The Terrible Truth About Lincoln and the Confederate War

By Michael Hutcheson
Originally published in Snap Out of It America

President Lincoln has been all but deified in America, with a god-like giant statue at a Parthenon-like memorial in Washington. Generations of school children have been indoctrinated with the story that “Honest Abe” Lincoln is a national hero who saved the Union and fought a noble war to end slavery, and that the “evil” Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery. This is the Yankee myth of history, written and promulgated by Northerners, and it is a complete falsity. It was produced and entrenched in the culture in large part to gloss over the terrible war crimes committed by Union soldiers in the War Between the States, as well as Lincoln’s violations of the law, his shredding of the Constitution, and other reprehensible acts. It has been very effective in keeping the average American ignorant of the real causes of the war, and the real nature, character and record of Lincoln. Let us look at some unpleasant facts. 

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated clearly that (1) he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed, (2) that he had no inclination or intention to do so even if he had the legal authority, (3) that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, returning runaway slaves escaping to the North to their masters in the South, and (4) that he fully supported the Thirteenth Amendment then being debated in Congress which would protect slavery in perpetuity and was irrevocable. He later famously stated, “Do not paint me with the Abolitionist brush.” 

Although there was some opposition to slavery in the country, the government was willing to concede everything the South wanted regarding slavery to keep it in the Union. Given all these facts, the idea that the South seceded to protect slavery is as absurd as the idea that Lincoln fought the war to end slavery. Lincoln himself said in a famous letter after the war began that his sole purpose was to save the Union, and not to either save or end slavery; that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would. Nothing could be clearer. 

For decades before the war, the South, through harsh tariffs, had been supplying about 85% of the country’s revenue, nearly all of which was being spent in the North to boost its economy, build manufacturing, infrastructure, railroads, canals, etc. With the passage of the 47% Morrill Tariff the final nail was in the coffin. The South did not secede to protect slavery, although certainly they wished to protect it; they seceded over a dispute about unfair taxation, an oppressive Federal government, and the right to separate from that oppression and be governed “by consent”, exactly the same issues over which the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War. When a member of Lincoln’s cabinet suggested he let the South go in peace, Lincoln famously replied, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!” He then launched a brutal, empirical war to keep the free and sovereign states, by force of arms, in the Union they had created and voluntarily joined, and then voluntarily left. This began his reign of terror. 

Lincoln was the greatest tyrant and despot in American history. In the first four months of his presidency, he created a complete military dictatorship, destroyed the Constitution, ended forever the constitutional republic which the Founding Fathers instituted, committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens, and formed the tyrannical, overbearing and oppressive Federal government which the American people suffer under to this day. In his first four months, he 

1. Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
2. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
3. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial---which he did.
4. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
5. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
6. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
7. Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the North, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
8. Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
9. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
10. Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
11. Sent the Army to arrest the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
12. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
13. Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.

These are just a few of the most egregious things Lincoln did during his despotic presidency. He set himself up as a tyrannical dictator with powers never before utilized or even imagined by any previous administration. During this four years of terrible war he was one of the greatest despots the world has ever known, his tyranny focused against his own countrymen, both North and South. He was called a despot and tyrant by many newspapers and citizens both North and South, until he had imprisoned nearly all those who dared to simply speak out against his unconstitutional usurpations of power. Those who disagreed with him were branded as “traitors”, just as were the brave and honorable men in the states which had legally seceded from the Union over just such issues as these criminal abuses of power by the Federal government. 

Four months after Fort Sumter, when Lincoln finally called Congress back into session, no one dared oppose anything he wanted or speak out against him for fear of imprisonment, so completely had he entrenched his unilateral power and silenced his other many critics. The Union army, under Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and President Lincoln, committed active genocide against Southern civilians---this is difficult for some to believe, but it is explicit in their writings and dispatches at the time and indisputable in their actions. Tens of thousands of Southern men, women and children---civilians---white and black, slave and free alike---were shot, hanged, raped, imprisoned without trial, their homes, lands and possessions stolen, pillaged and burned, in one of the most horrific and brutal genocides ever inflicted upon a people anywhere; but the Yankee myth of history is silent in these well-documented matters. For an excellent expose of these war crimes and their terrible extent, see War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco (Pelican Publishing Co. 2007, ISBN 9871589804661). 

Only after the Union had suffered two years of crushing defeats in battle did Lincoln resolve to “emancipate” the slaves, and only as a war measure, a military tactic, not for moral or humanitarian purposes. He admitted this, remarking, “We must change tactics or lose the game.” He was hoping, as his original draft of the document shows, that a slave uprising would occur, making it harder for Southerners to continue the war. His only interest in freeing the slaves was in forcing the South to remain in the Union. His Emancipation Proclamation was denounced by Northerners, Southerners and Europeans alike for its absurdity and hypocrisy; for, it only “freed” the slaves in the seceded states---where he could not reach them---and kept slavery intact in the North and the border states---where he could have freed them at once. 

The Gettysburg Address, the most famous speech in American history, is an absurd piece of war rhetoric and a poetry of lies. We were not “engaged in a great Civil War, to see whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure.” The South was engaged in a War of Independence from a tyrannical North, and after having legally seceded, wished only “to be let alone.” The North was engaged in a war of empire, to keep the South involuntarily under its yoke. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” would not have “perished from the earth” had the North lost the war; on the contrary, it perished in the United States when the North won the war; for, freely representative government, by consent of the governed, is exactly what the South was fighting for and exactly what Lincoln’s military victory destroyed. 

The checks and balances of powers, the separation of powers, the constitutional constraints so carefully and deliberately put into place by the Founding Fathers, had all been destroyed in Lincoln’s first months. The Republic which the Founders gave us had been completely destroyed and a new nation-state was set up; one in which the free and sovereign States would afterward be only vassals and tributaries, slaves to an all-powerful, oppressive Federal government. This new nation-state is completely different in both nature and consequence to the original American Republic. One only has to look around today to see the end results and legacy of Lincoln’s war, his destruction of freedom, and his institution of despotic, centralized governmental power and tyranny. 

In retrospect, it is a tragedy that John Wilkes Booth did not act four years earlier. Slavery would have ended naturally, as it has everywhere else (except in African and Arab states); the American Republic, liberty, and 700,000 lives would have been saved, and untold thousands of those young men would have lived to contribute their ingenuity, inventions, creativity and talents to the political, economic, literary, scientific and social legacy of our people. And the greatest despotic tyrant in American history would never have gained the foothold of power or been able to establish the oppressive and omnipotent Federal government we all suffer under today.

Social Media vs Blogging

I think blogging is in decline.  Using social media like Twitter or Gab or FaceBook or MeWe is more satisfying because it is more current than blog posts, and you get much faster feedback.  I spend a lot more time on social media for this reason.  

Weird Beliefs: Ghosts, Monsters and Extraterrestrials. What is Your Belief Factor? A Self Test.

Weird Beliefs:  Where Do You Fit In?

Life After Death
I am not generally one to believe in anything paranormal, with some exceptions.  I believe that near death experiences are evidence of life after death -- evidence, I said, not proof.  I tend towards belief. In a factor of 0-100, my belief factor would be 60%.

Monsters
I don't believe in Big Foot or the Lake Ness Momster, since there is no physical evidence of their existence.  There is that one film purporting to show an apelike creature walking in the woods, but that might be someone in a gorilla suit.  There is no other corroborating evidence, like bodies, skeletons, fur samples, etc to close the deal.  My belief factor in 0-100 would be 0%.

How about ghosts?  There is very little evidence of their existence.  There was and is a lot of fraud to try and convince us our dead loved ones want to communicate beyond the grave.  This is the area most prone to scams and frauds.  I'd love to believe in ghosts and will keep an open mind about it, but as of right now, I am far from convinced.  My belief factor would be 20% out of 100.

Aliens From Outer Space.  My belief factor in extraterrestrials has grown substantially over the years because of the phenomenon of alien abductions  This is where people are allegedly abducted by aliens, taken aboard a space craft, and subjected to medical tests, skin, urine, sperm and other tests, by short, bald creatures with big eyes.

When I was a child, in the early 1950s, there was a rash of "flying saucer" sightings all over the world, and a lot of fear and speculation was generated.   In about 1953, I was in the 3rd grade and could read fairly well.  My parents bought a newspaper that had an illustration of a flying saucer on the cover, with the headline, "Space Men Are Afraid of Us Too."  Wow, thought I.  "It's in the newspapers, so it must be true.  They would never print falsehoods."  (I may have been a Democrat at the time, I don't remember.)  Nevertheless, I found it very hard to believe.  I fought with the concept in my head.  I was left with a huge question mark stamped on my brain.

Fast forward to 1961.  Now I was in high school when the Betty and Barny Hill story broke in the news.  A married couple on the east coast remembered an alien abduction after being hypnotically regressed to remember suppressed memories.  Both had nightmares and were aware of "missing time," a part of their auto trip that they could not remember.  They went to a psychiatrist and he hypnotically regressed them to remember what they had been made to forget.  What they related was astounding and is documented in their book, "The Interrupted Journey."  I read it twice.  I was intrigued, but not sold.

Later, in 1976, I heard about the Travis Walton case, one of a team of loggers in Arizona who spotted a UFO hovering above a forest clearing.  Walton got out of the logger's truck and ran towards the brightly lit object, which then shot a beam of electricity into his chest, knocking him  out.  The other loggers fled in panic.  Later they returned to try and find Walton, but he was nowhere to be found.  He reappeared five days later with tales of aliens and other weird stuff, and wrote a book about it called "Fire In The Sky."  I read it twice too.  I was intrigued, but still not sold, but my belief level rose a few percentage points.  I concluded that alien abductions might be real.

About a year ago I heard about the Allagash Abductions, where four men in Maine went on a fishing trip in the backwoods and claimed they were abducted by a strange craft, then subjected to medical experiments by the usual bald and big-eyed aliens after being placed on metal tables.  The men noticed missing time and years later, in 1989, underwent hypnotic regression separately, and all remembered the same strange sequence of events.

In 2016, one of the men, Chuck Rak became estranged from the other three men and retracted the story he told under hypnosis, saying the whole thing had been a hoax to make money.  I looked into this guy and he has low credibility, has anger issues, and some say he seems to have mental problems.  The other three men stand by the story, stating that they are convinced by the results of their hypnotic regressions and lie detector tests that the abduction event did happen.

I believe the three men and disbelieve Rak.  No appreciable money was ever made by the four by telling the story.  Further, videos of the leader of the group on YouTube reveal a sober, serious man who shows no sign of fakery or scam. 

The final abduction tale that I find compelling is one that happened in Mississippi in 1973.  It is called the Pascagoula Incident, and involves two fishermen who claim they were abducted for a short time and scanned by an alien with a weird device resembling a human eyeball.  I just read the book by one of them, Clive Parker, called The Pascagouls Incident.  They did not experience any missing time, but still underwent hypnotic regression and lie detector tests.

Any one story of alien abduction would prove nothing and could be easily dismissed.  There are, however, thousands of them, and many are strikingly similar.  The abductees are transported to an alien vehicle, placed on a table and medically examined with samples of skin and fluids taken.  The aliens are in most cases "the Grays," the short, bald humanoids with large black eyes that sometimes seem to wrap partially around their heads.  Travis Walton said they resembled human fetuses.

The general impression is that the aliens are studying us, for some unknown purpose.  My belief percentage for the existence of extraterrestrials is now about 85%.

TWITTER MUST GO. All conservatives should abandon this platform ASAP.

Twitter denied my appeal (see prior post below for background).

We’re writing to let you know that your account features will remain locked or 
limited for the allotted time due to violations of the Twitter Rules, specifically 
our hateful conduct policy.

We do not allow people to promote violence against or directly attack or threaten 
other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, 
gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease.

Please note that continued abusive behavior may lead to the suspension of your 
account. To avoid having your account suspended, please only post content 
that abides by the Twitter Rules: https://twitter.com/rules#hateful-conduct.

You can learn more about our policy against hateful conduct 
here: https://help.twitter.com/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy.

Thanks,
Twitter

My response:  

Stogie Chomper <stogiechomper@gmail.com>	10:34 AM (27 minutes ago)
to support@twitter.com, me

Twitter is governed by a far left ideology that prohibits legitimate criticism of radical ideologies or 

beliefs.  I stand by my truthful comments that Muslims subscribe to a violent, barbaric and intolerant 

ideology.  So it appears you are the ones defending hateful content:  an ideology that murders 

people daily for joining another religion, or commits genital mutilation, or honor killings, or for being

Jewish or gay, or becoming too westernized.   This is not to mention the massive rapes by Muslim 

migrants in Europe, where any woman not wearing  veil is considered fair game.  You do not 

promote tolerance by running interference for intolerance, and all too often you on the left rationalize 

and support the worst regimes and ideologies in human history.

I will not delete my post, and will give up my Twitter account.  However. I will post this on my blog 

and will work tirelessly to convince conservatives to vacate your platform for one more committed 

to the values of Western Civilization.

Sent from my iPhone

SCREW TWITTER! I quit.

The total fools at Twitter have suspended my account for seven days for my sarcastic criticism of Islam.  They will not restore my account until I delete my offending tweet and wait seven days.  I have instead opted to leave Twitter for good.  This despicable leftist gate-keeper of information should be abandoned by every conservative and then move their account to Gab, a similar and competing platform.

Here are the details of my break with these Communist fools:

My offending tweet:

@Hatewatch It’s hard to understand why anyone could be so angered by Islam. Just because Muslims regularly behead nonbelievers, commit shooting mass murder, rape women and girls, do female genital mutilation, and set off bombs in public places, is no reason to resent them. Diversity yay!

We've temporarily limited some of your account features

Saber Point
@Stogie2

What happened?

We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for:

1.    Violating our rules against hateful conduct.

You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.

As a result, we’ve temporarily limited some of your account features. While in this state, you can still browse Twitter, but you’re limited to only sending Direct Messages to your followers –– no Tweets, Retweets, follows, or likes. Learn more. Your account will be restored to full functionality in: 7 days and 0 hours.

My response to Twitter:

You have suspended my account for criticizing Islam.  This is not, nor should it be, a violation of Twitter rules.  Everything I said was the objective and verifiable truth.  Truth should not be suppressed simply because some hate the truth.  The vile Southern Poverty Law Center is a far-left group who regularly slanders anyone who criticizes extremist groups.  They have very little credibility anymore.  I imagine that they are the ones who complained about my post.  Islam is a very violent religion and backward culture whose adherents have committed great acts of violence in the name of their religion:  911, London, Madrid, Mumbai, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Fort Hood, Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, Orlando Pulse, among others.  Islam cannot be separated from its violent nature and Muslims must be held responsible for their barbaric culture, one that requires women to dress in body bags, be beaten by their husbands, be subjected to female genital mutilation so they cannot enjoy sex; honor killings of daughters who are too westernized; and the murder of non-believers, particularly Jews.  I have read 18 books on the history, teachings and practices of Islam (including the Koran) and its so-called prophet, and I know of what I speak.   ISLAM IS VIOLENT, MURDEROUS AND EVIL.  Islamic violence is not merely an aberration of an otherwise peaceful religion -- it is an intrinsic part thereof. The extremists at the Southern Poverty Law Center are incapable of understanding legitimate criticism from mindless bigotry.  I WILL NOT DELETE MY POST, and I am at this point perfectly willing to give up my Twitter account.  If you choose to side with evil, you will have to do it without my acquiescence.

Some Free Advice for MICHAEL SAVAGE

Michael Savage

Michael Savage is a conservative talk radio pundit.  I have listened to him on and off for 20 + years.  Sometimes he is interesting and sometimes not.  Sometimes he supports the conservative movement and sometimes he attacks it.  He doesn't seem to prepare for his broadcasts, appears to just wing it.  His broadcasts therefore often seem to be a stream of consciousness, with Michael saying whatever pops into his head.

Savage is very jealous of conservative talk show hosts who are more successful than he, mainly Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.  This morning he was complaining about something that Rush said that was a repeat of something Savage said several years ago.  Therefore Rush was copying or plagiarizing him.  As if Rush even listens to Savage's show, let alone memorizes it for later plagiarizing.  "Rush said THE this morning.  I said THE years ago!  Rush copies me!"  (Note:  Savage doesn't name the other pundits he criticizes, but does give obvious clues as to who he means.)

Michael Savage is a political schizophrenic.  One day last week he lambasted Judge Brett Kavanaugh as a spoiled rich fratboy and said he didn't care if Kav was confirmed or not.  Today he is doing a good job of defending Kavanaugh.

He began today's show by saying that the judicial confirmation process has "liars on both sides."  He didn't explain.  He mentioned that he is not a Republican, has never been one, and doesn't even like Republicans.

MY ADVICE TO MICHAEL SAVAGE:

1.  Pick a side.  You can't be both left and right at the same time.  You can't please everyone, and it is foolish to try.  When you do this I generally turn off your broadcast.

2.  Prepare for your broadcasts.  Your streams of consciousness are often boring.  Know what you want to talk about before you go on the air.  What do you want us to learn from you on any specific day?

3.  Stop knocking other conservatives.  Knocking other pundits doesn't make you better; it makes you look like you have an inferiority complex.

YOUR GOOD POINTS:

1.  Your passion for worthwhile causes.

2.  Your down-to-earth lectures & rants.  You talk like a common man off the street, and I like that.

Photoshop: Michael Avenatti In His Law Office

The False "Recovered Memory" of Dr Christine Blasey Ford

Christine Blasey Ford is tentatively set to testify before the Senate Judicial Committee this coming Thursday, regarding her accusations against Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  However, many are now predicting that she will not testify.  I agree.

Ford's dubious and ambiguous accusations are the result of "recovered memory" at the hands of a psychologist.  Recovered memory was used a couple of decades back to falsely convict fathers and child care personnel of sexual assaults and rapes of their accusers.  It has since been learned that "recovered memory" is largely a farce.  The psychology patient's "recovered memories" are often the product of suggestion and imagination, not actual events.  Here is what the British Psychological Society says about it:

In 1995 the recovered memory debate was near its most vociferous height. Hundreds of people were recovering memories of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), sometimes in therapies where it was believed that repressed or dissociated memories had to be recovered in order for the person to ‘heal’. Many of the people who recovered these memories confronted the person whom they remembered abusing them, and some cases ended up in the criminal courts with successful prosecutions. However, there were those who questioned whether all such memories should be accepted as accurate reflections of real events (e.g. Loftus, 1993). It was argued that some, perhaps even most, of such recovered memories might in fact be false memories produced, at least in part, by the therapists themselves. In response to such concerns, bodies such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association issued guidance to their members regarding the potential dangers of unintentionally implanting false memories in patients.

 So we have another great reason to disbelieve Ford: Her "memory" is highly dubious at best.

Sexual Accusations Against Kavanaugh Debunked

Brett Kavanaugh, nominee for justice of the Supreme Court, is under an energetic attack by the Democratic Party.  The Dems have relied on their go-to strategy, which is to accuse the Republican target of sexual aggression against women, and the more embarrassing the accusation, the better.

There have been two accusations against Kavanaugh that have served to delay a vote on his confirmation to the court.  These accusations have been thoroughly vetted and analyzed on Twitter, and both are weak and dubious.  Here's why:

I.  Christine Blasey Ford, a leftwing activist and professor of psychology, claimed that Kavanaugh accosted her at a party in 1982, when he was 17 and she was 15.  She said he pushed her onto a bed, groped her, and tried to remove her clothing.  Ford could not provide any authenticating details to her tale, like the month, the location, how she got to the party and how she got home after it was over.  There is a good reason why a liar would omit any such details:  they could be used against her, to refute her story.  Indeed, Kavanaugh demonstrated this by coming up with his 1982 social calendars, none of which document any party as described by Ford.

Ford's story has fallen apart this week, as four people that she listed as witnesses, denied that such a party happened, that they saw Kavanaugh there, or that they subsequently heard about the alleged attack through the grapevine.  Ford claims that she told no one about the attack, not her parents, not the police, not school officials, not any of her friends.  She only "remembered" the incident after going to a psychiatrist in 2012 where she learned that she had repressed the traumatic event.  Kavanaugh's name was not mentioned nor recorded in the psychiatrist's notes.

Ford has refused to testify under oath that this attack actually occurred, and her attorneys have tried to impose absurd conditions on any such testimony.  This appears to be because she is afraid of a perjury charge, a consciousness of her own falsity in the charges.  She has tentatively agreed to testify this coming Thursday, but only if the conditions of her testimony are negotiated in her favor.  My take:  she will not testify and will withdraw at the last moment.




Summary:  Why Ford is not believable:

1.  All four people identified by Ford as witnesses have denied any knowledge of the alleged event;
2.  Witnesses have described Kavanaugh as a very ethical person, and that such behavior would have been totally out of character for him.
3.  Ford has provided no authenticating details that would corroborate her tale.
4.  Ford is a far-left, pro-abortion activist whose political activities reveal an anti-Trump bias.
5.  Ford has an animus against the Kavanaugh family because Kavanaugh's mother was the judge in the bankruptcy of Ford's parents, where the parents lost their house.
6.  Ford has resisted or refused all opportunity to testify and be interviewed by the Justice Committee, an apparent consciousness of her own potential perjury.

II.  Deborah Ramirez, Yale Student With Kavanaugh
After Christine Ford's accusation fell apart, the Democrats came up with a new woman willing to make apocryphal allegations against Kavanaugh.  A woman named Deborah Ramirez came forward to announce that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a Yale party in Kav's freshman year.  However, she admitted that she was very drunk and not sure that the culprit was actually Kavanaugh and it might have been someone else.  However, after six days of coaching from her attorneys, she was able to clarify her "memory" (imagination?) and Voila!  It was indeed Kavanaugh.

Ramirez reached out to her former Yale pals and classmates to corroborate her accusations.  Howefver, they did not corroborate her, they refuted her.  It didn't happen.  No one witnessed such an event, nor did they hear anything about it afterwards.  Her Yale pals even stated that if it had happened, they surely would have heard about it, and further, such behavior would be totally inconsistent with everything they knew about Kavanaugh.  Some of them wrote the statement below, posted on Twitter, and it does not corroborate Ramirez at all.





























Ramirez's story was turned down by the New York Times, and the Washington Post, because they saw the story as too weak and uncorroborated to publish.  The Times interviewed several of Ramirez's Yale friends and were unable to find any willing to confirm Ramirez's claim.  Only the execrable New Yorker ran with the story.  As David Horowitz noted on Twitter, the New York Times has low standards, but the New Yorker has none at all.

Summary:  Why Ramirez is not believable:

1.  Ramirez has no corroborating testimony of witnesses; in fact, potential witnesses deny the incident even happened.
2.  Former Yale students have described Kavanaugh as a very ethical person, and that such behavior would have been totally out of character for him.
3.  Ramirez admits she was stinking drunk at the party, has gaps in her memory from it, and could be mistaken about the incident.  (Her "I was drunk" story also serves to protect her from a perjury charge.  If anything she said is disproved, it is not because she lied, it is because she "misremembered.")
4.  Major liberal newspapers refused to run the story due to a lack of corroborating witnesses or other evidence.

Overall Conclusions:  Liberal activists who have made accusations against Kavanaugh are lying and are not to be believed.

Christine Blasey Ford, Far Left Activist and Slander Merchant

Here's a photo of Kavanaugh's slander artist, Christine Blasey Ford, somewhat modified by Photoshop:

A Couple of New Photoshops: Anderson Cooper and Cory Booker

CNN was caught faking some weather reports, one of a reporter straining against a strong wind while men in the background walked by at a normal gait, and one with Anderson Cooper standing almost waist-deep in water while camera men stood at the side with water only up to their soles.  Don Trump Jr. posted a meme about Cooper, and the latter was so angry about it he wrote a rebuttal.  CNN then allegedly asked readers to stop making memes that make fun of Anderson Cooper.  My Photoshop response is below.

In the travesty that passes for a judicial committee meeting to consider the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats have harped on the mythical  last minute charge from a far-left California activist that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when he was 17 and she 15. It is another Democrat dirty trick in their "politics of personal destruction."  Then someone found an old newspaper article written by execrable Cory Booker, Dem Senator from New Jersey, wherein Booker bragged about groping a young woman or teenage girl back in the day, when he put his hand on her breast.  Below is my Photoshop of Booker assaulting a young woman, and below that, the newspaper article by Booker bragging about his sexual assault.

Back Atcha

Since my last post I got busy with personal business:  I went to Spokane Valley with my wife to take care of some business for our oldest son, who had a stroke some months ago.  He is recovering but it will be a long haul for him.

One day after my post about the killer of Mollie Tibbetts, her body was found in a cornfield and a suspect arrested.  My deductions were pretty accurate.  I wrote:

These are some possibilities:

• Rape:  Evil people like Ted Bundy do exist and need no provocation.  They see what they want and just take it.  It might have been a crime of opportunity.

• Rage:  If her abductor made sexual advances and was rebuffed, he may have struck or choked Mollie to shut up her screaming or because he felt humiliated and wanted revenge.  Or both.

Personally, I think Mollie is dead, a victim of rape and murder.  I would guess it is the first crime of the perpetrator, someone who is a bit off, mentally.  He would be young, 22 - 25, someone with low impulse control.   

I was right about rage being a key motivation, and that the killer was  22 - 25, and that it was his first crime.  I am not psychic by any means, and these deductions were simply logical.  Elementary, my dear Watson.

Mollie Tibbetts: the Possibilities

Everything about Mollie Tibbetts (vanished college student in Iowa) is just conjecture at this point.  Here's what I think, for what it's worth (not much probably):

1.  Who would abduct Mollie?

The possibilities are these:

• Someone she knew
• A complete stranger

There is no evidence of a struggle, and police believe she probably got into a car with someone she knew.  However, if Mollie was taken while jogging, it could have been by a complete stranger with a gun to coerce her into a car.

2.  Why would anyone harm Mollie?

Mollie is or was a very pretty young woman.

These are some possibilities:

• Rape:  Evil people like Ted Bundy do exist and need no provocation.  They see what they want and just take it.  It might have been a crime of opportunity.
• Rage:  If her abductor made sexual advances and was rebuffed, he may have struck or choked Mollie to shut up her screaming or because he felt humiliated and wanted revenge.  Or both.

3.  Why can't police find a body?

These are some possibilities:

• If Mollie was murdered, her body may have been dumped in some out of the way location, or even buried.  So far extensive searches have not found a body.
• If Mollie is still alive, she may be held against her will by threat of force.

4.  Questions:

• Have police used cadaver dogs to search for a body?
• Have police determined who knew Mollie would be dog sitting all alone in a house?
• Have police released a psychological profile of the kind of person who would abduct a young woman?
• Have police considered using psychic detectives?  These are people with a strong intuition and sometimes can provide clues as to the victim's whereabouts.

5.  What do you think?

Personally, I think Mollie is dead, a victim of rape and murder.  I would guess it is the first crime of the perpetrator, someone who is a bit off, mentally.  He would be young, 22 - 25, someone with low impulse control.   

There are various wooded areas in and around Brooklyn, Iowa.  If someone wanted to hide a body, he would no doubt do so where he couldn't be easily observed in the act.  However, the perpetrator may have transported the body elsewhere, out of town, out of county, or even out of state.

This kind of crime happens way too often.  If a girl is abducted, it would be good to have a way of signaling her predicament, a way of finding her, perhaps with an RF device.  Maybe with something worn around the neck, like a pendant.  Come on, capitalists out there, come up with some solutions!

View Brooklyn, Iowa from satellite image here.

THE DEMOCRAT FREAK SHOW: Trans Man-to-Woman Wins Governor Primary in Vermont

"Vermont Democrats made history Tuesday by nominating Christine Hallquist as the first transgender individual to be a major party candidate for governor."  (Link)

Another "making history" moment for Democrats, as they select a man dressed up like a woman to be their candidate for governor of Vermont.

It always amazes me how Democrats celebrate perversion and abnormality in their candidates.  What's next?  A flasher in a raincoat?  A "furry," i.e. someone who likes to dress up as an animal?  Maybe in a chicken suit?  How about the first masochist lady in leathers, supporting chains and whips?  Or someone who likes to dress up as a scary clown?

Oh yes, ain't "making history" wonderful?

Current Leftist Themes on Twitter

Alex Jones of Infowars

I like arguing with liberals, leftists and Democrats on Twitter.  It's good practice for condensing your arguments to a few potent phrases, since you are limited in space.

Twitter also makes it clear what propaganda the left is pushing on a daily basis.  Right now the themes seem to run along these lines:

1.  Trump has started a "Deportation Task Force" to revoke the citizenship of those he deems undesirable.  One immediately gets the impression that ole "RAAACIST" Trump is plotting to send all those legal Mexican immigrants packing, because let's face it, if you are against illegal immigration from Mexico, it means you are against legal immigration as well.  That's because, in the minds of the left, only "racism" can be the reason for opposing illegals.

It isn't true, of course.  What is true is that the Department of Homeland Security has become aware that some foreigners have lied on the applications for citizenship, and some have even used fake identities, to gain entrance after being deported a first time.  Material misrepresentations on a citizenship application can allow citizenship to unsavory characters who would never have been approved if the facts were known.  No one can be deported without a court hearing, and Trump cannot deport anyone on his own.

2.  ICE is now even reaching into the Army to nab illegals and deport them.   This fable was debunked a couple of months ago, but still persists among those who avoid real news.  The Army was enlisting foreigners for military service and eventual citizenship, but some of the applicants didn't pass the background check.  So they were not allowed to enlist, and were sent packing.  No serving army soldiers were nabbed and deported.  However, the liberal big lie continues among the sheep.

3.  Censorship of Conservatives has reached a fever pitch.  It appears the big tech firms, Spotify, FaceBook, iTunes and YouTube have colluded to shut down Infowars.com and Alex Jones.  All of his accounts were shut down on the same day, for "hate speech" and violation of the Terms of Service.  It is pretty clear that the leftists in media have declared war on conservative thought and speech.

I am not a huge fan of Alex Jones, because of his conspiracy theories (he was one of the first to claim that 911 was "an inside job").  So I take him with a grain of salt.  However, I have never thought of him as a monger of hatred or anyone preaching violence.  We fear that Alex Jones is the canary in the coal mine, and that he is just the start of a purge.  Will the Drudge Report be next?

Commenting on Saber Point

Due to malfunctioning of my Disqus commenting system, I deleted and then reinstalled it.

It seems to be working for the moment.

IF YOU DON'T SEE A COMMENT BOX, just click on the title of the post.  That will bring up the commenting section.

What Happened to Mollie Tibbetts?

Two weeks ago, pretty college student Mollie Tibbetts disappeared. She lived in Brooklyn, Iowa and was a student at the University of Iowa. It was late in the day of July 18 when she announced she was going for a run. She hasn't been seen since.
Pretty young women are often taken by the lowest scum in the human race, monsters who abduct, rape and then murder their victims.  Sometimes not even the body is found, causing the family years of grief and torment, wondering what happened and whether their loved one could still be alive.

There is always the chance that Mollie was taken prisoner, like the three women held as sex slaves in Detroit, who were finally freed in 2016.  There is always hope.

However, I feel that the chances are greater that Mollie Tibbetts is dead.  That's the usual ending to sad stories like this.  The best that we can probably hope for is that the perpetrator will be found and the body recovered, to give closure to her family.

Read about it here.

Is "Collusion" Illegal?

I read that lefty Jimmy Fallon ridiculed Rudy Giuliani for saying that "collusion is not a crime."  Fallon was incredulous, or feigning so, claiming that Trump must be thinking "why can't this guy just shut up?'

The meaning of collusion is "a secret agreement or cooperation."

Well is collusion illegal?  Not according to attorney Gregg Jarrett.  Writing in his recently released book "The Russian Hoax," Jarrett writes:

"Collusion" is not a crime, except in anti-trust law. Reporters and anchors never bothered to cite a specific statute because none could be found in the criminal codes.  Not that they ever bothered to look.  They were satisfied, indeed anxious, to level the accusation because their bias against Trump was so impassioned and pervasive that it became impervious to the facts.

I am reading Jarrett's book now.  It recounts the crimes of Hillary and the steps to improperly exonerate her in detail, naming names, dates and places.  I recommend this book.

Note:  Collusion itself isn't illegal, but leads to illegality when its object is to commit a crime.  If you collude with your neighbor to throw a surprise party for your wife, that isn't illegal.  If Democrat media colludes with others to launch an "October surprise" in order to damage a Republican candidate's chance for election, that too is not a crime (dirty pool, maybe).

No description of any collusion of Trump with Russian agents to somehow skewer Hillary's chances has ever been made or alleged.  No description of any crime such collusion entailed has ever been made. So what exactly is Mueller investigating?

Google's Blogger Enforces Sharia Law?

Lately I have had Blogger take down (i.e. they censored) a couple of my older posts that were critical of Muhammad or of his fake religion, Islam.  They featured Photoshops of Muhammad and the Quran.  The first showed Muhammad as Cyrano de Bergerac, as part of "everyone draw Muhammad" day.

The second showed a young boy peeing on a Quran.  This was a response to an Islamic cartoon showing a young boy peeing on the Statue of Liberty.

The problem, per Google, was that these depictions were a violation of Pakistani law.  So now we have a major US corporation enforcing the laws of a Muslim hell-hole over the Constitution of the United States.

Feeling Silly

Time to Shed Bad Old Habits: Football and Hollywood

The National Football League
News media report that the athletes of the National Football League are still insisting on the right to "take a knee" during the national anthem before games.  Last season the public boycotted football games because of this, reducing audience size by 8% in 2016 and 9.7% in 2017 (see here for details).  The players don't seem to care, they want to protest again for the 2018 season.

The players can protest until they are blue in the face, it's their right.  I will exercise my right not to watch or even care about professional football.

Hollywood
If ever there were a venue or culture that is 180 degrees opposite my personal values, it is Hollywood.  Their movies are leftist propaganda, for the most part, preachy sermons to us ignorant and unenlightened masses about the most current perversions, myths and falsehoods.  It seems 99% of all actors, producers and directors are far-out leftwingers with green hair, tattoos, nose rings and a Marxist mentality.  And they hate with a burning fury like no other, hate President Trump, hate normal people, that is, those of us who are not gay, illegal, atheistic or anti-American.

Their latest idiocy is to promote "transgenderism," where it is considered highly desirable to identify with the gender that you are not, to dress the part, and to invade public restrooms, showers and dressing rooms of the opposite sex; not to mention competing in women's sports with pecker attached, and winning racing and wrestling events because such "transgenders" are really men with more muscle mass and testosterone.

Even more sick is their latest support of pedophilia -- supporting those who want to have sex with children.  Hollyweird supports depravity and revels in it.

So I rarely, if ever, go to the movies anymore.

A Southern Dilemma: How Not to Antagonize New Black Conservatives; Dealing With Dinesh D'Souza

Over at Twitter I am very pleased to see the number of black conservatives who have joined the MAGA ("Make America Great Again") movement.  I link to every black conservative I find.  However, I see many of them buying into Dinesh D'Souza's interpretations of American history, which I believe are flawed and downright dishonest.  I say that as a well-read Confederate descendant who regularly disputes the Northern Myth, that the North and the 19th Century Republicans fought the Civil War to free the slaves and make black people full equals in the American dream.

I generally avoid arguments with fellow conservatives on Twitter about this history, to avoid disunity in our support for Donald Trump, and to avoid hard feelings between us.  The here and now is more important than what happened 150 years ago; nevertheless, wholescale distortion of that history by D'Souza does grate on me.  He is insulting my ancestors, my family, and indirectly, me.  And he is not the only culprit:  recently Rush Limbaugh spouted some ahistorical nonsense, comparing modern Democrats to the Confederates of the 1860s.

Yesterday a prominent conservative listed all the sins of the Democratic Party.  I found his interpretation superficial.  Among other claims he made was that "Democrats started the Civil War."  No, Democrats did not.  They exercised their Constitutional and natural right to secede from a political union, much as the U.K. recently did from the European Union.  It was Lincoln and Lincoln alone who decided to go to war to prevent the South from leaving, and even plotted with his generals to push the South into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter, for propaganda purposes, as recommended by his Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Wells.

Some Republicans (like D'Souza) hate to hear it and even deny it, but yes, the two political parties have indeed changed sides since the 19th Century.  Lincoln's GOP was authoritarian, anti-Constitutional, believed the Federal government to be superior to the states, supported corporate welfare for Northern businesses, high taxes, and all sorts of political shenanigans to ensure the GOP's hold on power -- like illegally forming a new state, West Virginia, to give Lincoln more electoral votes, marching the army to the polls with orders to vote for Lincoln, shutting down opposition newspapers and jailing the editors, arresting and imprisoning thousands of people on suspicion alone, illegally suspending habeas corpus, and the list goes on.  Lincoln was the biggest tyrant in U.S. history, and he didn't care much for black people.

The Democrats of that time period resented and opposed the high taxes that fell mainly on the South, believed in a small and limited federal government that was the servant, not the master, of the states.

I am a Republican today because it is NOT the same party of 1860.  Race relations has little to do with it.  However, I am happy that black people are progressing in modern society, making more money, enjoying a better lifestyle, and more and more of them are becoming my allies and friends.

Disqus Commenting System -- Doesn't Work With Chrome?

When I view this site with Chrome browser, I am unable to access the Disqus Commenting System.  This isn't true all of the time, but lately it is true most of the time.

If you are unable to see a place under each post for comments, try a different browser.  The system seems to work better with the Microsoft Edge browser and the Firefox browser.  However, there is no doubt that most of this problem originates with Disqus.  I may have to look into a different commenting system.

Update:  Well now I am using Edge and I can see the comment section for all the posts below this one -- but not for this one!  Weird.

Another Update:  I notice Disqus stops working in Edge whenever I delete or edit old posts, or add new ones; however, if I click out of Saberpoint and then reload it, Disqus begins working again. Try that if you have trouble.  (This doesn't work for Chrome -- it just doesn't work, period).

UPDATE:  I deleted Disqus from my blog and reinstalled it, and now it works.

A Visit to Mount Rushmore

I continue on my "what I did on my vacation" series.  Be happy you are not a captive for dinner and forced to watch slides.  Last month my wife and I visited Mount Rushmore in South Dakota.  I took the picture herein.  Here's what Wikeleaks says about it:

Mount Rushmore National Memorial is a sculpture carved into the granite face of Mount Rushmore, a batholith in the Black Hills in Keystone, South Dakota, United States. Sculptor Gutzon Borglum created the sculpture's design and oversaw the project's execution from 1927 to 1941 with the help of his son, Lincoln Borglum. Mount Rushmore features 60-foot sculptures of the heads of four United States presidents: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. The memorial park covers 1,278.45 acres and is 5,725 feet above sea level.

Some interesting facts about Mt. Rushmore:  It was never completely finished.  Congress stopped funding construction in 1941, leaving Abe Lincoln's hair and ear unfinished.

Originally, Thomas Jefferson was to be to our left of Washington, but Borglum decided he didn't have enough rock to work with, so "erased"  the sculpture and redid it to our right of Washington.

Teddy Roosevelt did not have enough accomplishment to justify his inclusion in the sculpture, but he had been a personal friend of Borglum, and so was included.

Only George Washington has his chest and lapels sculpted.  The other three presidents are heads only. 

Yee-HA! California Makes Guns Legal

Hooray!  Somehow the Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals got something right.  They ruled that it is Constitutional for citizens to open carry guns for safety in California.

I live in California.  I have a gun.  Where can I get a good holster?

Note:  My commenting system isn't working for some reason.  I'll see if I can find out why.

A Visit to Devil's Tower

On our bus tour last month, we stopped at Devil's Tower in Wyoming.  Devil's Tower is probably most famous today for being featured in the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."  Devil's Tower is where the space aliens meet the US military and a bunch of scientists in a great intergalactic powwow.

In the movie, the chief character, played by Richard Dreyfus, and a lady companion, scale the sides of Devil's Tower to get to the top, where they witness the historic meeting with beings from another planet.  The scaling part was pretty bogus, because the sides of the Tower are very steep, and are only rarely scaled by experienced mountain climbers.

Devil's Tower was formed by volcanic activity millions of years ago.  This type of lava formation looks like giant strings of magma, and that's what it is.  It is known as columnar basalt.

I took the photo at the left.

Note:  Devil's Tower was the first declared National Monument of the United States, dedicated by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906.

My Visit to Custer's Last Stand -- the Little Big Horn

Where Custer Fell 
(Custer's stone is the one in the middle
with a black face)

My wife and I took a vacation last month, a bus tour of South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana.  One of our more memorable stops was at the sight of Custer's Last Stand in Southeastern Montana.  General Custer and his 7th Cavalry were there to force the Lakota Sioux back onto their reservation, and get off the Crow reservation that the Lakota had invaded.  The battle took place on June 25-26, 1876, 142 years to the month that we were there.

The Sioux had some legitimate grievances (getting kicked out of the Black Hills of South Dakota, that had been previously granted to them as a homeland  -- the reason:  gold was discovered therein).

Scattered Tombstones
Where Dead Fell & Were Originally Buried

The Crow had some legitimate grievances against the Sioux, who had taken over one-third of the Crow reservation.  The Crow, among other tribes, had supplied Indian Scouts to assist Custer, as they wanted their land back.

Custer had received bad intelligence from the army, indicating the number of Sioux warriors was much smaller than the 2,000 that were there.  So he ordered Major Marcus Reno to attack the village where women and children were present, and Reno killed a number of wives and children.  Understandably annoyed, the braves counterattacked and killed 40+ of Reno's troopers, and his remaining force was barely able to escape. Then they attacked Custer's force, cutting off his path of escape, forcing it into a less than defensible hilltop, where all soldiers and Custer were quickly killed.

Monument to the Dead
(Buried Around this Stone)

Two days after the battle, other army soldiers arrived on site and buried the dead, roughly in the same spot where they died.  The spot where each man was found was marked with a wooden stake, later to be replaced by marble headstones.

Today the marble tombstones are still there, marking the places of burial, but the soldier's remains are not.  The remains of the soldiers were removed (in July 1877)  from their shallow graves and reburied atop the hill behind the death site, where they are better protected from weather and predators.  The site is today marked with a large granite monument listing the names of the soldiers and Indian Scouts who died there.

The remains of the officers, however, were placed in coffins and shipped back to their families.  Custer's remains were reburied at West Point.

It was sobering for me to stand behind the place where the Last Stand took place, only 20 feet behind the spot where Custer died.  His tombstone there has a black painted face to make it stand out.

To see actual size of images, click on each.

Note:  The monument picture only shows one side listing names.  The actual monument has names listed on all four sides.

My Take:  I used to think the Indians were the good guys, the troopers the victims and Custer the prize ass who got them all killed.  I don't think that any more.  Maybe it's because blood is thicker than water and the troopers were "my tribe," and the Sioux were not.  Sitting Bull had called Indians to come off their reservation and join him in a great, last fight against the white man, knowing full well it was a fight he could not win.  A lot of lives were lost for nothing.  Also, I resent the wholesale slaughter of wounded troopers and the mutiliation of their bodies:  limbs were cut off, scalps were taken, Tom Custer's head was beaten into jelly, and others were disemboweled.  The US Army took care of the Sioux in later battles in 1876 and 1877, and good riddance.