So apparently today begins the Civil War 2.0. Or not.

Courtesy of The Guardian:

If you are inside the “alt-right” information bubble, you might be preparing yourself for a civil war to commence this Saturday. 

Since late September, the idea has been circulating on Facebook groups, subreddit message boards, Twitter, and leading conspiracy media outlets that on 4 November, anti-fascist groups will begin a violent insurrection. 

Some websites are telling their readers that antifa groups are “planning to kill every single Trump voter, Conservative and gun owner” this weekend. Hundreds of Facebook posts show how seriously consumers of such media are taking the news, and comments like “One more threat against white people and I swear to God I’m going to take a goddamn car and run over every fucking one of them” are not unrepresentative of the response. 

But antifa groups have no plans to protest that day, and the small leftist groups who are planning protests have only dubious connections to the antifa movement. So what gives? 

Beginning in late September, three things kicked it a into higher gear. First, Refuse Fascism, a small group linked to the Revolutionary Communist party, staged a visually spectacular protest in Los Angeles. They blocked the 101 freeway and held up signs that enigmatically spelled out “Nov 4 it begins”. This is the same group that is organizing a series of protests around the country against the “Trump-Pence regime” this weekend. 

Second, a video posted on a Facebook page called Vets Before Illegals went viral. The video, entitled “Antifa sets a date for civil war”, claimed that “on their website, they are calling for an open civil war that will start in November”, and set out alleged plans for attacking police officers, then citizens and the government. 

Last, but by no means least, the rumor was picked up and amplified by Alex Jones, the radio star with an audience of millions. As Sunshine explains, Jones “is a kind of meta-conspiracy theorist now” who “harvests other people’s theories” and repackages them to fit his narratives and his audience.

Good old Alex"I never met a conspiracy theory I didn't like" Jones.

So helpful isn't he? 

There was also a report from Gateway Pundit based on a bad joke written on a Twitter account, with no actual connection to the antifa movement, which claimed that on November 4th  a leader of that movement promised to "behead white parents."

Now my first thought is that this is much ado about nothing , and that there will likely be NO actual armed conflicts or violence today. Especially since there do not seem to be many protests actually available for these wingnuts to flip out over. 

However this could also be a dry run just to see now many people can be agitated in anticipation for a REAL call for violence against a larger antifa, or progressive protest.

That could easily result in a number of fatalities, which I would assume is the whole goal here.

I would also like to know if the Russians are involved in promoting this thing, since it sounds like it is right up their alley.

The major message to take away from all of this, is that people are incredibly high strung right now, and in all honesty it would only take a small spark to ignite a very real, and very dangerous civil war in this country.

It behooves all of us to watch our rhetoric and to make sure that while we are expressing our very reasonable anger and outrage, that we are not also giving others an excuse to turn to violence.

Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly said that the Civil War had good people on "both sides." Now why does that sound familiar?

Courtesy of the New York Post:  

President Trump’s chief of staff John Kelly on Monday night praised Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and said that “both sides” in the Civil War fought in good faith. 

Kelly was speaking during an interview on Fox News when he made the comments, defending the historical significance of the Confederacy. 

“Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man who gave up his country to fight for his state,” Kelly told the network about the Southern general in the bloody war between the North and the South. 

The Civil War was fought after the South seceded from the Union mostly due to a disagreement over slavery. 

“The lack of the ability to comprise led to the Civil War,” Kelly said.

I'm sorry, in the disagreement over whether or not it is right to own another human being, where is the compromise?

Black folks should only be slaves until age eighteen?

Or only every other black person should be owned by a white man?

This "good people on both sides" argument is of course the same one that Trump made after a white supremacist ran over protesters in Charlottesville, and several others were beaten and even shot at.

Apparently this is an official White House talking point when it comes to defending Confederate soldiers and their statues.

I had essentially given up on any idea that John Kelly had any integrity after he attacked and lied about Rep. Frederica Wilson, and this own proves that I was right to do so.

Yet another Trump supporter warns that there will be a civil war if they try to impeach him.

Courtesy of The Hill: 

Televangelist Jim Bakker is predicting that Christians would begin a second civil war in the U.S. if President Trump were impeached. 

"If it happens, there will be a civil war in the United States of America. The Christians will finally come out of the shadows, because we are going to be shut up permanently if we're not careful," he said on "The Jim Bakker Show" in a clip highlighted by Right Wing Watch. 

He also warned that Christians are in danger of losing their voice in American society. 

"God says faith without works is dead. We have to do things, God has been standing with me, and I don't know about you, it's time for preachers like you, you've been doing it, to stand up and shout out," Bakker told a pastor on the show. 

I typically would not pay any attention to what Jim Bakker, who is a terrible person who spent five years in prison for fraud and was accused of raping Jessica Hahn, but this is not the first time that a Trump supporter has threatened civil war.

You may remember that Roger Stone, former Trump campaign adviser and the albino killer from "The DaVinci Code," said essentially the same thing just a few weeks ago: 

“Try to impeach him. Just try it,” Stone said. “You will have a spasm of violence, an insurrection in this country like you have never seen before. Both sides are heavily armed, my friend.” 

Boy the batshit crazy sure do like Trump, don't they?

The problem of course is that though these two folks might be nuttier than a fruitcake, they are speaking for a whole lot of angry folks who might actually be willing to start a shooting war in order to keep Trump in office.

Sure they are going to lose, and sure that could dramatically cut down on the number of dumbasses in the country, but still it's not....it's not.....okay what was I going to say about this being a bad thing?

No it is, it is a bad thing because many innocent people could be killed in the crossfire.  (See, I KNEW it was a bad thing.)

And that is why the government should round up these folks trying to instigate a civil war and throw them into a jail cell right next to the Crying Nazi.

Seems reasonable to me, just think of all they will have to talk about.

Former campaign adviser claims that attempts to impeach Donald Trump will result in a civil war.

Courtesy of The Hill:

President Trump's former campaign adviser Roger Stone told TMZ that any politician who votes to impeach Trump “would be endangering their own life.” 

“Try to impeach him. Just try it,” Stone said. “You will have a spasm of violence, an insurrection in this country like you have never seen before. Both sides are heavily armed, my friend.” 

Stone said members of Congress who are advocating for Trump’s impeachment need to “get over it.”

“The people who are calling for impeachment are the people who didn’t vote for him,” Stone said. “They lose. Their candidate had every advantage.” 

“Sorry, we whipped their ass,” he continued. “It’s over. You lost.”

Man I REALLY don't like this guy.

And yes he is clearly unhinged.

However having said that I am not completely sure is wrong about the response to an attempt to impeach Trump.

His followers are batshit crazy, and all it would really take to incite them to violence is one tweet from Trump.

Of course Stone is wrong to assume that this would be some battle between the armed Left and the armed Right on the streets of America. Instead these angry Trump supporters would be almost immediately wiped out by the US Military resulting in a one sided conflict that could see multiple Right Wing casualties.

Hey, I think I just came up with a silver lining here.

Donald Trump has historical marker on his golf course commemorating a Civil War battle which never happened.

You can't make this stuff up: Trump commemorated at his Virginia golf course a Civil War battle that never happened https://t.co/Wzfz7REjK8 pic.twitter.com/KelWs1Q71t

— Justin Miller (@justinjm1) May 2, 2017

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

“Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot,” reads the inscription a faux historical marker on the course of the Trump National Golf Club, according to the New York Times. “The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as ‘The River of Blood.’ ”

The battle never happened. “No. Uh-uh. No way,” Richard Gillespie, the executive director of the Mosby Heritage Area Association told the New York Times. “Nothing like that ever happened there.” 

When Trump was informed by the New York Times that three different local historians had said as much, Trump replied, “How would they know that? Were they there?

Well, I think this helps to explain why Donald Trump believed that a slave owning ex-president who had been dead for sixteen years could have stopped the Civil War. 

So much stupid.

That time when an actual sitting US president asked why the Civil War had to happen. update!

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book,
Don't know much about the french I took

Courtesy of The Hill:

President Trump during an interview that airs Monday questioned why the country had a Civil War and suggested former President Andrew Jackson could have prevented it had he served later. 

"I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart," Trump said during an interview with the Washington Examiner's Salena Zito. 

"He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, 'There's no reason for this.'" 

Jackson, the nation's seventh president, died in 1845. The Civil War began in 1861. 

The president further questioned why the country could not have solved the Civil War. 

"People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why?" Trump said during the edition of "Main Street Meets the Beltway" scheduled to air on SiriusXM. 

"People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

.......?

You ever read something that your mind refuses to accept that you just read?

And if you have, how often is it usually a quote from Donald Trump?

Fortunately while my mind was drawing a blank, Chelsea Clinton came up with an actual answer.

1 word answer: Slavery. Longer: When Andrew Jackson died in 1845 (16 yrs before the Civil War began), he owned 150 men, women and children. https://t.co/Icg6puG2JZ

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) May 1, 2017

Yeah, that's essentially the answer.

Mother Jones found a real live historian to weigh in who suggested that perhaps Trump should step down from office until he can be educated past his current fourth grade elementary school level, and is brought up to speed on American history.

His final words were "God help us."

I am of course not a religious man, but I certainly understand the sentiment.

I swear that every day Donald Trump says something that becomes the new most shocking thing I have every heard come out of the mouth of a US president.

Update: It appears Trump is trying to do a little damage control.

President Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry. Would never have let it happen!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 2, 2017

Continues to demonstrate a crippling lack of knowledge about American history.

The writers at Cracked wonder if an actual civil war in America is even possible. Do a little research and find that yes it is. Yes it most certainly is.

Courtesy of Cracked: 

Over the last few weeks a growing number of people have started wondering, "Is it possible the United States is heading for a new civil war?" Granted, most of those people are writers for sites like Russia Today or the Huffington Post, and thus slightly less credible than a handful of Bazooka Joe gum wrapper comics. But Donald Trump has made a few tinpot dictator-ish statements recently.

And we did just see an anti-government militia get off scot-free for occupying a federal building and pooping just, everywhere.

The reporter, Robert Evans, then post a number of chilling headlines and interviews a number of  experts on militia groups, former government employees, and educators.

One expert on insurgencies had this to say:

Colonel David Couvillon, a Marine Reserve officer who governed the Wasit province of Iraq after the start of the occupation, pointed out that insurgents can win without convincing anyone that they're "right." It'd be enough to push most Americans into the "both sides are evil" camp, which ... isn't an unfamiliar place for most of us to be.

"If you undermine the moral authority that the government or the military or the police forces have, you win. Then they become the enemy to everybody ... it may not goad you into armed insurgency, but it will goad you into a certain acceptance. And once the guerrillas reach acceptance, they have a path to win."

Good luck sleeping tonight with those thoughts running through your mind.

One of the experts on militias that Cracked interviewed for this story is a guy very familiar to IM readers.

Bill Fulton, an expert on the American militia movement and informant for the FBI, has far more than 170 groups on his list of "armed, violent organizations that might take a shot at the Federal Government". That's out of an estimated 1,360 "radical militias and anti-government groups" in the United States in 2012 (note that there were just 149 four years before) 

"You have a lot of different people who believe the world should be different ways and once the gloves come up like they did in Iraq then all of those rise to the surface...I think depending on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go, we could end up with three or four hundred solid, different groups under probably twenty or so ideological banners."

Trust me the rest of the article is just as troubling, and by the end of it you will probably be crawling through your house closing all of the blinds. 

One of the things in the article that I found noteworthy is that none of the people interviewed seemed to think that Donald Trump would be terribly involved in an insurgency.

Oh he would be perfectly willing to incite the violence, but he has no stomach for the actual fighting.

Remember?

So is this a serious threat?'

Boy I would certainly like to say that it wasn't, but after reading this article I am not so damn sure anymore.

All I know is that our first step in preventing something like this is to keep Cheeto Jesus out of the White House. So let's do that first shall we?

Donald Trump supporters seem to think they can threaten their way to the presidency.

Courtesy of Politico:  

Since Donald Trump came up empty in his quest for delegates at the Republican state assembly in Colorado Springs nearly two weeks ago, his angry supporters have responded to Trump’s own claims of a “rigged” nomination process by lashing out at Republican National Committee delegates that they believe won’t support Trump at the party’s convention — including House. 

The mild-mannered chairman estimates he’s gotten between 4,000 and 5,000 calls on his cell phone. Many, he says, have ended with productive conversations. He’s referred the more threatening, violent calls to police. His cell phone is still buzzing this week, as he attends the RNC quarterly meetings in Florida, and he’s not the only one. 

In hotel hallways and across dinner tables, many party leaders attending this week’s meetings shared similar stories. One party chair says a Trump supporter recently got in his face and promised “bloodshed” if he didn’t win the GOP nomination. An Indiana delegate who criticized Trump received a note warning against “traditional burial” that ended with, “We are watching you.” 

The threats come months ahead of a possible contested convention, where Trump is all-but certain to enter with a plurality of delegates bound to him on the first ballot, but he could lose support on subsequent ballots as rules will allow delegates to vote however they choose. And although the harassers are typically anonymous, many party leaders on the receiving end of these threats hold Trump himself at least partly responsible, viewing the intimidation efforts as a natural and obvious outgrowth of the candidate’s incendiary rhetoric. 

Earlier I reported on this happening in Colorado, but now it seems to be spreading.

That certainly does not bode well for the Republican party, but it can be extremely helpful to the Democrats in the general if the GOP remains a house divided.

And once again this is why it is so important for the Democrats to get their ducks all in a row so that they can show unity in response to a party in  the political equivalent of free fall.

Republican leaders lay out 100 day strategy for denying Donald Trump the nomination.

So that's the way it's gonna be huh?

Courtesy of the Boston Globe:  

Republican leaders adamantly opposed to Donald Trump’s candidacy are preparing a 100-day campaign to deny him the presidential nomination, starting with an aggressive battle in Wisconsin’s April 5 primary and extending into the summer, with a delegate-by-delegate lobbying effort that would cast Trump as a calamitous choice for the general election. 

Recognizing that Trump has seized a formidable advantage, they say that an effort to block him would rely on an array of desperation measures, the political equivalent of guerrilla war. 

There is no longer room for error or delay, the anti-Trump forces say, and without a flawlessly executed plan of attack, he could well become unstoppable. 

But should that effort falter, leading conservatives are prepared to field an independent candidate in the general election, to defend Republican principles and offer traditional conservatives an alternative to Trump’s hard-edged populism. They described their plans in interviews after Trump’s victories Tuesday in Florida and three other states.

The group did not seem terribly keen on throwing their support behind Ted Cruz or John Kasich, instead talking about recruiting folks like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn or, get this, Rick Perry who dropped out of the race early on.

They are also considering running a third party candidate if they fail to stop Trump.

In other words this is going to be an actual civil war within the Republican party, and that can only bode well for the Democratic candidate in the general.

Which, by the way, is another reason that I want the Democratic nomination process to end quickly.

One of our main selling points right now as a party is that we are the grown ups in the room, maintaining our dignity and trusting in the process.

However if Bernie Sanders decides to take his fight all the way to the Democratic convention, which he has threatened, we lose our edge, and end up seeming just as discombobulated as the Republicans.

Historian and documentary filmmaker Ken Burns explains what was behind the Civil War: "They do not mention states’ rights. They mention slavery, slavery, slavery."

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

But Burns recommended that Americans read South Carolina’s Articles of Secession to get the real story on why the states went to war against each other. “[T]hey do not mention states’ rights. They mention slavery, slavery, slavery,” he pointed out. “And that we have to remember. It is much more complicated than that, but essentially the reason why we murdered each other — more than 2 percent of our population, 750,000 Americans died; that’s more than all the wars from the Revolution through Afghanistan combined — was over essentially the issue of slavery.” 

According to Burns, the racism running through the DNA of America was still present in modern day politics. 

“The main American theme, I think, is freedom,” he noted. “But we also notice that race is always there. Always there. When Thomas Jefferson says all men are created equal, he owns a couple hundred human beings and he doesn’t see the contradiction or the hypocrisy and doesn’t free anybody in his lifetime and sets in motion an American narrative that is bedeviled by a question of race.” 

“And we struggle with it. We try to ignore it. We pretend, with the election of Barack Obama, that we’re in some post-racial society,” he continued. “And what we have seen is a kind of reaction to this. The birther movement, of which Donald Trump is one of the authors of, is another politer way of saying the N word. It’s just more sophisticated and a little bit more clever. He’s ‘other,’ he’s different.” 

“What’s actually ‘other’ and different about him? It turns out it’s the same old thing. It’s the color of his skin.”

So now we have Burns joining Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point, in explaining to the mouth breathers that yes their ancestors took up arms against their own country for the sole purpose of hanging onto the right to continue owning human beings.

And that inherent racism is still a part of this country's DNA and continues to pop up here and there especially during speeches given by the living embodiments of their hatred like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump.

This video is for the next time that your obnoxious Southern relatives try to convince you that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. Spoiler alert: Yes it was!

This is Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point, so you know he has some understanding of the topic.

In a nutshell certain people in the Southern part of the country thought that owning people was a good idea, one that they felt the Bible supported by the way, and people in the North thought otherwise.

If you are a supporter of the Confederate flag you are a supporter of the types of abuse they inflicted on their fellow man, and the treasonous acts they perpetrated against their own government to protect those acts.

The reason for the Confederate flag in the words of its creator.

Courtesy of William Tappan Thompson's Wikipedia page: 

Thompson supported the Confederacy during the American Civil War. In 1863, as the editor of the Morning News he proposed a design that would ultimately become the Confederacy's second national flag, which would be come to known as the "Stainless Banner." 

In a series of editorials, Thompson wrote: 

"As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause… Such a flag…would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as the white mans flag… As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism."

And there you have it.

Any questions?

Texas to teach schoolchildren bad history to hide their racist past.

Courtesy of The Washington Post:  

Five million public school students in Texas will begin using new social studies textbooks this fall based on state academic standards that barely address racial segregation. The state’s guidelines for teaching American history also do not mention the Ku Klux Klan or Jim Crow laws. 

And when it comes to the Civil War, children are supposed to learn that the conflict was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery” — written deliberately in that order to telegraph slavery’s secondary role in driving the conflict, according to some members of the state board of education. 

Slavery was a “side issue to the Civil War,” said Pat Hardy, a Republican board member, when the board adopted the standards in 2010. “There would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states’ rights.”

You know they say that "History is written by the victors."  But in Texas it is clearly being written by the losers.

Historians acknowledge that disagreements over states’ rights played a role in the Civil War. But the states’ rights issue was inseparable from slavery, they say: The right that states in the South were seeking to protect, after all, was the right to buy and sell people.

Isn't that just like the conservatives? If the facts don't work for your version of reality, ignore them, and if history is not on your side, just rewrite it.

So much for the IQ's in Texas going up in the foreseeable future.

Here are some tweets from yesterday's rally in South Carolina.

In what other modernized country do states still wave around a LOSER'S flag? Srsly. #TakeDownTheFlag #ConfederateFlag pic.twitter.com/b5AtDfs0Ea

— Denise on Earth (@DeniseFlores) June 20, 2015

RT @deray: Protest. #TakeDownTheFlag pic.twitter.com/exLVHRv2Sj

— ProfB (@AntheaButler) June 20, 2015

From the #TakeDownTheFlag rally. pic.twitter.com/0Xd8FmcWnJ

— Joel D. Anderson (@byjoelanderson) June 20, 2015

Nah RT @deray: one flag. #TakeDownTheFlag pic.twitter.com/jC4G0cVJKi

— Agent M (@Mmkay2) June 20, 2015

Confederate We Fall. #TakeDownTheFlag pic.twitter.com/qJV1x9KQLf

— deray mckesson (@deray) June 20, 2015

Personally I think the best image to convince people it is time to get rid of the confederate flag, is this one:

Here is more about the protest.

Ever wonder why people in the deep South seem to have a different perspective on history than those in other parts of the country? Well this textbook might help to explain that.

Courtesy of AL.com: 

The men and women of Alabama – from the Greatest Generation to Baby Boomers like me – learned Alabama history from the famous old textbook "Know Alabama." 

It should be called "No Wonder, Alabama." 

It explains a lot. Fourth graders until the '70s learned how living on a plantation was "one of the happiest ways of life." Just imagine yourself, the 1957 edition says, on your family plantation: 

"How's it coming Sam," your father asks one of the old Negroes. 

"'Fine, Marse Tom, 'jes fine. We got 'most more cotton than we can pick.' Then Sam chuckles to himself and goes back to picking as fast as he can. 

"One of the little Negro boys is called 'Jig' He got that name because he dances so well when the Negroes play their banjos.

The book goes on to describe "Jig" volunteering to be an Indian so he can play with the little white boys and allowing himself to be captured.

After which I imagine the other boys took his land and infected him with smallpox.

And yes, THAT is in an actual textbook.

Here is how the textbook deals with the Civil War, which they call the "War Between the States": 

"The Southerners had a right under the law to own slaves, and the Southern states had a right under the law to leave the United States. Many Southerners did not want to leave the Union. But when Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, the South felt that they had to leave the Union to keep their rights."

Those poor patriotic, hard working, southern plantation owners.  Imagine being forced to declare war on your fellow countrymen just so that you could continue keeping human beings as property, like your daddy's daddy did.

And what about the Klu Klux Klan?  

"The loyal white men of Alabama saw they could not depend on the laws or the state government to protect their families. (Does this sounds suspiciously like the Tea Party of today to anybody else?)

They knew they had to do something to bring back law and order, to get the government back in the hands of honest men who knew how to run it. "They (the Klan) held their courts in the dark forests at night; they passed sentence on the criminals and they carried out the sentence. Sometimes the sentence would be to leave the state. 

"After a while the Klan struck fear in the hearts of the "carpetbaggers" and other lawless men who had taken control of the state.... The Negroes who had been fooled by the false promises of the "carpetbaggers" decided to get themselves jobs and settle down to make an honest living. 

"Many of the Negroes in the South remained loyal to the white Southerners. Even though they had lately been freed from slavery, even though they had no education, they knew who their friends were."

Well clearly the folks in those white robes were the friends of the Negroes. That's why they kept inviting them to bonfires and allowed them to "hang around" during cross burnings.

The reporter goes on to say that in the version of this book published in 1970, Martin Luther King Jr. only received one mention and that was to inform the child that he was dead.

Damn I have to say that I found this article pretty enlightening, and not just a little disturbing.

And the real problem is that those politicians who were educated by textbooks like this and others, are working hard to make sure that the children of today leave school just as ignorant  as they were when THEY graduated.

Or as reporter John Archibald puts it:

Education is not a priority in Alabama, and it never has been. The No. 1 priority is and always has been indoctrination.

And you know that if this is what was used to teach Alabama children, that similar "educational" materials were also used to teach impressionable children in every other public school below the Dixie Line. 

Certainly explains a lot. Yes it does.

Former Republican Senator, Jim Demint, does not believe the federal government had any role in ending slavery. History books, who needs them?

Jim Demint, embracing his ignorance.

Courtesy of Raw Story:

 Jim DeMint, the former Republican senator from South Carolina, told a religious broadcaster last week that liberals were fundamentally wrong about everything – even demonstrable historical facts. 

“No liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves,” DeMint said during an appearance on Vocal Point. 

In fact, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in the rebellious Confederate States of America, and Congress approved the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which abolished slavery originally permitted by the founding document. 

These federal government policies were enacted during and after federal troops fought and won the Civil War, which began in DeMint’s home state. 

“The reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people,” DeMint told host Jerry Newcombe, of Truth In Action Ministries. “Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God.” 

DeMint insisted the end of slavery was the result of a grass-roots movement driven by Christians.

I believe the grass roots Christian movement was typically referred to as the Rebel Army, and it was not exactly working to so much end slavery, as to fight against anybody who wanted to take the human beings they owned away from them.

Interesting that the guy born in the state that started the Civil War is now arguing that it was unnecessary.  It's almost as if he is in denial as to what crimes were committed by his people.

As for that whole Christian grass roots movement, well there WAS one, but it was not exactly how Demint is describing it.

This from Civil War Baptists:

In the South, meanwhile, many white Baptist leaders in the pre-war years defended slavery as ordained and blessed of God. Legally established as an explicitly slaveholding nation claiming God’s favor and guidance constitutionally (contrary to the secular constitution of the United States), the Confederate States of America from the beginning officially wrapped itself in the mantle of God’s chosen nation and people. The official motto of the CSA – Deo Vindice, translated “Under God, Our Vindicator” or “With God as [our] Champion” – reinforced the nation’s Christian identity.

Revisionist history, the only kind they teach in the South.

Oh yeah, such a reasonable group.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for discussion does it?

So in a nutshell if you are not religious you are leading this country to civil war.

You not to be disagreeable, but I don't think it is OUR side who is always threatening to shoot people that we don't agree with.

Sarah Palin wishes Abraham Lincoln a Happy Birthday and suggests that we need more politicians like him. Oh the irony, it burns. Update!

On Facebook somebody that Palin hired to make her ignorance sound almost reasonable wrote a little tribute to Abraham Lincoln for her: 

God Bless the legacy of our 16th President. He served with honesty and integrity, held our nation together in the worst of times, understood and assured the blessings of liberty for all Americans, and didn’t succumb to the special interests that would destroy our Union for personal gain.

"Special interests?" Does she mean the Confederate Army?

Of course since this is Palin we are talking about there has to be a special reason why she likes Lincoln. 

With foresight towards developing our natural resources, the man Lincoln appointed as his Secretary of State wisely purchased the territory of Alaska. This President truly understood the heart of the United States.

And there you have it. Never mind that he defeated an army, and freed the slaves, the man gave us Alaska!

But wait, there's more:

To quote his immortal words, it is for us the living to be dedicated to the task remaining before us. The United States deserves leaders that ascribe to the simple principles that guided this great man. From a log cabin in Kentucky to the White House, he espoused the American ideal of truth and honesty. He didn’t shy from controversy, and the fire of freedom burned bright within him and guided him throughout his life. 

May all our elected officials take a long look at what made Lincoln a great leader. Our elected officials have from our history the perfect example of selfless leadership. 

 Yeah, selfless leadership. Do you know who should read this? Sarah Palin, and every politician she supports, that's who!

And do you know who is a selfless leader who has not shied from controversy. and who has let simple principles guide him? That's right, President Obama.  

Oh yeah, I said it!


On this, Abraham Lincoln’s 205th birthday, please take a moment to reflect on what it means to be a God-fearing leader, a great president, and a true American. Ask yourself if our politicians and influential celebrities who shape society live up to Lincoln’s shining example, and if not, hold them accountable instead of rewarding them with continued privilege. It’s our nation, and Lincoln gave his life to assure that it remained the “last best hope on earth.”

I like how she included "influential celebrities" since that is really the only label that almost fits who she is these days. Well except for the influential part.

However I would like to point out that the current crop of politicians that Palin is touting are the progeny of the same secession threatening, minority hating, saboteurs that Lincoln fought so hard to defeat.

They may call themselves the Tea Party, or 2nd Amendment advocates, or the Religious Right, or Sovereign Citizens, but they are essentially made up of children of the South who have never really stopped fighting the Civil War and who believe that this brief ceasefire has allowed them the opportunity to strategically position their forces in preparation for the next stage of the conflict.

If Palin really wanted to honor the memory of Abraham Lincoln she would be urging politicians to reach compromise and speaking out against those whose sole purpose in going to Washington was to obstruct and undermine any progress made by the sitting President.

A President, by the way, whose entire career is a testament to the historic legacy of President Lincoln.

Update: As others have already pointed out, the purchase of Alaska from the Russians happened in 1867 the same year the negotiations started, and Lincoln was assassinated in 1865.  The President Palin wanted to thank was Andrew Johnson, not Abraham Lincoln.

Don't these ghostwriters bother to do research?

Yesterday's Doonesbury strip.

Source

Don't think it couldn't happen again, because not only might it happen, it may very well be happening right now.

The internal split within the Republican party widens as the powerful pro-business Chamber of Commerce offers to help politicians battle against Tea Party challengers if they will vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Courtesy of TPM:  

The letter circulated by the Chamber of Commerce urges lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling "in a timely manner and remove any threat to the full faith and credit of the United States government." It also acknowledges Republican fears over the unsustainable growth of major benefit programs such Medicare and Social Security and the need for a more business-friendly tax system. 

But in a rejection of the tactics of House Speaker John Boehner, the letter urges Congress to pass first a short-term spending bill, then raise the debt ceiling, "and then return to work on these other vital issues." 

That advice is being ignored by the GOP-led House. 

"There is an element of the more independent, tea party coalition Republicans that, frankly, don't listen to very many people," said John Engler, the former Republican governor of Michigan and now president of the Business Roundtable, one of the groups that signed the chamber letter. "They are on a mission, often defined on the basis of their view of the world, and they aren't paying very much attention to what this means beyond maybe their own districts." 

Concerned, the Chamber of Commerce is preparing to participate in political primaries, protecting friendly lawmakers from conservative challengers. "Clearly we're getting to a point where we need a Congress that's going to be productive, proactive and create a stable environment for economic growth and job creation," said Scott Reed, a Republican political consultant who is advising the chamber on its strategy.

Well this is certainly going to get a certain Arizona based political pundit's panties in a twist. 

It is really only the threat of uber conservative primary challengers that is keeping a number of these Republicans in line due to the fact that they are too afraid to cross Ted Cruz and his Teabagger minions. If the Chamber of Commerce has the funds on hand to actually accomplish this tactic of funding primaries around the country that will surely inspire the Koch brothers and Heritage Action to up the ante, and we could see local elections spending multiple millions of dollars for seats in relatively small districts that were once conservative strongholds.

Which by the way might leave coffers somewhat depleted when it came time for the general election against a democratic challenger.

Gonna need some more popcorn I see.