Lincoln and God
Since today is the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, we’re hearing some about the high points of the 16th president—yet it seems that what turned around Lincoln’s spiritual life was his lowest point, which occurred in February 1862.
That’s when Lincoln’s beloved 11-year-old son, Willie, suddenly died. Mary Todd Lincoln tried to deal with her grief by searching out New Age mediums, and Lincoln went to a séance with his wife, but was unimpressed: Afterward he joked that it was like a cabinet meeting, with several spirits presenting contradictory messages.
Lincoln’s search for meaning then took a different direction. Several long talks with Phineas Gurley, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, helped him go through “a process of crystallization,” which Gurley described as a conversion to Christ. Lincoln later told a confidant that he was “driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I have nowhere else to go.” Lincoln began attending Pastor Gurley’s church on Sundays and sometimes went to Wednesday prayer meetings as well.
From the death of his son to the deaths of thousands of soldiers: Lincoln visited injured soldiers with gaping wounds at newly established hospitals throughout the District of Columbia. Whenever Congress was not in session, the Capitol itself became a hospital, with 2,000 cots set up in the rotunda, legislative chambers, and hallways. Most deaths occurred on the battlefield, but those who died in the hospitals, typically 50 per day, cost the army $4.99 per soldier (pine coffin, transport to the cemetery, and burial all included).
The fatalities and injuries led Lincoln to God; he had nowhere else to go. In October 1862 he told visitors, “We cannot but believe, that He who made the world still governs it.” Calling the war “a fiery trial” and himself “a humble instrument in the hands of our Heavenly Father,” Lincoln said, “I have desired that all my works and acts may be according to His will, and that it might be so, I have sought his aid.”
Lincoln’s “Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day” in 1863 asserted, “We know that, by Divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world.” He called the war “a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people.”
Lincoln’s proclamation emphasized how Americans had taken for granted God’s kindness: “We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.” That proclamation applied the Old Testament pattern—God’s faithfulness, man’s forgetfulness, God’s discipline—to a new people who had become “too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.”
Lincoln, who had questioned prayer previously, was becoming a praying man. He told one general that as reports came in from Gettysburg during the first two days of fighting, “when everyone seemed panic-stricken,” he “got down on my knees before Almighty God and prayed. . . . Soon a sweet comfort crept into my soul that God Almighty had taken the whole business into His own hands.”
Increasingly he relied on the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church. Once, Pastor Gurley announced at Sunday morning service that “religious services would be suspended until further notice as the church was needed as a hospital.” Officials had already made plans and stacked supplies outside the building, but Lincoln stood up—he did that often, believing that all prayers should be made standing up—and announced, “Dr. Gurley, this action was taken without my consent, and I hereby countermand the order. The churches are needed as never before for divine services.”
Lincoln’s second inaugural address, with its call to “bind up the nation’s wounds,” is often cited as evidence of Lincoln’s emphasis on reconciliation, but it shows even more his new sense of Providence. “Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war might speedily pass away,” he said. “Yet if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid with another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said, ‘the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.’”
Read Edward Lee Pitt’s “Bicentennial birthday,” posted at WORLDmag.com.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top121 Comments to “Lincoln and God”
Just smell them bayonettes.
Report comment to moderator
Lincoln stopped a dozen states of supposedly free people from governing themselves by means of a bloody. That can’t be right in any way.
Handily enough, the war stopped slavery with that eternal means justifies results logic. I hope WORLD is not advocating such. With that reasoning we might as well eradicate all abortionists to prevent murder.
Report comment to moderator
Or eradicate marriage to prevent divorce.
Report comment to moderator
The slave population gained a degree of freedom but not too much. Predjuidice and racism abounded, with resentment thrown in. It is difficult to accept Lincoln as one bringing freedom for freedom’s sake when he prevented a free people from ruling themselves.
Maybe Obama will let Idaho secede if his financial fiasco continues…
Report comment to moderator
Well ya know, Provost, the Allies stopped supposedly free Germans from governing themselves by something bloody called WWII. I guess the need to stop such things as concentration camps was just an ends-justifies-the-means as well.
No, make no mistake. The southern states were in REBELLION. They wanted “Freedom” no doubt, but be clear about what they wanted to be free to do: Couch it in all the high-falutin’ language you want, but the bottom line is they wished to be free to enslave other human beings, in order to enrich themselves. They were willing to tear this country apart to do so.
And amazingly, 144 years on, they still have their apologists.
Thank God for Lincoln, who did what was right and what was needed.
Report comment to moderator
I read somewhere that approximately 6 union soldiers died for the life of every slave liberated from bondage. That stat gives added meaning to what Mr Lincoln said.
I’m glad I didnt live in that era. Even now as low-ranking officer in the US Army I wonder how Gen Lee musta felt when given the option of “raising his sword” against his family, friends and neighbors. You dedicate your life to an organization and it asks that you make such a betrayal of all you thought you were serving for.
I hope this thread doesnt turn into a refight as so many about the CW tend to do. April 1865 at Appomattox Courthouse achieved much to be praised, but we all know the CW ultimately helped pave the way for greater centralized power in the following century
Report comment to moderator
I dont know if its a real quote or not. But several years ago I read one of the Harry Turtledove “alternative history” novels wherein Lee makes a comment that encapsulates his dilemma:
“A republic that has to be held together by rifles and bayonets? I’m afraid it holds no charm for me”
Report comment to moderator
Thomas,
Southerners wanted freedom for all decisions. They were wrong about slavery, just as modern Christians are wrong about evolution. (I think of both as the main point of what was or is wrong with the church at the time.)
Slavery was permitted by an omission in the constitution. That is wrong. It is not as wrong as abortion, lying, or homosexuality. Would you support a war to abolish those? It wans’t worth a war which the north started and prosecuted with zelous vigour.
… and your large capital letters tempt me to sarcasm.
Report comment to moderator
Well said, Provost. Thank you.
I didn’t see this thread before I put some quotes over in todays Whirled Views from a book called The Real Lincoln. Thomas, I’d suggest you read it.
Sadly, as I read his “religious speech” it gives me chills. Nothing turns me off more than a hypocrite.
Report comment to moderator
Well, here we are again. The time of year when the annual “Lincoln-bashing” commences. I don’t think anyone assumes Lincoln was without error nor faultless. He was a man of his times and should be given the benefit of measurement by those standards. And by such, comes up measuring pretty well.
My grandmother was donineering and critical. Nothing ever quite measured up. My mother determined that she was not going to allow that critical spirit to continue to the next generation. But you know what, there was just too much baggage to toss completely. I found her to be miraculously improved over my grandmother, but others found her to difficult at times and quite opinionated.
My point? Lincoln may have carried much of the baggage and bias of his day, but he also brought great benefit in a time of horrible national conflict and division. And as his personal life was challenged and altered by faith and circumstance, so also was his public and political life. Let’s at least give him the benefit of measuring him by his era and see the good he did; and not “throw out the baby with the bath-water” by misrepresenting or misapplying his circumstances.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, appreciated Cal Thomas’s article, Honestly Abe, for the very reasons I just mentioned.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not as much of an expert on Lincoln’s God as I am the key American Founders. But his views seemed remarkably similar to theirs: Lincoln believed in an active intervening Providence, but didn’t seem to accept Jesus’ divinity and believed the Bible was partially inspired, not infallible or inerrant.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor David,
You are right in that we all have many imperfections. I apologize for “throwing out” all of Lincoln b/c of his many hypocrisies.
However, here is something that really bothers me. We are fortunate enough to live in Virginia, home of many historical sites. We have visited them all. Here is what I have noticed (especially the past few years). Tour guides, etc are so quick to bring up all the negative aspects of Washington, Jefferson, etc. but dare they say *anything* negative about our beloved Lincoln (or for that fact, Martin Luther King, Jr.)? Why???
Report comment to moderator
SAWGUNNER: I read somewhere that approximately 6 union soldiers died for the life of every slave liberated from bondage.
Sawgunner, you need to replace your sources.
Report comment to moderator
MOMOFFOUR,
Point well taken. I don’t think any of us like the idea that our “heroes” actually have feet of clay. I would like to think that all our founding fathers were church-attending, faith-practicing evangelicals; though I am not jaded quite like Jon (previous post), neither am I ignorant of the historical apathy and spiritual variences which existed at the time. You are right, balance should be applied to all, even if uncomfortable.
On the topic of balance and measuring by historical standards, Jon, I think if you were to research more deeply, you would find that indeed most of our founding fathers did infact, acknowledge Jesus’ deity as assumed. They didn’t always write with that theological clarity, but the majority of the society at the time understood that when you spoke of “God” or “Providence”, Jesus was part of the package as it were. The trinitarian view of the Godhead was understood. It is not that dissimilar today. Many speak of “God” and don’t meantion Jesus until pressed. They then acknowledge that “of course” they also mean Jesus. (I find this to be sad, but true)
David Barton and his Wallbuilders web site has much to show in evidence of this fact.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Olasky,
This is a wonderful article. The quote below is outstanding.
Thank you,
Victoria
Report comment to moderator
momoffour – 13
YOU WRITE: “Tour guides, etc are so quick to bring up all the negative aspects of Washington, Jefferson, etc. but dare they say *anything* negative about our beloved Lincoln (or for that fact, Martin Luther King, Jr.)?”
Are you disappointed that they aren’t making negative remarks about President Lincoln and Dr. King? Would it make you feel better if they did?
Report comment to moderator
Anyone should admit that Lincoln had good points. Take his criticism of mudsill theory-the idea that low quality people of some aspect or idea are always more numerous than others and will drag down their betters. It’s the sort of philosophy that makes one seventh of Americans managers, elevates experts to the rank of divinely inspired, and gives us public school.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor David,
I think you made an excellent point up until you mentioned David Barton and Wallbuilders. I don’t trust him or his site. You may be right that a statistical majority of what we would call the Founding Fathers (all of the men who attended the Constitutional Convention, the ratifying conventions, and those who earlier signed the Declaration of Independence) were orthodox Trinitarian Christians. However, until we dig deeper into the record, that’s a truth we will never know.
However I have meticulously researched the men we think of as the “key Founders” (Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and others) and know that J. Adams, Jefferson & Franklin, in no uncertain terms were theological unitarians. And Washington and Madison give very little evidence of orthodox Trinitarianism. They never claimed with their words to be Trinitarian, never spoke of the “Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.” And I have one eyewitness quotation of Madison admitting to be a unitarian (from George Ticknor, founder of the Boston Public Library). But on the surface they were all formally and nominally associated with orthodox Churches. If we didn’t read Jefferson’s writings in careful detail, we might conclude he was a Trinitarian because he belonged to the Anglican/Episcopal Church which adhered to a Trinitarian creed. But when we read his personal letters we see he rejected every single tenet of orthodoxy and thought of the Trinity as a metaphysical insanity.
Report comment to moderator
They didn’t always write with that theological clarity, but the majority of the society at the time understood that when you spoke of “God” or “Providence”, Jesus was part of the package as it were. The trinitarian view of the Godhead was understood. It is not that dissimilar today. Many speak of “God” and don’t meantion Jesus until pressed. They then acknowledge that “of course” they also mean Jesus. (I find this to be sad, but true)
I have discovered this to be either the solution or the band aid (it’s debatable which it was) to the political-theological problem of the American Founding. Yes, there were lots of orthodox Christians who help important social and legal power then. And openly denying the Trinity was a socially dangerous thing. So the unitarians could speak generically of “God” and “Providence” and the orthodox would receive the message (perhaps wrongly) that they were speaking of the same Trinitarian God, when in reality the first four to six Presidents actually had a unitarian Deity in mind. “Providence” was their favorite generic God word.
This dynamic has implications to this day. It’s called the civil religion. “Under God,” “In God We Trust.” These are sentiments that Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons JWs (if they involved themselves in politics which they don’t) and perhaps even Hindus could assent to. Is this all really the same God? Or is this a fiction designed for unitive purposes?
David Barton will do everything he can to ignore or explain away this dynamic of Founding era history. Since he doesn’t debate people, he mainly ignores it. For the record he was invited to debate me on Jim Babka’s radio show but declined. The offer on my end is open.
Report comment to moderator
I can appreciate the data you have gleened. I think some of this information, however, can be processed for various sides depending on the perspective of the examiner. I would choose to see their particular silence on specifics as coming from a “no-duh” kind of obvious assumption. You on the other hand, understand, their silence as reason to doubt their personal resolve. I understand that and will not argue the valid open questions this silence produces.
On the other hand, I struggle with, as I previously stated, that some seem determined to cast dispergent doubts on the faith of many, on the basis of a few. The names you state, are not the individuals I would debate. I have trouble when people lump the vast majority of “founding fathers” together in the same pool as those you have stated. AFter all, there were innumerable leaders in the culture of the day (as well as in government positions) who were not only practicing Christians, but even clergy. And it was precisely this biblical world view that drove their passion for liberty, mutual responsibility, and social restoration.
As far as Barton’s refusal to debate, I have heard several presentations and would find a debate to be a wonderful forum for him. It would surprise me (and disappoint) to see this refusal.
Report comment to moderator
I think Barton’s reason for refusing to debate is that he’s a very effective public speaking and speaks quite a bit (and probably makes good $$). He probably doesn’t want to be shown in a position where his thesis is subject to serious criticism; in short, it might hurt his gig.
AFter all, there were innumerable leaders in the culture of the day (as well as in government positions) who were not only practicing Christians, but even clergy.
One of Barton’s claim to which I strongly object is that a bunch of signers of the Declaration were “ministers.” Actually no, only one John Witherspoon, was.
And re those ministers, I’ve read in meticulous detail Ellis Sandoz collection of Founding era sermons that the Liberty Fund reproduces online. Many of them are hardly “biblical” in their worldview. The most notable patriotic preachers were in fact theological unitarians and they more often turned to John Locke’s novel ideas than the Bible to justify revolt (because the Bible forbids political revolt in Romans 13).
I can show you some founding era sermons fusing enlightenment dogma, even French enlightenment dogma with biblical theology to argue the “Christian” case for the French Revolution. That it would triumphantly usher in a millenial republic of “liberty, equality and fraternity.”
Report comment to moderator
We just go on and on with the myths about Lincoln. He started the war. It wasn’t for emancipation. It was for big government, taxes and spending. He doesn’t belong in the Republican party. He and the North acted just like England and King George during the Revolution. Whata a guy!
Report comment to moderator
Pastor David, I’m glad you posted today.
Lincoln prayed during the Civil War and not to some “gee I’m not sure what you are ‘Providence.’” Providence was another term for the God we worship. You can’t analyze the words of the past without understanding what they meant to the people who said them. We can’t imagine the life Lincoln lived, what it was like day by day as he grew up and as a young man.
Last week or so, we talked about the plane captain who landed in the Hudson River in NY. He even said himself that his entire career and training prepared him for that one event. God often provides the “perfect” person to handle a situation, and this is what Lincoln was — the right person to get the country through the Rebellion, the Civil War or whatever you want to call it. No one will ever know what Lincoln said to God in his most private moments, what doubts he had, what fears he felt. That can’t be gleaned from speeches or letters, but it was those prayers that got the Nation through the war.
Every decision Lincoln made was not a good one. He should have gotten rid of that general, McClelland, I think, a lot sooner than he did, for example. But considering the problem God handed him to solve, Lincoln comes through it as a decent, practical, intelligent man who rose to the occasion — admirably, I would say, especially when you consider the personal problems this man had in losing his son and with his wife.
You can’t take a person out of his time and expect him to act or think as we might today. That’s not fair. We would be a very different Nation today had the union not been preserved. The truth is the country had a flaw at its inception. There were those who knew and stated openly that slavery should have been eliminated from the start, but those very favorite founders of Jon Rowe’s went for the compromise to get the country started. They weren’t the high-minded freedom seekers Jon would have us believe they were. They wrote “all men are created equal,” but they were also the originators of the second half of the phrase we say today — that some are more equal than others. Perhaps if they had understood who Christ is, they wouldn’t have compromised. But history is what it is.
Report comment to moderator
BIANCA SAID:
Or eradicate marriage to prevent divorce.
SAY!
I think that’s actually being advocated from some corners!
Or should we use the phrase “alternative lifestyles”?
While some groups are not directly claiming this, a dirty little trade secret among the same-sex union push is in the final analysis of mockery of marriage and trivialization of the very meaning.
Can’t be helpful at this point.
As to Lincoln, I urge everyone to read The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo and contrast his libertarianism about “state’s rights” and pulling out of context various quotes to the analysis of George Will, who, while not advocating the horrid death toll, makes equally moral claims of having to often have the courage to do unpleasant things when you run into recalcitrance about human rights.
Having said this, and despite DiLorenzo’s odd economic analysis of why he thinks things were really it stake, he makes what I consider the valid point that:
1) Yes, Virginia, there REALLY IS such a thing as States Rights
(something needed right about now)
2) Federalism got a boost in power that would make Hitler ashamed and blush for being a mere piker.
3) The issue of slavery was NOT–as commonly told about Father Lincoln–the main issue at the start of the war per se, but rather its EXTENSION into other territories. Lincoln himself could have (and perhaps SHOULD HAVE) made the case for war regarding slavery. But he did NOT do this. Slavery was as secure in 1861 as just about any law on the books, and Lincoln was not an abolitionist, and Lord Acton among other Brits figured out early on that the whole Emancipation Proclamation freed few slaves at its utterance and was primarily a propoganda document.
However, Lincoln knew from the beginning that Slavocracy was not a valid argument for “States’ Rights”, and the whole issue of people as property was trumped by the core rights of the Constitution. This is how we need to see things. I don’t like the negatives here. The removal of habeous corpus, the blood, the horror, the 650,000 lost lives, the utter smashing of the South and the leeching done to the South after the War in the dreadful Reconstruction era–which was one of chicanery, favoritism, graft, and cronyism. Not to mention the removal of one in four men from the South to death and disease and the horrid demographics and economics of this. And we’re not even getting into the burning by Sherman of just about, oh, everything in site.
But civil liberties came back, and the nation healed. When the dust settled Slavocracy was gone, war did its ugly deed, and we ended up a single nation rather than a fractured one where today we see that only after 1865 we say “The United States IS” rather than “The United States ARE.”
Nuthin’ to sneeze at.
Report comment to moderator
The idea of the president contradicting his pastor with an order sounds a little too much like a state church for me!
I tend to give Lincoln the benefit of the doubt for the era in which he lived on some things (such as the fact that he assumed black people weren’t as smart as white people–considering he had them in to the White House and such, his views were kinder than his era, and not behind), but putting him in his era makes it all the more galling that he was willing to tear the Constitution to shreds and trample states’ rights. (And no, “states’ rights” is not a hidden way to say “slavery.” States had the right to secede from the union, and they didn’t need the president’s OK. And even if some of them seceded over slavery, they still had the right to secede, and Lincoln didn’t have the right to stop them. And to stop them at the cost of so much blood, so much money, and so much damage to the Constitution and our form of government–the more one actually reads about Lincoln, the harder it is to respect him. For the president of a country to intentionally incite a war of some of his people against others is unconscionable, and he really does have a lot of blood on his hands.)
But this is his birthday, and in case he’s listening,
Happy birthday, Abe. I hope he was indeed a Christian, though I tend to think he wasn’t. Not mine to judge, though.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You don’t have to work very hard convincing me that liberal enlightenment dogma had already found its way into American pulpits. This had begun, as you pointed out long before this in Europe as well. And I have also found many examples of “blended” sermons in historical accounts. But when you consider the general status of the American church, and the social climate at the time, I think you would have to agree that the general consensus was most absolutely orthodox (Christian) in its foundations, which drove much of the values that supported the founding documents. And my reference to numerous ministers was not limited to the signers of the Declaration.
By the way, your point about the “French enlightenment dogma with biblical theology to argue the “Christian” case for the French Revolution.” I don’t know if you have read any of Christian philosopher/Apologist Francis Schaeffer, but he had much to say about the destructive consequences of the church’s compromise with the very enlightenment dogma you discuss.
Night all
Report comment to moderator
13 – Tour guides, etc are so quick to bring up all the negative aspects of Washington, Jefferson, etc. but dare they say *anything* negative about our beloved Lincoln (or for that fact, Martin Luther King, Jr.)? Why???
Well, Momoffour, people are beginning to wake up from their damnable PC slumber. It’s a slow process, but it is happening.
Report comment to moderator
I would answer the question “why???” by saying that we look back on the Civil War now and are glad that the union was preserved, though I understand and even sympathize to some degree with secessionists. Perhaps we love Lincoln so much now because we’ve seen the fruit of that war. At the time, he wasn’t so loved, or he wouldn’t have been shot to death. He did the job assigned to him by God, and when finished, he went home. That’s how I see him.
Report comment to moderator
The fact is, Lincoln was a murderous tyrant and no one should be celebrating his birthday.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor David,
I see things slightly different but I think your position is reasonable. Here is what I wrote for First Things Magazine on James Hutson’s quote book on the Founders:
The book also represents, with great balance, the Founders’ differing religious viewpoints. While all the Founders believed in a powerful Providence, there was a split between those who affirmed the tenets of traditional orthodox Christianity and those who subscribed to an Enlightenment-influenced “theistic rationalism.” While orthodox Christianity dominated the views of the population at large and probably a statistical majority of those who signed the Declaration and framed the Constitution, an unconventional Unitarian theology seemed to engage the minds of certain key Founders—among them, those who played the most prominent roles in declaring independence and drafting the Constitution.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6481
I see the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution coming more from the theistic rationalists than the orthodox Christians. Though the briefly noted book review for First Things was not the place to discuss that dynamic in detail.
I know of and respect the late Francis Schaeffer as an expositor of orthodox Protestant theology; however I think he misunderstood the American Founding, in part due to his association with too many folks like David Barton who posit the “Christian America” thesis (which really means the “orthodox evangelical Christian American” thesis).
If you’d like on this thread or another I can show you with a few examples of how Barton’s claims of authentic Christian principles really were not what they seem.
Report comment to moderator
David Herbert Donald’s standard biography states flatly that Lincoln wasn’t converted by Rev.
Gurley. Lincoln was a believer in fate and necessity who thought on a parallel track, but never walked the same path as Christians, whom he always regarded as know-nothings. He could pay lip service to the civic pieties, certainly, as when he attributed his success to the people of Springfield, IL while knowing that every preacher in the city had opposed him. If Lincoln’s language resonatged with the Bible, his tragic sense of life was controlled by Shakespeare. Religion was a bare ruined choir where late the sweet birds sang, but silent in the darkness and open to the pitiless sky.
Lincoln may have fallen to his knees, but, if he formed any words, they came back upon him like undelivered e-mail. The religious sensibility of the convert is personal, warm, and hopeful. Observe converts at worship, and their preferred format is “me and you,” not even “us and you.” The convert is taught the necessity of confessing with his or her own mouth. Lincoln’s references to the deity are strangely impersonal. Rev. Gurley’s heresay isn’t enough.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
Why is it better that the Union was preserved? It came at too great cost: blood, money, destruction of the Constitutional voluntary union, destruction of the South (which is the nation’s moral compass today, if we still have one) . . . and even the lingering racial issues we have had ever since. (If slaves had been freed voluntarily–as would have happened soon–the South would have been in better shape to absorb them as freedmen, with less resentment both ways.) We might still be two nations today–so what? I’d rather live in the South than the North even so, but I’d far rather live in the South without the lingering damage of the intervening years. The two nations could have been allies, and could have combined their strengths, and might someday even have come together (voluntarily) once again. Destroying the South rather than letting it secede destroyed much of our liberty as well. No one can really say what would have happened if secession had been successful (even without war or with it), but we know that what happened was bad; frankly, it’s hard to imagine a worse result with a successful secession and no war.
Report comment to moderator
What an amazing thread, devoid of fact. Except for Bianca, who — in her inimitable style — put the matter plainly.
Slavery was not the issue over which the dog-faced butcher Mr. Lincoln started The War to Enslave the States.
Read his first inaugural address and disabuse yourself of the notion that slavery had anything to do with Lincoln’s causes in the War. He made it plain: he had no desire to end slavery or even to interfere with it. As with ALL of America’s wars since that one: the bloodshed and chaos had a purpose: to divert the people’s attention from what the mercantilists wanted to do.
Same modus with the US military & Taxpayers’ entry into both world wars. Same with the federal troops’ entry into both Iraq wars and Afghanistan. It is the insolent, ignorant student of history indeed, who still adheres to Thomas’ legend about slavery being the cause of that war.
Might we have had to wait ten years instead of five to end slavery peacefully…as nineteen other nations did during that period? Perhaps; but that wouldn’t have done a thing for those powerful interests whose only goal was to only have to buy off ONE legislature, rather than 34 of them!
Lincoln was just the ugly puppet.
By staying out of Lincoln’s War to Enslave the States, we could have saved 660,000 lives, black and white.
We could have saved Article IV Section 4, guaranteeing all the States, “a republican form of government” in perpetuity – and thus saved the proper functioning of 50 sovereign States in a republic.
We could have preserved 50 checks against the cancerous Leviathan of today: regulating all of life…tracking your travels, e-mails, and toilet flushes.
We could have saved the seething hatred and animus between the races in America, egged on by a race-baiting bureaucracy and two insipid, cheerleading political parties that make hay off this very animus!
***
As Bianca more succinctly suggested, Dishonest Abe was the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein.
History has proved that he lied through his teeth to sucker the Union into his War to Enslave the States, killing 660,000 Americans black and white, and leaving Black Americans far worse off than might have been the case if America had been left to follow the nations that peacefully abolished that slavery in that same period.
One of the biggest frauds sold as “history” – bigger than English children’s tales of King Arthur – are the apotheotic legends of Lincoln. Idolised in marble and worshipped as a false god on earth…the dog-faced, mendacious scoundrel!!
Would you like to become really upset at how public schools have lied and enslaved minds? Tead The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo. Or read Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Hummel. Or Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: the Economics of the Civil War by Thornton & Eklund; A Constitutional History of Secession by Graham; and especially America’s Caesar by Durand.
Dishonest Abe’s friend, Republican abolitionist Wendell Phillips said of Lincoln that he was “a more unlimited despot than the world knows this side of China” and “a low, cunning clown.”
Alfred Wooten, Delaware attorney general and another Northern abolitionist, called Dishonest Abe “an insult to the flag, and a traitor to their God.”
William Herndon, Lincoln’s “friend and partner for 20 years”, said of Bloody Abe that “He was a deep-grounded infidel. He disliked and despised churches; never entered a church except to scoff and ridicule…Before running for any public office, he wrote a book against Christianity and the Bible. He showed it to some friends and read extracts. (Mr.) Hill was was greatly shocked, urging Lincoln not to publish it…urged it would kill him politically. Hill took the book in his hands, opened the stove door, and up it went in flames and ashes. After that, Lincoln became more discreet…often (using) words and phrases to make it appear he was a Christian…But he lived and died a deep-grounded infidel.”
[Wm. H. Herndon, quoted in Geo. Edmonds, Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South Memphis, TN, 1904, pg. 54-55]
Dishonest Abe was a mendacious monster who enslaved the sovereign States and ravaged our Constitution, supposedly to “emancipate” Black slaves. Read Lincoln’s own words; emancipation was never his goal. It was mere political gravy, on top of the obliteration of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
I think We the People should, however, celebrate.
You see, in his 1799 KY Resolution, Thomas Jefferson laid down the principle of constitutional law enforcement that NONE of the sovereign States considered using back then. They foolishly split themselves as our domestic enemies planned, along sectional lines.
Divide and conquer, Mr. Lincoln’s mercantilist pupeteers said. And Mr. Lincoln did as directed, to our shame these 148 years! But now We the People will divide and conquer. We have the opportunity to bring every one of the 535 members of the US Congress to his or her hometown, and with a State Grand Jury holding in the wings for multiple counts of criminal indictment in the largest criminal trial in human history, in up to 535 courts, we can win back what the sovereign States lost under the boots and torches of Mr. Lincoln’s troops.
If only the American people will rise to the occasion. It’s a very tall order in our day, when the average Taxpayer would rather work for ‘massuh’ and whimper, than stand for the rule of law.
But stranger things have happened. We can always pray that this coming Independence Day (or in 2010) will be the beginning of the most magnificent peaceful victory for the rule of law, since Magna Carta.
And I will personally take the first sledge hammer to that Lincoln Memorial, if ever given the opportunity.
Other than that? Lincoln was a great guy.
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Bro David, Have you read Blood Money? Another great work on Lincoln’s war.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, yes…the project is called America Again! and is found at the link below. You might say it’s our long overdue Lincoln antidope.
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Sister Blachista,
No I have not. My reading stack is about fourteen volumes high at present, and I only read one a week or so just now. Four engineering jobs, one person.
And these long blogs, withal!
Report comment to moderator
I meant to say Blanchista. Sorry, Bianca.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I’m so offended at your racism that I don’t think I can forgive! The pain is so great that I need a crying group at church to help me work through it. THANKS A LOT, BROTHER DAVID! THANKS A WHOLE BIG BUNCH!!!
Report comment to moderator
If anyone reading this is a present or former prosecuting attorney, please let me know if you’re willing to brainstorm on the America Again! indictment strategy with me and Bryan Malatesta.
I think I can show you how the local PR would work with State grand juries and DAs. We can start kicking some serious b*tt in this corrupt Congress; even if it takes 3-4 years to really catch on, all we’ll need is half a dozen groups and good coverage on the blogs, and we’re off to the races.
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
I’ve never had much of a passion for vindicating Lincoln; though I am unconvinced (and quite surprised) by the persistance of “neo-confederate” thought. I thought that was consigned to the ashcan of history.
As a political libertarian, I note, we split on Lincoln and the Civil War. My friend and blogfather Timothy Sandefur is probably the most notable Libertarian defender of Lincoln (as he as done many times in the pages of “Liberty Magazine”).
Therefore I will reproduce his most recent post on the matter:
Happy Birthday, Abraham Lincoln
Today is the birthday of one of America’s greatest men, Abraham Lincoln. Sadly, many folks who otherwise believe strongly in freedom have lost sight of the principles necessary to understand Lincoln’s great accomplishments. But every American, white and black, should be grateful for his moral and intellectual courage.
I have written at length on Lincoln, and on the misunderstandings about him perpetrated by the fools at the Mises Institute and elsewhere; the most thorough of my articles is “How Libertarians Ought to Think About The Civil War,” which you can download here.
Of all Lincoln’s accomplishments, his greatest was his insistence on the moral superiority of freedom over slavery. That took great courage at a time when nearly everyone, including the nation’s greatest political leader, Stephen Douglas, offered people the opportunity to avoid such uncomfortable and seemingly unnecessary moral disputes, and to settle the matter by majority vote. Lincoln insisted, and rightly, that no majority had the right to sentence individuals to slavery. And his clear vision of the moral principles involved never wavered. Though he was prudent in a way that the totally ineffective Abolitionists were not, he never let his prudence obscure the moral principles involved. Lincoln was a great leader first and foremost because he rejected the “realpolitik” of his time (then known as “popular sovereignty”) and insisted on the moral rightness of freedom and the American Constitution, with its fundamental principles of liberty and universal human equality. That moral clarity is precisely what today’s political leaders lack, and what today’s intellectuals hasten to destroy and deride. No wonder that Lincoln is only a statue to them; they have blinded themselves to his greatness.
To learn more about Lincoln, I recommend Dan Farber’s Lincoln’s Constitution, William Lee Miller’s President Lincoln: The Duty of A Statesman, Thomas Krannawitter’s Vindicating Lincoln, as well as Harry Jaffa’s Crisis of the House Divided and A New Birth of Freedom.
http://tinyurl.com/aj6cef
Report comment to moderator
I thought that was consigned to the ashcan of history.
Nope.
Report comment to moderator
I thought that was consigned to the ashcan of history.
Regrettably not.
Thanks, Jon. I just downloaded Sandefur’s article.
Report comment to moderator
My pleasure!
Report comment to moderator
You can’t put principles in the ashcan. They have a funny way of jumping out every single time – sort of like Talkie Tina did to Telly Savalas in the Twilight Zone.
Report comment to moderator
You can put bad ideas in the trash can – and Calhoun’s compact theory is a bad idea.
Report comment to moderator
*ashcan
Report comment to moderator
48 – Nope, Brother John C’s is outta the can too. John C. Calhoun rocked back in his living days and he rocks now. luuvvvv him. Smooch.
“My name is Talkie John C. Calhoun. And you’d better be nice to me.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I agree. The Confederacy was just a stupid idea; and I say that as an unreconstructed Texan.
I also vehementaly disagree with Wakefield Tolbert (post #25) that “the United States IS”. That’s simply bad grammar. We are united States aligned in one (hopefully indissoluble) union for the nineteen enumerated congressional powers, the few powers We granted to the executive, and the judicial powers for which We the People created a federal judiciary when inter-State issues demand adjudication.
Nothing more.
The 9th and 10th Amendments have been violated EVERY YEAR from 1861-2009, and are now more egregiously violated than perhaps since 1913. To say “the United States IS” as a federal creature further tranmogrifies itself into your slave-master — as if you take great pride in overturning law! — is the measure of your knowledge of a 3-page document that remains the LAW of this land.
That Abraham Lincoln could carry on as Saddam Hussein in his day is criminal enough; that men in our own day can read a book as crystal-clear as Tom DiLorenzo’s expose of Lincoln the Butcher…and be PROUD of federal arrogation…takes my breath away.
I am 100% for the union of these Sovereign States, and not for the dissolution of this form of government — not in the least — but for ENFORCEMENT of the terms of the US Constitution!
I’m not speaking political hot air here, people. I’ve laid a plan before you (link below). It is the principle laid out by Jefferson and Madison, two men who helped to forge — and greatly respected — the Constitution for the united States of America. We united Stated are still one republic; that is our law, and I love it. I carry no water for secessionists or their ilk, Jon Rowe.
Take reading comprehension lessons if you must, but don’t mistake the words of those on this thread who stand for the return to rule of law. Simply because criminals in government own the schools and the military for five generations, does not exonerate their crimes. The proper design of this federal republic CAN be restored. Read the America Again! declaration at the link below.
We the People gave birth to a federal government that long ago slipped the bonds of the Constitution, of the law. Apotheosis aside, Lincoln was a deeply mendacious man, as you see his own friends quoted (above) divulging about him. In communist and other closed societies, fanciful history has always held sway with the masses, as we see Marvin Olaksy peddling in this piece. It is idolatrous fancy — sheer fancy of the first order.
The monstrosity that Mr. Lincoln unchained, is none other than what you see meeting for cocktails with Mr. Obama, and planning the fate of millions. This is no government of our fathers. This is no law.
And unless God has determined that this is our just dessert for so long denying Him, this will not stand.
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Erratum:
Vehemently. Extra ‘a’ in there. I get upset at fools, and it makes me type too fast.
Report comment to moderator
I’d love to see you Lincoln-worshippers go read Jefferson’s 1799 Kentucky Resolution. Then consider not just the moral stupidity (justifying slavery) but the tactical stupidity of the Confederacy, attempting secession. Cutting and running, instead of standing for the Constitution.
The moral wrong of slavery was national; Dishonest Abe had plenty to say about what he really thought of African folk. Read Di Lorenzo or especially Durand. Lincoln was simply a bald-faced snake. Read LINCOLN’S OWN WRITTEN WORDS, not what historiographers and worshippers write about him! Dishonest Abe makes Bill Clinton look like a choir boy.
Google the KY Resolution. Before you spout off another praise and worship song to Lincoln, consider Jefferson’s principle, and the tactical folly of the Confederacy. Imagine if We he People had followed the course of the other nations who peacefully banished slavery — but in any case, imagine if we had ENFORCED the Constitution back then!
Life would be very, very different today, at least for you Taxpayers. I’ll admit, as a Nontaxpayer I’m not a slave of the D.C. al Qaeda; I’m not complaining about my own lot in life. My family is blessed beyond measure.
I’m complaining because the United States Congress, and a series of presidents for three generations at least, have willfully defrauded and conspired to further defraud, We the People of these united States of America.
If you’re still a Taxpayer, funding the domestic enemies of our Constitution with every paycheck you let them skim — then for God’s sake at least READ a little. Learn exactly what you’re funding.
Because your grandchildren may want to know, one day, how America died on your watch.
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
http://www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Let’s celebrate the bicentennial of Dishonest Abe’s birth.
If you:
- live in the hometown of either of your U.S. senators or your U.S. congressman
- are a patriotic person with friends in your community, and
- are willing to be a part of what may prove to be the most important project in self-government since Magna Carta in 1215
…then read the America Again! declaration, and adopt it as your own. Have your own citizens’ caucus. Make your own list of high crimes, misdemeanors, and constitutional torts if you don’t see your key issue addressed on the America Again! declaration.
If you would like to help edit the Declaration, please email me at davidmzuniga “at” satx “dot” rr “dot” “com”.
Let’s commemorate the birth of the man who crippled the Constitution and tore a republic in two, by working to reverse the destruction. North and South, East and West, Liberal and Conservative, Pacifist and Military, Ron Paulite and environmentalist…let’s pull together now, town by town, before even that right of The People is closed off to us.
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
I’m not going to argue the civil war with you. I do know of DiLorenzo. He’s mortal enemies with my blogfather, Timothy Sandefur.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/011302.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/007832.html
Report comment to moderator
Bianca,
John C. Calhoun is one of my LEAST favorite Unitarians.
Report comment to moderator
It wasn’t a civil war, but we won’t get into political economy; it will zing even further over your head.
As I’ve said twice, that was a War to Enslave the States whereby the Hamilton-Clay-Lincoln party could finally roll out their ‘American Plan’ without most people catching on.
You’ve either missed my point, or are incapable of grasping it. I assure you, 7th year homeschool kids grasp it, so if you and I work through it, I promise you CAN get my point if you want to.
Let me know if you want to understand, and we’ll whack it around right here next week.
There should still be some punch, party hats, incense, and little plastic Lincoln idols left over.
If you’re not going to tuck tail mubling “civil war” and like inanities, please read the KY Resolution before we engage; that will be the foundation for the disputation/discussion.
Thanks. Peace and love.
David
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Yeah well obviously if you frame it as a a “War to Enslave the States,” you’ll reach the conclusions that you reach.
On a related note, if you are looking for a bright, homeschooled type Ron Paul supporting evangelical Christian to argue Hamilton with, check out this blogsite. That this guy admires Hamilton the way he does boggles my mind. I’ve witness him do twists and turns to portray Hamilton as a “born again” Christian before 1801 when his son Philip died in a duel. Every respectable historian of Hamilton’s life agrees he didn’t become an orthodox Christian until AFTER that event.
He’ll likewise do twists and turns to vindicate Hamilton’s vision with your paleo-Christian vision.
http://ahpatriot.blogspot.com/
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I have already conceded that the Confederacy was a bad idea, and that slavery is despicable.
If you agree to carry on the discussion with me, I want to discuss what We the People and Sovereign States, creators of the federal government in 1789 can or must do right now, in our day given the constitutional crisis under which 110 million Americans (the Taxpayer population) now abide in slavery.
I have no desire, as you see from my former posts, to re-hash that war. I have only coined an accurate new name for it, The War to Enslave the States.
My position is that this crisis was precipitated by the mercantilists in 1861, using Abe Lincoln as their puppet and slavery as their smokescreen. I will bring the work of several scholarly authors to the table. I will also present citations of the Constitution for the united States of America.
Meanwhile, betwixt getting out a small building design project this week-end, I’ll study Tim Sandefur’s blog to see where you’re coming from.
I’m game if you are, my smooth-pated friend.
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
If you agree to carry on the discussion with me, I want to discuss what We the People and Sovereign States, creators of the federal government in 1789 can or must do right now, in our day given the constitutional crisis under which 110 million Americans (the Taxpayer population) now abide in slavery.
Well, as a libertarian I do not defend the morality of the modern state. How could I? It’s not a first best system. But it’s not so horrible that I would compare it to what chattel slaves of the past suffered.
Though from a biblical perspective, I would argue orthodox Christians — those who believe the Bible the infallible, inerrant Word of God — as opposed to more liberal cafeteria Christian types have a God given duty to pay their taxes and to submit to government even if it is tyrannical and something which you might deem “slavery.” AND, the Bible nowhere states governments must abolish slavery. If there is a God given right to be free from “slavery” it’s nowhere to be found within the text of the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Mass propaganda by parasites can’t abide contemplative spirits among its host population. Wars fill that need.
Parasitic predators require chaos. Staccato turmoils. A host population must not be allowed to stop and scratch the itch lest the parasite fall off.
The whole 9/11 melee is a contemporary case in point. As happened among a great many Americans while we were “projecting power” in the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, et al — as happened around the sinking of the USS Maine, the parasite makes cover, and then it sucks while the host goes round in circles.
If one attempted to calculate the total man-hours spent in arguments these past eight years over the 9/11 attacks themselves — and the countless study groups, websites, learned papers, books, etc…it would be mind-boggling. Very much the same silly exercise as “who killed JFK??”
These things have their purpose. I won’t be suckered into worrying about if, or why, the federal government thinks the world stupid enough to buy its official story: 9/11 was simply a miracle. THREE occurrences of alien physics and structural collapse mechanics in steel structures, and the first time in history that the entire NORAD system failed, especially the fire control systems at the Pentagon.
I DON’T CARE ABOUT THAT. I won’t spend time in the smoke; I’d rather teach my neighbors how to grab the perps’ ankles and take them down!
So. First, is my moniker — The War to Enslave the States — an accurate tag for what occurred in 1861-65? Second, what can We the People do about that NOW. Not 150 years ago, not North vs South, not Black slavery…how can we restore the 9th and 10th Amendments, shrink Leviathan, and set those 110 million American free from their chains NOW? Not 150 years ago.
Jon, I have proposed tha answer to that second question; the America Again! project proposal is based on Jefferson’s and Madison’s principle of constitutional enforcement (original jurisdiction in constitutional torts; see their KY and VA Resolutions, respectively). Nothing new, nothing wacky, no violence or even tar & feathers; all 100% kosher, local, and peaceful. What’s not to like, right?
We have two really smart guys’ books to bring to the table, and their proposed legislation, viz:
Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. is a constitutional scholar, considered by some to be America’s foremost authority on the history of the dollar, as witness his 1500+ page two-volume tome Pieces of Eight . He also wrote How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary but for the America Again! project we’ve adopted his masterful, comprehensive book on restoring the Militias of the Several States. The book is entitled Constitutional Homeland Security, Volume I.
We are proposing that the America Again! teams use their local Independence Day rallies as a recruiting event for citizens 16+ years old to join their local ‘Citizens Homeland Security Associations’, as Dr. Vieira calls them. The hope is that these local watchdog and first-responder groups will eventually push strong militia legislation through their State Legislature (as is assumed in the Second Amendment).
Stephen Zarlenga is founder and director of the American Monetary Institute, and author of the 736-page The Lost Science of Money: The Mythology of Money, The Story of Power
We’re proposing Mr. Zarlenga’s very detailed draft Monetary Reform Act (full text available at the AMI website) as the starting point for legislation that the America Again! teams will demand of our senators and congressman, without amendment in congressional committees until approved by their watchdogs back home.
Again, Jon: is my moniker, The War to Enslave the States — an accurate tag for what occurred in 1861-65, or not? Second, what can We the People DO about it NOW, not 150 years ago but NOW?Those two questions are what I’d like to engage you on next week, Jon; you and any other takers in this place.
Okay, Jon. Now for sure I’m puttin’ my muddy boots on the table and getting a beer.
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
What I do about it is I vote Libertarian for every single Presidential election. I liked Ron Paul and probably would have voted for him if he were on the ticket. I also work and do my best to live my life in a peaceful manner and perpetrate force or fraud. AND I support libertarian causes and libertarian thought.
Despite the unfair level of taxes and regulations I face, I have yet to get to the point in my life where I face a Ghandian moment where I have to obey my conscience or government lockup.
I’m not a Christian so I don’t have Romans 13 on my conscience. But when I want to disobey government, it’s usually a matter of they are so incompetent that they aren’t going to catch me when I break the law — for instance when I “roll” through a Stop Sign without making a complete stop.
Report comment to moderator
That should have read:
“I also work [in an employment context] and do my best to live my life in a peaceful manner and NOT perpetrate force or fraud. AND I support libertarian causes and libertarian thought.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
“Christians have a God-given duty to pay their taxes and to submit to government even if it is tyrannical…”.
I nominate that as the most asinine statement I’ve ever read on this blog, except a few jibes by the atheists.
***
[This section of my post is for Jon; most of you others have heard my Tax Honesty pitch. Skip to below the asterisks to avoid boring repetition.]
Jon, puhleeeease! I don’t pay an income tax because the law doesn’t require me to. I also don’t pay nuclear waste disposal fees, airline transport pilot licensure renewal fees, or a subscription to Show Dog Quarterly. I don’t pay what doesn’t pertain to me. If you’re not up to speed with the estimated 67 million of us who are non-filers now, then go to my American Glasnost blog and study. It’s free.
Christians don’t have a God-given duty to be sit there with a finger up their nostril as their house is ransacked, Jon. I’ve debunked the false “render unto Caesar” position on other threads here; also on my American Glasnost blog (link below).
I pay all my taxes, and I don’t pay income taxes or subscription fees to the dogshow magazine. Or the nuclear waste fees, and such.
I submit to all authorities; in the matter of income taxes, the authority is the Tax Code. Please contact your employees Michael Thomas or Nancy Sessions at IRS Austin; Beverly Coogan or Aaron Hamor at IRS San Antonio; Dennis Parizek or Deborah Egan at IRS Ogden; Teresa Webb at IRS Memphis; Stephanie Borop or Queen Vaughn at IRS Nashville. Ask them if I’ve failed to duly submit to the law in the least manner.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer. In the eleven years I’ve been a law-abiding Nontaxpayer, all of those D.C. al Qaeda operatives have engaged in willful tax honesty evasion by sending me boilerplate non-responses of two kinds:
1) “we haven’t finished our research; we’ll get back to you”, or
2) “we forwarded your request to the office shown below”
Remember that game from the playground, “hot potato”? Tax Code Section 7214(a) calls it extortion and puts up to 5 years’ imprisonment on the IRS perp for doing it.
So I don’t pay a cent, and they haven’t touched me or my stuff even though I corresponded all the time until they got quiet about three years ago.
***
Jon, let’s stay on the subject. Butcherous Lincoln, and how we can recover what he stole from us all, Black and White and Brown and Yellow Americans and our once-sovereign States, CREATORS of the federal power that now controls everything in the Taxpayers’ home.
The reason I brought the Taxpayer back into this is, you simply can’t avoid it, Jon. Taxpayer homes live in one political and economic America. Nontaxpayers live in another. It’s similar to, but far more impactful than, the dichotomy between corporate workers and the self-employed; between those who put their kids on a yellow bus to the Citizen Indoctrination Center, and those who raise their own kids at home.
The IRS ’slavery’ may not be actual chains, but it is tyranny nonetheless because it is fraud and extortion, neither of which is legal. You position — that the Christian’s duty is to suffer tyranny willingly — may have cachet in Pakistan or North Korea, but not here. No one is above the law, Jon; ESPECIALLY those who swear to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution’ before they draw their first paycheck!
So. If you’re game, we’ll discuss the high crimes and misdemeanors of almost every member of the US Congress for the past century and a half, but we’ll even leave the poor People out of it. We’ll restrict ourselves to the ‘enslavement’ of the sovereign States by our federal creature, and what We the People can do about it.
And if Marvin insists, we’ll even do it all in memory of Abe Lincoln, that god-among-men…“Captain, My Captain!! (Gag me with a plumber’s helper…)
http://www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I thought you were Christian; all the platitudes and such, you had me fooled.
I think libertarians are just plain daft. You ride in the draft of a rule of law that would never have come into existence under your school of thought. Libertarianism is utopian hogswallop.
Forget the diputation; let’s not waste these folks’ time.
Ron Paul is a nice guy; a real Will Rogers. But he is a pied piper for every loon on the Left and Right. Voting and politics can do nothing at this point of retrogression. You may not like government, but the Constitution is still the best on earth, and needs to be enforced.
By THE PEOPLE.
In an orderly, peaceful, lawful, local manner.
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
DM,
I go out of my WAY to be fair towards orthodox biblical theology. That’s probably why you thought I was a Christian. For the record, my personal views on sexual and many moral matters are way too libertine for orthodox Christianity. And were I to become a Christian, it would probably be of the liberal cafeteria type as espoused by the Unitarian Universalists, Episcopalians or the Quakers. And then folks on these threads might say that this isn’t “real Christianity.” But I’m not. And I don’t defend that stuff as “biblical” or “Christian.” I have no problem, for instance, with such notions as the Bible forbids homosexuality, adultery, and also (with rare almost no exception) divorce.
The Bible also forbids political revolt and demands believers submit to whatever political authorities are in charge, EVEN if ytrannical and enslaving. See Romans 13. And EVERY other part of the Bible, properly understood, is consistent with Romans 13 admonishment to submit government no matter WHO THEY ARE. In Paul’s case he told believers to submit to the tyrannical pagan psychopath Nero. Revolt is as categorically forbidden as homosexuality.
On the matter of taxes, you might be on proper Romans 13 biblical grounds if you can prove the governing positive law proves your case. Good luck. The way the system works in the United States is Courts have the final say over how to interpret the positive law and they don’t see things the way you do.
Report comment to moderator
If you live in North Korea by the way, you would have only two duties as a Christian that could lead you to disobey that government. 1) The government tried to stop you from preaching the gospel and 2) the government is COMMANDING you to sin (like telling you to make a homosexual porn movie). ONLY in those two instances can biblical Christians disobey ANY act of government, no matter how tyrannical. AND in NO instance can biblical Christians revolt or refuse to submit to government. If for instance you preach the gospel in a communist nation that makes it illegal to do so, it is the Christians’ biblical duty to accept the legitimacy of the government, submit to its legal punishment no matter what it is even if execution or being thrown to the Lions.
Report comment to moderator
No, sir…good luck to YOU. Why would a court be deciding what I say, one way or the other? News flash, Jon: to end up in a courtroom, you have to sue or be sued civilly, or you must violate a law. I don’t violate the Tax Code, so I don’t have to “prove” anything. THAT is how our system works.
One would think a Libertarian, of all people, wouldn’t be rattling his rubber saber as you’ve done here. Look, if you just want company in your misery, I’m sure you have plenty in these parts. I’m a happy Nontaxpayer, and intend to stay in that category, thanks.
I’ve just given you a list of IRS personnel, and the offices in which they work, with whom I have been in contact over an 11-year period. None of them has ever talked about me “revolting” or not “submitting to government”. I obey the Tax Code, period.
Let me ask you two questions:
1) have you ever read the Internal Revenue Code?
2) have you ever even SEEN A COPY of it, Jon?
I’ll bet the answer is “no” to both questions. “Governing positive law”, indeed.
If you’d like to speak a bit more intelligently on this subject, please, Jon. Read the Tax Honesty Primer. I wrote it for comprehension by 8th year home-taught kids. I promise you’ll get it. I don’t care if you keep spouting Libertarian platitudes and cowering in corners from your crooked employees. But read, Jon.
In America, we don’t have Caesars, or “ruling” authorities in the form of men with whips. Or as you say, with lions. We have the rule of law, and EVERYbody has to obey the authorities, Einstein.
Sorry, I fly off the handle a bit when someone makes me run through the same principle four times, and still doesn’t grasp it…and then preaches at me about obeying laws he’s never seen.
http://www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Distinguo.
I said, “News flash, Jon: to end up in a courtroom, you have to sue or be sued civilly, or you must violate a law.”
Let me clarify that one can also end up in a courtroom as a juror, an expert witness, a judge, a spectator, a court transcriber, or counsel. (Did I miss anyone?)
But you know what I mean. Don’t give me this “you’ll end up in court” threat. That discounted terrorist tactic fell flat a long, long time ago with most Nontaxpayers.
That emperor is nekkid.
So we’re back to Lincoln — the bloodiest and most criminal president in American history — and how We the People can help our Sovereign States to finally start cleaning up the disaster that the D.C. al Qaeda has made of our constitutional republic since that butcher was shot, sic semper tyrannis.
But like I said before, old Abe was mostly a good guy. About like old Mohammed, just a prince of a feller.
http://www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Your posts 64 and 65 are truer than most Christians would word it–good overview.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Cheryl.
DM,
I’m not going to defend the tax code or the system we have and indeed I’d agree with you that it’s “tyrannical.” However, when you don’t file for taxes based on your understanding of governing tax law, that’s a recipe for the US govt deeming you a tax criminal if caught. I know it sucks. But that’s the way it is. If you don’t make a whole lot of $$ you are likely to go beneath their radar screen. But if you make millions, you’ll end up like Wesley Snipes or Kent Hovid.
On the matter of whether I’ve read the thing, well yes…or an abridged version of it in the late 90s. I am an attorney and took a tax law class in law school based on the tax code and court interpretations thereof in which I got an A minus.
Report comment to moderator
#8
Slavery was permitted by an omission in the constitution. That is wrong. It is not as wrong as abortion, lying, or homosexuality.
I am always learning new things by reading worldmagblog.
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s hilarious that people think the bible forbids slavery. Abraham was a righteous man and he had slaves. So did Philemon. Would these men be barred from your churches today? I’m sure they would. Like it or not, the Bible regulates slavery just as it does marriage or any other aspect of God’s Law. The apostle Paul actually instructs slaves to obey their masters. NT, folks! Why would Paul instruct slaves to obey their masters (remember Paul is speaking under the INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST) if slavery is an evil in and of itself?
Report comment to moderator
Bring back slavery!
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You may be an attorney, but if you were a tax attorney and made the preposterous assertions you’ve made in post #69, you’d be very, very dangerous.
My website lays out the Tax Code sections and emposes to the reader, the many semantic traps and triggers that Congress used for two generations before computer technology allowed citizens to data-mine the Code; find those fraud triggers.
Look, the “service” currently recommends EIGHT times as many filers for indictment, as it recommends non-filers. That was on Commissioner Everson’s report card on the IRS’s own website as of 2006. Since they estimated in 2005 that there were 67 million non-filers, and the generally acknowledged number of filers is about 110 million, that means a filer is 400% more likely to end up like Wesley Snipes, than a non-filer.
I play it safe; I obey the Tax Code. Your ‘Caesar’ is made of straw, counselor.
But my real point in the earlier comments has been lost: that with respect to God, Lincoln was America’s own Mohammed, and with respect to the Constitution, Lincoln and his Hamiltonian handlers invented classical fascism two generations before Giovanni Gentile suggested that wicked form of government/industry alliance to Benito Mussolini.
Lincoln was a very wicked man; it’s fitting that he was so hideous of visage.
And counselor, please don’t talk through your hat about tax law. It isn’t fitting.
David M Zuniga
http://www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Provost: Slavery was permitted by an omission in the constitution. That is wrong. It is not as wrong as abortion, lying, or homosexuality.
Wait, so two women having a sexual relationship is more wrong than owning other human beings as property?
This place gets weirder every day.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca,
Please don’t do the Doug Wilson imitation. Please.
If one proposes that by the Bible’s merely describing the human reality of slavery, God condones the practice, then one must logically extend that twisted ethical theology to polygamy, and to wiping out the elderly, non-combatants, children, and animals in times of war.
I know you’re silly, but don’t be TOO silly, sis.
Report comment to moderator
David,
I’ll take my chances and continue to file my taxes every year.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
We Christians take the Bible at face value. In the first chapter of his letter to the new Christian church at Rome, the apostle Paul walks through the progression of sin in the human heart.
Most Christians today just blow off Romans 1; they totally forget that sexual perversion is a RESULT, it is a JUDGMENT of God. It is not a catalysing sin, but a resulting one.
The catalyst is described in verse 21; the rebel refuses to acknowledge God, and to give Him His due glory. In verses 24, 26, 28 and following, Paul describes the retrogression…first into deeper spiritual darkness, then into perversity of every kind, then into insanity, and finally into the defense of such practices and incitement of others to join in the “gay” parade.
The perversion is not the root; it’s a result, and a judgement of God. Trying to “overcome homosexuality” by praying it away, is like trying to “overcome obesity” by praying it away. A fool’s errand.
If the rebel refuses to get things straight about God, all the other stuff rushes in like sewage into a septic tank. Place God in His proper place (really, honestly in your heart) and the sexual deviancy and other perverse and hard things, will be conquered. Over time. By His grace.
I’m not trying to win you over to anything; you do exactly what you want. I’m telling you how things are in the universe, according to the Bible, my authority for the universe. What you do is your business.
And no, I don’t think the civil magistrate has any business at all telling any individual what they can do in private, whether it’s the sexual deviant or the wayward husband. But the minute people start flaunting sin in public, the civis — the civilisation — has a vested interest, and laws are appropriate.
But even that should be a matter for the States, and for individual communities. And of course you already see much of this in operation; I assure you that all the people of Muleshoe, TX are happy with their local ordinances on sexual deviancy of all kinds, just as the people of San Francisco are.
That’s a good system, because we’re told in Scripture that Christ sorts them out, long before the coroner and the worms in the casket begin their work.
Report comment to moderator
Yes SteveG,
Do you realise how much we are property today? Slavery is a human condition. Our masters provide healthcare, a ’safety’ net, and a protection from terrorism with the patriot act. They tax about half our income annually. They force our children into thirteen years of reality deprivation which we are supposed to believe is good for them. They steal children away from families and say they’ll be better off in foster care. They even ensure we have television as a sedative. They pretend to allow us a voice, though all presidents spring from the same ivy league, and the mysterious judges pretend that a right to abortion is permitted by the constitution. And you think we are free?
Depravity ruins your own soul. It is undoubtedly worse than being enslaved. “What profit is it to gain the whole world and lose your soul?”
Depravity
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I nowhere suggested that you should not pay whatever you like to the IRS. I just couldn’t let your uninformed suggestion stand, that Nontaxpayers are violating laws or in danger of prison. Filers are in 400% more danger, according to IRS’s own year-end reports.
You go ahead and keep self-assessing and filing and paying. It’s a free country. I’m trying to help you follow the money in American history, since Lincoln instituted fascism.
I think the Tax Code and the IRS can remain exactly as they are; as more Americans learn that Congress has been running a RICO operation since 1913 but the Tax Code itself is okay, they’ll learn to ignore the corrupt politician’s next trap: “the Tax Code is too big! No one understands it! We need the Fairy Tax!”
When the number of Nontaxpayers reaches perhaps half the total working population, then it will be a contest of wills between you serfs, and us free citizens. You will join the DC al Qaeda in calling for your Fairy Tax, and we Nontaxpayers will have none of it. We don’t WANT any ‘revenue neutral’ $3,000,000,000,000 per year federal Leviathan. We’re winning, and we intend to KEEP winning on defense. And God willing, we’re going on offense soon.
So assess yourself, Jon. Pay what you like. But don’t try to force us 67 million non-filers and law-abiding Nontaxpayers to join you in that boat! If it gets tougher for you, go attack the problem, not your free neighbors.
Our mission is to get our Constitution back; to put America’s Mohammed in his proper place in America’s presidential pantheon; and to keep you Taxpayers out of our bank accounts.
Taxpayers pay, Taxspenders spend.
Nontaxpayers live.
http://www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
“Provost”,
Stuff and nonsense, bro.
“Do you realise how much we are property today? Slavery is a human condition. Our masters provide healthcare, a ’safety’ net, and a protection from terrorism with the patriot act. They tax about half our income annually…”
Not in MY household; none of those things apply.
“They force our children into thirteen years of reality deprivation which we are supposed to believe is good for them.”
Wow…really? So home-based education of one’s own kids is illegal in your State? If so, are you being FORCED to live in that State, then? Wow.
“They even ensure we have television as a sedative…”
Wow; in your town they lock people in front of TV sets? Where I live, TVs have an off switch. Lots of people in my circles (conservative Christian, teaching our own kids and grandkids; avid readers) haven’t even owned a TV for years.
“They pretend to allow us a voice, though all presidents spring from the same ivy league, and the mysterious judges pretend that a right to abortion is permitted by the constitution. And you think we are free?
In my entire lifetime, no American president has ever determined any aspect of my life or of my family’s life. I don’t care what colleges the presidents come from; they’re puppets and figureheads, and have been since time out of mind.
And yes, I don’t think I’m free; I KNOW it. I wouldn’t trade my family’s life in Texas with anyone else’s on this earth.
David
Report comment to moderator
Good luck, DMZUNIGA. The feds may become irrate when they find you’ve not been paying your full taxes. (Either that or I misjudged the rate, but given income, property, and sales it seems right.)
Report comment to moderator
DMZuniga: If one proposes that by the Bible’s merely describing the human reality of slavery, God condones the practice, then one must logically extend that twisted ethical theology to polygamy, and to wiping out the elderly, non-combatants, children, and animals in times of war.
And your point?
The Bible God does condone all those things. In some cases he commands it or even helps make it happen. And never speaks one word of condemnation about any of them, as long as it’s His Israelites coming out on top.
Report comment to moderator
Actually SteveG he forbids such things.
Specific instances are permitted by only as specific instances. You should read your Bible more carefully.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca – I’ve read that the kind of slavery that is referenced in the Bible & the kind of slavery practiced in the U.S. were 2 different things. For one thing, African slaves were stolen/kidnapped from their homes & sold to slave traders. Also, I’m not sure, but I think slavery in the U.S. was more brutal & dehumanizing than the kind mentioned in the Bible.
However, I do believe taking all the teachings of the Bible into consideration would lead one to see that any kind of slavery is not good.
And, Bianca, you went too far with your Talkie Tina comment. Now I’m gonna have nightmares!
Report comment to moderator
“Provost”,
The ‘feds’ can become as irrate [sic] as they like when I tell them to pound sand. I say the same to the vinyl siding salesman, and I’m sure he’s not happy either.
I pay “my full taxes”, and that’s it. You give ‘em anything you like. If you log onto my American Glasnost website and scroll down to the article But What About Roads and Schools? you’ll also learn that the urban legend you’ve always believed — that “your taxes” skimmed off your checks by Congress do NOT pay for one penny of roads, parks, military, or any other cockamamie thing you thought they paid for.
The Reagan-era Grace Commission Report made that very clear. Fully 100% of the income taxes you pay, goes to the Federal Reserve banking cartel for interest payments on their counterfeiting concession. That’s not my theory or belief; that’s the Grace Commission’s report to President Reagan.
So if you think it’s your duty to pay for diesel fuel, caviar, and the masseuse’s salary for some banker’s megayacht…or for repair of the thrust reversers on his aging jet, I suppose all of that CAN be seen as ‘infrastructure’, after a fashion. Hey, Federal Reserve stockholders and their masseuses need to live too, you know? So I guess the Taxpayer is doing his fair share.
You just knock yourself out, big guy.
http://www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, “Provost”. That’s called a smackdown and here you’re already taking your “stimulus” in the rear from the D.C. al Qaeda. I didn’t mean to be mean. If I knew your name, I’d apologise to you, but here…I’ll apologise to your pseudonymous Taxpayer proxy.
Peace and love.
David
Report comment to moderator
Provost, I’ve read my Bible quite thoroughly, studiously and completely over many years. God sets rules for how the Israelites are to buy, sell and treat their slaves. They are relatively humane rules compared to the way other cultures may have treated slaves, but if God is regulating the practice rather than forbidding it, he is condoning it.
Many of the Bible’s heroes have multiple wives and in at least one case, God declares (to David, via the prophet Nathan) that he, God, gave David wives, plural. If God is taking part in being sure one of his people have several wives, and not forbidding it, he is condoning it.
And as the Israelities are conquering Canaan, those who are leading them — appointed by God — frequently order them to exterminate the people. In some cases they’re allowed to keep the virgin girls as spoils of war. (Deut. 20:10-20 has both slavery and genocide directly commanded by God.)
Come on, don’t insult my intelligence. All of this is in there, in plain English no matter which translation you use. I’m sure there are some impressive mental gymnastics you can find in some book of apologetics to demand that these passages don’t mean what they clearly do mean, but you should be embarrassed to use them.
Report comment to moderator
84 – LOL Actually the Dummy episode where Willy tries to turn Jerry into the dummy and himself into the ventriloquist is more nightmarish than TT IMO. Willy’s creepy!!
Report comment to moderator
TT was at least defending Tina against her stepfather. Willy was just mean!
Report comment to moderator
Anything with inanimate objects coming alive & talking is creepy to me.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G,
No one on this thread insulted your intelligence, but you’ve displayed your ignorance of Christianity.
After Christ died for mankind, the Old Testament ceased to be God’s way of dealing with men. If you think God was unfair to people 3,500 years ago, you can go fight those battles in your time machine.
The ‘true Israel of God’ is now comprised of spiritual Israel — those who believe in the Christ, who receive His redemptive gift and who turn from their past. A new creature, as the letter to the church at Colossae put it.
You’re tilting at windmills and knocking down straw men, as do all the atheists and Libertarians and other such. Christ did not condone slavery, nor wiping out entire villages (though I stand corrected by your earlier point, that God the Father DID indeed call for wiping out an entire tribe of Israel’s enemies on a few occasions — even non-combatants, babies, and livestock).
This doesn’t bother me because it’s an ethical nullity; God could wipe out the entire earth right now, and be fully within His rights.
Once freed of this mortal coil, every human being will have opportuniity to ask such questions. The Christians may not care to ask them, absorbed as we will surely be, in the glories of this universe. The unbelievers may ask them, for all eternity without answer, and such unrequited curiosity will be the least of the torments they face, I’m sure.
Sad? Absolutely; but it’s the price of free will.
Report comment to moderator
And boy howdy, Abraham Lincoln is in eternal torment now and forever, if any human being is.
Still, America’s Mohammed can take some little comfort, watching all those American public school kids worshipping his huge statue in D.C. al Qaeda’s outdoor pantheon.
Report comment to moderator
After Christ died for mankind, the Old Testament ceased to be God’s way of dealing with men. If you think God was unfair to people 3,500 years ago, you can go fight those battles in your time machine.
I thought God was unchanging, and that God the Son and God the Father were the same.
You worship (you think) the God who at one time condoned these things, AND you claim he never did. ut you fall back on the old “God can do anything he wants and it’s right by definition” dodge. It’s a good way to avoid having to really think about what you believe.
It’s not me who needs to read the Bible more closely.
Report comment to moderator
True. Your parents should have read it more closely.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how it is you think that insulting my parents is either appropriate or helpful.
Must be that Christian love in action again.
Report comment to moderator
#87 Steve G
…but you should be embarrassed to use them.
Not much seems to embarrass the people who post at worldmagblog.
I often ask people why they post here. The answer may be:
Where else can I find a bunch of people who believe as strange stuff as I do and who pretend to take my nonsense seriously if I pretend to do the same for them?
By the way, DMZ, why do you post messages at worldmagblog?
Report comment to moderator
Hi Random Name:
When you allude to “strange,” that implies a “normal.” What is “normal”?
Report comment to moderator
94 – I agree, Brother David.
Report comment to moderator
I seem to hear random buzzing…
Oh look! A gnat, species pseudonymus randomii!
Rare little buggers.
http://www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Steve G,
Just because I spanked you, doesn’t mean I don’t love you. You’ll understand when you have children of your own, dear. No clean your nose…
Report comment to moderator
Wait!
I meant to type “NOW clean your nose!!” rather than “No clean your nose”.
Okay, go on. Clean it.
***
You know what’s really excellent? We hav right on this thread the perfect contemporary illustration of how easy it must have been for Dishonest Abe to have done his ‘godly’ thing for the masses, a la Bill Clinton.
I mean, was old Abe a Christian? Absolutely not. But did he talk a better game, or know as much of the Bible, chaptr and verse, as old Jon Rowe here…or Steve G.?
Nope. See how easy it is to fool folks? The chicken-hearted, nameless cipher who just posted above? Who claims it’s cool to defraud people online, and wear it like a badge of honor?
I think that’s what Abe ibn Mohammed Lincoln was like; you just didn’t see him in action. So when Christians worship him, you kinda fall in line.
Stupid is as stupid does.
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
http://www.americascaesar.com/
Report comment to moderator
Or as Billy Sunday said, “A sinner can repent but stupid is forever!”
Report comment to moderator
DMZ,
Are you sure your name isn’t “Virgil Kane”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjE_bxFi6hs&feature=related
Report comment to moderator
Abe ibn Mohammed Lincoln
This blog continues to attract its own special breed of crazy.
Report comment to moderator
#97 “Yeah”
When you allude to “strange,” that implies a “normal.” What is “normal”?
I don’t know, “Yeah.” I doubt either of us would see it if we looked in a mirror, or recognize it if it bumped into us on the street.
Report comment to moderator
#99 DMZ
When I first started posting on wmb in an unusual (i.e. non-conservative Christian manner), some people called me a “troll.” Others differed. I explained that I was not a troll, but a “pest.”
As I’ve already labeled myself a pest, you are not very original in calling me a gnat. Please try to come up with an original insult.
By the way, do you really avoid filing your income taxes? Are you quite sure now that the “democratic” socialists have seized power from the “republican” socialists that policies will not change and perhaps you will be made an example of?
Will Laredo, Texas provide haven just in case the statists change their mind about what they will tolerate? There are 66 Zunigas in the Laredo phone book, so there may be safety in numbers, though only two Zunigas whose first name starts with “D.” It may be that the IRS does not care. Please keep us posted.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name: Surely he would be smart enough to use a pseudonym before confessing to a crime in writing on a public forum.
… maybe not though.
Report comment to moderator
A pseudonym, Steve? This is America, champ; people like you and the random wonder can’t change that!
If I shared your ethic, or your lack of spine, maybe I’d use a fake name. But I like the one my mother gave me, thanks.
Hey! I have an idea!! Since you think I’m using a fake name and confessing to crimes and stuff, why don’t you serve your country!!? Here’s what you do. You print out copies of what I’ve written about Tax Honesty on this blog — you know, the “crime” you’ve discovered me committing on a public forum — to the following folks that I’ve corresponded with?
Michael Thomas or
Nancy Sessions
IRS Austin
Beverly Coogan or
Aaron Hamor
IRS San Antonio
Dennis Parizek or
Deborah Egan
IRS Ogden
Teresa Webb
IRS Memphis
Stephanie Borop or
Queen Vaughn
IRS Nashville
Your note can read something like this. Maybe they’ll give you a break on your next tax bill!
“Hey guys: is David M. Zuniga violating the tax laws by not filing stuff and telling you to go pound sand for the past 11 years? I think he is. So can you please show him the section of law making him (or the average American living and working in one of the 50 States and not working for federal government or engaged in alcholol, tobbacco, firearms, explosives, merchant shipping, of the other activities specifically called out in the Tax Code) legally liable for keeping records, filing returns, and paying your demands? David M. Zuniga says he’ll pay your demands including any penalties or interest because he doesn’t want to break laws. Can you please show him, huh?”
Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer. In the eleven years I’ve been a law-abiding Nontaxpayer, all of the above-named D.C. al Qaeda operatives have engaged in willful tax honesty evasion by sending me these two boilerplate non-responses:
1) “we haven’t finished our research; we’ll get back to you”
or
2) “we forwarded your request to the office shown below”
On the playground, that’s called hot potato. In Tax Code section 7214(a), it’s called extortion and in Texas Penal Code 32.48 it’s called criminal fraud.
Something has to be wrong either way. After 11 years of me making demands of them and them running in circles, they haven’t touched me or my bank accounts, or my cars or house. Even though I correspond all the time.
So something’s definitely not right, don’t you think?
Okay, Gnat and Steve, break out your envelopes and stamps!
http://www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Errata:
Sp. should have been…”alcohol, tobacco”.
Report comment to moderator
DMZUNIGA: your posts are boring as !@#$.
Report comment to moderator
Now after these bunny trails and buzzing gnats, back on subject!
Scroll up and look at the photograph of Dishonest Abe. Not only was he Fraudly-godly, but Lord have mercy, have you ever seen a more dog-ugly public figure?
The reason I like to occasionally call him Abrahim ibn Mohammed Lincoln is that it’s fitting. An entire nation of government-school kids praise and worship a supposedly “godly” man whose heart was palpably godless, according to those who knew him best…and whose lasting legacy is butchery of his own people on an unprecedented scale.
Those who praise and worship the memory of that butcher are akin to old Soviets. Propaganides citizens who will go to their graves praising Joe Stalin, regardless of facts.
Chances are, you’re a victim of brainwashing about what happened to America under Lincoln. You must begin to learn the truth, because the fascist combination of government, military, and corporations BEGAN WITH LINCOLN. The causes of, and key players in, Lincoln’s “shock-and-awe” campaign against this nation has never been adequately studied.
But take heart, especially if you teach your children at home! There are now, more than ever, copious resources that you can use to dig for truth — very painful truth — about what happened to our Constitution, and to the 34 (now 50) sovereign States, in the period 1861-65.
Of the many recent reprints and exposes of The Butcher of Illinois, I can recommend the following:
Abraham Lincoln: Was He a Christian?
John E. Remsburg (reprint; orig. 1893)
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
Thomas DiLorenzo (2003)
Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe
T. DiLorenzo (2007)
The Real Lincoln
Charles L.C. Minor (reprint; orig. 1927)
America’s Caesar
Greg L. Durand (2 vol expanded ed.; 1072 pgs.)
***
That last volume is the best of all; it includes extensive primary source excerpts also found in Remsburg, Minor, and many, many others.
The reader has to wade through Durand’s rabid Confederate baloney(modern Confederacy fanatics make all us Southerners look stupid) but Durand’s massive volume of primary-source quotations makes the book worthwhile. Moreover, he offers a free online edition for research purposes.
‘Southrons’ are what the old Soviets used to call useful idiots. They’re determined to focus on what happened 150 years ago — and on splitting the republic up into warring factions forever. Of course, this was the plan of Mr. Lincoln’s masters all those years ago, and they’ve done well with the strategy.
Instead of looking backward to a monstrous president and his handlers, I look forward, praying that the America Again! 535-city tactical project will one day restore the sovereign States; establish Citizen’s Homeland Security Associations (local militias) again, and restore to We the People what Abrahim ibn Mohammed Lincoln stole from us all.
I appreciate Marvin Olasky raising this important issue, religious hypocrisy in an American president, on the 200th anniversary of that monster’s birth.
But like I said: other than that, Lincoln was a great man.
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
http://www.americascaesar.com
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy,
Hope you like that one better. Not as boring as the Tax Honesty stuff.
David
Report comment to moderator
Abraham Lincoln is still Number ONE you can click the name of any President and get more information.
Report comment to moderator
Heh…
And Mohammed is still #1 in all Muslim lands.
What DO they teach at those government schools?
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I’m agreeing with you. Stalin was great, Mao was great, and Hitler was great. Mohammed was great, too.
The man who killed the Constitution for 148 years (so far) was truly great. He was a GREAT big, bloody monster is all.
Report comment to moderator
116 – Amen!!!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
Sorry about insulting your intelligence. I get carried away…
All men are mortal, Provost is a man, you know…
Now, plain english without mental gymnastics.
Regulating something is not the same as condoning. The people responsible for tobacco laws sure are not in favor of smoking. People on this blog who don’t believe in either criminalizing homosexuality or approving gay marriage hardly support it. God regulating slavery hardly equals approval. Same on polygamy. Because you’ve got a good point on the part about the prophet Nathan, I’m going to dismiss it as a cover all for God saying he already provided for David’s needs in a legal manner.
I’ll also admit that the thought of committing genocide on a bunch of Caananites makes me queasy. Note though that such is a specific instance, and that there is no blanket covering for the like. Culturally, the Israelites were much less averse to bloodshed so I doubt it bothered them much.
Report comment to moderator
By the way DZMUNIGA:
None of the ambrotypes of Lincoln I’ve seen had little red demons slithering out of his mouth or into his ears. Christianity is about forgiveness and atonement, so it’s somewhat innapropriate to equate Lincoln’s policies with his salvation, especially considering his late conversion.
I’m sure he thought he was doing the right thing. Waging war isn’t universally wrong, so no “Honest Adolf thought he was doing the right thing.”
Report comment to moderator
“Provost”,
Tolle, lege.
I gave you a list of resources to help you disabuse yourself of Lincoln worship.
If you read any two of the books I listed, and follow up into the primary source documents you will, like me, understand that Lincoln is in a class by himself: the most destructive American president.
You’re welcome to believe whatever you like, however.
http://www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
#108
As someone with lots of attitude (some here say, too much) I am always impressed by someone who strives (and no doubt succeeds) to outdo me.
If you are indeed perfectly at ease in your claim to not filing your income taxes (something we can’t verify, even though we supposedly know that you are one of the scores of Zunigas in Laredo), I am not going to fret. There are indeed greater criminals running amok in Washington, D.C and on Wall Street in New York City every minute of the hour for me to fret about your supposed crimes, unless they exceed $1,000,000. I doubt anybody whose tax would exceed that amount is spending time posting silly messages on worldmagblog.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!