Slaves Revolt on Democrat's Baltimore Plantation

Dear Democrats,

We are NOT sorry that your slaves are revolting on your Baltimore plantation. You clearly learned nothing from your Civil War. Slavery is WRONG! Now stop it!

Sincerely,
Everybody else (Except ISIS - slavery is OK with them too)

---

So it continues...

The democrats will never let their slaves go! They can't get them to pick cotton anymore, but they have locked up their votes. Until the slaves decide to leave the plantation, it is almost difficult to feel sorry for them. 50 years of Democrat rule and Democrat policies in Baltimore have resulted in the slave uprising we are witnessing.

A brief history

Since the 1600's some American colonists had been owning slaves with regularity. There is even a historical debate as to whether the first documented / legal slave owner was a black man. Regardless, it is documented history that black colonists did legally own slaves.

And let us point out that there were no political parties at this time. Slavery didn't become contentious until the formation of the United States. Our founding fathers debated slavery, but could not come to agreement, and all decided it was not the issue that should prevent the formation of this new republic. The government was formed so brilliantly by the constitution, it is hard to believe they could not get that one right. They chose not to address the issue, and so just lit the fuse.

Even after the formation of the new government slavery was not a partisan issue. It was more or less a religious issue. Yes! Those religious nuts were running around, ranting and raving about the evils of slavery! Both the Party of Jefferson (Democratic-Republican Party) and the Party of Adams (The Federalist Party), were buying and selling slaves, and engaging in slavery for commercial gain, and personal comfort.

During the Jackson Administration the two party system morphed into the Democrats (Jackson's Party) and the Whigs (Those opposed to Jackson Party). Still slavery was not a partisan issue. It was not until the 1850's that slavery became political again. The Whig Party dissolved over the issue of slavery during this period. Slave owning Whigs joined the Democrats, who were either for slavery or willing not to pass judgement. Abolitionist Whigs formed the Republican party. So let's take this moment to point out that no Republican ever owned slaves. I assure you that a man on the street survey would show that very few Americans know this. They sure do not teach it in public schools. In fact they do contortions to leave you to believe that it is the Republicans who have always oppressed Black people.

When the Republican Party had it's first nominee (Abraham Lincoln ) elected president Democrats became so alarmed that the Party of Abolitionists would take away their slaves the Confedaracy was formed.

History.com

By the time of Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven states had seceded, and the Confederate States of America had been formally established, with Jefferson Davis as its elected president. One month later, the American Civil War began when Confederate forces under General P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire on Union-held Fort Sumter in South Carolina. In 1863, as the tide turned against the Confederacy, Lincoln emancipated the slaves and in 1864 won reelection. In April 1865, he was assassinated by Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C. The attack came only five days after the American Civil War effectively ended with the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee at Appomattox.

Once Democrats thought they might lose their slaves, they started the Civil War! Millions of Americans died because Democrats wanted to keep their slaves!

The confederacy lost, and the Emancipation of slaves by the Republicans was complete.

But not so fast.....
Democrats were still unwilling to let their slaves go, so they invented sharecropping.

Sharecropping | Slavery By Another Name | PBS

After the Civil War, former slaves sought jobs, and planters sought laborers. The absence of cash or an independent credit system led to the creation of sharecropping.
Sharecropping is a system where the landlord/planter allows a tenant to use the land in exchange for a share of the crop. This encouraged tenants to work to produce the biggest harvest that they could, and ensured they would remain tied to the land and unlikely to leave for other opportunities. In the South, after the Civil War, many black families rented land from white owners and raised cash crops such as cotton, tobacco, and rice. In many cases, the landlords or nearby merchants would lease equipment to the renters, and offer seed, fertilizer, food, and other items on credit until the harvest season. At that time, the tenant and landlord or merchant would settle up, figuring out who owed whom and how much

Believe it or not, this new form of slavery lasted until the 1930's - 1940's. During this period the sharecroppers revolted by forming unions. Democrat plantation owners retaliated with violence.

Slavery in the 20th Century

The situation of landless farmers who challenged the system in the rural south as late as 1941 has been described thus: "he is at once a target subject of ridicule and vitriolic denunciation; he may even be waylaid by hooded or unhooded leaders of the community, some of whom may be public officials. If a white man persists in 'causing trouble', the night riders may pay him a visit, or the officials may haul him into court; if he is a Negro, a mob may hunt him down."

Sharecroppers formed unions in the 1930s, beginning in Tallapoosa County, Alabama in 1931, and Arkansas in 1934. Membership in the Southern Tenant Farmers Union included both blacks and poor whites. As leadership strengthened, meetings became more successful, and protest became more vigorous, landlords responded with a wave of terror.

It was only mechanization of farming that eventually brought the institution of sharecropping to an end in the United States. Think about that for a second!

But not so fast.....
Democrats were still unwilling to let their slaves go, so they invented Jim Crow Laws.

Jim Crow Laws

The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation state and local laws enacted after the Reconstruction period in Southern United States that continued in force until 1965 mandating de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern U.S. states (of the former Confederacy), starting in 1890 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans. Conditions for African Americans were consistently inferior and underfunded compared to those provided for white Americans. This decision institutionalized a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages. De jure segregation mainly applied to the Southern United States, while Northern segregation was generally de facto — patterns of segregation in housing enforced by covenants, bank lending practices and job discrimination, including discriminatory union practices for decades.

It wasn't until 1964 that Jim Crow laws were legally ended.

On July 2, 1964, Johnson signed the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964.^[24][25] It invoked the commerce clause^[24] to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations (privately owned restaurants, hotels, and stores, and in private schools and workplaces). This use of the commerce clause was upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379 US 241 (1964).^[26] 

It is my belief that this is why Democrats are seen in modern day politics as the champions of the Black race. Only because the sitting President was a Democrat do democrats get to absolve themselves of their sins of slavery. And as to how Republicans who freed the slaves became the foil? I really have no good explanation other than indoctrination or re-education by public schools and the media. Another man on the street survey would most likely show that most Americans believe Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This just simply is not true. All you have to do is look at the votes for this Act to see that Democrats still wanted their slaves. In every instance Republicans were far more in favor of this Act than Democrats.

Vote Totals

By party

The original House version:^[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96  
• Republican Party: 138–34  

Cloture in the Senate:^[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 
• Republican Party: 27–6  

The Senate version:^[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21
• Republican Party: 27–6 

The Senate version, voted on by the House:^[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 
• Republican Party: 136–35 

Once again, it was really the Republicans that came to the rescue of Black slaves.

But not so fast.....
Democrats were still unwilling to let their slaves go, so they invented welfare.

Democrats now keep their slaves on the plantation by handing out welfare and other entitlements at the expense of tax payers. The allure of free stuff is just too magnetic. And while Republicans have been fighting to free Blacks from Democrat enslavement once again by eliminating welfare and the stagnation of lives, Democrats have fooled Blacks into being resentful of such attempts.

Democrats have always argued that they love Black people and have always had their best interests close to their hearts. When the issue was actual slaves as property they argued that it was the most humane thing to do since Blacks hadn't been able to civilize themselves. Slavery was their path to civilization.

Democrats argued that sharecropping was in the best interest of the ex-slaves. After all? What else were they going to do?

And finally, democrats today argue that welfare is in the best interest of their ex-slaves as a helping hand, despite the facts of generational addiction to free stuff ultimately resulting in poverty.

Are all Democrats part of the slavery conspiracy? Certainly not. Those that are not are just from the 'Unicorn and Fuzzy Bunny' wing of the Party. If it sounds like charity, makes them feel warm and gooey on the inside, then they are for it.

But let's be clear about one thing. When it comes to race, Republicans are not the bad guys.

Massa is still out there. Burn her plantation down!

Was Germanwings Flight 9525 Brought Down By Putin? And If So, What Is His Next Move?

Let's remember, that there have been published reports about a theory that Putin was behind the disappearance of flight MH370.

Expert Jeff Wise links Vladimir Putin to MH370 disaster

Wise’s theory is that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the hijacking of the Boeing 777 and landed it in Kazakhstan.

One reason Putin may have wanted to steal the plane would be to hurt the West and its allies, Wise wrote, particularly because the US had imposed punitive sanctions on Russia the day before MH370 disappeared.

And.......
Let's remember that at this same time Putin was annexing The Crimea.
A beautiful "Wag the dog" scenario.

Ukraine Crisis Timeline - BBC

February 2014
27-28 February: Pro-Russian gunmen seize key buildings in the Crimean capital, Simferopol. Unidentified gunmen in combat uniforms appear outside Crimea's main airports.
1 March: Russia's parliament approves President Vladimir Putin's request to use force in Ukraine to protect Russian interests.

 A week later MH370 disappears.

Ya ya.... I know.... kind of a crazy theory, but for me? I would be watching Putin and Russia Very closely.

Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at Denmark ships if it joins NATO shield

In an interview in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten, the Russian ambassador to Denmark, Mikhail Vanin, said he did not think Danes fully understood the consequences of joining the program.

"If that happens, Danish warships will be targets for Russian nuclear missiles," Vanin told the newspaper.

The Tide of War Against Extreme Islam Turns as Extremists go on the Offensive in Paris.

Je suis un Charlie

It didn't take long, and we are not allowed to act surprised. In fact it was predicted. It just is rather stunning to see how quickly it happened, but the old adage about "we can fight them there, or we'll have to fight them here" is quickly becoming true.

Barely two weeks after NATO ceremoniously surrendered Afghanistan to an uncertain fate, Jihadis successfully attacked a target they had previously and publicly threatened with revenge for publishing cartoons they deemed offensive to their Mohamed. A publication called "Charlie Hebdo".

Whether the timing is intentional or coincidental, the message or at least the optics are clear. Jihad has been victorious at home, and now they are on the march.

This attack was not a 'lone wolf' attack. It can't be chalked up to a lone unstable religious nut who used Jihad as an excuse to act crazy and violently. On the contrary, this attack appears to have been by well trained and possibly veteran Jihadi soldiers.

Gunmen in Charlie Hebdo Attack in Paris Likely 'Well Trained,' Experts Say

“They carried out the operation in a very calm, controlled way,” said Richard Clarke, former White House counter-terrorism advisor and current ABC News consultant. “They appear to have fire discipline, not spraying bullets everywhere. They were people who did not look like they were wild, on some kind of spree, but who were accomplishing a military operation.” 

When will the president learn that just because he doesn't want to fight the Jihadis, the Jihadis do in fact want to fight him, and the western culture.

If this was in fact an attack by citizens of Europe or the United States or Canada, who were trained on the battlefield by, oh, say, ISIS and have now returned to execute terror attacks, then there is nothing preventing them from getting on an airplane to the United States to come here and do the samething.

Good thing our cowardly mealy mouthed media outlets have chosen to censor themselves by not showing the graphic cartoons that upset the Jihadis so much. How courageous.

Imperial President Obama Grants Amnesty by Diktat.

Tonight the Dictator-in-Chief declared that he will sign an executive order to grant amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants.

In his speech tonight he went out of his way to say that his actions were NOT amnesty. If you believe that then you probably believed that 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor'.

This Obama drama isn't just a tantrum about the recent elections, it's also a cynical political play. The president has had six years to pretend to care about this issue. He didn't pull the pin on this grenade in 2012 because he wanted to get re-elected. He didn't pull the pin on this grenade in 2014 because the democrats trying to get re-elected would have stabbed Caesar on the steps of the White House. This is the same 'shove it down your throat' tactic he had to use when Massachusetts sent Senator Scott Brown to Washington in order to stop Obamacare. Once again the electorate has sent a message to the dictator, this time in overwhelming numbers, and he does not care. He knows better. Apparently elections only have consequences if you agree with him.

Obama: 'I hear you' - CNN

"To those of you who voted, I hear you," Obama said in his first public remarks since the election. To those who didn't vote, "I hear you too."

Elections don't count. He knows better.

It's also cynical because it is a naked attempt to to incite the Republicans into a rabid rage. Which is strategically smart. That could just work. It would not be the first time he tricked Republicans into taking action that is just not well received by the electorate at large. When Republicans threatened to shut down the government, and then did (to no consequence at all), unless he gave waivers for Obamacare penalties to individuals and small businesses, like he had done for friendly unions and large corporations, he called their bluff. Scored his political points, and then cynically granted the waiver by executive order, out of the sight of the complacent main stream media. The government only shut down because that is what he wanted, for political reasons.

And finally, it's mostly cynical because he has introduced 5 million undocumented democratic voters into the electorate well in time for the 2016 elections. That's the real play here. Get a green card, you get a drivers license. Get a drivers license, you get to vote.

Zeig Heil!

I won't even go into all the video where Obama is telling the Latino voters in 2012 that he didn't have the authority to just grant amnesty by executive order, because he didn't have the legal authority. We have all seen it, and we know his declarations tonight have no legal standing, just as he understands. But who cares!

Maybe Jon Gruber was right?

Jon Stewart takes on Jon Gruber, calls Democrats ‘slimy’

Mr. Gruber, an MIT economist who was paid almost $400,000 to help shape Obamacare, said during an October 2013 appearance at the University of Pennsylvania that the “lack of transparency” and “stupidity of the American voter” were politically advantageous in getting the law passed.

He who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it.

D-Day: 67 years ago on this day

this day in history:  67 years ago today.

---

---

Just imagine. Could you have done that?

Listen My Children and You Shall Hear the Midnight Ride of ..... Jack Jouett?

June 4th, 1781

A little more than 5 years after Paul Revere called the Minute Men to arms in what would be the "Shot Heard Around the World", another man would quietly save the revolution.

JACK JOUETT of VIRGINIA the "Other Ride"

Jouett was a Captain of Virginia Militia and was stationed in the Charlottesville, Virginia area. Late on the evening of June 3rd of 1781, Captain Jouett was asleep on the lawn in front of the "Cuckoo Tavern" (now a private residence). He was awakened by the sound of a large number of horsemen. Sitting up, he observed a large unit of the dreaded "White Coats", a nick-name given to the British Dragoons in Colonel Banastre (the Butcher) Tarletons regiment. Tarleton himself was leading the cavalry column. Jouett was quick to realize the objective of this force. The Virginia General Assembly was in session at Charlottesville, some forty miles from the Cuckoo Tavern, and Governor Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and many other notorious 'rebels' were there. They were virtually helpless, as most of Virginia's fighting men were up north with General George Washington, and the local Militia was ill-equipped and too few in numbers to stop Tarleton. The young General Marquis de LaFayette, who had been so successfully harassing the British, Tarleton in particular, was too far away to be of any assistance. The enormity of the situation sat squarely on Captain Jouetts broad shoulders.

Col Banastre Tarleton A.k.a "Bloody Bana" or "the Butcher" is the historical figure for which  Col. William Tavington from the 2000 film "The Patriot" is loosely based on.

Revere rode only 15 miles over good roads. Col. Tarleton certainly had advance scouts on the road to Charlottesville, hence that route was denied to Jouett. He had to go through the tangled Virginia backwoods.

No sooner had the hoofbeats of the British Dragoons faded into the night, when Captain Jouett saddled his horse and plunged into the dense woods.

I have stood in awe of Paul Revere's great deed most of my life, so I have to give props here. Jack had 40 miles between him and Charlottesville where Thomas Jefferson was staying at his Monticello.

With the first light of dawn he arrived at Thomas Jefferson's famous home, Monticello. He awoke Governor Jefferson and some of the Virginia Legislators who were staying at Monticello. Then, without hesitation, the exhausted Captain turned his horse and galloped to Charlottesville to spread the alarm. The Assemblymen at Charlottesville scattered, but only after voting to reconvene on June 7th at Staunton.

Shortly after Governor Jefferson received the warning, he dispatched his family, gathered his important papers and then, he too departed.

Imagine if the British had captured Jefferson on June 4th? Being one month before the 5th anniversary of the Declaration of Independance the loss of Jefferson would have been a serious blow to morale.

God Bless America. Truly the Home of the Brave!

Headline: Osama Bin Laden Is Still Dead

May Day! Osama Bin Laden is Dead!

Happy belated May Day.

What is usually a celebration of communist ideals will hopefully be replaced with a day remembered for nothing other than the death of Osama Bin Laden.

We rejoice at his demise. We now know that his life for the past ten years was to cower in a mansion that was his self imposed prison, in Pakistan, very close to a Pakistani military installation.

My only wish is that like with the death of Hitler, that this meant the end of the war. But, I fear not.

Homeland Security has elevated it's threat level/stance/guard or what ever the hell they are using these days, because of perceived possibilities of retaliation.

Fear not. The Al Qaeda animals would have already attacked us if they had the capabilities. They have never held back. When they have the chance, they take their shot. Any cries of reprisal from Bin Laden's followers means nothing.

Maybe the people that brought you the shoe bomb, and then the underwear bomb are now working on the turban bomb or brazier bomb, but you should not fret as they will fail in the same laughable way.

Screw you Bin Laden!

Your burial at sea befits your subhuman existence. You belong at the bottom of the sea. May the fish and the crustaceans rip the flesh from your bones, and may eels and snails use your skull as their new homes.

God Bless Seal Team Six!

---

Topics for another day: Obama sanctions state sponsored assassinations? The seal team went in with orders to kill. Unlike Bush who said he wanted Osama dead or alive, Obama clearly wanted him dead. Don't get me wrong, I do not criticize that decision. It just seems to me that some one with his ideology would never sign up for state sponsored assassination. Perhaps it was the thought of the nightmare that bringing Osama to the what should be closed Guantanamo prison would bring that made the president say "screw it, just kill him!".

the thinker: Being A Skeptic

Interesting post over at the ThinkingProf Blog.

the thinker: Being A Skeptic

He writes what I consider to be an irrefutable truth. Especially with the 'I get my news from John Stewart' demographic.

At times, I'm not sure people are even reading--much less reading critically and carefully--the information that they present and the links that they post.

And then goes on and uses one of my posts as an example.

I like the post because imparts some historical details I previously did not know (historical perspectives is a stated goal of this blog). It's worth a read.

I think his overall point is that in the arena of discourse facts can be used fast and loose and details may be obscured?

In this day and age of the sound bite, 'John Stewart as a Journalist', and hyperbolic propaganda, I could not agree more. I just feel a little self-conscious that I was singled out (not really). I would urge the professor to cite examples of the left committing similar transgressions (if that is what in fact he thinks they are) as well.

I am not sure the professor necessarily debunked the message I tried to convey by using the quote which was "The girl couldn't quite communicate the point of her sign. She was just super smart and if you didn't get it then you were just too dumb"

Rhode Island State House - Union Solidarity Demonstration

It was lame.

The Rent-A-Mob started filling the State House rotunda around 4:30. State workers and members from other unions were in attendance. It seemed like a large crowd because the rotunda is deceptively small and everyone was packed in.

I have to say that the event was very tame. The closest thing to violent imagery was the guy with the sword, and he was actually a nice guy. No Hitler stuff, no cross hairs, just union people showing up and doing as they are told.

After it was all over you can see people leaving the State House and crossing the street to the state administration building. You know, going back to their desks to collect their stuff and go home. It was after 5pm by then.

---

---

Lara Logan Rape = Tea Party

First of all, I wish Lara Logan all the best and pray for her speedy recovery. I can't even imagine how a political celebration turns into a gang rape that happens out in the open with thousands of witnesses.

But...........Let's see how long it will take for the lame stream media to equate this act to a Tea Party Tax Protest.

Just say'n.

Oh, and let's all wait to hear the islamo-fascist apologists explain how this is really just part of their culture and they shouldn't be judged by western standards. Evidence like this should in no way suggest that their culture is barbaric. No. Really.

Ronald Reagan's 100th Birthday

Happy Birthday Mr. President.

from presidentialtimeline.org

Presidency

January 20, 1981 

to

January 20, 1989

On January 20, 1981, Reagan took office. Only 69 days later he was shot by a would-be assassin, but quickly recovered and returned to duty. His grace and wit during the dangerous incident caused his popularity to soar. Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment and strengthen national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit. A renewal of national self-confidence by 1984 helped Reagan and Bush win a second term with an unprecedented number of electoral votes. In 1986, Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression. In foreign policy, Reagan sought to achieve “peace through strength.” During his two terms he increased defense spending 35 percent, but sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union. In dramatic meetings with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, he negotiated a treaty that would eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

Judicial Activism? Are You Kidding Me!

Since the moment that Judge Roger Vinson declared that Obamacare was unconstitutional the left has been howling that this ruling was nothing more than a clear example of judicial activism.

OMFG!

You have to be kidding! This is more than lefty spin, this is a grotesque distortion of reality. It is humorous to watch the left act so surprise though.  People and politicians have been screaming that this bill is unconstitutional since before it was signed into law! At least 26 states are joined and united in pressing their law suit because they know the law is unconstitutional. This is a classic "the Emperor has no clothes" moment and yet the left has the audacity to act surprise. "What? Hey! How did that happen! This must be judicial activism!"

Bolox!

Judicial activism is when the courts use their power to expand the role of government beyond what a law says or was intended for. Kelo v. City of New London, is an excellent example. Here a law that was intended for using 'eminent domain' or the taking of private land into the public trust for the benefit of all was extended to include the taking of private land and handing it over to private for profit business. Eminent domain was created so that roads could be built, power lines extended to distribute electricity to all, maybe even to build a library or police station. It was never intended to be a vehicle for well connected developers to get below market prices for real estate ventures that, if everything goes correctly could possibly benefit the community if the venture is a success. The court extending government powers to include that type of scenario is a clear case where the court created new law or powers that should have been created as legislation by the representatives of the people.

The opposite of judicial activism is when the courts use their powers to limit the power of government, beyond the enumerated powers that the constitution provides for. That's what Judge Roger Vinson did and that's why he is a constitutionalist.

Chomsky is still a Chump!

How does this guy continue to be revered as some type of philosophical guru while speaking complete untruths in front of supposedly learned audiences? I've pointed out before how this guy appears to exist in some opposite upside down world universe.

Chomsky the Chump
And he's still at it!

Noam Chomsky lectures on nation’s problems

"The military budget is half of the deficit," Chomsky said. "The other half is the heavily privatized health care system. We would not have debt and might even have a surplus if we did not have (the health care system)."

I've heard him say this many times, including in the video below, and it is just simply not true, yet none of the brilliant know it all intellectuals call him on it. A little over half of annual spending by the government goes to defense, and what Noam calls health-care which he means medicare, and medicaid. Now, if half of your annual budget goes to health-care and defense, then how are you able to apportion those two line items to 100% of your debt? Unless you are cooking the books, all of your expenditures are proportionally responsible for your overage.

Chomsky also discussed terrorism and the post-Sept. 11 United States.
"Bush said terrorists committed crimes because they hate our freedoms," he said.
Contrary to this statement, Chomsky said that Muslims actually hate our policies, not our freedoms.
Chomsky said United States' policies actually benefit Jihadists.

Wrong again Noam! The Jihadists do hate us for our freedoms. Unless of course by policy you mean policies like educating our women. Policies like not requiring women to wear burkas. Policies like not incarcerating homosexuals. Policies like allowing people to listen to western music.

"The U.S. remains Bin Laden's only ally," he said.
Chomsky discussed the United States' support of dictatorships in Egypt, Tunisia, Georgia, Jordan and Colombia. He said this too falls under the "guiding principle."

Really? Last time I checked Columbia was a real democracy with a real freely elected president. Georgia too!

"The United States has a violent labor history," he said. "The rallying cry of the late 19th-century labor movement was, 'Those who work in mills should own them,'" he said.
Chomsky said this holds significance today, specifically with the automobile industry.
"Obama took over the auto industry, so the government owns it," he said. "The government is closing plants when they could turn them over to the workers and let them run it for profit."

Well, you get partial credit here Noam. The labor movement truly has been violent. Violent thugs who feel they deserve the property of people who took risks and became succesful. It's funny how labor only wants too take ownership of the successful businesses, which is precisely why, Noam, that the workers have not taken over those closed plants you claim they could run.

"Democrats today are what used to be moderate Republicans, and today's Republicans are so deep in the pockets of business, you have to have a magnifying glass to find them," he said.

Oh my god! Who lets him get away with such fantasies? Does he really believe a John F Kennedy, cut taxes and be strong on defense democrat would be tolerated in today's party?  The democratic party has moved so far left that communist principles and leaders are openly praised and adored.

"Social Security is actually in good shape, despite what you read," he said. "The rich want to get rid of Social Security, because it is based on the principles of compassion and solidarity, and (the spread of these principles) could be dangerous for the rich."

No Noam, it's because it's a ponzi scheme, and all ponzi schemes eventually implode. As soon as it's mathmatically impossible to expand the base of the pyramid to pay the few at the top, it collapses.

Students said they gained valuable insights from Chomsky's lecture.

God help us all!

---

CL

L.A. Times: Wrong again

The conversation about Sarah Palin's official post-Arizona statement: She really messed this one up

In using "blood libel," a term rooted in anti-Semitism, however, she created a bigger mess for herself. Quoting from James Oliphant's Los Angeles Times article, Sarah Palin's charge of 'blood libel' spurs outcry from Jewish leaders: 

"Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a 'blood libel' against her and others," said David Harris, president of the National Democratic Jewish Council, in a statement. "This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries -- and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today."

Even conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg is with us on this one. Blogging for NRO, he said:

"I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn't ideal. Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood -- usually from children -- in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn’s, and now Palin"s, larger point. But I’m not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have."

 um....not exactly.  I think Rabbi Shmuley Boteach got it right.


Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel'

 Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.

 The L.A. Times is leading the way in the replacement for Bush/Cheney/Haliburton dementia, Sara Palin obsession. 


CL

Post Partisan Polemic's

Party of "No" becomes party of "Whoa!"

It really is a beautiful thing to watch. After two years of complaining that Republicans were being too partisan, and too obstructionist, suddenly an agreement between the President and the GOP is a monumental betrayal.

This is not the first act of bipartisanship. There have been many bipartisan oppositions to various Pelosi shenanigans, that were rammed through by a purely partisan majority. It just never gets reported that way.

Until yesterday, bipartisanship meant "sit down, shut up, and vote how I tell you to vote. Otherwise you are obstructing". Apparently they became very accustomed to this environment, and despite the results of the mid term elections they refuse to come to terms with the change that was voted for and is about to take place.

Now, at the first attempt of a truly bipartisan deal in congress since the election of "He who walks on water", the one who spoke earnestly about "reaching across the isle", it is absolute schadenfreude to watch the presidents base lose their minds.

What was that phrase that was so popular two years ago? Oh yeah......"elections have consequences!"

Obama, and the Spies who love him

My antennae went up the moment this starry broke. Having a Russian spy ring busted up and hauled in a mere day after a high level meeting with Vladimir Putin's messenger boy, Medvedev, was just too much to let lie as coincidence.

I wrote about it right away knowing there was something very deep going on here.

To Russia with Love

From the beginning this felt like an Obama overture to ingratiate himself to the Russians.  This ideologue actually believes that kind gestures to evil people will yield positive results.  You can't fault him for not being a true believer, however naive that may be.

And now the evidence piles up.

US began deliberating spy swap well before arrests

The White House began deliberating a spy swap with Moscow nearly a month ago

In the course of the following negotiations with Moscow, the United States put forward the names of the four people who were released by Russia on Friday as their part of the bargain

Four people? What four people? It is interesting that the names and profiles have not yet been released.  What a deal!  Obama confesses, and then cleans up some massive loose ends that the new KGB left for us. Loose ends that could have been played, turned, or designated for misinformation at an important moment. You just don't hand over assets like this. Especially for 4 people the nation has never heard of!

the official said, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House.

Reporters?!?!?!?  You mean someone held an anonymous press conference? Usually leaks happen in one on one situations where anonymity can easily be granted. Here we have state-run-media colluding with an orchestrated intelligence leak and pretending like it's an unknown source. White House ground rules?  I have been calling the main-stream-media the state-run-media for over a year. Now you have the proof.

The U.S. government has declared itself pleased with the outcome, saying it got everything it wanted out of the case.

Yip. Nothing to see here. President Obama has offered up yet another gift at the feet of Vladimir Putin, and what did he get in return?



xx

Sit Down, Shut up, and Pay up.

Rather than attacking the Tea Party directly, Yesterday Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick took a swipe at anyone who might disagree with the current administration.

Patrick reaches back to decry Obama foes

“It seems like child’s play compared to what’s going on in Washington, where it is almost at the level of sedition, it feels like to me,’’ the governor told students and faculty at a candidate’s forum at Suffolk Law School’s Rappaport Center. “People who have just resolved: If the president says, ‘Up,’ we will say, ‘Down.’ If the president says, ‘Go that way,’ we will say, ‘Go the other way.’ ’’

Wow! Along the same lines as the derision of the Tea Party, rather than debate the accusations merely state that there is no thought, and absolutely zero room for opposition

---

---

" I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic and we should stand up and say we are americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!"

One Man's sedition is another man's free speech. The level of "hate Bush" rhetoric was like nothing else I have seen in my lifetime, and won't soon be forgotten. Although I was not a huge Bush fan and disagreed with him on many issues, I always thought the hate speech and hate imagery was over the top. And now, this thin skinned president is sending his friends out to set the stage for squelching the voice of opposition.

Obama uses drama to get his legislation through. You saw it in health care with the Wellpoint attacks. You saw it on financial reform in the Goldman Sachs attacks. Neither law addresses the issue's used as ammunition to get the bill passed, but that doesn't matter. Rhetoric is reality in the state-run-media era. And now, we set the stage for the next drama to unfold. The war on talk radio terrorism and the continued fear mongering of Tea Party activities.

---

se·di·tion

   [si-dish-uhn]  Show IPA

–noun

1.

incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.

2.

any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.

3.

Archaic. rebellious disorder.

---

Declaring speech as rebellious is lazy and stupid. It has happened in the past:

Sedition Act of 1798

The most important provision of the act codified the English common law of seditious libel and made it a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment to speak disparagingly of the national government or government officials in a manner intending to hold them up to public ridicule and erode their authority. Still, the act liberalized the English common law insofar as it allowed evidence of the truth of a charge against the government to be entered into the defense at a trial and insofar as it allowed the jury to be the judge not only of the fact of publication, but also of the allegedly seditious character of the published matter. Both of these reforms were also part of the roughly contemporaneous English Fox's Libel Act of 1792, widely viewed as a triumph for English liberals. 

The act resulted in several important trials for seditious libel in the late 1790s, most notably those of Matthew Lyon, Thomas Cooper, and James Thompson Callender. Lyon was a feisty Irish Vermont congressman who had made intemperate remarks about the unnecessary pomp displayed by President Adams. An unsympathetic Federalist judge, William Paterson, presided over his trial (United States v. Matthew Lyon, 1798), and although Paterson instructed the jury that they must find Lyon guilty of having made his seditiously libelous statements beyond a reasonable doubt, he was still convicted, fined one thousand dollars and costs, and sentenced to imprisonment for four months. 

Thomas Cooper was a transplanted British social critic who allied himself with Thomas Jefferson against John Adams in the presidential election of 1800. Cooper had published remarks critical of Adams, notably that he had borrowed money at too high a rate during peacetime, that he had maintained a standing army and navy, and that he had interfered with the independence of the judiciary in a matter involving extradition of a British murder suspect. Cooper's statements were probably matters of opinion rather than fact, and though they were arguably more false than true, the presiding justice, Samuel Chase, in his jury instructions, required Cooper to prove the truth of his assertions “beyond a marrow” before he could be acquitted (United States v. Thomas Cooper, 1800). This was in stark contrast to Paterson's standards in the Lyon trial, and probably flowed from some understandable confusion in Chase's mind over whether he should apply the standards from English private libel law (which he did), or liberalize the standards in keeping with emerging American ideas about the value of free speech (which he did not). Cooper was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of four hundred dollars and to be imprisoned for six months. Like the other seditious libel defendants he was later pardoned by Thomas Jefferson, but he refused his pardon, with what one historian later called “commendable perversity,” and insisted on serving out his sentence. 

Look for similar legislation coming soon to a medium near you.

The Fifth Amendment is Miranda

Some of the talk on TV and in the papers has brought the Miranda rights back into discourse. It seemed to start with the controversial reading of Miranda rights to the Christmas Day Underwear Bomber. In this case, someone who was not a citizen and could be easily classified as an enemy combatant was given rights that US citizens may presume. So the controversy is understood. However, some of the discourse has gone into areas of taking away someones citizenship, not reading Miranda rights so that intel may be extracted before a suspect can 'lawyer up'. All this is fine and well if you are not an American citizen. If you are not an American citizen you mat be classified as an enemy combatant, and so you cannot presume to have fifth amendment rights.

The message here is to remember this; if you are a US citizen you have fifth amendment rights. You do not have to wait for someone to read you the Miranda warning. You already have those rights.

“

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

”

So if you are some white dude who clings to guns and god, and the men in black kevlar with helmets and guns swoop in to take your guns away, feel free to 'lawyer up'.

Ocho de Mayo

Remember the good old days? Not the days where non existing violence is grounds for persecution and cowardly flinching, but the days where you could have a protest and you expected violence.

Hard Hat Riot

The Hard Hat Riot was a riot which occurred on May 8, 1970, near the intersection of Wall Street and Broad Street and at New York City Hall. The riot occurred about noon when about 200 construction workers mobilized by the New York State AFL-CIO attacked about 1,000 high school and college students and others protesting the Kent State shootings, the American invasion of Cambodia and the Vietnam War. The riot lasted little more than two hours, and ended of its own accord. More than 70 people were injured, including four policemen. Six people were arrested.

It's also funny to think back to time when unions were anti-communist. But, somethings never change. Violence is still their calling card. All of the violence you have heard about at Tea Parties has been union violence or subversives.