Back to Basics

Can you imagine, 151 years ago today, the nation’s greatest president was sworn into office?

And you can read Lincoln’s words, “First Inaugural Address, Monday, March 4, 1861“:

One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.

PBS recently aired a two-part television documentary on Bill Clinton, his life, and his two terms in office from 1993 to 2001.

Following the years of economic growth and optimism from the Reagan-Bush41 era, it may have just been inevitable that the voters wanted to put a younger man in the White House. At the time, few of us realized how seriously demented, Al Gore, Clinton’s choice for his vice president, would turn out to be.

Mostly, though, I think of how deeply flawed Clinton was and how the presidency seemed to exaggerate and exacerbate those flaws of character and judgment. The worst part of it was that, even before he was elected, the voters knew he was a womanizer. The Gennifer Flowers affair erupted during the first campaign and, with Hillary by his side, he just brushed it aside and so did the voters.

A man who will cheat on his wife, will cheat on his partners in business, and just about everyone else. Bill Clinton demonstrated that and yet the voters either ignored or forgave him the long trail of women he exploited with or without their consent including a sordid relationship with a very young White House intern.

What the PBS documentary demonstrated was that Clinton was bitten by the presidential bug early in life, possibly when he met John F. Kennedy as part of a group of boys tagged as having potential for public service. That brief moment seemed to say that he knew he was going to be President one day, no matter what it took.

Clinton was blessed with a high level of intelligence. There is, however, often a disconnection between intellectual skills and moral judgment. We see this repeated and reported day after day when men who have achieved status and wealth just throw it away. In the private sector it is a private tragedy affecting its victims, but in the public sector, it puts everyone’s welfare and future at risk.

Clinton, like Barack Obama, arrived in the White House without any experience in the military. Not only that, he didn’t like or trust the men who protect our liberties and take an oath to protect the Constitution and to obey the Commander-in-Chief. Clinton almost immediately tried to eliminate the ban on homosexuals in the military, having to finally settle for “Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell.” Obama eliminated even that.

Clinton was fortunate enough to have had no big or small wars on his watch, but there was massive slaughter in Rwanda he later regretted he did nothing to deter or stop, but neither did the United Nations.

What I recall of the 1990s was that it was so different from the previous Reagan years. Ronald Reagan believed Americans could achieve anything if the government would just get out of the way.

Clinton was an old style, liberal Democrat who thought government exists to get involved in everyone’s life in every way possible. Americans used to hate that, but from the 1930s through the 1960s, first Social Security and later Medicare got them used to being on the government dole. Comparable programs exist in every department of the government.

In the 1980s, there were many missed cues as to what was coming on 9/11.

Our 40th president’s birthday earlier this month caused me to reflect upon how Ronald Reagan impacted my life.

In 1981, I was a young singer/songwriter, clueless about politics, when Ronald Reagan won the presidency. An event planner asked me to perform at an Inaugural Ball.

Reporters asked, “Why are you here and why do you like Reagan?” I could not help noticing the baffled looks on their faces upon hearing my reply. “I like Reagan because every time I hear this man speak, I feel good about my country and myself.”

I later learned that as a black person, I was suppose to hate Reagan. Democrats said Reagan’s talk about welfare reform was “code” for his racism and hatred of blacks. As I said, I was young and clueless regarding politics, codes and such. And yet, in my gut, I knew Reagan was a good man.

My aunt hated Reagan. She said, “Reagan wants to cut my check!” Even as a non-politically informed person, I noticed my Aunt’s bold and arrogant sense of entitlement in her voice when she said, “My check!” Here is a woman who from as far back as I can remember lived in the projects on welfare. I do not ever remember her having a job. In fairness, if my Aunt had a disability which prevented her from working, I never knew of it, as it was not visible. She had five kids and a boyfriend, but no husband.

Her daughter got pregnant really early out of wedlock with both the new teen mother and her baby adding to the welfare roll. My Aunt’s drug using sons, my cousins, impregnated girls out of wedlock, repeating the welfare government dependency cycle.

I overheard my mom commenting to my dad about how her sister practically lived in the Johns Hopkins Hospital Emergency room. At the slightest cough, off my Aunt went with her child to the emergency room. But why shouldn’t she? It was free.

So, you can understand my being taken back a bit hearing my young seemingly healthy Aunt who had lived her whole life, totally dependent on government, trashing Reagan for daring to suggest she do something for her freebies or receive a little less.

Over the years, I have grown to have compassion for my Aunt. Our lives are a manifestation of what we believe. Tragically, my Aunt had little or no confidence in her ability to succeed in America. I believe the Democratic Party promoting that America is a racist country and blacks can survive only via democrat legislated government programs contributed to my Aunt’s distorted view of her country; the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it.

Ronald Reagan inspired me to believe in myself and America.

I believe you can tell a lot about the character of a person based on how they treat “the little people”; people who can not advance their career or social standing.

On TV, a former secret service agent told a great story about Ronald Reagan confirming, in my mind, Reagan’s greatness. The agent said he and Reagan had been out horseback riding. Upon their return, Reagan always prepared his horse to be put away.

AFP commemorates the 101st anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth with a Reagan 101 tutorial contrasting the polar opposite visions of Reagan and Obama:

It’s not fashionable to speak well of Obama’s predecessor, but it grows more difficult by the day to find anything good to say about the incumbent President who recently opined that Americans are “lazy” and have “lost our ambition.” As I recall he spent his first year in office going around the world apologizing for what he deemed America’s past sins and exceptualism.

No, I am talking about George W. Bush, often referred to as Bush 43. I think historians are going to treat him more kindly than might seem likely to some at this point almost three years since the current President took the oath of office in January 2009. Bush43, with Trumanesque self-discipline and modesty, went home and has not spoken out about his successor’s decisions in office, neither to criticize nor praise. That’s how presidents are expected to behave.

Bush43, however, did begin writing a memoir of his eight years in office called “Decision Points” and, when it was first published, it became a bestseller. It is available now in a softcover edition from Broadway Books at $18.00, but already discounted to an affordable twelve dollars and change on Amazon.com. As a longtime book reviewer, I received the softcover edition and have been reading it in lieu of watching the horrid stuff that passes for television these days.

I begin with a confession that, throughout his two terms, I had a good opinion of George W. Bush. I disagreed with his No Child Left Behind approach to education and I thought that adding a prescription benefit to an already broke Medicare was unwise. I had some qualms about the creation of the super agency, Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act. By the time the “surge” in Iraq arrived, I thought it was a bad idea to have invaded even though I understood the threat that Saddam Hussein posed in the region. As it turned out, other Middle East dictators began to fall like dominoes in the wake of the U.S. action.

Bush’s book surprised me. I had no idea of the depth of his religious faith and how it sustained him through the trial of 9/11 and other difficult times such as the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. This is a man who begins his day by reading the Bible. Frankly, I found that comforting.

I looked upon his presidency as being part of the “family business.” His grandfather, Prescott Bush had been a U.S. Senator from Connecticut. His father, George H.W. Bush had served as Ronald Reagan’s Vice President before being elected President in his own right. What comes through George W’s memoir is his deep love for his parents, his brothers, and his own family, wife Laura and his twin girls.

The memoir is not some coldly intellectual analysis, but rather is infused with his own emotions as he dealt with crisis, the greatest of which—9/11—turned him into a wartime president. I think he met the challenge of the first attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor and one that took the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans, including first responders.

You have to admire the liberals. One of them wants to blame everyone else for things that he had everything to do with and now another one wants to take credit for things that he had nothing to do with..

Here are the words of bilious Billy Bob Clinton, “I go crazy every time I read the conventional wisdom” that “I was saved from myself by the election of a Republican Congress (in 1994) that forced me to do welfare reform and made the balanced budget possible..”

Keep in mind that the CLOSER that you are to the truth, the louder and more volatile the response will be from your liberal adversary.. (Politico “Bill Clinton wants more credit” 09/30/2011) Why does he “go crazy”? Because that is precisely the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.. Then again, every time that Clinton has heard that last sentence before he testified it made no sense to him, so why should it make sense to him now..

The reason that its called the “conventional wisdom” is because it is both “conventional” and “wise”.. It would figure that the creator of “the meaning of ‘is’ is” wouldn’t understand that words have literal meanings when they are used by anyone other than the slippery liberals.. It’s “conventional wisdom” because it is “conventional wisdom”.. Thus the reasoning behind the amperage of his ire..

Reinforcing the reality behind the “conventional wisdom”, Billy Bob said, “reporters and commentators keep saying this, overlooking all relevant facts..” Here the Clintonian lexicon includes a word that is to be used ONLY as Billy Bob would like, “all”.. Lets take a look at ALL “the relevant facts” since Clinton wants “more credit”..

Would you like “more credit” for “Castle Grande”? Here an Arkansas real estate ruse was used to funnel money to the father-in law of Hillary’s ex-law partner Webster Hubbell. Would you like “more credit” for placing Hubbell as the Associate Attorney General of the United States who was then found to be guilty of mail fraud and tax evasion over his shady billing practices at the Rose Law Firm? By the way, weren’t Rodham and one Vince Foster (more on him later..) involved in this “deal” and weren’t they both partners with Hubbell at this chicanery-laden law firm?

Would you like “more credit” for firing 92 federal prosecutors when you skulked into Washington which was met with complete silence but when George W. Bush fired eleven, the liberals practically burned the town down..

Would you like “more credit” for “TravelGate”? Seven staffers fired from the White House Travel Office without due cause and a focused character assassination of Billy Dale who was cleared of all of the trumped up charges (trumped up because he wouldn’t stand for being “Clintoned”..) by a jury in less than two hours..

Would you like “more credit” for “FileGate? 900 FBI files on Republican officials in both the Reagan and Bush administrations (Watergate was NOTHING compared to this) that were improperly utilized by you and your administration.. Again, cue the sounds of crickets..

Would you like “more credit” for your dealings with the Lippo Group? Indonesians of very modest means being used as fronts in order for Lippo to give $452,000.00 to the DNC..

Under-appreciated?

Who’s up for a trip back to the 90′s? Earlier in the week, Newt Gingrich offered an updated Contract with America for the 21st Century, and now Bill Clinton’s jumping into the time machine to try and reel in extra credit for 15 year old legislation.

The normally extremely humble former president briefly shed his cloak of modesty yesterday and expressed frustration at an those who refuse to offer him full plaudits for welfare reform and the balanced budget:

“I go crazy every time I read the conventional wisdom,” he said Friday night at his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark. “So part of the Republican narrative is that I was ‘saved’ from myself by the election of the Republican Congress [in 1994] that ‘forced me’ to do welfare reform and ‘made the balanced budget possible.’”

Clinton said reporters and commentators “keep saying this, overlooking all relevant facts.”

The 42nd president said Arkansas had been a test case for reform during his governorship. At the federal level, he said 43 states received federal waivers to implement welfare reform before the GOP-controlled House passed the final bill.

“And yet I kept reading how this was ‘a Republican idea,’ just because President Reagan had a good story about a welfare queen and a Cadillac who didn’t exist,” Clinton said.

Is Clinton still ticked because of the time then-candidate Obama said he wasn’t a transformational president?

If memory serves, Clinton made welfare reform part of his ’92 campaign, but subsequently vetoed two welfare reform bills. Then, in an election year, he signed a third version which contained some changes in order to bring enough Democrats on board. At that point, an intern delivered a pizza and he got impeached for perjury — though I may be fuzzy on one or two of the above details.

Look for select members of the MSM to dutifully run with Bubba’s plea for more credit, especially at a time when Clinton nostalgia among Democrats is at an all time high now that Hope & Change is in a tailspin.

If Bill’s feeling under-appreciated I hope he knows all he’s got to do is schedule another interview with Matt Lauer.

This is from yesterday’s New York Times editorial:

As soon as he proposed to pay for his $447 billion jobs plan with tax increases, President Obama knew he was going to do battle with Republicans. But he is also being challenged by Democrats because they cannot face another big pre-election fight or are thinking more about campaign contributors than the country’s best interests.

It is time for Mr. Obama to think about what Lyndon Johnson would do. Mr. Johnson did not flinch from confronting his caucus when he needed to, and neither should Mr. Obama.

When the Times says Obama should ask himself “WWLBJD,” do they remember what else Lyndon Johnson did?

As the official dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial in Washington, D.C. approaches, liberals in the media are in damage control over a revelation about the civil rights leader from an unlikely source—Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK and Jackie Kennedy. Her new book, Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy, makes it abundantly clear that Jack and Bobby Kennedy, as well as Jackie, saw through the public façade of the Reverend King and knew him to be a proven liar about his communist connections and a scoundrel in terms of his personal life. Jackie called King a “phony” in the taped conversations that form the basis of the book.

This has created a dilemma for the media, who adore the Kennedys and King. So media figures such as Andrea Mitchell of NBC News and Diane Sawyer of ABC News have decided to blame the whole mess on former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. But the misdirection won’t work. The book stands on its own and constitutes a major indictment of a man considered a national icon.

On Monday night, Mitchell was on the NBC Nightly News covering the controversy by claiming that the “phony” comment was because of political games being played by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. In fact, the evidence shows that both JFK and his brother Bobby had themselves obtained and passed on information about King’s extramarital affairs and womanizing. It was information that had been obtained from wiretaps on King authorized by Bobby himself.

The book is based on recorded interviews conducted in 1964 by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. with Jacqueline Kennedy. It quotes Jackie as saying that JFK had told her “of a tape that the FBI had of Martin Luther King…how he was calling up all these girls and arranging for a party of men and women, I mean, sort of an orgy in the hotel, and everything.” Jackie said her response to this was that such conduct was “terrible” and that King was “such a phony.” Jackie adds, “Since then, Bobby’s told me of the tapes of these orgies they have and how Martin Luther King made fun of Jack’s funeral.”

Mitchell’s false narrative ignored how the Kennedy brothers, both anti-communist Democrats, were alarmed by King’s communist associations. She explained: “At the time, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was trying to incite divisions between the Kennedys and Dr. King, telling Bobby Kennedy that Dr. King was overheard on FBI wiretaps making crude comments about Jackie Kennedy kissing her husband’s coffin on the day of Jack’s funeral.”

But Mitchell’s talk of Hoover stirring up divisions was nonsense. Hoover targeted King because of high-level concern about his communist connections, with the information about his extramarital affairs coming out as a result of the surveillance of the civil rights leader. The book makes it clear that the report that Jackie said King was a “phony” was not based on something said about a coffin; it was based on revelations provided to Jackie Kennedy by her husband that King, a reverend who quoted the bible, was a notorious adulterer and partier. And Bobby Kennedy, according to the book, shared the disgust for King’s secret sexual perversions.

It appears that Mitchell either did not read the book or deliberately misrepresented what was in it.

Boy, oh boy, is Jackie Kennedy politically incorrect

For more: Jackie Kennedy: Martin Luther King Jr. “Phony”

The LA Times piece can’t help but try implying that something is wrong with the FBI evidence about MLK and the piece ignores that Jackie also got information from other sources including Robert Kennedy. One thing to remember is that people are a product of their times. What was entirely reasonable to say in the mid-1960s would shock people today. It just shows you how politically correct that things have gotten. The UK Daily Mail has this:

Jackie Kennedy hated Martin Luther King so much she could barely look at photographs of him.

In interviews taped in 1964 but only just released, she said the black civil rights leader was a ‘terrible man’ and a ‘phoney’.

She claimed King bragged of being drunk at her husband John F Kennedy’s funeral and had been caught trying to set up an orgy.

The interviews also revealed that JFK was so worried about vice-president Lyndon Johnson succeeding him that he schemed with his brother Robert to stop it happening.

Seven conversations between Mrs Kennedy and Arthur Schlesinger, a historian and Kennedy aide, were taped in the months after the president’s assassination on November 22, 1963. . . .

Mrs Kennedy said her view of King was formed after being told of secret FBI wiretaps which showed him trying to organise a sex party before he attended the March on Washington in August 1963, at which he delivered his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech.

She said her brother-in-law Robert told her that King made disparaging remarks about JFK at the funeral and about Cardinal Richard Cushing, who delivered the eulogy.

‘I just can’t see a picture of Martin Luther King without thinking, you know, that man’s terrible,’ she said. . . .

‘He made fun of Cardinal Cushing and said that he was drunk at it [the funeral] – and things about they almost dropped the coffin. I mean Martin Luther King is really a tricky person.’

She said Robert told her of the FBI wiretaps: ‘He said this with no bitterness or anything, how he was calling up all these girls and arranging for a party of men and women, I mean, sort of an orgy.’ . . .

But the sharpest criticism was for Johnson, who John F Kennedy chose as his running mate in 1960. Mrs Kennedy said her husband would say to her: ‘Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon were president?

‘And Bobby told me that he’d had some discussions with him … do something to name someone else in 1968.’ . . .