The Hijacking Of Lincoln

abeobama Abraham Lincoln. Arguably one of the most famous Presidents America has ever had. Whether directing the country through the Civil War, abolishing slavery or hunting vampires, Honest Abe is a pillar of American politics. The standard bearer of presidential legacies. Today however, Licoln’s memory and legacy have been hijacked by an administration and party whose actions would have the 16th President’s stove pipe hat lying flat.

While it is true that both Lincoln and Obama called Illinois home, the accurate comparisons end there. As hard as our current President may try, he is simply not only in the same ballpark as Lincoln….he isn’t even playing the same sport. Lincoln presided over the country during the most devisive time in history, the Civil War and brought the country back together. Obama took a country that was as cohesive as it had ever been following the attacks of 9/11 and divided it. Lincoln brought Democrats into the fold within his administration. Obama all but refuses to listen to Republicans.

So despite an inaugural celebration at the Lincoln Memorial in 2009, making his campaign announcement speech on the steps of the old state capital in Springfield (the site of Lincoln’s famous “House Divided” speech), delivering the state of the union on Lincoln’s birthday and getting sworn into office on the Lincoln bible, Barack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln.

The fact that the President continue to attempt to invoke Lincoln should turn the stomach of any political junkie. Calling Illinois home and being President does not make Barack Obama the 2nd coming of Abe Lincoln anymore than being a bodybuilder and calling California home makes Lou Ferrigno Governor.

The Cain-Gingrich debates should be welcomed not undermined

Bookmark and Share  We learned in recent days that Texas Governor Rick Perry is to skip some of the up and coming Republican Party debates, citing a busy campaign schedule. Of course, this excuse and Perry’s decision to suggest he may be pulling out of future debates, has basically taken the momentum out of his tax plan announcement earlier in the week.

Perry’s debate performances have been far from convincing and rather then try and run away from them, he should’ve been embracing the debates. Perry’s decision will lead to suggestions that he can’t handle the spotlight on the national stage and ultimately, if he can’t take the pressure in the primaries, he has no chance of beating President Obama in head to head debates in any general election race. It is a poor decision by Team Perry and despite his massive war chest; it is another bad mistake in a campaign that promised so much at the outset.

In stark contrast, we have former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain embracing debates, in what I believe will be truly outstanding nights, for any potential audience member. These two men are not afraid to talk about the issues, which I believe is the primary reason for their strong showing in the polls. They have abided by the Republican 11th Commandment mantra of former President Reagan; thou shall not attack a fellow Republican. Perry has spent so much time attacking Mitt Romney and in turn, Romney has been dragged into a number of retorts, resulting in both men’s campaigns suffering.

What I love about the idea of the Gingrich-Cain debates is that they promise, they will follow in the tradition of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, prior to the American Civil War. If you haven’t taken the time to read these debates and seen for yourself, what brilliant orators these men were, then my suggestion is make the time.

People have already criticised that cost of admission to these debates, well I say firstly, the cost is largely due to the fact that they will not be televised at the time of writing. Secondly, is the cost justified? Of course, here are two men taking historic steps towards the highest office in the land and they are prepared to lay out their ideas and solutions to the very real problems America faces both domestically and abroad. If I could get a ticket, I’d be on a plane to Houston, Texas, for November 5 absolutely. I don’t see how people can complain about tickets starting at $200 upwards when elsewhere, people are being charged $38,500 just to have dinner, and it strikes loudly of double standards.

I think both men have come to symbolise where the 2012 race will be won or lost, as a candidate, do you have the ideas, solutions and ability to address America’s very real and urgent problems. I don’t expect any person in this modern world to be without fault however, what I do expect is someone to recognise what the issues and problems are, and be prepared to offer solutions and not afraid to discuss them.

Both Speaker Gingrich and Mr. Cain have both spoken about every issue put in front of them more then any other candidate perhaps, this is why people are listening to them and starting to take notice. They don’t want the usual rehearsed and scripted answers which is put forward by other candidates; they want honest, simple, straight forward plain speaking on the following basis, “This is what I will do as president.”

The Cain–Gingrich debates will focus on steps to rein in government spending and fix Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These issues will be at the very core of the challenges the next administration faces because like it or not, they need to be addressed and reformed to ensure their very survival and bring America’s bulging National debt under control. Cain & Gingrich unlike all the other candidates are prepared, to charge into a debate on these issues because, there seems a transparent unwillingness and reluctance, Rep. Paul Ryan aside, to face or even discuss the inevitable. It is a very brave move and both men have proved themselves eloquent speakers.

The debates on television are set-up for good ratings, not for good substantive answers and a crowded field does not assist in this respect either at present. I congratulate both men for being prepared to step into a longer substantive debate and put the meat on the bones so to speak, what I mean is enable those present, be it media or general public, to learn more about what they are proposing on some very controversial areas.

Their will be many detractors who will try and attack this bold move by two candidates trying to mount a serious challenge for the GOP nomination. I think it is a fantastic idea and rather then have their campaign teams and advisors trying to protect their every step, they are setting a bold and I believe very welcome step for future presidential races. Voters are entitled to know what their candidate really has to say on the issues in substantive form, not a masterfully crafted and marketed candidate who is sold to them through the media.

These are serious times for serious candidates, if these men are prepared to rise to the challenge and openly discuss real ideas and real solutions, I say bring it on. It is something that should be encouraged not undermined. If both men have the right solutions by adopting and embracing this format and educating the voters, they will have earned the right to win the party nomination come 2012.

I always say, I admire substance over style ever time. Well done to both men.  Bookmark and Share

It’s all Drama Obama – Challenges yes, leadership no!

Bookmark and ShareWell readers, I haven’t done much writing in the last week, largely due to taking some time out to put my thoughts into perspective regarding the current political situation in America. I have to say, as a huge admirer and fan of all things American, even the Miami Heat who beat my beloved Bulls in last season’s play-off’s, I am becoming increasingly concerned.

America in my own view as a foreign national has always been the beacon of hope for freedom, security and democracy during my whole life and long before I came into existence. The current political situation in Washington in not only gridlock, it is down right dreadful and unacceptable on every level.

I’ve watched the innuendo, criticism’s and twisted facts being spewed out over the last week, and it is time for American’s to wake up. I am not talking about the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations; I have no problem with people expressing their beliefs, do it peacefully, make your point and go home politely. The wake up call I am calling for in fact, pleading for, is in the correct democratic way, through the ballot box.

I have had huge admiration for many American President’s regardless of party, there has been many great men who have graced the highest office in the land Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR & JFK, some of the most talented and brilliant men in history. I’ve no problem with party politics, as it is the model common to most European nations. What I do have issue with is a failure in leadership and then trying to blame, criticise and divide people, party’s and a fantastic nation for the sake of re-election.

I wrote an article on April 5, this year reviewing the performance of President Obama against his pledges. Link here(: http://worldviewtonight.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/obama-2012-a-review-of-2008-pledges-and-performance-so-far/ ), I was fair and not overly critical. First and foremost, no matter who occupies the Oval Office, you should always want the President of the United States to do well, it is not only in America’s interest that a confident and strong leader occupies the office, it is in the global interest.

I have however come to the very firm belief that President Obama is causing great damage to the American spirit, industry and economy which made it great. Before I move on, I will stress, no-one was a more enthusiastic and overjoyed a person then I, when he got elected I 2008. It was truly historic and his message of “Hope and Change,” was what the world needed after the financial upheaval of 2008.

I’m not ignorant to the woes the president inherited on entering office, a recession and let’s be clear NOT a depression, as the White House tries to frame it, two wars, growing unemployment at home and a housing market on the floor. Yes, the challenges were many however, President Lincoln had to fight a Civil War to restore the Union, President Bush had to deal with 9/11 the biggest attack on America since Pearl Harbor and Hurricane Katrina and Harry Truman had to end a war, fight another and demobilise one of the biggest armies in history, all the while keeping the economy and nation going. My point is this, leading a nation such as America is both an honour and a privilege. The Presidency brings many challenges and when you seek that challenge you accept all that goes with it, above all the covenant to provide leadership. Leadership also means you acquire accountability and responsibility, the fact is President Obama had control of Congress for the first two years of his presidency, he can blame republicans all he wants however, facts are facts. President Obama appears to have a huge problem accepting blame, President Clinton did and moved to the center and in my view economically, was the best economic president in modern times because of it.

President Obama focussed on Obamacare and not jobs in the first two years, Timothy Geithner can defend him all he likes saying he prioritised jobs above all else, the facts are as Norah O’Donnell quite correctly challenged, is President Obama took his eye off the ball. The President promised Obamacare and all the discussions around it would be on CSPAN, well that disappeared and now we even have the San Francisco Chronicle being frozen out of events because, they dare attempt transparency at a fundraising event and the week is rounded off with proposed changes to the Freedom of Information Act, which a Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced.

A president is meant to be the leader of the nation, he or she is meant to issue the rallying call to the nation in hard times and provide the voice of assurance that things will get better. I admire great orator’s however, the rhetoric coming from President Obama recently has been disappointing, factually inaccurate, emotionally divisive and above all, disgusting from a President of the United States.

We had riots here in London during the summer, I’m not saying everything is perfect in the U.K. and that we don’t have our problems however, Our Prime Minister cut off his holiday and returned to our nation’s capital to resolve the issue. English people didn’t want to hear political assessments or excuses for the reasons for the riots, they wanted them stopped and the problem sorted, which is exactly what Prime Minister Cameron set about doing until he achieved the objective.

President Obama claims that Abraham Lincoln is one of his hero’s well, if he truly means that and wants to honour his memory and the Union he died to restore, he should change the language and stop the self-pity tour about the big bad Republicans. Get off the bus tours and campaign fund raiser’s and get back to Washington behind your desk and sort out the nation’s problems. I know from speaking with friends how difficult things are there economically at present. It is the responsibility of both sides to put the people and country first. The American he people, Democratic, Republican and Independent deserve their President back in the White House, doing his job and not playing legislative football or delivering podium speeches trying to score cheap political points. I will say this as an observer looking from afar, President Obama is starting to look silly with his speeches about caring and compassion while on the other hand raising millions for his campaign.

President Obama should seize the mantle of leadership and get both sides around the table and if necessary, allow some reporters into the discussions to cover the talks. There really needs to be compromise on both sides, if America believes it can afford to wait another year before reaching agreement on the debt issue and job creation, you must be mistaken. The problem the Eurozone area makes the “Debt Committee Talks” ever more urgent, failure to come to some reasonable practical way forward on the economy will lead to social disorder and a breakdown in law and order, is the president really advocating this? Does he want rioting in Oakland?

I know when we have worries, we don’t want to hear a leader tell us what a hard job and time they are having, remember, President Obama asked and sought the office, it wasn’t just handed to him. It is President Obama’s duty to perform for all American’s, not just his political base or fundraisers. I say Mr. President respectfully, stop the low level tone of your rhetoric and get off the campaign trail for a while. If you really want to be re-elected, show American’s you are prepared to lead and if necessary, make some sacrifices in their interest. The truth is, you had it very good for your first two years in office, and haven’t even had a full year of a Republican House of Representatives and he is saying he can’t deal wit them. It makes you appear weak Mr. President and incapable of handling the challenges and demands of office. Yes, you’ve done well on foreign affairs issue however, American people want a leader and unifier, not a divider.

Why does it matter to me you say, well I respect the office of the President of the United States and the United States greatly. I also respect decency, civility, appropriate language and statesmanship. The President needs to be a shinning example for all American’s and supporters to be inspired by in difficult times, not just a selective audience.

Bookmark and Share

Bachmann, Lincoln Agree: Founders Opposed Slavery

George Stephanopolous probably thinks he’s a pretty smart guy.  At least he didn’t call Michelle Bachmann a flake.  But his attack on her facts about our founders just might backfire against his own credibility.

For most, it really is no secret that many of our founding fathers did oppose slavery.  Even the ones who owned slaves saw it as more of a necessary evil.  To borrow from Hillary Clinton, who said this about abortion, they believed it was “horrible and tragic, but should be safe and legal”.  They understood though, that if they tried to fight the revolutionary war and civil war at the same time, they would lose both.  Still, they did fight to end slavery, even if only laying the groundwork for it’s final elimination.

John McCormack, writing in the Weekly Standard, is now demonstrating that Abraham Lincoln believed the same thing as Michelle Bachmann about our founder’s work to end slavery.  He used that argument in his own speeches against slavery.

From the article:

“The Founders put slavery on the path to ultimate extinction, Abraham Lincoln said. But the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 threatened to bring about slavery’s resurgence by opening up new territories to slaveowning. In 1854, Lincoln made this argument in a series of speeches on behalf of candidates opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. “In these addresses Lincoln set forth the themes that he would carry into the presidency six years later,” writes Princeton’s James M. McPherson in the Battle Cry of Freedom. McPherson summarizes Lincoln’s argument:

The founding fathers, said Lincoln, had opposed slavery. They adopted a Declaration of Independence that pronounced all men created equal. They enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banning slavery from the vast Northwest Territory. To be sure, many of the founders owned slaves. But they asserted their hostility to slavery in principle while tolerating it temporarily (as they hoped) in practice. That was why they did not mention the words “slave” or “slavery” in the Constitution, but referred only to “persons held to service.” “Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution,” said Lincoln, “just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time.” The first step was to prevent the spread of this cancer, which the fathers took with the Northwest Ordinance, the prohibition of the African slave trade in 1807, and the Missouri Compromise restriction of 1820. The second was to begin a process of gradual emancipation, which the generation of the fathers had accomplished in the states north of Maryland.

Here’s what Lincoln said of the Founding Fathers in his 1854 Peoria speech:

The argument of “Necessity” was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. They found the institution existing among us, which they could not help; and they cast blame upon the British King for having permitted its introduction. BEFORE the constitution, they prohibited its introduction into the north-western Territory—-the only country we owned, then free from it. AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word “slave” or “slavery” in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a “PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR.” In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit,” &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade—-that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory—-this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.

In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries—-as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.

In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808—-the very first day the constitution would permit—-prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY.

In Lincoln’s famous 1860 Cooper Union speech, he noted that of the 39 framers of the Constitution, 22 had voted on the question of banning slavery in the new territories. Twenty of the 22 voted to ban it, while another one of the Constitution’s framers—George Washington—signed into law legislation enforcing the Northwest Ordinance that banned slavery in the Northwest Territories. At Cooper Union, Lincoln also quoted Thomas Jefferson, who had argued in favor of Virginia emancipation: “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly….””

 

AP Gets Early Start on Nov 2nd, 2012 Headlines

A Perfect GOP Candidate Is Hard To Find. Yes, that is the unbiased AP headline of a story published today by AP writer Phillip Elliot. Elliot then presents us with an expose on exactly why every potential Republican candidate in the 2012 primary season is unworthy of Republican votes.

John Huntsman worked as an ambassador for Obama. Mitt Romney implemented Romneycare in Massachusetts. Newt Gingrich had two affairs and two failed marriages. Sarah Palin has had “countless impolitical moments”.

An infamous premature headline

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For every potential candidate, Elliot has a reason why they should lose.

Santorum is no good, he lost a Senate election in 2006. I wonder if Elliot knows that Abraham Lincoln lost the 1858 Senate race to Stephen Douglas, before defeating that same Stephen Douglas two years later in the Presidential race.

Tim Pawlenty apparently is too much into green energy. And of course, Haley Barbour is a racist, southern hick.

Of course, no freshman Republican is even considered in this article. After all, anyone can tell you that two years as a Senator does not give someone enough experience to run for President. Not if you are a Republican, that is.

I don’t remember the article about finding the perfect Democrat candidate in 2012. If Barbour has to defend his statements on segregation, should Obama defend his anti-white statements in his books? What about Obama’s church affiliation? How about his many “impolitical moments”?

Beyond mere gaffs and embarrassing associations, Obama brought us the failed stimulus plan that increased our debt over a trillion dollars with nothing to show for it. He gave us the unconstitutional Obamacare law and is currently in contempt of court for his executive order banning oil drilling in parts of the gulf. Obama’s attorney general has refused to follow through with voter intimidation prosecutions, refused to uphold more than one federal law on the books, and has betrayed his own racist leanings. Obama has now plunged us into a conflict with Libya where no one seems to know what the goals or end game is and where the only objective seems to be to blow stuff up but ensure that we are not responsible for winning.

But it’s not just Republicans who have reasons to not re-elect Obama. After promising to walk the picket lines wherever union rights are being denied, Obama was absent in the union showdown of our generation in Wisconsin. Obama has reversed his promise to close Guantanamo Bay, and continues to push back the date to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Obama’s legacy in Afghanistan is a surge strategy headed up by General David Petreaus. While Republicans are frustrated by the incompetent handling of the attacks on Libya, Democrats (if they are consistent) should be upset that we are getting involved at all. Obama is turning out to be more of a war hawk than his predecessor. He went back on his campaign promise to avoid an insurance mandate, skipped single payer, and extended the Bush tax cuts.

Where is the AP story about how hard it is to find a perfect Democrat candidate for 2012? The story of the 2012 election is not written yet. That is up to the voters. Do we want four more years of President Barack Obama?

%d bloggers like this: