Little has been published about the early life of Abraham Lincoln. However, during a search of some old property records and will in a small courthouse in central North Carolina, Alex Christopher the author of "Pandora's Box,"; in one of the old will books dated around 1840, he found the will of one A.A. Springs. Upon reading the will he was shocked and amazed at the secret that it disclosed, but one must remember that it is a known fact that wills, even though they are classified public records the same as property and corporation records, they are rarely combed through as he was doing at the time, and these records hold many dark secrets that can be hidden in public view, but are never uncovered because there are very
few who research these old records.
This practice of hiding secrets in public view and the conspirators can say, when faced with the facts and accused of concealing the records; they can reply "Well it was there in the public record in plan view for any and all to find." In the will of A.A. Springs was the list of his property. it went into detail to whom the property was to be dispersed and it included his children. Mr. Christopher and others were looking to find what railroads and banks this man might have owned and had left to his son Leroy Springs. He didn't find anything like that, but he did find the prize of the century.
On the bottom of page three of four pages was a paragraph where the father, A.A. Springs, left to his son an enormous amount of land in the state of Alabama which amounted to the land that is today known as Huntsville, Alabama and then he went into detail to name the son and at first Mr. Christopher and the others with him couldn't believe what they were seeing, but there it was the name of the son and it was "ABRAHAM LINCOLN!"
This new information that they had about the Springs (real name Springstein) family, this was just another twist to add to the already manipulative family. This new information about Lincoln built a fire under them to see where this new lead would take them, because everything they had found in the railroad and banking saga had been areal mind-bender. They figured this one would be the same; so they inquired at the local archives and historical records on families and found a reference to one Abraham Lincoln in the family genealogy of the family of the Carolina by the name of McAdden, in a published genealogy on the family. The family members in the Carolinas were in a limited edition that at one time could be found in the public libraries. The section on Lincoln and the story went something like the following:
"In the late spring of the year of 1808 Nancy Hanks, who was of the family lineage of the McAdden family was visiting some of her family in the community of Lincolnton, North Carolina. While on her stay with family in the Carolina', she visaed with many of the neighboring families that she had known for many years; one such visit was the Springs family. The sordid details had been omitted but obviously the young Nancy Hanks had found herself in a compromised position and was forced to succumb to the lust of A.A. Springs. She became pregnant as a result. There were no details of a love affair or an act of violence on a helpless female. Abraham Lincoln was the result of that act, which leads one to wonder if the name Lincoln was real or a fabricated name for the are of conception was Lincolnton. Was there really a Thomas Lincoln? Since the Spring were of the race that called themselves Jewish, that made Lincoln part Jewish and as part of the Springs family, he also became a relative of the Rothschild family by blood."
The following information was derived from information that exists in the Smithsonian, National Archives, the Congressional Library, Courtroom Police files, public and private libraries and storage vaults across the United States and Europe:
"Abraham Lincoln was slapped three times with a white glove by a member of the Hapsburg royal family of Germany (Payseur family relatives) during a White House reception in 1862. The German royal family member demanded a pistol duel with the, then, President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. The blows to the face stunned Lincoln but he non-verbally refused to participate in the duel by bowing his head before walking out of the reception room. What had ol' honest Abe done to so enrage and up-set the royal European personage?
It seems that the practice of promiscuity was running rampant in many families in those days and the German King Leopold had, had an illegitimate daughter named Elizabeth who was sent to America, where she lived in a very comfortable manner. Although Leopold could not recognize her position, he was very interested in her life.
In the early or mid 1850s, Abraham Lincoln and Elizabeth began having sexual liaisons that produced twin daughters named Ella and Emily in 1856. The regal German father who was so royally up-set with ol' honest Abe probably had full knowledge of what the true blood line of Lincoln really was. Abraham's wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, did not find out about Elizabeth, Ella and Emily until 1865. Previous to being informed about Elizabeth and the twins, Mrs. Lincoln had developed a ravaging dependency on opium. Her main supplier of the drug was a former member of the Confederate Intelligence community, he was a former member because the Southern gentlemen did not approve of his drug pushing and unreliable behavior. It was because of his involvement with the Souther Intelligence Community, Mary's supplier - John Wilks Booth - knew about the lover and the illegal twins.
After being spurned by the Confederate intelligence community, Mary's 'candy man' approached and became involved with the Rothschild Empire of Europe, for he realized the European banking moguls would be very interested in his pipeline to the White House.
(At this time) Abraham was searching for an issue that would unite the North and South AFTER the Civil War ended. The issue needed to be popular to all levels of American citizenry so they could 'rally around the Stars and Stripes' thus rapidly healing the wounds of the bloodiest war in history. Lincoln was seriously considering one major movement or event that would galvanize his fellow Northern and Southern patriot countrymen into cutting loose the United States of America from the dictatorial grip of the Hapsbergs bloodline of banking control in Europe. All the time, the Rothschilds were trying to take control of the entire world monetary system, and at that time the Rothschilds were trying to get a foot-hold in America and find a way around the British, Virginia Company, and French Bourbon family that were gaining control in this country through government help...
Lincoln found himself in real hot water, because under the Virginia Company covenant the 48 families that formed it were all of the Holy Grail Bloodline. This country was to be an extension of what all the royal families of Europe controlled. The royalty of Europe is Hapsburg, no matter what their name is. The royal family of England is one such example. Now what Lincoln did is he wanted to become independent of the cogenant (in favor of his family) on the Rothschild side...the Rothschilds and their family bloodline have always been undermining the affairs of the Hapsbergs and stealing the monetary control away from them. No matter what the history books say, the Rothschilds didn't get (total) real control on things in America and the Federal Reserve until the Springs usurped the Payseur family companies in the early 1920s... (Lincoln had fallen from Rothschild grace also and so, due, in part to his Executive Order to print United States Greenbacks, thus interfering with the Jewish International Banks profits)
Fort Sumter: The Civil War Begins
Nearly a century of discord between North and South finally exploded in April 1861 with the bombardment of Fort Sumter
By Fergus M. Bordewich
Smithsonian Magazine | Subscribe
n the afternoon of April 11, 1861, a small open boat flying a white flag pushed off from the tip of the narrow peninsula surrounding the city of Charleston. The vessel carried three envoys representing the Confederate States government, established in Montgomery, Alabama, two months before. Slaves rowed the passengers the nearly three and a half miles across the harbor to the looming hulk of Fort Sumter, where Lt. Jefferson C. Davis of the U.S. Army—no relation to the newly installed president of the Confederacy—met the arriving delegation. Davis led the envoys to the fort’s commander, Maj. Robert Anderson, who had been holed up there since just after Christmas with a tiny garrison of 87 officers and enlisted men—the last precarious symbol of federal power in passionately secessionist South Carolina.
The Confederates demanded immediate evacuation of the fort. However, they promised safe transport out of Charleston for Anderson and his men, who would be permitted to carry their weapons and personal property and to salute the Stars and Stripes, which, the Confederates acknowledged, “You have upheld so long...under the most trying circumstances.” Anderson thanked them for such “fair, manly, and courteous terms.” Yet he stated, “It is a demand with which I regret that my sense of honor, and of my obligation to my Government, prevent my compliance.” Anderson added grimly that he would be starved out in a few days—if the Confederate cannonthat ringed the harbor didn’t batter him to pieces first. As the envoys departed and the sound of their oars faded away across the gunmetal-gray water, Anderson knew that civil war was probably only hours away.
One hundred and fifty years later, that war’s profound implications still reverberate within American hearts, heads and politics, from the lingering consequences of slavery for African-Americans to renewed debates over states’ rights and calls for the “nullification” of federal laws. Many in the South have viewed secession a matter of honor and the desire to protect a cherished way of life.
But the war was unarguably about the survival of the United States as a nation. Many believed that if secession succeeded, it would enable other sections of the country to break from the Union for any reason. “The Civil War proved that a republic could survive,” says historian Allen Guelzo of Gettysburg College. “Europe’s despots had long asserted that republics were automatically fated either to succumb to external attack or to disintegrate from within. The Revolution had proved that we could defend ourselves against outside attack. Then we proved, in the creation of the Constitution, that we could write rules for ourselves. Now the third test had come: whether a republic could defend itself against internal collapse.”
Generations of historians have argued over the cause of the war. “Everyone knew at the time that the war was ultimately about slavery,” says Orville Vernon Burton, a native South Carolinian and author of The Age of Lincoln. “After the war, some began saying that it was really about states’ rights, or a clash of two different cultures, or about the tariff, or about the industrializing North versus the agrarian South. All these interpretations came together to portray the Civil War as a collision of two noble civilizations from which black slaves had been airbrushed out.” African-American historians from W.E.B. Du Bois to John Hope Franklin begged to differ with the revisionist view, but they were overwhelmed by white historians, both Southern and Northern, who, during the long era of Jim Crow, largely ignored the importance of slavery in shaping the politics of secession.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...66qlCb5y3OG.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
The List of the Communist States, With-In the United States of America!
In the near Future,Conservative, Religous, Christian, Moral,and Constitutional minded people will someday, no longer be welcomed in the New World Order.
Northeastern/Mid Atlantic United States Region
Conservatives aren't welcome in New York, according to Governor Cuomo
Cuomo's recent remarks crossed a line. In the US, we must support freedom of speech, even when we don't like what's said
the guardian.com, Friday 24 January 2014 08.49 EST
Jump to comments (323)
New York's official state motto is Excelsior, often translated as "ever upward", but if Governor Andrew Cuomo had his way, he's prefer it to say "ever liberal". He recently told conservative Republicans – specifically anyone who is pro-traditional marriage, pro-life or pro-guns – they "have no place in the state of New York".
Conservative media has jumped all over Cuomo and rightfully so. It was a silly thing to say, reminiscent of the 2008 campaign trail faux pas Barack Obama made when he said people from small towns in Pennsylvania and the midwest are bitter and "cling to their guns or religion". Obama was trying to highlight how angry people are over job losses in the rust belt, but but it came off as degrading to Americans in rural areas.
Now we have Governor Cuomo picking up on a similar theme. It certainly doesn't help heal the divisiveness in American politics, which, oddly enough, the governor was bemoaning. Here's his full quote from last Friday:
… You're seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican party candidates are running against the SAFE Act – it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that's who they are and they're the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that's not who New Yorkers are.
Cuomo was trying to make a point about gun rights. New York was one of the few places last year that managed to pass tighter gun control laws – the SAFE Act – after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting that stunned the nation. Now some right wing groups are trying to attack the law any way they can.
But Cuomo crossed a line by saying anyone who supports traditional marriage or is against abortion is not welcome in New York. While no one would mistake New York for Utah, there's certainly lots of diversity and "traditional values" in the state, ranging from ultra orthodox Jewish communities in the Big Apple to Amish in upstate New York. It reinforces stereotype of liberals as tolerant … as long as people are speaking views they agree with.
Whether you're conservative, liberal or mostly apolitical, Cuomo's comments go against the principle of the first amendment. You might not like what someone has to say, but in America, there's a legal protection for – and certainly a spirit of – people having the right to say what they want.
If we want to talk about true extremists in the US, most would point to the Westboro Baptist Church. That's the horrible group that shows up at military funerals, holding signs that blame America's problems on the nation turning away from God and embracing gays. One sign even said "Thank God For Dead Soldiers". They stand right by grave sites as families and communities are trying to honor young men and women who died for the country. One Pennsylvania father was so angry he sued the Westboro Baptist Church and the case went all the way to the US supreme court. People on all sides of the political spectrum sent money to support him. Others have tried to organize human chains around funerals to insolate families from the hate. But in the end, the supreme court upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest because of America's freedom of speech.
That's really what has people angry about Governor Cuomo's statement. Sure, he was trying to make a broader political point about the gun lobby and partisanship. But you don't cross that line of telling people they basically need to shut up and move.
Many Americans say something to the effect of: "I don't like what you're saying, but I support your right to say it." We have to support the rights of peaceful protestors in Utah who are rallying for gay marriage in a very conservative state. Similarly, we must support the rights of social conservatives rallying for traditional marriage in New York City.
De Blasio Backs Cuomo: Wants Conservatives to Get Out
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio emphatically backed New Governor Andrew Cuomo’s controversial remarks that “extreme” conservatives – which he defined as being pro-life, second amendment advocates, or supporters of traditional marriage – “have no place in the state of New York.”
NY gun owners burn registration forms in protest
posted at 11:01 am on March 23, 2014 by Jazz Shaw
This event actually took place last weekend, but I hadn’t caught wind of the story until one of the participants sent in some news clips of it. Hundreds of gun rights advocates gathered in Upstate New York to send a clear message to Albany, Governor Andrew Cuomo and Second Amendment proponents around the state that they would not be complying with the repressive SAFE Act. And to drive that message home, they brought along a barbecue grill.
Nearly a thousand gun registration forms were turned into ashes Sunday.
The forms are used for people to register with New York State Police firearms that meet the state’s definition of military-style assault weapons. The deadline is April 15. Gun rights advocates gathered at the Saratoga-Wilton Elks Lodge 161 to burn the papers in a symbolic protest.
E.J. Stokes, leader of the Warren County chapter of New York Revolution, said he was participating because he believes in the U.S. Constitution.
“Once the Second (Amendment) falls, the rest will go with it. It’s an unconstitutional law, done in the middle of the night with no input from the public,” he said.
The event was organized by the NY2A Grassroots Coalition. NY2A co-founder Jake Palmateer said the goal is for people not to register their assault weapon as an act of civil disobedience.
“We are opposed to registration because the evidence is clear that registration leads to confiscation,” he said.
He and others hope that so few people will fill out the forms, that the registry portion of the SAFE Act “collapses under its own weight.”
The Examiner provided some interviews with others attending the event and they expressed the same concerns about registration and confiscation.
“We are demonstrating to New York state that we will not be registering our firearms with the state,” said one protester tending the fire. “We refuse to register.”
Lisa Donovan, one of those responsible for the event, said organizers were telling gun owners what their options are relative to the new law, and, she added, “we’re also encouraging them to get more active in the political process so we can vote out the people who voted for the SAFE Act.”
“We’re basically explaining to people once they register, that gun is no longer theirs,” she added. “It’s a matter of time as to when the state will take it … It will be upon their death or when they change the law and decide to confiscate the guns that have been registered.”
“A gun that’s been registered can’t be sold or anything so it really is no longer yours at that point, so there are legal options for not registering,” Donovan said.
This being New York, the protesters are not dreaming up hypothetical future scenarios to worry about. The fact is that, since the passage of the SAFE Act, New York has been in the process of confiscating weapons around the state while staying under the media radar. This was a lesson which David Lewis learned all too well when armed officers showed up at his door one morning with a warrant, announcing that he could either surrender his guns or go to jail. The only reason that the Lewis case even made it into the local news was that they had the wrong guy and a court subsequently ordered his guns returned.
But there have been other, ongoing confiscations involving people who have neither been found guilty nor even accused of any crime. The nature of their “violation” was simply that they sought help from mental health professionals for problems ranging from anxiety to depression. If that sounds like science fiction, you haven’t read the details in the new law.
The NY SAFE Act requires “mental health professionals, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, to report if an individual they are treating is likely to engage in conduct that will cause serious harm to him- or herself or others.”
If such a determination is made, “the Division of Criminal Justice Services will determine whether the person possesses a firearms license and, if so, will notify the appropriate local licensing official, who must suspend the license. The person’s firearms will then be removed.”
In that context, it’s not hard to understand why New York gun owners are not keen to fill out registration forms and put their names on some list held by the state government. Those lists already exist and are currently being put to use, with state troopers being dispatched to people’s homes to collect their legally owned weapons even though they have been charged with no crime.
Of course, if you get all of your news from the national media, you won’t hear about this. The silence is deafening.
Remington Arms moving 2,000+ jobs from NY to Alabama
by Cliff Sims
in National Politics · State Politics
— 15 Feb, 2014
High level sources have informed Yellowhammer News that Remington, one of the world’s largest gun manufacturers, will on Monday join Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley in announcing that they are bringing over 2,000 jobs to Alabama.
The company is viewing the move into Alabama as an expansion, but it will likely impact their Ilion, NY plant as well. The New York facility currently employees around 1,200 people. It is expected to stay open, but with a reduced workforce.
“The company is making the move as an expansion of capacity, production and research,” a source told Yellowhammer on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. “The demand for Remington products has skyrocketed recently, for obvious reasons, so they need to increase their production capacity. They will be expanding their research capabilities with the Alabama plant, too.”
2. New Jersey
5. Rhode Island
8. Washington D.C.
Mid West and Central United States
3. West Virginia
Western United States
Battle Of Fort Sumter
Facts about Battle Of Fort Sumter, the first Civil War Battle of the American Civil War
Battle Of Fort Sumter Summary: The Battle of Fort Sumter was the first battle of the American Civil War. The intense Confederate artillery bombardment of Major Robert Anderson’s small Union garrison in the unfinished fort in the harbor at Charleston, South Carolina, had been preceded by months of siege-like conditions.
During the secession crisis that followed President Abraham Lincoln’s election in November 1860, many threats were made to Federal troops occupying forts in the South. Anderson, in command at the difficult-to-defend Fort Moultrie on Sullivan Island across the harbor from Charleston, began asking the War Department for reinforcements and making plans to move his men to one of the fortifications on more secure islands in the harbor—Castle Pinckney closer to Charleston or the unfinished Fort Sumter near the harbor’s entrance.
Following South Carolina’s secession on December 20, 1860, Governor Francis Pickens was pressured to do something about Anderson and his men since many believed that Anderson would not stay at Fort Moultrie but would take a better position at another of the harbor’s forts. On December 24, Pickens sent proxies to Washington to negotiate what would be done about the occupied forts and to ensure Anderson remained at Fort Moultrie. However, on December 26 Anderson put his plan into action: he assembled his men, loaded them and their families onto boats, and rowed to Fort Sumter. What followed was basically a siege of Fort Sumter, with supplies and communication controlled by Pickens.
On January 9, 1861, the Star of the West, a side-wheel merchant steamer that had been sent from New York with supplies and reinforcements for Anderson, was unable to reach Fort Sumter because Pickens had built up the harbor defenses and fired on it. Anderson, under orders to fire only in defense, could only watch as the ship was turned back.
Shortly after, on January 11, Pickens demanded surrender and Anderson refused. By January 20, the food shortage had become acute enough that Pickens was under criticism from moderates and sent food to the fort, which was refused by Anderson. Shortly after, Pickens allowed the evacuation of 45 women and children to provide some measure of relief.
full article link
Not Fully Communized
5. New Mexico