Ammoland Inc.https://www.ammoland.com/Posted on by Jim Clary
By Dr. Jim Clary, PhD and Dr. Dennis Johnson, MD, PhD
Lincoln was such a “radical.” If Lincoln were alive today, the powers-that-be in Washington would have him on their Terrorist Watch List.AmmoLand Gun News
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Great nations and empires throughout the history of man have fallen and crumbled to dust when their leaders and their people lost sight of the principles upon which they were founded.
Those leaders rarely believed it to be possible, as they were so absorbed in their own self importance and indulgence that they were blind to the signs and signals of what was going on around them.
By the time they recognized that their nations were collapsing, it was too late.
Our current progressive leaders in Washington exhibit the same kind of blindness today. They believe the changes that they intend to bring about will go unchallenged and become accepted by the masses without question. They spend at a rate that would make Robert Mugabe envious, they mandate national programs (government controlled, of course) that would make Karl Marx smile with approval and they would suspend our Constitutional freedoms in the name of domestic and national security with a brutal deviousness that would make Joseph Stalin jealous.
Our founding fathers struggled long and hard in the development and final writing of our Constitution and it has served our country well for over two hundred years.
George Washington
Our foremost founding father, George Washington, stated: “It is because the people are civilized, that they are with safety armed. It is an effect of their conscious dignity, as citizens enjoying equal rights that they wish not to invade the rights of others. The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens is only to the government, not to society, and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms and no possible disadvantage.”
The distinguished English jurist William Blackstone wrote in his commentaries: ”The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
Yet, the Congresswomen from California and their cabal of liberal progressive politicians from Chicago would strip American citizens of their right to bear arms. In fact, they would totally re-write the Constitution in their own image.
We would like to remind these ladies that Thomas Jefferson stated: ”No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William B. Woods
In an 1886 opinion, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William B. Woods wrote: “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining public security and disable the people from performing their duty to general government.”
Even in light of Justice Woods’ opinion, one female representative from California, who truly hates this country, stated that it is not a question of IF they will ban our firearms, but WHEN. She went on to say that she would choose the time and place. This woman makes “Patsy Pink” look positively conservative.
We would also like to remind those in Washington who would liken themselves to Abraham Lincoln that he said: “The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and (the) courts–not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert that constitution.”
Bet you didn’t know that Lincoln was such a “radical.” If Lincoln were alive today, the powers-that-be in Washington would have him on their Terrorist Watch List. However, having led this nation through its first Civil War, Lincoln knew that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
The ideological divisions in America are expanding on a daily basis. How long will it be before it is impossible to bridge the abyss? No one can say, but the divide is there and growing.
Lincoln pretty well said it all when he stated: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
Our question to you, our readers, regardless of whether you are Independent, Libertarian, Democrat or Republican: Are you willing to risk the destruction of our country by allowing the progressives in Washington to erode your freedoms?
Even if you do not personally own or use firearms, recognize that if they can take away your Second Amendment Rights, they can take away all of your Constitutional Rights. Which rights will be next and where will it end?
A lot of posters here seem to have missed our point. It was not our intent to cause people to argue about whether Lincoln was a good or bad president. We will leave that judgement to history. His quotes were among several which we felt illustrated the importance of protecting our 2nd Amendment rights. Instead of arguing and rehashing history, how about commenting on the current crop of Progressives like Soros, Bloomberg, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama and others who would strip away those rights. They are the problem…. Not Lincoln.
Lowell
8 years ago
Anyway, can anybody tell why we are arguing over past elected dictators and what guns are next on the ban list and all agree that’s it’s well passed the time that this whole mess could have been solved via voting? Hell, it was over as soon as Teddy Kennedy managed to shift immigration over to to the third world so that the democrats could import peasants to hook on government handouts which would insure their votes to continue the handouts. This situation ends one way, and to that end get in shape, buy a plate carrier with at least level… Read more »
Paul Anderson Ed.D.
8 years ago
In regards to Abraham Lincoln: I would suggest that all the want – to – be, hearsay, Historians: Search the Library of Congress for Lincoln ‘ s papers. In recent years ,textbooks have been altered, to promote a Social / Progressive World View. A World View intended to usher in a U.N. Global State based on the theories of Marx. Suggested search, using LookSeek.com as a search engine: Search ” Historic Documents Lincoln Papers ” Speaking of the Progressive Democrat, and their corrupting of our Educational System: During the rise of the 3rd Reich, the Frankfurt School left Germany and… Read more »
Dr. Anderson, in regards to Abraham Lincoln, I really hope that you are not referring to …me. The rest of what you write is rather interesting.
JJ
8 years ago
Equating the “p” word with the “c” and “m” words?
T
8 years ago
Tex, why is it that you can’t have a civil conversation? Name calling is the last resort of a fool. I feel sorry for you and those around you who have to put up with you. As to the premise of the article … I say this. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Voter appathy is at an all time high. How many times have I heard “I didn’t vote. Why should I?” For those of you who claim to be a fan of The Constitution, I say that you are insulting the founding fathers and their sacrifices… Read more »
TEX
8 years ago
….and then Lincoln went to Fords Theater with his fat,insane wife on 14 April ’65 to gloat about the armistice signed at Appomattox 5 days earlier ! ‘Nuff said !
Hey Tex. I find it interesting that Texas’ greatest hero, Sam Houston, was in favor of Texas not seceding and strove to preserve the Union. I guess you missed that history lesson?
Hey Parnell,where do you get Houston was Texas hero from ? We ran that POS out of office into exile in Galveston ! Does that sound like hero treatment ? Texans at the time despised him and most still do for the exact reason you cited.
John, to the people of the South, the history of the War Between the States is more real because their ancestors had to endure a period of occupation and privation that the North enforced upon them. The people of the South also developed means and methods of quietly prospering under oppressive government that the people of the North did not have to develop. Now that intrusive and oppressive government is coming to all of us, the Southern people will dust off those means and methods.
William Swinney
8 years ago
So many still fighting a long lost war and trying to claim moral and intellectual high ground. WOW.
Without more comment, I can’t tell is Swinney’s conclusions are a product of impartial research leading to his opinion or if his opinion is based upon that liberal, progressive tripe.
Ken
8 years ago
Your comments about Lincoln are wrong. He was a great president. He preserved the Union. The South’s economy was based on a feudal system of wealthy land owners who kept their fellow human beings in bondage which is morally wrong. Poor southern whites and freedman were nothing more than endentured servants to the plantation owners. The poor whites and freedman would have maintained their low social and economic status if the south won. You need to read the history of the US Civil War and the memoirs of Lee, Grant and Sherman. The south fought valiantly, but for a bad… Read more »
I do not agree with some here that President Lincoln was a bad President and I do not agree with you. I am not a law scholar but I am pretty sure that the Southern States were within their constitutional rights to secede from the union. Additionally the states did not have to provide any causal proof.
Dear John C,
I researched the issue of by what Right the various states can secede from the Union. I would like to recommend to you the U.S. Supreme Court case of “Texas v. White” Then you won’t have to be “pretty sure.”
Well said! Grant pointed out in his autobiography that a white plumber, brick mason, or carpenter could never find work in the Old South, because slave owners had chattel to perform those jobs at next to nothing fees. What the slaves made in pay went into their masters’ pockets. The fascinating fact about it all is that less than one percent of white southerners owned slaves. Yet they managed to convince a lot of whites to die for their immoral privilege. Slavery would likely have lasted decades longer had the south not seceded.
Let me guess ! You think the war between the states was over slavery ? You brainwashed uneducated fool ? Lincoln was scum ! Plus,the Yankees lost a 75K more troops than the South even with superior weapons,artillery ! Screw you with your bad cause crap Yankee !
You make an interesting point. When I was a young boy, in the 1950s, we were taught in school that Lincoln was a great president because he preserved the Union. Which he certainly did, even if probably violating his oath of office and doing so at the expense of the Constitution. However, since the late 1960s, no one is being taught that he is famous for that; they are now being taught that he is famous for “freeing the slaves,” which of course, he did NOT do (as noted by an earlier poster). In fact, history shows that Lincoln was… Read more »
Graham
8 years ago
If the US had been a party to the Geneva Convention at the time of The War of Oppression – then Lincoln would have been on death row, for war crimes, along with many of his cronies – and obummer sees himself as “the new Lincoln” …
Tim
8 years ago
As far as I’m concerned, such thoughtless and hateful comments as these serve no useful purpose. Instead of fostering discord and divisiveness , we need to unite and stand against the erosion of our constitutional freedoms.
jamie
8 years ago
Well as far as personal freedoms and guns I am libertarian, but the rest of my beliefs are progressive/liberal. We don’t have a democracy any more we are run by corporations and elite 1% that is abusing our nation and we need to reign them in or they will destroy our country.
We never had a democracy. Our founders realized that democracy is just another name for mob rule. Corporations and the so called 1%, have power because of professional politicians. We were never meant to have politicians in Washington for so long that they would have a retirement plan. If you want to limit the power of the corporations and the elites, make sure your reps and senators don’t stay in office long enough to become entrench, useful tools of the K street power brokers. Vote them out after a couple of terms.
Well said CJ. It might be better if we had a Democracy but we do not and our nation is still great. I personally abhor the political slogan make our nation great again.
Correct CJ. A lady asked Ben Franklin as he left the Philadelphia State House: ‘What do we have Mr. Franklin?’, to which he replied: ‘We have a republic, if we can keep it.’ The Founders detested democracies because they were mob rule and their operation depended only on who the leader of the mob was as what the rules would be. So they gave us republican form of government with a “supreme law” (the Constitution which included a people’s Bill of Rights) which IS ABSOLUTE and forbids the federal and states’ governments from encroaching upon its guarantees.
I hear liberals talk about how the one percent of Americans is destroying our country and I don’t get it. The one percent may not have the cleanest hands but I don’t see them on the news every morning for crimes they committed the night before. Let’s cut the bullsh*t. Every morning on the news it is always democrats killing, raping, pouring gas down a girls throat and catching her on fire, kill a girl over an IPhone, shoot a baby point blank in the face, etc. The one percent may not be innocent but I don’t carry a firearm… Read more »
Dear Mr. Swinney, Let’s see… Lincoln occupied Maryland, a southern state, and used the army to destroy the printing presses of Maryland newspapers that were critical of him, on his own authority. Meaning no authority. Unconstitutional. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, on his own authority. Unconstitutional. Lincoln instituted a national draft. Unconstitutional Lincoln instituted an income tax, that was unconstitutional at that time. If Lincoln had just let the Southern States go, hundreds of thousands of America’s best men would have raised good families, and there are a lot of problems that we would not have today. I… Read more »
Yup. Lincoln was a tyrant. He didn’t give a shit about the shaves and said so on several occasions.
His ONLY purpose was “preserving the union” at any cost.
Preserving the industrial NE’s dominance over and taxation of the agrarian south is what it was really about.
About 750,000 Americans killed for the benefit of that era’s industrial and banking oligarchs.
It wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
Not do noble when the facts are known.
How many times Lincoln has been lauded by Hannity, O’Rielly and Glenn Beck as to have been our foremost President. He was foremost in killing American people. 750,000 American Soldiers and over 1,000,000 civilians, All over political lies. He would not negotiate a plan for reducing the taxes which Morel Taxes and Export Tax on cotton was the primary cause of the secession, Slavery was constitutionally legal and his Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves but guaranteed ” Any State in state of rebellion that would come back into the Union could keep their slaves” He wanted to create an uprising… Read more »
And there is more Joe. Lincoln instituted “intersectional trade”, which is that certain persons that were known to be loyal to the Union were given a certificate to buy cotton from a desperate South and transport that cotton across military lines where that cotton was shipped to Northern textile mills, so that the owners of those mill would not go broke. Now why would Lincoln do that. Maybe because he needed the financial support and the votes from the Northern states.
Just follow the money.
A lot of posters here seem to have missed our point. It was not our intent to cause people to argue about whether Lincoln was a good or bad president. We will leave that judgement to history. His quotes were among several which we felt illustrated the importance of protecting our 2nd Amendment rights. Instead of arguing and rehashing history, how about commenting on the current crop of Progressives like Soros, Bloomberg, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama and others who would strip away those rights. They are the problem…. Not Lincoln.
Anyway, can anybody tell why we are arguing over past elected dictators and what guns are next on the ban list and all agree that’s it’s well passed the time that this whole mess could have been solved via voting? Hell, it was over as soon as Teddy Kennedy managed to shift immigration over to to the third world so that the democrats could import peasants to hook on government handouts which would insure their votes to continue the handouts. This situation ends one way, and to that end get in shape, buy a plate carrier with at least level… Read more »
In regards to Abraham Lincoln: I would suggest that all the want – to – be, hearsay, Historians: Search the Library of Congress for Lincoln ‘ s papers. In recent years ,textbooks have been altered, to promote a Social / Progressive World View. A World View intended to usher in a U.N. Global State based on the theories of Marx. Suggested search, using LookSeek.com as a search engine: Search ” Historic Documents Lincoln Papers ” Speaking of the Progressive Democrat, and their corrupting of our Educational System: During the rise of the 3rd Reich, the Frankfurt School left Germany and… Read more »
Dr. Anderson, in regards to Abraham Lincoln, I really hope that you are not referring to …me. The rest of what you write is rather interesting.
Equating the “p” word with the “c” and “m” words?
Tex, why is it that you can’t have a civil conversation? Name calling is the last resort of a fool. I feel sorry for you and those around you who have to put up with you. As to the premise of the article … I say this. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Voter appathy is at an all time high. How many times have I heard “I didn’t vote. Why should I?” For those of you who claim to be a fan of The Constitution, I say that you are insulting the founding fathers and their sacrifices… Read more »
….and then Lincoln went to Fords Theater with his fat,insane wife on 14 April ’65 to gloat about the armistice signed at Appomattox 5 days earlier ! ‘Nuff said !
Hey Tex. I find it interesting that Texas’ greatest hero, Sam Houston, was in favor of Texas not seceding and strove to preserve the Union. I guess you missed that history lesson?
Hey Parnell,where do you get Houston was Texas hero from ? We ran that POS out of office into exile in Galveston ! Does that sound like hero treatment ? Texans at the time despised him and most still do for the exact reason you cited.
Wow! So many people with no lives…
John, to the people of the South, the history of the War Between the States is more real because their ancestors had to endure a period of occupation and privation that the North enforced upon them. The people of the South also developed means and methods of quietly prospering under oppressive government that the people of the North did not have to develop. Now that intrusive and oppressive government is coming to all of us, the Southern people will dust off those means and methods.
So many still fighting a long lost war and trying to claim moral and intellectual high ground. WOW.
Yankee,that Lincoln trash was your president ! Jefferson Davis was the South’s president ! Thank God for that too !
Swinney really is ate up with the dumbass ain’t it ?
Without more comment, I can’t tell is Swinney’s conclusions are a product of impartial research leading to his opinion or if his opinion is based upon that liberal, progressive tripe.
Your comments about Lincoln are wrong. He was a great president. He preserved the Union. The South’s economy was based on a feudal system of wealthy land owners who kept their fellow human beings in bondage which is morally wrong. Poor southern whites and freedman were nothing more than endentured servants to the plantation owners. The poor whites and freedman would have maintained their low social and economic status if the south won. You need to read the history of the US Civil War and the memoirs of Lee, Grant and Sherman. The south fought valiantly, but for a bad… Read more »
I do not agree with some here that President Lincoln was a bad President and I do not agree with you. I am not a law scholar but I am pretty sure that the Southern States were within their constitutional rights to secede from the union. Additionally the states did not have to provide any causal proof.
Dear John C,
I researched the issue of by what Right the various states can secede from the Union. I would like to recommend to you the U.S. Supreme Court case of “Texas v. White” Then you won’t have to be “pretty sure.”
Well said! Grant pointed out in his autobiography that a white plumber, brick mason, or carpenter could never find work in the Old South, because slave owners had chattel to perform those jobs at next to nothing fees. What the slaves made in pay went into their masters’ pockets. The fascinating fact about it all is that less than one percent of white southerners owned slaves. Yet they managed to convince a lot of whites to die for their immoral privilege. Slavery would likely have lasted decades longer had the south not seceded.
Let me guess ! You think the war between the states was over slavery ? You brainwashed uneducated fool ? Lincoln was scum ! Plus,the Yankees lost a 75K more troops than the South even with superior weapons,artillery ! Screw you with your bad cause crap Yankee !
Howard, that “lot of whites” died in an attempt to repel the armed invasion of their states.
You make an interesting point. When I was a young boy, in the 1950s, we were taught in school that Lincoln was a great president because he preserved the Union. Which he certainly did, even if probably violating his oath of office and doing so at the expense of the Constitution. However, since the late 1960s, no one is being taught that he is famous for that; they are now being taught that he is famous for “freeing the slaves,” which of course, he did NOT do (as noted by an earlier poster). In fact, history shows that Lincoln was… Read more »
If the US had been a party to the Geneva Convention at the time of The War of Oppression – then Lincoln would have been on death row, for war crimes, along with many of his cronies – and obummer sees himself as “the new Lincoln” …
As far as I’m concerned, such thoughtless and hateful comments as these serve no useful purpose. Instead of fostering discord and divisiveness , we need to unite and stand against the erosion of our constitutional freedoms.
Well as far as personal freedoms and guns I am libertarian, but the rest of my beliefs are progressive/liberal. We don’t have a democracy any more we are run by corporations and elite 1% that is abusing our nation and we need to reign them in or they will destroy our country.
We never had a democracy. Our founders realized that democracy is just another name for mob rule. Corporations and the so called 1%, have power because of professional politicians. We were never meant to have politicians in Washington for so long that they would have a retirement plan. If you want to limit the power of the corporations and the elites, make sure your reps and senators don’t stay in office long enough to become entrench, useful tools of the K street power brokers. Vote them out after a couple of terms.
Well said CJ. It might be better if we had a Democracy but we do not and our nation is still great. I personally abhor the political slogan make our nation great again.
It probably don’t like you either ! That’s not what Trumps slogan is sh*t for brains !
Correct CJ. A lady asked Ben Franklin as he left the Philadelphia State House: ‘What do we have Mr. Franklin?’, to which he replied: ‘We have a republic, if we can keep it.’ The Founders detested democracies because they were mob rule and their operation depended only on who the leader of the mob was as what the rules would be. So they gave us republican form of government with a “supreme law” (the Constitution which included a people’s Bill of Rights) which IS ABSOLUTE and forbids the federal and states’ governments from encroaching upon its guarantees.
I hear liberals talk about how the one percent of Americans is destroying our country and I don’t get it. The one percent may not have the cleanest hands but I don’t see them on the news every morning for crimes they committed the night before. Let’s cut the bullsh*t. Every morning on the news it is always democrats killing, raping, pouring gas down a girls throat and catching her on fire, kill a girl over an IPhone, shoot a baby point blank in the face, etc. The one percent may not be innocent but I don’t carry a firearm… Read more »
We need to reign in the Government, there are too many brain dead liberals and Progressive in it.
Lincoln was the 2’nd sorriest POS sh*t excuse for a president we ever had !
You sir are a fool.
And history has proved it.
Did you, sir, learn writing and history together?
Dear Mr. Swinney, Let’s see… Lincoln occupied Maryland, a southern state, and used the army to destroy the printing presses of Maryland newspapers that were critical of him, on his own authority. Meaning no authority. Unconstitutional. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, on his own authority. Unconstitutional. Lincoln instituted a national draft. Unconstitutional Lincoln instituted an income tax, that was unconstitutional at that time. If Lincoln had just let the Southern States go, hundreds of thousands of America’s best men would have raised good families, and there are a lot of problems that we would not have today. I… Read more »
I am glad somebody knows the real history of that tyrannical bastard, lincoln.
@Wild Bill,very well put my friend.
Yup. Lincoln was a tyrant. He didn’t give a shit about the shaves and said so on several occasions.
His ONLY purpose was “preserving the union” at any cost.
Preserving the industrial NE’s dominance over and taxation of the agrarian south is what it was really about.
About 750,000 Americans killed for the benefit of that era’s industrial and banking oligarchs.
It wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
Not do noble when the facts are known.
How many times Lincoln has been lauded by Hannity, O’Rielly and Glenn Beck as to have been our foremost President. He was foremost in killing American people. 750,000 American Soldiers and over 1,000,000 civilians, All over political lies. He would not negotiate a plan for reducing the taxes which Morel Taxes and Export Tax on cotton was the primary cause of the secession, Slavery was constitutionally legal and his Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves but guaranteed ” Any State in state of rebellion that would come back into the Union could keep their slaves” He wanted to create an uprising… Read more »
Fighting a long lost war.
And there is more Joe. Lincoln instituted “intersectional trade”, which is that certain persons that were known to be loyal to the Union were given a certificate to buy cotton from a desperate South and transport that cotton across military lines where that cotton was shipped to Northern textile mills, so that the owners of those mill would not go broke. Now why would Lincoln do that. Maybe because he needed the financial support and the votes from the Northern states.
Just follow the money.
Exactly, and Obutthole won’t be happy until he has us killing each other by the hundreds of thousands, just like Lincoln.