Posted on 07/30/2013 7:15:08 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
Conservatives are grabbing popcorn and lining up to catch a new historical drama with modern connections.
Copperhead, the new film from director Ron Maxwell, focuses on the Northern opponents of the American Civil War and stars Billy Campbell, Angus MacFadyen and Peter Fonda.
At least one conservative Richard Viguerie, chairman of ConservativeHQ.com emailed his audience to tell it about the movie that every conservative needs to see.
[W]hile Copperhead is about the Civil War, believe me, it will hit close to home for every conservative fighting to preserve our Constitution and our American way of life, Viguerie wrote. Because Copperhead is about standing up for faith, for America, and for whats right, just like you and I are doing today. In fact, Ive never seen a movie with more references to the Constitution, or a movie that better sums up our current fight to stand up for American values and get our nation back on track.
The movie, which is based on the novel by Harold Frederic, follows Abner Beech, a New York farmer who doesnt consider himself a Yankee, and is against slavery and war in general.
Asked about whether he sees his film as conservative, Maxwell told POLITICO, I think if Copperhead has any relevance at all, in addition to illuminating a time and place from our common heritage, its as a cinematic meditation on the price of dissent. Ive never thought of dissent as a political act belonging to the right or left. Its an act of liberty, expression of the rights of a free person free not just in law but free from the confines and pressures of the tyranny of the majority.
Maxwell said while the concept of dissent is as old as time, in the U.S., its protected in the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Bubba, are you serious? The entire USC defines the roll of FedGov and state. Even you are not that stupid. I did a search on the word state in the USC, 100 matches.
The Constitution also mentions "natural born citizen," but as we well know, it doesn't actually define that term, either.
And it's "role,' not "roll."
No, I think two are enough. Though to be completely accurate we may both be wrong about North Carolina. The account I have states that the convention that met on May 20th was made up of the same people who had been elected to the first convention that voted secession down and not as a result of a new election.
Now good luck in getting your Lost Causer buddy to admit his errors.
I actually work, and cant always proof read everything.
Like you compadre, are you going to sully the Confederacy’s secession and equivocate it to a cup-de-sac seceding from the county? If so, don’t wonder why so many people think it is the FR Federal boot licking fools that deserve derision.
This post proves once more that you are just plain ignorant. The whole point of the USC is to allow states to "do their own thing". With the only limits being those duties specifically reserved for the Federal. Teaching you is such a waste of time....
cup-de-sac = cul-de-sac
Teaching you is such a waste of time....
Did it ever occur to you that you're the one who needs to be schooled?
You still haven’t explained why it’s only states that have the right to declare themselves to now be a different country.
But you don’t teach - you hector. And even hectoring might be excusable if you were correct, but you aren’t.
Perhaps that is why the misspellings and homophony become so amusing. ;-)
You might want to look up the meaning of “equivocate,” too. Perhaps you meant “equate.”
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Yes equate, not equivocate. I stand corrected. Well answer the question. Do you "equate"?
Hectoring? You deserve worse, much worse.
So you think they way West Virginia became a state is silly? Hypocrites....
I see very little difference between a state unilaterally declaring itself to now be a different country and a cul-de-sac unilateral declaring itself to be a different country. Both of them are absolutely illegal under the US Constitution, but both have a natural right of rebellion, and upon winning said rebellion, either would then be independent countries.
A comment both wrong and stupid, a double bagger.
Hey, that reminds me - did you ever go back to see if your stupid picture is still posted? You seemed to be having a heavy flow day over that one ;-)
It's only ok when you guys do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.