The Democrats Were Here Before and Tore the Nation Asunder – Consider Lincoln
The Democrats, through their rhetoric and their actions, are opposing the Trump administration at every turn. Through Obama administration government holdovers, they intend to bring down the present government and maintain and expand the bureaucratic Administrative State which is destroying federalism, taking away Americans’ individual rights, and nullifying large swaths of the Constitution of the United States. Their presidential candidate failed to win the office, and the Democrats’ expected triumph of the Administrative State will at best be postponed and at worst be dismantled to a great extent by President Trump and his appointees.
The Democrats are furious, and, as has been reported in these pages and in other sources, their reaction has been militant, irrational, and destructive to our nation.
We have seen this before. Over 150 years ago the issues were cogently examined and argued by presidential hopeful Abraham Lincoln in his Feb. 27, 1860 address at Cooper Union in New York City. The issue then was slavery, whether the federal government had a right to prevent its expansion into U.S. territories not yet organized into states. Because of the Dred Scott U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lincoln predicted that the right to own slaves would spread to the entire nation if Democrats had their way.
Today the issue is the Administrative State and whether it will destroy federalism and our citizens’ G-d given individual rights, some of which are enumerated in the Constitution as amended, and our representative republic.
In 1860 the Democratic Party was divided. The slave states were the exclusive territory of the Democratic Party. It was, without argument, the party of slavery. In the North, the policy of the Democratic Party as to slavery was expounded by its leader, Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, who refused to express an opinion as to whether slavery was good or bad, or whether it should or should not expand into the territories. In the end, the Democrats attempted to take their slave-holding states out of the Union and tore the nation apart because they held that slavery was a wonderful condition for the slaves, and that some men had a G-d given right to earn their living in leisure at the expense of other men’s sweat and toil. In consequence, over 600,000 Americans lost their lives in an armed struggle to restore the Union.
Today the Democratic Party would intentionally ruin our unique-in-history federalist and constitutional republic in order to replace it with an Administrative State not far removed from what we read about in Brave New World, 1984, and Darkness at Noon. Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College, teaches a course on tyranny which, for good reason, incorporates these books, among others, in its syllabus.
Lincoln’s Cooper Union address preceded his gaining the presidential nomination of the Republican Party in May 1860 and his election to the office of president of the United States in November of that year. He was inaugurated in March 1861, by which time seven southern states had already voted to leave the Union. Comments by Lincoln in his February 1860 Cooper Union address find us nodding our heads because Democrats’ behaviors toward Republicans then are conceptually identical to present-day Democrats’ reactions to the election of Donald Trump to the presidency. As Mr. Lincoln states:
And now, if they would listen - as I suppose they will not - I would address a few words to the Southern people [Democrats].
I would say to them: - You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite - license, so to speak - among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. . . .
Lincoln pointed out that the Democrats’ arguments were denying the validity of the policies set by the framers of the Constitution and of our initial American government, “our fathers,” as he said:
But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. . . .
Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations. . . .
This sounds as modern as recent speeches and comments by Senator Schumer:
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. . . .
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision [Dred Scott] as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" . . .
The Democrats, then and now, would be satisfied solely by Republican surrender. Today this means by Republican adoption of the rightness of the imposition of the Administrative State:
A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them. . . .
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation. . . .
The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them. . . .
In my reading of this following paragraphs, I replace the word “slavery” with the term “the Administrative State” when considering the Democratic Party’s present goal:
These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying. . . .
If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man - such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care - such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance - such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
These are the words of the father of the Republican Party, words for us to live by and to act upon. It is up to our majority party, both those in office and those who are not, to get this done, to deliver us from the pernicious destruction of our constitutional republic by the Administrative State.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/the_democrats_were_here_before_and_tore_the_nation_asunder__consider_lincoln.html#ixzz4f3nzt1rl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
The Democrats are furious, and, as has been reported in these pages and in other sources, their reaction has been militant, irrational, and destructive to our nation.
We have seen this before. Over 150 years ago the issues were cogently examined and argued by presidential hopeful Abraham Lincoln in his Feb. 27, 1860 address at Cooper Union in New York City. The issue then was slavery, whether the federal government had a right to prevent its expansion into U.S. territories not yet organized into states. Because of the Dred Scott U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lincoln predicted that the right to own slaves would spread to the entire nation if Democrats had their way.
Today the issue is the Administrative State and whether it will destroy federalism and our citizens’ G-d given individual rights, some of which are enumerated in the Constitution as amended, and our representative republic.
In 1860 the Democratic Party was divided. The slave states were the exclusive territory of the Democratic Party. It was, without argument, the party of slavery. In the North, the policy of the Democratic Party as to slavery was expounded by its leader, Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, who refused to express an opinion as to whether slavery was good or bad, or whether it should or should not expand into the territories. In the end, the Democrats attempted to take their slave-holding states out of the Union and tore the nation apart because they held that slavery was a wonderful condition for the slaves, and that some men had a G-d given right to earn their living in leisure at the expense of other men’s sweat and toil. In consequence, over 600,000 Americans lost their lives in an armed struggle to restore the Union.
Today the Democratic Party would intentionally ruin our unique-in-history federalist and constitutional republic in order to replace it with an Administrative State not far removed from what we read about in Brave New World, 1984, and Darkness at Noon. Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College, teaches a course on tyranny which, for good reason, incorporates these books, among others, in its syllabus.
Lincoln’s Cooper Union address preceded his gaining the presidential nomination of the Republican Party in May 1860 and his election to the office of president of the United States in November of that year. He was inaugurated in March 1861, by which time seven southern states had already voted to leave the Union. Comments by Lincoln in his February 1860 Cooper Union address find us nodding our heads because Democrats’ behaviors toward Republicans then are conceptually identical to present-day Democrats’ reactions to the election of Donald Trump to the presidency. As Mr. Lincoln states:
And now, if they would listen - as I suppose they will not - I would address a few words to the Southern people [Democrats].
I would say to them: - You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite - license, so to speak - among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. . . .
Lincoln pointed out that the Democrats’ arguments were denying the validity of the policies set by the framers of the Constitution and of our initial American government, “our fathers,” as he said:
But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. . . .
Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations. . . .
This sounds as modern as recent speeches and comments by Senator Schumer:
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. . . .
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision [Dred Scott] as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" . . .
The Democrats, then and now, would be satisfied solely by Republican surrender. Today this means by Republican adoption of the rightness of the imposition of the Administrative State:
A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them. . . .
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation. . . .
The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them. . . .
In my reading of this following paragraphs, I replace the word “slavery” with the term “the Administrative State” when considering the Democratic Party’s present goal:
These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying. . . .
If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man - such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care - such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance - such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
These are the words of the father of the Republican Party, words for us to live by and to act upon. It is up to our majority party, both those in office and those who are not, to get this done, to deliver us from the pernicious destruction of our constitutional republic by the Administrative State.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/the_democrats_were_here_before_and_tore_the_nation_asunder__consider_lincoln.html#ixzz4f3nzt1rl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Tags
Who is online
83 visitors
The democrat party operates on the idea of rule or ruin.
Wake me when this thuddingly boring seed is over.
Sleep well and for a long time.
In the 1860's it was the Democrats who were the conservatives and the Repulicans who were the radicals.
Perhaps you would like to have a discussion about Lincoln's illegal and unconstitutional holding of people in prison while suspending the right of habeas corpus.
Did you oppose the expansion of the adminstrative state when shrub created homeland security?
I agree. Now it's completely the other way around. The Democrats of the 1860s are nothing like the Democrats of today. Back then they would have been the Republicans. The two parties have flipped over since then, each becoming what the other was.
randy , I think the parties have flip flopped a few times since the beginning , and it was totally dependant on the times , one thing I like to point out is Jefferson , and people wont argue was the founder of the democratic party , but he also was the founder of what would become the republican party.
there is a very large difference in the parties today , but they all get their beginings in jeffersons age , Jeffersonian democracy is totally different than madisonian , or jacksonian , federalists turned into whigs 9 offshoot of jefersonian republicanism, which morphed into the republicans , and the 2 basic parties have continually been changing as the nation and its populous changed and their messages have changed dependant on the people they courted for votes, and that is as true today as it was in the days of Washington , when he warned us about parties political.
I can certainly agree with that, which is why I try to find out as much as I can about the person before I vote and, though a liberal, I have voted for Republicans before, though that was back in the 1970's. As a rule I tend to agree with most of what the Democratic Party SAYS it stands for then what the Republican Party actually DOES when they are in power, so I tend to vote Democratic. The Democrats are better at governing (IMHO) and the Republicans are better campaigners then they are at actually governing, at least the current ones. Of course that could all and probably will change.
Both deserve close watching though.
All Obama ever did was run a constant campaign. There was nothing he accomplished that wasn't cramming something down people throats either by pen, phone , or in his first two years whatever could get 60 votes or be done by reconciliation. He couldn't govern.
He was simply the greatest President of the modern era and that is how history will record and remember him. Someday his likeness will be on some denomination of our currency and perhaps (though I would nominate FDR instead) on the last remaining spot on Mt Rushmore.
He saved us from a Depression that would have made the 1930's look like paradise. I don't think many people realize just how close we were to ending up in a complete crash. He covered millions of people with health insurance who never had it before. He ordered the killing of the pirates by the Navy Seals of Somalia. He ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden. he brought hope to the hopeless and, after the disaster of Dubya, he regained the respect for America in the world. I can only hope that, after this diapered moron in the Oval Office now is gone, another Obama type will be there to save us again, to regain our respect with our allies that Trump is shitting on and to heal as much of the damage as he or she can that is being done to us right now by the rank amateurish idiots who are now staggering from one scandal and disaster to another and maybe heading us into another unnecessary war of choice, their choice that they want to have so bad that they can taste it, this time in Korea instead of Iraq. If I were foolish enough to be a religious man I would pray to God to save the souls of our troops on the DMZ, the Americans and innocent civilians in Seoul and in South Korea, that Trump is going to be having murdered soon.
They will die because he will have them killed because he wants a war so he will feel "strong", because he thinks the world will look at him as "strong" too (it won't) and be remembered in history, when in fact all he will be thought of when he launches this war is being the single worst terrorist in modern history. Which is what he will be. Just another Osama bin Laden with a much higher death count of innocent Americans and for an even worse reason. He will be our bin Laden. He had better hope that as an atheist that I am right, because if I am wrong (I am not) and there is a Hell, he, Pence and Tillerson will roast there for all eternity and deserve every scream of agony.
Obama was the worst president since Buchanan and the worst person ever to be President. All of the heavy lifting to avoid any depression was done by Bush before he left office. As for the spot on Mt. Rushmore, its Reagans spot. Actually there is enough room for two more so likely the GOP and Dems each would get to choose one. Democrats have Wilson, FDR, JFK, to choose from while we'd chose between Coolidge, Eisenhower, and Reagan.
You know about as much about Presidential history as I do about the stomach functions of the African Elephants (and I probably know more about that then you do). As for Reagan on Rushmore, they don't put a President on there that wandered through his entire administration senile. Two words. Iran-Contra. Let's finance an illegal CIA war in Central America to prop up an insane murderous dictatorship by selling weapons to our hated enemies in Iran. Brilliant! Much more moral then when the CIA was selling drugs to do the same thing! The only reason he didn't end up in prison was pity for his disease!
You all would only get to pick the democrat that would be added. We Republicans would chose the Republican we want. I really don't care much which of the three Dems end up up there someday. You all can figure that one out.
You all can figure that one out.
Thanks. Then Obama it is.
I think most Democrats would take FDR, Truman, or Kennedy over Obama. If I were still one, I'd go with Kennedy.
Comment removed skirting the CoC [ph]
As to the Republican it would be a tough choice between Coolidge and Reagan.
I say leave Rushmore as it is , leave a blank spot for the hope for the future , that more greats can and hopefully will come when the need arises.
"...he wants a war..."
I will try to remember those words, Randy, and if 8 years from now there has been no war, and I'm still alive, I'll mail them to you on paper coated with peanut butter for you to consume.
Do that, but I am not going to hold my breath. He does want a war. He is a child, even more so then Kim jung Un and that is the problem. They are both not a thing more then mentally crazy spoiled little children who must be dealt with as such on all issues, but especially when it comes to playing with (as they honestly see them) their toy soldiers, subs, "armadas", ships, planes and boom, boom bombs. There is a distinct lack of adults in the room, though some are trying to be. Xi and Wu are trying to be. Mattias is trying to be (which is why he didn't tell Trump that the USS Vinson was not in the Sea of Japan instead of in the East Indian Ocean, because he knows Trump can not be trusted with actual military information), but the amateurs, combined with the mentally crazy spoiled little brats in the room, Trump, Pence, Tillerson and Un are fucking it all up, especially Pence, who needs to have his lips sewn shut or his voice box cut out!
Trump thinks that a war in Korea will make him look strong an at the same time distract from the fact that he is so in bed with Putin that they might as well apply for a marriage license. He got a hard on when he was praised for looking "Presidential" when he wasted some perfectly good Tomahawk Cruise Missiles by shooting them at an empty air base in Syria, when it was not "Presidential" considering that with the effect he had he might as well have fired them into the Damascus garbage dump. Of course he also gets props for looking "Presidential" when he manages to read a speech written for him off from teleprompter without going off message.
So he looks around and wants another minor bump in his poll numbers because the Syrian ones are long gone already (he's down to 40% and dropping really fast!) and he sees North Korea and Iran. Well one will do for him as good as the other because both are hated in the world, but it is much easier for him to goad Un into a war then Iran, so that's what he is doing. "If China can't take care of North Korea, then we will!" What a load of horse shit! Un is making nukes and is all paranoid and set for war because he thinks (in fact is certain) that the US is going to invade his sandbox and take his toys away. China is in North Korea trying to tell him to calm him down and reassure him that OUR childish "fearless leader" (though not mine) is NOT going to invade his sandbox and that he can play with his toys, but he must stop playing with nuclear ones. Yet every time China tries to calm him down, to deescalate him like you need do with a spoiled, bratty 4 year old (and like we need to do with Trump) that it is not going to happen and try to get him to stop with the nukes, we have some ignorant motherfucker like Trump or Pence or Tillerson say something completely FUCKING STUPID like "If China does take care of North Korea then we will!" and Un freaks out all over again, which is exactly what the Trump administration WANTS him to do. TRUMP WANTS A WAR WITH NORTH KOREA! HE IS GOADING Un INTO ONE ON PURPOSE BECAUSE HE WANTS TO GO TO AR IN KOREA!!! HE IS DOING EVERYTHING HE CAN TO START ONE!!! IF ONE STARTS IT WILL BE BECAUSE OF HIM AND HIM ALONE!!! WHEN IT HAPPENS I GET TO SAY "I TOLD YOU SO!!!" Though that won't help sooth the pain and loss of the families of those who will die in the South and the tens of thousands of Americans he will murder, both civilians and troops.
Trump looks back in history (or actually has someone do it for him because his is on the same level as a drooling idiot, just like Jarad Kushner is) and sees that he got good poll numbers after he shot the missiles and after he was told about the MOAB in Afghanistan (that he took credit for even though he had no fucking idea that it had been used until the press did) and sees that the Presidents that get mentioned the most are war Presidents, like Wilson and FDR and Truman. So he figures that if he starts a war in Korea then he will skyrocket in the polls and will go down in history as some sort of wartime President hero. That make him an ignorant asshole. I have no doubt that he has movie visions of tens of thousands of Marines landing on some beach like Iwo Jima (though that is not how it'll happen in Korea), fighting there way up to the Jap...er...Korean held positions (North or South Koreans, who cares?), taking the pillboxes so he can award the survivors afterwards medals and dedicate the statue on the Mall in D.C., while the history books declare him as one of America's greatest Presidents who saved democracy! Then he will cum all over himself.
The truth is he WILL start a war in Korea and the world and America will see him as the one at fault and he will be thought of as, not just a total asshole, but as a murderer of innocent South Koreans, but more as the murderer of our troops there and the ones he will have to send in to stop a bloodbath that will make the last war in Korea look like a junior high school volleyball game. He will be seen and looked down upon as the biggest terrorist and mass murderer since Pol Pot. Don't worry, I am sure there is someone in the White House who can look him up for him too.
Then send me some peanut butter Buzz. Though some good chocolate candies would be better. Thanks.
"Though some good chocolate candies would be better."
May as well go for broke then, some really good chocolate truffles.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!
G-d given individual rights
BTW it's God given individual rights. Not G-d given individual rights. What in the hell is a g-d? Are people who say they believe in a god so terrified that they won't even spell out the word? That's not a creature to look up to, it's something to fear. Why would you worship something that scares the shit out of you?