Americans. The irony of the connection is of course the division Obama creates and the discussions of secession taking place in America over more federal controls, bailouts of fiscally irresponsible states through taxation of other states, and of course higher taxes. Obama is the new Lincoln in many ways beyond his Illinois connection.

There is a lesson to learn in this. If you want to take control back from the modern-day oppressive government, secession may be the best economic choice. When taxes dry up for the federal government, they will have a hard time operating just like they did in 1861. It should remain a viable choice for any state that has practiced fiscal responsibility and Constitutional law, especially in a time where these states are being required to bailout states like California and New York. Not much has changed in the federal tax practices. They just have new names for the taxes. Each state can stand up to the federal government just like Governor of Texas Rick Perry is doing after Senator Ben Nelson’s deal for a yes vote with the current health care bill. Secession is a right and a responsibility each state must be will to use. The real truth of the Civil War is the North should be viewed as the patriots and colonists viewed Mother England during the Revolutionary War.

The myth that Abraham Lincoln cared about black people is one of the largest lies of the Civil War period of American history. It’s well documented Lincoln cared less about the issue of slavery.

On August 29, 1862, New Yorker Horace Greeley wrote an editorial in “The New York Tribune” called “The Prayer of the 20 Millions.” In his editorial, Greeley wrote the reasons why slavery must end in the United States. Greeley believed ending slavery would weaken the south to end the war and help the economies of the northern states. He did gain the attention of President Lincoln. Lincoln responded:

Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th addressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I don't believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be error; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of Official duty: and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln


Words covered up by Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln cared nothing about the slaves—only saving the Union, even it meant trampling the Constitution which he did. The truth about Abraham Lincoln is masked in his Jeffersonian tone of these two great American events.

It gets worse for Lincoln in a tyrannical way. Lincoln also suspended Habeas corpus laws. He made slaves out of Americans by arresting them without warrant against the Constitution. They were held in jail without access to a judge to decide if they were guilty beyond any claims made by the Union under Lincoln’s leadership. (We hear possibilities of this in America today.) Lincoln locked up thousands of people who he considered threats without due process—no trial. Lincoln arrested political opponents, southern sympathizers, and anyone suspected of disloyalty to the Union. The real Lincoln appears more like Josef Stalin rather than the image taught in school that earned him a place on the five-dollar bill and a monument in Washington DC.

Lincoln also shut down newspapers that disagreed with his policies. Over 300 papers were censored through closure under Lincoln’s leadership. Lincoln turned into an enemy of the First Amendment. Maybe this truth is why Washington celebrates him with monuments and an image on our money. Lincoln helped mold this country today into an oppressive state, and we once again see another Illinois occupant of the Oval Office hoping to control media outlets, especially talk radio and the Internet.

In the book, His Dark Side --Lincoln's Illegal Imprisonment Of Baltimore's Mayor & Legislators by Chet Dembeck, examines the arrests ordered by President Lincoln of key Baltimore political opponents. Even with a Supreme Court decision with an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney informing Lincoln he was in violation of the Constitution. Lincoln ignored Taney’s opinion and continued arresting political opponents. It’s really amazing a bullet didn’t find Lincoln sooner considering Lincoln’s crimes. Lincoln’s secret police (Union troops) continued to arrest political enemies.

In the end, the Emancipation Proclamation became nothing more than rhetoric geared to save Lincoln’s image and the fact he trampled all over the Constitution to save the Union. The proclamation is nothing more than a mask to cover the truth of Lincoln’s intentions and hide the fact that over 600,000 Americans died. Nothing good came out of the Civil War because Federalism died.

In the late 1980s, Hollywood had a fascination with the Soviet takeover of the United States. Movies like The Day After and Amerika attempted to scare Americans into believing Reagan was dangerous. I recall watching Amerika, a 12-hour miniseries on ABC, watching flags of Vladimir Lenin with Abraham Lincoln’s image waved by Soviet propagandist. I remember being offended by the flags because I believed Lincoln was a great man, a real American hero. Some 20 years later, I am not offended. In fact, I understand the connection. Lincoln’s oppressive governing style killed the vision of our founding fathers. Looking at the true Lincoln it’s easy to see why his image was placed on the flag.

Posted by Bungalow Bill

[Twisted Titan]

Every Govenor of every state is owened by the money interest so any talk of secession is just that.....talk

The only way to withdraw from the union is on a personal level.

Convert every unused dollar to Hard Currency or a useful tangible.

Continue to withdraw until the beast collapses under its own wieght

Then seek to pool resourses with others who saw how this insanity was going to turn out

[Libertarian_Guard]

As commander-in-Chief, the more servicemen that die insures that Resident will be recognized above his peers.

Such is the case with Lincoln. Untill another Resident tops the death of 600,000 servicemen. Lincoln will remain king.

[steel_ag]

it never occurred to me that the confederates had a constitution. wow. something else to research....

[PatColo]

don't miss the embedded Farakhan link, Spielberg's Lincoln: Plenty of Negroes, But Why No Jews? (http://noirg.org/spielbergs-lincoln-plenty-of-negroes-but-why-no-jews/)


Did Jews Sell Blacks into Slavery? Do They Still Exploit Them?

(http://truthtellers.org/alerts/DidJewsSellBlacksIntoSlavery.html)
By Rev. Ted Pike
17 Dec 12


On Dec. 19 the U.S. Senate will watch Stephen Spielberg’s dramatic feature film Lincoln about the President’s fight for an anti-slavery amendment to the Constitution. Controversy about this movie has arisen between the Anti-Defamation League and Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan, leader of the mainly black religious movement the Nation of Islam, criticized Spielberg for omitting the role of Jewish merchants as slave traders. Farrakhan alleges that the vast majority of black slaves purchased in America came from Jewish brokers and slave traders and that Jewish supremacists continue to exploit black people today. ADL says there is no substance to Farrakhan’s deplorable “anti-Semitic” charge. (See Farrakhan's article, "Spielberg's Lincoln: Plenty of Negroes, But Why No Jews? (http://noirg.org/spielbergs-lincoln-plenty-of-negroes-but-why-no-jews/)" and the ADL Report on Farrakhan (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/farrakhan_own_words.asp))


The internet is replete with documentation confirming Jewish participation in the slave trade. Here is only one quote by prominent Jewish historian Rabbi Marc Lee Raphael. In his work Jews and Judaism in the United States: a Documentary Work Raphael writes:


Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated.



In this article, however, I will focus on the second half of my title: Have Jewish liberalism and its media exploited American blacks for evil political purposes in modern times?


While the role of Jews in the slave trade is denied by most Jews and unknown by most Americans, that of Jewish “freedom riders” and activists in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s is well chronicled and celebrated. But Jewish big media has been much more influential. From about 1963 well into the 1970s, American popular culture was saturated with sympathetic images and arguments for civil rights and even privileging of racial minorities. This helped establish one of Jewish liberalism’s greatest triumphs, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and years of supplemental legislation.

The Jewish supremacist media and liberal establishment (see Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish (http://truthtellers.org/alerts/jewsconfirmbigmedia.html)), more than any other factor, whipped heartland America to a firestorm of indignation against the South in support of the Civil Rights Act. (The same media-driven revolution in popular opinion can be seen today in the gay rights movement, transforming public opinion in a matter of years.) Tens of millions of usually apolitical Americans became passionate partisans of the Civil Rights cause. As early as 1964 America was willing to atone for the sins of slavery by changing our legal system to make racial minorities more than equal. In the tidal wave of sympathy and remorse for genuine grievances, almost no one worried that we were creating a U.S. legal system preferring racial minorities over the majority in college admissions, monetary assistance, quotas in hiring and firing, anti-discrimination laws in housing as well as forced busing. Americans eagerly gave their blessing to the first great system of federal and state inequality of protection of its citizens. Such a bureaucracy was a new phenomenon in the history of English law. State and federal laws now unabashedly protect and even privilege the rights of minorities, while depriving the majority of the same rights and protections.


This is always dangerous. It is true that majorities often oppress minorities. Yet the solution is to enforce equal rights for all, not to reverse the roles of oppression. Government must exist only to protect the absolutely equal rights of everyone. Otherwise, it is given power to selectively privilege, a power that history has never shown to be benign.



Self-Esteem Evades Blacks under Civil Rights Act



When I was finishing college in 1971, I was acquainted with an intelligent, athletic black student who was an accomplished musician, playing cello in Portland’s Junior Symphony. He said to me, “Because I’m black, I’m still a slave!”


“What do you mean?” I replied. “Nobody’s keeping you from graduating from college and playing in the Junior Symphony. The problem is self-pity. You’re as free as I am!” He turned away and never spoke to me again.


Had the Jewish media and liberal establishment really given him dignity, self-confidence, independence, and a personal sense of equality? Its efforts elevated him and other blacks above whites in the eyes of the law. Colleges during the 60s and 70s practically thrust scholarships, free college housing and other advantages on any black American willing to attend.


Yet he was partly right in asserting that he was a slave. The Jewish liberal establishment had imposed on him a burden almost as heavy as the bales of cotton his ancestors bore. It came in the form of an oppressive chip on his shoulder. The sins against forebears could not be forgotten; whites still opposed him and (he suspected) privately looked down on him. As a result, every indulgence he received from "them," the local white shopkeeper to Congress itself, was seen as granted only to mask and atone for the suspected racist agreement that blacks are inferior, that he should be a slave!


Preferential quotas, lower entrance and hiring requirements, and subsidies deprived blacks of the chance to prove their competence on an equal playing field. Even as doctors and lawyers, they could never convince many of their professional "equals" of their equality. Paternalistic gratuities and legal privileging from the government by their very existence assert that blacks can’t succeed on their own merit. For this reason, some independent black thinkers such as economist Dr. Thomas Sowell have criticized affirmative action.


Depriving a man or woman of the privilege of succeeding or failing on the same terms as every other is indeed crippling. Children of the wealthy and royal often lack confidence. Shelter from the “cruel and unnecessary” hardships of finding a job and making a living has fundamentally damaged them. The new slavery is also, for millions of blacks, an addiction to “the welfare mentality.” It says, “Even though welfare deprives me and my children of self-worth and initiative, it is so much easier and safer to stay on welfare than attempt to succeed by myself. I can’t compete with those who have survived because they have proven themselves the fittest.”



Superior Rights and Privileges Cripple Blacks



This is precisely the malaise of bondage into which Jewish media and liberal establishment deliver black Americans.


I once found the cocoon of a large Cecropia moth. Through its hard cellophane-like shell I could see a fully developed moth, writhing and eager to fly. I decided to help the moth escape by carefully breaking it loose. Yet this was tragically misguided. Nature intends the moth to vigorously struggle to break free from the cocoon. This effort pumps blood to every part of its wings, making them strong and completely formed. I cheated this moth of that struggle. Its muscles were weak, its wings flaccid. When it crawled forward, they dragged like rubber. The gift of hardship and opposition had been taken from it by a naive do-gooder. Because of me, it would never fly, never mate, only die.


By empowering a preferential justice system, giving blacks superior status under federal law and encouraging a victim mentality and support system, Jewish big media and education did to many black Americans and their descendants what I did to the moth.


People of all races—made in the image of God and equal under the Constitution—deserve equality not just in word, but in deed. A tremendous good was done under Lincoln’s leadership when the cancer of slavery was eradicated from America. Yet supremacist Jews created in the Civil Rights Act a momentous first step away from racial and legal equality of American citizens. They exploited the plight of blacks to create very unequal laws, the first hate crimes law in America, which lead to greater freedom, safety and justice for no one. These laws instead threaten triple penalties based on the thoughts of criminals and whether their motives are particularly hated by the reigning elite.


Title 18 Sec. 2a, added as an amendment in 1968, is the foundation for the present federal hate crimes law, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, passed in 2009. Title 18 Sec. 2a, the “hate crimes statute” of the Civil Rights Act, says that if someone’s speech may be proven to have influenced commission of a violent bias-motivated crime, then the speaker may be indicted and punished alongside the actual offender. The amended Civil Rights Act thus became a speech crimes law.


The present federal hate law is nothing more than extensive amendments to title 18 Sec. 2a. It gives other minorities (including Jews, homosexuals, and Muslims) similar superior rights and privileges afforded blacks 45 years earlier. Americans who supported the Civil Rights Act could have no idea this law would lay the foundation for one day giving legal privileges to almost all minorities—including sexual minorities (even deviants such as pedophiles and practitioners of bestiality) and dark religious fringes such as Satanists and occultists. Yet Jewish supremacists certainly did foresee this and saw in it ultimate power to overthrow Christian, white leadership in society, leading to their own Judaic one-world order, Babylon the Great. (See 'Babylon the Great' is Israel (http://truthtellers.org/alerts/babylonthegreatisrael.htm))


Jewish slave traders 300 years ago sold blacks for personal gain. Yet 20th century Jewish media and legal lobbyists stood on their backs to create a legal foundation for a much more imaginative and malevolent goal: creation of a worldwide hate crimes gestapo that could ultimately destroy the power and influence of the ancient arch enemies of Talmudic Judaism, Jesus Christ, His followers, and the civilization they created.


Ultimately, this will enslave us all.

[sirgonzo420]

now, they are going to be screening the lincoln movie in the senate:

http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/lincoln-senate-screening-steven-spielberg-harry-reid/

2 weeks ago, spielberg took it to the white house for the obama's to screen in private. the "obama is the new lincoln" meme is all over the internet and news as well.

it's like they are getting ready for a giant civil war with obama as the new lincoln who is going to save the country.

yep