Advertisement

Please Don't Call it 'State Socialism'

By Vin Suprynowicz, Las Vegas Review-Journal - March 28, 2010

The modern Prussian police state was built by Bismarck and others in the 19th century on a Spartan model, giving the central government vastly greater control over the individual than had ever been considered possible before.

Bismarck's program centered squarely on insurance programs designed to increase support for the ever larger and more powerful government. The program included health insurance, workman's compensation, disability insurance and old-age retirement pensions, all innovations at the time.

Starting with the model of Prussian compulsary schooling, American "educators," starting with John Dewey and Edward Thorndike eagerly imported this Prussian model to America.

Trained to accept such state control (and now the new "green" religion) in the schools for most of the past century, then made dependent on government insurance programs (Social Security, Medicare) as surely as the pimp makes sure his young ladies are dependent on the needle and the fix only he can provide, slavery to the state soon appears inescapable, even ordained by God and nature.

Why, it's a good thing! In exchange for the possibility of ever becoming truly exceptional, of growing rich based on our own efforts, it rewards us with ... "security."

"It is possible that all our politics will come to nothing when I am dead, but state socialism ("Der Staatssozialismus") will push itself through," Bismarck said in 1881.

"State socialism," he called it.

We're told that for some reason we're not allowed to call the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda "socialism," "communism," "Marxism," "state socialism" "fascism," or anything else that might sound unpleasant.

Much as I hate to cite the tyrant Lincoln, if we call a dog's tail a leg, does it have five legs? Telling us we're not "allowed" to use an accurate label for something doesn't change what it is.

Instead of allowing General Motors and Chrysler to go through normal bankruptcies, through which new and more efficient private operators could have purchased their worthwhile assets while shedding their crippling union contracts, the two giant auto makers have now been effectively nationalized. Meantime, an unelected federal "pay czar" decides on the compensation of executives, even at supposedly private banks that have paid back all their "bailout" loans. Does that sound like the normal function of the American free market, as understood in 1910, 1960 or even 1990?

Thanks to thoroughly unconstitutional "bailouts," the federal government now de facto manages our major banks and/or credit card companies, along with our airlines and airports.

The health care bill was "sweetened" with a federal takeover of college loans. Why? You don't imagine the federal government will ever try to manipulate the behavior of college graduates, offering to "forgive their college loans" if they agree to behave in ways favored by the fedgov, do you?

"Federalizing" all these programs shifts money and employment from the private to the government-bureaucrat sector. Unionized government bureaucrats tend to belong to outfits like the SEIU, which actively back Democrat/socialists, while dispatching purple-shirted thugs to beat up black freedom-fighters handing out "Don't tread on me" Gadsden flags outside rigged Democratic "town hall" meetings.

The so-called "health reform" bill authorizes $10 billion to field 16,500 more IRS agents to collect and enforce mandatory "premiums," which we're assured are not a "tax." Providing you're a "normal" citizen with a job and house, of course. (Illegal aliens Get Out of Jail Free, as usual.)

Last week the Review-Journal mentioned in passing, in an editorial about socialist Congresscritter Dina Titus' move to facilitate the takeover of Nevada Occupational Safety and Health enforcement by the federal government, that the Constitution grants the federals no authority to regulate workplace safety within the states. One letter writer couldn't wait to write in that the newspaper was wrong: turns out the preamble to the federal OSHA law as adopted specifies that it's all constitutional, since the federal government is empowered to regulate interstate commerce, and "workplace health and safety can impact interstate commerce."

It would be more justifiable to hold that an IRS man can climb the fence into my back yard and smash the watermelons I'm growing there, since by growing my own watermelons I reduce the demand for supermarket watermelons grown in another state, and this "impacts interstate commerce."

So we're right back to "If you call a dog's tail a leg, does it have five legs?" If Washington can do anything it likes because everything somehow "impacts interstate commerce," why do we have a Constitution with that two-page list of specifically delegated powers? Why not just one sentence: "Congress shall have power to do anything it figures might promote the general welfare and/or impact interstate commerce"?

On the radio this week I heard Congresscritter Titus asked whether she's concerned about state lawsuits challenging the new federal mandate that everyone will have to buy "suitable" health insurance. "Oh, no," she said, "The Constitution has been interpreted all kinds of ways, so I'm not concerned about that."

This from a woman -- a supposedly well-educated college professor -- who swore a solemn oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" 14 months ago.

You're still waiting for the American economy to "come back"? You may wait a long while. Once the investment capital is scared offshore, and the foreigners stop buying our bonds, who's going to pay for even the "entitlement" programs already in place, let alone this Obama-Reid-Pelosi "State-socialism on steroids"?

The biggest buyer of U.S. government bonds will soon be the Federal Reserve. Where does the Federal Reserve get its dollars? It orders the Bureau of Engraving to print them -- or just taps them into existence on its computer screens. As ever more dollars bid for a fixed pile of goods, the value of each dollar -- including the paltry few you still have saved in the bank -- shrinks.

This is like saying, "I won't starve; I can always eat my own foot." By the time you've eaten both legs up to the knees, it may start to dawn on you that this is a recourse with a limited future.

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal, and author of "Send in the Waco Killers" and the novel "The Black Arrow." See www.vinsuprynowicz.com/.

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

Report abuse scottyv wrote on March 28, 2010 12:08 PM: The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right to do so---Alexis de Tocqueville

Report abuse document.write(''); John F wrote on March 28, 2010 11:50 AM: Those of you who believe that Lincoln was a tyrant must also believe that freedom includes the right to make a slave of another person.There is no doubt but that the Southern states were attempting to overturn the results of a lawful election. By ratifying the Constitution and taking part in the elections they agreed, de facto and de jure, to abide by the results of those elections. There was no right to secede or to raise armies to do by the gun what they could not do by the ballot. Even if you argue that the states have a right to throw off a tyrannical government (and I agree that they do), what tyranny had been visited upon the South? The Southern states started seceding before Lincoln even took the oath of office. If tyranny was their excuse, don't you think they should have waited for their to be an actual tyrannical government in place before seceding? Nobody - not even Lincoln - was saying they couldn't keep their slaves. All Lincoln ever wanted to do was restrict the expansion of slavery. Nobody ever subjected Southern states to laws that all other states were not bound by. Further, if you agree that people have the right to throw off a tyrannical government, then certainly the slaves had a far greater right to throw off the state governments of the South than the South had to secede. That is, of course, you saw the slaves as something less than people (say, three fifths of a person).Tyranny and inconvenience are not the same thing. To allow political subunits to withdraw from the larger unit simply because they don't like the results of an election is a recipe for anarchy and makes a mockery of those very elections.

Report abuse document.write(''); Mr. Doe wrote on March 28, 2010 11:09 AM: This whole "don't call it Socialism" non-sense reminds me of an exchange on the TV show South Park.Gerald Brofloski: "You see, Kyle, we live in a liberal-democratic society, and democrats make sexual harassment laws, these laws tell us what we can and can't say in the work place, and what we can and can't do in the work place."Kyle Broflovski: "Isn't that fascism?"Gerald Brofloski: "No, because we don't call it fascism."

Report abuse document.write(''); dave wrote on March 28, 2010 10:09 AM: What can be done to stop this? Anyone who even tries to address this is labeled a nutjob yet Obama and his gang know exactly what they are doing and it will be to our unltimate end

Report abuse document.write(''); Jon H. wrote on March 28, 2010 10:07 AM: George Washington was the Father of this CountryAbe Lincoln was the Father of Federalism, and of our present day Big Federal Government.Those who wish to enshrine the memory of Abe Lincoln are the same persons who bow at the altar of Big Government.John F. I respectively disagree with your assessment on what role Abe Lincoln represented to the ideals of Individual Freedom and Liberty in our country.

Report abuse document.write(''); Paolo wrote on March 28, 2010 09:41 AM: Actually, no one in the South tried to "overturn" any election; they just opted to secede, an action they had every right to take. Lincoln was a tyrant who could not stand the idea of states going their own way. He instituted an astounding train of tyrannies and usurpations that are well-documented. Far from being our greatest president, Lincoln was the absolute worst--even worse than Wilson and the two Roosevelts. Vin is right to call him what he was--a tyrant.

Report abuse document.write(''); John F wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen,You got it backwards. The "logic" you employ is astounding.The tyrants are those who resort to the force of arms to overturn the results of elections in which they willingly took part. The secessionists resorted to armed insurrection on a perceived threat, not because the government took any action against them. Name one move Lincoln took to abridge any state's rights before they seceded. Just one. Many of them seceded and raised armies against the lawful government before Lincoln was even inaugurated.Mr. Smith,I did not say that Mr. Suprynowicz is evil, and I don't say it now. I said that he lacks credibility for calling Lincoln a tyrant. Nor did I say that people shouldn't read his column. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen, don't bother arguing with people about The Tyrant Lincoln. Good ol' Honest Abe was the savior of our nation. He's right up there with Christ! After all, when you force people by gunpoint to stay "unified", it's for their own good!As the French said: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité!"It goes right along with:"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Report abuse document.write(''); Allen wrote on March 28, 2010 08:31 AM: John F.,Can you actually deny Lincoln's tyrannical actions?There is nothing within the Constitution that forbids the states from lawfully seceding. When the state has determined that the federal government has become wholly destructive of the ends for which government is instituted among men, the state is entitled to cast off the bonds which bind it to that government. Check the Declaration of Independence.Lincoln was not putting down an insurrection because the southern states lawfully and orderly withdrew their support from the union. You know what we call an Executive who, by force, tries to prevent a state from taking an action they have every right to take? A tyrant. At least, that's what we called George III.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:27 AM: That's right John, Vin is evil because he called Lincoln a tyrant. We shouldn't read anything he writes!And I'm gonna hold my breath until everyone stops reading him, so there!

Read All Comments Contact the R-J Subscribe Report a delivery problem Put the paper on hold Advertise with us Report a news tip/press release Send a letter to the editor Print announcement forms Jobs at the R-J Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement RSS Twitter Facebook Copyright © Stephens Media LLC 1997 - 2010 Feedback _qoptions={qacct:"p-aa5TByTV-WRr6"};document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b")+ ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js' %3E%3C/script%3E"));COMSCORE.beacon({c1:2,c2:"6503134",c3:"",c4:"www.lvrj.com",c5:"",c6:"",c15:""});/*globals YWA*/var YWATracker = YWA.getTracker("10001778915411");YWATracker.setDomains("lvrj.com,reviewjournal.com"); //YWATracker.setDocumentName("");//YWATracker.setDocumentGroup("");YWATracker.submit();

Report abuse John F wrote on March 28, 2010 11:50 AM: Those of you who believe that Lincoln was a tyrant must also believe that freedom includes the right to make a slave of another person.There is no doubt but that the Southern states were attempting to overturn the results of a lawful election. By ratifying the Constitution and taking part in the elections they agreed, de facto and de jure, to abide by the results of those elections. There was no right to secede or to raise armies to do by the gun what they could not do by the ballot. Even if you argue that the states have a right to throw off a tyrannical government (and I agree that they do), what tyranny had been visited upon the South? The Southern states started seceding before Lincoln even took the oath of office. If tyranny was their excuse, don't you think they should have waited for their to be an actual tyrannical government in place before seceding? Nobody - not even Lincoln - was saying they couldn't keep their slaves. All Lincoln ever wanted to do was restrict the expansion of slavery. Nobody ever subjected Southern states to laws that all other states were not bound by. Further, if you agree that people have the right to throw off a tyrannical government, then certainly the slaves had a far greater right to throw off the state governments of the South than the South had to secede. That is, of course, you saw the slaves as something less than people (say, three fifths of a person).Tyranny and inconvenience are not the same thing. To allow political subunits to withdraw from the larger unit simply because they don't like the results of an election is a recipe for anarchy and makes a mockery of those very elections.

Report abuse document.write(''); Mr. Doe wrote on March 28, 2010 11:09 AM: This whole "don't call it Socialism" non-sense reminds me of an exchange on the TV show South Park.Gerald Brofloski: "You see, Kyle, we live in a liberal-democratic society, and democrats make sexual harassment laws, these laws tell us what we can and can't say in the work place, and what we can and can't do in the work place."Kyle Broflovski: "Isn't that fascism?"Gerald Brofloski: "No, because we don't call it fascism."

Report abuse document.write(''); dave wrote on March 28, 2010 10:09 AM: What can be done to stop this? Anyone who even tries to address this is labeled a nutjob yet Obama and his gang know exactly what they are doing and it will be to our unltimate end

Report abuse document.write(''); Jon H. wrote on March 28, 2010 10:07 AM: George Washington was the Father of this CountryAbe Lincoln was the Father of Federalism, and of our present day Big Federal Government.Those who wish to enshrine the memory of Abe Lincoln are the same persons who bow at the altar of Big Government.John F. I respectively disagree with your assessment on what role Abe Lincoln represented to the ideals of Individual Freedom and Liberty in our country.

Report abuse document.write(''); Paolo wrote on March 28, 2010 09:41 AM: Actually, no one in the South tried to "overturn" any election; they just opted to secede, an action they had every right to take. Lincoln was a tyrant who could not stand the idea of states going their own way. He instituted an astounding train of tyrannies and usurpations that are well-documented. Far from being our greatest president, Lincoln was the absolute worst--even worse than Wilson and the two Roosevelts. Vin is right to call him what he was--a tyrant.

Report abuse document.write(''); John F wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen,You got it backwards. The "logic" you employ is astounding.The tyrants are those who resort to the force of arms to overturn the results of elections in which they willingly took part. The secessionists resorted to armed insurrection on a perceived threat, not because the government took any action against them. Name one move Lincoln took to abridge any state's rights before they seceded. Just one. Many of them seceded and raised armies against the lawful government before Lincoln was even inaugurated.Mr. Smith,I did not say that Mr. Suprynowicz is evil, and I don't say it now. I said that he lacks credibility for calling Lincoln a tyrant. Nor did I say that people shouldn't read his column. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen, don't bother arguing with people about The Tyrant Lincoln. Good ol' Honest Abe was the savior of our nation. He's right up there with Christ! After all, when you force people by gunpoint to stay "unified", it's for their own good!As the French said: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité!"It goes right along with:"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Report abuse document.write(''); Allen wrote on March 28, 2010 08:31 AM: John F.,Can you actually deny Lincoln's tyrannical actions?There is nothing within the Constitution that forbids the states from lawfully seceding. When the state has determined that the federal government has become wholly destructive of the ends for which government is instituted among men, the state is entitled to cast off the bonds which bind it to that government. Check the Declaration of Independence.Lincoln was not putting down an insurrection because the southern states lawfully and orderly withdrew their support from the union. You know what we call an Executive who, by force, tries to prevent a state from taking an action they have every right to take? A tyrant. At least, that's what we called George III.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:27 AM: That's right John, Vin is evil because he called Lincoln a tyrant. We shouldn't read anything he writes!And I'm gonna hold my breath until everyone stops reading him, so there!

Read All Comments Contact the R-J Subscribe Report a delivery problem Put the paper on hold Advertise with us Report a news tip/press release Send a letter to the editor Print announcement forms Jobs at the R-J Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement RSS Twitter Facebook Copyright © Stephens Media LLC 1997 - 2010 Feedback _qoptions={qacct:"p-aa5TByTV-WRr6"};document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b")+ ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js' %3E%3C/script%3E"));COMSCORE.beacon({c1:2,c2:"6503134",c3:"",c4:"www.lvrj.com",c5:"",c6:"",c15:""});/*globals YWA*/var YWATracker = YWA.getTracker("10001778915411");YWATracker.setDomains("lvrj.com,reviewjournal.com"); //YWATracker.setDocumentName("");//YWATracker.setDocumentGroup("");YWATracker.submit();

Report abuse Mr. Doe wrote on March 28, 2010 11:09 AM: This whole "don't call it Socialism" non-sense reminds me of an exchange on the TV show South Park.Gerald Brofloski: "You see, Kyle, we live in a liberal-democratic society, and democrats make sexual harassment laws, these laws tell us what we can and can't say in the work place, and what we can and can't do in the work place."Kyle Broflovski: "Isn't that fascism?"Gerald Brofloski: "No, because we don't call it fascism."

Report abuse document.write(''); dave wrote on March 28, 2010 10:09 AM: What can be done to stop this? Anyone who even tries to address this is labeled a nutjob yet Obama and his gang know exactly what they are doing and it will be to our unltimate end

Report abuse document.write(''); Jon H. wrote on March 28, 2010 10:07 AM: George Washington was the Father of this CountryAbe Lincoln was the Father of Federalism, and of our present day Big Federal Government.Those who wish to enshrine the memory of Abe Lincoln are the same persons who bow at the altar of Big Government.John F. I respectively disagree with your assessment on what role Abe Lincoln represented to the ideals of Individual Freedom and Liberty in our country.

Report abuse document.write(''); Paolo wrote on March 28, 2010 09:41 AM: Actually, no one in the South tried to "overturn" any election; they just opted to secede, an action they had every right to take. Lincoln was a tyrant who could not stand the idea of states going their own way. He instituted an astounding train of tyrannies and usurpations that are well-documented. Far from being our greatest president, Lincoln was the absolute worst--even worse than Wilson and the two Roosevelts. Vin is right to call him what he was--a tyrant.

Report abuse document.write(''); John F wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen,You got it backwards. The "logic" you employ is astounding.The tyrants are those who resort to the force of arms to overturn the results of elections in which they willingly took part. The secessionists resorted to armed insurrection on a perceived threat, not because the government took any action against them. Name one move Lincoln took to abridge any state's rights before they seceded. Just one. Many of them seceded and raised armies against the lawful government before Lincoln was even inaugurated.Mr. Smith,I did not say that Mr. Suprynowicz is evil, and I don't say it now. I said that he lacks credibility for calling Lincoln a tyrant. Nor did I say that people shouldn't read his column. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen, don't bother arguing with people about The Tyrant Lincoln. Good ol' Honest Abe was the savior of our nation. He's right up there with Christ! After all, when you force people by gunpoint to stay "unified", it's for their own good!As the French said: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité!"It goes right along with:"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Report abuse document.write(''); Allen wrote on March 28, 2010 08:31 AM: John F.,Can you actually deny Lincoln's tyrannical actions?There is nothing within the Constitution that forbids the states from lawfully seceding. When the state has determined that the federal government has become wholly destructive of the ends for which government is instituted among men, the state is entitled to cast off the bonds which bind it to that government. Check the Declaration of Independence.Lincoln was not putting down an insurrection because the southern states lawfully and orderly withdrew their support from the union. You know what we call an Executive who, by force, tries to prevent a state from taking an action they have every right to take? A tyrant. At least, that's what we called George III.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:27 AM: That's right John, Vin is evil because he called Lincoln a tyrant. We shouldn't read anything he writes!And I'm gonna hold my breath until everyone stops reading him, so there!

Read All Comments Contact the R-J Subscribe Report a delivery problem Put the paper on hold Advertise with us Report a news tip/press release Send a letter to the editor Print announcement forms Jobs at the R-J Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement RSS Twitter Facebook Copyright © Stephens Media LLC 1997 - 2010 Feedback _qoptions={qacct:"p-aa5TByTV-WRr6"};document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b")+ ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js' %3E%3C/script%3E"));COMSCORE.beacon({c1:2,c2:"6503134",c3:"",c4:"www.lvrj.com",c5:"",c6:"",c15:""});/*globals YWA*/var YWATracker = YWA.getTracker("10001778915411");YWATracker.setDomains("lvrj.com,reviewjournal.com"); //YWATracker.setDocumentName("");//YWATracker.setDocumentGroup("");YWATracker.submit();

Report abuse dave wrote on March 28, 2010 10:09 AM: What can be done to stop this? Anyone who even tries to address this is labeled a nutjob yet Obama and his gang know exactly what they are doing and it will be to our unltimate end

Report abuse document.write(''); Jon H. wrote on March 28, 2010 10:07 AM: George Washington was the Father of this CountryAbe Lincoln was the Father of Federalism, and of our present day Big Federal Government.Those who wish to enshrine the memory of Abe Lincoln are the same persons who bow at the altar of Big Government.John F. I respectively disagree with your assessment on what role Abe Lincoln represented to the ideals of Individual Freedom and Liberty in our country.

Report abuse document.write(''); Paolo wrote on March 28, 2010 09:41 AM: Actually, no one in the South tried to "overturn" any election; they just opted to secede, an action they had every right to take. Lincoln was a tyrant who could not stand the idea of states going their own way. He instituted an astounding train of tyrannies and usurpations that are well-documented. Far from being our greatest president, Lincoln was the absolute worst--even worse than Wilson and the two Roosevelts. Vin is right to call him what he was--a tyrant.

Report abuse document.write(''); John F wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen,You got it backwards. The "logic" you employ is astounding.The tyrants are those who resort to the force of arms to overturn the results of elections in which they willingly took part. The secessionists resorted to armed insurrection on a perceived threat, not because the government took any action against them. Name one move Lincoln took to abridge any state's rights before they seceded. Just one. Many of them seceded and raised armies against the lawful government before Lincoln was even inaugurated.Mr. Smith,I did not say that Mr. Suprynowicz is evil, and I don't say it now. I said that he lacks credibility for calling Lincoln a tyrant. Nor did I say that people shouldn't read his column. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen, don't bother arguing with people about The Tyrant Lincoln. Good ol' Honest Abe was the savior of our nation. He's right up there with Christ! After all, when you force people by gunpoint to stay "unified", it's for their own good!As the French said: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité!"It goes right along with:"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Report abuse document.write(''); Allen wrote on March 28, 2010 08:31 AM: John F.,Can you actually deny Lincoln's tyrannical actions?There is nothing within the Constitution that forbids the states from lawfully seceding. When the state has determined that the federal government has become wholly destructive of the ends for which government is instituted among men, the state is entitled to cast off the bonds which bind it to that government. Check the Declaration of Independence.Lincoln was not putting down an insurrection because the southern states lawfully and orderly withdrew their support from the union. You know what we call an Executive who, by force, tries to prevent a state from taking an action they have every right to take? A tyrant. At least, that's what we called George III.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:27 AM: That's right John, Vin is evil because he called Lincoln a tyrant. We shouldn't read anything he writes!And I'm gonna hold my breath until everyone stops reading him, so there!

Read All Comments Contact the R-J Subscribe Report a delivery problem Put the paper on hold Advertise with us Report a news tip/press release Send a letter to the editor Print announcement forms Jobs at the R-J Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement RSS Twitter Facebook Copyright © Stephens Media LLC 1997 - 2010 Feedback _qoptions={qacct:"p-aa5TByTV-WRr6"};document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b")+ ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js' %3E%3C/script%3E"));COMSCORE.beacon({c1:2,c2:"6503134",c3:"",c4:"www.lvrj.com",c5:"",c6:"",c15:""});/*globals YWA*/var YWATracker = YWA.getTracker("10001778915411");YWATracker.setDomains("lvrj.com,reviewjournal.com"); //YWATracker.setDocumentName("");//YWATracker.setDocumentGroup("");YWATracker.submit();

Report abuse Jon H. wrote on March 28, 2010 10:07 AM: George Washington was the Father of this CountryAbe Lincoln was the Father of Federalism, and of our present day Big Federal Government.Those who wish to enshrine the memory of Abe Lincoln are the same persons who bow at the altar of Big Government.John F. I respectively disagree with your assessment on what role Abe Lincoln represented to the ideals of Individual Freedom and Liberty in our country.

Report abuse document.write(''); Paolo wrote on March 28, 2010 09:41 AM: Actually, no one in the South tried to "overturn" any election; they just opted to secede, an action they had every right to take. Lincoln was a tyrant who could not stand the idea of states going their own way. He instituted an astounding train of tyrannies and usurpations that are well-documented. Far from being our greatest president, Lincoln was the absolute worst--even worse than Wilson and the two Roosevelts. Vin is right to call him what he was--a tyrant.

Report abuse document.write(''); John F wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen,You got it backwards. The "logic" you employ is astounding.The tyrants are those who resort to the force of arms to overturn the results of elections in which they willingly took part. The secessionists resorted to armed insurrection on a perceived threat, not because the government took any action against them. Name one move Lincoln took to abridge any state's rights before they seceded. Just one. Many of them seceded and raised armies against the lawful government before Lincoln was even inaugurated.Mr. Smith,I did not say that Mr. Suprynowicz is evil, and I don't say it now. I said that he lacks credibility for calling Lincoln a tyrant. Nor did I say that people shouldn't read his column. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen, don't bother arguing with people about The Tyrant Lincoln. Good ol' Honest Abe was the savior of our nation. He's right up there with Christ! After all, when you force people by gunpoint to stay "unified", it's for their own good!As the French said: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité!"It goes right along with:"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Report abuse document.write(''); Allen wrote on March 28, 2010 08:31 AM: John F.,Can you actually deny Lincoln's tyrannical actions?There is nothing within the Constitution that forbids the states from lawfully seceding. When the state has determined that the federal government has become wholly destructive of the ends for which government is instituted among men, the state is entitled to cast off the bonds which bind it to that government. Check the Declaration of Independence.Lincoln was not putting down an insurrection because the southern states lawfully and orderly withdrew their support from the union. You know what we call an Executive who, by force, tries to prevent a state from taking an action they have every right to take? A tyrant. At least, that's what we called George III.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:27 AM: That's right John, Vin is evil because he called Lincoln a tyrant. We shouldn't read anything he writes!And I'm gonna hold my breath until everyone stops reading him, so there!

Read All Comments Contact the R-J Subscribe Report a delivery problem Put the paper on hold Advertise with us Report a news tip/press release Send a letter to the editor Print announcement forms Jobs at the R-J Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement RSS Twitter Facebook Copyright © Stephens Media LLC 1997 - 2010 Feedback _qoptions={qacct:"p-aa5TByTV-WRr6"};document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b")+ ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js' %3E%3C/script%3E"));COMSCORE.beacon({c1:2,c2:"6503134",c3:"",c4:"www.lvrj.com",c5:"",c6:"",c15:""});/*globals YWA*/var YWATracker = YWA.getTracker("10001778915411");YWATracker.setDomains("lvrj.com,reviewjournal.com"); //YWATracker.setDocumentName("");//YWATracker.setDocumentGroup("");YWATracker.submit();

Report abuse Paolo wrote on March 28, 2010 09:41 AM: Actually, no one in the South tried to "overturn" any election; they just opted to secede, an action they had every right to take. Lincoln was a tyrant who could not stand the idea of states going their own way. He instituted an astounding train of tyrannies and usurpations that are well-documented. Far from being our greatest president, Lincoln was the absolute worst--even worse than Wilson and the two Roosevelts. Vin is right to call him what he was--a tyrant.

Report abuse document.write(''); John F wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen,You got it backwards. The "logic" you employ is astounding.The tyrants are those who resort to the force of arms to overturn the results of elections in which they willingly took part. The secessionists resorted to armed insurrection on a perceived threat, not because the government took any action against them. Name one move Lincoln took to abridge any state's rights before they seceded. Just one. Many of them seceded and raised armies against the lawful government before Lincoln was even inaugurated.Mr. Smith,I did not say that Mr. Suprynowicz is evil, and I don't say it now. I said that he lacks credibility for calling Lincoln a tyrant. Nor did I say that people shouldn't read his column. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen, don't bother arguing with people about The Tyrant Lincoln. Good ol' Honest Abe was the savior of our nation. He's right up there with Christ! After all, when you force people by gunpoint to stay "unified", it's for their own good!As the French said: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité!"It goes right along with:"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Report abuse document.write(''); Allen wrote on March 28, 2010 08:31 AM: John F.,Can you actually deny Lincoln's tyrannical actions?There is nothing within the Constitution that forbids the states from lawfully seceding. When the state has determined that the federal government has become wholly destructive of the ends for which government is instituted among men, the state is entitled to cast off the bonds which bind it to that government. Check the Declaration of Independence.Lincoln was not putting down an insurrection because the southern states lawfully and orderly withdrew their support from the union. You know what we call an Executive who, by force, tries to prevent a state from taking an action they have every right to take? A tyrant. At least, that's what we called George III.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:27 AM: That's right John, Vin is evil because he called Lincoln a tyrant. We shouldn't read anything he writes!And I'm gonna hold my breath until everyone stops reading him, so there!

Read All Comments Contact the R-J Subscribe Report a delivery problem Put the paper on hold Advertise with us Report a news tip/press release Send a letter to the editor Print announcement forms Jobs at the R-J Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement RSS Twitter Facebook Copyright © Stephens Media LLC 1997 - 2010 Feedback _qoptions={qacct:"p-aa5TByTV-WRr6"};document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b")+ ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js' %3E%3C/script%3E"));COMSCORE.beacon({c1:2,c2:"6503134",c3:"",c4:"www.lvrj.com",c5:"",c6:"",c15:""});/*globals YWA*/var YWATracker = YWA.getTracker("10001778915411");YWATracker.setDomains("lvrj.com,reviewjournal.com"); //YWATracker.setDocumentName("");//YWATracker.setDocumentGroup("");YWATracker.submit();

Report abuse John F wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen,You got it backwards. The "logic" you employ is astounding.The tyrants are those who resort to the force of arms to overturn the results of elections in which they willingly took part. The secessionists resorted to armed insurrection on a perceived threat, not because the government took any action against them. Name one move Lincoln took to abridge any state's rights before they seceded. Just one. Many of them seceded and raised armies against the lawful government before Lincoln was even inaugurated.Mr. Smith,I did not say that Mr. Suprynowicz is evil, and I don't say it now. I said that he lacks credibility for calling Lincoln a tyrant. Nor did I say that people shouldn't read his column. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:43 AM: Allen, don't bother arguing with people about The Tyrant Lincoln. Good ol' Honest Abe was the savior of our nation. He's right up there with Christ! After all, when you force people by gunpoint to stay "unified", it's for their own good!As the French said: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité!"It goes right along with:"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Report abuse document.write(''); Allen wrote on March 28, 2010 08:31 AM: John F.,Can you actually deny Lincoln's tyrannical actions?There is nothing within the Constitution that forbids the states from lawfully seceding. When the state has determined that the federal government has become wholly destructive of the ends for which government is instituted among men, the state is entitled to cast off the bonds which bind it to that government. Check the Declaration of Independence.Lincoln was not putting down an insurrection because the southern states lawfully and orderly withdrew their support from the union. You know what we call an Executive who, by force, tries to prevent a state from taking an action they have every right to take? A tyrant. At least, that's what we called George III.

Report abuse document.write(''); winston smith wrote on March 28, 2010 08:27 AM: That's right John, Vin is evil because he called Lincoln a tyrant. We shouldn't read anything he writes!And I'm gonna hold my breath until everyone stops reading him, so there!

Read All Comments Contact the R-J Subscribe Report a delivery problem Put the paper on hold Advertise with us Report a news tip/press release Send a letter to the editor Print announcement forms Jobs at the R-J Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement RSS Twitter Facebook Copyright © Stephens Media LLC 1997 - 2010 Feedback _qoptions={qacct:"p-aa5TByTV-WRr6"};document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b")+ ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js' %3E%3C/script%3E"));COMSCORE.beacon({c1:2,c2:"6503134",c3:"",c4:"www.lvrj.com",c5:"",c6:"",c15:""});/*globals YWA*/var YWATracker = YWA.getTracker("10001778915411");YWATracker.setDomains("lvrj.com,reviewjournal.com"); //YWATracker.setDocumentName("");//YWATracker.setDocumentGroup("");YWATracker.submit();
Read Full Article »

Latest On Twitter

Follow Real Clear Politics

Real Clear Politics Video

More RCP Video Highlights »