Lincoln at 200

The following is from the Federalist Patriot.

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

Lincoln's legacy at 200

By Mark Alexander

February 12 marked the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln.

During his inauguration, Barack Hussein Obama insisted on using Lincoln's Bible as he took his oath of office. Those who know their history might understand why Obama then proceeded to choke on that oath.

Obama, the nation's first half-African American president, was playing on Lincoln's status as "The Great Emancipator," though Obama himself is certainly not the descendant of slaves. His ancestors may well have been slaveholders, though -- and I am not talking about his maternal line. Tens of millions of Africans have been enslaved by other Africans in centuries past. Even though Chattel (house and field) and Pawnship (debt and ransom) slavery was legally abolished in most African nations by the 1930s, millions of African men, women and children remain enslaved today, at least those who escape the slaughter of tribal rivalry.

Not to be outdone by the Obama inaugural, Republican organizations are issuing accolades in honor of their party's patriarch, on this template: "The (name of state) Republican Party salutes and honors Abraham Lincoln on the celebration of his 200th birthday. An extraordinary leader in extraordinary times, Abraham Lincoln's greatness was rooted in his principled leadership and defense of the Constitution."

Really?

If the Republican Party would spend more energy linking its birthright to our Constitution rather than Lincoln, it might still enjoy the popular support it had under Ronald Reagan.

Though Lincoln has already been canonized by those who settle for partial histories, in the words of John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

In our steadfast adherence to The Patriot Post's motto, Veritas Vos Liberabit ("the truth shall set you free"), and our mission to advocate for the restoration of constitutional limits on government, I am compelled to challenge our 16th president's iconic standing.

Lincoln is credited with being the greatest constitutional leader in history, having "preserved the Union," but his popular persona does not reconcile with the historical record. The constitutional federalism envisioned by our Founders and outlined by our Constitution's Bill of Rights was grossly violated by Abraham Lincoln. Arguably, he is responsible for the most grievous constitutional contravention in American history.

Needless to say, when one dares tread upon the record of such a divine figure as Lincoln, one risks all manner of ridicule, even hostility. That notwithstanding, we as Patriots should be willing to look at Lincoln's whole record, even though it may not please our sentiments or comport with the common folklore of most history books. Of course, challenging Lincoln's record is NOT tantamount to suggesting that he believed slavery was anything but an evil, abominable practice. Nor does this challenge suggest that Lincoln himself was not in possession of admirable qualities. It merely suggests, contrary to the popular record, that Lincoln was far from perfect.

It is fitting, then, in this week when the nation recognizes the anniversary of his birth, that we answer this question -- albeit at great peril to the sensibilities of some of our friends and colleagues.

Liberator of the oppressed...

The first of Lincoln's two most oft-noted achievements was ending the abomination of slavery. There is little doubt that Lincoln abhorred slavery, but likewise little doubt that he held racist views toward blacks. His own words undermine his hallowed status as the Great Emancipator.

For example, in his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln argued: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Lincoln declared, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races..."

In 1860, Lincoln racial views were explicit in these words: "They say that between the nigger and the crocodile they go for the nigger. The proportion, therefore, is, that as the crocodile to the nigger so is the nigger to the white man."

As for delivering slaves from bondage, it was two years after the commencement of hostilities that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation -- to protests from free laborers in the North, who didn't want emancipated slaves migrating north and competing for their jobs. He did so only as a means to an end, victory in the bloody War Between the States -- "to do more to help the cause."

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery," said Lincoln in regard to the Proclamation. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

In truth, not a single slave was emancipated by the stroke of Lincoln's pen. The Proclamation freed only "slaves within any State ... the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." In other words, Lincoln declared slaves were "free" in Confederate states, where his proclamation had no power, but excluded slaves in states that were not in rebellion, or areas controlled by the Union army. Slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware and Maryland were left in bondage.

His own secretary of state, William Seward, lamented, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass was so angry with Lincoln for delaying the liberation of some slaves that he scarcely contacted him before 1863, noting that Lincoln was loyal only "to the welfare of the white race..." Ten years after Lincoln's death, Douglass wrote that Lincoln was "preeminently the white man's President" and American blacks were "at best only his step-children."

With his Proclamation, Lincoln succeeded in politicizing the issue and short-circuiting the moral solution to slavery, thus leaving the scourge of racial inequality to fester to this day -- in every state of the Union.

Many historians argue that Southern states would likely have reunited with Northern states before the end of the 19th century had Lincoln allowed for a peaceful and constitutionally accorded secession. Slavery would have been supplanted by moral imperative and technological advances in cotton production. Furthermore, under this reunification model, the constitutional order of the republic would have remained largely intact.

In fact, while the so-called "Civil War" (which by definition, the Union attack on the South was not) eradicated slavery, it also short-circuited the moral imperative regarding racism, leaving the nation with racial tensions that persist today. Ironically, there is now more evidence of ethnic tension in Boston than in Birmingham, in Los Angeles than in Atlanta, and in Chicago than in Charleston.

Preserve the Union...

Of course, the second of Lincoln's most famous achievements was the preservation of the Union.

Despite common folklore, northern aggression was not predicated upon freeing slaves, but, according to Lincoln, "preserving the Union." In his First Inaugural Address Lincoln declared, "I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments."

"Implied, if not expressed"?

This is the first colossal example of errant constitutional interpretation, the advent of the so-called "Living Constitution."

Lincoln also threatened the use of force to maintain the Union when he said, "In [preserving the Union] there needs to be no bloodshed or violence ... unless it be forced upon the national authority."

On the other hand, according to the Confederacy, the War Between the States had as its sole objective the preservation of the constitutional sovereignty of the several states.

The Founding Fathers established the constitutional Union as a voluntary agreement among the several states, subordinate to the Declaration of Independence, which never mentions the nation as a singular entity, but instead repeatedly references the states as sovereign bodies, unanimously asserting their independence. To that end, our Constitution's author, James Madison, in an 1825 letter to our Declaration of Independence's author, Thomas Jefferson, asserted, "On the distinctive principles of the Government ... of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in ... The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States."

The states, in ratifying the Constitution, established the federal government as their agent -- not the other way around. At Virginia's ratification convention, for example, the delegates affirmed "that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to injury or oppression." Were this not true, the federal government would not have been established as federal, but instead a national, unitary and unlimited authority. In large measure as a consequence of the War Between the States, the "federal" government has grown to become an all-but unitary and unlimited authority.

Our Founders upheld the individual sovereignty of the states, even though the wisdom of secessionist movements was a source of debate from the day the Constitution was ratified. Tellingly, Alexander Hamilton, the utmost proponent of centralization among the Founders, noted in Federalist No. 81 that waging war against the states "would be altogether forced and unwarrantable." At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton argued, "Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself?"

To provide some context, three decades before the occupation of Fort Sumter, former secretary of war and then South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun argued, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the states, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail."

Two decades before the commencement of hostilities between the states, John Quincy Adams wrote, "If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other ... far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union. ... I hold that it is no perjury, that it is no high-treason, but the exercise of a sacred right to offer such a petition."

But the causal case for states' rights is most aptly demonstrated by the words and actions of Gen. Robert E. Lee, who detested slavery and opposed secession. In 1860, however, Gen. Lee declined Lincoln's request that he take command of the Army of the Potomac, saying that his first allegiance was to his home state of Virginia: "I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the army, and save in defense of my native state ... I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword." He would, soon thereafter, take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, rallying his officers with these words: "Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty and peace shall find him a defender."

In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln employed lofty rhetoric to conceal the truth of our nation's most costly war -- a war that resulted in the deaths of some 600,000 Americans and the severe disabling of more than 400,000 others. He claimed to be fighting so that "this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." In fact, Lincoln was ensuring just the opposite by waging an appallingly bloody war while ignoring calls for negotiated peace. It was the "rebels" who were intent on self-government, and it was Lincoln who rejected their right to that end, despite our Founders' clear admonition to the contrary in the Declaration.

Moreover, had Lincoln's actions been subjected to the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention (the first being codified in 1864), he and his principal military commanders, with Gen. William T. Sherman heading the list, would have been tried for war crimes. This included waging "total war" against not just combatants, but the entire civilian population. It is estimated that Sherman's march to the sea was responsible for the rape and murder of tens of thousands of civilians.

Further solidifying their wartime legacy, Sherman, Gen. Philip Sheridan, and young Brigadier General George Armstrong Custer (whose division blocked Gen. Lee's retreat from Appomattox), spent the next ten years waging unprecedented racial genocide against the Plains Indians.)

Lincoln's war may have preserved the Union geographically (at great cost to the Constitution), but politically and philosophically, the constitutional foundation for a voluntary union was shredded by sword, rifle and cannon.

"Reconstruction" followed the war, and with it an additional period of Southern probation, plunder and misery, leading Robert E. Lee to conclude, "If I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand."

Little reported and lightly regarded in our history books is the way Lincoln abused and discarded the individual rights of Northern citizens. Tens of thousands of citizens were imprisoned (most without trial) for political opposition, or "treason," and their property confiscated. Habeas corpus and, in effect, the entire Bill of Rights was suspended. Newspapers were shut down and legislators detained so they could not offer any vote unfavorable to Lincoln's conquest.

In fact, the Declaration of Independence details remarkably similar abuses by King George to those committed by Lincoln: the "Military [became] independent of and superior to the Civil power"; he imposed taxes without consent; citizens were deprived "in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"; state legislatures were suspended in order to prevent more secessions; he "plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people ... scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."

The final analysis...

Chief among the spoils of victory is the privilege of writing the history.

Lincoln said, "Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing."

Lincoln's enduring reputation is the result of his martyrdom. He was murdered on Good Friday and the metaphorical comparisons between Lincoln and Jesus were numerous.

Typical is this observation three days after his death by Parke Godwin, editor of the New York Evening Post: "No loss has been comparable to his. Never in human history has there been so universal, so spontaneous, so profound an expression of a nation's bereavement. [He was] our supremest leader -- our safest counselor -- our wisest friend -- our dear father."

A more thorough and dispassionate reading of history, however, reveals a substantial expanse between his reputation and his character.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside," Lincoln declared. "If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Never were truer words spoken.

While the War Between the States concluded in 1865, the battle for states' rights -- the struggle to restore constitutional federalism -- remains spirited, particularly among the ranks of our Patriot readers.

In his inaugural speech, Barack Obama quoted Lincoln: "We are not enemies, but friends.... Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection."

Let us hope that he pays more heed to those words than did Lincoln.

In Defense of Partisan Politics

Right now there is a loud call from the left for bi-partisanship regarding the stimulus bill. I couldn't think of anything I want less right now. Advocating bi-partisanship makes a few assumption that I believe are at best misguided and at worst down right wrong and harmful. Let's discuss shall we?

Assumption #1: That the government should move faster.

The last thing I want is the government to move faster. The only time I want the government to move fast is when there is an external military threat or some other "clear and present danger" that only the government is equipped (and constitutionally authorized) to handle. Why, you ask. Because the government is phenomenally incompetent and largely unaccountable for it's actions. Like Will Rogers said "This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer." I truly believe that most government actions cause problems worse than those which they set out to fix. The less the government does the better. When it comes to the current legislation this is especially true. At the moment our elected officials are trying to increase the national debt to the tune of ~$1,000,000,000,000.00 all in the name of a plan that nobody is sure will work. They are also trying to expand the government on a grand scale never seen before in what amounts to the largest power grab in US history.

Assumption #2: That the plan currently proposed to counter the recession is a good one.

The democrats are claiming that the GOP is needlessly hindering the recovery effort by refusing to come together with them on this "stimulus" package. That is begging the question. In reality the GOP, and some Dems for that matter, have serious misgivings about this legislation and many are outright opposed to the entire Keynesian scheme. That's not partisanship, that's plain old disagreement based on principle. Nobody should be asked to sacrifice principle in the name of "bi-partisanship."

Assumption #3: The the GOP wants this legislation to fail.

OK, this is true, but it's not really the point. The point is that the GOP has resigned itself to the fact that this legislation will pass, but like Pontius Pilate, they wish to wash their hands of the whole ugly mess. They know what a boondoggle this legislation is and they want the Dems to bear sole responsibility for its aftermath. The Dems know this which is why they are all doom and gloom in the media. They are trying to temper expectations. It is also why they are pushing for bi-partisanship. They know that they can get it passed with just 3 GOP votes in the Senate, but they want more, because they want to have somebody to share the blame with come reckoning time. The exception to this is the true believers like San Fran Nan who actually believe that this legislation will save our economy.

Now is not the time for bi-partisanship. Now is the time for the GOP to get back to its small government roots, and to find its voice as the opposition party. They also need to start coming up with some good alternatives to the tax and spend nonsense coming from across the aisle and finding a way to communicate those plans to the American people. Do this, and the GOP can easily replicate the 1994 takeover of the legislature. Capitulate to the Dems, and they will share the blame for the failures sure to follow this legislation, and will forfeit any right to criticize the majority party for its continued destruction of our country.

On Obama's wooing of the GOP

I watched the interview with Obama today prior to the SB and listened to him talking about winning GOP support for his "stimulus" bill in the Senate. I use the scare quotes because I'm not a Keynesian and I don't believe the bloated $800 billion bill is going to stimulate anything other than the blood pressure of sane people everywhere. Ever onward. According to this article:

In the first test of Obama's vow to drain the bile from Washington politics and govern without the bitterness of the last two decades, the president appealed to Republicans to get behind his massive economic stimulus package. The Democratic president plied Republican leaders with cocktails, sent out invites to a White House Super Bowl party and even made a rare presidential foray to Congress to woo the other side.

Look, the sentiment is all well and good, but it's very disingenuous. The lack of GOP support for this bill has nothing to do with partisan politics, Rush Limbaugh's influence on the GOP, or the price of tea in China and Obama knows it. He can throw all the please vote for my bill parties he wants and it won't make a lick of difference because at the heart of the matter, the two sides just disagree on the best course of action and it happens to be a case where there isn't a lot of room for compromise. One can't be a disciple of both Friedman and Keynes and one bill can't make followers of both happy.

The bill will go long party lines again in the Senate except that a few RINOs and DINOs may cross party lines, but I doubt it. Look for both Reid and McConnell to lean very hard on their troops not to break ranks.

I expect that in addition to the ideological divide, the GOP is looking to cement its position as the Opposition Party. It could be a significant blow to Obama's image as a uniter if he gets no GOP support for this major piece of legislation.

Preach it Jonah

"For the more historically minded, it's a time for nostalgia. The past comes alive as Chicago's grand tradition of corruption is sustained for another generation. As the Chicago Tribune once wrote, 'corruption has been as much a part of the landscape as corn, soybeans and skyscrapers.' According to the Chicago Sun-Times, as of 2006, when Blago's predecessor, George Ryan, was sent to prison for racketeering, 79 elected officials had been convicted of corruption in the past 30 years. Among the perps: 27 aldermen, 19 judges, 15 state legislators, three governors, two congressmen, one mayor, two turtledoves and a partridge in a stolen pear tree. Especially in this holiday season, it's so very important to keep traditions alive for the kids. In a sense, Blago did it for the children. For partisans, there's the schadenfreude that comes with watching the Democrats -- self-proclaimed anti-corruption zealots in recent years -- explain why Blagojevich shouldn't be lumped in with Congressmen Charlie Rangel (cut himself sweetheart deals), William Jefferson ($90,000 in his freezer) and Tim Mahoney (tried to bribe an aide he was sleeping with not to sue him; and you thought romance was dead) as part of a new Democratic 'culture of corruption' storyline. There's the enormous I-should-have-had-a-V8! moment as the mainstream press collectively thwacks itself in the forehead, realizing it blew it again. The New York Times -- which, according to Wall Street analysts, is weeks from holding editorial board meetings in a refrigerator box -- created the journalistic equivalent of CSI-Wasilla to study every follicle and fiber in Sarah Palin's background, all the while treating Obama's Chicago like one of those fairy-tale lands depicted in posters that adorn little girls' bedroom walls. See there, Suzie? That's a Pegasus. That's a pink unicorn. And that's a beautiful sunflower giving birth to a fully grown Barack Obama, the greatest president ever and the only man in history to be able to pick up manure from the clean end." --National Review editor Jonah Goldberg

It was only a matter of time

From breitbart.com:

MARION, Ala. (AP) - A small central Alabama county whose mainly black residents gave Barack Obama more than 70 percent of the vote on Election Day has created an annual holiday in honor of the president-elect.

I wonder if we'll wait until after he's out of office before this goes national. Probably not.

The sponsoring commissioner, Albert Turner Jr., said the holiday is meant to highlight the Democratic president-elect's victory as a way to give people faith that difficult goals can be achieved.

What goal is that? The goal of getting elected president as an avowed Marxist in a supposedly capitalistic country? I'll admit that is impressive.

Turner said copies of the resolution, adopted at a Nov. 25 meeting, have been mailed to Obama and his transition team.

Laying the groundwork for a Perry County bailout most likely.

We can always hope...

Iowahawk comes up with what I think would be a best case scenario.

Thomas Sowell sounds the alarm...

...but is anybody listening?

Just like with HD?

I read a column by Pat Buchanan the other day that said we should infuse the Big 3 with cash and enact protectionist legislation for the auto industry just like we did for the motorcycle industry in the '80s. In this way we could save the auto industry just like we saved Harley Davidson. Ignoring the obvious flaws in this argument, i.e. it's unconstitutional, it rewards bad decisions, it doesn't address the failed business model they are operating under, etc., I want to address the results of what Uncle Sam did back then for good old HD.

Back in the 70's and '80s HD was a joke of a motorcycle company. They made heavy, slow, unreliable motorcycles that couldn't compete with those being imported by Japan. They were owned by a company that made bowling equipment for Pete's sake. Anyhow, poor management, poor product quality, and superior competition led to a company on the brink of bankruptcy. Enter Uncle Sam. In 1983 the federal government enacted a tariff of 49.4% on all imports over 700cc. It was an extremely protectionist moved that angered our trading partner and saved a mismanaged company which was producing a crappy product from its rightful fate. It also forced many Americans to choose between buying a crappy motorcycle that they could afford or forgoing purchasing a motorcycle altogether because the quality products had been placed out of their price range due to the tariff.

What was the result of this move? Harley was purchased by a new owner and decided that since it couldn't keep up with the Japanese it wasn't even going to bother trying. Harley started using marketing terms like "Classic" and "Heritage" while slapping new hand grips or foot pegs on each years bike and calling it a new model. All this while charging a premium price. The end result is a motorcycle industry that is dominated by one company and that company is plagued with a lack of design initiative.

Is this what we want to happen to the auto industry? To have it relegated to a cottage industry while Japan and Germany rule the world market? I can't say for sure that I know that will happen, but I can definitely say that I don't want it to.

And what of the tariff? Could that happen again? With the donks (who are beholden to the unions) in control of congress and the white house it absolutely could. Though it wouldn't have a significant effect since so many Hondas, Toyotas, etc. are made here in the US and therefore would be exempt.



owever need to streamline, rework their business model, and get out from under the crushing union contracts they are tied to. How can the hope to compete with Japan when the average Toyota employee makes $45 per hour while the average GM employee makes $75? How can they hope to compete while paying 12,000 people to watch TV? Let them declare bankruptcy and attempt to fix themselves, renegotiate their union deals, and come back leaner and meaner. Don't perpetuate the problem by using tax-payer money to prolong the inevitable.

Government Efficiency at its Best

From The Sun Chronicle:

Eileen Wilbur, who has lived at 16 Glenn St. in South Attleboro since 1959, received a bill from the city Monday stating that if she does not pay an outstanding utility balance of one penny by Dec. 10 she will face penalties of up to $48, along with a lien on her property.

These are the people we want to regulate the market? The people who will spend 47 cents on a stamp plus however much they spent on stationary to collect a 1 cent bill. And the woman who claimed:

"It would be fiscally irresponsible for me to have staff weed through the bills and pull out any below a certain amount," Marcoccio said. " And what would that amount be?"

A) That amount would be the amount of money that it costs you to send the bill.

B) Nobody has to sort through anything. We have these magical devices called "computers", and by casting arcane spells with them we can tell them to only print out bills above a certain amount, like oh, the cost of a stamp and envelope for instance.

I know all of this is hocus pocus to you, because you're a government leech on the butt cheek of society, somebody who doesn't have the skills, or the intelligence judging by your statements, to succeed in the real world.

Rewarding Bad Decision Making

Here is one example of the sort of bright thinking that Monica's boyfriend's wife is capable of. Senate Bill 2310, The Homeowners Act of 2007, or as I like to call it, the "I'm a moron because I live in a coastal city which is below sea level, in a major hurricane zone, and managed by a bunch of morons which I voted into power, now buy me a new house" bill. I know, it's a mouthful. Anyhow, it's this sort of enlightened thinking that we can look forward to from our new SecState.

Hillary to Accept SecState Nomination

According to the Guardian, Monica Lewinski's boyfriend's wife is poised to become the next SecState. This is the best news I've heard since the election. For one thing, it will provide me with no end of amusement as she shoves her foot in her mouth and her head in her...well, you know, on a regular basis on a very grand stage. After all, if we're going down we might as well do so spectacularly. For another thing, it virtually guarantees that she will have no shot whatsoever at ever becoming President, since she would have to run with the baggage of her tenure at SecState and the spectacular failures that are sure to ensue once she takes the position. Finally, she won't be in the Senate pushing through socialist and treasonous legislation any more. Granted, it's a small consolation given the dark days that are sure to lie ahead of us, but I take my silver linings where I can get them.

Hukd un fonix...

People often ask me why I think democracy is a bad idea (I favor a republic over a democracy, if you don't know the difference you'll be addressed in the next sentence) . When I tell them it's because the vast majority of Americans are to ignorant to be voting they look at me as if I have just uttered a racial epitaph or worse. Behold, my point is eloquently made in this news article.

A taste:

Some people collect sports memorabilia, or rare coins, or sea shells from the beach at Ocean City. Wilson Watson collects sentences. He taught local community college students for 35 years and has now slipped gently into retirement. But his students’ sentences trail behind him like ship’s anchors, evidence of the sinking of American writing skills.

Or, as one of Watson’s scholars wrote so succinctly: “Some people use bad language and is not even aware of the fact.”

Or, another: “It’s good I’m doing something with my self; Therefore, I can do better in the foochure.”

Or, “People who murder a lot of people are called masked
murderers.”

There's more if you follow the link, just bear in mind that these are high school grads. Puts the whole "get out the youth vote" thing in perspective, doesn't it?

To Pledge or Not to Pledge...

A school in Vermont is currently having it out with itself over the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance. I won't comment on the particulars of the issue they are having because A) They're silly, and B) I don't care. It did however cause me to think about the issue of the pledge in schools and what I think is the proper tact to take in holding true to my libertarian principals and our constitutional rights.

First to enumerate those things which I know to be true:

1. Nobody should be forced to say anything that they don't want to outside of a court, and even there they have the option to not speak, they just have to be ready for the consequences.

2. Most children do not take the recitation of the pledge seriously. I know that I didn't take it seriously as a child and I'm about as patriotic a guy as you're going to find.

3. We should not underestimate the power of peer pressure to influence children who do not wish to recite the pledge to do so.

4. The recitation of the pledge itself is not a bad thing.

So, what do I think should be done about this? I believe that schools should designate a time and a place before the first class of the day where children who wish to say the pledge together can do so. Do I think that many of them will show up 5 minutes early just to say the pledge? Not unless their parents make them. Do I care? Not really. If you want patriotic children who love their country, what you teach them during history class for their 12 years of primary school education is far more important than 30 seconds a day spent reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Teach them about the rights and liberties that the flag represents and they will love the flag.

Obamessiah's Lack of Support a Non-issue

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/25/2008 6:25:00 PM

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.

The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added.

"That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

While this may or may not be true (I have my doubts), it is really not the point, which is that if the donk controlled legislature passes a bill with the revived fairness doctrine in it, the Anointed One(tm) will surely sign it into law. Just because it's not one of his pet issues like robbing from the rich to give to the poor, doesn't mean he's going to break out the veto pen when it hits his desk.

Obamessiah to "Rule" come January

In this video from the Valerie Jarret, co-chair of the Chosen One's transition team, we hear from somebody within the Fresh Prez of Bill Ayers inner circle that which many of us have known all along, that he thinks he has been elected King and Grand Pubah and that he is going to rule from a throne in the Oval Office. Somebody should tell these people that the president governs, not rules, and that Americans are sovereign over themselves and not beholden to the whims of the Anointed One(tm).

Obamessiah to enact several Executive Orders shortly after taking office

According to Stephen Ohlemacher(AP)


WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.
"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said.

I'm gonna have to do my due diligence on Executive Orders but I have the distinct gut feeling that they are unconstitutional regardless of which party is in office. Executive orders carry the weight of law and all powers of legislation are reserved for the Congress. More to follow.

"I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."

Three things here:
1) I don't give a rat's ass what the Chosen One "feels", or what his flunky "thinks" for that matter.
2) 52% to 48% is not a "real mandate for change" any way you spin it.
3) Even if we do need to abandon the course which President Bush has us on, and in many cases we do, the course which the Obamessiah will set will not be an improvement as we'll see shortly.

Podesta also said Obama is working to build a diverse Cabinet. That includes reaching out to Republicans and independents.

Bwahahahaha!!! Right, I can see the Donks reaching across the aisle to work with the Stupid Party as they seek to (de facto) repeal the second amendment, raise taxes, steal from the industrious to give to the lazy, etc.

Obama was elected on a promise of change, but the nature of the job makes it difficult for presidents to do much that has an immediate impact on the lives of average people.

As it darn well ought to be. If I had my way it would be so hard for the Fresh Prez of Bill Ayers to affect my life that I could forget he's even there and get back to living in peace and freedom.

Congress plans to take up a second economic aid plan before year's end - an effort Obama supports. But it could be months or longer before taxpayers see the effect.

Here's an idea for a plan, quit pretending you know how to fix the market by throwing (our) money at it and just get out of the way and let it right itself. Sure it will be painful and real people will suffer, but all we're doing right now is delaying the inevitable and likely making it worse when it does arrive.

Obama could use his executive powers to at least signal that Washington is changing.

Translation: It's important to look like you're doing something, even if you're not.

Bush used his executive power to limit federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights who argue that destroying embryos is akin to killing a fetus. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's. Many moderate Republicans also support the research, giving it the stamp of bipartisanship.

Not in my name!!! Isn't that what the donks scream when they don't like something the feds do?

On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.

To easy, just hold the drilling companies responsible for any damage caused.

"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."

Again, who cares what the hell this guy thinks?

Two top House Republicans said there is a willingness to try to work with Obama to get things done.

What things? Is the Chosen One suddenly planning to push an agenda that conservatives should support? A secret agenda that none of us have ever heard of?

But they said to expect Republicans to serve as a check against the power held by Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.

I certainly hope so.

"It's going to be a cheerful opposition," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "We're going to carry those timeless principles of limited government, a strong defense, traditional values, to the American people."

WHERE IN THE NAME OF ALL THINGS HOLY WERE THOSE PRINCIPLES TWO WEEKS AGO!!!!!!!!!!! Or for the last eight years for that matter. I didn't hear anything about limited government coming out of the McCain camp, that's for sure.

So Much for That

I was going to continue my series on the Obamessiah's agenda today. That
plan has been thwarted by the taking down of said agenda from the Chosen One's website. This vaugly worded summary is all that remains.

President-Elect Obama and Vice President-Elect Biden have developed innovative approaches to challenge the status quo in Washington and to bring about the kind of change America needs. The Obama Administration has a comprehensive and
detailed agenda to carry out its policies. The principal priorities of the Obama Administration include: a plan to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives.

It reminds me a bit of that scene in Napolean Dynamite, when Summer is giving her speech to the student body and she promises to bring in new soda machines and implement a 4 day school week. It would have been really bad for her if somebody had asked her how she planned to do those things. Fortunately for her nobody did. The Annointed seems to be enjoying that same stroke of luck.

News you won't hear about from the MSM

From Brenden at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. At least we know that several of the executives from Lehman Brothers and Fannie Mae are landing on their feet.

Great Post Election Analysis

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Congress Ponders Confiscating Our Retirement Funds

Wow. Just wow.

This is unbelievable. I don't have the words to even discuss this yet. I'm gonna have to sleep on it just to assemble my thoughts.

Update: Nicki at The Liberty Zone has said all that needs to be said on the issue. Foul language is used, consider yourself warned.