Tag Archives: Abraham Lincoln

Voters don't care Hillary Clinton is dishonest and immoral

Hillary for Prison 2016
A week ago I did a post on Hillary Clinton being viewed even more favorably in a NYT/CBS poll, despite her many scandals — the corrupt non-profit Clinton Foundation that traded State Department favors for donations; her using a private email account to conduct official business when she was secretary of state; and the lies she told about Benghazi. (See “Hillary and Bill Clinton got millions in bribes from foreign ‘entities’ in exchange for State Dept favors” and “Destruction of Evidence: Hillary Clinton deleted half of emails from personal account used to conduct business as secretary of state“)
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has the explanation.
The poll asked respondents several questions about Clinton’s character. Here are the results:

  • On whether Hillary is “honest and straightforward,” 50% of respondents said she wasn’t; only 25% said they believed she was honest.
  • On whether Hillary is “effective” at “getting things done,” 44% thought she’s effective versus 34% who didn’t.
  • On whether Hillary is “easygoing and likable,” 41% said yes; 37% said no.
  • On whether Hillary has “high moral standards that set the proper moral tone for the country,” 43% said yes versus 39% said no.

Jonathan V. Last of The Weekly Standard points out how schizophrenic the poll results are. While as many as 50% say Hillary is not honest and straightforward, 41% nevertheless think she has “high moral standards.”
Last’s conclusion is:

There are only two possible conclusions from this: Either (1) Voters are idiots. Or (2) As a political commodity, Hillary Clinton’s appeal is based on something other than trustworthiness.
Whichever the case, the big lesson from the last few months is that it will be very difficult for a Republican to beat Hillary Clinton by getting voters to turn against her. The Clinton cake is so thoroughly baked that there’s no new evidence that’s going to make people decide that suddenly, after 20 years, the scales have fallen from their eyes and they realize she’s something other than what they think she is. 
Instead, the Republican nominee is going to have to make a positive case for something better. It won’t be enough to try to disqualify Clinton. He or she is going to have to offer a more attractive alternative vision.
(And whatever you do, don’t think too hard about the fact that one out of every four Americans still thinks Clinton is “honest” and “straightforward.” It’s just too depressing.)

My conclusion is that since all the evidence points to Hillary Clinton not being “honest and straightforward” and therefore not having “high moral standards,” the fact that 1 out of every 4 Americans think she is “honest and straightforward” and 4 out of every 10 Americans think she has “high moral standards” can only be attributable to this:

An alarming percentage of Americans are either stupid or so morally corrupt themselves that they don’t find her malfeasance and corruption to be a matter of concern.

But America’s Founders knew well the importance of the moral character of both government and governed.
Ben Franklin said “Only a moral and virtuous people are capable of freedom; the more corrupt and vicious a society becomes, the more it has need of masters.” Noah Webster, in On the Education of Youth in America (1788), wrote, “The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities; and for this reason, the heart should be cultivated with more assiduity than the head.”
Then there’s the wise French philosopher and diplomat Count Joseph Marie Maistre (1763-1821) who cynically but accurately observed, “Every nation has the government it deserves.”
See also:

~Éowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Bundy’s beef with BLM is about Federal vs. State ownership of land in Nevada

Battle of BunkervilleCliven Bundy’s son, Ammon, at the standoff against the BLM — the Battle of Bunkerville.

In his long-standing dispute with the federal government over grazing fees, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy consistently invokes states’ rights as his principle. From Bundy’s blog of April 21, 2012, stating his position:

the State of Nevada owns the lands pursuant to their NRS 321.596 et al statutes (Nevada Public Lands Ownership Act) enacted by Nevada back in the late 1970′s. All the western public lands states adopted this law back when it was called the “Sagebrush Rebellion”. The main component of this law (Public Lands Ownership) has yet to be adjudicated by the courts or by the US Supreme Court. This matter came to the forefront once in the court process and the then Nevada Attorney General filed away this issue by stipulating that the feds owned the public lands in Nevada. The court basically said it had no other choice but to rule in favor of the Feds. (US vs. Nye County). Bundy is following Nevada Law and holds that the 18 year old adverse decision against him that the BLM et al is using does not apply to him because he is not grazing on federal property. The State of Nevada has an obligation to enforce its own law on this matter. Therefore Bundy is not in contempt of any court order since he is not operating on federal property.

Bundy paid grazing fees to the rightful Landlord (Clark County-NV) back in the ’90′s and then they returned that payment to Bundy. […] Bundy still has the county check and he never intended to steal anything and stands ready to pay the rightful Landlord today just like he did back in the ’90′s.

The federal government claims ownership of as much as 80% of the land in the State of Nevada. How did that happen?

Martin Armstrong explains on his global financial markets forecasting site, Armstrong Economics, April 19, 2014:

The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. […]

The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. […] Nevada’s entry would secure both the election [of Lincoln] and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.

The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. […]

Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845.[…]

The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:

“The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.”

So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Poor MLK is Spinning in His Grave

Poor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
First, his memorial statue was sculpted by a Chinese, as if a talented black artist couldn’t be found in all of America. For that matter, the entire MLK memorial was made in China.
Now comes news that at the dedication for his memorial in Washington, D.C. last Friday, MLK’s 48-year-old daughter Bernice King said that Abraham Lincoln signed the Declaration of Independence!
Bernice King said: “But as I close, I close with the recognition that daddy is standing, Lincoln is seated. Lincoln [is] remembered for signing the Declaration of Independence. Daddy being remembered as standing up for truth and standing up for justice and standing up for righteousness and standing up for peace and standing up for freedom. Daddy is now standing on the National Mall in our nation’s capital.”
You can see and hear MLK’s daughter for yourself by going to The Blaze.
~Eowyn & Steve

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Little Johnny Comes Through Again

The teacher said, “Let’s begin by reviewing some American History.
Who said ‘Give me Liberty , or give me Death’?”
She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Little Johnny a bright Navajo Indian boy, who had his hand up: ‘Patrick Henry, 1775′ he said.
‘Very good!’
Who said, ‘Government of the People, by the People, for the People, shall not perish from the Earth?’
Again, no response except from Little Johnny, ‘Abraham Lincoln, 1863′.
The teacher snapped at the class, ‘Class, you should be ashamed, Little Johnny knows more about history than you do.’
She heard a loud whisper: ‘Screw the Indians,’
‘Who said that?’ she demanded.
Little Johnny put his hand up, ‘General Custer, 1862.
At that point, a student in the back said, ‘I’m gonna puke.’
The teacher glares around and asks, ‘All right!! Now who said that!?’
Again, Little Johnny says, ‘George Bush, to the Japanese Prime Minister, 1991.’
Now furious, another student yells, ‘Oh yeah? Suck this!’
Little Johnny jumps out of his chair waving his hand and shouts to the teacher, ‘Bill Clinton, to Monica Lewinsky, 1997!
Now with almost mob hysteria someone said ‘You little shit. If you say anything else, I’ll kill you.’
Little Johnny frantically yells at the top of his voice, ‘Michael Jackson to the child witnesses testifying against him, 2004.’
The teacher fainted.
And as the class gathered around the teacher on the floor, someone said, ‘Oh shit, We’re screwed!’
Little Johnny said quietly, “The American people, November 4, 2008.”

~Steve~         H/T     Joseph

Please follow and like us:
0
 

To Obama, from We the People

I’ve received several email tips from readers (the most recent from Wendy) for this video that I first posted on FOTM on May 17, 2010.  It’s so good it deserves another viewing, so I’m returning this to FOTM’s front page.

Since this video was posted onto YouTube on February 10, 2010, it’s had a phenomenal 10,121,353 views. Of the 15,520 people who had rated the video, 13,400 said they like it, but 2,120 mind-numbed Obamabots gave it a “thumbs down” (I dislike it).
Please consider going to the video’s website on YouTube (CLICK HERE) and give it a “thumbs up”!
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0