Ya know, there is a lot to be said for this guy Lincoln, the first, last and only true Republican….
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861 Thanks Abe, now tell the current Republican party of mean spirited money grubbers.
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas debate at Ottawa" (August 21, 1858), p. 27. I think he means that in a democracy/republic the government depends of popular support. Hmmmmm……so, what percent are against the war George….??
"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Meditation on the Divine Will" (September 2, 1862?), pp. 403-404. This bears some deep deep thought. “It is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party…..” Hmmmmm
"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" Lincoln's Cooper Institute Address, February 27, 1860. Which is why, in all times and in all places, Conservatives are for slavery, for repression of ideas, for censorship, for the status quo, against change, against progress, support kings and tyrants, against free speech, democracy and republican government. Can you name one single case where this is not so?
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum,of Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838), p. 109. Wow. Wow! Right on Abie baby! Greece, Rome, and a host of others. And now, America? Is the American public so weak, so besotted with materialism, so fearful of phony terrorist plots? Whatever happened to “We have nothing to fear but, fear itself!” A nation of chicken-littles with a government shouting Wolf 9/11 Wolf 9/11 at every turn. Pick yourselves up Americans, there is a job to be done by the ‘last best chance for Liberty’, the United States.
"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 273. So, where do you think Lincoln would stand on the war in Iraq?
Well, isn't this interesting! Twisting history for petty partisan politics. Is that the way of Lincoln? Was he such a divider, as to pervert history for personal political gain? At least we can establish one pertinent fact, the twisting and turning of snippets was not in the great stateman's bag of acceptable tricks. However, I aspire to greatness, though the way be full of tribulation. And I am sure my responses will be fruitless wanderings, yet try I must. The first point concerned labor and capitol, and that labor was the greater. But, contrary to modern liberal inanity, he is not talking about 'labor unions' but actual hard work. And what a salve it could be! Instead of wasting great 'capitol' on lazy misguided masses, make them labor. Instead of organizing lazy misguided 'workers' into 'labor unions' who inevitably decrease the amount of 'labor' accomplished, abolish such and engender healthy competition. The concept is called Capitolism, where hard work is rewarded by success. Unlike socialism, where working harder leads to increased penalization. Get it yet? Socialism equals less 'labor', not good. Capitolism leads to more 'labor', good. That clears up point number one.
For the second contention, lets consider facts. Bush attained re-election during this Iraq conflict, and not exactly at the rosy juncture we would have wished. That is a real poll, not opinion. Two years later, liberals peaceniks are screaming that they have a 'mandate' on the war, because of a minor midterm success. Not a resounding concensus of the public sentiment. However, it can be expected that any country would tire of a ongoing conflict, and we are the same. Yet if you at this time ask the public whether they want success in Iraq or failure, the majority will express a desire for success. The real 'percentage against the war' is around thirty, the same number of deranged Bush haters from January 2001. When they lost...
Now we come to a very strange duality. A confessed atheist expressing deep thought concerning the purpose of God. Well, fascinating how that plays out in the brain. Total confusion? Abject denial? Anyhow, for those who do believe, we can agree on a few simple things. There is a great verse concerning nations and war: "For the army of the Syrians came with a small company of men; and Jehovah delivered a very great host into their hand, because they had forsaken Jehovah, the God of their fathers. So they executed judgment upon Joash." (2 Chronicles 24:24) And I quote, "This bears some deep thought." So God, favored a small Syrian force in battle, and judgment fell upon those who had forsaken Him. The real question one should ask at this point is "Have I forsaken God?" Then with a pure heart and clear conscience you could approach the question of God's purpose as it concerns modern politics. Anything less is to elevate ones personal judgment to that of the divine, resulting in presumptuous self idolatry. Again, what is closest to God's heart and purpose is to establish a relationship with every individual, this is supersedant to political exposition.
Moving on to the next quote, we find such convenience in the twisting of Lincoln's prose! Yet there is the question, "What is conservatism?" Today we stand for freedom, economic and cultural, from the unwashed hordes of liberal socialists who attempt to force the immorality of a small minority upon the general population. That immorality is both social and fiscal, as we have long since passed the point of equitable taxation. We stand against the enslavement that is the modern welfare state. We stand against the cult of death that circulates within the modern liberal movement as it pertains to the murder of the unborn, the execution of those who do not attain to a acceptable 'quality of life', and the assisting of self destruction of the old and weak. There are many things that construct the modern conservative movement, and many members do not agree with everything in the core platform. That is to be expected, and encouraged as we debate these topics further. As to the insane statements about conservatives by the commenter, all we need say is that the premise of the Republican party at inception was anti-slavery. That alone is sufficient to expose the nutters reinvention of history. But if we need to look at the track record of liberal vs conservative on different topics such as racism, free speech, the support of tyrants or many other topics we can. I think the record is clear in the modern day. What party perpetually divides based upon the color of a mans skin? Democrat! Who calls for 'fair use of airwaves' simply to suppress opposing views? Democrats! Who would prefer the reinstatement of a tyrant in Iraq? Democrats! Not much more needs to be addressed here, the contention of the provocateur is moot.
On the next topic of National Security I would make two comments. One, a force did rise up from the ocean so to speak, and attacked us. It is a nemesis not seen in history, and a foe likely to inflict much societal damage before its relegation to the changing times. But can mere terrorism destroy us? Not likely, here I completely agree with Abe. It will come from within, our destroyer. And it will come in the form of a mentality so infected with universal socialism that we will be driven to the brink to stop it. In fact it has come, we have been infected, and are scarcely waking to the fact. When a significant portion of the population cares not for the Ohio or Blue Ridge as stated, or any other part of our great country for that matter, but is concerned more with what evil America has inflicted upon the world, what failed policy has alienated our beloved 'friends'. Consumed with criticism and derision for American culture, from the best to the worst. We have our enemy, right in our midst. And they don't even know it. They struggle and fight for a sick utopia that could never exist, and deny all that makes this country great. Lincoln, if present, could see the stain, and would proclaim with a fervent voice against it. He would inevitably stand with those who want liberty and freedom. He would stand be they American, African, Asian, European, even Afghan or Iraqi.
And if he were president today, might he not do as in the past and sidestep even the Constitution to further the cause of freedom? Yea, even to the point of arresting dissidents and suppressing the misguided. To further the parallel, what did the Dems of the day do? Oh, you mean the infamous Copperheads? Did they not view Lincoln as a 'tyrant' who was destroying the very fabric of America? Peaceniks never change. Did they not demand peace and a cessation of the war? At a cost we can now asses as potentially disastrous. Yes, many parallels can be made in the fight for freedom, but choosing Lincoln as a target to support liberal rhetoric and idiocy was not effective. In fact, today we have no draft. We have no generationally impactfull tragic sacrifice of American lives. No martial law, no economic upheaval, no personal threat to vast regions of American soil. Many parallels are unequivocal. But one thing is for certain, standing up for freedom is a choice we can make, however unpopular at certain times. And it is one we should continue to make now, Lincoln would.