Tuesday, March 31, 2009
To retard something is to slow it down (e.g. this medication will retard your heart rate).
It's a good word, and versions of it are used every day in schools. Late students are tardy (which brings the question: if they are tardy a second time, are they re-tardy?)
Seriously, what is so hurtful about this? Mentally disabled people are, as the term "retarded" suggests, "slow." If "retarded" is hurtful, then so should be the term "mentally disabled."
I'll grant you that "retarded" is a common pejorative for people who do stupid things or for people who are just plain stupid.
So shouldn't any term that identifies a person as mentally impaired be "hurtful" to those who are medically retarded?
Suppose a guy cuts me off of the highway, and I yell that he's an idiot.
An idiot is someone who either doesn't think, doesn't think properly, or who thinks not quite enough.
A retarded person is the same thing. His mental disability prevents him from thinking well.
What's the difference?
The answer is that there is no real difference. This is just another example of Americans seeking the heroic glory of victimhood. In this country, we hate our business leaders, but we love our victims.
This whole move to abolish the word--it's retarded.
Don't play games with words. If people suddenly start using the term "retarded" to describe a silly or stupid thing, this will not make those with mental disabilities suddenly more cognitive.
This is much the same as the movement to end the use of the N-bomb (i.e. nig*er). As if the word itself was the cause of racism. In fact, the word is a variation of the Spanish word negra, which means nothing more than "black." In German, the word is negerin.
It's just a word. The current preference is "African-Americans;" but what if a black/colored man is an Australian Aborigine? He's not African. What about Egyptians? They live in Africa, but we don't refer to them as "African-Americans."
Sure, I don't use the N-bomb because of its hostile connotation, but, if suddenly no one knew the meaning of the word, racism would still exist.
Similarly, if nobody used the word retard or retarded, it's not as if we wouldn't notice that some people are cognitively impaired.
Let's put this into perspective.
In American history, the term "secessionist" has been made connotative to treasonist.
Since I think that the South should have been allowed to secede, I take offense to the connotation of "secessionist."
Does this make Southerners of the time any less secessionist? No, it doesn't; so it's a stupid argument.
Mark (age 5): "Dad? Is Barack Obama the worst president ever?"
Aristos (age 32): "That's hard to say. He's on the right track, but he hasn't killed anyone like Lincoln did."
Mark: "Lincoln killed people?"
Aristos: "Well, technically he didn't kill anyone personally, but he abused his powers to see that hundreds of thousands who disagreed with him died."
Mark: "Geez, why didn't anyone kill Lincoln?"
Aristos: "Actually, somebody did kill Lincoln. An actor named John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln in the back of the head."
Mark: "Well then that makes John Wilkes Booth a hero, like Spiderman."
Aristos: "Not really."
Mark: "Oh yeah! Spiderman kills bad guys who try to hurt other people, and he's a hero. So if John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln, then he's a hero because Lincoln hurt other people!"
Aristos: "No, Mark, you're missing the big picture."
Mark: "Are you going to start explaining things to me now like the other times? Because if you are, then I'm just going to go to my room and play my playstation."
About ten minutes later.
Aristos: "I thought that you were playing Playstation."
Mark: "I was. I was playing Spiderman, and I was killing lots of bad guys."
Aristos: "That's not the same as shooting the president in the back of the head."
Mark: "That's not what I'm talking about. I wanted to know if maybe John Wilkes Booth thought that he was in a movie when he shot Lincoln."
Mark: "You said that John Wilkes Booth was an actor, so maybe he just thought that he was pretending to shoot the president for a good movie about a hero who kills bad guys, but the gun was real and it killed Lincoln. So maybe he shouldn't go to jail because it was just an accident."
I desperately want to know what goes through this kid's head as he reasons things out. He has his peculiar way of thinking, but there is an elegance (however flawed) to it that goes well beyond his age.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Of course I just finished reading several articles about how Obama plans to "save" the economy with socialism.
Socialism as the solution? That's like medicine going back to bloodletting.
Will the government subsidize the up-and-coming leach industry?
Sunday, March 29, 2009
I live in a tyranny.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Any half-wit who's studied economics for one day will tell you that they built SUV's because people were demanding and buying SUV's.
The kind of crap that Obama wants us to buy needs tax incentives to encourage people to buy them.
Well, if it's so great to buy electric cars and that kind of shizzle, then why do you have to offer an incentive?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
It makes me think of an old George Strait song:
Give me a bottle of your very best
'Cause I've got a problem I'm gonna drink off my chest.
The biggest problem is that, if Bob's right, then the best that I'll be able to afford is Five O'Clock Vodka. Like many bad products, it sells itself by promising great quality for a great price, but it really just gives me a massive hangover.
That said, I had a rather absurd thought today.
I was in the Men's Room, just finishing a little after-too-many-fluids chore, when I thought to myself:
How awful would it be if something happened to me, and I died before the Beatles's game comes out?
Sure, that's the real tragedy, Aristos. You died in your early thirties and left behind a wife and three kids. But that kind of crap is old hat--happens every day. But to die before being able to press buttons in synch with Paul's bass on "We Can Work It Out," now that's a freaking catastrophe!
Ironically, I listen to this song for comfort from Obama's agenda.
I dream of an America without pandering socialists and closet fascists.
Maybe one day my dream will come true. If it does, then I promise you all that I will not support a bailout of the idiot industry (i.e. Congress).
This is Elvis at the peak of his abilities. Note the control, the pitch, the raw power. It's from his 1968 Comeback Special--one of the highest rated airings in television history.
Try to forgive the senseless 20 seconds of nothing before it gets underway.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
It looks, to me, as if the whole issue hinges upon the Drug War.
So end the drug war, and end the crisis. This would save money and lives at home and abroad.
Drugs are bad. They can harm drug users. The Drug War, however, is worse because it leads to violence that harms non-drug users.
Besides, those who want to use drugs do so regardless of the law. They will harm themselves no matter what.
But making drugs illegal invites gangs and cartels to control the industry, and they cause violence that leads to extreme collateral damage.
We can't get rid of drugs, but we can get rid of the Drug War.
Hell, Obama, that's so freaking logical that I deserve a position in your cabinet.
The best part? I've paid my taxes.
Monday, March 23, 2009
The latest studies say that global warming is proceeding faster than previously thought.
That's an interesting assertion, since it comes at the exact time that people can't afford all of this "green" crap (e.g. light bulbs that say that they produce as much light with less energy but really produce just less light for more money).
This increase of urgency is merely the last stand of those who knew that they had nothing upon which to stand in the first place.
Tomorrow, I'm going to buy an incandescent light bulb that gives off sixty watts because it burns at sixty watts.
Al Gore can burn in Hell. If not now, then I'll settle for later.
In my previous post, I suggested that there is something wrong with allowing mentally impaired people the right to vote. I did not give much reason behind it because I thought that the logic behind said position was fairly concrete.
However, my dear friend "Howling Mad" Murdock commented
How about 'All men are created equal'?First, let me deal with "All men are created equal."
Equal representation? The constitution?
Of course the mentally impaired have an equal right to life.
However, they depending upon the level of their impairments, they do not necessarily enjoy liberty--some may need full time care that comes with restrictions--or property.
Some people are so impaired that they can be declared non compos mentis (i.e. "not of sound mind"). Such cases would permit caregivers from restricting where their patients can go and what they can do (e.g. You wouldn't allow them to drive a car--even if they could pass the licensing exam--, handle knives, walk to the park alone, etc.).
Similarly, some might be so unimpaired that they cannot legally sign a contract, so out with the right to own property such as a car or a home.
Remember that the quote is "All men are created equal," and not "All men are created equally."
As to Murdock's second point: "Equal representation."
I'm not sure what he means by this. Is he suggesting that there should be members of the House and Senate who have Down Syndrome? Or is he alluding to that old, "One man, one vote" thing?
This is somewhat to my point: not every man (or woman) should be voting. Certainly no one whose primary source of income is the government, and persons with DS and other impairments are considered disabled and receive benefits from Social Security.
The cost of entitlements should be disenfranchisement. This will ultimately curb what Bastiat called "legal plunder." We need to reform (or do away completely with) Social Security, but any candidate who even makes the suggestion dooms himself to failure because the elderly--who reap most of Social Security's benefits--vote en bloc to protect their grasp on your and my wallet.
Let's just consider that mentally impaired people are simply not that bright. Their education and reasoning are limited. There was once a time when white men assumed that white women (who were denied most educational and professional opportunities) and minorities (especially Black-Americans, Indians, and Chinese) were similarly limited. This was the primary reason for keeping them from the polls.
However, it is now abundantly clear that race and gender do not render a person mentally impaired.
However, people who are impaired enough to be labled "disabled" and receive money from the government for their support are not competent to vote.
I've heard it said how tragic or pathetic it is that so few Americans actually vote.
I hold that it is tragic how many Americans vote, for many--if not most--of them shouldn't.
I have the gall to make such an assertion because I see voting as casting a lot in favor of committing (or at least threatening) violence to those in opposition, and should, therefore, not be taken lightly by some ignoramus whose entire source of insight into the candidates and issues is the media, be it Fox News or MSNBC.
Think about it.
Government's exist and carry out their policies because they can legally deprive people of their lives (cops kill people; capital punishment), liberties (prisons; tethers; don't leave the state), and properties (fines; confiscations). Why else do you pull over when the cop hits the lights? Why else do you pay your taxes? Normally, if some guy in a suit told me to pay up or else, I'd tell him to kiss my butt. But an IRS agent in a suit has the backing of men with guns, big guns, guns bigger and better than I am (conveniently--for the Feds) allowed to own. If I tell that thug in a suit to kiss my butt, then he sends his goons after me and my property. What happens if I try to defend myself and my property? I end up injured and in prison or just plain dead.
That said, voting should never be taken lightly. If it's to be considered a "right," then proper education and ability should be considered a responsibility; and those unable to acquire an education or maintain said ability should not vote.
Of course, Murdock is correct about the Constitution. According to the 15th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Since the 26th Amendment, any citizen over the age of 18 can vote. This means that, constitutionally, a mentally impaired person can vote.
My objection was that although such people currently can vote, they still should not vote.
I decline to accept that when the 15th and 26th Amendments were ratified, it was so that people who cannot sufficiently think for themselves could vote. The 15th Amendment was enacted so that African-American men in the South could vote for Republicans who had no other source of support in that region (savor the irony). The 26th Amendment was ratified in order to justify sending 18 year-old boys to kill and die in Vietnam (if you're going to force/draft young men to fight, then they should be able to vote for those who send them).
What we have is a complicated situation. We might abolish government completely, which would render moot the question of who should vote; or we might set certain but specific criterion to ascertain who should be allowed to vote and who should not be allowed.
The danger of the latter is that the state will almost certainly stack the cards in its failure. The danger of the previous is that we try what hasn't been tried before.
Let's talk about real change. That's right, Mr. Obama. I'm not just talking about less government (though you are talking about vastly more goverment).
What if government itself was the cause of so many of our woes?
Governments wage war.
Governments who interfere with the economy cause, in the very least, the business cycle. In the very worst, government causes famine (see the consequences of Stalin's and Mao's policies).
If the Constitution allows people reasonably declared as mentally impaired to vote, then the Constitution needs to be amended. This statement isn't very revolutionary. In fact, it makes sense. For nearly 100 years, the Constitution not only allowed but protected slavery. The 13th Amendment ended slavery. Now it's time for the 28th Amendment.
Friday, March 20, 2009
On the Tonight Show, Obama made a joke at the expense of Americans with physical and mental disabilities (his bread and butter, come election year if you ask me--oops, I just did it too!).
Here's the exchange.
LENO: Now, are they going to put a basketball -- I imagine the bowling alley has been just burned and closed down.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. I have been practicing all -- (laughter.)
LENO: Really? Really?
THE PRESIDENT: I bowled a 129. (Laughter and applause.)
LENO: No, that's very good. Yes. That's very good, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something. (Laughter.)
LENO: No, that's very good.
THE PRESIDENT: No, listen, I'm making progress on the bowling, yes.
While many are complaining that it was insensitive, almost everyone seems to be letting Obama off the hook in a way that they would not have dared had the words come from Bush or even Vice-President Biden.
According to the Associated Press:
"Maria Shriver says President Barack Obama's joke comparing his poor bowling score to that of a Special Olympics athlete was hurtful, although she is sure he didn't mean it that way."
Has anyone noticed yet? Look at him, Thomas.
See his hands? No holes.
See his feet? No holes.
See his side? No hole.
I'll tell you what the real insult is.
It's suggesting that Obama's game was at Special Olympics standards, when this article clearly demonstrates that even Special Olympians bowl better.
And I suppose that it was inevitable, so here it comes.
A man with down syndrome has challenged the president to a bowling match!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
I understand why people are upset to learn of AIG's plan to give over $165 million in bonuses to certain executives. However, Congress unjustly hassled AIG's CEO, Edward Liddy, for these bonuses. Several congressmen have demanded Liddy hand in his resignation.
First of all, Liddy did not design nor approve these bonuses. They were established by contract before he became CEO. Perhaps congressmen need to learn what a contract means. Liddy hasn't the power to nullify the contracts, so giving him grief over what he didn't create and cannot end amounts to ridiculous grandstanding.
Secondly, Liddy has no reason--as far as I can see--to resign. He did not lead the company into the abyss. He became CEO after AIG fell apart. He's clearly not to blame.
Thirdly, Liddy's salary is $1; even though he doesn't own the company.
According to congress, this $1 salary is, converted into hours, well below the minimum wage.
But fine, Liddy has other benefits.
And to my point.
Congress has done jack-shit for years. Its members don't deserve a salary beyond what CEO's make. So, before the next SOB who managed to get elected on the basis of his BS rips on a man making a $1 salary, let Congress vote to reduce their own salaries to $1. Like Liddy, they'll still receive residual benefits.
But Congress won't do this, and why not? Because they are a bunch of hypocritical, grandstanding, POS POSes.
Somehow, these people in Congress think that they have done something to earn their wages.
In fact, they've done nothing more than to earn our contempt.
But the mass of men are too stupid to make this clear.
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Monday, March 16, 2009
The sad truth is that no man such as Jack Bauer or Rooster Cogburn has ever existed (at least as an employee of the state).
Seriously, I love watching 24, but it doesn't escape me that this guy was trained by and works for the same government that engineered the actions in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Sure, you might argue that these operations had merit (and you might also argue on weak ground--except for, perhaps, Afghanistan), but clearly there are no Bauers on this country's payroll.
However, there are plenty of Obama's--men who spent nary a moment in defense of the constitution, but instead have plans to render it more worthless than double-ply Charmin (try wiping your butt with the Constitution, and you'll know what I mean).
Or you can just ask President Obama what it feels like, for he's been wiping his butt with the Constitution since he took office.
When will we realize that, if we truly adore the founding fathers, this government that we have is the very kind which they declared independence from and fought against?
The answer, of course, is probably never. While we enjoy much more technology than the people of the late 18th century, we are--beyond a doubt--far dumber.
We neither know the function of a constitution, nor do we appreciate the function. If I were not a part of the masses beneath the federal monstrosity, I would say that the people deserve what they've wrought.
I love America and all that it is supposed to represent; however, I feel like the parent of a meth-addicted child. I still love it/him/her, but I know that its future is down the drain.
Do you wish to know the definition of a co-dependent? It's those of you who continue to vote for republicans or democrats.
Don't you see that these are the very people who have led us to this?
And yet those of us who support "third parties" are ridiculed for being unrealistic and absurd.
Well, you have your reality. How absurd is it that you approve of it?
Just watch. Now that the public has paid for Octomom (just look at where her money came from--interviews and such because you would watch) to have a nice big home with full-time care for her superfluous household, we're destined to have more Octomoms.
You get what you pay for.
Pay for an unemployed woman to have more children? You've got it.
Pay for a company that foolishly invests its assets in bad deals? You've got it.
A bad economy? You've got it.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Given this, I feel assured that I have made my mark.
One of the coolest things about being a parent is when you see one of your kids and its as if you're looking at yourself.
One of the strangest things about being a parent is when you have multiple children and each one shows a different shade of yourself.
Friday, March 13, 2009
"If the Negro is a man,why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal;” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another."
He continues with "What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent."
Lincoln next invokes the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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."
"I have quoted so much at this time merely to show that according to our ancient faith, the just powers of governments are derived from the consent of the governed. Now the relation of masters and slaves is, pro tanto, a total violation of this principle. The master not only governs the slave without his consent; but he governs him by a set of rules altogether different from those which he prescribes for himself."
This all sounds well and good. In fact, I agree with the man. However, notice this curious excerpt that directly follows the above two quotes:
"Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary."
I ask this:
If, Mr. Lincoln, your "ancient faith" dictates that all men are created equal, then what must I make of your statement that you oppose "the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks"?
The answer, of course, is that Lincoln was full of crap--and the above contradiction reeks of it.
Here's the real reason, in Lincoln's own words, why slavery should be barred from the territories:
"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories,is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition. For this use, the nation needs these territories. "
Basically, only white people should live in the territories. I suppose because they are, as Orwell imagined in Animal Farm, "more equal" than non-whites.
In his adult life, Lincoln was from Illinois, a free-state--due to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. However, not having slavery--even disliking slavery--does not make a people civil-rights minded.
Here's an example of racism in a free-state (the kind of racism that resolves Lincoln's previous contradiction):
"Legislators in the first General Assembly passed measures designed to discourage African-Americans from coming to Illinois. Blacks were denied suffrage, and other laws deprived them of most rights accorded free white men. African-Americans were prohibited from immigrating without a certificate of freedom. Moreover, they had to register that certificate, along with the certificates of any children, immediately upon entering the state. Among other things, the state legislature intended to discourage Illinois from becoming a haven for runaway slaves. Any runaway found in the state could be sentenced by a justice of the peace to thirty-five lashes. African-Americans assembling in groups of three or more could be jailed and flogged. Additionally, they could not testify in court nor serve in the militia.
"The state's newspapers were filled with advertisements from neighboring states offering rewards for the capture and return of runaway slaves. John Crain, sheriff of Washington County, advertised that he had taken two runaway slaves into custody. Unless their owners called for them, paid the charges and removed them from the state, they "will be hired out as the law directs." Slave hunters such as William Rose of Nashville, Tennessee, advertised their services as agents to find runaways in Illinois.
"Not only did Illinois newspapers carry advertisements for runaways, the state attempted to further discourage black immigration by raising new barriers. The 1829 law required any free black to register in the county seat and post a $1,000 bond to cover costs should they become indigent or violate state or local laws. Since few black men or women had such sums available, they usually had to find a friendly white man to act as surety for them. At the same time, blacks also had to register their certificates of freedom from the state from which they immigrated."
The problem was that free blacks kept moving into Illinois:
"Still, pressure continued to mount to do more to maintain Illinois as a "white man's state." One way to do that, believed some, was to promote the colonization of blacks in the Caribbean or in Liberia. The state had an active colonization society that included such luminaries as Stephen A. Douglas, John Mason Peck, and others."
Who else might be listed among the "others"? None other than Mr. Five Dollar Bill, Abraham Lincoln.
That's right. He believed so much in the equality of blacks that he was a member of an organization that wanted to ship all free blacks "back" to Africa--even though the majority of black Americans at the time had been born in the United States.
In 1847, Illinois even re-wrote their constitution to "prohibit the emigration of free African-Americans into the state."
A few years later,
"the General Assembly adopted the draconian "Black Law" of 1853. For the most part, the law simply brought together in one place several existing laws. Under this law, no black from another state could remain within the Illinois borders for more than ten days. Beyond ten days and he or she was subject to arrest, confinement in jail, and a $50 fine and removal from the state. If unable to pay the fine, the law directed the sheriff to auction the offending African-American to the bidder willing to pay the costs and the tine and to work the "guilty" party the fewest number of days. If the convicted man or woman did not leave within ten days after completing the required service, the process resumed, but the fine was increased $50 for each additional infraction."
But surely this attitude must have changed sometime before the Civil War?
"The Illinois Black Laws continued in force until the end of the Civil War. Indeed, in the midst of the Civil War, Illinois held a constitutional convention and a new constitution was submitted to the people of the state for ratification. One of the most remarkable features of that document were three provisions that wrote the Black Laws into the proposed constitution. Although Illinois voters rejected the constitution, they overwhelmingly approved the anti-black provisions."
So what's with Lincoln's reputation for being The Great Emancipator?
Mostly, it's the mythology established firmly by the sympathy that surrounded his death. It also helped that, as the country realized that racism is not only absurd but evil, the "Lincoln freed the slaves" / "Lincoln cared about civil rights" myth made most people feel all warm and cozy.
How warm and cozy would the truth be? Try this:
Abraham Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories because he wanted only white men in the territories (this is by his own words), but also because he knew that slave states would oppose his whig/republican agenda, which included high, protective tariffs, a powerful national bank, and federal funding of "internal improvements" (e.g. the "earmarks" that make up so much of today's stimulus package).
Lincoln said time after time that he had no intention of interfering with slavery in the slave states, that he only wanted to prevent it from spreading.
He would not have said such things if he truly opposed slavery for moral reasons. Instead, his reasons were racist and political.
Slavery in a state means black people in a state. Lincoln was from Illinois, and Illinois clearly didn't want black people around.
Slavery in a state means that the state will take up the political and economic ideology of the southern states, which would make passing protective tariffs, managing a national bank, and funding internal improvements difficult.
The Republican Party (Lincoln's party) had five main planks:
No slavery in the territories.
High protective tariffs.
A powerful national bank.
Federal funding of state projects (i.e. "internal improvements")
A "Homestead Act" to make it easier for poor whites to settle the western territories.
Still think that Lincoln was a civil rights icon?
With the exception of his assassination, the Civil War was a blessing for Lincoln. It led to the South being itself enslaved to the North. Republicans got their tariffs, their banking scheme, their "internal improvements", their Homestead Act.
Yes, Lincoln and the Republican Party were responsible for the end of slavery, but for all the wrong reasons.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
"Congress may need to fund another stimulus, Pelosi says" reads the headline.Why? Because the other ones haven't worked.
Of course, the other likely answer is that congressional spending packages do not rescue an economy.
As Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Pelosi: "Sure that stimulus didn't work that time or that other time, but it is sure to work this time..."
Gee, shooting that guy in the chest three times with a shotgun did not bring him out of cardiac arrest...
It may be that we need to shoot him a fourth, maybe even a fifth time in the chest.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Mark my words, I will use some time tomorrow to degrade you, Mr. President. You have assumed an unnatural amount of executive power, but you decided to allow this to pass?
Is it because the losers who elected you don't have to worry about getting up in the morning for a productive job?
I'll answer my own question here: of course that's why. You were elected by unskilled workers and the elites in Hollywood and the media. The millions of others who voted for you did so because they were not smart enough to have a.) studied history; b.) read the constitution; of c,) ever dared think for themselves.
Think on this, Obama, before your reelection bid:
If you get rid of DST, then the recipients of my hard work (i.e. those standing in welfare lines) will have an extra hour of rest--if you get rid of DST.
Seriously, you plan on sodomizing the blueprint set by the founding fathers, so why not take care of this B.S. while you're at it?
Sure, I enjoy the day when we "gain" an hour," but it's not worth this crap.
Seriously, why is this necessary?
(Ironically, I ask this question when so many other questions are being answered wrongly).
If you reply to this promptly, then screw you.
It won't be eight at my house. It will be seven.
(And yes, I do pretend that someone who is not the victim of Daylight Savings Time will weigh in on this).
Monday, March 02, 2009
Emancipation Proclamation; January 1, 1863
Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free ; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. 
"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States;  and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States." 
Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion,  do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God. 
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the
United States of America the eighty-seventh.
By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
 There it is, Bob.
 Meaning that Lincoln encourages an armed slave revolt--but only in areas not loyal to him.
 Lincoln himself will decide which states or parts of states are loyal and exempted from the emancipation.
 The emancipation is a "war measure" to put down the rebellion. It has nothing to do with being the right thing.
 This power doesn't exist in Article II (the president's part of the Constitution) or any other part.