A story in the Washington Examiner reported 276 ‘sanctuary cities’ let 8,145 illegal offenders free in just 8 months.
Every sanctuary city is run by liberals and guess what…they’re [overrun] with high crime. Does that surprise anyone? But, it begs the question, where’s the sanctuary for their citizens?
The Center for Immigration Studies, revealing new numbers it received under the Freedom of Information Act, said that those releases from cities that ignored federal demands came over just eight months and are just part of an even larger release of 17,000 illegals with criminal records. Of course our resident liberals will attack the Center for Immigration Studies for being racists or something, but the figures they don’t like are from the government and they can’t attack them without indirectly attacking Obama, our divider-in-chief. Speaking of Obama, the Center had this to say about him:
“The Obama administration has given sanctuaries free rein to ignore detainers by ending the successful Secure Communities program and replacing it with the Priority Enforcement Program. This new program explicitly allows local agencies to disregard ICE notifications of deportable aliens in their custody by replacing detainers with ‘requests for notification. . .’
Next up, El Chapo, the drug lord that just escaped from a corrupt Mexican prison (is there anything in Mexico that isn’t corrupt?) is now threatening Donald Trump to shut up about Mexican citizens committing crimes in America! I don’t know about you, but I take that as a threat against our free speech and he’s crossed a line. I don’t want drug lords thinking they can influence American elections and we need to send a clear message on this one.
Here’s an idea: The next time we locate El Chapo, lets forget notifying the worthless Mexican government again, instead lets send in a drone strike for a permanent fix. Oh, sure they’ll pretend to be outraged over sovereignty, but behind the scenes they’ll be glad we did it, because El Chapo is responsible for thousands of deaths of Mexican citizens and public officials. He and his gang have been terrorizing the people of Mexico for decades.
Instead of us sending in a drone to kill El Chapo how about we sell Mexico the drones to kill him themselves.
Oops, forgot we don’t manufacture anything any more. The drones are probably made in Mexico anyway. Still like the idea no matter where they’re made.
Now that it is fairly clear that illegal immigrant “sanctuaries” create a violent crime problem that is visited upon an innocent public, what should be done with the “progressives” who created them?
As Chris would put it, “If it saves one life …”
In Chico we rolled out the red carpet for bums across America and you saw what happened. They came in hoards, they overwhelmed our safety nets, they made a mess of the park and downtown and crime went up exponentially. The logic here is simple, but accurate because its about human nature: If you invite an unlimited number of strangers into your home, especially those that arrive only because you have something they want, then you’re likely not going to real happy with the results. It doesn’t matter if its illegals sneaking across the border or professional bums living a life of choice… or dare I say it…uh, liberals in politics? We ought to keep them all at a safe distance and away from our hard earned assets.
Jack: “Of course our resident liberals will attack the Center for Immigration Studies for being racists or something,”
Well, they do make it very easy:
“FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton, the “puppeteer” of the nativist movement and a man with deep racist roots. As the first article in this report shows, Tanton has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene. He has met with leading white supremacists and associated closely with the leaders of a eugenicist foundation once described by a leading newspaper as a “neo-Nazi organization.” He has made a series of racist statements about Latinos and worried that they were outbreeding whites. At one point, he wrote candidly that to maintain American culture, “a European-American majority” is required.[21]”
http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/pdf/static/splc_nativistlobby_022009.pdf
“but the figures they don’t like are from the government”
So they say. But as your last article from Family Security Matters demonstrated, statistics from the government are often manipulated by people with an agenda. For example, FSM took the federal incarceration rate of illegal immigrants and then ludicrously claimed that illegal immigrants commit five times more crime than citizens, something they could not possibly have concluded with the information given. Who’s to say CIS isn’t doing the same here? You didn’t link to the CIS report you’re referencing, so it’s hard to figure out whether they reported the stats correctly.
Coming soon to a sanctuary city near you, El Chapo!
Off topic, your taxes at work —
Taxpayers Spend $3.5 Million to Find Out Why Lesbians Are Fat
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/taxpayers-continue-spend-millions-find-out-why-lesbians-are-fat#.umdn56:EecK
“A few miles west of downtown, past a terra-cotta-tiled gateway emblazoned with “Bienvenidos,” the smells and sights of Mexico spill onto 26th Street. The Mexican tricolor waves from brick storefronts. Vendors offer authentic churros, chorizo and tamales.
Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood is home to more than 500,000 residents of Mexican descent and is known for its Cinco de Mayo festival and bustling Mexican Independence Day parade. But federal authorities say that Little Village is also home to something else: an American branch of the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel.
Members of Mexico’s most powerful cartel are selling a record amount of heroin and methamphetamine from Little Village, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. From there, the drugs are moving onto the streets of south and west Chicago, where they are sold in assembly-line fashion in mostly African American neighborhoods.” Washington Post
Guess what Bunky? This is but one of a hundred major American cities in which Mexican cartels run a $20B drug business, addicting whoever has the cash.
I bet you know what our founding fathers would say we should do with these drug dealers. . . there wouldn’t be a lamp post in any downtown that was not occupied by one of more drug thugs twisting in the wind.
“Most U.S. crime is committed by illegal alien gangs. They are the primary distributors of illicit drugs in the U.S. The Justice Department said that up to 80% of crime in the U.S. is committed by gangs and that gang membership in this country has grown to 1 million, an increase of 200,000 in the last few years.
According the U.S. Justice Department’s National Drug Assessment of 2011, Mexican drug cartels have been reported to be operating in more than a thousand U.S. cities in 2009 and 2010. It has gotten much worse since then.
These cartels control most of the distribution of heroin, marijuana, and meth in the U.S. and their operations are increasing, according to the report.
The report further states that the cartels in the U.S. operate primarily in Florida, the Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, New England, New York, New Jersey, Pacific, Southeast, Southwest, and West Central.
The report concludes that these Mexican-based organizations “control access to the U.S.-Mexico border, the primary gateway for moving the bulk of illicit drugs into the United States.”
Jack, what is the source for your quotation in comment #8?
Dear residents of Sanctuary Cities:
Your “leaders” are leaving you twisting in the wind while they offer services paid by your tax $$ to Illegal Criminals.
And it’s up to YOU to do something about it!
I won’t be spending any $$ in ANY of those cities if I can help it!
It is very interesting to me that it is totally unacceptable for someone to fly the Confederate flag because the Confederacy supported slavery but it is totally acceptable to fly the Mexican flag, a country that exports the drugs that put many people into the slavery of addiction.
Many Mexicans in this country will tell you they fly their flag because it represents their heritage and culture. Seems to me there are those that might argue that the Confederate flag represents their heritage and culture. How interesting that in one case the flag represents all that is wrong with that heritage and culture but in the other case it represents all that is good. I guess you have to go with whatever supports your agenda.
Personally I don’t care what flag people want to fly on their own property. In my opinion a flag is flag. It is just a piece of cloth.
Too many people are walking around with a chip on their shoulder these days allowing themselves to be manipulated by these trumped up emotional issues We need to watch the leaders of such movements closely because I believe many of them are using this as a tool to rally people to this issue so they can deftly shift them to other more sinister tasks one little step at a time. How many steps is it from making it unacceptable to fly a flag to making it illegal to have a different opinion. I hope we don’t find out.
…we rolled out the red carpet for bums across America…
Jack, Jack, Jack…or Jaaaaaaaaaack as my ex-bosses wife would say….I am very disappointed in you.
These aren’t bums. They are our distinguished guests.
And why can’t you treat our guests like all the honorable liberals do.
You should provide a room or two for them in your home as the great liberals such as Chris, Dewey, Libster, Schwabie, Hokum and the Grundler have. And I’m sure you will donate 10% or more of your incomd to them just as these great liberals have.
Take after these great liberals who have dug deep into their pockets to provide for their fellow human beings.
Heck, Schwabbie moved out of her mansion in Forest Hills so some homeless could move in.
Maybe now she will be a real resident of Chico and actually live in that condo she has in Chico. You know, the one she has just to say she is a resident.
I never understood why people never called her out for being a carpet bagger. What she has done (live in Forest Hills but claim to be a resident of Chico) is illegal. As I recall Rod Wright went to jail for the same thing.
But I guess the people of Chico will tolerate anything, including Schwabbery.
More Common Sense: “It is very interesting to me that it is totally unacceptable for someone to fly the Confederate flag because the Confederacy supported slavery but it is totally acceptable to fly the Mexican flag, a country that exports the drugs that put many people into the slavery of addiction.”
The Confederacy was formed for the express purpose of preserving slavery, and existed for that purpose for a few years. Mexico was not formed for the express purpose of exporting drugs. The difference seems pretty clear to me.
Confederate culture is slave culture. It is oppression and tyranny disguised under the thin veneer of “states’ rights.” It is nothing to celebrate and nothing to be proud of.
Chris: “The Confederacy was formed for the express purpose of preserving slavery…”
Which was legal at the time!
The confederacy was formed to preserve states rights (Within current law) as affirmed by our Constitution, a document for which you, like your fellow progressives, have no appreciation or respect. (All the way to the Supreme Court!)
Ending slavery and discrimination became a moral imperative under our founding documents and would have become an issue for Congress or the courts to resolve. Sentiment was shifting; it was only a matter of time. (See England)
The concept of states rights, however, is key to preserving citizen protections and power being vested in the states and the people as spelled out in the Constitution. This is a matter of history, the history that the South can rightly feel quite proud to have defended. The Confederate flag represents that history.
Southerners spent decades bearing the shame of slave history and working to mend the wrongs committed by some of of its citizens, but activist progressives are never reluctant to gin up and revive an issue during a political season, this is no exception.
Your comparison is deeply flawed, Chris. Your focus on race, as viewed through the PC race lens, renders your observations shallow, incredibly shallow! And your naivete concerning the intentions behind this of the party you support is obvious.
Now fail to get it, again, and call me a racist.
This is what Chris does. He cannot consider anything that does not follow the current progressive line and so cannot wholly view our history or engage in broad discussion about our history.
This attitude is perfect for revisionists of our history.
Heaven help us, our progeny has been incredibly dumbed down.
Chris: “Wait, that’s impossible. When the rich get richer, everyone does, because trickle down. You’re engaging in class warfare.”
Trickle down for conservative refers to those who work for their earnings who when become successful hire those too who can support themselves.
Hillary is an elitist like Bernie Madoff who scams and cons others to pocket huge funds to buy mansions and live lives of the rich and famous. Madoff is in prison for running his Ponzi scheme and Hillary should be in the cell next to him. Al Gore should be there too.
Did you see the latest scientific study saying we’re now headed for a mini ice age? How’s that global warming con working out for everyone now that Gore has stuffed his pockets along with fellow scammers.
Global freezing: A ‘mini ice age’ is on the way by 2030, scientists say:
“Some 15 or so years from now, the “polar vortex” might not sound so bad.
European scientists warn that by 2030, a decade of winters with deep freezing temperatures could bring about a “mini ice age” the likes of which hasn’t been seen in 370 years.
Researchers at Northumbria University, led by Professor Valentina Zharkova, used mathematical models to predict solar activity will drop by 60% and trigger plunging temps around the world. The last time this happened was between 1645 and 1715, the Independent reported.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/global-freezing-a-mini-ice-age-is-on-the-way-by-2030-scientists-say-2015-07-13
The double standard and hypocrisy is on you and your party not mine.
Chris,
I want to thank you for taking in the homeless. How many do you now living in your house?
Tina: “Which was legal at the time!”
I’m not sure why you think bolding this sentence and putting an exclamation mark at the end is going to convince me into thinking it matters.
As I explained in my article, the Confederacy was uniquely fueled by slavery in a way that no other nation at the time was. They were PROUD of this. Alexander Stephens said it himself:
“Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
“Everybody did it back then” is no excuse when even Stephens didn’t try and use that defense; on the contrary, he believed that the Confederacy was the “first government” ever to be founded on the bedrock of slavery and white supremacy, and he bragged about this.
If you’re asking me to judge the Confederacy by the standards of its time, that’s exactly what I’m doing. And even by those standards, the Confederacy was an extreme racist nation.
“The confederacy was formed to preserve states rights”
No. Please stop. The Confederacy was NOT in favor of states’ rights when it conflicted with their agenda. Please read the many declarations of secession in which the Southern states voice their complaints over other states not falling in line with the Fugitive Slave Act, and other complaints such as Northern states giving blacks citizenship rights. You can find all of these in my article on the subject.
Furthermore, even if your statement was correct, no state has the right to keep slaves. It is not honorably to fight for an abstract principle such as states’ rights when the specific “right” you are fighting for is evil and non-existent.
“Ending slavery and discrimination became a moral imperative under our founding documents and would have become an issue for Congress or the courts to resolve.”
Yes, and instead, the Confederacy decided to resolve it by secession and war. (Remember, the South fired the first shot.)
“Sentiment was shifting; it was only a matter of time. (See England)”
Again, you’re right, but why you think that reflects well on the South I have no idea. The Confederacy PANICKED when they realized that slavery might be coming to an end, and so they decided to commit treason in order to preserve their immoral lifestyle. Why should that be honored?
“Southerners spent decades bearing the shame of slave history and working to mend the wrongs committed by some of of its citizens,”
Which Southerners? Sure, some tried to make amends, but for the most part, the South remained an extremely racist and tyrannical place for the next hundred years. (Not that the North was blameless, but you’re painting an all-too-rosy picture here.)
“Your comparison is deeply flawed, Chris. Your focus on race, as viewed through the PC race lens, renders your observations shallow, incredibly shallow!”
THE CONFEDERACY FOCUSED ON RACE. I’ve provided more than enough proof of this in our discussions on this issue.
“This attitude is perfect for revisionists of our history.”
Projection at its finest.
“THE CONFEDERACY FOCUSED ON RACE. I’ve provided more than enough proof of this in our discussions on this issue.” Chris
Chris then the Confederacy ought to remind you a lot of the California legislature, they are focused on race too!
As the Latino (Hispanic Caucus) members multiply their legislation becomes more focused on their race.for their benefit, not on the general population. We see them dare to subvert the US Constitution with Sanctuary Cities… which are without any doubt… illegal!
These rats in the legislature provide welfare/healthcare/education benefits [and] sanctuary designed to encourage citizens of Mexico to sneak into California! That conspiracy to commit treason. They should be tried for sedition/treason/conspiracy for merely introducing such illegal, undermining, anti-American legislation. This is an organized union of racists using our laws against us. These corrupt, racist legislators have caused a situation in Southern California that is as close to overthrowing our State government in favor of Mexico as you can get.
How else can you explain the 3 color flag raised over schools, government buildings, etc., in SoCal, heck its paraded down the streets of LA with shouts of Viva Mexico, in protest to border security.
How else could the [booing] of the US soccer team have happen on our own soil by so many local fans when playing against Mexico’s team? There’s hundreds of examples of pro-Mexico, anti-American, racist conduct that could be cited now and much of it can be traced right back to the Hispanic Caucus and their liberal rebels in our legislature. Our State has been subverted by these racists and crazy liberals, ironically, using OUR money to buy Hispanic Votes!
Calif. government should have been targeted for a federal investigation under the RICO act. Failing that, it’s safe to say we’ve long since passed the point where the decent citizens should have marched on Sacramento and reclaimed the Capitol building for themselves or burned it to the ground and declared anarchy!
Peggy: “Did you see the latest scientific study saying we’re now headed for a mini ice age?”
Yes, I did.
Can you explain to me why you believe this particular study is more credible than the thousands of studies showing anthropogenic global warming? Do you know what methodology was used to get the results in this study? Do you care? Or are you only endorsing this study because it tells you what you want to hear?
Peggy, nevermind, you don’t have to answer those questions–you didn’t read the study, you only read what other people lied to you about the study. The study itself never said what the right wing media is claiming it said, as both the Washington Post and Slate pointed out:
“Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earth’s climate. Zharkova never even used the phrase “mini ice age.” Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions…
…(It’s also worth mentioning that Zharkova’s findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so her conclusions haven’t been vetted and refined.)”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/
“If you look closely at the original press release, the study’s author, Valentina Zharkova, never implied a new ice age is imminent—only that we may see a sharp downturn in the number of sunspots. Yes, the sun is a variable star, but its output is remarkably stable. The amount of energy we receive from the sun just doesn’t change fast enough to cause a rapid-onset ice age in just a few decades.”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/07/13/sunspot_cycles_won_t_cause_a_mini_ice_age_by_2030.html
The press release for the study can be found here:
https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo
Thank you for once again demonstrating the importance of relying on primary source documents rather than biased partisan sources.
Hmmm, in the eyes of Chris, thousands of papers make a scientific hypothesis true. The “science is settled.”
This is why Chris is a booby prize English major. He thinks good science is done by weight of paper and a “con
Hmmm, in the eyes of Chris, thousands of papers make a scientific hypothesis true. The “science is settled.”
This is why Chris is a booby prize English major. He thinks good science is done by weight of paper and a fraudulent “consensus”.
I am fed up with this Post Scripts comment submission shit.
Chris, how many homeless are you housing?
Come on, don’t be modest. Being a kind hearted liberal a now you’re hiding at least a few.
And AGW is a crock. Just listen to what the men of science have to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
Dang
Chris you are on fire!
Awesome!
Pie: “Hmmm, in the eyes of Chris, thousands of papers make a scientific hypothesis true.”
No. As I made clear, good methodology is the way to make sure that what a paper says is true. (And the paper in question didn’t even say what Peggy claimed it said.)
Please learn to read.
Bob, I will never understand your belief that linking to full length documentaries and expecting your opponents to watch them is a substitute for an actual argument.
Dewey–thanks. It’s nice to be appreciated. 🙂
Chris: “The Confederacy was formed for the express purpose of preserving slavery, and existed for that purpose for a few years.”
Okay, I can accept that the Confederate States of America was formed to keep slavery in place. Even if you look at it from a states’ rights point of view the thing they were trying to protect was slavery. So because of this you feel the flag that represents the Confederate States only represents slavery and, therefore, today, only represents discrimination and prejudice.
I don’t believe that. Slavery has been gone for 150 years and the flag we see has been used in many other different ways since then that have nothing to do with race (maybe racing). But, I will assume for arguments sake that you are correct. So why do you want to eliminating this flag? The flag in question never represented the Confederate States of America! What the press has been calling “The Confederate Flag” never flew ever, anywhere, to represent the Confederate States of America. Given that, I will refer to the flag in question as the Rebel Flag.
A square version of the Rebel flag was used by the Army of Northern Virgina. It was used as a battle flag. It was adopted because the REAL flag of the Confederate States of America looked too much like the Stars and Stripes. The Army of Northern Virgina used this flag when they went into battle so they could easily distinguish between those groups that were on their side and those that weren’t. A rectangular version of the same flag was used by the Confederate Navy for exactly the same reason. When two ships were approaching each other it was not easy to distinguish friend from foe from long distances when they flew the REAL flag of the Confederate States of America.
So the flag that everyone is sooooo upset about isn’t what everybody says it is. It was a battle flag and it never every represented the Confederate States of America. It was never flown over any state of the Confederacy. It didn’t even represent the state of Virgina, only the Army of Northern Virgina. To say that this flag represents the Confederate States of America would be like saying the California National Guard flag represents the whole United States. It would be like saying the Coast Guard flag represents everything in the US. They don’t, just as the Rebel flag didn’t represent the Confederate States of America.
The Confederate States of America ended in 1865 and along with it the Army of Northern Virgina and Confederate Navy. The Rebel flag didn’t resurface until sometime in the 1930s and 1940s. It was usually displayed by people to honor fallen Confederate soldiers and veterans. It also was used as a symbol of the south at sporting events when a southern team was playing. Over the years, the flag has become a representation of southern pride, unity, and heritage. The flag has had a place in sporting events, racing events, fairs, and other southern activities.
I will agree there has also been a dark side to the flag. In 1948 a group of southern Democrats left the Democratic party because the Democratic party platform that year included elimination of segregation. They were called the Dixiecrats. They adopted the Rebel Flag as the flag for their party. The party was founded in 1948 and was dissolved in 1948. Do you think this is enough time to taint the flag so much that we need to wipe it from the earth. How long would it take to taint the Stars and Stripes if ISIS adopted it as their flag?
There have also been racist individuals and organizations that have shown the Rebel flag. However, it is uncommon for racist organizations outside of the south to adopt the rebel flag. So, does the flag represent their racism or does it represent the fact they are southern. The KKK has used the Rebel flag during marches and rallies, however, they use the Stars and Stripes more often. Does that make the Stars and Stripes representative of racism? The KKK did display the Rebel Flag at many of the recent demonstrations that were about the Rebel Flag, but, then again, the issue was about the Rebel flag.
Contrary to what the flag banners would have you believe, today the Rebel Flag means many different things to many different people; some things positive and some things negative. But most of what the flag represents, good or bad, was attributed to the flag not 150 years ago but in the last 75-80 years. And, I believe most of the negative ideals associated with the flag were attached to it in the last couple of months.
There are a lot of people that feel we accomplished something by eliminating the Rebel Flag. So what has been accomplished? Did racism magically disappear? Are we now experiencing racial unit? No, we got rid of a little cloth and pigment, that’s it. We eliminated a piece of cloth. You could argue it was an accomplishment that we eliminated something that was offensive. But, do we really feel that it is reasonable to eliminate everything that anybody feels is offensive? What next, books that make us uncomfortable? How about Mark Twain? His books have been labeled racist! How about books on ideas we don’t like? How about words? There are words that could be offensive. Hmmmm, I guess we are already doing that. How about music? I don’t like Rap music so that’s going to have to go. Opera, well that’s easy…. gone! Oh, I also don’t like ballet. I find Rosanne Barr offensive. She has got to go! We will just have to eliminate everything that might be offensive to someone. Hey, we aren’t eliminating people’s rights we are strengthening everyone’s right not to be offended. Let’s add the right not to be offended to the Bill of Rights! How dare anyone offend me.
Back to the subject, there are people that will attack icons in society as a way to disrupt society and as a way to divide people. They do it to garner followers. They start with easy targets, such as the Rebel Flag. They create an issue or take an existing issue and blow it out of proportion to assemble followers to their trumped up cause. They rally these people and create such frenzy that supporters of the flag will back down. After all, it is just a piece of cloth and it might be a little questionable. Why should I risk ridicule and my safety standing up for the flag? So the flag is gone, then they move to the next target. The next target might be a little harder but now they have momentum so it falls too. Then it’s another target, then another.
I’ll end with a warning. Watch the leaders in the flag banning movement. The accomplished a great deal by eliminating the flag. Unfortunately what they accomplished really had nothing to do with the flag. Watch the people that do this, because they are not done yet.
Chris won’t watch the documentary because he knows it will shoot holes in his world view…or global warming view.
Just like Chris will not call Stephen Molyneux’s show. He knows he will be crushed.
But I can forgive Chris, after all he is housing the homeless in his home.
I lied! I do like Opera. I recently saw Andrea Bocelli in Sacramento. It was incredible. However, I’m sure Opera offends someone so Andrea is gone. He probably won’t even see it commin…. Oops! Now I’ve probably offended someone else so now I guess I have to be eliminated.
My last words “There is no coincidence that Rap rhymes with crap!”. Put it on my tombstone.
The El Chapo problem can be solved with one well placed shot.
I owe both Southern Comfort and More Common Sense an apology for a rude comment I made in another thread about the Army of Northern Virginia battle flag.
I can see how this flag can be taken as a symbol of military history pride and a freedom of expression issue.
Nevertheless, to me that flag will always represent 620,000 (possibly 800,000 plus) lives lost in a war that was started by the south to in order to protect and preserve the wholly evil and despicable institution of slavery.
For me it is a symbol of the wholesale slaughter and painful death and maiming of hundreds of thousands in a stupid war to preserve one of the greatest evils that mankind has ever engaged in.
Lincoln was right —
“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”
And then he was murdered by a southern snake.
Chris: “Can you explain to me why you believe this particular study is more credible than the thousands of studies showing anthropogenic global warming?”
This perfectly sums up liberal thinking. Content doesn’t matter. Proof doesn’t matter. Truth doesn’t matter. Quantity is the only thing that matters. If you get enough people telling the same story then it must be the fact. Let’s see, two wrongs don’t make a right. So how many lies make a truth. Or, let’s put it in the proper context, how many hypotheses does it take to make a fact! I’ll answer that, one unproven hypothesis is not a fact, an unproven hypothesis with two supporters is not a fact, and an unproven hypothesis with thousands of supports is not a fact.
Is there warming? There seems to be a disagreement concerning the more recent years as to the existence of further warming. The proponents can “find” it but only by “adjusting” the recorded statistics. They have their hypothesis that adjustment is necessary but where is the proof that adjustment is necessary or that they are adjusting correctly. The argument that adjustment is necessary can be compelling however, there is no way to prove it because many of the numbers they are adjusting are from many many years ago. How much to adjust? Again, there is no real way to come up with an adjustment you can say is fact and not opinion.
If there is warming is it because of man? Let’s assume there is warming. What is the mechanism? No one has been able to prove how the warming is occurring. Is it CO2? There are a lot of theories that it is but, again, no proof. There are many hypotheses how CO2 is causing warming but no one has been able to prove their ideas. Most of the information is based on computer models. Computer models are based on assumptions. You run different assumptions to try to come up with something that matches the past and then see how well it predicts the future. Guess what, the models have failed! Is it because their assumptions are wrong? Is it because they have “cooked” the data into something meaningless? Or is the whole theory that CO2 is causing warming wrong? Or, is there really no warming?
I’ve worked on computer modeling for mechanical systems. On one occasion a very good engineer was so convinced his designed was good that he couldn’t be convinced the model was incorrect. He kept tweaking the data until he got the results he expected. As it turned out his model design was flawed and the model was trying to tell him that. But, because he was so convinced the design was good he had filtered the real world data until the model worked. He eliminating data that he thought was noise. It turned out it wasn’t noise and that data was telling him that his design was wrong. He was so convinced he was right he didn’t even realize he was doing it.
This was for a mechanical system where all the physics was known. The climate models are all based on theory making models even harder to create; maybe impossible if the complexity of how the components interact are too complex. The point is a model is a very poor methodology where the science is not understood. It may be the only methodology available because the science is not understood and it can help in the understanding but I seriously doubt climate is simple enough to be described by a computer model at this point in time.
Chris: “Do you know what methodology was used to get the results in this study? Do you care? Or are you only endorsing this study because it tells you what you want to hear?”
Well is it Chris? What is the methodology of your thousands of studies? When it comes to conclusions they are still speculation. Is the methodology the Scientific Method? Absolutely not! Why does science put so much faith in the Scientific Method? Because it prevents bad theories from being accepted as fact and it prevents good scientists from getting so enamoured with their own ideas that they fool themselves into believing them without question. Until there is proof nothing is fact! That has to be the basis of any science. Just because you can get a thousand people to agree with your opinion does not make it fact. It is still opinion. The bottom line is consensus science is closer to religion or politics than it is to science. But, I guess consensus science is okay for you if it tells you what you want to hear.
Bob, I will never understand your belief that linking to full length documentaries and expecting your opponents to watch them is a substitute for an actual argument.
That’s the difference between you and me. You want to argue while I simply tell the truth. It’s not about arguing it’s about truth.
And in the time it takes you to write those term paper length responses you could watch the documentary three times over.
Bob, I will never understand your belief that linking to full length documentaries and expecting your opponents to watch them is a substitute for an actual argument.
People get tired of arguing with you, Chris. You drove away Joe and others. Heck, you even drove away Jack Lee Art.
Common Sense just described the GOP. Spin.
Chris to Peggy: “Can you explain to me why you believe this particular study is more credible than the thousands of studies showing anthropogenic global warming?”
Sure, common sense!
A) In terms of the power to affect the earths temp, the sun is a gazillion times more powerful than pathetic little ol’ man. (Yes I wrote a gazillion! I don’t know the actual number, if there is one, but the thought does make sense)
B) The sun doesn’t have a political/monetary/social agenda…it doesn’t give a rip!
C) We’ve all observed the amazing cleansing and renewing cycles that maintain balance. Why wouldn’t there be a regulating cycle for the earths temperature?
And it isn’t one study. It is scientists observations over time. For instance, back in 1998 the BBC reported the following:
Guess what? The sun has been very quiet of late and some scientists say the earth has not been warming for several years.
So the sun is an incredibly powerful influence just from a common sense standpoint. The article goes on:
Chris: “Furthermore, even if your statement was correct, no state has the right to keep slaves.”
They don’t now; they did then.
Is it so hard to remember this fact? The idea is abhorrent and offensive now. It was offensive to some people then, but not all people. The world was in transition during this period. I’m just asking that when we look at history we look at all of it objectively. You seem to thunk I’m defending the right to own another person which I clearly stated I was not.
Lincoln’s focus, according to some historians was not freeing the slaves but reuniting the nation. He even held the opinion that the blacks should be shipped back to Africa.
Changing the minds of people is hard and it take long sustained work. Just ask any conservative that has tried to change the mind of a liberal on climate change or good economic policy.
More Common Sense at #30, thank you!
More Common Sense: “This perfectly sums up liberal thinking. Content doesn’t matter. Proof doesn’t matter. Truth doesn’t matter. Quantity is the only thing that matters.”
I’m not sure why you would write this. I know you saw where I specifically asked about methodology, because you quoted it and responded to it. So how could you think I’m arguing that “quantity is the only thing that matters?” Clearly I believe methodology matters.
I am not a scientist, so my understanding of the methodologies of certain studies is limited, but I do make an effort to try and understand them. I think that because the consensus is so strong, I do place more credibility on papers which support the consensus, even if I don’t necessarily understand the methodology, than on papers which do not support the consensus. This is rational; if 97 doctors tell you one thing, and 3 doctors tell you another, which group should an untrained patient trust?
Besides, the study referred to in Peggy’s article did not contradict the consensus anyway; it predicted fewer sunspots, but made no conclusion about how or even if that would affect the earth’s climate. The article simply misrepresented the study. So this is a moot point anyway.
“I don’t believe that. Slavery has been gone for 150 years and the flag we see has been used in many other different ways since then that have nothing to do with race (maybe racing).”
The flag actually did not see mainstream popularity until the 1960s, when it was adopted by Southern states in protest of black civil rights.
It was also commonly used by the KKK during Reconstruction, and as you acknowledge, is still used by white supremacist groups today.
It’s true that many have tried to use the flag to represent things other than racism. It’s just that I think those people are misguided, and that the symbol is far too tied up in that to be productively used as anything else. Much to Pie’s chagrin, I have to agree with his statements on this issue.
“So why do you want to eliminating this flag?”
I never said anything about eliminating it. I think every individual who wants to fly this flag on their own private property has the right to do so. I have the right to criticize them for it, but not to take it down. I don’t think the symbol should be displayed by any government building, though.
“A square version of the Rebel flag was used by the Army of Northern Virgina. It was used as a battle flag.”
You’re right, but I’m not sure why that matters; they were still fighting to preserve slavery, and this flag is what came to represent the Confederacy in the minds of many, not the official Confederate flag. So the symbol means the same thing.
Chris: “I’m not sure why you would write this. I know you saw where I specifically asked about methodology, because you quoted it and responded to it. So how could you think I’m arguing that “quantity is the only thing that matters?” Clearly I believe methodology matters.”
In the sentence I addressed you were challenging another post with the claim of thousands of studies. The numbers don’t matter if there is no proof! The methodology is flawed if it accepts something as fact that hasn’t been proven. Again, how many times does a false story have to be said to make it true!
Chris: “I am not a scientist, so my understanding of the methodologies of certain studies is limited”
Then you shouldn’t speak as if you do understand!
Chris: “This is rational; if 97 doctors tell you one thing, and 3 doctors tell you another, which group should an untrained patient trust?”
This is not how science works. This is not the Scientific Method. This leads to beliefs in such things a “flat” earth. This leads to anecdotal science which is not science. As I said consensus science is closer to politics or religion than actual science. By the way, a doctor bases his opinion on proven diagnostic techniques. The global warming studies are based entirely on theory when it comes to the question of man caused or not. This is a illogical analogy.
Chris: “Besides, the study referred to in Peggy’s article did not contradict the consensus anyway; it predicted fewer sunspots, but made no conclusion about how or even if that would affect the earth’s climate.”
Immaterial, you challenged her study with standards you don’t apply to the studies you cite.
Chris: “The flag actually did not see mainstream popularity until the 1960s, when it was adopted by Southern states in protest of black civil rights.”
Why do I have to state it again. The flag means many different things to many different people. Prior to and after the 1960s it was popular with people honoring family members that served in the Civil War. Do you actually believe every soldier was a slave owner, a potential slave owner, or even believed in slavery? You seem to be portray anyone that participated in the Civil War on the Confederacy side as evil. You seem to assume everyone that owned a slave was an evil person. Hollywood always portrays slave owners as people that beat their slaves. I know it is hard to understand now but Slaves were considered to be animals, work animals, like horses and oxen. Any plantation owner that mistreated their work animals is a plantation owner that will be out of business soon. Many people that owned slave were good honest moral people. This may be difficult to accept looking at the situation using todays morals and understandings. But by the standards of the 1860s they were.
Again, the flag represents many things to many different people. However, what has been happen in the last month is people with the opinion that it only represents hate and discrimination have thrown a huge tantrum and we all have to abide by their decision that it has to be eliminated. I am happy that you don’t feel that way and, yes, you definitely have a right to criticize as the people that support the flag have a right to criticize you. This seems to be very similar to the global warming issue where one group believes in it and feels they are sooooo right they have the right to claim opinion is fact and they have the right to force everyone in the country (if not the world) to bow down to their opinion. People have the right to criticize other peoples opinion but not silence that opinion. I believe this even to the point where the opinion can be proven to be wrong. Speech is speech right or wrong and speech needs to be protected. Caveat emptor.
Chris: “You’re right, but I’m not sure why that matters; they were still fighting to preserve slavery, and this flag is what came to represent the Confederacy in the minds of many, not the official Confederate flag. So the symbol means the same thing.”
This is your opinion and you have a right to that opinion. My point was to point out that many people view this flag differently and they have reasonable cause to do so.
Chris,
This is what your liberal agenda has brought us. Watch this and tell me it is not a freak show.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=13264446
Can we get back to illegal aliens for a minute?
I bet Chris would even grant amnesty to Juan de Fuca.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3161264/Escape-foot-roads-liquify-start-running-hear-dogs-barking-Geographers-offer-advice-survive-earthquake-predicted-obliterate-Pacific-Northwest.html
bob: “You drove away Joe and others.”
Please stop telling this lie. Joe claimed to have left due to a combination of my comments along with Jack’s acceptance of gay marriage and his comments on religion.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2015/06/26/supreme-court-legalizes-sex-marriage-states/
Joe was a hateful, pushy fundamentalist bigot who said that “most Americans” deserve to burn in Hell. I’d love to take credit for driving such a nasty individual away, but I can’t, because it wouldn’t be true.
I am not aware of any others I have “driven away” with my comments.
“Heck, you even drove away Jack Lee Art.”
WTF are you talking about? Are you just hallucinating now? Jack still posts his art regularly, and I have always left positive comments about his art.
“This is what your liberal agenda has brought us. Watch this and tell me it is not a freak show.”
It is not. I see someone acceptance and love. If that’s a “freak show” to you, it’s because you are suffering from a critical lack of same.
If the “liberal agenda” is responsible for someone being able to finally accept who they are despite facing terrible bigotry, and to have that accepted by others as well, then I’m proud to be a part of it.
“Heck, you even drove away Jack Lee Art.”
WTF are you talking about? Are you just hallucinating now? Jack still posts his art regularly, and I have always left positive comments about his art.
Well, you aren’t paying attention. He had a post with his most recent art and several other paintings and no it is gone.
If the “liberal agenda” is responsible for someone being able to finally accept who they are despite facing terrible bigotry, and to have that accepted by others as well, then I’m proud to be a part of it
Chris, get a pair of glasses…that’s NO LADY! You can’t repeal the laws of biology.
Tina: “A) In terms of the power to affect the earths temp, the sun is a gazillion times more powerful than pathetic little ol’ man”
Does it matter to you that most scientists disagree with you? They say that CO2 emissions are currently having a far greater effect on temperatures than solar activity.
Even the organization mentioned in your Climate Depot link–the American Association for the Advancement of Science–believes that human-caused global warming is occurring:
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
Chris: “Furthermore, even if your statement was correct, no state has the right to keep slaves.”
Tina: “They don’t now; they did then.”
This seems to go against your concept of “rights” as I understood it. Haven’t you said before that rights do not come from the government, but from God? By that logic, wouldn’t it be true that states never had a “right” to own slaves, they just thought they did?
And again, even by the standards of the time period, the Confederacy was uniquely pro-slavery. Even they said so! So I don’t think you can excuse it by saying that it was a different time. The Confederacy believed they were standing against the rest of the world in their defense of this insitution, and that they alone knew that white supremacy was the foundation of a healthy society. I don’t see why we should judge them by a standard that they didn’t even try to apply to themselves.
More Common Sense: “By the way, a doctor bases his opinion on proven diagnostic techniques. The global warming studies are based entirely on theory when it comes to the question of man caused or not.”
I don’t agree. 2014 was estimated to be the hottest year on record. Fourteen of the fifteen hottest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century. The evidence for this is robust and has been analyzed by numerous scientific organizations. I think there is plenty of objective, valid evidence that global warming is occurring, and that CO2 is the cause.
“The flag means many different things to many different people.”
I’m curious if you would apply this to, say, the swastika. Of course this used to be a symbol of peace, before it was usurped by the Nazis. But today it is almost universally seen as a symbol of oppression and hatred. Should someone who still thinks it means peace put a swastika bumper sticker on their car, and then get mad when Jews or others get offended? Of course they’d have the right to do so, but most rational people would say that their decision to do so is wrong.
“Do you actually believe every soldier was a slave owner, a potential slave owner, or even believed in slavery?”
No, but that’s immaterial. I’m sure not every Nazi believed in Jewish oppression; that doesn’t make the swastika any less a symbol of Jewish oppression.
“You seem to be portray anyone that participated in the Civil War on the Confederacy side as evil. You seem to assume everyone that owned a slave was an evil person.”
No. You are the one making this a personal issue. I have said nothing about the individual people who fly the Confederate flag, other than I think they are misguided, not have I said anything about individual soldiers or slave owners, some of whom were probably good people by the standards of their time. Bigoted societies warp people. I believe my mom is a good person, despite her learned bigotry against LGBT people.
I’m talking about a symbol. There may have been good Nazis. That doesn’t make the swastika any less a symbol of hate.
Bob: “Well, you aren’t paying attention. He had a post with his most recent art and several other paintings and no it is gone.”
And…you think that’s my fault? Do you think I have magical powers?
“Chris, get a pair of glasses…that’s NO LADY! You can’t repeal the laws of biology.”
Your understanding of gender is atrocious.
Your understanding of gender is atrocious.
Thank you. Coming from you that is a compliment.
But tell me, what is there to understand?
Chris, my understanding is quite accurate.
You see, it is liberals like yourself that caused Mr. Jenner to have an identity crisis and see himself as herself, so to speak.
It is your liberal brainwashing which has completely saturated the media and government that has corrupted our youth and even elders.
Your understanding of gender is atrocious.
Could you please tell me what gender Bruce Jenner is?
Bob: “But tell me, what is there to understand?”
Well, for starters, gender is not biological, but social. It is not the same as sex.
https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/
“Could you please tell me what gender Bruce Jenner is?”
She is a woman.
#51 bob :
[Chris] Your understanding of gender is atrocious.
Could you please tell me what gender Bruce Jenner is?
I can. Bruce Jenner is a male, has always been a male, will always be a male, and no amount of mutilation will change that.
Chris,
How many gold medal decathlon winners want to attempt to be pretty girls? Is that normal in your mind? What does biology tell you?
And…you think that’s my fault? Do you think I have magical powers?
Chris, nearly everything is the fault of people who think like you and hold your beliefs. People like you have caused unimaginable misery.
And the scary thing is that you don’t even realize it.
Chris, how do you reconcile the fact that Robert E Lee freed his slaves before the Civil War while Grant who was a hero of the Union and a President was a slave holder.
To think the Civil War was all about slavery is idiotic. Lincoln said on several occasions that he would keep slavery if he could maintain the Union.
The war was about economic issues (mostly taxation and mainly tariffs) and centralization of political power. And it wasn’t even a civil war. It was a war of secession.
Since Lee freed his slaves at the time Grant kept his should we make it illegal to keep the name Grant for government property? Chris, your heroes in Sacramento will force the name change of any government property associated with Confederate names. They even want to change the name of the town of Fort Brag.
Your DemoRat heroes in Sucramento, Chris, are going to force name changes for schools throughout the state that are named Lee. Why don’t they change all the schools named Grant? He was a slave holder.
Your DemoRat heroes in Sucramento, Chris, are going to force name changes for schools throughout the state that are named Lee. Why don’t they change all the schools named Grant? He was a slave holder.
And what’s next from the DemoNRats? Will they make Jack change his name?
“Could you please tell me what gender Bruce Jenner is?”
She is a woman.
OK, Chris. Listen to that voice. How many women have a voice like that?
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=13264446
Chris, your arguments are BS.
Are you really going to try and compare the Rebel flag to a swastika. I can give you many uses of the Rebel flag that have nothing to do with anything offensive. Can you do the same with a swastika?
As far as global warming, I can make 14 of the last fifteen years the coldest if you allow me to to make my own adjustments to the recorded temperatures and I could probably make a good argument for my adjustments. With out their highly opinion based adjustments to the recorded temperatures their 14 out of 15 year argument falls apart. In science, opinion is valuable to foster discussion and bring out new ideas. Claiming opinion as fact is not science!
Pie, “male” is not a gender. Male describes a person’s sex. They are two different things.
Bob: “Chris, how do you reconcile the fact that Robert E Lee freed his slaves before the Civil War while Grant who was a hero of the Union and a President was a slave holder.”
There’s nothing to “reconcile;” that is entirely irrelevant to the stated goals of the Confederacy, which was to preserve slavery.
“To think the Civil War was all about slavery is idiotic.”
Well, the Confederates must have been pretty idiotic then, because every single declaration of secession said that they were seceding primarily because of slavery.
“Lincoln said on several occasions that he would keep slavery if he could maintain the Union.”
Lincoln did not start the war, the Confederacy did. Lincoln’s views on slavery are irrelevant to the meaning of the Confederate flag.
It is very obvious why you are trying to deflect attention from what the Confederates said to what Lincoln and other Northerners said and did.
“The war was about economic issues (mostly taxation and mainly tariffs) and centralization of political power.”
Then why did NO Southern states mention taxation and tariffs in any of their declarations of secession? Why did they talk so much about slavery?
“And it wasn’t even a civil war. It was a war of secession.”
This is a distinction without a difference.
“And it wasn’t even a civil war. It was a war of secession.”
This is a distinction without a difference.
Huge difference. In a civil war two (or more) sides are warring over who will have political control over the entire geographic area. In a war of secession one or more sides wants to break away from the control of the other side or sides. They are not trying to rule the opposing side(s). The South did not want to rule the North. The North wanted to rule the South.
Lincoln provoked the war by sending a hostile fleet into southern territory.
Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln’s order sending a “hostile fleet, styled the ‘Relief Squadron’,” to reinforce Fort Sumter. “The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time– one in front, and the other in the rear.” The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in “self-defence,” rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.
Southern states did mention taxation and tariffs regarding states’ rights. Lincoln said on several occasions that he his goal was to maintain the Union, not free slave. And the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the South, not in Northern territory.
Re #62 Chris Pie, “male” is not a gender. Male describes a person’s sex. They are two different things.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sanctuary Cities Are Illegal
Jul 9, 2015 4:58 pm Post #35 Chris : I’m only going to respond to one thing above, and then I don’t plan on engaging with or talking about Pie Guevara again.
Stick to your plan, you ludicrous clown.
MCS: “Are you really going to try and compare the Rebel flag to a swastika. I can give you many uses of the Rebel flag that have nothing to do with anything offensive. Can you do the same with a swastika?”
I already did, when I mentioned that the swastika was a symbol of race prior to the rise of the Nazis. It is tiresome to have to repeat the same points.
Bob: “OK, Chris. Listen to that voice. How many women have a voice like that?”
Again, your understanding of gender is horrendous. Did you seriously think this question would be covincing?
Ugh. The above should say that the swastika was a symbol of PEACE prior to the rise of the Nazis, not race.
Bob: “OK, Chris. Listen to that voice. How many women have a voice like that?”
Again, your understanding of gender is horrendous. Did you seriously think this question would be covincing?
Chris, you are completely and purposely ignoring all conventions of nature and biology. Do you or anyone else think you can repeal nature? If you do, you are quite completely insane.
bob: “Southern states did mention taxation and tariffs regarding states’ rights.”
Where? Show me. It’s not in the declarations of secession, that’s for sure. It’s not in the Cornerstone Speech. Wouldn’t those be important places to put those reasons, if they were so important?
Southern states were outraged about the impending Morrill tariff, but they had the votes to ensure it never happened; it only passed because they had already seceded. They knew this. There was no reason to secede over tariffs; the current tariff was favorable to them, and they had the power to stop unfavorable tariffs from passing. They said they seceded over slavery, and I believe them. Why don’t you?
“Chris, you are completely and purposely ignoring all conventions of nature and biology.”
No. For the third time, gender is not just biological. Please do a bare minimum of research into the psychological literature on this subject before you say any more blatantly ignorant things.
Once again you spread falsehoods, Chris.
Loewen next spreads an egregious falsehood about the tariff: “Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them,” he writes. “Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.” Every bit of this narrative is false.
Tariffs certainly were an issue in 1860. Lincoln’s official campaign poster featured mug shots of himself and vice presidential candidate Hannibal Hamlin, above the campaign slogan, “Protection for Home Industry.” (That is, high tariff rates to “protect home industry” from international competition). In a speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“Steeltown, U.S.A.”), a hotbed of protectionist sentiment, Lincoln announced that no other issue was as important as raising the tariff rate. It is well known that Lincoln made skillful use of his lifelong protectionist credentials to win the support of the Pennsylvania delegation at the Republican convention of 1860, and he did sign ten tariff-increasing bills while in office. When he announced a naval blockade of the Southern ports during the first months of the war, he gave only one reason for the blockade: tariff collection.
As I have written numerous times, in his first inaugural address Lincoln announced that it was his duty “to collect the duties and imposts,” and then threatened “force,” “invasion” and “bloodshed” (his exact words) in any state that refused to collect the federal tariff, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. He was not going to “back down” to tax protesters in South Carolina or anywhere else, as Andrew Jackson had done.
The most egregious falsehood spread by Loewen is to say that the tariff that was in existence in 1860 was the 1857 tariff rate, which was in fact the lowest tariff rate of the entire nineteenth century. In his famous Tariff History of the United States economist Frank Taussig called the 1857 tariff the high water mark of free trade during that century. The Big Lie here is that Loewen makes no mention at all of the fact that the notorious Morrill Tariff, which more than doubled the average tariff rate (from 15% to 32.6% initially), was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1859–60 session of Congress, and was the cornerstone of the Republican Party’s economic policy. It then passed the U.S. Senate, and was signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration, where he threatened war on any state that failed to collect the new tax. At the time, the tariff accounted for at least 90 percent of all federal tax revenues. The Morrill Tariff therefore represented a more than doubling of the rate of federal taxation!
This threat to use “force” and “invasion” against sovereign states, by the way, was a threat to commit treason. Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” (emphasis added). Lincoln followed through with his threat; his invasion of the Southern states was the very definition of treason under the Constitution.
The words “Morrill Tariff” do not appear anywhere in Loewen’s Washington Post article despite the fact that he portrays himself as some kind of “Keeper of The Truth” regarding “Civil War” history. (And where were the Washington Post’s “fact checkers?!) It was the Morrill Tariff that Lincoln referred to in his first inaugural address, not the much lower 1857 tariff, as Loewen falsely claims.
Abraham Lincoln was not the only American president who believed that the tariff was an important political issue in 1860. Contrary to Loewen’s false claims, Jefferson Davis, like Lincoln, highlighted the tariff issue in his February 18, 1861 inaugural address, delivered in Montgomery, Alabama (From The Papers of Jefferson Davis, vol. 7, pp. 45–51). After announcing that the Confederate government was “anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations” Davis said the following:
An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade, which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency . . .
Thus, Loewen’s statement that the Southern states said “nothing” about tariff policy is unequivocally false. Jefferson Davis proclaimed here that the economy of the Confederacy would be based on free trade. Indeed, the Confederate Constitution of 1861 outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether, and only allowed for a modest “revenue tariff.”
When Davis spoke of a “passion or the lust for dominion,” he was referring to the constant attempts, for some seventy years, of the Northern Whig and Republican parties to plunder the South with the instrument of protectionist tariffs, as was attempted with the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. In other words, he declared here that, in his opinion, Lincoln was deadly serious (pun intended) about enforcing the newly-doubled rate of federal tariff taxation with a military invasion of the Southern states, and was preparing for war as a result. Contrary to Loewen’s ignorant diatribe, both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis announced to the world in 1861 that tariff policy was indeed a paramount political issue: In their respective inaugural addresses, Lincoln threatened “invasion” of any state(s) that failed to collect his tariff, while Davis promised to defend against any such invasion.
Before the war, Northern newspapers associated with the Republican Party were editorializing in favor of naval bombardments of the Southern ports because they knew that the South was adopting free trade, while the North was moving in the direction of a 50% average tariff rate (which did in fact exist, more or less, from 1863 to 1913, when the federal income tax was adopted). These Republican party propagandists correctly understood that much of the trade of the world would enter the U.S. through Southern ports under such a scenario. Rather than adopting reasonable tariff rates themselves, they agitated for war on the South.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/01/thomas-dilorenzo/more-lies-about-the-civil-war/
Here are some very interesting facts….
1. How many slaves were brought to North America?
According to Louis Gates there were 12.5 million Africans brought to the “new world” between 1525 and 1866. Of those only 10.7 million survived the passage. The “new world” included North America, South America, and the Caribbean. So how many of the 10.7 million came to North America? Quoting Henry Louis Gates Jr., “Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage.”
The small number does not make slavery any better. It is still terrible. I just expected a much larger number.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/how-many-slaves-landed-in-the-us/
2. How many people died as a result of the Civil War?
The death toll from the Civil War was 620,000.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cilil+war+death+toll
Good points as always MCS
I’m sorry, I can’t take seriously any person who says that it was Lincoln who committed treason in the Civil War, rather than the Confederacy. (I thought Republicans were proud to be the party of Lincoln?)
As I said, the Morrill tariff only passed because the Confederacy had already seceded. If their biggest problem was the tariff, the solution was simple: don’t secede! But that was NOT their biggest problem with the North. As they said in every single declaration of secession (which I cited in my article on the subject), their primary concern was slavery.
Tariffs were a side concern. The main motivation for the formation of the Confederacy was the preservation of slavery.
Zero tolerance for the confederate flag, but sanctuary cities get a pass. Go figure?
I’m sorry, I can’t take seriously any person who says that it was Lincoln who committed treason in the Civil War, rather than the Confederacy.
No, you can’t take seriously anyone who disagrees with you, even when those who disagree have the facts on their side. Dilorenzo completely demolishes your lies.
Zero tolerance for the confederate flag, but sanctuary cities get a pass. Go figure?
It’s not just the flag. Chris’s heroes in Sucramento will not tolerate even names associated with the Confederacy. There are a couple of schools in So Cal named Lee that they are forcing to be renamed. And they even want the town of Fort Bragg to change its name.
You had better be careful, Jack. They may force you to change your name and maybe to Jack Grant.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article26698729.html
Bob, I followed your link! lol Man don’t the dems have anything better to do? Sheesh.
SB 539 declares, “On and after January 1, 2017, a name associated with the Confederate States of America shall not be used to name state or local property. If a name associated with the Confederate States of America is used to name state or local public property prior to January 1, 2017, the name shall be changed and any sign associated with the name shall be removed.”
It continues, “For the purpose of this section, ‘name associated with the Confederate States of America’ includes, but is not limited to, the name of an elected leader or a senior military officer of the Confederacy.”
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article26698729.html#storylink=cpy
It’s just so ludicrous, Jack.
Robert E. Lee freed his slaves before the war began and Grant was a slave holder who did not.
Yet, these idiots are going to force schools and any other government property to change their name from Lee to something else yet government property named after Grant will not require a name change.
Some comments on renaming Fort Bragg:
“Fort Jenner, Fort Obama, Fort Pelosi, or Fort Schumer are possible politically correct alternatives.”
“How about Martin Luther Malcolm X Trayvon Martin City”
You’d better be careful, Jack. The liberals will get around to making you change your name.
Jack, are there any limits to the idiocy and tyranny from Sacramento?
Can’t you do something to get the State of Jefferson back on track?
Our corrupt supervisors don’t even want us voting on that.
We need to get the State of Jefferson into existence before these idiots make you change your name!