President Obama on Friday defended a pair of recently disclosed surveillance programs as striking the “right balance” between national security and civil liberties following a speech Friday in California.
“You can’t have 100 percent security and also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We’re going to have to make some choices as a government,” Obama said.
“You can complain about Big Brother and how this is a potential program run amok, but when you actually look at the details, I think we’ve struck the right balance.”
The administration acknowledged Thursday that the National Security Agency (NSA) had monitored domestic telephone data and international Internet traffic from tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Facebook.
Obama stressed that every member of Congress had been briefed on the phone monitoring program and that the relevant Intelligence committees were aware of PRISM — the code name of the NSA’s secret program to monitor Internet traffic. He also noted that federal judges had to sign off on data-gathering requests.
“If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure we’re abiding by the Constitution, then we’re going to have some problems here,” Obama said.
Critics of the program have said that the courts and Congress have had little real oversight of the programs.
Congressional leaders say confidentiality restrictions have limited their ability to publicly voice their concerns, and the administration has not provided court rulings under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for their review. They also say the administration has aggressively over-interpreted what is authorized to do under the law.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) accused the administration of using a “broad vacuum” to gather data from ordinary citizens, surpassing the “plain language of the law,” in an interview with MSNBC.
Civil liberties groups have also dismissed the administration’s assurances that each surveillance program undergoes FISA judicial review, blasting the court as a rubber stamp. In a letter sent earlier this year to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Attorney General Eric Holder said the court approved 1,788 of 1,789 applications for electronic surveillance; the government withdrew the one remaining petition.
The president went on to say that the White House believed the programs played an important role in preventing terror attacks.
“My assessment and my team’s assent was they help us prevent terrorist attacks, and the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved … on net, it was worth us doing. Some other folks may have a different assessment of that,” he said.
On the collection of phone data, Obama stressed that the government agency was only “looking at phone numbers and durations of calls; they’re not looking at people.” He said that to listen in on calls, investigators would need to obtain new authorization from a federal court.
“I want to be very clear: Some of the hype that we’ve been hearing over the last day or so, nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls,” Obama said.
In regard to Internet data, the president noted the surveillance “does not apply to U.S. citizens and it does not apply to people living in the U.S.”
The president also said he had a personal interest in the controversy because when he left office, he could be a prime target for surveillance.
“I suspect that on a list of people who might be targeted so that someone could read their emails or listen to their phone calls, I’d probably be pretty high on that list,” Obama said.
But, the president said, he had confidence in the checks and balances installed in the system, and that those involved in the program were worried about the constitutional questions at hand.
“I know that the people who are involved in these programs, they operate like professionals, and these things are very narrowly circumscribed. They’re very focused,” Obama said.
He added that those involved in the nation’s security “take this work very seriously” and “cherish the Constitution.”
“The last thing they’d be doing is taking programs like this to listen to somebody’s phone calls,” Obama said.
The president said that upon taking office, he had approached the surveillance programs with a “healthy skepticism” and insisted on additional oversights and safeguards.
Still, Obama acknowledged that not everyone would be satisfied by his defense of the program and said he welcomed a debate about the issue.
“I think it’s healthy for our democracy. I think it’s a sign of maturity,” Obama said. Nevertheless, Obama attempted to preempt some of the criticism from Capitol Hill by suggesting it was politically motivated.
“I think it’s interesting that there are some folks on the left, but also some folks on the right, who are now worried about it who weren’t very worried about it when it was a Republican president,” Obama said.
While centrist leaders on both sides of the aisle defended the surveillance programs Thursday, liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans both suggested the NSA had overstepped its bounds. Some lawmakers have called for congressional investigations into the program, and the surveillance efforts are likely to receive tough new scrutiny.
Obama also said that while he was happy to defend the classified programs, he was displeased that their existence had been leaked to the press.
“If every step that we’re taking to try to prevent a terrorist act is on the front page of the newspapers or on television, then presumably the people who are trying to do us harm are going to be able to get around our preventive measures,” Obama said. “That’s why these things are classified.”
His attendance at Mitt Romney’s Rocky Mountain confab hasn’t kept Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) from working to protect the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the nation from the federal government’s constant assault on liberty.
On Thursday, June 6, Paul (shown) announced he would introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013. The measure aims to guarantee that the constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment are not violated by any government entity.
“The revelation that the NSA has secretly seized the call records of millions of Americans, without probable cause, represents an outrageous abuse of power and a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. I have long argued that Congress must do more to restrict the Executive’s expansive law enforcement powers to seize private records of law-abiding Americans that are held by a third-party,” Paul said in a statement published on his website.
“When the Senate rushed through a last-minute extension of the FISA Amendments Act late last year, I insisted on a vote on my amendment (SA 3436) to require stronger protections on business records and prohibiting the kind of data-mining this case has revealed. Just last month, I introduced S.1037, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act, which would provide exactly the kind of protections that, if enacted, could have prevented these abuses and stopped these increasingly frequent violations of every American’s constitutional rights.”
Paul’s bill is very timely in light of this week’s revelation that Verizon — one of the nation’s largest telecommunication companies — has been ordered to turn over customer call information to the National Security Agency.
As The New American reported yesterday, a court order labeled “TOP SECRET,” issued by federal judge Roger Vinson, ordered Verizon to turn over the phone records of millions of its U.S. customers to the National Security Agency (NSA).
The order, issued in April by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and leaked on the Internet by the Guardian (U.K.), compels Verizon on an “ongoing daily basis” to hand over to the domestic spy agency “an electronic copy” of “all call detail records created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.”
This information includes the phone numbers involved, the electronic identity of the device, the calling card numbers (if any) used in making the calls, and the time and duration of the call.
The U.S. Government Has Been STEALING User Data From Major Internet Companies Without Their Permission
The U.S. government has been hacking in to the servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple and has been taking their user data without their knowledge or consent. According to the Washington Post, the information being stolen includes “audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs”. This program is known as PRISM, and it was first revealed by the Washington Post on Thursday. Since the story broke, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has admitted that PRISM exists and so has Barack Obama. The Washington Post initially claimed that all of the Internet companies were willingly handing over their user data to the government. Now we are learning that is NOT true. In fact, all of the Internet companies named in the Washington Post story have denied knowing about PRISM or ever giving the federal government permission to directly access their servers. So this means that the U.S. government has been stealing massive amounts of user data from the largest Internet companies in the world without their permission. Of course this is highly illegal and it directly violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but you can bet that the Obama administration is going to do everything that it can to get the courts to “make it legal”. Hopefully the revelation of this program will be enough to get the American people to realize that we are rapidly being transformed into a Big Brother police state that is descending into tyranny.
Barack Obama has described the systematic gathering of cell phone records and the Internet spying that the federal government has been doing as “modest encroachments” that we should all just accept as part of the price of living in a modern world, but if we allow the government to get away with this, where will it end?
Even if we had a total “Big Brother” society where the government watched everything that we did 24 hours a day, bad people would still do bad things. There would still be terror attacks and great tragedies. No matter how much the government intrudes into our lives, it can never guarantee us 100% safety.
Those that founded the United States understood this. They did not want this country to be turned into a police state. That is why they guaranteed us some very important protections in the Bill of Rights. If the government wants to do a search, there are some very important procedures that must be followed first.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears to believe that the Constitution does not apply to user data on the Internet. The NSA is apparently hacking into Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple and taking whatever they want without ever getting permission from those companies.
You can bet that there are some very, very angry executives at those companies right now that are trying to figure out how to respond to these revelations.
All of these companies have vehemently denied that they were involved. At this point, there is no reason to doubt their very strong denials.
Reuters is reporting that Secretary of State John Kerry “quietly acted last month to give Egypt $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid.”
According to laws governing the funds, in order to give the $1.3 billion to Egypt, the Secretary of State had to certify that the Egyptian government “is supporting the transition to civilian government, including holding free and fair elections, implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association and religion, and due process of law.”
But these restrictions can be–and apparently were–waived by the Sec. of State in this instance.
In a memo dated May 9, Kerry wrote: “A strong U.S. security partnership with Egypt, underpinned by Foreign Military Financing (FMF), maintains a channel to Egyptian military leadership, who are key opinion makers in the country.”
“A decision to waive restrictions on FMF to Egypt is necessary to uphold these interests as we encourage Egypt to continue its transition to democracy,” he explained.
Monsanto pushes bizarre conspiracy theory to deflect blame for GE wheat contamination of commercial crops
There is a grand conspiracy theory at work to destroy the value of U.S. wheat crops, Monsanto recently told mainstream media reporters in a telephone conference. The contaminated GE wheat recently discovered in Oregon didn’t get there by escaping Monsanto’s open-air GMO experiments, the company claims. Instead, they say it might have been put there by a conspiracy of crop criminals who somehow acquired GE wheat from Monsanto’s field trials way back in 2005, then somehow saved it in a way that kept it genetically viable for eight years, then supposedly drove around Oregon for the sole purpose of releasing the GMOs in some farmer’s field that they just hoped the USDA might be someday be testing for GMO contamination.
That’s the far-fetched conspiracy theory now being pushed by Monsanto to explain how commercial wheat crops in Oregon got contaminated with GMOs. It was put forth by Chief Technology Officer Robb Fraley, a Monsanto executive, in a phone call with reporters.
“It seems likely to be a random, isolated occurrence more consistent with the accidental or purposeful mixing of a small amount of seed during the planting, harvesting or during the fallow cycle in an individual field,” Fraley said on the call, making him the first Monsanto executive to publicly admit he is a conspiracy theorist. He goes on to confirm that the company is investigating the possibility of “sabotage” to explain the wheat field contamination.
Did little green men spread Monsanto’s GMO seeds?
There’s only one problem with this bizarre conspiracy theory: No one knew in advance the USDA would be testing that farmer’s wheat field in Oregon. In fact, testing fields for GMO contamination is such a rare thing that the odds of a band of “conspiracy activists” correctly guessing which field was going to be tested by the USDA are at least 10,000 to 1.
To successful pull off this wild conspiracy theory being pushed by Monsanto, activists would have had to contaminate nearly ALL commercial wheat fields with genetically modified seed, and this would have involved a nationwide logistics effort of such magnitude that it would have been impossible to keep it secret. Is Monsanto really suggesting there exists a secret group of hundreds or thousands of activists driving around the country in unmarked vans, flinging Monsanto’s own wheat seeds into commercial wheat fields right at the beginning of planting season?
Or maybe it was pulled off by little green men from outer space, working in cahoots with Bigfoot, Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster, who all had a planning meeting in a secret underground base on the moon before deciding to focus all their efforts on embarrassing Monsanto by flinging GE wheat seeds everywhere. When they were finished, they then mutilated a few cattle and ran around conducting anal probes on some farmers just to have a little fun.
Yep, little green men did it. Because aliens hate Monsanto.
I mean, I know JFK wasn’t shot by a lone assassin. The Oklahoma City bombing was a federal operation (www.ANobleLie.com) and 9/11 was engineered and allowed to happen so that America could be stripped of its liberties and placed under a police state surveillance grid. But all those so-called “conspiracy theories” pale in comparison to the far-fetched loony bin theory of Monsanto which claims some underground group of activists has somehow been storing thousands of pounds of Monsanto’s GE wheat seeds since 1995 and has now suddenly started covertly dropping them into farm fields all across the nation. Does Monsanto not get it that anti-GMO activists do NOT want GMO seeds to grow? Planting those seeds in fields all across the country would be the very last thing they’d ever try to do, even if they did have the budgets to bank thousands of pounds of Monsanto seeds in large refrigerators for the last eight years.
The far more likely explanation in all this is that Monsanto’s open-field experiments went awry and GE wheat seeds escaped the fields in ways that Monsanto scientists didn’t anticipate (or didn’t want to anticipate).
Perhaps Monsanto would characterize that as a “conspiracy of Mother Nature.” Maybe insects are conspiring against Monsanto to spread the seeds. Maybe the wind, water and other forces of nature are “co-conspirators,” according to Monsanto.
The real conspiracy is that Monsanto is trying to dominate the global food supply
Or maybe, just maybe, it’s actually Monsanto that’s engaged in a massive conspiracy to try to dominate the global food supply by making sure its seeds genetically contaminate all commercial crop fields across America, allowing the company to sue farmers for the “theft” of intellectual property.
They’ve already done that to a multitude of farmers, by the way, so this isn’t some wild theory… it’s something that Monsanto has already been involved in.
Yep, there is a conspiracy afoot in all this, but it’s not the conspiracy Monsanto wants you to think it is. While the company claims “sabotage” in the Oregon GE wheat fields — possibly by little green men from outer space — the greater truth is that Monsanto is itself a corporation of global sabotage that destroys agriculture, contaminates the planet with genetic pollution, threatens farmers with lawsuits for planting common seeds, and then blames activists when its own dangerous experiments go haywire.
The Daily Caller is reporting that the nation’s highest-ranking law enforcement official, Attorney General Eric Holder, participated in what has been described by some as an “armed” takeover of Columbia University’s Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) office in 1970.
Apparently Holder was one of the leaders of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS) that demanded the abandoned ROTC center be transformed into the “Malcom X Lounge.”
Holder described the five-day event during a 2010 commencement speech: “[Several] of us took one of our concerns — that black students needed a designated space to gather on campus — to the Dean [of Freshmen]’office. This being Columbia, we proceeded to occupy that office.”
Holder, however, recalls the event as being “peaceful.”
The Daily Caller continues:
The details of the student-led occupation, including the claim that the raiders were “armed,” come from a deleted Web page of the Black Students’ Organization (BSO) at Columbia, a successor group to the SAAS. Contemporary newspaper accounts in The Columbia Daily Spectator, a student newspaper, did not mention weapons.
Though then-Dean Carl Hovde declared the occupation of the Naval ROTC office illegal and said it violated university policy, the college declined to prosecute any of the students involved. This decision may have been made to avoid a repeat of violent Columbia campus confrontations between police and members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1968.
The ROTC headquarters was ultimately renamed the Malcolm X lounge as the SAAS organization demanded. It later became a hang-out spot for another future U.S. leader, Barack Obama, according to David Maraniss’ best-selling ”Barack Obama: The Story.” [Emphasis added]
In 1968– soon before Holder arrived on campus– the SAAS collaborated with the SDS to prevent a gymnasium from being built, and briefly held Dean Henry Coleman hostage. As recently as 2010, according to the Daily Caller, the perpetrators were described as “armed with guns.”
Here’s the relevant section from the now-deleted article:
In 1970, a group of armed black students seized the abandoned ROTC office on the first floor of Hartley Hall. The students, joined by the then State Senator David Patterson renamed the space the Malcolm X lounge, in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood. Subsequently, murals were painted on the walls depicting black leaders such as Marcus Garvey and Sekou Toure.
But that’s not all. The SAAS was also openly supportive of the Black Panthers, it seems, and Holder soon joined another group that bullied professors who failed to support affirmative action.
The Daily Caller continues:
In March 1970 the SAAS released a statement supporting twenty-one Black Panthers charged with plotting to blow up department stores, railroad tracks, a police station and the New York Botanical Gardens.
The April 21, 1970 SAAS raid on the Naval ROTC office and Dean Coleman’s office came one month after the Black Panther arrests. The Columbia Daily Spectator released a series of demands from the student leaders on April 23 in which they claimed to be occupying the ROTC office for the purpose of “self-determination and dignity.” They needed the space, they said, because of “the general racist nature of American society.”
Holder also joined the Black American Law Students Association in 1973, the Daily Caller relates, where he took part in pressuring six Columbia professors into retracting their letter to President Ford disagreeing with affirmative action.
“Merit should be rewarded, without regard to race, sex, creed, or any other external factor,” the professors wrote, but changed their stance due to what two professors described as the “rhetoric and names hurled” at them.
Eric Holder’s detractors note that much of the story is not unexpected for the current attorney general. Still a staunch supporter of affirmative action, Holder has also come under heavy fire for failing to take action against the New Black Panthers for alleged voter intimidation in 2008.
(H/T: Daily Caller)
I don’t always agree with Scalia, but Monday he really renewed my respect for his integrity. It would have been even more wonderful if any other Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justice had done so.
To set up the issue, read the following words slowly:
“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.”
Now, with that in mind, please promptly obey any police officer who tells you to open his mouth so he can swab your cheek to keep a permanent record of your DNA in a state database.
In a five-to-four decision Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the state has the authority, when you are arrested, to take and keep a record of your DNA. Right now, if they arrested you and suspected you of murder, they would still have to get a warrant from a judge to search your home. But your body is up for grabs. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons” is pretty much a museum piece at this point.
I understand that rapists have been caught and convicted by these general sweeps. But the fact remains that the state is supposed to submit to rules about who they convict and punish. In the Bible, if you had one trustworthy witness who testified about a murder you were not permitted to convict the person. There had to be two witnesses for a capital crime (Numbers 35.30; Deuteronomy 17.6). It didn’t matter if you, as a judge or civil magistrate, were certain the man was guilty on the basis of one witness. You had to leave him alone. In a free society, sometimes criminals will get away with crime. A free society demands faith in God to meet our justice, rather than the creation of an omnipotent, omniscient god-state.
If the states can do this kind of violation on the basis of an arrest (allegedly only “for a serious offense” but I have no idea what that means), we can expect similar and worse behavior from other institutions, like schools illegally recording student retina scans.
Notice here that I’m not complaining about the state legally acquiring DNA and starting a database. While that would be creepy and I would oppose it, if someone finds I’ve left DNA material somewhere, then I can’t as easily claim I’m not “secure in my person.” But to state that a police officer can simply order me to open my mouth so he can get his swab in there is not just a questionable action in a society with the Fourth Amendment; it is a direct assault on what the words say.
NBC News quoted a court watcher saying that Scalia’s vote “is a surprise in the sense of his general conservatism.”
But why would a Conservative want to overthrow the Constitution? Scalia was just being conservative by striving to preserve the Fourth Amendment. Alito and his faux-conservative ilk are the ones who require an explanation.
Three US states have seen separate large, Mexican-led narcotics rings either busted, indicted, or sentenced in the last thirty days. The three states–Idaho, Oregon, and Alabama–each had large methamphetamine operations being led by Mexican nationals in their rural counties. One of the cases involved US citizens operating under the leadership of the Mexican nationals.
- May 9 2013 — A Mexican national was arrested in Sacramento, California with fifteen pounds of methamphetamine from the Sinaloa cartel-controlled Guadalajara, Mexico.
- May 11 2013 — A Mexican national in Homewood, Alabama was arrested with a large quantity of methamphetamine. Local authorities said it was the largest distribution bust they had ever seen. The man arrested was a 19-year-old with $128,000 worth of the illegal substance.
- May 16 2013 — Oregon law enforcement officials busted 38 people running a large methamphetamine ring that the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) said was directly connected to a Mexican cartel. Authorities would not release information on the citizenship of the cartel-connected ring leaders. The investigation is believed to have started after multiple narco-corpses were found buried under US soil.
- May 21 2013 — A Mexican national living in Boise, Idaho was sentenced for operating a methamphetamine distribution effort in the northern state.
- May 30 2013 — More individuals, mostly Mexican nationals, were sentenced for distribution and manufacture in that Idaho methamphetamine ring. The fact that the Mexican-led operation had begun to manufacture the methamphetamine on US soil indicates a shift from cartels simply having their narcotics smuggled into the US towards the possibility that Mexican cartels are actually producing their narcotics on US soil.
The recent cases came after Texas officials sounded the alarm in 2012 when an Aryan Brotherhood member was arrested as part of a large methamphetamine operation that was led by the Mexican Gulf cartel. The Texas case indicated that Mexican cartels were now willing to enlist the assistance of US gangs to distribute narcotics for them on the US side of the border, rather than simply sell their drugs to smugglers. The Sacramento, California case indicates the Sinaloa cartel has now begun staking claim to territories within the US.
After writing two books and dozens of articles, and giving hundreds of radio and television interviews and public presentations on the subject of Lincoln and the political economy of the American “Civil War”over the past fifteen years, I have realized that the only thing the average American knows about the subject is a few slogans that we are all subjected to in elementary school. I was taught in public elementary school in Pennsylvania that Abe was so honest that he once walked six miles to return a penny to a merchant who undercharged him (and six miles back home). He was supposedly so tendered hearted that he cried after witnessing the death of a turkey. He suffered in silence his entire life after witnessing slavery as a teenager (While everyone else in the country was screaming over the issue). And of course he was “a champion of democracy, an apostle of racial equality, and a paragon of social justice,” Joseph Fallon writes in his important new, must-read book, Lincoln Uncensored.
This view of Lincoln, writes Fallon, is only true “in official histories or in Hollywood movies” but not in reality. The reason for this historical disconnect is that “this myth of Lincoln, not the Constitution . . . now confers legitimacy on the political system of the United States.” Despite being mostly a bundle of lies, it is nevertheless the ideological cornerstone of statism in America and has been for nearly 150 years.
The real Lincoln was a dictator and a tyrant who shredded the Constitution, fiendishly orchestrated the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens, and did it all for the economic benefit of the special interests who funded the Republican Party (and his own political career). But don’t take Joseph Fallon’s or Thomas DiLorenzo’s word for it. Read the words of Abe Lincoln himself. That is what Fallon allows everyone to do in his great work of scholarship, Lincoln Uncensored. No longer do Americans need to rely on politically-correct, heavily state-censored textbooks or movies made by communistic-minded Hollywood hedonists to learn about this part of their own country’s history.
Each of the twenty-three chaptes of Lincoln Uncensored explains the real Lincoln in Lincoln’s own words by quoting him directly from The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (CW), complete with specific citations for every single quotation. The following is an abbreviated sampling of what you will learn upon reading Lincoln Uncensored.
LINCOLN WAS AN OBSESSIVE WHITE SUPREMACIST
“Free them [blacks] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 256).
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 405).
“What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 521).
“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).
“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 . . .” (CW, Vol, III, pp. 145-146).
“I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 146).
“Senator Douglas remarked . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 281).
Until His Dying Day, Lincoln Plotted to Deport all the Black People Out of America
“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation . . . . Such separation . . . must be effected by colonization” [to Liberia, Central America, anywhere]. (CW, Vol. II, p. 409).
“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right , and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime . . .” (CW, Vol. II, p. 409).
“The place I am thinking about having for a colony [for the deportation of all American blacks] is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia.” (CW, Vol. V, pp. 373, 374).
LINCOLN ONLY RHETORICALLY OPPOSED SOUTHERN SLAVERY. IN PRACTICE, HE STRENGTHENED IT
” I think no wise man has perceived, how it [slavery] could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty himself.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 130).
“I meant not to ask for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.” (CW, Vol., II, p. 260).
“I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination I the people of the free states to enter into the slave states and interfere with the question of slavery at all.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 492).
“I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).
“I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery . . . because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 460).