This powerful video speaks for itself.
This powerful video speaks for itself.
President Abraham Lincoln made his public address at Cooper Union in New York City on April 27, 1860. Six weeks later the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter starting the American Civil War. It was Lincoln’s final speech prior to the war.
An eyewitness that evening said, “When Lincoln rose to speak, I was greatly disappointed. He was tall, tall, – oh, how tall! and so angular and awkward that I had, for an instant, a feeling of pity for so ungainly a man.” However, once Lincoln warmed up, “his face lighted up as with an inward fire; the whole man was transfigured. I forgot his clothes, his personal appearance, and his individual peculiarities. Presently, forgetting myself, I was on my feet like the rest, yelling like a wild Indian, cheering this wonderful man.”
Lincoln’s law partner. William Herndon, who was not present but knew the speech, said it was “devoid of all rhetorical imagery. It was constructed with a view to accuracy of statement, simplicity of language, and unity of thought. In some respects like a lawyer’s brief, it was logical, temperate in tone, powerful – irresistibly driving conviction home to men’s reasons and their souls.”
Lincoln began:
The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation.
In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in “The New-York Times,” Senator Douglas said: “Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now.”
I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: “What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?”
What is the frame of government under which we live? The answer must be: “The Constitution of the United States…”
About midway in the speech:
I would say to them [Democrats in opposition to ending slavery]: – You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to “Black Republicans.” In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of “Black Republicanism” as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite – license, so to speak – among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.
Lincoln ends with this pledge:
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
Today’s post is courtesy of Abraham Lincoln Online. Visit them for everything Lincoln.
Right across the street from the Parliament building in Athens there stands an outdoor café. Many times I have sat and sipped Ouzos at that cafe watching the changing of the guard as one stoic protector of the palace replaced another. They strut and stomp across the plaza then placidate themselves in front of those little wooden houses that look like they belong more in cartoons rather than standing as bastions of government. There are two guards. Each carries an unarmed rifle. They don’t protect anything of course; it’s a show, a demonstration of sorts.
I wonder where they are now. Today the demonstrations are in the same place but they are of a different kind. There are fires on the plaza. Did they burn those silly little guard houses, I wonder. I do know, however, that the protesters burned the German flag. They didn’t burn the German flag because Germany contributed more funds than any other European nation to help Greece out. They burned the flag because Germany stopped. Feed a hungry bear and he will lick your hand. Stop and he will bite it off.
The root problem in Greece is not financial; it is cultural. If the Soviet Union was the triumph of Communism, then Greece is the triumph of Socialism. The country has a history of economic distress. In 1922 the government decreed that 50% of all privately held money in banks had to be given to the government. The national treasury gave bonds in exchange, to be repaid on 20 years with a nominal interest rate of 6 ½ %. Neither interest nor principle were ever paid. The people bailed the country out, involuntarily. It happened again in 1926, four years later another bailout. In 1932 the country declared a moratorium on their international debt. Bailed out again, this time by the international community, again involuntarily.
Should the world do it again? For humanitarian reasons, perhaps we must, but for how long and how much. Philanthropy overdone eventually becomes license for continued misbehavior. It is Europe’s problem and Europe is doing its best to solve it. Germany enjoys the largest and strongest economy in Europe so the cross falls primarily on the German people to bear. We empathize. We have been there.
Posted in Economy, Opinion, Political philosophy
Tagged Athens, bailout, European Union, Flag of Germany, Germany, Greece, Ouzo
Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw explains the reality of the President’s ostensible concession in a published piece aptly titled Semantics at the Highest Level.
Consider these two policies:
A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.
B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance. The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.
The President changed the law from A to B which is no change at all. The claimed concession is not an about face; it’s about farce. It has oft been said that perception is reality. The two are not the same, of course, but the aphorism makes the point that the difference is irrelevant. Perceptions are formed by speeches and headlines while truth and reality often remain in obscurity. In a prior post on this subject, I wrote “If there is one thing the President knows well, it is the art of agitation, how to create it, how to use it as a tool for accomplishing an objective and even how to deal with it if it turns negative to your cause.” The pot is still simmering on the issue but thus far Obama has dealt with it effectively.
Posted in News, Political philosophy
Tagged Birth control, Catholic Church, concession, Greg Mankiw, health insurance, Obama
Obama is making law again. Will he ever stop? Congress passed a law in 2001 known as the No Child Left Behind Act. The current President doesn’t like the law, so he cancelled it.
Strictly speaking, a President cannot cancel a law with a wave of his hand or the signing of a document. But he can sign an executive order decreeing that a given law doesn’t need to be obeyed. The difference is a mere technicality; the results are the same. One could also raise the argument that the entire law wasn’t rendered inoperative, only certain provisions. But invariably when this happens, it is to alter those provisions that were controversial in the first place. The Founding Fathers gave us a government where controversial matters were not to be decided by one person, but by the House and the Senate where the people are broadly represented. Of course there is a form of government where the leader does have the power to make, break or change the law. It is called a dictatorship.
Whether No Child Left Behind is bad law or not is a decision for Congress or the courts to make, not the President. The establishment of a Rule of Law is an essential requirement for any fair and prosperous nation to succeed. When laws once enacted by a congressional body are subject to executive change and bureaucratic interpretation you have “flexlaw”. Flexlaw is not a set of established laws at all; it is a set of whims. Obama and his Administration are transforming our land from a Republic into a DINO, a Democracy In Name Only. He must be stopped.
Posted in News, Political philosophy, Political polemics
Tagged bypass Congress, dictatorship, law by fiat, NCLB, No Child Left Behind Act, rule of law
The Catholic outrage could cost Obama the election. But Obama doesn’t believe it will or he would not have taken the stance he did. If there is one thing the President knows well, it is the art of agitation, how to create it, how to use it as a tool for accomplishing an objective and even how to deal with it if it turns negative to your cause. The role of a community organizer could be summed up in three words – agitate, intimidate, mediate. You remember, do you not, that in the primaries for 2008, Obama cited his organizing experience as a reason why Democrats should choose him over Hillary Clinton. Politics is his profession; agitation is his method; don’t sell him short.
The Catholic demographic is heavily comprised of white middle class traditional, Truman/JFK style Democrats. They are the tradesman, the small business entrepreneurs, the salt-of-the-earth people, proud to be American and proud of their self sufficiency and loyal to their church. This demographic, once a stalwart of the Democratic Party, has been migrating away in recent decades.
To voters, politics is all about choosing the best people to govern them. To a politician, politics is all about strategy and strategies are subject to change over time. Last November, the New York Times wrote:
For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.
Catholic Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh put it this way,
“The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’ There is no other way to put it. To Hell with your religious beliefs. To Hell with your religious liberty. To Hell with your freedom of conscience.”
The far left has always felt contempt for the church, any church. With the advent of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid trinity the Democratic Party’s policies and tactics are those of the far left. A great many of the Democrat electorate have not yet realized that their party has left them. This is a wake-up call for the Catholic Church.
Posted in Opinion, Political philosophy, Political polemics
Tagged abortion, Bishop, Catholic Church, Obamacare
The New Yorker magazine carries the best cartoons in the industry. The humor is mostly apolitical without a hint of underlying agenda beyond getting the reader to smile. However, that is where the magazine’s objectivity ends. Judging by Talk of the Town which opens every issue, one would think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were the publishers. If you want to know how an honest liberal thinks, read the New Yorker. (That is not to say that Reid and Pelosi are honest liberals.)
Ryan Lizza is the Washington correspondent for the magazine. Lizza poured through 11,000 pages of Washington documents and wrote a 13 page article for the New Yorker entitled The Obama Memos with the tagline The making of a post-post-partisan Presidency. Post-post-partisan? Isn’t that a double positive making it a negative? Yes, it is. Lizza contends that no President has been more willing to find common ground and work with the other side than Barack Obama has. He came into office, Lizza says, with the hope and every intention of putting partisan bickering aside and becoming a post-partisan President. When it didn’t work as he expected, Obama gave up the idea, reversed his strategy and became a post-post-partisan President. Lizza may be right about that, but if Obama really thought he would get Republicans to accept some of his far left socialism it wasn’t out of naïveté, it was sheer hubris.
Conservatives have long known the Democratic Party to be the party of personal destruction. From a lowly plumber named Joe to a lofty Supreme Court Justice, many a conservative has felt the injustice of the Party’s character assassination. That is what makes this excerpt from Lizza’s article so interesting.
Another hard-edged decision helped make him [Obama] the Democratic Presidential nominee. In early October, 2007, David Axelrod and Obama’s other political consultants wrote the candidate a memo explaining how he could repair his floundering campaign against Hillary Clinton. They advised him to attack her personally…, that all campaign slogans, even the slogan “Change We Can Believe In”- had to emphasize distinctions with Clinton on character rather than on policy.
The memo went on to say we must
“frame the argument along the character fault line, and this is where we can and must win this fight.” [We will say] “Clinton can’t be trusted or believed when it comes to change because she is driven by political calculation not conviction.”
Neera Tanden is now the President of the Center for American Progress. She was the Policy Director for Hillary’s primary campaign then later became Barack Obama’s campaign director in the general election.
“It was a character attack,” Tanden said recently, speaking about the Obama campaign against Clinton. “I went over to Obama, I am a big supporter of the President, but their campaign was entirely a character attack on Hillary as a liar and untrustworthy. It wasn’t an issue contrast, it was entirely personal.” And of course it worked.
That’s the sad part, it works. And who is to blame for that? The voters.
Food stamps have been at the top of the news ever since Gingrich named Obama the food stamp President”. According to the Wall Street Journal, 46 million people are on the program, that’s one out of every seven in a population of 322 million. Aside from Social Security, it is the largest welfare program in the country.
Food stamps are money and money is fungible which means one form is as good as another. To say that food stamps are for food is folly. Food stamps are income and income can be spent however you wish.
Everyone eats. Every family spends a portion of their income on food and the rest of it on everything else. Food stamps increase the portion that can be spent on everything else. The point here is not to condemn the Food Stamp Program. That’s an argument for another day. All we are saying here is that it is a de-facto general welfare program parading as something it isn’t. The program is genuine but the title is propagandic, chosen to make more palatable to the 53% of voters who pay tax.
In the beginning, food stamps were stamps. But stamps haven’t been issued since the 1990s. Now the benefit comes in the form of a plastic card. It’s called an Electronic Benefits Transfer or EBT card. That’s not propagandic; it’s just a hold-over term, like ‘dialing’ a phone call. And the T in EBT stands for the truth because, after all, it is a card that transfers wealth.
As long as we are on the topic let’s go all the way. There is no Food Stamp Program. It was ended in 2008. In that year the Food Stamp Program became the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Now that is propagandic.