Today's History Lesson: Lincoln's Disagreement with Obamaism

Barack Obama's new way socialism is really just as no way as it's always been. But, regardless of the central American spirit that Obamaism attempts to defeat, it is proclaimed that he is only interested in fixing America. So, because he is only here to help, Obama is deemed a savior by his acolytes.

Another of Obama's false fronts is his claim to be "just like" Abraham Lincoln, a facade he wears with relish. The claim is, after all, a perfect cover for his essentially anti-American agenda. What could be more American than the fulfillment of Lincoln's efforts to free the slaves but a black man being elected to the presidency? The mere fact of his election seems to affirm the better angels of our nature.

But, here I'd like to report a quote that tends to show that Lincoln would not have approved of a president Barack Obama. Not because Obama is a black man, but because he is a socialist.

In his last address to the crowds of Alton, Illinois during his famous Lincoln/Douglas debates of 1858 Lincoln uttered a few lines that would tend to argue against Obama's socialist policies. Lincoln chose the subject of the eternal war between right and wrong as the platform for his attack on the very principle of socialism.

The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

Lincoln was, of course, arguing against slavery in those debates. Arguably he won that debate and were it not for the rampant Democrat vote fraud then holding sway in the Illinois of 1858 (how things have stayed the same) he would have entered the Senate instead of becoming president two years on.

But, regardless that he was arguing the case against slavery, the nugget of truth in his words can properly be applied to Obama's socialist agenda. Obama essentially wants to enslave the segment of America that works hard for its bread and wants to take that bread away and give that it to those of his supporters that would rather not work so hard -- or, those that would like to use that stolen money to find their own left-wing political agendas.

Barack Obama is not the sort of president that Lincoln worked to promote. Obama's "tyrannical principle" is anathema to the very legacy of the man Obama pretends at admiring.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Campaign 2010

Convoluted logic. If I make over 250 grand, he's raising my top tax rate 4%! Slavery!

Uh-uh. Hmmm.

You guys are going to make this into a campaign slogan for the midterms right?

I think calling Obama a socialist is a good idea.

Seriously, I think that'll hold real traction with "Real" America.  Of course, he's more popular than you are, so you could just as easily convince "Real" America that socialism really isn't that bad.  Maybe you could call him a fascist or a Communist or something to spice it up. 

A moderate tax increase on people making more than 250,000 is definitely the same is slavery, too.  Run with it.  Owe, I forgot something else, "Get a brain, Moran".

Keep up! We are now calling him a fascist.

Keep up thirdeblue - calling him a socialist didn't work, so now it is official GOP policy to call him an even nastier word (one which is just as disconnected from historical reality):

Saul Anuzis, quoted in the NY Times, April 19:

“Rhetorically, Republicans are having a very hard time finding something that raises the consciousness of the average voter...We’ve so overused the word ‘socialism’ that it no longer has the negative connotation it had 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago.

Fascism — everybody still thinks that’s a bad thing.”

When that runs out I guess they'll have to find something even stronger. Monarchist? Witch?

Yeah I read that.

A rare moment of lucidity by Saul I would say.

I can only assume that he was not aware

I can only assume that he was not aware that he was speaking outloud when he said it.

calling Obama a socialist could backfire

 People really need to think this through

1. Obama is very popular

2. People are willing to give his policies a chance

3. Republicans call his policies 'socialist'

Now, if #4 turns out to be  "4. The American economy recovers"

Then #5 will be "5. Americans decide that maybe socialism isn't so bad after all"

 

At that point, the GOP talking point is screwed. 

The one thing that always

The one thing that always kinda bugged me about the whole "socialist are thieves and lazy" idea is that the groups it's supposed to harm still get richer and richer every year. Under Nixon, top CEO's made 75 times Joe Sixpack (and even then, they weren't working 75 times as hard NOR taking 75 times more risk, with anything), and under bush it ballooned to 450 times.

Another thing that really bugs me is the implication (often hidden) that since Lincoln was repub, and since Democrats held slaves (in the 19th century, but never you mind) blacks should actually vote republican. (Sometimes they even throw in Byrd there, forgetting all about Stromgood of course.) This one doesn't do it so openly, but it's out there. Of course, they want us to forget that for all intents and practical purposes,  the two parties have switched constituencies. Amongst other factors, by Johnsons Civil Rights Act.

But oh well, since they tend to be dumb about history, they expect the left to be the same. Are they forgetting who they accuse of elitist geekdom??? ;) Latest Repub party line in revisionist history: Roosevelts Keynesian policies didn't work!

And, oh yeah:

YOU LOST!

by the way.