The consensus among historians and Americans in general, is that Abraham Lincoln was our greatest president. Afterall, did he not help free the slaves? He was a champion of freedom and liberty for all Americans, right?
Let's check his words and actions to see if they match the myth and legend that is the 16th president. Lincoln was a highly successful lawyer for over 20 years. During that span of time the Great Emancipator represented slaveowners, and not once did he represent a single runaway slave. In a debate against Stephen Douglas in 1858, Lincoln said the following: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference in the two, which, in my judgement, will probably forever forbid their living together...and I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary."
In his first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
In 1862, Lincoln wrote a letter to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Times. In part, the letter stated: My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.
Abe's much lauded achievement, the Emancipation Proclamation, in reality, did not free any slaves. It was written so as to apply only to territory held by Confederate rebels. Southern territories held by the Feds, such as Kentucky and Tennessee, were, in fact, exempt from the Proclamation. In other words, it pertained only to areas the Union did not control and therefore could not enforce.
During the Civil War, Lincoln took on dictatorial powers not seen by any prior president. He shut down newspapers that ran editorials opposing his war policies, and imprisoned the editors of these papers. By some estimates, over 13,000 citizens were imprisoned for the crime of disagreeing with the President. There are records of some of these citizens being executed.
The point is, no elected official can or should be trusted. Even Abraham Lincoln ignored or subverted the Constitution, and suspended the basic rights of Americans when it suited his needs. All elected officials should be regarded as men with human failings, and not as saints or royalty free from sin.
To delve further into this unknown side of Lincoln, I recommend two books: THE REAL LINCOLN, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, and THE REAL LINCOLN, by Webb Garrison.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Monday, June 23, 2014
WEIRD NUMBERS GAME #5
43% of adults own a tablet or E-Reader.
54,000 newspaper and magazine jobs have disappeared since 2003.
80% of suicide victims are men.
23.4 million adults over 65 depend on Social Security for 90% of their income.
28% of adults sleep less than 6 hours a night.
Traffic fatalities have dropped 56% since 2002.
28% of teen respondents to a recent poll said they have ridden in a car where the adult driver texted while driving.
20% of Americans have tattoos. More women than men have tattoos.
Average person thinks of the future 59 times a day.
People over 50 are divorcing at double the rate of younger people.
54,000 newspaper and magazine jobs have disappeared since 2003.
80% of suicide victims are men.
23.4 million adults over 65 depend on Social Security for 90% of their income.
28% of adults sleep less than 6 hours a night.
Traffic fatalities have dropped 56% since 2002.
28% of teen respondents to a recent poll said they have ridden in a car where the adult driver texted while driving.
20% of Americans have tattoos. More women than men have tattoos.
Average person thinks of the future 59 times a day.
People over 50 are divorcing at double the rate of younger people.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
BUY AMERICAN--BY AMERICANS
I drive a 2013 Honda Civic. Prior to that I owned 2 Honda Accords. Why? Because over the years I have owned 8 Hondas, put hundreds of thousands of miles on them in total, and never ever had to take any of them in for repairs of any kind. Not once. Not ever. That is reliability with a capital R.
I recently got into a heated discussion with a gentleman who took me to task for buying a Japanese car. He said I should "buy American," and that it was people like me who were responsible for sending jobs overseas and causing unemployment in this country. I let him have his say, then set him straight with a few facts that shut him up about American job loss.
I told him the following: 80% of the Civic's content was manufactured in America by American factory workers; Hondas are assembled in Ohio by American assemblyline workers; the cars are delivered to the showrooms by American Temaster union truckers; an Amercian saleman received the commission; an American owned dealership shared in the profit; American techs service the cars; American warehouses and warehouse workers handle the replacement parts.
In other words, if millions of people like me stopped buying Japanese cars, hundreds of thousands of American workers would lose their jobs. Too many people fail to see beyond the tip of their nose.
I recently got into a heated discussion with a gentleman who took me to task for buying a Japanese car. He said I should "buy American," and that it was people like me who were responsible for sending jobs overseas and causing unemployment in this country. I let him have his say, then set him straight with a few facts that shut him up about American job loss.
I told him the following: 80% of the Civic's content was manufactured in America by American factory workers; Hondas are assembled in Ohio by American assemblyline workers; the cars are delivered to the showrooms by American Temaster union truckers; an Amercian saleman received the commission; an American owned dealership shared in the profit; American techs service the cars; American warehouses and warehouse workers handle the replacement parts.
In other words, if millions of people like me stopped buying Japanese cars, hundreds of thousands of American workers would lose their jobs. Too many people fail to see beyond the tip of their nose.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
A NEW ENDANGERED SPECIES
I have a suggestion: Take a good long hard look at the good old USA. Listen to the language; peer into the faces; study the cultural habits; listen to the music; keep an eye on the social and political institutions. Take it all in, because the United States you live in today will be gone in a generation. Your kids, grandkids, great grandkids will reside in a country markedly different than the one we live in now.
The seeds of change are all around us. Border Patrol agents report that 35,000 illegals cross the Texas border every month. California agents are warning us that drug gang members are pouring into California by the hundreds. Illegal immigrants are being released from prison. And the Obama administration is turning a blind eye to all of it. In fact, encourages it.
According to the Census Bureau, by 2050, Caucasians will comprise less than half of the total population--45%. By comparison, when JFK was elected president in 1960, 80% of the population was Caucasian. Illegal immigration coupled with falling birthrates among whites account for these demographic changes.
So is this a question of race and racism? Absolutely not, although on the surface, it would appear to be precisely that. This is not about superiority and inferiority of one race to another.. The issue is cultural differences.
A United States where minorities are a combined majority would be a different country, and here is the primary reason. Ninety percent of African American voters vote Democrat, and seventy percent of Hispanic voters vote Democrat. Do the math. It would mean that liberatrain/conservative principles would be reduced to a second class level of irrelevance. Those principles of small government, less welfare, lower taxes and free enterprise would be voted away into oblivion. The Obama presidency is a preview of coming attractions: big government control of every aspect of our lives, higher taxes, strangling of business and the entrepreneurial spirit, increased spying on private citizens, less personal liberty. Look at any major city with a signifigant population of minorities. What do Detroit, Chicago, New York, LA, Atlanta, Cleveland, etc., all have in common? They are going bankrupt, scandal ridden and controlled by Democrats overwhelmingingly supported by minority voters. Sure, some whites vote for them,, too. But what it means is that a Republican/conservative/libertarian candidate doesn't stand a chance of getting elected and promoting and preserving conservative principles. Look at Chicago. That city hasn't had a Republican mayor in over half a century, and 49 of the 50 aldermen are Democrats. Nuff said. Welcome to the future.
What lies in our future is an all-encompassing welfare state, and an electorate that scorns the Constitution and ridicules the Founding Fathers as a bunch of old white guys. I won't be around to see it. I only hope that my grandchildren and their children will be able to find an oasis of liberty in an increasingly hostile world.
The seeds of change are all around us. Border Patrol agents report that 35,000 illegals cross the Texas border every month. California agents are warning us that drug gang members are pouring into California by the hundreds. Illegal immigrants are being released from prison. And the Obama administration is turning a blind eye to all of it. In fact, encourages it.
According to the Census Bureau, by 2050, Caucasians will comprise less than half of the total population--45%. By comparison, when JFK was elected president in 1960, 80% of the population was Caucasian. Illegal immigration coupled with falling birthrates among whites account for these demographic changes.
So is this a question of race and racism? Absolutely not, although on the surface, it would appear to be precisely that. This is not about superiority and inferiority of one race to another.. The issue is cultural differences.
A United States where minorities are a combined majority would be a different country, and here is the primary reason. Ninety percent of African American voters vote Democrat, and seventy percent of Hispanic voters vote Democrat. Do the math. It would mean that liberatrain/conservative principles would be reduced to a second class level of irrelevance. Those principles of small government, less welfare, lower taxes and free enterprise would be voted away into oblivion. The Obama presidency is a preview of coming attractions: big government control of every aspect of our lives, higher taxes, strangling of business and the entrepreneurial spirit, increased spying on private citizens, less personal liberty. Look at any major city with a signifigant population of minorities. What do Detroit, Chicago, New York, LA, Atlanta, Cleveland, etc., all have in common? They are going bankrupt, scandal ridden and controlled by Democrats overwhelmingingly supported by minority voters. Sure, some whites vote for them,, too. But what it means is that a Republican/conservative/libertarian candidate doesn't stand a chance of getting elected and promoting and preserving conservative principles. Look at Chicago. That city hasn't had a Republican mayor in over half a century, and 49 of the 50 aldermen are Democrats. Nuff said. Welcome to the future.
What lies in our future is an all-encompassing welfare state, and an electorate that scorns the Constitution and ridicules the Founding Fathers as a bunch of old white guys. I won't be around to see it. I only hope that my grandchildren and their children will be able to find an oasis of liberty in an increasingly hostile world.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
FATHERS DAY: NOT FOR IDIOTS AND MORONS
It's time for another Fathers Day. As a father and grandfather, I appreciate the recognition and the opportunity to spend quality time with my family. But cultural changes over the years makes this holiday even more signifigant.
Look around. Check out the movies, TV shows, commercials, social attitudes. Over the years, men in general, and fathers in particular, have been reduced to second class citizens and the butt of jokes that would be considered degrading and politically incorrect were they directed at women and mothers. Men are portrayed as brainless, beer swigging, video game playing, Doritos chomping, overgrown children. Fathers are depicted as incompetent idiots incapable of raising their own children.
Example: A current commercial shops a husband and wife skyping. The woman is in a hotel room, dressed in business casual, obviously on a business trip. Dad is home with their 2 kids becasue we see them on the video screen assuring Mom that everything is fine. When the call is over, we see the kitchen in full view. It looks like a food bomb exploded, food splattered all over the ceiling, walls, floor and countertop. The message? Mom is an astute business woman. Dad is a total boob incapable of caring for his 2 kids. Could you imagine the uproar if they showed Mom as a blond airhead too ditzy to care for her children?
This type of depiction goes back decades, from sitcoms like The Life of Riley, The Jim Belushi Show, Married With Children, Two And a Half Men, etc.. The fathers are dimwitted, oafish goofballs barely able to nurture their own kids.
This degrading of men shows up in other areas of our society. For instance, 80% of births in the African American communty are out of wedlock, which translates into the majority of black children growing up without a father figure in the house. Let the crime statistics reflect the wisdom of this situation. There have been numerous actresses who have had babies fathered by undisclosed men, and who proceed to raise these kids without the aid of a father. Here, men have been reduced to mere sperm donors who are unnecessary and irrelevant in terms of raising a child. But I ask you this: Is a child better off with one loving, nurturing parent, or two loving, nurturing parents?
I, for one, am fed up with the stereotypical portrayal of men as overgrown children who do nothing but sit on their fat asses, drink beer, stuff their face with junk food, watch TV 18 hours a day (and sleep the other 6), fart, scratch and otherwise behave like they're afflicted with arrested development. And I am definetely disgusted with the portrayal of men as incompetent, neglectful and clueless fathers.Sure there are men who are morons and bad dads, but the overwhelming majority of us bust our ass to support our families, love our children, and do everything in our power to nurture and protect them; not to mention the men who chase the criminals, fight the fires, spill their blood in foreign wars, as well as those who lead quieter lives and provide a world of love and security for their families.
Yes, fathers deserve recognition. But most of all, fathers need respect.
Look around. Check out the movies, TV shows, commercials, social attitudes. Over the years, men in general, and fathers in particular, have been reduced to second class citizens and the butt of jokes that would be considered degrading and politically incorrect were they directed at women and mothers. Men are portrayed as brainless, beer swigging, video game playing, Doritos chomping, overgrown children. Fathers are depicted as incompetent idiots incapable of raising their own children.
Example: A current commercial shops a husband and wife skyping. The woman is in a hotel room, dressed in business casual, obviously on a business trip. Dad is home with their 2 kids becasue we see them on the video screen assuring Mom that everything is fine. When the call is over, we see the kitchen in full view. It looks like a food bomb exploded, food splattered all over the ceiling, walls, floor and countertop. The message? Mom is an astute business woman. Dad is a total boob incapable of caring for his 2 kids. Could you imagine the uproar if they showed Mom as a blond airhead too ditzy to care for her children?
This type of depiction goes back decades, from sitcoms like The Life of Riley, The Jim Belushi Show, Married With Children, Two And a Half Men, etc.. The fathers are dimwitted, oafish goofballs barely able to nurture their own kids.
This degrading of men shows up in other areas of our society. For instance, 80% of births in the African American communty are out of wedlock, which translates into the majority of black children growing up without a father figure in the house. Let the crime statistics reflect the wisdom of this situation. There have been numerous actresses who have had babies fathered by undisclosed men, and who proceed to raise these kids without the aid of a father. Here, men have been reduced to mere sperm donors who are unnecessary and irrelevant in terms of raising a child. But I ask you this: Is a child better off with one loving, nurturing parent, or two loving, nurturing parents?
I, for one, am fed up with the stereotypical portrayal of men as overgrown children who do nothing but sit on their fat asses, drink beer, stuff their face with junk food, watch TV 18 hours a day (and sleep the other 6), fart, scratch and otherwise behave like they're afflicted with arrested development. And I am definetely disgusted with the portrayal of men as incompetent, neglectful and clueless fathers.Sure there are men who are morons and bad dads, but the overwhelming majority of us bust our ass to support our families, love our children, and do everything in our power to nurture and protect them; not to mention the men who chase the criminals, fight the fires, spill their blood in foreign wars, as well as those who lead quieter lives and provide a world of love and security for their families.
Yes, fathers deserve recognition. But most of all, fathers need respect.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
WEIRD NUMBERS GAME #4
American prison population exceeds the population of Chicago and Los Angeles combined--6.9 million prisoners.
The cerebellum, which is the part of the brain at the nape of the neck, accounts for 10% of the brain volume, yet contains half of all brain cells.
In a recent Gallup poll, 58% of respondents favored legalizing marijuana.
Two-thirds of the earth lies beneath 1000 feet of water.
One out of three seniors over the age of 65 fall every year.
People who drink 3-5 cups of coffee daily reduce their chances of dementia by 65%.
One third of adults between the ages of 18 and 32 live with their parents.
In a recent poll, 65% of respondents favored legalized online poker.
In 1970, 10% of all occupations were required to be licensed. Today, the government requires 30% of all occupations to be licensed.
In the top ten major cities, 50% of teens are unemployed.
The cerebellum, which is the part of the brain at the nape of the neck, accounts for 10% of the brain volume, yet contains half of all brain cells.
In a recent Gallup poll, 58% of respondents favored legalizing marijuana.
Two-thirds of the earth lies beneath 1000 feet of water.
One out of three seniors over the age of 65 fall every year.
People who drink 3-5 cups of coffee daily reduce their chances of dementia by 65%.
One third of adults between the ages of 18 and 32 live with their parents.
In a recent poll, 65% of respondents favored legalized online poker.
In 1970, 10% of all occupations were required to be licensed. Today, the government requires 30% of all occupations to be licensed.
In the top ten major cities, 50% of teens are unemployed.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
RAHM VERSUS THE CUBS: BULLPEN OR BULLSHIT?
As a libertarian/conservative I am a firm believer in the separation of economy and state the way we have a separation of church and state, and for the very same reasons. Our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to know that permitting government to involve itself with religion would be a receipe for disaster. Well, when the state dabbles in the economy, the results are typically a disaster.
The Chicago Cubs (love em or hate em) are asking the City of Chicago to allow them to make numerous architectural changes to Wrigley Field. One of these changes has nothing to do with blocking the view of the rooftops across from the park, or altering the face of this historic structure. The change is quite simple. the Cubs want to enlarge the outfield doors from 12 feet to 24 feet so they can move the bullpens from the sidelines to a position under the outfield bleachers. That's it. Mayor Rahm Emmanuel says no way, dudes. Why does he oppose the change? Because it would mean some of the iconic ivy on the outfield walls would be removed. Seriously? How would less ivy alter the game? How would it decrease the fans' enjoyment of baseball?
Here's the kicker for we libertarians. Wrigley Field is private property owned by the Ricketts family of Chicago. The city does not own it. Emperor Rahm doesn't own it. Yet the city is preventing owners from making relatively minor changes to the interior of their own property. The words "joke "farce" and "outrage" apply here.
Is it possibly there is an underlying reason for Emperor Rahm's opposition to the plan? Consider this. The Ricketts family have made numerous financial contributions to the Republican party and Republican candidates. Is it the least bit possible that Emperor Rahm is using and abusing his power to enforce the old adage, "Paybacks are a mothereffer?"
This is what happens when politicians and the state can interfere with the marketplace. It is no longer about who has the best products and services, but who can kiss the most political ass.
The Chicago Cubs (love em or hate em) are asking the City of Chicago to allow them to make numerous architectural changes to Wrigley Field. One of these changes has nothing to do with blocking the view of the rooftops across from the park, or altering the face of this historic structure. The change is quite simple. the Cubs want to enlarge the outfield doors from 12 feet to 24 feet so they can move the bullpens from the sidelines to a position under the outfield bleachers. That's it. Mayor Rahm Emmanuel says no way, dudes. Why does he oppose the change? Because it would mean some of the iconic ivy on the outfield walls would be removed. Seriously? How would less ivy alter the game? How would it decrease the fans' enjoyment of baseball?
Here's the kicker for we libertarians. Wrigley Field is private property owned by the Ricketts family of Chicago. The city does not own it. Emperor Rahm doesn't own it. Yet the city is preventing owners from making relatively minor changes to the interior of their own property. The words "joke "farce" and "outrage" apply here.
Is it possibly there is an underlying reason for Emperor Rahm's opposition to the plan? Consider this. The Ricketts family have made numerous financial contributions to the Republican party and Republican candidates. Is it the least bit possible that Emperor Rahm is using and abusing his power to enforce the old adage, "Paybacks are a mothereffer?"
This is what happens when politicians and the state can interfere with the marketplace. It is no longer about who has the best products and services, but who can kiss the most political ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)