HAVE A JOYFUL & BLESSED CHRISTMAS

DEMOCRAT CONNECTION WITH ISIL (ISIS)

INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY- ISIL (ISIS) & DEMOCRATS

Russian military intelligence analysts discovered a “beyond staggering” plot by United States and Turkish government factions to bring down Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan and replace him with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) “designated figurehead” Fethullah Gulen—while at the same time utilizing Islamic State terrorists as “leverage”

According to this report, this “beyond staggering” plot by the CIA to overthrow the current government of Turkey was first started in 2008 by the US military-intelligence establishment supported think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) whose board members are a “whose who” of American military connected individuals, including former US Vice President Richard Cheney, and whose research papers advocated the United States creating what they call a “moderate Muslim” majority in the Middle East to battle Islamic extremists and whose target nation for this action was Turkey.

Aiding this CIA in this effort, this report continues, is the Turkish imam Fethullah Gulen who came to the United States in 1999 due to “health problems” and has stayed there since after gaining his visa with help from former CIA officials.

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), however, this report notes, resisted granting permanent residency status to Gulen and, according to secret US leaked cables [Warning: It is illegal under US law for US federal employees or military personal to click on these red links], parts of the American government have long believed that Gülen “is a ‘radical Islamist’ whose moderate message cloaks a more sinister and radical agenda.”

Shortly after the CIA got Gulen into the United States, this report further explains, President Erdogan established in Turkey the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in 2001 as the “moderate Muslim” platform desired by the AEI to effectuate change throughout the entire Middle East using part of Gulen’s massive wealth estimated to be between $22-50 billion.

In 2013 though, this report continues, then Prime Minister Erdogan discovered the CIA-Gulen plot against himself and Turkey which he publically labeled as an “international conspiracy” vowing revenge on Gulen and threatening Francis Ricciardone, the US ambassador to Turkey, with expulsion.

Fearing their “moderate Muslim” project would be destroyed, this report grimly states, the CIA then transferred out of Turkey “selected” military and intelligence officers, before Erdogan could arrest them, to Iraq—and where on 8 April 2013 Under The Obama Administration they declared themselves to be the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS/Daesh/Islamic State).

With Gulen being described as nothing more than the projection of an idea from Langley Virginia CIA headquarters, an idea from essentially stupid people there who believed they could use him and they could abuse religion as a cover to advance their design for global control, this report continues, a duel arrangement was then brokered by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton between the Erdogan and Gulen factions in Turkey to split the illegal oil wealth captured by Islamic State terrorists in Iraq and Syria—and which Hillary Clinton has been paid by Gulen, to both her families foundation and presidential campaign, an estimated $1 million.

As the MoD began just hours ago publishing the details “of Turkey robbing its neighbors”, this report notes, the continued mounting evidence of this massive CIA plot is now being openly supported by the Obama regime who announced yesterday they were sending more American troops to Iraq to protect their Islamic State allies—and which Iraq’s Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, said were not welcome and whose powerful Shiite militia leaders vowed to kill the moment they set foot on Iraqi soil.

And with the MoD today reporting that 2,000 fighters, 250 vehicles and hundreds of tons of ammo have been sent in the past weeks from Turkey to Islamic terrorists in Syria, this report grimly states, Britain’s plan to enter this war, along with NATO rushing air defense weapons to Turkey, more than make understandable US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s warning to the American people yesterday about the Obama regimes actions when she said:

“Russia’s installation of their anti-aircraft missile-defense system increases that possibility of — whether it’s intentional or even an accidental event — where one side may shoot down the other side’s plane, and that’s really where the potential is for this devastating nuclear war.”.............

Also, this report notes, as National Defense Management Center Lieutenant-General Mikhail Mizintsev today stated that the size of the illegal Erdogan-CIA-Gulen oil trade is impressive, and more information will be presented about it next week, Russian airstrikes have nevertheless destroyed 32 Islamic State oil production facilities, 11 refineries, and thousands of fuel trucks leaving MoD experts to wonder about whom the exactly the Obama and regime and its allies are going to attack and questioning their true motives.

This is critical point to note, this report says, especially when viewed in the light of international law where Russia is the only military force currently to allowed to be operating in Syria, and which US Defense Secretary Ash Carter admitted to yesterday before the US Congress when he acknowledge that the claim of legal authority to make such a deployment under the terms of the 2001 legislation that authorized the use of military force (AUMF) in Afghanistan and Iraq (the only such congressional authorization on the books) did not exist to send American military forces into this war zone.

With the Iraqi government already knowing that the Obama regime is supporting the Islamic State, and having videos showing US military forces dropping weapons and supplies to these terrorists, this report continues, the “true agenda” of the CIA’s plan to install Gulen in power is there for anyone to see if they so wished.

But to what the Obama regimes “true agenda” actually is, this report claims, may to be to actually ignite World War III—particularly when seen by the evidence that the over 14,000 Islamic refugees reported completely vanished by Sweden have, in fact, been transported to the United States—most specially to the more than 100 radical Islamic charter schools owned and operated by “King of Madrasas” Gulen in the United States set up by a maze of dubious NGO’s—including George Soros’ Center for American Progress NGO which joined with Gulen, and which after this “beyond staggering” plot was discovered this past week caused Russia to label George Soros as threat to national security.

And as to how these over 14,000 Islamic refugees in Sweden were able to gain Swedish passports to assure their visa free travel to the United States, this report further explains, began this past spring when Margot Wallström, Sweden’s foreign minister, became the first Western official to publically denounce the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia—and which aside from being met with the vast and powerful US-led propaganda machine used by this barbaric monarchy, also resulted in Sweden’s “surrender” thus giving the Saudi’s de facto veto power over Sweden's foreign policy -- and perhaps its domestic policies too.

To what exact purpose the Obama regime has in secreting these over 14,000 Islamic refugees into the United States, this report concludes, can, perhaps, be seen more clearly in the massive military actions currently underway in America (specifically in the regions occupied by Gulen charter schools), and when combined with the actions currently being observed in the Middle East, shows a nation preparing for total global war.

‪#‎WakeUpAmerica‬ ‪#‎ExposeTheTruth‬ Aguila Freedom

December 2, 2015 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL - IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW! - #2

IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL - IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW!

There is no such thing as an Executive Order in the Constitution.

George Washington was the first to coin the term and use executive orders and they are only legal when ordering someone in the executive branch chain of command. It’s merely a formal way of passing on orders to subordinates. Congress is not a subordinate of the President and neither am I. Treaties or “deals” are not made by executive order or the Constitution would lay out that method. It does not. I am so sick and tired of the rogue Marxist Democratic Anti-American Liberals in government ignoring the Constitution and getting away with it so easily, because they have been successful at dumbing down the public.

IRAN DEAL – "LAWLESS PRESIDENT OBAMA"- OBAMA’S IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW! – PART #01

IRAN DEAL – "LAWLESS PRESIDENT OBAMA"- OBAMA’S IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW! – PART #01

Senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.

At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.

Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.

What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.

Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.

For example, the review act – sponsored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Foreign Relations Committee, and signed into law by President Obama in May – stated that “any measure of statutory sanctions relief” afforded to Iran under the terms of the nuclear deal may only be “taken consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action.” The continued presence of Iran on the State Department’s terror list means that “existing statutory requirements” that were set forth in ITRA, in 2012, have not been met for Iran to receive the sanctions relief spelled out in the JCPOA.

As the Iran deal is an “executive agreement” and not a treaty – and has moreover received no vote of ratification from the Congress, explicit or symbolic – legal analysts inside and outside of the Obama administration have concluded that the JCPOA is vulnerable to challenge in the courts, where federal case law had held that U.S. statutes trump executive agreements in force of law.
Administration sources told Fox News it is the intention of Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran’s foreign minister and five other world powers, that the re-opening of the “foreign sub” loophole by the JCPOA is to be construed as broadly as possible by lawyers for the State Department, the Treasury Department and other agencies involved in the deal’s implementation.

But the apparent conflict between the re-opening of the loophole and existing U.S. law leaves the Obama administration with only two options going forward. The first option is to violate ITRA, and allow foreign subsidiaries to be treated differently than U.S. parent firms. The second option is to treat both categories the same, as ITRA mandated – but still violate the section of ITRA that required Iran’s removal from the State Department terror list as a pre-condition of any such licensing.

It would also renege on the many promises of senior U.S. officials to keep the broad array of American sanctions on Iran in place. Chris Backemeyer, who served as Iran director for the National Security Council from 2012 to 2014 and is now the State Department’s deputy coordinator for sanctions policy, told POLITICO last month “there will be no real sanctions relief of our primary embargo….We are still going to have sanctions on Iran that prevent most Americans from…engaging in most commercial activities.”

Likewise, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last month, Adam Szubin, the acting under secretary of Treasury for terrorism and financial crimes, described Iran as “the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism” and said existing U.S. sanctions on the regime “will continue to be enforced….U.S. investment in Iran will be prohibited across the board.”

Nominated to succeed his predecessor at Treasury, Szubin appeared before the Senate Banking Committee for a confirmation hearing the day after his speech to the Washington Institute. At the hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) asked the nominee where the Obama administration finds the “legal underpinnings” for using the JCPOA to re-open the “foreign sub” loophole.

Szubin said the foreign subsidiaries licensed to do business with Iran will have to meet “some very difficult conditions,” and he specifically cited ITRA, saying the 2012 law “contains the licensing authority that Treasury would anticipate using…to allow for certain categories of activity for those foreign subsidiaries.”

Elsewhere, in documents obtained by Fox News, Szubin has maintained that a different passage of ITRA, Section 601, contains explicit reference to an earlier law – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, on the books since 1977 – and states that the president “may exercise all authorities” embedded in IEEPA, which includes licensing authority for the president.

However, Section 601 is also explicit on the point that the president must use his authorities from IEEPA to “carry out” the terms and provisions of ITRA itself, including Section 218 – which mandated that, before this form of sanctions relief can be granted, Iran must be removed from the State Department’s terror list.

Nothing in the Congressional Record indicates that, during debate and passage of ITRA, members of Congress intended for the chief executive to use Section 601 to overturn, rather than “carry out,” the key provisions of his own law.

One administration lawyer contacted by Fox News said the re-opening of the loophole reflects circular logic with no valid legal foundation. “It would be Alice-in-Wonderland bootstrapping to say that [Section] 601 gives the president the authority to restore the foreign subsidiary loophole – the exact opposite of what the statute ordered,” said the attorney, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations over implementation of the Iran deal.

At the State Department on Thursday, spokesman John Kirby told reporters Secretary Kerry is “confident” that the administration “has the authority to follow through on” the commitment to re-open the foreign subsidiary loophole.

“Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president has broad authorities, which have been delegated to the secretary of the Treasury, to license activities under our various sanctions regimes, and the Iran sanctions program is no different,” Kirby said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the G.O.P. presidential candidate who is a Harvard-trained lawyer and ardent critic of the Iran deal, said the re-opening of the loophole fits a pattern of the Obama administration enforcing federal laws selectively.

“It’s a problem that the president doesn’t have the ability wave a magic wand and make go away,” Cruz told Fox News in an interview. “Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn’t go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law.”

A spokesman for the Senate Banking Committee could not offer any time frame as to when the committee will vote on Szubin’s nomination.

James Rosen joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 1999. He currently serves as the chief Washington correspondent and hosts the online show "The Foxhole."
Via FoxNews Special Reports
‪#‎iranDeal‬ ‪#‎NoToIran‬ ‪#‎StopIranNow‬ ‪#‎WakeUpAmerica‬‪#‎TakingBackAmerica‬ ‪#‎WakeTheHellUpAmerica‬ @AguilaFreedom

GUN CONTROL LAWS – [VIDEO]- ANY GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF ANY OFFICIALS OATH OF OFFICE

GUN CONTROL LAWS – [VIDEO]- ANY GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF ANY OFFICIALS OATH OF OFFICE – STOP THE LIBERAL ANTI-AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC MARXIST THUGS FROM VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

RUSSIA IN SYRIA- FMR AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N. JOHN BOLTON HAS THE ANSWER

RUSSIA IN SYRIA- FMR AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N. JOHN BOLTON HAS THE ANSWER

Simple.... Frank and Direct To The Point, Former U.S. Ambassador To The United Nations Says... 

"Power In The Region Is Passing From Our Hands To The Russians" And Goes On To Say What Should Be Said Is.... "We The U.S. Have A 62 Nation Coalition And Want Russian Planes Grounded Or Out Of There... We The U.S. Is In Control Of The Airspace Over Syria, You Will Fly When We Let You Fly, If We let You Fly At All.... And If You Come Up In The Face Of That Then Any Incident In The Air Is Your Responsibility"

I FULLY AGREE WITH THIS

GET RUSSIA OUT NOW!

BLACK LIVES MATTER - RACISM – CONFEDERATE FLAG & THE TRUTH THE LIBERALS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!

BLACK LIVES MATTER - RACISM – CONFEDERATE FLAG & THE TRUTH THE LIBERALS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!

STOP THE “LIBERAL REVISIONIST HISTORY”! - KNOW THE FACTS!
DEMOCRATS “LIBERALS”…. ARE AGAIN TWISTING HISTORICAL FACTS REGARDING THE CONFEDERATE FLAG!

KNOW THE FACTS FIRST!!! So here is a brief American history about the Democrats, Republicans and Racism for you.

The liberals (Democrats) are trying to bait the conservative (Republicans) into a senseless debate on the use of the Confederate flag in South Carolina. But for the clueless and ignorant, THE CONFEDERATE FLAG IS A DEMOCRAT BATTLE FLAG IN THE SOUTH THAT FOUGHT THE NORTHERN REPUBLICANS FOR SLAVERY. THE DEMOCRATS WERE PRO-SLAVERY AND REPUBLICANS WERE ANTI-SLAVERY. It was a Republican president (Abe Lincoln) that abolished slavery. A Democrat then founded KKK (Klu Klux Klan) that became a Democrat social club meant to intimidate black and white Republicans. It was the Democrats that created Jim Crow (segregation) and blocked the Republican efforts to grant citizenship to blacks. So if you hear of Democrats accusing the Republicans of racism, they are twisting facts and using demagoguery TO GET VOTES from the uninformed and clueless though racism is not a monopoly of a certain party, race, culture and religion. There are always racists among us in the world. Barack Obama and Al Sharpton are examples of "reversed" racists. Both these two are race-baiters and I've already enumerated before examples of their racism based on their actions.

When history is distorted someone needs to re-post the FACTS…
Because “FACTS REMAIN UNCHANGED”!

The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.

History books, the media, the school systems, etc abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispel some of these rampant inaccuracies.

MYTH - The War of 1861 - 1865 was fought over slavery.

FACT - Terribly Untrue! THE NORTH FOUGHT THE WAR OVER MONEY. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. WHEN THE SOUTH STARTED SECESSION, LINCOLN WAS ASKED, "WHY NOT LET THE SOUTH GO IN PEACE?" TO WHICH HE REPLIED, "I CAN'T LET THEM GO. WHO WOULD PAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT?" SENSING TOTAL FINANCIAL RUIN FOR THE NORTH, LINCOLN WAGED WAR ON THE SOUTH. THE SOUTH FOUGHT THE WAR TO REPEL NORTHERN AGGRESSION AND INVASION.

MYTH - Only Southerners owned slaves!

FACT - Entirely untrue! MANY NORTHERN CIVILIANS OWNED SLAVES. PRIOR TO, DURING AND EVEN AFTER THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION. SURPRISINGLY, TO MANY HISTORY IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS, MOST UNION GENERALS AND STAFF HAD SLAVES TO SERVE THEM! WILLIAM T. SHERMAN HAD MANY SLAVES THAT SERVED HIM UNTIL WELL AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER AND DID NOT FREE THEM UNTIL LATE IN 1865. U.S. GRANT ALSO HAD SEVERAL SLAVES, WHO WERE ONLY FREED AFTER THE 13TH AMENDMENT IN DECEMBER OF 1865. WHEN ASKED WHY HE DIDN'T FREE HIS SLAVES EARLIER, GRANT STATED "GOOD HELP IS SO HARD TO COME BY THESE DAYS. "CONTRARILY, CONFEDERATE GENERAL ROBERT E. LEE FREED HIS SLAVES (WHICH HE NEVER PURCHASED - THEY WERE INHERITED) IN 1862!!! LEE FREED HIS SLAVES SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THE WAR WAS OVER, AND CONSIDERABLY EARLIER THAN HIS NORTHERN COUNTERPARTS. AND DURING THE FIERCE EARLY DAYS OF THE WAR WHEN THE SOUTH WAS OBLITERATING THE YANKEE ARMIES!

Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!

MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag was flown on slave ships.

FACT - NONE OF THE FLAGS OF THE CONFEDERACY OR SOUTHERN NATION EVER FLEW OVER A SLAVE SHIP. NOR DID THE SOUTH OWN OR OPERATE ANY SLAVES SHIPS. THE ENGLISH, THE DUTCH AND THE PORTUGUESE BROUGHT SLAVES TO THIS COUNTRY, NOT THE SOUTHERN NATION.

BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious.

These Federals were ones that ended up crying the loudest about slavery. But without their ships, many of the slaves would have never arrived here. They made countless fortunes on the delivery of slaves as well as the products made from raw materials such as cotton and tobacco in the South.

This is the problem with Yankee History its overwhelmingly portrayed incorrectly by most of the Federal & Yankee books and media.

MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag represented the Southern Nation.

FACT - Not true! WHILE THE SOUTHERN BATTLE FLAG WAS CARRIED INTO BATTLE, THE SOUTHERN NATION HAD 3 DIFFERENT NATIONAL FLAGS DURING THE COURSE OF THE WAR.

THE FIRST NATIONAL FLAG WAS CHANGED DUE TO A RESEMBLANCE OF THE US FLAG.

THE SECOND NATIONAL FLAG WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED DUE TO THE SIMILARITY TO A FLAG OF TRUCE.

THE THIRD NATIONAL FLAG WAS THE ADOPTED FLAG OF THE CONFEDERACY.

The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.

MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the "Stars & Bars".

FACT - A common misconception! THE FIRST NATIONAL CONFEDERATE FLAG IS CORRECTLY KNOWN AS THE "STARS & BARS". THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG IS KNOWN AS THE "SOUTHERN CROSS".

MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag represents racism today.

FACT - THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG TODAY FINDS ITSELF IN THE CENTER OF MUCH CONTROVERSY AND HOOPLA GOING ON IN SEVERAL STATES. THE CRY TO TAKE THIS FLAG DOWN IS UNJUSTIFIED. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG WAS SIMPLY JUST THAT. A BATTLE FLAG. IT WAS NEVER EVEN A NATIONAL FLAG, SO HOW COULD IT HAVE FLOWN OVER A SLAVE NATION OR REPRESENTED SLAVERY OR RACISM? THIS MYTH IS CONTINUED BY LACK OF EDUCATION AND IGNORANCE. THOSE THAT VILIFY THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG ARE VERY CONFUSED ABOUT HISTORY AND HAVE JUMPED UPON A BANDWAGON WITH LOOSE WHEELS.

MYTH – Then, The United States Flag represented freedom.

FACT - No chance. THE US FLAG FLEW OVER A SLAVE NATION FOR OVER 85 YEARS! THE NORTH TOLERATED SLAVERY AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT AS A DIVISION OF LABOR. THE NORTH MADE A VAST FORTUNE ON SLAVERY AND IT'S COMMODITIES. IT WASN'T UNTIL THE SOUTH DECIDED TO LEAVE THE UNION THAT THE NORTH OBJECTED. THE NORTH KNEW IT COULD NOT SURVIVE WITHOUT THE SOUTHERN MONEY. THAT IS THE TRUE DEFINITION OF HYPOCRISY.

MYTH - The South revered slavery.

FACT - A very interesting fact on slavery is that AT THE TIME THE WAR OF 1861 -1865 OFFICIALLY COMMENCED, THE SOUTHERN STATES WERE ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF FREEING ALL SLAVES IN THE SOUTH. RUSSIA HAD FREED IT'S SERVANTS IN 1859, AND THE SOUTH TOOK GREAT NOTE OF THIS. HAD MILITARY INTERVENTION NOT BEEN FORCED UPON THE SOUTH, A VERY DIFFERENT AMERICA WOULD HAVE BEEN REALIZED THEN AS WELL AS NOW.

MYTH - The Confederate Army was comprised of rich slave owners.

FACT - Very far from the truth! THE VAST MAJORITY OF SOLDIERS IN THE CONFEDERATE ARMY WERE SIMPLE MEN OF MEAGER INCOME. MOST OF WHICH WERE HARD WORKING FARMERS AND COMMON MEN. THEN, AS NOW, VERY FEW RICH MEN EVER FIGHT A WAR.

MYTH - Only the North had men of color in their ranks.

FACT - Quite simply a major falsehood of history! MANY BLACKS, BOTH FREE AND OF THEIR OWN WILL, JOINED THE CONFEDERATE ARMY TO FIGHT FOR THEIR BELOVED SOUTHERN HOME. ADDITIONALLY, MEN OF OTHER ETHNIC EXTRACTION FOUGHT AS WELL. ORIENTAL, MEXICAN & SPANISH MEN AS WELL AS NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS FOUGHT WITH PRIDE FOR THE SOUTH.

Today, many men of color are members in the heritage group SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans. These men of color and pride rejoice in their heritage. The continued attacks on the Southern Nation, The Confederacy, and her symbols are a terrible outrage to these fine people. These attacks should be denounced with as much fervor as those who denounce the South.

MYTH - The Confederate Flags are an authorized symbol of Aryan, KKK and hate groups.

FACT - Quite the contrary. These despicable organizations such as the KKK and Aryans have taken a hallowed piece of history, and have plagued good Southern folks and the memories of fine Confederate Soldiers that fought under the flag with their perverse agenda. IN NO WAY does the Confederate Flag represent hate or violence. Heritage groups such as the SCV battle daily the damage done to a proud nation by these hate groups. The SCV denounces all hate groups, and pride fully boast HERITAGE - NOT HATE.

MYTH - The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a racist, hate group.

FACT - This is a blatant attack on one of the finest heritage groups ever! The SCV - SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS ARE A HISTORICAL, PATRIOTIC AND NON-POLITICAL ORGANIZATION COMPRISED OF DESCENDENTS OF CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS AND SAILORS DEDICATED TO INSURING THAT A TRUE HISTORY OF THE 1861 -1865 PERIOD IS PRESERVED AND PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC. THE SCV CONTINUES TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC OF THE MEMORY AND REPUTATION OF THE CONFEDERATE SOLDIER AS WELL AS THE MOTIVES FOR HIS SUFFERING AND SACRIFICE.

The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are in NO WAY affiliated with, nor does it recognize or condone the terrible legacy of hate groups such as the KKK!

BLACK AMERICANS & DEMOCRATS…. “THE LIBERAL VOTE MANIPULATION OF ALL TIME”

It seems NOBODY has the GUTS to say it….. I WILL!
“WHAT THE WICKED LEFT MEDIA…. AND FAR LEFT LIBERAL DEMOCRATS WILL DO AND SAY TO GET YOUR VOTE IS UNETHICAL TO SAY THE VERY LEAST- but you can change that NOW!”
What Democratic Liberals say to the Blacks and Hispanics…. They say… “Your poor and so much has happened to you that we will protect you and be at your side…. VOTE FOR US!” They will try their damn best to “MAKE YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR IN A HARDSHIP THAT WAS BASED ON RACIAL EVENTS” and they want you to keep an anger inside…. To help you to their side!- This is completely wrong and unethical to say the very least…. Times have changed and now its time that YOU MAKE CHANGE for the better of your family…. And your country!

For our black community, don't let the liberal politicians or Democrats control you again by manipulating your emotions and using your own sentiments to serve their purpose. Slavery has been abolished long time ago by a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Remember that it was the Democrats that are pro-slavery and they created the KKK (Klu Klux Klan) to intimidate black and white Republicans. Then they created Jim Crow to segregate blacks from whites. It was the Republicans that fought for you with hundreds of bills sponsored by them for the advancement of blacks but blocked by Democrats. Remember the Civil Rights movement in the 60s headed by Martin Luther King who was a Republican but his father switched to Democrat to get MLK out of jail. But his living family now like his niece, Dr. Alveda King and others remain Republicans or conservatives. But most importantly in case you don't know, it was the Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights bills and some of the Dems were: a top official of the KKK, Bill Clinton's mentor and Al Gore's father.

When KKK and Jim Crow became a bygone era, the Democrats changed their tactics in controlling you and getting your votes by making you feel like slaves and victims all over again. They have been keeping you in welfare so you will not seek the American Dream and succeed and therefore lose your vote. So the Democrats have kept you in poverty by making you dependent on welfare pretending to care about you. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Republicans have fought for you before and they still fight for you now by pushing for policies that will give you jobs and create your own American Dream. Since Obama took office, the black community have suffered the most. Poverty level is at the highest and national debts at the highest. Numbers don't lie! So Obama create more racial divide to stir emotions and make you hate whites like he does and blame them for your misfortunes. That's why many of our black countrymen have become racists because of race-baiters like Obama, Al Sharpton and all. Think like Booker T. Washington and Carter Woodson who got away from slavery and thought for themselves and became a success. Take charge of yourselves and DO NOT allow liberal politicians to manipulate you into feeling the victim and blaming whites or somebody else for your misfortune. YOU ARE BEING USED AND MANIPULATED FOR YOUR VOTE.

LETS FIND OUT THE “TRUTH IN HISTORY AND GET BACK TO REALITY”

As Black Americans…. You should actually be so PROUD of parts of history that by overcoming the wrongs that were committed against you… you won! Be so proud of that. My Father taught me many valuable things…… one of which is this- its so very simple….. Remember there are 2 sides to a coin…. “NOT JUST THE DEMOCRATS & LIBERAL SIDE THAT WANTS TO BRING YOU DOWN” your better than that! Aren’t you? I believe so… and many more White Americans think that as well! Take the two sides of a coin…. The positive and the negative of any instance. Be fair and reasonable…. And find the justification and value of each side accordingly. If you need to do so…. Get a piece of paper make a line down the middle…. Mark each side and find “with factual references to back up your claims on both sides of the coin”
AFTER MY RESEARCH…. THIS IS WHAT I FIND:

As with any election year, the commentarial has begun issuing their analysis and many predictions. And, just as they do on any day whose name ends in "day," they'll soon be gracing us all with their many pearls of "conventional wisdom."

One of those many pieces of conventional wisdom—known at this point to just about all of us—is that Black Americans vote for Democrats. Overwhelmingly so.

In fact, they vote in greater percentages—usually around 90%—for one political party than any other major demographic group. To have a demographic group vote so overwhelmingly for one party is rather amazing, and so I decided to look into the history of the two political parties to see if I could discover WHY!.

One of the first things I discovered in my research is that there was a demographic group in America's past that—believe it or not—actually gave their votes to one political party in even greater percentages.

The demographic group was the same: BLACK AMERICANS.

The percentage was 100%.

The party that enjoyed those levels of support?............... “THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!”.

Huh?.... YES ITS TRUE INDEED!

But wait... it gets even weirder. THE WACKO DEMOCRATIC THUG PARTY IS, today, thought of as the political champion and proponent of the interests of black Americans…… “But for almost all of the history of this country, the Democrats were the party of slavery, secession, Jim Crow, lynching, segregation, and opposition to NEARLY EVERY PIECE OF CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION EVER PASSED”

AND...

The Republicans were the party of abolition and emancipation. They opposed segregation, lynching, and Jim Crow. And they were the sole authors of nearly every civil rights legislation and amendment passed in the United States!

YES…. THIS IS CORRECT AND:

And cling tightly to your caps, because there's more. The Democrats were the creators of the Ku Klux Klan, which they founded with the expressed purpose of using violence to purge Republicans from Southern politics. Essentially, the KKK began its existence as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party. “THE SAME AS THEY DID THEN…. THEY DO NOW TO OPPRESS THE BLACK AMERICANS AND TO MAKE THEM BELIEVE THEY ARE THE UNDERDOG”

NOW LET'S ALL JUST TAKE A DEEP BREATH— AND WATCH THIS:

At this point in my study, I had more questions than I did answers, so I decided to be a bit more systematic. Whether we be Democrats, Republicans, or something else, “WE SHOULD ALL SHARE A DEVOTION TO WHAT IS HISTORICALLY TRUE”. And so, I have put together a little timeline on this subject. These things may not be widely discussed, taught, or known today, but they are HISTORICAL FACTS that are not generally in dispute. Personally, I found them quite surprising, and I think you might too.

_______

In 1789, Congress passes, and George Washington signs into law, a bill stating that no territory could become a state if it allowed slavery.

In 1792, the Democrat Party is formed. They are the party that promotes and seeks the continuance of slavery.

In 1808, Congress abolishes the slave trade in America.

In 1818, the Democrats become the majority in Congress. Using their majority, they begin to undo the 1808 and other anti-slavery decisions.

In 1820, the Democrat Party passes the Missouri Compromise, institutionalizing slavery in half of the territories.

For THIRTY YEARS, DEMOCRATS PASS MULTIPLE LAWS PROMOTING AND PROTECTING SLAVERY, culminating in 1850 with the Fugitive Slave Law. This law takes away all rights to jury trials, representation, and habeas corpus from any black who is so much as accused of being a slave.

In 1854, Democrats pass the Kansas-Nebraska act, opening up those territories to slavery, thus exceeding even the limits of the Missouri Compromise.

In 1854, the REPUBLICAN PARTY IS FORMED TO END SLAVERY. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues.

In 1857, the Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott v. Sanford that blacks are considered inferior and thus not covered by the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence; that they are property covered by the 5th Amendment; and that no black—not even a free black—could ever become a citizen of the United States. The Democrats support the decision.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated, and the ANTI-SLAVERY REPUBLICAN PARTY now controls the Executive Branch. The Democrat Party, in complete control of the South, splits the nation asunder and causes a war in order to maintain slavery. Innumerable horrors and 650,000 deaths are required to free the slaves and restore the union.

“IN 1865, REPUBLICANS PASS THE 13TH AMENDMENT, ENDING SLAVERY.
100% OF REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR IT”.

Even among northern Democrats, it receives the support of only 23%.

In spite of the 13th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to deny blacks their citizenship rights, so...

In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, establishing citizenship and equal protection for all in Federal law.
100% OF REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR IT.
0% OF DEMOCRATS VOTE FOR IT.

In spite of the 14th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to prevent blacks from enjoying the real fruits of this citizenship, especially the right to vote, so...

In 1869, the 15th Amendment is passed, establishing the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
98% OF REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR IT.
3% OF DEMOCRATS VOTE FOR IT.

From 1866–1875, the Republican Congress passes 19 civil rights laws. Democrats oppose them all.

In 1875, in order to counter the Democrats' passage of Jim Crow laws, Republicans pass the most sweeping civil rights legislation ever—the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eight years later, the Supreme Court (mostly Democrat appointees) declares the act unconstitutional.

“IN 1876, DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. NO MORE MEANINGFUL CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION IS PASSED UNTIL 1964”.

In 1892, Democrats take control of the White House and the Senate, and they keep control of the House. They immediately begin establishing Jim Crow laws and repealing all civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans. Any laws or amendments they cannot repeal, they skirt with poll taxes and literacy tests.

Beginning after the War, and thenceforward until 1935, ALL blacks elected to Congress are Republicans. In addition to those elected to Federal office, hundreds of blacks—all of them Republicans—are elected to state legislatures in the South.

In 1866, Democrats form the KKK with the express purpose of preventing the election of Republicans in the South. Democrats admit—under oath in Congressional hearings in 1872—that the Klan is a Democrat creation intended to restore Democrat control of the South. The Klan carries out this plan by means of a series of massacres at Republican Party meetings.

In 1901, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to the White House. Democrats and the media are outraged.

In the 1920s, Republicans propose anti-lynching legislation. The legislation passes the house but is killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

In 1947, Republican businessman Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, hires Jackie Robinson (also a Republican), thus integrating Major League Baseball.

In 1954, Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren (appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower) authors the desegregation decision of Brown v. Board of Education.

In 1956, Democrats express their opposition to Brown v. Board of Education in the "Southern Manifesto." One hundred and one members of Congress—all but four of them Democrats—sign the manifesto.

In 1957, Republican President Eisenhower authors a Civil Rights Bill, hoping to repair the damage done to blacks and their civil rights by Democrats since 1892. Passage of the bill is blocked by Senate Democrats. When the bill finally goes through, it is significantly weakened due to lack of support from Democrats.

In 1960, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authors a Voting Rights Bill, again, in an effort to undo the disenfranchisement of blacks by Democrats through poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence by the KKK. And once again, Senate Democrats attempt (though in the end unsuccessfully) to block passage of the bill.

In 1964, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is essentially the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1957. Democrats, including Senator Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), employ a filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is overcome, a larger percentage of Republicans vote for passage than do Democrats.

In 1965, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Voting Rights Act of 1964. This is the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1959. A filibuster is prevented, and passage of this bill also enjoys support from a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats.

_________

So here we are at 1965, right around the time when black American voters completed the big migration to the Democrats. 100% Republican when they first began voting, 90% Democrat now—what the heck happened?

LETS UNCOVER MORE:

Though the sea change occurred in the 1960s, there were, earlier, a couple of small fractures in the 100% support once enjoyed by the Republicans.

First, there was the controversial election of Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes, who won in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Though Hayes himself was not involved, there were numerous placative deals made with the Democrats to get them to support his election—including, unfortunately, a relaxing of Republican support for Reconstruction. This was a small crack in what had otherwise been the Republicans' unwavering record of championing the rights of black Americans.

Then, there was the Great Depression, which hit lower-income blacks very hard. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the many anti-poverty and work programs he supported, was seen as a champion of the "little guy." Rightly or wrongly, this caused another diminution in the monolithic support from blacks that had been previously enjoyed by Republicans.

But it was the mid-60s when the big shift took place, and there are three big reasons for that shift.

KENNEDY AND KING:

The 1960s roiled with questions of equality and civil rights. Marches and protests were taking place across the country—it truly was the defining issue of the early 1960s.

John F. Kennedy, recognizing the need to place himself on the correct side of the cilvil rights question, employed the talents of Senator Harris Wofford to pursue this aim. Among other initiatives, Wofford encouraged Kennedy to make a comforting phone call to Coretta Scott King when her husband was in jail. This had a deep effect on Martin Luther King Jr.'s father, who had previously been a Republican and Nixon supporter. King, Sr. very publicly switched his support to Kennedy, and said he would bring "a suitcase full of votes" with him. And he did. When the father of the nation's most prominent civil rights leader switched parties, it was only natural that many would switch with him.

CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION:

The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act were passed by a Congress wherein Democrats were the majority, and they were signed into law by a Democratic president. This had a powerful effect on public opinion.

The ironies involved were many. Both pieces legislation had essentially been authored by Republicans. As a percentage of the party, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for both bills than did Democrats. And a cadre of Democrats filibustered the 1964 bill in an attempt to prevent its passage.

“SIMPLY PUT, BOTH BILLS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PASSED WITHOUT THE ACTIONS OF REPUBLICANS... NOT TO MENTION THAT BOTH WERE JUST MODERN VERSIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION THAT REPUBLICANS HAD PASSED—AND DEMOCRATS HAD SYSTEMATICALLY UNDONE—100 YEARS EARLIER”.

This, however, was not the broad public perception, and Barry Goldwater—with one action—made that perception significantly worse for Republicans. In the course of the debate on the 1964 Civil Rights legislation, he found an element of the bill not to his liking, and voted against it.

Oops.

Barry Goldwater—a man who, using his own money, twice kept the Arizona chapter of the NAACP from going bankrupt—was not a racist. And his vote was a principled one, in that it was a “SIMPLE PROVISION OF THE BILL THAT HE OPPOSED, RATHER THAN ITS OVERALL AIM”. And yet it may have been the most costly electoral mistake ever made. Barry Goldwater was the Republican nominee for president. The standard-bearer of the Republican Party had voted against civil rights legislation. The perception might as well have been carved in stone.

THE SOUTHERN STRATEGY:

The electoral reality for any presidential candidate is that he (or she, someday soon) must appeal to a majority of voters in enough states to win. It's a complex game, involving hundreds of calculations and very deliberate strategies. Resources are carefully allocated by state or region, in an effort to secure the most electoral votes. In the presidential election of 1960, the Nixon campaign decided to go after votes in the South. The South had been, from the beginning of the country, solidly Democrat, but fractures had begun to appear in this monolithic support, and the Nixon campaign felt they could make enough headway there to turn the tide. This was called the "Southern Strategy." Nixon's campaign and Republicans contended that they were appealing to traditional American values. Their Democrat opponents countered that they were appealing to underlying racism PERVASIVE IN THE SOUTH.

Whatever the truth was, the Democrats' characterization of the Southern Strategy gained enough traction to have an effect. Ironically, there was still institutionalized racism in the South at that time, but it was still being expressed almost exclusively by Democrats. Southern Democrat governors, such as Faubus of Arkansas, Wallace of Alabama, and Barnett of Mississippi, were standing in doorways of schools, calling out the National Guard, and even closing them all down for a year to prevent their integration.

_______

SO, HERE IN 2015, WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE US?

Democrats will likely respond to all of this by saying, "THAT WAS THEN AND THIS IS NOW." They will argue that “today's Democratic Party is nothing like the way it was BEFORE”. Some will go further, and argue that the roles have reversed—that today, it is the Republicans who are the racists, and the Democrats who are the champions of minorities.

In response, a fair-minded Republican must grant that the Democratic Party has indeed changed—and dramatically so—from its pro-slavery, secessionist, segregationist past. But that Republican then would likely go on to argue that the REPUBLICAN PARTY DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL vis-a-vis civil rights—that they still continue to promote the same general ideas of colorblindness that they always have: that everyone should be treated equally, and that everyone should be allowed to get as rich as possible, regardless of who they are.

Where does the truth lie? Which party's policies are more beneficial to the interests of black Americans today? And, if all of this is a matter of historical record, why haven't Republicans been shouting it from the rooftops?

If you ask a thousand people to answer those questions, you just might get a thousand different answers. But somewhere in there is the truth, and it's a truth we're going to need to find as we continue to examine this question. Because TRUTH are factual evidence and that REMAINS UNCHANGED.

For now, we've taken the first step. For indeed, “IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE NOW AND WHERE WE MAY BE GOING,…….. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE FIRST UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'VE BEEN.”

And Once Again…. Just To Remind You….
“The Supreme Court Affirms Racist Origins of Gun Control" by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY - Comments on the US Supreme Court's June 28th McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments. This case was filed by a black man, Otis McDonald and highlights that “GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE ROOTED IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S RACIST PAST WHEN DEMOCRATS PASSED "BLACK CODES" THAT PROHIBITED NEWLY FREED SLAVES FROM OWNING GUNS FOR SELF DEFENSE.”

**Senator Everett Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in ‘57, ‘60, ‘64, ‘65 and ‘68. (WITH PIC)

The WICKED LEFT MEDIA AND FAR LEFT LIBERAL DEMOCRATS INDOCTRINATES YOU WITH PROPAGANDA….

WHAT THE WICKED LEFT MEDIA…. AND FAR LEFT LIBERAL DEMOCRATS WILL DO AND SAY TO GET YOUR VOTE IS UNETHICAL TO SAY THE VERY LEAST- but you can change that NOW!”

‪#‎WakeUpAmerica ‪#‎KeepConfederateFlag ‪#‎WeStandWithBillOReilly‪ #‎WickedLeftMedia

@AguilaFreedom