A Slightly Different Vision

ScreenHunter_2287 Aug. 25 06.13ScreenHunter_2286 Aug. 25 06.07

Lincoln said :

government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth

Obama said :

I have a pen and a phone
I am president. I can do whatever I want
I don’t have time to debate the flat earth society
(Americans are) bitter people who cling to guns and religion

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to A Slightly Different Vision

  1. Ed Martin says:

    Never, ever give up the fight!

  2. wulliejohn says:

    “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

    • Hugh K says:

      Unfortunately the difference is major – Influx of progressive judges to D.C. Court of Appeals could lead to en banc reversal of Halbig decision.
      In an historic move, Senate Democrats used the “nuclear option” last year to eliminate filibuster rules that allowed the Republican minority to hold up executive and judicial nominees. Republicans had been blocking several nominees to the D.C. Court of Appeals who they argued were radical judicial activists. The D.C. circuit court hears some of the most consequential appeals cases on issues ranging from health care reform to federal agency regulations.
      Prior to the filibuster reform, the court was evenly divided between liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning judges. After the nuclear option, additional progressive judges were added to the D.C. circuit. Now the effort could prevent an Obamacare challenge from reaching the Supreme Court, legal experts say.
      Worth a read….http://freebeacon.com/politics/democracy-alliance-bankrolled-court-packing-scheme

  3. Mike says:

    …and a Nine Iron.

  4. Actually he was talking about Pennsylvanians who live between Pittsburgh and Philly. We all know real people with real worries live there. They’re the salt of the earth that will save this country from the likes of the coastal idiots.

  5. kuhnkat says:

    Lincoln said…

    Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and jailed over 10,000 citizens protesting his illegal policies, closed about 300 newspapers, deported a state legislator for speaking out, set up central banking (similar to the modern Fed) created the Intercontinental railroad at excessive expense through Crony Capitalism and criminal taking of land, which appears to have been his primary interest… Oh, and he believed that blacks could not live with whites, wanted to keep the western territories for whites, and was involved in killing Indians…

    • Hugh K says:

      If “Lincoln said” what you posted, shouldn’t it be in quotes?

      • kuhnkat says:

        Lincoln did not SAY what I posted. That is what he DID!! “Lincoln said,,,” referred to the post. The fact that my paragraph began with “Lincoln suspended…” should have been a hint that you were not understanding my poor presentation.

    • rah says:

      For a time of insurrection when there is a 5th column within as there was during the Civil War, Lincoln actually acted quite mildly. A person cannot disavow allegiance by words or actions and aid an armed enemy and then hide behind the rights of the nation they’re fighting or conspiring to divide by force of arms in a time of war. And THAT was exactly what Lincoln was up against.

      Lincoln had to finance the most expensive war in history the US had fought to that time. What he did was nothing compared to what FDR did taking us off the Gold standard and by act of law demanding all legal tender in the form of Gold be either destroyed or turned in for paper or silver.

      BTW the vast majority of tribes allied with the Confederates.

      Lincoln did not lead the Union into a fight against slavery. Anyone that reads his writings, speeches, and the newspapers of the day or in fact much about the civil war in general from good sources knows this. The Emancipation Proclamation was a stroke of political, diplomatic, and military genius. It really is the single best example of the pragmatism of the man.
      Politically it rallied the then flagging support of the most radical abolitionists to him. The most critical of him lost all their ammunition when he made that proclamation. Diplomatically it destroyed any chance of the British taking a more active role in helping the Confederacy despite the Trent affront. There would be no formal recognition of the Confederacy by any nation in the world because if Britain would not do it no others would. Militarily it set the stage for great damage to the Confederate bread basket. From that time on when ever a Union Army came within 20 miles of a plantation slaves in droves would run from their masters land towards that Army. The Emancipation Proclamation was as shrewd a work of practical wartime politics as one can find in American history.
      For anyone that really wants to understand our nations personal war I cannot recommend a better single volume than http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409082800&sr=1-1&keywords=battle+cry+of+freedom Historian James McPherson was selected by Oxford University to write the volume covering the Civil War period for their encyclopedic series of United State history. The book is not so much one about battles or even really the men. It describes them but it not about them. It is about all of it. The demographics, economics, transportation, finance, diplomacy, etc. The whole ball of wax. For this work McPherson received a well deserved Pulitzer. No single volume that I have found comes close to giving the reader the basic information one needs to understand what the America of the 1850’s up to reconstruction was, why the war was fought and how it was fought in the broader sense.

      • kuhnkat says:

        Lincoln started the war without reason or legal backing. Yes, when a tyrant starts suppressing the people it can get ugly.

        • rah says:

          Reminds of the basic reason why we are here at this forum. Those that have their preformed opinion regardless of data for what ever reason. They try to make the data fit the “facts” or as they want to see them to be instead of objectively analyzing the data to determine what the facts really are. Sources with facts, no matter how well researched and attributed are ignored. The Civil War on the battlefields ended over 150 years ago but is still fought in words, ideas, and myths today. If the Civil War was illegally started by Lincoln then why was not George Washington as the first president taking unconstitutional action when he had the Whiskey Rebellion?

        • rah says:

          Sorry last sentence should have been: If the Civil War was illegally started by Lincoln then why was not George Washington as the first president taking unconstitutional action when he had the Whiskey Rebellion put down?

        • kuhnkat says:

          “The rebellion began in Pittsburgh during October of 1791 when a group of disguised farmers snatched a federal tax collector from his bed, and marched him five miles to a blacksmith shop where they stripped him of his clothes, and burned him with a poker. Over the next three years dozens of tax collectors were beaten, shot at, tarred and feathered, and otherwise terrorized, intimidated, and humiliated. The home and plantation of John Neville, the chief tax collector for southwestern Pennsylvania, were burned to the ground.”

          I’m sorry, but, what relation to the Civil War does the Whiskey Rebellion hold again?!?!?!

        • rah says:

          If you have to ask the question………………

        • kuhnkat says:

          If I have to ask the question it means I am being polite and giving you a chance to explain yourself rather than just calling you stupid.

      • rah says:

        More like ignorance is the problem here I hope. Let us see.

        Do you believe that a federal government that has the authority to use federal troops against it’s own citizens to enforce a tax made possible by outlawing barter, does not have the authority to use troops and suspend laws to stop insurrection and succession?

        Do you believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact which in it’s very body provided the mechanisms for it’s own dissolution when no modern government ever that was not set up as a provisional one allows such?

        That Lincoln did not respect the Constitution despite the evidence that, given the Dred Scott decision and so many other examples in the laws of the time, that Lincoln was not having to deal with a large number of hostile individuals in the judicial and legal system of the Union at the time?

  6. Brian D says:

    Interesting you should emphasize “I”. Seen that somewhere before. Ahh, here we go.

    Isaiah 14:13-14 “For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’

    Guess who is being talked about here?
    And what is the one attribute of man that will bring him low?

  7. rah says:

    Crazy stuff. . http://www.aol.com/article/2014/08/26/obama-to-award-medal-of-honor-to-civil-war-soldier/20952903/?ncid=webmail16
    When you start doing this the ground swell of politicking as others push for their own favorites to receive the award will be just crazy. There are so many who’s actions were equal to Cushing’s valor from that era that there could be 1,000s of new candidates from the Civil War alone. Right off the top of my head I can name three other Union artillery battery commanders that displayed valor in the face of the enemy at Gettysburg that was equal to Cushing’s and could be argued to have had equal influence on the outcome of the battle. The conditions for the award of the medal should remain in the context of the times in which the actions taken to earn it occurred. Period!

    • mjc says:

      Yeah crazy. Especially when a Dem Senator is talking about something sensible.
      Wisconsin lawmakers pushed through an amendment to a defense spending bill to award Cushing in 2010, but then-Sen. James Webb, D-Va., stripped it from the bill because he said it was impossible to go back 150 years to determine who should receive the award. Webb predicted it could open an endless series of claims and argued at the time, “The better wisdom would be for Congress to leave history alone.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s