A World in Disarray ... Alan Caruba

A World in Disarray
By Alan Caruba

It almost makes one wistful for the Cold War when the world was neatly divided between the United States and its allies against what Ronald Reagan called “the evil empire”, the Soviet Union and its satellite nations.

Trying to bring about a League of Nations after World War One virtually killed President Woodrow Wilson who suffered a massive stroke, but liberals have always been entranced with the notion that an international organization would bring an end to war. Until, that is, World War Two.

As WWII was winding down, Franklin Delano Roosevelt set to creating the United Nations and, following his death, it came into being on June 26, 1945. The preamble to its charter says:

“We the people of the united nations determined

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,”

Yada, yada, yada!

The United Nations has devolved into a cesspool of evil and irrelevance. I cannot think of a single war, large or small, nor any genocides, it has managed to stop. There were a couple of military conflicts in which it was an active participant, mostly in the form of telling the United States to “go get’m!” and “don’t forget to wear our blue helmets.”

If there has been a force for freedom in the world, it has been the might and power of the United States of America.

Until now.

Now our President says, “No U.S. troops will be in Libya.” This administration is desperately looking for some other nation to take the lead on Libya.

Let me be clear. I have not been a fan of spending our treasure and blood for the people of the Middle East. I am not a fan of war, but I know that war is the only way that most international conflicts get settled for good or ill.

The last President, George W. Bush, put together a coalition and invaded Iraq because, well, because he really did not like Saddam Hussein who, incidentally, had been invading his neighbors since the 1980s. His father had previously done the same to drive him out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War.

If there ever was a coalition regarding Libya, it was made of sugar candy because Germany and France had serious second thoughts after a week. No fly zones, it seems, cost a lot of money to maintain and most Western nations are broke, including our own.

The Arab League that called for a no-fly zone over Libya ran away even sooner. Arabs, who have shown an unparalleled talent for killing one another, lack the stomach for anything that involves mounting a real war to stop one of their own from killing the unfortunate citizens of his satrapy.

As it is, alphabetically from Bahrain to Syria to Yemen, despots throughout the Middle East are busy right now putting down their own internal insurrections. In the late 1990s Osama bin Laden gained a lot of attention by calling for the downfall of all the monarchies and despots throughout the region and the implementation of sharia law in anticipation of a global caliphate. The Saudis exiled him as they thought this was a really bad idea despite being the protectors of Islam’s two holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

At the same time we are witnessing a remnant of the Cold War, NATO, that does not seem to be functioning all that well, nor the European Union that was formed to be an enconomic bloc and clearly not one with any kind of a military component or sense of mission.

What the world needs is decisive leadership, but instead it has the Hamlet of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama, whose initial tour of the Middle East has, in retrospect, turned out to be one that caused its despots to conclude he was a wuss, a naif, a moron.

Who’s in charge of Operation Free Libya? No one knows!

The result is a world in disarray because the one nation every other nation thought it could count upon, for better or worse, is led by the Vacationer-in-Chief, a man who thinks that merely “saying the right thing” is the same as “doing the right thing.”

The situation in Libya will not likely turn out well, nor the growing opposition in Syria. No one knows what the outcome in Egypt will be, but everyone is pleased the crowds in downtown Cairo have gone home.

Meanwhile, Hamas is gearing up to cause trouble in Israel, waging its usual Made-in-Palestine terrorism based on the Yassir Arafat Guide to Always Saying No.

It is my profound hope the Israelis will strike back very hard, but it is also my profound belief that the UN Security Council will hastily meet to pass another resolution against Israel taking any measures of self defense.

This is how really big wars break out because no one at this point wants to fight the small ones.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

****************

Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

Obama, As Red as It Gets

Obama, As Red as It Gets
By Alan Caruba

Isn’t it about time that the mainstream media and all others begin to examine the record and conclude that a Communist holds the reins of power in the White House?

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, it is often believed that Communism died with it. Not so, Communism is alive and well in China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.

From the days of Harry Truman who discovered that Franklin Roosevelt had given the Soviets Eastern Europe at the WWII Yalta Conference, American presidents have steadfastly done what they believed was required to keep Communism “contained.”; some more successfully than others.

The Communist Manifesto is well worth reading. Among its planks is the abolition of private property and a government that owns or controls much of the U.S. landmass is antithetical to this keystone of capitalism.

The Manifesto calls for “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." It calls for the centralization of credit in the hands of the state. We have a “Federal Reserve” that is a national bank.

It calls for “centralization of the means of communications and transportation.” We have a Federal Communications Commission. There’s more and you can read about it here.

America has never had a Communist President until now.

While others have written how obvious it is that Obama is a “Socialist”, I think this is a matter of caution in a society that has not seriously used the word “Communist” since the 1950s when entities like the House Un-American Activities Committee actively investigated and exposed how many existed in the government, the unions, and Hollywood.

It’s not like Barack Hussein Obama has come out and said, “Yes, I’m a Communist”, but you don’t have to have a PhD in Political Science to connect the dots. The process is made murky by the way Obama has deliberately covered his tracks wherever he could, while dropping broad hints.

Obama is the classic “red diaper” baby, the result of a union between his mother, Stanley Dunham and Barack Obama Sr., memorialized in “Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.” However, Jerome Corsi, the author of “Obama Nation” notes that “we are told by Obama outright…that much of the autobiography is not factually true, at least not as written.” Indeed, much of what Obama has had to write or say of his life is fiction of one sort or another.

His father abandoned his mother, returning to Africa “to live the life of a chronic alcoholic.” He was also “a man of the left.” Obama’s mother remarried and took him off to Indonesia, but other than developing a fondness of Islam, not much is known of that period. A second divorce put Obama in the care of his grandparents in Hawaii and it was there where his most formative development occurred.

In his excellent book, “Dupes”, historian Dr. Paul Kengor traces the role of the former Soviet Union and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) as it developed both spies and “fellow travelers” devoted to turning the U.S. toward Communism.

Towards its end the book traces the most important influences in the life of President Obama. The conclusion that he is a Communist is unavoidable.

Obama’s grandparents were devoted to socialism, raising their daughter in schools known for it, even attending a church that reflected it. They were close friends with Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the CPUSA and an Afro-American. Dr. Kengor noted that, during the 1970s, the period of Obama’s adolescence, “His impact is profound because he mentored a young man who made it all the way to the White House.”

Among the hints Obama drops in “Dreams of My Father” was a reference to his college years “hanging out with Marxist professors”, attending “socialist conferences”, and discussing “neocolonialism.” Dr. Kengor quotes Dr. John Drew, a contemporary of Obama at Occidental College for whom Obama was “as a fellow Marxist” and said of the President, “Obama was already an ardent Marxist when I met (him) in the fall of 1980.”

After graduating from Columbia University, long a hotbed of a Leftist faculty and students indoctrinated with a liberal political philosophy, and later Harvard Law School, Obama moved to Chicago where he became close friends with former far-Left Weatherman terrorists of the 1960s, Bill Ayers and his wife Benardine Dohrn. His first venture into politics took place in a fund-raiser in their home. Obama attended a Black Liberation church in Chicago led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright who rarely had a good word for America. Ayers calls himself “a communist with a small ‘c’.”

Among those chosen to be in his administration was Van Jones, “an avowed communist” named as Obama’s “green jobs czar.” When exposed, he resigned. Another figure of the far Left was Jeff Jones whose consulting firm, the Apollo Alliance, “helped write President Obama’s budget-bursting $800 billion ‘stimulus’ bill passed by Congress shortly into the Obama presidency.”

For those still in denial, consider an article by Stanislav Mishin that appeared in Pravda, the Russian newspaper that was formerly one of the main organs of the Soviet Union. “It must be said that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheep”, much of which he attributed to “the election of Barack Obama.”

That was written before the spontaneous explosion of the quintessentially American Tea Party movement. Since then we have seen the dramatic reversal of power in Congress that occurred as the result of the November 2010 elections.

The harm and damage done by our first Communist President will take years to repair, but Americans have wakened to

• the socialist menace of the nation’s public sector unions,

• the centralization of education in the federal government,

• the threat of the Environmental Protection Agency’s assertion of control over America’s energy sector,

• the refusal of the Interior Department to grant drilling permits,

• the devaluation of the U.S. dollar by the Federal Reserve,

• and the incremental efforts of an anti-American government to undermine defense, national security, our economy, and our worldwide reputation as a defender of freedom.

Winston Churchill, the former British Prime Minister who led that nation through World War II and coined the term “Iron Curtain”, said of Communism, “it is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

© Alan Caruba, 2011

*****************

Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

Obama Commits America to a THIRD War in the Middle East

Obama Commits America to a THIRD War in the Middle East
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


Are there no grown-ups in the Obama White House?

In my lifetime, I have never seen a sloppier, more disjointed, seemingly CLUELESS bunch of amateurs roaming the halls of the West Wing in foggy bewilderment.

Even the Nixon White House, under siege, was far more professional. Their worldwide situational awareness remained at remarkably high levels even while the office of the President was crumbling. They were professionals. They were grown-ups doing grown-up work. And they never forgot it for one moment.

Obama, on the other hand, seems … unplugged. Let me see if I can explain.

If you have ever been in an automobile when it runs out of gas, you know how the engine will sputter, then roar to life, and the car will lunge forward for a bit, then sputter again, lunge again, and finally, when all the gasoline in the fuel lines is exhausted, stop entirely and roll to a pitiful and frustrating stop. That, it seems to me, is an apt description of the Obama White House.

It appears that Obama had one thing he wanted to do as President and that was to pass socialized medicine into law. He succeeded in doing that and now has no inkling what to do with the remainder of his time in office.

If you saw the old movie “The Candidate,” you may remember that chilling line at the end of the movie, delivered by the actor playing the candidate. Upon winning the election he asks: “What now?” THAT is the image the Obama White House portrays, not just to Americans, but also to the rest of the world.

The incapable and hapless Obama White House through their waffling, and what I suspect is pure lack of understanding of world politics, has allowed the events in Libya to overtake them.

Even an old arm chair general like myself and thousands of other military veterans all over the world know that in circumstances like those in Libya over the past 31 days, demand that action (if action is to be taken) must be taken sooner rather than later. A successful army strikes the enemy quickly with all the resources at its command and renders as much destruction as they are capable of in the first blow. It shortens the conflict and inevitably saves lives … on both sides.

Thirty-one days have elapsed since the lid blew off in Libya. Obama and his clutch of “yes men,” have all but hidden behind the potted plants in the West Wing to avoid having to make a decision on assisting the “revolutionists,” as the rebels now refer to themselves. They can hide no longer. They can defer making the decision no longer.

Even after events forced Obama to acquiesce to a no-fly zone over Libya, he simply could not do it alone. He needed cover; some would say Obama felt he desperately needed that proverbial “fig leaf.”

So, the President of the United States asks permission of the United Nations Security Council, on which sits China and Russia, to iniate and enforce a no-fly zone, which, by the way, is an act of war, over Libya. The fact that a US President asks permission of the UN for ANYTHING ought to shame every re-blooded American to cry out for the impeachment of the worst President in US history!

Kow-towing to the UN is bad enough, but now that the Security Council has approved it in a ten to nothing vote, our pitiful excuse for a president has committed the US to ANOTHER WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST AGAINST ANOTHER MUSLIM COUNTRY.

When the cruise missiles begin zooming in, just over the rooftops of Libya, and obliterating Gaddafi’s radar installations and command and control centers, the US will officially be committed to -- count them -- THREE wars in the Middle East.

Getting into a war is easy. Getting out is a “whole nuther matter.”

Had Obama not dithered, a quick raid early on in the Libyan revolution could have blunted Gaddafi’s drive to “cleanse” the country of Libya of those who disagree with his crazed mental machinations. Not anymore. Before you read this there is good reason to believe that American troops will be engaged with Col. Gaddafi’s troops in combat.

I cannot escape the belief that this is a terrible mistake and will cost American blood and treasure -- neither of which we have to waste on rescuing rebels we know little about. We have no idea what kind of government they intend to set up in Libya, or in that part of Libya they might eventually control after Gaddafi’s ouster.

The latest polls (at this writing) show, definitively, the American people are not siding with Obama on his late conversion to militarism. We are extremely tired of our crack military being used as an extension of the Peace Corp in nation building of ungrateful countries that will continue to suck up to America until the last American soldier’s foot leaves their soil and then, immediately, revert back to hating us -- with renewed vigor.

And YES – THIS IS ABOUT OIL! Americans are living on an ocean of oil, far greater than that of Saudi Arabia, and yet our less than brilliant government refuses to allow us to retrieve it -- forcing us to be dependent on oil from the Middle East and defending that supply of oil with the blood of US servicemen and servicewomen. Honestly, how much sense does THAT make?

The Libyan War is CLEARLY a war for oil. About that, there can be no question.

American does not need, nor does it want, a third war in the Middle East.

After thirty-one days without a decision on Libya, the liberal-socialist President of the left made one. And it was the WRONG one!

Make no mistake about it. Establishing a no-fly zone over any portion of Libya, is an act of war. To be successful, Gaddafi’s troops must be stopped. His tanks must be bombed. His artillery must be bombed. His airfields must be bombed, etc. You can bet there will be American soldiers on the ground in Libya within days, if not hours.

If this does not convince Americans that Obama is out of his league and totally unprepared to be President, let alone Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force in history, then, I honestly don’t know what will.

America was in deep trouble yesterday. Today – we are in much, much, deeper trouble.

J. D. Longstreet

America’s Gay White House

America’s Gay White House
By Alan Caruba

A news item by Agence Press France flew under the radar of many American news media. On February 25th it reported that “The White House on Friday named Jeremy Bernard to serve as social secretary to President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama, the first male and first openly gay person to hold the position.”

Barack Obama, married and father of two girls, may be straight, but he has proven to be the most active President when it comes to efforts that would establish homosexuality as a “normal” lifestyle in America. He is not alone in this; it is the goal of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender movement (GLBT) in America.

While I fully expect to evoke howls from the GLBT movement in saying this, the fact remains that no where in nature is homosexuality the norm. It is always an aberration because heterosexuality ensures the propagation of any and all species. It is abnormal for members of the same sex to prefer one another. The recognition of this fact reaches back to the origins of humanity.

I am not advocating that homosexuals be stoned, hanged, or denied their civil rights. Gays (I will use the term to describe homosexuals of both genders and all those who are confused about their gender) are protected by the 14th Amendment, passed in 1886 after the Civil War to ensure that Afro-American’s civil rights were not abridged or denied.

I have always thought that “gay” was an odd choice of words to describe homosexuals because those whom I have known rarely evinced much happiness about being regarded by the rest of society as aberrations. They may have made their personal peace with it, but the notion that a society based on heterosexuality should regard them as “normal” defies logic.

Granting homosexuals the right to marry is an act of societal suicide. I will cite some examples below.

In late February, the White House and its Department of Justice announced that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It is a warning of moral decay that America has reached a point where it requires a law to assert this definition, recognized from the dawn of civilization, of mankind itself.

Attorney General Eric Holder noted that federal agencies would continue to abide by the act, but made it clear that he and the President consider it unconstitutional. No where in the U.S. Constitution is there any reference to homosexuality, nor a suggestion that it is normal. It is being challenged by homosexuals in a number of court cases including Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts.

Robin McGehee, director of GetEQUAL, which describes itself as a national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, said, “For 15 years DOMA has been a thorn in the side of the LGBT community, preventing loving couples from being fully equal under the law.” They are fully equal. They just can’t get married because marriage is the keystone of society. Weakening the definition of marriage can only serve to weaken society.

When Massachusetts’ Supreme Court, on November 18, 2003, announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional to not allow same-sex “marriage” it opened the floodgates to events that have appalled much of that state’s heterosexual population.

It particularly hit the school systems throughout Massachusetts. There were instances of school assemblies to celebrate same-sex “marriage” and swiftly moved from middle to elementary schools where the teaching of homosexuality became part of the curriculum. Kindergartners were given picture books that depicted homosexual “marriage” as just another kind of family, second graders were exposed to a book, “King and King” about two men who have a romance and marry with a picture of them kissing. School libraries across the state instituted shelves of books presenting homosexual behavior as normal. “Gay days” in schools were considered necessary to fight “intolerance.”

This is giving parents fits, but it was President Obama who installed Kevin Jennings as the White House “safe schools” czar in the Department of Education even though Jennings is a major homosexual activist who has pushed the homosexual agenda in the nation’s schools. Jennings, prior to his appointment, was the founder and executive director of the nationwide Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network.

President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to a lifetime position as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court despite her activism as Dean of the Harvard Law School during which she expelled military recruiters over the Armed Forces’ ban on homosexuals. She called it a “moral injustice of the first order.” She was known for recruiting homosexual activists to the school’s faculty such as the former ACLU lawyer, William Rubenstein, to teach “queer” legal theory and elevated an outspoken lesbian professor, Janet Halley. She encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work.

These White House appointments are just one part of what millions of Americans have come to realize as measures taken to undermine the nation’s moral authority, its legal system, its economy, its military strength and defense, and its energy security.

In 2012 Americans will clean house in the White House and the Congress, electing men and women who understand that homosexuality is an unfit condition for marriage, for service in the military, and that its justification in the states and the courts is a stealth attack on the nation.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

Saying NO to President’s Day!

Saying NO to President’s Day!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

It is President’s Day, once again, and I’m not participating … again.

I do not like the idea of celebrating all our presidents. Lord knows we have had some absolutely horrid presidents, including the current occupant of the Oval Office.

The past president I particularly abhor is … wait for it … Abraham Lincoln.

Yes, indeed, I AM a SOUTHERNER. I am the proud descendant of Confederate soldiers who fought the troops of the US government for the very rights the same federal government is depriving ALL the states of today.

Please tell me, dear reader, that you are not amongst those who buy into the revised history that the American Civil War (The congressionally approved name for the war is: “The War Between the States.”) was fought to free the slaves. The war was fought over many things and, certainly, slavery was among them. But, mainly, the war was fought over “STATE’S RIGHTS.”

Had the American Civil War been about slavery, alone, the war would not have been necessary.

Remember, of all slave-holding and slave-trafficking countries on the globe at the time, America was the ONLY one to abolish slavery through war! THE ONLY ONE!

I mentioned above that I am no admirer of Lincoln. In fact, when passing a five-dollar bill to a cashier, I will turn the bill upside down so that Lincoln’s visage might not accidentally pollute my consciousness.

There was a time, when I was a child, that I felt differently about Lincoln. But I grew up. When I became a man, I put away childish things. I also made it my business to learn all I could about the “sainted” Lincoln. THAT’S when I changed my mind about who, and what, Lincoln really was.

First, and foremost, Lincoln was a politician. That, alone, should throw up all sorts of red flags.

If you are still with me at this point, then let’s look at the REAL Lincoln and THEN you decide, for yourself, which is true … real history … or revised history.

We are fed the idiotic pabulum of revised history in our public school system that Lincoln was the savior of the black man in America. We are taught that Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. That is a lie.

One of the “spoils of war” is the right to write history the way you want it to be remembered and taught. The Confederate soldier knew that -- and Confederate General Patrick Cleburne attempted to impress upon his men the meaning of losing the war. He summed it up this way: “…It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be taught by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, or maimed veterans as fit objects for derision.” Gen. Cleburne was spot on!

As to Lincoln freeing the slaves, allow me to inquire… have you ever actually read the Emancipation Proclamation? I advise you to do so. When you DO read it, and read it carefully, you will quickly see that it did not free a single slave – NOT ONE!

In reference to the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln, himself, said the following: "The [Emancipation] proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification except as a war measure." That statement was in a letter to Sec. of Treas. Salmon P. Chase; 3 Sep 1863.

The following is a quote from the London Spectator, dated October 1, 1862 concerning the Emancipation Proclamation: "The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States government."

But, we Americans are taught that Lincoln LOVED the black people, right? Well, it isn’t exactly the truth. Let us examine Lincoln’s own words and try to determine the degree of respect Lincoln held for the black race.

Abraham Lincoln said the following on September 18, 1858 in a speech in Charleston, Illinois: "I will say, then, that 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 [applause]: that 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; and I will say in addition to this that 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. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -- Reply by Abraham Lincoln to Stephen A. Douglas in the first joint debate, Ottowa, IL; 21 Aug 1858.

Lincoln also said this: "I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social or political, between Negroes and white men." This statement was in his opening speech, fourth joint debate with Douglas, Charleston, IL; 18 Sep 1858.

Lincoln thought the black man should be equal to the white man, right? Well, think again! Lincoln said this about that: "Negro Equality! Fudge!! How long in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this? A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization. The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way:' and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be." From an address by Abraham Lincoln at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.

In a speech at Springfield Illinois on July 17th, 1858, Lincoln said the following: “What I would most desire would be the separation of the black and white races.”

Speaking at Charleston, Illinois, September 18th, 1858, Lincoln said this: “ … I will, to the very last, stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes.”

There is a very “telling” letter which Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, in response to an article Greeley had written entitled; “Prayer of Twenty Millions.” The letter from Lincoln is dated August 22nd, 1862. In the letter Lincoln says the following:
Dear Sir: I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptible [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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 all the slaves 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 it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours,

A.Lincoln.

Do you detect the slightest bit of political “double talk” in Lincoln’s letter? Never forget, Lincoln was, first and foremost, a politician! If you had ANY doubt, this letter to Greeley ought to dispel it.

So which is it? Was Lincoln Pro-slavery, of Anti-slavery? You decide.

In his first Inaugural Address before Congress on March 4th, 1861, Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to intervene with the institution of slavery.”

Then, in another letter to Horace Greeley dated March 24th, 1862, Lincoln said: “I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District of Columbia.”

Confused? Oh, it gets even more confusing -- or enlightening -- depending upon the degree to which you admire the truth.

Ever hear of The Corwin Amendment? Some refer to it as the original 13th amendment to the US Constitution. Let’s take a look at it.

On February 28, 1861, the United States House of Representatives approved the resolution by a vote of 133-65 (Page 1285, Congressional Globe). On March 2, 1861, it was approved by the United States Senate with a vote of 24-12 (Page 1403, Congressional Globe). A young Henry Adams observed that the measure narrowly passed both houses due to the lobbying efforts of Abraham Lincoln, who was then the President-Elect.

Why is the Corwin Amendment important? First let’s take a look at the text, shall we?The text of the Corwin Amendment is as follows:

“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.”

Ratification efforts began soon after the measure was adopted and Lincoln endorsed it in his inaugural address. In fact, Lincoln said this about the Corwin Amendment in his first Inaugural Address on March 4th, 1861: “To the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service … I have NO OBJECTION TO ITS (THE CORWIN AMENDMENT) BEING MADE EXPRESS AND IRRVOCABLE.”

The proposal was ratified by the legislatures of Ohio (May 13, 1861) and Maryland (January 10, 1862). Illinois lawmakers — sitting as a constitutional convention at the time — also approved it, although some still question the validity of that action. It was also considered for ratification in several other states including Kentucky, New York, and Connecticut where it was either rejected or died in committee because wartime issues had begun to preoccupy the states and the nation as a whole.

So why is the Corwin Amendment important today? Because, dear reader, it IS STILL PENDING! As long as it remains a pending amendment, there is the possibility, however slim, that it could still be ratified. The President’s signature is not required, and a President cannot veto an amendment to the constitution.

Congress even passed the Crittendon-Johnson resolution on July 22, 1861 in which the Congress announced that the purpose of the war “was NOT interference with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to Preserve the Union with the rights of the several states unimpaired.”

Then, in December of 1862, in his State of the Union message to Congress, Lincoln proposed three constitutional amendments: 1 – Slaves not freed by the Emancipation proclamation were to be freed over a 37 year period, to be completed by January 1st, 1900. 2 – Provided compensation to owners for the loss of their slave property. 3 – The government would transport “FREED BLACKS,” at government expense, out of the United States -- and relocate them in Latin America and in Africa.

Now. Does any of this sound like the Lincoln you know -- or the Lincoln you were taught about in the government indoctrination centers we refer to as public schools? Probably not! Ask yourself how much more you DO NOT KNOW about President Abraham Lincoln.

For instance -- did you know that Lincoln started a war without the consent of Congress? Did you know that he illegally blockaded southern ports; illegally suspended habeas corpus and arrested tens of thousands of his political opponents; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers and imprisoned their editors and owners; deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party, Congressman Clement I. Vallandigham of Ohio; confiscated private property, including, by the way, firearms; ignored the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; tolerated the arrest of ministers who refused to publicly pray for him; arrested duly elected members of the Maryland legislature, as well as Congressman Henry May of Baltimore; and supported a law that indemnified federal officials from all these illegal acts.

Shocking, Right?

THIS, dear reader, is the Lincoln I know – not the “Saintly Lincoln” revised history forces on us today. The “air brushed” Lincoln we know today is pure propaganda.

The facts we enumerated above can be easily verified in you local library and even on the Internet. Once you begin digging don’t be surprised when you turn up even more historical accounts of Lincoln’s duality. Your research will present you with a choice. You must choose between the REAL Lincoln, and the REVISED Lincoln.

Someone once said, “So much of what we know is wrong.” The wise man, in today’s world, questions everything.

The scriptures teach us an important lesson about learning truth and disseminating truth. It tells us: “Study to show thyself approved to God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) In this way we can be sure that no matter what the revisionists do to the “official” record, we will have the truth. And as Christ, Himself, taught us … is the truth that makes one free.

Some of us WILL be celebrating President’s Day here in the Southland. President Jefferson Davis was inaugurated 150 years ago, last week, in Montgomery Alabama.

J. D. Longstreet