"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that
it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not
object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at
Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.
“I should not object if it should gradually
terminate…” Huh?
Why not: “If elected, I will emancipate all slaves.”? Note that the above quote was about a
year before the election of 1860.
If you compare Lincoln’s rhetoric on either side of the campaign with
his statements right before the election, there is a marked difference in tone. Abe Lincoln, our greatest President,
adopted a more moderate tone during his campaign. Apparently, Lincoln had an Etch-A-Sketch.
With that in mind, here are some things Mitt Romney
won’t say during this campaign.
All I know is, I find these things to be axiomatic, and I can say them
even if Mitt won’t:
· Barack
Obama did not inherit this mess.
In fact, he is largely responsible for the Financial Crisis of 2008! No, he
didn’t do it singlehandedly; he
had lots of help. But, I defy you
to find a single human being who was present at more stages of this economic
cluster-fuck than Barack Obama.
From his college days, to his Community Organizer days, to his ACORN
days, to his Non-Profit days, to his State Senate days, to his U.S. Senate
days, all the way to his Presidency, he has been an effective proponent of the
very policies and philosophies which crashed the financial system in 2008 and
have kept us from escaping the malaise.
To wit: Marxist student? Check. ACORN activist against bank lending standards? Check. Community Reinvestment Act? Check. Supported
Subprime Mortgages for anyone?
Check. Fannie and Freddie’s
biggest money recipient by rate?
Check. TARP? Check. Continued support for the re-distribution of credit? Check. Continued war on bank lending standards? Check. Continued support for Fannie and Freddie? Check. Supported Fed Chairman Bernanke all
along? Check. I could go on for pages.
· Barack
Obama had nothing to do with getting Osama bin Laden. In fact, the bin Laden raid happened IN SPITE OF Barack
Obama! As a candidate for Senate, a U.S. Senator, and then
President, Barack Obama opposed
every single policy which led to the eventual location and termination of Osama
bin Laden. To wit: Opposed interrogating terrorists? Check. Opposed imprisoning terrorists? Check. Opposed
treating terrorists as military combatants? Check. Opposed
wiretapping terrorists?
Check. Opposed
Guantanamo? Check. Opposed gathering any intelligence from
terrorists? Check. Opposed waterboarding KSM? Check. My Labradoodle,
who opposed none of those policies, did more to get Osama bin Laden than Barack
Obama.
· Barack
Obama is not a “nice guy”. In
fact, Barack Obama is an amoral person! Morality is the difference between
Economic Liberals and Economic Conservatives. To wit:
Marx = Redistribution of Wealth is good for The Lower Classes. Keynes = Redistribution of Wealth is
good for Stimulating the Economy.
Progressives of both Parties = Redistribution of Wealth is good
Politics. All the above
definitions focus on the benefit to the receiving class and none address the
moral implications. Redistribution
of Wealth is immoral by definition because it amounts to THEFT. Barack Obama, who may embody one
or all the above ideologies, is an exemplary example of this amorality. He cannot impose an immoral
economic system and be “nice” at the same time.
My real complaint is, not only will Mitt Romney not say this
shit, he says the exact opposite.
In all three cases, Mitt Romney could avoid these topics, but instead he
is on record saying: “Obama did
not cause the financial mess.”, “Obama deserves praise for getting bin Laden.”,
and “Obama is a nice guy.” It
would be like Linclon saying: “Personally, I think slave owners are nice
people. Really, they inherited a
bad system, and they deserve praise for failing to completely stop the
abolitionist movement.”
Preposterous.
Still to come - Part II.
