Monday, January 21, 2013

Obama, Lincoln, Martin Luther King and the Liberal false narrative

This is a guest post by Martin Sewell:

Yesterday, His Grace wrote about the inappropriate adulation for President Obama exhibited by those once twin pillars of the British Establishment, the BBC and the Church of England.

Both in secular and religious British terms, it is indeed intellectually offensive to see such over enthusiastic embracing of a foreign leader of modest achievement - re-election and a Peace prize bestowed for no greater merit than that of not being his predecessor.

His Grace identified the liberal narrative as morphing this President with Abraham Lincoln, and the coinciding release of Stephen Spielberg’s film will no doubt be spawning many more such comparisons as President Obama takes his second Oath of Office.

Mr Spielberg’s political sympathies are well known and it is no accident that his film presents a liberal view of history intended to shape and inform the historical narrative for many on both sides of the Atlantic. It is happening to Lincoln as it has happened to Martin Luther King, so that few will actually know the inconvenient truth, not least that both assassinated heroes were Republicans.

The television trailers for Spielberg’s film presents a montage of high flown passionate anti-slavery rhetoric, with scant regard for the history. This is what Spielberg thinks Lincoln should have been like, though the record is significantly more nuanced.

Nobody can seriously read of the man and consider his words without appreciating that Lincoln was a sincere and life-long Abolitionist. He perhaps put it best in homespun wisdom rather than public oratory. "Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

His first and primary loyalty was however to the Republican form of Government and the Constitution adopted only 23 years before his birth.

Few of those seeing Spielberg’s film will have the historical knowledge and perspective to appreciate how novel and fragile the idea of democracy was in the middle of the 19th Century. The French Revolution had collapsed back into Empire and the only other democratic republic was Switzerland. The idea of fracturing and weakening the noble American experiment in democracy was anathema to Lincoln. It is perhaps sensible to regard him as an idealistic pragmatist.

In 1860, writing to the future Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephen, Lincoln assured him: "Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears."

This same pragmatism ensured that the Emancipation Proclamation, when issued, was only directed to slaves living in the Confederate States, and the announcement itself was delayed until after the battle of Antietam had ended the occupation of border State Maryland and returned its Unionist owned slaves to the control of the North where they remained enslaved for the rest of the War.

Lest there be any doubt, consider:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forebear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

In the Gettysburg Address there is not a single direct reference to slavery or the Abolitionist cause, though his devotion to the cause of the Republic and its Constitution is embodied in its closing hope that “..this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Martin Luther King would have happily concurred, not least with that important “under God” proviso which plainly offends many secular activists in the modern Democratic Camp.

MLK was brought up in a middle class educated Christian household; his Pastor father was a lifelong Republican and his son followed and was so registered throughout his life.

They both knew that every advance for the African American in both Civil Rights and Education had been built on Republican initiatives in the teeth of Democrat opposition. They would have appreciated that the earliest gun control measures had been enacted in the South to prevent the poor black man from exercising his Constitutional right to bear arms and be disabled from fighting back against the Democratic dominated Ku Klux Klan.

MLK possessed guns for his family’s protection and applied for a concealed carry permit.

You do not hear much about this from the Hollywood crowd.

The advice to his son from “Daddy King” - in many ways an even better man than his more celebrated son - was to secure for himself “an education, a job, and a mortgage”. That is a severely discordant to the current idealisation of the entitlement society.

He did not seek to fundamentally change the principles of the Constitution but rather to secure justice for all by making the USA live up to its plainly declared principles.

Nowhere did that ideal show itself better than in his “I have a dream” speech where he envisioned a society in which a person would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

That phrase bears some consideration.

It is plain that Martin Luther King saw himself first as a Christian, second as US citizen and only then as African American. He could express the latter thanks to the empowerments of the former.

Both of those pre-conditions are under threat from the current President, his supporters and his judicial nominees.

MLK would have appreciated the view of the Founding Father John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

President Obama appears to regard American Society and its Constitution as deficient; he might usefully consider with his Hollywood friends whether it is not the Constitution that needs changing but rather the undermining of that moral and religious character.

If he wishes to make the Constitution of Lincoln and MLK function as designed, he could do no better than build up that moral character by following the wisdom of another African American who shares much of President Obama’s academic history.

I speak of the eminent Conservative Academic Thomas Sowell, who is heir to the Lincoln/MLK tradition which believes that there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be solved by what is right with America.

I am sure that MLK would have understood Sowell’s perspective that “If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.

I cannot see Lincoln disagreeing with: “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.

Or: “One of the consequences of such notions as ‘entitlements’ is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.”

Both would surely have assented to the proposition that “Intellect is not wisdom.”

I cannot see any founding father dissenting from the idea that: “Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?

The inauguration will be a time for rhetoric and hope. My hope is that the President changes and instead of following the dreams of his father he follows the dream of the Founding Fathers.

Martin Sewell can be followeed on Twitter: @martindsewell


Blogger bluedog said...

A fine post by Mr Sewell, Your Grace.

If Mitt Romney was right, 47% of the American people would starve in the American Republic.

Now there's a thought.

21 January 2013 at 09:58  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Excellent post Mr Sewell.

21 January 2013 at 11:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Mr Sewell given that the Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, and given that the politcal estabishment is undermininhg it (for example Roe v Wade (found within the penumbra of the Constitution)): do you think a second civil war is likely?

21 January 2013 at 11:35  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A truly excellent post Mr Sewell.

Hindsight is only a useful tool when viewed through what a person really said or did rather than what we imagined they said and did.

This is why we have 'Christians' saying Jesus was the first 'socialist/liberal' nonsense when He was nothing of the sort whether socialist, liberal or conservative.

Let us all be judged by what we truly say and do.


21 January 2013 at 12:18  
Blogger Gnostic said...

The only good thing about this second inauguration is that it will be Obama's last. Unless he succeeds in rewriting the 22nd Amendment...

21 January 2013 at 12:38  
Blogger Owl said...

YG, thank you for giving us this brilliant article from Mr. Sewell.

I do not have any hope that Mr. Obama will change his ways but I hope that the American people will see the man they voted for in his true colours.

As to the damage done, most of the Americans are very good at hard work and cleaning up the mess.

21 January 2013 at 13:33  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Echoing everyone else's sentiments. Well argued, Mr Sewell.

I might offer a point that perhaps the blog's American commentators might pick up on: what does one do if it becomes clear that one's populace is no longer religious or moral?

I ask not by way of criticism of the US, but rather because I would like to live by much the same standards advanced in the tradition of thought Mr Sewell has outlined, but am less certain that the UK would find itself fit to rise to the challenges. And I'm not just talking about the traditional rallying points of sexuality and familial bonds, but also philanthropy, fair working conditions, and justice.

21 January 2013 at 14:43  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace, fortunately I have the sick-bag handy in case the computer freezes on that pic! And thank you for posting this from Mr. Sewell.

He shows why a person can respond positively to MLK, but not to the fake who has appropriated King's surfboard.

As to: My hope is that the President changes and instead of following the dreams of his father he follows the dream of the Founding Fathers. Well, they did teach me that 'hope springs eternal.'

However, BO is a ham who clearly disconnects from his official oratory. Being no Brutus, he'll lose no sleep over his real intentions; but all this talk of dreams suggests a parallel between Shakespeare's "little kingdom" and Obama's larger one:

Between the acting of a dreadful thing
And the first motion, all the interim is
Like a phantasma, or a hideous dream:
The Genius and the mortal instruments
Are then in council; and the state of man,
Like to a little kingdom, suffers then
The nature of an insurrection.

(Shakespeare. Julius Caesar. Brutus: II.1.62-9).

21 January 2013 at 15:35  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 January 2013 at 17:04  
Blogger TigerO said...

As an unbiased observer there is no doubt that Obama was elected because he is black. His election served to satiate the young American desire to demonstrate their inclusiveness and tolerance.

When he was nominated in the primaries I was curious that a man came from out of the shadows to steamroll his heavy weight opponents. Looking at his political career demonstrated a man who had done nothing, thought nothing and drew a pay cheque for the same.

So one one must question who financed and engineered his election and why. As time goes by I am sure these answers will become apparent. What we do know is that his time in office has been the same as the rest of his career so far; nothing.

He was elected purely for the colour of his skin. He has done his masters bidding. He has occupied the White House and done nothing. But who is his Master?

21 January 2013 at 17:28  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 January 2013 at 17:31  
Blogger John Magee said...

The sudden and recent comparisons of President Obama to President Lincoln, the great American Civil War leader and a Republican, along with the decades long Democrat/liberal mantra constantly demonizing the Republicans and conservatives in the USA as "racists" who do not care for the poor and blacks needs to be challenged for the lie it is.

There is an important historical fact, not mentioned in this article, nor is it given much attention by modern liberals because it's an inconvenient aspect of history they would like to swept under the rug.

This neglected fact is the Republican Party was founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Southern Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party (an anti immigrant and anti Catholic party).

After the Civil War the vast majority of black men registered as Republicans (women in the USA didn't get the vote in the USA until 1919). The first black Senator was a Republican named Hiram Rhodes. Famous USA black organizations like the NAACP were founded by black and white Republicans. Blacks remained solidly Republican until the election of 1932 when Franklin D Roosevelt promised them the new plantation called the welfare state. The promise of the welfare state, during the darkest days of the Great Depression influenced the majority of blacks to switch over to the Democratic party where they have remained ever since. Until that time the black family was intact. Since the 1960's when Democrat LBJ's total welfare state was introduced black society has gone into a downward spiral of self destruction with 82% of their children born today to a single mother, black gangs killing each other in drug and turf wars in the inner city, record violent crime commited by young black males, the inability to finish high school, etc,etc,etc. Blacks as a group are religious and have traditional values. They should naturally gravitate to conservatives. The liberal carrot of the welfare state changed this thinking and it is not for the good of the black people. Republicans are made demons by black liberals and the liberal media establishment. The reality is conservative Republicans want to help blacks get on their feet and help themselves improve their lives and gain self respect through self- help and changing their self destructive behavior. Liberals hate this concept of self-help and not blaming others for your problems and perversely call it "racist".

It is not taught in history books today but the "great" American humanitarian President, Woodrow Wilson (1913 -1921), who was a Democrat and a truly a racist if people take the time read his writings, upon entering office immediately segrated the USA Federal Government and segregated the United States Navy. Before this, the Navy had never been segregated.

Why is it not mentioned by liberals today it was a Republican President named Eisenhower who desegragated the public schools in the American South in 1954? Nor is it brought up today that it was Republicans in the USA Senate who voted as a block to get the 1964 Civil Rights Bill passed when the so called "Dixiecrats" (like Al Gore's father, a Democrat Senator from TN) voted against it. Without the Republicans voting for this Civil Rights Bill it would have never been passed.

How many people know Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican as was his father?

Addiction to the welfare state and being constantly reminded by liberals that they can't make it on their own has destroyed blacks in the USA. NOT racism.

An illustration of liberal racial hypocrisy is the interesting fact former President Clinton AND President Obana attended the funeral of Democratic Senator William Byrd of West Virginia in 2010. Senator Byrd was a former Grand Wizard of the KKK back in the 1940's and early 1950's

21 January 2013 at 17:46  
Blogger michael north said...

There are many who see Obamania as part of a conspiracy which they are unable to track to its source.I see it as the (I hope, temporary) triumph of the sentimentality and solipsism that has always lurked in the wings of mainstream America. We are seeing the "feelings" of the "individual" trump objective reality. Reality will break in, finally, of course, but Obama will be safely off-stage by then and, anyway, the confidence trickster has always been protected by the fact that his dupes cannot accuse him without confessing their own gullibility.

21 January 2013 at 17:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

We are seeing the "feelings" of the "individual" trump objective reality. Reality will break in, Reality will break in, finally, of course, but Obama will be safely off-stage by then and, anyway, the confidence trickster has always been protected by the fact that his dupes cannot accuse him without confessing their own gullibility.

just replace 'Obama' with 'Blair and we see the same similarities except Blair is basically rebuked and now reviled by those that put him in for Iraq rather than the complete mess he presided over in the UK!


21 January 2013 at 18:05  
Blogger John Magee said...


President Obama's "masters" are his life long leftist mentors and friends. Here area few:

Marxist writer and activist Sol Alinsky, Communist Party USA member Franklin Marshall Davis, the Marxist revolutionary and bomb maker who helped kill policeman and got away with his crimes because of rigged juries Bill Ayres, and his white and Jew hating "Pastor" the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who trashed the USA and capitalism weekly from his pulpit while the Obam's sat in the pews of his church for almost 20 years.

How can a man have friends like these and people imagine he is anything but a Marxist revoltionary at heart?

Why didn't Europeans read about his past when they went gaga over this fraud in 2008?

I know it's a hackneyed phrase but you know a man by the friends he keeps.

Obama is a Marxist revolutionary.

Will you feel secure with a USA military weakened and it's economy ruined and no longer a member of NATO in a very dangerous world?

Things will never be the same again. The world we knew is over. This man is creating our future.

His campaign even used communist slogans like "change" and "forward!"...

Incidently. Obama started his run for the presidency from the living room of a man I mentioned above. Bill Ayres. Ayres is a Marxist who along with his wife Bernadine Dohrn helped make bombs during the early 1970s that blew up police stations and killed policemen and civilians. One of their bombs was set off near the Pentagon.

What does this tell you?

@ Blofeld

Obama is NOT to be compared with Tony Blair. Did Blair ever have Marxist pals or hang around with communists who made bombs which killed the police?

21 January 2013 at 18:21  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Mr Magee

The comparison is based on them both being confidence trickster/messiah characters, who one has left center stage but continually hangs around in the wings for another role..The other is just about to conclude his 2nd Coming and deliver a 'millennium' type 4 years of coming glory for mankind.


21 January 2013 at 19:25  
Blogger John Magee said...


I see your point now. Well said.

21 January 2013 at 19:52  
Blogger Roy said...

bluedog said...

A fine post by Mr Sewell, Your Grace.

If Mitt Romney was right, 47% of the American people would starve in the American Republic.

Now there's a thought.

How on earth do you think the less wealthy half of the American population survived in the past?

21 January 2013 at 22:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

So are we saying in a wealthy society that the Welfare State is not a good thing? That free education and health care should go in favour of private insurance? That the universal old age Pension should be scrapped along with benefits for the unemployed or unemployable?

21 January 2013 at 23:38  
Blogger John Magee said...


Who said a wealthy society shouldn't help it's TRULY helpless? Not me. Everyone, especially people of faith, understands we are supposed to help the poor and helpless. That is a given.

No one is against the government providing free help and even permanent care of the old, the sick, the mentally ill, the helpless poor, those temporarily out of work, etc. But welfare as a guaranteed way of life for perfectly healthy people who are capable of work but instead destroy their lives through bad personal behavior and choices. NO WAY!

@ Roy

It used to be a common responsibilty in your country and mine that the family, friends, the church, neighbors, and the local community took care of the poor and helpless. That era died before WW II.

The welfare state was a good idea in theory and it worked for a period. But it has grown into an enormous bureaucracy and has since gone haywire with corruption and rampant abuse at the expense of the tax payers. Large numbers of people have become addicted to it and never advance their lives and destroy themsleves and a vicious cycle begins again with their children.

Attitude is part of this breakdown.

We live in a different world today where the concept of personal responsibility by perfectly healthy people who are allergic to work and ruin their lives by bad behavior somehow translates into a responsibility and a burden upon all of us in the form of tax payer paid for welfare state entitlements.

22 January 2013 at 05:10  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Good Lord,

So there we have it Obama the Sunni muslim, without any constraint of having to answer to his electorate again, being fated as the Saviour of the World and AT THE SAME TIME he is conning the USA into supplying Iran with its nuclear fuel!!

This is from Asia Times online from the 11th January 2013 ... "US President Barack Obama has made a valiant move by nominating the former US senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel, as the next secretary of defense, defying an avalanche of accusations that Hagel is too "tough" on Israel and too "soft" on Iran. By choosing Hagel, who is also in favor of dialogue with Palestine's Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah, Obama has sent an important signal regarding his desire to give his failed "Iran engagement" policy a new lease of life. Obama's pick for secretary of state, the Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, is also likely to be more in sync with Obama's Iran policy than the outgoing Hillary Clinton ever was. Like Kerry, Hagel has in the past hinted at recognising Iran's nuclear rights. In a recent interview with Al-Monitor, Hagel referred approvingly to another Al-Monitor article that urged the White House to take President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's offer of stopping the 20% enrichment if the outside world was willing to guarantee the delivery of nuclear fuel to Iran. The Iran nuclear crisis stands a good chance of de-escalation in 2013 if both sides show the necessary flexibility. Conditions include the US and its allies agreeing to tolerate Iran's enrichment program at a low ceiling and higher degree of transparency, and Iran consenting to a technical formula regarding its enriched pile of uranium." 'Obama duo offers new hope on Iran' By Kaveh L Afrasiab from

Less than six months ago I was asking people how America would turn its back on Israel and yet every day we see it happening. This is the Message from Michigan State University top commentator Robert Kelley "The only change I would make would be to designate Israel as America's biggest parasite instead of closest ally." January 12 at 5:03pm...

This USA attitude of hate is why American Jews are buying apartments in Israel, not because they want to live in the war zone of the Middle East but because they feel they need an escape route out of the USA.

22 January 2013 at 07:06  
Blogger Martin Sewell said...

Another of Thoss Sowell's insightful remarks is that the African African American family survived slavery but not the Welfare Society.

22 January 2013 at 09:33  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Roy @ 22.47 asks, ‘How on earth do you think the less wealthy half of the American population survived in the past?’

Let’s start by defining ‘past’ in the context of the American Republic as being between 1783 and 1865.

In which case, the answer to your question is ‘as slaves and servants’.

Some comment on agrarian settler societies such as the US:

Throughout most of the period 1783 to 1865 the US was a frontier society based on primary industry. The American Revolution was as much about the confiscation by the American professional class of estates owned by absentee British landlords as about any of the more high minded ideals such as ‘No taxation with representation’. In addition, after the Revolutionary War many British loyalists in the US emigrated quickly to what would become Canada. There were thus considerable opportunities for self-reliant individuals to acquire land, cut down timber to build a cabin, hunt and trap their way through the first years before clearing enough acreage to grow a crop. Success in confiscating land from defeated Indian tribes also presented opportunities for further economic expansion at low cost, as did the Louisiana Purchase.

Settler societies such as the early United States are mainly self-selecting but with relatively high barriers to entry as a result of the cost of resettlement across the North Atlantic. Thus most US residents following the Revolutionary War were likely to be highly competent individuals with motivation to succeed and some capital. One can therefore reasonably assume that the percentage of the US European population that was dependent on any prototype of welfare would have been extremely small, well below 47%, maybe just 5%. Because so many are starting from scratch in this type of society, there is little entrenched wealth and privilege. Consequently within the agrarian frontier society that became the US, wealth would have been relatively evenly distributed. Nobody had had time to amass huge rural estates and the democratic accountability of the US system prevented undue benefit through patronage. In the slave states, the structure of the economy and society were of course, very different. It was not until the post-Civil War railway building boom and the accompanying industrialization that immense fortunes became the preserve of an urban few in the US.

The frontier is now a different time and a different place, despite its enduring impact on the US psyche in measures such as the 2nd Amendment. Where the structure of the US is so different today is that, as Mitt Romney said, 47% of the population lives on benefits to a greater or lesser degree. As a result, the US is sliding rapidly into bankruptcy, something that would have appalled the Protestant founders of the Republic. Obama gives the impression of complete insouciance as the US heads towards the next debt crisis. An inevitable consequence of US bankruptcy is that those who are ill-equipped to be self-reliant will see a dramatic decline in their living standards. There are few New York matrons without a Mexican nanny to mind the kids while they shop on Fifth Avenue. How long before the nannies are US citizens?

22 January 2013 at 10:10  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


Generally good post - but your final remark that "47% of the population lives on benefits to a greater or lesser degree" is only accurate if one includes a fairly wide range of people, including the retired who have "paid in" through working a full lifetime. I doubt very much whether any of us - including Romney for that matter - would find reason to criticise people who have done their bit and are presently receiving their (often meagre) reward or indeed the people who work hard in low-paid jobs who nevertheless rely on subsidies to make ends meet.

22 January 2013 at 13:46  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 January 2013 at 15:22  
Blogger John Magee said...


In President John F. Kennedy's Inauguration Speech address on January 20, 1961 he made this famous quote which is not repeated much today by the promoters of the welfare state and Socialism in his party:

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

This is not a slogan you will see on a poster at the local welfare office today is it?

He also agreed with the conservative concept of lower taxes because he understood that the more money middle class and wealthy people have the more they will spend or invest and this creates real jobs in the private sector not government "make work jobs".

I wish you has explained the exact meaning of ‘No taxation with representation’ quote in your post because it's very important. This phrase existed throughout the the 13 British Colonies here in the 1770's on the eve of our Revolution for a reason. The reason for this slogan was, in the opinion of the Colonists, unfair taxes imposed upon British citizens here passed by Parliament in London. One of these was the Tea Act imposed by Parliament without asking for a vote on it by the individual Colonial legislatures here. British citizens of Boston became so angry over this tea tax, which didn't exist back in England, they got together one night, dressed as Indians to disquise themselves from the King's agents, and marched on the warehouses in Boston where the tea was stored, broke in, and threw the boxes of tea into Boston Harbor as an act of protest in defiance of the King and Parliament. Hence the term "Boston Tea Party" and the meaning of "no taxation...."

It was a rather large "tea party" wasn't it? A harbor full of tea.

The recent "Tea Party" movement protest, which was made a joke of by the left, was simply a modern version of that original Boston Tea Party protest by average hard working people today asking the government to be responsible for their tax $ and how it spends their money. For this they got trashed by the liberalo media.

Contrast the peaceful "Tea Party movement" protestors who demonstrated only on weekends after they got the proper permits because they had to go to work on Monday mornings with the 6 month long circus by the "Occupy Movement". These Marxist "Occupy" protestors, who seemed to never have to go to work and had no lack of funding, had no regard for public or private property. They often rioted and fought with the police costing cities million of $.

President Obama's concept of the government being the nanny state and handing out the tax $ of hard working tax payers is alien to the American frontier spirit which is still very much alive in the other 53% of us who believe in the Protestant work ethic even if we are not Protestants or even Christians. The Protestant work ethic is about individual responsibility, thrift, and helping your neighbor who is in genuine need. It existed on the frontier for survival, and still exists is here in rural and small town USA, and in the minds of most of us who believe in going to work and collecting a check for our labor and not getting one in the mail from the government paid for by someone else's labor.

Marxism and Socialism are the economic fantasies of decadent elitist thinking by men who had too much time on their hands and never atcually did manual labor in 19th century Europe.

22 January 2013 at 15:49  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr AIB @ 13.46, agreed. Retirees who are effectively withdrawing earlier tax payments by way of a pension do qualify as an exception. The problem in all welfare states is the emergence of a multi-generational, unemployed under-class whose business is gaming the system.

Mr Magee @ 15.49, my post should have read 'no taxation without representation', bad typo.

There was much debate on both sides of the Atlantic about American representation at Westminster. The Americans never reached a consensus or sent a delegation setting out their position. The meeting at Philadelphia that lead to the Declaration of Independence could equally have drafted such a statement of demand.

22 January 2013 at 19:28  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 January 2013 at 01:39  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


"The problem in all welfare states is the emergence of a multi-generational, unemployed under-class whose business is gaming the system."

Quite - and equally despicable is the extent to which there is an underclass of people who do not game the system but who nevertheless cannot escape it, so dependent have they become on it.

There are fraudsters at all levels of society - one has but to look at Parliament to find plenty of people on the game. But the dependency that people are put into by job centres that don't care, and systems that do nothing to aid people in retraining is nothing short of criminal.

It's easier to buy people off into inactivity and ultimately indolence (and it must be said, most of the time it's not much of a financial bounty) than it is to address industry, employment red-tape, and above all, the frankly disastarous (for the working classes) policies of mass immigration.

23 January 2013 at 02:43  
Blogger bluedog said...

Indeed, Mr AIB @ 02.43, the old white working class of the UK has been completely betrayed by their own champions, the Labour Party.

The Neathergate decision of Blair and Straw (who despises the British) to flood the country with pliable, Labour voting, third-world immigrants is one of the most disgraceful episodes in British history. Treason of the utmost degree. Nothing like it has ever happened before in the British Isles.

Quite how Blair and Straw are able to walk the streets without being lynched is one of life's little mysteries.

23 January 2013 at 09:41  
Blogger John Magee said...


Please correct me if I am wrong. I seem to remember a few years ago reading PM Blair boasting about his opening the UK immigration gates to the 3rd world during his years serving as your PM to "ensure the Conservatives would never again have power" or words to that effect. Is this true?

If this is true he and his party declared war against their own country and it's culture in the name of a permanent power grab using planned massive immigration and your generous welfare system as the carrot to get votes and keep power forever. This is what dictators do.

On this side of the Gulf Stream the liberals (Democrats) are boasting this week it will be impossible for the Republicans ever to win national elections again because of present and future democraphic changes (tens of millions of illegals flooding the USA from Mexico and Central America) who will be granted amnesty soon by Obama, made instant citizens, and naturally vote for the liberal left. These instant citizens will be voters in key states which are decisive in winning elections in the USA.

This new majority will tip the scales here in favor of a permanent left majority and end the 40% Democrat and 40% Republican voting blocks with about 10% undecided in national elections to a new and permanent 55-60% majority for the Democrats and the radical left. The coming demographic changes here will replace the European majority which has been the dream of the left for almost 100 years. With one party able to import voters the two party system ends and they can do as they please even with our checks and balances system. We already see left wing Democrats wanting a Constitutional Convention convened in order to make drastic changes to the USA Constitution. The left has no need for freedom of speech, religion, and other rights we hold sacred in our Bill of Rights. Of course it will take time for them to get a 75% majority in the Congress needed for Constitutional changes but that is inevitable as a result of the massive demographic changes within the next 20 years.

Yes, Obama promised "change" in 2008, and we will see his version of change. The end of our Republic.

Today as the left is importing voters to guarantee their power. Anyone who dares criticizes what is happening is called the usual names fascist, Nazi, xenephobe, etc.

Of course the left will allow conservatives to exist as long as they kow tow to the majority liberal demands and shut up. We see this already by the weakness of conservative leaders over the past few years. The compassionate left will allow conservatives to have a presence in our governments as window dressing to show they are "tolerant" and allow a two party system.

Isn't it interesting how the left has no shame boasting that they shall soon have permanent majorities in our countries? Imagine if the right was in a similar position, Can you imagine the hysteria from the liberal media, the protests taking to the streets, outrage by movie stars and liberal politicians warning us that the Nazi's were about to take power again?

23 January 2013 at 16:07  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

AIB said ...

" ... one has but to look at Parliament to find plenty of people on the game."

One way of supplementing one's income I suppose.

23 January 2013 at 17:28  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Magee @ 16.07 says, 'I seem to remember a few years ago reading PM Blair boasting about his opening the UK immigration gates to the 3rd world during his years serving as your PM to "ensure the Conservatives would never again have power" or words to that effect. Is this true?'

Every word is true. The UK has a thirty year non-disclosure rule on Cabinet papers. In say 2035, it is possible that the truth will come out. Of course, Cameron could do something today, but will not.

That a British Labour Cabinet should seek to replace Christian British with the Islamic sweepings of the third-world should result in their execution by firing squad. No blindfold, no last cigarette either.

This episode, known as Neathergate after Andrew Neather, the Labour functionary who courageously 'leaked', probably represents the first time that a democratically elected government has sought the ethnic cleansing of its own supporters.

You couldn't make it up.

23 January 2013 at 22:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Now you know that is a crock! Andrew Neather never said any such thing about Labour wanting immigration to bolster its vote. Do read what he actually said and not the construction put on it by right wing conspiracy theorists.

24 January 2013 at 01:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo, not sure if His Grace will publish a link, but herewith:

24 January 2013 at 07:54  
Blogger John Magee said...


Thank you for your response and the web site too. The left in the UK must have hated the Daily Mail for letting the cat out of the bag.

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.”

Sir Winston Churchill

24 January 2013 at 19:43  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 January 2013 at 23:24  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 January 2013 at 00:26  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Well my wife is from Virginia, thus a different viewpoint on Lincoln's war of aggression on the people of the South, so I am thinking of the popular song :
"You fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb
Yeah, you fought all the way Johnny Reb"

I cannot help but think about what could have happened had both sides been willing to compromise. Perhaps if America had stayed a part of Britain, then slavery would have been abolished 30 years before America- at the cost of a great civil war and blood shed- actually did so.

25 January 2013 at 00:28  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 January 2013 at 04:05  
Blogger John Magee said...

Lord Lavendon

We all know about the guilty parties involved in the black slave trade "industry" in Africa. Starting with coastal blacks who went on raiding parties in the interior and captured their fellow blacks and sold them to European slave traders. The Europeans took these people under horrible conditions to the nations in South and North America as well as the Caribbean to be sold in slave markets. It was pure evil and we all share in the guilt of slavery in one way or another.

By the way. Less than 5% of the white population in the South owned slaves and 90% of them were on plantations on the Atlantic and Gulf coast. Most Southeners, particularly those in the interior, never owned and seldom even saw black slaves. The French in Louisiana owned slaves too.

But how many of us know the history of the Muslim Barbary pirates? Their proper name is the Barbary corsairs who raided coastal Europe from the late 1400's to the early 1800's?. Their predation extended throughout the Mediterranean, south along West Africa's Atlantic seaboard and even South America, and into the North Atlantic as far north as Ireland, England, and even Iceland, but they primarily operated in the western Mediterranean. In addition to seizing ships, they engaged in Razzias, raids on European coastal towns and villages, mainly in Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal, but also in the British Isles, the Netherlands and as far away as Iceland. The main purpose of their attacks was to capture Christian slaves for the Islamic market in North Africa and the Middle East. It's estimated they took as many as 3 MILLION slaves during their 300 years of slave raids on Christian Europe.

When someone mentions European slave traders in Africa and sneers and calls our ancestors racists ask them if they ever heard about the activities of these North African Barbary corsairs (pirates) Muslim slave traders capturing white European Christians.

Arab Muslim slave trade in East Africa existed hundreds of years before European slave trade in West Africa and is another story that needs to be told.

Saudi Arbia ended slavery in 1962. How many know this? The home of Islam still practiced slavery until 51 years ago.

I love the song "Dixie". It's still played at public events in the South. As I live only 25 miles north of the Mason Dixon Line. That's the old border between the North and the South. It's great to hear "Dixie" still played in towns and farm shows across the border and at public events although liberals do everything they can to ban it of course.

If you've ever seen the movie "Gone With the Wind" it's not as at all a Hollywood fantasy as some of it's critics like to say. The author, Atlanta born Margaret Mitchell, did research for the book for over 15 years using family legends and interviewing survivors before she finally wrote her novel it the late 20's. It was finally published in the 1930's.

The family in the book and movie are irish Roman Catholics. The novel is accurate because many Southern Plantation owners were wealthy Irish Roman Catholics as the fictional O"Hara family in the movie were. Most of the Southern "Aristocracy" were of English stock, some were Scots too, and not a few can trace their ancestors back to British nobility. Robert E Lee is a distant relative of your late Queen Mother. His family were Church of Ireland Episcopalians.

Next time you visit the USA with your wife try to vist Charleston and Beaufort on the coast of South Carolina and as well as Savannah, Georgia. They are beautiful 17th and 18th English Colonial towns still intact and lovingly restored. They have the feeling of the Caribbean about them

25 January 2013 at 04:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Historians estimate that between 10and 18 million Africans were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert between 650 and 1900 ....

Arabs also enslaved Europeans ... between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary corsairs ... and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries


25 January 2013 at 20:38  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

John Magee

I cannot disagree with anything you write in your post above. I do recall that the Mameluke sword, is the sword which the US Marine Corps still uses today, following their actions against the Slave traders of North Africa, the Barbary pirates, which you note.

My wife is of course a loyal Citizen of the USA, but rightly proud of her southern heritage. There is nothing racialist about this; a few of my wife's relatives have married black people and the author of this thread notes, the terrible civil war was less to do with slavery and more to do with the type of Republic the US should be.

We are always appreciative of the hospitality and warm welcome whenever we visit your wonderful country, the South especially.

Indeed the South hospitality and gentlemanly qualities set the standard for us English, as one of your fellow countrymen noted :

"The hospitality of southerners is so profuse, that taverns are but poorly supported. A traveler, with the garb and the manners of a gentleman, finds a welcome at every door. A stranger is riding on horseback through Virginia or Carolina. It is noon. He sees a plantation, surrounded with trees, a little distance from the road. Without hesitation he rides to the door. The gentleman of the house sees his approach and is ready upon the steps...Conversation flows cheeringly, for the southern gentleman has a particular tact in making a guest happy. After dinner you are urged to pass the afternoon and night, and if you are a gentleman in manners and information, your host will be in reality highly gratified by your so doing.Such is the character of southern hospitality"

25 January 2013 at 23:23  
Blogger Ian said...

Naomi King said: "This USA attitude of hate is why American Jews are buying apartments in Israel, not because they want to live in the war zone of the Middle East but because they feel they need an escape route out of the USA."

My experience is that American Jews are some of President Obama's most fervent supporters. In America, Jews have replaced Torah with Trotsky and have replaced Judaism with Leftism as their religion.

1 February 2013 at 01:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older