One of the Most Absurd Claims I've Ever Heard

Last Friday, I was at Barnes & Noble (the book store) wandering in the history section. I picked up a book titled "Lies My Teacher Told Me," and flipped to a section about the War Between the States. Of course, they referred to it as the "Civil War." After reading for roughly 2 seconds, I gave up all hope of a politically incorrect book. Below are the claims the author makes, and my responses.

Insane Claim #1: Textbooks are slanted toward the Confederacy. Yes, the author actually made this claim.

Response: Yeah, that explains why the public is generally convinced that Lincoln was a saint, the Confederates were racist Nazis, and that Gen. Grant was a hero. This applies, pathetically enough, to Southerners as well.

Insane Claim #2: South Carolina seceded almost completely because of slavery and tried to control the actions of other states.

Response: No, they didn't, and no, they didn't. Granted, the author backs up the first subclaim, which is better than what I see from most liberals, but it's still highly inaccurate. Of course slavery was one of the reasons, but the author claims that the tarriff was only a minor issue and fails to mention the cultural/religious differences, which gave secession a boost. The tariff was in fact a huge issue. The way it worked was this: The government raised large import/export taxes, which delivered three blows at once. It hurt the cotton industry, which relied on Europe to buy most of its cotton. It made it expensive for the South to buy goods from Europe and forced them to rely more on Northern goods, which were more expensive and often lower quality. Last, all the tax money was spent on projects in the North, and not a penny went to the South. Lincoln also promised higher tarriffs. Now, as for trying to control other states' actions, the author cites South Carolina's complaint about some Yankee states discouraging officers from enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law. That's not an attempt at control, that's just a complaint! Sure, it may have INFLUENCED those states, but that's not control. Oh, yeah, and if good old South Carolina seceded over slavery, why did the C.S.A. Constitution ban the slave trade?

Insane claim #3: Sherman never burned Columbia, it was because the Confederates burned cotton and bridges, which started the fire. See why I call these claims absurd?

Response: Fortunately, the author never denied Sherman's burning of Atlanta (to my knowledge, at least). As for this claim, everyone knows that Sherman's men burned a whole lot of small, unimportant towns as well as some major ones, and we're expected to believe that he never touched the capitol of the first state to secede! The author completely neglected to mention the eyewitness accounts of drunken Yankee soldiers running around with torches. Of course, those eyewitnesses were biased, so we can't trust them! However, we can trust whatever Mr. Sherman says, because he wasn't biased! I don't believe a word of it.

And now, on a lighter and yet still Lincoln-related note

This has to be the best commercial ever.

It just keeps getting worse and worse...

After watching the following videos, you will feel like running up to D.C. and screaming your head off. You will also probably get an intense hatred for our brilliant government.

Proof that we need to GET OUT.

I found this horrifying article on my dad's blog, The New Mrs. Gunderson. If you don't think we're at the point that secession is a necessity, think again. This is nothing short of communism. This is EXACTLY what the Soviets did. It DOESN'T WORK.


U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy
By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.

The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.

The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.

Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.

The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.

Geithner plans to lay out the administration's broader strategy for overhauling financial regulation at another hearing on Thursday.

The authority to seize non-bank financial firms has emerged as a priority for the administration after the failure of investment house Lehman Brothers, which was not a traditional bank, and the troubled rescue of AIG.

"We're very late in doing this, but we've got to move quickly to try and do this because, again, it's a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they're systemic," Geithner said last night at a forum held by the Wall Street Journal.

The powers would parallel the government's existing authority over banks, which are exercised by banking regulatory agencies in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Geithner has cited that structure as the model for the government's plans.

Proof that secession is legal

Now, despite the video, probably not everyone who reads this takes secession seriously. Well, I have one thing to say in response:
Nothing. But the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and various highly respected people sure do!!

Quote #1: The Union "was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right to do so." Alexis de Tocqueville, author of the book Democracy in America, written not to long after the US' founding.

Quote #2: "We should be determined... to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government... in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness." Thomas Jefferson.

Quote #3: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment, United States Constitution.

Quote #4: "The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the RIGHT but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint." John Quincy Adams.

The last quote means, in short, "Secession wouldn't be good, but it would be a heck of a lot better than being forced to stay together."


I hope I've convinced the rest of you.

In your face, Lincoln!!!

Now I think you should start taking me seriously if you haven't yet.

Benefits of Secession

You probably saw my older post suggesting secession, and you probably thought I was crazy. This post, however, should show you that, although I'm still a nut, secession is a good idea. The best part of it would be just getting out of current troubles, and starting all over. A clean start is exactly what we need. We could look at all the mistakes the US has made and in the new country's Constitution make it as difficult as possible to repeat those. Think about it: seeing on the news "major US bailout about to take place" and not having to worry about it at all. Or seeing the crazy-high US inflation rates and knowing that you won't have to worry since your country's economy is solidly on the gold standard. And imagine being freed from the incredibly stupid Endangered Species Act. Or even sending DDT over to the poor countries that are plagued with malaria, something the US isn't allowed to do, since after getting rid of malaria here, the government banned it. Not to mention, no UN!!! Oil drilling!!! Nuclear power plants!!! I for one would be happy with just half of those benefits.