Civil War & More, Part 5

2008-2-17 06:36:00

Blayne writes:

"If you believe in the rule of law and the Constitution as the law the federal government must abide by, and that maxim of law being that the feds can do nothing unless it is enumerated in the Constitution then Lincoln had no authority to wage war against a group of states that lawfully seceded via that law, the Constitution. Congress and the Supreme Court were in collusion in violating the Constitution by supporting it."

JJ:

But they didn't lawfully attack Fort Sumter which belonged to the Federal Government.

Blayne:

"You also said the Constitution doesn't prevent us from going to war under UN resolutions which further shows your lack understanding of the maxim of constitutional law, because it is not enumerated in therein. How can we send soldiers to war who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic under UN resolutions? Where do they get the authority?"

JJ:

It sounds like you have such a narrow interpretation that you would not have supported the alliances the U.S. made with England and Russia during World War II. These were also sometimes called the United Nations - united to defeat Hitler. Even Ron Paul on hindsight supports this. What's the difference between alliances made with United Nations 60 years ago and United Nations today as long as the goal is within U.S. interests.

That said I would agree with you that most of what the UN does is not in U.S. interests.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"See my other comments on this. So you would approve of yourself being a slave as long as 'the people' are abusing you and not the government. By the way the government is people."

Blayne:

"Of course not that is an absurd statement. The southern states had the right to self-government despite there moral shortcomings concerning slavery. Nowhere am I justifying slavery despite your sophistry in trying paint me as doing such. What about the slaves you say; didn't they have the same right? Of course they did but unfortunately due to mans shortcomings they did not have the power to accomplish it at the time."

JJ:

Listen to what you are saying. You are not being consistent. You said:

"The government is servant to the people and the people are its master even if the people are wrongly enslaving others."

Then you say this principle would not apply to you if you were a slave. You say this would be absurd. I agree, but you can't have it both ways. If you accept that the people are the rightful master even if they enslave you then you would have to accept them being your master if you were a slave yourself.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"Sorry. The Constitution does not say the states can have the property back if they secede. There is not even a hint of such thing. The federal government had the approval from South Carolina and after that approval they owned the property and the state had no right to force them to sell or giver it back."

Blayne then writes:

"You should try reading the Constitution it says the federal government can only own property in the States with the States' consent. If consent can be granted then consent can certainly be rescinded, it's not rocket science."

JJ:

Read the Constitution. It does not say the gift can be rescinded. If I give you a house and then you invest in it and make improvements I would be crazy to expect it back if I asked for it. You cannot take back a gift in real life because it now belongs to the one you gave it to. If you want a gift back the receiver has to agree to give it back or sell it -- otherwise he has a full right to possess it.

Fort Sumter was the Federal Government's property and Lincoln had the complete Constitutional right to fortify and defend it.

Blayne:

"Well there went The First Amendment and free speech. Lincoln's interpretation of sedition and desertion you mean...Sigh!"

JJ:

Then you must think George Washington was as wrong as Lincoln for punishing people for the same thing. Sigh.

Washington supported the Sedition Act of 1798 which made it a crime:

"To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations."

From Encarta we read:

"However, Washington did the best he could with the available means. He took stern measures to restore discipline. Insubordination and desertion were punished by flogging with the cat-o'-nine-tails. A few deserters, especially those who repeated the offense, were hanged."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564084_3/washington_george.html

A quote from a previous message from Blayne:

"Note: SOURCE: David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker, 'Threats and Responses: The Military; War Planners Begin To Speak of War's Risks,' The New York Times, February 18, 2003, Final Edition, Page A1."

JJ's response quoted from a previous message by Blayne:

"Wow. To prove your case that Bush said this you quote a New York Times columnist who hates Bush, but you do not quote Bush. How about trying again and this time give me a quote from Bush."

Blayne then writes:

"Perhaps you could refute the quote instead of attacking the messenger?"

JJ:

This is amazing. You said that Bush stated that the Iraqi oil would pay for the war. I asked for a quote from Bush on this and instead you give me a quote from a guy who hates Bush. I again ask for a quote from Bush and you tell me to refute Sanger who has nothing to do with our conversation.

The bottom line is I asked for a quote and you did not deliver which tells me you are just promoting false propaganda in circulation. Why are you going around saying that Bush lied about things he did not even say?

Blayne:

"However for arguments' sake lets say it's true, how are they (Iran) are threat to us? Are they going to ship them all over here in ski boats perhaps? LOL!"

Blayne quoting JJ from a previous post:

"They are developing a delivery system. Israel has proven they will not use their nukes without good cause, but Ahmadinejad is a nut case who thinks its his destiny to pave the way for the 12th Imam -- the Mahdi. He thinks an end of the world scenario must precede this. All he needs is one nuke to lob over to Israel to create chaos and possibly drawn many nations into a conflict. He is willing to be nuked by the whole world to accomplish this. To put our head in the sand and pretend this is no danger is reckless."

Blayne then writes:

"There is no evidence they are developing a delivery system."

JJ:

Here's a USA Today News story from Feb 4, 2008:

"TEHRAN, Iran - Iran launched a research rocket and unveiled its first major space center, state television reported Monday, the latest steps in a program many fear may be cover to more fully develop its military ballistic missiles."

Take a look at the rocket from the story at:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-02-04-iran-rocket-space_N.htm

Here's another article from USA Today:

"TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran is capable of firing 11,000 rockets into enemy bases within the first minute after any possible attack, state-run television quoted a top Revolutionary Guards Corps commander as saying Saturday."

You can read the full text at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-10-20-iran-rocketattack_N.htm

You've got your head in the sand if you don't think they can deliver as nuke to Israel if they had one.

Blayne:

"The Mullahs run the country and they are much more level headed."

JJ:

Yeah right. These are the same guys who have rape victims stoned to death rather than the one doing the rape and the same ones that glorify and support Hezbollah. Real level headed bunch.

Here's the beginning of a story from an Indian newspaper:

"Iranian Mullahs Stone 13-Year-Old Rape Victim.

"'The mullahs of the Islamic Republic have, at several times, shown their thirst for carnage in the past 25 years of ruling over Iran. They have a long history of plotting suicide attacks and waging wars internationally and silencing any opposing voice domestically. Having brutalized the Iranian nation all throughout these years, having kept most of the people under the poverty line, one shouldn't be astonished on how these 'men of Allah' have had absolutely no problem finding recruits and sending poor souls after the so-called promised paradise through shedding the blood of other humans. If you are an Iranian, it wouldn't be very strange for you to have at least one dear and near lost at the bloody hands of these shopkeepers of religion.'"

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/10-26g-04.asp

Blayne:

"Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead."

JJ:

That's debatable but whatever the case there is a lot of support from the Mullahs to destroy Israel and destroy the infidels.

Blayne;

"And where is the evidence that he is a nutcase?"

JJ:

Just listen to him for five minutes. An example is his statement before Columbia college students last time he was here, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country."

He also said the Holocaust never happened, yet wants to create a new one.

Blayne:

"Is it just because he rattles sabers in defense of his country? What has he actually done?"

JJ:

I've seen Iran hostage survivors interviewed who positively identified him as their interrogator. It sounded like there was no doubt in their minds.

They are recruiting suicide bombers. See:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3118456,00.html

They smuggle weapons to fuel the Iraq insurgency:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/11/iraq.iran

If you think Iran's pursuit of atomic energy is peaceful then I have a bridge to sell you. It doesn't take much common sense to see that they do not need nuclear energy when they have unlimited petroleum fuels. Israel does not believe their nuclear program is peaceful.

"Feb 11, 2008:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Monday that Iran would never give into Western pressure to give up its disputed nuclear program."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid/=1202730276564

Blayne:

"Also the speech where it is purported he threatened to wipe Israel off the map has been proven to have been misinterpreted.

"Here is an interesting analysis of what was actually said:

" http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&arti/cleId=4527 "

JJ:

That comes up as a blank page.

He's threatened Israel many times. Here's a couple:

Iranian president says Israel's disappearance imminent, 'Zionist regime' will have to bow down to Palestinians. Iranian FM meets with Hamas, Jihad leaders in Damascus, urging them to continue struggle against Jewish state

The countdown to Israel's destruction has begun, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech commemorating the death of Iranian revolution leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on Sunday.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3407915,00.html

"PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel...

"'Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,' he said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html

"Iran's Call for the Destruction of Israel

"At a conference in Tehran on Wednesday entitled 'The World without Zionism,' President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map. The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,' he added. He also denounced moves by some Arab states to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it."

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2170.cfm

Blayne:

"Also the Iranian people especially the younger generation are very pro freedom and Western/American culture. It would be a shame to destroy all that desire for liberty and freedom amongst them by attacking them for no good reason and inciting hate. It will set them back for centuries."

JJ:

No one is advocating attacking them for no good reason. Again, please argue with what I do say, not what I do not say or even believe.

Yes, I agree with you about the young people. The problem is that those reasonable Mullahs (according to you) control them with an iron fist. They are about as reasonable as were the Confederate slaveholders.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"It's not how powerful and enemy is but how dedicated and how far he is willing to go. We were fortunate that the leaders of the Soviet Union wanted to preserve their own lives. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men with box cutters created more damage to us than did the powerful Soviet Union. Why? Because they cared not for their own lives and were willing to sacrifice everything for their God."

Blayne then writes:

"And almost all of them were Saudi's. So why did we attack Iraq again? And why are we are now threatening to attack Iran?"

JJ:

Because they broke the conditions of the cease-fire from the Gulf War. Why do you insinuate that those who see differently than you are so stupid to think that we attacked Iraq directly because of an Iraqi involvement in 911? If Iraq had lived up to their cease-fire agreement there would have been no attack and you would not be able to insinuate that I think the attack is because of 911.

Blayne:

"This is where you are woefully uninformed. What reserves are you talking about?"

JJ:

The ones from the reference you gave at:

http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2007/0626budgetdeficit_rogoff.aspx

Blayne:

"China holds billions in treasury notes; we owe money on those notes, that's called a loan. Do you not believe the Comptroller General of the US David Walker when says every American is mortgaged up to; I believe $400,000 and we are bankrupt? If you don't believe him then please provide the evidence that refutes him?"

JJ:

This is not a part of any argument we are having. I have agreed with you many times that we are in a dangerous economical situation. I just do not see the certain doom you do.

Blayne:

"I never said we borrowed a trillion for the war from China alone."

JJ:

Here's your exact words:

"We have spent a trillion dollars on Iraq we don't have, it's all borrowed from China."

It sounds like that is what you said.

Obviously we haven't borrowed a trillion dollars from China for the war when we've only spent around a half trillion. I see you later acknowledge this.

Blayne then gives dire financial information that I have no problem with then says:

"Every fiat money system in history has collapsed within about a 40 to 50 year period. We went off the gold standard permanently in 1971 or there about, we are now at the end of that historical cycle. This system of money from nothing and perpetual debt, and debt on top of the debt is always doomed to failure. Our whole economy is based on debt and it has robbed the American people of their wealth."

JJ continues with:

Then why are we much more wealthy than any people who has been on the gold standard?

If the gold standard was so great then why did it not save us from the stock market crash in 1929 followed by the great depression.

The gold standard basically came to an end in 1933 when private ownership was outlawed and later sealed when the price was fixed.

Winston Churchill put Britain on the gold standard in 1925 and the economy took such a dive that for many years it was thought his political career was over.

Our financial problems would not be solved by going on the gold standard. Whether we are on fiat money or gold backed money we must control spending or there will be a collapse.

Fiat money which is backed by goods and services works just fine with responsible government. There is not enough gold to put us on an effective gold standard. The gold standard people seem to have a religious attachment to it rather than a logical one.

Blayne:

"Your naivete and refusal to study this more in depth is what allows you to so casually dismiss this as hyperbole. This isn't some conspiracy theory this is mathematical. When the economy can no longer out produce the debt it is based on then it will collapse, we are at that point. The feds will not be able to print or borrow their way out of this. That is why we a paying such high prices now, it will only get worse."

JJ:

We are paying pretty cheap prices for almost everything except medical when compared to 50 years ago. I think you are the one that needs to study more synthetically.

Blayne:

"Are you saying there was a conspiracy to kill Lincoln and Kennedy because of their monetary policies?"

JJ:

There's a strong possibility.

Blayne:

"Yet you can't fathom a conspiracy by powerful banking interests to control the world's currency and it's economies and hence the world even though that was there stated purpose? Also despite Lincoln and Kennedy threatening their monopoly on currency? How ironic."

JJ:

I can and do fathom it, but you apparently do not understand how they work. They do not want to destroy all the economies of the planet for it would only destroy their own financial empires. A lot of the problems you see are things that are out of their own control. The bankers are not all powerful as the conspiracy people imagine. I know many conspiracy buffs think bankers more interested in power than money, but the new generation of bankers is back to being interested in the money first and power second. This is why the Dark Brotherhood is now putting their attention on Moslem Extremists -- and there are many millions to work with that want to see the destruction of infidels such as you and I.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"And maybe it is you without a clue as to how aware I am. When we first met you thought I didn't have a clue as to how bad Y2K was going to be and we know how that turned out."

Blayne then wrote:

"And you still don't have a clue how close we came to disaster because of Y2K. Because the problem was solved, and averted disaster you assume it wasn't serious and just another conspiracy theory. While I and other IT professionals spent over a year working on fixing the problem, upgrading software and hardware, etc. I was on call that evening and many systems that were not upgraded went down; luckily enough were fixed to avert a cascading effect. But hey if you didn't see it or it wasn't reported on the news it must not have happened. Sigh!"

JJ:

No matter how you spin it I had faith that human ingenuity would solve the problem and you did not. And yes I studied the experts beforehand and many of them were even more pessimistic than yourself. If I listened to the experts alone I would have stored up food and prepared for the worst. Instead I listened to my soul that told me that we would rise above the problem.

We can do the same thing with our financial problems which are actually more to surmount than the Y2K situation. Whereas I was close to 100 percent. sure that Y2K would be solved, the problem in the way of the economy are many unenlightened politicians. So we have about a 50/50 chance of moving forward financially in the next 20 years. We have a chance of success because of human ingenuity, just as we did with Y2K.

JJ continues:

By the way you were going to direct me to his five point plan. I couldn't find it on the site you sent me to.

Blayne:

"I put it in the post you were responding too here you must have missed it. Here it is again:

" http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity "

JJ:

I noticed it is a four point plan instead of five. Overall I like it. He and his followers ought to concentrate more on this than attacking Bush and Lincoln.

Also of note is that he does not suggest we go back on the gold standard but to "Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency." That makes a lot more sense than returning to the gold standard of the past, which I think is unworkable.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"That's like saying the Kurds invited us into Iraq so the invasion was OK. If it was all right to go after the bad guys in Afghanistan when it was controlled by the Taliban then it was just as all right to go into Iraq when it was controlled by the Sunnis. Ron Paul is wanting it both ways in saying the first invasion was OK and the second was reprehensible."

Blayne then writes:

"Amazing... Sigh! What bad guys were in Iraq that attacked us?"

JJ:

And who in the Taliban attacked us?

Blayne:

"All of that is really irrelevant since the people who attacked us were being harbored in Afghanistan so the use of force was justified. No one in Iraq attacked us and they were no threat to us."

JJ:

I agree with the attack on Afghanistan but I could make the case if I had the mindset of the anti-Iraq people that the Taliban did not attack us and they have the right to harbor terrorists if they want.

For the umpteenth time. No one is arguing that Iraq attacked us. Why do you bring it up again and again and again? That is not part of any argument. They were a threat to national security because they attacked Kuwait and threatened the energy security of the whole world. The current war is an enforcement of the cease-fire of the first war. I hope I don't have to repeat this again.

Blayne:

"Ron Paul was right on, one was self-defense for an attack, the other was a preemptive strike based on lies."

JJ:

This is a lie because it was to enforce the cease-fire. If Saddam Hussein did not violate the cease-fire there would have been no attack.

As far as Bush lying the problem is that you cannot produce any lies supplied by Bush so this is heresy.

Blayne:

"There is no focus on Bin Laden that was given to the Pakistanis and that is a joke, most of their military is sympathetic to him. We had several opportunities to capture Bin Laden and did not act on them. The Bush Administration trots his name out anytime they want to steal more of our liberty."

JJ:

There is all the focus we can place on capturing Bin Laden without invading Pakistan. You have no proof to back your statement up that we are not focussing on him. You can't use a whole army to capture one man in the mountains.

Blayne:

"So you don't see suspension of habeas corpus, warrant less searches, secret imprisonment with no access to a lawyer, suspension of free speech, etc., etc. as an attack on civil liberties... Sigh!"

JJ:

And where are the U.S. citizens suffering from such abuse? You have over a 1000 times greater chance of being searched or imprisoned by a traffic cop. But for some reason that doesn't seem to bother you.

What universe are you in concerning free speech? What is it that I cannot say, outside of "The 'N' Word"? Where is this attack by Bush on my free speech? The political correct crowd are attacking it but the war on terror is not.

Blayne:

"The key words you said are 'I don't see'! Did you watch the Judge Napolitano videos or did you let your bias against him keep you from them?"

JJ:

It's not bias, but good judgement. I refuse to be subjected to such boredom as the man is capable of giving out. I just saw him the other day on TV so I've had all I can handle of the guy for this week.

If he says anything you think important then put it in words and let me have it.

I wouldn't try to make you listen to boredom incarnate.

Blayne:

"And how is it you think you know it won't affect one in ten million? Well I'll tell you it has already affected thousands."

JJ:

Bill O'Reilly has said he cannot find one citizen affected and put out several calls to his audience to notify him if they can find someone. So far none has showed up. If there are thousands as you say then write Bill a letter so he can check him out.

Blayne:

"Did you know if you are a victim of 'sneak and peak' warrant and you tell a lawyer or even a judge you can be charged with an additional felony?"

JJ:

Too bad you can't back this up by giving an example of anyone charged with such a felony. Can you tell me where in the Patriot Act that it states that the "sneak and peek" victim can be charged with a felony if he consults an attorney?

Here is an interesting comment:

"Myth:   The Patriot Act 'sneak and peek' is an unconstitutional Liberal myth.

"The 'sneak and peek' provisions in the Patriot Act are unconstitutional."

The facts:

The so-called "sneak and peek" provision of the USA Patriot Act, which allow law enforcement agents to execute a search warrant without providing prior notice in certain limited circumstances, is a standard law enforcement tool and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Already in use:

These delayed-notification search warrants have been in use in the United States for some time, for example in drug cases.

Example:   Using delayed-notification warrants, police can seize drugs and collect information about smugglers without blowing an undercover agent's cover or exposing the identity of an informant.

http://www.myheritage.org/Issues/MythBusters/PatriotActSneakPeek.asp

Blayne:

"Ah, but JJ says don't worry we can trust the government not to use theses powers against us."

JJ:

How many times do I have to ask you to argue with what I do say, not with what I do not say.

I do not trust the government and have never said so. What I am saying is that we need to prioritize our concerns. If a traffic cop is about a million times more likely to abuse us than an agent of the war on terror using the Patriot Act then is it not insane to place so much attention where the problem is so negligible?

The Patriot Act is one of the reasons we haven't had an attack for seven years, but I know you will not acknowledge this because of your own bias.

Blayne:

"SO WHY GIVE THEM TO THEM THEN? Oh, but they need them to fight the fake war on terror... Sigh."

JJ:

Does this mean the attack on 911 was a fake attack? How about the many attacks which have been prevented? How about the real attacks in the UK, Spain, the Philippines, Bali, etc.?

There will always be abuse when power is given, but those charged with protecting us must be given the power to do their job.

Blayne:

"Sorry JJ, but that is the most asinine thing I have ever heard you say."

JJ:

No wonder. You are arguing with what I did not say.

Blayne:

"I am not interested in living in a police state so I can feel safe."

JJ:

I don't think you know what a real police state is or what can cause it. If you get someone like Hitler as head of state he will not even need a Patriot Act. Hitler didn't need to use law, he broke law and was a law to himself. He was the law.

Blayne:

"You really should read the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, The Domestic Terrorist Act, and Veterans Disarmament Act."

JJ:

When you supported the Patriot Act you said you read it and felt the same as I do. Did someone get a hold of you and set your mind right?

The Domestic Terrorist Act which passed the House 310-6 sounds good to me. I want the government to have surveillance on suspected terrorists. They can tap my phone if they want to be bored to death. Again, you have about a million times the chance that a traffic cop will infringe on your privacy than anything from this act. Let's put things in perspective.

I see no problem with the Military Commissions Act, but I don't like the Veterans Disarmament Act which could be a step toward more gun control.

Blayne:

"As Benjamin Franklin said: 'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY.'"

JJ:

So if I give up the liberty to burglarize my neighbor's house I deserve neither liberty or safety? Franklin's words are taken to insane proportions. Rebels gave up liberties to fight with George Washington and this lead to greater liberty. Everything in life is a judgement call, but you are seeing it as black and white interpretation.

In every war fighting for greater liberty, certain liberties were temporarily curtailed.

Blayne:

"Ron Paul has an impeccable record of doing the right thing; your denigration of him is disgusting and very disappointing."

JJ:

I haven't denigrated him. I disagree with him on some things. It's still a free country, relatively speaking and I think I have the right to do this.

Blayne:

"Yeah, he is just focused on the little things like freedom, liberty, peace and prosperity! While Bush is focused on the big things like endless war on civil liberties at home and non threatening sovereign nations abroad... Sigh!"

JJ:

Too bad his policies would exclude the Iraqis from the chance for freedom.

Too bad you are more worried about one in 10 million chance of infringement than you are about traffic cops which are a much greater threat. Are you also worried about being hit by a meteor every time you go outside?

Blayne:

"Your idea of spreading freedom through war, death and destruction is quite warped."

JJ:

Sounds like you wouldn't have supported George Washington or FDR. What have you turned into man -- a peace at any price guy? Some things are worth fighting for.

Blayne:

"You're trying to justify torture."

JJ:

I don't justify or support torture.

Blayne:

"And the deaths of millions for some distorted notion that US troops are fighting for freedom is very telling."

JJ:

So does this mean you did not support our fight for freedom during World War II where millions died?

Your attempt to paint me as a war monger is sad. True I agree with some wars that have brought greater freedom such as the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I & II and a few others. Probably about 95 percent of my fellow citizens agree with me on these. Are 95 percent of the population "distorted" but you are the sane one?

Blayne:

"You have spent years with this group and what have you accomplished? Nothing!"

JJ:

I've gotten over 3900 original articles written many of which will be studied for 1000 years. I am happy with this first step in my mission.

Blayne:

"It mostly sounds like a bunch of bickering children when they are not trying to one up each other in their supposed spiritual knowledge and obscure vernacular. And yes I was one of them. But what has any of them accomplished?"

JJ:

And you can speak form a superior vantage point because you have done...?

Blayne:

"This is not meant to say there is no value in pursuing these things. However just to draw a comparison of what Dr. Ron Paul has accomplished in one year in drawing together millions who are embracing the message of freedom, liberty, peace and prosperity. There are thousands of meetup groups organized all across this country and even around the world for Dr. Paul despite him being largely ignored by media and smeared. He has assembled the largest grassroots army in the history of politics all just with his message."

JJ:

A lot of his appeal is from those who would deny freedom to the Iraqis and are spooked by negligible threats and do not see the real threat. I wouldn't call this part a message of freedom. His fiscal ideas are standard libertarian and I support most of them.

Blayne:

"But some how according to you JJ, folks who want freedom, liberty, peace, and prosperity are misguided and should prefer war and all it's horrors."

JJ:

Again, I ask -- argue with what I do say, not with what I do not say. I support all things that can be proven to lead to freedom, liberty, peace, and prosperity. I would never accuse you of such a thing just because I disagree with you on how it can be achieved.

You have to know that I do not prefer war over freedom, but am willing to go to war for the sake of freedom. Are you not willing to do the same? If so, then why do you fault me?

Blayne:

"So are you saying that Ron Paul receiving more donations to his campaign from active duty military then all other candidates combined including democrat candidates is not a hard fact?"

JJ:

No. Why would you think such a thing?

Blayne:

"A bankrupted country that can't even afford the interest on its' debt, cannot afford it no matter what the cost. And no it's not worth it if the cost is losing our freedoms at home in the name of fighting the fake war on terror."

JJ:

We aren't bankrupt yet. What should we do hide in a closet, do nothing financially to serve the world and wait for the end?

Blayne:

"I am completely consistent. I never said the South had the right to hold slaves."

JJ:

You said: "The government is servant to the people and the people are its master even if the people are wrongly enslaving others."

This sounds like you support the people of the South in having slaves.

Blayne:

"I said they had the right to secede."

JJ:

And Lincoln said they did not have the right to secede to create a slave state.

Blayne:

"Argue with what I said and not with what I didn't say. When I said abolish the law it could have been done legally through proper process. There is nothing unconstitutional about that."

JJ:

But you criticized Lincoln for upholding the Fugitive Slave Act when it was the constitutional law of the land and give him no credit for abolishing it. You actually found fault with Lincoln for being constitutional.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"There is nothing in that quote about not caring about slavery. I already destroyed the potency of this quote by giving the rest of it. Let me repeat it again what you left out:"

"Quoting Lincoln:

"'I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.'"

Blayne:

"You destroyed nothing, you only prove he contradicts himself as most politicians do.

"Quoting Lincoln:

"'My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.'

"Yeah, he cared so much for his stated purpose that all men could be free that if he could save the Union without freeing any slave he would do it. Well then why didn't he offer the South to return and he would no more support freeing the slaves? If as you say the South's main reason for secession was slavery then all Lincoln would have had to do is drop his purpose to abolish slavery and he could have preserved the Union."

JJ:

I've already explained this to you and you did not respond, but keep repeating the same argument.

If you study the life of Lincoln through writings that do not have an agenda then you can get a feel of the man. He wrote that letter to Horace Greeley when the war was at a difficult stage and for a period of time he was very discouraged. There was a moment when he felt like he would be willing to forget the whole slavery thing if he could just save the Union. He wanted to do two things: (1) Save the Union and (2) free the slaves. If worse came to worse half of the goal was better than nothing.

In saying this to Greeley he added, "I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

This is not a contradiction at all. Saving the union was his prime official duty, but his strong personal wish was to free the slaves also. Where is the contradiction? There is none. I am left to wonder why you are so bent on finding fault with such a great man.

Blayne asks:

"Well then why didn't he offer the South to return and he would no more support freeing the slaves? If as you say the South's main reason for secession was slavery then all Lincoln would have had to do is drop his purpose to abolish slavery and he could have preserved the Union."

JJ:

He came close to doing this in a moment of gloom but quickly got back on course and saw the war through to the freeing of the slaves as well as saving the Union.

When the day comes that you see Lincoln in the true light you will see that he is one of the greatest souls in human history in advancing the cause of freedom that you attempt to embrace.

Here's what Djwhal Khul [DK] said of Lincoln:

"1. Racial Avatars. These Appearances are evoked by the genius and destiny of a race. The typical man (in quality and consciousness, not necessarily physically) foreshadows the nature of some race. Such a man was Abraham Lincoln, coming forth from the very soul of a people, and introducing and transmitting racial quality to be worked out later as the race unfolds."