Archive for category History

REPOST: July 4 and REAL Traditional Values

By Bob Whitaker (originally posted July 4th 2007 – http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2007/07/04/july-4-and-real-traditional-values/):

Here is some history you do not hear about. You have heard that Jefferson and Adams both died on July 4, 1826. In fact, the only ex-president who had died before that date was George Washington over a quarter of a century earlier. July 4, 1926 was the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The critical point is that it was NOT a coincidence that both men died on that day.

In fact, if you THINK about it, a forgotten art to historians, the date of the death of Jefferson and Adams provides an important insight into human nature. Before modern medicine, it was normal for very old people to decide WHEN they would die. My grandfather reached ninety during a recurrence of a scalp tumor, so he lived until his birthday in August of 1966 and promptly died.

My 86-year-old uncle by marriage lived alone in Florida, drove his own car, and had outlived two wives. Then a widow of 75 years he was courting told him she could not marry him because, in those days, her Social Security from her dead husband would be reduced if she remarried.

He promptly died.

He HATED being alone, so no one was surprised at his death. Back then, it was taken for granted when a man that age gave up the will the live, he died. Today the idea that a very old person can decide on the exact date they will die seems like a superstition.

AND, back then, no one would have felt OBLIGATED to talk him OUT of it. It was his right.

“We’ll MISS you,” would have been an argument. “God demands that you live every last second you can, no matter how miserable you are,” would have been considered blasphemy, and no one even THOUGHT of it.

He died, excuse the expression, with dignity. He did NOT die being wheeled into an emergency room with an intern sitting on his chest pounding away.

AND the possibility that he and a 75-year-old woman might live in sin together never even came up. Modern Thought, both EXTREME Pro-Life and modern liberal, would have condemned the two choices we took for granted. His right to die was assumed and no one even suggested they “live together.”

Again, EXTREME pro-life and liberalism are on the same side in opposing REAL traditional values.

So most modern historians consider it to be a myth that Adams’s last words were, “Jefferson still lives.” If you understand the way people REALLY thought then, it would be exactly what he would have said. He and Jefferson both PURPOSELY stayed alive until that date, and both knew the other was doing just that. Jefferson had actually died a few hours earlier.

James Monroe was the next ex-president to die, in 1834. He ALSO died on July 4th! Now THAT you DON’T hear about. It says too much about REAL traditional values.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

6 Comments

The Real Presidents Told the Federal Courts to SHOVE IT!

By Bob Whitaker:

In case you consider arguing this, the presidents referred to were Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.

An old Confederate like me is no fan of Old Abe, but the point here is that nobody can say he didn’t fill the Presidential Chair to the point of bursting.

As for Andy Jackson, he remains the only American Chief Executive for whom historians named an age of history, the Jacksonian Era, and I have never seen any historian who disputed it.

The 1860 Republican platform was very short, and of that briefness the election held the issue that took up the least space.

For two generations, the introduction of new states had made the headlines. There had to be an equal number of free and slave states and it had to be kept that way.

The decision was book-length and I agree with Back Bay Grouch that it contained a more thorough analysis and loyalty to the actual thinking of the Founding Fathers than any other decision rendered by the Court.

Generally speaking it was decided that a citizen bringing his property into the territory from a state has a right to expect the territory to protect that property.

A state’s definition of property or other legal terms was legally superior to that of a territory.

That was one of the reasons territories wanted to become states.

In the Dred Scott Decision the Court decided that a territory could not change a piece of property.

Over ninty percent of the reason for the creation of the Republican Party’s existence was to prevent the admission of more slave territories and therefore more slave states into the Union.

So the 1860 Republician plan consisted of telling the United States Supreme Court to take its decision and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

A generation before the same Court had Andrew Jackson return most of the State of Georgia to the Indians because of treaties made earlier between the United States Government and tribes.

Andrew Jackson informed the Court that it could put its ruling in the same convenient place.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments

The Federal Surplus

By Bob Whitaker:

And BUGSERS punch me with their elbows and whisper, “Bob, your senility is showing. You mean the Federal DEFICIT.”

But this time I’m right for a change.

Yes, Virginia, there was once a Federal SURPLUS.

Briefly.

To understand this, you have to know where Federal revenue came from back then.

About eighty percent of Federal revenue came from tariffs. (You’ll look it up)

And unlike any taxes today, tariffs were dearly loved in major parts of the United States. That is why they once collected too many of them.

Once.

Why was that tax popular? Tariffs were BELOVED in New England because they meant that all the tariffs were paid by Southerners.

Southerners had a choice: They paid the tariffs or they paid more for industrial goods produced in New England.

Tariffs were supposed “to protect American industry” by raising the prices of imported industrial goods.

It was a “very patriotic” tax.

But by 1833 the giant industries in New England didn’t need any “protection.” So a tariff hike just meant higher prices paid by the South to the East or Northeast for goods.

Instead of being a good Democrat and opposing tariff increases, Jackson backed a tariff that was out of sight.

It was supposed to be a Shrewd Move. It would get even New Englanders into opposing this incredible tariff rise.

Every time a politician decides to be Shrewd, it causes a disaster.

Jackson’s Shrewd Move in 1833 very nearly brought on civil war.

Jackson thought that “the Tariff of Abominations” was so high even New Englanders would go to the negotiating table.   He didn’t realize that tariffs were so popular in New England that a congressman who voted against ANY tariff increase would have lost the next election.

The tariffs that were popular in New England were paid in Southern ports. They were an increase to the price of European goods arriving in Southern ports. That allowed New England goods to charge higher prices.

Faced with paying a Federal surplus AND payng more for industrial goods, the South did exactly what many American cities do today about immigration laws: They refused to allow them to be paid in Southern ports.

This was called Nullification, when the port at Charleston refused to enforce Federal law.

We have exactly the same policy today where cities that don’t like immigration laws simply refuse to enforce them.

The difference was that a President today doesn’t dare force local enforcement, while Jackson felt that the Union would fall apart if he allowed South Carolina not to collect the tariffs.

It came very close to a civil war, which we could have won in 1833.

Southern “leaders,” like all respectable conservatives backed down and New England magnanimously gave them all slightly lower increase in tariffs in 1834.

As in America today, the respectable approach destroyed those who allowed it.  To repeat, had we fought in 1833 when the issues was clearly unfair tariffs, we would have won.

But moderates did not fight when the issue was clearly the robbery of one part of America by another.

The South waited, led by Moderation, until the issue was slavery.

The Trump win shows, as Anne Coulter said, that some Americans are finally throwing out the suicidal “moderates.”

The question today, just as it was with the South back then, will we have gone down the road of weakness until it is just plain too late.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

9 Comments

A Prison Wall is Built to Keep People OUT!

For almost twenty years I have been repeating our earliest Mantra:

“If Communism is so great, why did every Communist country have to build a WALL to keep its people in?”

I had used that simple truth to cut down every pseudo intellectual who showed any empathy with Communism.

I had no mercy. Many a time I said, “For the seventeenth time, if Communism is good, why has every single communists state had to build a prison wall to keep its people in?

This worked very well behind the Iron Curtain when it was there, and it is the kind of work I did there which helped take it down.

It worked here, it worked there. But not one conservative publication ever used it ONCE!

Now they have just worked out what they consider an answer.

They have been working over three decades to come up with SOMETHING. Only respectable conservatives have prevented my straight common sense answer from being used.

AT ALL!!!!!

This may sound familiar. David Duke was moving up on the Louisiana State Senate seat. But even the media featured the words that explained the situation. the words I had worked out that put the situation in the exact terms that voguers saw it:

White Genocide.

But no one among respectable conservatives has ever given me ANY credit or, the real point, stopped trying to impress people long enough to SAY what everyone SAW.

Ann Coulter explained this repeatedly as “why people hate the Republicans so much.”

Coulter puts it in plain English: Whites are sick of being knocked round and watching those who claim to speak for them APOLOGIZING to the bullies, declaring how much they RESPECT those bullies. “Talking,” As the Texan put it, “Like a bunch of queers.”

And this Trump-Coulter message, “borrowed” as usual from Bob — and don’t hold your breath waiting for me to get any credit is finally being discovered by its targets.

That is why, after over a generation, one of my earliest arguments is finally being addressed by them.

Why do Communists always have to build walls to keep people in?

I saw the first BBC version of their answer on a BBC show about Hadrian’s Wall.

“Why did they build Hadrian’s Wall?” asked the narrator. And he gave the new standard reply:

“Walls are built to keep people in and to keep people out” So he smiled and said, “Walls are built to keep some people in and some people out.”

“Communist walls were built like all walls to keep some people in and some people out.” This became the Party Line.

So just the other day a woman, desperate to be sophisticated, repeated that line about the Berlin Wall: “It was built to keep some people out and some people in.”

I can cite people were shot down in cold blood trying to get across that wall. I have never heard of anyone who needed the guards there stopping people to get in.

But any answer to the Party Line is always cut off.

This is hard to argue because it says that the entire world leftist machine developed an answer to one man.

That is an answer no one on National Review or Stormfront wants to have HEAR, much the less accepted. When it comes to their rejecting the way putting things that has turned regular people against our rulers, any discussion of it is humiliating. You stand a better chance of hearing about it on anti-white and openly pro-Communist media than you do on those who call themselves pro-white or anti-Communist.

In fact, the only outlet that gives me what I consider credit is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

A lot of people wonder why ONLY the SPLC never fails to recite THE ENTIRE MANTRA in full.

I will explain this, and a few other things, in the next editions of WhitakerOnline.com, aka BUGS.

Yes, Dammit, US!!!!!!!!!!!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

9 Comments

Trump Joins Pense in Suicide Strategy

I told you that when Reagan won with my working class strategy, he immediately threw it away on the Religious Right.   Like black church leaders for the Democrats, the Religious Right could deliver a lot of working class votes without the Buckleys having to shaked their filthy sweaty hands.

Trump has signed on.   While immigrants pour in where that Wall was supposed to go up, Trump is religious rightists what he will destroy some Jonson Amendment amendment that is the current money-raiser for the preachers.

Our problem is immigration.   Even Ann Coulter, is bit on abortion, has declared that she is now a one-issue candidate:

So both of them begin their terms as Religious Rightists.

Trump supporters get violently attacked by rioters on a California University campus. So what does the Trump team talk about?

Why, they go for that anti-white Guaranteed Loser Group, the Religious Right, of course.

It was nice while it lasted, but it didn’t last long.

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

23 Comments