Andrew Napolitano’s Attempted Rewrite Of Abraham Lincoln Proves He Is No Lawrence O’Donnell

Ex-Judge, ex-Fox Andrew Napolitano recently made statements about Abraham Lincoln. Have no idea how Andy became a judge or how well he did in law school but the guy apparently either knows nothing about American history or is intentionally misrepresenting it to smear Obama with a smeared Lincoln somehow.
Fox either wants Obama to be a dictator or they accuse him of being a dictator. Well, do you know who the great American dictator was? President Abraham Lincoln. Southern states had already seceded from the Union before he took office and more followed during his first year, the same time the Civil War broke out.
Lincoln and his Secretary of State, the great William Seward, both agreed that the President had inherent powers given to him but not delineated by the Constitution, so he made them up as he went along. He suspended habeas corpus, he shut down Democrat and anti-Union newspapers and held their editors, along with spies and other Confederacy loyalists, in prison for extended periods of time. His Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in carefully defined areas–none of them in any Union state (especially the border states) and none in districts in Virginia and Louisiana which were under Union control. He made more people–white and black alike–angry over his proclamation than he pleased.
His Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, initiated legislation passed by Congress and signed into law in 1862 that established the federal income tax and the IRS to collect it. The law was revised in 1864 which increased the income tax rates. In 1863, Congress with Lincoln’s insistence passed The Conscription Act which was the first forced conscription (draft) law in US History of all able-bodied men into the Union Army–excepting those who could afford to buy their way out of the draft for $300 so that a literally poor man would take his place. Yep, Lincoln exempted the rich (after they paid) and took the poor, just like the draft was carried out during the Vietnam War.
So, the things both Dubya and Obama have been rightfully criticized for were based on precedents set by Abraham Lincoln. If the NSA had been around then, you can bet Lincoln would have had it snooping and storing all communications as it does today.
Why was Lincoln such a “ruthless” dictator? Because he was the first president in US history to have the job of keeping the Union together because he believed that the Constitution didn’t allow states to secede and if they did, the United States would cease to exist. His ONLY goal was to win the Civil War because it was the only way to keep the Union together. Losing was not an option. And he also had to contend with both Great Britain and France attempting to make side deals and trades with the Confederate states. The fact that we still exist as one country, more or less, is a testimony to the greatest president of all time who decided to bend the Constitution in places so it wouldn’t break altogether.
Oh, Lincoln also devised a plan to ship every black person in America off to Central America or to Africa to give them their own country since, at that time, he was convinced that Negroes were humanly inferior to whites, and that the continued presence of freed and captive slaves would only serve to continue to rile up white folks after the North won the Civil War. More moderate and sensible heads like Seward, Chase, and members of Congress as well as Frederick Douglass talked him to his senses. At the end of his live, Lincoln admitted that he had been wrong, that his views of Negroes inferiority were based on his upbringing and the fact that he had never personally met any until after he became President. John F. Kennedy made that same transition to fully supporting black civil rights 100 years later. The blacks who emigrated to what was named Liberia did so voluntarily.
Napolitano is a moron for trying to frame Lincoln as weak on his leadership during the Civil War and that the slaves were bound to be freed anyway. Damn, but ignorant or lying idiots like him make me angry.

The USPS Can Deliver Us From Evil—Anti-Union Companies, That Is

We union-supporting liberals are faced with a major problem.  We loves us our online shopping and front door deliveries but, unfortunately, the Godzilla of online shopping—Amazon.com—like unions not one bit and hates union organizers even more.  Employee union activists are somehow fired for not performing up to job expectations.  Amazon loves it its young warehouse order processing and fulfillment workers but that love starts to get lost as those workers age past 50 if they’re employed long enough.  Time and warehouse supervisors wait for no age and so as workers age and their bodies naturally lose muscle tone, flexibility, and agility, they start to slow down on the job.  This slowdown is duly noted by supervisors and the aging fleet of warehouse workers as write ups placed in their files.  After the third write-up or so, this fleet of aging warehouse workers is forcibly retired, one by one.  I have no information on this but I would imagine amazon.com but claim those workers were fired for cause so it can fight their unemployment benefits awards. But again, I have no info on this.

Besides Amazon, of the three major ground delivery services, FedEx and UPS will not have a union in either of their houses. UPS just fired 251 employees—the first one for being  both a driver and a union activist and 250 other drivers for walking off their jobs to stand in solidarity with him.  I just signed a Working Families petition here to protest those firings and to demand that UPS give those 251 drivers their jobs back.  Which is the remaining ground delivery service where unions are strongly entrenched? The United States Postal Service and THAT, my friends, is the reason the Republicans put out a hit on it with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. The only way to have that act repealed is to flush enough Republicans from Congress and elect enough Democrats to control both chambers freed from the stall and filibuster tactics of the Republicans so the repeal bill can be signed into law by a Democratic President.  Sounds easy enough, right?

Now, I am aware that not all in the USPS administration and its supervisory staff are union-friendly.  But with that repeal of the union-busting law and the USPS’ ability to return to profitability, the USPS can once again start to grow its delivery business without having to close post offices and lay off workers, and the union will become a stronger bargaining unit.  Plus, we can start demanding of amazon.com and all online retailers that we prefer to have our goods delivered by the Post Office so they better start putting those delivery contracts in place. Pie in the sky? Well, the most beautiful sky is Blue which makes for some tasty pie.

Rand Paul: Tea Party Head Mad Hatter

Rassmussen Reports just released one of its famously pro-Republican polls

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/co/colorado_senate_gardner_vs_udall-3845.html

showing a virtual tie in the Colorado U.S. Senate Race between Democratic incumbent Mark Udall and Republican challenger Corey Gardner and, coincidentally (?), NPR News runs a  tory primarily to make Republican challenger Corey Gardner a national name in pursuit of the NPR News campaign to convince the American voter that this is the year of the Republicans.

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/13/289750656/republican-candidate-heats-up-colorado-s-u-s-senate-race

After all, NPR trashes Obamacare at least weekly, and now almost daily (and several times daily) mentioning Rand Paul’s name and frequently accompanying it with a sound bite. There are 45 Republicans in the U.S. Senate but from NPR News you’d think that Paul is the only saying or thinking anything important because he’s about the only one in heavy radio rotation.  So Ted Cruz is now SO last year’s chopped liver for wrapping himself around and making himself the voice and voice of the GOP/Tea Party’s federal government shutdown. And Marco Rubio? He’s got the charisma of any fresh-faced little boy who looks like he’s wearing his father’s U.S. Senator’s clothes.

It’s been decided somewhere that Rand Paul needs to be pushed into the psyche of the American public and as frequently as possible. For what purpose, I don’t know—yet.  He’s not up for reelection until 2016 and two years from how he’s got as much chance of getting the Republican nomination for president as he has getting elected president this year.  To show how little chance the guy has to send out bids on a new design for the Oval Office rug, his GOP buddies in the Kentucky state senate are pushing a bill that would allow him to be on the 2016 state ballot as candidate for both president and reelection to the US Senate (much like Wisconsin state law enabled Paul Ryan to lose his VP bid and still keep his day job in Congress in 2012).  The state House of Representatives doesn’t like that idea so much and will most likely shoot it down if it passes the state senate.

It’s perfectly plausible that Paul has been positioned to be the once and future Head Mad Hatter of the Tea Party at a time when the Karl Roves of the GOP are attempting to separate and isolate it from the mainstream party because frankly, my dear, most Republican voters don’t give a damn about the Tea Party (except when it shuts down the federal government and then the word “damn” is heard a lot preceding the words “tea party”) except in the smallest and poorest Southern states with the highest numbers of uneducated people in America.  Rove once had pull in the GOP until his meal ticket ran out of presidential terms and he had to settle for a new career as PAC Man.  The meal ticket’s brother, Jeb, is undoubtedly planned by Rove to be his entrée to eight more years of White House entrées in 2016.

So, with Jeb in the top ticket slot, who would be the chosen one to slide into the number two spot? Hmmm, the name is on the tip of my psyche…Rand Paul.  It now all makes sense.  In front of closed doors guys like Rove decry how the Tea Party is destroying the GOP.  But behind closed doors perhaps Paul’s name was bandied about as a sure way to bring the Tea Party—and its voter base—back  into the fold and under control of the mainstream Republican Party.  The GOPowers-that-be may be willing to risk a Rand Paul presidency if it gets them a Jeb Bush presidency first.

So in the pursuit of that end, the orders went out to the subsidiary media outlets like Fox, CNN and NPR to put Rand Paul in heavy rotation and to keep his erstwhile rivals out of the limelight.  Too many choices make tea partiers nervous.  They like to keep things simple, you know.

What’s Brewing In Arizona?

I am pessimistically optimistic about the Democrats gaining additional state and congressional states this year.  Take Arizona, please.  Gov. Jan Brewer in 2010 signed SB 1070 into law one of the most reprehensible and racist immigration “reform” bills to come down the pike since the Jim Crow laws were enacted throughout the South during the 19th and 20th centuries.  I’m sure that Brewer privately endorses the bill but due to pressure from both Arizona U.S. senators and the Arizona business community she will have to veto it.  In any other state, vetoing an anti-gay bill a year before it plays host to the Super Bowl would be a no-brainer.Except for Arizona Republicans, who lack even that much. 

Common sense dictates that potentially thousands of gay and lesbian football fans with their friends and family were planning buying tickets for the 2015 Super Bowl at the University of Phoenix Stadium.  You would think that Arizona Republicans would get that if it was legal to deny the gay population ANYTHING in the state based on an individual’s personal religious convictions, that a few thousand airline tickets won’t be purchased, hundreds of hotel/motel rooms and rental cars won’t be rented, thousands of extra restaurants and fast food places meals won’t be bought, thousands of souvenirs won’t be purchased, and so the lost-income dominoes will fall.  The business community doesn’t like to see millions of tourist dollars refused to be accepted and they have told Brewer that in no uncertain terms.   But Brewer, if she decides to run for governor again in 2018 after taking a state constitution-mandated four-year break, will need the support of teabaggie Republicans and so she must give the appearance of weighing a most weighty decision over the entire five-day period in which a governor must sign or veto new legislation before she vetoes it.  At least that’s how Brewer hopes it will appear to Republican voters if she decides 2018 is her comeback year.

 

The immigration law was the equivalent of the “stop-and-frisk black males” law in New York City.  It gave law enforcement the legal right to stop any motor vehicle anywhere anytime to command “Show us your papers, plees” (like the good Nazis the Brewer and the state legislature wanted Arizona law enforcement to be) for the reasonable cause of the driver and/or its inhabitants being brown-skinned.  Brewer and the Republican-controlled state legislature cared not one whit that this was in total violation of the 14th Amendment until the U.S. Supreme Court told them it was and gutted most of the act.  Law enforcement can still stop brown-skinned motor vehicle occupants at will to ask for papers but can’t do much legally after that.

I bring up SB 1070 to make a point. That was just the latest in much repressive legislation essentially written by Arizonan right-wing lobbyist groups and passed into law by Republicans.  Organizations like the Center for Arizona Policy, remarkably a tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organization that is “committed to promoting and defending life, marriage, and family, and religious liberty”, has been running state politics for the past ten years.  SB 1062, the anti-gay law that Brewer will most definitely have to veto, was their baby.  So, with all this repressive legislative history, why do Republicans and the Tea Party still run state politics? Why do the majority of Arizona voters keep them in power year after year? Is election fraud and voter suppression at work here?

This pattern of keeping states Red no matter how repressive and bigoted the Republican-controlled government is worries me.  Too many voters are bound and determined beyond all logic and reason to vote against their own best self-interests.  Many of my fellow liberals hope for a big Blue election year in 2014, as do I, but I won’t be surprised if we only make small yardage up the middle instead of running downfield for a touchdown.  Too many Republican-installed voter ID laws block the field and then there’s that nasty problem of rigging the vote count as in Florida 2000 and as in Ohio 2004.

It’s not a matter of seeing the glass as half-empty or half-full. I just hope there’s something in the glass for Democrats come November 5, 2014, the day after Election Day.

Calling President Obama A Liberal Does Not Make Him A Liberal

Chris Matthews just did a segment on how Obama has gone full-bore liberal. He’s told the Republicans that “entitlements reform” is off the table and don’t even whisper chained-CPI. He’s also saying we’re going to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 (which sounds a little 9-9-9 to me) or you’ll tell the American voters this year why you didn’t.

All well and good but Chris and MSNBC being what they are, neglected to include in the segment that Obama is also pushing mighty hard for both the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Keystone XL Pipeline.  Two decidedly UN-Liberal positions there, folks.

Notice that Obama has had the State Department. sign off on the pipeline’s minimal environmental impact–and what the heck is John Kerry and his staff doing weighing in on this in the first place? This is to be (as I understand it) a private business arrangement between a Canadian oil corporation and private corporations here and not a treaty between sovereign nations. And it seems to me that that assessment and decision is more within the scope and authority of the EPA and the Department of the Interior, wouldn’t you think? Why have we no studies from those two protectors of land, water, and air speaks volumes about Obama’s attempt to hide how environmentally destructive this pipeline will prove to be. This whole boondoggle will produce no oil to be used in this country; the filthy, disgusting, tar sands crude oil goo will be piped and loaded onto oil tankers headed for the likes of China and points east.  How many much-needed, permanent American jobs will be created if this project is approved? Maybe 2000 to finish building it, then 50-100 to maintain it.

What the hell is Obama thinking? The fact alone that Republicans overwhelming demand the pipeline be built–EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHOSE PRIVATELY-OWNED LANDS SUBJECT TO CONFISCATION THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN.  The Nebraska farmers who (so far) have successfully challenged the pipeline are examples of this, saying “I’ll give you my land when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.”

Matthews, Joy Reid, and Richard Wolffe at MSNBC may enjoy embroidering a big blue L on Obama’s suit jackets but right beside it would have to be a big fat red DayGlo asterisk. Or maybe they’re following Comcast corporate policy by supporting another MSNBC supposed-liberal colleague who has embraced the KXL: none other than the American union worker’s best friend, Ed Schultz. I’m glad Ed calls himself a progressive because otherwise he’d be giving the word Liberal a bad name. Just as Matthews, Reid, and Wolffe are doing with Obama.

Netflix Is Full Of Mitt

Yesterday I started seeing an online Netflix ad for a Mitt Romney documentary, “MITT”,  that it’s showing exclusively. It’s a chance to get to know the Mittens you never knew.  And boy– are they right! Mitt’s showing us—hey, I’m just like you—with mussed hair above a pair of tired,  faintly hopeful eyes looking at the camera as if saying, “Do you accept me now?”  Mittens allowed tousling of his perfectly coiffed and dyed hair? Wow, it’s the FIRST thing I now know that I never knew!

But once the afterglow of discovery fades away, a gnawing question replaces it: why this documentary showing the “human” side of Romney now? If he possesses any reason—as opposed to intelligence—he’ll never run for president again.  So, what could be behind this? Hmmm…Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is ending his term this year and has announced he won’t seek reelection.  Is Romney thinking that with the presidency forever out of his reach he just might try to return to the seat of his former glory? That would be very Mittens-like but since he hasn’t announced he’s running or set up an exploratory committee that I know of, it’s just conjecture on my part.

The Utah governor, Gary Herbert, just started his second term, but who wants to be the new governor of a state that officially refuses to recognize gay marriage and deprives little school kids of their unpaid lunches by throwing them in the garbage—right in front of them? That’s not the tousled-haired Mittens I know!

The House of Representatives is too small to hold a man of Romney’s wealth so that leaves the Senate.  No open seats in Utah and I think Massachusetts voters won’t be venturing back into the dark Right side any time soon. So, this leaves the Massachusetts governor’s office as his only possible target.  I mean, there had to be reason why Mitten’s guys paid Netflix all that money to run their vanity project.  And the director of this epic, inside look at the Mittens we preferred to stay far away from as opposed to wanting to get up close and personal? Greg Whiteley, with only two other credits to his name:  “New York Doll” which examined an ex-member of the New York Dolls who renounced his past when he became a Mormon, and “Resolved”, a documentary on high school debates that for some reason puts Koch Bros. employee SCOTUS Justice Sammy Alito front and center.  Either he was one of the high school debaters or that’s how he got his judging experience.

It took six years to make this documentary. Why did it take so long? It probably took that long for Whiteley to film enough footage to make Mitten’s life look interesting enough to fill 90 minutes.

Who Fact Checks The Fact Checkers?

http://news.msn.com/us/fact-check-did-obama-get-it-right

My question is:  who fact checks the Fact Checkers? The Associated Press has printed almost nothing but criticizing or out-and-out hit pieces on Obama for years.

The author, Calvin Woodward, cites a number of surveys and quotes people associated with think tanks.  First, if you read the article, many times the Woodward states some data is unknown.   This unknown data is crucial in determining if Obama was speaking factually or not.  So, if even Woodward admits he doesn’t know everything, how can he decide that what Obama said wasn’t true? He can’t.

One glaring example (out of many) of how a “fact checker” can omit information that might disprove or at least question his conclusion that Obama was not being factual is his contention that Obama is wrong about “upward mobility has stalled”.  Woodward responds that according to a study by Harvard University economist Raj Chetty, “The most recent evidence suggests that mobility hasn’t worsened.” And how did PBS News reporter Jeffrey Brown summarize it in his interview with Chetty? “The ability to move up the income ladder hasn’t worsened, but it also hasn’t improved.” I’m just a college graduate, but didn’t Brown just confirm what Obama said (before Obama said it) in this Jan. 24, 2014 broadcast, that upward mobility has stalled? Yes, he did.

And besides that, how was upward mobility back in the ‘70s—what percentage of children were able to move up the social mobility ladder? Hmmm, Woodward didn’t touch on that one—maybe more of his “unknowns” at work.  And note that Woodward restricts his argument to social mobility and NOT to both social AND financial mobility as we all damn well know is what Obama was talking about.  And Woodward claims standing still is not stalled, just like someone claiming that just because you’re no longer breathing and there’s the total absence of brain activity it doesn’t mean you’re dead.

And Chetty’s direct quote about social mobility? “Well, I think you shouldn’t interpret the lack of a decline in upward mobility as good news, in the sense that intergenerational mobility in the U.S., social mobility, is lower than virtually any other developed country for which we currently have data.”

Maybe the word “virtually” is up for interpretation because Woodward pulls out another study that directly conflicts with Chetty, who he had just used to prove his point: “In a study of 22 countries, economist Miles Corak of the University of Ottawa found that the United States ranked 15th in social mobility. Only Italy and Britain among wealthy countries ranked lower. By some measures, children in the United States are as likely to inherit their parents’ economic status as their height.”  Italy is no longer a wealthy country; you can ask them, the WTO, and the World Bank.  Great Britain has long been a class-based society, or has Woodward conveniently forgotten about the Queen, the Royal Family, and all those dukes, lords, and knights mucking about?

Again, who factchecks the “Factcheckers”? Well, there’s me, for one.