Abraham Lincoln, Race Politics, Hurricane Sandy and Election 2012
Vol: 133 Issue: 29 Monday, October 29, 2012
Steven Spielberg’s new movie about Abraham Lincoln is being withheld until after the November 6 elections. It seems that Spielberg doesn’t want to influence the elections by reminding people of the historical realities.
The Democrat Party has largely stolen Lincoln’s legacy, claiming to have inherited that legacy by having elected America’s first black president. And that’s why Spielberg wants to make sure the movie isn’t released before the election.
Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. In 1860, the Republican Party was the party of the abolitionists. The Democrat Party championed slavery.
In a very real sense, the War Between the States was really the War Between The Democrats and The Republicans. The issue was slavery, but the war was political.
The Election of 1860 brought those political differences to a head.
First, let’s look at how the vote shaped up. Lincoln and the Republicans captured the White House on a plurality vote of just 39.8%, winning just 18 states and 180 Electoral College votes. Stephen A. Douglas, also of Illinois, carried one state and 12 electoral votes.
The Election of 1860 was between four political parties. The Democrat Party split. Northern Democrats were represented by Douglas.
In the South, Democrats formed their own party. The Southern Democrats won eleven states and 72 electoral votes. Tennessean John Bell represented the Constitutional Union, winning three states and 39 electoral votes.
So nobody was particularly happy with the way the election turned out, including the Republicans. Without a convincing majority win, Lincoln was widely seen outside his party as illegitimate, much the same way the DNC attempted to paint George W. Bush following Election 2000.
Spielberg’s “Lincoln” is based on a book by presidential historian Doris Kerns Goodwin, and it paints a portrait of Lincoln that is so historically accurate that Spielberg, a Democrat, felt its early release might hurt Obama.
So why, if Spielberg knows the truth, is he still supporting the Democrats?
In Spielberg’s eyes, the Democrat Party of 1860 is the Republican Party of 2012 — and the Republicans of 1860 are 2012’s Democrats.
In explaining why he didn’t want actual history to become a political football, Spielberg used actual history as a political football:
“Because it’s kind of confusing. The parties traded political places over the last 150 years. That in itself is a great story, how the Republican Party went from a progressive party in 1865, and how the Democrats were represented in the picture, to the way it’s just the opposite today. But that’s a whole other story.”
Why didn’t Spielberg tell that story?
Obviously, because the movie was based on actual facts. Actual facts that, when compared with today’s Democrats, show they are still just as racist now. Every criticism of Obama policies is labeled ‘racist’, even when the criticism is offered by black conservatives.
Obama wasn’t elected based on his extensive legislative background. He had none.
He wasn’t elected on his extensive administrative or economic experience. He had none.
He wasn’t elected on his agenda — nobody was ever sure what it really was. Obama promised to fight, fight, fight, but never told us it would be American against American.
He wasn’t elected on his legislative accomplishments. He has none. During his brief 3 years in the US Senate, he voted ‘present’ more than half the time.
Obama was elected president in 2008 because of his race.
To Obama’s supporters, it is still all about race. They are simply projecting it on others, but in their eyes, race is the single most important element.
“White people in these former slave states still find it hard to vote for a black man.In 2008, Obama attracted 43 per cent of the white vote nationally, but in six states of the Deep South (South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia) he won a measly 18 per cent, which means, to adopt the 19th century colloquialism, he “couldn’t get elected dog catcher”.
To be re-elected, Obama needs what he had last time – which was 80 per cent of the minority vote (African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians) and 40 per cent of the white vote. Conversely, his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, needs 60 per cent of the white vote and what best he can get from the minorities.
The zealots in Romney’s party are alarmed that so many minorities are voting these days. Not that they don’t believe in democracy, you understand, but they are convinced that a commonplace in Democratic victories in every part of the United States is voter fraud by voting on behalf of the dead, phony registrations, illegal absentee ballots, vote-buying, or old-fashioned ballot box stuffing.”
Why would Republicans think that? Could it be on account of all the voter fraud, phony registrations, illegal absentee ballots, vote-buying and old fashioned ballot-box stuffing that marked the 2008 elections?
There were hundreds of convictions for voter fraud in the 2008 elections. To my knowledge, not a single Republican was among them. It is an absolute certainty that the vast majority were Democrat. Perhaps that might explain the worried “zealots.”
“Immediately following the recent presidential debate, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said “racist right-wingers hate Obama more than al-Qaeda.”
Romney has received thousands of threats of assassination from Obama supporters via Twitter and other social media sites, but the Secret Service is evidently unconcerned as long as Romney is the one being threatened.
The government’s lack of public outrage over the threats shows how it selectively sanctions what people say. It’s also a potential way to use racial violence to justify martial law.
“I am afraid of division in this country and mindless racism being used by the Democratic Party to control people,” journalist and radio host Alex Jones said in a video report. “And the way they’ve been hyping that you’re racist if you don’t vote for Obama; trying to give people a political blank check to feel like they can go out and do this.”
For all these reasons and more, many conservatives have expressed concern that Team Obama may have planned a false flag scenario that Obama could use to suspend or delay the elections on November 6.
But he may not need to. If Hurricane Sandy lives up to its forecast, come Election Day millions of people will be without power. The storm is billed as potentially being the worst storm to hit the East Coast of the United States in a lifetime.
Sandy threatens the whole Eastern Seaboard, including mega-cities like New York and Philadelphia with Katrina-like flooding. If Obama needed an excuse, Sandy may well provide it.
The storm is hours from making landfall in New York City. Projections are for hurricane-like conditions to exist all the way from New York City to Buffalo. It will wreak havoc as far west as Chicago, with 25-foot waves forecast for Lake Michigan.
It seems clear that America is under judgment.
It is estimated that some fifty million people will be without power for at least a week, and as many as ten million still without power by Election Day.
We are safe here, I believe, from life-threatening conditions, although we will likely be among those that will lose power. We will be able to keep you posted, we hope, via the miracle of laptops and cellphones.
Please pray for all those affected by the storm. Those in its path need prayer for provision and protection.
“If My people, which are called by My Name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14)
The rest of the country needs prayer that the storm won’t result in a stolen election. Or rioting. Or worse.