http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Starting next year, there will be four new pennies to collect, celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln.

The obverse (or heads) part of the coin will stay the same, showing the 16th president facing to the right.

But the reverse (tails) part of the coin will show different times in the life of Lincoln, who is widely considered to be one of the country’s greatest leaders for freeing the slaves and saving the Union during the Civil War.

The designs for the new pennies were shown for the first time yesterday near the Lincoln Memorial.

The first new penny will be available Feb. 12, Lincoln’s 200th birthday. It will show a log cabin to honor his birth and childhood in Kentucky.

The others will show his life as a young man in Indiana, his professional life in Illinois and his presidential years in Washington (when the U.S. Capitol was being built).

The other side of the penny will continue to show the likeness of Lincoln designed by Victor David Brennan. It was introduced on the Lincoln penny 100 years ago.

A Lincoln commemorative silver dollar also will be issued next year.

Abraham Lincoln did not really free the slaves. The 13th Amendment did. The Emancipation Proclamation said “all persons held as slaves within any States, or designated part of the State, the people whereof shall be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” Only those slaves captured by the North by that point were set free. Maryland and Delaware were both slave states and not on of the supposed rebel states. While not recognized by any other government the Confederate States of America was a separate nation with it’s own government defined by their own (though heavily borrowed from the USA) constitution. Therefore from their perspective the Emancipation Proclamation meant as much as if it had come from England. Lincoln also said this of the Corwin Amendment, “[H]olding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” which read:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

As for saving the Union… a highly questionable action. Even if ruled unconstitutional there is plenty of evidence that such a claim is incorrect from a legal standpoint. For example: When ratifying the new constitution, Virginia (1788), New York (1788), and Rhode Island (1790) included clauses indicating they were free to leave the new federal government confederation should it become oppressive. It seems obvious that they would not have joined if they believed it was a one way trip. From a moral standpoint its reprehensible. The Declaration of Independence clearly says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.

Lincoln was in no way a great leader but a statist who put his beliefs in keeping together a union of people who did not wish to be under the same government umbrella above the lives of over 600,000 individuals.

For more information read Thomas DiLorenzo’s books Lincoln Unmasked and The Real Lincoln. Many complain his views are one sided but given the works written in excess of Lincoln’s greatness I think that’s excusable. You can also find a decent interview with DiLorenzo on CSPAN’s Q&A at Google video.

http://www.nytimes.com/…

The Bush administration on Saturday formally proposed to Congress what could become the largest financial bailout in United States history, requesting unfettered authority for the Treasury Department to buy up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets.

The proposal, not quite three pages long, was stunning for its stark simplicity. It would raise the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. And it would place no restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress, granting the Treasury secretary unprecedented power to buy and resell mortgage debt.

A $700 billion expenditure on distressed mortgage-related assets would be roughly what the country has spent so far in direct costs on the Iraq war and more than the Pentagon’s total yearly budget appropriation. Divided across the population, it would amount to more than $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

“This is a good foundation of a plan that can stabilize markets quickly,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement. “But it includes no visible protection for taxpayers or homeowners. We look forward to talking to Treasury to see what, if anything, they have in mind in these two areas.”

In Florida, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic presidential nominee, said he would press for a broader economic stimulus initiative to be part of the bailout plan for financial firms.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, issued a statement on Saturday saying he was reviewing the administration’s plan. He also urged the administration and lawmakers to consider his own plan for creating a trust within the Treasury Department to aid ailing mortgage lenders and other financial institutions.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said in a statement: “This proposal is, and should be kept, simple and clear.” He added, “Simply put, now is not the time for partisan plans or pet projects.”

Some Democrats, including lawmakers like Mr. Frank and Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and the chairman of the banking committee, were adamant about including provisions to promote government action to stabilize real estate prices and help troubled borrowers refinance their mortgages.

Still another group of Democrats was pushing for a wider stimulus package that would direct help more directly and immediately to Main Street, perhaps including an increase in unemployment benefits and investments in infrastructure projects, including bridges and roads, that would help to create jobs.

A fourth, smaller group of lawmakers was highly critical and in some cases adamantly opposed to the plan. That group included including Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, and Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont.

“The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America,” Mr. Bunning declared on Friday. “The action proposed today by the Treasury Department will take away the free market and institute socialism in America. The American taxpayer has been misled throughout this economic crisis. The government on all fronts has failed the American people miserably.”

COME ONE, COME ALL! FREE MONEY! FREE FASCISM! ALL YOU CAN CARRY!

I have to laugh because otherwise I may cry.

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

According to the campaign website, Cindy Sheehan has qualified for the ballot as an independent against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in California’s 8th district.

An email sent this afternoon to supporters says she turned in over 20,000 signatures with at least 10,198 qualifying.

Sheehan is the first independent House candidate to qualify for the California ballot since 1996. California’s requirement for independent candidates for U.S. House is the 4th most difficult in the nation (only Georgia, Illinois, and North Carolina have more severe requirements).

She has the endorsement of the local Peace and Freedom Party and Green Party.

Are her policies better then Pelosi’s? Not by much but at least she’s anti-war and an outsider.

http://hosted.ap.org/…

Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain’s challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.

In May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, “I think that’s a great idea.” In summer stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events.

Obama’s reversal on town hall debates is part of a play-it-safe strategy he’s adopted since claiming the nomination and grabbing a lead in national polls. Advisers to the Illinois senator, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss strategy, say Obama is reluctant to take chances or give McCain a high-profile stage now that Obama’s the front-runner.

On Saturday, in a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the short period between the last political convention and the first proposed debate made it likely that the commission-sponsored debates would be the only ones.

“We’ve committed to the three debates on the table,” campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Saturday in an interview. “It’s likely they will be the three appearances by the candidates this fall.”

Asked by The Associated Press if that meant Obama would not agree to any other debates, Psaki said, “We’re not saying that.” She said the McCain campaign had rejected Obama’s proposal for two joint town hall meetings.

McCain’s campaign disparaged Obama for backing off. McCain has not yet formally agreed to the commission-sponsored debates, but the McCain campaign says he plans to.

“We understand it might be beneath a worldwide celebrity of Barack Obama’s magnitude to appear at town hall meetings alongside John McCain and directly answer questions from the American people, but we hope he’ll reconsider,” spokesman Brian Rogers said.

The first debate planned by the commission is set for Sept. 26 in Oxford, Miss., three weeks after the Republican National Convention concludes Sept. 4. The Democratic convention is scheduled for Aug. 25-28.

The other presidential debates are set for Oct. 7 and Oct. 15 and the vice presidential debate for Oct. 2.

A day after Obama clinched the Democratic nomination in early June, McCain challenged Obama to a series of 10 town hall meetings. The candidates’ campaigns began negotiations, telling reporters that they agreed in spirit to joint appearances.

When the idea first came up from the McCain campaign that May, Obama was still battling Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Obama said then: “Obviously, we would have to think through the logistics on that, but … if I have the opportunity to debate substantive issues before the voters with John McCain, that’s something that I am going to welcome.”

In June, Plouffe had suggested Obama-McCain meetings more along the lines of the historic Lincoln-Douglas debates. During Abraham Lincoln’s Senate campaign against Stephen Douglas in 1858, the candidates met seven times across Illinois. One spoke for an hour, the other for an hour and a half, and the first was allowed a half-hour rebuttal.

Plouffe said Saturday that Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois will be Obama’s representative in further discussions with the commission.

The Commission on Presidential Debates, established in 1987, sponsors and produces debates featuring the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the major parties. The nonprofit and nonpartisan organization has sponsored all the presidential debates since 1988.

Looks like more evidence that Obama is not what he’s been made out to be. If he was such a great speaker and an element for true change for this country I’d expect him speaking at every single venue made available to him. If his policies are solid and he’s confident in them why wouldn’t he want to go up against McCain? I know the reason. The same reason McCain and Obama don’t want to go up against Nader, Barr, Baldwin, or McKinney. They’d get ripped apart and made to look the fools they are.

This is in no way surprising. If I were full of it, had a cult of personality, and was without intellectual integrity… I’d do the same thing.

As for the “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates… how nonpartisan is it to only include 2 of the several candidates who can technically win the election? The two that happen to be in the 2 major parties?

March:

Where: North East Lawn, Washington Monument, Washington, D.C.
When: July 12th, 2008, 9:30AM
Route: Constitution Avenue.

9:30 AM Assemble on the North Lawn of the Washington Monument
10:30 AM Begin march down Constitution Avenue. Rally begins at 11:00 AM.

Rally:

Rallying Point: West Side of Capitol Hill, begins at 11:00 AM.

Theme: The main theme of the March and Rally is Ron Paul’s message of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom through adherence to the Constitution.

Confirmed Speakers:

• Tom Mullen - Private citizen, patriotic American, and our grassroots representative, with an important message for our servant government.
• G. Edward Griffin – founder of Freedom Force International and author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, shares his in depth research and analysis concerning the Federal Reserve System and the forces behind its inception.
• Charles Goyette – syndicated talk radio host based in Phoenix, Arizona to discuss a return to the country’s constitutional traditions of sound money and limited government, the foundation upon which a viable economy can be rebuilt.
• Bob Schulz - founder of We The People Congress and We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, to speak on the People’s ability to hold the government accountable to the Constitution and restore the Republic by exercising their natural Right of Redress.
• Marcy Brooks – Juror in the tax trial of Whitey Harell v. State of Illinois (featured in Aaron Russo’s America: From Freedom to Fascism will talk about the responsibility of being a juror in tax evasion cases.
• Thomas E Woods Jr - author of “Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush” to discuss how the federal government has circumvented the Constitution and is systematically dismantling the rights and freedoms that are the foundation of a Constitutional Republic.
• Naomi Wolf – advocate of progressive politics and author of “The End of America: A letter of warning to a young patriot”. Ms. Wolfe will take a historical look at the rise of fascism, outlining the 10 steps necessary for a state to take control of individuals’ lives.
• Jack McLamb – Military Veteran, retired police officer, and radio talk show host to discuss the potential for martial law to come to America.
• Howard Phillips - Chairman of The Conservative Caucus since 1974, will discuss the multifaceted plan to turn the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American version of the European Union.
• Terri Hall – Founder and Director of Texasturf.org to discuss among other things, the ranches that are being unconstitutionally confiscated to build the Trans-Texas Corridor (NAFTA Superhighway).
• Jim Guest - MO representative to discuss the potential loss of U.S. Sovereignty; U.S. jobs that will permanently be lost; and environmental issues among other things, with the Kansas City Smart Port.
• Jeff Lewis - National Director of Fire Coalition to discuss the economic impact illegal immigration has had on the country as well as the tie between the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws and the NAU, as well as discussing why we are fighting a war on terrorism when our borders are still not secured.
• Michael Scheuer – 22 year veteran of the CIA and bestselling author of ‘Imperial Hubris’ to discuss American foreign policy and its implications on terrorism, security, and Iraq
• Adam Kokesh - Representative from the Iraq Veterans Against the War to address IVAW’s strategy to end the war, the greatest injustice of our time, and how that strategic thinking can be extrapolated to the broader movement in terms of active resistance.
• Chuck Baldwin – Constitution Party Presidential Candidate, Pastor, and radio talk show host to speak about hope for America and a new breed of politician.
• Ron Paul - to speak about the future of the Revolution.

The entire rally is supposed to be broadcasted live on RonPaulRadio.com.

You can catch their live stream here. http://ronpaulradio.com/listen.m3u

According to RevolutionMarch.com over 15 thousand people have pledged to be there. If half of that shows up it’ll be a success in my book.

I caught a bit of Bill Richardson on CNN this morning. Where I came in in the interview they were talking about the backlash Barak Obama is getting from his supporters for changing his position on the recent FISA bill passed in the Senate. From being opposed to the telecom immunities and saying he would filibuster if it was kept to voting for closure and the bill itself.

Richardson tries to explain away Obama’s position change saying in effect: “That’s just the realities of politics when running for president. He [Obama] has said when he’s in office he will see how the law is working and act accordingly.” What’s the realities? That you don’t have a spine? That special interests tell you what to do?

Then they change topics to energy and how the government is going to solve this supposed problem. They show a clip from an anti-McCain ad which critisizes him for wanting to allow drilling because it will take upwards of 7 years “to get the first drop of oil.” So complaining he doesn’t have a short term solution. The interviewer brings up that Obama doesn’t have much of a short term plan either. They quote things from his energy plan which go into effect in 2025, 2050, etc. Richardson hems and haws and beats around the bush. He just goes on to say that drilling is a good idea, as long as it’s not in nice places like Alaska.

Whatever the case these guys piss me off. Yes, I know, they are just acting like typical politicians but still. I’ve heard so much bullshit from people about how he’s different. Gotten into discussions on why he should be supported because he’s different. He’s not. It’s obvious to anyone not awestruck.