Thursday, September 21, 2017

CONFIRMED! Obama Spied On Trump

Tucker Carlson: "Patronizing Assurances That No One Was Spying On Political Campaigns Were False, Probably Intentionally So"
By Tim Hains

TUCKER CARLSON: According to a new report from CNN, Paul Manafort, who for a time last year was the Trump campaign chairman, was indeed wiretapped by the federal government, both before and after the election.
Manafort, it ought to be noted, had an apartment inside Trump Tower at that time, so it is virtually certain that surveillance of him would have included other members of the Trump campaign staff, maybe even Trump himself.
In other words, it looks like Trump's tweet may have been right.
So why did three top members of Congress from both parties, and the country's top law enforcement officers all assure us that the surveillance didn't happen? That there wasn't a shred of evidence to suggest it had happened? Were they lying or did tey simply not know?
Neither answer is comforting.
Either the intelligence agency has gone rogue, pursuing its own goals without meaningful oversight from elected officials, or, our elected officials are colluding with each other to lie to the public, apparently for political reasons.

All of Obama’s Wiretappers
By George Neumayr

REVEALED: Susan Rice, one of Hillary’s most fervent supporters, spied on a post-election meeting between a prince from the United Arab Emirates and Trump aides.

Behind his political espionage of Trump, which benefited Hillary, lay an enormous sense of entitlement.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign memoir rests on an astonishingly audacious lie: that the very FBI director who made her campaign possible by improperly sparing her from an indictment doomed it. A normal pol who had mishandled classified information as egregiously as Hillary would have felt eternal gratitude to Comey. Only an entitled ingrate like Hillary would have the gall to cast her savior as the chief thorn in her side.
Nor does Hillary acknowledge another in-kind contribution to her campaign from Comey: his willingness to serve as a cog in Obama’s campaign of political espionage against Trump. Obama’s team of Hillary partisans, which included among others John Brennan, Susan Rice, and Loretta Lynch, wanted Comey to snoop on Trumpworld and he duly did.
It was reported this week that the FBI had until as recently as earlier this year been intercepting the communications of Paul Manafort, one of Trump’s campaign chairmen. This means that Comey, contrary to his lawyerly denial of Trump’s wiretapping claim, had the means to eavesdrop on any communications between Manafort and Trump.
Even at this late date, quibbling partisans in the media say that is insufficient proof of Trump’s claim. But could anyone imagine the Maggie Habermans bothering with such pedantry if George Bush’s FBI director had been snooping on David Axelrod?
The same generation of reporters who watched All the President’s Men breathlessly now shill for the propriety of political espionage.
They rush to offer what they consider high-minded reasons for wiretaps of Trump campaign officials. But those reasons, at least as this point, amount to nothing more than the haziest gossip.
One of the supposed reasons for the wiretaps, rich in irony given Hillary’s complaint that foreigners interfered in the election, is that an ex-Brit spy, probably on Comey’s payroll (the FBI still won’t address this matter) and certainly on the payroll of pro-Hillary partisans, told U.S. government officials that Manafort was colluding with the Russians.
Here Hillary benefited from the election-tipping of a foreigner, whose idiotic whisperings entertained by the FBI would turn up on the front pages of the New York Times at crucial moments in the campaign.
This, by the way, throws light on another outrageously dishonest Hillary claim: that Comey never told anyone of his investigation into the Trump campaign.
Of course, he did — through leaks.
That was bad enough but Comey made the leaks worse by not telling reporters that the investigation into the Trump campaign excluded Trump as a target. Comey let reporters think that Trump was one. Again, no gratitude from Hillary.
Another recent revelation is that Susan Rice, one of Hillary’s most fervent supporters, spied on a post-election meeting between a prince from the United Arab Emirates and Trump aides. The media shrugged at the revelation, as if such snooping falls within the bounds of a blameless norm.
An even slightly curious press, were it not in the tank for the Dems, would be agog at the news that one administration was spying on an incoming administration and demand an accounting of such an abuse of power.
Had the George Bush administration, out of post-election spite, spied on pre-inauguration meetings between Obama’s people and officials from a Middle Eastern country, the press would still be talking about it as a historic abuse of power. But in Rice’s case, they hastily inform their audience that “such unmaskings are perfectly legal.”
The media’s customary double standard for Democrats, combined with its treatment of Trump as a singularly monstrous Republican candidate (and then incoming president), served as a safety net beneath such high-wire political espionage. Rice knew that even if she fell in her attempt to nail Trump the media would catch her.
The scandal at the center of the 2016 election was not that Trump colluded with Russians to win but that the media and the Obama administration colluded with Hillary to defeat him.
The loudest cries of “foreign influence over the election” came from Hillary partisans who sought it, whether it was John Brennan running off to England and Estonia to collect dirt on Trump from their spies or deep-state clowns at the FBI who wanted to turn Christopher Steele into an asset.
The villain, in this sorry fable, turned out to be the victim.

Samantha Power sought to unmask Americans on almost daily basis, sources say

Sources: Former UN Ambassador Samantha Powers sought Trump team identities

By Bret Baier, Catherine Herridge
Sources tell Fox News that Samantha Power made hundreds of unmasking requesting in the final year of the Obama administration

Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was 'unmasking' at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 – and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.
Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.
The details emerged ahead of an expected appearance by Power next month on Capitol Hill. She is one of several Obama administration officials facing congressional scrutiny for their role in seeking the identities of Trump associates in intelligence reports – but the interest in her actions is particularly high.

In a July 27 letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the committee had learned "that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama Administration."
The "official" is widely reported to be Power.
During a public congressional hearing earlier this year, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina pressed former CIA director John Brennan on unmasking, without mentioning Power by name.
Gowdy: Do you recall any U.S. ambassadors asking that names be unmasked?
Brennan: I don't know. Maybe it's ringing a vague bell but I'm not -- I could not answer with any confidence.
Gowdy continued, asking: On either January 19 or up till noon on January 20, did you make any unmasking requests?
Brennan: I do not believe I did.
Gowdy: So you did not make any requests on the last day that you were employed?
Brennan: No, I was not in the agency on the last day I was employed.
Brennan later corrected the record, confirming he was at CIA headquarters on January 20. "I went there to collect some final personal materials as well as to pay my last respects to a memorial wall. But I was there for a brief period of time and just to take care of some final -- final things that were important to me," Brennan said.
Three of the nation's intelligence agencies received subpoenas in May explicitly naming three top Obama administration officials: Former national security adviser Susan Rice, Brennan and Power. Records were requested for Ben Rhodes, then-President Barack Obama's adviser, but the documents were not the subject of a subpoena.
A spokesperson for Power had no comment on the number or timing of her requests. But in a previous statement, her lawyer David Pressman emphasized that, "While serving as our Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Power was also a member of the National Security Council responsible for advising the President on the full-range of threats confronting the United States. Any insinuation that Ambassador Power was involved in leaking classified information is absolutely false."
During congressional testimony since the unmasking controversy began, National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers has explained that unmasking is handled by the intelligence community in an independent review.
"We [the NSA] apply two criteria in response to their request: number one, you must make the request in writing. Number two, the request must be made on the basis of your official duties, not the fact that you just find this report really interesting and you're just curious,” he said in June. “It has to tie to your job and finally, I said two but there's a third criteria, and is the basis of the request must be that you need this identity to understand the intelligence you're reading."
Previous U.N. ambassadors have made unmasking requests, but Fox News was told they number in the low double digits.
Power has agreed to meet with the Senate and House intelligence committees as part of the Russia probe. She is expected before the House committee in a private, classified session in October.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Black Lives Matter group takes the stage at pro-Trump rally — what happens next is amazing

By Sarah Taylor

A Black Lives Matter group takes the stage at a pro-Trump rally — and the leader's message has both sides cheering. "All lives matter, right? ... If we really want to make America great, we do it together," the group leader said, prompting chants of "USA! USA!" (Image source: Twitter video screenshot)

Between competing pro-Trump and anti-Trump protests in Washington, D.C., over the weekend, a silver lining was found with a Black Lives Matter group who unexpectedly took the stage during a boisterous pro-Trump rally.
What happened?
A Black Lives Matter group marched near the rally and passed closely to the stage. As they walked and shouted chants of “Black lives matter,” the group received jeers and boos from many people attending the pro-Trump rally.
At first, the mic-wielding organizer of the Trump rally told pro-Trump congregants, “Don’t give them the spotlight,” and “They don’t exist.”
No one could have predicted what would happen next.
From the stage, another organizer seemed to make a split-second decision and shouted, “I’m going to let Black Lives Matter come up here while I show them what patriotism is all about, all right?”
Another speaker, who handed the microphone over to the group’s leader, said, “[This rally is] about freedom of speech. It’s about celebration. So what we are gonna do is not something you’re used to, and we’re going to give you two minutes of our platform to put your message out.”
“Now, whether [the crowd disagrees or agrees] with your message is irrelevant — it’s the fact that you have the right to have the message,” he said.
Members of the Black Lives Matter then took the stage and their leader began speaking — to the cheers of the crowd gathered, both supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement as well as Trump supporters.
What did the group say?
“I am an American,” the Black Lives Matter group leader said. “And the beauty of America is that when you see something broke in your country, you can mobilize to fix it.”
He continued, “So you ask why there’s a ‘Black Lives Matter?’ Because you can watch a black man die and be choked to death on television, and nothing happened. We need to address that.”
The man’s comments seemed to turn the crowd against him, and cries of “No!” and protests to have the group removed from the stage began to ramp up.
Though the speaker declared that BLM is “not anti-cop,”  the pro-Trump crowd’s reaction showed they didn’t believe it. But things began to turn around when the man clarified that the group was “anti-bad cop” and shouted that the group didn’t want any handouts, and didn’t want anything that didn’t rightfully belong to them.
“We want our God-given right to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!” the group’s leader shouted, and the crowd began to applaud and cheer once more.
The BLM leader added, “All lives matter, right? … If we really want to make America great, we do it together.”
The crowd applauded the group leader’s comments, and began chanting “USA! USA!”
What was the BLM leader’s takeaway?
After the leader’s speech came to an end, he told a nearby cameraman that his experience in speaking to the pro-Trump crowd “restored my faith in some of these people.”
“When I spoke truths, they agreed,” he said. “I feel like we made progress. I feel like two sides that never listen to each other actually made progress today.”
He added, “I expected to come down here with my fist in the air in a very militant way, and to exchange insults … if not on a grander level, and just person-to-person, I think we really made some substantial steps without either side yielding anything.
“I hope that they understand that one of the leaders of the Black Lives Matters movement is a proud American and a Christian who cares deeply about this country,” he said. “We really are here to help this country move toward a better place, not to destroy it.”
Noting that he had been approached by many people after his speech who agreed with him, and even wanted to take photographs with him, he said, “That’s the power of communication.”
“We came out, we were gonna chant, we were gonna do a demonstration, but we didn’t have to — we just spoke,” he said. “It worked. I’m happy about that.”

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Diversity Can Spell Trouble

By Victor Davis Hanson

Image credit:  Barbara Kelley
America is experiencing a diversity and inclusion conundrum—which, in historical terms, has not necessarily been a good thing.

Communities are tearing themselves apart over the statues of long-dead Confederate generals.

Controversy rages over which slogan—“Black Lives Matter” or “All Lives Matter”—is truly racist.

Antifa street thugs clash with white supremacists in a major American city.

Americans argue over whether the USC equine mascot “Traveler” is racist, given the resemblance of the horse’s name to Robert E. Lee’s mount “Traveller.”

Amid all this turmoil, we forget that diversity was always considered a liability in the history of nations—not an asset.  

Ancient Greece’s numerous enemies eventually overran the 1,500 city-states because the Greeks were never able to sublimate their parochial, tribal, and ethnic differences to unify under a common Hellenism.
The Balkans were always a lethal powder keg due to the region’s vastly different religions and ethnicities where East and West traditionally collided—from Roman and Byzantine times through the Ottoman imperial period to the bloody twentieth century. Such diversity often caused destructive conflicts of ethnic and religious hatred.
Europe for centuries did not celebrate the religiously diverse mosaic of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians, but instead tore itself apart in a half-millennium of killing and warring that continued into the late twentieth century in places like Northern Ireland.
In multiracial, multiethnic, and multi-religious societies—such as contemporary India or the Middle East—violence is the rule in the absence of unity.
Even the common banner of a brutal communism could not force all the diverse religions and races of the Soviet Union to get along.
Japan, meanwhile, does not admit many immigrants, while Germany has welcomed over a million, mostly young Muslim men from the war-torn Middle East. The result is that Japan is in many ways more stable than Germany, which is reeling over terrorist violence and the need for assimilation and integration of diverse newcomers with little desire to become fully German.
History offers only a few success stories when it comes to diversity.
Rome, for one, managed to weld together millions of quite different Mediterranean, European, and African tribes and peoples through the shared ideas of Roman citizenship (civis Romanus sum) and equality under the law. That reality endured for some 500 years.
The original Founders of the Roman Republic were a few hundred thousand Latin-speaking Italians; but the inheritors of their vision of Roman Republican law and constitutionalism were a diverse group of millions of people all over the Mediterranean.
History’s other positive example is the United States, which has proven one of the only truly diverse societies in history to remain fairly stable and unified—at least so far. 
Although the Founders are now caricatured as oppressive European white men, they were not tribal brutes. The natural evolution of their unique belief that all men are created equal is today’s diverse society, where different people have managed, until recently, to live together in relatively harmony and equality under the law.
Unlike present-day Mexico, China, or Japan, America never developed a fixed idea, either culturally or formally in its written constitution, that race or religion de facto defined citizenship. Instead, an imperfect America was always being reinvented in dogged pursuit of the Founders’ promise of equality and the toleration of difference.
Despite a Civil War that took over 600,000 lives, years of oppression and segregation, dozens of major riots, and thousands of court cases and legislative fights, our American exceptionalism held that America alone could pull off the bizarre idea that diverse peoples could eventually live together as a single people in brotherhood.
But the American experiment is not static, nor is it settled. The nation’s racial, ethnic, and religious diversity is by nature volatile, and prone to exploitation by demagogues and opportunists.
A diverse America requires constant reminders of e pluribus unum and the need for assimilation and integration.
The idea of Americanism is an undeniably brutal bargain in which we all give up primary allegiance to our tribes in order to become fellow Americans redefined by shared ideas rather than mere appearance.
Unfortunately, there are increasing signs that our political, religious, ethnic, and racial diversity is overwhelming our shared but fragile notion of national unity.
Growing geographical separation into blue coastal liberal states and red interior conservative counterparts is starting to mimic the North-South regional divide of the Civil War, a split in national geography that is fueling political differences.
Not surprising, there is talk of a Calexit, or a Confederate-like secession of California from the United States—and during the Obama administration, there was news of a secessionist movement in Texas.
There is currently little real free speech on American campuses. A new kind of racial segregation is occurring in college “theme” and “affinity” houses.
Recent street violence in places like Charlottesville between extremists of the left and right resembled the brawling between totalitarian Stalinists and racist brown shirts of 1930s Germany. The successful melting pot is caricatured; the unproven salad bowl is canonized.
Almost everything in America today is politicized and thus polarized, from the fundamental to the trivial: sports events, music, art, Hollywood movies, mute statues, cable television, university curriculums, Silicon Valley corporations, and now even the names of horses.
Fewer people are unified.
The schools and the media do not remind Americans that their country can be quite good without having to be perfect—and is far better than the contemporary alternatives elsewhere.
At the same time, these institutions have convinced Americans that the evils of human kind—racism, sexism, homophobia, slavery, serfdom, and class oppression—are the unique sins of democratic America.
Few today appreciate that only in America has there been a culture of self-critique, introspection, and dissent—and thus remedies for the nation’s shortcomings, a self-correcting culture not known elsewhere.
The fashion today is to identify yourself by your ethnicity, race, or sexual preference—as something that transcends both being American and a unique individual.
In contrast, there are vanishing incentives for people to simply call themselves Americans, allowing the content of their character to trump the color of their skin.
In this regard, we can welcome the recent change in name of the preeminent Latino lobbying group from the racialist National Council of La Raza to Unidos US. (Raza is a Franco-era chauvinistic buzzword meaning “The Race.”)
If America is to survive this fourth century of its existence, it will soon have to recalibrate from “celebrating diversity” to “celebrating unity.”
The bleak alternative is history’s long list of genocides, tribal feuding, ethnic warring, religious conflicts, and pogroms.
In sum, the United States will at some point have to subordinate the fad of multiculturalism to the ideal of multiracialism: many different-looking Americans who are nonetheless one in their shared customs, citizenship, and culture, while holding diverse political and cultural views not predicated on identity politics.
“Difference” is a plus when it is a matter of enjoying diverse foods, music, fashion, art, and literature that enhance a central, shared, and unchanging set of values based on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
We all enjoy Mexican or Chinese food, but not Mexican or Chinese ideas of democracy and human rights.
We all are enriched by Caribbean music but not by Caribbean notions of law and justice.
We all value political and ideological diversity—but only when they rely on collective tribal allegiances.
And we are impressed by Middle Eastern hospitality and family solidarity, but not Middle Eastern treatment of women, minorities, gays, and diverse religions.
What makes millions of immigrants strive to reach and stay in America at all costs is not our racial make-up or our many languages but the racially-blind promise of freedom, liberty, the rule of law, prosperity, and security which are the dividends of Americans abiding by the precepts of the U.S. Constitution.
If America’s set of values becomes a pick-and-choose potpourri, there is no unity.
And then America will certainly become yet another one of history’s casualties of diversity.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Why the statue-smashers will never stop

By Karol Markowicz

After last month’s violent clashes in Charlottesville, Va., that left one woman dead and many others injured, the left has focused not on some sort of national healing but on destruction — specifically, of old statues of long-dead men.

And it doesn’t much matter what those men stood for. America’s culture of idol worship and public defenestration has come for anything set in stone.
Last Tuesday, a statue of Christopher Columbus in Central Park had its hands painted red and a sinister message warning “#somethingscoming” was spray-painted on the statue’s base. That same day, protesters covered a Thomas Jefferson statue at the University of Virginia with a black sheet. On Wednesday in Baltimore, a monument to Francis Scott Key, author of “The Star Spangled Banner,” was defaced with the words “Racist Anthem.” On Thursday, Wall Street’s “charging bull” was covered in blue paint.
Conservatives and President Trump warned the vandalism of Confederate monuments was a slippery slope. Liberals scoffed.
Matthew Yglesias had a piece at Vox titled “The huge problem with Trump comparing Robert E. Lee to George Washington.” Writing in The Washington Post, David A. Bell decried Trump’s “moral relativism” and an NBC News story by Dartunorro Clark interviewed several historians who confidently declared Washington and Jefferson aren’t in any danger.
The differences were so obvious, we were told, that common sense would prevail. It was the triumph of hope over experience. Anyone who doesn’t line up with current progressive social mores is out. The war isn’t on history; it’s on anything that isn’t specifically leftist — now, today, subject to change tomorrow.
Example: The Cumberland Coun­ty school board in Fayetteville, NC, recently canceled an environmental program that used an image of the Marquis de Lafayette in its promotional materials. Why? Because Lafayette owned slaves.
Never mind that Lafayette had purchased the slaves in order to free them or that he was an avid abolitionist who had influenced George Washington to free his own slaves upon his death.
“It appears that by trying to be sensitive to part of the community, I was insensitive to another part,” said Interim Superintendent Tim Kinlaw, who was responsible for canceling the program. In a city actually named after the Marquis de Lafayette, it wasn’t sensitivity that caused the cancellation of the program, it was pure, industrial-grade ignorance.
In New York City the issue reached a fever pitch when Mayor de Blasio suggested that tearing down the Christopher Columbus statue in Columbus Circle was a possibility. The mayor has assembled a commission to review “oppressive” monuments and take them down or annotate their plaques with PC-approved Puritanism. The idea that monuments can oppress people by their very existence is a slap in the face to people living under actual oppression.

Not that that’ll stop city pols. Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito suggested there should be no statues to Columbus because of “[the] oppression and everything that he brought with him.” But what he brought with him was an opening and connection of the entire world, the discovery of new lands and the beginning of America. To discard Columbus is to discard all of the good that came from his discoveries as well.

Plus, the new commission essentially proves its own uselessness, since it’ll have to go looking for things people might be angry about — in a city full of young leftists who aren’t exactly shy about their grievances. As The Post editorialized, “the panel is a solution in search of a problem: If anything in this town were as offensive as a Confederate memorial, New York would’ve had a tabloid feeding frenzy over it long ago.”
Meanwhile, the mayor has no plans to skip out on the annual Columbus Day Parade down Fifth Avenue next month. Tearing down a statue of Christopher Columbus is one thing, but skipping a campaign event a month before the election is apparently too extreme a step. Let’s not be rash about this, right Mr. Mayor? De Blasio’s spin that the day has turned into an Italian heritage event is pathetic. The day, and the parade, bears Christopher Columbus’s name for a reason.
In a sense, though, we shouldn’t be too surprised it’s come to this. Pop culture is especially heavy on the cult part. We obsess over celebrities. We personalize everything. We build up and tear down our heroes. A healthier response to all this would be resolving to celebrate accomplishments, not personalities. Otherwise, the answer to “Where will it end?” will be: “Never.”

Sunday, September 17, 2017

The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America

By Janet Levy

Slavery in America, typically associated with blacks from Africa, was an enterprise that began with the shipping of more than 300,000 white Britons to the colonies.  This little known history is fascinatingly recounted in White Cargo (New York University Press, 2007).  Drawing on letters, diaries, ship manifests, court documents, and government archives, authors Don Jordan and Michael Walsh detail how thousands of whites endured the hardships of tobacco farming and lived and died in bondage in the New World. 

Following the cultivation in 1613 of an acceptable tobacco crop in Virginia, the need for labor accelerated.  Slavery was viewed as the cheapest and most expedient way of providing the necessary work force.  Due to harsh working conditions, beatings, starvation, and disease, survival rates for slaves rarely exceeded two years.  Thus, the high level of demand was sustained by a continuous flow of white slaves from England, Ireland, and Scotland from 1618 to 1775, who were imported to serve America's colonial masters.
These white slaves in the New World consisted of street children plucked from London's back alleys, prostitutes, and impoverished migrants searching for a brighter future and willing to sign up for indentured servitude.  Convicts were also persuaded to avoid lengthy sentences and executions on their home soil by enslavement in the British colonies.  The much maligned Irish, viewed as savages worthy of ethnic cleansing and despised for their rejection of Protestantism, also made up a portion of America's first slave population, as did Quakers, Cavaliers, Puritans, Jesuits, and others.
Around 1618 at the start of their colonial slave trade, the English began by seizing and shipping to Virginia impoverished children, even toddlers, from London slums.  Some impoverished parents sought a better life for their offspring and agreed to send them, but most often, the children were sent despite their own protests and those of their families.  At the time, the London authorities represented their actions as an act of charity, a chance for a poor youth to apprentice in America, learn a trade, and avoid starvation at home.  Tragically, once these unfortunate youngsters arrived, 50% of them were dead within a year after being sold to farmers to work the fields.
A few months after the first shipment of children, the first African slaves were shipped to Virginia.  Interestingly, no American market existed for African slaves until late in the 17th century.  Until then, black slave traders typically took their cargo to Bermuda.  England's poor were the colonies' preferred source of slave labor, even though Europeans were more likely than Africans to die an early death in the fields.  Slave owners had a greater interest in keeping African slaves alive because they represented a more significant investment.  Black slaves received better treatment than Europeans on plantations, as they were viewed as valuable, lifelong property rather than indentured servants with a specific term of service.
These indentured servants represented the next wave of laborers.  They were promised land after a period of servitude, but most worked unpaid for up to15 years with few ever owning any land.  Mortality rates were high.  Of the 1,200 who arrived in 1619, more than two thirds perished in the first year from disease, working to death, or Indian raid killings.  In Maryland, out of 5,000 indentured servants who entered the colony between 1670 and 1680, 1,250 died in bondage, 1,300 gained their right to freedom, and only 241 ever became landowners.
Early in the 17th century, the headright system, a land allocation program to attract new colonists, began in Jamestown, Virginia as an attempt to solve labor shortages.  The program provided acreage to heads of households that funded travel to the colony for destitute individuals to work the land.  It led to the sharp growth of indentured servitude and slavery because the more slaves imported by a colonist, the larger the tracts of land received.  Promises of prosperity and land were used to lure the poor, who were typically enslaved for three to 15 years.  All the while, agents profited handsomely by augmenting their land holdings.  Corruption was rampant in the headright system and included double-counting of individual slaves, land allocations for servants who were dead upon arrival, and per head fees given for those kidnapped off English streets.
Purveyors of slaves often worked in teams of spirits, captains, and office-keepers to kidnap people from English ports for sale in the American labor market.  Spirits lured or kidnapped potential servants and arranged for their transport with ship captains.  Office-keepers maintained a base to run the operation.  They would entertain their prey and get them to sign papers until an awaiting ship became available.  Spirits and their accomplices were occasionally put on trial, but court records show that they got off easily and that the practice was tolerated because it was so profitable.
The indentured servant system of people who voluntarily mortgaged their freedom evolved into slavery.  England essentially dumped its unwanted in the American colonies, where they were treated no better than livestock.  Servants were regularly battered, whipped, and humiliated.  Disease was rampant, food was in short supply, and working and living conditions were grim.  War with local native Indian tribes was common.  Severe punishment made escape unrealistic.  Initially, running away was considered a capital crime, with clemency granted in exchange for an agreement to increase the period of servitude.
In the 1640s, the transportation of the Irish began.  Britain's goal was to obliterate Ireland's Catholics to make room for English planters.  Catholics who refused to attend a Protestant church could be fined.  If they were unable to pay, they could be sold as slaves.  Following the end of the English Civil Wars in 1651, English military and political leader Oliver Cromwell focused his attention on Ireland, where the people had allied with the defeated royalists during the conflict.  Famine was created by the intentional destruction of food stocks.  Those implicated in the rebellion had their land confiscated and were sold into slavery.  Anyone refusing to relocate was threatened with death, including children.
Scots were also subjected to transportation to the British colonies for religious differences, as England imposed Anglican disciplines on the Church of Scotland as well.  The English army was deployed to break up illegal church assemblies and imprison or deport religious protesters.
Cruelty to servants was rampant.  Beatings were common, and the perpetrators, buttressed by juries made up of fellow landowners, were rarely punished for abuse or even murder.  In time, efforts were made to improve the lot of servants.  Legislation in 1662 provided for a "competent diet, clothing and lodging" and disciplinary measures not to "exceed the bounds of moderation."  Servants were granted the right to complain, but the cruelty continued.
Infanticide by unmarried women was common, as they could be severely punished for "fornication."  The mother faced a whipping, fines, and extra years added to her servitude.  Her offspring faced time in bondage as well.  If the mother was the victim of a rape by the master, he faced a fine and the loss of a servant but wasn't subjected to whipping.
Several uprisings in the American colonies awakened slave owners to problems, exposing their vulnerability within the caste-like master-servant social system they had created.  In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon, an aristocrat from England who became a Virginia colonist, instigated an insurrection, referred to as Bacon's Rebellion, that changed the course of white slavery.
Prior to Bacon's Rebellion, much discontentment existed among servants over seemingly empty promises of land following their periods of indenture.  When they were finally freed of their obligations, many found that they couldn't afford the required land surveying fees and the exorbitant poll taxes.
In 1675, when war broke out with some of the native tribes, Bacon joined the side of the warring settlers and offered freedom to every slave and servant who deserted his master and joined Bacon in battle.  Hundreds enthusiastically joined him in the insurgency.  When Bacon died suddenly, his supporters fled or surrendered; some were recaptured, put in chains, and beaten or hanged.  However, because of the revolt, whites gained rights.  Whippings were forbidden without a formal judicial order.
By the early 1770s, the convict trade was big business, more profitable than the black slave trade because criminals were cheap.  They could be sold for one third the price of indentured servants.  England's jails were being emptied into America on a significant scale.  Additionally, merchants who traded in convicts from England and Ireland received a subsidy for every miscreant transported to America.  Up to a third of incoming convicts died from dysentery, smallpox, typhoid, and freezing temperatures.  Upon arrival, they were advertised for sale, inspected, and taken away in chains by new masters.
Following the Revolutionary War, the British continued to ship convict labor as "indentured servants" to America.  During that time, seven ships filled with prisoners made the journey, and two successfully landed.  In 1789, convict importation was legally banned across the U.S.  America would no longer be the dumping ground for British criminals.  It took another 30 years before the indentured servant trade ended completely.
A well written and well researched historical narrative, White Cargo does an excellent job of elucidating a forgotten part of our colonial past by telling the story of thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage before African slaves were transported to the New World.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

The National Diversity Coalition for Trump Message: Keep In Mind The Families Affected By Hurricanes Harvey and Irma

The National Diversity Coalition for Trump believes in and supports ALL Americans. We stand with our President, his cabinet and all the federal and local agencies that have worked together to keep those in Florida safe during this disaster. Their demonstration of teamwork and action is a real-life example of the American spirit! 
Our thoughts are with the families affected by hurricanes Harvey and Irma and we wish them all a fast recovery.
Despite these awful events that would cripple any other nation, we continue to see positives throughout our country.
People are coming together to help one another regardless of race, creed, religion or political party.

American pride and confidence in our ability to make it through tough times continues to outshine the rhetoric of divide that has been pushed by the mainstream media and Democrats.

Consumer and business confidence is still on the rise and with talks of tax reform on the horizon, there are plenty of positives to expect.

A recent Gallup Poll indicates that “two-thirds of the public now says their living circumstances are getting better".

Below is the President’s statement about the bi-partisan meeting to move his agenda forward.
Also below is information regarding tax reform and about the Small Business Administration looking to fill temporary JOBS to help with hurricane relief.

Make America Great Again!

National Diversity Coalition for Trump
Darrell Scott - CEO
Michael Cohen - Chair
Christos Marafatsos - Vice Chair
Bruce LeVell, Executive Director



      THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  I am pleased to welcome this bipartisan group of Democrats and Republican lawmakers to the White House.  More and more, we're trying to work things out together.  That's a positive thing, and it's good for the Republicans and good for the Democrats.  And this group knows that very well.
     Whether we can do the incredible things that we're doing -- and working in a bipartisan fashion, obviously, would be a positive and, I think, something, Tom, that we all feel good about.
 I want to thank Tom Reed.  He's been a friend of mine for a long time.  He was there right at the beginning when it wasn't very fashionable.  Right?  And I really appreciate it.
     And Josh Gottheimer, for helping to organize this very important gathering.  I think it's really -- the whole concept of what we're trying to do is very, very important.
 Inspired by the example of our own citizens, we should be able to come together to make government work for the people -- that's why I was elected, that's why I ran -- and to provide jobs and opportunities to millions of struggling families.  This includes tax reform that is pro-jobs, pro-growth, pro-family, and pro-American.  It's very simple.  It's all pro-American.
      There are four principles for tax reform:  Make the tax code simple and fair; cut taxes substantially -- it will be the largest tax decree in the history of our country for the middle class; encourage companies to hire and grow in America.
 And by doing that, we're going to have to reduce the taxes for companies.  Right now, we're at 35 percent and really much higher when you add state taxes in.  And China is at 15 percent, and we wonder why are we not competing well against China.  So they're at 15 percent and we're at 35 percent plus.  And that doesn't work.
 And bring back trillions of dollars -- we have trillions of dollars overseas that we'll bring back, and we'll bring them back quickly.
      So this is money that -- Josh and Tom and everybody in this room can tell you -- everybody has agreed to bring it back for years but it never gets done.  So we're putting it down as part of our tax proposal.
 Another bipartisan project that is urgently needed is infrastructure and infrastructure investment.  For decades now, Washington has allowed our infrastructure to fall into a state of total decay and disrepair.  And it's time now to build new roads, new bridges, airports, tunnels, highways, and railways all across our great land.
 When we set aside our differences -- and it's amazing how sometimes how little our differences are -- we put our country and we put the citizens of our country first.  And that's what this is all about.
 So we want to have a great new tax cut and tax reform, simplification, and massive cuts, and we want to get our country working again and competing again worldwide. And there will be nothing that can stop us.
 On top of that, we'll be discussing probably a little bit of healthcare, because I know some information has come to light.  So we'll be discussing -- because ultimately -- well, we have some Democrats, I won't speak -- I think I can speak for the Republicans, generally.
 But we do want to do something very, very powerfully with respect to Obamacare.  It has not worked; the rates are going through the roof.  The numbers that you looked at -- no matter where you go, no matter where you look, healthcare is failing in our country.  And we’re going to get it changed, and we’re going to get it changed fast.
      Infrastructure -- we’ll be talking about.  And we’ll probably also be talking about DACA because we don’t want to forget DACA.  And it’s already been a week and a half, and people don’t talk about it as much.
We want to see if we can do something with regard to immigration, with regard to the 800,000 people that are now young people.  They’re not children anymore.  They were children, now they’re young people.  But we want to see if we can do something in a bipartisan fashion so that we can solve the DACA problem and other immigration problems.  So we’ll be discussing that today.
     And then tonight, I’m having dinner with Senator Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and we’ll continue some discussions.
      So we have a lot of things in the fire, but I think right now, first and foremost, so that we can compete again -- and especially in light of the fact that we had two massive hurricanes, the likes of which, I guess, our country has never seen.  I don’t think they have ever seen.  One was the biggest ever in water and the other was the biggest ever in wind.  And you put them together and we have devastation in Texas and in Florida, and we’ve done -- and other parts of our country, by the way.
 And I think we’ve gotten very high marks for the way we’ve handled them thus far, and we continue to handle them well.  But they were very big and very powerful and it was very unfortunate.
 But because of that, more than ever, we now need great tax reform and great tax cuts.  So we are here as a group -- bipartisan -- to try and see what we can come up with.
      Thank you all very much.  I appreciate it.  Thank you.

      Q    Mr. President, some conservatives are skeptical of this new approach with Democrats.  What would you tell them?  Why have Leader Pelosi and Senator Schumer over tonight?  What’s your message for skeptical conservatives?
      THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’m conservative and, I will tell you, I’m not skeptical.  And I think that if we can do things in a bipartisan manner, that will be great.
      Now, it might not work out, in which case, we’ll try and do them without.  But I think if we can do, in a bipartisan manner -- if you look at some of the greatest legislation ever passed, it was done on a bipartisan manner.  And so that’s why we’re going to give it a shot.  Right, Tom?  And we’ll see what we can do.  And if it works out, great.  And if it doesn’t work out, great.  Hopefully we’ll be able to do it anyways -- Republicans.
 Okay?  Thank you.

      Q    (Inaudible) 15 percent corporate tax rate with a bipartisan --
      THE PRESIDENT:  We’re looking at a 15 percent rate.  And we want a 15 percent rate because that would bring us low -- not by any means the lowest -- but it would bring us to a level where China and other countries are.  And we will be able to compete with anybody.  Nobody will be able to touch us.  So we would like to see 15 percent.
      Thank you very much everybody.
 And, by the way, lower for individuals -- much lower than that for individuals.  And the rich will not be gaining at all with this plan.  We’re looking for the middle class, and we’re looking for jobs.  Jobs, meaning companies.  So we’re looking at the middle class and we’re looking at jobs.
      Q    Will the wealthy have to accept higher taxes --
      THE PRESIDENT:  I think the wealthy will be pretty much where they are -- pretty much where they are.  If we can do that, we’d like it.  If they have to go higher, they’ll go higher, frankly.  We’re looking at the middle class and we’re looking at jobs.

      Okay?  Thank you very much.



Tax Reform:

The Importance for Small Business

The goal is to enact tax reform that will lower the tax burden on small-businesses, enable them to invest in the economy and create more jobs and restructure the code so that it is fair and simple.
 Lower Tax Burden
    According to a recent CNBC survey, taxes are the No.1 concern of small business owners
    95 percent of small businesses are structured as “pass-through” organizations, which are not subject to the corporate income tax; instead their income is reported on their owners’ tax returns and subject to the individual income tax
    According to the Tax Foundation, these pass through businesses have a top marginal tax rate of more than 44 percent, which means in most U.S. states pass-through businesses can face marginal tax rates that exceed 47 percent
    These pass-through businesses are the drivers of economic growth. In 2014, 57.3 percent of the U.S. private-sector workforce was employed or self-employed at a pass-through business.
Job Creation
The U.S. economy is dominated by small business, making them one of the largest overall contributors to economic health and prosperity (Source: U.S. Chamber of Commerce):
    There are 28 million small businesses
    Small business represent more than 99 percent of all employers
    Small businesses generates 64 percent of net new private-sector jobs
    Small businesses represent nearly 50 percent of the nation’s economic output
    These small business are able to increase the nation’s economic strength by employing American workers and expanding their businesses
A recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that tax cuts aimed at small businesses in the bottom 90 percent of the economy were highly effective at increasing overall economic growth and employment.
Fair and Simple
We need to provide tax relief for small businesses across the United States who have been treated unfairly by the current system:
    In 2013, a study for the National Federation of Independent Business and the S Corporation Association found that small businesses pay a higher effective tax rate than many large corporations
    Our goal is to ensure that the tax code does not place an undue burden on small businesses
Simplifying the tax code is crucial
    The tax code is 2,600 pages long with more than 70,000 forms, instructions, and other pieces of guidance
    It costs small businesses approximately as much as $16 billion to comply with the tax code

Hurricane response jobs at the SBA

The Small Business Administration is hiring temporary employees to assist with disaster relief efforts this hurricane season from September 1st to December 31st, 2017. Bilingual language skills a plus.