Tag Archives: United States

Head Of Top Conservative Think Tank Makes Spectacularly Uninformed Statement About Slavery

General Ulysses S. Grant, a big government official who played no role in ending slavery, according to Heritage Foundation president Jim DeMint

General Ulysses S. Grant, a big government official who played no role in ending slavery, according to Heritage Foundation president Jim DeMint | CREDIT: AP PHOTO

Doh!

Think Progress

Jim DeMint, the former U.S. senator from South Carolina who now leads the conservative Heritage Foundation, went on a Christian radio show last week where he discussed the topic of slavery. He offered some rather unusual views on the subject of slavery while he was a guest on this show.

Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people. Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God. But a lot of the move to free the slaves came from the people, it did not come from the federal government. It came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. People like Wilberforce who persisted for years because of his faith and because of his love for people. So no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves. In fact, it was Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican, who took this on as a cause and a lot of it was based on a love in his heart that comes from God.

It’s difficult to know where to begin a list of the errors this brief passage. The phrase “all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights” does not appear in the Constitution, although a very similar phrase does appear in the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, the Constitution, at least as it stood before the Civil War, had very different things to say about the subject of human equality. It provided, for example, that “[n]o person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” The original Constitution also contained explicit language prohibiting Congress from banning the importation of new slaves until 1808.

Nevertheless, DeMint is technically correct that “the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution.” That’s because the Thirteenth Amendment provides that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude. . . shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” The Thirteenth Amendment did not, however, simply come into being because Abraham Lincoln had a “love in his heart that comes from God.” Rather, it happened because Lincoln led the nation in a massive big government program known as the “Civil War“.

During this war, the United States raised an army of over two million service members who clashed with a Confederate army of about half that size. Moreover, the war effort increased federal spending nearly 25 times. As the leader of a centralized government in Washington, DC, Lincoln also issued a document known as the “Emancipation Proclamation,” which ordered slaves in the Confederate states freed.

Notably, while the Thirteenth Amendment ended the legal practice of human chattel slavery, state laws such as the Black Codes and the Jim Crow laws were enacted in the South to maintain the inferior status of former slaves and their descendants. These laws were eventually eradicated by big government as well, primarily through legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

It’s also worth noting that the Confederate system of government differed from the Union’s system in that it placed far less power in a strong central government. While the United States Constitution, permits the federal government to “lay and collect taxes . . . and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” for example, the Confederate Constitution excluded the power to “provide for the general welfare.” Thus, the United States Constitution permits major national spending programs such as Medicare or Social Security, while these programs would have been unconstitutional in the Confederacy. Similarly, the Confederate Constitution includes a rigid limit on national infrastructure spending — forbidding its congress from “appropriat[ing] money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce” — a limit that does not appear in the United States Constitution.

So Jim DeMint is correct that there was a belligerent during the American Civil War that rejected “big government.” He’s just wrong about which side that was.

3 Comments

Filed under Slavery

The Year of the Great Redistribution

Robert Reich

The stock market closed out a record year at an all-time high [at the end of the year] giving stockholders in 2013 their biggest annual gains in almost two decades.

But the real news here, that went completely unreported, is that the 2013 bull market widened inequality because

(1) the richest 1 percent of Americans own 35 percent of the value of all shares of stock, and the richest 10 percent own over 80 percent,

(2) the corporate profits on which these gains were based came largely from keeping the wages of ordinary workers low,

(3) the capital gains and dividends these gains generated are taxed at a lower rate than most of the income of the middle class, and

(4) the biggest winners are the top executives and Wall Street traders whose year-end bonuses are tied to the stock market, and the hedge-fund and private-equity managers whose “carried interest” loophole allows them to cash in big-time. When will we stop measuring the health of the economy by the Dow Jones Industrial average? —

Uh, America, are we listening to this man?

8 Comments

Filed under One Per Cent Privilege, The 1%, Wall Street "Banksters"

The Facts About Benghazi – NY Times Editorial

The Blue Street Journal

The New York Times Editorial Board

An exhaustive investigation by The Times goes a long way toward resolving any nagging doubts about what precipitated the attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

The report by David Kirkpatrick, The Times’s Cairo bureau chief, and his team turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or another international terrorist group had any role in the assault, as Republicans have insisted without proof for more than a year. The report concluded that the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s air power and other support during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and that it was fueled, in large part, by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

In a rational world, that would settle the dispute over Benghazi, which has further poisoned the poisonous political discourse in Washington and kept Republicans and Democrats from working cooperatively on myriad challenges, including how best to help Libyans stabilize their country and build a democracy. But Republicans long ago abandoned common sense and good judgment in pursuit of conspiracy-mongering and an obsessive effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may run for president in 2016.

On the Sunday talk shows, Representatives Mike Rogers and Darrell Issa, two Republicans who are some of the administration’s most relentless critics of this issue, dismissed The Times’s investigation and continued to press their own version of reality on Benghazi.

More…
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/opinion/the-facts-about-benghazi.html?_r=2&

H/t: DB for emailing me this article

12 Comments

Filed under Benghazi

THE YEAR IN RIGHTWING MEDIA, SIMPLIFIED

“You have to make it all about you, don’t you, Barack?” ~ Right Wing snark

This one is hilarious.  It epitomizes the term: Obama Derangement Syndrome…

Wonkette

Time’s Zeke Miller tweetered this adorbs little photo from June as part of a year-end skim of the White House Flickr stream. Photographer Pete Souza’s note:

“The President called me over to pose for a photo with a young boy who had fallen asleep during the Father’s Day ice cream social in the State Dining Room of the White House.”

So it’s not hard to imagine how this pic might hit the world of rightwing media.

Twitchy: “SNAP! Obama caught shaming small child forced to attend White House propaganda event”

Gateway Pundit: “Typical: Obama inserts himself into other people’s Fathers’ Day celebration”

Daily Caller: “Was cute sleepy child another Obama plant?”

American Thinker: “Sleepy Child Just Another Obama Plant — the evidence from photos”

Breitbart: “Sleepy Boy Reported To Be Another Plant”

Glenn Beck’s The Blaze: “No, there is no evidence that the sleeping boy was a plant. Buy Gold!”

WND: “Did ‘gay’ Obama fondle sleeping child?”

Peggy Noonan: “America. Sleeping. Where Is The Greatness? America.”

Drudge: “SIREN! Obama plays ‘Knockout Game’ on defenseless child”

Townhall/Katie Pavlich: “Pro-abort Obama With Child He Couldn’t Kill In the Womb”

Sarah Palin: “Obama’s America pointing sleep dad ice cream Obama precious child precious memories Alaska America Todd Gakk babies Willy Barstow foot American Exceptionalism Crhissmaks”

Erick Erickson: “Reagan never pointed at children” (1985 photo of Reagan pointing at child posted at Media Matters within 5 minutes)

Ben Shapiro: “Obama points finger, offers no market-based solutions to problems of black America.”

George Will: “The sleepy child and the tragedy of single black parents”

Fox & Friends: “Some people think Barack Obama is going to send this small boy to a reeducation camp! Are they right?”

5 Comments

Filed under Obama Derangement Syndrome

Home Depot founder worries Pope Francis neither loves or understands rich Americans

Pope Francis on the papal flight back to Italy from Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, on July 28, 2013. (AFP)

The Raw Story

In an interview on CNBC on Monday, Home Depot founder and devout Catholic Ken Langone said that the Pope’s statements about capitalism have left many potential “capitalist benefactors” wary of donating to the Church or its fundraising projects.

According to Langone, an anonymous, “potential seven-figure donor” for the Church’s restoration of St. Patrick’s Cathedral is concerned that the Pope’s criticism of capitalism are “exclusionary,” especially his statements about the “culture of prosperity” leading to the wealthy being “incapable of feeling compassion for the poor.”

Langone said he’s raised this issue with Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who yesterday praised Pope Francis for “shattering the caricature of the Church.”

“I’ve told the Cardinal,” Langone said, “‘Your Eminence, this is one more hurdle I hope we don’t have to deal with. You want to be careful about generalities. Rich people in one country don’t act the same as rich people in another country.’”

Cardinal Dolan told CNBC that he had, in fact, spoken to Langone, and had told him that “that would be a misunderstanding of the Holy Father’s message. The pope loves poor people. He also loves rich people.”

He then thanked Langone for bringing this anonymous donor’s concerns to him, and insisted that “[w]e’ve got to correct — to make sure this gentleman understands the Holy Father’s message properly.”

Langone further said that, in the future, he hopes Pope Francis will “celebrate a positive point of view rather than focusing on the negative.” He does worry, though, because of “the vast difference between the Pope’s experience in Argentina and how we are in America. There is no nation on earth that is so forthcoming, so giving.”

Dolan assured Langone that he had communicated to the new Pope the “legendary generosity of the Catholic Church in the United States.”

Watch the segment from CNBC here…

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

Fox News analyst suggests extra-constitutional measures to protect Constitution from Obama

Major Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret)

The hatred for this president is unprecedented.   Barack Obama taught Constitutional Law, he’s an attorney for heaven’s sake.

The wing-nut hysteria over the President is rather hilarious.  They refuse to recognize his bona fides and instead make him out to be the most ignorant foreign-born usurper ever to occupy the White House.

I’ve said it before:  history will not look kindly on those fools who accuse the President of the most outrageous and false offenses…

The Raw Story

A retired general and Fox News analyst has prescribed a regimen of extra-constitutional measures to protect the Constitution from President Barack Obama.

“We need to get off our derrieres, march at the state capitol, march in Washington (and) make citizens arrests,” said conservative activist and retired Major Gen. Paul E. Vallely.

He said the president and his allies in Congress were “conducting treason,” “violating our Constitution and violating our laws,” and he’s demanded that Obama resign or face a vote of no confidence.

“Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history,” Vallely said last week in an online radio interview. “It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence. It’s time for a ‘recall.’”

Perhaps realizing that the constitution doesn’t outline such a process, which is a common feature in parliamentary democracies, Vallely suggested that Congress pass legislation that would allow conservative activists to undo the results of the last presidential election.

“When you have a president and his team who don’t care about the Constitution, they will do anything they can to win,” he said.

Vallely ruled out impeachment, which is outlined in the Constitution, as a possible remedy.

“Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton’s day, forget about a finding of guilty,” he wrote. “Incidentally, if Obama was found guilty and removed from office, Joe Biden would step in, Valerie Jarrett still wields all the power, and likely we get more of the same.”

Vallely suggested that Obama’s misdeeds – which he identified as a handful of broken campaign promises, Benghazi and the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court – were so egregious that conservatives wouldn’t be breaking any laws by violating the Constitution to remove him from office.

“What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule-of-law’ has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration?” Vallely said. “How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?”

But he stopped just short of endorsing violence to overthrow the Obama administration.

“That brings us to the other word no one wants to utter, revolution. In our opinion, this is the least palatable option,” Vallely said. “Others talk about the military taking over as we saw in Egypt; again, we do not support this route.”

But he did suggest that a new George Washington could be drawn from the ranks of retired military personnel, which, of course, include Vallely.

“It’s fallen upon senior, retired military to take stands against the overreach and tyranny of a corrupt government,” Vallely said. “I think for people, they respect what the military has gone through. Senior military guys are very well educated, they’ve gone to the right schools, gone to combat for the most part, have had to manage enormous budgets, were involved in major financial decisions and are heavily steeped in foreign policy and national security. No other group, no CEO that has that kind of background. Obviously our politicians don’t have that background. They have legislation experience, not leadership experience.”

Vallely said action was necessary, because even next year’s midterm congressional elections can’t solve the problem posed by the continued presence of Obama in the White House.

“Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect,” Vallely warned. “His track record shows us that no matter what the make-up of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator.”

“When that does not work, he will manipulate the courts and law enforcement will be run by fiat, choosing winners and losers,” he said.

Video at the bottom of the article.

10 Comments

Filed under Wing-Nut Rhetoric

Republicans In Collapse as Obamacare Enrollment Skyrockets In December

Obama_On_Computer

PoliticusUSA

The Republican plan of running against Obamacare is in free fall today as HHS announced that 975,000 people signed up for health insurance in December alone.

According to the announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services,

As we continue our open enrollment campaign, we experienced a welcome surge in enrollment as millions of Americans seek access to affordable health care coverage through new Health Insurance Marketplaces nationwide. More than 1.1 million people enrolled in a qualified health plan via the Federally-facilitated Marketplace from October 1 to December 24, with more than 975,000 of those enrolling this month alone. Our HealthCare.gov enrollment nearly doubled in the days before the January 1 coverage deadline compared to the first few weeks of the month. December enrollment so far is over 7 times that of October and November. In part, this was because we met our marks on improving HealthCare.gov: the site supported 83,000 concurrent users on December 23rd alone.

The entire Republican strategy has been to discourage people from enrolling in the ACA Judging by these numbers, they have completely failed. Republicans are basing their entire 2014 and 2016 strategies on running against Obamacare. Their plan is backfiring, and they are setting themselves up for an epic backlash.

Millions of Americans have now signed up for access to affordable healthcare. Republicans, especially Republican Senate candidates, are going to be in a position of having to tell voters in 2014 that their plan is to take away their healthcare. This is why as more people enroll, it won’t be surprising if more Democrats follow the lead of Sen. Mary Landrieu and embrace the ACA as a part of their campaign.

The Republican tactic of campaigning only on opposition to the ACA was running on fumes in 2012. It was a narrowminded and shortsighted strategy that was born out of the fact that the GOP has done zilch for the American people and has no accomplishments to run on. Obamacare was all they had, and now that is vanishing too.

The success of the ACA will have a profound impact on elections around the country. In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell is defying the success of the exchange in his own state by refusing to talk about anything but repealing Obamacare. McConnell is already tied with Democratic challenger Alison Grimes, and his Obamacare or bust strategy may very well cost him his Senate seat this November.

President Obama trusted his instincts. The president has never wavered. He knows that people want access to affordable healthcare and he is being proven correct every day. Millions of people are signing up, and the Republican Party is being reduced to rubble as the final beam that was propping up their teetering house cracks under the weight of the ACA’s success.

2 Comments

Filed under Affordable Care Act, GOP Extremism

Ted Cruz ‘taking steps’ to renounce Canadian citizenship

Ted Cruz speaks to reporters (MSNBC)

This won’t help him win the necessary Republican primaries during the 2016 election season…

The Raw Story

Senator Ted Cruz has said that he is taking steps to renounce his mysterious Canadian citizenship – in a move he insists does not in any way indicate a run for the White House in 2016.

The junior senator from Texas, who made a name for himself as a driving force behind efforts to bring down the Affordable Care Act by way of a government shutdown, was surprised to learn earlier this year – after some digging by one of his home state newspapers – that he reportedly enjoys dual citizenship.

In an interview with the same organ, the Dallas Morning News, published on Sunday, Cruz announced he was hiring lawyers to help extricate him from his apparently unhelpful surplus nationality.

Cruz was born in the oil-rich region around Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. His mother’s nationality automatically made him an American citizen, regardless of the location of his birth or the citizenship of his father, who later became a naturalised American citizen. But his arrival into the world on Canadian soil also would have endowed him automatically with the nationality of that country, in accordance with Canadian law.

Cruz, 43, has always presented himself as purely American and was unaware of possibly holding dual citizenship until the Dallas Morning News presented the notion to him last August – a concept Cruz does not dispute “at this point”.

“I have retained counsel that is preparing the paperwork to renounce the citizenship,” he told the newspaper on Sunday.

According to the newspaper, Cruz and his parents were startled when it was revealed that he was a citizen of both countries. Cruz said he had been led to believe by his mother that it would have taken an affirmative act of claiming his Canadian citizenship, which the family had never done, to make it so.

Regardless of how many passports Cruz is entitled to hold, the simple fact that he qualifies as a “natural born American” because of his mother’s nationality is enough to equip him legally to become president of the United States. Cruz previously released his birth certificate to the Dallas Morning News, in an effort to hush speculation that he was not a genuine American and therefore would be ineligible to be president.

The rightwing “birther” movement still disputes that President Barack Obama is a natural-born American, despite the public presentation of his full birth certificate from his native state of Hawaii.

In the interview published on Sunday, Cruz shrugged off any suggestions that his move was the beginnings of a run for the White House in 2016. “My political perspective is focused on representing the state of Texas,” he said.

The topic of the senator’s nationality – and possibly his lofty political ambitions – reportedly came up last month, when he met with the larger-than-life real estate mogul Donald Trump, one of the most vocal skeptics regarding Obama’s nationality. Cruz admitted that his Canadian-ness was discussed, “though not in any significant respect”.

Cruz has begun making appearances in states that hold the early primaries and caucuses in the selection process for presidential candidates, as well as making moves to raise money for what could be a high-profile campaign.

Following his interview he released a further statement. “The Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship,” it said. “Assuming that is true I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a US senator I believe I should be only an American.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2013

7 Comments

Filed under 2016 Race, Ted Cruz

Kos’ Sunday Talk: Duck and cover

attribution: The Simpsons

Daily Kos

Without a doubt2013 has been a terriblehorribleno goodvery badyear for President Obama.You don’t need to read the polls to see it; I mean, for fuck’s sake, even Condoleezza Rice could’ve  predicted this would happen!All throughout history, attempts to change America’s social fabric have been met with fierce resistance, and Obama’s communist takeover of the health care system is no different—its (allegedbirthplace notwithstanding.Now, mark my words: Come January 1, when the apocalypse (aka Obamacare) is upon us, you liberals won’t be so gay for your socialized medicine anymore; and that’s just as well, since there won’t be any doctors left to provide it.

 

Morning lineup:

Meet the Press: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA); Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX); Ben Wizner (ACLU); RoundtableEugene Robinson (Washington Post), Elliott Abrams (Council on Foreign Relations), Robin Wright (Woodrow Wilson Center), George Mason University Prof. Dr. Peter Starns and Andrea Mitchell (NBC News).

Face the NationBarton Gellman (Washington Post); Legal Adviser to Edward Snowden/Kossack Jesselyn Radack; Former NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake; Former NSA/CIA Director Gen. Michael HaydenRoundtableJeffrey Kluger (TIME), James Fallows (The Atlantic), Laura Sydell (NPR) and Seth Fletcher (Scientific American).

This Week: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX);  2013 “Game Changers”.

Fox News Sunday: Former DNC Chair/Vermont Gov. Howard DeanDr. Scott Gottlieb(American Enterprise Institute); Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI); Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA);RoundtableBrit Hume (Fox News), Mara Liasson (NPR), Former Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and Former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT).

State of the UnionS.E. Cupp (CNN); Democratic Strategist Donna Brazile; Republican Strategist Ana NavarroNeera Tanden (Center for American Progress).

 

Evening lineup:

60 Minutes will feature “birdmen” who soar off cliffs in wingsuits; wildlife filmmakers who use “spy-cams” to show polar bears up close; and, researchers who get in the water with man-eating Nile crocodiles (preview).

1 Comment

Filed under Kos' "Sunday Talk"

NSA collection of phone data is lawful, federal judge rules

NSA Logo

Of course this Federal Judge is not the final arbiter of this matter but it does put a bit of a damper in Snowden’s “I was right…I’m exonerated” meme.  Thoughts?

Washington Post

A federal judge in New York ruled Friday that the massive collection of domestic telephone data brought to light by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden is lawful, rejecting a challenge to the program by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The decision conflicts with that of a U.S. District Court judge who ruled against the government early last week, finding that the NSA’s program was almost certainly unconstitutional. The divergent decisions make it more likely that the Supreme Court will make its own ruling.

In a 53-page opinion, U.S. District Judge William Pauley said Friday the legality of the program, which collects virtually all Americans’ phone records, is “ultimately a question of reasonableness,” under the Fourth Amendment and represents the U.S. government’s “counter-punch” to eliminate the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Pauley said that if the U.S. government had the phone data collection program before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, it could have helped provide critical clues. He said that so-called telephone metadata might have permitted the NSA to notify the FBI that one of the terrorists was calling a Yemeni safe house from inside the United States.

“The government learned from its mistake and adapted to confront a new enemy: a terror network capable of orchestrating attacks across the world,” Pauley wrote. “It launched a number of counter-measures, including a bulk telephony metadata collection program — a wide net that could find and isolate gossamer contacts among suspected terrorists in an ocean of seemingly disconnected data.”

Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said the government is “pleased the court found the NSA’s bulk telephony metadata collection program to be lawful.”

In a statement, the ACLU said it intended to appeal the case.

“We are extremely disappointed with this decision, which misinterprets the relevant statutes, understates the privacy implications of the government’s surveillance and misapplies a narrow and outdated precedent to read away core constitutional protections,” said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU deputy legal director.

Pauley’s opinion comes 11 days after a federal judge in Washington ruled that the NSA’s collection of bulk telephony metadata is based on “almost-Orwellian technology.”In that opinion, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon granted a request for an injunction that blocked the collection of the phone data of conservative legal activist Larry Klayman and a co-plaintiff. Leon stayed his ruling to give the government time to appeal.

As the issue plays out in the courts, Congress is debating whether the NSA’s sweeping collection of phone data should be curtailed. A panel appointed by President Obama recommended this month the NSA should no longer store the data.

4 Comments

Filed under NSA Data Mining