The Irony of Obama’s Obsession with being Compared to Lincoln
By: Jim Byrd
“You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys. It is better for us both to be separated.”-Abraham Lincoln, during a meeting with free Negro leaders, at the White House, August, 1862
Barack Obama and the media’s obsession with comparing him to Lincoln has breached the boundaries of healthy and wishful comparisons and has evolved into a cultish display of disturbing rhetoric of pathological mania and obsession with an intellectually dishonest rendition of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama.
Not only has Obama chosen to use the same Bible as Lincoln did for his swearing in, eating the same food at the inauguration, he also intends to arrive in Washington, just as Lincoln did in 1861, via train. Obama plans on stopping along the way to deliver speeches, as Lincoln did.
Lincoln and Obama do have a few authentic similarities that can be legitimately compared. Lincoln was a man; Obama is a man. Lincoln was a politician from Illinois; Obama is a politician from Illinois. Neither was born there. Lincoln became president from Illinois; Obama will become president from Illinois. And that is where the similarities end.
Ensuing is a truncated list of the differences between Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln:
Lincoln was white. Obama is black. This is significant as Obama ran a campaign based on race, and his acolytes reinforced the point throughout the campaign.
Obama is an ideologue. Lincoln was not.
Obama was educated at the Punahou School in Hawaii- Hawaii’s elite preparatory school. He then attended Columbia University, and capped off his educational career at Harvard Law School. Lincoln, in contrast, was primarily self-educated, having spent only a few years in a one room school house–he taught himself law. Obama is a product of educational privilege while Lincoln was a product of educational fortitude.
Lincoln was a Republican. The party that freed the slaves. Obama is a Democrat. The party that resisted the freedom of slaves. The party that created the Jim Crowe laws. The party of the KKK. etc! etc! etc!
While Obama and his apologists take great pleasure in comparing Obama’s oratory skills to Lincoln’s, the comparison is vacant hyperbole. Obama is a slickly produced media creation who works to perfection if well prepared with the aid of a teleprompter, preparation, a staff of writers, a controlled environment, and void of antagonists. The scene must be orchestrated to succeed. His speeches are cinematically faultless while being void of substance. Obama resisted town hall type debates during his campaign, as he proved time and again when not working off a script, he was an abject failure when pressed for substance, resulting in a oratory breakdown. Lincoln, on the other hand, was an inferior speaker at best. Lincoln was a controlling force in small informal debates of substance. What set him apart, and propelled his political career, was the substance of his speeches, which he wrote himself. Lincoln succeeded in speeches not for the way he spoke, but what he said. Obama has succeeded by not what he says, but the delivery. Unfortunately, for Obama, the world is not a controlled sound stage.
Lincoln would have rivaled George Bush for being reviled while in office, for the very reasons that formulate the foundation of disdain that Obama and the left have for Bush.
Lincoln was a realist and had a well honed skill for the realities facing the nation. Obama has a history of demonstrated ignorance of the realities facing this nation, as he and the left apparently believe all problems can be solved through fantasy.
Lincoln compared himself to no one. Obama started comparing himself to Lincoln as a Junior State Senator from Illinois.
Lincoln’s America was a nation where “all men are created equal”. Obama’s America is a nation where he will make you an equal with someone else’s money if you choose not to take advantage of being “created equal”.
The most prominent difference between Obama and Lincoln, and most conspicuous, is the ideological difference between the two, in the measures the President of this country should or should not take to protect this nation. Lincoln’s actions mirrored Bush’s, only to a greater extreme. With Congress not in session, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in Maryland. He had previously suspended civil law in places he thought it would be detrimental to the North. When the criticism of the suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland grew, he fought back by suspending habeas corpus throughout the entire nation. He had his critics arrested. Lincoln threatened that anyone who used “disloyal practices” would be subjected to martial law. He also closed down all opposition newspapers. When the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Taney, ruled against Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for him.
Ironically, while Obama and the liberals have been busy comparing him to Lincoln, they have been reduced to hand wringing and teeth gnashing by the actions of Bush after 9/11. Bush’s transgressions: not granting habeas corpus to captured enemies of this country held on foreign soil, the running of water up their noses to get vital information to protect this country, and warrantless wiretaps to try to ferret out any presentable threats to this country. The audacity, indeed!
Had Lincoln, the one whom Obama has a pathological obsession of counterfeiting, been President in the aftermath of 9/11, one could have expected much worse than water run up the noses of terrorists to gather intelligence if it meant preventing another 9/11; You could expect all the left wing media to be shut down; You could expect a gaggle of liberal nut cases arrested and denied their precious habeas corpus; You could expect much more aggressive intelligence gathering than benign warrantless wiretaps. You could expect the state of California to under martial law. What an ironically precarious corner Obama is standing in–if Lincoln had adopted Obama’s policies–you could reasonably expect the capital of this country to currently be sitting in Gettysburg.
To clarify the introductory quote at the beginning, Lincoln stated this concerning the Civil War: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”
Lincoln, much to the chagrin of the left and half-witted historians and educators who teach a politically correct version of history, went to war to preserve a nation, not to free the slaves. The South went to war to preserve their rights, and keeping their slaves was one of these rights.
Lincoln, believed to be great president, broke laws for the sake of saving this country. Lincoln’s actions to hold this country together run antithetical to Obama’s belief of how far a president should go to protect this nation. Lincoln governed during a dirty, unstable, and defining moment in this country’s history, and governed with equal action and agility–just as did Bush. Lincoln had much more in common with George Bush than Barack Obama, the latter with whom he shares no thread of significant commonality.
To know anything factually about Lincoln, one would know how detestable he would find Barack Obama’s ideology, and with the $150 million spend on inauguration parties encompassing the Lincoln Memorial this weekend, while the country is economically adrift and at war, it would not be too farfetched to expect a tear roll down the check of the Lincoln Memorial.
Walking the same path of a man does not make you that man’s equal in character, nor does it give you the right to compare yourself to that man by merely staring at his footprints and following them–the two men may end up at the same place, but rarely the same destination, or share the same experiences along the path.
Jim Byrd's website is A Skewed View.