Post is pinned.Post has shared content
In eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, Masaryk began to discuss eminent contradictions’ between capitalism and socialism. In nineteen hundred and thirteen, he described Russia’s religious, intellectuals’ and its’ society as a whole. Describing it as Byzantine retardation of the Russians’ by the Orthodox Church, combined with reactionary ideas’. Slowly, Tomas Masaryk became estranged from his old conservative beliefs’. Eventually, he joined the liberal bourgeois Young Czech Party.
In eighteen hundred and ninety-one, Masaryk was elected to the Austrian Reichsrat. After disagreeing with the Young Czech Party’s emotional nationalism though, he resigned from his office and formed his own realist party. In both the Reichsrat and the standing committee of the Austrian-Hungarian parliament, Masaryk attacked Austria-Hungary’s alliance with Germany. He was against German imperialistic politics’ concerning the Balkans’ and defended Serb and Croat rights’.
In nineteen hundred and fifteen, Tomas Masaryk made his way to the west, after the beginning of the first world war. He was recognized as the leader of the underground Czech liberation movement. With help from his French and English friends’, Masaryk established contact with Allied leaders. He made clear what the Czech aims’ were, restitution of Bohemia’s independence, the establishment of a Czech-Slovak unity, dismemberment of Austria-Hungary and establishing new states’ between Russia and Germany. Masaryk viewed German imperialism as an infected spot, in which a line had to be drawn around and isolated.
After the overthrow of the autocratic tsarist regime in nineteen hundred and seventeen, Tomas Masaryk redirected his actions’ toward Russia. His new objectives’ were to reorganize the Czechoslovak Legion while developing new contacts’ with the newly formed government. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Masaryk set out for the United States. Negotiating terms’ for Czechoslovak independence, with President Woodrow Wilson and Robert Lansing. In nineteen hundred and eighteen, Czechoslovakia was recognized as an Allied power. Within the same year, Tomas Masaryk was elected the first president of Czechoslovakia.

Karl Renner became a member of the moderate wing of the Social Democratic Party in nineteen hundred and seven. After the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy in nineteen hundred and eighteen, being a deputy in the Reichsrat, he also became the first Chancellor to the new Austrian republic. During his terms’ he proved unable to prevent sizable territorial losses to Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. In nineteen hundred and nineteen though, Renner signed the Treaty of Saint-Germain, which further prevented Austria’s union with Germany. A project he had initially supported.
Karl Renner advocated Austrian entry into the League of Nations’, a policy of fulfillment of treaty obligations’ and strict neutrality in foreign affairs’. The leader of the Social Democratic Party in the nineteen twenties’, he became president of the Nationalrat, (lower house of parliament), from nineteen hundred and thirty, until, nineteen hundred and thirty-three. In nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, he supported Nazis annexation of Austria. After nineteen hundred and forty-five, Karl Renner, worked with the Soviet Union to reconstitute an Austrian government. He formed a provisional regime and became chancellor of the reborn Austria. Later the same year, Renner was also unanimously elected president of the Republic.
Ignaz Seipel was a Roman Catholic priest and twice Chancellor of Austria, from nineteen hundred and twenty-two, until, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine. His use of the fascist paramilitary, Heimwehr, against Austria’s social democrats’, led to the strengthening of fascism in Austria. After the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, Ignaz Seipel was a leader of the Christian Social Party. He was able to prevent the Christian Social Party, from splitting up into monarchist and republican elements’.
In nineteen twenty-two Ignaz Seipel formed his first government, a coalition with the Greater German Party. He then obtained a loan from the League of Nations’ for one hundred million dollars’. Seipel was able to do this in exchange for financial and administrative reforms’. These were to be carried out with the Allied supervision of Alfred Zimmermann, (Dutch Commissioner of the League of Nations). Wounded in an assassination attempt in nineteen hundred and twenty-four, Ignaz resigned the following November. Even though he was able to curb deflation, his efforts’ met with hostility from provincial governments’ and his own party.
During the second term from nineteen hundred and twenty-six, until, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, Seipel was unable to obtain a majority in Parliament. His use of the paramilitary Heimwehr against Austria’s Socialist, in nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, foreshadowed the events’ of what happened in nineteen hundred and thirty-four. When his disciple, Engelbert Dollfuss, destroyed Austrian Democracy and replaced it with a clerical fascist dictatorship. Towards the end, Ignaz Seipel became more authoritarian, advocating a corporate state, with strong presidential powers’. Finally, after serving as foreign minister in nineteen hundred and thirty, Seipel resigned in ill health and died two years’ later.
In eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, Masaryk began to discuss eminent contradictions’ between capitalism and socialism. In nineteen hundred and thirteen, he described Russia’s religious, intellectuals’ and its’ society as a whole. Describing it as Byzantine retardation of the Russians’ by the Orthodox Church, combined with reactionary ideas’. Slowly, Tomas Masaryk became estranged from his old conservative beliefs’. Eventually, he joined the liberal bourgeois Young Czech Party.
In eighteen hundred and ninety-one, Masaryk was elected to the Austrian Reichsrat. After disagreeing with the Young Czech Party’s emotional nationalism though, he resigned from his office and formed his own realist party. In both the Reichsrat and the standing committee of the Austrian-Hungarian parliament, Masaryk attacked Austria-Hungary’s alliance with Germany. He was against German imperialistic politics’ concerning the Balkans’ and defended Serb and Croat rights’.
In nineteen hundred and fifteen, Tomas Masaryk made his way to the west, after the beginning of the first world war. He was recognized as the leader of the underground Czech liberation movement. With help from his French and English friends’, Masaryk established contact with Allied leaders. He made clear what the Czech aims’ were, restitution of Bohemia’s independence, the establishment of a Czech-Slovak unity, dismemberment of Austria-Hungary and establishing new states’ between Russia and Germany. Masaryk viewed German imperialism as an infected spot, in which a line had to be drawn around and isolated.
After the overthrow of the autocratic tsarist regime in nineteen hundred and seventeen, Tomas Masaryk redirected his actions’ toward Russia. His new objectives’ were to reorganize the Czechoslovak Legion while developing new contacts’ with the newly formed government. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Masaryk set out for the United States. Negotiating terms’ for Czechoslovak independence, with President Woodrow Wilson and Robert Lansing. In nineteen hundred and eighteen, Czechoslovakia was recognized as an Allied power. Within the same year, Tomas Masaryk was elected the first president of Czechoslovakia.

Karl Renner became a member of the moderate wing of the Social Democratic Party in nineteen hundred and seven. After the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy in nineteen hundred and eighteen, being a deputy in the Reichsrat, he also became the first Chancellor to the new Austrian republic. During his terms’ he proved unable to prevent sizable territorial losses to Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. In nineteen hundred and nineteen though, Renner signed the Treaty of Saint-Germain, which further prevented Austria’s union with Germany. A project he had initially supported.
Karl Renner advocated Austrian entry into the League of Nations’, a policy of fulfillment of treaty obligations’ and strict neutrality in foreign affairs’. The leader of the Social Democratic Party in the nineteen twenties’, he became president of the Nationalrat, (lower house of parliament), from nineteen hundred and thirty, until, nineteen hundred and thirty-three. In nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, he supported Nazis annexation of Austria. After nineteen hundred and forty-five, Karl Renner, worked with the Soviet Union to reconstitute an Austrian government. He formed a provisional regime and became chancellor of the reborn Austria. Later the same year, Renner was also unanimously elected president of the Republic.
Ignaz Seipel was a Roman Catholic priest and twice Chancellor of Austria, from nineteen hundred and twenty-two, until, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine. His use of the fascist paramilitary, Heimwehr, against Austria’s social democrats’, led to the strengthening of fascism in Austria. After the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, Ignaz Seipel was a leader of the Christian Social Party. He was able to prevent the Christian Social Party, from splitting up into monarchist and republican elements’.
In nineteen twenty-two Ignaz Seipel formed his first government, a coalition with the Greater German Party. He then obtained a loan from the League of Nations’ for one hundred million dollars’. Seipel was able to do this in exchange for financial and administrative reforms’. These were to be carried out with the Allied supervision of Alfred Zimmermann, (Dutch Commissioner of the League of Nations). Wounded in an assassination attempt in nineteen hundred and twenty-four, Ignaz resigned the following November. Even though he was able to curb deflation, his efforts’ met with hostility from provincial governments’ and his own party.
During the second term from nineteen hundred and twenty-six, until, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, Seipel was unable to obtain a majority in Parliament. His use of the paramilitary Heimwehr against Austria’s Socialist, in nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, foreshadowed the events’ of what happened in nineteen hundred and thirty-four. When his disciple, Engelbert Dollfuss, destroyed Austrian Democracy and replaced it with a clerical fascist dictatorship. Towards the end, Ignaz Seipel became more authoritarian, advocating a corporate state, with strong presidential powers’. Finally, after serving as foreign minister in nineteen hundred and thirty, Seipel resigned in ill health and died two years’ later.

Post has attachment
http://refusetocooperate4.blogspot.com/2017/07/reformism-fair-housing-act-of-1968.html

Reformism: The Fair Housing Act of 1968

(Excerpt)

“We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization, black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion and love.....What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.” - Robert F. Kennedy

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 3601-3631) is also known as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Congress passed the act in an effort to impose a comprehensive solution to the problem of unlawful discrimination in housing based on race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. The Fair Housing Act has become a central feature of modern Civil Rights enforcement, enabling persons in the protected classes to rent or own residential property in areas that were previously segregated. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is charged with enforcement of the act. It issues regulations and institutes investigations into discriminatory housing practices.

The law was signed by President Johnson during the national riots that were breaking out after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The passage of the Fair Housing Act came after the failure of two earlier federal initiatives. A 1962 Executive Order, signed by President John F. Kennedy, directed all departments of the Executive Branch to take appropriate actions to prevent discrimination in all federally administered housing programs. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 contained language in Title VI that prohibited housing discrimination in any program receiving federal financial assistance. Although Title VI provided that a recipient of funding who was found in violation could be prevented from continuing receipt of governmental assistance, this sanction was rarely used.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discriminatory conduct by a variety of legal entities. The act defines "person" to include one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, receivers, and fiduciaries. In addition, municipalities, local government units, cities, and federal agencies are subject to the law.

The act explicitly defines a list of prohibited practices involving housing, including sales, rentals, advertising, and financing. Its primary prohibition makes it unlawful to refuse to sell, rent to, or negotiate with any person because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, familial status, handicap, or national origin. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 added extensive provisions that apply to discrimination against disabled persons and families with children 18 years of age and under.

It is illegal under the Fair Housing Act to discriminate in the sale or rental of a dwelling because of the disability of the buyer or renter, a person who will reside in the dwelling after it is sold or rented, or any person associated with the buyer or renter. It is not illegal, however, to refuse to rent or sell housing to an individual, with or without a disabling condition, whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. Newly constructed multi-family dwellings must be designed so that the public and common-use portions are accessible to people with disabilities.

The Fair Housing Act also prohibits discriminatory advertising practices in the sale or rental of housing. Advertising may not disclose a "preference, limitation or discrimination" based on any of the protected categories of persons. The media company that runs an offensive advertisement or other statement may be held liable, as may the advertiser. Subtle advertising strategies, such as the selective use of minority-identified media for the marketing of segregated and over-priced housing to minorities, and the use of code words, such as "exclusive" neighborhood, in the text of the realty classified advertisements, violate the act. The law reaches unpublished statements including discriminatory expressions and conduct, such as a landlord's instructions to his rental agent, superintendent, or other employees that they should either not rent to blacks or that they should give a preference to whites or certain other ethnic groups.

The law makes it illegal for an owner or his agent to represent to any member of any statutorily protected class that a dwelling is unavailable for inspection, rental, or sale, when, in fact, it actually is available. The act has been found to have been violated by a realty firm that posted "sold" signs on the lawns of a white neighborhood in an attempt to discourage minorities from purchasing houses in the neighborhood.

The Fair Housing Act also sought to end a practice called "blockbusting," the practice by realtors of frightening homeowners by telling them that people who are members of a particular race, religion, or other protected class are moving into their neighborhood and that they should expect a decline in the value of their property. The purpose of this scheme is to get homeowners to sell out at a deflated price. In alleged blockbusting cases, the courts have focused on what was heard, rather than what was said. Even in the absence of wrongful intent by the real estate salesman, or explicit reference to a protected class, liability will attach if the reasonable homeowner believes that the salesman is trading on his assumed fear of minorities to stimulate that homeowner to list his house for sale.

How Does This Relate to Reformism?

A Variable-Rate Mortgage, Adjustable-Rate Mortgage, or Tracker Mortgage is a mortgage loan with the interest rate on the note periodically adjusted based on an index which reflects the cost to the lender of borrowing on the credit markets. The loan may be offered at the lender's standard variable base rate. There may be a direct and legally defined link to the underlying index, but where the lender offers no specific link to the underlying market or index the rate can be changed at the lender's discretion. The term "variable-rate mortgage" is most common outside the United States, whilst in the United States, "adjustable-rate mortgage" is most common, and implies a mortgage regulated by the Federal government, with caps on charges. In many countries, adjustable rate mortgages are the norm, and in such places, may simply be referred to as mortgages.

What all of this jargon basically means is that the government allows lenders to make predatory loans to people knowing that interest rates are going be to going up over time, knowing full well that it is very possible that the borrower may not be able to compensate for the increase, and also knowing full well that their practices are likely in direct violation of the financing regulations of the Fair Housing Act.

Another thing that is not commonly announced is that these predatory loans are most usually commonly approved for African Americans and other minorities, the very people that are supposed to be protected by the Fair Housing Act. In addition to this, there are a laundry list of federal assistance programs that are available to people who are in jeapordy of losing their homes because the rate on their loan rose to an unmanageable level, and their lenders are technically required, per the Fair Housing Act, to inform them about these options. However, many lenders take advantage of their borrowers ignorance of the law and never inform their borrower of these options, and this includes federal lending agencies. They do so, of course, because they want to turn the property over as quickly as possible so as to sustain their profit margin. See, the government gives to the people in one hand and takes away from them in the other.

#refusetocooperate, #wearewatching, #getyourhouseinorder, #deathbeforedishonor, #discrimination, #HUD, #africanamerican, #fairhousingact, #predatoryloans, #investing, #mortgage, #interestrates, #reformism, #corruption, #raceriots, #borrower, #lender, #property, #renter, #federalgovernment 

Post has attachment
http://refusetocooperate4.blogspot.com/2017/07/jesus-christ-socialist.html

Jesus Christ: Socialist?

Credit: Christopher Williams, RTC Deputy Secretary

"Who is the covetous man? One for whom plenty is not enough. Who is the defrauder? One who takes away what belongs to everyone. And are not you covetous, are you not a defrauder, when you keep for private use what you were given for distribution? When some one strips a man of his clothes we call him a thief. And one who might clothe the naked and does not—should not he be given the same name? The bread in your hoard belongs to the hungry; the cloak in your wardrobe belongs to the naked; the shoes you let rot belong to the barefoot; the money in your vaults belongs to the destitute. All you might help and do not—to all these you are doing wrong." - St. Basil of Caesarea

To start: I am a Marxist-Leninist, not a Christian. With that being said, I can't help but love the figure of Jesus Christ in the Bible. In Christ, I see a fellow revolutionary, a radical community worker helping the oppressed at every point and pointing people to a new and better world. Now, I am not going to make the absurd claim that Jesus was a Marxist, as Marxism is socialism rooted in science and materialism; whereas, Christ's politics are rooted in religion and idealism. I will, however, argue that Christ's teachings are compatible with a religious based socialism utterly opposed to capitalism at every point, and thus, his followers must be also to be true Christians. Further, I will do it in Christian terms. All of the biblical quotes will be taken from the New American Standard edition of the Christian Bible for the shear literal nature of its translation.

"And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets. But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full. Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way." - Luke 6:20-26

Now, the Beatitudes are generally considered the very core of Christ's ethical teachings. Right out of the gates, we have Christ both recognizing that economic classes exist and immediately showing with which class he stands in solidarity and which class receives his disdain. This disdain for the wealthy classes is reiterated in the Parable of the Rich Fool:

"And He told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man was very productive. And he began reasoning to himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no place to store my crops?’ Then he said, ‘This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry.”’ But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?’ So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” - Luke 12:16-21

And again:

"No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” - Luke 16:13

Capitalism is, of course, rooted at every point on the accumulation of worldly profits, and yet, Christ makes the exact opposite central to his doctrine of salvation:

"A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” - Luke 18:18-25

“But the poor person does not exist as an inescapable fact of destiny. His or her existence is not politically neutral, and it is not ethically innocent. The poor are a by-product of the system in which we live and for which we are responsible. They are marginalized by our social and cultural world. They are the oppressed, exploited proletariat, robbed of the fruit of their labor and despoiled of their humanity. Hence, the poverty of the poor is not a call to generous relief action, but a demand that we go and build a different social order.” - Gustavo Gutiérrez

#refusetocooperate, #getyourhouseinorder. #wearewatching, #deathbeforedishonor, #jesuschrist, #socialist, #justice, #corruption, #poor, #rich, #salvation, #condemnation, #damnation, #capitalism, #individualism, #innocent, #guilty, #heaven, #hell, #destiny

Post has attachment
http://refusetocooperate4.blogspot.com/2017/07/reformism-voting-rights-act-of-1965.html

Reformism: The Voting Rights Act of 1965

"Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

"When Huey P. Long told his supporters in Louisiana that 'If you don't vote, you don't matter;' as it relates to his African American supporters, he must have forgotten about the KKK." - Kent Allen Halliburton

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the Civil Rights Movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act secured voting rights for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.

The Act contains numerous provisions that regulate election administration. The Act's "general provisions" provide nationwide protections for voting rights. Section 2 is a general provision that prohibits every state and local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Other general provisions specifically outlaw literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities.

The Act also contains "special provisions" that apply to only certain jurisdictions. A special provision is the Section 5 preclearance requirement, which prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving preapproval from the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the change does not discriminate against protected minorities. Another special provision requires jurisdictions containing significant language minority populations to provide bilingual ballots and other election materials.

Section 5 and most other special provisions apply to jurisdictions encompassed by the "coverage formula" prescribed in Section 4(b). The coverage formula was originally designed to encompass jurisdictions that engaged in egregious voting discrimination in 1965, and Congress updated the formula in 1970 and again in 1975. In Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 2 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was no longer responsive to current conditions, as the formula was then nearly forty years old. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without a coverage formula, Section 5 is unenforceable. See, the government gives to the people in one hand and takes away from them in the other.

The initial blow back came from local citizens and small governments who did not wish to see their African American and other populations enter the polls. Sheriffs shut down polling stations completely; and if they did not do that, they brutalized any African American or any other person they did not approve of that attempted to enter a polling station. Video recordings and photographs from across the South were caught on national news and shown to the whole world. In other cases, the police set attack dogs on people, and these images also made their way around the world, however, other much more gruesome methods were used by Southern whites in their efforts to keep African Africans from exercising their rights under the new law. Founded in their original form in 1865, the KKK has historically served as one of the premier domestic terrorism organizations in the United States, and their primary target has always been African Americans.

In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander, recently changed from the original; however, that word can also refer to the process. The term gerrymandering has negative connotations. Two principal tactics are used in gerrymandering: "cracking," i.e. diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts and "packing," concentrating the opposing party's voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts. There are also now Voter ID Laws. Proponents of these laws argue that they reduce electoral fraud while placing only a small burden on voters. Research has shown that the type of voter fraud that would be prevented by voter IDs is extremely rare; research is mixed as to whether voter ID laws reduce overall turnout or minority turnout; and research has shown that Republican legislators in swing states and districts with sizable black or Hispanic populations push the hardest for voter ID laws.

#refusetocooperate, #getyourhouseinorder, #wearewatching, #deathbeforedishonor, #peaceful, #protest, #KKK, #voterid, #gerrymandering, #republican, #minorities, #africanamerican, #FBI, #news, #FDR

Post has shared content
The Praetorian
Dawn Of The New Age,
Today's America and The Welfare State,
“The Democratic Party Created The KKK” (Part One)
The Democratic Party created the KKK. The
Democratic Party opposed freeing the slaves’. The
Democratic Party didn’t change their views’ until
the civil rights’ movement. Malcolm X explained
excellently what dixi-crats’ pretending to be a
democrats’ were. Southern Democrats were the
ones’ who created Jim Crow.
DIRECTED BY:
Roger Lee Hanson
Email: rogerhanson1969@gmail.com
Music by: Ross Bugden
INSTAGRAM! :
https://instagram.com/rossbugden/ (rossbugden)
TWITTER! :
https://twitter.com/RossBugden (@rossbugden)
Music provided by:
Jake LaVallee
http://uncopyrightedmusic.net
The Praetorian
Dawn Of The New Age,
Today's America and The Welfare State,
“The Democratic Party Created The KKK” (Part One)
The Democratic Party created the KKK. The
Democratic Party opposed freeing the slaves’. The
Democratic Party didn’t change their views’ until
the civil rights’ movement. Malcolm X explained
excellently what dixi-crats’ pretending to be a
democrats’ were. Southern Democrats were the
ones’ who created Jim Crow.
DIRECTED BY:
Roger Lee Hanson
Email: rogerhanson1969@gmail.com
Music by: Ross Bugden
INSTAGRAM! :
https://instagram.com/rossbugden/ (rossbugden)
TWITTER! :
https://twitter.com/RossBugden (@rossbugden)
Music provided by:
Jake LaVallee
http://uncopyrightedmusic.net

Post has attachment
http://refusetocooperate4.blogspot.com/2017/07/slavery-and-public-history-tough-stuff.html

Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory - A Review

"Slavery is by far the most sickening stain on our County's history; and yet, to this very day, especially in Southern schools, slavery is considered to be but a minor academic issue in American history and is given only a slight mention is general daily studies." - Kent Allen Halliburton

Horton, James Oliver and Lois E. Horton, Eds. Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

Slavery is a very difficult subject to talk about in public. It is one of those topics that almost always draws out the deepest of emotions in people. It is able to do this because its very nature is in direct violation of the tenants of such famous documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that are supposed to dictate the freedom and liberty for all those persons who seek it. How have public institutions addressed the issue of slavery in the past? What changes are being made in the present? What is the hope for the future? In Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory, edited by James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton, eleven essays, two of which are authored by the editors themselves, do a very good job of answering these questions and more. They offer perspectives on the issue of slavery in public history that are both encouraging and thought provoking.

What are all of the authors in this book showing? They are showing that in the past, and that past is not all that long ago, as late as the early 1990s, slavery was addressed very little or not at all at public historical sites; but since then, this has begun to change. Examples of these changes are the work that John Michael Vloch did with the D.C. Public Library, the Liberty Bell Center in Philadelphia and its inclusion of the ‘President’s House’ exhibit, and the museum at Monticello, home to Thomas Jefferson and his many slaves. They also show, however that there is much work yet to be done to overcome the recalcitrant attitudes that are the legacy of four hundred years of slavery and one hundred and fifty years of extended poor race relations. Looking at the issue, Slavery, ‘directly in the eyes,’ through proper education and public discourse, at every level, is the only way that Americans will be able to reconcile their differences and move on as one united people.

#refusetocooperate, #getyourhouseinorder, #wearewatching, #deathbeforedishonor, #slavery, #libertybell, #publichistory, #presidentshouse, #americanmemory, #education

Post has shared content
false pos·i·tive
noun
a test result which incorrectly indicates that a particular condition or attribute is present.

When we look at politics today we see things that aren't what we are being told as the truth. We are suppose to be a country that believes in the right to have private property, but we allow a government that taxes us for that property. If we don't pay those taxes they take it away. Not only do they force us to pay taxes, but we allow them to add taxes onto our property taxes for the education system. No matter what. If we have children or not we all pay. It is our duty as citizens to take care of other people's children right? Then, if you have children and they get into trouble at school, you pay the consequences. In the meantime your paying those taxes.We have a court system that has their own language in which to fool us into consent. We allow laws that attempt to separate the individual from the court, when the judiciary branch is the only on of the three branches where the individual can take his grievances. Is this the power that we gave our government tacitly at birth, so that they could protect us?
false pos·i·tive
noun
a test result which incorrectly indicates that a particular condition or attribute is present.

When we look at politics today we see things that aren't what we are being told as the truth. We are suppose to be a country that believes in the right to have private property, but we allow a government that taxes us for that property. If we don't pay those taxes they take it away. Not only do they force us to pay taxes, but we allow them to add taxes onto our property taxes for the education system. No matter what. If we have children or not we all pay. It is our duty as citizens to take care of other people's children right? Then, if you have children and they get into trouble at school, you pay the consequences. In the meantime your paying those taxes.We have a court system that has their own language in which to fool us into consent. We allow laws that attempt to separate the individual from the court, when the judiciary branch is the only on of the three branches where the individual can take his grievances. Is this the power that we gave our government tacitly at birth, so that they could protect us?

Post has shared content
The Federal court system and the judicial authority to interpret the Constitution received little attention in the debates over the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. The power of judicial review, in fact, is nowhere mentioned in it, Over the ensuing years, the question of whether the power of judicial review was even intended by the drafters of the Constitution was quickly frustrated by the lack of evidence bearing on the question either way. Clerks hired by each of the justices of the Supreme Court are often given considerable leeway in the opinions they draft. "Supreme Court clerkship appeared to be a nonpartisan institution from the 1940s into the 1980s", according to a study published in 2009 by the law review of Vanderbilt University Law School. "As the law has moved closer to mere politics, political affiliations have naturally and predictably become proxies for the different political agendas that have been pressed in and through the courts". While Framers such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers that their then-proposed Constitution would not infringe on the power of state governments, others argue that expansive federal power is good and consistent with the Framers' wishes. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly grants "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Supreme Court has been criticized for giving the federal government too much power to interfere with state authority. One criticism is that it has allowed the federal government to misuse the Commerce Clause by upholding regulations and legislation which have little to do with interstate commerce, but that were enacted under the guise of regulating interstate commerce; and by voiding state legislation for allegedly interfering with interstate commerce.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1. Citizens of different States are citizens of the United States. Cases arising under the laws of the United States and its treaties come under the jurisdiction of federal courts. Cases under international maritime law and conflicting land grants of different states come under federal courts. Cases between U.S. citizens in different states and cases between U.S. citizens and foreign states and their citizens come under federal jurisdiction. The trials will be in the state where the crime was committed. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases about Ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls, for all cases respecting foreign nation-states. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. This is the rule for federal courts to take a case.
Original Jurisdiction:
Article Three describes the court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court. There shall be one court called the Supreme Court. The article describes the kinds of cases the court takes as original jurisdiction. In 1891, Congress enacted a new system. District courts would have original jurisdiction. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases about Ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls, for all cases respecting foreign nation-states, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases.
Judicial Restraint:
A case cannot be hypothetical or concerning a settled issue. In the U.S. system, someone must have direct, real and substantial personal injury. The issue must be concrete and "ripe", that is, of broad enough concern in the Court’s jurisdiction that a lower court, either federal or state, does not geographically cover all the existing cases before the law.
Justiciability :
concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a party appropriate to establishing whether an actual adversarial issue exists. Essentially, justiciability in American law seeks to address whether a court possesses the ability to provide adequate resolution of the dispute; where a court feels it cannot offer such a final determination, the matter is not justiciable. Justiciability is one of the several criteria that the United States Supreme Court Use to make a judgment granting a writ of certiorari ("cert."). In order for an issue to be justiciable by a United States federal court, all of the following conditions must be met:
The parties must not be seeking an advisory opinion. There must be an actual controversy between the parties, meaning that the parties cannot agree to a lawsuit where all parties seek the same particular judgment from the court (known as a collusive suit or friendly suit); rather, the parties must each be seeking a different outcome. The question must be neither unripe nor moot. An unripe question is one for which there is not yet at least a threatened injury to the plaintiff, or where all available judicial alternatives have not been exhausted. A moot question is one for which the potential for an injury to occur has ceased to exist, or where the injury has been removed. However, if the issue is likely to recur, yet will continually become moot before any challenge can reach a court of competent jurisdiction ("capable of repetition, yet evading review"), courts may allow a case that is moot to be litigated. The suit must not be seeking judgment upon a political question. Political questions involve matters where there is:
"a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" (meaning that the U.S. Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue);
"a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it";
an "impossibility of deciding [a matter] without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion";
an "impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government";
"an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made"; or
a "potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.".
Political questions include such issues as whether the nation is 'at war' with another country, or whether the U.S. Senate has properly "tried" an impeached federal officer.
If the case fails to meet any one of these requirements, the court cannot hear it.
State courts tend to require a similar set of circumstances, although some states permit their courts to give advisory opinions on questions of law, even though there may be no actual dispute between parties to resolve.
The Federal court system and the judicial authority to interpret the Constitution received little attention in the debates over the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. The power of judicial review, in fact, is nowhere mentioned in it, Over the ensuing years, the question of whether the power of judicial review was even intended by the drafters of the Constitution was quickly frustrated by the lack of evidence bearing on the question either way. Clerks hired by each of the justices of the Supreme Court are often given considerable leeway in the opinions they draft. "Supreme Court clerkship appeared to be a nonpartisan institution from the 1940s into the 1980s", according to a study published in 2009 by the law review of Vanderbilt University Law School. "As the law has moved closer to mere politics, political affiliations have naturally and predictably become proxies for the different political agendas that have been pressed in and through the courts". While Framers such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers that their then-proposed Constitution would not infringe on the power of state governments, others argue that expansive federal power is good and consistent with the Framers' wishes. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly grants "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Supreme Court has been criticized for giving the federal government too much power to interfere with state authority. One criticism is that it has allowed the federal government to misuse the Commerce Clause by upholding regulations and legislation which have little to do with interstate commerce, but that were enacted under the guise of regulating interstate commerce; and by voiding state legislation for allegedly interfering with interstate commerce.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1. Citizens of different States are citizens of the United States. Cases arising under the laws of the United States and its treaties come under the jurisdiction of federal courts. Cases under international maritime law and conflicting land grants of different states come under federal courts. Cases between U.S. citizens in different states and cases between U.S. citizens and foreign states and their citizens come under federal jurisdiction. The trials will be in the state where the crime was committed. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases about Ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls, for all cases respecting foreign nation-states. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. This is the rule for federal courts to take a case.
Original Jurisdiction:
Article Three describes the court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court. There shall be one court called the Supreme Court. The article describes the kinds of cases the court takes as original jurisdiction. In 1891, Congress enacted a new system. District courts would have original jurisdiction. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases about Ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls, for all cases respecting foreign nation-states, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases.
Judicial Restraint:
A case cannot be hypothetical or concerning a settled issue. In the U.S. system, someone must have direct, real and substantial personal injury. The issue must be concrete and "ripe", that is, of broad enough concern in the Court’s jurisdiction that a lower court, either federal or state, does not geographically cover all the existing cases before the law.
Justiciability :
concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a party appropriate to establishing whether an actual adversarial issue exists. Essentially, justiciability in American law seeks to address whether a court possesses the ability to provide adequate resolution of the dispute; where a court feels it cannot offer such a final determination, the matter is not justiciable. Justiciability is one of the several criteria that the United States Supreme Court Use to make a judgment granting a writ of certiorari ("cert."). In order for an issue to be justiciable by a United States federal court, all of the following conditions must be met:
The parties must not be seeking an advisory opinion. There must be an actual controversy between the parties, meaning that the parties cannot agree to a lawsuit where all parties seek the same particular judgment from the court (known as a collusive suit or friendly suit); rather, the parties must each be seeking a different outcome. The question must be neither unripe nor moot. An unripe question is one for which there is not yet at least a threatened injury to the plaintiff, or where all available judicial alternatives have not been exhausted. A moot question is one for which the potential for an injury to occur has ceased to exist, or where the injury has been removed. However, if the issue is likely to recur, yet will continually become moot before any challenge can reach a court of competent jurisdiction ("capable of repetition, yet evading review"), courts may allow a case that is moot to be litigated. The suit must not be seeking judgment upon a political question. Political questions involve matters where there is:
"a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" (meaning that the U.S. Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue);
"a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it";
an "impossibility of deciding [a matter] without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion";
an "impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government";
"an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made"; or
a "potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.".
Political questions include such issues as whether the nation is 'at war' with another country, or whether the U.S. Senate has properly "tried" an impeached federal officer.
If the case fails to meet any one of these requirements, the court cannot hear it.
State courts tend to require a similar set of circumstances, although some states permit their courts to give advisory opinions on questions of law, even though there may be no actual dispute between parties to resolve.

Post has shared content
As I start a series on the origins of liberalism I continue with a little bit more to add on this video. I explain a little bit about the original concept of liberalism and then discuss the ideas of Democrats and liberals today.How could anyone call themselves "liberal" and still condone property taxes, regulations, and big government? These same people are supposed to stand up for them small guy, then want to tax us even more. Afterward, I also discuss the Libertarian Party and conversations with them. I explain why I agree with the Libertarian philosophy as well.
As I start a series on the origins of liberalism I continue with a little bit more to add on this video. I explain a little bit about the original concept of liberalism and then discuss the ideas of Democrats and liberals today.How could anyone call themselves "liberal" and still condone property taxes, regulations, and big government? These same people are supposed to stand up for them small guy, then want to tax us even more. Afterward, I also discuss the Libertarian Party and conversations with them. I explain why I agree with the Libertarian philosophy as well.

Post has shared content
The Treaty of Saint-Germain concluded the first world war. Signed by Austria on one side and the Allied Powers’ on the other side, in nineteen hundred and nineteen. The treaty officially registered the breakup of the Habsburg Empire. It also recognized the independence of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats’ and Slovenes, (Yugoslavia). Ceding eastern Galicia, Trento, Southern Tirol, Trieste, and Istria. The Covenant of the League of Nations was integrated into the treaty. A firm rejection of any union of between Austria into Germany, without the consent of the Council of the League, was also added.
The military clauses, limited Austria’s military to thirty thousand men and broke up the Austria-Hungarian Navy and distributed to the Allies’. Though Austria was made liable for reparations’, no money was actually ever paid. Austrian officials’ protested the principle of self-determination in the treaty. The placement of so many ethnic Germans’ under the Czechoslovakian and Italian rule, and forbidden to unify with Germany.
Tomas Masaryk was the chief founder and first president of Czechoslovakia in nineteen eighteen. He was a Neo-Kantian, but, was also strongly influenced by English Puritan ethics’ and the teachings’ of the Hussites. Masaryk also took an interest in pointing out the self-contradictions’ in capitalism too. Though he wished to remind the Czechs’ of the religious meaning to their heritage, he also criticized Czech politicians’ and their belief in Pan-Slavism. He was against Pan-Slavism so much, he exposed a medieval patriotic Czech poem as a forgery. He was against not only Pan-Slavism, he criticized the Hungarian sovereignty too and promoted equality.
In eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, Masaryk began to discuss eminent contradictions’ between capitalism and socialism. In nineteen hundred and thirteen, he described Russia’s religious, intellectuals’ and its’ society as a whole. Describing it as Byzantine retardation of the Russians’ by the Orthodox Church, combined with reactionary ideas’. Slowly, Tomas Masaryk became estranged from his old conservative beliefs’. Eventually, he joined the liberal bourgeois Young Czech Party.
In eighteen hundred and ninety-one, Masaryk was elected to the Austrian Reichsrat. After disagreeing with the Young Czech Party’s emotional nationalism though, he resigned from his office and formed his own realist party. In both the Reichsrat and the standing committee of the Austrian-Hungarian parliament, Masaryk attacked Austria-Hungary’s alliance with Germany. He was against German imperialistic politics’ concerning the Balkans’ and defended Serb and Croat rights’.
In nineteen hundred and fifteen, Tomas Masaryk made his way to the west, after the beginning of the first world war. He was recognized as the leader of the underground Czech liberation movement. With help from his French and English friends’, Masaryk established contact with Allied leaders. He made clear what the Czech aims’ were, restitution of Bohemia’s independence, the establishment of a Czech-Slovak unity, dismemberment of Austria-Hungary and establishing new states’ between Russia and Germany. Masaryk viewed German imperialism as an infected spot, in which a line had to be drawn around and isolated.
After the overthrow of the autocratic tsarist regime in nineteen hundred and seventeen, Tomas Masaryk redirected his actions’ toward Russia. His new objectives’ were to reorganize the Czechoslovak Legion while developing new contacts’ with the newly formed government. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Masaryk set out for the United States. Negotiating terms’ for Czechoslovak independence, with President Woodrow Wilson and Robert Lansing. In nineteen hundred and eighteen, Czechoslovakia was recognized as an Allied power. Within the same year, Tomas Masaryk was elected the first president of Czechoslovakia.

The Treaty of Saint-Germain concluded the first world war. Signed by Austria on one side and the Allied Powers’ on the other side, in nineteen hundred and nineteen. The treaty officially registered the breakup of the Habsburg Empire. It also recognized the independence of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats’ and Slovenes, (Yugoslavia). Ceding eastern Galicia, Trento, Southern Tirol, Trieste, and Istria. The Covenant of the League of Nations was integrated into the treaty. A firm rejection of any union of between Austria into Germany, without the consent of the Council of the League, was also added.
The military clauses, limited Austria’s military to thirty thousand men and broke up the Austria-Hungarian Navy and distributed to the Allies’. Though Austria was made liable for reparations’, no money was actually ever paid. Austrian officials’ protested the principle of self-determination in the treaty. The placement of so many ethnic Germans’ under the Czechoslovakian and Italian rule, and forbidden to unify with Germany.
Tomas Masaryk was the chief founder and first president of Czechoslovakia in nineteen eighteen. He was a Neo-Kantian, but, was also strongly influenced by English Puritan ethics’ and the teachings’ of the Hussites. Masaryk also took an interest in pointing out the self-contradictions’ in capitalism too. Though he wished to remind the Czechs’ of the religious meaning to their heritage, he also criticized Czech politicians’ and their belief in Pan-Slavism. He was against Pan-Slavism so much, he exposed a medieval patriotic Czech poem as a forgery. He was against not only Pan-Slavism, he criticized the Hungarian sovereignty too and promoted equality.
In eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, Masaryk began to discuss eminent contradictions’ between capitalism and socialism. In nineteen hundred and thirteen, he described Russia’s religious, intellectuals’ and its’ society as a whole. Describing it as Byzantine retardation of the Russians’ by the Orthodox Church, combined with reactionary ideas’. Slowly, Tomas Masaryk became estranged from his old conservative beliefs’. Eventually, he joined the liberal bourgeois Young Czech Party.
In eighteen hundred and ninety-one, Masaryk was elected to the Austrian Reichsrat. After disagreeing with the Young Czech Party’s emotional nationalism though, he resigned from his office and formed his own realist party. In both the Reichsrat and the standing committee of the Austrian-Hungarian parliament, Masaryk attacked Austria-Hungary’s alliance with Germany. He was against German imperialistic politics’ concerning the Balkans’ and defended Serb and Croat rights’.
In nineteen hundred and fifteen, Tomas Masaryk made his way to the west, after the beginning of the first world war. He was recognized as the leader of the underground Czech liberation movement. With help from his French and English friends’, Masaryk established contact with Allied leaders. He made clear what the Czech aims’ were, restitution of Bohemia’s independence, the establishment of a Czech-Slovak unity, dismemberment of Austria-Hungary and establishing new states’ between Russia and Germany. Masaryk viewed German imperialism as an infected spot, in which a line had to be drawn around and isolated.
After the overthrow of the autocratic tsarist regime in nineteen hundred and seventeen, Tomas Masaryk redirected his actions’ toward Russia. His new objectives’ were to reorganize the Czechoslovak Legion while developing new contacts’ with the newly formed government. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Masaryk set out for the United States. Negotiating terms’ for Czechoslovak independence, with President Woodrow Wilson and Robert Lansing. In nineteen hundred and eighteen, Czechoslovakia was recognized as an Allied power. Within the same year, Tomas Masaryk was elected the first president of Czechoslovakia.
Wait while more posts are being loaded