Had enough yet

[mark blazejewski]

If Leftist and Never Trump fools want to criticize President Trump for a legitimate use of the White House...


From"The Hill:"


Reference: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...se-lawn-report

...perhaps they should first consult history to determine if a Leftist President ever used the White House for the exact same purpose?...






[SIZE=3]Reference[/SIZE]: http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/day...uly-19th-1940/

If equal standards apply, does it not appear that Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, feels that President Roosevelt, the God of all Leftist Democrats, to have "DEGRADED THE WHITE HOUSE? "...

Trump's intent to give the speech at the White House triggered criticism from the Democrats, who said it would be both illegal and unethical for the president to do so.

"Whether it's legally wrong or ethically out of the question, it shouldn't even have been something that was expressed," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday.

"For the President of the United States to degrade once again the White House, as he has done over and over again by saying he's going to completely politicize it, is something that should be rejected right out of hand," the California Democrat added.

Reference: https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1...fLOMvgF0Ge4Tac

[mark blazejewski]

WHEN DOES REALITY DEPART FROM COINCIDENCE?

Last week, this happened...

(1) https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm…

(2) https://www.dcclothesline.com/…/whit...#8230;/…

(3) https://www.mcclatchydc.com/…/nation...244902897.html

(4) https://www.news.com.au/…/…/cf5124a2...9e0e4c031af442

It was announced today that a mysterious drone nearly crashed into Air Force One.

I thought Air Force One flew in protected air space.

Whose drone was it, where did it come from, and where did it go?

Why was it not shot down or intercepted?

From Bloomberg...

Trump’s Plane Nearly Hit by Small Drone on Sunday, Witnesses Say

Reference: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trump-s-...-by-sma…[SIZE=4]

[mark blazejewski]

Maybe a little twisted Leftist projection stemming from a slightly different scenario? Hmmm...

This 'War Game' Maps Out What Happens If The President Contests The Election

Reference: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/07...trump-scenario

[Lee Chowaniec]

Is New York City dead forever?

I found the following report most revealing, revealing in that you won’t find this report in a liberal media outlet - or commented on by the left politicos. It paints a devastating picture of violence, property destruction, depravity and fear that is taking place not only in New York City but in numerous cities across America, where the protest violence is being supported, tolerated or paid-no-attention by governing officials with an agenda in mind other than protecting public safety and property.

New York City is dead forever

https://nypost.com/2020/08/17/nyc-is...rom%20%251%24s

Now it’s completely dead. “But NYC always always bounces back.” No. Not this time.

“But NYC is the center of the financial universe. Opportunities will flourish here again.” Not this time.

“NYC has experienced worse.” No, it hasn’t.

A Facebook group [Into The Unknown] formed a few weeks ago that was for people who were planning a move and wanted others to talk to and ask advice from. Within two or three days it had about 10,000 members.

Every day I see more and more posts: “I’ve been in NYC forever but I guess this time I have to say goodbye.” I’ve been screenshotting them for my scrapbook.

Three of the most important reasons to move to NYC: business opportunities, culture and food.

[mark blazejewski]

Where is the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department?...






Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60cqUPxYThY

[mark blazejewski]

The Chaos: A Black Perspective...

bobby heasley.jpg

Reference: https://www.facebook.com/bobbyhesley...1420127354986/

Bobby Hesley is brilliant.


Mr. Hesley did what Democrat speakers, if they were sincere, should do: repudiate the violent extremism and shine a light of truth on the hypocrisy of the extreme Left of the Democrat Party which supports BLM, Antifa, and the conscience-cleansing hypocritical white protesters.


Where was the Sister Souljah moment in Michelle Obama's remarks last night?


If such a moment was present, it was well disguised to me, and I certainly could not, and can not, find it in her remarks last night.

Do not these words, which if critically assessed, significantly serve to further stoke the flames of racial division, and perhaps lend support to those whose violence and anarchy will, if left unchecked, destroy the Republic?:

"...that my message won't be heard by some people" because “we live in a nation that is deeply divided, and I am a Black woman speaking at the Democratic convention.”

Do not those words suggest that Trump voters, one half of the nation, refuse to listen to a black woman speaking at the Democrat Convention?

That generalized message is pretty clear to me.


Reference: https://www.politico.com/…/michelle-...care-am…



In contrast, IMHO, Hesley brilliantly separated the difference between a true concern for all blacks, and an opportunistic exploitation of the Floyd murder to advance a hidden agenda; and

He screamed the hypocrisy which is evident in supporting a political party which supports Planned Parenthood, the most notorious murderer of young black lives; and

He passionately pointed-out BLM's almost exclusive focus on black deaths which are are resultant by rogue white police officers killing black criminal suspects.

I thank him for his courage to advance a true history lesson, which he cites as the case of Johnson v. Parker, which once and for all, sets the historical record straight; it was the black Anthony Johnson, a colonist from Angola, who started black slavery in America.

Brilliant and Kudos to Mr. Hesley!

[Lee Chowaniec]

Who is becoming ‘woke’

In their attempt to demonize Trump and label him unfit to hold the presidential office, the Democratic Party parades disgruntled, influential Republicans and minorities before the cameras at the convention to serve their purpose.

Next week at their convention the Republicans will be doing likewise. It is interesting to note that greater numbers of minorities are becoming the new ‘woke’ and making their voices public to question what the Democratic Party has really done over the years to improve their lot and deserving Democratic Party allegiance?

As with your post Mark, a little bit of history is in order! You won’t find these reported in the mainstream media!

Why I'm Voting Republican in 2020--for the First Time Ever

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/20...er_520493.html

Fox News viewers have long known me as an ardent Democrat, ready to fight for the ‘other’ side. However, in the past eight months, this has changed. It has changed so drastically that I’m jokingly referred to as “Leo 2.0.” It is a change so complete that I am campaigning and preparing to vote Republican in this election — for the first time ever.

The party of the Civil Rights movement, the party of JFK and “Ask not what your country can do for you” has abandoned all its principles and handed the reins over to extremists.

Let’s start at the top with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden. On May 22, in an interview with Charlamagne da God, Biden told him, “I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t Black.” In case you don’t know, I AM Black, and I did not know that the color of my skin also came with a mandate that I vote for the old White guy who’s been in politics for 47 years (without a discernible record of accomplishments on behalf of Black people.)

[mark blazejewski]

As with your post Mark, a little bit of history is in order! You won’t find these reported in the mainstream media!

Speaking of history, kudos to President Trump for his pardon of Susan B. Anthony; seemingly a prideful Presidential balance to the Carter clemency bestowed upon Robert E. Lee.

Predictably, the Left and its dutiful propaganda organ The New York Times, is now "Canceling" Susan B. Anthony, and not surprising to me, has re-cast the ground-breaking feminist as...

"... an increasingly divisive figure, adopted by anti-abortion forces and criticized for relegating Black suffragists to the sidelines."

Reference: https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-tim...t-trump-pardon

Such hypocrites!

[mark blazejewski]

Who is becoming ‘woke’

Only those who are indifferent to, or do not want to be inconvenienced by, facts Lee. The Left may want to cancel the teaching of history in pursuit of its Marxist revolution, but it simply can not alter those pesky fixed facts of history.

History records which party supported slavery, and which party opposed it...

From the Republican Party Platform, 1856:

Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism--Polygamy, and Slavery.

Reference:https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docu...-platform-1856

From the Republican Party Platform, 1860:

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic

Reference: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docu...-platform-1860

From The 1856 Democrat Party Platform:

Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well considered declarations of former Conventions upon the sectional issue of Domestic slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the States.

1. That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

Reference: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docu...party-platform




From the 1860 Northern Democrat Party Platform:

1. Resolved, That we, the Democracy of the Union, in Convention assembled, hereby declare our affirmance of the resolutions unanimously adopted and declared as a platform of principles by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1856, believing that Democratic principles are unchangeable in their nature...

Reference: http://www.ushist.com/general-information/1860_national_presidential_election_platforms.shtm l

From the 1860 Southern (Breckinridge) Party Platform, which "advocated the expansion of slavery into the territories and strong enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. The party's platform further affirmed the right of the federal government to protect the rights of slaveholders in the states and territories:"

Resolved, That the platform adopted by the Democratic party at Cincinnati (1856) be affirmed, with the following explanatory resolutions:

1. That the Government of a Territory organized by an act of Congress is provisional and temporary, and during its existence all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territory, without their rights, either of person or property, being destroyed or impaired by Congressional or Territorial legislation.

2. That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect, when necessary, the rights of persons and property in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends.

Reference: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dem1860.asp

[mark blazejewski]

From the 1860 Northern Democrat Party Platform:


Reference: http://www.ushist.com/general-information/1860_national_presidential_election_platforms.shtm l

Access Problem with this link?

Try: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/p...7mZoYbTkyrXsdA

[grump]

Only those who are indifferent to, or do not want to be inconvenienced by, facts Lee. The Left may want to cancel the teaching of history in pursuit of its Marxist revolution, but it simply can not alter those pesky fixed facts of history.

History records which party supported slavery, and which party opposed it...

From the Republican Party Platform, 1856:


Reference:https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docu...-platform-1856

From the Republican Party Platform, 1860:


Reference: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docu...-platform-1860

From The 1856 Democrat Party Platform:



Reference: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docu...party-platform




From the 1860 Northern Democrat Party Platform:


Reference: http://www.ushist.com/general-information/1860_national_presidential_election_platforms.shtm l

From the 1860 Southern (Breckinridge) Party Platform, which "advocated the expansion of slavery into the territories and strong enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. The party's platform further affirmed the right of the federal government to protect the rights of slaveholders in the states and territories:"



Reference: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dem1860.asp

Mark, the Democratic Totalitarians have only changed in tactics, not in strategy. Realizing that they can’t bring back de jure slavery they’ve substituted de facto slavery through welfare, public housing, government controlled distribution of opiates through “methadone clinics” and a host of other “compassionate” programs. Don’t forget, FDR named a KKK member to the Supreme Court and as his running mate in 1944.

[mark blazejewski]

Mark, the Democratic Totalitarians have only changed in tactics, not in strategy. Realizing that they can’t bring back de jure slavery they’ve substituted de facto slavery through welfare, public housing, government controlled distribution of opiates through “methadone clinics” and a host of other “compassionate” programs. Don’t forget, FDR named a KKK member to the Supreme Court and as his running mate in 1944.

Thank you for your courage to write that Grump. If you leave it to the Democrat Party, the fawning Leftist press, and Left-wing academia, Harry S. was entirely virtuous, and just the plain spoken man from Independence, who spent his entire life lifting the human condition; never mind his allegiance to the Pendergast Machine, and his folksy, well-meaning jest "My mother refused to sleep in Lincoln's bed;" a clear reference to the Truman family's Civil War sympathies.


What many people do not understand is that while Truman did re-instituted desegregation of the armed forces correcting the Wilsonian bigotry that was segregation, and along with a sincere Hubert Humphrey-inspired strong civil rights platform in the 1948 Democratic Platform, Truman's past was littered commentary laced with racial slurs so profound, that it may have been suggestive of his inner bigotry.

(That is not to mention Justices Hugo Black and James Byrnes.)

A rather well known, but somewhat hidden pre-marital Truman quote:

"Bess, "I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a ****** or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a ****** from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman."

Reference: https://archive.seattletimes.com/arc...3&slug=1314805

In fact, the Democrat Party has had a sordid history of putting bigots on ticket.


For all of his talk about human rights, "The Great Commoner" William Jennings Bryan, apparently departed his noble ideas when it came to the black man. It is held that he was "soft on the Klan" because many of the Klan's members were his supporters.

References:

ncse.ngo/racism-and-publics-perception-evolution

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.2307/2716689

Wilsonian bigotry of course speaks for itself.

John W. Davis, the Democrat Presidential Nominee in 1924 and James Nance Garner, Franklin Roosevelt's first Vice President from 1933-1941, were clearly not sympathetic to the black. Both me favored the poll tax; Davis as a state's right, and Garner as a specific piece of state legislation in Austin.

More troubling, Garner, the Vice President of the revered Democrat God Roosevelt, also opposed anti-lynching legislation, which was a "hot potato" piece of legislation going back to the 1920s; a post-World War One bill, which if passed, President Harding, a Republican, had vowed to sign.

When the legislation reappeared in the late 1930s, FDR did nothing to encourage its passage, and his Vice President Garner, did nothing whatsoever to interrupt a filibuster.

More recently, the Democrats shackled their national ticket with the likes of Alben Barkley, John Sparkman, and Lyndon Johnson, of whom Barrack Obama said on April 10, 2014...

During Lyndon B. Johnson’s first 20 years in Congress, "he opposed every civil rights measure that came up for a vote."

...Johnson's support for the 1964 Civil Rights Bill notwithstanding.

Moreover, the reader should keep in mind that it was Everett Dirsksen, not Mike Mansfield, who delivered the votes necessary for Senate passage; a truly inspiring Republican reassertion of its illustrious tradition, and a noble compensation for bigoted Democrats such as Gore Sr. of Tennessee, and purported Bill Clinton mentor J. William Fullbright.

Indeed Grump, the Democrats have a sinful, if not downright evil, record in regards to our black brethren.

These are not my opinions, but are the historical record Grump. Now you know why the Democrat Party seems to support "Cancel Culture?"

[grump]

Actually Mark, it’s my understanding that Truman left the KKK precisely to get the support of the Pendergast machine. Seems the Pendergasts were Catholic and wouldn’t endorse KKK members. When Truman “resigned’ from the Klan (he never really abandoned the racial and religious hatred it espoused) his reasons exactly paralleled the “dual loyalty” crappola spread by the anti-Semite, Omar. He was impressed by the way those “Catholic boys” fought for the United States in WW1. As if a Catholic wouldn’t fight for his country. The same old dual loyalty argument repackaged.

[mark blazejewski]

Actually Mark, it’s my understanding that Truman left the KKK precisely to get the support of the Pendergast machine. Seems the Pendergasts were Catholic and wouldn’t endorse KKK members. When Truman “resigned’ from the Klan (he never really abandoned the racial and religious hatred it espoused) his reasons exactly paralleled the “dual loyalty” crappola spread by the anti-Semite, Omar. He was impressed by the way those “Catholic boys” fought for the United States in WW1. As if a Catholic wouldn’t fight for his country. The same old dual loyalty argument repackaged.

As I understand the story Grump, Truman paid an initiation fee of $10, never attended a meeting, and then danced around the issue of membership. To that story, WTF Knows?

You may have better information than do I Grump. I understand that it was one Pendergast's people who approached him with the inducement that such an affiliation would bring Truman more votes, but I am not all that confident of the rather questionably-sourced nuances of his membership.

I do know of the narrative that he relinquished his membership out of respect for his Irish-Catholic comrades, but I am skeptical of the account, and it may be just a cover story. Bearing in mind that his best friend and business partner Eddie Jacobson was Jewish, I have a hard time believing that the collective reaction of an associated "group" would out weigh in significance, the emotional anger and hurt that a KKK membership would bring to a close personal friend and business partner.

Therefore, I am open to the possibility that Jacobson gave his buddy a pass to further his political ambitions, and Truman used his "Battery B" buddies ("Buddies" even though he was a Captain and they were his subordinates? Hmm.), as a principled reason to openly break with the Klan in form, but not in confidential, winks and nods spirit. (Unless Truman was truly a Free Mason scoundrel.)

Nationally before the 1944 election, Truman was pretty much a blank slate, whose only recognition attended his Chairmanship of the Committee on Military Affairs and some hearing involving wasteful spending in the wartime bureaucracy.


Regarding HST's selection as Roosevelt's 1944 running mate, I understand FDR actually preferred William O. Douglas, with Truman being an acceptable second choice to replace Wallace-the Communist. According to the story I read, Roosevelt made those intentions known to Ed Flynn, but when Flynn spread the word to the delegation heads, Flynn, unintentionally it is said, reversed the name, and in so doing, communicated the wrong intention. IMHO: a bullshlt fantasy.


To be honest, I think the story that attended Harry S. always was 80% bullshlt, and that his entire public resume may have been an contrivance; an opportunistic narrative gradually crafted during the period of the rather obvious Roosevelt decline.

What emerged, again in my opinion, was a deliberately choreographed contrast in Presidential personalities and backgrounds, intentionally constructed to make it appear that the tiresome Democratic Party had rejuvenated itself in the personage of Truman; a fresh face that would not wither by 1948.

Truman was cast as the grassroots, humble, plain speaking guy who had struggled to make ends meet, which was a glaring departure from the aristocratic Hyde Park gentleman. .

The rather condescending "My Friends' was replaced with a tentative mid-western twang; the jaunty tilt of the head was replaced with the quick-paced morning walk; the elegant cigarette holder gave way to ill-fitting suites and Hawaiian shirts.

But Truman was not entirely the portrayed farmer-turned-unsuccessful haberdasher-turned President of the United States.

Harry was heavily invested in zinc, lead, and oil, and he was not the product of a small country school. Many years ago, Margaret Truman Daniel told Larry King that Truman actually had adequate education credentials to presumably permit him to practice law in Missouri. At least that is what I remember her saying. In some ways, Mrs. Daniel's comprehensive comments during that interview significantly formed the basis for my assessments.

Above all, an again, Truman he was the valued product of one of the nation's most powerful machines.

Truman was and remains to me a fascinating character, who,IMHO, may have been a fill-in-the-blanks sort of candidate; a shorter, older 1944 forerunner to the 1992 creation of "The Man From Hope" and the truly blank slate 2008 candidacy of Barrack Obama.

[grump]

It was FDR who locked up thousands of Japanese American citizens and held them without charge and without trial while his friends and campaign contributors stole their property. It was Ronald Reagan who signed the legislation finally compensating their families for that grotesque violation of their rights as Americans. I based my info on Truman on McCulloughs biography of him. The man was a piece of crap at the best. And given FDR’s failing mental capacity in 1944 it parallels Biden’s addled capacity today. People were critical of him reading his announcement of his selection of Harris as his running mate. I don’t think he made the pick or even knows who he picked. The man’s mind is hopelessly shot and there was precious little there to work with when he was young. Witness his cheating at Syracuse University Law School.