~~~~~~ANDREW JACKSON~~~~~ Hitler of the 1800's!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by Infospill.com on Mon, 11/24/2008 - 12:52
so i know andrew jackson did a great job as getting rid of central banks but i am sad to just now find out he is thought of as hitler by most american indians.
he was the leader of the trail of tears witch lead to 10,000 deaths and the removal of 80 native indians from their home land.
his instinct to do this to the indians was caused by his mothers hatred for indians.
»
The War on Giblets
"Apparently right-wing blog-o-nut Michelle Malkin is trying to spin her own “war on [holiday]” franchise (given the massive success of the Fox Corps’ “war on Xmas”), trying to stir up her masses about the way that liberal elites want to make everyone feel guilty for the things they love. I bring you the War on Thanksgiving! It’s tiresome stuff, cherry-picking Thanksgiving news items that conservative folks will choose to see as ridiculous examples of PC run amok.
To be fair, there is much more cultural conflict regarding Thanksgiving than there is for Christmas. The “war on Christmas” stuff was always bullshit, manufactured indignation that department store chains would say “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas”, as though people actually celebrated several different holidays during this time period (the bastards!). But Thanksgiving does raise the specter of several centuries of horrible/duplicitious/genocidal relations between white settlers and Native Americans. And as most modern Americans behave as though Native Americans have ceased to exist, bringing up the ghastly actions that led to the state of our current nation, can seem like nothing but an exercise in pointless guilt tripping.
But let me know re-re-repost my traditional Thanksgiving history info (based upon this article from Lip Magazine). Apparently I’ve been warring on Thanksgiving for some years now.
1621- “The First Thanksgiving”
November 1777- The Continental Congress declares a day of Thanksgiving to thank God for an American military victory over a powerful British general.
July 1861- Confederate Congress declares a day of Thanksgiving to thank God for their victory over the Union in the First Battle of Bull Run
April 1862- President Lincoln declares day of Thanksgiving to thank God for the Union victory over the Confederacy at Shiloh
September 1862- Confederate Congress declares a day of Thanksgiving to thank God for their victory over the Union in the Second Battle of Bull Run
August 1863- President Lincoln declares day of Thanksgiving to thank God for the Union victory over the Confederacy at Gettysburg
December 1865- President Johnson establishes a national Thanksgiving holiday to celebrate the Union victory in the Civil War
October 1931- President Hoover becomes the first president to actually make a rhetorical connection between the national holiday of Thanksgiving and the pilgrims
In other words, Thanksgiving was first the “thanks, Indians, for helping us colonists survive in your harsh New World” feast. Then, for around 240 years, Thanksgiving was a string of unrelated “thank you, God, for letting us slaughter the people who disagreed with us” days. Then for another 60+ years, it was the “thanks, God, for letting the North beat the South in the Civil War” holiday. And now, for the past 70, it’s been the Indian & Pilgrim thing again. Well, the Pilgrim thing coupled with pleasant/unpleasant family reunions and the baking of turkeys, pies and casseroles.
On top of that, a post on the Hullabaloo blog by “poputonian” from a few years back argued the 1621 “first Thanksgiving” in New England was preceded by a group of Spanish settlers who had a feast to thank god near what today is El Paso, Texas, in the year 1598. The event seems completely unconnected to the Puritans’ Thanksgiving, or to the known evolution of the holiday myth, but it seems worth mentioning just the same. If poputonian is right, then the “first Thanksgiving” may have been a Spanish affair several decades before the one that we have come to know.
So I guess I have several points here:
- “tradition” is not tradition (although it’s pretty easy to rile people up if you pretend that “tradition” is being challenged).
- holidays are not static traditions that are handed down over the centuries, they evolve and are sometimes intentionally shaped by people with goals and agendas.
- people tend to “give thanks” in celebrations like this due to a combination of survival, religion, and victory.
- the American “creation myth” of Thanksgiving has happy proto-Americans at peace with their Indian neighbors is pretty galling, what with the bigotry and genocide, and ongoing invisibility of Indians today."
http://www.lyingmediabastards.com/2008/11/the-war-on-giblets
"There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: The regeneration of the inner man."
—Tolstoy
"The body is but a vessel for the soul,
A puppet which bends to the soul's tyranny.
And lo, the body is not eternal,
For it must feed on the flesh of others,
Lest it return to the dust whence it came.
Therefore the soul deceives and despises."
That title really belongs to Abraham Lincoln.
Give the man credit where credit is due. He earned it.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Morality can hardly be judged outside of context
I concur with Vergilus. You can hardly condemn actions outside historical context. What went on in the 18th and 19th century was international gang-warfare, with atrocities abounding on every side. Coercion and precedent are often mitigating factors.
********************************************************************
POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Bierce
********************************************************************
And he got re-elected!!!
So what does that say about the people?
According to history the people had the same sentiments.
The alternative would have been?
Let them slaughter each other until there was a winner?
Station troops to protect the native americans?
Station troops to protect both from each other?
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit
of resistance?" --Thomas Jefferson
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820
George W Bush was
George W Bush was re-elected.
Elections have always been rigged
"There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: The regeneration of the inner man."
—Tolstoy
"The body is but a vessel for the soul,
A puppet which bends to the soul's tyranny.
And lo, the body is not eternal,
For it must feed on the flesh of others,
Lest it return to the dust whence it came.
Therefore the soul deceives and despises."
The nation was also influenced by the "big media" of the times..
which in turn received it's editorial character from "big money" of the times, which realized their abiltiy to exploit resources and people was quite "hindered' by frontier strife between arrogant white skins and desparate red skins who had no culturtal connection to the goods and services of "Big Money" and were therefore unexpoitable...financially of course.
(Of course this takes no account of the Bureau of Indian Affairs which did a great job exploiting them for personal gain on the taxpayer's dollar".)
It is "big money's" long held philosophy..."If you can't beat 'em...kill 'em." So beware ye braves of the revolution...beware.
**“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.” ~ Mark Twain **
"...there is no doubt that it (socialism) could not possibly have affected us so widely and so deeply as it has, had it not been heavily financed". - B. Carroll Reece
Jackson was a complicated man
He did some good things and well as bad things. Forcing the Indians off of their land really amounts to ethnic cleansing. Although some try to justify it different ways, if he ran your family off of your land you would have a hard time calling it anything other than brutal theft by force.
He was probably not
the right person to be in charge of the Indians future at that time. He had been at war with those people and had probably seen a lot of bloodshed.
It would be kind of like having an American General in Iraq to be later placed in control of Al Quada militants after having witnessed the grisly remains of friends and countrymen blown in half by roadside bombs.
Andrew Jackson probably still considered the Indians to be enemies and he was not the person you wanted for an enemy (as the central bank discovered).
"It's just one big Club - and WE ain't in it"
"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"
"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"
to bad their aren't any such
threats in Iraq... Shiite or Sunni Muslims is all their is. Al Quaida or whatever is left of them are scurrying around in the mountains of Afghanistan.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Yep
them too.
"It's just one big Club - and WE ain't in it"
"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"
"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"
Jackson
The Trail of Tears was voluntary. Also, by this time the Indians were essentially done for. The best way for them to stay alive was to get them as far away from whitey as possible.
Excuse me..but wtf are you drinking?
Voluntary?..The Trail of Tears was voluntary you say...
Ok..if you mean voluntary as in starved..burned out...men and boys killed..women and girls raped-tortured-then killed..
tries very hard to hold my temper If you mean voluntary that way then yes..the Trail of Tears was voluntary....
A rag tag few stayed behind..hid in the mountains to try and rebuild the great Nation.....while others learned to adjust...some became famers and married white settlers...Those that adjusted are direct links to me in my family tree.
The Cherokee used stories and drawings as their written words....And it was past down...each genoration loosing a bit of the story and history..the REAL history was left to slowly die out...but it didnt all die...
My granny, who was half Cherokee, told me the stories.(Im sure my granddad would have too..he was also half Cherokee, but past away before I was born)
Remember..the winners write history....and the rest suffer.
Freedom is another way to God...A corrupt government is a straight way to hell.
I believe in Hope & Change..I Hope the government will Change
Spindale-Rutherford County-North Carolina
yes, it was voluntary
The trail of tears was voluntary. They were given the choice of becoming US citizens or getting out of Dodge. The majority chose to get the hell out of dodge. I've got Cherokee ancestors as well by the way. My great grandmother was half Cherokee. But the truth of the matter is the Indians could have become citizens or leave and they chose the latter. Also don't act like the fights between whites and Indians was a one way street. Indians were just as brutal as whites were.
I think you need to go back and do some research.
The people on the Trail of Tears, were, for the most part, people who lived in homes and had businesses and farms. They weren't disheveled forest dwellers going around "scalping" people. They intermingled (and intermarried) into "white" society much more so than other tribes and their private property rights SHOULD have been respected. Cherokee history is an interesting one and should not be confused with other tribes.
Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!
It's a forced choice so its
It's a forced choice so its not voluntary. It's like saying you can choose the gas chamber OR the firing squad.
Truly voluntary would have been"
You can become a US Citizen,
You can get out of dodge,
or you can tell me to go to hell and stay where you are.
Why the hell were they were given the "choice"?
If they already lived and owned property there, why did they need to join the beastly US government?
What happened to private property?
Hey I got a question
You're a native american speeding, drunk driving and hitting people on the road. There's no court in the world unable to find you guilty of dozens of felonies. A cop pulls you over. You tell the cop he doesn't have any jurisdiction cause the cops authority isn't beholden to the native americans constitution. Do you agree with this?
There is no private property without laws.
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
Depends on what you consider
Depends on what you consider a crime is.
I believe there needs to be a victim in order for there to be a crime.
Speeding or driving drunk by themselves are not crimes because they do not harm anyone else. No, matter what you ingest you are always responsible for your actions. If you hit someone on the road you are responsible and it makes no difference if you were drunk or otherwise.
The cop really has nothing to do in this case, besides taking you to appear before a magistrate so that the victim (or their family) can file charges upon you. The state should not be involved in this case. Justice occurs when the victim is made whole again at the expense of the perpetrator. Justice has nothing to do with "punishment".
Laws are arbitrary, just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong and it doesn't make it a crime. Good people SHOULD always break bad laws. Such as Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King.
There centrally is property without law, what an absurd concept as if words on paper grant you the ability to claim ownership of something. Perhaps you believe so foolishly that you need words on paper to own your own body too. That is rubbish.
Private property is the core of the constitution
Look at all the bill of rights and the constitution itself. The constitution keeps on going back to protecting individual rights from enemies, foreign and domestic.
You can say whatever you want about it being a piece of paper, but that piece of paper is what dictates our government system in the United States. You can give yourself whatever rights you want, but no one is going to respect them without an army ready to defend those rights.
That's how things work in the real world. You can't prove you own anything without a government system able to determine your rights. Without a bill of rights and a respected governmental system anyone's right to private property will never protected ( i.e.I got a bigger gun so now I own your property.)
The issue today is the constitution is not being used. Acts are being passed as if they are amendments to our constitutionally guaranteed rights. The constitution is not perfect enumerating our God given rights, however it is the best representation of a government made to protect rights. Without (as George Bush has said) "that damned piece of paper" Americans would not have any rights or private property guaranteed by their government.
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
Good question
It depends on where the native did this.
If it was:
a) on their sovereign property, then no, the US government police goons aren't allowed on. It would be the responsibility of the police system that the natives put in place to take care off this.
b) if the native ventured into another city (that was controlled by the US gov't), then yes the US cop has the authority to do so.
So where does it end?
Is there anywhere in the United States that Native Americans haven't lived?
My point is anyone can say they have a right to the land where they're living, but that right isn't protected unless a set of laws (our constitution) is setup and recognized by force (our Revolutionary War).
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
Probably...
Probably. But, even if it turns out that they have lived everywhere, who cares? Just because you once lived somewhere doesn't mean that you own that property.
Not true. I can protect my own property with my guns. Therefore, "a set of laws" isn't absolutely required.
Your argument loses steam
After a trillion dollar defense budget knocks down your door for failure to pay taxes on supposedly "your" property. Try not paying taxes or your mortgage on "your" property and let us know how that turns out. If the sheriff doesn't kick you out let us know your secret. Cause in this world it ain't gonna happen unless you have a very nice sheriff. How many guns you got? I can pretty much guarantee they ain't nothing compared to the federal government guns.
Also, your argument folds in on itself when you admit it doesn't matter where people lived. THAT'S THE WHOLE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT. Can't you see you're the one who is promoting it matters where people live, not what laws they abide by?
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
I didn't say it was necessarily a very
powerful defense . I just wanted to point out that your claim that law is required to protect property is false.
And regarding this:
I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. I think there might be some confusion amongst us.
What I'm trying to argue is that the natives owned some land back in the day (1770's) and that they were given a unjust ultimatum by the US government people (to either join the government or move).
How do you defend those government actions?
How'd they "own" that land?
Did they have a deed recognizable by the national government? Or were their claims because they lived there for a long time?
From everything I've read the choctaw tribe tried to trump our american constitution with their own. You can't claim rights when someone else has fought a war to protect their private property rights,even if they have lived there for centuries.
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
'Did they have a deed
No.
No.
They owned the land because they met the criterion of the home-steading principle. That is, they (a) physically claimed some land that was (b) in an unowned state.
What if you own the property in question? Why then wouldn't you be able to "claim rights"?
Whether the other party will respect the claim or not, that it another matter (the US government did not...).
If you keep your title
You don't understand Hitler or Jackson. And don't give me the BS "It's the Indians's title for Jackson". If you put it up here then it's your title.
I'll try to explain it to you:
Hitler was setup by the NWO to come into power popularly, staged false flag attacks on his own country to get rid of congressional power, victimized communists and socialists, and had no military background
Jackson was a War Hero who fought with American Indians, The NWO tried to assassinate him multiple times, didn't stage any false flag attacks, and forced Indians off their land to protect (what he viewed) as his citizens (settlers)
Was he wrong to force Indians off of their native land? I argue you'd probably have to ask the Indians if they were willing to abide by the laws of the American Constitution. If they didn't see it as the law of America, then what rights did they possess? If there is no law but your own then do you possess rights?
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
So, in your opinion the NWO set up
innocents Hitler and Jackson? The nefarious NWO is behind every evil act ever in history, and we'd be living in peace and harmony if only those NWO meanies didn't always keep "setting up" all of the good government officials? Am I getting what you call fairy dust right?
Nope
I'm just pointing out their differences, which are stark. There really is no similarity between Jackson and Hitler. Abraham Lincoln would be closer to Hitler because he forced a war that caused 1/2 a million of american people to unnecessarily die rather than pay off the slaves from the US treasury.
Even that relationship is ridiculous. Or George Washington and John Adams would probably be closer to Hitler because they repeatedly warned about the Jewish influence in America. John Adams even created the anti masonic party to combat Jews in Freemasonry. Still ridiculous.
Saying Andrew Jackson is hitler is stupid and short sighted. Jackson did what he thought was best at the time. He did not call for mass Indian Genocide or racial cleansing. He just wanted them to obey the American Constitution. Putting him on this forum as some devil spits on his victory over the Monster crushing america right now.
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/