Gettysburg Address and Other Oddities of the Lincoln Movie.

I saw Lincoln today. Highly recommend it in light of the shape of politics today. What was interesting is the whole movie centered on the 13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]

And it was no different than Congress today, split, splintered and corrupt. But the race was on passing the Amendment before the Civil War Ended. And it was passed. But the one thing at the beginning of the movie was Union Soldiers reciting the Gettysburg address as their mantra to win the war. Overall, it was very good. The theater gave it a standing applause. Speilberg did a great job. Danial-Dey Lewis played lincoln great for a Brit. Tommy Lee Jones was good along with Sally Field. The DRY Humor of the time was hysterical. Licoln said Ethen Allen went to Britian for the settlement of the Revolutionary war. At one point needed the “water closet” In it was a portrait of Washington. The Brit thought it would offend him, but Allen turned it around and said no offense, but was sure every Brit that used the WC was repulsed and made to shit at the sight of him.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

25 Comments

  1. Overall, it was very good.

    I agree. I absolutely loved the movie!

    I also thoroughly enjoyed Argo.

    But let me backtrack a few weeks.

    I think the political tone of this nation has changed since the beginning of the month:

    * The election, in which a new and diverse America is emerging with the political power they deserve.

    * Hurricane Sandy, in which we see once again American citizens stepping up to assist their fellow citizens who have been devastated.

    * The film “Lincoln”, in which we are reminded that we had successfully addressed an injustice, thanks to the skill of effective leaders who stepped up to do the right thing in the face of fierce and overwhelming opposition.

    With this new tone, I have increased confidence and optimism that leaders on both sides of the aisle will emerge in order to successfully address the critical economic shortfalls we still face, taking into account the legitimate needs of the 98% which can no longer be ignored and must be properly addressed, consistent with the need to increase revenues and judiciously cut spending.

  2. There goes Perry again with his Socialist willful violation of the Tenth Commandment. He can’t help himself, just like he can’t take responsibility for his actions in threatening the livelihood and liberty of others. It’s who he is: evil, hateful, envious, lustful for power, and blatantly dishonest.

  3. With this new tone, I have increased confidence and optimism that leaders on both sides of the aisle will emerge in order to successfully address the critical economic shortfalls we still face, taking into account the legitimate needs of the 98% which can no longer be ignored and must be properly addressed, consistent with the need to increase revenues and judiciously cut spending.

    If Obama really cared about the 98% (which he pretends to do, but really doesn’t) then why did he cancel the Keystone pipeline? There were thousands of good paying jobs to be had by people who desperetely needed them, but Obama cancelled it anyway. He chose the tree huggers over the hard hats. That’s because he’s a classic elitist who can’t relate to the common man because he’s never been there, never held a private sector job, never even run so much as a hot dog stand. His whole life has been academia and politics and he sees his peers as fellow elitists, not working men and women. Despite his ability to put on a “Rock star” persona for his drooling fans, he simply doesn’t have the common touch. He hides it well, but occassionally the truth slips out like when he sneered at the common folk as “Bitter clingers to their guns and Bibles” or his dismissive treatment of Joe the Plumber. He is haughty, arrogant, and a narcissist at heart. And any notion that he cares about the regular folks is just a carefully crafted fiction.

  4. I wrote:

    With this new tone, I have increased confidence and optimism that leaders on both sides of the aisle will emerge in order to successfully address the critical economic shortfalls we still face, ….

    Another evidence of the new tone, especially regarding the fiscal cliff issue, we now find Republican Senators and Representatives willing to negotiate, perhaps even to put aside the Grover Norquist Norquist pledge.

    I am talking about Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker, Jphn McCain, and Lindsay Graham, and House Republicans John Boehner, Peter King, and of all people, and Eric Kantor. Conservative Bill Kristol has also expressed similar sentiments, and so has David Frum and Jeb Bush.

    This issue involves revenue reform, entitlement reform, trimming the military budget, and the debt ceiling, all aimed at reducing the deficit.

    The leverage is that if nothing is done and the so-called fiscal cliff is permitted to take place, the Bush tax cuts will be nullified across the board, such that a very large number of middle income taxpayers will be hit the hardest with a tax increase. Also included in the fiscal cliff are draconian across the board spending cuts. Obviously, the economy will suffer horribly, likely go into another recession, including a plunge in the stock market and a loss of jobs. No one wants this!

    No politician should wish this to happen to their constituents. If the Republicans allow this to happen by sticking to their objection to any tax increases whatsoever, the political ramifications will be fierce. This is why I believe it will be in the Republicans’ best interest politically to negotiate in good faith, for the first time in four years. After all, the mid-terms are only two years away.

    It would also be in the best interest for our nation.

  5. the Bush tax cuts will be nullified across the board, such that a very large number of middle income taxpayers will be hit the hardest with a tax increase.

    So you finally admit the Bush tax cuts mainly beneffited the middle class?

  6. This issue involves revenue reform, entitlement reform, trimming the military budget, and the debt ceiling, all aimed at reducing the deficit.

    This “Compromise” you talk about will only work if Dems finally get serious about real spending cuts and entitlement reform. And all experience with the Obama/Reid/Pelosi trifecta indicates they are not. Even if Obama gets his tax hikes, he will just use it to spend more, not pay down the deficit. Why should we negotiate with these people in good faith when they won’t do the same? It’s Charlie Brown and the football all over again. The Dems will make promises on spending cuts and entitlement reform that they have no intention of delivering. They will get what they want (tax hikes and more spending) and we will get nothing. Scroo’em!

  7. So you finally admit the Bush tax cuts mainly beneffited the middle class?

    No, Eric, not for a second. But I won’t divert to that debate again right now.

    My point is that the 98% would be hit the hardest by a tax increase, because they have much less leeway between income and necessary expenses, not true with the 2%. Besides, it is time for the 2%, who have been the main beneficiaries of the growth in our economy for decades, to give back to our country in its time of need, just as happened post WWII for 25 years.

  8. Besides, it is time for the 2%, who have been the main beneficiaries of the growth in our economy for decades, to give back to our country in its time of need, just as happened post WWII for 25 years.

    “Give back”? What a crock! There’s no “Giving” when it comes to taxes, only taking. And taking for what? So Obama can spend more? The huge deficits are mostly his fault, since he sent spending through the roof. Cut the spending FIRST, and then maybe talk about tax hikes later and only if absolutely necessary. And make them temporary, just as the Bush tax cuts were temporary. Otherwise the Dems will just use the next fiscal emergency to raise taxes higher again. Taxes are never high enough as far as Democrats are concerned, and it seems they never met a tax hike they didn’t like.

    Bottom line: we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. But the Dems will never get serious about spending, and why should they? Their whole political strategy revolves around giving people benefits from the government and they have millions of people voting for them just as long as they keep the gravy train flowing. Why should they reform entitlements when entitlements are their bread and butter? Taxes may go up, but one thing’s for sure, spending will keep going up and up until the whole thing finally explodes and we turn into Greece. The Dems have turned government into a Ponzi scheme, only they’re running out of suckers to finance it and are now borrowing from our children. But screw them, say the Dems, because children can’t vote. The whole thing is corrupt through and through, politicans using other people’s money to buy votes, where selfishness and a short sighted desire for power trump the long term national well being. The whole thing sucks, Perry, but why should you care? You’ve benefitted from it all your life, and since you’re an old man, you won’t be around when the bill comes due.

  9. WW wrote:

    This issue involves revenue reform, entitlement reform, trimming the military budget, and the debt ceiling, all aimed at reducing the deficit.

    The leverage is that if nothing is done and the so-called fiscal cliff is permitted to take place, the Bush tax cuts will be nullified across the board, such that a very large number of middle income taxpayers will be hit the hardest with a tax increase. Also included in the fiscal cliff are draconian across the board spending cuts. Obviously, the economy will suffer horribly, likely go into another recession, including a plunge in the stock market and a loss of jobs. No one wants this!

    No politician should wish this to happen to their constituents. If the Republicans allow this to happen by sticking to their objection to any tax increases whatsoever, the political ramifications will be fierce. This is why I believe it will be in the Republicans’ best interest politically to negotiate in good faith, for the first time in four years. After all, the mid-terms are only two years away.

    And just what does all of that mean? If it means doing exactly what the President wants, raising taxes on the most productive Americans back to the 2000 level, but retaining the 2001/2003 tax cuts for everybody else, we are looking at something on the order of $65 billion in additional revenue, in the face of a $1 trillion deficit. If we cancel the sequester, then spending remains the same, so there’s no deficit reduction there. You mentioned the debt ceiling, which you obviously wish to raise again.

    As for entitlement reform, under President Obama entitlements have increased, not been scaled back. Once ObaminableCare goes into ful effect, you will see massive increases in entitlement spending, as millions upon millions of Americans who do not have health insurance and cannot afford to pay for it themselves draw government subsidies to pay for the insurance they will be required to carry. Military spending will decrease somewhat, as we cut and run draw down our forces in Afghanistan, but it seems that President Obama is now planning to leave 10,000 US troops stationed in Afghanistan after 2014.

    How are you going to get “entitlement reform?” President Obama ran on protecting all of the entitlements. He isn’t going to let the wicked ol’ Republicans cut food stamps or general welfare or Social Security or one damned thing, and even if he wanted to, the Democrats holding the Senate majority would never allow it. When it comes to discretionary spending, y’all fight tooth and nail against cutting subsidies even to things which could be self-supporting without them, like PR and Planned Parenthood, much less programs which will die out without federal spending.

    Face facts: everything President Obama ran on was for increased federal spending, not cuts, not entitlement reform, not anything which would get the budget under control, except for raising taxes on the most successful Americans, and that’s not anything close to what would be needed to close the deficit meaningfully.

  10. WW wrote:

    So you finally admit the Bush tax cuts mainly beneffited the middle class?

    No, Eric, not for a second. But I won’t divert to that debate again right now.

    My point is that the 98% would be hit the hardest by a tax increase, because they have much less leeway between income and necessary expenses, not true with the 2%. Besides, it is time for the 2%, who have been the main beneficiaries of the growth in our economy for decades, to give back to our country in its time of need, just as happened post WWII for 25 years.

    Translation: we’ll punish those who have pursued the American dream, who have worked hard, risked their money, and prospered for having done the right things, having done just the things we wanted them to do. You get maybe $65 billion in increased revenue (assuming, of course, that the tax increase doesn’t have a negative effect on the economy, depressing the income of the top producers, and this shrinking the projected tax increase revenue), which is only playing like the Democrats are doing something about the deficit.

    President Obama’s plans sold very well politically, but they are not serious attempts to do anything about our real problems.

  11. Eric wrote:

    This “Compromise” you talk about will only work if Dems finally get serious about real spending cuts and entitlement reform. And all experience with the Obama/Reid/Pelosi trifecta indicates they are not. Even if Obama gets his tax hikes, he will just use it to spend more, not pay down the deficit. Why should we negotiate with these people in good faith when they won’t do the same? It’s Charlie Brown and the football all over again. The Dems will make promises on spending cuts and entitlement reform that they have no intention of delivering. They will get what they want (tax hikes and more spending) and we will get nothing. Scroo’em!

    That’s just it: President Obama ran on protecting all of the entitlements, and he ran on protecting spending for just about everything. And it clearly turned out to be very good politics; he won re-election, and the Democrats increased their majority in the Senate and reduced the Republicans’ majority in the House. And it’ll all work out splendidly, right up the point at which it doesn’t; when those policies lead us to borrow yet another trillion dollars this fiscal year, and the fiscal year after that, and the fiscal year after that, the point at which it stops working out so splendidly will be upon us before we know it.

  12. Reform entitlements, huh? Phineas pointed to this article from Breitbart:

    In November, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that a record 47,102,780 individuals receive food stamps.

    According to US. Census Bureau data, that figure exceeds the combined populations of: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

    Since January 2009, the number of individuals on food stamps has skyrocketed from 31.9 million to the current record high 47.1 million. By comparison, in 1969 just 2.8 million Americans received food stamps.

    Since Barack Hussein Obama became our President, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased by 47.6%, even though the unemployment rate in October (7.9%) was very close to that in January of 2009 (7.8%); our total population increased by only 4% during that time.

    Since 1969, when Breitbart noted that only 2.8 million Americans were on food stamps, our population has increased by 54.9%, from 202.68 million to 313.85 million. Yet Food Stamp usage is 16.8 times as high. Tell me again how President Obama is going to “reform entitlements.”

    Oh, wait, the food stamp entitlement has been reformed. Instead of those very obvious, very embarrassing, Food Stamps of old, (pictured, appropriately enough, on the left) we now have government issued debit cards, different enough in appearance that you can spot them if you look, but not nearly as obvious as the old pulling-them-out-of-the-book method. The food stamp entitlement — and this was true under Republicans as well as Democrats — has gotten easier to use, and less embarrassing for the individual, so of course food stamp usage is going to skyrocket.

    Mitt Romney was excoriated for telling the truth, that there were 47% of Americans leeching off 53% of Americans, and that he could never capture their votes. Well, President Obama managed to dupe 3% of the 53%, that’s all, but it was enough, and he won re-election.

  13. Well so far the thread has been hijacked on economic issues instead of seeing this part of the Gettysburg Address really say today’s situation through this:

    It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

    We have a split in this country not of north and south, but a split of the producers and consumers and the resident of 1600 PA Ave., Washington, Disease 20001 cheering on the consumers by a war of classes. His rhetoric is based on those who worked for their position against those who have not. It is SO OBVIOUS in this CLASS WARFARE, the resident was a topic in PRAVDA of all paper as being a COMMUNIST. I guess it takes one comrade to know another Comrade.

    Obama’s Soviet Mistake
    19.11.2012 By Xavier Lerma

    Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.
    After Obama was elected in his first term as president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake.

    Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

    Putin said regarding the military,

    “…instead of solving the problem, militarization pushes it to a deeper level. It draws away from the economy immense financial and material resources, which could have been used much more efficiently elsewhere.”

    Well, any normal individual understands that as true but liberalism is a psychosis . O’bomber even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with projects like “fast and furious” and there is still no sign of ending it. He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.

    more here:
    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/

  14. Slave
    Pronunciation: slāv
    n. 1. See Slav.
    1. A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another.
    Art thou our slave,
    Our captive, at the public mill our drudge?
    - Milton.
    2. One who has lost the power of resistance; one who surrenders himself to any power whatever; as, a slave to passion, to lust, to strong drink, to ambition.
    3. A drudge; one who labors like a slave.
    4. An abject person; a wretch.

  15. * The election, in which a new and diverse America is emerging with the political power they deserve.

    “They deserve?” I’m curious as to how you view that they “deserve” it. (I have my own view on why, but am wondering how it differs, if any, from yours.)

    * Hurricane Sandy, in which we see once again American citizens stepping up to assist their fellow citizens who have been devastated.

    LOL! That certainly wasn’t the meme when Katrina hit now, was it?

    * The film “Lincoln”, in which we are reminded that we had successfully addressed an injustice, thanks to the skill of effective leaders who stepped up to do the right thing in the face of fierce and overwhelming opposition.

    “Successfully addressed” an injustice by 1) initiating a war which cost the lives of over 2/3 of a million Americans; 2) unilaterally suspending habeas corpus, a power reserved for Congress only; 3) arbitrarily jailed and exiled political opponents; 4) OK’d “total war” i.e. war on civilian populations. It is a quite legitimate view that the Civil War was not necessary to end the evil of slavery, especially since so many other nations had done precisely that.

    With this new tone, I have increased confidence and optimism that leaders on both sides of the aisle will emerge in order to successfully address the critical economic shortfalls we still face, taking into account the legitimate needs of the 98% which can no longer be ignored and must be properly addressed, consistent with the need to increase revenues and judiciously cut spending.

    Except that the latter is, and always has been, a pipe dream. Spending will not be cut, most especially in the areas that need it most.

  16. Koolo wrote:

    It is a quite legitimate view that the Civil War was not necessary to end the evil of slavery, especially since so many other nations had done precisely that.

    Had the Confederacy been allowed to secede, slavery would have ended in the South, quite naturally, in a couple more decades. Slavery as an economic system is simply not very efficient, and if it wasn’t legislated out of existence, it would have faded away due to its inefficiencies.

    When would that have occurred? Well, who knows? I’d guess by the 1880s/1890s, but that’s just speculation.

  17. Had the Confederacy been allowed to secede, slavery would have ended in the South, quite naturally, in a couple more decades. Slavery as an economic system is simply not very efficient, and if it wasn’t legislated out of existence, it would have faded away due to its inefficiencies.

    That’s what I think, too. This timeframe is debatable, certainly, as is whether this “extension” of slavery was acceptable. Nevertheless, too often as demonstrated by Perry, Lincoln’s actions are automatically granted as “noble” and “worthy.” I suppose that’s understandable especially by those like Perry for they’d like nothing better than for Obama to do as he wishes to “make America great” — that is, what he believes makes the country great. Which is, of course, at odds with tens of millions of Americans.

  18. Slavery as an economic system is simply not very efficient

    Oh? Then why did it last as long as it did? And why did the South fight so hard to defend it? The ruling class in the South was utterly dependent on slavery for their wealth, and there were no signs that was going to change any time soon.

  19. Slavery is inefficient for the same reasons that all forms of coerced labor are inefficient, only more so. As a starting point consider the lack of individual productivity under communist or socialist systems and then imagine the intense resentment of slaves and how recalcitrant to cooperate with productivity goals they’re likely become over a lifetime working in the hot fields under the overseer’s whip.

    Or start with modern labor unions and consider the concept of featherbedding, or take our K-12 public schools and note the general resistance of students and the disappointing performance which results from compulsory attendance.

  20. Point is, slavery was efficient enough to work for hundreds of years. Any why not? Lots of profits to be made when you don’t have to pay your workforce for their labor.

  21. Point is, slavery was efficient enough to work for hundreds of years. Any why not? Lots of profits to be made when you don’t have to pay your workforce for their labor.

    Sure it did. But at the time of the Civil War, slavery was pretty much kaput in the Western world. Brazil, Puerto Rico and Cuba were the last [Western] nations to do away with the practice, Brazil (which had had by far the most slaves in the New World) acting about 20 years after our own 13th Amendment. The colonial powers had become dead-set against it before the CW, so how much longer could the South have managed to survive as a full-fledged Western slave state?

  22. Eric, the efficiencies or inefficiencies of slavery aren’t quite as cut and dried as you persist in maintaining. Slavery has been part of the human condition for thousands of years and in almost all cultures since before recorded history, it was mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi (1760 BC) as an established fact. And David Forsythe estimated that 75% of humans were trapped in bondage as slaves or surfs at the beginning of the 19th Century. It was more the rule than the exception.

    Astonishingly, estimates today put between 12 and 27 million people in some form of slavery, which includes debt-slaves and sex-slaves, and is higher than at any other time.

    When Adam Smith argued that free labor was economically superior to slave labor, he observed that wide-spread institutional slavery is more common when the required tasks are relatively simple and easy to supervise, such as large scale growing of a single crop.

    Slavery also tends to persist in places where land is plentiful and labor costs are high, thus the initial purchase price and lifelong maintenance costs of slaves can be off-set against the temporary high wages required to attract and hold scarce workers year after year.

    Conversely, wide-spread slavery is inefficient and costly when complex tasks are involved or when population increases result in the greater availability of low cost wage labor.

    As the 25 year period from the founding came to a close and the early 1800s began, slavery was increasingly inefficient in the old tobacco, indigo, and rice South, (there was almost no profit in tobacco) but slavery was strong and growing in the new cotton and sugar plantation lands being added to the original 13 as a result of the acquisition of the territories that became Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida.

    Incidentally, many scholars of the peculiar institution consider the invention of the cotton gin as likely the most significant element in keeping slavery alive in the US till The Emancipation Proclamation.

  23. Eric wrote:

    Point is, slavery was efficient enough to work for hundreds of years. Any why not? Lots of profits to be made when you don’t have to pay your workforce for their labor.

    It did, when the economy was almost wholly manual labor based. Industrialization would have changed that, in my opinion.

  24. Industrialization would have changed that, in my opinion.

    No it wouldn’t. The Nazis used slaves to assemble their V-2 rockets, a very sophisticated and high tech product. That proves there is nothing inherently incompatible between slavery and a technologically advanced industrial economy.

    There is no proof at all that slavery would have died out in the South, ever. Like I said, it is profitable to have workers you own and don’t have to pay for their labor. Slavery would work just as well on an assembly line (essentially unskilled, repetitive labor) as it would for picking cotton. The South obviously didn’t think slavery was going away. For one, they made no efforts at all to curtail its spread, indeed, they did everything to encourage it. And, two, they fought like devils to defend it in the Civil War. Why would they fight so hard and lose so many lives if they thought it was just going to go away in a couple of decades, as Dana asserts?

    Sorry, but the economic argument is bullshit. Slavery worked, it was profitable, and its defenders didn’t have the slightest intention of ever giving it up. Indeed, even after the Civil War, the South did its damnest to bring back slavery in another form, namely Jim Crow, and they fiercely defended this way of life for another hundred years until finally forced to abandon it as the result of national revulsion sparked by the Civil Rights movement.

  25. If you look at the “Dependency on Government hand outs, that is where we have the Born Free Slave of the State. The chart above shows how “Government sanctioned slavery to hand outs” have grown to an ugly amount in 40 years. Also these are most like the slaves to drug use and other criminal activity. Now with Obummer Care, he has tried to make that dependency or slavery of everyone to the whims of the Government. Obummer found the key to slavery of letting the people believe they are “Free” but dependency has removed that supposed freedom. The future to me will have major problems when the trolls wake up and find they are slaves.

Comments are closed.