It’s clear that Obama has a kind of love-affair with Lincoln – a leader who plunged communities into a horrifying war that cost over 600,000 lives (with around 50,000 civilians dead, mostly in the South). For instance, consider Obama’s own thoughts on Lincoln (as reported by the Atlantic) when he wrote that, “Lincoln termed the United States, in one of his early messages to Congress, ‘the last best hope of earth.’ Considering that our fragile Union was not 100 years old and stood a good chance of dissolving, it was an improbable thing to say. But Lincoln saw beyond the bloodshed and division. He saw us not only as we were, but as we might be. And he calls on us through the ages to commit ourselves to the unfinished work he so nobly advanced—the work of perfecting our Union.”
Could Obama and a radical Democratic Agenda (easily as radical as the Republicans 150 years ago) be orchestrating our communities today into increasing division – and possible bloodshed – all in the attempt to promote a Progressive worldview that would “see us as we might be” and facilitate the necessary environment needed for “perfecting our Union”? Let’s not forget, if we wonder at history repeating itself, that the Party of Lincoln saw the conservative South as a hindrance towards Federalist designs, and ended up smashing this people in order to further their goals. Is the same thing happening today with the Conservatives, who many liberals view as a hindrance to ‘Progress’?
Consider this report from the Weekly Standard: “Valerie Jarrett, a close advisor to President Barack Obama, said yesterday on CNN that the president is not going to debate the role of government. Instead, she said, ‘progress is compelled by action right now.’
In the article, Jarrett not only gushed how the glorious leader’s writing is similar to that of a musician – but how he could be compared to Abraham Lincoln as well. “I think you can’t compare the Civil War to what we’re going through,” she said. “But we’ve been through a really tough time in our country. And seeing how Lincoln had to work so hard just to make the progress that he did, how he never gave up, and how resilient he was, and [how] he tried a whole range of different strategies. And I think obviously that resonated with the president. And so it kind of reaffirmed what he already knew, which is you have to be resilient. you have to be determined. And you can’t lose your focus, you can’t get distracted by short-term political interests.”
Read More:
- America’s Civil War – Lincoln will risk Dictatorship
- Barack Obama: Modern-day Abraham Lincoln? (Canada Free Press)
- Lincoln and Obama: ‘Clothed in Immense Power’ (Huff Post)
- Obama reflecting on Lincoln (The Atlantic)
You assume a FALSE moral equivalence to the “Cause” of 1860, and Lincoln’s dedication to the Union, and a FALSE moral equivalence to the agenda of the right and that of Obama today.
Basically, it was immoral to transform a selfish property pseudo-right in human trafficking into a “Cause” but it wasn’t immoral to support Lincoln’s assertion of Federal power, since the Preamble and Supremacy clauses of the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers (especially those clearly authored by Madison) clearly state that Federal power is to be used to protect the rights of people who happen to be in the minority in any one state but constitute nonetheless People with rights.
African-Americans are the majority in no state (and are constantly gerrymandered by a racist House in order to ensure re-election of white males) nonetheless they are People and while Madison did not explicitly identify them as People with rights that a strong Federal executive could and should protect they are such a People.
Likewise, People like me might work hard all our lives but still need Federal assistance in the form of Medicare because as is well known, if you take risks in business and if you are a productive and disruptive employee who’s a “wild duck” you might not succeed financially even though you’ve made a positive contribution.
We’re the People that Madison was trying to provide for as Publius in the Federalist papers. We cannot all become millionaires and we might not even want to own slaves despite their peak in financial value in 1860. We might in fact be more decent people than a bunch of human traffickers loudly demanding their rights. And if you reply that “most of us weren’t human traffickers” then we ask why you were such dang fools, supporting a Cause that merely allowed you to separate yourself from black folk…at least until you messed up and went to prison, right?
Lincoln was a better person than Jefferson Davis. Obama is a better person than Mitt Romney. It’s that simple.