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/
So you are just going to regurgitate the same old tired statement over and over.
I have already cited to you that the Constitution specifically delgates the power of Commander-in-Chief to the Executive. And that the Tenth Amendment specifically prohibits the States from powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution.
The Rebel democrat controlled States had no Constitionally legal right to usurp power that the Constitition gave to the United States.
Yawn...
You’re sleepy? Maybe you should take a nap.
Actually, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are the "law of the land," not some regurgitated "old tired statement over and over."
"Learn to read you moron."
I have already cited to you that the Constitution specifically delgates [sic] the power of Commander-in-Chief to the Executive. And that the Tenth Amendment specifically prohibits the States from powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution.
So what? It's irrelevant to the issue of State secession.
The Rebel democrat controlled States had no Constitionally [sic] legal right to usurp power that the Constitition [sic] gave to the United States.
True - but the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession, and therefore there was no violation of constitutional law.
"Learn to read you moron."
;>)
And maybe you should come up with a rational argument (and pardon me if I don't stay up late waiting for it ;>)...
You really have said nothing. You dont even make a point.
Everything is a one-liner with you.
I dont suppose you would like to explain how the 9th or 10th Amendment support a right to secession?
The Tenth Amendment clearly supports my argument that the States were prohibited from secession because it prohibited the States from usurping the powers specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution such as is the case of the Article II.
It is you that can not come up with a rational argument so instead spouts one-line tough-guy comebacks. Please dont stay up. Knock yourself out. Put that perverted mind of yours to sleep. Do the right thing.
Sure - the Constitution no where prohibited the right of State secession - therefore, that right was reserved to the States, or the people of the States.
"Learn to read you moron."
;>)
Go pound sand. And have a nice night while doing it...
;>)
I already explained to you how it did prohibit the States from usurping powers from the United States under the Constitution but you are just trying to one-line your way out of acknowleging it.
Neither Amendment (9th or 10th) supports secession as you claim (if not then explain how) but instead these Amendments support my explanation of how they actually prohibit the States from secession.
The States had no Constitutional legal right to usurp powers from the Constitution.
I am sure that you will just spout some one-line denouncement of what I am taking the time to try to explain to you though.
Dont take offense. You were pounding it over and over with your one-line gratification of insulting posters with your whacked out pervert name-calling so I just wanted you to turn it back on yourself and give it a rest.
Enjoy your evening as well. You have really proven how tough you are here. Give it a rest even.
Actually, you have yet to cite a single article, section, and clause from the Constitution that would in any way prohibit State secession. Feel free to correct that error.
Neither Amendment (9th or 10th) supports secession as you claim (if not then explain how) but instead these Amendments support my explanation of how they actually prohibit the States from secession.
Once again, you're wrong - unless you can cite a specific article, section and clause from the Constitution that prohibited State secession. And (based on your track record) no one will stay up late waiting...
;>)
The States had no Constitutional legal right to usurp powers from the Constitution.
True - but State secession in no way 'usurped' powers...
I am sure that you will just spout some one-line denouncement of what I am taking the time to try to explain to you though.
What?
[Kumbayah, my Lord, kumbayah... ]
As I said, please, and by all means, go pound sand...
;>)
Rational argument?
How about something like: The south lost it’s “moral authority” to secede the moment those idiots in Charleston fired upon Fort Sumter.
You reap what you sow.....and the South did. The Confederates started it and the Union finished it.
"Moral authority?" That raises a very simple question, sport: should government be bound by law, or by morality?
Please feel free to answer - it's a simple question.
The Confederates started it and the Union finished it.
Actually, the Union started it. When the newly elected president met with his cabinet, all but one of his advisers suggested that he NOT resupply Fort Sumter. Mr. Lincoln ignored their advice - and almost two thirds of a million Americans died as a direct result...
The Confederate justification is irrelevant as far as federal action was concerned. What was relevant to Lincoln was that armed insurrection was preventing him from carrying out his Constitutionally mandated duties. Where the justification comes in is in regards to moral justification for their illegal actions. Sadly, the rebs had no legitimate complaint except immature resentment over a political verdict. The Constitution and Union didn't mean much to them when they were not winning elections and running things. Political immaturity at the preschool level.
Fail.
And if you’re going to fire the first shot, make damned sure you can win the war. The South didn’t.
Looks as though the coven is scraping the bottom of the barrel REALLY hard for talent these days.
Well it has been the libertarians who historically involved themselves in covens. It was all the rage among libertarians back in their counter-culture days of sexual liberation. The libertarian motto “Live and Let Live” is really simply a rewrite of the wiccan motto “Do As Thou Wilt But Harm None”. Of course it all started with a Libertine named Aliester Crowley though also known as the Beast. So it you and your libertarian fellows who were scraped up from the bottom of the barrel. You all would make the libertine Crowley proud though.
Shocking how insightful you are Mike. LOL! Just because the North strong armed, manipulated, and lied doesn’t mean they were right. But then again everyone has an opinion and we all know what they say about opinions...
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.