This Clip Is Very Telling To Probably What Happened To Tucker (2 minute video)

Luke Rudkowski via Twitter ^ | 04/24/23 | Tucker Carlson

[vivenne]

Are you kidding?

[vivenne]

Agree. But, I think PR is helping to orchestrate it. Ryan looks like a Golly Gee Whiz, Boy Scout type, but I sense that he is actually an evil, evil man.

[vivenne]

Maybe in the past Boston. I would say instead, Atlanta.

[EBH]

Yes, these are very powerful people he went up against.

[EBH]

Thanks for posting the link to that video.

[MayflowerMadam]

“Do you think that Tucker’s life is in danger?”

It is, as well as his family’s lives. It has been for a long time. I don’t recall why, but something triggered the left to storm his house. IIRC, while he was gone, they literally were battering the door to get in while his wife and kids huddled inside.

He moved to New England where he thought they’d be safer.

[Chickensoup]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zmFGpZ5pNiw

This is a compilation of tuckers clips

Long but damning of our overlords.

[Chickensoup]

Somewhat?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zmFGpZ5pNiw

[Chickensoup]

Steyn didn’t want it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp referring to the Civil War: "That is POLITICAL upheaval.
It changes not one jot of how society then existed."

The Democrats' Confederacy forced millions of Southerners to denounce their citizenship and wage war against their own country -- that's not just political, that's also social.
The Confederacy also forced its citizens to change their previous economic arrangements -- imports & exports.

Plus the Confederacy did enforce slavery in territory they controlled, even after slavery had been abolished, for example, in New Mexico and Oklahoma after June 19, 1862, when Congress prohibited slavery in all US territories.

DiogenesLamp on Democrat 1850s spending: "On what did they spend it?
Railroads, Canals, Shipping and government bureaucrats?
Mostly for the North?"

Depends on how you define the words "the North" and "the South".
If you say "the South" means all slave states, and "the North" means all free states and territories, then you get one set of numbers.
But suppose we say,

1. "the South" = all slave states.
2. "the North" = New England and Mid Atlantic
3. "the Midwest" = Ohio through Minnesota
4. "the Far West" = Everything else west of the Mississippi

Now we look at the populations of each region:

1. "the South" = ~12 million = 39% of total US population
2. "the North" = <11 million = 34%
3. "the Midwest" = 8 million = 25%
4. "the Far West" = <1 million = 2%

So, "the South" with 39% of total US population -- including slaves -- should expect around 39% of US Federal spending, right?
How much did "the South" receive?
Around 49%, not including pensions.

On average, these numbers were:

1. $1,128,000 per year for forts, including Ft.Sumter, 53% in the South
2. ...$502,000 per year for lighthouses, 41% in the South
3. ...$320,000 per year for infrastructure ("internal improvements), 45% in the South
4. ...$145,000 per year for hospitalizations, 52% in the South

So, overall, the South in the 1850s, with just 39% of the US population, including slaves, received 49% of Federal spending, or about 25% more than their population (including slaves) alone warranted.

Indeed, if we remove slaves from the equation, then we see that the South's population falls from 12 million to 8 million, now just 30% of the total US white population.
Now, 30% of the US population receiving 49% of Federal spending, or nearly 2/3 more than population alone warranted.

Of course, population did not determine where the new forts went, or the lighthouses and those were the major items of Federal spending, accounting for over 3/4 of the total on "infrastructure".

Finally, the question: how did Democrats manage to double our national debt in just four short years -- 1857 to 1860?
Well:

1. First Democrats reduced Federal revenues by reducing tariffs in 1857 to their lowest levels since President Jefferson.

2. Add to that the Panic of 1857 and the result was 5% less federal revenues in the period, 1857 to 1860, than in the previous four years.

3. At the same time, Democrats increased Federal spending by 25%.
   Among other things, defense spending was 15% higher under Buchanan than it had been under the previous administration.
   This paid for a war against Indians in Seattle, another against Mormons in Utah and Buchanan's 19-ship, 200-guns War Fleet sent to keep the peace with Peru.

And so the National Debt doubled under Democrat President Buchanan.

Here again are those historical tariff rates:

[DiogenesLamp]

You are reiterating what you've already said.

I have found more information on this topic, though I don't know whether to trust it or not.

One point though that nobody seems to have addressed; If this statement comes from a letter sent to Col. William F. Elkins, then wouldn't it be in Elkins papers, rather than Lincoln's?

Did Lincoln just make copies of everything he sent to people? How would it come to light but through the estate of William F. Elkins?

This Mikkelsen guy seems to have made a mistake in saying Hertz sources it to Elkins, because I find absolutely no reference to Elkins in the entire book.

We know it is at least as old as 1908 because that's when Jack London cited the quote in his book "The Iron Heel."

For what it's worth, this quote was also cited by Congressmen Charles Lindberg (Charle's Lindberg's father) in his 1917 book, " Why Is Your Country at War?"

[DiogenesLamp]

Are you kidding?

Yes. I'm pretending to be naive. I wanted to show a couple of other freepers that other people believe as I do that we've had a problem with a shadow government for a very long time.

[DiogenesLamp]

Maybe in the past Boston. I would say instead, Atlanta.

Atlanta has certainly become a lot more significant in the last couple of decades. That is one of the primary places from whence they stole the 2020 and 2022 elections.

[BroJoeK]

Diogeneslamp: "This Mikkelsen guy seems to have made a mistake in saying Hertz sources it to Elkins, because I find absolutely no reference to Elkins in the entire book."

According to Rich Buhler, who says the Lincoln quote is genuine, Hertz's book has two volumes, the alleged quote to Elkins is on page 954 of the second volume.
See my link in my post #76 above.
You might be looking at just the first volume.

Key point, the reference to Hertz's book doesn't only come from Mikkelson, but also, according to Buhler, it's confirmed by UC Davis researcher Rick Crawford.

Also, even if you find the alleged quote in Hertz's second volume (from 1931), where, exactly did Hertz get it?
The suggestion is that it came originally from Lincoln's alcoholic law partner, William Herndon, but there's no confirmation of that and so there's no real source for the quote before Hertz's book, and we now are not even certain of that!

Diogeneslamp: "One point though that nobody seems to have addressed; If this statement comes from a letter sent to Col. William F. Elkins, then wouldn't it be in Elkins papers, rather than Lincoln's?"

Sure, maybe, but nobody I've read has claimed that's where the quote came from.
Instead, they say it came from:

1. 1951 Archer H. Shaw book which said it came from

2. 1931 Emanuel Hertz'book two-volume Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait, which may, or may not have taken it from

3. 1889 William Herndon's three-volume biography of Lincoln.

4. Regardless, the alleged Lincoln quote was denounced as a forgery by Lincoln's secretary John Nicolay, according to Mikkelson.

And that is all I can find on it, so far...

[BroJoeK]

My apologies, I see just now, we have hijacked a totally unrelated thread to debate issues of importance to almost nobody outside our little circle.

WE SHOULD GET OFF THIS THREAD!

[vivenne]

: )

[SamAdams76]

You are both right