@KEVLANEW80 This Confederate knows the Constitution, carries it in his back pocket to read, swore to uphold it 7 times, and knows that the States created the Federal gov't - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. VOLUNTARY COMPACT. UNDERSTAND??? And the more this gov't. in DC violates the Constitution, starting with Lincoln and Wilson and FDR and Johnson and Bush and Obama, the more I will support the CSA and its return. We as Southerners will not go down in flames with the rest of this "union".
The SCV Stands behind the Constitution and views Nation Building and Middle East wars as Unconstitutional. We are not involved in Politics but will defend the Constitution against all odds.
The confederates were a bunch of thieves that stole USA land. you have no reason to talk about any subject, i see through your talk cause if any of you had the chance to bring back slavery all of you probably would. you southerners should keep quiet cause you are worthless even to your own race. there is no excuse for slavery and slavery is not appropriate at anytime or place. you confederates were wrong and need to let it go. all you guys are doing is supporting grand larceny.
@KEVLANEW80 I am English and therefore have no axe to grind regarding sides . however from a historical point of view you are 100% wrong . . . . never let a fact get in the way of a good story !
@KEVLANEW80 All that Lincoln accomplished was to replace black slavery with universal slavery. Blacks are still slaves on the Federal governments plantation, but whites are as well. If you don't believe in secession then you believe in slavery, for you are for enslaving people to a government that they want no part of. See my video: Ron Paul vs Lincoln
@KEVLANEW80 Hate slavery? The Yankees who built, sailed, and brought the slaves here from Africa sure didn't... they made a fortune from it. And owned their own.
"Southern Avenger" should read Timothy Sandefur's four-part series titled "Springtime for Jeff Davis and the Confed'racy" that he published this year on his blog. That would help to dispell some of the anti-imperialist, neo-confederate myths and falsehoods he is propagating.
Jefferson Davis while president of the confederacy was not necessarily representative of all confederate thought. Case in point, Davis was initially warm to the idea of the Corwin Amendment, but it was poorly received by other confederates of the day which is rather telling of what he valued. That Amendment being a proposed constitutional amendment to unilaterally legalize slavery, penned by Thomas Corwin of Ohio at the behest of Lincoln as an attempt to prevent the south from leaving the union.
Despite Neoconfederate historical revisionism, Confederates DID fight for Slavery, the gravest intrusion on civil liberties, and the exclusion of all Blacks from ever being able to become "fellow countrymen". So yeah, being a Neoconfederate and a Neoconservative is very much compatible and not at all evocating the cognitive dissonance SA conjures up. Oh, and about "natural duties" that Southerners supposedly felt: It was the Confederate Army that issued the first draft on American soil.
So? Slavery was part of the reason why the South wanted to secede. I really don't understand those who harp on the subject, no matter what side they're on. It was a thing of the past, and is still present today but yet no White Liberal cares enough to do anything about it.
Modern day secession would greatly benefit the South, in preserving it's ethnic identity and relatively Conservative politics.
@shamusername Despite liberal revisionist history the north used nullification to abolish the fugitive slave act and under Lincoln, that act was law. Under Lincoln, it was seriously considered allowing slavery to continue to preserve the union, Lincoln didn't give one lick about ending or keeping slavery, only preserving the union of all states. While it's true what exacerbated the debate was slavery, but more directly what it was about was freedom from federal mandate - on both sides.
@GearingDestroyer "You people?" You generalized millions of people and, that's always wrong, because millions of people are millions of individuals, many would find agreement with you, but you're to angry to see anything different.
WHAT? Slavery and tensions over slavery is what caused the Civil War. The South was angry about an overreaching federal government on the issue of SLAVERY. I honestly cannot believe you're defending the Confederates on the Civil War and ignoring slavery.
I used to respect you. But you obviously know nothing about the confederacy. The South violated federal law and the constitution. You think people that actually understand the Civil War were programmed? You are the one who is obviously programmed.
@balletboy94 Actually, the Constitution is silent on the subject of States leaving the Union. It has been said that if the case were taken to the Supreme court, the South would have won the legal battle. On the flip side, Fort Sumpter sealed the state of the nation into a state of war. While there was violence before, it was the South who fired the first shot.
How can Lincoln be called an imperialist for using military force after Federal troops had been fired on without provocation? The Constitution unquestionably gives the government the power to suppress an armed rebellion. The Southern leaders withdrew their states from the Union to protect slavery--they said so themselves in their declarations--and without a popular vote on secession. So the Confederate soldier was indeed defending slavery, regardless of his own reasons for joining the service.
@j1a2r34 You've got to be kidding. DiLorenzo is the same guy who advances the ridiculous notion that the purpose of the Union blockade was to force the South to pay tariffs; he also believes that Fort Sumter was a "tariff collection point." This isn't history--any time someone is being paid to speak on his views to an audience not well-read on the subject, one should be very suspicious. If DiLorenzo is an expert on anything besides economics, it is in taking Lincoln's words out of context.
@galoon Lincoln's words and actions documented in hundreds of footnotes speak for themselves. DiLorenzo didn't make them up, he just referenced them. Until GWB came along, Lincoln's criminality had no challenger.
@j1a2r34 Thanks for the reply! What do you mean by Lincoln's criminality? If it's the suspension of habeus corpus Lincoln needed to keep Maryland from seceding and isolating Washington, it was something he had to do to suppress the rebellion. We don't like it when any President goes beyond the Constitution, but the benefits in this case exceeded the drawbacks. In any case, Jefferson Davis suspended habeus corpus and the 1st Amendment more often than Lincoln ever did.
@galoon Your equating the words "rebellion" with "secession" leaves little hope of any common understanding of the word "criminality." The federal government is a product of states having ceded certain enumerated powers and retaining all others not listed. Certain states have recently nullified what is being called "Obamacare" and therefore that federal edict is not legal in those states. At least three of those states have now introduced or passed legislation which criminalizes federal
@galoon agents that attempt to enforce that previously nullified act. When a federal employee is apprehended by state law enforcement, will that be regarded as the first shot fired? Based on your equivalence of secession and rebellion, can I infer that the fed govt is now justified in attacking those states with federal military force? If you've read and researched the footnotes in "The Real Lincoln" or "Lincoln Unmasked" and still believe that Lincoln is innocent, then I secede from this.
@j1a2r34 You're right--the Federal government IS a product of states ceding certain powers to the government, including the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which gives supremacy to Federal law over state law when the two conflict. So, as much as I hate it, the states don't have the power to declare the despicable Obamacare bill unconstitutional; that decision can only come from the Supreme Court--all previous nullification-related decisions have upheld this. So, yes, (con't)
@j1a2r34 if a Federal employee is apprehended by a state, that would be regarded as "the first shot" and the government would legally have the option of military force. That's why we should be careful in selecting our US Congressmen, because the states are limited in their ability to undo the damage that they can do. Now if the Federal government tried to take away a power reserved to the states, it would be in the wrong. I'm of the school that doesn't believe secession is one of these.
@j1a2r34 Don't blame me; blame the Constitution. If you don't like it, it's certainly your right to write your US representative proposing an amendment to repeal the Supremacy Clause. The Constitution can be and has been amended. If secession is what you want, you likewise have the right to lobby your state legislature to put it on the ballot.
@galoon What you apparently believe is that the constitution has already been amended. However, the supremacy clause has not amended article one, section 8.
@j1a2r34 Article I Section 8 deals with the enumerated powers of Congress--what specifically are you referring to? The Constitution, as you know, has already been amended 25 or 26 times.
@galoon Article 1 Scetion 8 deals enumerates the powers of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - not just the congress. The Supreme Court in Vince V United States (Google it - then read the finding at Cornell Law Center) contradicts your belief that the supremacy clause enables additional powers not previously enumerated. But - just because an arm of the federal government sides with the states in this case, doesn't detract from the fact that states have already and will again decide law for themselves.
@j1a2r34 No--Article 1 Section 8 deals specifically with the powers of Congress. If a state nullifies a Federal law, it's doing so illegally until the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. Contrary to what you believe, it doesn't enable additional powers to Article 1; it simply states that Federal law is superior to state law WHENEVER THE TWO CONFLICT. In other words, the US is a federal republic, not a decentralized confederacy. That means the states cannot assume rights that are (con't)
@j1a2r34 (con't) granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. The states all agreed on this upon ratifying the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause has been tested before, and the Supreme Court has always upheld it. For example, in the 1850s, Wisconsin's Supreme Court ruled the Federal Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of this law and struck the state ruling down. We may not always like it, but it's the law our states agreed to in 1787.
@j1a2r34 Thanks! I've read the case--again, this supports what I've already posted on how the law works. What happened here was that the plaintiffs (two states) challenged the constitutionality of parts of the Brady Bill. The US Supreme Court reviewed it and ruled in favor of the states. Thus the decision came from the US Supreme Court, not the state courts. This is an example of the legal way for states to challenge Federal law; they didn't simply nullify Federal legislation here.
@galoon Acts made into law by the congress and president are federally unenforceable unless authorized in Art 1, Sec 8.
Since those two sheriff's never enforced the unconstitutional law, you'd be more accurate to admit that the supreme court validated their nullification. Like I mentioned earlier, it really doesn't matter whether the SC agrees or not since it is an arm of the federal government and not an impartial arbiter in a dispute between it's parent and one of it's grandparents.
@j1a2r34 No, he didn't make up Lincoln's comments and he didn't just reference them either--what DiLorenzo did was twist them to support his indefensible view that the Civil War was a crusade for and against tariffs and the supremacy of states' rights.
@zackgonnasurvivenwo At its most basic level, it boils down to illegal seizure of Federal property by South Carolina--this was indeed a rebellion. Even before the attack on Ft. Sumter, the Southern states seized Federal arsenals and confiscated weapons; in some cases before their states seceded.
@galoon No because they seceded and was thus a independent nation. It is no different then the american revolution. The only difference is that the clonists won the war.
@zackgonnasurvivenwo No nation on the planet ever officially recognized the Confederacy as an independent country. In some ways the comparison with the American colonies makes sense; it was a similar situation, but the colonies never had the political equality with England that the Southern states enjoyed in the Union. But they got foreign recognition, which was why they won--the lack of it was one of the reasons the South lost.
South Carolina stated that the "encroachments" upon the institution of slavery had been perpetrated for over two decades prior to 1860 and by as many as 14 states in their Declaration of Secession. I am only stating what the secessionists themselves voiced, that's all.
The war was over slavery because secession caused the war and secession was over slavery. Whether or not Johnny Reb had a few reasons of his own to fight...his government seceded and gets to define the cause.
SA is really good at glossing over slavery as if it were a superficial issue. Here is the real BS; Lincoln did to confederates what confederates did to their slaves, beat them into submission. Its called Karma. The Nation reaped war and suffering because it sowed war and suffering via slavery. How do the Confederates say they were fighting for their right not be oppressed while oppressing others. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Even North Korea and Communist China have "votes" and elect a congress, much the same as America. Most Americans, however, are unaware of this. (And also unaware that the American revolution was fought against an elected British parliament, instead brainwashed to think it was fighting autocracy).
99% of the countries of the world are "republics" so please stop acting like being in a republic is so darn fancy. It's the same system of government all dictators use to genocide their people.
@Cyrus255 Not all republics are the same, you're trying to make the US fit in the same category as those other republics by speaking in a general sense. Do all of those countries have the same constitution? No. Do they all have the same laws? No. Are they all run the same way? No. The biggest problem with America is the American citizens. We complain about the way things are and then re-elect the same people. We don't fight hard enough when they do violate the Constitution. Too many wimps!
I agree with just about nothing you have to say on a political level but on a personal level I have to say that I applaud your consistency. If all rightwingers were so I would consider them worthy adversaries.
breaks my heart to see an S.C.V. member get like that.. I have to agree with you Southernavenger, lincolns war on the South is NO different than the wars the US is making all over ther world!! Keep the Colors A'Flyin
@yllibotiv could not have said it any better myself. the US gov. is nothing more than a bug business. There not worried about doing there jobs. It is long over due to waking up! All Americans need to learn there Rights AND Demand them!! Keep the Colors A'Flyin..
I am a vet of the first Gulf war and believed then as now that war and the current one in no way shape or form was in America's best interests. The republican party is a big government party infested with politicians that love war.
@logibear64 the funny part is you dont realize that all other major wars in american history except bush and lincoln was fought under a democratic president but your prejudice wont let you see that lol
@logibear64 well then why did you emply that "the republican party is a big government party infested with politicians that love war" sounds to me like your just mad at bush for iraq war when obama is in control now and we are still there i agree both parties have problems thats for sure but you cant turn a blind eye to history until it fits your agenda HISTORICAL FACT more democrats presidents have put us in war than republicans
@Southernjuggalo63 Again I do not disagree with you. It is indeed true that the democrats have been in more wars than republican presidents. But Iraq is GW Bush's war and was supported by the republican party (with the exception of Ron Paul.) Both parties neverthelss are big government parties it is just waste money on different programs.
@logibear64 well were still there and its obama in charge now look the iraqi people just voted for the first time in history and that was because america seen their people getting oppressed i wish we could have just got saddam huissen and left but i remembered the iraq-iran war and if we left immediatly that iran would have taken advantage of it and took over iran
@logibear64 we do agree on some things my friend i sit back and take a outside party politics but i believe in being fair to both sides but im glad we have talked thanks for not insulting me for my views as so many do on here for me being southern or having a different view on things cause in the end were americans
@Southernjuggalo63 i dont want to be included with a bunch of idiots...im against democracy because i dont like a million idiots over-riding me on everything with theyr votes...most americans seem to want a socialist tyranical nannystate democracy... its alot easier to just separate from them, than to waste time trying to convince them of the obvious.. i wish states were states again, so i could move to the ones that use common sense and common law
@Southernjuggalo63 uh, bush was a bafoon and lincoln was a tyrant, hell bent on denying the south the right to seceed....i dont know why people love lincoln so much, he was no better than the brits that tried to stop the independence of the american colonists...i guess cuz you all think the civil war was fought to end slavery.. maybe you should do a tiny little bit of research .... unless you consider the history channel or your kids school book research.. if those are republicans, screw em
@longfootbuddy well kid you got a lot of accusations fucked up man first off i hate lincoln 2nd i hated the union 3rd my family fought on confederate side and LAST MY COUSIN WAS ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@longfootbuddy well kid you got a lot of accusations fucked up man first off i hate lincoln 2nd i hated the union 3rd my family fought on confederate side and LAST MY COUSIN WAS ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY!!
@longfootbuddy well kid you got a lot of accusations fucked up man first off i hate lincoln 2nd i hated the union 3rd my family fought on confederate side and LAST MY COUSIN WAS ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY!!
@longfootbuddy well kid you got a lot of accusations fucked up man first off i hate lincoln 2nd i hated the union 3rd my family fought on confederate side and LAST MY COUSIN WAS ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY!
The CSA's ideals looked good on paper, but given the big government nature of Southern politicians today there seems to be little doubt that the CSA would have become as antithetical to its original intent as the USA did. Big government and empire loomed large on the Confederate horizon with the westward movement of the North American population. It would be nice to believe that the CSA would have looked something like Switzerland does today, but it's very unlikely that this would have happened.
Unfortunately the ideology that America must wage war as a means of national defense has permeated every facet of the modern political spectrum. Even the anti-war left that was prominent during the Bush years has been marginalized by Obama's election. Many liberal Democrats now support the same foreign policy that they opposed and protested under Bush, and of course many Republicans criticize Obama Doctrine for being too soft despite the fact that it's the spitting image of Bush Doctrine.
Unfortunately it seems that many Americans are willing to support any twisted ideology that politicians are willing to propagate, as long as said politicians sweet talk us with carefully constructed rhetoric. The truth be damned.
Absolutely brilliant analogies. As a Son of the Confederate Veterans myself, I have been making similar points for years - to no avail. Fact is, the South falls in line behind Washington's imperial rhetoric like blacks standing before Sotero's lies. Until this knee-jerk support for the "bomb 'em high" policy is changed among Southerners, the GOP's base, the party will be run by chickenhawk warmongers and Christian Zionists.
He's also wrong about the beginning of terrorists attacks against us. The Islamofacist have been at war with us since the late 70s. Terrorists killed Americans throughout the 80s and 90s. It took 9/11 to wake us up. Mr. Francis certainly has his head up his ass as to the reason for the first Gulf War and when the terrorists began murdering us.
Samuel Francis' view of the 1991 Gulf is distorted. The war was a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. We did not "invade" Iraq. There were 32 countries involved in removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Once Kuwait was liberated the war ended. No invasion of Iraq took place. Hussein stayed in power. We did not unilaterally impose sanctions on Iraq, the UN did. Bombing took place after Iraqi continued non-compliance of UN imposed sanctions.
An oligarchy of plantation owners and rich business men in the south called the shots in all southern State Houses leading up to the Civil War. They were more clueless about the reality than GW Bush was. They wasted more blood and treasure than any other ruling class in our history. Fuck 'em.
While the founding of the CSA was about decentralization.. President Davis did not follow those ideas throughout the war. While, it was a case of being at war, there was still massive centralization.. it just didn't compare to Lincoln's.
I came to this video expecting to hear some crazy redneck idiot going off on some insane tangent and was surprised to find the arguments intelligent and well thought out. I am always surprised when I find an intelligent conservative and especially when I find an intelligent conservative on youtube. Keep up the good work, would like to see more videos like this.
This is an absolutely fantastic video and viewpoint. Deo Vindice. I can always count on the Southern Avenger to be the voice of reason in an increasingly confused day and time.
IS this guy ignorant or incidious , what a propaganda pushing piss ant conservative is just code for fascist We does care about our med-evil economics , He;s not a christian;s a christianist
@KaptainKaka OH really look up noam chomsky or the documentrary the corporation , you want limted government for the sake of privatization , you say socialism pem0otes laziness , i say capitalism permotes oppession slavery and war
@vandall Thats because youre just a lazy son of a bitch. What we have now is NOT capitalism. Every monopoly that we have today is supported by the state. That means there is NO real competition, therefore no true capitalism. Its CORPORATISM which is socialized or state run capitalism. The system is fucked because of the state sticking its nose into everything. "Socialism" is the reasoning behind the problems we have today. Youre nothing but a God damn slave to the Union.
@KaptainKaka OH really look up noam chomsky or the documentrary the corporation , you want limted government for the sake of privatization , you say socialism pem0otes laziness , i say capitalism permotes oppession slavery and war
@KaptainKaka OH really look up noam chomsky or the documentrary the corporation , you want limted government for the sake of privatization , you say socialism pem0otes laziness , i say capitalism permotes oppession slavery and war
@KaptainKaka OH really look up noam chomsky or the documentrary the corporation , you want limted government for the sake of privatization , you say socialism pem0otes laziness , i say capitalism permotes oppession slavery and war
@KaptainKaka OH really look up noam chomsky or the documentrary the corporation , you want limted government for the sake of privatization , you say socialism pem0otes laziness , i say capitalism permotes oppession slavery and war
@KaptainKaka OH really look up noam chomsky or the documentrary the corporation , you want limted government for the sake of privatization , you say socialism pem0otes laziness , i say capitalism permotes oppession slavery and war
@vandall Conservative is code for fascist? You can't even compare the two. Fascism is a form of total government while conservatives generally support limited constitutional government.
@Thrashfan21 The problem is people confuse REAL conservatives like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan with neo-Cons like Bush. Since neo-Cons support big government, and enjoy whiping their ass with the Constitution. They also supported giving Bush unConstitutional executive powers. People have a habit of associating neo-Cons with ALL Republicans when it's simply not true.
The rule of law is essentially a myth perpetuated in the attempt to justify the rule of men. Laws do not rule on their own. Constitutions are not self-enforcing. The problem with the overtly gradualist approach is that it turns into dedicated opposition to radicalism.
@Kras3169 Everyone should know that Neocons have a foundation with Trotsky Communism. Anyone can look this up and read about Neocons and Trotskyites and Bill Kristol. Then the truth will come out and perhaps maybe people will be a little more hesitant about supporting big govt after seeing what the Bush administration did to our Liberties.
@KaptainKaka I hear you brother, you're preaching to the choir. The ONLY reason I'm a registered Republican is so I'll be able to vote for Ron Paul in the Primary if he decides to run again. I'm more of a Libertarian. Neocons have destroyed the Republican Party but so did many conservatives who didn't stay true to their principles or the Constitution.
@Charonveritas noone said they were not guilty but that is not their tradition. the first democrat president(Thomas Jefferson) was quite excellent while the first republican president(dishonest abe) was very very evil.
@803honda Well, at least on that we see eye to eye. But, more recently FDR=bum, Truman=unknowing bum, Johnson=real bum, Carter/Clinton=disgrace... I'm not even getting into Odumbo...
@803honda big government and deficating on the Constitution is a Democrat tradition as well. if you're incapable of seeing the negatives of BOTH parties, I feel sorry for you. it just means you're a slave to the two party system which is exactly what "they" want. why focus on real issues when we can argue about which party has the bigger dick, right? partisanship is blindness.
@Thrashfan21 Hes talking about Neocons. Who are fascist, because they support national socialism. What he doesn't know is that Neocons today have a foundation in Trotsky Communism. Theyve never been right wing, altho everyone thinks they are. In terms of govt, they are all Left, and they all suck because they depend on the state to wipe their asses, or blow up someones asses because they don't agree with how others are living their lives. Fuck em.
After hearing Hamid Karzai's most recent statements I want to see the US out of Afghanistan real soon. I say pull our troops out now and secure our own borders and say F..K You to the rest of the world. Then if we get hit again we respond with retaliation and we CRUSH those who attack us, do not let up until our enemies are belly up on the ground with their tails in between their legs. Then leave.
Great video, Avenger! I totally agree with your points on this one. Our national government has no business nation-building and policing the world using our brothers and sisters! American politics (at the national level) now largely resembles other historically more corrupt nations where free and fair elections are just a sham!
Great video, Avenger! I totally agree with your points on this one. Our national government has no business nation-building and policing the world using our brothers and sisters! American politics (at the national level) now largely resembles other historically more corrupt nations where free and fair elections are just a sham!
He did one video talking about how the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" (aka people who have spent more than 15 minutes researching the facts behind 9/11) sounded just as crazy as the official story believers, so I know he knows more than he lets on.
I think 9/11 is the most interesting and important subject we have to talk about today, and hope Jack covers it more as well.. we need to figure out what happened before more of our soldiers die.
I would like to hear you articulate your vision of American foreign policy. I basically agree with you about Iraq, though I think Bush et. al. were in good faith, if mistaken. I think that Afghanistan would be less intractable if we had not neglected our operations there. And I do not know enough about Antebellum American History to have an intelligent opinion about the War Between the States.
Offering your alternative would really help everyone understand where you are coming from.
please believe, there are still Americans left who understand that the Federal government is a descendant of the State governments. State rights will always be the true, intelligent course that the majority of Founding Fathers intended to be the origin of political power in the us. Keep your Confederate flags flying & in your mind when you're at the ballot box
By the oppressed, George W. wasn't speaking of those under Hussein's rule, but rather of himself and those like him. To good ol' W, the oppressed is the government itself, which is severely restricted by the people. The war in Iraq was not to help poor Iraqis, but to help the poor government in it's aim to get more power. This has been, is, and forever will be the goal of any government: to get more power. I only hope that down the road someone actually stands up for us, when we're oppressed.
As a former supporter of the Iraq war I have to say that a great many people got it wrong as the intelligence was all jumbled, but it is also true that had people like myself stuck with true conservative principles we never would have supported that war. As such I had my epiphany back in 2007 when I realized that people like Rumsfeld were in fact what I call religi-cons who used a religion based bias for their actions. I regret ever supporting them and I note that the Dems failed to prosecute.
@kmg501 The Dems failed to prosecute because they were (and still are) in on it. Obama has just signed the largest War Budget in human history (>$700 billion)
@lordaltay5 i like the idea of libertarian, but by voting liberatarian you typically just take votes away from republicans ( i hate voting that way) you need to look at the lesser of two evils. You have a great point though. Just seems that by voting for any third party takes away for conservative candidates
@utubecenseorstruth How is it taking away from "conservative candidate" when most of today's Republicans are NOT conservative? Try telling me people like McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Mitt Romney are conservative. The whole point of living in a Republic is to vote for the candidate who most closely represents your belifes, NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. The faster Americans wake up to this, the faster we can start restoring our country.
The problem for American conservatives is not that they lost power. It's that whenever they have been in power, they used it for their short-term benefit. It's that they have used coercive means out of fear of "the other guys" using it first (commies, social democrats, etc.). Conservative governments grow because (1) the very nature of the system is designed to grow and force compromise (2) conservatives support political means when it suites their special interests
(3) most conservatives are disingenuous about their will to reduce political power. Blaming it on voters strikes me as kind of backwards. Conservatism is a blight because it is a statist ideology like any other. "Order" and particular personal values ultimately trump liberty. Anti-communism, cultural monocentrism and the police and military power are higher on the list of wants then reduction of political power.
@AnarchosMercatus I agree with everything you said. I live in Nassau County on Long Island, which was once controlled by Republicans. The Executive at that time was Thomas Gulotta. He almost ran Nassau County into bankruptcy. He was invlolved in a county workers' health insurance scandal that cost the county $70 million (one county!). A bunch of them were charged with fraud and bribery charges. They discredit themselves!
@Kras3169 I am with you on that, but the problem is that the liberals are very united even when they disagree look at ben nelson and how he fell in on obamacare. Lindsey graham is a disgrace, but if you had to chose i think any patriotic american who loves this country would feel better with him in office than say a man like harry reid. That is what scares me. It seems the more conservative candidate almost always loses votes. Hell that are not many good in washington either way
@utubecenseorstruth You're comparing Graham to the wrong Democrat though. Lindsey Graham won his last election based on his party affiliation alone. He beat Democrat Bob Conley. Conley represents anti-illegal immigration, anti-TARP, bringing the troops home, increasing veterans' benefits, reducing dependence on foreign oil, ending Wall Street bailouts, repealing the Patriot Act, cutting spending, and fidelity to the Constitution.
@Kras3169 i am with you on that. Conley seemed like a damn good man. A southern conservative true democrat. I just worry about people like john Mccains oppenet or harry reid democrats getting in office with a third party. It sucks, but we need to think of lesser of two evils. Now obama has another pick on the court with stevens retiring. GOd help and bless the usa
@utubecenseorstruth I just went to JD Hayworth's website to see where he stood "On the Issues". I agreed with just about everything until I saw his views on National Security (he's another Neo-Con supporting foreign intervention and pre-emptive war). Being a Libertarian, I dislike his views on "marriage". I'm not a big fan of social conservatives, just fiscal conservatives.
@Kras3169 Unfortunatly our electoral system has a bias for the two party system. This bias includes the "wasted vote" syndrome in which a vote for your close approximation often results in the outcome of getting more of what you don't want. As long as our system voting for C results in less of C and more of A or B then we are doomed to failure. We will continue down this meandering path between A and B with C waning in the distance. That is why we are screwed unless we change to a ranked ballot.
@longfootbuddy I can't say I was amazed by the lack of support for Ron Paul in the last election...I was just disappointed. The problem was the neo-Cons did a fantastic job brainwashing Republicans through fear that they need government to expand to protect them. Of course this also meant spending would have to increase. Suddenly, big government and big spending became the Republican thing to do. Ron Paul was way too Conservative for these brainwashed sheep who unknowingly became liberals.
@Kras3169 i was amazed, because the people not only chose others oer ron paul, but most didnt een notice him...and those that noticed him actually mocked him... many otherwise intelligent republicans i asked about ron paul said that they had to ote for mccain or else obama would win...it just makes me want to throw my hands up and shout "your hopeless!"
@Kras3169 The whole point of the republic system is so the most devious liar can take the reigns of power. Hitler (Weimar Republic), Stalin (Soviet Republic), Mao (People's Republic of China) all were elected by popular votes or representative votes
Only in Republics with the myth of voting creating complacency that deters tyrannicide, can mass genocide take place. Hitler & Lenin's only assasin attempts came from monarchists.The democratic left and right rolled over hoping to "vote" them out
@Cyrus255 A republic is a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. In the US, "the law" would be the Constitution. It only becomes a problem when the representatives stop obeying the Constitution but we have to power to vote them out. We have a system of checks and balances that is supposed to prevent the abuse of power you're referring to.
@utubecenseorstruth The fear of electing the greater of two evils by not voting for the lesser should be put to rest when you realize that you have never, ever voted in an election that was decided by one vote. On the other hand, if you consistently vote your conscience there's a possibility that one or both of the two major parties will realize that embracing your values might decide a victory in a close race. My consistent Libertarian vote has never elected any but local candidates.
This has been flagged as spam show
THE STATES CREATED THE FEDERAL THAT'S WRONG CAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVT WAS ESTABLISHED FIRST.
KEVLANEW80 3 months ago
THE STATES CREATED THE FEDERAL GOVT THAT'S WRONG THE FEDERAL GOVT WAS ESTABLISHED BEFORE STATES.
KEVLANEW80 3 months ago
AND THERE WERE MANY REBELLIONS UP NORTH.
KEVLANEW80 3 months ago
I LIKE RADICAL REPUBLICANS.
KEVLANEW80 3 months ago
WHAT DO CONFEDERATES KNOW ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, ALL OF YOU ARE LOYAL TO THE C.S.A. WHEREVER THAT IS
KEVLANEW80 5 months ago
@KEVLANEW80 This Confederate knows the Constitution, carries it in his back pocket to read, swore to uphold it 7 times, and knows that the States created the Federal gov't - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. VOLUNTARY COMPACT. UNDERSTAND??? And the more this gov't. in DC violates the Constitution, starting with Lincoln and Wilson and FDR and Johnson and Bush and Obama, the more I will support the CSA and its return. We as Southerners will not go down in flames with the rest of this "union".
combatjm89 3 months ago
GET REAL WHAT DO CONFEDERATES KNOW ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, ALL OF YOU ARE LOYAL TO C.S.A. WHEREVER THAT IS.
KEVLANEW80 5 months ago
The SCV Stands behind the Constitution and views Nation Building and Middle East wars as Unconstitutional. We are not involved in Politics but will defend the Constitution against all odds.
SCVORG 5 months ago 6
@dave2806 facts are facts and I am not wrong you are.
KEVLANEW80 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Shelby Foote said, “The North fought that war with one hand tied behind’s it back…The South never had a chance to win that war”.
We should have never built the TVA, should have left you people in the dark.
GearingDestroyer 7 months ago
The confederates were a bunch of thieves that stole USA land. you have no reason to talk about any subject, i see through your talk cause if any of you had the chance to bring back slavery all of you probably would. you southerners should keep quiet cause you are worthless even to your own race. there is no excuse for slavery and slavery is not appropriate at anytime or place. you confederates were wrong and need to let it go. all you guys are doing is supporting grand larceny.
KEVLANEW80 7 months ago
@KEVLANEW80 I am English and therefore have no axe to grind regarding sides . however from a historical point of view you are 100% wrong . . . . never let a fact get in the way of a good story !
dave2806 6 months ago
@KEVLANEW80 All that Lincoln accomplished was to replace black slavery with universal slavery. Blacks are still slaves on the Federal governments plantation, but whites are as well. If you don't believe in secession then you believe in slavery, for you are for enslaving people to a government that they want no part of. See my video: Ron Paul vs Lincoln
ErikLiberty 3 months ago
@KEVLANEW80 Hate slavery? The Yankees who built, sailed, and brought the slaves here from Africa sure didn't... they made a fortune from it. And owned their own.
combatjm89 3 months ago
"Southern Avenger" should read Timothy Sandefur's four-part series titled "Springtime for Jeff Davis and the Confed'racy" that he published this year on his blog. That would help to dispell some of the anti-imperialist, neo-confederate myths and falsehoods he is propagating.
shamusername 8 months ago
Jefferson Davis while president of the confederacy was not necessarily representative of all confederate thought. Case in point, Davis was initially warm to the idea of the Corwin Amendment, but it was poorly received by other confederates of the day which is rather telling of what he valued. That Amendment being a proposed constitutional amendment to unilaterally legalize slavery, penned by Thomas Corwin of Ohio at the behest of Lincoln as an attempt to prevent the south from leaving the union.
VriskaSerket 8 months ago
Despite Neoconfederate historical revisionism, Confederates DID fight for Slavery, the gravest intrusion on civil liberties, and the exclusion of all Blacks from ever being able to become "fellow countrymen". So yeah, being a Neoconfederate and a Neoconservative is very much compatible and not at all evocating the cognitive dissonance SA conjures up. Oh, and about "natural duties" that Southerners supposedly felt: It was the Confederate Army that issued the first draft on American soil.
shamusername 8 months ago
@shamusername
So? Slavery was part of the reason why the South wanted to secede. I really don't understand those who harp on the subject, no matter what side they're on. It was a thing of the past, and is still present today but yet no White Liberal cares enough to do anything about it.
Modern day secession would greatly benefit the South, in preserving it's ethnic identity and relatively Conservative politics.
FlashVirus 8 months ago
@shamusername Despite liberal revisionist history the north used nullification to abolish the fugitive slave act and under Lincoln, that act was law. Under Lincoln, it was seriously considered allowing slavery to continue to preserve the union, Lincoln didn't give one lick about ending or keeping slavery, only preserving the union of all states. While it's true what exacerbated the debate was slavery, but more directly what it was about was freedom from federal mandate - on both sides.
s0beit 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Shelby Foote said, “The North fought that war with one hand tied behind’s it back…The South never had a chance to win that war”.
Fucken rednecks. We should have never built the TVA, should have left you people in the dark.
GearingDestroyer 9 months ago 2
@GearingDestroyer "You people?" You generalized millions of people and, that's always wrong, because millions of people are millions of individuals, many would find agreement with you, but you're to angry to see anything different.
MrPotatoesLatkie 7 months ago
WHAT? Slavery and tensions over slavery is what caused the Civil War. The South was angry about an overreaching federal government on the issue of SLAVERY. I honestly cannot believe you're defending the Confederates on the Civil War and ignoring slavery.
toastedtoast415 1 year ago
I used to respect you. But you obviously know nothing about the confederacy. The South violated federal law and the constitution. You think people that actually understand the Civil War were programmed? You are the one who is obviously programmed.
balletboy94 1 year ago
@balletboy94 Actually, the Constitution is silent on the subject of States leaving the Union. It has been said that if the case were taken to the Supreme court, the South would have won the legal battle. On the flip side, Fort Sumpter sealed the state of the nation into a state of war. While there was violence before, it was the South who fired the first shot.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
Dolt..
ocplunk 1 year ago
How can Lincoln be called an imperialist for using military force after Federal troops had been fired on without provocation? The Constitution unquestionably gives the government the power to suppress an armed rebellion. The Southern leaders withdrew their states from the Union to protect slavery--they said so themselves in their declarations--and without a popular vote on secession. So the Confederate soldier was indeed defending slavery, regardless of his own reasons for joining the service.
galoon 1 year ago
@galoon A little history for you.
media [dot]
mises [dot]
org/video/ASC2007/ASC2007-DiLorenzo
[dot]
wmv
j1a2r34 1 year ago
@galoon Easier to absorb history on you tube.
watch?v=nbFty9nZUac
j1a2r34 1 year ago
@j1a2r34 You've got to be kidding. DiLorenzo is the same guy who advances the ridiculous notion that the purpose of the Union blockade was to force the South to pay tariffs; he also believes that Fort Sumter was a "tariff collection point." This isn't history--any time someone is being paid to speak on his views to an audience not well-read on the subject, one should be very suspicious. If DiLorenzo is an expert on anything besides economics, it is in taking Lincoln's words out of context.
galoon 10 months ago
@galoon Lincoln's words and actions documented in hundreds of footnotes speak for themselves. DiLorenzo didn't make them up, he just referenced them. Until GWB came along, Lincoln's criminality had no challenger.
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 Thanks for the reply! What do you mean by Lincoln's criminality? If it's the suspension of habeus corpus Lincoln needed to keep Maryland from seceding and isolating Washington, it was something he had to do to suppress the rebellion. We don't like it when any President goes beyond the Constitution, but the benefits in this case exceeded the drawbacks. In any case, Jefferson Davis suspended habeus corpus and the 1st Amendment more often than Lincoln ever did.
galoon 10 months ago
@galoon Your equating the words "rebellion" with "secession" leaves little hope of any common understanding of the word "criminality." The federal government is a product of states having ceded certain enumerated powers and retaining all others not listed. Certain states have recently nullified what is being called "Obamacare" and therefore that federal edict is not legal in those states. At least three of those states have now introduced or passed legislation which criminalizes federal
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@galoon agents that attempt to enforce that previously nullified act. When a federal employee is apprehended by state law enforcement, will that be regarded as the first shot fired? Based on your equivalence of secession and rebellion, can I infer that the fed govt is now justified in attacking those states with federal military force? If you've read and researched the footnotes in "The Real Lincoln" or "Lincoln Unmasked" and still believe that Lincoln is innocent, then I secede from this.
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 You're right--the Federal government IS a product of states ceding certain powers to the government, including the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which gives supremacy to Federal law over state law when the two conflict. So, as much as I hate it, the states don't have the power to declare the despicable Obamacare bill unconstitutional; that decision can only come from the Supreme Court--all previous nullification-related decisions have upheld this. So, yes, (con't)
galoon 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 if a Federal employee is apprehended by a state, that would be regarded as "the first shot" and the government would legally have the option of military force. That's why we should be careful in selecting our US Congressmen, because the states are limited in their ability to undo the damage that they can do. Now if the Federal government tried to take away a power reserved to the states, it would be in the wrong. I'm of the school that doesn't believe secession is one of these.
galoon 10 months ago
@galoon Stock up on Bullets, bandaids, beans and bullion.
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 Don't blame me; blame the Constitution. If you don't like it, it's certainly your right to write your US representative proposing an amendment to repeal the Supremacy Clause. The Constitution can be and has been amended. If secession is what you want, you likewise have the right to lobby your state legislature to put it on the ballot.
galoon 10 months ago
@galoon What you apparently believe is that the constitution has already been amended. However, the supremacy clause has not amended article one, section 8.
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 Article I Section 8 deals with the enumerated powers of Congress--what specifically are you referring to? The Constitution, as you know, has already been amended 25 or 26 times.
galoon 10 months ago
@galoon Article 1 Scetion 8 deals enumerates the powers of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - not just the congress. The Supreme Court in Vince V United States (Google it - then read the finding at Cornell Law Center) contradicts your belief that the supremacy clause enables additional powers not previously enumerated. But - just because an arm of the federal government sides with the states in this case, doesn't detract from the fact that states have already and will again decide law for themselves.
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 No--Article 1 Section 8 deals specifically with the powers of Congress. If a state nullifies a Federal law, it's doing so illegally until the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. Contrary to what you believe, it doesn't enable additional powers to Article 1; it simply states that Federal law is superior to state law WHENEVER THE TWO CONFLICT. In other words, the US is a federal republic, not a decentralized confederacy. That means the states cannot assume rights that are (con't)
galoon 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 (con't) granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. The states all agreed on this upon ratifying the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause has been tested before, and the Supreme Court has always upheld it. For example, in the 1850s, Wisconsin's Supreme Court ruled the Federal Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of this law and struck the state ruling down. We may not always like it, but it's the law our states agreed to in 1787.
galoon 10 months ago
@galoon Apparently you didn't read Vince V United States.
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 I can't seem to find it---can you fill me in on the details of the case?
galoon 10 months ago
@galoon My fault - I should have typed, Google "Printz V United States"
The transcript is at the Cornell Law Library. YouTube doesn't like me giving you a direct link.
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 Thanks! I've read the case--again, this supports what I've already posted on how the law works. What happened here was that the plaintiffs (two states) challenged the constitutionality of parts of the Brady Bill. The US Supreme Court reviewed it and ruled in favor of the states. Thus the decision came from the US Supreme Court, not the state courts. This is an example of the legal way for states to challenge Federal law; they didn't simply nullify Federal legislation here.
galoon 10 months ago
@galoon Acts made into law by the congress and president are federally unenforceable unless authorized in Art 1, Sec 8.
Since those two sheriff's never enforced the unconstitutional law, you'd be more accurate to admit that the supreme court validated their nullification. Like I mentioned earlier, it really doesn't matter whether the SC agrees or not since it is an arm of the federal government and not an impartial arbiter in a dispute between it's parent and one of it's grandparents.
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 No, he didn't make up Lincoln's comments and he didn't just reference them either--what DiLorenzo did was twist them to support his indefensible view that the Civil War was a crusade for and against tariffs and the supremacy of states' rights.
galoon 10 months ago
@galoon Does not matter the reason. IT was not a rebellion..NOR treason.
zackgonnasurvivenwo 11 months ago
@zackgonnasurvivenwo At its most basic level, it boils down to illegal seizure of Federal property by South Carolina--this was indeed a rebellion. Even before the attack on Ft. Sumter, the Southern states seized Federal arsenals and confiscated weapons; in some cases before their states seceded.
galoon 10 months ago
@galoon No because they seceded and was thus a independent nation. It is no different then the american revolution. The only difference is that the clonists won the war.
zackgonnasurvivenwo 10 months ago
@zackgonnasurvivenwo No nation on the planet ever officially recognized the Confederacy as an independent country. In some ways the comparison with the American colonies makes sense; it was a similar situation, but the colonies never had the political equality with England that the Southern states enjoyed in the Union. But they got foreign recognition, which was why they won--the lack of it was one of the reasons the South lost.
galoon 10 months ago
South Carolina stated that the "encroachments" upon the institution of slavery had been perpetrated for over two decades prior to 1860 and by as many as 14 states in their Declaration of Secession. I am only stating what the secessionists themselves voiced, that's all.
The war was over slavery because secession caused the war and secession was over slavery. Whether or not Johnny Reb had a few reasons of his own to fight...his government seceded and gets to define the cause.
RebelGuy95 1 year ago
SA is really good at glossing over slavery as if it were a superficial issue. Here is the real BS; Lincoln did to confederates what confederates did to their slaves, beat them into submission. Its called Karma. The Nation reaped war and suffering because it sowed war and suffering via slavery. How do the Confederates say they were fighting for their right not be oppressed while oppressing others. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Product1999 1 year ago
One of my most favorite SA vids!
hardmod777 1 year ago
Even North Korea and Communist China have "votes" and elect a congress, much the same as America. Most Americans, however, are unaware of this. (And also unaware that the American revolution was fought against an elected British parliament, instead brainwashed to think it was fighting autocracy).
99% of the countries of the world are "republics" so please stop acting like being in a republic is so darn fancy. It's the same system of government all dictators use to genocide their people.
Cyrus255 1 year ago
@Cyrus255 Not all republics are the same, you're trying to make the US fit in the same category as those other republics by speaking in a general sense. Do all of those countries have the same constitution? No. Do they all have the same laws? No. Are they all run the same way? No. The biggest problem with America is the American citizens. We complain about the way things are and then re-elect the same people. We don't fight hard enough when they do violate the Constitution. Too many wimps!
Kras3169 1 year ago
SA, you are so right!
xbones101 1 year ago 5
actually , id prefer if evil bastards were enslaved
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
well, at least slavery of murderers and other evil bastards...i dont really care if theyr enslaved or not
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
not saying slavery is ever justified by anyone obviously...
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
I agree with just about nothing you have to say on a political level but on a personal level I have to say that I applaud your consistency. If all rightwingers were so I would consider them worthy adversaries.
Deadboltt 1 year ago
breaks my heart to see an S.C.V. member get like that.. I have to agree with you Southernavenger, lincolns war on the South is NO different than the wars the US is making all over ther world!! Keep the Colors A'Flyin
statesrights01 1 year ago
@yllibotiv could not have said it any better myself. the US gov. is nothing more than a bug business. There not worried about doing there jobs. It is long over due to waking up! All Americans need to learn there Rights AND Demand them!! Keep the Colors A'Flyin..
statesrights01 1 year ago
@statesrights01 .. "bug buiness?? lol..well, I wouln't put it passed them, but I ment "Big".. O.o
statesrights01 1 year ago
I am a vet of the first Gulf war and believed then as now that war and the current one in no way shape or form was in America's best interests. The republican party is a big government party infested with politicians that love war.
logibear64 1 year ago
@logibear64 the funny part is you dont realize that all other major wars in american history except bush and lincoln was fought under a democratic president but your prejudice wont let you see that lol
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
@Southernjuggalo63 believe me I am no fan of the democratic party. They are just as wretched as the republicans.
logibear64 1 year ago
@logibear64 well then why did you emply that "the republican party is a big government party infested with politicians that love war" sounds to me like your just mad at bush for iraq war when obama is in control now and we are still there i agree both parties have problems thats for sure but you cant turn a blind eye to history until it fits your agenda HISTORICAL FACT more democrats presidents have put us in war than republicans
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
@Southernjuggalo63 Again I do not disagree with you. It is indeed true that the democrats have been in more wars than republican presidents. But Iraq is GW Bush's war and was supported by the republican party (with the exception of Ron Paul.) Both parties neverthelss are big government parties it is just waste money on different programs.
logibear64 1 year ago
@logibear64 well were still there and its obama in charge now look the iraqi people just voted for the first time in history and that was because america seen their people getting oppressed i wish we could have just got saddam huissen and left but i remembered the iraq-iran war and if we left immediatly that iran would have taken advantage of it and took over iran
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
@Southernjuggalo63 ye, a tyranical goverment just spread democracy...yehaw! what do you think the iraqis will vote for?
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@logibear64 so we do both agree that majority of people on both parties are playing party politics?
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
@Southernjuggalo63 Absolutely!
logibear64 1 year ago
@logibear64 we do agree on some things my friend i sit back and take a outside party politics but i believe in being fair to both sides but im glad we have talked thanks for not insulting me for my views as so many do on here for me being southern or having a different view on things cause in the end were americans
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
@Southernjuggalo63 i dont want to be included with a bunch of idiots...im against democracy because i dont like a million idiots over-riding me on everything with theyr votes...most americans seem to want a socialist tyranical nannystate democracy... its alot easier to just separate from them, than to waste time trying to convince them of the obvious.. i wish states were states again, so i could move to the ones that use common sense and common law
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@Southernjuggalo63 uh, bush was a bafoon and lincoln was a tyrant, hell bent on denying the south the right to seceed....i dont know why people love lincoln so much, he was no better than the brits that tried to stop the independence of the american colonists...i guess cuz you all think the civil war was fought to end slavery.. maybe you should do a tiny little bit of research .... unless you consider the history channel or your kids school book research.. if those are republicans, screw em
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy well kid you got a lot of accusations fucked up man first off i hate lincoln 2nd i hated the union 3rd my family fought on confederate side and LAST MY COUSIN WAS ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@longfootbuddy well kid you got a lot of accusations fucked up man first off i hate lincoln 2nd i hated the union 3rd my family fought on confederate side and LAST MY COUSIN WAS ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY!!
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@longfootbuddy well kid you got a lot of accusations fucked up man first off i hate lincoln 2nd i hated the union 3rd my family fought on confederate side and LAST MY COUSIN WAS ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY!!
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@longfootbuddy well kid you got a lot of accusations fucked up man first off i hate lincoln 2nd i hated the union 3rd my family fought on confederate side and LAST MY COUSIN WAS ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY!
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
The CSA's ideals looked good on paper, but given the big government nature of Southern politicians today there seems to be little doubt that the CSA would have become as antithetical to its original intent as the USA did. Big government and empire loomed large on the Confederate horizon with the westward movement of the North American population. It would be nice to believe that the CSA would have looked something like Switzerland does today, but it's very unlikely that this would have happened.
byron84 1 year ago
Ron Paul 2012
Parisjune 1 year ago
Unfortunately the ideology that America must wage war as a means of national defense has permeated every facet of the modern political spectrum. Even the anti-war left that was prominent during the Bush years has been marginalized by Obama's election. Many liberal Democrats now support the same foreign policy that they opposed and protested under Bush, and of course many Republicans criticize Obama Doctrine for being too soft despite the fact that it's the spitting image of Bush Doctrine.
KoldMannDamm 1 year ago
Unfortunately it seems that many Americans are willing to support any twisted ideology that politicians are willing to propagate, as long as said politicians sweet talk us with carefully constructed rhetoric. The truth be damned.
KoldMannDamm 1 year ago
***** Excellent video.
warhammer10101 1 year ago
Absolutely brilliant analogies. As a Son of the Confederate Veterans myself, I have been making similar points for years - to no avail. Fact is, the South falls in line behind Washington's imperial rhetoric like blacks standing before Sotero's lies. Until this knee-jerk support for the "bomb 'em high" policy is changed among Southerners, the GOP's base, the party will be run by chickenhawk warmongers and Christian Zionists.
MarcusCMarcellus 1 year ago
Excellent.
sirachman 1 year ago
Excellent.
rebel7254 1 year ago
He's also wrong about the beginning of terrorists attacks against us. The Islamofacist have been at war with us since the late 70s. Terrorists killed Americans throughout the 80s and 90s. It took 9/11 to wake us up. Mr. Francis certainly has his head up his ass as to the reason for the first Gulf War and when the terrorists began murdering us.
santex 1 year ago
Samuel Francis' view of the 1991 Gulf is distorted. The war was a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. We did not "invade" Iraq. There were 32 countries involved in removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Once Kuwait was liberated the war ended. No invasion of Iraq took place. Hussein stayed in power. We did not unilaterally impose sanctions on Iraq, the UN did. Bombing took place after Iraqi continued non-compliance of UN imposed sanctions.
santex 1 year ago
An oligarchy of plantation owners and rich business men in the south called the shots in all southern State Houses leading up to the Civil War. They were more clueless about the reality than GW Bush was. They wasted more blood and treasure than any other ruling class in our history. Fuck 'em.
eelzen 1 year ago
While the founding of the CSA was about decentralization.. President Davis did not follow those ideas throughout the war. While, it was a case of being at war, there was still massive centralization.. it just didn't compare to Lincoln's.
luciusETRUR 1 year ago
I wish I had been willing to listen to this viewpoint 8 years ago.
FarginBastiges 1 year ago
Jack your videos are remarkable. Keep them coming!
ryanthomastew 1 year ago 2
Paul 2012 !!!
ALittleBitPregnant 1 year ago 2
I came to this video expecting to hear some crazy redneck idiot going off on some insane tangent and was surprised to find the arguments intelligent and well thought out. I am always surprised when I find an intelligent conservative and especially when I find an intelligent conservative on youtube. Keep up the good work, would like to see more videos like this.
chinacat22 1 year ago 2
The wars are always for corporations and government never Israel. That's exactly what they want you to say and believe.
MrHappy702 1 year ago 3
Bravo
RodriguezVacas 1 year ago
Very interesting perspective and rationale. Excellent video!
chuska8383 1 year ago
This is an absolutely fantastic video and viewpoint. Deo Vindice. I can always count on the Southern Avenger to be the voice of reason in an increasingly confused day and time.
Tholt87csa 1 year ago
let's see who knows what and exactly what you can compehend you feeble minded twit watch the conservative nanny state here on youtube you moron
vandall 1 year ago
IS this guy ignorant or incidious , what a propaganda pushing piss ant conservative is just code for fascist We does care about our med-evil economics , He;s not a christian;s a christianist
vandall 1 year ago
@vandall you make no sense, and fail to understand the issue.
KaptainKaka 1 year ago
@KaptainKaka OH really look up noam chomsky or the documentrary the corporation , you want limted government for the sake of privatization , you say socialism pem0otes laziness , i say capitalism permotes oppession slavery and war
vandall 1 year ago
@vandall Thats because youre just a lazy son of a bitch. What we have now is NOT capitalism. Every monopoly that we have today is supported by the state. That means there is NO real competition, therefore no true capitalism. Its CORPORATISM which is socialized or state run capitalism. The system is fucked because of the state sticking its nose into everything. "Socialism" is the reasoning behind the problems we have today. Youre nothing but a God damn slave to the Union.
KaptainKaka 1 year ago
@KaptainKaka OH really look up noam chomsky or the documentrary the corporation , you want limted government for the sake of privatization , you say socialism pem0otes laziness , i say capitalism permotes oppession slavery and war
vandall 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KaptainKaka OH really look up noam chomsky or the documentrary the corporation , you want limted government for the sake of privatization , you say socialism pem0otes laziness , i say capitalism permotes oppession slavery and war
vandall 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KaptainKaka OH really look up noam chomsky or the documentrary the corporation , you want limted government for the sake of privatization , you say socialism pem0otes laziness , i say capitalism permotes oppession slavery and war
vandall 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KaptainKaka OH really look up noam chomsky or the documentrary the corporation , you want limted government for the sake of privatization , you say socialism pem0otes laziness , i say capitalism permotes oppession slavery and war
vandall 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KaptainKaka OH really look up noam chomsky or the documentrary the corporation , you want limted government for the sake of privatization , you say socialism pem0otes laziness , i say capitalism permotes oppession slavery and war
vandall 1 year ago
@vandall Conservative is code for fascist? You can't even compare the two. Fascism is a form of total government while conservatives generally support limited constitutional government.
Thrashfan21 1 year ago
@Thrashfan21 The problem is people confuse REAL conservatives like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan with neo-Cons like Bush. Since neo-Cons support big government, and enjoy whiping their ass with the Constitution. They also supported giving Bush unConstitutional executive powers. People have a habit of associating neo-Cons with ALL Republicans when it's simply not true.
Kras3169 1 year ago 13
@Kras3169
Or more like what Brainpolice2 has said:
The rule of law is essentially a myth perpetuated in the attempt to justify the rule of men. Laws do not rule on their own. Constitutions are not self-enforcing. The problem with the overtly gradualist approach is that it turns into dedicated opposition to radicalism.
AnarchosMercatus 1 year ago
@Kras3169 Everyone should know that Neocons have a foundation with Trotsky Communism. Anyone can look this up and read about Neocons and Trotskyites and Bill Kristol. Then the truth will come out and perhaps maybe people will be a little more hesitant about supporting big govt after seeing what the Bush administration did to our Liberties.
KaptainKaka 1 year ago
@KaptainKaka I hear you brother, you're preaching to the choir. The ONLY reason I'm a registered Republican is so I'll be able to vote for Ron Paul in the Primary if he decides to run again. I'm more of a Libertarian. Neocons have destroyed the Republican Party but so did many conservatives who didn't stay true to their principles or the Constitution.
Kras3169 1 year ago 2
@Kras3169 big government and deficating on the constitution are republican tradition
803honda 1 year ago
@803honda If you think the Dems aren't guilty of the very same thing, you're blind...
Charonveritas 1 year ago
@Charonveritas noone said they were not guilty but that is not their tradition. the first democrat president(Thomas Jefferson) was quite excellent while the first republican president(dishonest abe) was very very evil.
803honda 1 year ago
@803honda Well, at least on that we see eye to eye. But, more recently FDR=bum, Truman=unknowing bum, Johnson=real bum, Carter/Clinton=disgrace... I'm not even getting into Odumbo...
Charonveritas 1 year ago
@Charonveritas slandering the jackass dosent make dumbo look any better to me.
803honda 1 year ago
@803honda It's not slander, especially when it's the truth...
Charonveritas 1 year ago
@803honda big government and deficating on the Constitution is a Democrat tradition as well. if you're incapable of seeing the negatives of BOTH parties, I feel sorry for you. it just means you're a slave to the two party system which is exactly what "they" want. why focus on real issues when we can argue about which party has the bigger dick, right? partisanship is blindness.
Kras3169 1 year ago
@Kras3169 wow dude? really???
what you tellin me for?
im with the keg party
803honda 1 year ago
Conservatives support the constitution HAH, @Thrashfan21
tynitty516 1 year ago
@Thrashfan21 Hes talking about Neocons. Who are fascist, because they support national socialism. What he doesn't know is that Neocons today have a foundation in Trotsky Communism. Theyve never been right wing, altho everyone thinks they are. In terms of govt, they are all Left, and they all suck because they depend on the state to wipe their asses, or blow up someones asses because they don't agree with how others are living their lives. Fuck em.
KaptainKaka 1 year ago
After hearing Hamid Karzai's most recent statements I want to see the US out of Afghanistan real soon. I say pull our troops out now and secure our own borders and say F..K You to the rest of the world. Then if we get hit again we respond with retaliation and we CRUSH those who attack us, do not let up until our enemies are belly up on the ground with their tails in between their legs. Then leave.
nbenicewicz 1 year ago 2
Lincoln was a Rothschild agent.
varickwt 1 year ago 2
One of your best videos ever!
Citizens have not only a Right, but a Duty, to fight against an Invader!
Deo Vindice!
CelticSouthland 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
Tasadaru 1 year ago
Excellent video, many, many good points made. All southerners need to hear this, and what's more, understand it. Deo Vindice.
texconfed 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Great video, Avenger! I totally agree with your points on this one. Our national government has no business nation-building and policing the world using our brothers and sisters! American politics (at the national level) now largely resembles other historically more corrupt nations where free and fair elections are just a sham!
AmericanAvenger1 1 year ago
Great video, Avenger! I totally agree with your points on this one. Our national government has no business nation-building and policing the world using our brothers and sisters! American politics (at the national level) now largely resembles other historically more corrupt nations where free and fair elections are just a sham!
AmericanAvenger1 1 year ago
Comment removed
AmericanAvenger1 1 year ago
He did one video talking about how the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" (aka people who have spent more than 15 minutes researching the facts behind 9/11) sounded just as crazy as the official story believers, so I know he knows more than he lets on.
I think 9/11 is the most interesting and important subject we have to talk about today, and hope Jack covers it more as well.. we need to figure out what happened before more of our soldiers die.
sanluisskywatch 1 year ago
Everything I was taught about the civil war was wrong.
phazespace 1 year ago
I'd like another video on how 9/11 was potentially an inside job. Thanks.
sanluisskywatch 1 year ago
@sanluisskywatch I wish jack would come around to that.
AiresQX4 1 year ago
@sanluisskywatch Probably because he doesn't believe it was an inside job (as no sane individual would).
HungryDingo 1 year ago
Why does this southernavenger fellow celebrate racism and slavery?
Hagee2012 1 year ago
@Hagee2012 And why do you find it advantageous to twist perfectly clear calls for freedom for all people into attack language?
leafwatch 1 year ago
Point very well made, Jack. Everyone in Dixie needs to hear this message.
RedShirtArmy 1 year ago
I would like to hear you articulate your vision of American foreign policy. I basically agree with you about Iraq, though I think Bush et. al. were in good faith, if mistaken. I think that Afghanistan would be less intractable if we had not neglected our operations there. And I do not know enough about Antebellum American History to have an intelligent opinion about the War Between the States.
Offering your alternative would really help everyone understand where you are coming from.
Wormtail81 1 year ago
Here is a great piece on Lincoln:
lewrockwelldotcom / dilorenzo / dilorenzo 165.html
n66178 1 year ago
please believe, there are still Americans left who understand that the Federal government is a descendant of the State governments. State rights will always be the true, intelligent course that the majority of Founding Fathers intended to be the origin of political power in the us. Keep your Confederate flags flying & in your mind when you're at the ballot box
GeorgeWashingtonX 1 year ago 3
As always, well reasoned and incredibly well spoken!
Aibric 1 year ago 3
Romney... I hate him.
Voy2378 1 year ago 2
I totally agree with you. The War of Northern Aggression started when reinforcements for Fort Sumter were sent after South Carolina's secession.
freedom4csa 1 year ago 2
By the oppressed, George W. wasn't speaking of those under Hussein's rule, but rather of himself and those like him. To good ol' W, the oppressed is the government itself, which is severely restricted by the people. The war in Iraq was not to help poor Iraqis, but to help the poor government in it's aim to get more power. This has been, is, and forever will be the goal of any government: to get more power. I only hope that down the road someone actually stands up for us, when we're oppressed.
smallmaniac 1 year ago 2
FIX the GOP by throwing OUT these Statist Progressive NeoCons!
STOP Empire Building & Foreign Intervention with 700+ US military bases OCCUPYING almost EVERY nation PRODUCING hatred & jihad resistance!
Trade, NOT bribes/bombs Manipulation OR Isolationism!
STOP Fascist Crony Corporatism, Illegal Immigration & Marxist Redistributionist THEFT.
Return to Constitutionally limited Gov't, Individual Liberty & Responsibility, Sound Money, FREE competition between FREE States & FREE people.
yakyakyak69 1 year ago 3
.
As a former supporter of the Iraq war I have to say that a great many people got it wrong as the intelligence was all jumbled, but it is also true that had people like myself stuck with true conservative principles we never would have supported that war. As such I had my epiphany back in 2007 when I realized that people like Rumsfeld were in fact what I call religi-cons who used a religion based bias for their actions. I regret ever supporting them and I note that the Dems failed to prosecute.
kmg501 1 year ago
@kmg501 The Dems failed to prosecute because they were (and still are) in on it. Obama has just signed the largest War Budget in human history (>$700 billion)
Vote Libertarian for real change!
lordaltay5 1 year ago 12
@lordaltay5 i like the idea of libertarian, but by voting liberatarian you typically just take votes away from republicans ( i hate voting that way) you need to look at the lesser of two evils. You have a great point though. Just seems that by voting for any third party takes away for conservative candidates
utubecenseorstruth 1 year ago
@utubecenseorstruth How is it taking away from "conservative candidate" when most of today's Republicans are NOT conservative? Try telling me people like McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Mitt Romney are conservative. The whole point of living in a Republic is to vote for the candidate who most closely represents your belifes, NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. The faster Americans wake up to this, the faster we can start restoring our country.
Kras3169 1 year ago 23
The problem for American conservatives is not that they lost power. It's that whenever they have been in power, they used it for their short-term benefit. It's that they have used coercive means out of fear of "the other guys" using it first (commies, social democrats, etc.). Conservative governments grow because (1) the very nature of the system is designed to grow and force compromise (2) conservatives support political means when it suites their special interests
AnarchosMercatus 1 year ago
(3) most conservatives are disingenuous about their will to reduce political power. Blaming it on voters strikes me as kind of backwards. Conservatism is a blight because it is a statist ideology like any other. "Order" and particular personal values ultimately trump liberty. Anti-communism, cultural monocentrism and the police and military power are higher on the list of wants then reduction of political power.
AnarchosMercatus 1 year ago
@AnarchosMercatus I agree with everything you said. I live in Nassau County on Long Island, which was once controlled by Republicans. The Executive at that time was Thomas Gulotta. He almost ran Nassau County into bankruptcy. He was invlolved in a county workers' health insurance scandal that cost the county $70 million (one county!). A bunch of them were charged with fraud and bribery charges. They discredit themselves!
Kras3169 1 year ago
@Kras3169 I am with you on that, but the problem is that the liberals are very united even when they disagree look at ben nelson and how he fell in on obamacare. Lindsey graham is a disgrace, but if you had to chose i think any patriotic american who loves this country would feel better with him in office than say a man like harry reid. That is what scares me. It seems the more conservative candidate almost always loses votes. Hell that are not many good in washington either way
utubecenseorstruth 1 year ago
@utubecenseorstruth You're comparing Graham to the wrong Democrat though. Lindsey Graham won his last election based on his party affiliation alone. He beat Democrat Bob Conley. Conley represents anti-illegal immigration, anti-TARP, bringing the troops home, increasing veterans' benefits, reducing dependence on foreign oil, ending Wall Street bailouts, repealing the Patriot Act, cutting spending, and fidelity to the Constitution.
Kras3169 1 year ago
@Kras3169 i am with you on that. Conley seemed like a damn good man. A southern conservative true democrat. I just worry about people like john Mccains oppenet or harry reid democrats getting in office with a third party. It sucks, but we need to think of lesser of two evils. Now obama has another pick on the court with stevens retiring. GOd help and bless the usa
utubecenseorstruth 1 year ago
@utubecenseorstruth I just went to JD Hayworth's website to see where he stood "On the Issues". I agreed with just about everything until I saw his views on National Security (he's another Neo-Con supporting foreign intervention and pre-emptive war). Being a Libertarian, I dislike his views on "marriage". I'm not a big fan of social conservatives, just fiscal conservatives.
Kras3169 1 year ago
@Kras3169 Unfortunatly our electoral system has a bias for the two party system. This bias includes the "wasted vote" syndrome in which a vote for your close approximation often results in the outcome of getting more of what you don't want. As long as our system voting for C results in less of C and more of A or B then we are doomed to failure. We will continue down this meandering path between A and B with C waning in the distance. That is why we are screwed unless we change to a ranked ballot.
vipero00 1 year ago
@vipero00 I agree but I doubt
anything can or will be changed without force now that the nwo has
the usa by the short hairs.
remyllebeau77 1 year ago
@Kras3169 i was so amazed by the lack of support for ron paul in the last election...i wanted to puke.. and still feel a little sick
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy I can't say I was amazed by the lack of support for Ron Paul in the last election...I was just disappointed. The problem was the neo-Cons did a fantastic job brainwashing Republicans through fear that they need government to expand to protect them. Of course this also meant spending would have to increase. Suddenly, big government and big spending became the Republican thing to do. Ron Paul was way too Conservative for these brainwashed sheep who unknowingly became liberals.
Kras3169 1 year ago
@Kras3169 i was amazed, because the people not only chose others oer ron paul, but most didnt een notice him...and those that noticed him actually mocked him... many otherwise intelligent republicans i asked about ron paul said that they had to ote for mccain or else obama would win...it just makes me want to throw my hands up and shout "your hopeless!"
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@Kras3169 The whole point of the republic system is so the most devious liar can take the reigns of power. Hitler (Weimar Republic), Stalin (Soviet Republic), Mao (People's Republic of China) all were elected by popular votes or representative votes
Only in Republics with the myth of voting creating complacency that deters tyrannicide, can mass genocide take place. Hitler & Lenin's only assasin attempts came from monarchists.The democratic left and right rolled over hoping to "vote" them out
Cyrus255 1 year ago
@Cyrus255 A republic is a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. In the US, "the law" would be the Constitution. It only becomes a problem when the representatives stop obeying the Constitution but we have to power to vote them out. We have a system of checks and balances that is supposed to prevent the abuse of power you're referring to.
Kras3169 1 year ago
@utubecenseorstruth The fear of electing the greater of two evils by not voting for the lesser should be put to rest when you realize that you have never, ever voted in an election that was decided by one vote. On the other hand, if you consistently vote your conscience there's a possibility that one or both of the two major parties will realize that embracing your values might decide a victory in a close race. My consistent Libertarian vote has never elected any but local candidates.
j1a2r34 10 months ago