Skip to content

Buppert: American ISIS – The Government War on the Confederacy

07/20/2015

You may want to read this. Read the link within the link, read the comments. Especially the comment by “Curtis” July 17, 2015 at 02:03. The South was the money, the slavery aspect was bullshit.

Western Rifle Shooters Association

1000px-Conf_Navy_Jack_(light_blue).svg

Read and pass along.

There is A Great Re-Making in progress.

And you, traditional American, are not part of it.

Except as targets.

Do you understand yet?

View original post

16 Comments
  1. upaces88 permalink
    07/21/2015 01:53

    Confederate Flags-Stand for Freedom; a Stand Against Tyranny

    csacitizen • 4 hours ago
    This whole thing shows the total ignorance of the American people. The Slave flag was only one flag from this hemisphere = THE US FEDERAL FLAG !
    The Confederate flags are Christian flags and stand for freedom and stand AGAINST TYRANNY – the very thing DC is all for.
    The Confederacy forbade our flags from flying over anything to do with slavery and they NEVER DID !
    DC Elite Feds LIES TO ALL OF YOU IN THEIR RECONSTRUCTION OF FABRICATIONS THEY CALLED “HISTORY” !-you went to DC Federal schools and were fed total lies since 1865 ! And you all fell for them and now the ignorant ones who believed those lies are doing DC’s dirty work for them ! DC hates Christians and Christianity just as Lincoln did = this is an attack on the Christian nation of the South – this is a religious attack ! The US Flag (is not “American by the way) is your only slave flag that flew over all the slave ships and the Slave Trade. The Confederate flags never had anything to do whit hate or slavery ! You fell for the DC lies blaming the South for everything the North was guilty of ! You still are today !
    The Lincoln War (was not a “civil” war) had NOTHING to do with slavery – that was just the cover for it ! DC always has a cover for their dirty deeds ! You should know that by now !
    The Confederate flags are the most Honorable flags that ever flew anywhere !
    If you bothered to dig for truth of our TRUE history – you’d know the REAL history of America instead of the DC Federal fabrications you were fed in the govt schools !
    Then these flag haters would not look so down right uneducated and stupid !
    But you sure have wicked DC smiling ! They are lovin’ this attack on the South that they plotted !
    Try a real history book for a change = THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT by Kennedy seems to be the favorite.
    But there are hundreds more if you really wanted to know the REAL truth that has been forbidden for you to know and well hidden for the past 155 years !
    The US nation ends at the Mason Dixon line – the South CSA nation never surrendered ! They are still lawfully and Constitutionally their own nation only under UNLAWFUL DC FEDERAL OCCUPATION ! They also never joined Lincoln’s NEW union he created to replace the Founders union. Lincoln replaced everything the Fcsacitizen • 4 hours ago
    This whole thing shows the total ignorance of the American people. The Slave flag was only one flag from this hemisphere = THE US FEDERAL FLAG !
    The Confederate flags are Christian flags and stand for freedom and stand AGAINST TYRANNY – the very thing DC is all for.
    The Confederacy forbade our flags from flying over anything to do with slavery and they NEVER DID !
    DC Elite Feds LIES TO ALL OF YOU IN THEIR RECONSTRUCTION OF FABRICATIONS THEY CALLED “HISTORY” !-you went to DC Federal schools and were fed total lies since 1865 ! And you all fell for them and now the ignorant ones who believed those lies are doing DC’s dirty work for them ! DC hates Christians and Christianity just as Lincoln did = this is an attack on the Christian nation of the South – this is a religious attack ! The US Flag (is not “American by the way) is your only slave flag that flew over all the slave ships and the Slave Trade. The Confederate flags never had anything to do whit hate or slavery ! You fell for the DC lies blaming the South for everything the North was guilty of ! You still are today !
    The Lincoln War (was not a “civil” war) had NOTHING to do with slavery – that was just the cover for it ! DC always has a cover for their dirty deeds ! You should know that by now !
    The Confederate flags are the most Honorable flags that ever flew anywhere !
    If you bothered to dig for truth of our TRUE history – you’d know the REAL history of America instead of the DC Federal fabrications you were fed in the govt schools !
    Then these flag haters would not look so down right uneducated and stupid !
    But you sure have wicked DC smiling ! They are lovin’ this attack on the South that they plotted !
    Try a real history book for a change = THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT by Kennedy seems to be the favorite.
    But there are hundreds more if you really wanted to know the REAL truth that has been forbidden for you to know and well hidden for the past 155 years !
    The US nation ends at the Mason Dixon line – the South CSA nation never surrendered ! They are still lawfully and Constitutionally their own nation only under UNLAWFUL DC FEDERAL OCCUPATION ! They also never joined Lincoln’s NEW union he created to replace the Founders union. Lincoln replaced everything the Founders established = he was called “The Replacer President” in his day , among other names !! He never “saved” anything – he REPLACED IT WITH HIS OWN MARXIST SYSTEM ! Then you wonder why DC keeps all this covered up ?! DC began their Communist public agenda in 1861 via Lincoln .
    TRUE history is much more exciting and interesting then the fabrications you were taught to believe !founders established = he was called “The Replacer President” in his day , among other names !! He never “saved” anything – he REPLACED IT WITH HIS OWN MARXIST SYSTEM ! Then you wonder why DC keeps all this covered up ?! DC began their Communist public agenda in 1861 via Lincoln .
    TRUE history is much more exciting and interesting then the fabrications you were taught to believe !

  2. 07/21/2015 06:58

    I’ve said it before: Communism is monarchy with different titles.

  3. poetopoet permalink
    07/21/2015 11:48

    John McCain is a traitor!

    “McCain and the POW Cover-Up
    The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
    By Sydney Schanberg • July 1, 2010

    Eighteen months ago, TAC publisher Ron Unz discovered an astonishing account of the role the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, had played in suppressing information about what happened to American soldiers missing in action in Vietnam. Below, we present in full Sydney Schanberg’s explosive story.

    John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn’t return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

    Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain’s role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain’s military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn’t talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

    The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that “men were left behind.” This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number—the documents indicate probably hundreds—of the U.S. prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.
    Mass of Evidence

    The Pentagon had been withholding significant information from POW families for years. What’s more, the Pentagon’s POW/MIA operation had been publicly shamed by internal whistleblowers and POW families for holding back documents as part of a policy of “debunking” POW intelligence even when the information was obviously credible.
    The pressure from the families and Vietnam veterans finally forced the creation, in late 1991, of a Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. The chairman was John Kerry. McCain, as a former POW, was its most pivotal member. In the end, the committee became part of the debunking machine.

    One of the sharpest critics of the Pentagon’s performance was an insider, Air Force Lt. Gen. Eugene Tighe, who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) during the 1970s. He openly challenged the Pentagon’s position that no live prisoners existed, saying that the evidence proved otherwise. McCain was a bitter opponent of Tighe, who was eventually pushed into retirement.

    Included in the evidence that McCain and his government allies suppressed or sought to discredit is a transcript of a senior North Vietnamese general’s briefing of the Hanoi politburo, discovered in Soviet archives by an American scholar in 1993. The briefing took place only four months before the 1973 peace accords. The general, Tran Van Quang, told the politburo members that Hanoi was holding 1,205 American prisoners but would keep many of them at war’s end as leverage to ensure getting war reparations from Washington.

    Throughout the Paris negotiations, the North Vietnamese tied the prisoner issue tightly to the issue of reparations. They were adamant in refusing to deal with them separately. Finally, in a Feb. 2, 1973 formal letter to Hanoi’s premier, Pham Van Dong, Nixon pledged $3.25 billion in “postwar reconstruction” aid “without any political conditions.” But he also attached to the letter a codicil that said the aid would be implemented by each party “in accordance with its own constitutional provisions.” That meant Congress would have to approve the appropriation, and Nixon and Kissinger knew well that Congress was in no mood to do so. The North Vietnamese, whether or not they immediately understood the double-talk in the letter, remained skeptical about the reparations promise being honored—and it never was. Hanoi thus appears to have held back prisoners—just as it had done when the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and withdrew their forces from Vietnam. In that case, France paid ransoms for prisoners and brought them home.
    In a private briefing in 1992, high-level CIA officials told me that as the years passed and the ransom never came, it became more and more difficult for either government to admit that it knew from the start about the unacknowledged prisoners. Those prisoners had not only become useless as bargaining chips but also posed a risk to Hanoi’s desire to be accepted into the international community. The CIA officials said their intelligence indicated strongly that the remaining men—those who had not died from illness or hard labor or torture—were eventually executed.

    My own research, detailed below, has convinced me that it is not likely that more than a few—if any—are alive in captivity today. (That CIA briefing at the Agency’s Langley, Virginia, headquarters was conducted “off the record,” but because the evidence from my own reporting since then has brought me to the same conclusion, I felt there was no longer any point in not writing about the meeting.)

    For many reasons, including the absence of a political constituency for the missing men other than their families and some veterans’ groups, very few Americans are aware of the POW story and of McCain’s role in keeping it out of public view and denying the existence of abandoned POWs. That is because McCain has hardly been alone in his campaign to hide the scandal.

    The Arizona senator, now the Republican candidate for president, has actually been following the lead of every White House since Richard Nixon’s, and thus of every CIA director, Pentagon chief, and national security adviser, not to mention Dick Cheney, who was George H.W. Bush’s Defense secretary. Their biggest accomplice has been an indolent press, particularly in Washington.
    McCain’s Role

    An early and critical McCain secrecy move involved 1990 legislation that started in the House of Representatives. A brief and simple document, it was called “the Truth Bill” and would have compelled complete transparency about prisoners and missing men. Its core sentence reads: “[The] head of each department or agency which holds or receives any records and information, including live-sighting reports, which have been correlated or possibly correlated to United States personnel listed as prisoner of war or missing in action from World War II, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict, shall make available to the public all such records held or received by that department or agency.”

    Bitterly opposed by the Pentagon (and thus McCain), the bill went nowhere. Reintroduced the following year, it again disappeared. But a few months later, a new measure, known as “the McCain Bill,”suddenly appeared. By creating a bureaucratic maze from which only a fraction of the documents could emerge—only records that revealed no POW secrets—it turned the Truth Bill on its head. The McCain bill became law in 1991 and remains so today. So crushing to transparency are its provisions that it actually spells out for the Pentagon and other agencies several rationales, scenarios, and justifications for not releasing any information at all—even about prisoners discovered alive in captivity. Later that year, the Senate Select Committee was created, where Kerry and McCain ultimately worked together to bury evidence.

    McCain was also instrumental in amending the Missing Service Personnel Act, which had been strengthened in 1995 by POW advocates to include criminal penalties, saying, “Any government official who knowingly and willfully withholds from the file of a missing person any information relating to the disappearance or whereabouts and status of a missing person shall be fined as provided in Title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.”

    A year later, in a closed House-Senate conference on an unrelated military bill, McCain, at the behest of the Pentagon, attached a crippling amendment to the act, stripping out its only enforcement teeth, the criminal penalties, and reducing the obligations of commanders in the field to speedily search for missing men and to report the incidents to the Pentagon.
    About the relaxation of POW/MIA obligations on commanders in the field, a public McCain memo said, “This transfers the bureaucracy involved out of the [battle] field to Washington.” He wrote that the original legislation, if left intact, “would accomplish nothing but create new jobs for lawyers and turn military commanders into clerks.”

    McCain argued that keeping the criminal penalties would have made it impossible for the Pentagon to find staffers willing to work on POW/MIA matters. That’s an odd argument to make. Were staffers only “willing to work” if they were allowed to conceal POW records? By eviscerating the law, McCain gave his stamp of approval to the government policy of debunking the existence of live POWs.

    McCain has insisted again and again that all the evidence—documents, witnesses, satellite photos, two Pentagon chiefs’ sworn testimony, aborted rescue missions, ransom offers apparently scorned—has been woven together by unscrupulous deceivers to create an insidious and unpatriotic myth. He calls it the “bizarre rantings of the MIA hobbyists.” He has regularly vilified those who keep trying to pry out classified documents as “hoaxers,” “charlatans,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “dime-store Rambos.”

    Some of McCain’s fellow captives at Hoa Lo prison in Hanoi didn’t share his views about prisoners left behind. Before he died of leukemia in 1999, retired Col. Ted Guy, a highly admired POW and one of the most dogged resisters in the camps, wrote an angry open letter to the senator in an MIA newsletter—a response to McCain’s stream of insults hurled at MIA activists. Guy wrote, “John, does this [the insults] include Senator Bob Smith [a New Hampshire Republican and activist on POW issues] and other concerned elected officials? Does this include the families of the missing where there is overwhelming evidence that their loved ones were ‘last known alive’? Does this include some of your fellow POWs?”

    It’s not clear whether the taped confession McCain gave to his captors to avoid further torture has played a role in his postwar behavior in the Senate. That confession was played endlessly over the prison loudspeaker system at Hoa Lo—to try to break down other prisoners—and was broadcast over Hanoi’s state radio. Reportedly, he confessed to being a war criminal who had bombed civilian targets. The Pentagon has a copy of the confession but will not release it. Also, no outsider I know of has ever seen a non-redacted copy of the debriefing of McCain when he returned from captivity, which is classified but could be made public by McCain.

    All humans have breaking points. Many men undergoing torture give confessions, often telling huge lies so their fakery will be understood by their comrades and their country. Few will fault them. But it was McCain who apparently felt he had disgraced himself and his military family. His father, John S. McCain II, was a highly regarded rear admiral then serving as commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific. His grandfather was also a rear admiral.

    In his bestselling 1999 autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain says he felt bad throughout his captivity because he knew he was being treated more leniently than his fellow POWs, owing to his high-ranking father and thus his propaganda value. Other prisoners at Hoa Lo say his captors considered him a prize catch and called him the “Crown Prince,” something McCain acknowledges in the book.

    Also in this memoir, McCain expresses guilt at having broken under torture and given the confession. “I felt faithless and couldn’t control my despair,” he writes, revealing that he made two “feeble” attempts at suicide. (In later years, he said he tried to hang himself with his shirt and guards intervened.) Tellingly, he says he lived in “dread” that his father would find out about the confession. “I still wince,” he writes, “when I recall wondering if my father had heard of my disgrace.”

    He says that when he returned home, he told his father about the confession, but “never discussed it at length”—and the admiral, who died in 1981, didn’t indicate he had heard anything about it before. But he had. In the 1999 memoir, the senator writes, “I only recently learned that the tape … had been broadcast outside the prison and had come to the attention of my father.”
    Is McCain haunted by these memories? Does he suppress POW information because its surfacing would rekindle his feelings of shame? On this subject, all I have are questions.
    Many stories have been written about McCain’s explosive temper, so volcanic that colleagues are loath to speak openly about it. One veteran congressman who has observed him over the years asked for confidentiality and made this brief comment: “This is a man not at peace with himself.”

    He was certainly far from calm on the Senate POW committee. He browbeat expert witnesses who came with information about unreturned POWs. Family members who have personally faced McCain and pressed him to end the secrecy also have been treated to his legendary temper. He has screamed at them, insulted them, brought women to tears. Mostly his responses to them have been versions of: How dare you question my patriotism? In 1996, he roughly pushed aside a group of POW family members who had waited outside a hearing room to appeal to him, including a mother in a wheelchair.

    But even without answers to what may be hidden in the recesses of McCain’s mind, one thing about the POW story is clear: if American prisoners were dishonored by being written off and left to die, that’s something the American public ought to know about.
    10 Key Pieces of Evidence That Men Were Left Behind

    1. In Paris, where the Vietnam peace treaty was negotiated, the United States asked Hanoi for the list of American prisoners to be returned, fearing that Hanoi would hold some prisoners back. The North Vietnamese refused, saying they would produce the list only after the treaty was signed. Nixon agreed with Kissinger that they had no leverage left, and Kissinger signed the accord on Jan. 27, 1973 without the prisoner list. When Hanoi produced its list of 591 prisoners the next day, U.S. intelligence agencies expressed shock at the low number. Their number was hundreds higher. The New York Times published a long, page-one story on Feb. 2, 1973 about the discrepancy, especially raising questions about the number of prisoners held in Laos, only nine of whom were being returned. The headline read, in part, “Laos POW List Shows 9 from U.S.—Document Disappointing to Washington as 311 Were Believed Missing.” And the story, by John Finney, said that other Washington officials “believe the number of prisoners [in Laos] is probably substantially higher.” The paper never followed up with any serious investigative reporting—nor did any other mainstream news organization.

    2. Two Defense secretaries who served during the Vietnam War testified to the Senate POW committee in September 1992 that prisoners were not returned. James Schlesinger and Melvin Laird, both speaking at a public session and under oath, said they based their conclusions on strong intelligence data—letters, eyewitness reports, even direct radio contacts. Under questioning, Schlesinger chose his words carefully, understanding clearly the volatility of the issue: “I think that as of now that I can come to no other conclusion … some were left behind.” This ran counter to what President Nixon told the public in a nationally televised speech on March 29, 1973, when the repatriation of the 591 was in motion: “Tonight,” Nixon said, “the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come. For the first time in 12 years, no American military forces are in Vietnam. All our American POWs are on their way home.” Documents unearthed since then show that aides had already briefed Nixon about the contrary evidence.

    Schlesinger was asked by the Senate committee for his explanation of why President Nixon would have made such a statement when he knew Hanoi was still holding prisoners. He replied, “One must assume that we had concluded that the bargaining position of the United States … was quite weak. We were anxious to get our troops out and we were not going to roil the waters…” This testimony struck me as a bombshell. The New York Times appropriately reported it on page one but again there was no sustained follow-up by the Times or any other major paper or national news outlet.

    3. Over the years, the DIA received more than 1,600 first-hand sightings of live American prisoners and nearly 14,000 second-hand reports. Many witnesses interrogated by CIA or Pentagon intelligence agents were deemed “credible” in the agents’ reports. Some of the witnesses were given lie-detector tests and passed. Sources provided me with copies of these witness reports, which are impressive in their detail. A lot of the sightings described a secondary tier of prison camps many miles from Hanoi. Yet the DIA, after reviewing all these reports, concluded that they “do not constitute evidence” that men were alive.

    4. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, listening stations picked up messages in which Laotian military personnel spoke about moving American prisoners from one labor camp to another. These listening posts were manned by Thai communications officers trained by the National Security Agency (NSA), which monitors signals worldwide. The NSA teams had moved out after the fall of Saigon in 1975 and passed the job to the Thai allies. But when the Thais turned these messages over to Washington, the intelligence community ruled that since the intercepts were made by a “third party”—namely Thailand—they could not be regarded as authentic. That’s some Catch-22: the U.S. trained a third party to take over its role in monitoring signals about POWs, but because that third party did the monitoring, the messages weren’t valid.

    Here, from CIA files, is an example that clearly exposes the farce. On Dec. 27, 1980, a Thai military signal team picked up a message saying that prisoners were being moved out of Attopeu (in southern Laos) by aircraft “at 1230 hours.” Three days later a message was sent from the CIA station in Bangkok to the CIA director’s office in Langley. It read, in part: “The prisoners … are now in the valley in permanent location (a prison camp at Nhommarath in Central Laos). They were transferred from Attopeu to work in various places … POWs were formerly kept in caves and are very thin, dark and starving.”

    Apparently the prisoners were real. But the transmission was declared “invalid” by Washington because the information came from a “third party” and thus could not be deemed credible.”

    There are three more pages, I have red enough!

  4. 07/21/2015 12:27

    Gets under ones skin a bit.

  5. upaces88 permalink
    07/21/2015 22:46

    He and Jane Fonda should be room-mates.

  6. upaces88 permalink
    07/21/2015 23:13

    Exactly!!!

  7. Dr. Jeff permalink
    07/25/2015 18:22

    The Stars and Bars is the only flag ever flown by a group who actually rebelled against the Federal government in Washington DC. They fought as bravely as anyone in history.

    It is now the flag of ALL American rebels.

  8. poetopoet permalink
    07/25/2015 18:54

    The Southern Cross.

  9. 07/26/2015 09:55

    There is far more history than they care to admit. IF you look hard enough.

  10. 07/26/2015 09:58

    Yes it is.

  11. upaces88 permalink
    07/27/2015 22:48

    I tried to read back at all of the comments….to see If I told you this before.

    It was a VERY hushed secret in my family until I was about 30 yrs old. My family was spread out all over the South during the Civil War…from Alabama, Mississippi to Texas.

    Seems in my family history, there were two brothers. One fought for the North and the other fought for the South. Both survived; and when it was over they sat on the front porch rocking but NEVER speaking about the War.

  12. upaces88 permalink
    07/27/2015 22:49

  13. 07/27/2015 23:01

    It is a beautiful song.

  14. 07/27/2015 23:02

    Makes pure sense.

  15. upaces88 permalink
    07/27/2015 23:05

    I could never understand what all the hoop laa was about when he first came out….UNTIL… my boss at the nightclub where I worked wanted me to go with her to see him in Dallas.

    THAT IS WHEN I JUST FELL IN LOVE WITH HIS MUSIC and HIM.
    He was magic!

  16. 07/27/2015 23:15

    Indeed.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: