The Reason Thomas Jefferson Owned a Qu’ran

Islam in America dates to the founding fathers, says Smithsonian’s religion curator Peter Manseau.

tj_koran_vols_583.jpg
Thomas Jefferson’s two-volume personal copy of George Sale’s 1734 translation of the Qur’an is now in the collections of the Library of Congress.

The United States was at war with the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.

Though Thomas Jefferson tried in vain to negotiate with them, we have been at war with Islam since that time with little likelihood of wars subsiding in our lifetimes.

President Jefferson put U.S. Marines on merchant ships to fight off the Muslim marauders.

CH142233 Barbary Pirates Attacking A Spanish Ship (oil on canvas) by Velde, Willem van de II, (1633-1707) (studio of) oil on canvas 77.5×116.2 Private Collection © Christie’s Images Dutch, out of copyright

Thomas Jefferson analyzed the Islamic cult and determined there could never be peace if America allowed the Muslims to terrorize us

An important distinction given the state of affairs today. 

Same situation but 200+ years later. 

Muslims have not changed but are simply invading America and the rest of the world to take over.

Islam is an exclusionary cult and does not allow any freedom.  Islam restricts religion to Muslims only and all others must die = the Jihad!

Peter Manseau

June 22nd, 2019

Two hundred and three years ago this month, President James Madison approved the act of Congress purchasing Thomas Jefferson’s private library. Intended to restock the Library of Congress after its previous holdings were destroyed by British arson during the War of 1812, the transfer of books from Monticello to Washington also highlights a forgotten aspect of religious diversity in early America.

Among the 6,487 books that soon traveled north, Jefferson’s 1734 edition of the Qur’an is perhaps the most surprising.

Historians have attributed the third president’s ownership of the Muslim holy book to his curiosity about a variety of religious perspectives. It’s appropriate to view it that way. Jefferson bought this book while he was a young man studying law, and he may have read it in part to better understand Islam’s influence on some of the world’s legal systems.

But that obscures a crucial fact: To many living in Jefferson’s young nation, this book meant much more.

Some scholars estimate 20 percent of the enslaved men and women brought to the Americas were Muslims. 

While today these American followers of the Prophet Muhammad have been largely forgotten, the presence of Islam in the United States was not unknown among the nation’s citizens in the 18th and 19th centuries. Often practiced in secret, reluctantly abandoned, or blended with other traditions, these first attempts ultimately did not survive slavery. But the mere existence of Islam in the early republic is evidence that religious diversity in this country has a deeper and more complex history than many now know.

Not long before Jefferson’s Qur’an rolled north with the rest of his library in 1815, another American attempted to write his own Islamic sacred text, albeit in a form that could not be so easily transported or understood. He wrote his in Arabic on a jail cell wall. 

Slave traders captured Omar ibn Said in what is now Senegal and brought him to Charleston, South Carolina, in 1807. He was sold to a man that Said would describe as cruel and a kafir, or infidel. A devout Muslim when he arrived in the United States, Said strived during his enslavement first to maintain his faith, and then to transform it. His story has earned a place in history—as well as in the “Religion in Early America” exhibition, currently on view at the National Museum of American History, and on the Smithsonian Institution’s latest Sidedoor podcast.

Following an attempt to escape from slavery in 1810, Omar ibn Said was arrested in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

Slave traders captured Omar ibn Said in what is now Senegal and brought him to Charleston, South Carolina, in 1807.
Slave traders captured Omar ibn Said in what is now Senegal and brought him to Charleston, South Carolina, in 1807.

While locked in his jail cell, Said became a figure of curiosity, first for his quiet and some said mysterious demeanor, then for the strange way in which he prayed, and finally for the graffiti he began to inscribe on the walls of his cell—Arabic script, most likely verses from the Quran. “The walls of his cell,” it was later reported, “were covered in strange characters, traced in charcoal or chalk, which no scholar in Fayetteville could decipher.”

Omar ibn Said soon became the property of a prominent local political family, which encouraged him to convert to Christianity and persuaded him to write an account of his life.

Through the decades that followed, this family publicized his conversion, placing articles about him in newspapers and broadsides around the United States.

In 1825, a Philadelphia paper recounted the story of his jail time, and how he had been brought to his new faith. In 1837 an article in the Boston Reporter hailed him as a “Convert from Mohammedanism” and devoted two columns to his Christian virtues. In 1854, a reporter wrote that he had “thrown aside the blood­ stained Koran and now worships at the feet of the Prince of Peace.” Though they still held Said in slavery, his owners claimed (without apparent irony) that he wore “no bonds but those of gratitude and affection.”

Yet Omar ibn Said had his own story to tell. Like his jail cell graffiti, his account of his experiences was written in Arabic. Those taking credit for his conversion were unable to read of his true convictions. If they had, they would have seen his adoption of Christianity, while apparently sincere, was also a practical measure. 

Before all the things he valued in life had been taken from him, Said said, he had prayed as a Muslim, but now he would say the Lord’s Prayer, he revealed in his writings. But he also peppered his text with prophetic declarations of divine wrath directed at the country that deprived him of his freedom.  

O people of America, O people of North Carolina,” he wrote. “Do you have a good generation that fears Allah? Are you confident that He who is in heaven will not cause the earth to cave in beneath you, so that it will shake to pieces and overwhelm you?

Even after his conversion to Christianity, Islam continued to shape his response to enslavement. And in this he was not alone: Plantation owners often made it a point to add Muslims to their labor force, relying on their experience with the cultivation of indigo and rice. Muslim names and religious titles appear in slave inventories and death records.

After an escape attempt, Job ben Solomon was jailed; a local judge wrote:
After an escape attempt, Job ben Solomon was jailed; a local judge wrote: “his Notions of God, Providence, and a future State, were in the main very just and reasonable.” (Wikimedia Commons. Christies )

All of this was common knowledge at the time. Every so often in the 18th and 19th century press, other enslaved Muslims became celebrities of a sort—most often because they were discovered to have levels of erudition well beyond those who claimed to own them.

The earliest example of this was Job ben Solomon, who was enslaved in Maryland in the 1730s. Like Omar ibn Said, after an escape attempt he was jailed and a local judge became so taken with him he wrote a book about their encounter. As the judge wrote, “He shewed upon all Occasions a singular Veneration for the Name of God, and never pronounced the Word Allah without a peculiar Accent, and a remarkable Pause: And indeed his Notions of God, Providence, and a future State, were in the main very just and reasonable.”

The most famous of the enslaved Muslims who found their way into the early American press was a man named Abdul-Rahman Ibrahim.

Known as the Moorish prince he came from an important family in his homeland of Timbuktu, in today’s Mali. His plight drew wide attention in the 1820s, with newspaper stories written around the country. Decadesafter his enslavement, several well-placed supporters, including secretary of state Henry Clay, and through him President John Quincy Adams, helped to win his freedom and his relocation to Liberia. Before his departure, he offered a critique of religion in a country that had enslaved him for 40 years. As one newspaper account noted, he had read the Bible and admired its precepts but added, “His principal objections are that Christians do not follow them.” 

Even counting their population conservatively, the number of enslaved men and women with a connection to Islam when they arrived in colonial America and the young United States was likely in the tens of thousands. Proof that some of them struggled to preserve remnants of their traditions can be seen in the words of those most intent in seeing them fail in this endeavor.

In 1842, Charles Colcock Jones, author of The Religious Instruction of the Negroes in the United States complained that “Mohammedan Africans” had found ways to “accommodate” Islam to the new beliefs imposed upon them. “God, say they, is Allah, and Jesus Christ is Mohammed. The religion is the same, but different countries have different names.

We can see the same kind of religious syncretism in the writings left behind by Omar ibn Said. In addition to his autobiographical account, he composed an Arabic translation of the 23rd Psalm, to which he appended the first words of the Qur’an: “In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.”

Missionaries like Jones considered such blendings of sacred texts evidence that enslaved Muslims like Said did not have much fidelity to their own religious traditions. But in fact, it proves the opposite. They understood that faith was important enough that they should look for it everywhere. Even in a nation where only non-Muslims like Thomas Jefferson were able to own a Qur’an. 

If there were any Muslims at Monticello when his library began its journey to Washington, in theory Jefferson would not have objected to their faith. As he wrote in surviving fragments of his autobiography, he intended his “Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom” to protect “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”

Yet such religious differences for Jefferson were largely hypothetical. For all this theoretical support for religious freedom, he never mentioned the fact that actual followers of Islam already lived in the nation he helped to create. Nor did he ever express curiosity if any of the more than 600 enslaved people he owned during his lifetime could have understood his Qur’an better than he did.

THE END

THE END

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Why We Should Attack Iran – Why We Shouldn’t

Comment by Jim Campbell

June 22, 2019

When Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran, a stabilizing influence and alley of the U.S. in the area the Iranian mullahs have supported terrorism with its Iranian Revolutionary Guard and by exporting war fighting materials.

The United States, the Middle East. and the jungles of Africa have been breeding grounds from the like of Boko Harim.

In love, war and making money, timing is everything.

But unlike love and money, war is always a last resort, when dealing with quasi-sane governments.

Iran’s would not qualify.

It seems probable that the U.S. and her allies will deal devastating blows to Tehran.

No nukes will be needed, using a time and date of their choosing, for instance when there is a sliver moon, Iran’s oil refineries will be decimated, along with continuous bombing using bunker buster bombs on Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities.

With Iranians running around and committing atrocities, they will be dealt with and done so, harshly.

Canada Free Press


By Ray Lorenzo

June 22, 2019

Ever since President Carter decided to abandon the Shah of Iran in 1979, Iran has been a thorn in the side of the United States and much of the West. Instead of a pro-West Shah, we now deal with a group of crazed Muslim clerics headed by the craziest of them all, Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei who, like his predecessor, is determined to keep Iran in the 7th century, and conducts an orchestra of millions that regularly sings ‘Death to America.’.

For sure Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was an imperfect leader, but he was our imperfect leader. He was pro-West, our ally, determined to bring his country into the then 20th century. Because of President Carter’s indecision, his inability to properly assess the risk, and his ineptitude in carrying out decisions, we now have to deal with a country that is the biggest state supporter of terrorism around the world…thank you President Carter.

The leader of the Iranian revolution was the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who was exiled in 1964 for not going along with the program of modernization. His major complaints were that the Shah was reducing the vast Muslim estates and giving women equal rights. After the Shah left the country, compliments of Mr. Peanut, Khomeini slithered back to Iran and promised social justice (sound familiar?) and the turning of the clock back 1200 years. The fact that they are still promising social justice after 30 years tells you something.

Before anyone drones on about the Shah’s political prisoners, it is not well known that the leader of the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, for all his religiosity, held massive executions of political prisoners in 1988. They loaded six prisoners at a time into forklift trucks and hung them from cranes in half-hour intervals. Estimates are anywhere between 4,500 and 30,000 dead, hung in public in front of children…barbarous? It continues today.

There are many reasons why seeing the end of the Iran regime is enticing. Their sponsorship of terrorism, their development of nuclear weapons and their willingness to use them, defying the world…their open threats against the United States and Israel, their support of insurgencies against Iraq and Afghanistan making stability difficult, if not near impossible. We may not ever again in our lifetime be in a more advantageous military position – having troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, surrounding Iran. Iran remains one of the most repressive regimes in the world, especially for women and non-Muslims.

The reasons against any invasion are equally, if not more desirable. World opinion against us would be legion.

The majority of our citizens, I believe, would be against it. If we decide to put boots on the ground, which I think President Trump would not do, you can bet on thousands of U.S. casualties.

There would be large civilian deaths. It would be unknown as to the number of deaths if we just made an airstrike.

With any ground war, you can bet on a large-scale guerrilla campaign against the United States and our allies.

We would be straining our military while we are in the process of rebuilding it. We would run the risk of a major terrorist campaign against the United States from terrorist groups that probably are already in our country thanks to our de facto open borders these past years.

Terrorist attacks would be unleashed in Europe due to their massive Muslim populations.

The economic cost would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Lastly, there is always the possibility that President Trump, like other presidents before him, does not fully trust the CIA, that they might have their own agenda.

There is the potential of a much less costly approach to Iran. For one thing… Israel. The state of Israel has no patience for aggression or terrorist states in their neighborhood since they have the most to lose.

Allow them to do the heavy lifting for the time being. Iran knows that any sizable attack on Israel would be met with a massive strike by Israel, the United States and our allies and with world opinion and support on our side.

A covert CIA-led war using pro-American groups within Iran may also be the way to go. Increasing the economic strangle-hold on Iran, though slow in results, should also be considered.

We, of course, do not have access to the intelligence that the President and the government have, but, just on the surface, a war with Iran seems unwise, at least for now.

THE END


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Google Chrome has become a surveillance software It’s time to get rid of it

Comment by Jim Campbell

June 21st, 2019

This is not a particularly new finding, Google, Chrome and most browsers want to know everything they can about us primarily to send us cookies for things we could conceivably purchase.

Over a year ago I went to Duck Duck Go which provides real stories and little if any fake news.

It’s a matter of going to the above link making it your default browser and you will be good to go.

Our latest privacy experiment found Chrome ushered more than 11,000 tracker cookies into our browser — in a single week. Here’s why Firefox is better.

  • Silicone Valley. Com

You open your browser to look at the web. Do you know who is looking back at you?

Over a recent week of web surfing, I peered under the hood of Google Chrome and found it brought along a few thousand friends. Shopping, news and even government sites quietly tagged my browser to let ad and data companies ride shotgun while I clicked around the web

This was made possible by the web’s biggest snoop of all: Google. Seen from the inside, its Chrome browser looks a lot like surveillance software.

Lately I’ve been investigating the secret life of my data, running experiments to see what technology really is up to under the cover of privacy policies that nobody reads. It turns out, having the world’s biggest advertising company make the most-popular web browser was about as smart as letting kids run a candy shop.

It made me decide to ditch Chrome for a new version of nonprofit Mozilla’s Firefox, which has default privacy protections. Switching involved less inconvenience than you might imagine.

My tests of Chrome versus Firefox unearthed a personal data caper of absurd proportions. In a week of web surfing on my desktop, I discovered 11,189 requests for tracker “cookies” that Chrome would have ushered right onto my computer, but were automatically blocked by Firefox. These little files are the hooks that data firms, including Google itself, use to follow what websites you visit so they can build profiles of your interests, income and personality.

Chrome welcomed trackers even at websites you’d think would be private. I watched Aetna and the Federal Student Aid website set cookies for Facebook and Google. They surreptitiously told the data giants every time I pulled up the insurance and loan service’s log-in pages.

And that’s not the half of it.

Look in the upper right corner of your Chrome browser. See a picture or a name in the circle? If so, you’re logged in to the browser, and Google might be tapping into your web activity to target ads. Don’t recall signing in? I didn’t, either. Chrome recently started doing that automatically when you use Gmail.

Chrome is even sneakier on your phone. If you use Android, Chrome sends Google your location every time you conduct a search. (If you turn off location sharing it still sends your coordinates out, just with less accuracy.)

Firefox isn’t perfect – it still defaults searches to Google and permits some other tracking. But it doesn’t share browsing data with Mozilla, which isn’t in the data-collection business.

At a minimum, web snooping can be annoying. Cookies are how a pair of pants you look at in one site end up following you around in ads elsewhere. More fundamentally, your web history – like the color of your underpants – ain’t nobody’s business but your own. Letting anyone collect that data leaves it ripe for abuse by bullies, spies and hackers.

Google’s product managers told me in an interview that Chrome prioritizes privacy choices and controls, and they’re working on new ones for cookies. But they also said they have to get the right balance with a “healthy web ecosystem” (read: ad business).

Firefox’s product managers told me they don’t see privacy as an “option” relegated to controls. They’ve launched a war on surveillance, starting this month with “enhanced tracking protection” that blocks nosy cookies by default on new Firefox installations. But to succeed, first Firefox has to convince people to care enough to overcome the inertia of switching.

It’s a tale of two browsers – and the diverging interests of the companies that make them.

The cookie fight

A decade ago, Chrome and Firefox were taking on Microsoft’s lumbering giant Internet Explorer. The upstart Chrome solved real problems for consumers, making the web safer and faster. Today it dominates more than half the market.

Lately, however, many of us have realized that our privacy is also a major concern on the web – and Chrome’s interests no longer always seem aligned with our own.

That’s most visible in the fight over cookies. These code snippets can do some helpful things, like remembering the contents of your shopping cart. But now many cookies belong to data companies, which use them to tag your browser so they can follow your path like crumbs in the proverbial forest.

They’re everywhere – one study found third-party tracking cookies on 92 percent of websites. The Washington Post website has about 40 tracker cookies, average for a news site, which the company said in a statement are used to deliver better-targeted ads and track ad performance.

You’ll also find them on sites without ads: Both Aetna and the FSA service said the cookies on their sites help measure their own external marketing campaigns.

The blame for this mess belongs to the entire advertising, publishing and tech industries. But what responsibility does a browser have in protecting us from code that isn’t doing much more than spying?

In 2015, Mozilla debuted a version of Firefox that included anti-tracking tech, turned on only in its “private” browsing mode. After years of testing and tweaking, that’s what it activated this month on all websites. This isn’t about blocking ads – those still come through. Rather, Firefox is parsing cookies to decide which ones to keep for critical site functions and which ones to block for spying.

Apple’s Safari browser, used on iPhones, also began applying “intelligent tracking protection” to cookies in 2017, using an algorithm to decide which ones were bad.

Chrome, so far, remains open to all cookies by default. Last month, Google announced a new effort to force third-party cookies to better self-identify, and said we can expect new controls for them after it rolls out. But it wouldn’t offer a timeline or say whether it would default to stopping trackers.

I’m not holding my breath. Google itself, through its Doubleclick and other ad businesses, is the No. 1 cookie maker – the Mrs. Fields of the web. It’s hard to imagine Chrome ever cutting off Google’s moneymaker.

“Cookies play a role in user privacy, but a narrow focus on cookies obscures the broader privacy discussion because it’s just one way in which users can be tracked across sites,” said Ben Galbraith, Chrome’s director of product management. “This is a complex problem, and simple, blunt cookie blocking solutions force tracking into more opaque practices.”

There are other tracking techniques – and the privacy arms race will get harder. But saying things are too complicated is also a way of not doing anything.

“Our viewpoint is to deal with the biggest problem first, but anticipate where the ecosystem will shift and work on protecting against those things as well,” said Peter Dolanjski, Firefox’s product lead.

Both Google and Mozilla said they’re working on fighting “fingerprinting,” a way to sniff out other markers in your computer. Firefox is already testing its capabilities, and plans to activate them soon.

Making the switch

Choosing a browser is no longer just about speed and convenience – it’s also about data defaults.

It’s true that Google usually obtains consent before gathering data, and offers a lot of knobs you can adjust to opt out of tracking and targeted advertising. But its controls often feel like a shell game that results in us sharing more personal data.

Get breaking news and alerts with our free mobile app. Get it from the Apple app store or the Google Play store.

I felt hoodwinked when Google quietly began signing Gmail users into Chrome last fall. Google says the Chrome shift didn’t cause anybody’s browsing history to be “synced” unless they specifically opted in – but I found mine was being sent Google, and don’t recall ever asking for extra surveillance. (You can turn off the Gmail auto-login by searching “Gmail” in Chrome settings and switching off “Allow Chrome sign-in.”)

After the sign-in shift, Johns Hopkins professor Matthew Green made waves in the computer science world when he blogged he was done with Chrome. “I lost faith,” he told me. “It only takes a few tiny changes to make it very privacy unfriendly.”

There are ways to defang Chrome, which is much more complicated than just using “Incognito Mode.” But it’s much easier to switch to a browser not owned by an advertising company.

Like Green, I’ve chosen Firefox, which works across phones, tablets, PCs and Macs. Apple’s Safari is also a good option on Macs, iPhones and iPads, and the niche Brave browser goes even further in trying to jam the ad-tech industry.

What does switching to Firefox cost you? It’s free, and downloading a different browser is much simpler than changing phones.

In 2017, Mozilla launched a new version of Firefox called Quantum that made it considerably faster. In my tests, it has felt almost as fast as Chrome, though benchmark tests have found it can be slower in some contexts. Firefox says it’s better about managing memory if you use lots and lots of tabs.

Switching means you’ll have to move your bookmarks, and Firefox offers tools to help. Shifting passwords is easy if you use a password manager. And most browser add-ons are available, though it’s possible you won’t find your favorite.

Mozilla has challenges to overcome. Among privacy advocates, the nonprofit is known for caution. It took a year longer than Apple to make cookie blocking a default.

And as a nonprofit, it earns money when people make searches in the browser and click on ads – which means its biggest source of income is Google. Mozilla’s CEO says the company is exploring new paid privacy services to diversify its income.

Its biggest risk is that Firefox might someday run out of steam in its battle with the Chrome behemoth. Even though it’s the No. 2 desktop browser, with about 10 percent of the market, major sites could decide to drop support, leaving Firefox scrambling.

If you care about privacy, let’s hope for another David and Goliath outcome.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bernie Announces 11-22 Million Illegals Would Get Health Care Under His Plan

Comment by Jim Campbell

June 22nd 2019

Bernie Sanders the avowed Socialist Senator from Vermont is treading water in quicksand.

He avoided calling it “Free,” as he finally gets that taxpayers fully understand the meaning of said mantra.

Where in the U.S. Constitution is Health Care a right?

Of course it doesn’t so it’s time for Bernie and crew to look for a new donkey to ride.

With his mind set he would actually destroy private health insurance companies as he seeks to impose a single payer system, the same as Obama and Hillary proposed.

Their plans failed as will Bernie’s.

Sanders is 77 years old and seems to be showing signs of dementia.

Why should the federal government become involved in the health care insurance arena when anything the federal government manages to corner, end up more expensive.

The so-called Trump insurance plan (Here)

Breitbart News Service

Penny Starr

June 22, 2019

“We are going to end that and create a Medicare for All healthcare system, which guarantees health care to every man, woman, and child, and saves the average American substantial sums of money,” Sanders said, admitting next that “national healthcare” systems around the globe “have problems.”

https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2019/04/10/10-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all.w1200.h630.jpg

“Now to answer your question, I will not deny that every country on earth that has a national healthcare program — all have problems — that’s the nature of health care in a changing technology,” Sanders said.

“But what I want everybody to understand is literally starting yesterday the insurance companies and their drug companies are starting to spend tens and tens of millions of dollars to fight against Medicare for All, and we will organize the American people around the concept that all people in this country have the right to health care.”

“At the end of the day we are going to win that struggle,” Sanders said.

Sanders was then asked if he would include people in the country illegally in Medicare for All.

“Absolutely,” Sanders said. “When I talk about health care being a human right, last time I heard, undocumented people are human beings as well.”

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that the socialized medicine that Sanders and some of his Democrat rivals for the nomination are endorsing would cost an estimated $28 to $32 trillion over a decade.

Candidates including Beto O’Rourke, John Hickenlooper, Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) also each had a 12-minute speech at the event.

THE END

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

When will they ever learn?

By Jim Campbell

June 21st, 2019

The Kingston Trio, a folk singing group in the late 50’s and 60’s popularized the song written by Bob Seeger, “Where have all the flowers gone?”

Each member of the original trio has long since passed.

Wars are generally about greed!

One country wanted to take some valuable asset away from another country.

Could be just a power group wanted to control another group as in long past times.

Wars and greed are blood relatives and that chain will never be broken!

Please enjoy their tribute to warriors and the purpose of war below.

With each passing year I become more and more a pacifist.

I don’t believe we should put our troops in harms way unless we have been attacked or an attack on our homeland is eminent.

It’s time to quit engaging in the civil wars run by warlords and trying to force our ideas of Democracy upon them.

They know one thing, “We are their enemy.”

Reagan’s approach during the “Cold War,” may have been appropriate.

Would it work today with converted jihadists living among us?

Who’s to say.

Stay alert, see something say something, and if you have a weapon keep it with you.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Occasional and Routinely Empty Cortex Gets Pounded for Inane Remarks on the Holocaust

Comments by Jim Campbell

June 21st, 2019

I don’t agree with the commentator in the video below on one significant point.

The American people will not get disturbed and panic when they hear her spew her fetid nonsense.

To the contrary, they understand that she represents what the vast majority of her party believes and they allow her to continue making a complete fool of herself all over the blogosphere.


I cite this quote because the Bronx Bolshevik continues to demonstrate her incalculable callowness by deliberately connecting the United States to Nazi Germany in the public’s mind.

They are laughing at her and the party she represents which will crash and burn like a North Korean Missile on it’s launching pad.

In the Holocaust novel The Boy In The Striped Pajamas, 9-year-old Bruno is told by Pavel, “Just because a man glances up at the sky does not make him an astronomer.”

She hammered the Trump Administration for putting migrants in “concentration camps” during an Instagram live stream Monday night.  

A day later, she tweeted a link to an Esquire article from last week which quoted a University of Virginia lecturer saying concentration camps have a far larger meaning than usually associated with the Nazis during World War II.


“The fact that concentration camps are now an institutionalized practice in the land of the free is extraordinarily disturbing,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“And for the shrieking Republicans who don’t know the difference: concentration camps are not the same as death camps.

Concentration camps are considered by experts as ‘the mass detention of civilians without trial.’ And that’s exactly what this Administration is doing.”


So provocative were her remarks the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York condemned her preposterous comparison in the strongest terms possible in a letter they sent her the following day.

“Since 1976, the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York has acted as a key source to the New York Congressional Delegation on issues of concern to 1.4 million member New York Jewish Community. 

As our city is home to the largest Holocaust survivor community in the United States, we would be pleased to work with you to arrange a visit to a concentration camp, a local Holocaust museum, hear the stories of local survivors, or participate in other educational opportunities in the hopes of better understanding the horrors of the Holocaust.”

“Until that time, we urge you to refrain from using terminology evocative of the Holocaust to concerns about contemporary political issues.”

JCRC of New York‏ @JCRCNY

THE END

H/T The Political Clown Parade.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Divorce Rate Is at a 40-Year Low Unless You’re 55 or Older

Comment by Jim Campbell

If the man makes significantly more than the woman or vice versa, it will be a crushing financial blow.

This does not include, alimony in some states, and child support. be worth it in the long run.

If your relationship is a complete train wreck, your peace of mind and happiness will

The Wall Street Journal

Jo Craven McGinty

June 21, 2019

Younger married couples are less likely to split up, but ‘gray’ divorces among older couples are on the rise

It’s June, one of the most popular months of the year to marry. So perhaps it’s time we talked about divorce.

In 2017, around one million couples in the U.S. called it quits.

That may sound like a lot of busted unions, but the rate of divorce—just like the rate of marriage—is down.

Today, younger married couples are less likely to split up than they once were, driving the trend. But, at the same time, the rate of divorce for older generations has increased in a phenomenon known as “gray” divorce.

On Decline

The divorce rate has dropped to its lowest point in about 40 years.

Divorce rate in the U.S.

National Center for Health Statistics data

Note: Data from the NCHS comes from the states in which the marriage licenses are issued and divorces are filed. ACS data comes from surveys that ask people if they had experienced a marriage or divorce in the past year.

Source: National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green University analyses of data from National Center for Health Statistics (1970-2000) and U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2008-2017)

Divorces hit a historical high point in 1979, when 22.6 marriages out of every 1,000 broke up, according to researchers at the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green University.

By 2017, the rate had dropped to 16.1 divorces for every 1,000 marriages. That’s a decrease of 29% from the high point and the lowest the divorce rate has been in 40 years.

One cause, researchers believe, is that people are delaying marriage.

“There’s a fear of divorce or a specter of divorce looming large in people’s minds,” said Wendy D. Manning, co-director of Bowling Green’s Center for Family and Marriage Research. “They don’t want to make a mistake. They’re waiting longer to get married to divorce-proof their marriage.”

In 1963, the average woman married at around age 20, according to Tera R. Jordan, an associate professor of human development and family studies at Iowa State University.

By 2017, the median age at marriage was 27 for women and 29 for men.

Using data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics and the American Community Survey, Bowling Green researchers calculated annual rates of divorce for girls and women ages 15 and older by dividing the number divorced in the past 12 months by the number divorced in the past 12 months plus the number currently married and then multiplying the result by 1,000.

Share Your Thoughts

In your opinion, what’s the No. 1 reason couples divorce? Join the conversation below.

They also examined the trends by age group and found that the drop in divorces has been driven by younger people.

The greatest decrease they observed was among 15- to 24-year-olds, whose divorce rate dropped by 43%, from 47 divorces per 1,000 marriages in 1990 to 27 divorces per 1,000 marriages in 2017.

The rate for 25- to 34-year-olds also dropped substantially, from 33 divorces per 1,000 marriages to 23 divorces per 1,000 marriages, a decrease of about 30%.

The rates for the next two age groups changed only slightly, dropping from 23 to 21 divorces per 1,000 marriages for 35- to 44-year-olds and rising from 13 to 15 divorces per 1,000 marriages for 45- to 54-year-olds.

After that, the rates of “gray divorce” more than doubled.

For 55- to 64-year-olds, it climbed from 5 divorces per 1,000 marriages to 15 divorces per 1,000 marriages, and for those 65 and older, it rose from 1.8 to 5.

“It represents the baby boomers,” Dr. Manning said. “A lot married young. A lot are in second marriages. Second marriages are at greater risk of divorce.”

For comparison, the researchers also calculated marriage rates.

In 1970, nearly a decade before the divorce peak, there were 76.5 marriages for every 1,000 unmarried women. In 2017, the rate had dropped to 32.2 marriages for every 1,000 unmarried women, a decrease of 58%.

“The script was high school, maybe the military or college, and then you settle down,” Dr. Jordan said. “Now, it’s high school, maybe the military or college, maybe some period of self-discovery.”

That doesn’t mean fewer people have been pairing up or even delaying entering into romantic partnerships. But instead of marrying right after high school or college, more couples have simply moved in together, usurping marriage as the most common relationship experience in young adulthood.

Forty percent of women who wedded for the first time between 1980 and 1984 lived with their husband before they married, according to the Bowling Green researchers. From 2010 through 2014, 70% did. (This only counts women who eventually married and reported living with their spouse ahead of tying the knot.)

The median age for couples who live together outside of marriage is around 22, Dr. Manning said, and the relationships traditionally last only two or three years.

That suggests for more couples, “I do” has morphed into, “I might.”

But when they finally pledge “till death do us part,” they mean it.

Write to Jo Craven McGinty at Jo.McGinty@wsj.com

THE END

  • ††††††††

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Federal Judge Blocks Calif. Board’s Attempt to Ban Gun Shows

Gun-rights proponents ‘delighted’

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking a California board’s effort to ban gun shows from a San Diego County fairground.

Federal District Judge Cathy Bencivengo issued a verbal order from the bench preventing the Del Mar Fair Board from enforcing a moratorium they recently adopted on gun shows at their fairgrounds. The case was filed by a coalition of gun-rights groups after the board passed the ban in January.

The Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, and California Rifle and Pistol Assocation joined a number of gun dealers and clubs as well as five private citizens to challenge the board in court.

They said the ban on gun shows at the location is a violation of their Second Amendment rights.

Judge Bencivengo agreed there was enough of a case to block the ban pending further litigation.

So when Newsome signs the bill into law as he surely will, it means gun shows will no longer be able to be run on state owned property.

This of course means that gun shows will move to privately owned property until those who believe themselves to be our overseers confiscate our land.

This of course will likely bring on a revolutionary war.

The gun-rights groups celebrated the judge’s order.

“Of course, we’re delighted with this ruling,” Alan M. Gottlieb, Second Amendment Foundation executive vice president, said in a statement. “At a time, and in a state, where law-abiding gun owners seem under constant attack, having a federal judge side with our complaint validates our efforts to protect constitutional and civil rights.”

Tiffany Cheuvront, civil rights attorney for the Crossroads of the West gun show that has operated at the fairgrounds, said the plaintiffs believe this first win is a sign they will ultimately prevail in the case.

“We’re thankful Judge Bencivengo sees the Constitutional problem with banning these safe, perfectly-legal events and is allowing the show to go on while we continue to fight,” she said in a statement. “We’re confident that as this case progresses, law-abiding Americans’ civil rights will not be unjustly violated and that we will prevail.”

If the plaintiffs do succeed in the case, they will still have to fight state legislation that would also ban gun shows at the fairgrounds.

“The communities around the Del Mar Fairgrounds have been clear: They do not want these gun shows taking place on this state-owned land,” Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D., San Diego), one of the bill’s cosponsors, told KPBS earlier this year. “With this bill, we are demonstrating that we value people over guns and are putting public safety first.”

Her bill passed the California Assembly in April and passed through the Senate Public Safety Committee on June 11, according to the Del Mar Times.

Cheuvront said efforts to ban the Crossroads of the West gun show are animated mainly by a bias against guns, not public safety.

“These well-funded anti-gun groups are using every myth in the book to push their anti-gun agenda on a legal, safe, and family-friendly event that has been held for years because they simply don’t like guns,” Cheuvront said.

A schedule for the next hearing in the court case has not yet been made public. Gonzalez’s bill is expected to pass the Senate and head to Governor Gavin Newsom (D.) this fall.

H/T Deplorables Unite

THE END

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Truth About The United States Congress

THE END

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Are Democrats Coming Full Circle Regarding Their Crimes of Slavery?

Comment by Jim Campbell

June 21st, 2019

Looking back historically, Blacks in Muslim countries forced slaves to move to America. (Source)

Democrat hopefuls desiring to carry their party’s banner into the 2020 midterm elections are making a fatal mistake.

Two-Thirds of American voters oppose reparations for slavery. (Source)

The Canada Free Press

Dennis Jamison

June 21, 2019



Are Democrats Coming Full Circle Regarding Their Crimes of Slavery

Democrat Party contenders vying for their Party’s acceptance to be the nominee to run against President Trump in 2020 are making as much noise as possible in clamoring for attention to become the “chosen one.”

Arguably, the “Democratic” National Committee may have a different game plan from 2016 when they anointed Hillary Clinton as “the one” to win, and stiffed good old Bernie Sanders.

At least, this year there appears to be a new game plan that is comparable to a free-for-all among the twenty-odd contenders.

But, with all the campaign promises being offered to a gullible public, it must be hard for the contestants to formulate their own brand in a way to stand out from the rest of the pack of wolves in sheep’s clothing..

The campaign promises keep coming, however, just like the investigations that keep originating from the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, it seems that a chief function of an elected Democrat these days is to be all in for destroying the POTUS with no real need to actually accomplish anything else on the taxpayer’s dollar.

There is obviously no demand from their political base of low-information voters to insist on public accountability to actually do something while in office.

So, it is a pretty cush job these days.

However, if you really want to run as a Democrat seeking the office of POTUS, all you need to do is bash Trump and make what seems to be great promises.

Joe Biden, who is apparently the front-runner among all the promise makers, said that if elected, he would cure cancer!

Quite astounding!

If he could cure cancer, why does he want to wait until after an election? Conceivably, if he could cure cancer, he would become the most famous, if not the wealthiest man in the world.

Why would the job of a mere president appeal to him then?

This is of course, brilliant Democrat political strategy, may have been learned from his former running mate, Barack Obama.

Candidate Obama, if voters recall, promised to lower the sea levels.

The logic may be that if such outrageous promises worked for a guy who got to occupy the oval office, how could it be wrong?

Of course, it was also Joe Biden who also agrees with the Democrat pack that prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections.

In actuality, that is not much different from allowing illegal immigrants to freely vote, or dead people to vote in our nation’s elections.

And now it seems that another benchmark in Democrat promises has been established in recent weeks.

It appears that a new litmus test for the Democrat presidential pack is to determine whether the candidate will support reparations to former descendants of slaves.

Recently, young Beto O’Rourke, whose poll numbers amidst the rest of the pack have recently dropped to single-digit percentage points, took up the challenge of reparations.

If Democrats are trying to slow or stop the black voters from walking away from the plantation, it could prove to be a good strategy.

Or, it could prove to be as big an empty promise as lowering the sea levels. It will ultimately be determined by those who would cast votes based upon such illusive rhetoric.

Beto O’Rourke apparently has had some difficulty sorting out the rhetoric himself, as initially he was opposed to the proposal from Democrat Representative Sheila Jackson Lee to propose the move for slavery reparations for black Americans.

O’Rourke made an appearance before the National Action Network, a civil rights front group founded by Al Sharpton, and when Sharpton asked him publicly the former Texas congressman replied, “absolutely I would sign that into law.”

The reply Sharpton was looking for was the former Texas congressman’s litmus test as to whether he is in alignment with the true colors of the Party Line.

The proposal by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has gained at least partial backing by five of the Democrat pack: Senators Kamala Harris from California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro (Obama’s housing secretary), businessman Andrew Yang, and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who co-sponsored Lee’s bill.

The closest Jackson Lee has ever come to cotton is when she used a Q-tip for the first time.

Apparently, Rev. Perryman sent a letter to Obama after he became elected POTUS, and he demanded that the president issue a national apology for the “Democratic” Party’s lengthy discrimination against blacks. It seems Obama either ignored this letter or simply refused to comply.

For whatever reason Obama did not make any public apology on behalf of Democrats.

It seems that the U.S. District Court chose to sidestep the case as well, as they did not force the “Democratic” Party of America to even issue a public apology.

Rev. Perryman had the audacity to even name Barack Hussein Obama as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Perryman’s reasoning was that Obama, at the time, was the head of the Democrats and because of statements Obama wrote in his book Dreams From My Father.

But now, with all the Democrat contenders challenging and trying to outdo one another, there is hope that they could get down to business and sue themselves all over again.

However, instead of Rev. Perryman’s mild lawsuit aiming at just getting an apology and asking the Party to own up to the outright racist instigated laws they installed in their White-Power Empire of the South under real Democrat control, the lawsuit should seek monetary reparations.

However, the judgment to be pronounced needs to be based on full-scale investigations (the type the Democrats have recently become so famous for).

True investigations should be launched immediately because as Beto O’Rouke just discovered, after spending time at a South Carolina Baptist Church, that “White Americans do not know this story.”

O’Rourke favors the creation of a commission to further study the issue. Unfortunately, he may have been dozing during U.S. history lessons in middle school.

Or, he may have been clearly misinformed with the disinformation the Progressive-Revisionists have been slamming down the throats of America’s young in the Leftist-dominated public school system.

What an ignorant and arrogant statement! If O’Rourke is a serious example of someone who the Democrats are putting forward as having the calibre of a presidential contender, the Democrats are in trouble.

Actually, they are in trouble anyway—in more ways than one.

Yet, I heartily agree with him on the issue of a commission to investigate the crimes of the Democrats from the inception of the Party under the slave-owning founder of the Democrats,

Andrew Jackson, to the period under Franklin D. Roosevelt, and beyond as modern Democrats stood beside the late Sen. Robert Byrd, a proud Democrat and a proud member of the Ku Klux Klan – the former terrorist arm of the “Democratic” Party.

But the commission should be engaged by the Department of Justice and managed by Attorney General William Barr.

But that needs to go onto the “back burner” for now.

Barr needs to focus on diligent investigations into the current crimes of the Democrats who conspired to overthrow a duly elected president. Let it begin now!

THE END

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment