"No two people see the external world in exactly the same way. To every separate person a thing is what he thinks it is -- in other words, not a thing, but a think." - Penelope Fitzgerald
Republicans made a list of crimes they won't impeach Trump for !
Rep. Swalwell on GOP's list of Trump scandals: ‘They know’Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell says the Republicans' list of potential Trump investigations concerns him because it shows "they know" that Donald Trump is facing legal exposure. Rep. Swalwell also reacts to the President's new "impeachment" claims.
It has churned Republican stomachs. Here are some of the probes it predicts:
President Trump’s tax returns
Trump family businesses — and whether they comply with the Constitution's emoluments clause, including the Chinese trademark grant to the Trump Organization
Trump's dealings with Russia, including the president's preparation for his meeting with Vladimir Putin
The payment to Stephanie Clifford — a.k.a. Stormy Daniels
James Comey's firing
Trump's firing of U.S. attorneys
Trump's proposed transgender ban for the military
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's business dealings
White House staff's personal email use
Cabinet secretary travel, office expenses, and other misused perks
Discussion of classified information at Mar-a-Lago
Jared Kushner's ethics law compliance
Dismissal of members of the EPA board of scientific counselors
The travel ban
Family separation policy
Hurricane response in Puerto Rico
Election security and hacking attempts
White House security clearances
The spreadsheet — which I'm told originated in a senior House Republican office — catalogs more than 100 formal requests from House Democrats this Congress, spanning nearly every committee.
The spreadsheet includes requests for administration officials to be grilled by committee staff, requests for hearings to obtain sworn testimony, efforts to seize communications about controversial policies and personnel decisions, and subpoena threats.
These demands would turn the Trump White House into a 24/7 legal defense operation.
Common lies Southerners (basically Republicans, especially Fox news watchers) tell each other (its factless propaganda from an outlet labeled "news" just like Fox New is, i.e. whether these are white supremacist or not it IS white supremacist culture of lies and terrorism that those leis promote is what is being sold here); The Confederate Constitution: What your elementary school didn’t teach you
At the start of 1861, several Southern states seceded to form their own union under the Constitution of the Confederate States. The Confederate Constitution was just a modified version of the original U.S. Constitution, but the edits were significant.
The South seceded largely over economic issues. Heavy-hitting tariffs on manufactured goods protected Northern industries while making Southern costs skyrocket. Meanwhile, 90 percent of the Union’s revenue came from those tariffs and then was spent to help the North.
Slavery certainly was a factor in the Civil War. But it was partly the economic pressures on the South that made slavery an issue. ...
Lincoln responded, “If I do that, what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping [a euphemism for federal spending] at once!” With 90 percent of his revenue coming from tariffs collected in the South, the Southern secession meant the union’s budget would take a cut.
These are just lies spread by social and/or political leaders of the South, many of whom are white supremicists/traitors.
One hundred fifty years after the Civil War began, we’re still fighting it — or at least fighting over its history. I’ve polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even about why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States’ rights? Tariffs and taxes? ...
The South seceded over states’ rights.
Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.
On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War.
South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed “slavery transit.” In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer — and South Carolina’s delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.
Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”
The South’s opposition to states’ rights is not surprising. Until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government. The people in power in Washington always oppose states’ rights. Doing so preserves their own.
2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.
During the nadir of post-civil-war race relations — the terrible years after 1890 when town after town across the North became all-white “sundown towns” and state after state across the South prevented African Americans from voting — “anything but slavery” explanations of the Civil War gained traction. To this day Confederate sympathizers successfully float this false claim, along with their preferred name for the conflict: the War Between the States. At the infamous Secession Ball in South Carolina, hosted in December by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, “the main reasons for secession were portrayed as high tariffs and Northern states using Southern tax money to build their own infrastructure,” The Washington Post reported.
...
3. Most white Southerners didn’t own slaves, so they wouldn’t secede for slavery.
Indeed, most white Southern families had no slaves. Less than half of white Mississippi households owned one or more slaves, for example, and that proportion was smaller still in whiter states such as Virginia and Tennessee. It is also true that, in areas with few slaves, most white Southerners did not support secession. West Virginia seceded from Virginia to stay with the Union, and Confederate troops had to occupy parts of eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama to hold them in line.
However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.
Since the Civil War did end slavery, many Americans think abolition was the Union’s goal. But the North initially went to war to hold the nation together. Abolition came later.
On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
However, Lincoln’s own anti-slavery sentiment was widely known at the time.
5. The South couldn’t have made it long as a slave society.
Slavery was hardly on its last legs in 1860. That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily. Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba. Short of war, who would have stopped them — or forced them to abandon slavery?
After the civil war the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were added to reduce Southern discrimination practices; How the Civil War Changed the Constitution The most obvious constitutional result of the Civil War was the adoption of three landmark constitutional amendments. The 13th ended slavery forever in the United States, while the 14th made all persons born in the United States (including the former slaves) citizens of the nation and prohibited the states from denying anyone the privileges and immunities of American citizenship, due process or law, or equal protection of the law. Finally, the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited the states from denying the franchise to anyone based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” ...
From the earliest debates over the Union, in the Second Continental Congress, until the eve of the Civil War, numerous Southern politicians publicly advocated secession if they did not get their way on issues involving slavery and other issues. In 1832-33 South Carolina asserted the right to nullify the federal tariff, and then officially (although mostly symbolically) passed an ordinance to nullify the Force Law, which authorized the president to use appropriate military or civil power to enforce federal laws. At this time Georgia also brazenly declared it did not have to abide by a federal treaty with the Cherokees. In 1850 Southerners held two secession conventions, which went nowhere. In the debates over what became of the Compromise of 1850, Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina asserted the right of the South to block federal law.
Some Northern opponents of slavery — most notably William Lloyd Garrison — argued for Northern secession because they rightly understood that slavery dominated the American government. But Garrison had few followers, and even many of them never accepted his slogan of “No Union With Slaveholders.” In the mid-1850s the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared the Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional, but when the Supreme Court upheld the law the Wisconsin Court backed off.
In short, nullification and secession were not new ideas in 1861, when 11 states left the union, but had been part of the warp and weft of constitutional debate since the founding. But the Civil War ended the discussion. The question of the constitutionality of nullification or secession was permanently settled by the “legal case” of Lee v. Grant, decided at Appomattox Court House in April 1865. Grant had successfully defended the Constitution and the idea of a perpetual Union. Secession lost, and the United States won. The Supreme Court would weigh in on this in Texas v. White (1869), holding that secession had never been legal and that the state governments in the Confederacy lacked any legal authority.
3. Most white Southerners didn’t own slaves, so they wouldn’t secede for slavery.
Indeed, most white Southern families had no slaves. Less than half of white Mississippi households owned one or more slaves, for example, and that proportion was smaller still in whiter states such as Virginia and Tennessee. It is also true that, in areas with few slaves, most white Southerners did not support secession. West Virginia seceded from Virginia to stay with the Union, and Confederate troops had to occupy parts of eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama to hold them in line.
However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.
Even today this tactic the slavers used is being used by the Souths mouthpiece, Fox News... Openly stoking the age old Southern belief keeping slave owners in charge; Fox & Friends blames "the victim mentality" for opposition to massive Wall Street CEO bonuses Stuart Varney: "What is this endless complaining about people who are doing well? ... We're not a socialist society where everybody's jealous of success"
Cultural schizophrenia was a term I coined in college to explain the difference between what people thought in a culture was right and what they actually did and how they will often fail to notice any dichotomies in their everyday beliefs from their social lives, to politics to international news. The South is ripe with examples of cultural schizophrenia and makes a perfect model to establish cultural schizophrenia as a sociological fact. But more than that, I want to show how the South have always been attacking America and their best interests in favor of some rich landlord that they derive no befit from other than cultural, i.e. the Southerners see their leaders as shepherds and since they are brought up to be Christian Sheep they will follow their leaders into anything including treason. In fact, judging by history and current events, the South seems to lack any capability of distinguishing between fact and fiction if it contradicts what they have been told by one of thier supreme leaders. Since Christians bow to Churches first, it of of their pastors or "shepherds" (talk about sheep thinking they represent the individuality America stands for! lol!) who lead the way in politics, almost always choosing policies that defy the Constitution and morality on such a regular basis that either they are extremely stupid and shouldn't be leading anyone anywhere or are heartless conniving traitors in thier own right. The key to understanding why this knowledge is not well known is that the actual facts of history - including recent history - is left out of public education so that kids grow up with a view of America that was never really true to begin with and this allows the traitors of the right to take advantage and spread their treasonous lies to create chaos in America Psychology Today:Misremembering American History - How research into false memories sheds light on reactions to current events. What was your reaction to the violence in Charlottesville on August 12th? Did you connect the dots between recent events and the long history of racist violence in our country's history? Or were you like Paul Ryan, who voiced his repulsion and claimed the bigotry of the white supremacists was un-American? do not express views currently among those in the American mainstream, there is no escaping the fact that their bigotry is more anachronistic than un-American. Indeed, recognizing this is key to understandingwhy so many Americans are calling for the removal of confederate statues. They were erected as monuments to white supremacy across this land. or the 1981 lynching of Michael Donald. At least, it didn't when I was in high school. And I doubt that has changed. Insofar as the curriculum we impart to our children is a reflection of our collective memory, we misremember our past. are influencing our memory formation. We forget certain facts about our collective past, and even replace them with others, in ways that reflect our preference for one race over others. We whitewash American history because, though we may not be aware of it, we are committed to white supremacy. that Americans are less racist now than they were in the recent past, it is also clear that racial bias is a fact of American life. Among other things, it helps to explain the outcome of the 2016 election. Nevertheless, there may be a less contentious explanation for why our collective memory of American history contains holes, half-truths and falsehoods.of what my lunchtime crowd was like that is biased by my sense of what I am like. ... If you nodded your head along with those who claimed that #ThisIsNotUs, you were certainly not alone. But that doesn't mean you were right. Even if the white supremacists protesting by torchlight, chanting "Jews will not replace us"
This is not the history taught in grade school. Success on the AP test for US History doesn't require knowledge of the Tulsa Riots
This hypothesis would surely be discomfiting to many. Most white Americans don't like to think of themselves as racist. But, even though there is some evidence
The very fact that white Americans do not think of themselves as racist may be part of the explanation for why we misremember American history. To see how, begin by considering the role of one's self-image in autobiographical memory. When we can't quite remember what happened in the past, we tend to recall behaving in ways that mach our conceptions of what we are like. For example, if I think of myself as someone who doesn't pay attention to race, I will tend to recall acting in ways that reflect this. Thinking back on my school days, I may remember sitting next people of all colors in the lunch room. And yet this may not be true. My memory of doing so may be a false one. Without realizing it, I may be constructing a memory
It's not out of the question that something like this occurs when we recollect American history. Thinking of ourselves as a nation committed to equality and liberty for all, we may tend to fill in gaps in our understanding of this country's past with events that fit this self-conception. Our collective memory may be shaped by our collective sense of what Americans are like. This would explain how well-meaning people can genuinely, and against all evidence
The bad news is that once misinformation like this creeps into the public consciousness, it's difficult to correct our understanding of the historical record.
An Example Of People Fighting Against The Popularity Of A Secessionist Army/Flag/Personalities;
The recent fall of the Confederate Statues is the first time the liberal North has succeeded in pushing back the backlash from the slave owning South after the civil war which shows how much power the South has had in American politics all these years (after the civil war the KKK emerged and started its own propaganda campaigns, of "make america great again" complete with Confederate flag as a "noble" part of history rather than one of hate and secession/treason, thus making Confederate generals, cultural heroes).
People concerned about the unity of American society are busy trying to remove symbols of racism and hate (with one of the goals being improved commerce as racist symbols are looked down upon in modern civilization);
This is upsetting the long established social norms set by the KKK after the civil war of the Confederate flag being a symbol of "pride" and given the racist insults that come out of the mouths of its supporters, its pretty clear that they feel great pride in their slave owning past to the point that they were willing to die fighting for the rich mans slaves (something, interestingly enough, the South still does today in fighting for trickle down/supply-side economics, i.e. economic slavery is the slavery the South fights for today);
The racists were backed up by both Trump and Fox News, with token protests by other GOP members who used all of this to pass thier bills but are also trying to get reelected in a world where open racism is no longer accepted (as Lee Atwater explained to them)
Fox & Friends: Depends On The Protest - If only Fox and Friends showed the same level of disgust towards a white supremacist rally as they do for a peaceful national anthem protest.
This sort of behavior actually fits in with Fox News (and thus GOP) traditional talking points;
Confederate Statues, of course, belong in a museum as a testament to a barbaric and savage past of racist secessionists from which we have grown past (at least, that is the hope);
PUTTING CONFEDERATE STATUES WHERE THEY BELONG 5/15/17As Southerners debate the removal of controversial Civil War statues, Michelle Wolf weighs in on the only acceptable place for Confederate monuments to be displayed.
Fox & Friends cried reverse racism when St. Louis University relocated what students and faculty considered a racially and culturally insensitive statue of Native Americans kneeling in front of a white missionary.
Following student and faculty complaints, St. Louis University relocated a statue depicting Native Americans being converted by Belgian missionary Fr. Pierre DeSmet, S.J. According to St. Louis Magazine, university officials pointed to concerns of cultural insensitivity and "white supremacy" in explaining the decision to move the statue inside the university's art museum:
Clayton Berry, SLU's assistant vice president for communications, tells SLM that the statue was moved to the university's art museum after staff voiced concerns.
"In more recent years, there have been some faculty and staff who have raised questions about whether the sculpture is culturally sensitive," Berry says. "Hearing that feedback, the decision was made to place the piece within the historical context of a collection that's on permanent display in our SLU Museum of Art."
University staff weren't alone in finding the statue of two Indian men submitting to a white man troubling. Two years before its removal, the student newspaper called it "the most controversial and misunderstood of all the artwork on the Saint Louis University campus." During Occupy SLU, the six-day student protest against racial inequality sparked by the Ferguson protests, Twitter user @EmmaculateJones shared photos of the statue, calling it a visual representation of "white supremacy on SLU campus."
However, Fox contributor Tucker Carlson called the relocation an "act of racism" on the May 29 edition of Fox & Friends, insisting to co-hosts that the statue's detractors were likely "wholly ignorant" of DeSmet's good works:
KILMEADE: It's a statue of Father Pierre Jean DeSmet ... And right there he is blessing American Indians back in his day. You know why? He was a Belgian Catholic priest who was able to convert countless members of American [[-]] Indians back in that day, and the American Indian community embraced him and his legacy. And among his good friends was actually Sitting Bull.
[...]
CARLSON: Despite those facts, of which I think the student body is likely wholly ignorant, the statue has beenremoved and shuttled off to a museum where it will be shown with the appropriate cultural context. Why? Because he was a white supremacist? No. Because he was white. His skin color is itself considered so offensive by the school that this statue can no longer be on display.
[...]
KILMEADE: Did anyone even Google this?
[...]
HASSELBECK: I mean, just do your homework! He was a friend to that community, reached out, and because of him a major treaty was signed. And after he died, only then did things get even more violent. He was the peacekeeper between the two groups.
This is hardly the first time that Fox News has brandished supposedreversediscrimination to demean attempts at correcting actual injustice.
Tucker, another well known white supremicist, finds it threatening when people want to take down statues of traitors to America (they fought to secede, i.e. the Constitution meant nothing to to the Southern White Supremacists who fought the civil war). Clearly those trying to dismember this Great Nation mean a great deal to him as a "News" personality, and given the GOP's society destroying polices that they got from the KKK/White-Supremacists etc, it is the right thing for him to do.;
TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): Here's what their press release says. "More than 1,500 confederate monuments stand in communities like Charlottesville with," quote, "the potential to unleash more turmoil and bloodshed. It is time to take them down." That sounds like a threat to me. TYLER O'NEIL: It certainly does. The worst thing is they put middle schools, elementary schools, high schools on this list. No student deserves to have to go to school in, when there's a violent outbreak of protests. No student deserves to walk to school through rocks, through mace being flown -- CARLSON: Of course, that's exactly right.
After the 9/11 traitors, led by leaders of the South, have been destroyed and their party of treason dismembered there will probably be peace. The peace could last decades but eventually the traitors will return. Maybe they will be the children of the rich southern families maybe new southerners, but they will be Southerners. The South will eventually attack America again as attacking America is now indoctrinated into their bones. Even if the attack comes 50-100 years from now. The South will ALWAYS be the primary traitors of America.
The right wing Nazi cult of 9/11 traitors has turned a large portion of America against America! JUST BETWEEN US - THE BAD GUYS WON Jordan comes to terms with what it really means to be on President Trump's "winning" team.
Given that slavery is approved of in the New Testament and the South has always been in control in some way or another till the civil war (and each time they reemerged they seem to do so as a coup against established Government of ruling by Constitution) and that religion is known for its crusades and genocide (Ancient Mongolians and Christians being the worst ones, in that order), I constructed a mythology that fits a cultural experience for the new heresy upon the cultural landscape made by a bunch of non-religious people called the Constitution;
Humans, in thought structure that defines religious and social structure, most resemble the Yuuzhan Vong https://t.co/bNayMLU1VI (hurting yourself for your God was even a cool thing in Christianity through centuries!) #Revelations
Liberals are most like the Shamed Ones of the Yuuzhan Vong https://t.co/r8NzYFk10b . They need the most help as they have no warriors amoungst them and thus no warrior experience to draw from. They are most likely to succumb to any pressure. #Revelations
Amoungst the Liberals there is a heresy https://t.co/6NihQbfjHi . They believe that all men are created equal, religious views of evaluation and governing should be kept out of Government ("wall between Church & state), no discrimination, good life for all & so on. #Revelations
Here are links to present politics where policies that kill Americans and destroy the economy in favor of slave owners, er, rich business owners, is still a fundamental part of Southern politics i.e. how politicians of the South and representing the South manipulate the South to make itself rich at the cost of everyone else while poor Southerners support this despite the Southerners - in general - will never own slaves, er, have big businesses and be rich (and are even cutting off any chances they have of being rich by supporting GOP policies);
