Revisionists Hide the Truth Behind Constitution's 3/5ths Compromise

When one listens to Al Sharpon it is sometimes difficult to determine if he is just ignorant, or if his worldview is so narrow that all things can only be viewed through the prism of race victimization. Case and point is his view that the Constitution is a racist document due to its defining black slaves as three-fifths human. This is such an absurd mischaracterization one has to wonder if he has actually even read the Constitution.

The three-fifths clause, aka the three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution and states as follows;

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

The three-fifths compromise first showed up when the Articles of Confederation were being debated. The confederation wanted the South to include their slaves in their population count, which was to be used to determine the amount of taxes paid. The South objected since in some slave states, slaves outnumbered free men by 60% (very close to three fifths) and including them would have over doubled the amount of taxes they would have to pay. “After proposed compromises of 1⁄2 by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and 3⁄4 by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the 3⁄5 ratio proposed by James Madison. But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required for amending the Articles of Confederation (only New Hampshire and New York were opposed).” Wikipedia

The three-fifths compromise was resurrected in the Constitution but for an entirely different reason. Rather than counting black slaves as three fifths a person, the Constitution determined that three fifth’s of the slaves would be counted when determining Congressional representatives, which was based on population. The North did not want to allow the Southern slave states to include their slaves for the representative count, since they were not free men and by definition not represented by congress, they viewed counting the southern slaves as free men as a corruption of the constitutional process; but the South argued that unless their slaves were counted, their representation would be far too few for them to sign on to the Constitution; hence there was a compromise.

If Al Sharpton would have look at the three-fifths compromise in a rational manner, rather than his knee jerk reaction, he would have realized, that rather than him wanting the Constitution to recognize black slaves the same as a free man, it would have been to the slaves best interest that they not be counted at all. This would have reduced the control the Southern slave states had even when counting only 3/5’s of the slaves; the “… result (was) southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.” Wikipedia

What you also find is the same revisionists that want to brand the Constitution as racist, also ignore the abolitionist movement as the main causation of the Civil War. It is commonly believed by Historians that there were 5 primary reasons for the Civil War; but these "reasons" are still based in the use of slaves and the abolition movement. #1 The invention of the Cottin Gin; which evolved the South to a one crop economy dependent on slavery. #2 State Rights; even here you find slavery to be the center of this political movement. John C Calhoun is often identified as one of the strongest voices toward limited government and states rights; yet you find his strongest arguments were for the protection of white minority rule and the defense of slavery. #3 The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents; again you the slave states recognizing that the fewer new slave states, the less pro-slavery representation there would be in Congress. When Kansas and Nebraska became territories a federal act allowed the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. This resulted in wide spread violence in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. #4 Growth of the Abolition Movement; one of the key turning points in this movement was the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott had far reaching implications as it voided the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (described above) challenging state sovereignty in the area of slavery. #5 The election of Abraham Lincoln; it was so strongly believed that Lincoln was an abolitionist that South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas seceded from the Union even prior to his inauguration.

So just as with the three-fifths compromise, the revisionists want to re-define the causes of the Civil War, as anything other than the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of men and women to put an end of slavery. The single theme to the Civil was the abolition of slavery and the white men that were in charge that deemed it so important they were willing to sacrifice their lives and tear the United States apart, before they would allow it to continue.

The Seasonal-ship of Liberal Civility

The following was printed in the Santa Cruz Sentential on 1.22.2011. What I was astounded by was the wanton hate speech included and the willingness to use the tragedy of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shooting by the writer; this after all the press and the Presidents plea to stop "the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness...” Why is it the Democrats only concern themselves with vitriol when the Republicans are doing well? All one has to do is remember back 10 short years and the hate and violent death vitriol the left used against George Bush and Sarah Palin. Apparently any discussion of giving it a rest, at least until we bury our dead is falling on liberal deaf ears.

Get a handle on guns

After seeing the picture of a bald-headed Jared Loughner, my first impression was "he's crazy like a fox." More finger pointing, no, just getting at the truth of what led Jared Loughner on his shooting spree of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others. Things were out of focus in the initial stages of the shooting, but if you dig a little and piece all together, it's right in front of you in black and white. Jared Loughner was an echo chamber with a fascination for the tenets of extremist right-wing groups. Loughner had an anti-government ideology that was constantly being reinforced by the anti-government voices of the Tea Party, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and "Momma Grizzly" Sarah Palin. It was easy for him to act out his fantasies and murderous rage in the toxic stew of Arizona. And it was easy for him to buy a Glock 19, with inordinate killing power; the rest is history. Americans have short attention spans, preferring not to remember wanton killings now being witnessed regularly. Thus, we are re-living them over and over again, and will continue to do so until we get a handle on guns and the people who misuse them.

Ron Lowe, Santa Cruz

Please note my reply was not intended in any way to make light of the horror and heart break that occurred as a result of shootings in Tucson. This reply is designed solely to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the likes of Ron Lowe and a mind so closed to civility and truthfulness, that his only reality appear to be partisanship.

My reply, Okay Ron Lowe, you got us. Yes, Jared Loughner is a member of the Teaparty, deep under cover of course. His plan was to act like an anarchist and then assassinate a political figure (like that’s never happened before) and blame it on the left (crazy like a fox). But Ron I gots to know, what was our mistake? How did you catch on? Even his friends pegged him as an apolitical dope smoking mental case slipping slowly into his paranoid delusions. But as you said it was “right in front of you in black and white.” Loughner was obviously a closet Constitutionalists, as everyone knows there is no difference between the limited government our founding fathers envisioned and wrote into the Constitution and Loughner’s anti-government ideology that is based on the writings of Marx and Hitler. And we would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you and those kids!

Letters to the Editor, The Cost of Repealing Obamacare

More Letters to the Editor; one poster wants us to rely on CBO figures to claim repealing Obamacare; Yes, besides Paul Krugman there are still folks out there who think you can expand healthcare by 30 million people and it will cost less and save money.

Today, the Republicans will start discussion of HR 2, called Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act. Seriously, that's what they named it. Interestingly, Republicans and Tea Partiers have promised to not add to the deficit, yet according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimate, "HR 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the 2012-2019 periods by roughly $145 billion. As for the job-killing allegations, Republican leadership fails to mention CBO projections of small or minimal impact on jobs and fails to mention the CBO predictions of an offsetting gain of 890,000 jobs in hospitals, doctor's offices and insurance companies. Finally, Republicans seem content to repeal Obamacare, but are happy to accept government-sponsored health care for themselves and their families. Good enough for them but too good for us? It will be interesting to watch the Republicans/Tea Partiers govern and to see how closely they follow their pre-election promises.

John Beisner, Boulder Creek

My reply-John Beisner's article that the Republican health care bill HR 2 will increase the federal deficit by $145 billion is another example of Democrats using fuzzy accounting. The figure is based on the CBO's original score of Obamacare and its alternate reality deficit reduction. From Rep. Paul Ryan: "The CBO has to score what you put in front of them ... The CBO score ignores the discretionary cost of the $115 billion you need to spend to run this new Obamacare program, that double counts the Medicare savings, that double counts the CLASS Act revenue, that double counts the Social Security revenue, that does not count the Doc Fix' -- you add all that stuff up, net it out, we're talking about a $701 billion hole -- deficit." So, the only reason HR 2 will add to the deficit is because the imaginary $135 billion deficit reduction of Obamacare is being replaced with real cost estimates.

Brad Goodwin, Santa Cruz

China and the New Fascism

One would think it would not be necessary to point out that the Chinese model is inconsistent with the freedom and liberty that our self-governing experiment is based on. Yet we have the President and the press telling us how successful the Chinese are and how the US economy is in decline. We also have a trade deficit with China, which is the largest in the world; in other words the US is the largest consumer in the world and China is making the items we Americans want. The key to China’s success is a growing economy, and regardless of your form of government, a growing economy usually equals prosperity. But how did China get to where they are now?

For one thing, China has been under the brutal oppressive communist government since Mao Zedong took power in 1946. During the next 30 years, China was dragged from an economic and literal stone age, to a world power. One of the ways this was done was through genocide. Mao thoroughly believed that the burgeoning population of China was holding the country back. To address this issue Mao collectivized agriculture so the government could control the food and systematically starved over 60 million of his own people. I am often amazed by the lefts fascination and with Mao, such as the likes of President Obama’s ex-White House communications director Anita Dunn, calling Mao one of her favorite political philosophers. While the left may view Mao as a great revolutionary, political strategist, military mastermind, and savior of the nation, his main claim to fame with the left is he was a major player with the humanistic sciences, which along other schools of thought, bolstered the belief of the need for a ruling elite and the need to control the collective through eugenics and re-education. Anyone, speaking of the philosophy of Mao, even if it is intended as irony as explained by Ms Dunn, may as well say one of her favorite philosophers is Hitler. The only differences between Hitler and Mao are Mao annihilated 10 times as many humans as Hitler, and did so out of more out of indifference than hate; apparently it makes the starving tens of millions of Chinese more palatable if it was scientific and not personal.

Once Mao got the “population problem” under control, Maoist policies were abandoned in favor of economic reforms under Deng Xiaoping. Xiaoping knew that while communism is the perfect vehicle to control and oppress a people (usually by controlling the food supply), as an economic strategy it is doomed to failure, as bureaucrats know nothing of running industry; and efficiency and innovation are simply incompatible with communism (even today the scientific advances in China are usually based on reverse engineering of American technology). The answer was to shift to a fascist’s strategy where industrialists and factory managers are allowed to conduct business, but are under strict control of the government. Further, they rewarded workers according to the dictatorial philosophy (the dictatorship of the proletariat) that stated, “each according to their ability, each according to their contribution (not needs, which according to communists doctrine will come later). In essence the Chinese had created a fascists oligarchy not that much different from a prison system where inmates get paid pennies on the dollar and crank out millions of dollars worth of goods. However, one can’t forget that China’s main market is still the United States. Without the US consumer economy, China’s thriving economy would come to a screeching halt. Therefore, any illusion that China will do anything other than continue to buy American debt and prop up our consumer economy is simply unrealistic.


In the musical 1776, the part of John Dickinson says, “Don’t forget most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor.” As cynical as this sounds, it is decidedly an American conundrum, as it is based on a person’s freedom to decide how they want to live. These are choices that the Chinese people do not have. The size of the Chinese middle class is about 197 million out of 1.3 billion people or 15%. In the US the middle class is 271 million out of 298 million or 91%. In other words to support the growing middle class in China there are 11 billion working at slave wages. Unlike the US, where the 8% (1% being the very rich) not being in the middle class is considered below the poverty line, and there is continuing effort to raise all citizens above that line. As discussed before, the Chinese model has reduced the vast majority of it’s citizens to level of a prison population of slaves, while a small proportion is delegated as a “middle class” to be the middle managers of their fascist state. Further there are no environmental restrictions, no labor unions and no safety regulation; nothing that will stand in the way of maximum production (all are tenets of fascism). Not exactly a model that a country, which stills portends to be self-governing, would view in any sense of a positive light and certainly not want to emulate. In other words, lets get real here.

Why The Left Has To Lie

In Paul Krugmans recent Op-Ed piece, A Tale of Two Moralities, Krugman presents the difference between the economics prospective from the left and right. From the Left he says, “One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.” Krugman’s prospective of the right, “The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.” What Krugman show here is two of the main tenants of the left; the first is they have to lie about what they really want to do to the economy and American people, and the second is the left will will say anything, no matter how untrue, to mislead the American people. How did I get her from there? Well let’s look at what Krugman said. While Krugman did hit some points of a conservative philosophy, he also interjected the left’s new propaganda effort that the right is predisposed to violent rhetoric. If there is a better example of Goebel’s “big lie” philosophy, I haven’t seen it. If indeed Krugman is correct, how come this pre-disposition toward violent rhetoric only surfaced during Obama’s Presidential campaign, and was never discussed during the last 8 years under President George Bush. As a matter of reality, it was the left that embraced some of the most violent and reckless rhetoric that has ever been laid on any President. Another example is the lets rhetoric aganist Rush Limbaugh and Sarah. When Limbaugh said we wanted President Obama to fail, the Left said they wanted his kidneys to fail; which is more vile? When Sarah Palin said she was targeting Rep Gabrielle Griffin's state using a map with cross-hairs, the left said Palin should have been shot in the head instead of Griffin; which better defines violent hate speech?

What is obvious is the Left’s sensitivity to violent rhetoric is proportional to how much power they wheel in Washington. When the Democrats have the majority, then the left's violent rhetoric meter becomes very sensitive, when the Republicans are in charge, then the sensitivity of the violent rhetoric meter is tuned way down. Almost by definition the left is known for angry protests, unruly crowds, violent demonstrations and attack rhetoric and race baiting designed to provoke extreme emotional responses. Just look at the communist and socialist organizations, unions, anarchists even neighborhood organizers that are forever trying to rally their forces for revolution and change by any means necessary. And the left continues to state it is the right that is responsible for violent rhetoric, stating their opposite reality as fact and if it is repeated enough times; the citizenry will eventually believe it.

This is one of the bases of propaganda. The Left needs propaganda, which was developed in it’s modern form by Progressives in the late 19 century by the likes of Edward Bernays, because the citizenry does not know what is good for them and will not willingly give up their liberties for the good of the collective. The true difference between the left and right is the left believes that the citizenry is not capable of governing itself society is best left to elite planners; aka governing over the collective. The Right believes in the unalienable rights of the individuals and their right to govern themselves; aka government by the people.

After the shootings in Arizona, there was an avalanche of Democratic politicians that simply wanted to do away with our First Amendment right of freedom of speech; it was alarming how many of our representatives seemed to have no concept of the basis of liberty. Either that or it is an incremental step toward a planned and controlled society. The reason is, for societal planning to be successful the government needs to have the complete trust of the citizenry; and to be beyond reproach, government must be beyond criticism, so criticism of the government must be severely curtailed or completely eliminated. This tactic has been used very successfully throughout history when a totalitarian government has taken control.

So returning to Krugman’s Op-Ed piece, and how his pretending to describe the prospective of the right amounted to “the lefts basic premise that the citizenry are not capable of running their own lives, and therefore must relinquish their liberty in the name of security,” is he could not tell the truth about either prospective, so he had to lie. Rather than “the affluent to help the less fortunate” being “morally superior,” what Krugman is espousing is his belief that government is better at making moral decisions than the citizenry; that would be a hard sell if he was being truthful. I’ve already discussed the absurd notion of the rights ownership of violent rhetoric. But when Krugman says “the other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft,” he again is emphasizing that the government is better at spending money that the citizenry; which they are, but only by the way the citizens money is either wasted, or creates a sub group of Americans that are entirely dependent on government. President Obama and the Democrats have even recommended the removal of tax deductions for charitable donations, believing the government is losing tax revenue through these donations, as the government would be much better at deciding where these charitable donations are needed. But the up side of all this is the American people are much more aware than the Left gives them credit. Having a consumer economy means the American people have seen everything modern marketing has come up with, which has it’s basis in various forms of propaganda, so we know a liar when we hear one and the American people hear the left loud and clear

Global Warming Falls Short Under More Intense Scrutiny

Those that have been pushing Anthropological Global Warming (AGW) have been keeping a pretty low profile. The only piece of AGW information that has been released recently has come from NASA’s GISS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), that 2010 was either the hottest year on record or was tied for that distinction. This seeming predictable announcement by the proponents of AGW has suddenly had to defend their data from a slew of scientists detractors and investigative scientific journalist that are finally doing their job. One point of contention has been the a bit of attention has been the National Climatic Data Center's (NCDC) ,( wattsupwiththat.com), apparent deviation from the other climate agencies saying 1998 was the hottest recorded year, and 2010 ranks 94 out of 116 years. If that’s the case, who’s right? Well this is what happens when you have an activist scientist, James Hansen in charge of the Global Warming arm of NASA;the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Hansen has been under increasing scrutiny over his “fabricated numbers” by the likes of the highly regarded “Real Science”; from the UK Telgraph “Real Science demonstrates that the parts of the world which GISS shows to be heating up the most are so short of weather stations that only 25 per cent of the figures are based on actual temperature readings. The rest are simply conjectured by GISS. This is not the first time Dr Hansen’s temperature record has come under expert fire. Three years ago, GISS was forced to revise many of its figures when it was shown that wholesale “adjustments” had been made, revising older temperatures downwards and post-2000 figures upwards.”

After The UN Climate Change Conference debacles in Copenhagen (which was routed by Climategate and the fact that carbon credits would be taken from the non industrial countries and given to IMF) and Cancun, the IPCC has all but capitulated as the real science is starting to win out. Climate Depot in a Special report discusses how “More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC and Gore.” RK Pachuari (head of the IPCC) admitted in the India times, that first, if there is a lack of data to prove (AGW), then the data is made up, “in some cases, you really don't have a quantitative base by which you can attach a probability or a level of uncertainty that defines things in quantitative terms. And there, let's not take away the importance of expert judgment.” Second, that the IPCC is owned by governments, and the results of their research are what ever Governments wants, “…we are owned by governments. If that was not the case, then we would be like any other scientific body that maybe producing first-rate reports but don't see the light of the day because they don't matter in policy-making. Now clearly, if it's an inter-governmental body and we want governments' ownership of what we produce, obviously they will give us guidance of what direction to follow, what are the questions they want answered.”

If there is one piece of pseudo science that is the centerpiece of AGW it is Phil Jones and Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Graph. However, even Jones has had to admit that the graph’s presumption that there has never been a period of warming as has been experienced since the 1900’s and the Industrial Revolution is in dispute. From a reveling article in the UK’s Daily Mail “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995”, “Skeptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD...” which runs counter to the Man Man Made Global Warming consensus, “Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.” Jones and Mann also have not shared any of the data they used to construct the Hockey Stick graph and now say the data is missing due to poor record keeping.

What has also become common is the confusing of weather and climate. The fact that there was an ice (or Glacial age) about 20,000 years ago and that the planet has slowly become warmer to what it is today is climate. The fact that global temperatures have been relatively stable for 15 years is the weather. But the global warming alarmists use these terms interchangingly to suit their purposes. When someone points out that recent winters have been colder, some colder than recorded history, they are quick to quantify this information as weather not climate. However the same AGW scientists have created a farcical “global temperature” to state that 2010 was the hottest years in history, as if there is some scientific manner to measure global temperatures, which there is not. Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University ridiculed the “hottest year” rankings and Hansen’s admission that it “was not particularly important” which year was declared the “hottest.” “Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto,” Maue demanded.” From Professor Werner Kirstein of the Institute for Geography at the University of Leipzig “caution(s) against placing too much emphasis on the decade of 2001 -2010 being the hottest decade on record, believing the claim is “a joke” and saying that determining a global average is a tricky business and in the end is only a theoretical value.

And finally from Icecap Today’s “record warmth” may be fleeting. Statements by agenda driven government agencies can’t be trusted. Real scientific data, not shadowy half truths show that earth’s temperature is falling and has fallen nearly 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 3,000 years. Remember, when someone only reveals part of the truth it means they have something to hide.

Added 01.18.2010
After writing this article, I found several articles on an editorial James Hansen wrote in a state controlled Chinese newspaper. One area of AGW I did not discuss are the eco-fascists such as IPCC Professor David Shearman and James Hansen; both view AGW as a rational for eliminating the Constitutional government of the US for a totalitarian government that they feel could better address the problem of AGW. From prisonplanet.com David Shearman has called for a future government and a new Green religion to replace Christianity and Islam, “Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task...And it is not too difficult to imagine what shape this new religion could take. One would require a transcendent God who could punish and reward – because humans seem to need a carrot and a stick.”

James Hansen is a little more simplistic, but stills believes the authoritarian Chinese is the world's best hope to, “lead the world through the most dangerous crisis that humanity and nature have ever faced”. Hansen believes the US Democracy (is) Not Competent To Deal With Global Warming, saying "Democracy of the sort intended in 1776 probably could have dealt with climate change, but not the fossil-money-’democracy’ that now rules the roost in Washington. Either Hansen has forgotten or simply does not care that the Chinese take great pride that they starved 60 million people to death (the Chinese actually say 84 million died) to bring China into the modern world. One wonders how he expects the Chinese model will work in the US.

What this demonstrates is the scientific dictatorship, which has the basis of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, has simply changes it names. Those espousing the tyranny of a collective government will always find a scientific reason to enslave the masses. If Communism fails, then the elite will use AGW; as AGW has started to fail, the next scientific emergency ready to take it's place will likely be the scarcity of resources and over population. Regardless of the reason, if the collectivist do take control, whether it's called fascism, communism, socialism or eco-fascism, history tells us the end result will always be massive starvation and the death of millions of people.

Revisionist History, Mental Health Patients and Ronald Reagan

With the recent Arizona shootings by a mentally deranged person, the revisionist history of Ronald Reagan and his so called "closing down the mental health system" during his reign as governor in California has popped up again. The real story is Reagan had not turned from the dark side when he was governor, and instituted the changes in the mental health system at the behest of progressive reformers of the time. Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill

The blaming of Ronald Reagan for the destruction the mental heath system is typical progressive revisionists history. By the late 1960s, the idea that the mentally ill were not so different from the rest of us, or perhaps were even a little bit more sane, became trendy. Reformers dreamed of taking the mentally ill out of the large institutions and housing them in smaller, community-based residences where they could live more productive and fulfilling lives. Another Voice-Mental Health Myths Simultaneously, the ACLU was pushing a mental health patients right agenda that resulted in O’Connor v. Donaldson (see below) In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. The Governor signed a bill inspired by those who clamored for the "civil rights" of the mentally ill to be on the street and who claimed they'd be better off with community counseling.Califonia: Good Aims, Bad Results  
 
So no, Reagan, didn't close mental hospitals or put anyone on the street. Progressive views on mental health, a misguided ACLU, and politicians who "know better" did it. Then finally (the last year Reagan was governor), O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to liberty for mental health patients: "There is...no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one." With this constitutional recognition, the practice of mental health law became a process of limiting and defining the power of the state to detain and treat. The result was a codification of mental health rights that have done away with non-voluntary commitment except in extreme cases. Politics and Mental Health

Oh, and what happened to the promised Mental Health clinics to aid mental health out patients? They built them and they did not come. Who would have thought  that unsupervised mental health patients would make poor life decisions and not utilize the support system that was built for them? Or, a better question is, who  in their right mind thought they would? The truth is is was Unfortunately this was known from the beginning and ignored.  HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN

Let's Take a Timeout to Bury Our Dead

The below letter to the editor appeared in the Santa Cruz Sentinel on January 11, 2011. It is typical of the hatred, vitriol and toxic rhetoric that the left is so quick to blame the right for (there was also an onslaught of letters and blogs wishing Sarah Palin had been shot instead) . Further, it serves not to enlighten, but to continue an onslaught of hate and personal attacks against a public figure that is at worst a political hack. While I find Sarah Palin grinding to listen to, I have never been able to understand what it is about her that gets the left so unhinged. Gordon Salisbury letter below contains no solace or even recognition of the pain our nation is feeling by the loss of a public figure taken by a mad man; it only serves to perpetrate hate. Ms Salisbury is so hateful, she dares tell us that any public display of condolences by Sarah Palin in regards to Gabrielle Giffords as self serving, then browbeats Sarah Palin for the unlikelihood of her not attending any of the funerals. Again, this is typical of the left becoming irrational and unhinged anytime the name Sarah Palin is mentioned. Let's take at timeout on this banter so we can bury our dead.

Palin's condolences self serving, disgusting.

It was disgusting to read Sarah Palin's unsolicited, self serving offer of condolences to Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her family. The assailant was apparently a deranged young man angry at the government. No person has done more than Palin to foster ignorance, hatred and reverence for guns and bullets in out culture. Her pestilence was unleashed on our nation by Arizona's own Sen McCain. I'm sure the maverick senator would find a way to clear his calender for a funeral or two. I'll bet Palin is too busy. Gordon Salisbury

This is my response,a shorter version of my previous blog article, Politcal Hack Krugman Says Never Mind the Facts.

Stop blaming the right

Reading Gordon Salisberry's letter blaming Sarah Palin for the six murders and attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, one has to wonder how the left could have so much hate that they would use this horrible tragedy to try and score political points. The truth is no one knows why a psychotic like Jared Loughner would do anything. What is known is Loughner has been obsessed with Giffords since 2007, long before any of the political rhetoric by Sarah Palin. But that hasn't stopped the likes of Paul Krugman and others on the left to hope and pray, not for peace for the families, but that they can use this to their political advantage. From krugmaniswrong.com, "The Arizona shooter was an anti-Semitic, Marxist, atheist, left-wing anarchist, yet somehow the liberal establishment says the right wing media is still at fault."

Political Hack Paul Krugman Says Never Mind the Facts

Jared Lee Loughner is an anarchist psychotic who seemed to have had a personal vendetta against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords since 2007. But this has not stopped the left from immediately blaming Sarah Palin for her "Targeting Map" and/or the political rhetoric from the right in general. The left wing's political hack, Paul Krugman is crossing his fingers and praying he can make a nexus to the Republicans saying, “We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was….You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.” This of course has no basis in fact at all. But the left uses this propaganda, where the same lie is repeated over and over until it is hopefully believed. The left has also tried to fan the flames, trying to create the impression that the right has been perpetrating toxic hate speech, when in reality it is nothing of the kind. The problem is the political rhetoric of right, while not hateful, has been very effective, so the left has been trying to portray the speech as something harmful, with the anticipation that at some point a violent incident like the Arizona shooting will occur, so they can blame the violence on the right and respond with their prepared narrative. The problem here is it looks like the left has jumped the gun and will be unable to show the casual effect they were hoping for; but it will not be for the lack of trying.

One of the key players in blaming right wing rhetoric for this horror is Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, the man leading the investigation into the shooting in Arizona. In an interview with Fox’ Megyn Kelly, Sheriff Dupnik first berates Republicans with "We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country," then places the blame squarely on the right wing TV and radio. "There are a whole lot of people in this country who are very angry about the politics of people like Gabrielle," Dupnik said. "There was a lot of vitriolic statements made night and day on radio and TV about her support of health care, about her support of some of the other things, and some of the vitriol got .... a lot of people agitated." But when asked if the sheriff had discovered anything in his investigation that suggested that Loughner was "listening to radio or watching television and was in any way inspired by what he heard or saw?" Dupnik said no. So no facts to back up any of his accusations, just partisan rhetoric. What he didn't say was, while Gabrielle Giffords was a target of the Tea Party, she is a Blue Dog Democrat, who's conservative views on the 2nd Amendment and Border security is what won her her reelection, despite voting for Obamacare. If the extreme right was going to target a democrat for assassination, Ms Gifford would have been far down on the list. Further, Lounghner also killed Federal Judge John Roll, who was known for his respect for the Constitution and states right; also not an obvious target of the right. What is beginning to emerge, however is a pattern were Dupnik ignored numerous complaints about Loughner's volatility and is now trying to lay blame elsewhere to divert attention from himself.

But as Byron York from the Beltway Confidential remarks in his article, Journalists urged caution after Ft. Hood, now race to blame Palin after Arizona shootings. The title alone says volumes as it speaks of the hypocrisy of the left.

"But the question is, is there any evidence that the suspected shooter in this particular case was a Sarah Palin fan, read Sarah Palin's website, was a member on Facebook, watched her tweets, or anything like that?" "None at all," (congressional reporter Jessica) Yellin responded. "And there is no evidence that this was even inspired by rage over health care, broadly. So there is no overt connection between Sarah Palin, health care, and the [shootings]."

In an exclusive interview with Mother Jones, a friend of Jared Lee Loughner, Bryce Tierney, said Loughner once asked Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at a rally “What is government if words have no meaning?" Giffords' answer, whatever it was, didn't satisfy Loughner. "He said, 'Can you believe it, they wouldn't answer my question,' and I told him, 'Dude, no one's going to answer that,'" Tierney recalls. "Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her."

Still Krugman won't let it go. In an Op-ED piece Climate of Hate Krugman, rather than apologize for his earlier blog statements, he wrote, "It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate." In other words, there is simply no nexus between the shooter in Arizona and the Tea Party or any political rhetoric for that matter, but I'm going to try and make one anyway. He goes on to say, " Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? (What does that matter if it's irrelevant to the shooting?) Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right (as one of my favorite bloggers Krugman is Wrong responded to this,"the left will just keep saying it over and over again, like they said the Tea Party protests were violent despite no violent action ever taking place").

Krugman continued, "It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P." Of course Bachmann was referring to be being armed with information that would be dangerous to the Democrats energy bill, but how about candidate Obama saying, ""If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun?" Krugman is so oblivious here he can not even comprehend how, while trying to demonize his enemy, he is demonizing himself and the Democratic Party. But never mind that. The left had been anxiously waiting for this moment and were "locked and loaded" with their replies (oops my bad). With no evidence, no facts, no information to contradict that Jared Lee Loughner is anything other than a psychotic killer, or that he was even aware of Michele Bachmann's political rhetoric or even who she is, Krugman becomes that which he professes to so concerned about, the toxic purveyor of political hate. Krugman is everything that is wrong with politics; even with all partisanship aside he is simply dishonest. And Americans despise a liar.

Liberals put Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in their “sights” long before Sarah Palin

The left has been up in arms implying that map by Sarah Palin showing targeted states and legislatures (including Gabrielle Giffords) for the 2010 election was provocation for her attempted assassination. But in an informative article by Drew Zahn, of the Worldnetdaily Look Who Else Put 'Bull's-eye' on Giffords, Zahn points out the due to Giffords yes vote on a 2008 deregulation bill back by AT&T, the Daily KOS founder, Markos Moulitsas, placed Giffords on his “target list.”

In a 2008 Daily Kos post, Moulitsas listed Giffords as one of dozens of representatives with "a bull's-eye on their district" for being a "bad apple" Democrat.” Further there is the Democrats 2004 Targeting map, which looks identical to Palin's map



The Daily KOS also posted a one of the blog's diary writers, identifying himself as "BoyBlue", berating Gifford saying she is “now dead to me.” The post was dated Jan 6, 2011 and was removed after Gifford’s shooting.

“Today, just a little while ago, I saw on Andrea Mitchell Reports that Giffords voted against Nancy Pelosi as our minority leader. … Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is dead to me now.”

After the shooting "BoyBlue" left this rambling accusatory post after apologizing for his previous post.

“However, I have to offer a heartfelt 'f--- you' to the right-wing blogs," he writes, "for even mentioning my username here in any connection to that unspeakable and unthinkable horror."

Sorry BlueBoy, but you can't put the smoke back in the box just by sounding indignant.

By now the American people have become used to the hypocritical rantings of the left that have for years tried to paint the conservative right and Tea Party as violent with absolutely no evidence, when it has always been the left that has called out for violent revolution, including the murder and assassination of those had hinder their agenda. With typical liberal hyperbole they rant against that for which they are the most guilty, using revisionists history to try and hide their hypocrisy. But of all things it is the internet that has been their downfall; as it's hard to deny history when it's just a click away and staring you in the face.

Worst Congress Ever?

I would take much to much time to go back and rehash everything that made the 111th the Worst Congress ever, but the result was a 25% approval rating (which reached a low of 17%) and the enactment of what is possibly the worst legislation in modern history; Healthcare reform. I will explain this in a little more detail later, but I present to you one of the best political cartoons I can remember and certainly the most succinct about Nancy Pelosi.


If you had to identify a single cause of Nancy Pelosi's failure, it would no doubt be her partisanship. When handed a House so lopsided with Democrats that there was no mathematical need to be bi-partisan, she simply excluded the Republicans on all matters, which eventually horrified the electorate resulting in a 60 member Republican turnover based almost totality on stopping the Democrats and undoing what they had done, without really any other plan of their own. When the above cartoon was published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, it resulted in two complaint letters. The second I resonded to on the Sentinel opinion blog that resulted in the usual Liberal personal attacks and the accusation that those that voted the Democrats out and the republicans in were the moral equivalent of the Germans voting in the Nazi party; I'm not kidding. Here is the letter, my response and the hysterical responses to my opinions.

Pelosi's not Saddam

Based on the Jan. 5 issue of the Sentinel, I have to wonder how low you are willing to stoop with the political cartoons you publish. Lisa Benson's depiction of Nanci Pelosi as Saddam Hussein was offensive in the extreme. Can the Sentinel at least set some kind of standard wherein some reasonable political statement is being made in the cartoons and opinion articles it presents? I feel insulted that I actually subscribe to a publication that has no standards when it comes to the crucially important task of communicating intelligent political discourse in America. Please Sentinel, do not contribute to what is wrong with our country as it suffers through unconstructive divisiveness.

Mark Varner, Boulder Creek

My Reply: While I don't believe that Nancy Pelosi actually killed anyone (but she did approve torture which she later lied about), a comparison to Saddam Hussien is not "offensive in the extreme". Ms Pelosi lied every time she opened her mouth. She simply ignored the suffering caused by high unemployment, to this day blaming George Bush, but never taking any steps to relieve it. Instead she ignored the will of the people and rammed through what has been deemed by both Democrats and Republicans as the worst legislation ever enacted in modern times. The result was worst congressional rating in history and the a literal revolution to remove as many Democrat representatives as possible (the most in history) to stop the Pelosi juggernaut. The only thing missing was the American people lining up to beat her effigy with their shoes.

#1 Response: I view Mrs Pelosi as a hero, all the more so if she upsets a caveman like yourself. You republicans love to attack personality because if you talked about the issues you care about (lets have more war, screw the poor and the elderly!) you would net get as much traction.

My reply to #1: Perhaps you can point out were I personally attacked Nancy Pelosi. I did not say she was evil. I made no disparaging remarks about her age, the way she dresses, her intelligence or her leadership abilities. On the other hand you are the one that called me a cavemen, which is usually used to judge one lacking in intelligence. I simply stated I believed Nancy Pelosi to be a liar and I explained my reasoning. I also said I believed she was deaf to the wants of the American people evidenced by the health care bill she enacted. Finally I am a Constitutional Liberal, meaning a believer in the unalienable rights of man (only in the US does liberal mean left leaning). While I think it was morally justified for the US military to step in and stop genocide in some corners of the world, I believe that this is were being the worlds policeman should end; the Kuwaiti war was justifiable due to American interests in oil, but Afghanistan and Iraq were a waste of precious American blood. Finally we'll just have to disagree on how government, such as the 60's welfare act doomed many, especially blacks to generations of poverty and how Nancy Pelosi's healthcare reform will soon result in the untimely death of the elderly (if you think I am exaggerating take a look at the British NICE, an institute that bases the cost of treatment on whether you will live long enough to justify the cost). When will the left learn that socialism like the ring or Mordor is evil and can never be used for good.

#2 Response: Wow! If we are going to use past historical figures and situations to interpret this last election season two months ago, it would be to compare to 1933 Germany. The political energization of a politically naive class during a period of high unemployment and a really down economy, wherein this class is duped into supporting a legislative agenda that will only worsen that class' situation (they want change, but choose the absolute wrong kind).
A literal revolution?? How about a corporate (and billionaire's) revolution to demonize any law or lawmaker in support of consumer protection, environmental protection, and worker protection?
The worst legislation ever enacted in modern times? Worse than Jim Crow laws in the US forty years ago? Worse than the legislation in Germany sending people to death camps based on their religion seventy years ago? Might want to reconsider your terminology!

My Reply to #2: If you want an historic pre WWll analogy, you may want to look at the US, where communists and fascists, tried as they might, could not make any in roads with the American people. They used much of the same class warfare rhetoric you are using now, but despite the depression and massive unemployment, the American people preferred to hold onto liberty as described by our founders, not liberty based on the doing away with the burden of choice. The result was Europe destroyed by socialism and America having the highest standard of living in the world. You may complain about the corporate welfare, but keep in mind, it is always the result of big government; there has never been a monopoly or cartel that did not involve government corruption. You also need to brush up on you history. Hitler never achieved more than 37% of the vote. In the last election before he was sworn in as Chancellor, (November 6, 1932) the Nazi party actually lost 34 seats, holding only 32% of the Reichstag. The decision to make Hitler Chancellor was a political decision by a weak leader, not the "energization of a politically naive class".

BTW, the NAZI final solution came long after Hitler dissolved the German parliament; it was not legislation but the horror of a lunatic fringe. Regardless I obviously was referencing legislation enacted in the United States. As bad as segregation was, it pails in comparison to the eugenics that is the basis of socialized medicine; President Obama said it best; it's too expensive to give grandma a pacemaker, better to give he a pain pill instead. Add to that the fascists agreements made with Big Pharm (no longer allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices), Big Health Ins, which will determine the future control of every drug you take, what you eat, what treatments you are allowed to have and how long you have to wait until you get it (all at the determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, currently Kathleen Sebelius); forcing you to buy the Insurance from a private insurer at whatever rate they determine (Big Health actually wrote the healthcare bill and there are no previsions to control premiums). Yes, the health reform bill is the worst legislation ever enacted in the United States. It pained me to no end every time I heard Nancy Pelosi state that "every American would be guaranteed affordable and quality healthcare," when I knew she cares nothing for the individual citizen, but simply viewed herself as the elite trying to collectivize the citizenry through healthcare.

Certainly these responses were expected, but I still have to shake my head when I am personally attacked by the left for supposedly personally attacking someone on the left. Further any attack from the left would not be complete without being compared to a Nazi. Of course the second responder as seems to be the case with most Liberals, had a poor understanding of history, something that is no doubt a result of their revisionists views.