Was Watergate a Democratic coup?

Monday, August 27, 2018

Because so many prominent Democrats are comparing the current situation with President Trump to what happened in the early 1970s with then President Nixon, you have to wonder if the original Watergate was as authentic as history pretends it to be.

The investigation prompted by the so-called reporting Woodward and Bernstein eventually led a very liberal media then to bring down an unpopular Republican president – paving the way eventually for the election of a Democratic president in 1976 and control of the Congress in the 1974 midterm elections.

Was Watergate actually a political coup by the Democrats, and one so successful, media and the Democrats have decided to use the same model to unseat Trump?

Were Woodward and Bernstein ordered to go after Nixon much the way Washington Post reporters appear to be ordered to go after Trump today?

Is there a reason Steven Spielberg decided to make a propaganda film “The Post” as a reminder of that passed success story?

Perhaps it is too much to believe that the Democrats then were smart enough to come up with a scheme as clever as that one would be if indeed, media and the Democratic Party conspired to over throw the presidency just as they appear to be doing today.

Contemporary Democrats clearly used the intelligence services while Obama was president to build the foundation of this conspiracy, although in truth, the Russian conspiracy is too much of a joke for anyone but dump Democrats to believe, a lot like the exploding cigar scam the CIA once plotted to embarrass Fidel Castro.

But the new Watergate scandal seems so much like the old Watergate that you have to wonder if like the scandal of today, the old Watergate wasn’t something of a fabrication made up in some Democratic think tank and carried out by a biased media pretending to be objective even then.

As now, ownership of the Washington Post in 1972 was questionable, a woman who had deep political ties to the Democratic Party, a power player who like the Post of today thought she had the ability and even the right to dictate who should be president. Did she and her editor cohorts order Woodword and Bernstein to go after Nixon in the same way the owners of the Post today appear to be telling its reporters to do?

Media has always served as a vehicle for revolution, whether it is the legitimate kind of 1776 or the more questionable kinds we got in Russia in 1917 or the one in Germany in the late 1920s, creating a climate of phony legitimacy so that the real power brokers and seize power, and brainwashing the general public into believing the takeover was justified.

Watergate was one of the most horrendous misuse of power by a president in recent memory, but only because the players got caught. As the Pentagon Papers show, such behavior is common in both parties in modern times, and far worse before we had serious public scrutiny.

So, with media clearly out of control, and biased, you have to wonder if the Washington Post and The New York Times of the 1970s were doing much the same as they are now in setting the stage for a political coup. Bernstein has been public calling the Trump situation “worse than Watergate,” and while he and Woodword have become the patron saints of a corrupt media, the question lingers were they doing the political dirty work back then that their contemporaries today are doing?

Was Watergate something media and Democrats go away with so successfully then that they now think they can replicate it again. Why let a good scheme go to waste?

So, this begs the question: What did Woodword and Bernstein know and when did they know it?

resume

A history lesson for statue-stealing radical bigots

 From "Confessions of a Racist"

August 11, 2018

We live with myths not reality

This is why so many people these days believe they can recreate the past and get away with it, such as endowing sainthood on people like Lincoln upon whose hands drips the blood of 650,000 Americans, violations of civil rights, ignoring the Constitution, and the detaining of tens of thousands simply because they came from or professed sympathy for the South.

History as better people have said before is written by the victorious and so winning can justify mass slaughter since the ultimate result was the preservation of the union and the myth of the freeing of slaves

Yet it seems clear that war -- especially total war as it was waged-- was not necessary to free the slaves and so Lincoln appears to have operated more on the principle of protecting Northern Industrial interest. In fact, it appears that many in the Republican party did not want the slaves set free, fearing they would move north and take jobs held then by white people.

Even Lincoln seem to have other plans for the slave when he eventually set them free, which appears to be shipping them all back to Africa if so then the slaves lucked out when Booth put a bullet in Lincoln's head.

Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis and Lincoln largely agreed on the fact that if slavery was left alone, it would die out in the South as it had in the North – if, according to Lincoln, slavery was contained to the states in which existed and not expanded to new states. Free blacks already worked as laborers in the border states and the South actually had twice as many societies to do away with slavery as the north did.

This was right up until the uprising in Haiti that resulted in the slaughter of 80,000 whites and the rape and beating of countless others.

But even this only slowed the progress of freeing slaves. Tt was Turner and his uprising in the states that finally put the South on a different path as the South feared more uprisings. It passed laws to prohibit the education of blacks, laws that Stonewall Jackson ignored as he continued to educate slaves on how to read and write.

But the real and most lasting damage to the reform movements in the South came with John Brown, when the wacko abolitionists in the north turned Brown, a murderer, into a hero. This put the South firmly on the wrong side of history since it became clear that the peaceful and loving an abolitionist movement of the north would not be satisfied with anything less than massive bloodshed. This reflect many current and similar trends today and became the driving force behind Lincoln's policies even though Lincoln refused at first to free the slaves as the abolitionists wanted.

Despite the rhetoric by the wackos today who insist on tearing down Confederate statues few if any dispute that slavery was wrong.

Robert E Lee called it “a great evil.” Jefferson Davis insisted the Confederate Constitution outlaw new shipments of slaves.

The issue was not whether or not slavery should be abolished, but how and when, and whether or not those who owned slaves should be allowed to bring them to future states out west, thus expanding slavery beyond the South.

Until the annexation of Texas, and the Missouri Compromise, slavery was largely contained to the south. United States Congress was evenly split between northern and southern states. But new states were coming into the union and the South feared that if the north prohibited the spread of slave states to the West, the north would gain votes in Congress and then impose even more economic hardships on the south that the north already had.

Many of the radicals of today who are tearing down statues claim the civil war was fought to free the slaves. But in reality, it was a conflict over economic philosophy. The federal government was reaping massive profits off the south by imposing high tariffs on raw materials the south sent north. About 60 percent of the federal revenue came from these tariffs. At the same time, northern industrialists were making a fortune off the manufacture of finished goods that they sold back to the south at unreasonable rates – a practice that helped motivate the original 13 colonies when Great Britain did the same thing.

Although the south was largely an agricultural economy, it had begun to see a growth in its own industrial base – prompting fears that north that exploited immigrants with near starvation wages could not compete with the south using slaves for the same jobs.

But by far the biggest issue leading to the war is the same issue was face today as the vastly over populated north with its abolitionists then and liberals today attempt to use the federal government to impose its will on the smaller communities of the south.

This is largely the liberal left tried to do in the 2016 when it exploited its large populations in the city and tried to impose liberal values onto small conservative towns in rural America, New York and San Francisco trying to shove down the throats of little down America their perception of what the world should be. In pre-Civil War days, it was a pack of abolitionists and northern industrialists trying to force the south to live by standards the north established, while the South defended the concept of state’s rights. Northern abolitionist and liberals wanted to be able to set the standards by which the rest of the nation lived and smaller communities of the South much as the smaller communities that voted for Trump rebelled and ultimately these states seceded from the Union.

The great question of the Civil War was not whether slavery was legal or illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court had already determined it was legal; the big question did the much more populous states of the north have the right to use the federal government to impose their will on the smaller populated states in the South, and whether Hamilton and his ilk after the American revolution had violated the spirit of the Constitution in an attempt to steal rights granted to the states and allow the federal government to override those states’ rights.

Ironically, the 2016 election showed those small communities banding together to resist the same conditions that led to the American Civil War, frustrating liberal cities powers they had obtained through massive bloodshed.

This loss of power by liberal cities is largely the motivation for tearing down Confederate statutes and other atrocities committed by radicals who claim they are operating in the interest of African-Americans and other minorities.

Trump's election helped undo some of the victories the Abolitionist and other liberal radicals of the north thought they had won in the Civil War and has the potential to reversed some of the trends that we have seen in the nation towards a super powerful federal government imposing its rights on States.

One of the other huge unanswered questions at the beginning of the Civil War focused on whether the states had the right to leave the Union as they believe they did when the founding fathers set up the US Constitution.

Lincoln opposed this even though he approved of it in other instances such as when Texas seceded from Mexico or when West Virginia seceded from Virginia. This inconsistency is something the South points out frequently since the war appears to have been a matter of convenience not of necessity.

But even after secession the South might have avoided war since Lincoln said he would not send Union troops into the South unless the South attacked first. But then Lincoln provoke the South into attacking by refusing to close Fort Sumter, one of two forts left in Union hands in the south after secession and continued to charge tariffs on ships coming out of the South’s largest harbor at Charleston. Had the South restrained itself and avoided other predictable provocations Lincoln might have thrown at them, American might have avoided the butchery of 650,000 people, and evil slavery might have collapsed under its own weight as the under industrialized South had to come to grips with modern economic reality.

The attack on Fort Sumter gave Lincoln the excuse to wage war on the south – total war in which civilians became targets as well as the military, acts of aggression General Lee refused to engage in,

Eventually the northern total War became the model for how the union with late deal with Native Americans.

Many people claim Lincoln's election prompted the succession, which it did. Lincoln won in 1860 with only 40 percent of the popular vote and like Trump became president partly because of an overwhelming majority of the Electoral College a sore Point among Democrats who were expecting to see Clinton elected over Trump in 2016.

resume

John McCain: hero or heal?

Sunday, August 26, 2018

They say that before you die you see your life pass before you.

This apparently is something true for John McCain, his life coming up as something rather empty despite all the accolades, an angry man in the end who despised Trump not because of politics or even because he suddenly found faith in the Democratic agenda but because Trump stripped him of his one great accomplishment in life: being a hero.

This is the motivation that turned him away from the right-wing agenda and began him down the wrong path towards the exact opposite of everything he stood for in this life. John McCain was willing to throw overboard everything that he so-called believed in in order to get even with Trump for that remark during a campaign when Trump said he was not a hero.

No remark hit to the heart so much as that one did since being the hero in Vietnam, being a prisoner and surviving, was at the core of his existence and without it, having it stripped away from his legacy McCain largely is nothing.

Trump was wrong; McCain is a hero.

The unfortunate part is that McCain became less of a hero as he sought vengeance against Trump by selling out his soul to the Democrats as the appropriate or inappropriate revenge.

Perhaps deep in his sickness, perhaps fear of eternal damnation, McCain began to believe his own fantasy, that maybe he had been on the wrong side all the long his bitterness against Trump becoming an elusive illusion of reform, trying to take back what he stood for decades, a deathbed confession that undid his real legacy and ultimately made him less of a hero than he once was -- except to his bitterest enemies, the Democrats, who when he betrayed his party, became a hero of sorts the way Benedict Arnold did to the British because Democrats hated Trump more.

It is difficult to know where McCain's soul will end up or how history will reflect his legacy since he is on the cusp of being both hero and scapegoat, someone who in final days found salvation in a belief based on his bitter hatred of Trump.

Media, of course, glorifies McCain today because media hates Trump as much as McCain did and anyone who is an enemy of an enemy is media's friend, regardless of whether he or she is right or wrong.

I feel sorry for McCain because by taking back all he stood for in his life, he ultimately stood for nothing, a sad bitter man who on his deathbed revised everything, the way a madman rewrites his will to get even with family he can no longer stand, making new friends of old enemies who really aren't his friends at all.

resume

Statues, bullets and BS

(from Confessions of a Racist)

Saturday, August 25, 2018

At a time when the radical left seems bound and determined to provoke conservatives into violence, they appear to also be bound and determined to disarm them.

The terrifying thing about radical Democrat movement is how closely it resembles the abolitionist movement prior to the American Civil War.

We live in in a time when there are too many similarities to pre-civil war United States when Radical Republicans then or abolitionist pushed the agenda to go to war.

Today, we have radical Democrats who appear to be trying to strip not only statues but guns from the hands of the people they want to overthrow.

This is a terrifying concept at a time when it appears that the Democrats have taken control of most major media and have conspire to overthrow a government they do not approve of.

The removal of statues is a kind of ethnic cleansing that strongly resembles what was done during the time of the Soviet or Nazi Empires, and the strategies to disarm the public seems so similar to the disarming of Jewish and other minority populations during that time, it becomes scary.

The statue controversy has radicals destroying a history they don’t like, and which appears as racist in nature as what these radicals seem to be protesting against. Instead of seeing a colorless society in which all people are seen as equal, or to respect differences of opinions, the new radical movement seems bound and determined to reverse roles and to become the whip wielding masters they claim to despise.

The war between the states these days, however, is much more than just about race, also the left appears to be using similar strategies in its attempt to seize power, and like Lincoln’s war for unification, they are even willing to exploit immigrants and use them as cannon fodder.

This idea that they want to tear down the past, erase all memory of it, and disarm those people who might defend it, further harkens back to the war of Northern aggression (as the south calls it) in which radicals want to impose their self-righteous politically correct view on other people.

If you believe this comes out of ignorance, then I have a couple of bridges to sell you. These moves are as well calculated as any chess game.

As many Union generals understood going into the Civil War, this is ignorance, it's arrogance and the same arrogance that played the abolitionists now play the radical left as it tries to grab power and impose its world view on other people, denying those who still celebrate the real heroes of the confederacy their right to do so, labeling anyone who opposes them or their tactics as racists – which, of course, is the most effective way to do away with free speech.

The scariest thing is how well this power grab of Government resembles tactics used by Soviets and other despot revolutions in which they take control of media first so that mainstream media delivers largely the same message -- the way the Washington Post New York Times, LA Times, The Hill, The Washington Examiner do, all appearing to have the same source – some Democratic think tank,

Corrupt media is nothing new. We have simple changed the name from things like yellow journalism to fake news to reflect simply skewed reporting. But how modern times different from the past is that media has been taken over by corporate conglomerates so that things like the LA Times and the Tribune can take over the Daily News and turn it into a left-wing propaganda machine. So ultimately, major media becomes the primary source of what we call fake news.

It is always been a dictate of dictators to control media first and then keep the message on target. This is why so many of the stories coming out of the premier news organizations seem to sound the same as if written by a democratic think tank.

Part of it is laziness, reporters accepting what pontificating politicians hand them without checking the facts, but much of it becomes policy, a conspiracy by an elite that has tied itself to a particular party for a particular purpose, in some cases, such as with the larger newspapers, to defend its own turf as power player.

This concept that we are watching radicals teardown history in order to erase it is so Soviet like it is terrifying to watch because it reflects very much a radical past in which modern abolitionists seem to be adopting the same philosophy as their pre-Civil War counter parts who were willing to spill other people’s blood for their own political objectives.

Controlling the press, destroying icons of another culture -- a kind of ethnic cleansing, and disarming people suggest a kind of left-wing fascism that should alarm any historian but appears not to disturb those politically correct institutions that seem to be promoting this new Abolitionist Movement.

So, if it is true that people who erase history or choose to forget it are destined to repeat it then the road we are now going down will lead to bloodshed and not peace and once again the new radical left will be largely responsible.

resume

The plot to overthrow Trump

August 22, 2018

A lot of crazy people in the media as screaming the word “impeachment” again now that Mad Dog Mueller allegedly found a connection between Trump and the Democratic fabricated Russian conspiracy to rig the 2016 election.

Media and Democrats just don’t know when to give up. It’s like they are on LSD and believe everything they think they see.

Mueller, who has to earn his Democratic pay check, is bound and determined to find something, even if he has to make it up, and so is counting on testimony from a former Trump associate, Cohen, who is desperate to stay out of jail and claims he can give Mueller the evidence he wants.

This is classic arm twisting the feds usually reserve for mafia dons, finding some pathetic worm to turn so that they can get the big boss – and don’t care if the testimony is true, just as long as a jury (in this case voters going to the polls in November) buy the lie long enough to get a conviction.

Mueller’s job is to bring the GOP to its knees ahead of election, and he is so in bed with the Democrats it’s a wonder he doesn’t wake up in the morning with something far worse than fleas.

This is all part of a political coup, an effort to overthrow a legitimately elected government because whiny Democrats didn’t like the outcome, blaming the Electoral College for Hillary’s loss. Like the whackos that are ripping down flags and statues, these whiners clearly know nothing of history, or forgot that Lincoln won an Electoral College landslide in 1860 with only 40 percent of the popular vote.

Trump’s problem isn’t the Russians, but former employees (as well as romantic interests) who clearly are willing to sell their story to a salacious press. People like Stormy Daniels, who is nothing more than a prostitute dressed up as something else, merits media attention only because they need people like her to bring down people like Trump, and will dump her back in the trash from which she came once they are through.

This is all very Shakespearian, a struggle for power, greedy, greasy fingers of media hoping to hand over the throne to the prince or princess of their choice, willing to do anything, say anything, print anything to accomplish it, walking out from back stage with blood dripping from their fingers.

There is nothing clean about a power grab, as the 2000 election showed, and we are watching a similar political drama as power brokers in the media and the Democratic party try to play public sentiment the way Nero played his fiddle.

What we are seeing is an attempt by the Democrats and media to overthrow the government and replace it with a tyrant of their own choosing, trying to avoid the massive bloodshed similar power brokers caused when starting the Civil War a century and half ago.

Only instead of radical Republican instigating the conflict, we have radical Democrats pushing the nation towards violent upheaval because they lack candidates who can represent “all of the people all of the time.”

We are once again watching democracy unravel as totally misnamed Democrats seek to regain control of government, resorting to many of the same tactics and hyperbole as the one-time abolitionists used, even to the point of using immigrants as cannon fodder the way Lincoln did to suppress the South.

The Democrats hope to do to Trump when they did to Nixon, and it will be curious as to how they will get rid of Pence, who is far more dangerous to their cause than Trump could ever be. In the 1970s, Democrats managed to get rid of Nixon’s vice president so that they could get to an acceptable Republican they could live with temporarily as president.

Of course, the current strategy would have them retake the House of Representatives and then try to unseat Trump and Pence, allowing the Democratic speaker of the House to become the president – the way Republican Ford became president when Nixon and his vice president were removed.

This is a huge gamble. But even if the Democrats fail to win the House, they set the state for the 2020 election when they will face a weakened GOP candidate much the way Jimmy Carter faced a weakened Ford in 1976.

So media and Mueller keep churning up the fires in order to stir up the voters for what may be the Democrats last real chance to retake control of the government – at least, without violence.

resume

When good guys are bad guys

(from Confessions of a Racist)

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

How evil is evil that hides behind the mask of good, as the relentless hordes of pitchfork-carrying crusaders and anti-Confederate protest signs act as savage as the people they profess to oppose?

The Abolitionist of pre-Civil War inspired the hate of even the most sympathetic in the north because of their relentless call for war and bloodshed, so filled with mean-spiritedness they seemed more publicly evil as they great evil they claimed to oppose.

We see this in the contemporary abolitionists waging a new civil war in places like Charlottesville, where in their passive aggressive campaign, they provoke the most outrageous of their enemies to violence – not looking at all like the heroes that marched with Martin Luther King, but like the bombmaking radicals that blew themselves up in New York, hapless, mindless, ignorant fools who either never read real history or took on faith what their slanted professors told them about what happened in the past, and so justify their own misbehavior with deluded self-righteousness.

These fools are not completely to blame. They are largely puppets to a political organization that pulls their strings, organizes and pays for their protests, and then claims these things are spontaneous when they are not, using media the way Abbie Hoffman did to imply there is public support for their cause when all they do is cause trouble.

Politicians take to the street when they have no real power, and try to imply they have, and this is problematic for media – which has in the past laid claim to making and breaking of political figures they do not like.

Media and protestors follow a carefully laid out script, a campaign for a war waged without the slaughter of Irish, but leave a landscape strewn with dead good intentions, a war that leaves more than just statues laying on the ground, filled with hatred that so-called good guys profess as outrage. These armies stamp and stomp to some whispered command from some hidden political general, showing just how unreal all these players are, the herky jerky movement from the pulled puppet strings to the dishonest diatribes of a media empire trying to regain importance, but showing how more and more impotent and unimportant we have become.

Protestors now drink a different kind of Kool Aid, one laced with a different kind of poison, that kills common sense and makes for the mob rule Gen. Sherman always saw Abolitionists as, proving that a history unlearned is a history repeated, and the war that the north waged to destroy the south still continues simply because the south they imagine did not and does not exist, and the south that exists will continue to resist continued attempts to humiliate them – frustrating the puppets and the puppet masters alike.

resume

Stupid people tearing statues down

(from Confessions of a Racist)

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

The brain dead are back at tearing down statues again, the over-educated grad students who learned nothing about history and are determined to make certain nobody else learns anything about history either – which would show just how stupid these statue-raping people are.

They like pulling down images of people that they think represented the worst of the confederate slave state, hating Davis, Lee or Stonewall because some professor somewhere told them these were people worth hating, while praising people like Lincoln, Grant or Sherman for freeing the slaves.

These modern-day abolitionists are as bad as the original brand, who made heroes out of monsters like John Brown and Nat Turner, and liars like Harriet Beecher Stowe (who made slaves seem as stupid as the abolitionist were).

This new breed who comes in a variety of idiotic names would make heroes of Sherman, who burned down the south in vengeance not much different from the self-righteousness hatred these people display today, or Grant – whose idea of war was to butcher thousands of Irishman in a North Korean-Chinese-like attack, knowing that there were plenty of more Irishman where those came from, and not so many Johnny rebs, bringing to the south a total war that was merely Dresden or Nagasaki in slow motion.

These statue-haters make heroes of villains and villains of noble men, because they are too stupid, lazy or arrogant to pick up a history book and see just who they are tearing down – Lee and Davis who both hated slavery as much as the north professed to – and leaving statues up to people like Sherman who hated the abolitionists and wanted the slaves to stay slaves, but hated the rebels more.

Lee, who freed his slaves before and during the war, Davis, who did the same, torn down and smeared by fools with empty-headed college degrees from which they learned nothing.

There should be a statute of limitations on this kind of thing, a point in which later generations stop paying reparations for the crimes their ancestors committed.

But the statue butchery isn’t about slavery at all. It is about radical Democrats (These used to be Radical Republicans in Lincoln’s day) making white people pay for having elected Donald Trump as president, and the refusal of the confederate then and now to kneel down and beg for forgiveness from radicals who murdered 650,000 Americans in a war that never should have been waged, radicals who hated these statues and flags because they are not symbols of slavery, but of resistance to what the south still calls a war of northern aggression.

I guess these stupid people don’t tear down Sherman’s statues or make Grant pay for the waves of Irish he sent into the mouth of confederate canons, because someone, somewhere on the northern side had to actually be as noble as those who fought for the south – I mean besides the Union generals that either told their troops or overlooked their raping of southern women, taking bribes from southern farmers to not burn their crops and such.

So these idiots who tear down statues of Lee, but leave Sherman’s standing, a general who burned down the south, not to free the slaves he hated or to feed the blood lust of the abolitionists he hated, but because he was a soldier and that’s what soldiers did. He even hated the democracy he fought to preserve, believing (as might be proved by those who now tear down statues) that it is nothing but mob rule. His war was to preserve order, not to free slaves he hoped would remain slaves, and would likely be on the side of the statues today, if he were alive to see just how these radicals trash the democracy is war saved.

resume

email to Al Sullivan