Sunday, April 11, 2010

CNN Article Equates Confederate Soldiers to Terrorists


According to CNN, Confederate soldiers were domestic terrorists and no different than Osama bin Laden

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
April 11, 2010

In a remarkably addlepated story about the Confederacy, Roland Martin of CNN tells us Confederate soldiers defending their homes against invasion by the North were no different than Osama bin Laden and the supposed 9/11 hijackers.

“Even if you’re a relative of one of the 9/11 hijackers, that man was an out-and-out terrorist, and nothing you can say will change that. And if your great-great-great-granddaddy was a Confederate who stood up for Southern ideals, he too was a terrorist,” writes Martin. “They are the same” as Muslim terrorists.

Martin also feeds into the ongoing corporate media effort to demonize a large number of Americans as “extremists.” He does not mention the Hutaree or other exaggerated scapegoats, but his historical revisionist argument hints that opposition to federal power over the states is domestic terrorism.

Martin made his comments after Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell decided to honor Confederates for their involvement in the so-called Civil War, actually a war against Northern aggression.

Since McDonnell issued his proclamation — and modified it to include a reference to slavery in response to intense pressure by the race-baiting crowd — the corporate media has gone into overdrive to characterize the North’s invasion as a heroic effort to end slavery.

As Infowars.com noted last week, the so-called Civil War was not about ending slavery. It was about the North imposing economic policies on the South. The South seceded from the Union because the North had imposed punitive tariffs upon it. In 1828 the North began imposing agricultural tariffs on the Southern states to subsidize its industrial policies and this ultimately led to secession

In 1860, Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, although he did pledge to “collect the duties and imposts” the government claimed.

Lincoln admitted to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase that his Emancipation Proclamation was not designed to free the slaves but was a brazen piece of war propaganda.

McDonnell’s effort to honor Confederate soldiers arrives at precisely the right time for advocates of state power over the individual. Millions of Americans stand in opposition to Obama and the federal government in response to Obamacare, cap and tax, and additional authoritarian power vested in the Federal Reserve and the IRS at the expense of the states and in direct violation of the Constitution.

It is also a response to a number of states talking about secession and nullifiction.

“I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative,” writes Walter E. Williams. “Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them.”

Mr. Martin’s article is yet another example of the the Mockingbird corporate media in league with the federal government pulling out the stops to characterize patriotic Americans as extremists, racists, and domestic terrorists.

10 comments:

Theonomist said...

actually it was the "Grand Army of the Republic," primarily under Generals Sheridan (in the Shenandoah Valley) and "War Is Hell" Sherman (throughout the south) who were the terrorists, destroying crops and livestock and killing and raping civilians

Larry said...

That would be called a "war criminal", not a "terrorist".

the_last_name_left said...

As Infowars.com noted last week, the so-called Civil War was not about ending slavery. It was about the North imposing economic policies on the South.
-----------------

slavery is an economic condition, is it not?

What a bunch of losers you are: you've been losing 200 years and you're still losing now. Explains a lot.

But really guys - take a hint?
------------

Your constitutional supreme court has already decided on the matter:

The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.


Texas vs White
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

So who is acting unconstitutionally? Yoohoo - Larry? Mr Alex Jones? the confederates?

the_last_name_left said...

yoohoo, Larry - no comment on the Supreme Court decision in Texas vs White?

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation...

Theonomist said...

Hey TLNL -
Just because SCOTUS said it does not mean it's true - going all the way back to Marbury v. Madison. It was Abraham Lincoln's war of aggression that determined that the southern States could not secede, and force never proves anything.

Larry - technically you are correct in your distinction, but since the government that claims to represent us does not seem to understand the difference between between acts of war and terrorism, if the shoe fits ...

the_last_name_left said...

force never proves anything.


LOL - you maybe want to ask Larry - or yourself - why you care so much about gun "rights"?

"Force never proves anything" but you are determined to possess a right to the means to facilitate it?

Theonomist said...

@TLNL
Thomas Jefferson was very clear that the 2nd Amendment was the means of protecting our other rights - from violation by the force of government

Larry said...

Theonomist----I was simply ignoring TLNL, because he knows absolutely NOTHING about our Constitution because he has the IQ of a turd. He's not even from this country. He's in the UK----still bitter that we kicked his ass in the Revolutionary War no doubt.

Theonimist said...

and 1812 to boot - then we saved their butts in 1918 and 1941-45

the_last_name_left said...

you claim force never proves anything........but you treasure your 2nd amendment gun rights.

How do you square that circle? You don't......and don't feel a need to.

lol. fine - carry on, just make it up as you go along. nobody said you had to be consistent from one moment to the next, eh?