Skip to comments.Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video
Posted on 12/22/2011 3:04:51 PM PST by Federalist Patriot
Now this is a great ad from American Crossroads! Lets hope we see a 30-second or 1-minute version of this playing in 2012 during the General Election Campaign.
It uses Obamas own words against him, where he recently decreed himself to be essentially the fourth best President in the history of the United States in terms of his accomplishments! Theres nothing like the ego of The One.
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.net ...
Do you know why Lincoln and most Republicans wanted to stop that expansion of slavery into the new territories? Hint: It wasn't for noble reasons like everyone has been brainwashed into believing....
You know, I can't get to upset about Lincoln. He was their President and the USA was their country. For those 4 glorious years, most of real America i.e. the South and the CSA had a real President, Jefferson Davis. For a brief time our ancestors were free from the North East power structure and the unending usurpation of the pretend Union. What that stupid goon did to those people is of little importance to me, it's just that jerk set a precedent we ALL have to live with.
More mind reading?
State sovereignty was shared between the states and the federal government after the constitution was ratified. Accordingly the states did not maintain ambassadors, rather they were appointed by the President and ratified by the Senate.
And controversies between the states were not to be settled by armies, but by law, with the supreme court as original jurisdiction. Any state raising an army for use against another state, or against the US government would be engaging in insurrection.
Dishonest Cowboyway, making false charges again.
Secession without legal authority is nothing but rebellion. To support rebellion with violence is insurrection and treason.
There was treason, but it was not on the part of the legitimately elected government, but rather on the part of those who had not been elected, who presumed to form a government in opposition to that elected.
That's a fact, however, since the occupation all the little school kids, north and South, have been fed the lies from the yankee propoganda machine and have grown up believing them and personally I'm glad that there are a growing number of people willing to challenge the yankee propoganda and politically correct revisionism. Perhaps one day the history books will print the truth about disHonest Abe and that stinking memorial will be replaced with something more appropriate.
Gonna cite that pathetic T-v-W dicta from the dishonorable Chase again? Weak.
But, consent of the governed doesn't mean much to the statist or the tyrant.........
To support rebellion with violence is insurrection and treason.
On the other hand, to defend your home against oppression, tyranny and invasion from thugs and criminals is quite noble.
There was treason
You betcha there was and it was in the form of disHonest Abe Lincoln and his gang of thugs.
Like your pretend marriages and your pretend gods, your pretend neo-yank False Cause Loser history and statism doesn't cut it here, perv.
First of all, the Tenth Amendment never abrogated Article VI:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Second, the Tenth Amendment has been upheld by the US Supreme Court on occasion:
But the Supreme Court will only go so far:
Point is: the Tenth Amendment is alive and well, and the issue is, in what cases does it apply?
So the real State Sovereignty problem is that States are unwilling to turn down Federal funds which come with strings attached.
They would rather take the money and comply with Federal rules.
Regardless, none of this has anything to do with Honest Abe Lincoln.
cowboyway: "Lincoln did not fight the bloodiest war of the nineteenth century, against his own people and at a cost of 620,000 American lives, to free the slaves.
He fought it to set a precedent of federal supremacy over the states.
And in the process turned his apparent belief that the ends justify the means into federal dogma."
That is such rubbish, only a devoted propagandist would believe a word of it.
The Constitution itself established Federal supremacy, and gave the Government powers necessary to repel invasions, suppress rebellions, defeat insurrections, etc.
Lincoln simply enforced the Constitution.
His new Constitutional amendments simply corrected some of the wickedness which led to the slave-holders' rebellion.
(You need to take that Kool Aid IV out of your arm, pal. Seriously.)
His new Constitutional amendments simply corrected some of the wickedness which led to the slave-holders' rebellion.
We hold 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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10the Amendment - 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.
The disHonest Abe/yankee version of ‘consent of the governed’ is that we consent and they govern. brojoke is a dyed in the wool big government statist that worships lincoln. He’s done more than drank the Kool Aid; he’s doing the backstroke in it.
Yep, consent or else we'll murder, rape, pillage and plunder till ya do consent at the point of a bayonet!
disHonest Abe had no respect for the Constitution and it appears the Coven can't grasp the intent of the Constitution:
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.--Jefferson
The chains of the Constitution were to bind the government, not the People (of their respective States). I mean really, how hard is that to understand?!
Consent of the governed.
Using your reasoning, the US should not have sent the Marines in to save Virginia from John Brown. But they did. With Colonel Lee in charge. Such an act would be treason on the part of Colonel Lee. Since Colonel Lee committed such treason, I blame him for all the ills committed by the Democrats after that.
Further, I figure the retention of slavery in the states was unconstitutional ‘corruption of the blood’, and should have been ended before. Every slave holder should have been locked up for kidnapping.
Your reasoning is what has led you to commit incest, practice paganism and claim that Christianity is a pagan religion. Enough said.
Every slave holder should have been locked up for kidnapping.
slave holder yankee slave trader should have been locked up hanged for kidnapping.
Fixed it for ya.
That's an impossible concept for the coven to comprehend, mainly due to their statist state of mind.
You lie. That you have to lie shows you know you are wrong.
Let that burn you just a moment.
Yes, I practice a pagan religion, as you do, for Christianity is a pagan religion. As opposed to a religion of a court sycophant. And that is a good thing.
No they are not, and DiLorenzo is Kool-Aid Central for pro-Confederate propaganda lies.
But first of all, Napolitano himself is a good and decent man, who is right in most everything he says -- most everything.
In that regard, we might note the following quote from your link:
"So what can be done?
Among Judge Napolitano's common sense recommendations are abolition of the income tax ("the Sixteenth Amendment . . . should be abolished outright"); same for the Seventeenth Amendment which called for the direct election of U.S. senators and a return to the system of appointing them by state legislatures; and the recognition that the federal government will never check its own power.
" 'Thus, I would clarify the right of the states to secede from the Union,' writes the judge from New Jersey, 'losing all the benefits that come from membership [in the union], but regaining all the freedom membership has taken away.' "
Imho, those are entirely sensible recommendations, necessary to restore the balance between Federal and State powers.
And a constitutional amendment to define lawful secession seems to me long overdue.
But we should also note that none of this has anything to do with Honest Abe Lincoln -- since the 16th and 17th amendments came 50 years after Lincoln's death.
Second important point to note: from the beginning, my argument here can be summarized as: "Founders' Original Intent" -- what did those Federalists who wrote and ratified the new Constitution intend for it to mean?
I say: if you oppose Original Intent, then you oppose the Constitution itself.
Well, the good Judge Napolitano argues, in effect, against the Founders' Original Intent, saying the document was flawed from the beginning in allowing the Founders to increase Federal power beyond what anti-Federalists approved of.
I say that's nonsense: the Constitution means what the Founders said it means, not what anti-Federalists wish it would have meant if they had written or voted to ratify it.
And bringing this all back to our discussion of Deep-South slave-holders declarations of secession, beginning in 1860, the Founders' Original Intent on secession is clear: constitutional secession is by mutual consent, or due to a material breach of contract having that same effect.
None of these conditions existed on November 6, 1860, when Deep-South slave-holders first began the process to declare their secession, simultaneously began committing many acts of increasing rebellion or war against the United States, before formally declaring war on May 6, 1861.
And the slave-holders' declaration of war on the United States invalidates all claims to the constitutional legitimacy of their "right of secession."
The US Constitution says nothing directly about "secession".
It says a lot about people who make war on the United States, or provide them with aid and comfort, committing rebellion, insurrection, invasion and domestic violence.
Those are the constitutional provisions Lincoln used to defeat the slave-holders' rebellion.
Show the lie, pagan.
Yes, I practice a pagan religion, as you do, for Christianity is a pagan religion.
It's hard for me to believe that JR lets you continue to post that garbage on his website.
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.