29 votes

Exposing Lincoln As A Tyrant Is Not Tantamount To Supporting The Confederacy

Rand Paul has been in the headlines again this with week. He has been criticized on cable news shows for allowing an individual with unconventional views regarding Abraham Lincoln and secession into his inner circle. One of Senator Paul’s alleged foreign policy advisors and the man who co-authored his book, The Tea Party Goes To Washington, has been “exposed” as holding pro-Confederacy beliefs in the past.

The controversial comments stem from Rand Paul advisor, Jack Hunter, and his prior career as the radio personality the “Southern Avenger.” The Free Beacon broke the story with an article titled Rebel Yell. The article details a wide array of “radical” views held by Hunter in his youth, but his comments about Abraham Lincoln and his favorable view of secession have produced the most significant waves in the political establishment.

When someone criticizes the “Great Emancipator” neoconservative and progressives alike run to the defense of the sixteenth president. Bashing of one of America’s favorite presidents is typically met head on by the Lincoln guardians. These loyal Lincoln supporters make sure the discussions do not veer off the 3×5 note card that historians have drafted by picking and choosing only the appealing aspects of Lincoln’s life. Even meandering to the edges of the approved dialogue is too controversial for the opinion molders who try to control the national conversation on the right, left, and in the center. Any deviation from the standard Lincoln transcript of praise and worship is met with an offensive assault on the integrity and character of the individual who would dare to question the iconic Lincoln.

Neoconservative writer and Lincoln guardian Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post has been actively berating Paul on twitter since the Hunter story broke. She had the following challenge and questions for Senator Paul to answer in an article published July 9th.

Paul’s office needs to explain how this person got there, whether his views are acceptable to the senator, and what it intends to do about him. But the real question may be what Hunter sees in Paul. If he spots a kindred spirit thinly disguised by careful scripting, voters should pay heed.

In the meantime, it is worth noting that a person with such views and background would not be considered seriously by any other Senate or House office. So why did Paul hire him?

Rubin claims it to be outrageous that anyone with criticisms of Lincoln even be allowed to converse with a senator or congressman. Oh the humanity! Imagine the horror of politicians in Washington being exposed to the truth and examining the atrocities committed by the Confederacy AND by Lincoln’s Union. That would just be too much for our incorruptible politicians to handle!
Continue reading

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Let us first consider the founding principles for the United States. The Declaration of Independence reads;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Seeing as the southern states had seceded, those states clearly did not consent to the former form of government, and instituted their own form of government that did have consent of the governed. As people have the right to so do.

This statement does not condone slavery in the least, slavery is wrong and should have been abolished and emancipation of the slaves was the correct thing to do.

But Lincoln said, "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 forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." So what is this 'save the Union' Lincoln speaks of? Clearly it is the idea that government aught to be forced upon those who consent and those who do not. That is despotism according to his own words.

Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves because it was the right thing to do, he emancipated the slaves because it helped him further his cause, for despotism. For that I cannot give the man praise.

Lincolns war is exposed

in the new movie "Copperhead", from Ron Maxwell, Director of "Gettysburg", and "Gods and Generals"



Texas Liberty Talk Radio http://www.ragingelephantsradio.com/

Ron Paul on his son Rand Paul:
"he does a lot of things similarly, but I think he does everything better. Than I have done over the years,"

Hey, Rand

If you are scared of the truth, you can't help us.

slavery was bad no doubt

but how is starting open war and committing thousands upon thousands to their death a solution. Evil does not resolve evil. And look, till this day we still have racism further provoked by the racist agitators like opportunist Al Sharpton. We still have class, and political warfare. So what good did Lincoln's war actually do?....Nothing in the long run. Lincoln was just another chicken hawk.

And isn't a fact that Lincoln wasn't even considering freeing any slaves at first. He only changed his mind because he need more troops. Someone who is more versed in this area please speak more to this.


Sherman's March

was a WAR CRIME.

I support the confederacy ...

anyway :)

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Good for you!

The South will rise again!


Texas Liberty Talk Radio http://www.ragingelephantsradio.com/

Ron Paul on his son Rand Paul:
"he does a lot of things similarly, but I think he does everything better. Than I have done over the years,"

This is laughable. Statists

This is laughable. Statists can't stand it when people think differently than they do. That is what makes it so enjoyable.

The Northern States looted the Confederacy, excuse was slavery

I don't support looting. The Northern States lived beyond their means, that gives no authority to kill and steal.

Free includes debt-free!


...I DO support the Confederacy! Heh, I can only imagine how much fun the Establishment would have with my views if I ran for office.

Actually, scratch that, I can only imagine how much fun I would have with the Establishment if I ran for office. Some topics are really ambiguous and hard to take a position on. This particular topic is hilariously easy. I've actually become infamous among those who know me for my dreaded "Lincoln Rant," wherein I list as many evil things that Lincoln did as I can think of at the moment.


Re: " “radical” views held by Hunter in his youth"

I don't really know the details behind this story, but even if he did have weird views "in his youth", what does it matter? People change.

The apostle Paul used to persecute Christians before he became one.

seriously, some of the R3VOLution's qualms about Jack Hunter's

post-Randpocalypse and the attempted 'purge' of the undesirables aside,


calling Lincoln a "tyrant" or his Southern Avenger antics are NOT one of Jack Hunter's political faux-pas, nor should it ever qualify as one, for ANY honest student of history. Not to mention, Lincoln is the LAST asshole Rand should be defending, to placate any useless, pathetic, powerless neocon-tard nobodies from the 'Free Beacon'

Lincoln was a racist dictator, murderer, warcriminal, railroad-corporatist, period, footnote, end of story!

Frankly, looking back, I'm surprised that even in my public indoctrination center days, they taught that... and that was in New Jersey I'm talking about! It is in fact shocking to me, that blacks especially, could actually with a straight face continue to call him the "Great Emancipator" in the year 2013. How the frak is that any different than calling one "The Dear Leader" or "Der Führer" by any other name?

It's like we're literally living parallel history where half to 90% of the sheeple have utterly delusional notion of history where facts are always optional.

Yes, rhetorical, but still: you wonder why we are where we are today? Look no further than the willful self-delusion and mass indoctrination/brain-washing.

You know, Germans in 1920's may have had some excuse, but now, in the year 2013, we're talking post-WWII where we have VIDEOTAPED history to study and learn from; it's still astounding to me that with more infinite info available to any single individual's fingertips than at anytime since written history began, that we actually have people unable to clearly see just HOW the Germans, the most advanced nation in the Western Civilization at the time, could succumb to such mass propaganda and willful tyranny.

It's like, duh? Look around us, today. Truly, as if any of us needed any more proof: history infinitely repeats itself, and humans rarely learn lessons of history and are apparently, always doomed to repeat it, again and again and again, pause, press "Spin Cyle" button again and again and again, on and on and on...

Not only do we have video-recorded history and gazillions of books to learn from, but we've actually figured out already why and how the Germans became the "Good Germans" via Stanley Milgram & Phil Zimbardo's experiments.


So why is calling the world like it is, such a 'revolutionary' or 'conspiratorial' act, when the history of humanity is just one long series of one false flag and one conspiracy after another? How has this factual reality of history so turned upside down, in the 21st century?

It's like for many, the internet and smartphones only made people more indulgent, nothing more: if you were historically curious before, you're now more hyper-informed, and if you were already historically amnesic, now you've got trillions of webpages to further indulge your inauthentic life.

egads. I 'get' that that is the case, and I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir, but it still is astounding to observe, literally, two of more sets of parallel history playing out before our very eyes, right here, right now.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Lincoln was a tyrant...

I agree. Everywhere else slavery was ended peacefully. It could have likely been achieved similarly here in the US.

Besides it is clear, that while Lincoln certainly wanted an end to slavery, he mainly didn't want to be known as the president that presided over the dissolving of the union. Lincoln's actions set a horrible precedent that attempts to secede from the, once voluntary, union would be met with military invasion.

A truly skilled politician could have avoided the bloody mess.

Here is a quote from Lincoln:

"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 do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

I was raised with a deep

I was raised with a deep respect for Southern history, particularly surrounding the unfortunate and unnecessary events of the 1860s. I'm a confederate reenactor and have love to learn about the tragic downfall of my ancestors in an invasion by Lincoln's regime. In fact, it was an interview of Ron Paul explaining the truth about Lincoln's motives for war that got me following RP about 3 or 4 years ago.

Since expanding my studies into economics, libertarian values, history beyond the War of Northern Aggression, and especially the role of government through Biblical lenses in light of the Kingship of Jesus Christ and our voluntary subjection to Him, I've become MUCH less nationalistic about my Confederate heritage. I don't always agree with the Jack Hunter ("Southern Avenger" is a bit nationalistic and does not recognize that God is the avenger of all evil), but he must not bend on his attacks of Lincoln.

I hope Rand Paul keeps plugging along and will tell the truth about history/won't be bullied into supporting the history of tyrants.

"You must be frank with the world; frankness is the child of honesty and courage...Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one...Above all do not appear to others what you are not" - Robert E. Lee, CSA

I would have supported the

I would have supported the confederacy because they had a right to secede. There are no stipulations on when a state is allowed to secede. The US federal government is VOLUNTARY union of the states. They seceded, and they were sovereign. Hell, they were sovereign before they seceded. When they secede

Also, people need to get their heads out of their asses on the slavery thing. It's not what the war was really about. It was just another humanitarian excuse to sell war and tyranny.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

And futher..supporting some of what the Confederate states

stood for, mite not be tantamount to supporting slavery?