Posted on 09/27/2010 1:27:31 PM PDT by RandysRight
This article gives another perspective on liberals, libertarians and conservatives. The history both Lincoln and Sherman has been written by the victors and beyond reproach. Do we want to restore honor in this country? Can we restore honor by bringing up subjects over 100 years old? Comments are encouraged.
Randy's Right aka Randy Dye NC Freedom
The American Lenin by L. Neil Smith lneil@lneilsmith.org
It’s harder and harder these days to tell a liberal from a conservative — given the former category’s increasingly blatant hostility toward the First Amendment, and the latter’s prissy new disdain for the Second Amendment — but it’s still easy to tell a liberal from a libertarian.
Just ask about either Amendment.
If what you get back is a spirited defense of the ideas of this country’s Founding Fathers, what you’ve got is a libertarian. By shameful default, libertarians have become America’s last and only reliable stewards of the Bill of Rights.
But if — and this usually seems a bit more difficult to most people — you’d like to know whether an individual is a libertarian or a conservative, ask about Abraham Lincoln.
Suppose a woman — with plenty of personal faults herself, let that be stipulated — desired to leave her husband: partly because he made a regular practice, in order to go out and get drunk, of stealing money she had earned herself by raising chickens or taking in laundry; and partly because he’d already demonstrated a proclivity for domestic violence the first time she’d complained about his stealing.
Now, when he stood in the doorway and beat her to a bloody pulp to keep her home, would we memorialize him as a hero? Or would we treat him like a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up, if for no other reason, then for trying to maintain the appearance of a relationship where there wasn’t a relationship any more? What value, we would ask, does he find in continuing to possess her in an involuntary association, when her heart and mind had left him long ago?
History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real capitalism, enlisted brute government force — “sell to us at our price or pay a fine that’ll put you out of business” — for dealing with uncooperative southern suppliers. That’s what a tariff’s all about. In support of this “noble principle”, when southerners demonstrated what amounted to no more than token resistance, Lincoln permitted an internal war to begin that butchered more Americans than all of this country’s foreign wars — before or afterward — rolled into one.
Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent — indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims — and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south — where he had no effective jurisdiction — while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless, that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he’d have done that, instead.
The fact is, Lincoln didn’t abolish slavery at all, he nationalized it, imposing income taxation and military conscription upon what had been a free country before he took over — income taxation and military conscription to which newly “freed” blacks soon found themselves subjected right alongside newly-enslaved whites. If the civil war was truly fought against slavery — a dubious, “politically correct” assertion with no historical evidence to back it up — then clearly, slavery won.
Lincoln brought secret police to America, along with the traditional midnight “knock on the door”, illegally suspending the Bill of Rights and, like the Latin America dictators he anticipated, “disappearing” thousands in the north whose only crime was that they disagreed with him. To finance his crimes against humanity, Lincoln allowed the printing of worthless paper money in unprecedented volumes, ultimately plunging America into a long, grim depression — in the south, it lasted half a century — he didn’t have to live through, himself.
In the end, Lincoln didn’t unite this country — that can’t be done by force — he divided it along lines of an unspeakably ugly hatred and resentment that continue to exist almost a century and a half after they were drawn. If Lincoln could have been put on trial in Nuremburg for war crimes, he’d have received the same sentence as the highest-ranking Nazis.
If libertarians ran things, they’d melt all the Lincoln pennies, shred all the Lincoln fives, take a wrecking ball to the Lincoln Memorial, and consider erecting monuments to John Wilkes Booth. Libertarians know Lincoln as the worst President America has ever had to suffer, with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson running a distant second, third, and fourth.
Conservatives, on the other hand, adore Lincoln, publicly admire his methods, and revere him as the best President America ever had. One wonders: is this because they’d like to do, all over again, all of the things Lincoln did to the American people? Judging from their taste for executions as a substitute for individual self-defense, their penchant for putting people behind bars — more than any other country in the world, per capita, no matter how poorly it works to reduce crime — and the bitter distaste they display for Constitutional “technicalities” like the exclusionary rule, which are all that keep America from becoming the world’s largest banana republic, one is well-justified in wondering.
The troubling truth is that, more than anybody else’s, Abraham Lincoln’s career resembles and foreshadows that of V.I. Lenin, who, with somewhat better technology at his disposal, slaughtered millions of innocents — rather than mere hundreds of thousands — to enforce an impossibly stupid idea which, in the end, like forced association, was proven by history to be a resounding failure. Abraham Lincoln was America’s Lenin, and when America has finally absorbed that painful but illuminating truth, it will finally have begun to recover from the War between the States.
Source: John Ainsworth
http://www.americasremedy.com/
It seems to me that the President is called forth to defend the United States in the Constitution. As Lincoln did. Not the Seceded States as you claim he should have.
So it seems that is was President Lincoln who was the Patriot and acted legally and it was those that oppose him on this issue that were before and still now after who are the Traitors.
Oppose the United States fool. Weep what you sow.
If the "leaders" of the south had been reasonable, responsible men, they would have exhausted the legal resources available to them before they resorted to open insurrection, things might have turned out better - perhaps even in their favor.
Because they were insincere flim-flam men who resorted to "independence on the cheap" they instigated a war that needlessly cost 600,000 lives.
Who won the war?
Scoreboard.
Paul Kantner sung their theme song.
“We are all Outlaws in the Eyes of America”
It is a song called “We Can Be Together” and was a counter-culture song that fit the libertarian movment to a tee.
They all live to overturn the law and to rebel. They are a bunch of malcontents and libertine scoundrels. They marched hand in hand with the Marxist traitors of the counter-culture yesterday and again today. They always oppose the United States.
Well I certainly hope that you and your fellow traitors try to unilaterally secede from the United States again. It will be a pleasure to watch your stupidity in action as you learn your lesson for real.
Oh, now you've hurt my feelings! And I was trying to flatter you!
;>)
Funny that you mention the Constitution - what article, section and clause specifically prohibits State secession? Hmmm?
;>)
"Traitors?" Not at all - the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession, and secession would therefore not have been 'treasonous.'
As for your "hope" regarding secession, the 14th Amendment (passed AFTER the war) effectively prohibits such action.
"Learn to read you moron."
;>)
You can claim that the Constitution didn’t prohibit secession but multiple posts by myself and by others have proved you wrong.
To usurp power in order to violate the rights of every United States citizen is treason and that is what the confederate democrats did. Traitors then and still traitors today is the democrat party. Of course the left-wing libertarians join hand in hand still with Marxist traitors on issues today.
I am glad though that you admit that secession is illegal today. It was illegal then as well. But at least you are not claiming as another poster did in this thread that secession is still legal today.
If you were right, you could quote the article, section, and clause of the US Constitution that prohibited State secession. Because you can't, you (and supposedly "others ;>) are obviously wrong.
;>)
To usurp power in order to violate the rights of every United States citizen is treason and that is what the confederate democrats did.
In fact, there was no 'usurpation' of powers involved - as the Tenth Amendment makes plain:
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.
Because the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession, that right was reserved to the States and their people.
In other words, you're wrong again.
;>)
Traitors then and still traitors today is the democrat party.
Wrong again. In the mid-1800's, the Democratic Party was the conservative party; the Republican Party was not. Although the names have remained the same, the political philosophies have reversed.
"Learn to read you moron."
;>)
Of course the left-wing libertarians join hand in hand still with Marxist traitors on issues today.
And you're wrong yet again. More often than not, in my experience, libertarians side with modern-day Republicans, not D@mocrats.
"Learn to read you moron."
;>)
I am glad though that you admit that secession is illegal today.
Then you contradict yourself - you had previously stated that you "hope that you and your fellow traitors try to unilaterally secede from the United States again." Gosh - were you encouraging treason? Not very patriotic of you...
;>)
It was illegal then as well.
And wrong again - care to quote the article, section, and clause of the US Constitution that prohibited State secession? Of course not, simply because it didn't exist...
;>)
But at least you are not claiming as another poster did in this thread that secession is still legal today.
Actually, you're wrong again. State secession would be entirely constitutional today, under certain circumstances.
"Learn to read you moron."
;>)
Again the only argument you have is to completely deny what has already been proven to you. The Tenth Amendment prohibits secession as it states clearly that it is powers “not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” that are reserved to the States. Article II clearly delegates the power of Commander-in-Chief to the United States executive branch and the States had no legal power to assume it in rebellion against the United States as they did.
To deny this as you do and support treason is not a conservative principle at all. The democrats were treasonous then and still are now. That includes libertarian democrats who try to act as if they are conservatives but really are not. The libertarian movement continually sides with the most extreme left-wing Marxists. The libertarian party was even formed in order to join side by side with the Marxist anti-war, and anti-American movement of the counter-culture.
Secession is just another of the anti-American left-wing stances that libertarians take. The left-wing love libertarian ‘useful idiots’ that take the stance that you do.
I hate to say it, but you're a liar - cite the specific article, section and clause of the US Constitution that prohibited State secession.
In case you missed it, I just called you a liar, and I invite you to prove me wrong - quote the specific article, section and clause of the US Constitution that prohibited State secession.
Liar.
The Tenth Amendment prohibits secession as it states clearly that it is powers “not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” that are reserved to the States.
True. But the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession. And in case you missed it, I'm calling you a liar - cite the specific article, section and clause of the US Constitution that prohibited State secession.
;>)
Article II clearly delegates the power of Commander-in-Chief to the United States executive branch and the States had no legal power to assume it in rebellion against the United States as they did.
Wrong again - as I've noted previously, Article II, Section 2 declares specifically that the President is:
...Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...
The militia of the several States had NOT been called into federal service when South Carolina (and subsequent) States seceded, so the President had absolutely NO "Commander in Chief" function relative to the States at that time.
"Learn to read you moron."
;>)
To deny this as you do and support treason is not a conservative principle at all.
Actually, to deny the rule of law, as you do, is "not a conservative principle at all," and as a result, you are not only a troll, but an outright liar.
That includes libertarian democrats who try to act as if they are conservatives but really are not. The libertarian movement continually sides with the most extreme left-wing Marxists. The libertarian party was even formed in order to join side by side with the Marxist anti-war, and anti-American movement of the counter-culture.
Oh, you betcha. Feel free to 'prove' it - you've 'proven' yourself to be a liar, so 'proving' that libertarians are actually Marxists should be a piece of cake for you. Oh, and please cite specific references (something you've also 'proven' yourself incapable of doing to date)...
;>)
Secession is just another of the anti-American left-wing stances that libertarians take. The left-wing love libertarian ‘useful idiots’ that take the stance that you do.
"Secession" is "left-wing?" LOL!!! Actually, sport, Karl Marx sided with the Union:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm
In other words, you're 100% wrong, AND you're a complete ignoramus.
"Learn to read you moron."
;>)
Don’t lie and say that you hate calling another poster names. It was evident that was your approach since you started posting in this thread. Even the quote you keep on repeating from me was a response to your insistent name-calling and mocking of other posters.
And all you continue to do is deny the fact that you have already been given a direct answer as to how the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession as a state right. You want to put all of your focus on the second criteria for state rights in the Tenth Amendment and to continually deny that the first criteria must be met as well.
Here is the line you want all focus to be upon: “nor prohibited by it to the States”. You want to make it seem as if this is the only criteria listed in the Tenth Amendment but as has been continually pointed out to you and that you refuse to address is the first criteria in the Tenth:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution”
The Tenth specifically excludes powers that are delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The States then had no right to unilaterally usurp the power of Commander-in-Chief or any other power delegated to the United States.
You can continue to try and distort the Tenth Amendment by ignoring the fact that has been continually pointed out to you and continue to prove that you are nothing more than a hack.
Actually, I do hate having to point out that another person posting here is a "liar" (as I did in your case). I prefer rational debate - something you have been unable to provide. Instead, you offer vague, unsubstantiated generalities, and claim that they are somehow "proof" that your claims are valid. In reality, you offer nothing but hogwash..
And all you continue to do is deny the fact that you have already been given a direct answer as to how the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession as a state right.
Which "direct answer" was that? Quote the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that prohibited State secession in 1860-61. Can't do it? No surprise there...
You want to put all of your focus on the second criteria for state rights in the Tenth Amendment and to continually deny that the first criteria must be met as well.
"Second criteria?" "First criteria?" What on earth are you talking about? (And by the way, it should be 'first criterion' and 'second criterion,' if you are going to use those terms... ;>)
The Tenth [Amendment] specifically excludes powers that are delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The States then had no right to unilaterally usurp the power of Commander-in-Chief or any other power delegated to the United States.
As noted previously the Constitution declares:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...
The president's power in relation to the federal "Army and Navy" is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of State secession, as was his power in relation to "Militia of the several States," which had NOT been "called into the actual Service of the United States" at the time the first State seceded in 1860. One might just as well argue that the president's role as "Commander in Chief" allows him to dictate the results of elections. Your argument is completely specious.
;>)
You can continue to try and distort the Tenth Amendment by ignoring the fact that has been continually pointed out to you and continue to prove that you are nothing more than a hack.
Actually, I am well aware of the meaning of the Tenth Amendment: it means precisely what it says. You are the "hack" who turns the amendment on it's head, in your vain attempt to support your idiotic theories.
"Learn to read you moron."
;>)
Again you just prove that you are a hack. You want to ignore the entire first line of the Tenth Amendment and just start it at the second line. You want to hack the Constitution to fit your agenda.
“Powers that are delegated to the United States by the Constitution” can not be usurped by confederate hacks. Does that help make it any clearer for you?
You continually try to make this line of the Constitution meaningless by claiming secession to be a state right by ignoring the first line and pretending that the states can usurp these powers simply because of the second line.
Yet the two lines are not an either/or but are two distinct criteria for the balance of rights between the states and the union. You can not ignore either of the lines.
How much of a hack you are is evident by the fact that you claim the ‘Commander-in-Chief’ power delegated to the United State in the Constitution is irrelevant.
But since you think that secession is a right then that explains it all. You are a hack who thinks that the anypart of the Constitution you decide to be is irrelevant. You could care less about the Constitution unless you get to ignore what you want and then distort the rest.
Defending secession as a right is absolutely left-wing. There are many Marxist traitors and Left-wing Anarchists or Outlaws who would love to undermine this nation and to get to rewrite the Constitution.
Maybe delete a line or two such as what you try to do with the Tenth Amendment.
Of course you are defending the democrats party confederates right to usurp all of the power of the Constitution. That is the whole purpose of a right to secession.
The libertarian party was formed as a left-wing group that would flank the true right-wing conservatives by pretending to be more right-wing then they are. They try to make a mockery of natural rights by using extreme examples such as ‘right to secession’.
The libertarian party was formed to join the Marxist on their attack on the United States. We have seen it during the counter-culture when they formed and all the way up until today. Traitors to the left of me and traitors to the right. Libertarians and Leftists United against the United States.
The confederate democrats were no different. Code Pink would of glady joined them in secession.
You are literally insane - Karl Marx himself supported the union:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm
Read it and weep, you delusional dipsh!t...
Maybe delete a line or two such as what you try to do with the Tenth Amendment.
Actually, as I've stated before, I believe the Tenth Amendmnet means EXACTLY what it says. YOU are the historical revisionist, not I...
Of course you are defending the democrats party confederates right to usurp all of the power of the Constitution. That is the whole purpose of a right to secession.
Wrong again. The right of secession was simply the right reserved by a State to withdraw from a bureaucratic relationship that had become detrimental to the people of that State's health. It is very much akin to a divorce - idiots like you would apparently deny a woman the right of divorce, even in abusive situations.
The libertarian party was formed as a left-wing group that would flank the true right-wing conservatives by pretending to be more right-wing then they are. They try to make a mockery of natural rights by using extreme examples such as ‘right to secession’.
Absolute, 100% horse manure...
The libertarian party was formed to join the Marxist on their attack on the United States. We have seen it during the counter-culture when they formed and all the way up until today. Traitors to the left of me and traitors to the right. Libertarians and Leftists United against the United States.
Bull crap. What do you have against libertarians? Most of them (previously, at least, your idiotic posts don't help) vote the same way you do.
"Learn to read you moron."
The confederate democrats were no different. Code Pink would of glady [sic] joined them in secession.
A word of friendly advice - you might want to check in with your physician. You appear to be a bit short on your meds...
Your response is no suprise. Mixing in as many insults as you can. I guess your heroes are Beevus and Butthead or Howard Stern.
You have not refuted one single point I have made but instead insist on ignoring the parts of the Constitution that you want gone.
You simply want to insist that the first line of the Tenth Amendment is meaningless to you. Powers delegated to the U.S. are irrelevant to you. You give no reason at all for ignoring parts of the Constitution but instead just start to call names and make insults to try and cover up your hackery and repeat your same old talking points.
Powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution are not to be usurped by left-wing confederate hacks. Get it yet moron?
Now if you had a half a brain at all you would also realize that the Tenth Amendment also reveals the process for a legal secession as well.
“Powers DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution”
Legally the power to secession could have been DELEGATED back to the States through a Constitutional Amendment or even other possible legal means but....
The traitors of the democrat party chose differently. The democrats chose treason.
Let me give you also a friendly word of advice. I would watch out with your talk of defending treason. This is the United States and not your libertarian utopia fantasy land.
The democrat party has produced traitors against the United States from within for their entire history. From the traitorous confederate democrats to the progressive democrats that followed shortly there after.
Then we had the democrat left-wing Marxist counter culture movement that was joined by the libertarian party on the streets protesting against the United States as well.
They all use terrorism as well. The confederate democrats formed the KKK terrorists, the counter-culture the anti-wat terrorists and today we have Code Pink, ELF, and all the other terror groups of the libertarian movement and left-wing.
Today we see so-called right-wingers, these radical libertarians as well who join in protesting the United States just as the confederate democrats did. They join in with Ron Paul and Code Pink and gay rights, terrorist rights, etc....
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.