1. Thomas Jefferson (3rd President) -- Jefferson was an opponent of slavery. The problem was, the majority of the country favored slavery.
Really? Source of the 'majority' reference please.
Slavery, a tradition inherited from our British roots, was a compromise to get 11 states for ratification. Part of the compromise was -
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
which was executed in 1807 with The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807), a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
So, if the majority 'approved', why is that part of section 9 in the original document? /rhet question
"Many Americans also question the war in Iraq, and undoubtedly, it will always be known as one of the most controversial wars in history."
How many non-controversial wars in history can you name?
Posted by: European Conservative ||
Jefferson: Additionally, he had a relationship with a slave named Sally Hemmings.
It wasn't all that controversial at the time. It wasn't common knowledge except for a political hubbub in 1802. Since she was his property and what took place within his household was his business the whole thing died pretty quickly. Since his wife had died in 1782 she didn't object. The relationship was lengthy, and presumably affectionate, so there are more people bitching about it today than there were then.
If they need to dig up controversy about Jefferson, start with the Louisianna Purchase. The original idea was just to buy New Orleans. Buying the entire Louisianna territory went beyond his constitutional powers.
Then skip over a few things and light on the treason of "his" vice president (Aaron Burr, the man who plugged Alexander Hamilton in a duel). There were the ill-advised Embargo Laws, and of course the prohibition on the import of slaves in 1808. So was the Indian Removal Act one of Jefferson's ideas.
There is an adage that reads "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity... but don't rule out malice." This is known as Heinlein's or Hanlon's Razor (there is only a slight difference between the two). Unfortunately many people only go by the first part of Heinlein's Razor, leaving out the "but don't rule out malice" part. People using this heuristic decision-making shortcut often think that even though some things that people do seem very suspect, and even though mental red flags are going up and instinctive alarms are sounding, that there must be some explanation, other than malice, to explain the actions of people. This is especially true when the suspicious people are connected to them is some way like family, friends, or even the politicians that they support. Many people using Heinlein's Razor shrug off these suspicious actions as if they were just a mistake, or maybe the actions that people did were the result of "bad luck", or possibly that ignorance can explain why they made those decisions. But I would like to focus on the second part of Heinlein's Razor which of course is: but don't rule out malice.
Sometimes, some people actually act out of malice. Malicious people do exist in the world and always have, as far back as the beginning of recorded human history. It is easily possible that you know, or know of, some malicious people. They could be your acquaintances or friends; they could even be in your family, and yes, they might be one or more of your political leaders. In support of the second part of Heinlein's Razor there's another adage called Occam's razor that says among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected -- the simpler the explanation, the more likely it is to be true, everything else being equal. If you have to mentally jump through a lot of hoops to explain how someone's motive cannot be malice then Occam's Razor says that the more assumptions you need to make the less likely that your hypothesis is true.
Focusing on politics, and by association politicians, what if the harmful actions that your politicians make can be more logically explained by malice than by stupidity? For example, most politicians are quite intelligent. Most have succeeded in academics at the highest levels in the world. Most have also been very successful in business or professionally besides success in politics. Only the smallest percentage of politicians could actually be described as stupid prior to their being elected. So how is it possible that some of the most successful and intelligent people in the United States cansuddenly become stupid the moment they walk in the door of Congress? Or alternatively, how is it possible that these intelligent and successful people suddenly become unlucky? Is there any logical explanation? Isn't it much more likely that the people in congress are just as lucky and intelligent as they were the day before they were elected? And if that is true, how can you explain the "stupid" things that these intelligent and successful politicians do?
What kind of person would want to do harm to America? Well, besides Islamists there are people that believe that "The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States." That quote is from George Soros, who is using his billions to create a global "open society" (more correctly called a global Marxist police state). But Soros is just one of many who hold the same negative beliefs about America. Soros and many other of his fellow travelers, in all their widely varied flavors (Communists, Stalinists, Fascists, Maoists, and progressives among others) living outside and inside America have been seeking America's destruction so that a utopian society can be formed from its ashes for over 100 years.
The memo is not getting out through the main stream media. The current administration is not sounding the alarm either but then both have received huge amounts of money from Soros and others of like mind.
[Dawn] It is a massacre alright. Sunni Death Eaters, aligned with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, are killing Shias by the dozens in Pakistain.
I was yet to compile the list of the 106 (mostly Shias) killed in the twin kabooms in Quetta last month, that the news of another kaboom killing yet another 84 (mostly Shias) in Quetta came over the wire. As the Shia massacres in Pakistain gain momentum, the State, including the Superior Courts, appear completely impotent.
In such troubling times some Shias may have a choice. They may sit and wait for a messiah or relocate to a Shia-exclusive enclave elsewhere, or to escape from Pakistain altogether. It may sound harsh, but it is an inescapable truth that Pakistain has been run over by the faceless myrmidons and life is going to be even tougher for the minorities and moderate Sunnis in the near future.
In the two consecutive months this year, kabooms have killed hundreds of Shia Hazaras in Quetta, a Garrison town where each and every street is manned by intelligence operatives. Still, the Islamic fascistioperate with impunity. Saturday's kaboom, which has killed over 80 and injured hundreds, occurred almost within a month of the last kaboom that delivered even a higher corpse count.
Space is fast running out in Shia graveyards in Quetta. It may be the time for Shias to relocate to protect their next generation.
At a certain point fighting for one's rights is hopeless, and it's time to work on making sure one's children survive...elsewhere. Unless something turns Pakistan off its current path, it's going to worsen until the very purest one is the only one left in the smoking rubble.
Many naively believe that peace will prevail in Pakistain and Afghanistan after the scheduled withdrawal of NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Originally it was a mutual defense pact directed against an expansionist Soviet Union. In later years it evolved into a mechanism for picking the American pocket while criticizing the cut of the American pants... troops from Afghanistan in 2014. While I vehemently oppose prolonging the stay of the NATO forces in the region, still I believe this would spell even a bigger disaster for the minorities in Pakistain. The battle-hardened veterans of the Afghan war will return to Pakistain to target Shias, Ahmadis, and other religious minorities. Even Barelvis may not escape the wrath of the mostly Deobandi-led militancy.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
Iran doesn't care about Pakistani Hazaras - not all Shia are created equal. Besides, until their nukes are ready, they dare not attack Pakistan anyway. Without nukes, I'd happily sell programs and popcorn, but.....
Iran is more likely to attack Iraq first than Pakistan. No nukes, large Shia population, tensions already high, and invading the kurd area's would help stop the resistance in their NW border.
Posted by: Charles ||
And go where?
Just head south. Keep going south. Until they can't go south anymore.
I figure that's probably a few hundred feet into the Indian Ocean, for most of them.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
Iran like other countries is interested in either reclaiming lost territories, or in alternate dev very close diplomatic + trade ties wid same.
IIRC Pakistan's Shias comprise roughly 1/4 of the country's population, + have been there for generations since before the separation/
partition of Muslim Pakistan from Hindu India. IMO its highly unlikely that the bulk of Pakistan's Shia comunity will just up-n-move widout a fight.
That leaves Iran-led external pressure + ultimately possible mil intervention, ostensibly to enforce the unliteral or bilateral protection of Pakistan's Shias from local Sunnis, but perhaps more realistically to ensure Iranian control or domination of Pakistan's LR Nuclear Arsenal.
DETERRING OR DEFEATING A US GROUND WAR AGZ IRAN = IRAN NEEDING TO KEEP USN NUCLEAR CARRIERS + AMPHIBS OUT OF THE PERSIAN GULF AMAP AFAP ALAP = IRAN NEEDS PAK SHIAS TO STAY, NOT LEAVE.
The Hazaras are once again demanding Pak Govt-Army protection + arrest of Sunni perpetrators while also refusing to bury the bodies of their dead until Islamabad agrees, + Perps caught, punished.
* DEFENCE FORUM INDIA > GENOCIDE OF PAKISTAN'S HAZARA COMMUNITY.
China is Pakistan's BFF, which IMO means that IRan will likely demand that China pressure Pakistan to stop the anti-Shia violence. Iran is also likely to attempt to bring Russia on board - IFF PAKISTAN CANNOT OR WILL NOT STOP THE ANTI-SHIA VIOLENCE, THEN IRAN IS LIKELY TO USE RUSSIA AS A HEDGE/OFFSET AGZ CHINA IN CASE IRAN HAS TO SEND IN ITS ARMY + IRGC INTO PAKISTAN TO QUELL THINGS.
I don't see Rising Iran accepting any option where Pak Shias will be asked or made by Islamabad to up-n-leave Pakistan.
WHEN northern Mali fell to terrorists and foreign militants last April, a debate began over the causes of the country's chaotic collapse. Many argued that it was a direct byproduct of NATO's 2011 intervention in Libya, which sent thousands of well-armed men across the Sahara to Mali. Others pointed to Mali's internal corruption and ethnic divisions. But little was said about the most important factor: Europeans have knowingly bankrolled Islamist radicals with ransom payments since at least 2003.
Sixteen years before the 9/11 attacks, the United States sold Iran weapons indirectly in the hopes of freeing American hostages held by Iran's proxy, Hezbollah. The Iran-contra debacle taught America, among other things, that paying ransom money only emboldens terrorist groups and their backers. Yet when confronted with the same challenge, European leaders have failed to heed that lesson, and have filled the coffers of terrorist groups for at least a decade.
The so-called global war on terror has been hobbled by these payoffs. The same nations that until very recently had troops in Afghanistan fighting terrorism have been turning over cash to terrorists in Africa.
Over the past decade, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands have paid more than $130 million to terrorist groups, mostly through mediators, to free European hostages.
Various USAID programs accomplish much the same thing as ransom payments, the pipeline is just a bit longer and less transparent. $130 million is a paltry drop in the bucket compared to our foreign aid budget.
They are resurrecting the rotted corse of Iran Contra? Oh please sweet lord wasn't that discredited a long time ago?
Or I guess if you hate Reagan enough and hate Bush enough you'll dig up any and every dead conspiracy theory.
To me the main thread is the EU has been funding terrorism with their ninnie limp weiney attitudes toward Islam (but the French got the memo during the Moslem Ghetto riots and have changed course). But to make it not so bad, they have to say "Well the US did the same thing....in....uh....uh....THE IRAN CONTRA scandal!!!"
Well Iran contra was two things, it was an attempt to have another Watergate. AND it was the US Congress making foreign policy ala Viet Nam when they forbid the President from sending aid to a PRO AMERICAN ANTI COMMUNIST insurgency fighting against a Cuban proxy COMMUNIST. Geez, if that isn't enough to make you wonder who is running the country and why that didn't come out in the press coverage.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
it IS the NY Times. The paper of leftist record. The one in a financial death spiral
Posted by: Frank G ||
Carlos 'Obamaphone' Slim still has petty cash. The NYT is a loss leader.