the needle and the damage done

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan

Neil Young should remember

  

Lynyrd Skynyrd probably had the best response to carpetbagging Neil Young years ago when they said Southern Man doesn't need him around

The reactions by Spotify to Young's ultimatum last week shows what was true years ago is still true today.

Neil Young's call for censorship comes at a time when the political left, of which he is a part, is also screaming about censorship but bias Tennessee School Board of a holocaust book

The problem is that many of the same people who are promoting censorship on Spotify are speaking against the Tennessee School Board but have stayed silent when it came to censorship of Dr Seuss and even George Orwell in Mark Twain in the last few years

Neil Young has always been something of a political wannabe, someone who is late for the bandwagon, but he jumps out and anyway. This is true of his early work such as Southern Man and Alabama where he is trying to be Bob Dylan only 10 years too late.

His classic Four dead in Ohio showed that he knew nothing of the dynamics of Kent State but needed to make his voice heard to the anti-war movement after he had been silent for almost a decade on that issue as well

The fact that Joni Mitchell came out on Neil Young side and calling for censorship is no such a big surprise since she and Neil Young have been bed bugs in the same Laurel Canyon jet set that included Tommy Smothers, Peter Fonda and a host of Hollywood snobs back in the 60s

It's Hanoi Jane all over again only Neil Young comes from Canada, making social judgments about stuff he is inadequate to fully understand and just seems to want to be the hip kid on the block.

Maybe Neil Young's simply jealous of Bruce Springsteen who seems to have been able to sell his soul to the capitalistic devil and still maintain his cache as a working-class, blue-collar rebel

Neil Young has never been working class and as a carpetbagger from Canada has injected his pop philosophy on a situation far more complex than he understands, a kind of musical version of the 1619 Project based on cliches, stereotypes and a kind of reverse racism in order to be part of the cool crowd

The worst part of those who defend his call for action on Spotify is their selective use of censorship demanding that another person be censored while objecting to the censorship of a book in a school.

While Neil Young and his bed mate Joni Mitchell are not calling for censorship of others, many of their supporters are and so we have this hypocritical double standard movement that has the Neil Young into some kind of folk hero instead of a political opportunist.

The ultimate question, of course, is how valuable Neil Young is to contemporary society that he could throw down the gauntlet or even the more talented Joni Mitchell. Do these people really matter? Do we really need them around, pontificating about the world, when in fact they spent most of their lives living as part of the Laurel Canyon social elite, snorting coke and playing the role of gods of the music industry while elsewhere real protest went on, some – like Neil Young – coming out with a song now and then to validate their sense of self-importance. Even Joni Mitchell’s Woodstock (performed by Young and his equally deluded pals) was an illusive tribute to a life style none of them every experience, except at a distance.

Most of the reaction by young people is laced ageism not racism, suggesting that old fogies like these or to be content with having had their day in the sun and should shut up about it and let other people make decisions about what order appear on Spotify.

Since Neil Young's stand, several other people I have also decided they were going to jump on this bandwagon, mostly non-notable musicians, looking for free publicity, doing their bit for this moral crusade, that includes self-righteous indignant self-centered people like Neil Young

The needle and the damage done

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan

Supreme Court madness again

 

 

 

Considering how corrupt Merrick Garland turned out as the U.S. Attorney General, we clearly dodged a bullet when Republicans blocked his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016.

If Garland and his back room deals to promote his son’s Critical Race Theory business at gun point using the FBI, Garland would have been worse had he been granted a life-time appointment instead of the four-year appointment he has now.

With the forced resignation liberal Justice Breyer, the challenge for the GOP won’t be to avoid his being replaced by another liberal judge (that’s inevitable) but to keep the new justice from being as corrupt as Garland or as extreme as any of the candidates the radical left would like to replace him with.

Democrats have a problem in that they have recently savaged two of their own who opposed the radical agenda that would have destroyed the Senate filibuster, they must rely on those two votes in the Senate to appoint a replacement.

If those Democrats opposed gutting the constitution in a radical left power grab, many people are wondering will they go along with appointing a far left radical to the Supreme Court.

The radical left progressives are pushing to ger a black woman nominated – one particular choice is a black woman with an anti-cop and extreme left agenda which may not settle well in the stomachs of moderate Democrats beyond the two who voted against ending the filibuster.

This is the first chance Democrats have had to nominate anyone since their failed attempt to get their stealth radical Garland prior to the 2016 presidential election. The GOP managed to stall Garland’s appointment until after the elections, one which everybody assumed Hillary Clinton would win and the political punt would be mute.

Trump’s victory stalled the radical take over of the high court as well as delayed the radical left’s political coup for four long years, partly explaining why Democrats and media went into a tantrum. Most assumed a Biden victory (if it really was that) in 2020 would put the radical power grab train back on the track, only to have it partly derailed by two Democratic senators who opposed the corrupt takeover of American government.

Unable to get Garland appointed to the court, the radicals have another chance to restart their take over of government. While hardly a deciding vote on the high court, this appointment could be the first step in an ultimate takeover of the court if Democrats manage to hold onto power in the 2024 election.

While it is unlikely the Democrats will find someone so ethically conflicted as Garland is, they are looking for someone so far to the left that no moderate could vote for her with a good conscience.

Unable to stop the appointment of a liberal judge (nor should they try), the GOP needs to appeal to moderate Democrats to support the appointment of a moderate liberal justice rather than one that is too extreme (provided the moderate is not a stealth candidate who will bring those radical values to the high court anyway).

The lack of ethics but people like Garland and their potential to do serious damage when they reach Pinnacles of power scares the crap out of me.

What we hope for in judges are people who can be more or less impartial, who get nominated for their perceived positions but rise above their own prejudices to be fair and to create a more perfect nation through their decision making.

What we get, however or people who are bound to some preconceived agenda and who violated every rule of ethics in order to live up to the expectations of the people who put them there.

Media talks about the massive dark money that has been used to get Garland on the Supreme Court in 2016. That same dark money is now pushing for a radical black woman to be on the court the first step towards a radicalization of the court in the future if the Democrats can retain power in the Senate and the White House.

Since the same dark money that backed him is now backing the new extremists judge being proposed we can expect no better ethics nor moderation in this campaign of hatred and certainly nothing moderate in the future court.

In this I am hoping I am wrong but it's not likely we are going to see a reasonable person nominated and a reasonable person installed; we are going to see an attempt to stack the court from within and this new nominee will be the first brick in a very, very dangerous road to a Marxist state in the future.

 

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan

Welcome to the new Democratic plantation

  

Nothing much as changed in America when it comes to enslaving black people.

I’m not talking about the distorted history espoused by the 1619 Project, Howard Zinn and other fringe groups.

The fact is Democrats still think black people incapable of making their own choices or living their own lives without special assistance.

What's amazing is how little the Democrats have changed since the days of the Old South
Although we get all of the propaganda about how badly slaves were treated prior to the Civil War, what people really don't understand about the Deep South was that Democrats painted themselves as the lords of the manor whom black serfs serve, surfs that must be taken care of, guided and sometimes punished.

Despite the abolitionist propaganda then and now, treatment of slaves prior to the Civil War varies from Plantation to Plantation.

For the most part, slaves were treated reasonably well – if only in some cases because of the significant investment masters made in acquiring slaves. Most masters would no more beat or humiliate or starve their slaves than they would a horse.

Many – especially the large plantation owners – literally modeled themselves after British royalty, and believed they owed a certain allegiance to their slave-like surfs – provided these slaves were loyal to their masters. These slave owners were often baffled by slaves who resented being “taken care of” and hated the abolitionists who deliberately sought to get slaves to rise up and revolt (a rare and mostly unsuccessful event since many slaves feared the unknown concept of freedom when they were clothed, fed and housed by southern masters)

Most of the plantation owners saw blacks as incapable of taking care of themselves and needed these lords of the manor to see for their welfare.

Some masters – as accurately portrayed by some of the current propaganda – were egomaniac and cruel; Most were not; most honestly believe that they were operating in the welfare of their Serfs, failing to appreciate the fact that black, red, brown or yellow, these people could take care of themselves if provided with the necessary education and resources.

A hundred and fifty years later, Democrats still play the role of Lords of the Manor, only today, they use government funding to act out their role as benefactor.

Instead of having individual Plantation scattered through the South we have a federal government that has become the central Plantation and the Democratic Lords of the manor distribute wealth in order to take care of the hapless and the helpless which happen to be people of color
This is what's so insulting about most of the arguments they make including all of the propaganda coming out of the New York Times and critical race Theory – which along with Howard Zinn – as being injected into the educational curriculum to further implant the idea that black people are victims of social injustice and only Democrats can help them.

Understand, Democrats make a lot of money out of providing these – such as the current U.S. Attorney Garland, whose son sells Critical Race Theory packages to school districts. Many prominent Democrats serve as landlords, stock holders or chief executive officers to programs funded by government in order to provide for needy people of color.

To keep people in color in place, Democrats reinforce the idea that such surfs are victims, and that white conservatives are clearly trying to disenfranchise them – such as requiring proof of identity to vote (when many people of color already had to provide such ID to get access to the programs Democrats oversee.)

The never-ending barrage of propaganda pushed through liberal media paints these Democratic overseers as benevolent redistributors of wealth (missing that like any good mafia operation, the overseers get their cut.)

Although sometimes referred to as “nanny” leadership, Democrats are hardly the equitable people they claim, being overly generous with taxpayer money they themselves share to run all these programs.

It is hugely important for Democrats to maintain the fiction that only they can help people of color and to paint conservatives as evil people who would strip people of color of their rights.

Through curriculum pushed through schools, kids are taught they are victims and that they must rely on liberal programs – must the way old south masters kept slaves in the dark about what freedom was. The south prohibited blacks from getting and education to avoid abolitionist propaganda. Today’s Democrats have taken this a step further, giving kids miseducation that will guarantee their loyalty to the new planation masters.

People of color are taught from kindergarten that they are helpless and victims, and only the Democrats can make them free, when it appears, such dependence only further enslaves them.

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan

Old fallout shelters wanted

 

Living up to the concept that everything old is new again, the broaching of the peace with Russia may well provide a good reuse of old property throughout the United States.

Apparently, the hottest commodity in the real estate market these days are old bomb shelters from the 1950s.

These are bunkers that paranoid people in hysterical fit built back in the good old days of the Cold War when they were convinced the Russian missiles were going to rain down on big cities like Philadelphia New York and LA.

This is a perfect get away when public concerns shift from global climate change to global nuclear war, and people become desperate to find a place other than Whole Foods to protect them.

Public shelters used to exist – and can still be found in the basements of old schools and official buildings – as indicated by the rusting black and yellow signs still hanging outside.

But in the aftermath of the cold war, many of these older buildings have been demolished in favor of luxury rentals who glass, and plastic might not prove as a reliable a deterrent to the nuclear holocaust as the old steel and stone might have.

There is still hope that a determined buy might find one of the many private bunkers people built before the fall of the Berlin Wall – if not yet converted by Millennials making them utterly useless when radiation sweeps through the atmosphere instead of global warming.

Yet some may well be found born out of a hysteria that was more concerned with Russian missiles targeting our big cities than with the threat we might get a cold from people standing closer than six feet from us.

Acquiring an old bomb shelter, however, might not be quite enough to sustain the average family during the aftermath of such as attack. With all the Whole Food markets obliterated, people will be desperate for food and water – even if they are lucky enough to find a hole to hide in.

Wisely, the so-called insurrectionists have for years been building up their supply of food in anticipation of such an event -- since they predicted that the Democratic and liberal agenda would eventually lead us back to the brink of global extinction no bicycle or scooter riding can undo.

Just how we can expect people to fix these old shelters up in time is still a problem and perhaps there are old time contractors who still have the talent to make these place is secure again and allow people to run into them when the bombs fall, the way people in the Midwest head for hurricane shelters to protect them against tornados.

The big problem of course comes after the blast since it is unlikely anybody is going to want to emerge into this radioactive landscape once the bombing has stopped it will be hard to find an Uber or to Pedal your scooter among the rubble and you're certainly not going to find any convenient Farmers Market to buy your groceries in even if the shelves of normal Supermarket weren't already bear before the bombing started.

So ultimately the only survivors of the Holocaust will be those who have stocked up their reserves and are already accepting the fact that the world will once more return to the concept of the survival of the fittest.

And it is unlikely that any strangers will be allowed into any private shelter when the bombing starts so they will largely turn to dust relieving the world of a plague of liberals.

 

 

 

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan

Voting rights bill for dead people

 

It is clear that the recent defeat of the Democratic voting rights bill has really discriminated against some potential voters.

In particular, some voters who have in the past voted Democratic in almost every election

Obviously, the GOP frowns upon dead people voting

Yet this is clearly an infringement on the rights of all those people who are in graveyards who have loyally voted Democrat – some even prior to their internment.

Some individual states have demanded that people show identification in order to vote – even possibly prove they are citizens.

This poses serious obstacles these long-time dead voters, who have voted unimpeded in the past and clearly discriminates against whole graveyards full of good citizens who can't possibly meet the identification qualifications that some states are demanding.

Photo ID is unrealistic since -- well, frankly -- the dead no longer look like they did when they were living.

Even signature check would be somewhat problematic since fleshless fingers can be a little shaky and the signatures would most likely not resemble the one, they might have had before they started to decay.

Republicans obviously have a prejudice against the Dead that makes them bigots for demanding that people be alive to be able to vote.

Many of these dead people were formally citizens and could possibly vote for the GOP if the GOP was so inclined to dig up their remains as well.

Some ungrateful and undemocratic GOP members have referred to this bill as the Zombie bill which is totally unfair.

Nobody is suggesting zombies should have the right to vote -- at least not yet.

But there is a fringe group of animal rights Democrats who believe that animals should also have the right to vote -- cats and dogs after all or basically slaves to their masters and it is clearly biased to deny them.

The problem with this is some people would like to see they're goldfish also vote and subject to GOP mandate that there be an intelligence test.

Even some of the most ardent Democrats, however, clearly opposed giving the vote to slugs -- nobody likes slugs,

To get this Democratic dead people bill passed that would allow the dead to vote, the Democrats must do away with the filibuster because there are even people in their own party who are a little skeptical over this Prospect of dead voting.

They are probably more concerned by lack of loyalty among the Dead after all for years Democrats have managed to keep their living voters in line by giving them patronage -- which is largely what the recent reparations movement for slavery was all about.

But how do you keep dead voters from switching parties when they do not need or want jobs or any reparations for having died?

Perhaps, the dead would have more sway if they like Native Americans owned and operated large casinos where they could guarantee under the table donations to the Democratic Party

Some Democrats have proposed a Party tax on the plots in which the dead are buried.

This would pose a challenge however for those who were cremated. Do you actually expect to tax and urn or find the dead person after the ashes have been scattered?

Of course, Senator Schumer has told us he will reintroduce the Dead Voting Rights Act as soon as he can twist enough arms to do away with the filibuster. The GOP, however, along with some Democrats said they will continue to oppose this bill even if it kills them.

 

 

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan

Making progress I’m still alive 1985

 

 

Dec. 19, 1985

 

Ill again – although rare these days, lucky for me, when the world appears primed for international disaster, diseases rampant, partly due to poor nutrition.

Much of this has to do with the way food is marketed full of sugar and stuff.

Too many people are starving even though they eat too much, while others starve for lack of having enough.

Mine condition is just a simple head cold; though fear grows with each degree drop in the temperature.

The cold snap arrives at noon and at my worst physical condition and is expected to drop to zero by tomorrow.

Makes me wonder how humanity survived the ice age, living in caves, huddled around fire, struggling to find food in the midst of storms and over frozen landscape – in an environment clearly far worse than what we suffer through today.

History books rarely go into enough detail about that aspect of evolution, individual survival over the prospect of mass extinction – bodies buried hours apart after each new apocalypse, disease rising out of the stench, killing as many as the disaster did.

How did it feel to grow up in a cave, one child in a litter of 20, sometimes the lone survivor?

To see bodies frozen in winter, buried later when the thaw comes by mid-summer, old and decrepit by the age of 27, part of swiftly moving generations that do not have time to contemplate history or even remember anything more than yesterday, this generation dying in order to make room for the next and the generation after that.

To think that here in the United States the quality and length of life has massively improved from those days of mere survival, even back to those days when we founded this nation, each generation stretching out its fingers to cling to a few more years of life.

My grandmother just turned 86, one of a handful of souls that has lived long enough to have seen one century turn into the next, as I hope and expect to do when I get to her age, though as much out of luck than out of intention.

Three weeks ago, my uncle Frank contracted pneumonia, still fatal sometimes today, though a death sentence 50 years ago (Frank would pass away after a series of lung, heart and other ailments in the year 2000 at the age of 62).

We are making progress partly because we have become so wealthy as a society, from the richest to the poorest – though in truth, in our world, the richest and the poorest are the most often saved, wealth guaranteeing those on top the best of care, the welfare state helping those most needy get what they need – while in between, the bent backs of working people like my uncle are left to fend for themselves.

Reagan tells us wealth trickles down – and it does -- we have the wealthiest poor in the world – yet not fast enough for those who want to see the rich foot the bill for the poor when for now working people pay the tab at the end of the day, and still struggle to pay their own way, while paying for poor they’ve never met.

We have tamed nature to a great extent, gas and oil to heat our homes, expensive electric to give us light by night, with electric companies like wolves waiting outside our doors to shut us off when we cease paying – even though law gives us reprieve until spring so that nobody finds our frozen bodies cave-man like. I often have to choose between heat/light or nourishment. But it’s better than being dead.

I get annoyed hearing the radicals on the left telling me how bad people have it, hating the progress that allowed us to drag ourselves out of our caves, radicals who insist we save the planet at the expense of saving ourselves, radicals who insist we need to “equalize” wealth in order to make life fair for everybody, when we are far better off now than my family was during the Great Depression when they had to live in the houses they built but could not sell, forced to move when banks foreclosed.

Radicals would have us trade the gas and oil that heats our homes for electricity few but the wealthiest can afford, even if we get the pay raise, they insist the richest in our society owes us.

Yes, black kids still die at an unacceptable rate as do people in other countries, some still a few steps behind the rest of us on our evolutionary journey out of the caves. Yet, despite what the radicals say, we do not abandon them, we carry them on our backs along with the rest of our labors, knowing that life may be better for the next generation or the generation after that, provided we are not forced to surrender the progress we’ve already made.

Fortunately, this is still only December and I do not have to pay the over-priced electric bill PSE&G sends me. Maybe I can wipe my nose with it.

 

 

 

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan

When the FBI tried to kill MLK

  

Not a lot of people know the sordid history of the FBI and how since its inception it has been a notorious purveyor of dirty tricks and under-handed politics.

Perhaps the filthiest thing it ever did was the attempt to get Martin Luther King Junior to commit suicide.

From the 1920s on the agency has conducted stealth operations against political enemies. So, that the Russia collusion crap and most recently the events that took place on January 6th, 2021, are not a surprise to any of us who survived these tactics in the 1960s.

The fact that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign leading up to his presidency was no surprise to those of us who have been victims of the FBI’s behavior in the past. Many of us recognized this unethical behavior, although in the past, the FBI’s principal targets were people on the left. This appears to have shifted to anyone even remotely associated with Donald Trump.

While the FBI dirty tricks began almost from the creation of the agency in the 1920s, most of us felt the full wrath of its nefarious behavior during a period from 1956 to 1971 when they operated a thing called counterintelligence program which involved surveying infiltrating discrediting and disrupting domestic political organizations.

Back then of course they were more concerned with Black Panthers and the Puerto Rican young Lords as well as the weather underground and other left-wing groups.

But in the new woke of the last decade it appears that the FBI has taken on new targets on the right instead of the left.

Those of us who were victims of this policy back in the 1960s recognize all of the trademarks of FBI antics, deployed these days against any person or group that professes support for Trump.

Oddly enough, many of the so-called white supremacist groups the FBI targets today the FBI helped create back in the mid to late 1960s using these as shock troops against the anti-war or civil rights groups – even Dr. King. This is why many of us believe the FBI used Black Lives Matter and Antifa on Jan. 6 to help discredit what might have been a mostly peaceful protest.

The FBI supposedly denied being involved with pushing the protestors to storm the Capital building, but the FBI’s history works against them, since investigations of their activities against protest groups of the 1960s showed the FBI used similar tactics, often pushing peaceful protesters to break the law.

The overly sympathetic Jan. 6 Committee accepted the FBI’s denial because the congressional body has one purpose to hunt down and destroy the movement behind Donald Trump.

But the actions on Jan. 6 are like guilty fingerprints that harken back to the program they ran against radicals in the 1960s, which was then and is now designed to neutralize through character assassination, imprisonment, public humiliation and even false criminal charges.

This last reverberates inside the January 6th committee which seems to be playing footsie with the FBI under the table.

Critics of the FBI claim that FBI in Cahoots with black lives matter and antifa deliberately provoked people on January 6th to do more than they would have during a normal protest and possibly incite them to violence as a way to discredit their movement, which questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.

Again, this is not new, FBI infiltrators did as much with the Weather Underground, Black Power groups and others to encourage them to bomb Banks and other places and to push normally peaceful protesters against the war into violent actions that would discredit them a direct contradiction of the teachings of Martin Luther King jr.

In the 1960s, the FBI considered MLK as one of the most dangerous radicals in America by the FBI much the way Donald Trump is labeled that today.

As with the Russian collusion stuff, the FBI did not do all that they did in the 1960s alone. Their program was coincided with broader Federal effort to prepare military response for urban riots and began to collaborate with the CIA, National Security Agency, Department of Defense in other words the foundations of what is now called the Insurrection movement.

The goal of the FBI program then and now was to create a negative public image for target groups. This includes surveillance of radical groups, then releasing negative personal information to the public that would discredit them. The FBI worked hard to break down internal organization by creating conflicts between members of the group or with competing radical groups, often manufacturing phony evidence to accomplish this. The FBI spread rumors and did other dirty tricks to restrict the effectiveness of those groups to operate. This included urging members of these groups to engage in violence against police during the planning of or at protests. (Doesn’t this sound very much like what happened on Jan. 6?)

I was involved with underground newspapers in 1969 to 1986 which were infiltrated by the FBI and with a deliberate effort to destroy these publications, hampering their ability to get their message out of the general public – something that strongly resembles the campaign being waged against conservatives today with the shutting down of social media such as YouTube, Facebook and twitter.

While the FBI program was supposedly terminated in 1971 when it became exposed to the public, evidence shows that it continued long after. One FBI infiltrator attempted to infiltrate my underground newspaper as late as 1986, and later went on to infiltrate WBAI, a radical radio station in New York City.

The reason why many of us believe the FBI was behind many of the more serious outbreaks on January 6th is because the technique so closely resembled the dirty tricks, they pulled back in the 1960s.

While their targets have changed from left wing radicals to Trump supporters, the FBI’s nasty tactics remain unchanged – which gives them away.

King is the perfect example

Back in 1964, the FBI anonymously sent a suicide letter to Martin Luther King Jr in an effort to persuade him to commit suicide.’

This came after the 1963 March on Washington for jobs and freedom when Hoover singled King out as a major Target for the program.

The FBI systemically bugged King’s home and hotels rooms, just as they did during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

King was seen as becoming too powerful as the leader of the Civil Rights Movement, just as Trump was seen as too powerful a force for more rural states.

King like Trump became too vocal, criticizing the power elite, including the FBI. Hoover responded by publicly calling King the most notorious liar in the United States.

On November 21^st, 1964, the FBI sent a suicide package that contained audio recordings obtained through the tapping of King’s phone and from bugs placed in various hotels rooms over the previous two years.

The FBI put the package together two days after King was notified, he would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The tape which was prepared by an FBI auto technician documented a series of King sexual indiscretions and the package included a letter telling King “there's only way one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy abnormal fraudulent self is exposed to the public.”

King was told that the audio would be released to the media if he did not acquiesce and commit suicide prior to accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

When King refused to comply, the FBI commenced a media campaign offering the surveillance transcript to various news organizations including Newsweek (a publication owned by the Washington Post) and Newsday – a campaign so similar to the anti-Trump media campaign over the last five years, you have to wonder if there is a connection.

In fact, this treatment of King strongly echoes what we saw with the Russian collusion nonsense and the attempted impeachment since like King, media seemed hell bent to destroy Trump’s character, relying on friendly media to bring him down.

Is it any wonder that the FBI put such Credence in the Steele dossier which ultimately proved to be a campaign stunt by Hillary Clinton?

King was only among one of many FBI targets that included Malcolm X and a number of black Power movement leaders.

While the target has shifted from black to white these days, the FBI clearly has a hand in all of this crap, and it explains why the FBI did not follow up on certain things and why they cooperated so closely with the anti-trump campaign over the last 5 years.

As the old saying goes you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

The problem is the FBI uses the same tricks now is they did back then. The only difference is that the FBI now has a new target on the right instead of the left.

This is why many of us suspect the heavy hand of the FBI involved in pushing the protest to enter the Capitol building on January 6th because this is something the FBI did back in the sixties and pushing anti-war protesters into violence they never intended.

An old dog and an old trick re adapted for the new political reality.

No doubt the FBI is fully colluding with the January 6th committee to make sure the character assassination of trump is complete before he runs for office again in 2024.

 

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan

Democrats need to destroy filibuster to control U.S. Government

 

Left wing radical historian Will Durant once pointed out that there is no such thing as a “legitimate” election.

In his view, elections are simply a cover for a power struggle and designed to give the perception of legitimacy to the ultimate winner.

This tends to let a political group seize power – as Will Rogers once noted – by ballot rather than bullet.

The ultimate aim of all elections is to control the wealth of the nation and steer it to those supporters who put you in power.

This is exactly what the failed Democratic infrastructure bill was designed to do.

The so-called “Voting Rights” act is more long term, a plan to keep Democrats in power for a long as possible by undermining the GOP’s ability to control its own voting state by state.

By shifting control of how people are allowed to vote from state to federal level, Democrats hope to allow large liberal states to impose their will on smaller or less populated states, almost guaranteeing who ultimately gets elected.

The grand scheme by the Democrats is to eventually seize control of all three branches of the federal government and to castrate states’ ability to counter these moves on a local level.

The key element the Democrats need to accomplish this is the elimination of the filibuster in the U.S.

Senate, the last of the old fashion safeguards in place to block majority mob rule.

Democrats claim the removal of the filibuster and the promotion of the voting rights act would promote fairer elections, by denying states the ability to require people to prove that they are eligible to vote.

Democrats love to hide their agenda behind concepts of “Social Justice” and “Public Service,” but as Rogers also pointed out, they are looking to control tax payer dollars, the jobs, the grants and other patronage that goes along with being in power.

Rogers, however, mistook Democrats as economically incompetent, saying “You could transfer the senate and congress over to run Standard Oil or General Motors and they would have both bankrupt within two years.”

Never did it occur to Rogers Democrats might intentionally attack big business in the guise of the New Green Deal.

Durant’s observation about elections being cover for a power grab never became so obvious as during and after the 2020 election, and the Democrat’s determination to permanently dismantle all of the Constitutional and other safeguards the founding fathers put into place to prevent the tyranny of mob majority rule. So, we have Democrats proposing the destruction of the electoral college, the filibuster and even stacking of the Supreme Court.

This power grab during the 2020 presidential election may be the real reason behind the establishment of the Jan. 6 Committee, designed to divert attention from the idea that the election might have been stolen to the misperception of a GOP insurrection. This keeps the focus on the public attention away from the concept Democrats might have manipulated the election results and on this idea that the GOP is seeking to overturn a “legitimate” election.

As Karl Marx pointed out, it is essential do seed mistrust against your enemies, especially after you are victorious.

None of this is new. Both parties have “stolen” elections in the past – such as the hanging chad debacle that allowed Bush to beat Gore in the 2000 election, or the behind-the-scenes manipulation by Reagan in 1980s that allowed him to beat Jimmy Carter, or even the third-party spoiler candidacy of Ross Perot that allowed Bill Clinton to become president in 1992.

But no election in recent history comes close to pulling back the curtain to real the questionable mechanism of election as the apparently heavy-handed rip off the Democrats pulled in 2020, and so election in modern times has put so much power in the hands of a single party as the Democrats seek to unravel the very fabric of American society, carrying out what looks to become a Marxist revolution in America – which according to Robert Tefton, is nothing more than “a dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Democrats appear to be trying to accomplish Mao Tse Tung’s second discipline of a soviet society, “the minority is subservient to the majority” when it comes to the idea of State’s rights.

The Democrats appear to have conducted a not-so-subtle coup to seize control.

“The first duty of a revolutionary,” says Abbie Hoffman, “is to get away with it.”

Democrats seem desperate to do just that.

To accomplish this, they must first remove the filibuster that keeps them from totally controlling both houses of Congress.

This allows the Democrats to push through the so-called “voting rights act” that strips states of the power to regulate their own elections.

The electoral college – which puts small less populated states on equal footing with larger and more populated states – would be done away with, allowing liberal states to decide who will be president.

Then finally, the Democrats would stack to U.S. Supreme Court giving them complete control over the U.S. Government.

As Vladimir Lenin once pointed out, it is essential that allow authority to be concentrated into the hands of a few.

“How can strict unity be assured?” Lenin asked.  “By thousands subordinating their wins to the will of the one.”

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan

Fake science, fake history, fake news

 

 

In an era where Postmodernism allows us to play a game called “my facts are as good as yours,” we are seeing a new misinformation campaign being waged – in schools, in media and in our medical profession.

Everybody is already heard the term “fake news” but apparently this is only the beginning of the reinvention of logic in America along with “fake science” and “fake history”

We have two examples of fake science which includes the illusion of global climate change and the fact that people actually think they can control Mother Nature when they can't.

The concept of climate change emerged out of a still-unproven theory raised in 1978 by a Swedish scientist and adopted by the head of the United Nations as a means of redistributing wealth from wealthy to poor nations. The UN set up a climate change commission that excluded anyone who disagreed with the theory. Ironically, many of those scientists who signed on (largely to get their piece of lucrative grants) had until then believe the earth was headed to a new ice age.

We have sold today’s youth on the illusion that if they peddle hard enough on their bicycles, they might be able to slow the progression a climate change that started 40,000 years ago, ignoring the fact that the earth was far warmer in the distant past than it is today, and we are returning to what was normal prior to the ice age.

We have built a generation that has gone back to the idiotic myth that the universe revolves around the earth and all of its inhabitants.

Another example of fake science is our belief we can control a pandemic.

All viruses work in the same basic way. They come in like a hurricane and leave like a lamb – meaning they are most lethal when they start and through variants grow less so until they are not lethal at all.

There is currently no cure for a virus. The human immune system fights it off. While in many cases, you can build up the immune system though a vaccine, even the best of these is questionable. The annual flu vaccine relies on medical professionals guessing what variant will strike. Even these are often less than 50 percent effective. So, it is no surprise that vaccines development in a hurry against COVID would eventually become ineffective against later variants. Mother Nature adapts, and to believe we can control her is arrogance.

The only way to get over a pandemic is to let it run its course as it gradually infects people and makes them immune overtime, or as the less lethal variants drive out the more lethal ones.

This illusion that is being sponsored by Health authorities that you can prevent or modify the virus is what is driving people crazy because once you have faith in something like the inoculation and it doesn't work you lose Faith entirely on the system.

Fake history is critical race Theory and 1619 project

These are based on the fantasy that there are alternative facts that change history and if you bring these alternative facts to light you can reinvent historic documents to reflect a different reality.

The fact that both are so filled with historical inaccuracies doesn't matter to the people who offer them or even to the New York Times which publishes some of them.

This is because in post-modernism we have sold ourselves on this concept that “my facts” are as good as “Your Facts” and they both are valid when they are not.

1619 project has been sold the way propaganda was sold in Nazi Germany. There is no real evidence to support its theories other than the claims made and that evidence that is used is often misinterpreted or flat out inaccurate another words fake history.

This post-modernism interpretation of science and History goes alongside fake news as some of the most criminal activity done by the left in the last century pure propaganda

Fake history is very similar to this in that you have activist for deliberately distorting history in order to achieve a certain belief system that is not only not supported by the evidence but sometimes the evidence is completely invented in order to promote that agenda

The fact that the once reputable New York Times promotes this misinformation campaign is troubling and leads to the third obvious fake -- fake news

We have a perfect storm of distortion that is flowing into mainstream belief partly because we have watched social media and mainstream media being controlled by these radical ideas -- ideas that are both troubling and damaging

In other words, radicals who wants to sell us on the idea that we can alter reality to what we want and wish rather them what really is.

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan

The Atlantic tell us who should we treat first

 

A reporter for The Atlantic magazine said black people should get preference over white people when it comes to medical treatment.

This is because black people have faced systemic racism in every aspect of their lives, including medical treatment.

Black people are poorer, less healthy and less well fed than their white counterparts and need medical treatment more urgently than fat, rich and otherwise too-healthy whites.

The fact that doctors should take all needy people regardless of race or color should take second fiddle to the idea of social justice.

If you are white and wealthy, you ought to die because you are white and wealthy.

If you are white and poor, you are lazy because you have clearly not made best use of your white privilege, and so you should die because you are white and lazy.

If you’re black and rich, you must be an uncle tom – except, of course, if you happen to be Ophra, Obama or Bill Clinton.

Deep down these three believe what poor blacks believe and have cotton pickers blood running through their veins.

Poor blacks, who have access to the massive welfare medical system for the last sixty years clearly matter more than poor working whites who are lucky to have medical coverage at all.

Blacks who receive WIC and food stamps clearly get less nutrition than white working poor who sometimes have to choose between food, eat or paying the rent.

Blacks who have access to the vast federal, state and local welfare support system are clearly disadvantaged to their white counterparts who don’t.

With COVID the problem is even more severe since the 20 percent of whites who won’t get vaccinated are clearly white supremist, while the 80 percent of unvaccinated blacks have been misinformed and clearly a victim of a racist system.

Ultimately, what this journalist and all the doctors are telling us is that if you’re black, you ought to survive.

If you are white, die, baby, die.

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan

Do you know when the Civil War started?

 

Nikole Hannah Jones forgot when the Civil War started, claiming it began in 1865 rather than 1860.

This might be considered an honest mistake except that her Project 1619 is riddled such mistakes, many of them deliberate – such as the actual number of Africans transported to the United States during the slave trade years.

Most of the mistakes seem calculated to enhance the questionable validity of project itself.

Project 1619 incorporates every fringe radical wacko Theory from the last two centuries that it is a surprise that it gets any facts right – as it rarely does.

This of course has translated into critical race Theory and so that is equally a barbaric Distortion of History.

Slavery did not start in 1619 in what was to become the United States, nor did 12 million blacks get shipped to the United States from when it did start until end of the Civil War – which started in 1860. Estimates suggest around one million came to the United States through the International Slave Trade before the United States and Great Britain outlawed it in 1808 – contrary to the claims made by the writers of Project 1619.

Although Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, they advocated that the international slave trade be halted at the time of United States Independence but negotiated for a firm date in 1908 – defying the lie told in the 1619 Project that the United States feared intervention of the British. Both nations outlawed the trade at the same time.

There were just shy of five million slaves in 1985, most of whom had been born in the United States. Most of the blacks brought west went to Central and South America.

White Europeans didn’t start slavery nor were they the worst offenders. Black kings in Africa were selling their brothers and sisters to the Arabs for centuries prior the Europeans getting wind of it and continued long after the Europeans stopped.

These black kings in Africa were actually outraged when Western Europe and the United States banned the trade, since the economy of Africa did not just depend on selling black people but thrived because of it. Once the west outlawed the trade, whole nations went into massive economic decline. While the South in America had cotton as its biggest export. Africa exported black people.

Although abolitionists spurred the nation for a violent overthrow of Southern slavery, very few actually did anything positive after it was accomplished, largely abandoning freed slaves to their own resource, many of whom returned to their former Southern masters.

Project 1619 claims north and south benefited economically from the slave trade – which is not exactly true. The north resented the free labor slaves gave the south and forced the south to sell its cotton to northern mills. Britain, France and Spain ached to get southern cotton directly – which might have happened during the war had not the north blocked shipping out of the south.

Most of the U.S. federal budget was based on these exorbitant tariffs, but few in the north profited significantly – which was one of the motives for enticing the south into the war. The south’s poor farming practices required them to find new farm land, pushing them to expand slavery outside the south – which Lincoln and the north resisted and eventually stopped – another reason for the war.

Despite heavy propaganda from the Abolitionists – and inaccurate books such as Uncle Toms Cabin, most slaves in the south refused to rise up, as the murderous John Brown wanted them to. Very few uprisings occurred in the south, and nearly all of those that did happen failed.

This came about largely for the same reasons workers even today do not leave jobs they had. Regardless of how inadequate, slaves were fed, housed, clothing and taken care of medically, and were reluctant to lose these things.

Brutality did occur in the south, but it was not as rampant as the Abolitionists then and now claim. If for no other reason, slaves were expensive to obtain and maintain, and most masters could ill afford to mistreat them – the way most would not mistreat a horse.

Some masters did not house or feed their slaves well. The majority did – for the same reasons they were reluctant to abuse them. Contrary to the fiction of Project 1619, most slaves tended to live in better conditions than their counterparts of wage labor in the north. Many returned to their former plantations to work after the war, even continued to take care of their former masters.

Conditions and treatment varied from master to master. Except for the relatively few major plantations that had 50 or more slaves, masters and slaves generally lived with the same conditions. Most farmers couldn’t afford slaves, and those that did as few as three or four, many masters worked side by side on small farms with their slaves. Many lived in the same house – defying the myth of poor housing and starvation diets that Project 1619 and others claim. There were plantations in which this happened. But for the most part masters and slaves – on the majority of southern farms lived with the same conditions and ate the same food.

Yes, slavery was morally wrong – and more than a little hypocritical in a nation that professed all people to be equal. Yes, racism did exist, not just in the deep south, but in the north as well. Yes, it needed to end, and would not have ended unless the north intervened – regardless of the fact that slave system was deteriorating well before the war put an end to it.

Yet for all the advocates of black revisionist history, it was Western tradition that brought about the end of slavery. Liberal thinking that Jefferson and Madison proposed in the United States and had come to them through a tradition of Western European reforms made up the foundation upon which liberation of slavery was built.

While some great black leaders helped guide Lincoln and others, and some former slaves fought side by side with union soldier, it was white blood – many immigrant Irish and German – that brought about the eventual collapse of slavery.

The theories we get from Project 1619 that have appeared in the pages of the New York Times are as outlandish and unsupported by fact as the whacko theories about CIA brainwashing and UFO annal probes.

Jones, the main author of this bag of trash not only doesn't document her stuff but she completely distorts history in order to make her case. She just doesn’t just mix up facts as to when the war starts, but she and her cohorts misrepresent facts in order to recreate history entirely. Fortunately, there are still enough surviving scholars to refute almost everything in this pathetic effort at revisionism.

The danger of course is that such documents published by a so-called reputable New York Times gives the whacko Theory validity they don't deserve.

 

 

 

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan

Merrick “I am the boss” Garland

  

Merrick Garland has come out with both guns blazing, a true Cowboy hero who thinks he is Bat Masterson or Wyatt Earp when in fact he is Bozo the Clown.

Normally I like Bozo, unfortunately this is a bozo who has decided he has the right to destroy other people's lives and deny them the right to protest.

But like Wyatt Earp, Garland pretends he represents law and order when he is merely a hired gun for the Democrats, determined to destroy Democracy and The Constitution in order to perpetuate the Democrats hold on power.

Garland in fact is no more “the law” than Frank Hague was. And gauging from his threat to hunt down parents who protested against Critical Race Theory in schools – to protect his son who sold those programs to school districts – Garland may well be as corrupt at Boss Hague ever was.

He may well be more qualified to serve as bozo than as the top legal gun in the land, since all he seeks to do is to intimidate people from their legal rights to protest a corrupt government and to stop the Democrats from apparently stealing an election.

Jefferson once said we wouldn't have a revolution every 10 years just to keep the politicians honest

But it is Bozo Garland who stands in the way of such a concept – but more importantly, does so on behalf of his masters in the Democratic Party, desperate to keep attention focused away from what actually happened in the 2020 election by creating a phony narrative of an insurrection.

He is telling us that he is going to hunt down and persecute not prosecute persecute every protester from January 6^th.

This, of course, is what a Hired Gun does especially when he has a lot of family conflicts that he has to keep hidden such has his son's business selling critical race Theory

As the head of the US justice department, this is a very questionable person.

Aside from the big red nose in the floppy shoes he really has no qualifications to be what he's doing except to do the bidding of the woke Society

Usually when you have a heavy like this such as Darth Vader or some other classic villain, there is a certain seriousness in this but watching him on his video shedding crocodile tears for the officers he claims died as a result of January 6^th, you really have to laugh a lot. This is very similar to the silliness we watched months ago when the members of the Jan. 6^th committee did exactly the same thing. They really do need to get new script writers.

Garland needs to be in the circus where his talents are fully appreciated. being shot out of a cannon or hit over the head with phony bottles. Unfortunately, he has real weapons with real power to inflict pain on people, regardless of the fact that the FBI he rules over better resembles the Keystone Kops than a law enforcement agency.

Garland may envision himself as a tough kop, he is really the comic relief side kick to a WOKE administration who needs him to force everybody to go along with the program to take over the American government and to destroy the U.S. Constitution. Obviously, when Garland took his oath of office, he mistook “uphold the constitution,” for “upend it,” and has been doing everything possible to undermine legal protections for ordinary people ever since.

This is not new. Every U.S. Attorney General since Obama has taken on this role as court jester, someone hired to keep the masses laughing when the real masters pick the pocket of taxpayers and arrest and imprison anybody that prevents them from doing so.

But with a clown in the white house, it is really hard for Garland to compete. So, he really has to go off the deep end do a lot more tricks, fetch a lot of sticks his master's and make it look like he's enjoying himself rather than being corrupt

You have to remember there's a lot of money to be had in all this. The Democrats didn't steal the election for the fun of it or even just for the power. They intend to get paid off on every level. Even if the Democrats lose control of the congress later this year, they are desperate to pull a Woody Allen and “Take the money and run.”

And they need Garland to prove cover for what is the largest bank heist in world history.

January 6th has become embedded in people's minds as an Insurrection rather than what it really was which was a legitimate protest over a possible stolen election.

And it is garlands job to make sure people are confused and believe the good guys are the bad guys and the bad guys of the good.

And while Garland may get a good laugh with his big red nose and his floppy big shoes, he is just another crook in a clown’s costume.

 

Main Menu

email to Al Sullivan