Barack Obama - The Greatest Speaker in the World

Not that I see Obama as public enemy #1, I just wanted to make fun of him a bit and counter the belief that he is such a great speaker. I will keep a running tally of all the dumb statements and fibs he's made.

• "America is the greatest country in the world. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time for a change."
• "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."
• "What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation...This young man named Barack Obama...came over to this country. He met this woman...(who) had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided...it might...be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama... So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama. I'm here because somebody marched." (the Selma Marches happened 4 years after Obama Jr was born.)
• “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” (Death toll was 12)
• “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”
• "[Iran] doesn’t pose a serious threat to us”
• “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”
• “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known [in Kentucky], coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” (for those who don't know, Kentucky and Illinois share a border, Arkansas and Kentucky are separated by the state of Tennessee)
• "I've now been to 57 states, we have one left to go."
• "I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps," (didn't happen)
  

History Exam

Can you tell me who the following 2 individuals are?

Individual A:

• In 23 years years as a litigator, he never once represented a slave, but he had represented a slave owner. He argued against Illinois State Constitution in order to bring a slave back to captivity.
• He never wanted freed slaves to coexist with whites. His plan had always been to ship them back to Africa, or send them to Central America. He issued his plan to a group of black ministers and said, “It is better for us both to be separated, for the good of mankind.”
• He once said, “I will say then that I am not, nor have ever 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 have ever been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes.”
• Of him, the preeminent abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison said, “[He has] not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins.”
• In a public letter to Horace Greeley, he said “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

Individual B:

• Often talked of the immorality of slavery.
• Freed all 160+ of his family's slaves prior to the emancipation proclamation.
• Pushed for emancipation and equal pay for slaves who fought for the confederacy. They were granted equal pay (this was not the case for blacks in the Union Army, nor were they permitted to march with whites).
• In a post-Civil War Episcopalian church, many prominent former Confederates congregated. When a black man took communion first the congregation was startled. Some angry, some embarrassed. After a pause, Individual B knelt next to the freedman and took communion with him, subduing the situation.
• As President of Washington College, he played a big part in race relations, including dissolving a lynch mob who was aimed to hang a black man that had murdered a prominent white.

Answers: Individual A - nlocnil maharba Individual B - eel e trebor

Old Hickory

The common consensus seems to be that Andrew Jackson was a "bad" President. It is illogical how we sometimes choose who was "good" and who was "bad". The pattern seems to be that Presidents who didn't have a well-known scandal, or who got us through a war are widely considered "good", regardless of the policies implemented.

So why is Jackson considered bad? I asked around and all evidence seems to point to his treatment of the Indians as an officer in the Army and as President. As a soldier he was under direction in the Battle of Orleans, and against the Seminoles he used what many deemed excessive force. Some historians believe that he was purposefully given ambiguous orders by President Taylor, so in the case of blow-back, Taylor could deny responsibility.

Those are his lesser offenses as far as history is concerned. The bigger issue is Andrew Jackson's role in the "Trail of Tears". During his administration he was able to negotiate a contract with John Ridge to purchase Cherokee land and relocate them. John Ridge was actually a leader of a small faction, and not recognized among the Cherokee as a tribal leader (some argue that Jackson knew this). 15,000 Cherokees petitioned that the contract was illegal.

The misconception is Jackson's role in actually forcing the Cherokee off their land. It was my understanding that he was the party responsible (everyone I have talked to, thought this was the case as well). It was actually Jackson's successor, Martin Van Buren, who sent soldiers to kill 4,000 Cherokees and run them off their land. Although Jackson did play a part in all this, he is not the monster we perceive him to be.

The reason I appreciate Jackson is he was a man of principle. He fought the Central Bank tooth and nail. In his campaign for re-election he stated, "Bank and no Jackson, or no bank and Jackson!" Nicholas Biddle was the director of the Central Bank and a formidable opponent. He tried all sorts of political manipulation to force Jackson's hand:

• Biddle asked congress to renew the charter early during Jackson's campaign, assuming Jackson would not fight it, in order to be re-elected.
• He employed Daniel Webster's oratory skills to combat Jackson's veto.
• Biddle printed 300,000 copies of Jackson's veto message (which was in accordance with the constitution) and distributed it with the notion that, "If the bank thinks this is so bad to distribute it, it must be bad."
• After Jackson withdrew Federal Deposits, Biddle severely contracted the money supply to initiate a panic-depression that would be blamed on Jackson.
• Jackson, in turn, was the first President censured by the Senate.

Biddle was a prideful man. He couldn't help but boast in his power to disrupt the economy. In wake of these boasts Governor Wolf (of PA) came out with a public denunciation of the Bank and Biddle. This turned the tides and Congress voted to pass all 3 resolutions of the President's bank policy. The censure was formally rescinded.

Jackson had earned the hate of both monetary scientists and bankers worldwide. Jackson survived an assassination attempt by Richard Lawrence who was deemed not guilty by reason of insanity. Later in life Lawrence claimed that he had been in touch with powerful people in Europe who promised to protect him if he were caught.

Jackson was willing to risk his political career (and risked his life, although I don't know if he did that willingly) to fight the bank. Not everything he did was a perfect success, but what he accomplished in defending the constitution with regard to banking and monetary policy was paramount. Had we followed his example to this day we wouldn't be dealing with corporate bailouts, we would have a smaller national debt (if any at all), and the American taxpayer wouldn't be subsidizing our banking system with the hidden tax called inflation.

All in all, I would have to say "Old Hickory" was an American Hero.

Principled Thinking

One of the largest problems with our democratic system is that people don't base their ideology on principled thinking. Too often we are led by emotion rather than principle. For instance, not to pick on democrats (or agree with Sean Hannity), but someone once said, "I am voting for Kerry, because he isn't Bush". Hannity responded with a question, "What makes Kerry better than Bush?" This individual was stumped. His distaste (feeling) for Bush (or just Republicans) was so strong that he didn't even bother to educate himself about Kerry (for all he knew Kerry was Stalin). I know this is one example, but if you talk to enough people you will realize it is fairly common.

We have all heard this: "I am voting for Obama because I want Universal Health Care". Why is that a good thing? I have heard interesting arguments, "Human beings are entitled to good health." I don't know what principle this is based on, I believe we are only "ENTITLED" to natural rights however you define them. I believe that God/Nature gave us 2 rights: Life & Liberty. I don't know that God/Nature gave us "free" health care.

Also we have all heard this: "I am voting for McCain because he will see Iraq through to the end." Why is that a good thing? What is the "END"? What principle do you base this on? That we should help other countries in need? So you are voting for McCain so that we will get involved in Iran, Sudan, Venezuela...?

Note: there may be great principled arguments for these issues, I am just unaware of them. If you know of any, please share.

So I am starting a list of principles and beliefs that I have in order to be more consistent and fair in all things political (I am trying to avoid the negative and focusing on a specific issue, i.e. "forced equality is bad", or "I am pro-marijuana", I should be able to list a belief or principle that explains where I stand with an issue):

Life and liberty are natural rights
Liberty and property are extensions of life
Life, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness) are inalienable rights
Life, faculties, production, individuality, liberty, property - this is man
Government's function is to protect life, liberty, and property
The Law of Supply and Demand is a natural law
People respond to incentives
Freedom encourages innovation
Profit encourages innovation and efficiency
Competition encourages innovation and efficiency
Profit measures utility/value; Dollars follow value
People act out of self-interest
Small government is less corruptible
Non-intevervention is within an entity's best interest
Free exchange creates wealth for individuals and nations
People are rational and know their best interest better than anyone else
Moral choice belongs to the individual
Freedom > Security

I will add more as I think of them. Feel free to post what you believe.

"I'm Running for Congress, and My Platform Is the Environment..."

"...you know, like... the whole environment?" - Amy Poehler, Envy

I love the environment, but I hate public policy with regard to the environment. I'm always impressed with what the private sector comes up with. For instance, some of our eco-friends raised money and bought a few thousand of the worst emitting cars they could find in LA. They then smashed them so they could cause no more pollution. What a great idea. You can do a lot of good without forcing the public's hand.

I don't like policy interference because they often do more harm than good. 60 years ago they told us of the dangers of nuclear power. They said it would cause doomsday, and so forth. They wanted a renewable energy source, so we continued with burning fossil fuels for energy until we found one.

We tried wind mills, but they were killing "thousands" of large endangered birds.

We tried dams, but the environmentalists don't like man-made flooding. Dams do not allow salmon to swim back up stream and affect other water life adversely.

We tried solar panels, but to generate as much electricity as a nuclear plant, you must have panels that cover an area as wide as Washington DC, not to mention you must wash the panels every 2-3 days.

Since we have primarily relied on fossil fuels over the past 60 years, we now have the global warming scare. Many environmentalists are pushing for nuclear power. They now realize it is much safer to human and animal activity than they originally thought, and the emissions have no negative impact.

Had we gone with nuclear power all along we would not have killed thousands of endangered birds, we would not have wasted money and resources on solar energy, we would not have interfered with the nation's fresh waterways, and most importantly our greenhouse gas emissions would have been significantly less. In this case, interference has caused much more harm than good.

Is Lincoln's Legacy A Myth?

I have been obsessed with the Civil War lately. I believe that everything we hear and read about history is propaganda. I am amazed that I attended public schools in Tennessee and Utah, and that all I got was Northern propaganda. I was taught that the South was treasonous, and that “Honest” Abe was the best president ever. Here is what I have learned as of late, from the propaganda I have been reading.

The South’s desire to be free from the North stemmed largely from the fact that the individual taxpayer in the South was paying twice as much in Federal taxes (through tariffs) as the individual taxpayer in the North, with Federal spending mostly benefiting the North.

It is not treasonous to seek secession. It is actually a constitutional right, and the greatest check a state has on central government. Massachusetts had threatened to secede over the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson told them it was their right if they wished to secede.

The war was not about slavery. The abolitionist party only made up 1% of the US population. Lincoln said in a public letter to Horace Greeley, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

The preeminent abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison said, “President Lincoln… [has] not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." Lincoln never wanted freed slaves to coexist with whites. His plan had always been to ship them back to Africa, or send them to Central America. He issued his plan to a group of black ministers and said, “It is better for us both to be separated, for the good of mankind.”

In his 1861 inaugural address, Lincoln said, “I have no purpose to interfere with slavery. I believe I have no lawful right to do so….”

The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in Confederate regions. It was so specific that it excluded counties occupied by the Union in seceding states. Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward said, “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.”

In response to the Emancipation Proclamation General Hooker (Union officer) said, “A large element of the army would never have embarked in the war had they anticipated this action of the government.” One entire regiment from Illinois subsequently disbanded.

It is very clear to me the war was not about the morality of slavery. To me Lincoln was one of the worst presidents ever. It really depends on you political ideology. If you like a large central government, and a powerful executive branch you may excuse all his acts in observance of the “greater good”. I am not trying to change your ideology; I just think people should be aware of what Lincoln really did during the Civil War, and that he did it because he was a Hamiltonian*.

• Lincoln was a mercantilist, not a capitalist. He believed in a strong central government, high protective tariffs and internal subsidies. He believed that Federal law should prohibit importing anything that is domestically produced.
• In his first inaugural address Lincoln promised to wage war on any state that refused to collect tariff revenue. Over 90% of Federal tax revenue came from tariffs (over half paid by the South), and the Union could not afford to lose that revenue to the Confederacy.
• Lincoln was the first President to sign off on an income tax. He also approved a federally-issued currency, and taxed all state-issued currencies to eliminate competition.
  
• Lincoln’s forces violated the 3 major rules set up by the Geneva Convention in 1863. These rules are all punishable by death or imprisonment
• Lincoln supporters praise him as a military genius and that he micromanaged the North’s war efforts, yet they deny that he had anything to do with the destruction of southern civilization (estimated 50,000 civilian deaths). Even churches were torched while their ministers were imprisoned for “not saying prayers for Abraham Lincoln.”
• In blockading southern ports Lincoln was in violation of international law. He went so far as to prohibit drugs and medicine from being shipped to the south.
• Lincoln had 14,000 opponents arrested without warrants and without telling them what laws they had offended. Among the arrested were 30 legislators (MD), a congressman (OH), and newspaper editors.
• Official order from Lincoln to General Dix, May 18, 1864…”You will take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce and prohibit any further publication thereof…you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison…the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers.”
• Lincoln usurped congressional power by suspending writs of Habeas Corpus for the arrested. When challenged by Chief Justice Taney on the matter, Lincoln had a warrant issued for Taney’s arrest, but was never carried out.
• The Constitution requires that a state consents before a new state can be made from its territory. Lincoln recognized the new state of West Virginia, without permission from Virginia. This gave his party and the Union 2 more votes in the senate, and 1 more state on their side in the ratification process.

Lincoln violated the constitution in many different ways. He fought a war that led to the deaths of 600,000+ Americans so that we could preserve the Union. Is the Union worth 600,000 deaths? History books sweeten it by maintaining that it was the moral duty of the North to wage this war and free the slaves, but anybody informed and honest with himself knows that this was never their objective.

Renowned economist Walter Williams said it best when he stated, "Lincoln would be more appropriately known, not as the 'Great Emancipator', but as the Great Centralizer."

* Federalist. Lincoln worshipped Alexander Hamilton and Daniel Webster. He was mentored by Henry Clay. The Federalists and their ideology lost as their party dissolved. They attempted a comeback and called themselves Whigs. Lincoln was a Whig until they went out of fashion. He took his defeated beliefs to the Republican party. He was their nominee because he was viewed as the "least anti-slavery".