It Will Become All One Thing, Or All The Other
A political scientist does not have a physical lab and a white coat with safety glasses on as they aggregate informational flows, sifting through information, unearthing tangible ideas and opinions, analyzing these and the conclusions thereof they arrive to, but they are on the cusp of practicing informed, independent, open-mined critical thinking. Their focus is on an understanding of the interaction of weak and powerful systems, organizations and entities, political movement flows, local, national and global culture dynamics, and the relationships between governments and the people that constitute these.
Abraham Lincoln was a political scientist; a critical thinker; a selfless individual who looked into the matter of what the original spirit of liberty and justice for all was, and what the sum intentions of the founding fathers of the American nation were. He was a man who loved to learn and had an early appreciation for the value of selfless objectivity, recognizing it as an honest principle that would anchor his determination to safeguard the true pillars of America’s foundation: the protection of individual human rights, that there be liberty and justice for all, that therefore, the people be genuinely safe and happy.
Abraham Lincoln saw slavery as an institution that had to be safely brought to a halt through legislative works and directly beseeching the people — who had the power of the vote in choosing the representatives of our constitutional republic. His chosen path required patience, inner fortitude, exemplary personal conduct, tremendous physical energy, and brilliance of mind as he delivered the language of his message with a cadence to respectfully awake, yet gently urge the people unto choosing to do the right thing for the sake of the blessings of goodness that should belong to the American people, if they would so allow it. He was a tactical, nimble political genius, altogether anchored in goodness and an earnest expectancy of peace, liberty and justice unto all. The anchor of this inner man was truly American in its nature, and is what allowed the informational structure and delivery of his political language to be so carefully strategic and successful: surely, his adherence to basic values of Christianity: temperance, peace, love, goodnesss, faith, meekness, longsuffering, and gentleness had there strengthening effect in solidifying selflessness in him, but that alone would not endear him to the national face of a people so diverse in religion, ethnicity, skin color, or creed; — his political savviness to ‘stay national’ was the ‘next level’ quality that identified Abraham Lincoln, as both, an individual citizen with his own strong beliefs, and a national individual who was interested in unifying the people in alignment unto the formula of the original spirit of 1776.
And what does Abraham Lincoln give to us as a national American? If we read his words, we read that he calls us to care: he calls on our hearts and minds to bring our intellect and sober hearts to look into the matter of what American way of life we will effect. Will we default our solemn duty to assure the only formula of national peace: liberty and justice for all, and if so, how is it that we default? How does our educational curriculum shape Americans to be critical thinkers who are anchored in the goodly ground of altruism? And if it does not, how are parents, and American individuals responding to ideologies that misconstrue, ignore, and denigrate the people who first established our nation?
Abraham Lincoln spoke through his words as much as he spoke his words: he called for the exertion of intellect, and for the patience to withstand until the machinery and designs of factious ideology could be brought forth into the light, and the people be gently called unto the promise of our first national agreement, our first Declaration of the Rights of Humanity: the Declaration of Independence.
On the effect of the institution of slavery upon the political union of the people of the United States of America:
“I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing, or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.
Have we no tendency to the latter condition?
Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination — piece of machinery so to speak — compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its chief bosses, from the beginning.”
ABRAHAM LINCOLN IN HIS “HOUSE DIVIDED SPEECH AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOISE, JUNE 16, 1858
Lincoln was of the same tenacity as John Quincy Adams, and of Frederick Douglass; complimenting, furthering, and paralleling their unalloyed, allegiance and scholarly propensity for simple legal clarity in expressing the necessary founding values and principles required to remain a national people in the spirit and promise of 1776. Carefully, and with solemness of duty unto the gravity of their work to communicate with the people in such manner that their message would be in its best form to be as graciously received as could be, these sentinels exemplified a politically scientific approach that would identify and deconstruct the designs of the slavery industry and its factious intention (political self-interest) in our national government. The doctrine of ‘Popular Sovereignty,’ that a person can own a person, and a third person, nor government can object, guided the ideology of Supreme Court Justices: directing a narrow interpretation of the Constitution and our natural law proclamations found in our initial Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, that they then identify the intent of the founding fathers of our nation in the opaque perspective that the promises of liberty and justice were not granted unto all, that these were not self-evident and inalienable, but conferred, granted privileges. Further, the false doctrine of Popular Sovereignty hinges on the supposition that the person of black skin color was not a human being, and as such, discussion on the matter would not be initiated (identity politics).
Since the Supreme Court ruling that legalized the right to end human life in the womb in 1973 and into 2022, the same premise from the same political party, the Democrat Political Party, has been presented without identifying it in the vocabulary of ‘Popular Sovereignty,’ but through a defacto set of phrases and terms uniformly focused on disallowing recognition of individual humanity, claiming right of ownership to choose if that separate human being can have its life spared or ended, and declaring the matter of choosing to allow the human in the womb to live or die, and the act of killing it, an exercise in liberty and a exemplification of individual human right.
The maintenance of the doctrine surely needs the consent of the people whom vote our representatives into government office, and these decree (Executive Office), opine into law (Supreme Court, and legislate (U.S. Congress) language that regulates the content and intention of our children’s education, the future adult Americans who will continue the process of consenting to the national way of life that condones the practice of Popular Sovereignty: in 2021, instead of creating an educational law to prioritize that 21st century Americans be independently-minded, critical thinkers who can weld a community-minded entrepreneurial purposed on individual financial independence unto their chosen professions and interests, the Democrat Party, a faction of factions (the Big Tent), has instituted critical race theory, a doctrine that places and dismisses the intention of the founding fathers and the spirit of 1776 as racist, oppressive, and stale, while pushing students to ultimately dwell on the emotional upheaval of a different historical narrative story that forces people of white skin color into an apologetic position. That is ‘gas lighting’ and targeting the white-skinned color American people into codifying themselves as historical aggressors. Critical (of the white) race theory is then a politically divisive timber that is part of a larger construction of the Democrat Party as they seek to distance themselves from the true spirit of equal liberty and justice for all that symbolizes the Revolutionary Spirit of 1776: an intention to protect individual human rights and the right to self-determination of one’s life as a national people of different ethnicities, religions, skin colors, and creeds; these establishing and consenting to a government that recognizes that spirit of individual liberty and justice for all, again, beginning with the first national agreement that initiated the political union of the people as Americans, our Declaration of Independence.
Abraham Lincoln:
“Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination — piece of machinery so to speak — compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its chief bosses, from the beginning.”
Lincoln understood the call to defend was not merely on the physical battle field, where it could be more apparent where and who the enemy was, but to intellectually defend the original spirit of individual liberty and justice for all, with a political science-minded approach that was critically thinking about how ideological constructions from narrow-minded, self-serving factions are always looking to co-op the heart of our constitutional republic with an end goal of manipulating it as an instrument for their own political, ideological, or monetary gain.
In 2021 and 2022, the insertion of Critical Race Theory in our school system will not produce a people who are objective thinkers, creative problem solvers who are solution-oriented, and analytical, but generations of people further detached from understanding that George Washington was not simply a slave holder and only that defines him, but that since 1786 he is speaking out against slavery and is making personal and official actions to limit, hinder, and contain the institution, placing it on the path to extinction. Critical race theory proponents will not teach that because they do not know about George Washington and they do not care to know. The fact that he owned a slave is all that they need to know. And that is not critical thinking. That is not even shallow, pseudo-intellectualism, but a flagrant emotional rant, presented as a railing rebuke against the generation of 1776 and the works of the founding fathers.
Why?
Because the abortion industry faction, same as the slavery industry faction, can only survive in the absence or misconstruing of the knowledge of the ideas of equal liberty and justice that were and are the core of our first national agreement, that ultimately we be safe and happy. Attainment of factual knowledge of the writings and congressional works that our nation was truly founded on is not in the prerogative of the Democrat Party echelon because it would break the ideological construction of narratives that they are piecing together. Actually reading the words and selfless gallant actions of George Washington, the duty-bound loyalty to doing things the right way and for the right reasons of John Adams, and the patient endurance of John Quincy Adams to ‘go it alone’ in defense of Native Americans and of people of black skin color; the arrival of Frederick Douglass and his passion for learning and sharing why individual liberty and justice is so valuable: he, as an American slave and as a free man with no legal protections upholding the spirit and promise of 1776; and of course, the brilliant genius of Abraham Lincoln, with his legalistic, political science, critically thinking mind, calmly, methodically, with a love for his country and the promise of what it could be: identifying and deconstructing the machinery and ideological constructions of a slavery faction that had found that the instrumentality of government office would prolong and entrench its mainstay of access to (power) setting national policy that preferred its agenda, and access to printing or raising tax money to further its purpose.
As it was stated by President Ronald Reagan in his March 8, 1983 speech that shared his public policy and administrations position on the protection and value of human life, he emphasized that the push for a watering down of traditions and long-held national family values were being enacted by the abortion industry’s instrumentality of national government: he implored the American people to block the abortion industry’s attempts to sidestep parental notification of youth who were seeking abortions.
(Included below are excerpts of that speech in chronological order:)
An example of that vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in Washington. And since I’m involved, I’ve been waiting to hear from the parents of young America. How far are they willing to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?
Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated, deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, some time ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.
But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy.
Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.
You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and indeed, I’m sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life..”
RONALD REAGAN, MARCH 8, 1983
The United States of America; a national, political union of a diverse people, it was found in 1776, — could only find agreement that at the least, we were created equal, with the rights to life & liberty, and the right to be safe and happy, and the liberty that is also our solemn duty, to alter or abolish government these ceases to uphold these foundational natural laws. Now, if it be so that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts, cannot find how the 9th Amendment of the Constitution, “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” that the first foundational natural law declarations of 1776 are not in and of themselves our first written liberties, and that these same Supreme Court Justices be found to be in lockstep agreement unto what is the ‘Alito Draft Opinion’ that was released to the public in May of 2022, calling the Roe v. Wade opinion legalizing abortion as unconstitutional, and yet, absolving itself of its national judicial duty to do its job and protect the original spirit of individual liberty and justice for all; putting forth that such decision of abortion shall be parceled out to the state governments and the people of those states, then the Alito opinion is in actuality, selling Popular Sovereignty: that the Supreme Court deny its judicial authority and duty to protect individual life and stating that it is up to the people of the land, — is to proclaim that government will not actually object to the ownership of a human as property, and that each state may choose or not choose to defend the value of human life.
What the Alito Draft Opinion offers is to absolve itself of wrongdoing; to absolve itself of the bloodiness that is human abortion, and to place into effect a construction that is reminiscent of the free states and slave states dichotomy of the times immediately before the Civil War; an opinion meant to maintain a political appeasement that sets up a greater reckoning at a later time, and also, a watering down of the intention, the very spirit of our first national agreement of 1776, and the foundational promise that America was built on: the equal protection of individual human rights that we be a safe and happy people who self-determine our own lives.
