Tag: history

Happy Holiday! Here Is What They Won’t Tell You About Democrats and Juneteenth…

Happy Juneteenth!

Today is the day the United States celebrates Juneteenth, a little-known date that was recently dug up to divert attention from the real civil rights achievements by brave Republicans who fought to free the slaves.

Here is more background.

When the Civil War ended, and after Republican President Abraham Lincoln liberated the slaves, Democrats initiated Jim Crow laws to punish blacks. Democrats discriminated against blacks. In fact, the KKK was founded as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party.

The Ku Klux Klan assassinated many Republicans, including Republican Representative James M. Hinds (December 5, 1833—October 22, 1868) of Little Rock. Hinds represented Arkansas in the United States Congress from June 24, 1868, through October 22, 1868, before his violent death.

The Ku Klux Klan was founded as the activist wing of the Democratic Party.

On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a “Negro hunt,” killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find. (Via Grand Old Partisan)

Democrats in hoods slaughtered hundreds of Republicans and blacks across the country.
They beat and threatened and murdered Republicans for standing with the black man.

On April 20, 1871 the Republicans passed the anti-Ku Klux Klan Act outlawing Democratic terrorist groups.

The last KKK official to serve in Washington, DC was former Senator Robert Byrd, a KKK kleagle. Byrd was a top Democrat and friend of Joe Biden.

In fact, throughout the Civil Rights era of the 19th and 20th centuries, Democrats fought against freedom and rights for the black man.

Keep reading

The Claim That America ‘Stole’ California From Mexico Is An Ignorant Lie

Recently, Katy Perry claimed on her Instagram page that California has always belonged to Mexico and is another example of U.S. racism and bigotry. 

That’s not quite … right. California, like most of the world, has a history that’s slightly more complex than will fit an average bumper sticker.

Prior to the Spanish arrival in 1542, there were more than 100 different tribes inhabiting modern-day California. Most were small, and the total population of the area is estimated to be approximately 300,000. 

Although there were some minor explorations and small settlements, Spain left California largely unexplored and unsettled for nearly the next 200 years. This was due to a combination of factors such as distance from Spain, the strained Spanish finances, and also because there were no pack animals, little agricultural tradition, and a food supply that was less than appealing to Spanish palates. 

By the late 18th century, however, the Spanish decided they needed to better organize their North American territories to preempt incursions from other European powers, particularly the French and Russians. As a result, Spain began a more robust exploration of the state and would slowly colonize it, setting up missions along the vast coastal areas. 

By the early part of the 19th century, however, Spain’s fortunes were changing, the empire was stretched too thin, and after a decade of fighting, Mexico gained its independence in 1821. The new nation included what is today Mexico, as well as California and much of the American Southwest, stretching east to Texas and north to Colorado. Here’s where the rub in the argument that the United States stole California begins.

The population of California in 1800 was approximately 300,000 — almost all natives — essentially the same as it had been for centuries. By 1848, however, it had dropped to half of that due to disease, which was responsible for 60-80 percent of the decline, and the Spanish working to death or killing the natives.

California, at the time of Mexico’s independence, was sparsely populated, with just 200,000 people, and that number was rapidly shrinking. For perspective, that’s 0.5 percent of today’s 40 million inhabitants. Add to that the fact that Mexico could barely be called a functioning country, as in the 27 years from 1821 to 1848, it had literally 40 heads of government. As would seem obvious, the governments were dysfunctional, had an incredibly large land mass to govern, little tax revenue coming in, and very limited finances with which to field an army to secure it, never mind to carry out the minimum responsibilities of a government. 

To better understand how dysfunctional and empty Mexico was, consider Texas. In 1835, Texas had a population of less than 45,000 people, 30,000 of whom were Anglo settlers who’d been given permission to settle the lands by the Mexican government. The remainder included approximately 7,000 Mexicans and 5,000 black slaves. Because of conflict with the Mexican government on issues from slavery to religion, in October of that year, Texas started a war for independence. By March 1836, it had declared itself the Republic of Texas. That could never have happened had Mexico been able to populate the area on its own or keep it from breaking away. But it couldn’t, so Texas was born. 

Keep reading

Historically Ignorant Chicago Mayor Says Trump is What Country Would Look Like if the Confederacy Had Won the Civil War

If you need further proof that many of our cities and states are being run by first-class morons, look no further than Chicago’s Democrat Mayor Brandon Johnson.

While offering some recent comments about the Trump administration and the actions being carried out by ICE, Johnson suggested that this is what the country would look like if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War.

The mayor is apparently unaware that the Confederacy was a creation of members of his party and that the Republican party was founded to end the practice of slavery in the United States. Is he even aware that President Abraham Lincoln and General Ulysses S. Grant were Republicans?

Breitbart News reports:

Chicago Mayor: Trump Is ‘What U.S. Would Have Looked Like if the Confederacy Won’

Chicago’s radical, progressive, Democrat Mayor Brandon Johnson told the media on Wednesday that the Trump administration is “what our country would look like had the Confederacy won.”

The race-obsessed, left-wing mayor railed against the Trump administration after hundreds of protesters flooded the streets of the Windy City in opposition to the president’s lawful immigration enforcement policies. Johnson by turns called Trump a “terrorist” and a “racist” in his comments to the press.

The mayor with the single worst approval rating in the entire country also reminded the media that he recently said that Trump’s immigration policy is “what terrorism looks like.”

Earlier, Johnson said, “Federal agents should never be allowed to come into our city and assault elected officials or any Chicagoan. All residents have the right to due process under the Constitution, any action to the contrary is unconscionable,” in a statement after an ICE raid was protested last week.

Keep reading

1775: Putting Tyrants on the Run

April 19 was the 250th anniversary of American militiamen routing the best army in the world. Seven hundred British troops arrogantly came out of Boston early that day in 1775 to seize firearms and gunpowder in Concord, Massachusetts. By the time the tattered remnants of that force escaped back to Boston, hundreds of British troops were left dead, wounded, or captured along the road. The “shot heard around the world” became one of the most dramatic blows against tyranny in modern history.

But the hard truths of the American Revolution are being obscured by Leviathan-loving pundits. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.—President John F. Kennedy’s court historian and a revered liberal intellectual—declared in 2004, “Historians today conclude that the colonists were driven to revolt in 1776 because of a false conviction that they faced a British conspiracy to destroy their freedom.”

The colonists revolted because they were being bayoneted down the road to serfdom. The British parliament passed law after law trumpeting Americans’ legal inferiority to their foreign masters. The Sugar Act of 1764 resulted in British officials confiscating hundreds of American ships, based on mere allegations that the shipowners or captains were involved in smuggling. To retain their ships, Americans had to somehow prove that they had never been involved in smuggling—a near-impossible burden.

The Declaratory Act of 1766 announced that Parliament “had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.” That meant Parliament could never do an injustice to the Americans, since Parliament had the right to use and abuse colonists as it pleased. That law was modeled after an earlier British dictate—the Irish Declaratory Act of 1719. The British were notorious for treating the Irish as bad or worse than slaves. Perhaps the most influential political philosopher in America in the pre-Revolution times was John Locke, who warned in his Second Treatise on Government in 1690: “He who attempts to get another man into his Absolute Power, does thereby put himself into a State of War with him.” Colonists paid fierce attention to Locke’s warning: “Tyranny is the exercise of Power beyond Right.”

Americans felt like they were being hit by a British blockade even before the Brits forcibly shut down the Boston harbor. Britain imposed heavy taxes on imports and prohibited Americans from erecting any mill for rolling or slitting iron; British statesman William Pitt exclaimed, “It is forbidden to make even a nail for a horseshoe.” The Declaration of Independence denounced King George for “cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.”

To enforce heavy tariffs on tea and other items, King George issued “writs of assistance” that let British soldiers “search settlers’ belongings at random to find out who was evading import taxes by smuggling whiskey or tea.” These writs empowered “a civil officer [to] search any house, shop, warehouse, etc.; break open doors, chests, packages… and remove any prohibited or uncustomed goods or merchandise.” James Otis—a lawyer arguing against the writs in a Boston court in 1761—denounced them as “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law” and declared the writs conferred “a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” In 1772, the Massachusetts Committee of Correspondence described the writs’ effects: “Thus our houses and even our bedchambers are exposed to be ransacked and plundered by wretches, whom no prudent man would venture to employ even as menial servants…. By this we are cut off from the domestic security which renders the lives of the most unhappy in some measure agreeable.” Colonial opposition against writs, according to John Adams, ignited the flame that led to American independence.

Vermont patriots marched in 1775 against the British Army under a flag depicting a pine tree—a symbol of British tyranny. Because pine was an excellent material for building ships, Parliament banned cutting down any white pine trees—claiming them all for the British crown without compensation. Historian Jonathan Sewall, writing in 1846, claimed that the conflict with Britain “began in the forests of Maine in the contests of her lumbermen with the King’s surveyor, as to the right to cut, and the property in white pine trees.” Historian Robert Albion wrote in 1926: “The royal interpretation of ‘private property’ practically rendered that term nugatory, so…the pines were virtually being commandeered by the Navy.”

Keep reading

A Brief History of the Freedom of Speech

“I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
— Voltaire (1694-1778)

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he included in it a list of the colonists’ grievances with the British government. Notably absent were any complaints about infringement upon speech.

In those days, speech was as acerbic as it is today. If words were aimed at Parliament, all words were lawful. If they were aimed directly and personally at the king — as Jefferson’s were in the Declaration — they constituted treason.

Needless to say, Jefferson and his 55 colleagues who signed the Declaration would all have been hanged for treasonous speech had the British prevailed.

Of course, the colonists won the war, and, six years afterward, the 13 states voluntarily ratified the Constitution. Two years after ratification, the Constitution was amended by adding the Bill of Rights.

James Madison, who drafted the Bill of Rights, insisted upon referring to speech as “the” freedom of speech, so as to emphasize that it preexisted the government. He believed the freedom of speech was one of the inalienable rights Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration.

Stated differently, each of the ratifiers of the Bill of Rights manifested in writing their unambiguous understanding that the freedom of speech is a natural right — personal to every human. It does not come from the government. It comes from within us. It cannot be taken away by legislation or executive command. It does not require a permission slip.

Yet, a mere seven years later, during the presidency of John Adams, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which punished speech critical of the government.

How could the same generation — in some cases, the same human beings — that prohibited congressional infringement upon speech have enacted a statute that punished speech?

To some of the framers — the Federalists, who wanted a leviathan central government as we have today — infringing upon the freedom of speech meant only silencing it before it was uttered. Today, this is called prior restraint, and the Supreme Court has essentially outlawed it.

To the anti-federalists — who believed the central government was a limited voluntary compact of states — the First Amendment prohibited Congress from interfering with or punishing any speech.

The Adams administration indicted, prosecuted and convicted anti-federalists — among them a congressman — for their critical speech.

When Jefferson won the presidency and the anti-federalists won control of Congress, the Federalists repealed three of the four Alien and Sedition Acts on the eve of their departure from congressional control, lest any be used against them.

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln locked up hundreds of journalists in the North — including a congressman — who were critical of his war efforts. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson arrested students for reading the Declaration of Independence aloud at draft offices or singing German beer hall songs.

Keep reading

Who Really Provoked the Ukraine War? Was It Russia?

Ukrainian “president” Vladimir Zelensky lied when he called Russia the aggressor. Since 2014 his military forces have been shelling their own civilians in the east of Ukraine, killing at least 14,000 people and arresting thousands more with the SBU, the Ukrainian secret police, a de facto Gestapo-like terror organization.

Zelensky’s regime prohibited the Russian language in schools, political opposition was outlawed, the Orthodox church was banned, and all Russian shows and programs from TV were removed. Russian websites were blocked from the internet. Zelensky called Ukrainian Russians in the east a “species”, as if he were referring not to his fellow countrymen, but to animals. Yet he speaks and behaves as if none of this ever happened.

He portrays himself as a victim and a hero and ungratefully expects more money ($350 billion sent already!), some of which he and his fellow cronies have been found to spend on luxury cars, large fancy villas, and skiing resorts in Europe. It’s an open secret!

Russia simply stepped up for Russian people in Ukraine after eight years of doing nothing in the face of this injustice. Clearly Russia didn’t start it. They didn’t want this war. Period.

And fundamentally speaking, Zelensky’s presidential term ran out in May 2024. He blocked new elections, apparently because polling showed his approval rating at four percent, so he’s not even the legitimate president of Ukraine anymore – not even on paper as a puppet. Clearly he is in no position to negotiate anything now.

There is so much more that Vice President Vance and President Trump could have said to Zelensky in that historic and heated exchange before the cameras in the Oval Office. It was he, Zelensky, who initialled and then reneged on the peace agreement after Russian forces withdrew from around Kiev and other parts. And Zelensky walked out on the peace deal early on in March and April 2022, not Putin.

Although it was Zelensky’s regime which from 2014 to 2022 was bombing the Donbas and killing the 14,000 Ukrainian Russians, Zelensky turns around and hypocritically blames Putin for everything that he, Zelensky, did.

And Crimea? Crimea is Russian, historically speaking, and 75 percent of the population is ethnically Russian. Relatively few Ukrainians live there. It was always the southern jewel of Russia but was unlawfully ”gifted” to Ukraine in the 1950s by the Soviet dictator Khruschev, who was also leader of the Ukrainian Communist Party at the time.

Keep reading

J.D. Vance’s Bold Step to Reclaim Robert E. Lee’s Legacy

J.D. Vance invited the ire of countless woke historical revisionists when he pushed back against the suggestion that, when Pete Hegseth removed retired General Mark Milley’s portrait from the Pentagon, this was somehow a sign that the Trump administration will be iconoclastic and authoritarian..

Vance’s response perfectly captures what most Americans probably felt in reading Glasser’s nonsense.

Vance’s including Robert E. Lee in this short list of American heroes whose reputations have been wrongfully tarnished could not have been an accident. It is a brave statement for Vance to make and a brilliant cultural flank against those who have been uninterruptedly murdering historical truth throughout the post-Obama era.

Violent mobs and woke social initiatives have led to the defacement or removal of these great Americans’ monuments for many years now.  They were to be newly cast as racists and villains, and you were also to be smeared if you didn’t buy into the lies.

You were a racist, for example, if you questioned the claims made in The 1619 Project. This farce-masquerading-as-journalism argued that the United States engaged in its war of independence because American colonials wanted to keep slaves.

Then, in 2020, Democrats began tearing down the statues of generals such as Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and Robert E. Lee, men tarred by the taint of the Confederacy, but also began defacing statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Their reasoning was that the American colonials and the Confederate rebels were both just slaveholders who were fighting to keep their slaves, making them all reasonable targets for the revisionists.

Of course, even honest leftists have admitted that the 1619 Project is among the purest garbage ever put to print. The historical record clearly shows that there’s no credible evidence suggesting that the colonials wanted independence to keep slaves. But if that sort of nuance is important, it should also be important that the historical record clearly shows that the Southern states didn’t simply engage in its failed war for independence because they wanted to keep slaves, either.

Keep reading

Professor says monuments to American pioneers ‘reinforce white supremacy’

A University of North Dakota history professor who studies the American West believes monuments depicting the pioneers “reinforce white supremacy.”

In an interview this week with KJZZ Phoenix, Cynthia Prescott (pictured) discussed her research on pioneer monuments, including a book that argues the artwork promotes “white cultural superiority” and “gender stereotypes.”

Much like with Confederate monuments, the professor said America should re-examine artwork honoring American settlers.

“A lot of people have talked about Confederate monuments in particular, as being monuments that were put up in the late 19th, early 20th centuries for the purpose of enshrining a racial hierarchy. And through my work, I argue that Western pioneer monuments were doing very similar cultural work,” she told KJZZ.

Prescott, who chairs the History and American Indian Studies Department, said the purpose of pioneer monuments was “to reinforce white supremacy over peoples of color.”

Keep reading

The Entire Cold War Was an Avoidable Mistake

The war-weary Washington policy makers were absolutely correct when they brought America’s 12 million-man expeditionary force home from Asia, Europe and the Seven Seas after August 1945. So doing, of course, they also abruptly closed the sluice-gates to what was America’s Brobdingnagian $1.7 trillion war budget in today’s dollars (FY 2025 $). But as we noted in Part 1, that figure had shrunk by a stunning 93% to just $125 billion by 1948 as post-war demobilization proceeded apace.

And well it should have. Among the burned out and exhausted lands abroad after V-E Day and V-J Day there was absolutely no military threat anywhere on the planet to the homeland security and liberty of America.

Japan’s leading cities had been fried alive by horrendous nuclear and conventional bombing assaults; Germany’s industrial and urban areas had been laid waste by bomber storms night after night for months on end; Italy had long since hung its wartime leader in a convulsion of political upheaval; France was barely functioning economically and politically after four years of brutal Nazi occupation; England was utterly bankrupt and so demoralized that its electorate had thrown its wartime leader, Winston Churchill, to the political wolves; and that is to say nothing of the prostate corpus of Stalinist Russia.

And we do mean prostrate. During WWII Soviet Russia had suffered 27 million military and civilian deaths due to bombs, bullets, starvation, disease, pestilence, atrocities and other barely imaginable inhuman afflictions. And that was atop 32,000 industrial enterprises that had been pulverized, along with upwards of 70,000 towns and villages destroyed by the marauding Nazi armies. In all, at war’s end tens of millions of Soviet citizens had been left destitute owing to the brutality of both their communist rulers at home and the German invaders who had descended upon them from the west for the second time in 25 years.

In some kind of ghoulish absolution, therefore, the slate had been wiped clean. There was not even a scant reason for American expeditionary forces to remain outside the homeland. And that’s to say nothing of maintaining bases, alliances and commitments to intervene anywhere abroad that would put American servicemen in harms’ way and involve Washington in the “entangling alliances” against which Jefferson and Washington himself had forewarned.

And yet and yet. Exactly 11 months after Hitlers’ demise at his own hand in his bunker and eight months after Armageddon had been visited upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the inveterate out-of-power war-mongering Winston Churchill delivered his “Iron Curtain” speech in Fulton Missouri. That was the opening call to the Cold War, which was powerfully seconded barely 10 months latter when the then accidental US president from the same state delivered his “Truman Doctrine” speech to a joint session of Congress. That latter was a belligerent oration which ignited the Cold War and the costly, suffocating web of entangling alliances that it fostered and the post-1947 American Empire that grew therefrom.

Keep reading

America’s Forgotten Occult Origins

The nine-week voyage of the Puritan ship the Arbella in 1630 is almost as mythologized as the Mayflower landing at Plymouth Rock. The Arbella was the ship on which Massachusetts Bay Colony’s governor John Winthrop would deliver a sermon where he declared America to be a “city on a hill.” Rediscovered by scholars in the 20th-century, Winthrop’s “A Model of Christian Charity,” with its imploration that the colonists must “labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community,” has long been interpreted as a foundational text of American identity, a veritable birth certificate for the idea of this as a redeemer nation. Figures on both the right and left, from Ronald Reagan to John F. Kennedy, have long quoted Winthrop, his invocation in the sermon conceived as one of the earliest and most potent expressions of American exceptionality. So much so that the governor is retroactively understood as a kind of de-facto founding father.

Yet alongside the governor was a very different man, his 24-year-old son John Winthrop the Younger, who had in his possession an unusual set of books which he described as a “Hogshead of Ancient papers of Value;” works such as those by the notorious English alchemist, necromancer, and occultist John Dee. Dee—the magician and court-astrologer to Elizabeth I decades before the Arbella sailed—was infamous for his supposed communications with angels in an esoteric tongue called “Enochian.”

Keep reading