I haven't seen the movie, but from what I have heard conservatives saying about it, it appears that the movie is a typical Hollywood rendition. Are conservatives now going along with the saying "the civil war was about slavery"? It may be politically advantageous at this moment in time, but a falsehood never helps a cause. Did the movie portray Lincoln as an abolitionist? The evidence that I have seen suggests the contrary. He had no history of being an abolitionist prior to the war, and the war was about the federal government maintaining control of certain states rather than some ideological or moral position on slavery. Bringing the slavery issue to the forefront during a war was a way to bring morality to the war, and gain support for it.
Lincoln was quoted as saying that he had no interest in addressing the slavery issue while running for office. Lincoln admitted that he truly became a Christian after looking upon the mass graves that the war produced. He was referred to as a "skilled politician".
We fought a war over states rights, and states rights lost. Lincoln opened the door for federal tyranny upon the states to progress. His actions stomped out any future resistance by the states, as they knew what the federal government was willing to do if they threatened to secede. He paved the way for Wilson and all the rest to sell us out to foreign bankers which ultimately led to the creation of a world dominant force now referred to as the military industrial complex.
I will say that he did one good thing in rejecting the foreign bankers and creating the greenback, but his actions against the states who were exercising their right to secede was tyranny at its core. Romanticizing the civil war, or interjecting slavery as being its purpose is not as advantageous as many may think. Glorifying Lincoln is to ignore the many atrocious things that he did.
Lincoln suspended the first amendment. He jailed many journalists and even members of congress for apposing his agenda verbally. Lincoln put his boot on the neck our this country and it's supreme law.
There were other ways of dealing with slavery, if that was the actual reason for such federal aggression. Our supreme law already guaranteed "all men" natural rights. This battle could have been fought in the courts. Legislation could have been passed to guarantee all men equal rights which could have been substantiated by the supreme law itself.
There was no way that this had enough political support to happen at this time. The federal government was taxing the south in such a way as to be unequal, which was unconstitutional at the time. These taxes were not apportioned as was required by the law at the time. Certain states rebelled against this, and war ensued.
The Republican party is not the problem, it is the faux Republicans representing it that are the problem.
Republicans are made up of Americans living in America. As such some have become the victims of brainwashing by liberal education and media just like a large number of our fellow Americans. While those of us who are now conservatives weren't paying close enough attention we elected some of those brainwashed Americans to elective office. I see no mystery here. I see only the consequences of our disengagement from politics and every part of our society now owned by liberalism that we must now try to take back.
Tenth Amendment anyone? How about states start to practice it, and ignore the corrupt judges? It wouldn't hurt you know. Someday, history is going to ask why everyone just went along with it. Why didn't they just ignore what they know to be unconstitutional? Just because a judge issues a corrupt ruling siding with the EPA, including the Supreme Court, doesn't mean it's Constitutional. It simply means they're corrupt or stupid and should be ignored. What's so hard about it?
It’s an Obama World… Georgia Power Company Closes 15 Plants Thanks to Latest EPA Regulations
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, January 8, 2013, 1:09 PM
There is a new form of slavery today. We are now slaves to various governments within this country, whether it is the Federal Government, state government, or city government. We are being taxed, regulated and spent to death and there is little we can do about it. Elections? We just had one, and how did that work out for us? We at least had a chance to stop the spreading socialism in this country, but a majority of Americans didn't jump at that chance. No, I fear either one of two outcomes for this country. Either we end up like Greece, bankrupt and with a dismal financial future (like most of the European welfare states), or there will be one issue that will tear us apart, just like it did during the Civil War. That one issue could very well be gun ownership. As usual, liberals are overreaching for one of their fundamental beliefs, that the Second Amendment is to be ignored and that the only logical outcome should be to disarm the American public. Liberals, like Osama bin Laden, actually now think that there is nothing many Americans see worth fighting for on our own soil. They are sadly mistaken. I really fear for this country if they try to push through massive gun control legislation over the objections of the American public. And don't think it can't happen. Harry Reid pushed through Obamacare on a "reconciliation" vote, forcing it through Congress without the consent of the people. Don't think something like that can't happen with gun control, espcially with Reid in the Senate. If it does, I tremble for what could happen in this country.
Good editorial for sure. Thanks Scoop. I hate the congressional Republican leaders and talking heads keep getting out maneuvered with language (it's tax increases morons. stop using the dem word ... revenue) and other PR matters. But I am not ready to trash them yet. This surreal recent cliff situation is over. there was no way they could ever win when a huge tax increase for everyone was the law in place.
BUT: They better do three things for the upcoming debt limit debate.
1. They have a fully fleshed out plan.
2. Every single republican congressmen fully on board for that plan. And
3 No one blinks. They remain unified and stick to the plan. All of them.
If they find themselves, once again, in disarray and we lose again... Then I may start my own tea party petition to run for office.
I won't see Lincoln because of Spielberg. He said at the premier that the Republicans today are racist like the Democrats used to be, or something along those lines.
He shoudn't profit from capitalism while supporting Obama. I won't add to his wealth while he's calling me a racist.
I'm sorry, Neil is 100% wrong.
What people need to realize is that the Republicans had a gun to their head.
Obama, Pelosi, Soros, Podesta and Moveon.org are running and ruining this country.
So tired of talkheads complaining about Republicans in Congress or Mitt Romney.
It's time to free the slaves from the Democrat Party again. I mean all of us including the Dem ghettos which keep the minorities poor and needing handouts which in turn the Dems buy their votes with.
Everything is about payoffs, redistribution if you wish, with little if any consideration of future consequences for anyone, least of all the people the Pols are stealing from. Concerning though is what "unexpected" consequences result for corruption when all future planning relies on the continuation of those payoffs. We have seen the result of the Administrations payoffs ending to the small corruption firms in the "green" energy field...bankruptcy. What will the big corruption firms like the Big Banks do? It could get very very nasty quick. Its why the D's are constantly screaming for more, more, more to keep the corruption flowing smoothly.
No, Neil, they ARE exactly Republicans. What you think you understand as Republicans are Reagan Conservatives, the Establishment Republicans never wanted him in there in the first place. We TEA party'ers are the RINO'S it is time we leave, for we will never get that rotting, smelling carcass to turn conservative.
What happened is really pretty lived it myself simple: In the early 70's, 73 in fact, America decided to sanction murder--primarily the genocide of the unborn but not all inclusive. In the late 70's diversity PC crap demanded Christianity be stricken from speech as to not offend someone, anyone. In the 80's Business expanded no holds barred Global big time requiring crony capitalism take business to new heights as that was the way its done in the World, don't you know: bribes, kickbacks, and payoffs is the SOP of the World's Business practices. Not to give away my age; but I remember when American Companies were hauled into court over Foreign Business bribes/payoffs/kickbacks. In the 90's foreign "investment" intervention into American politics became SOP under the Clintons. In the 00's the Media stopped even pretending they were impartial on so many fronts but specifically on the love for D's and the hate for R's, Jews, and Christians. And all of this brought to US by our children who are born blessed with mostly undeveloped empty heads and then forced to progress thru an Education System controlled, directed, and taught by selfish fools intentioned to grow their ranks. Before the 70's I can't really give my experience as I myself was one of those selfish fools; although that by todays selfish fools standards we would have been considered very lame at best. A years vacation, 69, in the wonderful resort of Viet Nam was a wake up call to say the least.
Easy questions to answer... our politicians forgot they were there to serve the people and put their own ambitions before the good of the nation.
Can anyone say "term limits"? Newt tried in 1994 and his own party blocked him!!! We must find a way to insist on it - just refusing to vote for anyone who doesn't go along. It is the phenomenon of career politicians who have become the elite, and that was never intended for our government.....of the people, by the people, and for the people!
I often wonder if they ever bother to think about... the people, except at election time.
Not sure of my statement but didn't term limits pass only to be struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional? Scoop help with the education on this issue.
They struck down individual state's attempts to set term limits on federal Reps & Senators. The push in the mid 90's for an amendment to the US Constitution never garnered the 2/3 majority needed and fizzled out.
Term Limits are NOT unconstitutional. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution requires the Presidency of the United States to have Term Limits. Therefore Congress should also be required to have the same Term Limits.
Republicans seem to be suffering from BPS (Battered Politician Syndrome). Their guy lost the Presidential Election and They are acting like they have become FTPs (French Tumbling Poodles). Every time they have an opportunity to fight back, instead they roll over ON their back! It's embarrassing!!! Unless they wise up real soon, there will be a rift and a New Party and if that happens the Rs will be designated to the trash heap of history!
Even as I type, a Grassroots Conservative Party has been formed and is growing rapidly!
The Constitutional Freedom Party!
Follow this link, read and learn what our mission and platform is:
If you find yourself in agreement with us, JOIN US! This is a grassroots movement that you, as a Concerned Conservative need to be part of!
Come join us at : https://www.facebook.com/groups/CFP4US/
IMHO, here is the distinction. Conservatives are people of principle and we are those who will fight for what we believe. Usually, we have strong convictions, know who we are and for many of us it is based upon a strong faith in God.
Today's Republicans, on the other hand, seek power rather than principle and will compromise their beliefs because they live in fear of what someone will say about them and so have sold themselves, us and our nation to the ruthless, the evil and the ungodly.
I know Abraham Lincoln was a godly man who sought Providence and fought for those principles in which he believed. Republicans must return to the principles and the values which have made this country great. The answer is courage and faith God will not only be in it with you, but take you through it to victory.
everything Congress and WH do these days is against average citizen..... :(
Well, all is not lost, Mr Cavuto!
Here's the link to an outstanding article by none other than Ted Cruz, which I got via twitter:
Read it, study it, send it round - especially to your Congress critters!
Thanks colliemum, I've retweeted it just now too.
If you haven't already got this, this is the contact your critter in congress list:
Well, I shall quote from it and link it at every opportunity on conservative sites over here! Some belong to excellent Tory MPs, and they will grasp what Ted Cruz has to say and use it .... I hope.
Nah - they wouldn't, they know better than to incapacitate their main source of titbits!
Must be a gender thing: my late husband was always taken in by the look of "I'm the last dog on earth and I'm staaaaarving, how can you be so cruel and not feed me!"
I never was - even whey they made a face saying "but muuuum!", with tail-wag.
I bet your wife is also a harsh dog-mummy!
I joke with my wife that my dogs threaten that I will "have a little accident" next time going down the stairs with them when I don't give them something they are demanding... I swear the way Snowy looks at me sometimes, I'm sure that's what he's thinking. ;-)
Never stop hoping!
It's something we can learn from our dogs: they are always hopeful - for a biscuit, a bit of playing, a titbit, a walk, a cuddle - and they never hold it against us when we say 'no'.
They could start by actually going back to the principle that was behind the calls for "limited government", namely the principle of unalienable individual rights. The problem is that the calls for "limited government" have become detached from the principle of unalienable individual rights, and it's currently just an unprincipled call for "limited government" which is sadly up against a principled call for "absolute government" (by the Left).
The moment that Republicans began compromising on the principle of unalienable individual rights, was the moment that they lost the fight for "limited government", since by compromising on said principle they surrendered the whole thing by establishing the (precedent of) the Left's right to violate individual rights.
If the Republicans want to "remember who they really are", or rather "remember what they should be", the Republicans need to once again embrace the principle of unalienable individual rights, but this time not allow ANY compromise on it.
I thought that was too obvious of a mistake for you. I had looked it up in dictionaries, and "unalienble" wasn't even available. Interesting. Thanks.
Nope. It's unalienable.
Institutionalized atheism. State sponsored atheism. The official state position of atheism. See the difference?
Rshill, I know you're wrong when you claim that the deaths of the 20th century under Communism and Nazism were the fault of Atheism, because I know that Atheism is simply the refusal to accept mysticism and faith. There is nothing more to it than that. There isn't some secret 'Atheist commandments' which instruct people to mass-murder others, to expropriate the property of others, and all that other crap that happened during the 20th century. I mean, I'm an Atheist and I don't agree with anything that was done by Communist Russia, Communist China or Nazi Germany. How do you rectify that with your claims about Atheism? An Atheist who isn't a mass-murderer and a thief. It's a massive hole in your claim.
Your sheer doggedness to "blame Atheism" has gone well into irrationality.
Say it with me: Atheism does NOT automatically equal mass-murdering, thievery, and all that bad stuff that happened under the Communists and Nazis.
Be rational and understand that all that bad stuff that happened under the Communists and the Nazis was a direct result of the Communism and the Nazism. End of. Nothing more to the story. That's it.
Saying "But they were Atheists, so therefore Atheism was to blame!" is like looking at a male murderer and saying "But he's a Man, so therefore Masculinity is to blame for murder!". It's a TOTAL fallacy on your part, and you should know better than this.
God gave man individual freewill from the very beginning. Communism and Socialism stole that freewill. Atheism, made fashionable by Darwin, Huxley, Marx, Engels, and Nietzsche, facilitated the rest, i.e., Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, etc. and the genocidal abuses that followed.
Were God a puppet master and you one of his controlled puppet/automatons, you wouldn't be an atheist would you? You wouldn't be anything like a free human either.
I do not worship Rand. You seem to be a borderline worshiper of her. People can be brilliant in many areas while totally inept in others. Rand: brilliant writer, failure in love, life, and relationships. A chain-smoking heart attack that finally happened.
Read "The Road To Serfdom" if you haven't.
Mussolini was also a lifelong atheist and a lifelong socialist, and I believe it was Stalin who said "the goal of socialism is communism".
It never ceases to amaze me how people like yourself will look everywhere, and I mean everywhere for the truth, except where it lives. Were Sir Isaac Newton still alive you could shoot him an e-mail calling him an idiot, along with all of the other great scientists who were also Christians.
Would that you were better at answering questions. In answer to your question though:
"The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism, in which social success largely required individuals to profess atheism and stay away from houses of worship; this attitude was especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929–1939."
"Communist" regimes later treated religious believers as subversives or abnormal, sometimes relegated to psychiatric hospitals and reeducation."
You spoke of the 20th century being the century in which there was great death. The two biggest examples of that were Communism under Stalin and Mao, and Nazism under Hitler.
And yes, Altruism was a very big component of Communism and Nazism. It was argued that since self-sacrifice for the sake of others is good and that selfishness is evil, and that man's nature is inherently selfish... the government should therefore force individuals to be moral by forcefully sacrificing individuals for the sake of others, for the sake of society, for the sake of the latest four year plan, etc. All of the greatest horrors of Communism and Nazism were motivated by a moral code of collectivist-altruism. The politics of the Left today is no different; it is still motivated by the same moral code.
Deny it all you want, but this is the truth of the matter. I know you're religious and want to protect your precious Altruism, but I would argue that this is an example of why America is falling apart at the seams - Because people overwhelmingly embrace a moral code (collectivism and altruism) which is incompatible with Capitalism and Individual Rights. Think about it: If Man is a sacrificial animal for the sake of others, then Man has NO individual rights; he is just a right-less slave to others.
All of this stuff has been explained in great detail by Ayn Rand. I've explained the tip of the iceberg to you, and I'll leave it up to you whether you want to read more into it.
There was no such thing as Communism before Darwin wrote his book. There was no such thing as Communism before Marx and Engels wrote their books (volumes). There is nothing "altruistic" about communism. Nothing altruistic about Lenin, Stalin and Hitler either. Do you recall the year Nietzsche said God is dead, or "Gott ist tot".
Have you ever read "The Road To Serfdom" by Hayek?
Have you no concept of cause and effect?
I have considered what you have been saying, and I find it without merit.
Everything? She rejected the political system (Communism) and the morality behind it (Collectivist-Altruism). And who's to say that the Soviets were Atheists? The Orthodox church has always been very strong in Russia. You're attributing all these atrocities to Atheism, for the benefit of your own religious agenda, and are ignoring the moral code and political systems that provided the motivation and ideas that would eventually give rise to those atrocities. Being religious or non-religious had nothing to do with it. Communists are communists regardless of whether they're religious or not, just as Nazis are Nazis regardless of whether they're religious or not. Just stop your religiously-motivated Atheism-hatred for a moment, and actually consider what I'm saying.
However, I'll ask the question once more just for the "Hell" of it:
Why did Ayn Rand reject everything else about the Soviet system other than it's atheism?
I see that you're edges are fraying. Indeed, unraveling completely.
"You're talking crap..." is not a rebuttal.
I'm right, and you know it. Pontificate all you want. here, I wrote the "following" just for you:
Our Mother-Rand, which art in Hell, hollow be thy name, thy kingdom rot, on a rickety cot, in Hell as it does in the gulags...
Hey buddy, don't blame Atheism for those deaths in the 20th century. The biggest killers: Stalin, Mao and Hitler - All of them did what they did because they were statist ideologues for Nazism (national socialism) and Communism (international socialism). Don't present a red herring argument saying that it was Atheism to blame.
Also, don't lie to me by basically saying that Atheism = No morality. I know it's not true because I'm an Atheist, but I adhere to the Objectivist ethics. I have a moral code that I live by. I'm a very moral person, and I didn't need no religion to achieve that.
Morality is a component of philosophy. Religions are basic philosophies (ie. they don't always have political and aesthetic components), but they aren't the sole source of morality. Every philosophy has an ethical system, but not every philosophy is religious. To be a religion, a philosophy needs to be based on the metaphysics of mysticism and the epistemology of faith.
I think that being an Atheist actually makes you care more about THIS world and wanting to make one's own life the best possible life that it can be, because you only get one! - But it's pretty self-evident that this does require you to be pretty rational.
The founders did not specify that the unalienable individual rights "come from God".
The founders said "endowed by our creator" - But creator can mean lots of things. Personally, I think it means "reality", since what are we other than matter and energy? Sure, the founders were spiritual people, but I don't recall them all being ardent Christians. I recall Jefferson writing his own bible too, where he took out all the mumbo-jumbo garbage, and only kept what he thought was good and rational. I've heard that they were "deists" more than they were ardent Christians.
Quote: "Why did Ayn Rand reject everything else about the Soviet system other than it's atheism? It's the atheism that made the rest possible, acceptable, and palatable. Atheism is the biggest mass murderer in human history. The morality of atheism is tethered to nothing."
You're talking crap if you want me to believe that if only they'd been ardent religious folk, they'd never have killed anyone. Look at history; look at how many have died because of religion; look at how many are STILL dying because of religion. Being religious does not guarantee that an individual will never kill anyone or advocate killing anyone. History would be a lot different if that were the case.
What made all of the killing in the 20th century possible were the political ideas of the time and the shared morality of "collectivist-altruism" which motivated those leaders to do what they did, and which motivated the people to support those leaders' actions.
But no, not according to you. Communism and Nazism weren't to blame. Communism and Nazism were perfectly good ideas. It was just that big bad Atheism to blame, right?? Please, spare me from the foolishness -_-
You post here often, you stay on top of the politics, so you should know better than this. You should know that ideas have power, and that the bad ideas can result in bad political policies and actions. How many Democrats out there are religious, but still advocate Communism, Marxism and Socialism? A lot, I'd wager. Being religious does nothing to stop folk from adopting these very evil ideas. Stop fooling yourself into thinking that all of the ills in the world lay at the doorstep of Atheism.
The publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species: 1859
The publication of Karl Marx' Das Kapital: First volume 1867, 2nd volume 1885 (by Friedrich Engels) 3rd volume 1894 (by Friedrich Engels)
"I just want you to take some time to actually understand what Ayn Rand's explanation is for the source of unalienable individual rights, rather than just shunning it in favor of the utterly baseless "God did it" argument." (Kordane)
Utterly baseless? My brief explanation above shows that it is anything but baseless, and macro-evolution versus intelligent design has everything to do with it.
Darwin and Huxley made atheism fashionable. It ushered in the genocidal century, the 20th. It loosed man from measurable morality and dismembered the measuring device itself, for many. It allowed the state to supersede God. It allowed for the desired end to justify any and all means.
In other words, what I said has everything to do with what you spoke of. It has everything to do with everything. Our Founders understood that our unalienable rights come from God.
Why did Ayn Rand reject everything else about the Soviet system other than it's atheism? It's the atheism that made the rest possible, acceptable, and palatable. Atheism is the biggest mass murderer in human history. The morality of atheism is tethered to nothing.
There is no more important question for mankind than Evolution versus Intelligent Design. The ramifications of that answer, or contest if you will, is all encompassing and affects everything.
Atheism separated man from the Divine, remaking him from one created by God in his own image, to a mere cog in a machine, expendable, worthy only by "virtue" of what "it" could contribute to the collective.
None of what you said has anything to do with what I spoke of. This isn't a discussion about evolution vs intelligent design. This was a discussion about the source of unalienable individual rights. You say "God did it", whereas I say that "They are necessitated by man's nature as a rational being" - Your explanation is based on faith; my explanation is based on reason. My point to you is that if you want to defend unalienable individual rights then you are not only presenting an extremely weak argument (one based on faith), but you are also sabotaging the defence of unalienable individual rights because you are resting them on allegations that lack empirical evidence, and are allowing the opponents of unalienable individual rights (the statist Left) to argue that they can offer the "rational alternative" argument of "rights come from government", and people will buy into that because it's perceivable and because it has some semblance of truth to it, which is a far more believable alternative than someone who tells you some fairy tale being called "God" gave them to you.
In this battle against the statist Left, who argue that rights come from government, an explanation must be offered that is not only more believable, but can also be explained in detail from the bottom up; one that doesn't just have a semblance of truth to it, but IS the truth.
I won't deceive you. The explanation I've elicited to does come from Ayn Rand. I'm an Objectivist, so that philosophy is what I advocate here. I just want you to take some time to actually understand what Ayn Rand's explanation is for the source of unalienable individual rights, rather than just shunning it in favor of the utterly baseless "God did it" argument. Hopefully you'll see that her explanation has not only a base, but a very very strong foundation based in reason; that you can 'know' it is real and right, rather than just taking it on faith.
The unalienable individual rights are not a matter of faith. They are entirely provable by reason alone. That is what you and every other individual on the Right has to come to accept. I know it's hard, being religious and all, you want religion to be the basis for all this stuff, but you have to realize that it's not helpful here.
I 'liked' your comment, not because I agree with it, but I like that you are free here to express your opinion even as I disagree with it.
An adult brain contains about 100 billion nerve cells, or neurons, with branches that connect at more than 100 trillion points. Scientists call this dense, branching network a "neuron forest."
It is not "rational" to suggest or believe that this "evolved" by random processes, regardless of how many billions of years of time, the evolutionist's hero, ascribes to those random processes.
Basically what I have done is eliminate the scientifically impossible. You on the other hand hang your hat on many scientific impossibilities.
You would say that an arrowhead found in a forest shows intelligent design, but the human brain happened by chance, without direction, and with no intelligence whatsoever. You then call that "rational"? Whether Earth is an open or a closed system, that is just mathematically and biologically impossible.
One could also look at the compound eye of the mollusk from "millions" of years ago. Not only can you not get to that through random processes, you can't even make it to the first "simple" cell, which is irreducibly complex.
In addition, there has never been found, a fossil of any species in transition. They are all fully formed and functional.
When you eliminate the impossible, that impossibility you eliminate is God. The impossibility I eliminate is any "science" which violates the laws of physics. We know what the laws of physics are. We cannot begin to even fathom, what God is. So, the impossibility I eliminate is much more rational than the perceived impossibility you eliminate.
The difference is that I can explain how you go from having a rational mind to having unalienable individual rights, so that you can know that unalienable individual rights are real - Whereas you have to rely on belief and tell people to "have faith", whilst offering no empirical evidence to support your allegations.
Who are people going to accept? The person who uses reason to show how something exists, or the person who tells you to "have faith" that something exists?
I can understand using faith when it comes to things like the existence of God, because it's not possible to use your sense of reason for that - But when it comes to the unalienable individual rights whereby it is possible to use your sense of reason to validate its existence, then why use faith for that? You wouldn't cross busy roads "on faith", would you? No, you'd use your sense of reason, because reason is available in that circumstance, and you know that without your eyes and ears, you'd very likely get run over and killed.