REVISED 25 JAN 2019 @ 1500 USA MT.


2 Kings 6: 16-17
[16] And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
[17] And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but morally treasonable to the American public."

Theodore Roosevelt - 26th US President

What about the TYRANNY  of section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that allows for INDEFINITE DETENTION of American Citizens, suspending the right of HABEAS CORPUS?  HABEAS CORPUS which dates back to the MAGNA CARTA of the 13th Century and The Declaration of Arbroath  of 1320.

Lincoln was a bloody tyrant whom through his ungodly deeds moved our God ordained government from a Constitutional Republic of Confederated States towards Facism/Fascism and now nearing total control bought and paid for by the secular nation of Israel along with other self interested groups, foreign or domestic,  opposed to the weal of the People of  the  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.



Exodus 20: 2-3.  I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.



Regarding Romans 13, often quoted by many in recent years.:

who is the higher power?

The Submission Command of Romans 13 applies to every soul, including government officials, whom also are subject to the people.

The higher powers statement of Romans 13. Does it require submission to the higher power Satan? Nay. Nor to those under under Satan's influence.

1) Can the current president be considered just or righteous when he facilitates the death of millions of unborn children?

2) Can the current president be considered just or righteous when he facilitates Sodomy?

3) Can the current president be considered just or righteous when he facilitates theft of multiple 10s of thousands of dollars from our great grand children?

4) Can the current president be considered just or righteous when he does not honor Jesus The Christ as God?

I say Nay. Nay. He is at least four times over guilty of violating the whole law of God.

5) Can the current president be considered just or righteous when he  has  issued a Proclamation that all flags be flown at half staff for five days, 5 December 2013 to 9 December 2013 for the Foreign Marxist Terrorist Nelson Mandela while we are in a War against Terror. Or, are we? 

Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day has one day! 

The Philippines. Jap rape of women and murder of babies.

6) Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20.

7) What about the Tyranny of President Lyndon Baines Johnson as he refused to send aid to U.S.S. LIBERTY as it was straffed, bombed and torpedoed for hours while cruising International Waters of the Mediterranean. Scores were mercilessly killed and wounded  in 1967 by the ISRAELI government employing Aircraft and Motor Torpedo Boats. L.B.J. recalled our Carrier based Aircraft responding to pleas for help by the gallant crew, rather than offend a supposed Ally. TREASON. TYRANNY. 

For a detailied report See YOUR VOICE COUNTS. ""



8) What about the Tyranny of  President Herbert Hoover when he issued orders for the USA Military to attack USA Veterans in 1932?


Battling the “Religious” Enemies of Liberty

By Thomas DiLorenzo

August 28, 2014

Tyrants have always known that they must either infiltrate and control the clergy, or destroy it. For in the tyrant’s mind there can never be two sovereigns. If God is your sovereign, then those who run the state are not, period. The word of God cannot be used to challenge the word of kings, princes, and potentates. It is potentially a lethal challenge to their supposed “authority” over anyone and everyone.

Ancient monarchs claimed a “divine right of kings,” implying that anything the king said or did was, by definition, divine. Disobey the king, and you were disobeying God himself. The clergy of the day were rewarded with pelf and power in return for supporting this false religion.

In more modern times the Soviet Union simply murdered thousands of priests. What little remnant was left of religion in the world’s biggest socialist paradise was staffed by KGB agents posing as priests, as Yuri Maltsev, a former advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev and now an American citizen, has said. These Potemkin Village churches allowed the Soviet regime to tell the Big Lie that there was still freedom of religion under communism.

American politicians are not much different from any other in that they possess a lust to dominate others. That is why they are politicians in the first place. But America’s political tyrants have never relied on voodoo-like theories of their own divinity, with the exception of the myth of Abraham Lincoln (affectionately known as “Father Abraham” to Lincoln cultists). Nor have they generally gone about mass murdering priests (although they did murder Mormons in the nineteenth century, and New Englanders were once quite intolerable of those whom they claimed to be practicing witchcraft). Instead, in quintessential American fashion, religion has come to be largely controlled and neutered by the state through the instruments of the tax code and the federal budget.

It is rare for a self-proclaimed “conservative” minister to ever voice anything but the mildest criticism of government, for they are all in mortal fear of losing their tax exemptions for doing so. Not only that, but many churches receive direct grants from the government and are therefore bribed into silence. Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, and the Jewish Federations receive more than half of their revenues from governments, for example. 

President George W. Bush dealt a death blow to true religious freedom with his “Faith-Based Initiative” that dishes out several billion dollars each year in taxpayer dollars to (presumably politically well-behaved) churches. Obama has continued and escalated these subsidies.

Even ministers who personally believe that the welfare/warfare state is immoral and destructive – especially of families — rarely, if ever, bring the subject up with their flocks for fear of losing their tax exemptions, subsidies, and consequently their salaries, perks, and prestige in the community.

There is nothing “wrong” with churches becoming politicized per se in the eyes of the state, however. There is only a risk of losing your tax exemption if you, as a minister, preach opposition to the state. The federal government has never lifted a finger to harass all of the left-wing black churches and ministers under the direction of highly politicized Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton-style preachers, for example. Preaching the lies of the state – especially the lies used to “justify” the state’s wars – is welcomed and often rewarded with “faith-based” subsidies of all kinds. 

As Pastor Chuck Baldwin of Liberty Fellowship in Kalispell, Montana ( recently pointed out in a sermon, there are even ministers of “mega-churches” who fly around the country in private jets paid for by foreign governments “to preach global warfare” to their fellow “evangelical” Christians. (I would have said “paid for by a foreign government, in the singular, but that’s just me).

In fact, Pastor Baldwin has given up his 501(C)(3) tax exempt status so that he can preach the truth and speak truth to the power of the state without worrying about the state trying to put his small Montana church out of business. (Lew Rockwell similarly gave up his tax-exempt status for when Ron Paul ran for president so that we could all feel free to speak the truth about Ron and what he stands for without being harassed by the IRS).

If one were to visit Pastor Baldwin’s Web site (, one could listen to sermons and read his columns calling the police, with some exceptions, “an occupying military force” in America that has been unconstitutionally militarized primarily by the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. PATRIOT Act. One could hear him telling his fellow parishioners that the Republican Party has two great loves: “foreign wars abroad and a police state at home.” He is not praising the GOP for these things.

The “silent pastor” who says nothing of this to his parishioners, says Pastor Baldwin, is “helping to put the chains [of the state] around your neck.” He condemns the “Gestapo-like tactics of the Boston police” after the Boston Marathon bombing and is a fierce advocate of the right to bear arms. It is a man’s Biblical duty, he says, to make himself capable of protecting his family. So if you do not own an automatic rifle, get one, he advises.

Chuck Baldwin has successfully raised thousands of dollars to help other like-minded ministers create what he calls “Liberty Churches” that, because they are not tax exempt, can freely speak truth to power. He does not advocate that the government eliminate the tax-exempt status of churches, and neither does yours truly. His objective is for more and more churches to become educational vehicles about the evils and immorality of the state. He is taking on the state-worshipping ministers of the “mega-churches” who have essentially sold their souls to the state for power, money, and prestige.


More to come.



(1)        THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy.                     





Using primary documents from both foreign and domestic observers, Adams makes a powerful and convincing case that the Southern states were legitimately exercising their political rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Although conventional histories have taught generations of Americans that this was a war fought for lofty moral principles, Adams' eloquent history transcends simple Southern partisanship to show how the Civil War was primarily a battle over competing commercial interests, opposing interpretations of constitutional rights, and what English novelist Charles Dickens described as "a fiscal quarrel."
Working from the premise that "wars have seldom been justified," Adams argues that the Civil War was an avoidable humanitarian disaster that nearly destroyed American democracy. This bold and controversial book will not only change how historians think about the causes of the Civil War"


(3) USA Senator John C. Calhoun


            U.S. Senate: 1845-1850
Calhoun was elected again to the U.S. Senate in 1845. The last years of his distinguished service to the nation were again in the company of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, collectively know as “The Great Triumvirate.” During the Mexican War in 1846, an act called the Wilmot Proviso, designed to forbid slavery in the newly acquired land from Mexico, was debated in Congress. The South and Calhoun reacted to the growing abolitionism movement.

Calhoun’s later speeches defended his constituency, South Carolina and the agrarian South, and the economic labor structure based on the “peculiar institution” of African American slavery. Calhoun, at the same time, lost national support for his defense of slavery as a “positive good” in the context of a class struggle, and he lost local support in South Carolina and the South from the hotheaded politicians called “fire-eaters” for his conciliatory attitudes toward the North.

Calhoun’s last Senate speech was delivered on March 4, 1850, by Sen. James Mason of Virginia. Calhoun, dying of consumption (tuberculosis), was too ill to read his own speech. He had to be helped into the Senate chamber to listen to his friend Mason. At that time, Congress was involved in a long debate over the admission to statehood of California and several issues relating to slavery.

Calhoun’s last speech included these words:
“The Union cannot ... be saved by eulogies on the Union, however splendid or numerous. The Cry of ‘Union, Union, the glorious Union!’ can no more prevent disunion that the cry of ‘Health, health, glorious health!’ on the part of the physician, can save a patient lying dangerously ill. ...

How can the Union be saved? There is but one way by which it can with any certainty; and that is, by a full and final settlement, on the principle of justice, of all the questions at issue between the two sections. ...

If you who represent the stronger portion, cannot agree to settle them on the broad principle of justice and duty, say so; and let the States we both represent agree to separate and part in peace. If you are unwilling we should part in peace, tell us so; and we shall know what to do, when you reduce the question to submission or resistance.”

On March 31, 1850, Calhoun died in Washington at the age of 68. The famous Compromise of 1850 that prevented Civil War for another 10 years was thus enacted by Congress months after Calhoun’s death. Calhoun was a major force on the body politic, a man of independent ideas and independent philosophies. Ironically, two of John C. Calhoun’s most important works were published after his death. Printed posthumously, “A Disquisition on Government” and “A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States” illustrate Calhoun’s mature philosophical interpretations in two fully developed books on American politics. The former Disquisition illuminates the doctrine of concurrent majority, while the latter Discourse is a culmination of Calhoun’s philosophy in regard to the Constitution and the compact theory of states’ rights. His metamorphosis from nationalist to nullifier to sectionalist parallels the political thinking that prevailed in antebellum South.

We continue to seek understandings of the ambitions and philosophies of Calhoun, who was described as having an intellect that was “metaphysical.”

Calhoun, in a letter to his daughter two years before his death, summed up his life work and career. “I hold, the duties of life, to be greater than life itself ... no appreciation of my efforts, either by the present, or after times, is necessary to sustain me in struggling to do my duty in resisting wrong, especially where our country is concerned, although I put a high value on renown.”

John Caldwell Calhoun’s renown is preserved at Fort Hill.


       (4)    Report: Israeli model underlies militarization of U.S. police




By Muriel Kane
Sunday, December 4, 2011 20:52 EST

The extreme militarization of American police forces has been brought to public attention by the tactics employed against Occupy protesters, which often appear more appropriate to counter-terrorism operations than to the control of non-violent protest. According to investigative journalist Max Blumenthal, however, the proper term for this ruthless suppression of dissent should be “Israelification.”

In an article which begins with examples of American police training alongside Israeli security forces, Blumenthal writes, “Having been schooled in Israeli tactics perfected during a 63 year experience of controlling, dispossessing, and occupying an indigenous population, local police forces have adapted them to monitor Muslim and immigrant neighborhoods in US cities. Meanwhile, former Israeli military officers have been hired to spearhead security operations at American airports and suburban shopping malls, leading to a wave of disturbing incidents of racial profiling, intimidation, and FBI interrogations of innocent, unsuspecting people. The New York Police Department’s disclosure that it deployed ‘counter-terror’ measures against Occupy protesters encamped in downtown Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park is just the latest example of the so-called War on Terror creeping into every day life. Revelations like these have raised serious questions about the extent to which Israeli-inspired tactics are being used to suppress the Occupy movement.”



Walter Williams

The Civil War wasn't about slavery

THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today ---- big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."



Lincolns Racial Views

The Abraham Lincoln Presidential Cover-Up Library and Museum

By Thomas DiLorenzo

August 9, 2014

The tall tales told by the Lincoln cult get funnier and funnier as more and more Americans learn the truth about their own history (as opposed to the version fed to them by the Lincoln cult). This time the source of their knee-slapping whoppers is a hilarious attempt to cover up the fact that their hero apparently read and studied a white supremacist screed.

A recent article that appeared in the Huffington Post, FOX news online, the Daily Mail, and elsewhere described how Lincoln’s handwriting had been verified by handwriting experts in an 1854 book entitled Types of Mankind. According to these news articles, the book argued that the different races developed at different times, and were therefore not susceptible to co-existing or amalgamation. “The book was used by nineteenth-century white supremacists!,” screamed the articles. 

What on earth was Abraham Lincoln, “Father Abraham,” the eternal friend and savior of the black race, doing with such a book?! The Lincoln cult quickly swung into action creating an alibi. The news articles all reported that “Illinois state historians” all “took great pains to offer reassurance that the former president who ended slavery didn’t subscribe to the theories at hand” in the book. No facts were offered, only painful “reassurances” by these state-funded “historians.” I don’t know about you, but I’m not feeling especially reassured.

Even one or two of the Lincoln cult’s Big Guns were un-cobwebbed to participate in broadcasting the alibi. James Cornelius, the curator of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois, “reassured” the media that Lincoln “could foresee the whole country coming apart over the issue that different people could be barred from different things” because of their race. He therefore would never have believed the things in that book, said the curator.

James Cornelius and the Illinois state historians are full of it and they know it. These are people who have spent their entire careers reading and cataloguing Abe Lincoln’s political speeches. They surely must know that Lincoln’s views and, more importantly, his actions as a state legislator, a one-term congressman, a political candidate, and as president, are totally consistent with this and any other white supremacist book of that era. Consider the following public statements of Lincoln himself from his own Collected Works (CW):

“Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of them” (CW, Vol. II, p. 256). This statement alone refutes all that the James Cornelius and the Illinois state historians “reassured” the media.

“What I would most desire,” Abraham Lincoln also declared, “would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 521). And, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold [political] office, nor to intermarry with white people,” said the political idol of the Marc Levins, Harry Jaffas, Rich Lowrys, Rush Limbaughs, and all other Lincoln-worshipping neocons (not to mention the Leftist/Marxist Lincoln worshippers like Eric Foner and 99% of the academic history profession).

“Senator Douglas remarked . . . that . . . this government was made for white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too,” said Abe (CW, Vol. II, p. 281).

As Philip Magness and Sabastian Page showed in their excellent book, Colonization After Emancipation, Lincoln worked diligently all his life, up to his dying days, on the project of deporting all the black people out of America. As a young man he was a “manager” of the Illinois Colonization Society, which used tax dollars to deport the small number of free blacks who resided in Illinois. As president, he allocated millions of dollars to a project that would “colonize” American blacks in Liberia. In 1862 he held a meeting with several dozen free black men in the White House at which he explained to them that, because of the inherent differences between the white and black races, they could never live together, and so he urged them to lead by example and colonize themselves in Liberia. In what sounds like it could have been taken directly from the pages of Types of Mankind, Lincoln informed the black men that “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races . . . . This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both,” and “affords a reason at least why we should be separated . . . . It is better for us both, therefore, to be separate” (Abraham Lincoln, “Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men,” August 14, 1862, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, Vol. 2, 1859-1866 (New York: Library of America, 1989), p. 354. 

Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution that prohibited the emigration of black people into the state, and also supported the Illinois Black Codes that stripped the small number of free blacks in the state of any semblance of citizenship. Once again, his actions were consistent with his words on the subject of race.

It is impossible to believe that James Cornelius and the Illinois state historians are unaware of all these plain historical facts. Not to mention Lincoln’s statements like these: “I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [of the races]. Such separation . . . must be effected by colonization” (CW, Vol. II, p. 409). Or, “It is morally right, and favorable to our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime” (CW Vol. II, p. 409).

What all of this proves is that, contrary to the Lincoln cult’s “reassurances,” Lincoln’s views and actions on the subject of race were perfectly consistent with the 1854 white supremacist book, Types of Mankind. It was not just a book that he read to prepare for court on behalf of one of his legal clients, as the Lincoln cult ludicrously and without any evidence or argument, asserts.

Like all presidential museums, the Lincoln museum in Springfield, Illinois should be thought of as the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Cover-Up Library and Museum. It may well provide accurate information about Abe’s childhood, his family history, his eating habits, shoe size, hats that he wore, etc., etc., but when it comes to the big, important issues, it is devoted to spreading untruths about American history while sweeping much of real history under the rug.



The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
BY Thomas DiLorenzo

A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.

Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest president in history. His legend as the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a national holiday, and a monument in Washington, D.C., extol his heroism and martyrdom. But what if most everything you knew about Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln were in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in american history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's? In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend.
Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.

You will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school—a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war



Title: Maryland, My Maryland!
Source: League of the South Rebellion Blog
URL Source:
Published: Oct 6, 2014
Mike Scruggs
Post Date: 2014-10-06 18:23:23 by
Keywords: CSA, Lincoln, despot
Views: 36
Comments: 3

Following the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter at Charleston on April 9, 1861, Lincoln ordered Governors of the remaining Union states to call up their state militias and supply an army of 75,000 to invade and subdue the seven Southern states that had seceded. While this was received enthusiastically in many Northern States, the Border States viewed this order as a tyranny they would not follow. Consequently, the border states of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas seceded and secession efforts were underway in Missouri and Kentucky. The order was likewise not well received in Maryland.

One of the first steps of the Lincoln administration was to secure the Capitol in Washington, although the Southern States wished to secede peacefully and had indicated no aggressive intentions against the Northern capitol. In order to get to Washington, the mustered Union regiments had to come through Baltimore. As the railroad did not go through the city of Baltimore, they had to disembark their troop trains north of the city and proceed by wagon, horse, and foot through the city, and then embark on other trains. on the south side.

Unfortunately, on April 19th, the 6th Massachusetts chose to march through the city fully armed and in military formation. They were jeered by unsympathetic crowds of bystanders. Furthering the misfortune, the troops fired on the crowds killing twelve people. Fire then began to be returned from the crowd, and four soldiers were killed. These twelve civilians and four Union soldiers, whose blood flecked the streets of Baltimore, were the among first deaths of a war that would take the lives of 620,000 Union and Confederate soldiers and an estimated 50,000 Southern civilians from all causes.

By May of 1861 Lincoln, his cabinet, and generals had already begun to close down dissenting newspapers all over the country from Chicago to New York. Lincoln also took it upon himself to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, a constitutional guarantee of the Bill of Rights with precedent dating back to the English Magna Carta. Habeas corpus is a fundamental liberty which prevents arbitrary arrest and imprisonment indefinitely without defined charges, trial, or means of release. Suspension of habeas corpus under conditions of civil disorder can only be temporary and must be authorized by Congress within 30 days.

In that same month of May a resident of Baltimore, John Merryman, who had been arrested on the order of Union General George Cadwallader and held at Fort McHenry without charges or trial, petitioned U. S. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney for a writ of habeas corpus. Taney granted a writ and set a date for a hearing, but it was ignored by Lincoln and his generals. Cadwallader responded by letter that Lincoln had suspended habeas corpus, so there would be no compliance with the Supreme Court. Taney ordered a federal marshal to Fort McHenry to enforce the writ, but Union Army officials refused his entrance.

Taney responded by writing a blistering court opinion, a constitutional classic, that held Merryman’s arrest to be unlawful and a violation of the Constitution, and that only Congress could suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Chief Justice stated that if Lincoln’s actions were allowed to stand, “…the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds, life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.”

Lincoln not only ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling, he wrote out an order for arrest of Chief Justice Taney. This arrest, however, was in the end not actually carried out for fear of extremely adverse public opinion and political consequences.

With these developments, a sizeable portion of the Maryland public was becoming sympathetic not only to the South but even to secession. Therefore, there was much talk of it among Maryland State Legislators. Consequently, Northern informers were asked to identify members of the Maryland Legislature that might support secession in the coming legislative session. Secretary of War Simon Cameron then issued an order to Major General Banks in Maryland that “all or any part of the Legislative members must be arrested to prevent secession.”

On the night of September 12-13 all suspected Southern sympathizers in the Maryland Legislature were arrested and imprisoned in Fort McHenry. In all fifty-one persons were arrested and imprisoned. Ironically, among those arrested and imprisoned was the grandson of Francis Scott Key, the author of the Star Spangled Banner.

To further tighten Union political hold on Maryland, all members of the Union Armed Forces were allowed to vote in the November election, although they were citizens of other states. Voters had to walk through platoons of soldiers with rifles and fixed bayonets to reach their polling place. The London Saturday Review noted:

It was as perfect an act of despotism as can be conceived. It was a coup d’etat in every essential feature.”

The story of this despotism is reflected in the lines of Maryland’s state song from the poem written by James Ryder Randall in 1861. Few now realize the lines were directed against Abraham Lincoln, his cabinet, and generals. Here are the most famous lines:

The despot’s heel is on they shore,
Maryland, My Maryland!
His torch is at thy temple door,
Maryland, My Maryland!
Avenge the patriotic gore,
That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
And be the battle queen of yore,
Maryland, My Maryland!
Dear Mother! Burst the tyrant’s chain,
Maryland, My Maryland!
Virginia should not call in vain,
Maryland, My Maryland.”

Twenty thousand of Maryland’s sons were able to escape the Union occupation of their mother state and distinguish themselves in the Confederate Army.



I serve Jesus the Christ alone. Jehovah Sabaoth the Lord God of Hosts Jesus the Christ, True God and True Man, perfect God and perfect man, fully God and fully man, The Grand Architect Of The Universe, The Light of The World, preexisting before any world or cosmos, Everlasting Eternal Creator Redeemer and Sustainer of the cosmos. I serve no man or denomination nor for gain. With the love of the Holy Trinity of the ancient Catholic faith, separate from Rome, everlastingly sealed in The body of Jesus The Christ,