The difference between Bush’ stump speech, and his actions during the subsequent eight years is astounding.

Gore: The world’s coming together, as I said, they’re looking to us. And we have a fundamental choice to make: Are we going to step up to the plate as a nation, the way we did after World War II, the way that generation of heroes said, “OK, the United States is going to be the leader”? And the would benefited tremendously from the courage that they showed in those post-war years.

and the response…

Bush: I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, “This is the way it’s got to be. We can help.”  And maybe it’s just our difference in government, the way we view government. I mean, I want to empower people, I don’t you know, I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do.

I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country, say, “We do it this way, so should you.” Now, I think we can help, and I know we got to encourage democracy and the marketplaces…

But maybe I misunderstand where you’re coming from, Mr. Vice President, but I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.

See the full text here

Here are some of my favorite excerpts.

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 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

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

At its start in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990; however, by 1990 Medicare costs topped $107 billion. That’s nearly nine times greater than Congress’s prediction. Today’s Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off.

During the legislative debate before ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, President Howard Taft and congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In 1916 only one half of 1 percent of income earners were affected. Those earning $250,000 a year in today’s dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today’s dollars paid 7 percent. The promise that only the rich would pay was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and dupe Americans into ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment.

Read the article for some more facts and figures.

[ad#Google Adsense-1]

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” He later added, “(T)he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” Two hundred years later, at least two-thirds of a multi-trillion-dollar federal budget is spent on charity or “objects of benevolence.”

United States Constitution – Article One, Section Ten

No state shall… coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts

The principal author and “Father of the Constitution” James Madison agrees.

Paper money is unjust; to creditors, if a legal tender; to debtors, if not legal tender, by increasing the difficulty of getting specie. It is unconstitutional, for it affects the rights of property as much as taking away equal value in land. It is pernicious, destroying confidence between individuals; discouraging commerce; enriching sharpers; vitiating morals; reversing the end of government; and conspiring with the examples of other states to disgrace republican governments in the eyes of mankind.

[ad#Google Adsense-1]

George Washington

Paper money has had the effect in your State that it ever will have, to ruin commerce–oppress the honest, and open a door to every species of fraud and injustice.

George Washington letter to Jabez Bowen – 9 January 1787

Thomas Jefferson

Paper is poverty,… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.

Thomas Jefferson letter to Colonel Edward Carrington – 27 May 1788

Abraham Lincoln

No duty is more imperative on the government than the duty it owes the people of furnishing them with a sound and uniform currency.

Lincoln during the Log Cabin campaign – 1840

Alexander Hamilton

To emit an unfunded paper as the sign of value ought not to continue a formal part of the constitution, nor ever hereafter to be employed; being, in its nature, pregnant with abuses, and liable to be made the engine of imposition and fraud; holding out temptations equally pernicious to the integrity of government and to the morals of the people.

Alexander Hamilton – Resolutions - June, 1783

Andrew Jackson

In reviewing the conflicts which have taken place between different interests in the United States and the policy pursued since the adop tion of our present form of government, we find nothing that has produced such deep-seated evil as the course of legislation in relation to the currency. The Constitution of the United States unquestionably intended to secure to the people a circulating medium of gold and silver. But the establishment of a national bank by Congress with the privilege of issuing paper money receivable m the payment of the public dues, and the unfortunate course of legislation in the several States upon the same subject, drove from general circulation the con stitutional currency and substituted one of paper in its place.

Andrew Jackson -  Farewell Address – 1837

Thanks to Lawrence Parks and his lecture for the idea.

Monday, March 4, 1861

QUOTE
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so“.

COMMENTARY
Lincoln directly states that he has neither the lawful right nor inclination to interfere with the institution of slavery (in states where it already exists). Lincoln’s opinions about slavery were well documented as he frequently made it a key point in his speeches. In an attempt to appease the South, Lincoln made it clear that he would not free the slaves in slave-owning states. However, on September 22, 1862, 18 months after entering office, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that slaves in any state of the Confederacy, that did not rejoin the Union by January 1, 1863 would become free. The Emancipation Proclamation made no claim on states that were currently in the Union. Instead of freeing slaves in states where Lincoln had power, he declared that they become free only in states that he did not have any power.

Although Lincoln’s address states that he had, “no objection to its [the Corwin Amendment] being made express and irrevocable”, it was during his presidency that an amendment with an opposing viewpoint was passed. The proposed Corwin Amendment stated that, “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.” However, on December 6, 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which called for the abolishment of slavery and involuntary servitude was adopted. “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.”

QUOTE
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: “Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes“.

COMMENTARY
Lincoln denounces the lawless invasion by armed forces on any State or Territory. He goes on to show how strongly he believes this by saying, “no matter what pretext” and by calling an invasion “among the gravest of crimes”. Later in his inauguration speech, Lincoln goes on to say that,

QUOTE
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

COMMENTARY
Lincoln states that there is no need for bloodshed. However, soon after the states announced their succession, the South was invaded in the bloodiest war in United States’ history. A war in which 620,000 were killed, more casualties than the nation’s loss in all its other wars combined. Lincoln makes it a point that he will hold the property belonging to the Government. However, the Southern states, either as independent states, or as the Confederacy, are not the property of the federal Government.

QUOTE
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

COMMENTARY
Lincoln’s conclusion cannot be logically drawn from his premises.

• one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”
• if destruction of the Union… be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution
• It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union

First, Lincoln’s second premise is not true. Lincoln’s view that the Union would be less perfect if certain states seceded his only his opinion. I’m sure Jefferson Davis and 9 million other Southerners would disagree.

Second, even if both of Lincoln’s premises were true, there is no logical progression to his conclusion. Because the Constitution was created to make a perfect Union, and succession would make the Union less perfect, does not mean that no State can leave the Union. This is failed logic.

QUOTE
If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them.

COMMENTARY
This claim does not make sense. How can Lincoln state that the rights of minorities are so plain and that there are no controversies at a time when the controversy over a Constitutional right for a minority (the South) is so rampant?

The key points of Lincoln’s first inaugural address were nothing more than words. Lincoln failed to keep his promises to the American public. At the same time he greatly reduced the civil rights of both the North and the South. For this, he was rewarded a second term.