The Futility of Politics

I’ve been a political junkie since at least the age of eleven, when I rooted with all my heart for Bobby Kennedy to win the Democratic Party presidential nomination. When RFK was assassinated, it absolutely crushed my young spirit. I think I realized even then that the good guys simply aren’t allowed to win.

Still, I remained keenly interested in the political world. During Watergate, as a high school student, I’m sure I exasperated most of my classmates with my nonstop anti- Nixon, burgeoning radical leftism. I also converted a few of them. In this regard, I guess I’m still doing the same thing; offending or persuading others.

Donald Trump has made politics infinitely more interesting. But he has also made it divisive to the point of physical confrontation, merely for wearing his MAGA hat, or placing a pro-Trump sign on one’s property. The hatred a substantial portion of Americans feel for him is unprecedented. It is indeed a form of derangement.

On the other hand, those who remain absolutely loyal to him can only do so by ignoring his constant flip-flops and capitulations. “He’s playing 8,000D chess!” “Keep your enemies closer!” Or they’ll claim the president has no authority. Which begs the question then of why any hopes are pinned on him, or any other president.

At this point, it is what it is; Trump is a grand tweeter, taking on the odious establishment with often incisive and biting comments. In terms of policies, this hasn’t meant much. It’s been neocon Republican business as usual during his term in office. Illegals aren’t being deported. Visa workers are still being hired. The crumbling infrastructure remains untouched. The troops remain in countries where they don’t belong. Not a single Deep State villain has been prosecuted.

The indictment of former Trump insider Steve Bannon last week illustrated this point all too clearly. Bannon was prosecuted, like Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone, by Trump’s justice department, not Obama’s. The same justice department that declined to prosecute the Queen of Corruption, Hillary Clinton. A justice department led by William Barr, a swamp creature whose allegiance to the corrupt establishment was best reflected in his appearance as a character witness for FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi, who blew Vicki Weaver’s head off while she was holding her baby, during the government assault at Ruby Ridge.

The swamp isn’t being drained. There aren’t 150,000 sealed indictments, or whatever the number is claimed to be now. The notion that someone as horrific as Barr could be leading the “White Hats” is beyond laughable. Barr, in case you didn’t know, has long been best friends with Robert Mueller, the man perceived publicly as Donald Trump’s arch nemesis. Barr is not an anomaly in Trump’s administration; he has filled it with Never Trumpers like Nikki Haley, Rod Rosenstein, and John Bolton.

The election of Trump was shocking, and at the time electrifying. But the novelty quickly wore off. It became obvious very early on, that none of the promised executive orders, to ban birth-right citizenship, H-1B Visa workers, and the like, were forthcoming. Mexico wasn’t about to build the wall. In fact, Bannon’s indictment on charges of fraud surrounding donations for the wall’s funding was the first news we’d heard about that wall for quite some time. Somewhere, Mexico is laughing.

I get attacked from both sides all the time. Whenever I post something on social media, invariably someone with Trump Derangement Syndrome, or Trump Enablement Syndrome, jumps in to question my motives, call me names, etc. My own niece deleted me as a friend recently on Facebook. I’m starting to understand how it must have felt in the 1860s, when brother really was fighting brother. Trump’s personality has created a fault line the size of the Grand Canyon. The few of us who view Trump dispassionately have a hard time fitting in to any modern political discussion, like lonely wallflowers at the big dance.

If I could only get more of my fiction published, I’d be done with political commentary. How many times, and in how many different ways, can you say that we’re ruled by absolute tyranny? How often can you drum home the fact that anyone with a large public platform is part of the corruption?

I get tired of sounding so pessimistic. But as the great cynic Ambrose Bierce said, pessimism is enforced upon the rational observer by cold reality. A part of me continues to believe in the fairy tale resolutions in all those great Frank Capra movies. So I am predisposed to believe in something like QAnon. I hope in vain for some “White Hats” to come riding into our rescue. I want to believe people are inherently good, despite myriad examples of reckless mob mentality, and the shameful fact that, even with widespread electoral fraud, plenty of people do actually vote for the Nancy Pelosis and Lindsay Grahams of the world.

I often question myself; why am I a populist? Populism derives from an affinity for the common people. The common people I’ve met are mostly just that; common. Not especially perceptive. Prone to bigotry and susceptible to even the most ridiculous aspects of mainstream indoctrination. Yes, they’re getting screwed royally by this rigged system. But most of them don’t seem to care. And most continue to focus their attention and anger at their neighbors, who are mired in the same circumstances. Everything is perfectly fine, as long as they don’t have anything, either.  The analogy of the lobsters pulling down the ones trying to escape the tank is very apt here.

Seeing the ugly, screaming faces at some of these protests, I have to ask; do they deserve better? If some of these delusional people were in charge, it’s hard to imagine the kind of draconian laws they would devise. The other side is more reasonable, but their go-to move seems to be chanting “USA! USA! USA!” In other words, cheering on the system that is openly discriminating against and censoring those who share their views. Stockholm Syndrome isn’t a strong enough term to describe that.

This election, which we are assured once again will be the “most important” one ever, boils down to a referendum on Donald Trump’s personality. The issues that really impact the lives of the 80% being railroaded by the rigged system will be ignored again, as they have been in every previous presidential election. Except for 2016, when Trump’s populist rhetoric brought things like “globalism” and immigration to the forefront of the discourse.

There will be no debate about the great 9/11 lie, and the unconstitutional niceties, like the Patriot Act and Homeland Security department, that followed. I don’t think even Trump will have the audacity to talk about illegal immigrants and Visa workers, given his lack of effort in those areas. No one will talk about peace, or the sprawling Military Industrial/Intelligence Complex, unless Trump makes another insincere threat to bring the troops home from somewhere. The disparity of wealth will only be touched upon in a broad, meaningless way by the Democrats who still despise the greatest champion the common people ever had, Huey Long.

With the Democrats demanding widespread mail-in voting, which will ensure even more electoral fraud than usual, we can expect an even more contentious result. Neither side will trust the results, and with good reason. Voting has been fixed in this country since “Honest” Abe Lincoln prevented troops suspected of being Democrats from being furloughed to vote during the war, since Samuel Tilden was robbed of the presidency in 1876, since “Landslide” Lyndon Johnson proved the importance of the dead vote during his 1948 Senate “victory,” which was rubber stamped by ex-KKK member Hugo Black, who went on to become a “liberal” Supreme Court justice, to cite a few glaring examples. It isn’t “Russia” corrupting our electoral process.

I’ve voted for enough Third Party candidates. Ralph Nader. Pat Buchanan. Ross Perot. Various Libertarians. Only Perot had even a sliver of a chance to win. Americans love their “two party” system. And with the emergence of Trump, virtually everyone is split into those disastrous two camps that Alex Jones used to accurately call the “phony Left-Right paradigm.” Nobody seems to want more choices. A truly independent, Reform Party-style of alternative has never seemed less possible. Trump’s election crushed the chances of any alternative parties.

We have a choice between the tweeter-in-chief, and a Deep State veteran of decades, who appears for all the world to be suffering from some form of dementia. Perhaps the “highlight” of the Democratic Party’s convention- held in virtual, surreal lockdown style- featured a woman who was an ex-prostitute. But not just any prostitute- one who participated in a gang murder of a client. And only served twenty some years, which is par for the course in our maddeningly bad injustice system. No one, naturally, talked about peace or civil liberties.

I’ll keep writing and talking about politics. It’s a part of my character. But I don’t have much passion left for it. Emotion drives the debate now. Petty partisanship and hypocrisy reign. There is no place for reason or idealism in the politics of personality.

About donaldjeffries

Author of the critically acclaimed best sellers "Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover Ups in American Politics,""Survival of the Richest: How the Corruption of the Marketplace and the Disparity of Wealth Created the Greatest Conspiracy of All," and the newly released "Crimes and Cover Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963." Author of the 2007 sci-fi/fantasy novel "The Unreals," which has been described as a cross between The Wizard of Oz and The Twilight Zone, and compared to A Confederacy of Dunces and classic Russian literature. A second edition of "The Unreals" was published in February 2015 by Pocol Press. Long time JFK assassination researcher. Seeker of truth, proponent of justice and fairness. Enemy of corruption. Sender of as many "tiny ripples of hope" as possible.

Posted on August 24, 2020, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 21 Comments.

  1. Donald Jeffries, You wrote that Lincoln corrupted the 1864 election by sending in the military to fix votes. The article below states that a conspiracy to fix the election against Lincoln was discovered and crushed, allowing the vote to be counted correctly for Lincoln. Can you explain whether and how Lincoln had the election fixed by the military?

    Mail-in ballots were part of a plot to deny Lincoln reelection in 1864
    August 22, 2020 | Dustin Waters
    Along with their mail-in ballots, troops would assign their power of attorney on slips that required four signatures: the voter’s, the person authorized as a recipient, a witness to the signed affidavit and a …

    Traveling to Baltimore in the fall of 1864, Orville Wood had no way of knowing he would soon uncover the most elaborate election conspiracy in America’s brief history.
    Wood was a merchant from Clinton County in the most northeastern corner of New York. As a supporter of President Abraham Lincoln, he was tasked with visiting troops from his hometown to “look after the local ticket.”
    New York legislators had only established the state’s mail-in voting system in April with the intent of ensuring the suffrage of White troops battling the Confederate Army.
    The results of the 1864 elections would heavily affect the outcome of the war. Lincoln and his supporters in the National Union Party sought to continue the war and defeat the Confederacy outright. Meanwhile antiwar Democrats, also referred to as Copperheads, looked for an immediate compromise with the Confederate leaders and the end of the abolition movement.
    Troops from New York were allowed to authorize individuals back home to cast a vote on their behalf. Along with their mail-in ballots, troops would assign their power of attorney on slips that required four signatures: the voter’s, the person authorized as a recipient, a witness to the signed affidavit and a fellow officer. These documents would be sealed in an envelope and shipped back home to be counted in the final vote. This was the process that Orville Wood intended to uphold, he would testify in court later. He quickly found out what a challenge that would be.
    Wood arrived at Fort McHenry in Baltimore to visit with the 91st New York Regiment. There, an Army captain suggested that there had been some “checker playing” when it came to the gathering of soldiers’ mail-in ballots. These suspicions of fraud were echoed when Wood visited wounded men at the Newton University Hospital. The rumors of wrongdoing led Wood to the office of Moses Ferry in Baltimore.
    Ferry had been selected by New York Gov. Horatio Seymour to help oversee the voting process for New York’s enlisted men. Seymour had vetoed the initial bill to establish mail-in voting and would go on to run against Ulysses S. Grant in the 1868 presidential election.
    Wood masked his suspicions as he entered Ferry’s office, portraying himself as a strong supporter of Lincoln’s opponent, George McClellan. This was enough to gain Ferry’s trust, he testified later.
    Ferry told Wood that the votes from New York’s 91st Regiment had already been tallied: 400 for McClellan and 11 for Lincoln.
    Wood returned to the office later and, following Ferry’s instructions, began forging signatures of the 16th New York Cavalry. Meanwhile, a clerk sat across the room signing ballots from the roster of names Wood had brought with him from home. Wood asked to personally deliver these fraudulent ballots, but Ferry said they would have to receive final approval from his colleague in Washington – Edward Donahue Jr.
    Donahue soon arrived in Baltimore and met with Wood. It was revealed during this conversation that around 20 co-conspirators were already at work in D.C. to aid in the plot to deliver votes to McClellan. The following day Wood watched as Donahue and his crew formed a sort of assembly line, passing blank papers along to one another to be signed with the names of active enlisted men, wounded and dead soldiers, and officers who never existed.
    In addition to operations in D.C. and Baltimore, the scheme extended back to New York. Donahue had received rosters of soldiers from military officials and members of law enforcement. A letter from Gen. J.A. Ferrell read, “Inclosed in this package you will find tickets, also a list of names of the actual residents of Columbia County, now members of the 128th Regiment. With my best wishes for your success.”
    A letter from Albany Sheriff H. Cromdell offered to send additional men to assist in Baltimore. The letter read, “All is well here, and we are confident of complete success. It is unnecessary to say that all here have entire confidence in your skill and abetting, and hope you like your help.”
    Also discovered in Ferry’s office was a list of around 400 names belonging to sick and wounded soldiers under treatment at a nearby hospital. In reference to the roster, Ferry joked, “Dead or alive, they all had cast a good vote.”
    Ferry, Donahue, and their fellow conspirators found humor in their work. One accomplice mocked the outcry he expected from abolitionist newspapers following the corruption of the election. The men bragged about their past successes in fixing local elections back home.
    Together, the men had shipped crates of fraudulent votes back to New York. But their scheme was over. Wood reported the operation to authorities. Ferry’s office was searched, and on the morning of Oct. 27, 1864 – less than two weeks before the election – he and Donahue stood trial before a military commission.
    Ferry offered a full confession that same day, even offering up the names of others involved in the scheme. Donahue proved more of a challenge.
    Following the first day of the trial, a reporter for the New York Times wrote, “The honest electors of the state of New York have escaped an extensive and fearful fraud, a fraud in keeping with the proclivities of the party in whose behalf it was initiated, but one that, if unexposed might have subverted the honest will of the people and left the state and the nation at the mercy of those who would make peace with rebellion and fellowship with traitors.”
    Arrests in New York and Washington continued to mount as Donahue returned to trial. Following Wood’s damning testimony and supporting evidence, Donahue begged for mercy from the court. He was a young man, newly married, with no previous record. He visibly wilted as he realized the weight of his current situation, no longer expressing the defiance with which he had entered the proceedings.
    The judge advocate addressed the tribunal, saying that Donahue had engaged in one of the most gigantic frauds ever attempted in America – “a fraud which, if it shall be successful, will, in my opinion, have produced a disruption of our entire country, and our war for the preservation of the Union will be practically at an end and futile.”
    In the months following Lincoln’s victory – he won 221 electoral votes to McClellan’s 21 – anti-abolitionist newspapers attacked his legitimacy, calling the trial another aspect of a conspiracy conducted by the president to ensure his reelection.
    The commission that oversaw Ferry and Donahue’s trial recommended life in prison for the two men who sought to corrupt the election by mail. The president, who would soon be slain, approved.

    • If you read my section on this in “Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963,” you’ll see it is thoroughly sourced. Gen. Benjamin “Beast” Butler even bragged in a letter that he had done everything possible to stop Democrats from voting in New York.

      • Oh, you betcha! I have ONE essential book on my shelf. Its title:

        “Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963”

        The commencement of the destruction of the manifest tenor of the U.S. Constitution and dissent into the current American welfare state was initiated by “Crazy Abe” Lincoln. Secession was constitutional – it’s what the Founders did. A seceded CSA would have failed and reunited, ultimately, after advocated opposition, boycotts and divestiture. The plans and law were compassionate repatriation for the benefit of the shanghaied Africans.

        Someday write about Article 1, Section 8 in which Congress is provided only the power to tax for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. And Congress is provided the power to regulate only the “value” of money, the “flow” of “…commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;…,” and land and naval Forces, while the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute as Congress has no power to claim or exercise dominion over the private property of individuals, excepting only the full taking of property after fair value compensation under eminent domain.

        “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

        – James Madison

        The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional and it all began with “Crazy Abe” Lincoln.

        Thank you.

  2. Considering the despicably low moral caliber of the U.S. political “talent”, one does naturally suppose that the American Empire is on its last legs.

    Since the average Empire lasts about 250 years (even a 6% interest rate will put all subjects into debt slavery, save the self-proclaimed elite), and this war against decent humanity has been going on for about 10,000 years (or so the smart guys say); then this current dissolution of the American Dream Empire will be around #400 for the pathetically ill bloodline oligarchs and their schmuck, sewer-rat like managers.

  3. When you write about the “deep state” don’t forget the Catholic Church. They took in $98 billion last year, tax free. The church also has five justices on the Supreme Court and skimmed $$$ off the coronavirus relief fund. These guys are major players in what you call the “deep state.” Much more than any Jewish organization.

  4. Patrick G Flannery

    Please don’t stop writing. Your voice may be “one crying in the wilderness” but we need men such as yourelf to be heard. I am reminded of what Edmund Burke said about good men not speaking up and rvil flourishing. We live in a world of extremes and polarization in thoughts and deeds. Pogo said “we have seen the enemy and the enemy is us”. And so it is that each one must prove himself worthy to take up the banner of a righteous cause, however unpopular or futile it may appear. We hsve seen the results of men who fell silent in nazi germany which gave rise to an undeniably evil movement and ultimately WW2. So please keep on speaking and writing however lonely disillusioned or cynical you may feel as the world continues to pressure your sensibilities. You may count me as one who has been and continues to be impacted by your world view and intellect. Thank you very much for your voice and service to our country.

  5. Andre’ Noix-Chateau

    Americans are really stupid. Europeans are much smarter, as are the Chinese. Americans, particularly White Americans, are a bunch of dopes.

  6. Donald, another excellent commentary as usual.

  7. Concise take on Hegelian Dialectic per compromised opposition in American political discourse: Brendon O’Donnell. Maybe a good interview. Posted 9/5/20:

  8. Ralph B. Seymour

    Another great article Mr.Jeffries.

  9. Do yourself a favor and stop writing about politics. You’ll feel better and will have more time for family, friends, and constructive activities.

  10. This is an excellent perceptive article and I appreciate knowing there are a few others who see through the lies and manipulation of the two party system. I too in the beginning, thought Trump stood for something different. Looking back I am surprised by my naiveté.

    But we now face a threat far greater than at any time in human history, which is literal gene- ocide by “vaccine”. All the signs are there, that this new biowar will not utilize conflict between countries, as the excuse for us to kill us (the cover for prior culls) but will utilize a psyop health crisis to reign down its death and destruction. Unlike WW1 -WW2, the royal -elite will not be content with culling a few hundred million of us. This time they’re going for billions. With AI and automation they no longer need people to produce goods and go to war, so they’ve come up with their final solution for green house gas (their code name for us breathing). Targeted genetic warfare delivered by syringe.

  11. I Tried Dating Two Men At The Same Time — This is The Unsurprising Truth of What Happened

    When I met Angelo, I quickly realized we had very little in common. At the time, I had been talking briefly with another man, Eric, for about a week. We enjoyed the same films, had easygoing, lively conversation, and generally had a shared interest in one another.

    However, I didn’t initially get the impression that Eric was looking for something serious, as we didn’t talk all that regularly and he had never asked me out on a date. It was harmless, yet still a little exciting.

    When Angelo suddenly entered the picture, it was clear we shared an instant physical attraction. It was hard to make conversation outside of having a few drinks, and wedding bells existed in an altogether different universe than the one we shared. Still, we were curious about each other.

    One night, Angelo and I were with a group. I hadn’t spoken to Eric at all that day, and he was barely in my mind as I flirted incessantly with Angelo. Several hours into the night, we ended up in my bedroom. We had fun, casual sex. The next morning, we smiled and said goodbye.

    I continued to see Angelo and saw Eric a few times in between. Eric still hadn’t asked me out or made any kind of verbal indication that he wanted us to be monogamous.

    Truthfully, I couldn’t tell if he was really all that interested in me. We didn’t have sex, and we hadn’t even kissed. Mostly, I just wanted to see where it could go (while still privately having fun with Angelo, who knew my intentions with Eric).

    One night, when Eric was over, a text popped up from Angelo. Eric side-eyed my phone, then crossed his arms.

    “So it’s true,” he’d said, his mouth a razor-straight line.

    “What is?” I asked, oblivious.

    “That you’re seeing Angelo,” he offered, his voice low. I hadn’t known Eric really even knew Angelo, though we did travel in similar circles.

    “Oh,” I laughed, “Only sort of. It’s just casual. If you and I were to ever start dating, I have no intention of continuing to see him,” I explained, calmly.

    Eric was silent.

    “Is that…a problem for you?” I asked, leaning forward.

    “I just don’t think I like you as much anymore,” he uttered.


    “You’ve… been with him. I don’t like you anymore.”

    After a few more sentences uttered back and forth, Eric left.

    I was stunned.

    The Wretched Curse of the Double Standard

    I had never been really seeing two people at once before and figured all parties involved didn’t have that much skin in the game. If Eric wanted to get serious, I’d stop seeing Angelo. Simple as that.

    Angelo knew I was interested in Eric, and it wasn’t Eric’s business who I was sleeping with. I never intended on sleeping with them at the same time, and Eric hardly made it clear he wanted to date rather than double down on what Angelo and I had been doing.

    From a young age, promiscuous men are celebrated in society. In films, books, all kinds of media — to be a promiscuous man means to be attractive, desirable, and “hard to catch.”

    I think we all know how society refers to women who are promiscuous. There are some nasty, degrading words out there for that.

    What happened between Eric and I was probably just a misunderstanding. He couldn’t communicate his feelings for me, presumably out of fear, and I didn’t understand he wanted monogamy. The key, though, is that his version of monogamy reminds me of a dog. A dog that doesn’t want other dogs pissing on his fire hydrant.

    That’s what it feels like to be told someone doesn’t like you because you’d been casually sleeping with someone else.

    As if the “freshness” of the mark made it all the worse, and being with you would be degrading for them.

    You having slept with another person so recently would be a direct attack on their sense of manhood, of possession — obviously, you’re supposed to be an object to be coveted and praised. Not one that came from right off the block.

    Ironically, Angelo didn’t care that I was interested in Eric. He assumed it would work out one way or the other, and he never treated me with less respect, even though we had zero commitment to one another.

    It’s funny — I was instinctively interested in a man who didn’t respect me, but could casually sleep with the one who did.

    The attempt to shame is only fuel to my sexual fire
    I wondered for a long time if I did something wrong. I wondered if I should’ve put all my eggs into one, uncertain basket, just to avoid the risk of a humiliating misunderstanding.

    Or to have a fighting chance of being with a decent person in a healthy relationship. I wondered if the “key” to beginning a new relationship always involved careful courtship with preservation of sexual self, as most of society would like for us to believe. Then I realized…


    I’m allowed to sleep with who I want and when I want, as long as I’m not breaking my commitments. And I wasn’t. Eric hadn’t so much as mentioned us being together in any significant way.

    It’s a common grievance of men that women expect them to be mindreaders. Well, clearly it can happen on both sides.

    I didn’t owe either Eric or Angelo anything at any point during our acquaintance. Not my body, not my mind, and certainly not my “purity.” I only owe myself. I owe myself everything.

    It can be hard to feel justified in your actions when people are hell-bent on humiliating you. Especially as a woman, standing your grand in your expression of your sexuality is a constant uphill battle.

    Men, and even other women, will try to shame and embarrass you. There will always be a convoluted reason why a woman owes a man or society her purity, and almost never the other way around.

    There will always be a reason why a woman can’t discuss her sexuality openly, or her sexual past with even her current partner, without the fear of being shamed or ridiculed — such is the life of a woman in this world.

    Though my story is a slightly more tame one of sexual shaming, I doubt it’ll be the last time in my life when I experience it. It certainly wasn’t the first.

    Ladies, keep doing you. I know I will.

    Let them hate it.

  12. Donald, I’m glad you’re still writing. I know things are tough but you are so talented. I listen to your podcast and it’s good, but nothing like your writing. You have a true gift.
    I think something to remember is that through all of this nonsense going on in the world we who can remember decent times are grieving terribly. We are suffering a monumental loss. It’s awfully hard to come to terms with it at times. Things are accelerating so quickly (by design or not) that it is difficult to roll with it.
    So hang in there please. I know it’s bleak and honestly, I think it’s going to get much much worse. But knowing there is another that can articulate in writing what I can hardly formulate in my head is actually a great comfort. It lets me know I’m not completely off my rocker. So thanks brother.

  13. REF:

    donaldjeffries | September 7, 2020 at 2:08 am

    If you read my section on this in “Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963,” you’ll see it is thoroughly sourced. Gen. Benjamin “Beast” Butler even bragged in a letter that he had done everything possible to stop Democrats from voting in New York.

    Donald Jeffries,

    I can’t seem to find the referenced letter through an Internet search engine. Could you help me please? I would like to locate the letter in which Gen. Benjamin “Beast” Butler bragged about doing “…everything possible to stop Democrats from voting in New York.”

    Thank you

    • It’s not surprising that a Google search brings no results for this. They don’t want to advertise this kind of history. My source was a 1904 essay, “How Lincoln Secured His Re-Election” by George Edmonds. You have to go back at least that far to get some of the material I used in the book. My compilation of northern atrocities, for instance, came largely from contemporary southern sources. Court historians allow no dissent on this subject. Butler’s collected letters from 1860-1862 can be found online. But this one was written on November 7, 1864. An online search for that letter brings up nothing. Which is to be expected. There’s a reason why I call these things hidden history. As always, history is written by the victors.

  14. I appreciate your response.

    Thank you very much.

    Sic semper tyrannis!

  15. Are all your podcasts behind a paywall now? Is there a way to hear them without having to pay?

    • Things will be changing soon- I will be starting another radio show, and probably a podcast as well. I am looking to monetize in some way, but most of that will be free. As for my present show, you can always listen live for free, but at least the last few shows should be free as well, at least for a short period of time. I have nothing to do with that. If you have a older show you really want to listen to, email me at, and I will send the file to you. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: