Before there was fake news, there was fake history.
Over 16,000 books have been written idolizing America's most destructive president.
It's true, he was hated, and with good reason. If you wondered how ObaMao would be treated by history, pre-Trump, you only need to look at how the Rothschild bastard, Abraham Lincoln has fared.
If you want to learn who really killed Lincoln, and why, Ms Alex Christopher's Pandora's Box is a great read, but good luck finding it. The Vatican control of publishing suppressed her book, successfully. I saw a used copy on amazon for $1200, once. Fortunately, you can find it online in pdf.
Economist, and free trader, Thomas J. DiLorenzo cites the scholarship of many of the 16,000 Lincoln worshipers, but he doesn't give him a pass for his shredding of the Constitution. Where DiLorenzo goes wrong, however, is he is critcial of Lincoln's protectionism, but if Lincoln were president today, he would be a globalist because he was a tool for the money interests. His book, "The Real Lincoln," is a fascinating, and quicker read.
Trump conducting a townhall at the foot of our nations' most destructive president is a beautiful thing for those aware of history.
Trump is in the process of restoring the republic that Lincoln's election destroyed, and its resulting Act of 1871, which is the government we all actually live under. The fact is when the signatories to the 1787 Constitutional contract seceded, the government it created ceased, and Lincoln's authority vanished with it. The rule of law returned to the Articles of Confederation, as it had for the 14 presidents that preceded George Washington.
I am not a historian, I dont have stong convictions, or knowledge about these topics. But I'll try to share something I think is relevant.
There was a big fight between the states and the railroads over land and the Swamp Land Act of 1850. This is where Lincoln come in. He was a successful lawyer for the railroads and was an expert in the swamp act and would work to help the railroads. (My understanding is that the Swamp act stopped the railroads from taking land from the states, build on it and sell bonds to foreigners)
And so Lincoln, who wasnt even the likely nominee for the republicans, was picked over Seward on the republican conventions 3rd ballot. There's probably a deep rabbit hole here that I haven't jumped in.
America's most destructive president? You have many to choose from. Roosevelt, Wilson, Obama and, my choice; Lyndon Johnson. He planted the seeds of our demise; the welfare state and massive deficit spending.
Got the Vatican & the Rothschilds in your theory, but the real question is how were the Knights Templar, the Illuminati and extraterrestrials involved? /s
There's also the issue that there was ZERO, I mean ZERO means for states to leave the union and that the states leaving because they could not monopolize their productions in clear violation of the commerce clause.
Mind you a civil war should have been the last thing. However as they say "Han shot first" and forced the Federalist hand. No one told S. Carolina to secede before inauguration.
Even before you get to Lincoln and calling him a tyrant. Andrew Jackson the man who killed the Bank of the United States willingly threatened S.Carolina that if they were to pull out of the United States he would march the army on them and arrest the Governor and the house. Mainly due to the fact that S.Carolina willingly ignored the court junction after being sued by another state for their Sugar tariffs (you know violation of commerce clause, you can thank S.Carolina for expanding that shit). If anything the issues we have were caused by the Southern Democrats. Monopolies...Democrats...Civil War...Democrats....constitutional shredding and reverence of as you said "tyrant" the democrats.
Its just fun seeing how people lay the mess at Lincoln's feet without realizing the seeds for the Civil War were planted during the Nullification Crisis because S.Carolina did not like the fact its plantation sugar profits were being cut in by the North.
I'll tell you something as an Historian...This cause and effect is NEVER covered in any of those 16,000 Lincoln books, nor those "exposed" books at all. However when you read something on Andrew Jackson (like his Biography and autobiography) you realize that Jackson realized the storm was coming, that there was a snowballs chance of it being stopped because of some pigheaded shit for brain psudo-aristocrats in the south could not see reason.
The 1787 Constitution is essentially a contract, and at the time, it was accepted that secession was the south's means for redress, and enforcement mechanism for the 10th amendment.
When the south seceded, congress adjourned, "sine die," unable to set a date to reconvene. We just witnessed modern usage of the term, sine die, when Chief Justice Roberts adjourned the impeachment proceedings, sine die. Do we have any impeachment proceedings scheduled? See? Sine die means "no date set to reconvene," just like when the southern secession from the 1787 contract was broken.
Therefore, Lincoln, as a lawyer, remained in a non-existant office pretending to have authority he no longer had, and he used federal troops against Americans in the process. DiLorenzo's book is a quick, easy read, and describes the complete lawlessness through which Lincoln ruled. Lincoln's mistake, to the cabal, though, was printing lawful money instead of borrowing, but John Wilkes Booth was the patsy. You'll have to read, Pandora's Box to find out who really took him out and the evidence, though circumstantial is pretty damn convincing.
The last bit of evidence that the southern secession ended the 1787 Constitution is the fact that we live under the Act of 1871. The Act of 1871 is why USC, title 18, section 242 is relevant to you as a citizen. Statutes do not apply to men/women; they apply to legal constructs, corporations, persons, individuals, taxpayers, employees, US Citizens, etc.
Still even after Maubury v Madision it was even ruled out that proper regress to leave the Union would need unamous vote by the population to leave. To this day there's zero evidence that the South held proper voting procedures to allow a vote. Had there been one, where all the southern states through voting agreed that the people wish the leave the Union, there would be no standing at that point to use force (the people agreed). Its the same issue with California and Prop 8. The Prop passed to not put same sex marriage on the same label, but the federal court injunction the vote stating it violated a civil rights statue. That's overall a big issue.
I do agree that the 1787 does provide a broad provision but after Marbury that became murky with judicial review. A proper vote would have made everything easier.
It still stands to point that even with all that happening Lincoln fucked up by reconstituting the Bank of the United States to launch a war. A ample embargo and containment of the South would have been more prudent as the rest of the world was doing away with Slavery. Their biggest benefactor for the South (ie the UK) would eventually drop them as they themselves fully emancipated the slaves within their sphere. Anti-Slavery sentiment would have caused the South to pretty much inflate and bust due to not being able to sell enough good to sustain itself.
Texas by far is the only state in the Union that has a agreed charter to leave the country.
DiLorenzo is also misconstrues a bit and is often bias as his own animus against Lincoln is lenses on today (often what social historians do). Instead of looking at the extraordinary circumstances that befell him. However, it was a powderkeg that was going to erupt as the South and North were in a power-dynamic fight. This was seen in the railroad system itself and how standardization of the system led to lengthy court battles (what Lincoln was known for). Another point to fact was, Lincoln was not an abolitionists (his own letters during the Civil War show his true colors, often makes me sick that this guy was our President during that time). Its often mistaken that he was in fact he was pretty much a racist and opportunist (so this is going back to your point). I'm just pointing out that the South did itself zero favors and pretty much fucked the country because of its stubbornness. Neither DiLorenzo or the Pandora Box author point at this.
I think I can safely agree with you that Abe Lincoln had no reason to be president. That in all reality the South should have taken the money when they could have for the free'd slaves. There were far better Republican candidates that outshines Lincoln. It was mainly as you pointed out the rail trust whom pushed him to the forefront....Gee where have we heard this before.
Hired a bunch of mercenaries to attack Americans. Put American troops in the homes of US citizens. Pick and choose which private companies were allowed to do business. Instigated the war. Suspended habeas corpus.
If Trump did a quarter of what Lincoln did, he would be labeled a tyrant by the left. And I'd agree.
Oh looord! He's coming!
Ohhh Lord I'm cooming!
Risky click of the day
This is just a warm up for the fun starting this summer through to November. It's gonna get good! 🍺😁
He’s done giving shits
Incredible
Media melt-down in 3-2-1 ....
My kekkles are ready...
Trump knows actual history.
Before there was fake news, there was fake history.
Over 16,000 books have been written idolizing America's most destructive president.
It's true, he was hated, and with good reason. If you wondered how ObaMao would be treated by history, pre-Trump, you only need to look at how the Rothschild bastard, Abraham Lincoln has fared.
If you want to learn who really killed Lincoln, and why, Ms Alex Christopher's Pandora's Box is a great read, but good luck finding it. The Vatican control of publishing suppressed her book, successfully. I saw a used copy on amazon for $1200, once. Fortunately, you can find it online in pdf.
Economist, and free trader, Thomas J. DiLorenzo cites the scholarship of many of the 16,000 Lincoln worshipers, but he doesn't give him a pass for his shredding of the Constitution. Where DiLorenzo goes wrong, however, is he is critcial of Lincoln's protectionism, but if Lincoln were president today, he would be a globalist because he was a tool for the money interests. His book, "The Real Lincoln," is a fascinating, and quicker read.
Trump conducting a townhall at the foot of our nations' most destructive president is a beautiful thing for those aware of history.
Trump is in the process of restoring the republic that Lincoln's election destroyed, and its resulting Act of 1871, which is the government we all actually live under. The fact is when the signatories to the 1787 Constitutional contract seceded, the government it created ceased, and Lincoln's authority vanished with it. The rule of law returned to the Articles of Confederation, as it had for the 14 presidents that preceded George Washington.
https://youtu.be/S-_pNxlbz8w?t=2246
I am not a historian, I dont have stong convictions, or knowledge about these topics. But I'll try to share something I think is relevant.
There was a big fight between the states and the railroads over land and the Swamp Land Act of 1850. This is where Lincoln come in. He was a successful lawyer for the railroads and was an expert in the swamp act and would work to help the railroads. (My understanding is that the Swamp act stopped the railroads from taking land from the states, build on it and sell bonds to foreigners)
And so Lincoln, who wasnt even the likely nominee for the republicans, was picked over Seward on the republican conventions 3rd ballot. There's probably a deep rabbit hole here that I haven't jumped in.
Things haven't changed much have they...
Pandora's Box may have touched on that. Her book is extensively researched at county records. It's been a long time since I read it.
From memory, let's see, in Nebraska there is still a place called, "Lincoln's Hill."
This was land Lincoln bought to speculate before the railroad came through. Guess who decided where the railroad went?
Lincoln used federal troops to destroy printing presses that opined against his unlawful war.
Lincoln imprisoned an entire legislature before they could vote against his war.
Lincoln deported a congressman who opposed his war.
Lincoln created the states of West Virginia and Kansas to maintain the votes he needed for his war.
I'm not here to rewrite Pandora's Box, or The Real Lincoln.
America's most destructive president? You have many to choose from. Roosevelt, Wilson, Obama and, my choice; Lyndon Johnson. He planted the seeds of our demise; the welfare state and massive deficit spending.
Congrats on your list; at least you've formed one.
Mine:
Abraham Lincoln
WW
FDR
LBJ
Nixon.
Wilson, signer of the Federal Reserve Act.
May I ask why Nixon is only the list (legitimately was to know your thoughts). I always felt he has been railroaded.
PS Carter was pretty shitty too.
Got the Vatican & the Rothschilds in your theory, but the real question is how were the Knights Templar, the Illuminati and extraterrestrials involved? /s
To say nothing of the "shoes" and lots of parentheses.
I'll bet you would enjoy, "Vatican Assassins" (pdf) by Eric Jon Phelps.
There's also the issue that there was ZERO, I mean ZERO means for states to leave the union and that the states leaving because they could not monopolize their productions in clear violation of the commerce clause.
Mind you a civil war should have been the last thing. However as they say "Han shot first" and forced the Federalist hand. No one told S. Carolina to secede before inauguration.
Even before you get to Lincoln and calling him a tyrant. Andrew Jackson the man who killed the Bank of the United States willingly threatened S.Carolina that if they were to pull out of the United States he would march the army on them and arrest the Governor and the house. Mainly due to the fact that S.Carolina willingly ignored the court junction after being sued by another state for their Sugar tariffs (you know violation of commerce clause, you can thank S.Carolina for expanding that shit). If anything the issues we have were caused by the Southern Democrats. Monopolies...Democrats...Civil War...Democrats....constitutional shredding and reverence of as you said "tyrant" the democrats.
Its just fun seeing how people lay the mess at Lincoln's feet without realizing the seeds for the Civil War were planted during the Nullification Crisis because S.Carolina did not like the fact its plantation sugar profits were being cut in by the North.
I'll tell you something as an Historian...This cause and effect is NEVER covered in any of those 16,000 Lincoln books, nor those "exposed" books at all. However when you read something on Andrew Jackson (like his Biography and autobiography) you realize that Jackson realized the storm was coming, that there was a snowballs chance of it being stopped because of some pigheaded shit for brain psudo-aristocrats in the south could not see reason.
The 1787 Constitution is essentially a contract, and at the time, it was accepted that secession was the south's means for redress, and enforcement mechanism for the 10th amendment.
When the south seceded, congress adjourned, "sine die," unable to set a date to reconvene. We just witnessed modern usage of the term, sine die, when Chief Justice Roberts adjourned the impeachment proceedings, sine die. Do we have any impeachment proceedings scheduled? See? Sine die means "no date set to reconvene," just like when the southern secession from the 1787 contract was broken.
Therefore, Lincoln, as a lawyer, remained in a non-existant office pretending to have authority he no longer had, and he used federal troops against Americans in the process. DiLorenzo's book is a quick, easy read, and describes the complete lawlessness through which Lincoln ruled. Lincoln's mistake, to the cabal, though, was printing lawful money instead of borrowing, but John Wilkes Booth was the patsy. You'll have to read, Pandora's Box to find out who really took him out and the evidence, though circumstantial is pretty damn convincing.
The last bit of evidence that the southern secession ended the 1787 Constitution is the fact that we live under the Act of 1871. The Act of 1871 is why USC, title 18, section 242 is relevant to you as a citizen. Statutes do not apply to men/women; they apply to legal constructs, corporations, persons, individuals, taxpayers, employees, US Citizens, etc.
Still even after Maubury v Madision it was even ruled out that proper regress to leave the Union would need unamous vote by the population to leave. To this day there's zero evidence that the South held proper voting procedures to allow a vote. Had there been one, where all the southern states through voting agreed that the people wish the leave the Union, there would be no standing at that point to use force (the people agreed). Its the same issue with California and Prop 8. The Prop passed to not put same sex marriage on the same label, but the federal court injunction the vote stating it violated a civil rights statue. That's overall a big issue.
I do agree that the 1787 does provide a broad provision but after Marbury that became murky with judicial review. A proper vote would have made everything easier.
It still stands to point that even with all that happening Lincoln fucked up by reconstituting the Bank of the United States to launch a war. A ample embargo and containment of the South would have been more prudent as the rest of the world was doing away with Slavery. Their biggest benefactor for the South (ie the UK) would eventually drop them as they themselves fully emancipated the slaves within their sphere. Anti-Slavery sentiment would have caused the South to pretty much inflate and bust due to not being able to sell enough good to sustain itself.
Texas by far is the only state in the Union that has a agreed charter to leave the country.
DiLorenzo is also misconstrues a bit and is often bias as his own animus against Lincoln is lenses on today (often what social historians do). Instead of looking at the extraordinary circumstances that befell him. However, it was a powderkeg that was going to erupt as the South and North were in a power-dynamic fight. This was seen in the railroad system itself and how standardization of the system led to lengthy court battles (what Lincoln was known for). Another point to fact was, Lincoln was not an abolitionists (his own letters during the Civil War show his true colors, often makes me sick that this guy was our President during that time). Its often mistaken that he was in fact he was pretty much a racist and opportunist (so this is going back to your point). I'm just pointing out that the South did itself zero favors and pretty much fucked the country because of its stubbornness. Neither DiLorenzo or the Pandora Box author point at this.
I think I can safely agree with you that Abe Lincoln had no reason to be president. That in all reality the South should have taken the money when they could have for the free'd slaves. There were far better Republican candidates that outshines Lincoln. It was mainly as you pointed out the rail trust whom pushed him to the forefront....Gee where have we heard this before.
Hired a bunch of mercenaries to attack Americans. Put American troops in the homes of US citizens. Pick and choose which private companies were allowed to do business. Instigated the war. Suspended habeas corpus.
If Trump did a quarter of what Lincoln did, he would be labeled a tyrant by the left. And I'd agree.
He seems angry.
Not Angry.... But Avenged.... The Storm is Not Comin.... It Has Already Arrived!!
....Enjoy.... KEK!!