Lincoln was a racist

There is a conception in America that Abraham Lincoln was some kind of civil rights advocate.

Consider the following, written by Honest Abe:

"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." Two years later, President Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)."

In 1858,Lincoln had written: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

Lincoln was not the humanitarian that you were lead to believe. His values and constitution authority was challeneged by many people, inlcuding the influencial abolitionist/ conservative/anarchist: Lysander Spooner.. Not to mention the entirely new republic of the South! Ask yourself... Was it a war of northern agression???

Lincoln was a lot of things, but he was not the moral authority of the day... He never ended slavery in Union States. In fact, he wanted to ship all back people back to Africa. America, Please learn your history! None of your preconceptions are bullet-proof... and the Lincoln Myth is an injustice on our heritage!

Learn more at mises.org

Republicans Actually Voted Against Wiretapping Before Voting for it

Everyone remembers John Kerry, the flip-flopper, who uttered the infamous remark: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." While that statement generated widespread criticism, few have taken the Republicans to task for their drastic flip-flopping on the issue of warrant-less wiretapping.

In 1996, Congress passed anti-terrorist legislation. This legislation was a direct response to the Oklahoma City Bombing. Clinton delivered a bill, which included provisions for warrant-less wiretapping, to the Congress, urging that they act within the week.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," Clinton said.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend: "The Senate needs to study all the options", he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

Contrast that the hurried passage of the Patriot Act. As The New York Times reports: "After Sept. 11, Congress was in such a rush to pass the Patriot Act that, disturbingly, many members did not even read it before they voted for it." When Bush's wiretapping program became news in 2005, Trent Lott no longer advocated the study of the issues. He told The Wall Street Journal: "I want my security first... I will deal with all the details after that."

A compromise was reached on the 1996 anti-terrorism bill. The republicans successfully removed the wiretapping provisions. Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma noted that America remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state."

The Republicans now endorse this police state. Trent Lott, who worked to remove wiretapping provisions in 1996, rallied support for the program this time around. He insunated that, without the program, Washington DC would be attacked by terrorists. He adds: "What are people worried about? What is the Problem? Are you doing something you're not supposed to?"

The Republicans, who used to posture for limted government, praised Bush's policies in thier 2004 Party Platform,: "President Bush has confronted unprecedented challenges, including a world scarred by terrorism. The President and the American people have risen to the occasion by acting on a bold new statement of America’s place and purpose in the world. Today, we are filled with hope for the most dramatic advance of liberty in 60 years."

The 'dramatic advance of liberty' is a euphamism for the invasive 'war on terror', which has been waged at the cost of America's privacy and civil rights. The Republicans, who historically have been skeptical of big government, have aided the cause of liberty by bowing to the state.