Obama, Lincoln 'Peas in the Same Pod' Declares Salon.com Technology Writer
Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln "are peas in the same pod," at least in the eyes of Salon.com technology reporter Andrew Leonard.
And just how exactly?
Because "both [were] irredeemably stained by the hard fiscal decisions they had to make to save their nation," Leonard argued in a June 2 "How the World Works" blog post.
To do so, the Salon writer conflated loopy conspiracy theories about Lincoln having been a pawn of European Jewish bankers with complaints Obama faces from conservative and libertarian quarters regarding his spendthrift economic policies.
Leonard seems to suggest there's little if any legitimate critique from the right on Obama's stewardship of federal finances (emphases mine):
[I]f you dig a little deeper on the specific accusation that the Rothschild motivation for starting the Civil War was to take over the U.S. banking system, you suddenly find yourself facing a set of concerns that are surprisingly close to the surface of contemporary political discourse involving the national debt and monetary policy.
Because Abe Lincoln didn't just free the slaves and preserve the Union. He also ended the so-called "free banking" era, and established a national currency in which paper notes backed by the U.S. government were by law considered to be legal tender.
Mainstream economic historians tend to portray the "free banking" or "wildcat banking" era as chaotic and prone to banking panics. Loosely regulated by states, and not at all by the federal government, banks had the power to issue their own currency, resulting in a proliferation of competing bank notes that sometimes weren't worth the paper they were printed on. From this perspective, the passage of the National Banking Acts in 1863 and 1864 marked a welcome step in the maturation of the U.S. financial system.
But whether or not you accept that explanation of history -- and many, many libertarians, led by Rep. Ron Paul, do not -- there was also another clear reason for the consolidation of central government control over U.S. currency. Lincoln had to find a way to pay for his enormously expensive war, and issuing paper currency theoretically backed by government securities was the method he used to do it.
If you listen to some of the more wild-eyed libertarian voices out there, you will find that it is at this point that America really went off the tracks. Abraham Lincoln centralized government control over the money supply! And freedom died. We lost our bearings during the Civil War and have never managed to find our way back.
So of course he's a traitor! And of course some way must be found to transform him into an alien "other."
Remind you of someone else? Some other president who faced a national emergency, borrowed a lot of cash to deal with it, then pushed through major bank reform legislation and found himself immediately tarred as a Muslim socialist out to destroy a great nation? And who now faces an array of contenders for the White House calling for a return to the gold standard, a balanced budget amendment, and the abolishment of the Federal Reserve? It's all connected, man. Abraham Lincoln, the president who ended slavery, and Barack Obama, the first black president of the United States, are peas in the same pod, both irredeemably stained by the hard fiscal decisions they had to make to save their nation.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Now his mother knows....
Submitted by jdripper on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 11:41am.
what he does all day in her basement on the computer.
Jack
Excuse me for being a pinhead…
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 11:42am.
…But was not Lincoln not the President of a basically isolationist, tariff collecting/funded, militarily weak, and agriculturally based nation in open rebellion whose “union” he was trying to save?
Is not BO the President of a great industrial, agricultural, scientific, tax-collecting/funded, militarily strong nation that he is doing his best to dissolve the things that made us great?
Just asking.
- Grump
This is a subject...
Submitted by pepperoniprince on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 11:51am.
...not often brought up. The Rothschild family had been bitter since Andrew Jackson knocked them out of control of our monetary system while he was in office. It took the Rothschild's almost thirty years to position themselves to create a need for a Central Bank, aka, Federal Reserve, again. Lincoln in no way was about freeing the slaves. He would have, in fact, not bothered with the slavery issue if it was not tied to the financial crisis that loomed between the North and South. The Rothschild's authorized bankers in the east to loan him[Lincoln] money at absurd interest rates(24%-36%) to force him to re-establish the central bank charter. This would have had the federal government borrowing private funds- Rothschild funds- to finance the war. One of Lincoln's people( his name escapes me) advised Lincoln to establish his own national currency and effectively telling the Rothschild's to get lost. You see how that all worked out...Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
Lincoln not bothered by slavery?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 1:26pm.
on what planet?
Lincolns senate and Presidential runs were all about slavery. It was slavery tearing apart the country not arguments over the banking system.
Try reading Lincoln's famous House Divided speech and see what he and the anti-slavery forces were up against. Remember, slavery was legal in half of the states and that legality was supported by the Supreme Court.
It Came To War Because Of The Bankers.
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:22pm.
Some means of freeing the slaves was the first goals of Lincoln's Radical Republican Party but there might have been compensation for the slave owners. Most people have heard of the "Forty acres and a Mule" Lincoln would have been buying the land and the slaves from the slave holders to set that up. Slavery would end but the slave holders would have money and not have to worry how to work their land.
Everything that has been said about the bankers under cuting the deal is true.
back to your bridge, troll
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:33pm.
It came to war because South Carolina forces attacked a Federal Fort.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free Stinker
Submitted by well99 on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:49pm.
That doesn't count.Besides today some will claim it was caused by Global Warming.
Sounds anti-semitic to me
Submitted by ahusser on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 7:56pm.
Usually using the Rothschild's in any essay is code for anti-semitism. Also Andrew Jackson was our most psychotic president ever so who knows what his motivations were for not having a central bank. probably wasn't getting a cut of the action from what I have read. Also the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whigs and strong feelings about the spread of slavery to the territories. That was why the south, with the Democratic party split on regional lines, lost the election and seceded from the Union. The perceived threat to their 'rahts' (aka slavery) that the Lincoln Presidency represented.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Comparison
Submitted by deadeyedan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 12:00pm.
Obama - the "peace" president. Lincoln - presided over our bloodiest war. Peas in a pod? Could you have guessed?
Probably easier to believe that Lincoln foresaw a greater nation emerging from the conflict that was the Civil War and Obamanable having a vision of destruction of that nation.
ClimateGate - the revelation that the pseudo-scientists of East Anglia University know just as much about the atmosphere as Harvard law professors know about the Constitution - deadeyedan
Salon.com
Submitted by Conservator on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 12:05pm.
Shortly after the 2008 election, Salon.com publicly stated that only 3 of their employees voted for McCain. Obama was their man and thus, no one right-of-center should care about anything published by these dimwitted sycophants.
More than 600,000 Americans killed under Lincoln
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 12:26pm.
Population about 31 million in 1860 That would be 6,000,000 dead under O'bama, today.
Just remember: "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."
This is the only place where Lincoln and O'bama, are Peas in the same pod.
Just one iranian/pakeestan h-bomb in a shipping container.
Maybe history won't repeat itself..... Free beer tomorrow.
You Didn't Build That.
So the Rothschilds were responsible for starting . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 12:32pm.
. . . the American Civil War in order to take control of the US banking system. Hmmm. Imagine that.
And I imagine by the same token, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in order to (ultimately) sell their electronics and automobiles in the US.
So, using the logic here,
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 12:48pm.
So, using the logic here, Soros would be like the Rothschilds, today? After all, he visits the White House on a regular basis, along with Obama's pal, Billy Aers. Is it their intention to start another civil war? To push untill states decide to with draw from the Union? If so, they have a good start.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Good point, bassndude
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 1:11pm.
Another reason to distrust Soros.
How little the "economic historians" know of history .
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 1:47pm.
The Rothschild family and their banking "empire" had very little to do with the passage of the Banking Act despite the opinions of those vaunted "mainstream economic historians." Nor did those Acts have much of an effect on the Rothschild family because, even after the Banking Acts were enacted, the banks were still privately owned and operated.
Nor do those "historians" know much of the federal banking system in America, especally in reference to the 1864 Act. The Banking Act of 1864 reestablished the US Federal Bank, which, having existed from 1791 to 1811, lost it's charter after Congress refused to renew it. That newly establish federal bank, created under Lincoln,lost it's authority 20 years later under President Jackson. It wasn't until 1913 that the Federal reserve, and the centralization of the US's entire banking system under that reserve, was created, and this has lasted until today. I don't think Lincoln had much to do with that.
As for the federal government controlling the production of a common "note," that was done in an attempt to reduce COUNTERFEITING, which, due to the banks issuing their own varied forms of currency, was very easy to accomplish. This massive counterfeiting that was causing economic chaos. A single design produced by only a few federally controlled, and guarded, presses made counterfeiting much more difficult.
Yes, some banks did refuse to honor anther's Notes, and some vendors didn't accept bank notes at all, but the reason for this was because of the massive counterfeiting which prevented those banks and vendors form exchanging those promissory notes for actual currency. That currency was the coins that the federal government minted, and had been minting from the very beginning. You would think that those "mainstream economic historians" would know this, as this is something I learned in the fifth grade!
As for the theory that Lincoln needed to centralize the money supply to finance the Civil War, that's not a very good theory. Lincoln could have easily ordered the Treasury Department to seize all privately held gold and silver reserves (Executive Order 6102, anyone?) and issue more coins. That would have been a much simpler, more cost effective way to finance the Civil War.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Lincoln Was Already Way Over The LIne
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:55pm.
Lincoln never had an elected quorum in Congress because the Governments of several states were in effect under martial law. Indiana and Maryland had their elected legislatures locked up from the start. The members of Congress during the war were not elected but just Lincoln shills sent by his political allies. Chicago went into rebellion because of the war crimes that were being committed at the POW camp outside of the city. Lincoln invented the Executive order and put a hundred men with rifles in the Supreme Court when they were in session. He ruled by dictate and the barrel of a gun. In that he was like Obama.
Unlike Obama the country had fallen apart before he took office. Those famous debates between Lincoln and Douglas that Lincoln lost so badly while running for the Senate from Illinois made it clear to the states that they did not want Lincoln, add his intemperate remarks ten years before about giving Texas back to Mexico and the States exercised their right to succeed from the Union and Lincoln began shooting them for it. Fort Sumner was blockading the Charleston by ordering ships to stay out of the harbor before the fort was fired on.
Reviewing I guess Obama is like Lincoln. Until I reviewed I had forgotten what a thru and thru bastard Lincoln was and how hard he had to look to find Generals who were as blood thirsty as he was.
Avitar
Submitted by well99 on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:44pm.
Rewrite history much?
I think Salon's Leonard is
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 1:36pm.
I think Salon's Leonard is confusing Lincoln with his evil twin Abrahamsky Lincolnovich who was Marx's book agent.
Does Leonard know he's writing for a women's beauty shop?
Yes,
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:09pm.
Leonard's day job is cutting and styling women's hair.
Maybe he spent too much time
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:49pm.
Maybe he spent too much time under a hair dryer or sniffing the hair color stuff. His writing sounds addled.
No
Submitted by jessieH on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 1:45pm.
Lincoln saved the Nation, that is true. O'bama is tearing the Nation apart. His every action, his propaganda mouth, this is what is destroying our way of life. He's incompetent in his position as President.
According to liberals,
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 3:26pm.
According to liberals, Lincoln was gay. Does that make that article homophobic, "two peas in a pod", hmm, Lincoln's gay, Obama's his "twin pea", so Obama must be gay. Well, Lincoln had four kids and Obama has only two, so does that make Obama twice as gay as Lincoln?
/sarc
lol such idiots
Submitted by scarletandgold on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:37pm.
only at that propaganda website would stupidity ride with insanity...lincoln was a great man...a godly man...obama is man child and a very ungodly man....tell you what joan..since you seem to like to carry obamas urine...why dont you just be his caddy since all he likes to do is golf..governing doesnt seem to be his strong suit..lol .....like lincoln....hell has layed her eggs and they are hatching with the progressives..
Perhaps I Can Make A Historical Analysis?
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 11:36pm.
I just can't stand when people can't even get their basic history right, as per this moron's analysis of European bankers and such. Other than that, I do happen to agree that President Obama has been trying to emulate President Lincoln, as I have explained time and again. Obama had been seen reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's book on Lincoln during the presidential campaign. He has tried to emulate Lincoln in almost every way possible, including making the same type of mistakes that Lincoln made. After all, where do you see the parallel more closely than the firings Obama and Lincoln made? Like Obama, Lincoln had his own Van Jones problem in the form of his first Secretary of War (Defense, nowadays) Simon Cameron, who had to resign amid corruption charges. You didn't think Ulysses S. Grant was Lincoln's first and only War secretary, did you?
Wow
Submitted by well99 on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 3:08am.
Did you want to go back and read the history of the Civil War.
President Lincoln was assassinated April 14 1965
Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton 1862-1868
"You didn't think Ulysses S. Grant was Lincoln's first and only War secretary, did you?"
Actually you might link when Grant was Lincoln's War Secretary.Good luck on that one.
WHAT?
Submitted by ironhead4099 on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 4:46am.
I'm sure this guy is convinced that his dad called him son, because he's so bright! The points he's making here are absolutely MORONIC! Mr. Leonard how do you spell dumbass? I'll give you a hint, it's not dumbazz, of course after this article we could spell it Leonard!