America According to Lincoln [Archive]

Will

15th October 2005, 11:33

Will. Having read you opinion posted in other threads I have a question for you. What exactly did Lincol and the Federal government did that would not fall under your definition of "General Walfare?"!!!"

The states had ratified or accepted the Constitution which Constitutes a contract between the states and the federal government. The Constitution, in the effect of it's provisions, provides that the states are sovereign, NOT the federal government (exept in areas of foriegn and interstate commerce.) The federal government did things that violated that contract. Southern states, under the premise that the federal government had severely violated the contract, seceded. I believe that they, not only had the right to secede, they were justified in doing so. Federal troops invaded the sovereign states of the south.

On January 1, 1863 Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclation and violated the Tenth 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."

Even if we accept the premise that the states have no right to withdraw from the contract, no matter how badly the federal government violates it, slavery was legal and constitutional at the time. It violated the Tenth Amendment for the federal government to interfere in a constitutionally legal activity.

THANK GOD, the Thirteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1865, ended the abominable activity in this nation.

You yourself "have asserted that it means something other than what it says!!!"

I don't remember doing that. Would quote the exact post(s) where I did it, Please!!!

Great Spirit, Lord of the universe; Please grant us liberty, peace and prosperity for without any of these, the other two are meaningless. AMEN!

Will Mattison

Jaime

15th October 2005, 11:39

It is a summary statement relating to the whole issue of whether Katrina aide is unconstitutional.

Will

15th October 2005, 12:09

It is a summary statement relating to the whole issue of whether Katrina aide is unconstitutional.

Jaime:

I don't understand this post at all. Please elaborate?

Great Spirit, Lord of the universe; Please grant us liberty, peace and prosperity for without any of these the other two are meaningless. AMEN!

Will Mattison

Jaime

15th October 2005, 09:13

I am so sorry and I apologise. It was not you, it was someone else's statements. I falsely attributed to you something that you did not write. Please forgive me.

Will

15th October 2005, 10:56

Jaime:

Apology accepted! That's probably why I didn't understand your post.

Great Spirit, Lord of the universe; Please grant us liberty, peace and prosperity for without any of these the other two are meaningless. AMEN!

Will Mattison

barb-tex

27th November 2005, 05:15

The emancipartion proclamation did not violate the 10th amendment since it did not apply to the US but only to the confederacy. Remember Lincoln did not free ONE slave in the US. The EP was a political document to mollify the aboloutionists. The Dems were all over L in 1864 much as they are on W today.
barbra ann

Jaime

27th November 2005, 09:28

Oh, okay. So the POTUS can issue a proclamation liberating the slaves in the Sudan and because it deals not with States in union, or grants himself powers to be excercised outside these uS, it is constitutional?

darlo

28th November 2005, 11:47

If TAV or the CP starts attacking Lincoln, there is no way the CP will ever become a serious movement. Lincoln was a great President and attacking him will only show us to be a joke.

SWhiteman

28th November 2005, 11:54

bluebird

28th November 2005, 12:29

TAV is not the CP, so don't do the disservice of falsly imputing to them the expressions made here..

Dear SWhiteman, you have made this statement before, and I still don't get it. Are you saying that 99.9% of the people who post here are Not CP'ers?
If so, I'm on the wrong forum. Or, are you saying, that although the majority that post here belong to the CP, it is an open forum for civic discussion?

However, Lincoln is America's Tyrant and the government he brought forth is the temporal source of America's evils. Without Lincoln, the Radical Republicans, Reconstruction and the Reconstruction Amendments, there would be no Griswold, no Roe, no Lawrence v. Texas, not queer marriage.

Okay, assumming that this is an open forum for civic discussion, I would have to disagree that Lincoln per se is the problem with American politics today (to paraphrase). Even if Lincoln did not act in accordance with the Constitution, he served his God ultimately by freeing the slaves. That was a good deed. That does not give "license" to others to abuse the Constitution to accomplish "evil" deeds. They may choose to cite Lincoln as their reason to do so, but that doesn't merit any better than Adam telling God, "the woman made me do it." People sin of their own accord. Law makers break laws and continue to break laws of their own accord.

I enjoy most of your opinions SWhiteman, but in this case, I agree with darlo.

If we are both way off base, please do us the favor of educating us, because most of America would tend to agree with us I'm afraid, and I'm open to the CP convincing us otherwise.

Peace, Brenda.

exmarine

28th November 2005, 12:38

TAV is not the CP, so don't do the disservice of falsly imputing to them the expressions made here.

However, Lincoln is America's Tyrant and the government he brought forth is the temporal source of America's evils. Without Lincoln, the Radical Republicans, Reconstruction and the Reconstruction Amendments, there would be no Griswold, no Roe, no Lawrence v. Texas, not queer marriage.

Now, I do not diminish the ability of man to come up with other means to pervert the mandates of God, but in America, we can root this in Lincoln, the people who elected him, and the people who, against all evidence, believe him to have been a great President.

I agree that Lincoln did some unconstitutional things, e.g. imposing FORCED union on the South, suspending Habeus Corpus (only Congress can do that), not to mention the legacy of centralized power, etc. However, I do not believe Lincoln is responsible for the deplorable actions of the Radical Republicans (Thaddeus Stevens, et al), who were nothing less than vicious in their attempts to punish the South and Jefferson Davis after the war ended. In his second inaugural, Lincoln gave a preview of his intentions, "..with malice towards none, and charity towards all.." That is not a radical republican attitude or approach as I have come to know it. There was much malice but very little charity from Stevens & co. I believe Lincoln's speech and attitude are indications that, if Lincoln had lived, there would have been no Reconstruction period, and Davis, Forrest, etc. would have been immediately pardoned. But, I speculate...

Jaime

28th November 2005, 12:46

Jaime

28th November 2005, 12:47

Two-faced Lincoln, by his own words , uncivilized:

http://mrlincolnandfreedom.org/print.asp?ID=41

<snip>

Contemporary biographer Noah Brooks noted that "when others urged it upon him he almost invariably argued against it; and in this way, as had been his wont when he was in the profession of the law, he found the weakest as well as the strong points of the case under consideration."2 It is in the light of this mental condition that we must judge the well-known reply made by him on the 13th of September to a deputation from the religious denominations of Chicago requesting him to issue at once a proclamation of universal emancipation." President Lincoln deflected their arguments for immediate emancipation but admitted he had not "decided against a proclamation of liberty to slaves."3 Washington journalist James C. Welling argued that was with "festive humor that, on the 13th of September, he parried the arguments of the Chicago clergymen who had come to Washington in order to press for a proclamation of freedom. To their representation that the recent military disasters 'were tokens of divine displeasure, calling for new and advanced action on the part of the President,' he shrewdly replied that, if it was probable that God would reveal his will to others on a point so intimately connected with the President's duty, it might be supposed that he would reveal it directly to the President himself."4 Mr. Lincoln told the Chicago delegation:

<snip>

"Now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible result of good would follow the issuing of such a proclamation as you desire? Understand, I raise no objections against it on a legal or constitutional grounds; for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy. Nor do I urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the South. I view the matter as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion."

<snip>

http://mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=1&subjectID=1

<snip>

Mr. Lincoln realized that freedom depended upon Union — but he also realized that some supporters of Union opposed the actions he had taken to grant freedom to Southern slaves. He addressed these critics in an open letter to Union supporters meeting in Springfield, Illinois in September 1863.

You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and, perhaps would have it retracted — You say it is unconstitutional — I think differently. I think the constitution invests it's [sic] commander in chief, with the law of war in time of war — The most that can be said, if so much, is that slaves are property. Is there — has there ever been — any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy? Armies, the world over, destroy enemie's property when they can not use it; and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy — Civilized beligerents do all in their power to help themselves, or hurt the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous or cruel — Among the exceptions are the massacres of vanquished foes, and non combattants, male and female.

<snip>

Jaime

28th November 2005, 12:48

Lincoln, dis-honest Abe
sic semper tyrannis
http://dig.lib.niu.edu/civilwar/narrative2.html

But Fremont also proved to be capable of rash action. Late in the summer of 1861 he issued a proclamation announcing the emancipation of slaves in Missouri. Lincoln, eager to avoid ruffling the feathers of border state slaveholders, ordered Fremont to withdraw the proclamation. When Fremont demurred, the commander-in-chief officially overruled his subordinate. In early November, the War Department removed Fremont from his command.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/september/lincoln-slave-order.htm

THE EMANCIPATION QUESTION IN MISSOURI.
The following letter front the President to General Fremont has been published:

” WASHINGTON, D. C., Sept. 11, 1861. “Major-General John C. Fremont:

SIR,—Yours of the 8th, in answer to mine of the 2d instant, was just received. Assured that you, upon the ground, could better judge of the necessities of your position than I could at this distance, on seeing your proclamation of August 30 I perceived no general objection to it; the particular clause, however, in relation to the confiscation of property and the liberation of slaves appeared to me to be objectionable in its non-conformity to the act of Congress, passed the 6th of last August, upon the same subjects, and hence I wrote you expressing my wish that that clause should be modified accordingly. Your answer just received expresses the preference on your part that I should make an open order for the modification, which I very cheerfully do. It is therefore ordered that the said clause of said proclamation be so modified, held, and construed as to conform with and not to transcend the provisions on the same subject contained in the act of Congress entitled ‘An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes’ approved August 6, 1861, and that said act be published at length with this order.

” Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.”

Jaime

28th November 2005, 12:48

Lincoln, the American Caesar.
sic semper tyrannis
http://historictraveler.away.com/primedia/military/ramparts_fort_mchenry_2.adp

Many Baltimoreans rooted for the Confederacy at the Civil War’s out-set. In spring 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln called for loyal troops to come to the capital’s defense, most of them passed through the bay city on their way to Washington. On April 19, when troops of the 6th Massachusetts tried marching from one Baltimore train station to another, a mob attacked them. Four soldiers and 12 civilians died in the scuffle. Days later, Federal authorities shut down the Maryland legislature for threatening to vote for secession. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and allowed the arrest of dissenting residents without requiring charges be brought against them. For some, Fort McHenry became their political prison.

As well as captured Confederate combatants, 29 Maryland legislators became McHenry inmates. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, a Marylander and Lincoln opponent, was threatened with confinement there when he accused Lincoln of abuse of power. A brother-in-law of the late Francis Scott Key, he was spared because of his advanced age and high office. Another Key relative was not so lucky.

After his arrest September 13, 1861, Frank Key Howard wrote from confinement in Fort McHenry: “When I looked out in the morning, I could not help being struck by an odd, and not so pleasant coincidence. On that day, forty-seven years before, my grandfather, Mr. Francis Scott Key . . . wrote the song so popular throughout the country. . . . As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not help but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before. The flag which he so proudly hailed, I saw waving, at the same place, over the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed.”

Jaime

28th November 2005, 12:49

Lincoln, the great prevaricator.
sic semper tyrannis
http://www.nps.gov/liho/debate4.htm

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Mr. Lincoln’s Speech, Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois,” September 18, 1858

http://douglassarchives.org/linc_a89.htm

“Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution — the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery. ”

Abraham Lincoln, “Cooper Institute Address,” 27 February 1860

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_amendment
http://www.geocities.com/ghostamendment

The Corwin amendment

uS House of Representatives, 28 February 1861
uS Senate, Adopted Adopted March 2, 1861

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/lincoln1.htm

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution–which amendment, however, I have not seen–has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln, Monday, March 4, 1861

http://www.classicallibrary.org/lincoln/greeley.htm

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

Lincoln’s Letter to Horace Greeley, Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862

http://www.geocities.com/presidentialspeeches/1862.htm

“I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization.”

Abraham Lincoln’, 2nd Annual Message, December 1,1862, Washington, DC

exmarine

28th November 2005, 12:56

"..with malice towards none, and charity towards all.." Lets continue killing them traitors. Although he did not put it in those terms.

"But, I speculate..."
Yes, you speculate. Let's see, Lincoln's favorite stories of the war were about the bummers. Lincoln would have been as severe on the South as Grant, Sherman, Sheridian, Butler, etc, etc, murdering etc.

"he served his God ultimately by freeing the slaves"

What history are you reading from? Do you even know that, at best, Lincoln is believed to have converted after Gettysburg? Yeah, he served his god alright, Henry Clay and the Whig's economic theology.

Jaime, I know Lincoln is one of your favorite targets, and much of what you say is probably true. However, Lincoln WAS DEAD before the end of the war, and in fact, had nothing to do with the planning, implementation or operation of Reconstruction, or the treatment of former Confederate leaders. These emanated from Radicals in the U.S. Congress. So, you can't lay all of that on his doorstep since he was dead and you cannot be certain of what would have happened had he lived. On that, you are also speculating...

exmarine

28th November 2005, 01:01

"..with malice towards none, and charity towards all.." Lets continue killing them traitors. Although he did not put it in those terms.

"But, I speculate..."
Yes, you speculate. Let's see, Lincoln's favorite stories of the war were about the bummers. Lincoln would have been as severe on the South as Grant, Sherman, Sheridian, Butler, etc, etc, murdering etc.

"he served his God ultimately by freeing the slaves"

What history are you reading from? Do you even know that, at best, Lincoln is believed to have converted after Gettysburg? Yeah, he served his god alright, Henry Clay and the Whig's economic theology.

By the way, as a point of clarification, I would ask that you please specifically attribute the quotes cited in your future replies, as not all of the quotes to which you responded were mine.

Jaime

28th November 2005, 01:07

Oh yes I can. Without Lincoln's War no bummers, no pillaging and raping of the South by the Union armies. Lincoln micro-managed the war and he was well aware, and approved, of the methods being employed by his charges.

Without Lincoln the Leviathan that the Central government is today would not be possible.

Jaime

28th November 2005, 01:08

"By the way, as a point of clarification, I would ask that you please specifically attribute the quotes cited in your future replies, as not all of the quotes to which you responded were mine."

Will do. :rolleyes:

exmarine

28th November 2005, 01:08

Jaime

28th November 2005, 01:15

exmarine

28th November 2005, 01:31

Yes, I speculate but my speculation is closer to reality than anyone's who trots out the "without malice" syrup. What Lincoln said and what he did were two different things as facts has shown. Lincoln was a two-faced politician and I shudder to think what would have happened if Lincoln was not killed. If we think that Reconstruction was bad, with Lincoln and his Messiah complex there is no telling what he would have been willing to do to impose his Whig vision. Of course, all for our own good and democracy.

I understand your loathing of all things Lincoln, and you seem to have fed this historiographical bent by reading the books written by other Lincoln loathers. Am I right or wrong?

I have been trained to analyze historiography whenever I read any author about history. I ask myself questions like, "Does this author have an axe to grind?" "Does the author have a personal stake in the subject matter?" "Does the author's background play a part in his analysis?" Historiography must be taken into account if objectivity is the goal.

People always seem to either love Lincoln or hate him with little middle ground. Is it possible that your speculation on this matter is influenced by your feelings about Lincoln? Have you read any books on Lincoln with an opposing view to yours?

antifederalist

28th November 2005, 02:02

If TAV or the CP starts attacking Lincoln, there is no way the CP will ever become a serious movement. Lincoln was a great President and attacking him will only show us to be a joke.
Many members of TAV happen to belong to the CP, but TAV isn't officially affiliated with the CP.

That being said, I think it is clear that the CP stands against an ever expanding centralized national government. Contrary to popular belief (remember: the victors write the history), Lincoln, with his immoral, unconstitutional war, is responsible for the growth of the federal government and the diminishing of states' rights.

Jaime

28th November 2005, 02:56

I learned history from Nuns from Buffalo, New York. All the history, up through college, were the Yankee version. After I became a Christian in 1985 (at 25yrs old), sometime in 1986, I attendended a pro-life rally in Houston and faced "baby choice."

Since that day I began to read any and all things that pertained to my duties, as a Christian, to the government. Obviously, I developed a taste to read history. Before I read anything negative on Lincoln I read history and documents about the Revolution of 1776. By the time I began to read about the 1850s period I realized that much of what I was "taught" as history was nothing but propaganda. I concluded, even before begining to read anything about the late 1850s and afterwards, that the South indeed had the right to secede.

Yes, I have read the "down side" of Lincoln but I had years, and years, of being fed a bunch of "white washed" mythology. I have seen both sides and I have chosen.

Lincoln was a tyrant and worthy of scorn.

It will take a few more years but, like people under Communism learning that the "history" they learned was invented, the myth of Lincoln will be exposed.

Jaime

28th November 2005, 03:01

Also, I was a subscriber to National Review for over 10 years (from about 1987 to about 1998/9). Are there any greater Lincoln b-kissers than NR?

exmarine

28th November 2005, 04:06

Also, I was a subscriber to National Review for over 10 years (from about 1987 to about 1998/9). Are there any greater Lincoln b-kissers than NR?\

LOL! Okay, thanks for the background on your POV on Lincoln.

Jaime

28th November 2005, 04:57

That I made you laugh made smile. :)

SWhiteman

28th November 2005, 06:07

Are you saying that 99.9% of the people who post here are Not CP'ers? If so, I'm on the wrong forum. Or, are you saying, that although the majority that post here belong to the CP, it is an open forum for civic discussion?

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't infer that I speak for CP. You shouldn't infer that CP agrees with me, or MAP, or any one other than its National Committee. You shouldn't infer that we are trying to advance or be apologists for the CP in this forum. You shouldn't infer that you must be CP to participate herein. You shouldn't infer that the alleged anti-Lincoln sentimentalities are the same as the CPs. From my read, CP is more favourable or Lincoln, or at least less willing to contest his misdeeds, than I am. Again, on this particular, I'm not a real "anti-Lincoln nut," but when asked, I'll opine, as when I was asked to write this article for the Liberty Forum magazine.

Okay, assumming that this is an open forum for civic discussion, I would have to disagree that Lincoln per se is the problem with American politics today (to paraphrase). Even if Lincoln did not act in accordance with the Constitution, he served his God ultimately by freeing the slaves. That was a good deed.

With all due respect, a good man cannot do evil that good would abound. Certainly God makes all things work together for good for the benefit of God's elect, who are called according to His purpose, but often woe unto him by whom it comes, ey? So even if you are right, which I contest, woe unto Lincoln who committed perjury by denying his Oath, profaned the Name of God thereby, and is responsible for the blood of 600,000 soldiers, Northern and Southern, and the countless murders, rapings and lootings of the Northern Armies. Sherman and Grant burned whole towns and commited a Southern Genocide to satisfy the blood-lust of the Radical Republicans. Lincoln was not a Christian, and his God is not the God of the Bible. Unless Lincoln repented of his anti-Christian beliefs, he is rotting in hell right now for the Glory of God, Amen.

Secondly, Lincoln didn't free one single slave -- not one. The Emancipation Proclaimation freed not a one slave -- NOT ONE. In fact, Lincoln crafted the document to not only exempt the north from freeing slaves, but even within the South, if the territory was under Union control, those black people remained enslaved.

I beg you to purchase $19.00, shipping included, The Real Lincoln by Charles Minor and for about the same cost The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo. Minor's book is a 1903 publication, and I find it is much better, but you may prefer DiLorenzo's since it is written by a Catholic. I object to much of DiLorenzo's comments about the South, since he is not a Southron he fails to understand the nature of the war at times (claimed it was "free-trade" war, but more correctly it was an anti-internal improvement project war) and the Southern cause. He also takes some cheap shots at Pat Buchanan because of his support of Tariffs, which are 1.) Constitutional, 2.) right, and 3.) were permissible under the Confederate Constitution as well. If you want the books, send me an email or a private message and we'll work out the details on getting them to you from Institute on the Constitution.

BTW, I personally believe that Lincoln "went soft" after Gettysburg and modified his blood-thirst. At Appomattox, it can be argued that Lincoln demonstrated a clemency toward the Southern people that would have permitted them to be welcomed peacefully back into the Union without Northern Occupation of Southern territories. Remember, many Southerners, including President Davis and Vice-President Hamilton did not believe secession (while lawful) was the right move for the Southern people.

In that analysis, however, two things must be noted. 1.) that Lincoln's clemency was a change of position from his previous blood-thirst, and 2.) I believe that Lincoln's clemency is what got him killed, to ensure a Radical Republican occupation and Reconstruction of the South. Lincoln's clemency also mitigates any suggestion that the Confederacy killed Lincoln, since they were better off with him alive than with him dead.

In the same vein, the Southern States, as far as slavery was concerned, were better off in the Union that out. In the Union, Dred Scot protected the Southerners "Property Interest" in the slave who traveled into Nothern States, whereas outside of the Union, travel became limited, and a Southern slave in Northern Territory meant he was free since the U.S. would likely follow the 1788 English case, In Re Sommersett. So the South didn't secede over slavery. Don't forget, Virginia was the first Commonwealth ON THE EARTH to prohibit the trafficking of slaves due to New England's abusive and unBiblical practice of kidnapping to aquire slaves.

Jamie's posts on this are great, and the hyperlinks should be followed.

The Truth will set you free. I am a convert into this frame of thinking, being a Northron by birth and formal education. Upon gradution from Villanova University, I started reading some real Christian history that has since libertated my thinking and brought so much more of my mind captive to Christ.

exmarine

28th November 2005, 07:13

That I made you laugh made smile. :)

Yes, contrary to popular belief, I have a sense of humor. :D

Jaime, my Christian brother, I am liking you more every day.

bluebird

29th November 2005, 01:21

Okay........

SWhiteman and Jaime, thanks for all the "new" info. Going to high school in California, I got the "socialist" view of Lincoln, and it was a rather short history about him being a great president who freed the slaves. It has only been in the last several years that I've heard to the contrary. Not being passionatley concerned about it -- I've not read up on it, but I will now.

As a side thought, we're discussing something that happened over a hundred years ago. Yeah, it has relevance today and it's good to examine and discern past mistakes, but what does it serve to jump all over people who don't have the facts that you have, or God forbid, a different conclusion.

It is very easy to perceive that TAV is an outgrowth of the Constitution Party particularly because when you go to the Intro page it has Michael Peroutka, Stephen Peroutka and Scott Whiteman. People are naturally led to believe this would be a website to discuss Constitution Party issues. Instead it feels more like a group of christian attornies convening and those attempting to join the conversation are scolded for not being familiar with all the laws, decisions, complete history and the Reformed christian perspective of things.

That leads me to wonder why this forum exists at all then. If it intends to expose newcomers to the Constitution Party and it's philosophies, thereby gaining new converts, it will have to try to be a bit more "user friendly."

What I'm trying to say is that, for being christians there is way too much vile here towards other christians who have a differing perspective. None of us has All the Truth, All the Time, even if we think we do. To make statements about whose burning in Hell and who isn't is over the top.

Maybe we should try to inject a little more humor and less haughtiness.

To end on a lighter note here's a cute story I heard today:

Bishop Fulton Sheen, a notoriously known conservative catholic bishop from the 1950s and 60s was preaching about Jonah from the Bible. Suddenly an unbelieving heckler stood up and said, "How do you know Jonah really said that, how could you possibly know it?" The Bishop said, "Well, I don't really, but when I get to heaven, I'll ask him." The heckler said, "Well, what if he's not there, then what?" The Bishop replied, "Then you ask him."

:)

SWhiteman

29th November 2005, 09:19

It is very easy to perceive that TAV is an outgrowth of the Constitution Party particularly because when you go to the Intro page it has Michael Peroutka, Stephen Peroutka and Scott Whiteman. People are naturally led to believe this would be a website to discuss Constitution Party issues. Instead it feels more like a group of christian attornies convening and those attempting to join the conversation are scolded for not being familiar with all the laws, decisions, complete history and the Reformed christian perspective of things.

That leads me to wonder why this forum exists at all then. If it intends to expose newcomers to the Constitution Party and it's philosophies, thereby gaining new converts, it will have to try to be a bit more "user friendly."
Please read our mission statement. We do things openly and honestly, and if our goal was to make people members of the Constitution Party, we would state that ... but we did not, because it is not. If CP grows through our efforts, that's good. If CP crashes and burns, we'd be sad, many of us having a personal stake in it. But neither is our concern.

There is an email forum to discuss Constitution Party issues found at www.reedheustis.com (http://www.reedheustis.com/forums.htm). TAV has intentionally tried not to be that forum.

As for your other point, certainly we can all be more charitable in how we construct our posts. I constantly remind myself that 1.) a person wrote the previous post and I would not speak to a person the same way that I write an article; 2.) "forums" are more analogous to conversational speaking than speeches or article writing, so I must attempt to tailor my comments that way; 3.) "forums" incorporate the permanence of a writing and the rashness of speech, the worst forms of communication; and 4.) you cannot read voice inflections or tone to understand that when I write (I can only comment for myself, but I expect others suffer with the same limitations), it sounds sympathetic to me. If I were to speak even those same words, the tone would make the comments more user-friendly, as you put it. So please, as we exercise charity in writing, please we must all exercise charity in reading.

Lastly, since this is not an "ecumenical" group trying to build a larger party-movement such as the CP, we are trying to narrowly hone our skills. When people come in to ask questions about what I mean when I said thus and such, or what a Reformed person thinks about this or that, we react much differently than when people come in and contest the validity of the comments made or the presuppositions of the Reformed Faith. Coming into this forum, I want people to be aware (preferably members) of the Reformed Christian faith, that Michael, John Lofton and I are all Reformed, that we three comment from an intentionally Reformed perspective (and if we get it wrong, we expect some Reformed brothers to call us to the mat pursuant to Lev. 19:17-18).

Paul

29th November 2005, 09:54

Philippians 2:14-15
Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe...

Brenda,

IMHO, emails or threads can read as if there is a nasty tone, especially if there is some form of reproof involved. In most cases, I would guess that the intent is merely to educate in a loving fashion, but this intention is lost with the mere reading of words.

Anyway, just a thought, and I don't want to steer this thread in a different direction.

I am a Northron and always thought that Lincoln was a great man, that is until I read "The Politically Incorrect History of America" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The simple fact seems to be that the South had every right to secede, and Lincoln denied this right to them and used force to impose his will. The result was 600,000 dead and a large loss of Constitutional rights.

bluebird

29th November 2005, 12:13

As for your other point, certainly we can all be more charitable in how we construct our posts. I constantly remind myself that 1.) a person wrote the previous post and I would not speak to a person the same way that I write an article; 2.) "forums" are more analogous to conversational speaking than speeches or article writing, so I must attempt to tailor my comments that way; 3.) "forums" incorporate the permanence of a writing and the rashness of speech, the worst forms of communication; and 4.) you cannot read voice inflections or tone to understand that when I write (I can only comment for myself, but I expect others suffer with the same limitations), it sounds sympathetic to me. If I were to speak even those same words, the tone would make the comments more user-friendly, as you put it. So please, as we exercise charity in writing, please we must all exercise charity in reading.)
Scott, (I'll use your first name, I hope you don't mind, I use mine) thank you for your clarifications. You have been charitable in your speech and self-disciplined, I spoke to you about this because the particular issue we were discussing was a very passionate one, apparently, where-in you joined in. However, the uncharitable speech on this forum has only been from several people and I wanted to address it, to get your perspective.
Coming into this forum, I want people to be aware (preferably members) of the Reformed Christian faith, that Michael, John Lofton and I are all Reformed, that we three comment from an intentionally Reformed perspective (and if we get it wrong, we expect some Reformed brothers to call us to the mat pursuant to Lev. 19:17-18).
Having expressly made a point that you three are Reformed Christians, do you mean to indicate that the Party prefers Reformed Christians, because it does appear so. With your public corrections of each other, and, anyone who makes a statement not in line with the Reform Christian perspective you give that indication, intentional or not. It's hard to envision the CP going on a national level with that mindset, but you have said that is not your goal. It's okay, if you intend the group to remain small, introspective and restricted.
For educational purposes, can you maybe in just a couple of paragraphs explain what is the main difference between Reform Christians and the 28,000 plus other protestant religions? I'm not asking for 28,000 differenciations, just in a nutshell, how are you all different?

bluebird

29th November 2005, 12:31

Philippians 2:14-15
Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe....
When I read this quote in Phillipians I am reminded that Paul is talking to a christian "religious" community. I don't believe he is specifically referring to government. If a political party wanted to run the government like an early christian community it (the govt) would truly become a theocracy. This is exactly what the founding fathers were running from! They didn't want one. But on this forum, it seems --- it seems -- that is the goal.
I am a Northron and always thought that Lincoln was a great man, that is until I read "The Politically Incorrect History of America" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The simple fact seems to be that the South had every right to secede, and Lincoln denied this right to them and used force to impose his will. The result was 600,000 dead and a large loss of Constitutional rights.
Thank you for introducing this book, I will try to find it on Amazon or something and order it.
By the way, my personal view is that IF the South wanted to secede it had every right to, even if the issue wasn't slavery. I am a Strong believer in States' rights and they being allowed to secede if they believe as a group that the Federal government no longer serves their purposes.
Here's another great thing about states being able to secede (in my humble opinion) -- that way, IF a state wanted to declare itself a particular type of christian religion, such as Reformed, or Catholic, or Baptist, why not? Maryland was Catholic in the beginning. I think it would make for more peaceful relations and dialogue. Those being of like mind could reside in a particular state and trade or support those states they desired to trade with.
As I've said before, Europe seems to be uniting, the U.S. may be splintering. But it actually could end up being a good thing if done in a constitutionally excepted way.

Peace, Brenda

SWhiteman

29th November 2005, 01:07

Having expressly made a point that you three are Reformed Christians, do you mean to indicate that the Party prefers Reformed Christians, because it does appear so. With your public corrections of each other, and, anyone who makes a statement not in line with the Reform Christian perspective you give that indication, intentional or not. It's hard to envision the CP going on a national level with that mindset, but you have said that is not your goal. It's okay, if you intend the group to remain small, introspective and restricted.
Without belabouring the point, since my goal is not to advance or inhibit the CP, it is not my concern here. I'm not trying to build CP, and therefore my preference that people be Reformed does not hurt them at all. The reason I want people to be Reformed is because I am persuaded that it is the one true religion. I trust you want people to Catholic, no? And because you think Catholicism is right, no? In CP, I assume you'd prefer to see more, or even exclusively Catholics, no? I'm the same, except Reformed. I would prefer, but my preferences and $1.25 will get me a small coffee.

For educational purposes, can you maybe in just a couple of paragraphs explain what is the main difference between Reform Christians and the 28,000 plus other protestant religions? I'm not asking for 28,000 differenciations, just in a nutshell, how are you all different?
There are not 28,000 Protestant religions, just as there are not 28,001 Christian religions. There are 28,000 denominations within the Protestant religion. I am Reformed Theologically, Presbyterian in Church Government. There are many Reformed Congregationalists, Baptists, Episocaplians, etc.

In Theology, I think there are three types, essentially. 1.) Roman; 2.) Reformed; 3.) Arminian. Usually, each things the other two are either wrong or down-right heretical. Honestly, I do. Most of what passes for Evangelical Christian religion today is Arminian.

In Church Government, there are three types, essentially. 1.) Hierarchical; 2.) Independant; 3.) Presbyterian. Independants constitutute the majority of your 28,000 claim (I know you are not being literal). Each believes the others have some rightness in whichever theology they are, but incorrect application of government issues. Usually, people fight over the Theology, not the demoninational distinctions, though I frankly believe Presbyterian government is the biblically proscribed mode of Church government.

Romans believe in faith and/with works, no? Arminians believe in the self-sufficiency of man. The Reformed believe in at least the acronym, TULIP. Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace and Perserverence of the Saints as defined by the great Reformed Synod of Dort called in to order to make a clarification concerning the heresy of Arminianism. According to Dort, if you deny any one of the five points of TULIP, you've adopted heretical opinions.

Reformed Christians also contest the Roman claim that there was one Church, the Roman Catholic Church, until Luther. Instead we believe that there was one Church, the Christian Church, that has historically been attacked dating from about 500 A.D. by the Roman Church, entered into grave superstitious modes of worship in the Middle Ages, and was set aright by God through Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, among others. We draw much of our understanding from the early independant Scotch Churches who stood against Roman meddling in the 4th through 6th centuries. I recognise I'm using "loaded" terms that might make people hot on the issue, and I acknowledge it to encourage a NON REACTION to my statements.

Brenda, you asked, I answered. If we intend to continue this conversation, amicably as I'm sure we can, Lord willing, let us do it off to the side, out of this forum and into another thread, off line, by private discussion, or something.

Others, please correct if you must, but let us not turn this forum, AMERICA ACCORDING TO LINCOLN into this theological, denominational debate.

Brenda (or any) send me a private email if you want to continue, and I'll see what can be done about setting up a private forum, possibly the best way to go about this conversation.

darlo

29th November 2005, 03:07

I realize that TAV is not the CP, although most everyone in these forums is a member of the CP. All I was trying to say is that is how others as will see an attack on Lincoln.

I have been registered as a member of the CP since Nov 2004 and voted for Michael Peroutka for President, but if this is the view of a majority of CP'ers I will begin to rethink that move. I will repeat. There is absolutly no chance the CP will ever be taken serious if this is the view of most CP'ers. It and this forum will be relegated to complete "kook" status. Just how I as a complete outsider see it.

Paul

29th November 2005, 03:27

Darlo,
While it may be an outcome, I don't believe that demonizing Lincoln is the focus of the CP. That may be the focus of this thread, but not the CP.

SWhiteman

29th November 2005, 03:49

I believe that the majority in CP are either 1.) Lincoln lovers or 2.) think that even if we anti-Lincolnians are right, it is a waste of time to rehash this always. I agree (sort of) with 2.) in that it would be a wase of time to always attack Lincoln. We do not do that.

However, it would also we stupid to refuse to take the opportunity to tell the truth about when our nation ceased to be these "united" States and became a compulsory union whereby the principles upon which America was founded, 1.) self-government, 2.) under God, by 3.) a Christian people, were thwarted.

Joe_Liberty

29th November 2005, 04:19

darlo

29th November 2005, 04:31

I have decided to ":seek first the Kingdom of God" and stop wasting my time here. God bless. Bye all.

SWhiteman

30th November 2005, 09:44

Scott, I understand what you are saying about it being a waste of time to constanty rehash the War of Northern Aggression. However, on the other hand I suspect that it may well be necessary to destroy the entrenched Lincoln myth before there is a restoration of the American view of law and government.
That's sort of what I'm saying, if I wasn't clear enough.

MAC

6th December 2005, 03:48

I have met a few in the Constitution Party who admire Lincoln, but not many. In my experience, most agree with us that he was a tyrant. Consider the standing ovation given to Dr. Michael Hill at Valley Forge. I don't see how a party where a majority admired Lincoln could unanimously nominate Michael Peroutka for President.

I have to agree Joe on this one! I already admired and hold in high esteem Dr. Hill but it was quite an eye-opener and surprise to me how the CP body reacted to his speech and nomination!

Scott, I understand what you are saying about it being a waste of time to constanty rehash the War of Northern Aggression. However, on the other hand I suspect that it may well be necessary to destroy the entrenched Lincoln myth before there is a restoration of the American view of law and government.

Again, I agree with Joe and Scott on this. I have for some time felt this inside --one of those things that I didn't have the words to explain-- Joe has put it quite succinctly! There is a great quote that is along the same lines about knowing where we have come from to know where we are going. And of course we have all heard the "history repeats itself" one.

This has been a great thread. Personally, I didn't see the 'unChristian' posts that some seem to see. Maybe that is because I read through for responding and redress, etc. and also, like what Scott said about voice, tone, expression, etc. I have come to be in that position and understand the mistaken attitudes taken by some. That is why I can be found to often add 'smilies' that will "express" for me a way that will soften the possible misunderstanding of my words... or add to my own feelings I want others to understand or be aware.

I appreciate Scott's consideration of another venue for discussion on Reformed, etc. I do hope it will be a thread here and not off somewhere!

I have other comments regarding this thread but will make them later. But one I would like to make here that might be a 'softener' :) to what some may think has been too harsh on Lincoln: "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" ~Galatians:4:16

Camp Director

12th December 2005, 12:14

And just when you thought this thread was dormant!

Have a look at this gem [/URL]www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5069 (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5069).

It is chock full of an assortment of pretzel history, distortions and outright lies, all in the effort to lionize Honest Abe as a traitor-busting superhero and paint opponents of the Iraq war as traitors who deserve any type of unconstitutional punishment President Bush can come up with for them. To those familiar with the story and Lincoln's illegal suspension of the writ of habeus corpus, imprisonment of a significant number of the Maryland state government and even the attempt to arrest US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, the grotesque twisting of the facts of the Vallandingham case in this article will be just another assault on the facts of history. But to those who are uneducated in how our government is supposed to work it will be an all too compelling case based on unchallenged legal precedent to silence opposition. I am already beginning to see neo-con blog commentaries on this article to this effect (Here's an example-http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=250460).

The article cites the illegal and unconstitutional [U]military arrest, tribuanl, conviction and banishment to the confederacy of Rep. Clement Vallandingham (D-OH) as a precedent and implies that Pres. Bush should follow suit. Apparently since Abe saw fit to suspend the Constitution it's OK for George to do it, too.

I think this is one of the reasons we have to keep re-examining events in our history that were turning points in the general perception of what liberty is and what the prurpose of government is and how those two things interweave.

Joe_Liberty

12th December 2005, 01:27

I agree.

The typical argument seems to run like this.

1. We all know Lincoln was a great president. (Usually offerered as a presupposition without supporting evidence)

2. Lincoln shredded the Constitution.

3. Therefore to be a great president, you need to shred the Constitution.

I agree with these people that there are plenty of similarities between Bush and Lincoln. However, that is a very bad thing. To make that point we need to demolish the first supposition, but that can be tough if not impossible to achieve with people educated in government schools who are closed-minded and swallow the Lincoln myth whole-hog.

Will

12th December 2005, 04:01

I might be just passing on someone's speculation, at best, but it was alledged that in a private meeting with his advisors, W call the Constitution "just a GD'ed piece of paper." Does anyone here have any idea as to whether it is correct or not or any information on it. I wouldn't put it past W to call the "GD'ed piece of paper" that he took an oath to preserve, defend, and protect just a GD'ed piece of paper. Don't get me wrong, Kerry would likely do the same thing! As a matter of fact, I wouldn't put it past the VP, the justices" of the SC, and almost all of the members of Congress, if they didn't think it would get out.

Joe_Liberty

12th December 2005, 10:25

It is true. Once upon a time something like that would have surprised me. Now, I would be surprised if he didn't say something like that.

Our vice-presidential candidate has a column on it.
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin271.htm
I agree with the general thrust of Chuck's editorial, but I think he gives Bush too much credit by being skeptical.

Will

13th December 2005, 10:14

Thanks Joe. While I may not be a fundamentalist Christian, I believe in God. An oath is a sacred promise to God. I certainly wouldn't take an oath to do something and then violate that oath. What kind of Christian does that make W???

MAC

14th December 2005, 02:33

An oath is a sacred promise to God .... What kind of Christian does that make W???

TimV,

A very good question! Just what kind of Christian does that make W? And what kind of Christian does that make those supporting ...no, all but worshipping him? Please do not misunderstand me here. I do not 'ask' these questions with any malice, condemnation, or self 'holier than thou', but as a point ...maybe it is time that Christians re-think their own principles. What principles are those that are being overlooked? The Scriptures tell us to examine ourselves.

We have such an enormous number out there that cannot see for want of what is right that they are willing to accept anything that even has just the slightest hint of being 'real'. And, yes, many of those will grasp at anything to avoid facing reality. Facing the truth makes one accountable to doing something about it. Doing something about it would mean getting up off the comfy chair and maybe even get 'rocks' thrown at them.

MAC

14th December 2005, 02:35

My apologies Will. And TimV. :o

SWhiteman

14th December 2005, 09:39

For the record, I'm not putting any stock in the report on Bush's statement about the Constitution. Lofton has taught me a pretty good general rule of thumb: if the quote is exactly what you've been looking for, it's probably false.

Like when Unionists invoke Washington and his dream of a Union. False.

Like de Tocqueville on "America is good, because America is great ..." False.

Like Patrick Henry on, "This nation was not founded by religionists, but Christians..." False.

Now, the truth of the matter asserted may be true (the nation was founded by Christians, not religionists), but the quote is not authentic (there is NO primary source record of Patrick Henry saying it).

So on Bush and that "piece of paper" the Constitution. Did he really say it? I doubt it. The website named no sources for Bush's comment. However, the matter asserted, I believe, we can demonstrate to be true. Bush sure acts like he has that low regard to the Constitution.

But I can put on a evidentiary demonstration of the hundreds of unconstitutional acts of Bush; compound it with his blasphemies against God and heresies; compound that with raw video of him giving "the finger" or calling New York Times columnists "First Class A-holes" (if I remember the quote correctly) to show he is capable of such behaviour and talk; but to what end? The Evangelicals have sold their souls to this man, will continue to support him, and have contracted upon themselves through accomplice liability theory, or connivance as the Bible calls it, all the perjuries, profanities, blasphemies and murders that Bush is guilty of.

We are back to the Brutus quote, "If the nobles themseves favour manifest tyranny, or at least do not resist it, hypocrites reign through the sins of the people and by the permission of God; that these hypocrites cannot be overthrown by any device, unless the people themselves turn to God in their hearts; and that is a task for bended knees, not arms and legs." Vindicae, Contra Tyrannos, 3d Question.

exmarine

14th December 2005, 10:09

For the record, I'm not putting any stock in the report on Bush's statement about the Constitution. Lofton has taught me a pretty good general rule of thumb: if the quote is exactly what you've been looking for, it's probably false.

I agree. We should all be careful to check the sources of quotes as carefully as possible before posting them as fact in this forum. What is the source of the quote? Is the source credible? Are there other credible sources using the same quote? Is the quote published in writing? Where, when and by whom? Bottom line: If we are not reasonably sure of the authenticity, then it should not be used, regardless of how well it aligns with reality.

We don't want to turn this forum into a cheap gossip site, do we? We should strive to maintain a high intellectual standard here.

SWhiteman

14th December 2005, 10:10

Let's end this rumourmongering about Bush.

Will

14th December 2005, 10:35

Scott:

Your point is well taken. I originally asked for the source of the "rumor" and Joe Liberty provided a link. For the record, I am going to assume that it is just a rumor, but it's too bad I can't get a question to the President:

What say you, Mr. President???

Will

Joe_Liberty

15th December 2005, 06:49

For the record, I'm not putting any stock in the report on Bush's statement about the Constitution. Lofton has taught me a pretty good general rule of thumb: if the quote is exactly what you've been looking for, it's probably false.

The reporter has written some follow-ups to the story. It was confirmed by three people who were present when Bush said it. He is surpised by the surprise from both supporters and critics of the president. This sort of thing is considered typical by those who cover the White House. The consider it no big deal: "He’s not the first President to consider the Constitution an expendable document and he won’t be the last."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7797.shtml

Covenant News also picked up this story. Jim Rudd considers Thompson and Capitol Hill Blue a reliable source, not a rumour mill.

Will

15th December 2005, 09:54

SWhiteman

15th December 2005, 10:13

It was confirmed by three people who were present when Bush said it. He is surpised by the surprise from both supporters and critics of the president.
What were the names of the three people? They were unnamed sources. Not that it didn't happen, but the without the name of the source, the story is not inherently reliable.

In court, if we were trying to prove that GW said that, while I could make a good case against any hearsay objection, it would be likely be objected to as hearsay and not permitted to come into evidence. The story does not evince reliability, and therefore we are engaging in rumourmongering if we perpetuate it.

Will

15th December 2005, 10:37

What were the names of the three people? They were unnamed sources. Not that it didn't happen, but the without the name of the source, the story is not inherently reliable.

In court, ....

In court you have the ability to pursue the truth. If nobody who was present at the meeting where the alledged crime took place will come forward and testify, we have no case, "IN COURT".

It is the job of the "free" press to pursue storys like this and the confidential source is a well known process of the free press. While, since we have no witnesses to testify that President Bush committed the "crime", we won't be able to impeach him, the major news media could expose his abominable behavior, if it is true, but as I posted previously, they have no more respect for our Constitution than President Bush (evidently) does. It is unfortunate. If President Bush is innocent, that fact could be established by the major news media and put an end to some of our concerns as to how much of a tyrant we have as president.

Anyway, let's stop discussing this story (ugly rumor???) unless some new evidence comes to light!!!

Joe_Liberty

15th December 2005, 12:37

Joe:

Why doesn't the major news media pick up on this? The answer is simple, they have no more respect for our Constitution than the president (evidently) does!!! I wonder if he has the same kind of respect for the Bible that he does for the Constitution???

Will

Clearly he does not. His statements are utter rejections of his oath of office, but what's even more troubling though is his rank blasphemy.

I certainly agree that it deserves more coverage that it has received, but keep in mind that the mainstream media has not totally ignored it. Capitol Hill Blue is part of the media. Sure it is possible that he did not say it, and that all three administration sources are lying, but I find that highly implausible. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being no way did he say it and 10 being absolute certainty, I would put it at about a 9.5. I would love to see AV try to get the reporter on as a guest and grill him to get to the truth of the matter. It would make for a great show if he'd do it.

Jaime

15th December 2005, 12:58

I am still waiting to see if the alleged quote is verified by a named source.

The main thing, for me, is the persitance of the rumors of W's foul mouth. It seems that W wants to follow in the footsteps of LBJ - the ranch and the limited vocabulary.

MAC

15th December 2005, 06:27

What caught my eye was in Joe Liberty's link http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7797.shtml Putting aside Bush's alleged statements, reading Mr Thompson's follow-up I think we could find the source of much of our problem... even in Mr Thompson's attitude as a member of the press. This being a very telling statement: "Presidents, by their nature, look for ways to skirt the law when that law gets in the way of their agendas. If we impeached every President who disregarded the Constitution when it didn’t suit his purposes we probably would have tried just about every President in the last 50 years." Sounds like we missed the mark by not trying every President not only in the past 50 years but the last 144 years!

We are a republic. We are country governed by law, not men! That happens to be the very point in virtually every situation we have! Therefore, if it is 'the rule of law' then it should be followed. If the 'law' is a bad law, then change it by the means provided in the Constitution! IF an elected public servant or appointed judge is violating that 'law' then they should be removed.

Stop and think about that for a minute! Actually think about where our country would be today if 'law breaking' public servants were removed because of their lawlessness to the Constitution.

Mr Thompson, with all due respect, has slipped on the issue in general of obedience to the 'law of the land.' He has lack of respect for the Constitution himself.

It is this leniency and disregard of the 'rule of law' and its importance to the Constitution that has gotten us to where we are today, is it not?

Joe_Liberty

15th December 2005, 09:01

MAC,

I agree. I was never under any illusion that Thompson was a Constitutionalist or on our side. He is just a reporter covering our story, one who never expected President Bush's blasphemous oath-breaking to generate controversey because it is common behavior for him and his predecessors.

Thinking about impeachment just gives me a headache. Sure President Bush and each of his predecessors should have been removed from office, but they weren't and they won't be because the overwhelming majority of both houses of congress in modern memory believed that the Constitution is "just a blankety-blank piece of paper." Those Congressmen should be voted out of office, but they won't be because most Americans believe that the Constitution is "just a blankety-blank piece of paper."

While rejecting completely President Bush's blasphemy, in a sense the Constitution IS just a piece of paper if the American people don't hold public servants to it, a point that Karen Kwiatowski makes in a recent editorial (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051209/cm_huffpost/011975). I don't agree with her completly, but it may interest you.

Patriot 2

16th December 2005, 08:29

Re: America According to Lincoln

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If TAV or the CP starts attacking Lincoln, there is no way the CP will ever become a serious movement. Lincoln was a great President and attacking him will only show us to be a joke."

-If you listen to DiLorenzo's talks at mises.org, you will see that you are defending a man that was a dictator and worse, in some respects, then GW. Lincoln ruled absolutley, jailing anyone he wished, bogus warrants, etc.

Listen to DiLorenzo, learn and stop taking the yankee cool-aid sold to you in Govt, and sadly, private schools.

Neo-Cons love Lincoln, they can excuse terrible Patriot Acts and the like.

Will

16th December 2005, 12:28

"If TAV or the CP starts attacking Lincoln, there is no way the CP will ever become a serious movement. Lincoln was a great President and attacking him will only show us to be a joke."

Isn't it amazing how history has made a hero out of a villain, and a villain out of a hero. Joseph McCarthy was a true American hero who exposed the influence of communism in the government and entertainment industry and may have done more to slow down the spread of socialism in this country than any other person. Communism is the most despicable form of government, even more despicable than fascism. The news media visciously attacked McCarthy because he exposed their darlings, the communists, in the government and entertainment industry. The traitor, Welch, asked McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency?" McCarthy later Asked to be shown what innocent person he had harmed. No one has ever shown anyone who McCarthy exposed as a communist that was not a communist. It was Welch, Not McCarthy who had no sense of decency. The communist sense of decency is to take from them what hard working people produce and give it to people that don't work or produce anything. McCarthy was working to expose communists. Welch worked to protect communists. If it had not been for McCarthy, we may have been the Communist States of America today!!!