-
The Inoperative Jay Carney
May 23, 2013 | 134 comments
-
IRS Union Chief Stonewalls
May 21, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
May 20, 2013 | 69 comments
-
The Liberal Union Behind the IRS
May 16, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?
May 14, 2013 | 64 comments
Eminentoes
The Olbermann Window
Liberal reality reflected in Lincoln blunder and lesser network’s defense of bad history.
(Page 2 of 3)
BUT FOR ALL ITS SILLINESS, this harmless episode illustrates in its own distinctive fashion precisely why, as mentioned, a look through The Olbermann Window shows the credibility of the American left in its various guises gushing away faster than you can say “BP.”
Just as Lincoln’s election losses are factually recorded by historians as respected as Doris Kearns Goodwin, Harvard’s late David Herbert Donald (a two-time Pulitzer winner) and the long-passed Carl Sandburg (whose Lincoln biography won a Pulitzer), even a glance through The Olbermann Window shows the American Left’s stunning losses across the board are being factually recorded in everything from the unemployment numbers to the deficit numbers to the health care write-off numbers to President Obama’s poll numbers to, well, the numbers that are the ratings for MSNBC and Keith Olbermann himself.
These numbers are not just not pretty. They’re downright ugly. And they tell a considerable tale of what happens when a failed political philosophy is hauled out of the historical dustbin, given a shiny new paint job and sold to the American people as something called “Hope and Change.” If they’ll just climb through The Olbermann Window they will find the land of milk and honey.
Not.
Surprise, surprise. Climbing through The Olbermann Window, one finds that, as with the Lincoln episode, the facts are, well, not really the facts as first presented.
As our friends at the Wall Street Journal have pointed out, wealth redistribution was never listed by Democrats as the reason to pass health care — until it was passed. “Only days after the bill passed,” says the paper, “Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus exulted that it would result in ‘a leveling’ of the ‘maldistribution of income in America,’ adding that ‘The wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle-income class is left behind.’” Olbermann Window translation? The famous Obama promise of no tax increases for those making $250,000 or less are, well, toast. But that will, à la the Lincoln story, just not be admitted to.
Now comes the abrupt recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick to run Medicare and Medicaid, the same Dr. Berwick who said while in the obscurity of no federal appointment “any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must — must — redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate.” Understanding such views would be, well, troublesome in a Senate confirmation hearing, the nominee just slips through The Olbermann Window and comes out a government appointee by presidential fiat. No fuss, no muss, no apology needed.
Looking through The Olbermann Window I heard a denunciation of Rush Limbaugh because he was said to have declaimed that the President was only president because he’s black. The Olbermann Window charge: Rush Limbaugh is a racist.
As it happened, I had heard every word of the original Rush broadcast that day, and sure enough, Mr. Olbermann had deliberately — say again, deliberately — left off the first part of what Rush had said. Reacting to the assertion by liberal columnist Cynthia Tucker that GOP Chairman Michael Steele was only chairman because he was black, Rush took her up on her dotty, not to mention racist, thought and promptly applied it to Obama. Nary a word of this when looking through The Olbermann Window. Just a simple, cherry-picked flat-out untruth with no reference — none — to original context.
One could go on endlessly here, because in fact this isn’t simply about Olbermann on Lincoln or Limbaugh. This is about liberals, honesty, and telling the facts. They are, as the saying goes, entitled to their own opinions — but not their own facts.
WHAT IS STRIKING about watching Olbermann’s show is the degree to which it depends not on facts — but, to be accurate - the deliberate misrepresentation of facts. Whether it’s Lincoln or Limbaugh. In this sense, Olbermann is not unlike the newest liberal media episode with CBS’s Bob Schieffer. The host of Face the Nation had Attorney General Eric Holder for a half hour — and never managed a single question on the Black Panthers case that resulted in the resignation of DOJ lawyer Christian Adams. This story doesn’t exist in the world of the liberal media. Imagine that.
What really amazes with Olbermann is the brazenly false presentations upon which the discussion of issues proceeds. A favorite tactic here is simple name calling of The Other Guy. Racist for Limbaugh. Idiot for Palin. In essence, he will say with a grin that the mother of Conservative X swims out to meet troop ships. Which in turn demands Olbermann run his show something like this: “Now, Guest Z is joining us: Guest Z, let’s talk about Conservatives and Venereal Disease.”
One wonders whether what would seem a rather obvious thought ever crosses Olbermann’s mind and that of his MSNBC bosses: that for Olbermann to go on as he does about a Beck or Sharron Angle or a Sarah Palin actually helps these people. Does anyone in charge think for a moment that Dan Foster’s “Worst Person” award — or even my unnamed dismissal as being of a “lesser blog” hurts either of us in the writerly precincts in which we dwell at National Review and The American Spectator. Ohhhhhh pleeeeeeze Mr. Keith…don’t throw us into the Liberal Briar Patch! Oh nooooooooooooo!
One can only imagine the fundraising opportunities for the Angle campaign. Nevadans gathering together — and paying money! — to watch some bozo New York TV guy insult Their Sharron!
Indeed, the nuttiness of all this was picked up by Noel Sheppard over at Brent Bozell’s NewsBusters. Sheppard spotted the Lincoln and Limbaugh stories in a blink, as seen here.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (101) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/13/the-olbermann-window
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.13.10 @ 7:11AM
I am surprised to find out that anyone watches Keith Olbermanm a know pathological liar.
What's not surprising is that many in the MSM must quote people out of context to prove their point.
In the meantime, Obama slides home free after each and every one of his lies.
Nevada| 7.13.10 @ 4:26PM
Residing in Nevada I am afforded the luxury of the great Harry Reid - and his absurd political attack campaign against his opponant, S. Angle.
Continually she is misquoted and taken out of context. Unfortunately, many people will believe what they see on TV as truth for no more reason than it was on TV or other forms of media.
Harry has a campaign surrently running citing Angle's comment how it is not her job as a US Senator to create jobs.
Thank God We have Harry Reid to wisk Nevada to the top spot in the nation with a prestigous
14% + unemployment rate.
WTG Harry !!
JimH| 7.13.10 @ 8:08AM
With Keith's journalistic background, maybe he was referring to Lincoln's wrestling record.
Darrell| 7.13.10 @ 10:54AM
I was thinking the same thing. He knows more about baseball than he does about politics. Olberdummy should stick to his strengths.
Eric Cartman| 7.13.10 @ 11:17AM
Why ruin baseball? What did it ever do to you? I already don't watch NBC football because of the Adorable Hamster. Now I have to hear the fool bleat on for nine innings? I won't do it,I tell ya!
Steve| 7.13.10 @ 11:55AM
Eric, I don't watch NBC football anymore because of the supercilious Olby as well.
Eric Cartman| 7.13.10 @ 2:28PM
An army of two! I was coming out of the kitchen with salsa, chips and con carne dip (and a nice cool beer) when lo and behold I see and hear that putz! I watched "How to Lose A Guy in 10 Dates" - or some such nonsense - with my smiling, smug wife. Had enough of NBC. Don't even watch it.
Jimmy Carter| 7.13.10 @ 3:58PM
I have never returned to NBC sports since they did that asinine program in the dark with the green glow.
They asked that we turn things off to "save the planet," on television no doubt with paying advertisers, so I turned off NBC.
jose goldfinger| 7.13.10 @ 8:09AM
It remains a mystery to me that otherwise intelligent people still profess their love for the mythical Lincoln when the real Lincoln was a tyrant, a racist and a war criminal.
It's true that Kearns-Goodwin is a respected historian, if by respected historian you mean a disgraced plagerist , who conveniently ignores all of Lincoln's dirty laundry and like most liberals lives in an alternative universe.
Sadly, when it comes to Lincoln, many so called conservatives live in the same fantasy-land as the Olbermanns and Goodwins.
tonypal| 7.13.10 @ 9:03AM
It's an even bigger mystery that someone who probably fancies himself an intelligent person cannot spell properly (the word is "plagiarist", not "plagerist").
L. Ross| 7.13.10 @ 11:50AM
English Majors of the world, UNTIE!
Tony| 7.13.10 @ 4:51PM
Or this: "...could care less about Olbermann's antics" Should be "..Couldn't care less.."
Jacobin| 7.13.10 @ 2:06PM
Lincoln was assuring border-state representatives that he 'had no plans' to invade any rebel state at the same minute his army was occupying Alexandria and Arlington, VA. He was a great writer, though.
Mike Giles| 7.13.10 @ 8:08PM
Washington, DC was the nations capitol. It was right next to an area in rebellion - Virginia. Thus it probably would be fortified. Fortifications are normally placed outside the area to be defended allowing for a defense in depth. If you are placing fortifications around the District, the would have to extend into Maryland and Virginia (Arlington and Alexandria). Nothing "sinister" or "underhanded" about it.
jcrue| 7.14.10 @ 1:01PM
It's funny to see the names one can be called for having a pair of stones in their pants.
Media Campaign 2010| 7.13.10 @ 8:17AM
Mr. Lord
Please start a media campaign calling these "news" anchors, cough, cough, propaganda artists out.
coal carrier| 7.13.10 @ 8:22AM
Olbermann is another brainless media liberal who makes up sxxx as he goes along and then sells it as factual news. He should grow back his Groucho Marx mustache and go back to and stay with the sports channel, in my humble opinion.
Bob K.| 7.13.10 @ 5:47PM
He didn't know sports either.
ggoblue| 7.13.10 @ 10:07PM
i am afraid he cannot go back...he makes enemies and burns bridges every where he goes....
he is an ass and a buffoon.
i look forward to watching him and maddow on election night.
brat magursky| 7.13.10 @ 8:24AM
K.O 's high watermark were the predictable "guuh"s on Sportscenter when a player came up just short. I had often wondered if he left SC to send his career in a downward spiral or Mr Eisen forced him in that direction...now I know....maybe now we can shove the worst of the worst Bill Mahr thru the Olbermann window. Just make sure it's on the 39th floor please....
scot| 7.13.10 @ 8:59AM
I agree Goldfinger. I dont understand the love affair with Lincoln. He did free the slaves and that was great and needed to be done but how he went about it was criminal in itself. I respect what Lincoln was able to do but dont consider him a great or even good president. Warlord maybe. I may be biased though since I grew up in the deep south ;)
Doctor Right| 7.13.10 @ 9:39AM
Scot:
I used to feel the same way about Lincoln - ambivalent, at best. Instead of congratulating him for freeing the slaves, I grumbled that he allowed the country to be drawn into a needless war that cost 600,000 American lives.
Boy, was I wrong!
After reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's masterful tome "A Team of Rivals" (yes, Ms. Goodwin is a Lib...But she's also a brilliant historian), I came away with a newfound respect for Lincoln...An "awe" even.
Like Reagan, Lincoln was the RIGHT man at the RIGHT time. He was possessed of enormous political acumen which he used to the betterment of the country, and not himself. He understood people, and he understood politicians. Also like Reagan, he did NOT have a runaway ego - Lincoln probably would have agreed with Reagan that you can accomplish a great deal if you don't care who gets the credit. To that end, he surrounded himself with highly competent men like William Seward and Salmon Chase - men who had been his rivals for the 1860 Republican nomination - and put them in positions of vast responsibility where they served with distinction.
Also like Reagan, Lincoln was a true Patriot. And he wasn't afraid of criticism, either. He did what he believed was right, and was willing to let history be the judge.
Lincoln was an incredible man. He bore the weight of the nation on his shoulders while also dealing with terrible personal tragedies, including the loss of his beloved 10-year old son, and the debilitating depression of his wife, Mary.
Give him a break - He's surely earned it.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 10:24AM
Speaking of distorted truths, what slaves did Lincoln free? NONE, not one. There was no power granted in the US constitution to override the very instrument creating an office of limited, delegated powers. As slavery was allowed under the US constitution nothing short of an amendment could have freed the slaves.
Lincoln was very clear in his 1st inaugural address that he didn't care if one slave was freed, but only about preserving the union. Unfortunately for Lincoln, the US constitution guarantees through the 9th amendment that the people's unalienable right to separate from a government are not to be disparaged. Any weight Lincoln had he justly deserved, may as well applaud Hitler for how well he bore up in his war on other countries and the mass murders under his tyranny.
Again, the fact that he in his war to preserve the union destroyed it, and threw aside the US constitution makes him the most despicable and unpraiseworthy president ever. Those 600,000 deaths were not for liberty, but tyranny, and so those who love the idea of a great empire must give credit where none is due and thus make him the Great Emancipator, despite that proclamation being unauthoritative and merely a political ploy. Ignored are not just the lives spent not to free people, but to subjugate them, but the lives taken when the draft/conscription was protested and many thrown in prison for that, the newspapers shut down, and editors and owners imprisoned in the north, the violation of Habeas Corpus which power was given to the congress and not the president. There is so much more, but to applaud a tyrant for being able to work well (if true) with others in exercising tyranny is absurd. Let's now congratulate Castro and his pals for what they have accomplished in Cuba.
Fenestra| 7.13.10 @ 11:04AM
There's always a crackpot to pee in the pool of discourse.
South Carolina announced that it would secede if Lincoln was elected president. He was, they did. The military response was to the taking of Fort Sumter. The blacks were freed in rebel states, which at that time had no legal status except as conquered territories.
Ah, but you don't care. As long as you can display your deluded mental incontinence you're happy.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 11:38AM
Conquered territories? How idiotic! Let's even go with territories and not sovereign nations, and we need to clarify that they were not conquered until after the EP, so then under what authority would Lincoln be able to free the slaves? Presidents don't make law or have authority to act outside of the US constitution. You can't even get your facts straight and accuse me of mental incontinence.
If they were still states in the union that Lincoln was "supressing" insurrection in then again he would still have no constitutional authority to free the slaves. And again he never stated that it was intent to do away with slavery.
As for Ft. Sumter, the fact is that Lincoln sent battleships into sovereign waters and the south showed great restraint in their response to this act of aggression, and made sure that in all their bombing of Ft. Sumter not one live was taken. Remember Ft. Sumter was 500 miles away from the nearest northern state and thus no longer needed for common defense, yet Lincoln refused to negotiate with the south for the return of Ft. Sumter due to his refusal to acknowledge the southern states unalienable right to separate as stated in the Declaration of Independence, confirmed by the discarding of the Articles of Confederation despite Articles 6 and 13 both prohibiting the establishment of the US constitution other than through the congress, and further protected by the 9th amendment. Oh yeah and those states that in their ratifying of the US constitution made it clear that any powers delegated could be withdrawn. As the 7th article of the US constitution makes clear the US constitution is between the states and thus all parties must acknowledge the US constitution as conditional upon it's faithful execution and the states the ultimate judges of that faithfulness.
Now back to your conquered territories hoo-haw. If they were territories and not states under what authority then did the congresses have to demand of them that they would ratify certain amendments to the US constitution? How can a territory ratify something to an agreement it is not part of? If the states were then fully states again how can the congresses have demanded that they ratify amendments as a qualification for readmittance to a union that accordong to Lincoln and the congresses they had never left? Which compulsion also is not authorized by the US constitution and cannot be as the US constitution is based on delegated powers, and the southern states surely did not delegate power to the north to compel them by force to submit to them. Let's not forget that Article 4, section4 guarantee of a republican form of government to the STATES, and thus people outside of a state cannot determine matters for that state.
mental incontinence...lmfao
Doctor Right| 7.13.10 @ 11:59AM
Lincoln did NOT have to negotiate with South Carolina for the return of Ft. Sumter. Ft. Sumter was FEDERAL PROPERTY. The seizure of Ft. Sumter was illegal.
Fenestra| 7.13.10 @ 12:04PM
Really? Do you spin while you spew?
Explain;
"the south showed great restraint in their response to this act of aggression, and made sure that in all their bombing of Ft. Sumter not one live was take"
How did they do that? Smart bombs?
Fort Sumter was federal property, and rather than wait and argue the point, the South stupidly attacked.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 1:41PM
Thanks for contributing to my argument. Thank you for also showing you can't read as I already mentioned Lincoln's inaugural address.
Points you continue to ignore (in no particular order);
1) Ft. Sumter was located in SC's sovereign waters.
2) Ft. Sumter had been ceded for the purpose of common defense and as the nearest northern state was 500 miles away no longer needed, and without treating with SC the men there would have died anyway as any attempt to supply them would be and was an act of war.
3) Secession. Unlike the US constitution the A of C actually made reference to a perpetual union, yet that union was seceded from in violation of Articles 6...No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.
and 13....Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
Declaration of Independence...That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness
4) Suspension of Habeas Corpus...The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
The above is from Article 1, Section 9 of the US constitution stating the powers of the CONGRESS, not the president.
5) Conscription..power to raise armies does not confer a power to compel men to service, nor can conscription be allowed when it would take away the power of the states to have their militias, and not then be able to defend themselves as free states as the 2nd guarantees.
Killing those protesting the draft certainly violates the freedom of speech which was being exercised as per the 1st.
6) Shutting down newspapers and imprisoning those owning or working for those papers. Another clear gross act of tyranny in violation of guaranteed rights.
7) Arresting lawfully elected legislators in Maryland.
8) Sending in troops to intimidate and imprison voters in 64.
9) The deaths and destruction in violation of the stated purposes of the US constitution, such as liberty and tranquility. Simply allow the southern states to depart in peace and no 600, 000 deaths and destruction of the south needed.
10) Lincon's allowing war to be conducted on civilians, including the killing of slaves and raping of women.
11) The union was voluntary and to say that states can be forced into the union is contradictory. So if the South didn't surrender, kill every last one is the answer for protecting person and property, and providing for the general welfare and common defense of the united STATES?
I appreciate all your previous responses where you relied so heavily on the US constitution, the country's other founding documents and history, and so much established law, not to mention that you ignore that one generation is not bound by the decisions of another, and that an agreement made by others for their benefit cannot be said to obligate the present generation ever to a form of government that they see as not being conducive to their well being.
Mike Giles| 7.13.10 @ 8:20PM
Fort Sumpter had been ceded by the state of South Carolina to the Federal government. As such the state of South Carolina had ceded any and all rights to that property. They had as little right to Sumpter, as the Iranian revolutionaries had to the US embassy. Both were sovereign US territory. The secession of the southern states was a change to the Constitutional order of the United States. As such, it should have been accomplished like any other Constitutional change - via the amendment process. State Secession Ordinances could not possibly have had greater authority than the Constitution, which upon its ratification was recognized as the supreme law of the land.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 8:58PM
I never said Ft. Sumter belonged to SC, but as it was in the sovereign waters of SC the north could certainly not supply it, nor did it serve the purpose of common defense. DO you actually believe that Lincoln would have held on to Ft. Sumter unless he was denying the south's right to leave?
Please try to read the actual words I have written.
Brad Anderson| 9.7.10 @ 1:42PM
Kindly quote the text, by which the Constitution relinquishes the national sovereignty of ANY state?
Didn't think so.
Brad Anderson | 9.7.10 @ 1:40PM
Are you one of those fools who still thinks that the states didn't have the sovereign right to secede-- or are you one of the babies who thinks that this didn't MATTER because "they broke our pillow-fort!" as if sovereign nations don't have the right to defend themselves against invasion, and to remove declared hostiles from their land.
Either way it's sad, and warns of the coming disaster when your type is signalled to go to war, since you Lincoln-cultists love that kool-aid.
Doctor Right| 7.13.10 @ 11:56AM
Len,
I suppose you've never heard of the "Emancipation Proclamation"?
In essence, Lincoln freed ALL the slaves. And by doing so, he realized that the Southern states would react as they did, but by then, it was a foregone conclusion.
Once the Confederacy was vanquished, all the the blacks living within it's borders were INSTANTLY freed by the Proclamation.
To compare Lincoln to Castro is not only stupid, it demonstrates a willful ignorance of history.
BTW...Per the US Constitution, the southern states DID NOT have the right to secede. Now...WHO "threw aside" the Constitution..???
Len| 7.13.10 @ 12:21PM
Way to ignore my postings. Nothing in the US constitution prohibits separation, and in fact the 9th amendment makes clear that all rights of the people are to be honored. I know, I know some silly goose always tries to bring up the prohibition on states from entering into treaties and such, but once a states takes back it's delegated authority it is no longer in the union and the US constitution has no more meaning to that state than it does China. Gotta love so called conservatives who have no idea of what the US constitution actually is and what it means.
As for Ft. Sumter, AGAIN, I addressed that. Ft. Sumter happened to be located in the sovereign waters of South Carolina so I suppose you would rather that SC had just blown the convoy to pieces in reaction to the North's act of war by intruding into sovereign territory.
AGAIN...geez really do I have to do this again?? Am I dealing with retards? The EP was meaningless as under the limited powers granted through the US constitution Lincoln and no president for that matter could exercise a power not granted. I might as well proclaim that all the peasants in China are free to have as many kids as they want as it will still have the same power of law as Lincoln's EP.
Sorry lot of constitutional illiterates.
Fenestra| 7.13.10 @ 12:42PM
"I might as well proclaim that all the peasants in China are free to have as many kids as they want as it will still have the same power of law as Lincoln's EP"
Yes, and if you were able to militarily conquer China you could put your wishes to effect.
As I asked, do you spin while you spew?
There were no battleships sent to Fort Sumter, Lincoln guaranteed the supply ships had no arms, and was trying for a peaceful resolution.
South Carolina stupidly attacked.
The only reason no one was killed was that Major Anderson wisely left the three top turrets unmanned, as the Charleston Militia was surely trying to kill Yankees that day.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 12:59PM
AGAIN OH DENSE ONE!! The US constitution grants no authority to presidents to make law, so the EP was meaningless. If you think differently show me where in the US constitution such a power is lodged.
RCV| 7.13.10 @ 2:30PM
I've already done so, Len, in a long response to your challenge on another article. Your Confederacy is dead, son. Try living in this century, not the 19th.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 3:19PM
RCV, what you believe you did, and what you actually did are two different things.
An example; you try to use the prohibition against states from entering into treaties as saying that secession is not allowed. That is only possible by reading into the words much that is not there. It does not say a state may not leave the union, only that as part of the union a state may not exercise a power granted to be exercised for a common benefit. Once a state takes back a delegated power, then it is no longer obligated to allow others to exercise it. It is just silly and poor logic and an example of the lack properly understanding the federal government as a fiduciary agent for the states to read into any clause a prohibition on separation.
AGAIN, NOTHING IN THE US CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT A STATE MUST STAY. NOWHERE!!!!
Nancy in NC| 7.13.10 @ 4:57PM
Please tell Obama. He's making Congress more irrelevant everyday.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 6:00PM
Congress has made itself irrelevant by continually allowing presidents to commit high crimes and misdemeanors without being impeached or at least reigned in. FDR, Eisenhower, Truman, really every modern president has been dismissive of the limitations imposed on them, and yet it only gets worse. I believe they prefer it this way, as it allows one individual to more often be the scapegoat.
Doctor Right| 7.13.10 @ 4:32PM
Hey, Genius...
South Carolina DID NOT have "sovereign waters"; it was not then, and it is not now, an independent country.
The US Constitution DOES NOT grant any state the right to secede (except...maybe...Texas). If you think it does, cite the passage.
Otherwise, dummy...shut the hell up.
(Why must we deal with retards and constitutional illiterates..?)
BTW...The glorious South got their asses handed to them...Deal with it.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 5:13PM
As I said sorry lot of constitutional illiterates. You are correct that the US constitution doesn't grant any state the right to secede, it cannot grant rights which belong to the people you sad sack. The states established the US constitution between themselves and thus it is the federal government/US constitution that is dependent on the states for rights/powers, not the other way around. So as no power was granted, there will be no passage, but there is the ninth , AS, ONCE AGAIN, I ALREADY CITED!!!! Just because a right is not mentioned does not mean it exists. As many stated in the debates concerning the Bill of Rights, it is not possible to list all of the rights of the people, and so an omission of a right is not to be taken as saying that a right does not exist. States are nothing but creatures of the people, or polities created for a particular group within a particular area and as such the people making up a polity are always free to exercise their UNALIENABLE right to separate. AGAIN!!! Try reading the D of I.
Glorious South? I never said that bunch of tyrannical slaveowning cretins were glorious, and frankly I think they deserved what happened. My concern here is federalism, constitutionality and the foundation of government...natural rights.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 12:23PM
BTW..where does the US constitution prohibit secession/separation??? NOWHERE..way to make things up.
Interested Conservative| 7.13.10 @ 12:54PM
Len - Occam's Law applies. Your analysis is too complicated.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 1:02PM
I already made is simple, and the dense ones didn't understand. Typical of so called conservative who care nothing for the US constitution, the Declaration of Independence and liberty. Rather they delight in a great power doing "great" things, and anything outside of that narrative is too threatening, much like Olberman.
ds80| 7.13.10 @ 1:53PM
Len - excellent job honing your 10th grade debate team skills.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 2:00PM
ds80 - excellent job at being a snippy little elementary kid, wanna meet on the playground?
Point is, you ignore the facts in an ad hominem attack in an attempt to undermine what is the truth, so go back to your little sheltered echo chamber, where no one breaks in with something that disturbs your version of reality.
Fenestra| 7.13.10 @ 1:07PM
Len, way to go with the straw man argument.
Let me quote Lincoln's first inaugural address:
"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them."
And this;
"That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
And again:
"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices."
Educate yourself, here I'll even give you a link:
http://showcase.netins.net/web.....1inaug.htm
Dai Alanye | 7.13.10 @ 1:47PM
Once nine states agreed to the Constitution the union was finalized, with no right of secession offered even for the remaining four original states. A bit like Hotel California, whether you like it or not.
The so-called right to secession is a fairytale.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 2:12PM
So then our war of secession from Great Britain was based on fraudulent imagings? Likwise then the US constitution is invalid as it was established through an act of secession? Also, those state constitutions that included the Declaration of Indpendence were meaningless, as is any mention at all of any right?
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness
The above is stating that it is man's right to separate/secede from a government that is not working for his good. Say something that makes sense. Back up your silly assertion that the right to secede is a fariy tale. Am I then only the property of others unless I can exert enough force to free myself? Why all the often uproar at this site concerning constitutional and rights violations?
Doctor Right| 7.13.10 @ 4:36PM
No, the Brits were THRILLED to let us go our own separate ways in 1776!
That's why they threw us a party, with lot's of wine and cheese, and ice-cream, too! Then they hugged us, and said "Bon voyage, and Best of Luck!"
Oh, waitaminnit...
No, they didn't do that.
They fought a war to keep us as an official British Colony, didn't they?
So what happened?
Oh, yeah! France and Spain recognized us as an independent nation!
And then we won, too! Imagine that!!
So...In other words...If the "glorious Confederacy" had won, we wouldn't be having this argument now, would we??
Regardless...The US Constitution does NOT allow for secession.
If you think it does, you are WRONG.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 6:03PM
It doesn't have to allow what is not prohibited.
Not difficult.
chester arthur| 7.13.10 @ 3:16PM
Once 9 states agreed,there was no right of secession?So that agreement,thoroughly documented,granting the Commonwealth of Virginia,for example,the right to withdraw from a union they entered only because they were specifically granted that right,didn't happen because some historical and hysterical illiterate says so?Wow,has president Urkel got a career for you.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 4:10PM
BTW, your stupid little comment here ignores history, as both RI and NC did not join the union until after the 1st congress had already commenced, and did so due to the fact that the Bill of Rights were proposed. No one came along and said join or have war commenced.
Try learning a little sometime.
Litvi| 7.13.10 @ 2:23PM
Dr. R: you sure he freed "ALL" the slaves? Or just those in seceded states? To my understanding the EP didn't apply to Federal territories.
What do you think of the notion that the EP was a strategic play, meant to demoralize the South by creating subterfuge and chaos?
Doctor Right| 7.13.10 @ 4:39PM
Litvi:
Actually, you are correct.
When the EP was first announced, it only applied to the states "in rebellion".
After the war, it was applied throughout.
Nice catch!
Scott | 7.13.10 @ 2:28PM
-Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?
-I don't listen to hip-hop.
George| 7.13.10 @ 3:49PM
Len, there are two of us. If people would just read non PC publications they would learn exactly what Lincoln stood for and what happened to our "free country" while he was in office. And he still drove us into a war that claimed 600000 American lives.
Nick| 7.13.10 @ 4:51PM
Len,
I am loathe to get back into this debate, but I have a couple of questions.
Why would the people of the several States agree to form a federal government, with the power to tax and build forts, roads, and other improvements in other states, if those states could just up and leave whenever they felt like it? Why would the people of New York send their tax dollars to South Caroling to build Ft. Sumter, if South Carolina could leave anytime it wanted?
Also, if it is the people who have the right to secede, can a person declare independence on his own land? Can we have millions of independent nations in America?
By the way, Lincoln, as C-in-C, freed the slaves in areas under martial law.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 5:30PM
C-in-C first, all that means is general of generals. Another constitutional illiterate who wouldn't recognize the US constitution if it jumped up and bit him in the heinie. It is absurd to say that acting as C-in-C grants the president powers to go beyond the US constitution. If the framers and ratifiers had wanted that they would have said so. It is congress that declares war, it is the president that executes war, not makes law ever!! Stop reading modern day apologies for executive abuses and instead study the founders understanding of what the president was meant to be able to do.
As far as leaving the union whenever, why would anyone leave it was doing what it is supposed to? So no state would just get up and leave if the union was actually bringing about general welfare and providing common defense.
Rather why would any sane group of people commit themselves to a union knowing that man is corrupt and that there is room for abuse and not leave themselves an out. BTW, if you actually bothered learning about the US constitution you will see that some argued that the Articles of Confederation were violated by some states not giving the revenue due, and that for this reason they were in the right for asking for a new , stronger constitution. This is why the power to tax was placed with the federal government in the new constitution. A big mistake, as otherwise the federal government would lack much of the ability is has now to violate the US constitution and bully the people and the states.
Also, as evidenced by the colonies, secession does not happen overnight, but only after a time of abuses, or increased differences.
Shouldn't bother with this simplistic, naive question, but sure anyone can declare independence, it's just a matter of practicality. In other words it wouldn't work. This applies also to secession, it is only a matter of practicality, or just a willingness to die for principle.
Keyster McGee| 7.13.10 @ 10:57PM
Dear sir, I do believe it's hiny, not heinie.
jose goldfinger| 7.13.10 @ 1:34PM
Dr. Right,
Here's some other recommended reading on Mr. Lincoln:
The Real Lincoln - Thomas Dilorenzo
Lincoln Unmasked - Thomas Dilorenzo
Lincoln Uber Alles - John Avery Emison
Petronius| 7.13.10 @ 8:59AM
K.O. from what little I see of him comes on like a Dan Rather wannabe. That 6:30 anchor chair is soooo close. But that smarmy Brian Williams emotes every story to the nth degree too well. Not having enough of the Oprah gene relegates him to Off Broadcast where the only way to get noticed is by throwing boners. Olberman would do well in a remake of the Monty Python sketch, Joke Warfare.
RustyG| 7.13.10 @ 9:01AM
Never punch "down" Mr. Lord, and never argue with a child.
Yosemeti Sam| 7.13.10 @ 11:08AM
Now, really, what's to be expected of a guy that uses Bryl-creem so - LIBERALLY!
MikeB| 7.13.10 @ 11:45AM
Has Olbermann ever had a tough guest on? All you ever see are devout liberals agreeing with his suppositions. It seems as though his sole purpose in life is to criticize FOX News and Bill O'Reilly. The ratings show how effective that is.
Bydand76| 7.13.10 @ 11:48AM
Mr. Lord
I think the majority of people who frequent here have probably written off tig-wits like Olbermann and the Mad-cow Rachel along time ago.
To be perfectly frank with you this is really par for the course for these self-proclaimed journalists.
I think you could probably make a career pointing out how many times these MSM losers get everything wrong on a daily basis!
It is not a big suprise that they cherry pick everything that Rush says or does. This has happened so many times now it has become almost redundant in its frequency. Just ask Rush himself!
Don't get me wrong. This is a great article and you do a really good job pointing out the mendacities and hypocrisy of the Olber-dork, but you are running seriously close to getting the dreaded:
"Hello Captain Obvious!"
Pro Libertate!
Oldefarte| 7.13.10 @ 12:24PM
Jeffrey, let me state the political incorrectness that you are too kind to express. Keith Olbermann is a MORON! That said, the explanation/answer to MSNBC's parade of fellow imbiciles [Maddow, Matthews, Reed, etc] is that these extremist liberal BS ARTISTS are simply preaching to a small/finite TV audience composed of college professors and Hollywood actors [with fifth grade educations]. This explains why MSNBC's audience ratings are, and forever will be, small/non-existent. The typical Democrat constituent today is either ignorant or completely stupid [translation: HAS NOT INTELLIGENCE]. They either are drop-outs are social promotion graduates of high school. They neither do not care or are too stupid to care about politics in general, and certainly not about the political programming of MSNBC. They're either watching THE AMAZING RACE, some TV sitcom, a sporting event, American Idol, MINUTE TO WIN IT, etc. If they tuned into Olbermann's show, etc , they would not be able to comprehend what he/Olbermannn was saying [and if so, would not care less]. NBC is simply subsidizing MSNBC's poor revenues for political purposes!!!!!!!!!!
Jacobite| 7.13.10 @ 2:13PM
In fairness, I have to report that Glen Beck appears to have no idea what Reconstruction was, as I heard him claim that, under Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws and racism were institutionalized. If he ever gets around to watching "Birth of a Nation" he might get at least a hint of what went on under Federal occupation. God knows what he imagines it was all about.
beric | 7.13.10 @ 1:00PM
Maybe they should star to learn the ABC again!
Fenestra| 7.13.10 @ 1:11PM
I just simply have to put this here.
"I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
My eyes are watering.
Frank Drackman| 7.13.10 @ 1:44PM
The Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to the Slaves in the States remaining in the Union, i.e. the Slaves Lincoln actually had power to free, he didn't.
Frank
Mike Giles| 7.13.10 @ 8:30PM
Unlike the occasional neo confederate, Lincoln didn't only pretend to had a great deal of respect for the Constitution. Lincoln could not - and did not free any slaves within the areas controlled by the Union. However he could - and did - free those slaves in areas still in rebellion, as a war measure. Hopefully to deprive the South of a great resource, by encouraging slaves to run away. Or better still to cut their masters throats while they slept - and then run away.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 9:01PM
Great! Another constitutional power not even spoken of in any of the debates concerning ratification and it's framing.
Love it....WAR MEASURE...which clause is that?
Nick| 7.13.10 @ 2:26PM
I posted this over the weekend, to comment on Mr. Klein's blog post:
Like most of the liberals who post here, Olbermann-child thinks that if he reads The New Yorker, listens to NPR, and reads David McCullough, he is an expert on American politics, history, and current events.
Overbite, who is starting to resemble algore by the day (especially in girth), will believe any piece of lefty propaganda he reads, and then regurgitate it.
When he restarted his PMS-NBC show (in '02 or '03, I think), I was lucky enough to catch Olby do a segment on how Rockefeller, Ford, and other evil businessmen had conspired to get rid of the steam-powered automobile.
Steam-powered cars were somehow enviro-friendly, you see, according to the Worst Person in the Worrrrrrrrrld!
As I watched, I knew he was spouting lies.
A couple of commercial breaks later, Olby announced, with much glee, that he had Jay Leno on the line. Leno owns several steam-powered cars and is an auto expert. Overbite must have thought Jay was going to praise his re-writing of history.
Instead, Leno proceeded to explain that steam-powered cars were very dangerous and had a nasty tendency to blow-up. Many people were killed or scalded by these cars. The market-place picked the winner: the internal combustion engine. Not oil magnates and Henry Ford.
The look Olbermann-child's face was priceless, as he realized that Leno had called to correct the record, and refute his assertions, not to praise him. I wish Glenn Beck, Hannity, or O'Reilly would get that clip and play it sometime. It was great.
chester arthur| 7.13.10 @ 3:20PM
As employees of the network tell it,Keith is a great friend to the janitorial staff,as they get overtime to clean up around his chair after the show.It gets a little slippery.
danfromatlanta| 7.13.10 @ 3:55PM
Judging by the way things have shaken out these days as a result of the chain of events; The Emancipation Proclamation, the North's victory over the South, and no comprehensive public or private efforts to rehabilitate freed slaves to functional members of a free society, I would say it was a tremendous failure on Lincoln's part to have freed slaves, but never answered the question, "now what?" regarding the futures of former slaves. They started out at a disadvantage, and as soon as they began to gain parity with white majorities, Johnson's "Great Society" destroyed the foundations of thier advancements, and made them virtually an underclass.
George| 7.13.10 @ 5:26PM
LantaDan, and you forgot the near death of a Nation under the pretense of some noble act not completely thought out. The sins of the fathers......
Rob Hobart| 7.13.10 @ 5:59PM
I find it very pathetic that the Confederate sympathizers here keep insisting that they have no sympathy for the South while at the same time spouting historically illiterate pro-Confederate propaganda about how Lincoln "forced" the country into war and the South was just a victim.
The South was an aggressive and imperialist region that sought conquest against Mexico and the Caribbean. It wanted a fight with the North, threatened that fight for years before the 1860 election, and believed firmly that it would win that fight.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 6:07PM
Right it was the South that was killing off Indians to advance the railroads. Then of course it was the influence of the south years later that led us to kill 200,000 to liberate them also.
Oh and of course Mexico was just trying so hard to peacefully get along.
Mike Giles| 7.13.10 @ 8:37PM
"Right it was the South that was killing off Indians to advance the railroads."
Nope. They just killed off the "Civilized Tribes" for land and gold. Read up on the "Trail of Tears" or the Seminole Wars. And of course one of the reasons that Texas declared its independence, is that the new Mexican Constitution banned slavery.
Len| 7.13.10 @ 8:51PM
Meant to say 200,000 Filipinos above.
S.L. Toddard| 7.13.10 @ 6:09PM
"Reacting to the assertion by liberal columnist Cynthia Tucker that GOP Chairman Michael Steele was only chairman because he was black, Rush took her up on her dotty, not to mention racist, thought "
Only chairman because he's black? Outrageous! Obviously he was hired for his competence and gaffe-free style.
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 7.13.10 @ 6:54PM
SLT, thank you for the sarcasm regarding The GOP's fearless leader. The man is about as effective as a cat flap in an elephant house.
AF_Vet| 7.14.10 @ 1:15PM
'Blackadder' reference. Nice :)
Kratsuli| 7.13.10 @ 7:46PM
@Jeffrey Lord
You have to know that it's "couldn't care less", not "could care less". If you could care less, then you do care at least a bit! Come on dude!!
Great column otherwise.
mickey moussaoui| 7.13.10 @ 8:06PM
Liberals lie, even when the truth would serve them better.
Purpleguy| 7.13.10 @ 10:02PM
When the other side starts talking about you and pointing out your flaws, you're having an effect. Congrats, KO.
Solipslip| 7.14.10 @ 5:26PM
Purple's perception has no perspective.
Greenacres| 7.13.10 @ 10:41PM
I'm a little late to the post, but my limited understanding of history allowing that the states were at least somewhat reluctant to turn over power to anything other than a "limited" federal government leads me to think that they would have been much more reluctant to unite had their legislatures been fully aware that once they were "in" they could never get "out".
J.C.Eaton| 7.14.10 @ 12:29AM
Ultimately, secession is an interesting counterfactual. Whatever Lincoln or the Fathers thought about it, the Army of the Potomac put paid to concept.
Gunner Asch| 7.14.10 @ 2:06AM
I'm stationed in Germany. American Forces Network carries Countdown at noon on the AFN News channel. Why it is carried as straight news is a question best left to the program managers. Many of us think it is because there is no AFN Comedy channel.
Jeremiah| 7.14.10 @ 11:40AM
Olbummer would have anyone believe he went to an Ivy League College whereas he went to Cornell, all right, but the agricultural college where he majored in communication... Ann was the first and only one to dare disclosing this.
jcrue| 7.14.10 @ 1:05PM
wow, Len, unemployed much?
Truce| 7.14.10 @ 4:12PM
According to genealogy notes in my family, after the War, slaves were accompanied to a court of law and "manumitted" (freed) by owners. I never see that word used, but apparently those who wished to remain with families for personal reasons were legally manumitted . Perhaps they were elderly who had known no other life and had no wish to leave the security of "family".
If you wish to believe they were threatened with punishment if they left, feel free to.
When my grandfather died in Dallas, Texas , a child of a freed slave who had been his playmate growing up, (I guess I cannot use the word, "boy" here - though they were both boys), by then in his eighties, traveled from Mississippi to attend my grandfather's funeral. Why do you suppose he did that? Paying respect to the "massah" or just remembering a boyhood friend? Slave mentality or simple comradeship?
There is the Northern View and the Southern and never the twain shall meet.
Occam's Tool| 7.15.10 @ 6:56PM
My goodness: anyone with half a brain knows that there have been 4 great Presidents: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. I disagree with a lot of what FDR did. To deny his greatness, however, is ridiculous. And to deny Lincoln's brilliance in preserving the foundation of our freedoms is even more ridiculous.
RCV| 7.15.10 @ 7:10PM
I have to agree with all your choices, although I would add Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt to the list as well.
Brad Anderson | 9.7.10 @ 1:21PM
Lincoln was America's Hitler, and his war the American Holocaust to turn the free republic into an empire; and to deny this, is to confess eternal ignorance through state-indoctrination-- in Pavlovian fashion.
Every president after Lincoln has likewise been simply another stooge maintaining or extending his Leviathan-State juggernaut, and Reagan simply began the empire's decline by miring it in myriad debt and global entanglements it can't afford-- a characteristic milestone marking the decline of every empire in history.
Brad Anderson | 9.7.10 @ 1:13PM
The article says "But Mr. Olbermann has bravely cited his membership in an organization that celebrates Mr. Lincoln, America's greatest president behind Lincoln's fellow conservative president Ronald Reagan (according to Gallup last year, that was 24% Reagan, 22% Lincoln.) "
Funny, I don't recall Reagan dividing his own country and then conquering it with a bloody war of imperialism that cost the lives of a million people and cost 10 billion dollars (10 million people and $300 billion in modern money;
No, Reagan racked up the debts in OTHER ways).
It's no surprise that Olbermann and his worst opponents would both worship at the shrine of St. Lincoln, they both are "cardinals of the cloth" in that particular cult of big government and oligarchy, they simply are in competition against each other for the grand Poobah-ship.