In Defense of Lee And Jackson

[ajax]

Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson that is, says Chuck Baldwin:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Ariticles/t ... ckson.aspx

[Red]

Excellent article. It contains a lot of what has been removed or changed from our history books.

[commonwealth]

I agree. Excellent article.

[gclayjr]

As a history buff with an interest in the American Civil war, I do respect both Lee and Jackson. However, you are perpetuating the great crap dump of the Alt right versus the antifa left that is going on today! We have enough problems with ideological differences in this world without both sides being taken over by the very radical elements that the other side is accusing them of.

The South didn't secede, just because they wanted a smaller federal Government, they seceded because of SLAVERY! It was in their Constitution. You could not be a southern state and CHOOSE to not have slavery in your state.

I have respect for many Germans and Japanese who fought in WW2, and we should honor their heroic, and often honorable exploits, not erase them. However , the governments of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were pure evil... As was the American Confederacy!

So please don't hand more ammunition to the crazy Marxist Antifa nut cases, by being the racist alt right nut cases that they accuse all conservatives of being!

Regards,

George Clay

[Red]

I'm educated, not a nut case. My minor was in civil war history. That article highlights larger points of what I was taught in college.

[JohnnyL]

180 degrees to you there, Clay.

I've posted before about the Civil War, Lincoln, razing the South, etc. Pretty damning in multiple aspects and ways.

Ah, slavery was given as a reason in the constitution, that explains it all, solves it all! Luckily polygamy is in DC132, explained it all, solved it all! /:)

I believe that if the USA will not understand the truth about the War between the States and Lincoln, it will never be great.

[gclayjr]

Red,

I'm educated, not a nut case. My minor was in civil war history. That article highlights larger points of what I was taught in college.

Either you were not a very good student, or you did not go to a very good college, if you managed to minor in Civil War history and not be familiar with what was actually written in the Constitution of the Confederacy.


Regards,,
George Clay

[Ezra]

As a history buff with an interest in the American Civil war, I do respect both Lee and Jackson. However, you are perpetuating the great crap dump of the Alt right versus the antifa left that is going on today! We have enough problems with ideological differences in this world without both sides being taken over by the very radical elements that the other side is accusing them of.

The South didn't secede, just because they wanted a smaller federal Government, they seceded because of SLAVERY! It was in their Constitution. You could not be a southern state and CHOOSE to not have slavery in your state.

I have respect for many Germans and Japanese who fought in WW2, and we should honor their heroic, and often honorable exploits, not erase them. However , the governments of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were pure evil... As was the American Confederacy!

So please don't hand more ammunition to the crazy Marxist Antifa nut cases, by being the racist alt right nut cases that they accuse all conservatives of being!

Regards,

George Clay

I think you just proved the article correct in your learning that the south was just a evil slave wanting faction.

They had a legal right to leave the union. They did so legally. They left when slavery was still legal within the states. The north had more slaves then the south. Slavery wasn't the issue of the war Tell Lincoln who hated blacks decided that to win the war he needed to use slavery as a military strategy and freed the slave in the south only at the time. Lincoln even said if there was a way to end the war without ending slavery he would. After the war he tryed to deport as many blacks as he could. He was not champion of blacks and he was no champion of the constitution as he broke almost every constitutional law during his presidency and war of northern aggression.

The truth is the south would have never left the union if we were following the constitution (not unfairly taxing them). we are even farther now from following it then we were then. Slavery would have ended just like it did in every other modern civilization without war and the deaths of over half a million people.

Joseph smith ran for president of the USA. Him running was one reason he was murdered. His party platform was to end slavery by selling off federally owned land that was owned outside the confines of the constitution. Pay the slave owners for the slaves. Then grant other federal lands to the slaves.

That was the lords plan for ending slavery while following the constitution.

Lords plan killed 2 birds with one stone. Ended slavery and kept the federal government out of land ownership except for the narrow ownership they have in the constitution. Which is still causing problems today.

Lincon disregarded the constitution altogether and caused the deaths of 640,000 people and has left the blacks hating whites still to this day. More proof of Lincoln evil actions is that the saints had nothing to do with the war the lord had already removed them to Utah. If it was the lords will the saints would have been commanded to be involved see d&c 98. And also see 1 nephi 22:13

Our government schools have brainwashed the county ever since to deem their actions as good and just which is a lie.

[gclayjr]

Ezra,

They had a legal right to leave the union

Because you assert it to be true, doesn't make it true. Please show me where in the constitution, you find this legal right.

Lincoln begged them not to leave and said he was willing to work with them. They didn't even wait for Lincoln to take office to leave. They fired the first shot on Ft. Sumptor. So they were the first ones to start killing!

However, I can show you in clear writing, the evil base of the Confederacy


Excerpt from Constitution of the Confederate states of America

Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed

Since you seem to have problems with simple English, I will explain. Nobody, No state, no county, no village, nobody could write any law or regulation to limit slavery in their region... Talk about an overbearing Federal government, The confederate federal government FORBADE anybody to even put limits on the bondage of our brother humans !!

Regards,

George Clay

[Ezra]

Ezra,

They had a legal right to leave the union

Because you assert it to be true, doesn't make it true. Please show me where in the constitution, you find this legal right.

Lincoln begged them not to leave and said he was willing to work with them. They didn't even wait for Lincoln to take office to leave. They fired the first shot on Ft. Sumptor. So they were the first ones to start killing!

However, I can show you in clear writing, the evil base of the Confederacy


Excerpt from Constitution of the Confederate states of America

Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed

Since you seem to have problems with simple English, I will explain. Nobody, No state, no county, no village, nobody could write any law or regulation to limit slavery in their region... Talk about an overbearing Federal government, The confederate federal government FORBADE anybody to even put limits on the bondage of our brother humans !!

Regards,

George Clay

Since you seem to have a problem with not slandering others. I will remind you of form rules.

No one is arguing that slavery is not evil. 2 evils don't make it good. As far as the right to secede. You need to study the federalist papers.


My argument is doing away with slavery as god intended vs the evil way it was. Joseph smith knew and preached the right way.


Both the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781, and the United States Constitution, ratified in 1789, established a union of sovereign states under the governance of a federal system. This union was widely understood by both the states and the federal government to be voluntary, and the Constitution was interpreted to reinforce this perspective. At the same time, the founding fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, recognized the states' right to secede. Although he did not advocate the exercise of that right, he acknowledged that the entitlement remained with the states and was a right that continued throughout the initial drafts of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

They fired the frist shots on a fort that was being maintained by the north in the south. Which means it was a foreign base because they had already seceded. So I can understand why they did. Did the north need to go to war. Strait up NO.

Lincoln could have just as easily continued to talk and negotiate with the south. Again slavery was still legal in the north. Lincoln had signed bills to continue slavery laws already on the books.

Neither side was righteous. Neither side was right. Gods people were in Utah and had no part in either side.

The point is this.

Norths hands were equally if not more dirty then the south. There was a right way to end slavery which didn't happen and the lord moved his people out of the way to protect them from this......

1 nephi 22:13


13 And the blood of that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall turn upon their own heads; for they shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.

The north was not noble. Lincoln was not a hero. Neither was the south. Neither was on the lords side. They both were the great and abominable church that wars amongst themselves and was drunk on their own blood. The civil was was the bloodiest war in our history.

If the USA was following the constitution. Following d&c 98. the saints would still be in the east. The south wouldn't have left and we all would have way more freedoms then we currently do.

[Seek the Truth]

Civil War South were all Democrats, this is a Democrat on Democrat issue as far as I'm concerned.

[gclayjr]

Ezra,

This union was widely understood by both the states and the federal government to be voluntary, and the Constitution was interpreted to reinforce this perspective.

Yea, by southern apologists, but it was just as widely understood, that states couldn't leave any more than Landenberg can leave the union. It was and still is a disputed topic.

However, even if I give you this, it doesn't change the fact that the one and only purpose for leaving was slavery and the Confederates deliberately wrote their constitution not only to permit slavery, but to enshrine it and make it impossible to roll it back in any way, except by being defeated in war.

They did not leave because of Income taxes

They did not leave because of over regulation by the government

They did not leave because of gender issues or Abortion,

They left solely to make sure that NOBODY put any restrictions on slavery, including their own people!

As I stated in my first post, I admire both Robert E Lee, who chose to fight for the south rather than the north because of loyalty to his state, and Thomas Jackson who, while quirky, did have many moral values, and was a brilliant tactician,

But one cannot dispute that the Confederacy, like Nazi Germany, rested on an evil, immoral, disgusting foundation!

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

George Clay is only a history buff in the repeating of mainstream views, views perpetuated by the victors and hammered home in government schools.

Equating the Confederacy to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is absolutely ludicrous. Any person with an IQ over 50 should be able to figure that out.
Maybe Hilter was a Lincolnian:
Jaffa's Hitlerian Defense of Lincoln
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/05/tho ... incolnite/

The zinger that George keeps hammering home Sec 1.9.4 in the CSA Constitution. George fails to conceive that this only applies to the General government, prohibitions on congressional power only. If states wanted to abolish slavery, they certainly had the sovereignty to do so.

Here is a podcast on The Confederate States Constitution (hint: it's much more than just slavery):
https://www.brionmcclanahan.com/blog/po ... stitution/

And here is more to whet any appetites out there:

Slavery in the Confederate Constitution
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/revi ... stitution/

Defending the Confederacy
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog ... nfederacy/

The So-Called Civil War Was Not Over Slavery
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/pau ... t-slavery/

The Lincoln Myth: Ideological Cornerstone of the America Empire
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/tho ... coln-myth/

Why The War Was Not About Slavery
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/clyd ... t-slavery/

The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S96iQYL0bw

The Moral Challenge of Slavery and Confederate Emancipation by Don Livingston
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHT6T-nyNfE



In conclusion, don't be a zombie:

[ajax]

The real question is, Why did the North invade?

[David13]

Red,

I'm educated, not a nut case. My minor was in civil war history. That article highlights larger points of what I was taught in college.

Either you were not a very good student, or you did not go to a very good college, if you managed to minor in Civil War history and not be familiar with what was actually written in the Constitution of the Confederacy.


Regards,,
George Clay

George, I went to what would be considered one of the best colleges (university) and was a top student.
We full well understood at that time, many years ago, that a campaign had begun known as revisionist history to rewrite the whole issue of the "civil war" for political purposes.
So it could well be you that was not the good student, or at the very good college.
Or that you just go along with the "politically correct" litany.
dc


You stylize yourself as a "buff". Well, usually a buff gets the glossy overlay, but not the substance of the thing. The sensational headlines of a story, but not the nuts and bolts that really made it what it was.

[kittycat51]

It kind of dismays me to see so many question or mock Abraham Lincoln on this forum. Anyone read "The Lincoln Hypothesis" by Timothy Ballard? I read it earlier this year and was fascinated with Timothy's theory. It was a fact that Abraham Lincoln checked out a Book of Mormon from the Library of Congress during the Civil War. He held onto it far longer than he was supposed to have. Abraham loved reading. Do you think he held onto the book for 8 months when he should have returned it in 2 weeks without reading it? Yes, Abraham may have held some of the less than admirable views people have posted here on the forum, but I believe they changed and his focus shifted as the Civil War raged on...because he did read the Book of Mormon.

At his 2nd inauguration, as is custom for most presidents to place their hands on their favorite chapter/verse, Lincoln had his bible and placed his hand on Isaiah 5. Isaiah 5 ends with a prophecy regarding the gathering of Israel and the Restoration of the gospel in latter-day America. Why do you think Lincoln would care to use that chapter? You see before describing the wonderful events of the Restoration, Isaiah saw that something terrible must first hit the land a scourge, a purge, a refiner's fire. Isaiah described a war in the land as a result of a national sin! After Lincoln completed his oath of office, he bent down to kiss the Bible. Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who ha administered the oath, later commented that Lincoln seemed to intentionally kiss two particular verses from Isaiah 5...verses 25 and 26:

25 Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

26 And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:

Most people outside the Church don't understand Isaiah 5. I believe Lincoln did because of the BofM. He understood it because of 2 Nephi 15.

There were far to many coincidences that Timothy researched and found connecting Lincoln to having read the BoM. I don't believe in "coincidences". If you haven't read the book I highly suggest you do. Your opinion on Lincoln may change.

[Silver]

The real question is, Why did the North invade?

War was not necessary. Joseph Smith, Jr., a candidate for President in 1844, had already announced his intent on how to resolve the slavery issue. Just a snippet of the article below. Click on the link to read the entire thing.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/02/jose ... s?lang=eng

Joseph Smith: Campaign for President of the United States
By Arnold K. Garr
Department Chair, Church History and Doctrine
Brigham Young University

On January 29, 1844, the Prophet Joseph Smith formally decided to run for the office of president of the United States. What did he hope to accomplish?

Eliminating slavery was another important part of his platform. He wrote in General Smith’s Views: “The Declaration of Independence ‘holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin.” Instead of simply calling for the abolition of slavery, Joseph Smith’s platform would have Congress “pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from members of Congress.”

[Silver]

Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who ha administered the oath, later commented that Lincoln seemed to intentionally kiss two particular verses from Isaiah 5...verses 25 and 26:

Here's everything you need to know about Chase...hmmm...sounds like the name of a bank...

http://www.history.com/topics/salmon-p-chase
Salmon P. Chase (1808-1873) was a U.S. senator, governor of Ohio and Supreme Court chief justice who served as the U.S. secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War (1861-65). A staunch abolitionist, Chase spent his early career as a lawyer and became known as “the attorney general for fugitive slaves” for his frequent defenses of runaway blacks. After representing Ohio in the U.S. Senate from 1849 to 1855, Chase went on to serve as the state’s governor from 1855 to 1859. He made a failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1860 before serving as Abraham Lincoln’s secretary of the Treasury. Chase was responsible for managing the finances of the Union during the Civil War and was instrumental in establishing the national banking system and issuing paper currency. Chase resigned his position in June 1864 and was appointed chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court later that year. He would serve until his death in 1873 at the age of 65. (close quote)

Let's open our eyes and see how Presidents have been puppets for a long, long time.

[David13]

Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who ha administered the oath, later commented that Lincoln seemed to intentionally kiss two particular verses from Isaiah 5...verses 25 and 26:

Here's everything you need to know about Chase...hmmm...sounds like the name of a bank...

http://www.history.com/topics/salmon-p-chase
Salmon P. Chase (1808-1873) was a U.S. senator, governor of Ohio and Supreme Court chief justice who served as the U.S. secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War (1861-65). A staunch abolitionist, Chase spent his early career as a lawyer and became known as “the attorney general for fugitive slaves” for his frequent defenses of runaway blacks. After representing Ohio in the U.S. Senate from 1849 to 1855, Chase went on to serve as the state’s governor from 1855 to 1859. He made a failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1860 before serving as Abraham Lincoln’s secretary of the Treasury. Chase was responsible for managing the finances of the Union during the Civil War and was instrumental in establishing the national banking system and issuing paper currency. Chase resigned his position in June 1864 and was appointed chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court later that year. He would serve until his death in 1873 at the age of 65. (close quote)

Let's open our eyes and see how Presidents have been puppets for a long, long time.

In an indirect way you make two very important points that the revisionist historians miss.
First, Lincoln on his own had nothing sufficient to get himself elected as President. There were doubtless many large and important factors behind his candidacy running the show that sold Lincoln to the American voter.
Economics, for one.
Second, the economic factors were far more important as causes of the war than slavery. Just as they continue to be important factors 'behind the scenes' today.
dc

[gclayjr]

Ajax, Silver, David13,

Did I misquote the Confederate Constitution? Does that section say something different than I said it did? Did the South give states, counties cities, or anybody the right to end or even lessen slavery in their state, county or village?

YOU are the ones quoting revisionists and speculation. I am quoting ORIGINAL sources!

I'm sorry; a foundation based upon enshrining enslaving Negroes, is not any more firm than a foundation based upon eliminating or or banishing Jews !!


Regards,

George Clay

[Robin Hood]

This is a fascinating debate.
I don't know enough about the subject to make any meaningful contribution, but am enjoying the posts submitted so far.

I do know one thing to be true though. History is always written by the winners. That doesn't mean it isn't correct, but it does mean the losers point of view is rarely considered.

[oneClimbs]

What about the Knights of the Golden Circle and their objectives?

[ajax]

George, Article 1 Sec 1: "All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in a Congress of the Confederate States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Then the delegation and prohibitions of powers to the general government follows. Not hard to understand. We try to defend the US Constitution on the same grounds (delegated powers). Per one of the links above:

1.9.4 (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”

This is the Article some claim establishes a Slave Republic. It’s hardly true. Both the 1787 and CSA Constitutions have an Article 1.9 which prohibits the General government to legislate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Both have an Article 1.10 which denies the States the power to pass such laws. In both Constitutions Article 1.9 applies only to the General government and Article 1.10 applies only to the States.

While the CSA 1.9 prohibits the General government legislating against slavery, CSA Article 1.10 does not mention slavery in any regard. It’s entirely committed to ex post facto and other non-slavery related issues, e.g., excessive bail, entering treaties, laying duties on tonnage and so forth.

So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in Article 1.10.

The Confederacy’s addition to 1.9 denying power to the General government to disestablish the institution of slavery was done so the prohibition would be explicit. Slavery was already implicitly outside the General government’s power when the CSA Founders abolished ‘dual sovereignty’. Slavery, as with any State creation, resided in the sovereignty of their respective peoples.

Lincoln and the Republican Party held to this view. They made this clear with their passage of the original 13th Amendment named the Corwin Amendment after Republican Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio who introduced the Amendment in the House while Republican Senator William Seward of New York introduced it in the Senate. It passed Congress and was going through the States for ratification, where a few had already approved the measure, when Sumter stopped its progress.

At the Hampton Roads Peace Conference on February 3, 1865, Lincoln was hoping to talk the Confederate States back into the Union. He and Seward refused to address the South’s quest for independence. Rather they argued that the return of the CSA States could stop passage of the Second 13th Amendment banning slavery in the United States if they re-joined immediately and voted against passage. (It is a depth-defying question whether Lincoln ever understood the South or felt the need to.)

Saying he already had conversations with political leaders, Lincoln offered to work for a $400 million reimbursement for slaves already freed by the war. Whether Lincoln could actually produce such a result is conjecture. Stanton and the Radical Republicans would not be lightly dealt with and Lincoln most often gave in to them. Interestingly, Seward immediately jumped up arguing against the President’s proposal. But Lincoln tempered him saying, “Ah, Mr. Seward, you may talk so about slavery if you will, but if it was wrong in the South to hold slaves, it was wrong in the North to carry on the slave trade, and it would be wrong to hold onto the money the North procured by selling slaves to the South, without compensation, if the North took the slaves back again.”

It would be Lincoln’s last attempt to keep slavery alive in order to end the war and/or gain compensation for slave owners. He had several times before and lost.
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/revi ... stitution/

I would also suggest listening to this podcast on the Confederate Constitution. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands
https://www.brionmcclanahan.com/blog/po ... stitution/

This also helps for perspective:
https://www.brionmcclanahan.com/blog/po ... y-slavery/

[ajax]

It kind of dismays me to see so many question or mock Abraham Lincoln on this forum. Anyone read "The Lincoln Hypothesis" by Timothy Ballard? I read it earlier this year and was fascinated with Timothy's theory. It was a fact that Abraham Lincoln checked out a Book of Mormon from the Library of Congress during the Civil War. He held onto it far longer than he was supposed to have. Abraham loved reading. Do you think he held onto the book for 8 months when he should have returned it in 2 weeks without reading it? Yes, Abraham may have held some of the less than admirable views people have posted here on the forum, but I believe they changed and his focus shifted as the Civil War raged on...because he did read the Book of Mormon.

At his 2nd inauguration, as is custom for most presidents to place their hands on their favorite chapter/verse, Lincoln had his bible and placed his hand on Isaiah 5. Isaiah 5 ends with a prophecy regarding the gathering of Israel and the Restoration of the gospel in latter-day America. Why do you think Lincoln would care to use that chapter? You see before describing the wonderful events of the Restoration, Isaiah saw that something terrible must first hit the land a scourge, a purge, a refiner's fire. Isaiah described a war in the land as a result of a national sin! After Lincoln completed his oath of office, he bent down to kiss the Bible. Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who ha administered the oath, later commented that Lincoln seemed to intentionally kiss two particular verses from Isaiah 5...verses 25 and 26:

25 Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

26 And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:

Most people outside the Church don't understand Isaiah 5. I believe Lincoln did because of the BofM. He understood it because of 2 Nephi 15.

There were far to many coincidences that Timothy researched and found connecting Lincoln to having read the BoM. I don't believe in "coincidences". If you haven't read the book I highly suggest you do. Your opinion on Lincoln may change.

Riiiiiiiiight. We can definitely see Lincoln being transformed into a veritable Capt Moroni right before our eyes.

Just ask these people:
https://www.amazon.com/War-Crimes-Again ... 158980466X

[Ezra]

Ezra,

This union was widely understood by both the states and the federal government to be voluntary, and the Constitution was interpreted to reinforce this perspective.

Yea, by southern apologists, but it was just as widely understood, that states couldn't leave any more than Landenberg can leave the union. It was and still is a disputed topic.

However, even if I give you this, it doesn't change the fact that the one and only purpose for leaving was slavery and the Confederates deliberately wrote their constitution not only to permit slavery, but to enshrine it and make it impossible to roll it back in any way, except by being defeated in war.

They did not leave because of Income taxes

They did not leave because of over regulation by the government

They did not leave because of gender issues or Abortion,

They left solely to make sure that NOBODY put any restrictions on slavery, including their own people!

As I stated in my first post, I admire both Robert E Lee, who chose to fight for the south rather than the north because of loyalty to his state, and Thomas Jackson who, while quirky, did have many moral values, and was a brilliant tactician,

But one cannot dispute that the Confederacy, like Nazi Germany, rested on an evil, immoral, disgusting foundation!

Regards,

George Clay

You think they did all that for 2% of the population? Really? You think all those people in the south that fought in that war did so to support what 2 % of the population of the south did?

That's delusional.