Hooray for Holly-War!

The War-Torn Sign of Hollywood

"Public opinion in the United States is the point we must attack!" declared David Scott, the Undersecretary in Charge of American Affairs, told the June 1940 meeting of the new Winston Churchill government in London. Scott was well aware that wars are fought on public relations. Wars are the biggest business in the world and the finest salesmen are employed to make sure that the public will buy it. Hollywood, despite it's unfounded reputation as a bastion for peace loving hippies and liberals, has marched goosestep with the war mongers in selling every war from World War II to the endless War on Terror.

A scene from the 1940 MOI propaganda piece "London Can Take It!" I say London can take it up the rear.

In September 1940, Warner Brothers Studios released a 10-minute pro-war documentary entitled London Can Take It! Narrated by Collier's Weekly war corespondent Quentin Reynolds, the propaganda piece painted a skewed picture of a London bombed by Nazi bombers as a land that keep on going as if nothing was happening. "These are not Hollywood sound effects," Reynolds smoothly narrated as the bombs fell over Trafalgar Square, "This is the music that plays every night in London. The symphony of war." By December 1940 more than 60 million Americans had seen this piece of interventionist propaganda in over 12,000 theaters from Maine to California. It was believed that this film had been made by Warner Brother's studios, but no, it had actually been directed and produced by Humphrey Jennings, a director for the Crown Film Unit of the British Ministry of Information (MOI). Warner Brothers allowed this very important fact to be left out of the film. In fact, the only credits simply attributed the company that sold the film and the voice of Mr. Reynolds.

Warner Brothers allowed the Ministry of Information (MOI) to release this propaganda piece under the guise of a Warner Brothers film because it was seen as a flashy way to sell the war in Europe to a nation that did not want to go to war. A Gallup Poll from 1937 revealed that 95% of the population polled in the United States opposed entering another war in Europe NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES. In November 1940, a series of university polls revealed that Americans did not care for the British. "Polls showed that Americans saw the British as guided by selfish interests and imperialism," writes Nicholas J. Cull in Selling War: The British Campaign Against American "Neutrality" in World War II. These polls were a disaster for the warlike Churchill regime that needed an Anglo-American Alliance to continue the dying British Empire. The British would find a friend in Hollywood.

The British Lion of MGM Roars America into War

MGM's Louis B. Mayer welcomed a representative from the British Ministry of Information (MOI) in late 1940. Mayer told the MOI representative that MGM was ready to to do, "everything possible to help the great cause." This "great cause" was Britain's war for Poland (otherwise known as World War II). By January 1941 the heads of MGM, Columbia and Fox studios had all agreed to distribute MOI propaganda documentaries to theaters. The MOI began to mass produce them, releasing them in American theaters at the pace of one new documentary every month! Now that is fast paced lying even a 300-word per minute politician would be jealous of.

Churchill, still desiring an Anglo-American alliance to hold up his illegitimate empire by the point of a bayonet, decided to meddle in Hollywood to influence American entry into his war for Poland. Hungarian-born British filmmaker Alexander Korda was Churchill's main Hollywood propagandist. IN his film That Hamilton Woman, a film about Lord Horatio Nelson's mistress, Churchill installed the jingoistic phrase, "You can not make peace with dictators. You have to destroy them." This type of over-the-top saber radling ran rampant in Hollowood in the early 1940s. Cary Grant, the fondly rememebred actor, was on the payroll of the MOI and was openly starring in pro-war films while President Franklin Double-crossing Rooseveltwas lying to America and telling the people of his nation that he would never, "Send your boys to die in a foreign war."

A long series of "America and Britain at War" films began to be released in Spring 1941, seven months before the bombing plot at Pearl Harbor. A Yank in the R.A.F. starred British actor Jerome Power as an American who joins the British to fight the Nazis in the Battle of Britain. A series of Nazi spy films, starring future James Bond star Carry Grant, were released in which over-the-top Nazi spies plotted against the safety and democracy of the United States. None of what was being covered in these films was true (especially the Nazi spy rings in the United States) but the constant onslaught of Hollywood driven pro-British, pro-war films were having an effect on the public opinion of the United States. By July 1941, 60% of Americans polled by Literary Digest supported H.R. 1776 (The notorious Lend-Lease Act) and even 50% of those polled supported American entry into the European war. The constant Hollywood propaganda machine was having a great effect in reworking the American mind.

Cary Grant: British-American Actor and War Enthusiast

Back in Britain many people were upset that actors like Cary Grant and directors like Alexander Korda were hanging out in Hollywood rather than facing the Blitzkrieg and dying at the escape from Dunkirk. Korda, Grant and other British Hollywood figures were maligned as, "Gallantly facing the footlights." However, Churchill realized he could not spare his propaganda agents in Hollywood so he had his American ambassador, Lord Lothian, explain that, "There is plenty of manpower in Britain" to keep his propaganda agents in Hollywood. Lothian wrote that these films were a "powerful nucleus" in the ultimate goal of forcing America into World War II.

Senator Gerald P. Nye: Hero of Truth and Anti-Propagandist

1941 was the most pro-war year in the history of film making. The once honorable profession of acting had been bought ought by the British war machine, and many in the American Midwest knew this. Senator Gerald P. Nye (Republican of North Dakota) announced in October 1941 that he was going to lead a congressional investigation into war propaganda in Hollywood. He declared he was going to end the influx of "non-American producers into American cinema." Nye, a prominent leader in the America First Movement, was correct in his fears. As has been shown, Hollywood was more than happy to propagandize for the British Empire. Director Alexander Korda was summonsed to testify before the committee on December 12th, 1941. FDR would ignore the warnings before Pearl Harbor to make sure that this interview never occurred. Instead of being grilled before the United States Senate for his work in lying to the American public and serving as a propaganda minister for war, Korda was instead knighted in 1942. He was awarded for lies well told.

Another Hollywood pro-war piece given accolades by a foolish populace.

In 2010 Kathryn Bigelow was given the Academy Award for Best Director for her pro-war film The Hurt Locker. This was nothing new in Hollywood. Casablanca, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, and We Were Soldiers all have won Academy Awards and all show war as a fun game where men can show how "Manly" they are. None of these films show the waste, horror and sadness of war.

If Hollywood truly was a land of liberal, peace loving hippies the bravado of John Wayne and R. Lee Ermey would never have caught on. However, one is hard pressed to find a pro-peace or anti-war film in Hollywood that is ever honored. Hollywood has been firmly in the hands of the pro-war propagandists since Churchill and Britian destroyed the world's finest profession, acting, in the darkest era of the 1940s.

"We the People": A Slogan for Slavery

The Banner of Fascist Majoritarianism

Fake libertarian and conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck is well known for his love of the term "we the people." He, and his fascist Tea Party supporters, throw about this term as if it was their version of Mein Kampf. This all encompassing phrase begins the United States Constitution and is probably the best known, and most misused, maxim in American history. In the name of "we the people" What these uninformed Beck-ites do not understand is that the phrase "we the people" is NOT one any conservative or limited government movement should hold up as their motto. The history of the term "we the people" is scary and was opposed by one of the biggest freedom fighters in American history.

Patrick Henry: The Hero of Anti-Federalism and the Leading Voice against "We the People"

The average college educated American may be able to tell you a little something ab0ut Patrick Henry. In most American History 103 classes the well meaning professor will generally tell the class that on March 23, 1775, Henry declared at St. John's Church before the Virginia Convention, "I know not what course others may take, but as for me give me liberty or give me death!" This speech is one of the most well known in history, but the context of the speech is not as well known. Henry, despite attempts by historians to say otherwise, was a radical who truly wanted a separation from government. In 1763, while arguing the Parson's Cause in Hanover County, Mr. Henry declared quite boldly that a king who would veto a just and necessary law voted on and passed by a locally elected representative body was not a father to his people but "a tyrant who forfeits the allegiance of his subjects." Henry then went on to state that "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third..." Obviously Patrick did not trust any form of central government tyranny and that is what led him to attack the statement "we the people."

"What right had they to say 'We the people,' instead We, the States?" Patrick Henry demanded at the Virginia Ratification Committee in June 1788. The "they" were the elites that wrote a Constitution against the will of the states. The Annapolis Convention of 1786 declared that a convention should be held to revise the Articles of Confederation, not replace them with an entirely new document. Patrick Henry could see through the scheme of the Constitution and declared that he, "Smelled a rat" when the document went up for ratification. The fact that Delaware, the home of ultra-conservative federalist John Dickinson, was the first state to ratify the new Constitution further worried Henry.

The Virginian saw the statement "we the people" as a slave compact where the people were directly contracted to the federal government, and not to their own state. "The fate of America may depend on [this statement of "we the people"]," declared Henry, "Have they said 'we the states'? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government." Henry saw "we the people" as a big government plan to centralize all the states through a contract between the citizen and the federal government. The sovereign confederation of independent states was thus being overridden by a new monstrous federal government in the name of "we the people."

Additionally, Henry declared that the people could not have created the new Constitution because, "The people have no right to enter into leagues, alliances or confederations...States and foreign powers are the only proper agents for this kind of government." "We the people" was not only disingenuous, it was also illegal and wrong. Henry argued that the term "we the states" was far superior because it put forth the ideal that the Constitution was a contract between states, and not men, and thus the contract could be severed by the states if their rights were threatened by a tyrannical federal government. Henry insisted that "we the people" was nothing more than a big government scheme to rob the states of their sovereign powers in the name of the people. He was a prophet.

Daniel Webster: Big government hack and fan of the phrase, "We the People"

Since 1789, the term "we the people" has been used to justify more evils, waste and government fat then any other term. It is what gave birth to the dangerous "General Welfare" clause of the United States Constitution and his held up by big fat Republican and Democratic politicians in justification for their waste. The "will of we the people" is the majoritarian phrase which politicians have held up for generations as the reason they war and waste.

Of all the people who have most used and abused the term "we the people" Daniel Webster (Whig of Massachusetts) stands out as the most effective of procuring waste from it. Webster was a lover of big government. A student of the authoritarian economic theories of Alexander Hamilton, Webster and his cohort Henry Clay (Whig of Kentucky) envisioned a nation united by a wasteful and winding collection of roads, canals and other "internal improvements: The National System. Webster declared that this system was in accordance with "we the people" and for this reason state sovereignty could be ignored by the federal government and roads (like the corruptly built Cumberland Pass) could be forced into states. Webster argued in 1830 that the National System was in the interest of the general welfare of the people of the United States, and thus it had to be approved of by the Congress. In his January 1830 letter, The Second Reply to President Pro Tempore of the Senate Robert Hayne, Webster openly tells the South Carolinian that, "A national debt is a national blessing" and openly declared that the states had no power to decide their own destiny. The United States government was: "The people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people."

As you can see, Webster used the phrase "we the people" to rob the states of sovereign power. The people, Webster argued, were what made the federal government and that is why the federal government was able to trample on the rights of states. Webster knew that it wasn't the people, the common farmer and shop keeper, who was making laws and decisions, but it was a handy argument to use to justify the Northern elite's war on the states.

Daniel Webster's last words are probably the most chilling last words ever uttered: "I still live." He was right.

Abraham Lincoln: Murderer of over 610,000 Americans, destroyer of private property, butcher of Native Americans and lover of the term "We the People."

Look in the Constitution and see if you can find the term, "Indissoluble Union" or "Perpetual Union." Did you find it? No? Good, you are looking at the the correct United States Constitution. The fact of the matter was that the United States was meant to be a collection of states that had signed a temporary contract (the Constitution) that could be ended at any time a sovereign state felt that their rights had been violated. This is referred to as "secession" and it is not a dirty word. Secession was one of the most precious rights the Founding Fathers struggled for. James Madison, a big federalist no less, argued that an amendment allowing for the suppression of a secessionist movement was against the principles of the American Revolution and stated, "The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment." Madison argued that the the federal government could not war on a seceding state because secession was legal.

If this is so, why did Old Abe Lincoln come out of the Wideness and tear old Dixie down in the 1860s? "We the people" is the reason an illegal war raped the women (slave and free), land, wealth and prestige of the South from 1861 to 1865 and destroyed the meaning of the UNited States Constitution forever. Abraham Lincoln was a student of the oratory of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. In fact, he kept portraits of both men in the living room of his home and his law office in Springfield, Illinois.

Webster was known for his quote, "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!" It was from this statement, said during the famed Hayne-Webster Debate of 1830, that Lincoln produced his argument that secession was contrary to the view of "we the people." Lincoln argued that secession was against the ideal of "majority rule." This was based on the ideal of a national consolidated "we the people" state that the framers of the Constitution envisioned. The humorous thing is that an independent state centered confederacy most likely would have represented the majority will more because the people would have had more say in their local state or community then in the entire federal government. In a consolidated "we the people" state, 51% of the people win and 49% of them lose.

Lincoln obviously did not care about majority rule, he saw "we the people" as a phrase he could use to justify an unjust war against a confederacy of states. In Lincoln's greatly over-hyped Gettysburg Address, Lincoln pulls a Webster and declares that his illegal war for Northern railroads was being waged in the name of, "That government of the people, by the people and for the people." "We the people" justified the burning of Hampton, Virginia, and Atlanta, Georgia. "We the people" justified the torture of Southerns at Camp Douglas in Chicago, Illinois. "We the people" were tied to a federal government that waged a total war against fellow Americans who simply wished to live up to the ideals of Patrick Henry. Humorist H.L. Mencken put it best:

"But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."

Abraham Lincoln, like Daniel Webster before him, used the statement "we the people" to justify the War of Northern Aggression. Had the Preamble to the Constitution read, "We the independent States in order to form a more perfect Union" Lincoln could never have waged his war constitutionally.

"We the people" burn Atlanta in September 1864

The Tea Party Movement is correct to pick up "We the People" as it's motto. The history of this insidious statement fits the Tea Party Movement to a tee. The Tea Party Movement is ran by Glenn Beck, a big government man who masquerades as a libertarian and play acts as a student of history. Beck and and his Tea Party drones are for the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, support massive federal welfare for corporations and ConAgra and are card carrying members of the Republican Party. They fit Lincoln like his disturbing stove pipe hat. "We the people" is an evil term used by evil men to turn the United States into the bloated, centralized corporatism it is today.

Buchanan, Barr and the CIA: The Plot Agianst American Third Parties

The Reform Party Seal: Now a CIA Eagle

In January 2010, former CIA agent Charles S. Faddis announced that he was "throwing my lot" in with the Reform Party USA. This was truly convenient because the Reform Party USA received 418 votes in the 2008 presidential election, running perennial candidate Ted Weil of Mississippi as their presidential standard bearer. Mr. Faddis, a former CIA operations officer who served for twenty years in the Near East, South Asia and Europe, is on record of opposing any limitations on CIA interrogations of captured terrorists, certainly not a virtue of the classical liberal Reform Party. However, Mr. Faddis's "conversion" to the Reform Party proves that the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) has been monkeying around not only in the Two-Thirds World, but also in Third Party Politics.

CIA operative, hater of civil liberties and recent Reform Party member Charles Faddis

You might be asking yourself, "Why in the world would the CIA care about Third Party politics? Aren't they really marginal?" The reason that Third Parties are marginal is because of government and CIA barriers and infiltrations that keep the unnatural two party duopoly in power and reinforce the false "left-right" paradigm that didn't even exist during the French Revolution (when it is claimed to have begun). We need only look at the history of third parties since 1990 to see the infiltration of CIA operatives in their party ranks.

Henry Ross Perot: Public Enemy #1 for the Two-Party Duopoly

In 1992, H. Ross Perot, a billionaire Texas computer magnate, entered the 1992 presidential race promising to bring about an independent populist voice for a nation in recession and suffering from the mismanagement of the Reagan-Bush Years. Perot's folksy speaking style, television chats with charts and powerful debate performances ("I certainly have no experience ringing up a multimillion dollar debt") shook the two-party duopoly to it's core. On Election Day, Perot won 19% of the vote and nearly won the state of Maine. More than 19 million American voters "wasted" their vote on the little man from Texas with the big idea of creating an American third-party. The two-party duopoly was HORRIFIED by Perot's success and so they went about taking over the presidential campaign season.

Three men in a presidential debate? Surely you jest!

In 1995, the League of Women Voter's lost control of the presidential debates and the federal Election Commission (FEC) took the reins of them. The FEC set forth the impossible rules that a candidate must be polling at 15% or higher in an AVERAGE OF NATIONAL POLLS for them to participate in a televisied debate. In 1996, Perot, running for president a second time, was excluded from the debates and only took 8 million votes because the FEC was alligned against his campaign. The two major parties had hijacked American presidential elections to keep any third party candidate from ever getting above 5% of the popular vote ever again. In 2008, third party candidates didn't even take 2% of the vote.

Before Perot dropped out of the presidential election in July 1992 (simply to reenter in September 1992) he told the nation that former CIA Director, president George Herbert Walker Bush, had sent spies to his daughter's wedding. As Mr. Faddis showed this year, Mr. Perot was telling the truth. The CIA was spying on Perot because they wished to release any damning evidence of illegal or immoral activities on the man from Texas in order to sink his movement. Perot was called "crazy" by a complacent media, but now we know that CIA agents had had an interest in the Reform Party since Perot's independent bid for president in 1992.

Pat Buchanan: Nixon aide, Reagan crony and CIA operative

In 2000, lifetime Republican Patrick J. Buchanan, who worked for both the Nixon and Reagan White Houses, had a miraculous political epiphany and decided to run for the Reform Party nomination for president of the United States. His bullying and vindictive campaign for president forced hotel mogul Donald Trump, Governors Jesse Ventura and Richard Lamm and several other more legitimate presidential contenders out of the race for the Reform Party nomination and Buchanan won the nomination. He took the Reform Party to the extreme right, alienating the classical liberal constituents who made up the party constituency. This was a hostile CIA take over of the Reform Party. Buchanan is an ivy league, Washington, D.C., elitist who attended Georgetown University (otherwise known as CIA University because it graduates a record number of future CIA operatives every year) and worked as an enforcer for socialist President Richard Milhous Nixon. If any man was not in sync with the Reform Party, it was the neo-theocratic Pat Buchanan. The fact that Buchanan selected anti-homosexual rights activist Ezola Foster, whop defended racial segregation in the South, as his running-mate is proof that the ticket was a CIA backed plot against the Reform Party.

Since 2000, where Buchanan took less than 500,000 votes compared to 8 million for Perot in 1996, the Reform Party has been on a super steady decline. The CIA coup has destroyed the Reform Party. The Buchanan suicide mission in 2000 was a success and America's third party has yet to be born. However, the Reform Party is not the only party where CIA operatives have strangled a legitimate anti-establishment movement.

Bob Barr preparing to strangle the Libertarian Party

2008 was the next year in which a major threat was levied against the two party duopoly. Another big eared, big brained Texan had introduced idea that the CIA did not like and they needed to quiet this movement before it could make any real change to the system. This Texan was Congressman Ron Paul and his movement was the Ron Paul Revolution. Despite the corporate media's war against Congressman Paul, he still managed to raise more money than any other GOP candidate in the primaries and won every post-debate poll (Much to the chagrin of media and CIA hacks Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity). With this new, libertarian, anti-establishment, anti-CIA force building up the CIA sent one of it's own to hijack the Libertarian Party: former Congressman and white supremacist Bob Barr.

Bob Barr made an interesting "conversion" to the Libertarian Party in 2006. Despite the fact that he was a former Drug Czar, federal prosecutor, CIA agent and Central American medeler, Bob Barr had a MIRACULOUS change of heart in 2006. Despite the fact that Barr was a supporter of the war on drugs (and still is), voted for the PATRIOT Act, voted fro the Iraq War Resolution, voted for BIll Clinton's Comprehensive Ant-Terrorism Act of 1995, voted to ban the practice of Wicca in the military, introduced the anti-freedom Defense of Marriage Act and led the hypocritical impeachment of Bill Clinton inn1998 (Barr has been married three times and was caught licking whip cream off a woman at a 1981 Republican fundraiser) he claimed to have completely ended his CIA and neo-conservative ways by the time he hijacked the Libertarian Party in 2008.

It should be noted that the the 2008 Libertarian National Convention Barr did not start out as the front-runner. The front-runner was Wayne Allyn Root, a bad libertarian but not a CIA plant. Professor Mary Ruwart of Texas, an anarcho-libertarian, was nipping at Root's heals. Barr was a distant third, that was until an amazing shift occurred in balloting. How did this occur? I do not know, seeing how Barr entered the race late and was generally disliked by his fellow Libertarian National Committee members. I guess they all had a miraculous change of heart!

Now excuse me while I throw-up. Bob Barr hijacked the Libertarian Party to stop it from nominating an actual libertarian for the office of the presidency. Like Pat Buchanan in 2000, Barr's suicide mission has fractured the Libertarian Party and further strengthened the two-party duopoly. As of 2010, the Libertarian Party has dropped in membership and donations because of the nomination of CIA plant Bob Barr and media stooge Wayne Allyn Root as it's presidential and vice-presidential standard bearers. The CIA has killed the Libertarian Party.

Barr and Root celebrating the death of the Libertarian Party

Lee of the Union: The Traitorous Robert E. Lee

Typical iconography of Robert E. Lee: A Traitor Beloved by the Lost Cause Aristocrats

Following the subjugation of the South by President Abraham Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression, a new movement arose in the martyred Southern States: the Lost Cause. The Lost Cause was the second great literary movement in the American South and it was lead by the same people who founded the first great literary movement: the antebellum Plantain planters. The Lost Cause authors ( historian Edward Pollard, poet Abram Ryan) protrayed such men as General Robert Edward Lee as a Southern noble. They stated that losses on the battlefield were inevitable due to Northern superiority in resources and manpower. Finally, they wrote that Lee was a perfect commander and that the ONLY reason his army was unable to succeed was because of inept subbordinates. The Lost Cause was, in effect, a collection of very wealthy Southern aristocrats who wanted to ignore the reality that Robert E. Lee was a triator to the Southern cause.

Lee in his Union Man costume: One he secretly wore during the Civil War

We must first look at traitor Robert E. Lee's pre-war experiences. He was the son of "Light Horse Harry" Lee, a close aide to General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War. His mother was Anne Carter Lee, the granddaughter of Southern aristocrat and big time capitalist slave driver Robert "King" Carter. Being raised by his mother, Robert was told to adhere to the dictates of the Union. "Light Horse Harry" Lee would go broke and hightail it to the Caribbean, but still write his son letters about the wisdom of the revolution and the United States government. In 1825 Lee went off to West Point Military Academy to learn about how best to serve his country. As a typical overachiever, he achieved the rank of sergeant after his first year and was such a tight ass that he did not break a single rule in four years. Graduating a brevet second lieutenant of engineers, Lee was sen as a rising Union officer who was meant to do great things for the Union. In 1831 Lee continued on his path of becoming a great Union stooge by marrying Mary Anna Randolph Custis, the great-granddaughter of Martha Washington and the step-great granddaughter of Virginia Federalist John Randolph. Lee had now married into the biggest Union family he could find.

During the Mexican War General Winfield "Old Fuss and Feathers" Scott talked up Lee as his possible successor and Lee was rewarded with being the commandant of West Point. This was yet another plumb government job given to the man who was now making marrying into government his life long profession. Lee was seen as a the new "golden boy" of the Union, known as the "Marble Man" amongst his contemporaries. He was given chief roles in engineering jobs from Texas to California to the Mississippi River. One can only wonder why Lee was unwilling to fight against a government that had given him such favorable treatment. The answer is that Lee never intended to fight against the Union, as his immediate repose following the secession of South Carolina shows.

General David Emanuel Twiggs: A Southern Patriot

When Texas seceded from the Union in February 1861, General David E. Twiggs surrendered all the American forces (4,000 in the Department of Texas) to the Confederate forces of Texas. Twiggs resigned from the U.S. Army and was given a rank in the Confederate Army. Lee, who was a member of the Department of Texas, did not join his fellow Southerners in joining the Confederate fight for independence. Instead, Lee returned to Washington, D.C., as was named a colonel in the First U.S. Calvary in March 1861. President Abraham Lincoln signed Lee's lates6t promotion and offered control of the Union largest army to Lee with the promise of being made a Major General. However, the Union man Lee, who abandoned his compatriots in Texas, had a plan to destroy the new Southern nation and become it's greatest "hero" in the process.

The Arlington House Plot

The Arlington House Plot is what I refer to as the greatest plot against freedom in American history. Robert E. Lee was not a fan of the War for Southern Independence. As late as March 1861 Lee was attacking the Southern cause as "revolutionary" and "A betrayal of the efforts of our founders." As late as March 28, 1861, Lee has accepted a promotion to the rank of colonel in the U.S. Calvary. He ignored an offer of command of Confederate Armies and told an associate that he would, "Never bear arms against the Union." He never did bear arms against the Union, he simply "carried his musket" and put up a good show fight. The Arlington House Plot was when Lee decided to leave the United States Army to begin an aristocratic plot to destoy the Confederacy.

The Battle of Cheat Mountain: The Sell-Out Begins

The Battle of Cheat Mountain showed the type of commander that Robert E. Lee was: a traitor commander. Western Virginia was very important to the early Confederate war strategy as it had the seat of the Virginia Railroad and also had several federal armories. At the Battle of Cheat Mountain, Lee, who was in command, allowed his subordinate officers to stumble around in fog and winding woods and mountains for two days before they all independently attacked an untrained Union force at Fort Milroy. The Union lost only ten fewer men then Lee's force, yet he ordered a complete withdrawal from the area. When General William W. Loring demanded a renewed assault into Western Virginia in later 1861, Lee refused to do so, citing a "Lack of supplies." It is interesting to note that later in the war a "lack of supplies" did not stop Lee from marching. It was Lee's traitorous behavior in Western Virgina that led to the fall of West Virginia and the needed railroad to the Union in 1862.

A Few Fortuitous "Accidents": Two Johnston's are Denied Generalship of the Army of Richmond

Friendly fired seemed to follow General Lee wherever he and Traveler rode throughout the Civil War. After his traitorous behavior in Western Virginia, Lee was put out to pasture in Richmond to dig some ditches. It looked as if the Arlington House Plot had failed and the South would succeed in it's war for independence. However, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, a West Pointer like Lee, decided that the Union loving Lee would make a good chief strategist for him. General Joseph E. Johnston, the master of the strategic retreat who had won the Battle of Bull Run, was doing an outstanding job keeping General George Brinton McClellan at bay during the Peninsula Campaign of Spring 1862. Through a series of withdrawals, General Johnston saves his fighting force until he fought the far larger Army of the Potomac to a standstill at the Battle of Seven Pines.

The fact that Johnston's outnumbered two-to-one army fought the Union force away from Richmond is a testament to Johnston's military genius, but Johnston was not liked by President Davis or General Lee. Strangely Johnston, who was not harmed in much thicker fighting at the Battle of Bull Run, was injured at the Battle of Seven Pines and replaced by Robert E. Lee, who had failed to show any leadership acumen during his time in Western Virginia. Why didn't President Davis withdraw General Albert Sidney Johnston from the losing battle in Tennessee and send him out East? After all, A.S. Johnston outranked Lee under the Confederate order of new generals. This has never been answered, and the fact that friendly fire killed Albert Sydney Johnston at the Battle of Shiloh further makes an inquisitive mind wonder what really put Lee in charge of the Army of the James (renamed by Lee the Army of Northern Virgina).

Rest in Pace Old Stonewall Jackson

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson is one of the most beloved commanders of the American Civil War. His brilliant encompassing of the Union right-flank at the Battle of Chancellorsville still amazes military historians to this day. One of the reasons that General Jackson was able to lead amazing assaults on Union armies was his ability to gather intelligence and make night assaults. In fact, his night assaults were legendary north and south. This is why it is fishy that on the night of May 2, 1863, Confederate soldiers inexplicably fired on Jackson and his staff as they were riding on a twilight reconnaissance after the Battle of Chancellorsville. Government historians claim that a Major Berry was afraid that the oncoming horsemen, of whom they should have been familiar with, were Union soldiers. "It's a damned Yankee trick," is the stock statement that government historians claim Major Berry said in response to the fact that Jackson and his riders had positively identified themselves. A band of North Carolina riflemen then inexplicably opened fire on a band of riders. This does not match ANY protocol of how to deal with riders during the Civil War. NO regiment would fire a volley, and then a second volley, into a cavalcade of riders after a positive identification. Additionally, why was this Major Berry not charged by the Confederate government with disorderly conduct for firing on a small contingency of horsemen? There was no proof that these horsemen were anything more than message carriers and under the the accepted conduct of war in the 1860s you were punished if you "shot the messenger."

James Longstreet: Lee's Constant Foil

Why did Robert E. Lee invade Pennsylvania in June 1863? The history books have put forth several scenarios. The generally forgotten reason is that the Gettysburg Campaign would lead General Ulysses S. Grant to send soldiers from the Army of Tennessee to the east to protect the nation's capital from a Confederate assault through Pennsylvania and Maryland. This would weaken Grant's foothold outside of the Confederate Gibraltar at Vicksburg, Mississippi. General Lee, in my opinion, released that a successful invasion of Pennsylvania was a very long shot for his army and a gift for Northern forces. After all, soon after Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania the Union replaced General Joe Hooker with General George Gordon Meade, a Pennsylvanian who knew the area of Gettysburg very well. Lee was walking into a trap in Pennsylvania and he knew it. It was what the Union spy Lee wanted. This is why he turned down several much better plans by General James Longstreet, who was the commander of the First Corp of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Following the assassination of Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville, James Longstreet argued that all or part of his corp should be sent to Tennessee for the Summer 1863 campaign season. General Longstreet argued to Lee that if General Braxton Bragg, Commander of the Department of the Mississippi, could be reinforced by his corp the Army of the Ohio under General William Rosecrans, a Union officer and German immigrant, could then be overwhelmed and the Army of the Ohio would no longer be in Tennessee to guard Grant's supply lines at the Central Railway. With his supply trains captured and the Union held government at Memphis, Tennessee (under future president Andrew Johnson) threatened by Bragg's army Grant would be forced to withdraw from Vicksburg to defend Tennessee and resupply his army. This was the best plan for victory but Lee ignored it. It had historical precedent (see the early Vicksburg Campaign) and made tactical sense to Confederate Secretary of War James Seddon. However, Lee insisited on his long shot invasion of Pennsylvania. As Longstreet wrote in his autobiography, "His plan or wishes announced, it became useless and improper to offer suggestions leading to a different course."

James Longstreet was a constant enemy of Lee's because he wanted to fight a defensive war that would have led to victory for the Southern cause, which was the exact opposite of what Lee wanted. Longstreet urged Lee that throughout the Pennsylvania Campaign, "We should work so as to force the enemy to attack us, in such good position as we might find in our own country." Even during an invasion wise General Longstreet wanted a defensive war. After the first day of Battle at Gettysburg, Longstreet advised Lee to withdraw from the field of battle and to set up fortifications at, "Ground more accommodating to our side." Longstreet saw at Gettysburg a Chancellorsville in reverse- The Union had the high ground and had strategically set up cannon on Cemetery Hill, thus denying the Confederates the ability to take that most strategic of hills. Longstreet advised Lee to withdraw to York, Pennsylvania, a city that Generals Jubal Early and "Extra Billy" Smith had captured three days previous. Despite his "Lost Cause" record of being a tactical genius, Lee turned down this wise advice to focus on a suicide mission called Pickett's Charge (more appropriately Pickett-Trimble-Anderson's Charge). In Lee's tactical traitor plan he would throw three divisions at the well-fortified Union position of Cemetery Hill. IN order to find a scapegoat for this travesty, Lee selected Longstreet. Despite the fact that only one division in the charge (that of George Pickett) belonged to Longstreet's Corp, Lee gave his constant foil the unenviable task of sending three divisions to sure destruction. Lost Cause writers have since blamed Longstreet, the man who opposed Lee's traitorous behavior, for Confederate defeat at Gettysburg.

It is interesting to note that after the fall of Vicksburg, when it didn't even matter, Lee allowed Longstreet to go to Tennessee with his corp. Had Lee allowed this to occur in June 1863 it is likely that Vicksburg would not have fallen and Lincoln would have had no victory to run on in the 1864 presidential election. To conclude the case against Lee with Mr. Longstreet as a witness, on May 4th, 1864, Longstreet was wounded during the Battle of the Wilderness, accidentally shot by his own men only about 4 miles away from the place where Jackson suffered the same fate a year earlier.

Lee is congratulated for a plot well delivered by General and future president Ulysses S. Grant

On April 9th, 1865, General Lee decided that his charade had gone on long enough. Despite the fact that General Joseph E. Johnston could have teamed up with the Army of Northern Virginia and fought on. Despite the fact that Confederate raiders wanted to wage a guerrilla war. Despite the fact that the people of the Confederacy welcomed more war and President Davis called for a continuation of the war effort from Danville, Virginia, on April 7th, 1865, Lee still decided to surrender to Ulysses S. Grant, a man he had been accommodating since 1863.

It is interesting to note that Grant did not take Lee prisoner after the surrender. This is rather unprecedented because Grant was known for taking Confederate generals prisoner (see the Battles of Fort Henry and Donnelson, 1862) and because of the simple fact that Lee was the leader of the largest army in a four year rebellion against the established government of the United States. It is far more than Grant's questionable magnanimity that led him to give extremely favorable treatment to Lee's Army. After all, Grant was known for his love of unconditional surrender and total defeat of armies, that is why President Lincoln gave him control of the Army of the Potomac in March 1864.

Additionally, Lee is the only defeated general of a rebel army that did not flee the nation in which he led the unsuccessful revolt. After the defeat of the Cavaliers in the English Civil War, the royalists fled to France. After the defeat of the anarchist trade union in the Spanish Civil War, the anarchists fled to France. However, after the defeat of the Confederate States of America, Lee, the leader of it's largest army, did not flee to Mexico or Canada, even though he was given the chance on multiple occasions. President Davis and Secretary of War John C. Breckenridge attempted to flee to Mexico (Breckenridge would eventually end up in Brazil and Canada), but Lee did not flee. Instead, he was never put on trial and immediately reapplied for United States citizenship, an act that is unprecedented in the history of revolution.

Lee as an old traitor: He destroyed the South, his work was done.

In conclusion, Robert Edward Lee was a Union spy who took control of the Southern Cause to lead the new agrarianism nation to certain defeat. The South could have won the Civil War by fighting a defensive war, as General Ngyuen Giap and George Washington won the Vietnam War and the Revolutionary War respectively. Lee was a Union golden boy who fought as a Union agent against the Southern cause.

What Price Salad?

ConAgra: Making America, fat, slow and fascist

Consider the following chart:



As you can see the Federal Government has it's own goals when it comes to the price of food.

Currently, a massive new Farm Bill is being debated in Congress. While it is not as sexy as the Health Care "Reform" Act, this Farm Bill is directly related to the health of America's kids and working class. This Farm Bill decides what are kids are feed the in institutions called public schools. The bill provides billions of dollars in subsidies for ConAgra, the food company that pumps steroids and soy into their cows, chickens and vegetables to make them plumper and more chemically skewed. These artificially fattened bovines and chickens are what McDonalds and their ilk purchase when producing a Big Mac, McChickens or whatever skewed Irish name they give their food poison. The government is funding the obesity of America through their Farm Bill. Below is a chart showing the percentage of money placed in Agribusiness research by world governments (chart thanks to Dr. Subhuti Dharmananda, Ph.D., Director, Institute for Traditional Medicine, Portland, Oregon):

The United States leads the world in poisoning it's children.

The small time fruits and vegetable growers are left out of this government subsidizing free-for-all. While ConAgra meats and dairy products are given 73.80% of all government subsidization of food, fruits and vegetable growers are given less than 1% (o.37%) of subsidization under the Farm Bill of 2007. This encourages ConAgra to produce more than it needs to and leads to the shutting down of independent fruit and vegetable growers who need additional funding to compete with Big Agriculture. It is for this reason that a fresh salad costs $5.35 and a Big Mac costs $2.25. Government subsidizing in the Un-Free Market is what is making Americans fat.

Don't be shy, poor kids, dig in!

With way too much subsidization, ConAgra does not need to sell everything it "grows" in Super Markets (legalized and encouraged drug dens). The government will actually buy surplus foods like dairy products, beef and other fatty meats and give them to federal school lunch programs. These school lunch programs are the only real meal that many poor kids receive, and thus the government is purposely poisoning them with genetically altered food.

The poor in the United States are being forced to eat poison that makes them obese and kills them at an early age. This is a direct government plot to deal with the "problem" that is the working poor. To prove this point we need only look at the following chart (provided graciously by DiseaseProof.com):

The fattest states in the Union are Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and West Virginia. These states are also the poorest states in the Union. Consider the following facts (as provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, 2008):

The poorest states in the United States by yearly income, 2008:

40. South Carolina
41. Louisiana
42. Montana
43. Tennessee
44. New Mexico
45. Oklahoma
46. Alabama
47. Kentucky
48. Arkansas
49. West Virgnia
50. Mississippi

As you can see the fattest states in the Union are also the poorest. The government has one great goal: to eliminate the poor/minorities of the country so that the wealthy elite may rule without anger from that foolish proletariat. Through funding ConAgra and their evil ilk the United States government is murdering with a Big Mac.

First Carbon Credits then Child Credits

First Al Gore created phony Goldman Sachs backed "carbon credits"- which enables people to pollute if you can find another person who doesn't pollute and pay him, and the government, a tax.
Sage Prediction- In our lifetime a person will have to find a person who does not have over 2.5 kids, and pay them for not producing and then pay the government a tax for overproducing. Watch for it.

Tina Fey is Funny?

As a conspiracy theorist I am amazed that the masses believe that Tina Fey is funny. So many in the establishment media have claimed her impersonation of Sarah Palin was "spot on". Her impersonation was lazy,both intellectually and physically. It was basically Tina Fey playing herself while wearing a Palin costume. Fey didn't bother to change her voice,mannerisms, or get into character like even your average unpaid community theater enthusiast would do. Two aspects cab be gleamed from this: 1) Western people are dumb, easily swayed, and are duped. Classic example of "emperor's new clothes syndrome". 2) Tina Fey knows some establishment thug.She has no recognized talent.