This is so dead on it is freaking scary. Another parallel is to look at the oppositions reactions to GWB innaugeral AND........
the opposition reaction to the Gettysburg address:
Chicago Times: "The cheeks of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dish watery utterances."
Harrisburg Patriot and Union: "We pass over the silly remarks of the President; for the credit of the Nation we are willing that the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them and that they shall no more be repeated or thought of."
Anyway, on with the shoooooow.
source
January 29, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Barbara J. Stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone will admit that the campaign for the office of President of the United States was a tough fight. It was constantly being reported that the war was not going well, battle casualties were higher than expected, and members of the liberal press centered on every loss agreeing with their leftist friends that the entire war was a poorly planned fiasco.
The challenger from the Democratic Party was a war hero who claimed to have a better plan to end the war. The Democrats accused the president of trampling Americans civil rights, using the war as an excuse to grab power for the executive branch of the government. The Democrats spoke almost with one voice: This president purposely led us into an unnecessary war. Using proper diplomacy and compromise, this useless war could have been avoided all together.
That was America circa 1864. The Confederate States celebrated the platform of the Democratic Party. If the Democrats had won the election, the South would have won the Civil War.
I wonder if African-Americans realize that the Democratic Party was willing to deal away their freedom to end the Civil War. That was the Democrats great plan. That was their diplomacy and compromise plan that was part of the party platform in 1864. The Democrats would allow the South to keep its slaves if it re-joined the Union bringing an end to the Civil War.
The Democrats, with a long history of appeasement to their credit, called the war to hold this country together a failed experiment. They accused Abraham Lincoln of usurping powers not afforded him in the Constitution. All the while, the Democrats were very careful to praise the brave soldiers fighting the war and giving their lives in battle. Had General George McClellan defeated Lincoln in 1864, all those who had given their lives to keep the union whole would have died for nothing.
It seems that Democrats have had little respect through the years for the plight of the black man, until they realized what a large voting block they could be. The little known The Civil Rights Act of 1957, introduced by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, did not receive any support from the young Democratic senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy.
Everything is politics for the Democratic Party. In 1957, it was against equal rights, especially the Southern Democrats such as West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore, Sr. Young Senator Kennedy had his eye on the White House and he would need the support of the powerful southern senators to get there. Democratic leaders decided that equal rights for Black Americans would just have to wait; a Democrat winning the next presidential election was more important. Kennedy knew he could not win the election without winning the Southern States. Now, of course, the Democrats claim to be the party of minorities and have convinced people that it was the Democrats who championed the Equal Rights Amendment.
What is truly amazing is how little the party of appeasement has changed in 140 years. In 1864, the leftists were willing to throw the slaves away to appease the South. During the 1930s, many Democrats were willing to throw Europe away to appease Hitler in the hopes of avoiding an unavoidable confrontation. Even Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt could not convince his own pacifist party that some enemies cannot be appeased. As the German bombs fell nightly on our ally, Great Britain, the party of diplomacy, did nothing.
Still claiming to be great humanitarians, Democrats are perfectly willing to throw 25 million Iraqi people away, just as they were willing to abandon the slaves nearly 150 years ago. The leftists will do anything to avoid conflict and believe that appeasement and comprise can solve all problems.
The Democrats of 1864 felt holding the Union together and ending slavery simply was not worth the effort. Equal rights for all Americans would be worth the fight only when it became politically beneficial for the party.
Modern Democrats continue to include aiding and abetting the enemy and racism to their anti-American rhetoric.
Senator Robert Byrd, a former high ranking Klu Klux Klan member, challenged the first African-American woman to be nominated for the United States Secretary of State. Byrd states that it is because of her support of a president whose policies he believes are wrong. How can the American public ever be sure that is the only reason when Byrd has such a history of being a racist? The question for Senator Byrd wasnt about the presidents policy. The question put to him was: Is this woman qualified for the job? Since it is obvious that Dr. CondoleezzaRice is more than qualified, could it be that Senator Byrd is bothered by the fact that Dr. Rice is black?
Senator Edward Kennedy went before the cameras and declared the war in Iraq a catastrophic failure and a quagmire. Kennedys words are music to the ears of the enemy. A historic vote in Iraq is just days away and Islamic terrorists are doing all that they can do to stop it, including killing American troops. Kennedy gives our enemies solace by declaring them the victors over democracy. Where does freedom of speech end and treason begin?
Kennedys unabashed hatred of George Bush is blinding him to the pain he is causing the Iraqi people and the incentive he is giving to our enemies to fight on. At the same time he is contributing to the demoralization of our own military. Just as the Democrats of old gave support to the South, todays Democrats give support to the Islamic terrorists.
In Lincolns second inaugural address he said: While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
Carrying on the true Republican tradition, George W. Bush clearly stated that there are occasions when war cannot be avoided. He said: Americas vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and Earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.
Today, as in Lincolns time, there is more than one enemy to contend with.
It is entirely possible that had Abraham Lincoln lost his bid for re-election, this country--as we know it--would not exist.
Had John Kerry been elected in 2004, a victory in Iraq would have been handed over to our enemies as the Democrats capitulated to the Islamic terrorists. Iraqs oil money would have been in the hands of the enemy and it would have used that wealth to destroy us.
I have no doubt as the bombs started to fall on our cities, the Democrats would have found a way to way lay the blame on the Republicans, just before they all converted to Islam. Remember, Democrats have always been on the side of compromise and appeasement.
Democrats still have not learned, after all these years, that they cannot make deals with the devil. The price when payment comes due is just too high.
Barbara J. Stock
the opposition reaction to the Gettysburg address:
Chicago Times: "The cheeks of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dish watery utterances."
Harrisburg Patriot and Union: "We pass over the silly remarks of the President; for the credit of the Nation we are willing that the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them and that they shall no more be repeated or thought of."
Anyway, on with the shoooooow.
source
January 29, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Barbara J. Stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone will admit that the campaign for the office of President of the United States was a tough fight. It was constantly being reported that the war was not going well, battle casualties were higher than expected, and members of the liberal press centered on every loss agreeing with their leftist friends that the entire war was a poorly planned fiasco.
The challenger from the Democratic Party was a war hero who claimed to have a better plan to end the war. The Democrats accused the president of trampling Americans civil rights, using the war as an excuse to grab power for the executive branch of the government. The Democrats spoke almost with one voice: This president purposely led us into an unnecessary war. Using proper diplomacy and compromise, this useless war could have been avoided all together.
That was America circa 1864. The Confederate States celebrated the platform of the Democratic Party. If the Democrats had won the election, the South would have won the Civil War.
I wonder if African-Americans realize that the Democratic Party was willing to deal away their freedom to end the Civil War. That was the Democrats great plan. That was their diplomacy and compromise plan that was part of the party platform in 1864. The Democrats would allow the South to keep its slaves if it re-joined the Union bringing an end to the Civil War.
The Democrats, with a long history of appeasement to their credit, called the war to hold this country together a failed experiment. They accused Abraham Lincoln of usurping powers not afforded him in the Constitution. All the while, the Democrats were very careful to praise the brave soldiers fighting the war and giving their lives in battle. Had General George McClellan defeated Lincoln in 1864, all those who had given their lives to keep the union whole would have died for nothing.
It seems that Democrats have had little respect through the years for the plight of the black man, until they realized what a large voting block they could be. The little known The Civil Rights Act of 1957, introduced by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, did not receive any support from the young Democratic senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy.
Everything is politics for the Democratic Party. In 1957, it was against equal rights, especially the Southern Democrats such as West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore, Sr. Young Senator Kennedy had his eye on the White House and he would need the support of the powerful southern senators to get there. Democratic leaders decided that equal rights for Black Americans would just have to wait; a Democrat winning the next presidential election was more important. Kennedy knew he could not win the election without winning the Southern States. Now, of course, the Democrats claim to be the party of minorities and have convinced people that it was the Democrats who championed the Equal Rights Amendment.
What is truly amazing is how little the party of appeasement has changed in 140 years. In 1864, the leftists were willing to throw the slaves away to appease the South. During the 1930s, many Democrats were willing to throw Europe away to appease Hitler in the hopes of avoiding an unavoidable confrontation. Even Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt could not convince his own pacifist party that some enemies cannot be appeased. As the German bombs fell nightly on our ally, Great Britain, the party of diplomacy, did nothing.
Still claiming to be great humanitarians, Democrats are perfectly willing to throw 25 million Iraqi people away, just as they were willing to abandon the slaves nearly 150 years ago. The leftists will do anything to avoid conflict and believe that appeasement and comprise can solve all problems.
The Democrats of 1864 felt holding the Union together and ending slavery simply was not worth the effort. Equal rights for all Americans would be worth the fight only when it became politically beneficial for the party.
Modern Democrats continue to include aiding and abetting the enemy and racism to their anti-American rhetoric.
Senator Robert Byrd, a former high ranking Klu Klux Klan member, challenged the first African-American woman to be nominated for the United States Secretary of State. Byrd states that it is because of her support of a president whose policies he believes are wrong. How can the American public ever be sure that is the only reason when Byrd has such a history of being a racist? The question for Senator Byrd wasnt about the presidents policy. The question put to him was: Is this woman qualified for the job? Since it is obvious that Dr. CondoleezzaRice is more than qualified, could it be that Senator Byrd is bothered by the fact that Dr. Rice is black?
Senator Edward Kennedy went before the cameras and declared the war in Iraq a catastrophic failure and a quagmire. Kennedys words are music to the ears of the enemy. A historic vote in Iraq is just days away and Islamic terrorists are doing all that they can do to stop it, including killing American troops. Kennedy gives our enemies solace by declaring them the victors over democracy. Where does freedom of speech end and treason begin?
Kennedys unabashed hatred of George Bush is blinding him to the pain he is causing the Iraqi people and the incentive he is giving to our enemies to fight on. At the same time he is contributing to the demoralization of our own military. Just as the Democrats of old gave support to the South, todays Democrats give support to the Islamic terrorists.
In Lincolns second inaugural address he said: While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
Carrying on the true Republican tradition, George W. Bush clearly stated that there are occasions when war cannot be avoided. He said: Americas vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and Earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.
Today, as in Lincolns time, there is more than one enemy to contend with.
It is entirely possible that had Abraham Lincoln lost his bid for re-election, this country--as we know it--would not exist.
Had John Kerry been elected in 2004, a victory in Iraq would have been handed over to our enemies as the Democrats capitulated to the Islamic terrorists. Iraqs oil money would have been in the hands of the enemy and it would have used that wealth to destroy us.
I have no doubt as the bombs started to fall on our cities, the Democrats would have found a way to way lay the blame on the Republicans, just before they all converted to Islam. Remember, Democrats have always been on the side of compromise and appeasement.
Democrats still have not learned, after all these years, that they cannot make deals with the devil. The price when payment comes due is just too high.
Barbara J. Stock
