7 Layer Loser of the Month...Uhhh, Make That Year!

Lois Lerner

Lois Lerner sent out a rather odd email rant about Abe Lincoln last year; “Look my view is that Lincoln was our worst president not our best. He should [have] let the south go,” Lerner wrote in response to a friend who disparaged Texas as a “pathetic” state in an email exchange dated March 6, 2014. (http://thehill.com/policy/finance/250573-lois-lerner-lincoln-was-our-worst-president-not-our-best)

In response, Tom Metzger, leader of the Aryan Nation said he was "Deeply embarrassed," by "being shown up" by such a "lightweight, amateur bigot."

The really funny thing about this is that such views are NOT at all rare among white "progessives," just as vehemently racist anti-Asian and anti-white views are hardly uncommon among "progressive" blacks.

I KNOW this because I'm not only a lifelong Democrat in New York City, but my Dad's family has long Tammany Hall roots.

I am intimately familiar with the liberal/progressive mindset.

The fact is that the Republicans BEGAN as the abolitionist Party. The Democrats of that day were diehard anti-abolitionists. Then the Dems ushered in the Jim Crow era, that started under Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson...a Democrat.

When Jim Crow was finally overturned, it was Democrats who instituted the modern welfare state that has enslaved America's poor of ALL backgrounds on a dependency plantation. So, in that regard, Lois Lerner is hardly out of step with today's progressive agenda.

But many "progressives" STILL don't seem to get it. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee said, “So, Ms. Lerner’s husband voted for a socialist, she is a Democrat, she supports same-sex marriage, and she apparently doesn’t have a lot of Republican supporters among her family or friends. What is all of this supposed to prove?”

What does it prove?

Well, Karl Marx himself was an inveterate bigot (http://www.amazon.com/Karl-Marx-racist-Nathaniel-Weyl/dp/0870004484/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1439131308&sr=8-1&keywords=Karl+Marx+racist), so Lerner's pro-slavery views and her opinion about Lincoln are NOT at all inconsistent with modern "progressivism," nor with the foundations of modern "socialism."

The fact is, the American Civil War was a tragic error and those who claim the South fought for America's ORIGINAL Constitution were absolutely correct and that's coming from a New Yorker whose father's ancestors came over just before the Civil War and we're pressed into service in the Union Army in that war.

On the part of the North, and unbeknownst to most of those who fought it, that war was fought solely for the benefit of a gaggle of bankers (BOTH national, the Morgan's, Rokefeller's, Baruch's, Warburg's, etc. & international, the Rothschild's etc.).

The great Republican abolitionist Lysander Spooner famously said, "On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

"No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle - but only in degree - between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

"Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that - in theory, at least, if not in practice - our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.

"If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown."

Lysander Spooner saw that the North had, "Won the war, but lost the peace" after Lincoln's death.

HOWEVER, secession was not the right way to go....the South SHOULD HAVE been able to rally enough freedom lovers and supporters of America's original Constitution in the North and out West to have been able to have undermined and strangled that bankster Corporatism in its crib.

America would have very possibly been re-colonized had the Union NOT been preserved by Lincoln.