“A Time For Choosing”

via: american-conservativevalues

There is a great problem today with the general public understanding Conservative values. They don’t seem to understand the true definition of Conservatism. And, today’s Republican Party is certainly not helping the matter any, for one is hard-pressed to find a Reagan Conservative these days–at least amongst politicians.

Up until 1964, former President Reagan, one of the greatest Presidents we have ever seen in this nation, was a Democrat. This is not as surprising as it may seem to many people today. Ronald Reagan had been in radio and in Hollywood before he discovered his true calling of politics (he became the governor of California from 1967 through 1975). We who have values today know that the mental disease known as liberalism has long since infested Hollywood and the mass media. Reagan in his younger years was obviously influenced by this trend amongst those within his profession. But, he was a man of strong intelligence, and eventually he started to check the facts. And the facts about how his nation was being run disturbed him so deeply that he couldn’t remain on the side of the Democrats, and he became a Republican, although he still insisted throughout his political life that Americans’ issues were beyond those of “left” and “right”. His Liberal Democrat opponents never got tired of mocking this idea of his, and they aren’t tired of mocking it now even more than four years after his death.

CONSERVATIVE VALUES VS LIBERAL AND OTHER VALUES

Frankly, let’s be real. Conservative values are better because they work. Conservative values are about resisting any urges to make too-rapid changes, essentially. Conservative values might be better described as “classical” or “neoclassical” values. And this could be summed up by a couplet from the great Neoclassical poem “Essay on Man” by Alexander Pope: “Be not the first by which the new is tried, Nor the last to set the old aside.”

[This is an excerpt of the 30 minute speech supporting the Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater. Reagan speaks of big government, high taxation, and the "war on poverty." He addresses foreign policy issues including the risk of appeasement, "peace through strength," and the Vietnam War. The speech establishes Reagan as an important figure in the conservative wing of the Republican party.

To a significant degree, Ronald Reagan's election to the presidency stems from this speech, given on national television on behalf of, and sponsored by, Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. The speech remains amazingly fresh as a statement of modern American conservative philosophy four decades after it was delivered.

Here is a link to the full transcript: Rendezvous]

Liberals seem to believe that money grows on trees. Of course, it’s like Cullen Hightower would say: There’s always somebody who makes too much money and is taxed too little. And the thing of it is, it’s always somebody else. So that money tree somehow always seems to be growing in a Conservative’s yard…and, of course, that Conservative somehow stole it and now uses it for unjust ends, such as putting food on his family’s table and maybe buying himself a new sedan car (if the Liberal had the money tree, he would buy a new BMW and then ask other people to help him make the payments).

Reagan Conservatives are those who don’t compromise their values. The Republican party needs that these days…yet it seems difficult to find them. Republicans also need someone who can actually orate–someone who is not like a McCain. The Democrats seem to find plenty of skilled salesmen for their cause…but the Republicans are the ones who need them.

But, let me try to do that for you here, at least to an extent. What are Conservative values?

• Conservative values are backed up by historical precedent, logically derived principles, and prudence (practicality). Conservatives love facts. Liberals, Socialists, Communists, and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists hate facts, because to them facts are pernicious things that get in the way of a good ideology–and their irresponsible actions.
• Speaking of facts, anyone who checks into them will fairly quickly learn that it’s Conservatives who make up the intellectual party in politics. Liberals co-opted–that is, stole–that concept in order to grab power.
• Conservatives understand that outside of running the military and other related protective services, the government, either federal or state, simply cannot achieve what private, capitalist free market based industry achieves. Government is not reason, government is not the embodiment of any higher moral authority. Government at its very best is a necessary evil. At its worst, it is completely evil. But it is never, ever rational or moral. It is a force. And that is why it must be kept strictly limited and in check.
• Conservatives understand that any “liberal” values must be expressed privately. They cannot be ensconced as federal laws or economic ideals. They don’t work in that way. If everyone is free, how can you force a large amount of people to accept freedom? You can’t. It’s really very simple.
• Conservatives understand that you don’t get something for nothing. When the government increases spending and entitlement programs and “bailouts”, it is just stealing money from private citizens–and using that money in ways that are inefficient at best and downright harmful at worst.

Conservatives don’t typically tell the sexiest stories about economics and politics. They just tell the true ones.

Just a Tiny Example of Government Waste

via: americanconservativedaily

On April 22, the Associated Press published a short report about the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has decided to stop paying for employee subscriptions to newspapers and magazines “to save money.”

Upon reading this, some may initially shake their heads in hearty agreement and congratulate Obama’s DHS for trying to save money. I, on the other hand, see this as a perfect example of a typical waste of the taxpayer’s money, though one finally rectified.

After all, what does this cancellation of subscriptions mean? It means government employees were getting FREE personal subscriptions to their favorite entertainment publications… well, free to themselves, anyway. We must realize that we the people have been saddled with the bill all along for who knows how many thousands of magazine and newspaper subscriptions for who knows how many years?

No one pays for any of my subscriptions but me. Why should I have to pay for the entertainment of some government perfunctory? If government placemen, jobbers, and seatfillers want subscriptions to their favorite newspaper or magazine, why shouldn’t they pay for the thing themselves? Why should these greedy public employees expect the taxpayers to pay for their luxuries? They already get better retirement plans and health benefits than anyone in the private sector. Are we expected to pay these people’s entertainment costs, too?

If the government wants to really save money, how about eliminating useless employees right along with those unnecessary, expensive, and over-indulgent subscriptions.

So, if DHS expects a pat on the back for saving money, I say they need a kick in the rear for paying for those subscriptions in the first place!

Original post blogged on b2evolution.

<!– –>

Contributor’s website: http://thenma.org/blogs//index.php/huston/

The ‘Youth’ Have Failed The Messiah

via: americanconservativedaily

Obama was supposed to have energized “the youth” of this country like no other presidential candidate ever. We were assured that with Obama as president we’d see a revitalization of “the youth” that would respond by streaming to volunteer for public service. And, in expectation of this avalanche of volunteers, and in build-it-they-will-come mode, Obama had passed through Congress his brown-shirt-like Serve America Act that pumped some $6 billion of our tax money into an upgraded national and community service program.

But the youth have failed him. According to Peter Levine, director of Tufts University’s Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) youth volunteering has dropped for the first time sine 9/11.

Of course, I am making light of the situation, here, admittedly. But, let’s look at something that goes against the Obama line of mythology as far as his real support among America’s youth goes. Let’s face it, it isn’t just Obama. The vaunted youth vote has been in steady decline since 18-year-olds were given the vote by a mistaken act of Congress in 1972.

Just before the elections in 2008, Gallup found that there was no increase in the proportion of first-time voters. It also discovered that young voters were still less likely to vote than older voters, at least if their polling can be believed – granted polls have been notoriously unreliable the last few elections.

According to the first poll, Gallup found that a mere 13% of registered voters said that this election will be their first presidential election, a percentage that matches what they found in 2004. Even worse, using an expanded model, that number fell slightly to 11%. Now, these numbers matched the higher than average first-time voters from the 2004 cycle, but it still seemed to say that Obama had not brought any great wave of new voters to the polls.

As to the tsunami of new, young voters surging to the polls that the conventional wisdom claimed was happening, Gallup didn’t find the prospect likely. Gallup summed up its survey on the youth vote for 2008 as such:

Gallup Poll daily tracking suggests that 18- to 29-year-olds are not nearly as likely as older voters to be registered to vote, to say they are thinking about the election, or to express strong intentions to vote. Thus, as of mid-October, there is not convincing evidence in the Gallup data that young voters will in fact vote at higher rates than in past elections. But even if things change over the next two weeks and many more young adults do become motivated to vote, turnout alone would do little to change the candidates’ overall support, according to Gallup’s likely voter models.

So, this would seem to comport with the decline of the youth vote from 1972 to today.

Now, add to that Obama’s proposed attack on charitable giving. If his plan to lower the tax deduction on charitable giving comes to fruition this would also negatively affect the volunteer rate in this country today. If less money is given to charitable causes, fewer programs that spawn volunteerism will be able to be initiated and, obviously, fewer volunteers will be needed.

Finally, we also need to realize that this country does not have a great tradition of giving free service to its government in the form of volunteerism. In fact, the general feeling about government is that it should leave us alone. So, unless Obama’s new volunteer program begins to impress people into its ranks, it will fail to thrill as has every other president’s push for an Americorps-like program.

The fact of the matter is that The Obammessiah is no different than any other president as far as the youth vote and volunteers are concerned. They just don’t care to put their own bodies on the line for him. Americans just do not like the idea of volunteering for government service (military service aside). Nor should they necessarily.

So, we can dispense with this myth that the kids will flock to this president’s side. Some will, of course. Maybe even a small percentage more than past presidents. But thus far there is no reason to believe it will be a youth avalanche for him.

The Decline of the Youth Vote

1972
18 to 24- 49.6%
25 to 44- 62.7%

1976
18 to 24- 42.2%
25 to 44- 58.7%

1980
18 to 24- 39.9%
25 to 44- 58.7%

1984
18 to 24- 40.8%
25 to 44- 58.4%

1988
18 to 24- 36.2%
25 to 44- 54%

1992
18 to 24- 42.8%
25 to 44- 58.3%

1996
18 to 24- 32.4%
25 to 44- 49.2%

2000
18 to 24- 32.3%
25 to 44- 49.8%

2004
18 to 24- 41.9%
25 to 44- 52.2%

2006
18 to 24- 22.1%
25 to 44- 33.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Original post blogged on b2evolution.
Contributor’s website: http://thenma.org/blogs//index.php/huston/

Why Eggheads Are Sometimes Bad for America

via: americanconservativedaily

I will admit it. I am a subscriber to the Claremont Review of Books. Whatever you make of that, don’t imagine that I am one of those pointy-headed, University types that sit about in tweed jackets with leather elbow patches, drawing on a pipe, and pontificating about the Greek Classics. On the other hand, I ain’t no anti-intellectual neither. Just consider me one of those fellows that knows just enough to be dangerous.

In any case, one thing that always strikes me about The CRB is that I always find at least one article that proves to me that while eggheads might make for wonderful support for policy, that they may be ideal for an intellectual underpinning of ideas, they would be horrible implementers of it should they be the ones in charge– yes even those ostensibly on our own side of the issues. As it happens, the Winter issue of the CRB did not disappoint me in this area.

This issue it was a review of a pair of tomes that investigate the state of federal service in the country today written by one Carnes Lord and titled, “…And We’re Here To Help You.” Both books that Lord reviews indulge the lament that the government doesn’t work as well as it should because the sort of people that now flock to government are no longer our best and brightest but are instead mere placemen and hangers on that only want a permanent job at which little is expected of them and from which they cannot be fired.

As it happens I agree wholeheartedly with this lament. I have written before how I’d be almost happy to welcome back the days of patronage where every last clerk and dogcatcher was fired with the turnover of an elected official’s office. I’d nearly rejoice if it were to happen again that every new politician coming to office would do so with his own patronage army in tow, an army that itself would be turned out with the next chair filler elected. Of course, I say almost. But the frustration I have over the poor state of government workers is deep.

As it happens, Lord, the professor of naval and military strategy at the U.S. Naval War College, also feels my pain. In fact, he is so discouraged that he feels there might not even be a cure extent for what ails the low quality of government workers. He is so despondent that he doesn’t even think firing them all, as I have hoped for, will work. Lord gravely states, “In fact, it is increasingly clear that the private educational sector in the United States is no longer capable of preparing students adequately for public service.” He thinks that there isn’t anyone out there that is any better than what we have and it is because of the poor state of our educational system coupled with our nationwide disinterest in public service all mixed up liberally with our rampant distrust of government.

But, being a university egghead, he goes just that extra distance to suggest a possible cure that shows that were we to listen to him, we’d be in even worse shape.

Just as some leading corporations in this country have created their own “universities” to train employees to an appropriate standard based on their real-world requirements, the government needs to consider a similar approach. At present, only the military is seriously concerned with higher education (as distinct from professional or technical training), in the form of its various service academies and war colleges. Perhaps new institutions are needed at the graduate level for the wider foreign policy and national security community. A strong argument can also be made for creating a new government-run undergraduate academy for public administration.

To which I can only moan a pained, “God forbid!”

One need only look to the endemic corruption of France’s École Nationale d’Administration to see what a horrible idea this would be. France has since right after WWII gathered and trained an entire class of permanent government workers. Unfortunately for France, instead of training an expert administrative class it has created a vampire class that feeds on the blood of the state, ties its victim in miles of red tape and marks self preservation as its first priority.

And that is what Lord wants for the U.S.? Not only would such an academy breed an administrative class that would quickly find its own interests more compelling than that of the government it is supposed to serve – as the French model has found – but were we to create such an institution, we’d quickly find that our government is even less answerable to the voters than it now is. We would find a class of people that feel themselves above both the lowly, untrained and uneducated masses, but also the politicians from whom they are supposed to be taking orders.

In fact we already have a U.S. model of sorts to prove what a disastrous idea this would be. Senate and Congressional staffers often stay for decades in Washington D.C. and pass from one elected official to another. They have made such a permanent career out of these positions that many elected officials no longer even bother getting involved in matters of administration or even crafting legislation. They just let staffers do all the work. In essence, D.C. is run by staffers that occasionally let the elected official have his head allowing him the fantasy he is still in charge. It isn’t uncommon that these “lawmakers” haven’t the first clue what is in the legislation that bears their name because they have never really seen it at all.

Further, what would such a government trained administrative class do to our Constitution? Who cannot realize that the Constitution would be rendered worse than useless if we had such a class of perfunctory automatons clogging its arteries and constantly working for its own interests instead of those of the people?

I can’t imagine a worse idea than a national academy for administrative workers in the U.S.

Of course, we have to realize that Professor Lord comes by this mistaken opinion of his honestly. After all, he is a creature of the academy and likely is prone to imagining only good comes from universities. But we should also remember that university eggheads gave us the debacle of the New Deal and the LBJ’s Great Society. It also created out of whole cloth the foolishness they call “social science.”

I would posit a different direction than creating a permanent, self-interested, unconstitutional, governing class churned out by an “official” government training program. I would say that the solution is to overturn the anti-American liberal group think currently infesting our entire educational system. It is a long-term project, of course, but our first order of business should be excising the leftist babble by which our students are taught, an ill that infests our schools from the lowest grades to the greatest heights of “higher learning.”

Bringing back into our grade schools, high schools and universities a focus on American exceptionalism, the great books, western history, classic and enlightenment philosophy, math, science, and civics would go a lot farther toward enriching the pool of qualified government workers than creating an entire system of government drones, taught by other government drones.

So, while Professor Lord had much of his Claremont Review of Books article right, his final cure would be far, far worse than the disease.

The Ivory Tower is not the real world.

Original post blogged on b2evolution.

<!– –>

Contributor’s website: http://thenma.org/blogs//index.php/huston/

Jon Stewart Cows Another Lefty – Did Matthews Change Book Title Over Stewart Mockery?

via: americanconservativedaily

Back in 2007, lefty comedian Jon Stewart mercilessly mocked lefty talk show host Chris Matthews over the title of his book when Matthews appeared to flog the tome on Stewart’s The Daily Show. The ribbing was so unexpected and so mean spirited that Matthews later said it was a “book interview from hell.”

Now Matthews is releasing the book in paperback but amazingly there is a tiny difference between this version of the book and the original. The pulper was originally titled, “Life’s a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success.” But now, all of a sudden the paperback version of this thing is heading to stores as, “The Hardball Handbook: How to Win at Life.”

So, what gives? Is Matthews afraid of Stewart’s renewed attack on his book? Did Matthews change the book’s title for fear of a comedian?

When Matthews appeared with Stewart, the faux newsman ripped into the book title. He called it a Machiavellian “recipe for sadness.” And he went on, as the Washington Examiner reminds us:

“If you treat life like a campaign … at the end of your life, do you give a concession speech?” asked Stewart. “Aren’t campaigns fundamentally contrivances?”

And now with the paperback release bearing a wildly different title, it’s a bit hard to shake the suspicion that Matthews was afraid of Stewart’s renewed attacks on the book.

So, now I have a question. Are we going to see the left-wing, Old Media bemoan that this lefty comedian is forcing others to “backtrack,” forcing others to “change” things because of his loud criticism of them? After all, the Old Media falls all over itself to report stories of how they imagine that Republicans are “backtracking” because of Rush Limbaugh, don’t they? So, what is the difference in principle between Limbaugh forcing folks on the right to mend their ways for fear of his criticism and folks on the left bowing to pressure from comedian Stewart for his criticism?

I suppose I shouldn’t hold my breath, eh?

(Photo credit: transbuddha.com)

How do we Work With ‘Palestinians’ That Punish Little Girls for Playing Music?

We are sonorously told to respect the “Palestinians,” that their “government” is one we must work with to solve the ages old conflicts of the Middle East. We are also told by those advocating realpolitik between the west and the Muslim world that their system based on Islam is just as good as anyone else’s, just as we are so often assured that all governments deserve equal consideration merely because they exist.

But, when things like what happened to the members of a girl’s youth orchestra based in the Palestinian camp of Jenin occur, well it’s awfully hard to feel that the Palestinian government is “just like us.” In fact, it’s pretty hard to think that it is anything but inhuman.

Oh, it’s not as bad as these young girl’s deaths at the hands of the Palestinian government might be, certainly. It’s much simpler than that. It’s a matter of the PA lacking even the smallest form of common human decency. You see, last week this youth orchestra played a little concert. It so happened that in the audience of this little concert were some Israeli Holocaust survivors. But once the girls got home and the Palestinian Authority found out these Muslim girls happened to play a concert at which a few elderly Jews attended, why the PA immediately disbanded the orchestra and told its conductor that she was no longer allowed to make music ever again.

These Muslim hatemngers cannot even stomach an inconsequential little concert put on by their own children if those dirty Jews happened to hear their strains. Worse, instead of just quietly attempting to make sure that their children’s orchestras don’t violate their precious hatred of Jews in the future, in knee-jerk fashion they took away one of the few things that made these young girl’s lives bearable and forbade them to play their music, shuttering their practice hall, and ostracizing their teacher.

Who can doubt that this poor teacher should fear for her life after his?

These presumably responsible figures in the Palestinian government have shown that they don’t have the common decency even to allow these little girls to play some nice music without punishing them for having the wrong sort of audience. One report even has it that neither the girls nor the audience were aware that some were Muslim and others Holocaust survivors.

It was just a flippin’ concert! A little kid’s concert, yet.

Islam as intertwined with a system of government is as capricious a system as can be imagined. It really is just that simple. Women are routinely treated as worse than chattel, neighboring countries are automatically assumed to be arch enemies – and treated as such – human rights are non-existent, there is no sense of addressing problems within the society… well, there is little reason for recommending Islam as a basis for government. It is as anti-human as can be imagined. Even communism is better, and that system is one of the most murderous systems ever devised by the mind of man.

But, darn it all, they really are “just like us, ” aren’t they?

Original post blogged on b2evolution.

via: americanconservativedaily

Dear Barack, Don’t Get Mad, Was Just Doing my Job — Love Ed Henry, CNN

There is a somewhat amusing article on CNN.com right now. It’s not amusing for it’s witticism but for the fact that Ed Henry and CNN think they need to explain away the “tough exchange” that Henry and Obama engaged in during Tuesday’s press conference. Also amusing is the fact that Henry seems to be apologizing to The One for simply doing his job. Finally, it’s amusing for the fact that CNN and Henry think they are the news along with the president. It’s narcissistic and revealing all at once. On top of all that it is amusing for whom CNN obviously felt the need to explain themselves to because for the last day the left has been outraged over Henry’s gall at asking the president a simple question.

If you’ll recall, on Tuesday (March 24) CNN’s Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry asked Obama why he waited days to react to the outrage over the AIG bonuses that Treasury Sec. Geithner wrote into the bailout plan. Avoiding the question, Obama replied with a surly “Because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.” This exchange had the extremists at rel=”nofollow”>DailyKos and the profane folks at Wonkette as well as the rest of the left-O-sphere worked up into a frothy lather over Henry’s low down, hornswoggling ways. How DARE he ask the Obammessiah a pointed question! Why it’s sacrilege, surely!

So CNN has dutifully whimpered no maas and tried to smooth the waters with this odd article explaining away why that darned ol’ Ed Henry had the temerity to ask The One a question. It’s an obvious effort to appease the gods of the left-O-sphere and other zealots of the Obamanation. Henry must want a talisman to warn off the lefty heebie-jeebies awfully bad to go this far.

In his mea culpa magnus opus – call it a magnus culpa, if you will – Henry explains at some length what led up to his deciding to ask the infamous question. He then insists that he “waited patiently” on The One as the president danced around previous questions before patting himself on the back because he went on to “pounce with a sharp follow-up.”

Oh, it was scary, kids. With all eyes upon him and such, the tension mounted…

The pressure was on now because the president had called on me. Someone handed me a microphone, millions were watching, and it’s scary to think about changing topic in a split second because you might get flustered and screw up.

But it’s fun to gamble and like any good quarterback (though I was never athletic enough to actually play the position), I decided to call an audible.

And then he asked that question. But for the next day, Henry took a pounding from the moonbats and this seems to have shocked him. So, what is the upshot?

What do I think? I’ve got no hard feelings toward the president and I assume he feels the same, but I can’t worry about that. I was doing my job – and he was doing his.

Really? No hard feelings, eh? And we should care…. why? Since when do reporters ever come out with a more than 700 word piece to explain why they asked the president a question? Did any reporter ever feel it necessary to offer a mea culpa or an “explanation” after having asked George W. Bush a “tough” question? Or did they rather do a few victory laps with the hearty back slapping of colleagues and moonbats alike, defiant in their revelry?

Ah, but not this time. You see, this time we are talking about The One and anyone asking Speaks-with-TelePromTer a tough question gets the whole tribe up in arms. So, Henry hastened to his word processor to slam out an apologia that is as much asking his pals on the extreme left to stop hitting him as it is trying to get them all to understand that he was just “doing his job.”

In any case, with the moonbatteries out to score a direct hit on him, now Ed Henry knows what its like belonging to ABC’s Jake Tapper’s club!

Original post blogged on b2evolution.

 

<!– –>
Contributor’s website: http://thenma.org/blogs//index.php/huston/

Rahmbo’s Windfall Profit

Liberals are never short on the outrage. Except when it is their fellow travelers that are doing the things they decry others for that is. They freely rail against their bogeyman of choice who has made more money than they deem that person should have. Take the executives at AIG for example! Even though they approved of massive bonuses and even put wording into legislation to protect those bonuses and allowed them to be paid for by tax payer dollars they still found time to act all surprised and outraged while claiming ignorance. But when it is someone like Obama’s numero two, Rahm Emanuel, who made a killing at Freddie Mac while the company was going down the tubes, the left is strangely quiet:

Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.

As gatekeeper to Obama, Emanuel now plays a critical role in addressing the nation’s mortgage woes and fulfilling the administration’s pledge to impose responsibility on the financial world.

Gee, ya know to me that sort of sounds like a windfall profit! Especially considering that he made the money at a time when people knew there were problems but the company was being protected by fellow liberals in Congress who refused to heed the warnings.

But this is par for the course! The left just keeps bringing back the same old failures time and again to do the same old failed things time and again. And the people that they keep leading around by the nose keep voting for them blindly like sheep.

Somehow this will all turn out to be George Bush’s fault. It always does with the left. I can see the history books now! Under Rahm Emanuel it will say something like:

“A great political adviser and right hand man to the greatest President ever, Barack Obama. The Vast Right Wing Attack Machine attempted to frame him for taking a $320,000 from Freddie Mac, a corrupt Republican bank which was brought down by the failed policies of President George W. Bush. All such accusations are of course categorically false as it is well known that Mr. Emanuel never worked for Freddie Mac and instead spent his time prior to 2008 feeding the poor and tending to sick children in Africa.”

 

Contributor’s website: http://www.libertyreborn.com

The Lincoln We Need

These last 20 or so years has seen a bifurcated treatment of Abraham Lincoln. There are the enthusiasts and hagiographers that still revere him as the best that America has to offer – the proverbial great emancipator, Father Abraham. Then there is a second stream, enthusiasts of another sort, viewing the Civil War president in the opposite manner. That second group are the Lincoln haters. Those such as Thomas DiLorenzo, the sort that calls Lincoln a criminal and despot, and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the sort that castigates Honest Abe as an unremitting racist, have been joined by a small group of Lincoln detractors trying to convince America that Lincoln is to be discounted, even hated by history.

So, which Lincoln is the Lincoln? Is he the Lincoln of “the great emancipator” or the Lincoln of the “great despot” and which Lincoln is the one we as Americans should know?

In truth he is all and neither of the two views in current, popular memory. He is neither the vision of the Constitution destroying, negro hating man the detractors wish to foster, nor the spotless demi-god that the hagiographers want to claim as theirs. Yes he did single things that pulled out of context to the whole of the man are both racist and despotic. He was a man, flawed and imperfect to be sure, but he was also one so singularly radical and ahead of his time that I believe we should lean towards reverence as opposed to despising the 16th president.

In fact, Abraham Lincoln, warts and all, is the sort of man we truly need to study in detail in this time of ours. His example, his reverence for the law and human dignity, above all his nuance and scholarship, is something that we need to emulate today.

Gates, for his part, would have you believe that Lincoln was a racist that had little interest in the negro. Gates focuses on Lincoln’s dalliance with deporting (or exporting as the case may be) all blacks from America’s shores as the solution to the race problem in America. Lincoln floated this idea to Congress, expressing the hope that Congress could fund such an effort. Lincoln also posited that the U.S. government might refund the value of slaves to southern slaveholders so these blacks could then be shipped off to some colony in Africa. Congress flatly refused the plan.

Gates would point to the many times that Lincoln called blacks “nigger” in his public speeches and the Lincoln-Douglas debates and Gates would present this as proof of Lincoln’s latent “racism.” Gates would also recount the many times that Lincoln said that he didn’t think black people were the physical or mental equal to whites. All this, Gates would say, proves Lincoln’s racist sentiment toward the black man.

All this is true. In the glaring lights of today’s sentiment on what constitutes racism, Lincoln could easily be dismissed as no better than the worst member of the KKK. Some detractors even go so far as to say that Lincoln “didn’t care” about slavery. But this is simply an outright lie. In his papers, Lincoln used the words slave or slavery some 14,000 times. During his Cooper Union speech, the one that arguably made him a national figure, Lincoln attacked slavery and he was well known as an anti-slave man.

So there’s that nuance I mentioned. In fact, when measured by the sentiment of his day Lincoln proves to be a radical in his views of the black man, a radical that would make of him the exact opposite of a “racist.” Continue reading . . .

Black Small Business Owner Cautions Against “Stimulus”

Washington, D.C. – The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the so-called stimulus bill would have a detrimental long-term effect on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Commenting on this disturbing finding, a member of the Project 21 black leadership network who is also a small business owner is speaking out against the heavy-handed partisan strategy of White House and liberal congressional leaders to rush a vote on the earmark-laden legislation.

“There’s a difference between truly stimulating the economy and paying for pet projects that have languished for years. The question smart Americans need to ask themselves is how almost a trillion dollars in what largely seems to be pork-barrel spending is going to prevent a possible depression,” said Project 21’s Kevin Martin, an environmental contractor in Washington, D.C. “If President Obama’s economic policies are supposed to represent hope and change, why is he and why are his allies are employing a strategy of fear-mongering just to pass a bill so full of pork that it should come with eggs, hash browns and toast on the side?”

As reported by the Washington Times, the CBO sent a letter to Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) – now President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Commerce – that the stimulus package would produce only short-term gains and would actually lower the nation’s GDP by between 0.1 and 0.3 percent more by 2019 than if the Senate took no action at all.

“This sobering news from the Congressional Budget Office should give pause to elected officials on both sides of the aisle that this so-called stimulus package will damage the overall economy in the long run,” added Project 21’s Martin. “Worldwide, the financial markets are going through major corrections. Hastily taking more than a trillion dollars – in this bill alone – at the expense of future generations will not resolve the current economic problems.”

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21’s website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

Contributor’s website: http://nationalcenter.org