Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, June 25, 2012

After Gettysburg

"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

"But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work, which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us —that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom —and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
—Abraham Lincoln, Republican

Even as we approach the 149th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, there is so much work left unfinished.  Republicans have been less than stellar in their attempt to right the wrongs of the past, but I must say the left has been utterly despicable.  Much of the blame for keeping minorities enslaved to government dependency is directly attributable to progressive (neo-communist) policy that confuses equal opportunity with equal result.

22 comments:

  1. Amen to that! They have enslaved millions. It's all part of their vote harvesting project.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To be honest, Sam, I am beginning to think the Anti-Federalist were right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Confusing equal opportunity with equal result is a subtle ploy, and many people -- even some conservatives that I know, aren't seeing through that ploy.

    I'm not sure (I do read a lot of political books), but I think that Mark Levin's Ameritopia actually deals with the use of that ploy and how insidious it is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, Sam, I stopped being one of Lincoln's admirer's a quite a while ago. I am not so foolish as to want to fight the Civil War all over again, but I see the Gettysburg Address as an eloquent statement of consummate hypocrisy.

    He may have said "... that the government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth," but what I believe he meant was this:

    "... that the government of by and for The Central Government in Washington, DC –– and above all The White House –– shall not have its ever-tightening grip on Supreme Authority weakened in any way."

    If I had my way, central government would be weak, remote and completely uninvolved in the personal lives of our citizens.

    Governmental power should be as diffuse, decentralized, and restricted as possible. Even the states should have greater limits on their powers, and ought to defer to local governments at the county and municipal level whenever and wherever possible.

    There's a saying "All politics is local."

    I couldn't agree more, and if it were up to me, we do everything possible to implement that concept as national policy.

    DE-CENTRALIZATION of POWER is the key to FREEDOM.

    It's opposite inevitably leads to DESPOTISM.


    I think Mr. Jefferson would agree with me on that.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  5. FT,
    I have mixed feelings about Abraham Lincoln. In fact, in many respects, I find him a conundrum.

    IMO, Lincoln would be horrified were he to take a look at the news we see and read every day.

    PS: The Gettysburg Address is one of the greatest speeches ever. I understand that Lincoln wrote it in an off-the-cuff manner.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, AOW it's a beautifully phrased speech, and remarkable for its concision and aura of straightforward eloquence -- partcularly in an era where two hour "orations" larded with high-falutin' overblown rhetoric were the norm.

    Supposedly Lincoln wrote it on the back of an envelope while en route to Gettysburg in a railroad car.

    I've never said Lincoln was not a remarkably brilliant and forceful character, but I do not admire his motivation in doing what he did. Had he not been martyred by John Wilkes Boothe, I doubt if he'd have been made into the Secular Saint we are urged to accept as "great" all our lives.

    Haven't you ever noticed how Liberals adore Lincoln while they do everything possible to besmirch the reputation and belittle the accomplishments of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Madison et al.?

    That alone ought to tell us something.

    I have looked at the portraits of Lincoln time and time again, and since childhood I have always found him an eerie character –– definitely someone I'd steer clear of in the daylight, and would hope never to meet in a dark alley.

    That didn't stop him from being a wonderful writer and an amazingly articulate individual for one who never had anything remotely resembling a proper education.

    But six-hundred-thirty-five-thousand DEATHS?

    That's a terrible thing to have on anyone's conscience. Whatever "they" say, what we got in return for all that sacrifice was in no way worth what it cost.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  7. FT,
    As I'm sure you must know, Lincoln's views on race make uncomfortable many who regard him as a hero. Regardless of what his admirers think of Lincoln, they should recognize that he likely would not have been regarded as such a saint had he not been assassinated.

    I cannot figure out what might have happened had Lincoln served a full 2nd term. It is an interesting What if? topic.

    I do seem to recall that some who had so advocated the Civil War were made uncomfortable by Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Corneille! Put an end to this farce!

    Which one, your lordship?

    ------------
    You always remind me of RULES OF THE GAME Freethinker.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sam,

    I will be the first to say that I am out of my league on such issues as this (not my country, not my history and not living there), but I always have one area that I find most interesting.

    At no point can I really consider anyone being serious when they use the word communit, socialist or marxist when it comes to the left in the US other than some extreme-fringe groups. Especially when refering to the Democrats. Even the most left with in the Democratic party would be considered over hear as Liberal-Democrat and that means heading towards the centre.

    Of course we are the historical home of real socialism and marxism and to put it into simple terms, your left (because of the American psychie) simply could not handle or tolerate "real socialism".

    Just my view. Just in case you missed it, I rather liked and fully support your last post on migration - just to shock you, but really!

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Much of the blame for keeping minorities enslaved to government dependency is directly attributable to progressive (neo-communist) policy that confuses equal opportunity with equal result. "

    And most of the blame for disenfranchising minorities from what white people enjoy as a result of GOP policies, ignorance and racism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. “At no point can I really consider anyone being serious when they use the word communit, socialist or marxist when it comes to the left in the US other than some extreme-fringe groups.”

    I recall the childish refrain, “sticks and stones …” etc. We should not regress to childish behavior in our debates, but I do think that whenever someone is commenting on an easily observable behavior, then perhaps such claims are more than name-calling. Big government is anathema to essential American values, even as we must realize that it is difficult to maintain a Republic if confined to the size of a shoebox. Still, I think most people on the right would be happy if national government confined its activities to the “enumerated powers” as set forth in the United States Constitution. Beyond this, we should understand that communist ideology and its sister “socialism” demand greater government control, and afford citizens less freedom. In America, people calling themselves “progressives” have hijacked the Democratic Party; I am one of those who believe that the progressives do represent a “neo-communist” movement. I find no fault in telling this story, and I do not believe it is appropriate during such debates to accuse people of childish name calling when the facts appear self-evident. Of course, this is just my opinion.

    ~Louie

    ReplyDelete
  12. Liberalmann,
    Apparently, you are so ignorant that you know almost nothing about the history of the Democratic Party. Remember George Wallace, whom you, no doubt, despise? He was a segregationist Democrat.

    Robert Byrd was KKK.

    Martin Luther King, Jr., was a member of the GOP.

    Some reading for you:

    One

    Two

    Note the date on the second item.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Damien Charles,
    The definitions for Right and Left differ. That is, the definitions differ in America and Europe.

    I often engage in discussions about this with one of my friends born and bred in the UK -- and he's still living there.

    Perhaps the difference in definitions has something to do with the Parliamentary system. Certainly, some of the difference in definitions can be attributed to Europe's history of monarchical power.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Louie,
    Thank you for sharing your opinion.

    I concur for the most part.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Louie,

    You're a man after my own heart.

    Thanks for your understanding and good words.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  16. Louie,

    in many aspects I would agree with your general thought though my Kantian beliefs remind me that what is obvious to even the many does not confirm a reality.

    The classification of what is socialist, marxist or communist exists and that is what I base my views on - from that perspective I return to my comment - except for a fringe minority in your 'left' of politics is anything like those three political concepts.

    Being progressive, wanting big controlling governments and even centralising power does not make them socialist, marxist or communist, nor a new (aka neo-) version.

    To be socialist, by definition means central ownership and must head in that direction. At government level that would mean nationalisation of major enterprises and utilities. The closest we could dare say is the concept of incorporating Union power into decision making is Socialism. Remember that Socialist parties such as the British and Australian Labour Parties are socialist and membership/votes are given to unions.

    Being marxist requires three views. The first is obviously Socialism but the second requires revolution, not necessarily the violent type but simply to break elements of sociaty and economy into its basic components and then rebuild it in the socialist mold. The third aspect is purely economics, that is anti-capitalist and anti-class based.

    Communism must incorporate marxism but add complete centralisation of control of government, security and economics.

    Because some in the American left - ie Democrats seek biger and more powerful government does not mean that it is neo-communist, as it must also include socialism and marxist theory which the US Democrat party rejects out of hand and as I said, the American psychie simply can not handle it.

    Simply put, except for some fringe groups, you have no socialist, marxist or communist influence in your country at all.

    What you most certainly have, is liberal nonesense gone extreme and people who simply love "control".

    Regards

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh for CHRIST'S SAKE, Mr. Charles, cease your interminable bloviation and THINK for one bleeding instant.

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, a beak like a duck, and swims like it duck it ISN'T a frog, a clam, a tiger or a hippopotamus.

    Men are best known and identified NOT by their WORDS but by their ACTIONS.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  18. I must respectfully disagree with you, Mr. Charles. One is not actually required to achieve central ownership of property to be a socialist, only become its advocate. I should like to remind you that the communist revolution occurred long before any violence in Russia; the manifesto of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels pre-dated the Russian revolution and civil war by more than 69 years.

    Our president articulates socialist ideology in his plan for America. Those of us on the right oppose him, as it is our right to do. I cannot speak for others, of course. For myself, I believe that if our president is an advocate of socialism, which he apparently is, then I must know the answer to this question: To what purpose? You see, the architect of the communist state in Russia told us that the only purpose of socialism is to achieve communism. Was Mr. Lenin lying?

    Now as to your other point, which was, “The first is obviously Socialism but the second requires revolution, not necessarily the violent type but simply to break elements of society and economy into its basic components and then rebuild it in the socialist mold. The third aspect is purely economics, that is anti-capitalist and anti-class based.” This is in fact what is happening here in America at the present, and why many stand in opposition. When one advocates the redistribution of income to level the playing field, that sir is a socialist model, and it is an un-American concept. Using public money to bail out industries and financial houses, many of those belonging to foreign banks, is not free-market capitalism.

    Again, this is only my opinion … but I am comfortable with it.

    ~Louie

    ReplyDelete
  19. Damien Charles,
    Being progressive, wanting big controlling governments and even centralising power does not make them socialist, marxist or communist, nor a new (aka neo-) version.

    Really?

    My father-in-law, who is very liberal, denies adamantly that he is a progressive. "Too pink, if not red," he says.

    I believe that he does classify himself as a socialist. I haven't asked the question point-blank as I don't want to create a breech in the family.

    My father-in-law hails from NYC -- Manhattan, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  20. FT, your talking through your hat but most of all, you actually did not say anything. Just because you think something is a "socialist, etc" does not make it because - to use your mind numbingly obtuse rant - it does not look, smell, walk or whatever like one.

    I was once told by a very old but wise teacher - "do not base your logic on wishful thinking".

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  21. Louie,

    I appreciate your comments and that you are comfortable with your views is not only a right but admirable. You would be suprised how many people actually are not and thus their comments have no integrity. I would would rather disagree with a strong view than have a walk-over on a weak one.

    Obvously I disagree with your view but that is fine and it makes good debate. Perhaps your not looking at it in the same light as I, let me explain. These three forms of political ideology are pretty much text book as they have been not only studied but also played out in history. From a purely text book scenario I cannot concure that socialism is being played out in America by the Obama administration because the goal has never been to centralise and eventually nationalise. As you correctly pointed out, advocacy is only required to be a socialist and thus I ask the question, has Obama and his administration actually advocated a goal to nationalise and centralise private property? I think the answer is absolutely not.


    You have also asked "the architect of the communist state in Russia told us that the only purpose of socialism is to achieve communism. Was Mr. Lenin lying?"

    No, but he is a communist, not a socialist, thus he would claim it. Rather like the Christians believe in Moses but Jews not believing in Christ, or say Muslims believing in both, but ..... etc.

    Publically advocating or instituting laws that are blatantly socialist is a big step and like a country preparing for a war or invasion, it is pretty much a big thing when it happens. Again, being British and yes even half Spanish, I can say that those of us who have lived under real socialism see the difference.

    Anyhow, a good discussion and debate, nice for a change.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  22. AOW,

    there are closet socialists and then there are the political socialists whom do more than advocate but work towards it.

    Was your father-in-law politically active?

    My grandfather on my mother's side was an unflinching communist and was killed trying by Franco's forces. He was a "loyales" and Catalan and was willing to fight with Russian money and weapons if it resulted in an independant Catalan. He was with Buenaventura Durruti who was technically an anarchist and is still today a hero in Barcelona. Today he would be laughed at but in those days it was serious enough to cause a half a million people amongst themselves.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective