Historical
See other Historical Articles
Title: The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered
Source:
ChuckBaldwinLive
URL Source: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Article ... -To-Be-Raised-Not-Lowered.aspx
Published: Jul 10, 2015
Author: Chuck Baldwin
Post Date: 2015-07-10 23:10:37 by Hondo68
Keywords: None
Views: 10053
Comments: 65
In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken. History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today. Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy! In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks. And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century--long before the southern states even considered such a thing. People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable. People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it. Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out. One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.” The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865. Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person's held to labor or service by laws of said State.” You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.” Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense! The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today. This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown--albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO! In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.” What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery. Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery--so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861. Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.” Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery. Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.” The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln. On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.” Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people--even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one. Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.” Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States? It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence--policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy--and they might have a notion to again resist. By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South. I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine? That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.” Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North. In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED. Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that. If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE! By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully--just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.” And look at what is happening now: in one instant--after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag--the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not. The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland. In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race. Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.” Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here: Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865. Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it. Poster Comment:
The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
It is clear God hates Confederates.
The Southern States had the right to secede. But Southern people had no right to have slaves. And everybody in the world has the right to attack and kill anybody who keeps a slave. So, the Union had no right to wage war on the South to preserve the Union. That was not a legitimate cause. But abolitionists had the right to shoot down slavers, and anybody who defended slavers, because people who have slaves have no right to have them, and no right to live as long as they have them. The South seceded to protect its culture and institutions, the heart of which was slavery. The whole world had the right to invade the South and kill as many slavers as it took to end slavery. And if other Southerners took up arms to defend the slavers, well, then the world had the right to shoot them down to get at the slavers, just exactly as the cops have the right to shoot down people who surround violent criminals to try to protect them. By protecting the criminal, you become a criminal yourself. Secession was not a crime against the Constitution. That was a political lie told by the Union politicians. Keeping slaves was always a crime against God and man, and ending that justified all of the killing and destruction. Had the South seceded and then freed the slaves, there would have been no righteousness in the Northern cause. But the South seceded to preserve slavery from encroachment. That didn't give the Union government the right to wage war, but it gave abolitionists the right to do so. And they did. And they won. And that's a good thing.
Your reply is illogical. If you believe that people have the right to invade and kill others because of slavery, you are wrong and maybe insane. Under your premise we should go everywhere in the world where people are oppressed and held as property and sacrifice our blood to force our views upon others. I seriously cannot see anything good that came from the deaths of 750,000 men. The slaves were not well served, the Constitution was destroyed, and we as a nation tried a much different path to equality for blacks than our European brothers. Their path was more peaceful and smoother, and the blacks are still treated better than those in America today. Yes Lincoln is responsible for the state of the Negroid people in America today, and he deserves the credit for all of their "success". Lincoln was a tyrant, his death cemented his legacy as a near Saint. If he had lived, he would have been seen as he really was, a grasping man with blood lust in his heart.
Love love LOVE this article.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I did not say that that, because people always have the RIGHT to attack others to end slavery, that we necessarily SHOULD do so. There is slavery in the Middle East and Islamic Africa, in particular. There's slavery in North Korea and China too. Were we to invade Africa over slavery, we'd end up having to try to govern the mess that is Africa, and we'd end up ultimately failing. If we attacked China over it, it would be the end of the world. There are practical limitations on taking action that go past the action merely being justified. It remains true, however, that everybody has the right to immediately attack anybody who keeps a slave anywhere, anytime, without negotiation, in order to free the slave. It would not be morally wrong to sweep through places where there is slavery and free the slaves and kill the slavers who didn't let the slaves go. And if some individuals over there go on a jihad against slavery and start freeing slaves, and killing slavers, that is perfectly justified. It will probably end up in the death of the liberator, just as John Brown's revolt, which was justified, ended in the death of John Brown. Where there is slavery, it is practiced by those of great power and wealth, and such people control the political and security forces. So any forcible abolition of slavery means a lot of bloodshed: people do not relinquish their power and status willingly. For pragmatic reasons, we don't go invading every country with slavery. But if we decided to do so, and we specifically based our war on freeing the slaves, we need no further justification than that to invade without warning, and immediately free the slaves, and to kill anybody who resisted us doing so, who fought for the slavers, or the slavers themselves, for defending themselves. Slavers don't have the right to defend their slavery. If they take up arms to defend themselves in the holding of their slaves, they are no different than the drug gang leader who takes up arms to defend himself against the cops. Slavers are vicious, mankilling dogs, and vicious mankilling dogs can always be shot without further ado. The Southern slavers deserved death, and many got the death they deserved. Anybody who stood up like a gang member to defend the slave kingpins likewise deserved death. More of the little folk who stood up for the slavers ended up getting death than the slavers themselves. But that's how it always works. Little people should not pledge their lives to fight for the causes of evil people, because little people are the cannon fodder in such causes. The deaths of all of those people in the Civil War was divine justice. America was a foul place, with a fifth of the population in chains as slaves. Slaves deserved instant freedom and payment for their labor. Neither North nor South had any intention of doing that. America connived at slavery, and so America was destroyed by the terrible swift sword of God's justice. God did indeed trample out the vineyard where the grapes of wrath were stored, from North to South. The whole country was guilty, and the whole country paid a calamitous price. Lincoln is not responsible for the condition of black slaves. The filthy pieces of human shit that all of the slavers were are 100% responsible for it, and they are paying for their guilt in hell.
Lincoln was a great POTUS. He preserved the Union.
For what reason outside of the fact that Lincoln was a tyrant blinded by silly ideas?
So when Putin preserves the Soviet UNION, will he then be a great man? Or will we see him as a tyrant?
Ideas that made the USA the greatest economic, industrial and technological power the world has seen.
During Lincoln's reign of tyrannical power, he destroyed America costing hundreds of thousands of lives. He created no ideas of inventiveness as you suggest, other than pure murder.
In case you haven't noticed, the Soviet Union no longer exists. The confederate states were never a country. http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/confederate-states-of-america
Lincoln destroyed nothing. He preserved a Union. The USA divided would never have prospered and grown. Individually the Republics may not have survived. http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/confederate-states-of-america
He shredded the Constitution and preserved slavery nationwide. Without a doubt, the worst president, and a war criminal.
Does insanity run in your family? Are you a slave?
The below graph clearly shows that you are either an ignorant fool or absolute dumbfuck: There were an estimated 1.5 million casualties reported during the Civil War.
You and Jefferson Davis have to live with that. Do you eat with that mouth?
Jefferson Davis died May 10, 1865; he was one of America' greatest statesmen. How do you think he is still alive?
I didn't state that he was alive. I'm through with you. You're obtuse or retarded.
bye bye troll
I escaped from the Tricky Dicky Plantation in the '60's.
When Paul in the Bible returned the slave Onesimus to his master Pheliemon, that slave was in his custody. Should Paul have been killed? What about Onesimus?
So Ulysses Grant should have been killed by a confederate if that confederate never owned a slave?
That doesn't square with this does it? Colossians 4:1 Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
In the 10 commandments it says thou shalt not kill. Is that outdated? Is there somewhere in the Bible that says thou shalt not kill except if they enslaved someone? Why isn't slavery in the 10 commandments? It must not be a top 10 issue. God in Leviticus said to kill the faggots. Since there are faggots around today. Does everybody in the world have the right to attack and kill everybody that is a faggot? I mean since the Bible talks about killing faggots but only says how to treat a slave? Also your position doesn't seem christian at all. Is it a christian belief or your own personal belief that over rules your belief in what the Bible teaches?
Paul did not return a slave in custody. The Scripture nowhere says that. Paul wrote in a letter, probably to be borne by Onesimus himself, that he was sending Onesimus back to Philemon, and that Philemon was to treat him as a brother. Onesimus, an escaped slave, in no wise deserved death whether he returned to Philemon with the letter or not. Upon being informed of the situation by Paul, Phiilemon was bound to treat Onesimus as a brother. If he instead treated him as a slave, then Philemon deserved death. Remember that not a letter of the law shall pass until the end of the world. What did God say about slavery? First: that the faithful (Hebrews) could never be enslaved by other Hebrews. This means that Onesimus could not rightly be kept as a slave by any Christian. Christians cannot keep Christians as slaves under the law of God. Every slaver who ever kept a Christian as a slave was directly flouting the law of God. Second:the law says that men who kidnap and sell men are to be put to death. So, what did that leave? Prisoners of war, and foreigners. And once purchased, they could convert. And if they convered, they could no longer be kept as unpaid slaves, but could only be kept as indentured servants for a term of years, and paid money for their labor on their release. The slave of the man of God always has freedom at his fingertips if he will submit to God. Finally, Jesus said to do unto others as one would have done unto himself, which limits the meaning of "slavery" to little more than a legal fiction. There's nowhere to hide on this issue. I am surprised that you are defending Christian slavery. It's evil.
Ulysses S Grant owned slaves. During the time period that he owned and held slaves, if somebody killed him to free the slave, it would have been justified, as would have a slave revolt against him. If a girl is held as a sex slave, and a neighbor finds out about it and kills the captor freeing the girl, that is justice. It's justice before God even if the law of the evil country says that a man can own a sex slave.
Masters have a master in Heaven. And that Master in heaven said in the law that the children of God could not keep other children of God as slaves. So, what Paul is saying here is true: the Christian master of a Christian slave doesn't have a slave, he has a brother, and he had to treat him justly and fairly, which by its nature obviates the badges and incidents of slavery beyond the bare fact of formal legal ownership. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
God did indeed say not to kill. And he commanded death for various crimes, including the crime of kidnapping and selling a man. God also forbade his people from keeping others of his people as slaves. And he prescribed eye for eye, tooth for tooth, stripe for stripe, burn for burn. There was no room under God's law for a child of God keeping another child of God as a slave. And it was death to steal and sell a man.
You seem to have skipped over all of the parts in the Bible that expressly prohibit what you teach. You uphold slavery of Christians -for that is what most black slaves in America were. God forbade people of God to enslave people of God. All slaves were to be freed at the Jubilee, which didn't happen either. You pick and choose among Scripture, and argue the Devil's position. Fortunately for you, you cannot actually act on it and keep a slave. Because if you did, you would end up in hell. Instead, you just argue for evil and attack the truth. Why? What does it gain you to argue Satan's view? Nothing. It gains you nothing. You do not gain favor with God for defending slavery. You do not spread truth. And you do not gain favor with men - slavery was destroyed long ago. It's an argument you need to lose quickly., for your own good. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I'm not for slavery it is wrong obviously. I just take issue with you saying that you have a right to murder someone.
How is "slavery" wrong? As an example: the US Government forces US Citizens to take Washington DC crap year after year while forcing them to pay tribute. The US Citizen has been relegated to being nothing more than a tax slave. How is this wrong when it is written as the law of the land?
I don't disagree with that.
Being a slave to a government is good, in your opinion?
Buck, being a slave is never good.
The unconstitutional form of government we have now is terrorism. Pay us what we're demanding and obey our edicts, or you and your family will get hurt! Have a nice day.... The D&R Party
Actually the individual states were sovereigns who gave up only specific powers and authority to a the collective. The collective, that beast we now call the Fed usurped and overstepped their bond and word. The States were as much within their rights as the tribes. Frankly, the tribes are treated better today, than the State authorities. WE ALL should be treated as a sovereign that is in a "treaty" agreement with other States and people. When this treaty is breached, it is broken and no longer valid.
The States were as much within their rights They formed a republic. Where did the states gain or receive "rights"?
The States never gave up their right to be a sovereign, it was taken incrementally, usually by bribery. Like 50 votes in the Federal collective, they had power and loaned some to the collective in ONLY certain situations. There is no power given by the agreement, a treaty if you will between the states for the Federal govt to assume power over education. They have no right to police powers within anywhere other than federal land. They have no right to hold any more land than is necessary for the functions they are given under the US Constitution. Active military bases and training facilities for examples. Using a spy agency like the CIA/NSA domestically is or was illegal. Trying State citizens in federal court on "federal weapons charges" is another breach of the balance of power, unless a law was broken on Federal land. As far as I am concerned, National parks are also an abomination to our Republic. That land belongs to the States and should be ceded back to it. Another huge overstep was in creating Medicare, ACA, or taking control of the State National Guard. The country does not need a "Daddy govt" to micromanage. It needs a collective govt to defend us in times of war, to make trade policy to benefit the US citizens. To set and raise taxes, set up courts to rule over federal property crimes and protect individuals from our "rights" as written and assumed to be under "natural law".
The unconstitutional form of government we have now is terrorism. Pay us what we're demanding and obey our edicts, or you and your family will get hurt! Have a nice day.... Kookifornia Where do you WILLINGLY and INTENTIONALLY live, Hondo? lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You and I don't make or interpret the laws, treaties, rules or regulations.
We as citizens of a State determine whether or not those we have contracted with under specific terms are holding up their end of the bargain. WE have a duty to re-form or opt out when the terms of a contract are violated. WE have a duty to petition our States and demand that they protect us from overreach of the Federal government courts, or laws passed by Congress. We used to have Senators who could be counted on to represent the States. We had that stolen from us by amendment, and now we only have the chains of the national government, or hope for our State to begin to take back its natural power. If a union is a consensual agreement under certain terms, we have a right to "divorce" ourselves from the body that violates those terms. It is not a forever agreement, NO MATTER WHAT. The feds violate the terms, we are no longer beholden to them either. Simple logic, and application of law as it is understood by anyone not looking to side politically one way or another.
Then why do so few states abide by and enforce the 2nd Amendment?
You and I don't make or interpret the laws, treaties, rules or regulations. Kluane posted on 2015-07-13 Make up your mind.
I posed a question. Here is another; Do the states have the lawful ability to restrict the 2nd Amendment?
You and I don't make or interpret the laws, treaties, rules or regulations. Kluane posted on 2015-07-13
How does a State enforce an amendment? The Bill of Rights says what it says, but individual States have their own Constitutions relating to the keeping and bearing of arms. In a logical world, "the rights of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" would mean there should be no regulations imposed upon "the people" regarding weapons. Of course people will ask about former prisoners, the mentally ill, or having a tank or nuclear bomb. In my mind, an arm is a personal protection device. A rifle, pistol, knife, sword, cutlass, crossbow, shotgun, throwing stars or anything like that which can be carried is an arm. Since "not be infringed" simply means no restrictions or laws against a free man carrying or storing his "arm" of choice, means State and Federal govts can only protect the right, not dole it our or enforce regulations.
Slaying men is always morally perilous. The Biblical rule permitting it is complex and variegated. The basic rule is that a man can never kill another man, except in three specific circumstances: (1) As punishment for a crime for which God has prescribed killing. (2) In direct defense. (3) When God orders it. God ordered that the Canaanites who did not flee the land be slaughtered by the Israelites. This was in judgment of the Canaanite sins already committed, and yet to be committed. God has the judgment to perceive such things, but men do not. No human tribe, without direct visible and audible presence and commandment of a proven God, has ever had any right to invade its neighbor's lands and kill them simply because they wanted that land. No human leader has ever had the right to kill those around him in order to gain mastery. Law enforcement and the military are in a particularly precarious position, because as mercenaries, they have chosen to earn their keep by carrying weapons of violence and submitting to orders. But if those orders engender orders to kill other men, and those killings are not justified under God's law, then the soldier or the cop is simply a murderer, pure and simple, and his "line of duty" killings are no different than the killings of any other criminal gang member. Just because a killing is legally justified under the laws and traditions of the country, and honored and respected, does not mean that it is not, in fact, a simple murder under the laws of God. Nimrod was the first to build an empire, and he did it by force. Nowhere did God ever authorize Nimrod to use force to build an empire. Nimrod was a mighty hunter, of men, who made himself the head of an empire through conquest. In other words, he and his generals and soldiers were mass murderers, and their empire was an enterprise built on mass murder and threat. The fact that a state is built by force and makes laws that exalt itself and its force does not convert murder into "war" and "law enforcement", it means that the sin of murder is aggravated by the sin of idolatry - of serving the state, the king, the "Law" (of the state) all in defiance of the law of God, which says that you cannot kill people to make a government, you cannot kill people to grab land, you cannot kill people AT ALL, UNLESS God has told you specifically that you can. He told the Israelites to enter Canaan and kill all who do not flee. He stirred up Sennacherib to bring down Israel for its sins, and Nebuchadnezzar to bring down Judah. But then he exalted Cyrus to bring down both Assyria and Babylon, for those two states, although they fulfilled their role in destroying Israel and Judah for their sins, were NOT authorized by God to go murdering people to have an empire. God used the Romans to destroy the Jews for the Jews sins, but he did not withhold his judgment of the Romans and their state for all of the murder Rome engaged in to exalt themselves. God uses murderers to punish other murderers, but he throws BOTH of the murderers into the flames at the end. That is why it is perilous to take up weapons to kill, and why soldiers and cops are in PARTICULAR peril all the time, because they have CHOSEN to live by the sword and make their keep thereby, and the laws of the state say that they may - or must - kill under many more circumstances than God allows. So the cop or the soldier who does not want to be damned for eternity must LIMIT HIMSELF to ONLY the violence permitted by God, and must NOT permit himself to go to the full limits permitted by the evil laws of his state. Service to a state and its laws that exceed the bounds of the laws of God is idolatry, and if that service leads to killing men, then it is murder. That the laws of a mere human STATE justify a killing before men does not in any way diminish liability to God for every single killing that exceeds the parameters of the laws of God - God is the judge, not human judges, and God said do not kill, except where HE commanded killing. For what did he command killing? He said as a general rule that the man who sheds the blood of man must have his blood shed by the hand of man. This was not a law of Israel, but a general law for all of mankind, given to Noah and the other 7 people on the Ark, and never rescinded. THAT IS THE LAW OF GOD regarding killers: if you shed blood, your blood is to be shed. God gave additional laws to Israel, and those laws have not passed away, but we must be very careful. Are we Jews? Are we under the covenant of Sinai? If we are uncircumcised and do not follow the whole Law of Moses, consciously, including all of the mandatory rites, then we are NOT Jews, and that law does NOT apply to us. So, God told the Israelites, in Israel, under his rule, specifically, and only, that they were not, in Israel, under that law, to suffer a witch to live. When Israelites executed witches, in Israel, after the appropriate process as prescribed by God (two or three witnesses - with the witnesses subject to execution for any perjury), they did well. But when Christians burnt witches, they were all murderers. God never gave anybody BUT Israelites in Israel, under that law, if they were KEEPING that law, the authority to execute anybody as a witch. The law for Christians is DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. The men who tried and executed witches killed people. They were murderers, and they damned themselves to hell as such by executing witches. There is no authority in the Bible for a Christian to ever kill a witch simply for being a witch. The Christian who does so is a murderer and doomed to hell. And the Christian who teaches that the Bible says he can kill a witch is a liar, and an agent of Satan, and will be held accountable by God for leading other men into murder. The law of Israel tells us how God thinks, but it does NOT give us the authority to pretend we're Jews in Israel with the authority to kill under those laws. We know what God hates because of those laws, but God has told US to leave vengeance to the lord. In the case of slavery, God gave the Israelites hard rules. They could never keep any Israelite as a slave. To seize a man and sell him was a death penalty offense before God. Fellow faithful must be released from indenture after 6 years, with pay. Even foreign captives in war, who could be enslaved, were converted into Israelites by conversion (which their masters could not stop, as allegiance to God trumps ownership desires of men), and had to be released in the Jubilee. So, consider the condition of the slave: he is a man who has been attacked by other men, and who is threatened constantly with death and harm by other men. Does a man have the right to DEFEND HIMSELF if attacked? Yes, Jesus said so. And does a man have the right before God to intervene to aid another man being attacked? Of course, that too is defense. So, what is it, then, if you or I, seeing men in slavery, intervene and say that this slavery shall end, and take the man out of slavery? This is the defense of the innocent against being slain, against bloodshed. If the slaver says "ok", and simply lets the slaves go, with payment, then there is nothing more too it. But slavers never do that. Consumed with evil and under the influence of Satan, they believe themselves in the right to hold other men under threat of violence, and to consider other men as their property, and to use violence to hold them or keep them. Slavers offer violent resistance. Just as gangs that are raping women do - if you tell them to stop, they attack YOU. You may draw the sword to stop the rape, and to defend yourself. Because of what rapists and slavers are - violent men who dominate by force and threat of death - the right to defense against death and violence means that you can draw your sword and attack them. And that is not murder. When a woman is being gang raped, it is NOT murder to take a weapon and intervene, and shoot the rapists when they attack you to stop you from stopping them. It is exactly the same when you intervene to free the slave. Men have the same right to hold slaves as they do to rape women or kill other men: none. The men that do it are ALREADY committing violence against others, and they need do no more for a man to draw the sword in defense to stop them. What they need to do is stop raping, killing and enslaving. Nobody should HAVE to draw the sword against them. But the way criminals and agents of satan work is that they are puffed up with pride and violence. The rapist, the conqueror, the slaver - the believe they have the RIGHT to do as they do, because they are "better", or "stronger", or "cannot be stopped". Or they believe, even, that they are doing "God's will". They are not any of those things: they are not better, they are violent and evil. They are not stronger - if they can be stopped by force, they are weaker. They are never doing God's will. They are violent criminal shedding the blood of men, or perpetrating their evil by threatening too. And for this, Jesus gave his disciples the right to carry swords for defense. To stop a rape, or enslavement with a sword is to stop a real-time attack on another. The slave and the rape victim are under direct assault, and such assaults can - and should - be repelled by the force of the sword. One does not draw the sword lightly, for man is not authorized to dominate others. But he IS authorized to use violence in defense, to STOP attack and assault. And that is precisely what the man who kills the slaver is doing: he is stopping an ongoing, perpetual assault on another men. The man who holds a slave is perpetually assaulting the body of another, for life, under threat of death. Men who are assaulting other men are ALWAYS committing a violent crime, and Christians may ALWAYS intervene with force to stop violence being done to other men. It is not murder to draw the sword and kill a slaver: it is STOPPING a violent crime.
I am fascinated by Republicans being pro Confederacy. This brings up the fact that most southern Republicans are really party switched Dixie-crats. I understand there are indie conservatives not in the GOP but for all those GOP conservatives who are being pro confederacy - maybe you joined the wrong party. You types are the real RINOs.
The Confederacy was long ago. So was Lincoln's Union. Both were discreditable, and the war was fought for the wrong reasons. It shouldn't have had to be fought at all, and had Americans then really been Christians, they would never have let the situation ccme to that, because slavery could never have persisted into the mid-19th Century among people who really WERE Christian. Americans called themselves Christian, and said they were fighting for liberty in various stripes. They were liars, hypocrites and vipers. They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind of Civil War. And their descendants are still stubborn, stupidly proud and evil, STILL trying to justify the unjustifiable, and defend the indefensible. This is why I spend no time on Constitutional originalism. The American past is discreditable. If we must yoke ourselves to what THOSE hypocritical bastards "meant", then we're sunk. I will never agree to that. Fortunately, we don't need to. Christian principles of right and wrong are absolute, and always have been. And we can insist on living by them pragmatically in the present day, without regard to the past, and without trying to justify the evils of our forebears. They did evil, and now they're dead. We can focus on the present and do right, and that's where we should focus.
The Democrats openly declare they renounced this part of their past being pro slavery and anti-Union. The GOP claims they are the anti-slavery party when asking blacks to vote for them - while being confused as to just why blacks won't do that. Clearly, it has to do with the fact that the Dixiecrat immigrants to the GOP party and their continued legacy is what is hurting the GOP's appeal to black at least in part. Just fascinating to observe the legacy of Nixon's Southern Strategy and how it transformed the GOP.
Doesn't "Conservative" at its very base believe in small limited Federal Government, and more local/State control? Isn't that what the entire North vs South conflict was about? I know the common BS about freeing slaves is the meme of the century, but it was not true. Why were blacks considered 3/5ths of a human? Because it had to do with the vote. If the North had freed the slaves and made them be counted as 1 citizen 1 voted, they could not control the House of Representatives, therefore the South would have had more power. The entire war was a power grab by the North. Keeping the Union together by force, was completely contrary to the rights of man, Liberty, and free association.
In taking down the SC confederate flag - it was a local issue. No federal law was passed to take down the flag so your point is moot.
YET. If you can't see the enemy coming from a mile away, you haven't been paying attention. First they mobilize public opinion with propaganda and lies. Second, they ban activity, speech, words or symbols. Thirdly, they pass a law, make a "Presidential finding, or write a regulation banning what they will. By the time they get to step three, they have the public worn out and just wanting to get back to being teed off about the next move.
All three Persons? Or, is it a divided opinion of the Godhead---like the usually divided U.S. Supreme Court concerning important decisions that significantly affect Americans and the other constituents of that court: illegal aliens---?
All three Persons? Or, is it a divided opinion of the Godhead---like the usually divided U.S. Supreme Court concerning important decisions that significantly affect Americans and the other constituents of that court: illegal aliens---? Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword: His truth is marching on.
YET. " Yeah, just wait. Ovomit will probably write a executive order soon. Si vis pacem, para bellum
I once threw out a challenge to produce a quote from anyone containing glowing praise of Lincoln, made while Lincoln was alive. It caused heads to explode. One may think that a simple search would provide countless valid results.
Blacks weren't considered 3/5ths of a person. Slaves were. This was to prevent the slave states from having all of the representation of states with large populations, but where the actual voters were a much smaller piece. It was to prevent over-representation in the House of the planter class. The Civil War ended slavery. It was fought because the Southern slave interest was fearful of abolitionist power, so the South pre-emptively seceded to protect slavery. Lincoln was about maintaining the Union - by force. To him, freeing the slaves was a tactic. But the only reason he had to resort to that tactic was secession, and the cause of Southern secession was to preserve slavery. They said so in their secession documents and in the endless quotes of their leaders.
Do the states have the lawful ability to restrict the 2nd Amendment?
How does the state restrict an amendment?
Yes the States do have the power to regulate the 2nd amendment. They have their own Constitutions.
Interesting. So, when an officer swears an oath to uphold the states laws, the constitution of the U.S. and the states constitution, which one out trumps the other? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
How? What do you mean by "regulate?" Please explain with some detail. Again, please expalain.... because, State Constitutions fall UNDER the US Constitution.
The second amendment actually only refers to the Federal governments ability or inability to enforce restrictions. The States have historically had more leeway because of the ease of access to the process by citizens locally, and respect for the sovereignty of States.
the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
#4. To: hondo68 (#0)
#5. To: hondo68, All (#0)
#6. To: jeremiad (#3)
(Edited)
#7. To: hondo68 (#0)
#8. To: Kluane (#7)
He preserved the Union.
#9. To: Kluane (#7)
#10. To: buckeroo (#8)
#11. To: Kluane (#10)
#12. To: jeremiad (#9)
#13. To: buckeroo (#11)
#14. To: Kluane (#7)
He preserved the Union.
#15. To: hondo68 (#14)
He shredded the Constitution and preserved slavery nationwide.
#16. To: Kluane (#13)
Lincoln destroyed nothing.
#17. To: buckeroo (#16)
There were an estimated 1.5 million casualties reported during the Civil War.
#18. To: Kluane (#17)
You and Jefferson Davis have to live with that
#19. To: buckeroo (#18)
#20. To: Kluane (#19)
#21. To: Kluane, KlueLess (#15)
Are you a slave?
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
And everybody in the world has the right to attack and kill anybody who keeps a slave.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
But abolitionists had the right to shoot down slavers, and anybody who defended slavers, because people who have slaves have no right to have them, and no right to live as long as they have them.
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
Keeping slaves was always a crime against God and man, and ending that justified all of the killing and destruction.
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
And everybody in the world has the right to attack and kill anybody who keeps a slave.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#22)
#27. To: A K A Stone (#23)
#28. To: A K A Stone (#24)
#29. To: A K A Stone (#25)
#30. To: A K A Stone (#25)
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
You pick and choose among Scripture, and argue the Devil's position. Fortunately for you, you cannot actually act on it and keep a slave.
#32. To: A K A Stone (#31)
(Edited)
I'm not for slavery it is wrong obviously.
#33. To: buckeroo (#32)
The US Citizen has been relegated to being nothing more than a tax slave. How is this wrong when it is written as the law of the land?
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33)
#35. To: buckeroo (#34)
#36. To: buckeroo (#34)
Being a slave to a government is good, in your opinion?
#37. To: Kluane (#12)
#38. To: jeremiad (#37)
Actually the individual states were sovereigns
#39. To: Kluane (#38)
#40. To: hondo68 (#36)
#41. To: jeremiad (#39)
As far as I am concerned,
#42. To: Kluane (#41)
#43. To: jeremiad (#42)
We as citizens of a State determine whether or not those we have contracted with under specific terms are holding up their end of the bargain.
#44. To: Kluane (#43)
Then why do so few states abide by and enforce the 2nd Amendment?
#45. To: A K A Stone (#44)
Make up your mind.
#46. To: Kluane (#45)
posed a question. Here is another; Do the states have the lawful ability to restrict the 2nd Amendment?
#47. To: Kluane (#43)
#48. To: A K A Stone (#31)
just take issue with you saying that you have a right to murder someone.
#49. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#48)
#50. To: Pericles (#49)
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
The Confederacy was long ago. So was Lincoln's Union.
#52. To: Pericles (#49)
#53. To: jeremiad (#52)
(Edited)
Doesn't "Conservative" at its very base believe in small limited Federal Government, and more local/State control?
#54. To: Pericles (#53)
No federal law was passed to take down the flag
#55. To: Pericles (#1)
It is clear God hates Confederates.
#56. To: Sockratease (#55)
It is clear God hates Confederates.
#57. To: jeremiad (#54)
" No federal law was passed to take down the flag
#58. To: jeremiad (#3)
Lincoln was a tyrant, his death cemented his legacy as a near Saint.
#59. To: jeremiad (#52)
#60. To: A K A Stone (#46)
#61. To: jeremiad (#47)
How does a State enforce an amendment?
#62. To: Kluane (#60)
#63. To: jeremiad (#62)
(Edited)
Yes the States do have the power to regulate the 2nd amendment. They have their own Constitutions.
#64. To: jeremiad (#62)
Yes the States do have the power to regulate the 2nd amendment.
They have their own Constitutions.
#65. To: buckeroo (#64)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]