One Party

Lincoln was a racist

2008-05-10T07:06:00.000-07:00

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

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;a

Real American Villians - John Yoo

2008-05-07T13:00:00.000-07:00

John Yoo is currently a professor of Law at the Boalt Hall School of law at the University of California in Berkley.

Yoo worked with the Bush Administration to distort laws, laying the legal foundation of our current war effort. He held the title of deputy attorney general at the office of legal council. The memos that he wrote helped to rationalize the actions that the Bush Administration was probably going to take anyway.

Yoo used his own revised history as the basis for his legal memos. In this document, he argued that the framers of the US constitution “would encourage presidential initiative in war. The constitution gives the president the initiative in war. The framers were not excessively worried about the prospect of unilateral executive action.” Of course, this is directly opposed to the attitudes of our founders, who wanted to avoid king-like powers at all costs.

His work was crucial in constructing the Patriot Act and the expansion of presidential powers. Yoo's work provides legal justification for the warrant-less wire tapping program as well as the torture of those labeled 'enemy combatants'.

Yoo wrote: "Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."

Well, as you can remember the Fourth Amendment reads as follows:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Yoo's argument is not hard to refute. All that one has to do is read this crucial piece to the Bill of Rights to realize that he is wrong!

Employed by George Bush, Yoo is considered a right-wing conservative, but he is clearly not a traditional conservative. Having created new powers for the executive branch, providing grounds for torture, and expanding the role of the general federal government, he can hardly be considered a traditional right-winger.

John Yoo has taken a lot of heat for his work. There are multiple petitions on the internet demanding that Yoo be fired from his position at Berkley. Media outlets have almost universally criticized his decisions. To top it off, Yoo was served a subpoena yesterday to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Republicans Actually Voted Against Wiretapping Before Voting for it

2008-05-06T09:10:00.000-07:00

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.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Myth - Democrats will Bring Peace to America

2008-05-05T19:14:00.000-07:00

The United States seems to think that the democrats will end the current war. While both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have pledged to reduce the troop level in Iraq, neither are committed to a foreign policy of non-interventionism. In fact, while many think that they are voting for change, they are only voting for more of the same.

Barak Obama's website states that one of the goals of his government would be to grow the military. On his site he states that: "We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force." Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines. His website also states the following: "Under the Bush administration, foreign policy has been used as a political wedge issue to divide us – not as a cause to bring America together. And it is no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in history has pursued policies that have been disastrous for the American people. Obama strongly believes that our foreign policy is stronger when Americans are united, and the government is open and candid with the American people." The skeptic in me believes that Obama will only shift our military burdens to another region, rallying public support for the opportunity. You may say that Obama has spoken out on the current ware in Iraq, yet he has not voted to stop funding these operations.

On the same website, Obama states that his top foreign priorities are to: "End the Conflict in Congo, Stop the Genocide in Darfur, and ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership." One has to wonder how he would accomplish this by merely diplomatic means, especially since he declared that he may invade Pakistan to 'get' Osama Bin laden.

His competitor, Hillary Clinton, is even worse. While Obama was kind enough to outline his foreign policy on his website, Clinton did not, which leaves one wondering what she is trying to hide. Perhaps it is the fact that Hillary Clinton voted to authorize George Bush to engage in our current war.

Hillary Clinton calls for the US to reject isolationism and aggressively engage itself in world affairs in the
tradition of President Truman at the end of WWII.

That may sound good, but Harry Truman gave us a legacy of constant war.  The Truman Doctrine ensured constant war,
with the Korean war setting the president for the war in Vietnam.


Hillary presents herself as the successor to Bill Clinton's foreign policy:

"I often met with he and his advisers, both in preparation for, during and after.

I traveled with representatives from the Security Council, the State Department,occasionally the Defense Department, and even the CIA. So I was deeply involved in being part of the Clinton team in the first Clinton administration.
And I am someone who want the best possible advice from as many different sources as possible, and that would certainly include my husband."

The conservatives at the time largely condemned Clinton's preemptive strikes on Haiti, among other places.

When George Bush originally ran for office, he advocated that America would not be ' the policemen of the world'. No candidate offers even the superficial rhetoric of George Bush.

Despite talk, neither Candiate would normalize relations with Cuba:

Obama: I would not meet with him until there was evidence that change was happening. A presidential visit should not be offered without some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest, and in this case, in the interests of the Cuban people.

Clinton: I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some progress [on the US agenda in Cuba]. But I do think that it's important for the US not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies.

Neither candidate advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy. There is no candiate that is advocating a real change in American foreign policy. The question has become more of a matter of who we will fight against instead of if we should be fighting at all.

The American people, who largely favor peace, are given no real choice on the matter of war. Democrat or Republican, we march forward, ready for war anywhere and anytime.

It brings to mind the great speech that Howard Buffett (the Republican Nebraska Congressman and father of Warren Buffett) gave in 1947: "Mr. Speaker, the so called Truman Doctrine is characterized by proponents as probably the most far reaching change in the American foreign policy in 100 years. Many of its opponents contend it starts us on the road of militarism and imperialism. Whatever its consequences are, I rise to propound a solemn question. How, in the existing political framework of this nation, can the people of America, if they so desire, effectively oppose this policy? The policy is sponsored by the democratic party and collaborated in by the republican leadership. If the people disapprove of this adventure as many polls indicate, what recourse is left them when neither party provides the vehicle for effective opposition. When the republican leadership without consulting the people does a "me too" on decisive issues, what method do the people then have to effectively influence governmental policies? Under this situation it would appear that the people are losing the all important right to approve or reject decisive policies at the ballot box. For as matters now stand, neither party forwards the people the opportunity to effective oppose this global program. I respectfully urge the republican leaders responsible for this collaboration to explain this situation fairly and forthrightly to the American people. The people are entitled to a full explanation of a political performance which apparently deprives the people of an effective voice in determining America's future."

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Increased Bureaucracy and Regulation - The Bush Years

2008-05-05T12:17:00.000-07:00

Traditionally, the Republican party has been known as the party of limited government and free-market capitalism. Today, this is little more than a myth. Per, wikipedia (which is the ultimate source of populist/consensus history), "The party generally supports lower taxes and limited government in most economic areas allowing for more economic freedom... Compared with Democrats, many Republicans believe in a more robust version of federalism with greater limitations placed upon federal power and a larger role reserved for the States."

This sounds like a fair assessment of how most today would generalize the Republican party. The 2004 GOP Platform officially was written to outline what the party stands for. Upon reading the text, I was surprised when I didn't find a single declaration that specifically defends limited government or free market capitalism.

The closest to this sentiment was offered from our president George W. Bush:

"The role of government is not to control or dominate the lives of our citizens. The role of government is to help our citizens gain the time and the tools to make their own choices and improve their own lives. That’s why I will continue to work to usher in a new era of ownership and opportunity in America.”

Well, snide comments aside, the new 'era of ownership' is waning and our economy has entered a recession. Many in the media have blamed the Republicans for this downturn on the grounds that they have allowed free-market capitalism to run amok. When asked about the stagnant economy, presidential candidate Barak Obama replied with the following statement: "Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it.." Hillary Clinton called it: "Failure of oversight." Both clearly criticize the Bush administration for lack of government oversight.

The unspoken truth is that the Bush administration never supported free market capitalism. In fact, the administration has ushered in new regulations at a near record pace. Many have argued that the rights of business owners were far greater before Bush took office.

As the Heritage Foundation points out:
"Compared to the 74 rule changes that increased regulatory costs, only 23 rule changes reduced burdens. In other words, for every case in which regulators reduced a burden, they increased burdens over three times."

Let's take a look at some sweeping regulations have taken effect under George Bush's regime:

Sarbanes-Oxley Act: These accounting regulations have reportedly sunk 500 companies, failed to prevent further scandals, created barriers to entry, hurt wall street, only succeeding to allocate more power to the state.

Energy Regulations: Bush continues to trumpet ethanol production as a solution to the nation's energy crisis. The failed policy (except of course on political grounds) has led to higher food prices and has been widely criticized.

Banking Regulations: When the banks faced the bursting of the housing bubble/mortgage crisis, they decided to make a deal. They would be bailed out by the government in exchange for increased regulation. The terms of the regulations have not been finalized or disclosed. There are fears that legislation may give the federal reserve free reign over the banking industry, creating in essence, one nationalized bank.

Beyond these three, there are countless examples of heightened bureaucracy and regulation under George W. Bush. Two of many that allocate power to the executive branch are the new regulations on Military Lawyers and federal rules and policy statements

The administration has also moved to even further regulate the energy industry and has unexpectedly passed America's first national legislation to Regulate Greenhouse Gases.

It is interesting that Bush, who regulated the economy as much, if not more than Bill Clinton, gets labeled as a free-market president. As Americans, we see both parties pushing for more regulations and government control, while the average citizen struggles. History has shown that the free market is the best tool of maximizing the standard of living for people, but sadly that is no longer an option in America.

&amp;lt;br&gt;

Buried in History - Lysander Spooner

2008-05-03T10:30:00.000-07:00

Lysander Spooner was an extremely influential abolitionist, entrepreneur, philosopher, and legal theorist of the 19th century.

Spooner made headlines in the 1840's when he founded the American Letter Mail Company. This company was to compete directly with the United States Post Office, which he considered to be an illegal monopoly. Spooner's company was run efficiently and turned a profit, but it was short lived. The federal government legally challenged to keep its monopoly over the mail and Spooner was forced to close the company under the weight of legal fees.

In the years leading up to the Civil War, conventional wisdom advocated that the institution of slavery was not only legal, but directly authorized by the constitution. Spooner's most famous text - The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (full text here) - argues that "natural law ties the contract of government, and declares it lawful or unlawful, obligatory or invalid, by the same rules by which it tries all other contracts between man and man."

Spooner, as we can agree today, notes that slavery is: "entirely contrary to natural right, so entirely destitute of authority from natural law, so palpably inconsistent with all the legitimate objects of government that nothing but express and explicit provision can be recognized in law as giving it any sanction. No hints, insinuations, or unnecessary implications can give any ground for so glaring a departure from and violation of all the other the general and the legitimate principles of the government."

Essentially, he argues that slavery cannot be legal because it violates the basic pricipals of natural law. He goes further, pointing out that while the constitution seems to heavily imply slavery in its directives, it is never mentioned by name in the national constitution or in any of the constitutions of the States. So how can a practice that is unnamed in concrete law and is contrary to natural allowed to continue?

Although he was one of the fiercest opponents of slavery (even advocating violence in ending the practice), Spooner was a harsh critic of the Civil War. He supported the South's right to secede from the Union. He held the believe that many of the day held, that secession is non-violent way to solve irreconcilable differences between states.

He was a fierce critic of Abraham Lincoln, which may be a reason that he is not recognized in today's history books.

Later in life, the philosophies of Lysander Spooner shift from a Libertarian perspective to a perspective of Anarchy. He argues that citizens have not individually consented to a particular government, instead they were born into it. In the absensce of consent, all government is invalid.

While we as individuals may agree or disagree with the teaching of Spooner, it is difficult to deny his importance in this era. But somehow, our schools have largely chosen not to teach anything about this man. For example, one text that remains in my possession from my schooling is a comprehensive, 1000 page tour of American history. Spooner's name and voice is notably absent in the text.

Learn more at http://www.lysanderspooner.org/
&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;