Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts

September 19, 2017

Anti Civil Rights Candidate Gov.Wallace and Trump are Sewn at The Hip by An X and a K


This nation knew they were voting for a racist but the North didn't think he would win and the south didn't care how racist he was.
 He fought civil rights and work with David Duke and the KKK. He had a change of heart in some of his positions in his old age unable to walk because of the assassination attempt.


Former Missouri Republican Senator (1976-1995) John Danforth was, and remains, a highly respected public figure, seen as a man of principle and decency.
He is not a publicity seeker by any means, so when he makes a public utterance, it is not something to be ignored or overlooked.

Recently, Danforth made the statement that Donald Trump does not represent core Republican principles, the kind that drove the public life of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, George H. W. Bush, and even George W. Bush, all upholding basic principles of justice and fairness.
Instead, Danforth makes the point that Trump is the most divisive political figure in national life since Alabama Governor George C. Wallace.
Fifty-four years ago and for the following decades, Wallace became a nationally noticed political leader, who sought the Presidency in 1964, 1968 (when he had the second-best third-party performance in all of American history), and 1972, until he became the victim of an assassination attempt, which ended that campaign.
It left Wallace paralyzed for life, facing years of pain, suffering, and surgeries to attempt to make his life bearable for the 26 years he lived on until his death in 1998 at the age of 79.
Wallace drew support from white working-class whites, not only in the South, where he won his 46 electoral votes in 1968 but also from millions in the industrial Midwest and rural areas of the nation, similar to Donald Trump’s victories in such places.
Wallace came from a lower but struggling middle-class white background in Alabama, while Trump, on the other hand, grew up in wealth and privilege in an upscale community in Queens County, New York, with his father being a wealthy real estate magnate. So their family background and heritage were diametrically opposite.

But both developed a mental view that the way to advance oneself was to exploit race and ethnicity as a way to provoke an emotional uprising by insecure, struggling middle-class whites.
Wallace became notorious in 1962 when he ran for the second time for the Alabama governorship, and abandoned his earlier “liberal” view on race in the 1958 gubernatorial campaign when he ended up last.
After that, he made it clear that he would exploit the race card, and when he won the governorship, he became a nationally known figure, when in his inaugural address in Montgomery, the state capital, in January 1963, he made the famous utterance: “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever!”
Wallace sought the Presidency against the new President, Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, entering several Presidential primaries, and bitterly opposing the Civil Rights Act of that year.
He became more controversial during the next four years, more incendiary in his public speeches at rallies, and then ran as the American Independent Party nominee for President in 1968, displaying demagogic techniques as he won five Southern states and 46 electoral votes.
He continued to divide and incite the population again over the next four years and was seen as a danger to Richard Nixon in 1972, until he was shot by assassin Arthur Bremer, who had been stalking Nixon before shooting Wallace in Laurel, Maryland, in May 1972.
After his unfortunate shooting and difficult recovery, well covered in my Assassinations book (Chapter 11), Wallace had a change of heart and was asking for forgiveness from civil rights leaders in the last decades of his life, even while serving once again as the governor of Alabama (his fourth term).
So one could say he reformed himself, apparently affected by the assassination attempt against him. It is unlikely that Donald Trump would ever reform, however, as he is a narcissist to the extreme, who has never admitted errors or faults in anything he has asserted or done in his public life.
Donald Trump had a background as a registered Democrat, always outspoken and controversial over the decades, but often seeming to be liberal in his views, although showing signs of racism in his real estate practices in Queens County, New York, as early as 1973, and his outrageous accusations against the “Central Park Five,” the case of the five African American young men accused of rape and assault in 1989.
They were eventually cleared after years in prison, but Trump was unwilling to admit he had been wrong. He continued to insist in fact that they were guilty as charged.
Once Barack Obama became President, Trump’s move into open racism and nativism became endemic, as he accused Obama of “birtherism” without any proof. And he began his national campaign for President in June 2015 with attacks on Mexicans and calling for a Mexico Wall, and displaying extreme Islamophobia, issues that he utilized in gaining the backing of his followers.
He refused to tone down his extremist and emotional tirades, which went much further than even George Wallace had displayed four to five decades earlier.
Both Wallace and Trump aroused crowds at campaign rallies, and ordered critics be thrown out; both attacked the news media as the enemy of the American people; both exploited the worst instincts of voters by exploiting their resentment, insecurities, and bitterness. Trump has continued this same approach as President.
So Senator John Danforth was accurate in stating that Trump has become the most divisive national political figure since George Wallace, with the caveat, however, that Trump is our President, and Wallace never came close to the Oval Office.
While George Wallace divided the nation in his time, the danger that Donald Trump represents is far more menacing.

August 19, 2017

Many of The Slavery-Civill War Statues Gallop into The Night Forever



Robert E. Lee, A General in the Confederacy who fought against the slaves being freed is Coming down in Baltimore-"Good bye and good ridance" Why was it allowed to stay put for so many years? Americans ignored it except the ones that got hurt by it, the sons and daughters of the slaves. They tried to ignore it too but there were other things that had more immediate importance at the time (food, shelter, education, equality) We can't take back slavery but maybe Americans new and old ones can take reponsibility for it and not permit that things like these are put in Public land that belong to blacks and whites alike.Also that people that want to be part of a nazi system in which we lost so many Americans fighting or the civil war in which there was a clear wnner, those people cannot be equated with responsible americans that know their history and abide by the law as written by the Constitution and its ammendments. (Adam Gonzalez at adamfoxie.blogspot.com)




Work crews took down a statue of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney overnight in Annapolis, Md., where it had stood since 1872.

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan made a statement on Tuesday calling for the statue to be removed from the State House grounds, NPR's Bill Chappell reported. Hogan called it "the right thing to do," saying, "The time has come to make clear the difference between properly acknowledging our past and glorifying the darkest chapters of our history." 

Charlottesville Rally Aimed To Defend A Confederate Statue. It May Have Doomed Others
Three of the four members of the State House Trust, which oversees the historic building and its grounds, voted by email on Wednesday to remove the statue. Democrat Thomas "Mike" Miller, the Senate president, did not vote.

"This was certainly a matter of such consequence that the transparency of a public meeting and public conversation should have occurred," Miller wrote in a letter to Hogan, as the Associated Press reports.

Annapolis joins a growing list of cities that have moved quickly to take down monuments linked to the Confederacy in the wake of last weekend's violence in Charlottesville, Va., which left one woman dead after car plowed into a crowd.


Workers use a crane to lift the monument dedicated 
to former Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney 
in Annapolis, Md., early Friday. The State House Trust 
voted Wednesday to remove the statue from its grounds.
Poll: Majority Believes Trump's Response To Charlottesville Hasn't Been Strong Enough
President Trump tweeted yesterday, "Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments."  A new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that a majority of Americans think Trump's response to the violence in Charlottesville was "not strong enough."

Taney authored the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which upheld slavery. Scott was a slave in Missouri who was taken to Illinois, a free state. He sued for his freedom after he was taken back to Missouri. Taney wrote the majority opinion in the 7-2 decision, which declared that black Americans were not citizens.

Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree has called the Dred Scott case "the most regretted and despised decision ever by the Supreme Court when it comes to issues of race injustice."

The state installed the statue of Taney, a Maryland native who became country's fifth chief justice, 145 years ago. In the years since, the state has added plaques explaining the historical context and controversy over the Scott decision. The monument will be moved to a Maryland State Archives storage facility, The Baltimore Sun reports.

Dred Scott was a slave. Under Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship. Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.


In 1996, on the opposite side of the State House, the state unveiled a statue of Baltimore native Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice. Last year, the trust said it would also erect statues honoring abolitionist leaders Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass.

Baltimore Removes Confederate Statues One Day After Voting On Issue
"It was a beautiful thing to wake up and see something so beautiful happened when I was asleep," Gwen Norman of Baltimore told the Sun.

Earlier this week, Baltimore took down four monuments linked to the Confederacy, including statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson — as well as one of Taney.

The U.S. Capitol's Supreme Court Chamber has a bust of Taney that was copied from the sculpture in Annapolis.

July 16, 2017

The Police Helicopter Pilot in Venezuela


Oscar Perez speaks at an anti-government protest in Caracas on Thursday. Perez, a fugitive pilot who allegedly attacked the country's Supreme Court building with hand grenades thrown from a helicopter, appeared unexpectedly at an opposition rally before fleeing on a motorcycle.
Inaki Zugasti/AFP/Getty Images
With just days to go before a symbolic referendum called by Venezuelan opposition, protesters on Thursday embraced another spectacle thick with symbolism: Oscar Perez, the fugitive pilot who dropped grenades from a helicopter on the Venezuelan Supreme Court last month, reappeared at an opposition rally and delivered a statement to demonstrators.
"Today is the moment that you are paying tribute to the fallen ones," Perez told the crowd, which had assembled in Caracas to commemorate those who had died during the unrest that has racked Venezuela for months. "The tribute to the fallen ones is not just to be here in this moment. The real tribute is for this dictatorship to fall."
Then Perez, who was flanked by people in masks, said a few words to the media and left the rally on a motorcycle.
YouTube
It was the first in-person public appearance for the 36-year-old police officer and film actor, who has been the subject of a manhunt since stealing a helicopter and firing on two public buildings. No one was injured in the attack, which the Venezuelan government called a "terrorist act." 
It was also a surreal mile marker in what has become a long and desperate struggle between President Nicolas Maduro and opposition activists, which has seethed on city streets for more than 100 days.
Since April 1, when the country's Supreme Court reversed its attempt to dissolve the opposition-heavy National Assembly, tens of thousands of protesters have loudly called for new elections and even Maduro's removal from power. Amid the unrest, the Attorney General's office estimates that at least 92 people have died and more than 1,500 have been injured.
Maduro, who asserts the protests against his regime are driven by foreign powers, has offered his own version of a solution to the discord: He has called for the July 30 election of delegates to a Constituent Assembly to rewrite the country's 18-year-old constitution.

Opposition activists take part in a demonstration marking 100 days of protests against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas on Sunday.
Juan Barreto/AFP/Getty Images
But, as John Otis noted on Morning Edition earlier this week, Venezuelan law dictates that the government hold a referendum first on whether to conduct that rewrite — a vote that Maduro has refused to schedule.
Opposition leaders have decided to hold a vote anyway this Sunday.
John explains:
"The opposition is boycotting the election and promoting an alternative round of balloting. On Sunday, a symbolic nationwide plebiscite will be held in which Venezuelans will be asked whether or not they want a new constitution. The opposition is hoping to embarrass Maduro with a massive turnout and millions of Venezuelans voting no."
Liz Throssell, a spokesperson for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, called on Maduro's government to "respect the wishes of those who want to participate in this consultation and to guarantee people's rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly."
"We appeal to all sides in Venezuela to renounce violence and the harassment of opponents," she said in comments to the media Friday. "We express our hope that Sunday's consultation will proceed peacefully and in the full respect of the human rights of all."
In his brief speech Thursday, Perez called for a nationwide strike next week — and he vowed to be "in the streets defending the public" during Sunday's referendum.
Voters "will use this means to tell the world what we already know," Perez said. "We do not want this narcogovernment, this corruption. And we will win

venezuelaanalysis.com and
 NPR (by  )

March 1, 2014

The GOP is on a Civil War Find Out Who is Winning

                                                                             
If Chris Christie, Scott Walker, John Kasich and perhaps Bobby Jindal—orthodox Republican conservatives all—hope to run for president in 2016, they’ll may have to perform a tricky maneuver: winning the backing of the GOP’s mainstream, big-money donors, including the US Chamber of Commerce, while rallying the electoral support of ultraconservatives who support the floundering Tea Party movement. But it might turn out that the Tea Party isn’t so influential after all.
The Tea Party—the institutional Tea Party, not necessarily the bloc of the GOP electorate that identified with it—continues to have its difficulties, especially in the wake of the 2013 government shutdown. Yesterday, at a conference in Washington, DC, the Tea Party Patriots organization celebrated its fifth anniversary as a force in American politics, but it was decidedly a lackluster event, and even The Washington Times headlined that it is “struggling.” Among other things, its preferred candidates in Republican primaries around the country seem at a loss, as Michael Gerson, a conservative pundit at The Washington Post, noted:
Tea party challenges have fizzled in Kentucky and Texas. They are fading in Kansas, Tennessee and South Carolina. And even in Mississippi—where Sen. Thad Cochran is a vulnerable incumbent—the tea party insurgent struggles to explain his recent skeptical reaction when asked about Katrina relief funding.
Two influential writers who’ve penned articles for The National Interest, both credentialed conservatives, have analyzed the GOP’s ongoing civil war, or civil strife—or as Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a Tea Party favorite, called it yesterday at the Tea Party Patriots meeting, “civil debate”—and, in the articles and in follow-up interviews with Christie Watch, they outlined their takes on where the GOP might be headed.
In the first piece, “The GOP’s Identity Crisis,” Paul Saunders, the executive director of the Center for the National Interest, a conservative-realist think tank in Washington, says that the Tea Party has the support of about 38 percent of GOP voters, but that the Republican party’s mainstream establishment, which historically has had the upper hand, is still the dominant factor. In an interview with Christie Watch, Saunders said:
People have been excited about the Tea Party and the insurgent forces. But the fact that they were able to play such a big role on the debt ceiling doesn’t mean that they have taken over the Republican party or defeated the establishment. Normally, the establishment wins. Looking ahead to 2016, they should be able to incorporate—or perhaps co-opt is a better word—the Tea Party and move on.
Last year, he said, Christie “was in the strongest position to unify the establishment.” And, though damaged, Christie is still “attractive to many people interested in the ‘bigger tent’ approach.”
In a parallel article in The National Interest, “The Four Faces of the Republican Party,” Henry Olsen, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative, “Judeo-Christian” think tank in Washington, breaks down the divisions within the GOP. In it, he wrote, the biggest bloc, representing 35–40 percent of the Republican vote, are the “somewhat conservative” voters who “have a significant distinction: they always back the winner”—successively, Bob Dole (1996), George W. Bush (2000), John McCain (2008), and Mitt Romney (2012). The second largest bloc is the GOP’s “moderate to liberal” one, representing about 25–30 percent of all GOP voters. (In others words, liberals, moderate and somewhat conservative voters represent something like 60–70 percent of the party.) Olsen says that Christie, Kasich, Walker and Paul Ryan are competing for these voters most of all.
On the other hand, he writes, very conservative voters make up the rest, a minority. The “very conservative evangelicals” are about 20 percent, and the “very conservative, secular” bloc is perhaps 5–10 percent of the GOP vote.
In primaries, of course, the true believers, including the most conservative, militant Republicans, tend to turn out more heavily, skewing their influence.
And Olsen makes a crucial point about the future inability of the Tea Party to determine who wins the Republican nomination in 2016. So far, he points out, Tea Party primary victories in statewide contests have come almost entirely in small, inconsequential states, not the delegate-rich ones. He says:
Nor do the Tea Party Senate primary victories appear to presage a sea change in GOP attitudes. They generally have two characteristics unlikely to pertain in the 2016 presidential race. First, they occurred primarily in smaller states in the South and West. While these states hold the balance in the Senate, they do not elect most of the delegates needed to win a presidential nomination. Larger states, especially California and those in the Midwest and Northeast, still have substantial power to influence the nomination contest. As importantly, these victories tended to occur in one-on-one races or races with only two serious candidates. Tea Party candidates fared much worse in multicandidate races. In presidential contests, multicandidate races are the norm until well into March, suggesting a Tea Party candidate will find it difficult to win in the early stages.
In an interview with Christie Watch, Olsen notes that according to polls Christie is “most favored by the moderate-liberals in the party and least favored amongst the very conservative. As a result, he said, he’s most likely to do well in primary states, such as New Hampshire, and less likely to do well in caucus states, such as Iowa—no surprises there. But, Olsen told Christie Watch, center-right, establishment Republicans, which he described as led by “businessmen, managers, entrepreneurs”—i.e., Chamber of Commerce types—are, unlike very, very conservative voters and the Christie right, “spread out and influential in every state.” So that means that Christie, along with Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan and Scott Walker will be pushing hard to appeal to these voters. 

The setbacks that Christie has suffered, says Olsen, mean that—unlike George W. Bush in 2000, who created an aura of invincibility early on—Christie won’t be able to create an early bandwagon for the nomination. “That’s been put on hold by Bridgegate,” he says.
Interested readers can get the latest complete polling data from a New York Times/CBS poll about 2016. What it shows, remarkably enough, is that as many as 59 percent of Republican and independent voters say that they “don’t know enough” about the various possible Republican challengers. Best known, by far, are Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, whose “don’t know enough” numbers ranged from 26 to 35 percent. Of those who did know enough to voice an opinion, 41 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents said that they didn’t want Christie to run, reflecting no doubt a mix of Tea Party types who despise and him and others simply turned off by the post-Bridgegate scandals. (Thirty-one percent of Republicans say they want Christie to run.) For Bush, who says he’ll announce whether or not he’s running later this year, 27 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of independents say that they don’t want him to run.

May 14, 2013

Fighter in Syrian Civil War Eating Heart of Dead Soldier

Remorseless: After removing what appears to be the dead man's heart, Sakkar then reaches into the chest cavity and draws a lung into view
"Let me eat your heart. Not enough that you are dead, now I need to eat your heart because that means……not sure, but Im sure it means something. Heartless myself I enjoy civil wars and all wars but civil wars are better because I can kill whoever I want. No generals, no rules, no orders no uniforms. They also supply you with food.  On a civil war I can take the food from anyone I want as long as they are not as armed or as alert as I am.   I am an animal and I am looking from freedom from another ‘animal” “a Mad man’ a “heartless man” that is Assad"
 That is the reason that United States has decided not to get mix up in this civil war. You have animals killing animals and whomever comes out on top it will be an enemy of the United States , Pro Iranian and Probably Russia. We have no man on this fight. Lets try to work with Egypt and as far as the Palestinian goes they need their homeland.  However how can you expect to be allowed to become one when you talk to extinct of at least one in the area. The reason with that is that the palestinians can not get their own leader and government to get their engine started. At the moment there are just facets of autonomous with just one thing in common and is not constructing a country with a centralized government. Is Fighting Israel and blowing up what ever they can. A shame in deed but those are the realities in this part of the world that’s never been for the weak of heart.

Now coming back to the heart eater, there is this awful video which shows the barbaric Syrian war.  There is no mercy for no one and common sense or humanity never even entered this area.
   
A man, said to be a well-known rebel fighter, carves into the body of a government soldier and cuts out his heart and liver.
"I swear to God we will eat your hearts out, you soldiers of Bashar. You dogs. God is greater!" the man says. "Heroes of Baba Amr ... we will take out their hearts to eat them."
He then puts the heart in his mouth and takes a bite.

A group loyal to President Bashar al-Assad posted the video online Monday. The group describes the mutilation as a "crime that crosses all lines."    
It's a sentiment shared by the main opposition alliance, which describes the act as "horrific and inhumane."
"The Syrian Coalition strongly condemns this act, if it is revealed to be true," the dissident group said in a statement.

"The coalition stresses that such an act contradicts the morals of the Syrian people, as well as the values and principles of the (rebel) Free Syrian Army."
Rebel spokesman: There's more to the story

Although CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of the video, CNN has interviewed a local rebel spokesman who confirmed the incident and said he has spoken to the man in the footage.
Tariq al Sayed, a spokesman from the Homs neighborhood of Baba Amr, said he is a friend of the rebel in the video. He said the incident took place more than two weeks ago, after several rebels and government troops were killed in a battle in western Homs.
Al Sayed said when he saw the video, he told his friend to take it off the Internet because the act was so perverse.

"This was an isolated incident. (His) actions do not represent the FSA. His actions only represent himself," al Sayed said. "This is not just a normal person who sits home. He has had two brothers killed. His mom and dad were detained, and the rest of his family displaced."
The Baba Amr district of Homs, once a bastion of anti-government sentiment, was subjected to a brutal counteroffensive by the Syrian army starting in February 2012, Human Rights Watch said.
Homs came under weeks of relentless attacks by government forces, including indiscriminate shelling on civilian areas.

But the government has repeatedly denied attacking civilians, saying Syrian forces were targeting armed gangs and foreign terrorists bent on destabilizing the government.
Regardless of the horrors suffered in Homs, the atrocious act in the video is inexcusable, Human Rights Watch said.
"It is not enough for Syria's opposition to condemn such behavior or blame it on violence by the government," said Nadim Houry, Middle East deputy director at Human Rights Watch. "The opposition forces need to act firmly to stop such abuses.”
{Adam}

adamfoxie* obtained both the video and report from CNN's Hamdi Alkhshali contributed to this report.

September 26, 2012

22yr Old That Captured Gaddafi Killed by His Country man

omran ben shabaan libya muammar gaddafi

In A Civil War There Are No Brothers, No Neighbors and No friends…lagos 



Omran Ben Shaaban, a 22-year-old Libyan man thought to be instrumental in capturing Muammar Gaddafi, died today after being beaten by the former dictator’s supporters.
Kidnappers abducted Shaaban and three others in July near the Gaddafi stronghold of Bani Walid, The Associated Press reported.
Rebels credit Shaaban with helping find Gaddafi as he hid in a drainage ditch last October during the Arab Spring uprising in Libya.
Shaaban had been hospitalized in France.
Libya’s National Congress said police and the armed forces are authorized to use force to bring Shaaban’s captors to justice, the AP said.
Kidnappers shot Shaaban in the neck and stomach during an escape attempt, his brother Walid Ben Shaaban told AFP.
GNC president Mohammed Megaryef helped negotiate Shaaban’s freedom after almost two months, AFP said.
A private plane flew Shaaban’s body back to his hometown of Misrata today where crowds awaited.
Misrata and Bani Walid are traditional rivals that fell on opposite sides of the uprising against Gaddafi.
Tensions in the area remain heightened.
“We will give the authorities an opportunity to tackle the issue, but if they fail to act, we know how to make our move,” Walid Ben Shaaban, who commands a militia of former rebels, told AFP.
The GNC hailed Shaaban as a hero.


Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy N

ow!

Featured Posts

TV Personality in Egypt Get One Yr Hard labor for Interviewing Gay Man

BBC   An Egyptian TV presenter has been sentenced to one year of hard labour for interviewing a gay man last year. ...