Presidential Executive Orders; Constitutional or Criminal?… “When an executive order creates or amends Federal regulations or creates or amends existing law, those orders are illegal and are impeachable offenses. “
While this is “factually” correct, it is not true that George Washington abused it.
His EO’s were limited to the operation of the Executive Branch and did not ever legislate laws for anyone outside of the government.
However, the most wide reaching violation of the Executive Order came from one of this country’s greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln.
His Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 was, for certain, noble, just and something long needed and overdue.
Recently by Clyde Wilson: Why Save the Republican Party?
Not too long ago, historians were required to carry out extensive primary research and pay at least a token attention to objectivity and balance. Now one becomes celebrated as a worthy historian by cherry-picking out of the record whatever enhances the current PC view of human experience. That means that the best history is now being written outside the academy and will continue to be so.
Witness two good recent works by “amateurs” on the great conflict of 1861-1865, its causes and consequences. No period of American history is more pervasively under the reign of PC, but these authors have penetrated the veil to reveal some of the real story.
Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln has been a box-office hit and nominated for 12 Academy Awards, including best picture, best director and best actor for Daniel Day-Lewis, who portrayed our 16th president. I haven’t seen the movie; therefore, this column is not about the movie but about a man deified by many.
My colleague Thomas DiLorenzo, economics professor at Loyola University Maryland, exposed some of the Lincoln myth in his 2006 book, Lincoln Unmasked. Now comes Joseph Fallon, cultural intelligence analyst and former U.S. Army Intelligence Center instructor, with his new e-book, Lincoln Uncensored. Fallon’s book examines 10 volumes of collected writings and speeches of Lincoln’s, which include passages on slavery, secession, equality of blacks and emancipation. We don’t have to rely upon anyone’s interpretation. Just read his words to see what you make of them.
In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Ill., speech, he explained, “My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood.
I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of … making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
Obama’s Lincoln Presumption
Townhall.com ^ | January 22, 2013 | Mona Charen
Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:59:01 AM by Kaslin
He swore his oath of office on Abraham Lincoln’s Bible. He has asked to give the State of the Union address on Lincoln’s birthday. He rode to Washington in 2009 on a train route similar to Lincoln’s in 1861. He has compared his critics to Lincoln’s critics. He confides to admirers that he likes to read the handwritten Gettysburg Address that hangs in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Barack Obama is inviting the world to compare him not just to good presidents but to the greatest in American history.
Abraham Lincoln’s Execution .: Knowledge Base… (“Unless historians or other scholars can refute what Professor John Chandler Griffin has reveale in Abraham Lincoln’s Execution, the history not only of the administration of the 16th President of the U.S. and his death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth will have to be rewritten, but also that of the American Civil War.”) « AMERICAN BLOGGER: GUNNY.G ~ WEBLOG.EMAIL
Unless historians or other scholars can refute what Professor John Chandler Griffin has reveale in Abraham Lincoln’s Execution, the history not only of the administration of the 16th President of the U.S. and his death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth will have to be rewritten, but also that of the American Civil War.
Griffin, professor emeritus at the University of South Carolina, has revisited what happened in the 1860’s for two basic purposes: first, to demonstrate that members of Lincoln’s cabinet were implicated with the Confederate Secret Service in the murder of Lincoln (which is why Griffin calls it an execution in lieu of an assassination); and, second, to demolish the standard mythology re the character of Lincoln and his motives in instigating the military action that metastasized into all-out civil war.
Rather than “The Great Emancipator,” Lincoln appears in Griffin’s book as “The Great Dictator.” Blocking the South’s secession in order to establish and maintain a centralized government, Griffin writes, was the true motive behind Lincoln’s instigation of civil war, and not the elimination of slavery. In fact, Griffin documents, Lincoln repeatedly expressed his view of whites as superior to blacks, opposed equal rights for them, wrote to Illinois legislators that “eliminating every black person from American soil would be a glorious consummation,” appropriated taxpayer money to fund his plan to export freed slaves to a variety of countries; and, despite his famous Emancipation Proclamation, engaged in manipulations so that only slaves in the south would be freed and not those in the north. Lincoln’s prejudices also showed up, Griffin points out, in Lincoln’s support of the war on American Indians unwilling to move to reservations, resulting in their systematic extermination.
Delivered from behind a freshly charged and precisely aimed M-1 Garand to a trespassing Asian gang member rolling in Walt’s begonias’ one night…..it definitely got the point across.
As Walt would say later to three other wayward “utes” picking on a young girl as he calmly leveled his M1911 at them with a sneer…..”Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn’t have f#$ked with? That’s me.”
Such men really exist….we have all met them….hell there might even be a few among us that could be them. You never know……eh?
For some reason of late, my thoughts turned to an April morning in Massachusetts circa 1775….in various reading, I turned up another dangerous old man in American history that bested my previous favorite who was John Burns of Gettysburg fame.
Every schoolchild with enough smarts and curiosity to get beyond the latest video game of “Call of Duty” ought to go see “Lincoln,” the movie, and check out the references and his own attention span. It requires patience, but it shows through dramatic action how a self-taught rustic from the deep backwoods had the emotional and intellectual discipline to overcome poverty and grow up to be a president to rank among the greatest.
This is not about the American Dream or a Horatio Alger story. (Does anybody remember him?) Nor is it mythmaking. It’s made of sterner stuff than that. Although there are 16,000 or so books about Lincoln, and a famous movie with Henry Fonda as the young Lincoln, there’s enough freshness in this late portrait to animate anyone eligible to watch a movie with the PG-13 rating.
Tom DiLorenzo is a well-known author for, among other things, his work regarding Abraham Lincoln. I have read and can highly recommend his two books regarding Lincoln, The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked.
Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: The Forgotten Men You Should Know About
“Who freed the slaves? To the extent that they were ever ‘freed,’ they were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment, which was authored and pressured into existence not by Lincoln but by the great emancipators nobody knows, the abolitionists and congressional leaders who created the climate and generated the pressure that goaded, prodded, drove, forced Lincoln into glory by associating him with a policy that he adamantly opposed for at least fifty-four of his fifty-six years of his life.”
Gunny G: Re Alan Stang, Speaking of Dr Ron Paul, Etc. ~ RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ THE.GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL
…..Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation came well into the war. It was a propaganda stunt that freed only the slaves in areas controlled by the Confederacy; in other words, none. Meanwhile, prominent abolitionist Robert E. Lee, the first man Lincoln offered command of the Union Army, had freed his family’s slaves long before the war.
So, what were the Communists who came here after?
Republican Senator John Sherman, brother of the monster who Marched to the Sea, advised his fellow senators to “nationalize as much as possible [making] men love their country before their states. All private interests, all local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals, everything, should be subordinate now to the interests of the Government.”
Germany was a decentralized collection of independent states. The goal of the Forty Eighters there was a “united, indivisible republic” in which those states would be dissolved. Land and private industry would be confiscated. The government would be transformed into a Socialist dictatorship. These are the ideas the Forty Eighters came to implement here. By the way, that is what Hitler did in the 1930s. That is what the fleeing Communists found so attractive in Lincoln.
Countless school children have been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator.
Others have been taught — and many have concluded — that the Emancipation Proclamation, which Abraham Lincoln announced on Sept. 22, 1862, has been overemphasized, that it was inefficacious, a sham, that Lincoln’s motivations were somehow unworthy, that slavery was ended by other ways and means, and that slavery was on the way out in any case.
The truth is that Lincoln’s proclamation was an exercise in risk, a huge gamble by a leader who sought to be — and who became — America’s great liberator.
Unless historians or other scholars can refute what Professor John Chandler Griffin has revealed Abraham Lincoln, Republican candidate for the …in Abraham Lincoln’s Execution, the history not only of the administration of the 16th President of the U.S. and his death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth will have to be rewritten, but also that of the American Civil War.
By Al Benson Jr.
On June 24, 2012 an article appeared on http://www.westernjournalism.com written by Kevin Probst, the name of which was “Emancipation Proclamation: Was Lincoln Motivated By Political Expediency Or Religious Conviction?” Mr. Probst seeks in this article to portray Abraham Lincoln as a Bible-believing Christian who was motivated by religious conviction regarding the Emancipation Proclamation.
Mr. Probst is a teacher of history and apologetics at a Christian high school in Columbus, Georgia, so I do not for a minute doubt his honesty and integrity. However, the research I have done over the years forces me to disagree with his view of Mr. Lincoln as a dedicated Christian.Read more…
AMERICA IS UPSIDE-DOWN AND INSIDE-OUTby One Pissed-off Vietnam VetHow many nations have been destroyed by dictators in recent history?Feb. 10, 2012 — The end result of what happens when the inmates rule a country is what happened in Uganda ruled by Idi Amin in the 1970’s.
One can make a direct comparison of what is transpiring in America today with the end result of the destruction of that African nation. The parallels between Uganda and the U.S. are astounding, right down to the public sector government using any and all available resources to prop the usurper, Obama, in a position of power.Another clue that the inmates are controlling our country is our borrowing money from China, or allowing China to buy U.S. Treasury Bonds yet retain Favored Nation Trade status. That’s a double whammy against us: why not raise the money by charging tariffs rather than borrowing? So what, the landlord pays the renter for renting? Crazy, but then the inmates are in control, remember?
In 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation was the first serious step toward abolishing slavery, but looking around America today, one would never know it. The system has retained slavery but instead of harvesting cotton, votes are being harvested: over 90% of African-Americans voted for Obama. Do I hear anyone say “racist?”Yes, the country has been taken over by naive, uninformed people, but then again, look back in America’s history during the last century and a pattern of incompetence emerges, with the end result being Obama.
Actually, the downfall started in 1871 and continued with the Federal Reserve Charter in 1913, the Allies giving Stalin half of Europe at the Yalta Conference in 1945, and the United Nations bailing out of Korea in 1953 by agreeing to an armistice rather than achieving a victory. Even worse was Vietnam, where we couldn’t even maintain the DMZ; Desert Storm where we simply kicked Iraqis out of Kuwait yet allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power, leading up to 9-11 in 2001 when we were incapable of naming the enemy.
In a letter to the president, the lawmakers argue that he has “both the authority and a moral obligation” to invoke the Constitution’s 14th Amendment “to avoid an economic catastrophe of historic proportions.”
“We must not allow a political deadlock to cause the United States to default for the first time in our history,” the CBC members wrote. “Now that Congress has borrowed money and incurred debt, we cannot – as a nation and under our Constitution – walk away.”
The lawmakers join a growing chorus of Democrats – including Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) – who have called on Obama to invoke the Constitution as a last resort to prevent a government default.
Supporters argue that the 14th Amendment – which says “the validity of the public debt … shall not be questioned” – empowers the president to act unilaterally.
Obama has all but ruled out that option.
“I have talked to my lawyers,” he said at a town hall meeting last week. “They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”
The CBC members disagree, arguing that it’s his obligation “to do that which is necessary for the good of the country.”
“Just as President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation at a time of emergency in our nation’s history to free those who were enslaved during the Civil War, today you face a looming calamity that in some respects is just as grave,” they wrote.
Only one CBC member – Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) – did not endorse the letter.