Why Obama Emulates Lincoln

[242006]

When campaigning for President, I heard Obama state that one of his favorite Presidents was Lincoln. When I heard it, I, inititially, could not believe how Obama, a pure leftist, could emulate the first Republican President. I though it disgusting that conservatives could not have our icon without it being tainted by the filthy leftists.

Well, after my initial disgust, I did some research on Lincoln in order to discover what it was that Obama loved. Lo and behold, I found plenty of reasons why Obama would like to emulate Lincoln. The basic thing that the two Presidents have in common [for different reasons] is that both didn't/don't give a hoot about the Constitution.

Hence, as we conservatives tout our Constitutional rights as our protection against the egresses of gov't, we should be mindful that our standard bearer, Lincoln, was a gross violator thereof. Perhaps, we should think twice as to who our favorite Presidents are.

 

[bud02]

I don't know about all the particulars but they did and do share one thing in common, a divided nation.

 

[242006]

In terms of the Constitution, Lincoln did not face a divided nation except for that portion of Virginia, which is now known as West Virginia. It was [and is today] each State's right to secede.

 

[bud02]

In terms of the Constitution, Lincoln did not face a divided nation except for that portion of Virginia, which is now known as West Virginia. It was [and is today] each State's right to secede.

More than 600,000 people died in a war called the civil war, I call that a divided nation.

 

[aspen]

Yeah, it just makes me pine for President Cheney - a guy who really knew how to hire the right lawyer in order to exalt the branch of the executive office to new heights.......

Above the congress, judiciary branch, the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and anything else that stood in his way........

Ah,,,,the good old days......

 

[242006]

More than 600,000 people died in a war called the civil war, I call that a divided nation.

In terms of the Constitution, there was not a divided nation. The South had every Constitutional right to secede. Since the South was no longer a part of the United States, one cannot say that it was a 'Civil War' [complete misnomer]. It was a war between two separate countries.

 

[[email protected]]

Constitutionally, the northern aggression against southern states was illegal.
Illegal by definition of our own law.

A declaration of war is required by the constitution, but none was ever made.
(Much like illegal wars since WWII in our own time.)
Lincoln wanted it that way for fear that a declaration of war would recognize a southern nation by default.
The same was true for a petition of surrender.
There was never a note of surrender signed between the Confederacy, any seceding state and the Federal/General government.

American liberty as intended by the founding fathers took a huge leap backward at the end of hostilities in 1865.
The slide into Feferal repression and increasing restrictions has continued and accelerated ever since.

No one in government talks seriously about constitutional law any more.
None pay heed to it and few of its restrictions upon the government still stand.

Thomas Jefferson said that the government should be changed every generation.
Perhaps its time to take him at his word.

Yeah, it just makes me pine for President Cheney - a guy who really knew how to hire the right lawyer in order to exalt the branch of the executive office to new heights.......

Above the congress, judiciary branch, the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and anything else that stood in his way........

Ah,,,,the good old days......

Except that President Cheney was a bad shot.
With friends like him, who needs enemies?

 

[deprofundis]

If not caring about the Constitution or the rights it guarantees is a problem for you (which I would say it probably should be), you're going to have a pretty rough time picking a favourite president. Well, it'll probably be pretty easy, once you weed out the forty or so who didn't care about the constitutional rights of their people.

 

[[email protected]]

If not caring about the Constitution or the rights it guarantees is a problem for you (which I would say it probably should be), you're going to have a pretty rough time picking a favourite president. Well, it'll probably be pretty easy, once you weed out the forty or so who didn't care about the constitutional rights of their people.

True.

The American public are notoriously gullible and illiterate.

Our founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, had way too much faith in the people.
In his day the majority wanted to remain servile to the British crown.
Today the majority wants entitlement programs; gimme, gimme, gimme.
Few of these idiots even knows where the money comes from. Man on the street interviews on the subject are chilling.

The next elected president will be the one who effectively transmits the message that the government cookie jar can be raided for anybody and for any purpose.
It already is, but the public does NOT want to hear about cut backs to social programs.
The next thieving liar in the White House will be the one who is best at selling the idea.

The biggest single drain on the Federal budget is the military and nobody is going to cut a dime from the Pentagon's money pot.
The next biggest problem is the tendency to give away money to bankers, large corporations and even foreign governments which are in trouble.

Who will come to the aid of America?
France? Britain? The nations of the middle east?

Our future is rioting in the streets and martial law in our cities.
Meanwhile Washington will continue to give away OUR tax money and restrict OUR liberties further.

It's time for a change of government. A BIG change.

 

[TexUs]

Yeah, it just makes me pine for President Cheney - a guy who really knew how to hire the right lawyer in order to exalt the branch of the executive office to new heights.......

Above the congress, judiciary branch, the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and anything else that stood in his way........

Ah,,,,the good old days......

Him and every Prez since FDR.

FDR did more damage to this country than any other president... ever. Obama doesn't even come close. Obama couldn't be doing what he's doing now if it weren't for the road-paving done by FDR.

As a kid in high school you read of all these (apparently positive) programs FDR instituted and thought he did a great deal of work for the country. Only later when you start thinking for yourself does one realize all the crap that FDR actually did was extremely destructive to this country.

Man on the street interviews on the subject are chilling.

That's mainly because they do them in big cities.
It's no secret that big cities have lower IQ's, it's called "urban flight" and deals with some racism but fact remains that big cities are more appealing to your lower IQ citizens.

I agree and disagree about the intelligence of Americans. On one hand, saying "We're the elite, we're the pros, let us handle this, we'll tell you what to do" has contributed to EVEN MORE of a decrease in intelligence because the political pundits make Americans think they couldn't do the job.
On the other hand, Americans do know they want to be left alone. Push comes to shove, they'll fight.

It already is, but the public does NOT want to hear about cut backs to social programs.

It's for this reason why I don't think anything short of a civil war will fix this country.
I could instantly implement America as it should be... But people would need to realize it'll hurt for many years. Cut the DOE, cut Social Security, cut Medicare, cut the military, cut income taxes, etc... Big Government will instantly vanish, you'll have more money in your pockets, but initial economic backlash will certainly hurt as we return to a true free market. The social impacts would also be massive: parents would *gasp!* actually have to take a more active role in educating their children, selecting a school, or doing it themselves.

This is the America of old. This is the America that grew. This is the America that became a world power. It'll hurt returning to it so quickly, but short of a civil war I don't see it happening.

Make no mistake, "the people" would win the uprising. The majority of the military would fight against the US government. The minority in the military is really indifferent and probably wouldn't want to fight against the majority.
The American Militia (mainly ex-military) is well equipped with tanks, artillery, jets... You name it (you really don't think all that money Cheny was using went to Iraq, did you??). It's a conflict the US government won't win, and it is a last resort.

The biggest single drain on the Federal budget is the military and nobody is going to cut a dime from the Pentagon's money pot.

Actually, it's social security and Medicare, the social programs. The defense is the biggest non-social program by far. I'd slash the military instantly. We don't need to be policing the world. Bring all our troops home (you know, like we did before WWII).

 

[deprofundis]

Actually, it's social security and Medicare, the social programs. The defense is the biggest non-social program by far. I'd slash the military instantly. We don't need to be policing the world. Bring all our troops home (you know, like we did before WWII).

If you put social security and Medicare together, yes, but they're funded separately and are separate portions of the budget; each one makes up 21% of our budget, while the military makes up 22%, as of 2007. "Defense and security" is the largest single portion of the budget, the way it's officially broken down. Either way you wanna look at it, though, I agree on slashing the military funding. If the government has to spend my money, at least spend it on food, medical care, etc., not on killing people.

 

[TexUs]

If you put social security and Medicare together, yes, but they're funded separately and are separate portions of the budget; each one makes up 21% of our budget, while the military makes up 22%, as of 2007. "Defense and security" is the largest single portion of the budget, the way it's officially broken down.

Look at the 2010 budget please.
SS- $677B
Defense- $663B

And I'm not even talking about budgeted items but obligations, Social Security obligations have surpassed the $100T mark.

 

[deprofundis]

Oh, sure enough. I don't know what made me think 2007 was the most recent budget publicly available just because it was the most recent I found. I should've known that wasn't the case.

 

[242006]

If not caring about the Constitution or the rights it guarantees is a problem for you (which I would say it probably should be), you're going to have a pretty rough time picking a favourite president. Well, it'll probably be pretty easy, once you weed out the forty or so who didn't care about the constitutional rights of their people.

Yes -- most, if not all, trample on the very document that empowers them.

True.

The American public are notoriously gullible and illiterate.

Our founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, had way too much faith in the people.

If my memory serves me correctly, was it not Jefferson who argued for the inclusion in the Constitution of the right to secede for the individual?? His argument then was that people would be far too busy with the activities of ordinary life to counter the natural inclination of gov't to trample on their rights.

Who will come to the aid of America?
France? Britain? The nations of the middle east?

Our future is rioting in the streets and martial law in our cities.
Meanwhile Washington will continue to give away OUR tax money and restrict OUR liberties further.

It's time for a change of government. A BIG change.

I agree. The Declaration of Independence was not intended as a one-time event.

 

[veteran]

Constitutionally, the northern aggression against southern states was illegal.
Illegal by definition of our own law.

A declaration of war is required by the constitution, but none was ever made.
(Much like illegal wars since WWII in our own time.)
Lincoln wanted it that way for fear that a declaration of war would recognize a southern nation by default.
The same was true for a petition of surrender.
There was never a note of surrender signed between the Confederacy, any seceding state and the Federal/General government.

American liberty as intended by the founding fathers took a huge leap backward at the end of hostilities in 1865.
The slide into Feferal repression and increasing restrictions has continued and accelerated ever since.

No one in government talks seriously about constitutional law any more.
None pay heed to it and few of its restrictions upon the government still stand.

Good post.

The war between the states was especially about the power of control and money. The only actual good thing that came out of it was the end of the institution of slavery in America, in both the southern and northern states, for both were doing it, not just the southern plantation owners. Slavery in America was an import from Britain first to ports in Mass. and New York. And of course, the institution of slavery violated the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and principles of the Declaration of Independence.

But slavery was not the main issue that began the war, as we all have been taught. It was made an issue later by the north to get support of the northern people who had said it was a "rich man's war" (see the Lincoln vs. Douglas debates). Peoples in New York city even burned down draft houses in rebellion early on in protest because the northern people knew it was about the money powers. The debate over slavery was then brought into it, which changed the northern people's attitude and support for the war. The Feds gave the people a just cause to fight for by doing that.

States rights was the issue that began it, because the south's rich agrarian economy was trading its agricultural product like cotton for European manufactured goods instead of the north. The southern rich were starting to develope their own manufacturing base in competition against the northern industrialists. Before that could gain speed, northern industrialists got tarrifs passed to penalize the south for trading with Europe, and instead force the south to buy only from the northern industrialists, at their set prices. That's when southern leaders started rebelling against the north, and against the Federal administration that was supporting the northern industrialists and bankers. That's how the issue of states rights is what set off the fire, for only around 12% of the southern people actually owned slaves.

The war over states rights and the Constitution actually began earlier, like with Andrew Jackson's presidency in fighting against the New York bankers attempt to create a central banking cartel to control all banks in the U.S. The NY banker Nicolas Biddle even tried public libel and slander against Jackson which eventually failed. Andrew Jackson was faithful to the gold standard per the U.S. Constitution. And what happenned after the Civil War? Eventually a central banking system began in the U.S. in 1913, giving the Federal Reserve private bank powers over the U.S. monetary system, using fractional reserve banking until they would finally take the U.S. dollar off the gold standard completely in 1971. Lincoln was no doubt their 'man', just as every president since then has probably been.

 

[Rue]

Well, being in Illinois, not far from the city of Springfield where LIncoln married and worked - I think that to be a politician from this state, whos motto is "The land of Lincoln", it is required by law to give praise to Lincoln at least once a month.

I think every Illinois politician believes they are the next coming of Lincoln.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

Lincoln was a Republican.

In early American history the Republican beliefs were what the Democrats believe now. Around the 40's or 50's the change started. Democrats now believe what Republicans first believed and Republicans believe what Democrats first believed.

 

[[email protected]]

That's mainly because they do them in big cities.
It's no secret that big cities have lower IQ's, it's called "urban flight" and deals with some racism but fact remains that big cities are more appealing to your lower IQ citizens.

Good point.

It's for this reason why I don't think anything short of a civil war will fix this country.
I could instantly implement America as it should be... But people would need to realize it'll hurt for many years. Cut the DOE, cut Social Security, cut Medicare, cut the military, cut income taxes, etc... Big Government will instantly vanish, you'll have more money in your pockets, but initial economic backlash will certainly hurt as we return to a true free market. The social impacts would also be massive: parents would *gasp!* actually have to take a more active role in educating their children, selecting a school, or doing it themselves.

This is the America of old. This is the America that grew. This is the America that became a world power. It'll hurt returning to it so quickly, but short of a civil war I don't see it happening.

Agreed. Actually, I think that without governmental interference a post 2nd civil war scenario period of instability would be less than five years.

http://secessionnews.com/

An interesting source of intelligent discussion on the subjects of secession and nullification.

(This isn't your great great grandpa's republic any more.)