Of late, there’s been a lot of slavering nincompoops in the US media, and even a few much higher functioning folks, who keep repeating the line, “Las Vegas is the worst mass shooting in US history.”
Apparently, these folks don’t read history.
First of all, those US Democrat “leaders” and “authorities” who are whining endlessly about gun violence would, in the exact same breath, defend the “right” to abortion with equal vehemence and passion.
Abortion has killed between half a million and a million and a half humans every year in the US since 1973 (Roe v. Wade decision). Abortion is licensed, sanctioned and protected by the US government, and in some cases, it even pays for the slaughter.
OK, so some readers’ eyes glaze over when the topic of abortion comes up, so how about the US Civil War – the one whose monuments the Left are trying to destroy? Abraham Lincoln is directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of 640,000 men, not to mention the horrors inflicted on women and children by Union forces, a true count of which will likely never be known but through family diaries and stories.
The number of slave ships operated under the US flag? It’s hard to find an actual number of US-registered slave ships, but it is safe to say a couple of dozen, and how many of those government-sanctioned and licensed ships were directly or indirectly responsible for how many deaths? We’ll never know, because slaves were livestock and accurate numbers weren’t kept.
How about the Native Americans? I disagree with the term “Native American” on several accounts, but that’s a different argument. Most folks know to whom I am referring, but for clarity’s sake, this refers to the dozens of original nations that existed in North America before the British – and later the American – invasion.
At the Sand Creek Massacre in December of 1864, US “soldiers” slaughtered several hundred Cheyenne and Arapaho who were peacefully camped near Sand Creek in Colorado. The majority of the dead and wounded were women and children, and the “soldiers” mutilated some of the bodies and placed various body parts in their hat bands as a sign of “bravery”. This incident was planned and sanctioned by the US government.
In December of 1890, as many as 300 Lakota Sioux were slaughtered by US “soldiers” on the banks of the Wounded Knee Creek for no particular reason. Again, many of the dead were women and children, and the “soldiers” gleefully scalped and mutilated the bodies (a practice common to US troops).
The atrocities committed by the US government are numerous and egregious. Sand Creek and Wounded Knee Creek are just two of the more famous incidents. Slavery is well-know to most folks, though few acknowledge that it was sanctioned and controlled by the US government (see Dred Scott decision). The Civil War is always justified in a dozen different ways, but if you read the true history of it, you realize that the US government was the aggressor and that its agents committed horrific atrocities in the South. And regardless of how you justify it, abortion is the killing of a human being, and it is a recognized “right” defended by the US government.
All of this is to say that when the US government and its paid mouthpieces tell us that the Las Vegas massacre is the worst mass killing in US history, we should immediately think of the word, “LIE“.
Furthermore, when that same US government is responsible for investigating the massacre, we should be highly suspicious of the findings. And when folks say that the US government is good and would never do anything that wasn’t in the best interests of the American people, folks should back away slowly, realizing they are staring in the face of terrible Evil.
We should have an equal reaction to any “information” put out by the US government and its minions. Who did the Las Vegas shooting and why; where the shooter(s) was(were); any photos, leaks, notes, audio/video recordings, etc.; these should all be viewed with the highest suspicion.
If one thinks that the US government would never plan and execute such a thing on its own people in order to further an agenda, I invite the gentle reader to scroll back up and reread just the highlights of what the US government has already done. I won’t even begin to reprise the atrocities it has committed in foreign lands (Korea and Vietnam come to mind, not to mention Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan).
Just for good measure, however, I invite the gentle reader to view the declassified documents detailing Operation Northwoods. If that’s not enough, perhaps a review of the Kent State Massacre will help drive home the point.
In any highly publicized and politicized event, such as the Las Vegas massacre, the gentle reader would do well to take every word from the “authorities” with a large dose of salts. Not only is the US government willing and able to PLAN such an event, it has a long history of EXECUTING such things, as well.
The aware reader must be very wary of anything the US government and its minions (including the Geezer Media) tell us about this incident. It is far easier to believe that a murderous organization with a long history of atrocities pulled this off, than a millionaire accountant with no history of violence or gun training and an arsenal of illegal military-style guns in a luxury hotel suite – and barely a history at all, for that matter.
This is not conspiracy theory, this is common sense.
#1: VxH To: Deckard (#0)
"Those who control the past control the future Those who control the present control the past" --George Orwell.
What does this mean?
VxH posted on 2017-10-10 11:33:51 Reply Private Reply
#2: nolu chan To: Deckard (#0)
As this is presented as a history lesson, some history is in order.
Actually, they were classified and counted as persons.
U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3:
They were counted in the census as whole persons. Representatives for the States were allocated according to the whole number of free persons and three-fifths of all other persons, i.e. slaves.
Article 1, Sec. 9
It certainly was sanctioned by the original Constitution. As for the Dred Scott decision, much is attributed to it that is not an opinion of the majority. The opinions were written seriatim, each justice wrote one, and there were nine of them. Only those things agreed to by a majority of the justices were adopted as the opinion of the court. Much of Taney's opinion was just Taney's opinion, i.e., dictum.
The actual decision was that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case below, and therefore the U.S. Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The Order issued by the U.S. Supreme Court (handwritten by Taney, CJ) remanded the case to the Circuit Court with instruction to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
As an historical note, Etheldred Scott did not belong to John Sandford (sic - Sanford), but to Massachusetts abolitionist congressman Calvin Chaffee. This became news about the time of the SCOTUS proceedings.
http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/25768
nolu chan posted on 2017-10-10 14:58:58 Reply Private Reply
#3: Vicomte13 To: nolu chan (#2)
It was very much a strike suit, a carefully pre-arranged set of circumstances designed to force the issue into the Supreme Court...which failed spectacularly when faced with it!
Think about it? A slave sues his master? How? The answer, of course, is that the master wanted to be sued, and the financing of the lawsuit was not coming out of the slave's pocket but the abolitionists.
In old English Common Law, the whole case would have been thrown out and the abolitionists prosecuted for champerty. But America ain't Old England.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-10-10 16:31:52 Reply Private Reply
#4: nolu chan To: Vicomte13 (#3)
Actually, it was a concocted moot case with no adverse parties, where the slave sued a person who was not his owner, based on an agreed upon statement of (false) facts.
The owner was Congressman Calvin Chaffee on Massachusetts. The case arose in Missouri as Scott v. Emerson. Mrs. Eliza Irene Sanford Emerson Chaffee was the wife of the former deceased owner (Mr. Emerson), and the sister of the falsely purported owner (Sanford). She married Congressman Chaffee. As a single woman, Mrs. Emerson owned Scott. When she married, under the laws of feme covert back in the day, Congressman Chaffee became the owner of Scott.
During the legal proceedings, the money earned by Dred Scott was held by the sheriff. After the trial the wages were claimed by the Chaffees.
The Chaffees conveyed Scott to Taylor Blow, son of the original owner, and Taylor Blow manumitted Scott.
Jurisdiction was sought on a false claim of diversity of state citizenship. It should have failed as Scott was not a citizen, and Sanford, of New York, was not the owner. Despite an agreed set of (false) facts, at the time of the alleged purchase from Mr. Emerson, Mr. Emerson was a corpse.
One contention in the case was that Scott had become free when he traveled to a free state. Even being freed would not have made him a citizen of a state. He might have sued for freedom while in the free state (Lemmon v. the People or the English case The Slave Grace) but, as he did not, his status as a slave had not changed when he returned to Missouri.
And in SCOTUS, I'm not saying there was a conflict or interest or anything, but the famous dissent was written by Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, who sat and heard oral argument for Scott by his brother, George Tichnor Curtis.
Agreed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scott v Sandford, Quitclaim and Claim of Scott’s Wages
Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857) was decided March 6, 1857. In May 1857, Massachusetts Congressman Calvin Chaffee executed a quitclaim deed in favor of Taylor Blow in Missouri giving Blow ownership of Dred Scott and family. On May 26, 1857 Taylor Blow emancipated the Scotts.
The next day, Eliza Irene Sanford Emerson Chaffee’s attorney filed the motion to claim all of the wages earned by Scott, held by the Sheriff.
[263]http://digital.wustl.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=dre;cc=dre;view=text;idno=dre1857.0107.110;rgn=div1;node=dre1857.0107.110%3A1
[267]
http://digital.wustl.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=dre;cc=dre;rgn=div1;view=text;idno=dre1857.0108.111;node=dre1857.0108.111%3A1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/347
New York Times, “Emancipation of Dred Scott and Family,” May 27, 1857
The following text is presented here in complete form, as it originally appeared in print. Spelling and other typographical errors have been preserved as in the original.
- - - - -
nolu chan posted on 2017-10-10 18:00:02 Reply Private Reply
#5: Vicomte13 To: nolu chan (#4)
Since the issue of slavery could not be solved through the courts or the political process, the only thing left to do was fight. So we did. To win the war, the Union had to effectively suspend the Constitution, and to put the country back together again without slavery, the Union had to exercise victor's justice and rewrite it.
Of course I'm pleased with the overall outcome. I just think it's a shame that the rule of law was so rigidly upheld before the war that it made the war inevitable. It would have been better to bend and twist the law to get to the right result and then paper over the results, instead of uphold the law so rigidly that the whole system had to be shattered into pieces in order to solve the real problem.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-10-10 21:11:51 Reply Private Reply
#6: nolu chan To: Vicomte13 (#5)
I see the right result in a court opinion being the one supported by the law. I do not support activist judges bending and twisting the law to render their personal opinion unsupported by the actual law.
I can conceive of no rational way for SCOTUS to find that Dred Scott was a citizen of Missouri after the highest court in the state of Missouri had found that he was not a citizen according to Missouri law. Absent such a finding, jurisdiction claimed under diversity of state citizenship must fail.
The full range of issues would not have been addressed except for the dissenting opinion filed by Justice Curtis and leaked to the press.
The original opinion of the court was twelve pages written by Justice Nelson. When Curtis insisted upon his opus, Taney reworked his own opinion to respond to the Curtis opinion and designated it the opinion of the court.
Curtis, then the youngest member of the court, resigned shortly thereafter.
nolu chan posted on 2017-10-11 04:37:14 Reply Private Reply
#7: A K A Stone To: Vicomte13 (#5)
A K A Stone posted on 2017-10-11 07:30:43 Reply Private Reply
#8: Vicomte13 To: nolu chan (#6)
I see. So, let the law be upheld, though a million Americans die and the country be half destroyed and parts of it set back by a century?
I do not have the same degree of respect for the concept of law that you do.
I think law exists to serve people, and when it is failing spectacularly, that you adjust the law, however you can, to avoid much worse things.
The Supreme Court did it your way. And the Dred Scott decision lit the fuse that blew up the country.
I would have preferred to not have had to blow up the country, and I think that the law could have been bent, fudged, twisted - whatever was necessary to avoid the million dead. As it was, the law that the Court upheld was dead anyway within a few years, but with a butcher's bill of nearly a million American lives to go with it. I do not think the abstract "rule of law" is worth a million American laws. Break the law, save the lives, and paper over what you need to paper over to keep going afterwards. The letter of the law kills. And kills. And kills. And the law dies in the end anyway, because law that kills and kills and kills ends up being so odious that people overthrow it and kill its defenders. What good does that do anybody? This is not Germany. There are things more important than mere law. Law is a human plaything. When playthings become toxic, we throw them away and get new ones.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-10-11 08:19:44 Reply Private Reply
#9: Vicomte13 To: A K A Stone (#7)
It's a pattern consistently seen over time.
Latent racism.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-10-11 08:21:21 Reply Private Reply
#10: Vicomte13 To: A K A Stone (#7)
You read an abridged bible in English. You're the Biblical revisionist here.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-10-11 08:36:22 Reply Private Reply