|View single post by ThomasWashington|
|Posted: Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 08:42 pm||
|I didn't compare Lincoln to Hitler, I compared Hitler to Lincoln-- as a COPYCAT.
It's NOT the same. My defense is Hitler's own words.
The DoI, as pertains to the War Between the States, clearly and expressly enumerated the union as Free and Independent States-- not a singular state like Great Britain.
The Articles of Confederation and Paris Peace Treaty likewise affirmed this independent soveriegn status among the individual states-- while the Framers likewise affirmed and guaranteed the continued sovereignty of each state under the Constitution, even though it wasn't necessary in order for sovereign nations to expressly enumerate retention of their soveriegnty in order to do so-- like any other sovereign nation: but the fact that they did enumerated such stipulations and assurances, places the matter beyond all doubt.
Lincoln, meanwhile, denied these facts and assurances, instead claiming that the Union was then and always a single nation, and that therefore Washington DC held supreme national authority over them, on the grounds that "perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all nations."
Clearly the DoI differs, since the union was not a singular nation, but a federal republic of several individually separate nations.
Lincoln's usurpatory coup d'etat was therefore externally comparable to.... let's just say an unnamed 20th-century party-leader, who affirmed Lincoln's claim that the American states never had any sovereignty of their own-- and thus emulated Lincoln, via likewise claiming sovereign national authority over a groups of sovereign nations, ALSO via an order of force and censorship through faux-democracy and martial-law.
Again: NO NAMES MENTIONED!
Is everyone happy?
Last edited on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 12:09 am by ThomasWashington