Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks,This Is Getting Creepy

[bonnie]

The founding fathers had good reasons for doing what they did. Oppressors have always had solid reasons.

Well, what a lot of bunk!!! You might want to your leader, Obama, when you are talking about oppressors having solid reasons for they do.

Anyone doing a research into the founding fathers and the concerns they had while drafting the documents that shaped this country cannot honestly say that.

Some of course seem to expect a 21st century mindset in that era.

[OzarkWoman]

Originally Posted By: OzarkWoman

The founding fathers had good reasons for doing what they did. Oppressors have always had solid reasons.

Well, what a lot of bunk!!! You might want to your leader, Obama, when you are talking about oppressors having solid reasons for they do.

Anyone doing a research into the founding fathers and the concerns they had while drafting the documents that shaped this country cannot honestly say that.

Some of course seem to expect a 21st century mindset in that era.

I didn't say that about the founding fathers. That was from Laz.

[bonnie]

I know you didn't.It was in response to what he had said

[lazarus]

What is undeniable is that the founding fathers were also oppressors. It's interesting that they realized that freedom was a right of every human being but they could not bring themselves to to give it to every human being. Their European oppressors were in the same boat. What you have to admit was they were concerned about THIER freedom not the freedom of humanity. This is borne out by the fact that Native Americans, African Americans had to demand it. It was not given. Oppressors never give freedom it always had to be snatched from the oppressors hands.

Ironically, the United States turned out to be more oppressive than the country than they fought to be liberated from.

Documents are meaningless unless the sentiments are written on the hearts of the men who write them. This is true today and it was back then.

[Ted Oplinger]

Believe what you want to believe, Laz. I'll believe that if the Founding Fathers - and those who followed in their footsteps - were as oppressive as you claim, Laz, the Abolitionist movement would have never occurred, the Civil War would have never occurred, and Lincoln would have never given the Emancipation proclamation.

Blessings,

[lazarus]

I'll believe that if the Founding Fathers - and those who followed in their footsteps - were as oppressive as you claim, Laz, the Abolitionist movement would have never occurred, the Civil War would have never occurred, and Lincoln would have never given the Emancipation proclamation.

You can believe what you like too but the facts speak for themselves.

If they weren't oppressors then there would have been no need for an abolitionist movement. Freedom had to be fought for. Lincoln indicated he had no intention of inclination to abolish slavery. Thankfully he had a change of heart. There was a civil war war partly because the oppressors did not want the oppressed to go free. Oppression is only overthrown as a result of conflict. Your points prove the point.

The founding fathers and those who followed them systematically tried and succeeded in excluding their fellow Americans from experiencing what was heralded in the bill of rights, the declaration of independence and the constitution. Only in modern times have Americans had the full experience of liberty.

[bonnie]

Believe what you want to believe, Laz. I'll believe that if the Founding Fathers - and those who followed in their footsteps - were as oppressive as you claim, Laz, the Abolitionist movement would have never occurred, the Civil War would have never occurred, and Lincoln would have never given the Emancipation proclamation.

Blessings,

It seems there is only one group that should have gotten it totally right.

The native americans operated under the same beliefs in many ways that the settlers coming here did.Their aversion to "might makes right" and to the "victor goes the spoils" was only evident when it was done to them from the settlers.

Native Americans were not strolling hand in hand thru the prairie grass before the settlers arrived.There were raids,captives taken and land from other tribes.They only understood "oppression" when they were being oppressed,but it did not stop their centuries old practices.

It is something most rational people do not understand today.Doesn't make the behavior by anyone "okay"

Slavery did not originate with the founding fathers or the early settlers.That was centuries old in practice as well.

Slave ships needed to be able to purchase slaves when they arrived on the shores of other countries

Most of the Africans who were enslaved were captured in battles or were kidnapped,and not by white settlers or white slavers.

How that could ever be viewed as "right" is beyond me by anyone.But those providing the slaves to slavers share as much guilt as those that purchased slaves.

The founding fathers provided a document that acknowledged the sins of slavery and oppression at a time when it was unheard of

Perhaps if those providing the slaves had been as forward thinking they would not have committed such hideous acts,cutting off the supply of slaves to purchase.

Some will always insist that the founding of this country should have been done in a perfect manner and able to undo centuries of culture.

[lazarus]

The founding fathers provided a document that acknowledged the sins of slavery and oppression at a time when it was unheard of

Perhaps if those providing the slaves had been as forward thinking they would not have committed such hideous acts,cutting off the supply of slaves to purchase.

The many others in Europe who recognized the evils of slavery. The UK abolished slavery in 1833. It took the US over 30 more years and a civil war to get there.

The declaration of independence, bill of rights and constitution was to serve the interests those those European settlers who were running from their European oppressors. Despite their lofty declarations they continued to practice what they had learned in Europe.

[bonnie]

The many others in Europe who recognized the evils of slavery. The UK abolished slavery in 1833. It took the US over 30 more years and a civil war to get there.

The declaration of independence, bill of rights and constitution was to serve the interests those those European settlers who were running from their European oppressors. Despite their lofty declarations they continued to practice what they had learned in Europe.

Interesting.It took the UK centuries to get there and the US a very new country a lot less time

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

The founding fathers provided a document that acknowledged the sins of slavery and oppression at a time when it was unheard of

Perhaps if those providing the slaves had been as forward thinking they would not have committed such hideous acts,cutting off the supply of slaves to purchase.

The many others in Europe who recognized the evils of slavery. The UK abolished slavery in 1833. It took the US over 30 more years and a civil war to get there.

The declaration of independence, bill of rights and constitution was to serve the interests those those European settlers who were running from their European oppressors. Despite their lofty declarations they continued to practice what they had learned in Europe.

Yes, there were many in Europe who thought slavery was evil - and a good many of those made their way to the northern colonies - where the abolition movement against slavery was strong. Strange how that worked out, isn't it?

Europe knew nothing of the slave trade out of Africa until they learned it from the Muslims there. Further more, European slave traders got their slaves from victors of the tribal wars between the Africa peoples themselves, who sold the losers to the Muslim and European traders.

It was those same English you adore so much that brought the dregs of their society over, landed them in the southern colonies, then tied their economy to the slaves they imported for these new transplants - all to profit off them richly due to how the colony contracts were written up by the English lords.

Funny how the English gave up their slave trade ONLY when it wasn't economically feasible for them to continue...after their cross-Atlantic colonies broke away and formed the USA. No fuss, no muss...didn't have to sully THEIR hands and mend THEIR consciences via a Civil War that was largely a result of the slave culture the English implanted into the southern colonies, thinking to profit from it.

And...did not the UK end slavery only for their own home areas in 1833...but maintained it in the rest of their colonies until much, much later?

NO nation on this earth had perfect beginnings, and NONE have a perfect past with respect to all their dealings with the peoples they intersected with.

As for the founding of this nation - the English had implanted slave culture deep. The Founding Fathers were quite willing to start the nation off without slavery - but not all the colonies were willing. They, in turn, set up this nation in such a way that guaranteed the slavery question would get a final solution, as this nation would either stick with the principle of "all men are created equal" and eliminate slavery, else would keep slavery and openly repudiate everything this nation was founded upon.

I find it sad that apparently your perspective is such you cannot even accord the Founders even that much benefit of the doubt. I seen you post such negativity over and over again on this topic.

The facts are indeed there, Laz. I looked them up, from every side of the issue. I don't like how the America dealt with some of my ancestors (Native Americans), but there came a point I had to let go of the negative and stand firm on those very principles of equality and liberty those old, white-haired white men founded this nation on - because those principles do not know what an "ism" is.

Blessings,

[lazarus]

Interesting.It took the UK centuries to get there and the US a very new country a lot less time

Hmmm,

I wonder where Thomas Jefferson's mother born?

How about George Washington's great grandfather? How about Benjamin Franklin's father? The apple does not fall far from the tree.

[bonnie]

[bonnie]

You can continue to fight the slavery/race issue if it somehow makes you happy.I do believe it justifies what seems to be a very obvious chip on your shoulder you insist on carrying.

There were a lot involved in that and a lot guilty of what was a terrible,inhumane accepted way of life.

It was not invented by the early settlers nor was it unique to them. It had it's beginnings and those selling slaves before there was a US.

The practice of those kidnaping/capturing/providing the human beings for sale were engaged in a practice just as vile as those buying them to make a profit or own. Maybe more so.

Yet your continual gripe seems to be that the founding of this country was not done by perfect human beings and that they neglected to craft a 21st century document.

[lazarus]

You somehow expect for some the crossing of a ocean all mindsets would mysteriously change or the founding of a new country would come without growing pains.

I thought you said these men were light-years ahead. Of course they were not as history shows. They were seeking to gain greater freedoms which is a natural desire and commendable. They were not able, however to bring themselves to grant freedom to all which is the same problem their own oppressors had. Quite ironic really.

[lazarus]

You can continue to fight the slavery/race issue if it somehow makes you happy.I do believe it justifies what seems to be a very obvious chip on your shoulder you insist on carrying.

I didn't raise the issue. I am simply challenging the notion of American liberty, "the land of the free". Conservatives are now arguing that Americans are losing the freedoms they had at the birth of the United States. There is more freedom now in America than there was for most of its history.

If you want to conclude that this is a chip then so be it. It's another view of American history that it is hard for many Americans to even argue against without thinking there is some personal element to it. It's the reality of America's struggle to live up to it's ideal. MLK said as much.

How about this:

The people's history of the United States, Howard Zinn.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html

[bonnie]

How about this:

The people's history of the United States, Howard Zinn.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html

What about it? Are you of the opinion this is some brand new revelation?

Columbus acted totally as was acceptable in the time he lived.

Hardly a action unique to him.

Doesn't make any of those actions right. You seem to expect that type of mindset/training/behavior would have automatically transformed crossing the ocean.Generally doesn't work that way.

"Might makes right" and to the victor goes the spoils" was the rule most lived by.

Most people can't understand even thinking that way or that somehow it could be made to sound right and just,but to them it was the norm.

[bonnie]

"MLK said as much" I have a great deal of respect for MLK in some areas but hardly use him as gospel.

Doesn't every country struggle to live up to it's ideal. Do you think signing a Bill of Rights or drafting a constitution

means that will immediately change all hearts and force compliance? Certainly would be easier that way if true.

No murders,no rapes,no child abuse

[bonnie]

With all the political correctness someone must have failed to right it on the heart

Rascist Australia - Genocidal Atrocities Overview

An edited version of Australia's Secret Genicide History - By: Dr Gideon Polya

... The reality is that Australia has always been a deeply racist country and continues to be involved in genocidal atrocities. However in recent decades the racism has been covered over publicly by a thin veneer of political correctness. Australia has been involved in all post 1950 US Asian wars that have been associated with Indigenous Asian excess deaths totalling 25 million – yet in politically correct racist Australia, racial vilification and genocide is scarcely even considered.

In 2008 the Rudd Labor Government said "Sorry" to Indigenous Australians for the Stolen Generations (up to 0.1 million Aboriginal children forcible removed from their mothers) – but the Aboriginal genocide continues (9,000 Indigenous Australians die avoidably each year) and the Labor Government continues to apply race-based laws to Northern Territory Aborigines who are forbidden to see, buy, sell, read, consume or transport things that all other Australians can. They have also been removed in a race-specific way from the protection of the anti-racism 1975 Racial Discrimination Act; and can be kicked out of their homes and Homelands without any legal recourse.

... Further, in assessing deaths from particular policies of invasion, occupation and dispossession one notes that deaths can be violent from bombs and bullets, or non-violent, from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease. All of which are avoidable deaths.

Australian Genicide History

The below catalogue of Australian involvement in Genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention – and notably in British and American-imposed genocides - is given in roughly chronological order from 1788, the year of European Invasion and First Settlement, to 2008.

1. 18th -19th century Aboriginal Genocide (the Indigenous Aboriginal population dropped from about 1 million to 0.1 million in the first century after invasion in 1788).

2. Tasmanian Aboriginal Genocide (the "full-blood" Indigenous population dropped from 6,000 to zero from 1776 to 1803.

3. British Indian Genocide (post-invasion excess deaths 0.6 billion, 1757-1837; 0.5 billion, 1837-1901 under Queen Victoria; 0.4 Billion, 1901-1947.

4. European Chinese Genocide (10-100 million deaths in the European imperialism-driven Tai Ping rebellion period; Australia was involved in suppressing the Boxer rebellion).

5. Maori Genocide (Maori population dropped from 0.1-0.2 million in 1800 to 42,000 in 1893; Australia was involved in the 19th century Maori wars).

6. African Genocide (scores of million perished over 5 centuries of European slavery and colonialism; Australians participated in the Sudan War, 1881-1898).

7. Pacific Genocide (there was a catastrophic population decline due to introduced disease and slavery; thus 40,000 Fijians died from measles out of a population of 150,000 in 1876; "blackbirding" slavery was conducted by Australians in the late 19th century).

8. Boer (Afrikaaner) Genocide (1899-1902; 28,000 Afrikaaner women and children died in British concentration camps; Australians participated in the Boer War as immortalized in the movie "Breaker Morant").

9. Armenian Genocide (1.5 million killed; the Australian invasion of Gallipoli as part of an Anglo-French force in 1915 helped to precipitate this atrocity; indeed April 24 is Armenian Genocide Day and April 25 is the day of the Australia invasion in 1915 and also a sacred war dead remembrance day for Australians and New Zealanders – it is called Anzac Day after the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) which stormed ashore on that first Anzac Day at Gallipoli in 1915).

10. Bengali Genocide (6-7 million perished in the "forgotten" man-made Bengal Famine atrocity in Bengal and adjoining provinces in British India, 1943-1945; Australians were there and indeed the Governor of Bengal in 1944 was an Australian, R.G. Casey).

11. British post-1950 Third World Genocide (1950-2005 excess deaths in countries subject to British occupation as a major occupier in the post-war era totalled 727 million; Australia has the same Head of State as the UK and continues to be a loyal military ally of the UK in Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan).

12. US post-1950 Third World Genocide (1950-2005 excess deaths in countries subject to US occupation as a major occupier in the post-war era totalled 82 million; Australia participated in all post-1950 US Asian Wars in Korea, Indo-China, Iraq and Afghanistan with Indigenous Asian excess deaths now totalling 25 million).

13. Australian Colonial Genocide (1950-2005 excess deaths in countries subject to Australian occupation as a major occupier in the post-war era, namely Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands totalled 2.1 million).

14. 20th century Aboriginal Genocide (total excess deaths clearly of the order of 1million; 0.1 million Stolen Generations Aboriginal children forcibly removed from their Mothers in the 19th and 20th centuries; excess deaths in the 11 years of the Bush-ite Coalition Government totalled 90,000 for 1996-2007).

The following Australian genocide involvements in this catalogue of horrors are ongoing.

15. Palestinian Genocide (post-1967 excess deaths 0.3 million, post-1967 under-5 infant deaths 0.2 million and 7 million refugees; with bi-partisan agreement Australia provides diplomatic, financial and haven support for Israeli state terrorism – even when directed against tens of thousands of Australian citizens as in Lebanon in mid-2006 - and up to life imprisonment for anyone giving support to the Hamas Party that overwhelmingly won the 2006 Occupied Palestinian elections).

16. Iraqi Genocide (4 million excess deaths 1990-2008; 2 million post-invasion excess deaths, 0.6 million post-invasion under-5 infant deaths and 4.5 million refugees; Australia militarily involved since 1990 ).

17. Afghan Genocide (3-7 million post-invasion excess deaths, 2.3 million post-invasion under-5 infant and 4 million refugees; Australia involved militarily since 2001).

18. Ongoing Aboriginal Genocide (9,000 excess deaths annually; 90,000 excess deaths in the last 11 years of Bush-ite Coalition rule; see MWC News).

19. Biofuel Genocide (16 million die avoidably each year but this is increasingly biofuel-impacted as the legislatively-mandated US, UK and EU biofuel perversion forces up global food prices; Australia is a major sugar cane grower and sugar exporter with 60% of sugar going to bioethanol production worldwide; Australia has biofuel-promoting legislation and is a major canola grower, this being a major source for biodiesel; see MWC News).

20. Climate Genocide (16 million die avoidably each year already from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease; Professor James Lovelock FRS says that over 6 million will perish this century die to unaddressed climate change; on a per capita basis Australia is among the very worst greenhouse gas (GHG) polluters – in terms of 2004 figures for "fossil fuel-derived annual per capita CO2 pollution" Australia is about 40 times worse than India and 160 times worse than Bangladesh if you include Australia's world number 1 coal exports; see MWC News).

Yet politically correct racist Australia steadfastly "looks the other way" and its past and present involvements in the above atrocities are overwhelmingly not reported by racist, lying, holocaust-ignoring Mainstream media nor taught in Australia's schools and universities. PC racist White Australia just cannot see the "Elephant in the room" – its continuing involvement in over 2 centuries of horrendous genocide.

Australians are trapped in an Orwellian dream - Australia will only stop doing it when it is informed that it is doing it. Please inform everyone you can.

An edited version of Australia's Secret Genicide History

By: Dr Gideon Polya BSc

[bonnie]

Don't think the Canadians got it either

The History of Racism in Canada

(From: Currents, Urban Alliance on Race Relations) "Native peoples in Canada suffer from low incomes, high unemployment, high poverty rates and other ...

www.hopesite.ca/remember/history/ra…

What happened to the writing on the hearts here

Racial Tensions in Multicultural Britain - YouTube

Mar 8, 2011 ... Racial Tensions in Multicultural Britain .... There is a page in youtube called " Pakistani women and black men" It is about how crazy our ... There were three afro-carib youths there who stared at me and made slurs against me.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUODVXIIKwQ

Doesn't make any act of racism right nor should it continue.But it does not make the US unique in that area.

[OzarkWoman]

"the land of the free". Conservatives are now arguing that Americans are losing the freedoms they had at the birth of the United States. There is more freedom now in America than there was for most of its history.

You are wrong, once again. We have less freedoms and the government is definitely working on taking away more of our rights. I have seen over the last 60 years many rights and freedoms taken away and not to mention, just skewed so horrendously.

[bonnie]

You are wrong, once again. We have less freedoms and the government is definitely working on taking away more of our rights. I have seen over the last 60 years many rights and freedoms taken away and not to mention, just skewed so horrendously.

When the government grants"rights" that are not God given,they grant a right to one by taking from another

[lazarus]

Doesn't every country struggle to live up to it's ideal. Do you think signing a Bill of Rights or drafting a constitution means that will immediately change all hearts and force compliance? Certainly would be easier that way if true. No murders,no rapes,no child abuse

We're not talking about all hearts we're talking about the founding fathers. They were keen to secure their own freedoms but yet deny the freedoms to other human beings who they said had inalienable rights. They were not keen to provide freedom for all, only for all who were like them.

Posting lists of problems in other countries does not refute my central point that the founding fathers oppressed people in their own country despite their lofty claims to liberty and freedom. Four of the first five presidents clearly had cognitive dissonance when it came to the concept of freedom.

[lazarus]

You are wrong, once again. We have less freedoms and the government is definitely working on taking away more of our rights. I have seen over the last 60 years many rights and freedoms taken away and not to mention, just skewed so horrendously.

For hundreds of years in the republic, millions of Americans were excluded from the provisions in the Bill of rights. They now can claim those rights. Incredible progress towards liberty for those millions of Americans has been made.

[lazarus]

When the government grants"rights" that are not God given,they grant a right to one by taking from another

The USA had trouble granting the God given rights for hundreds of years. America was built as a result of taking away God given rights. That's how most empires are formed. That's how great nations become great nations.

[bonnie]

Must be unique to a certain type of people in a country HUH?

It has been pretty well established that many wrongs have been committed.Now I know that is what happened in other countries but what can you do?

You are still looking at the founding fathers in a modern framework.No one is claiming they did it perfectly and took care of all ills.You are the one demanding they be condemned because they didn't.

Must have been nice for you to grow up and live where all where perfection was the case

The Founding Fathers and Slavery

David Barton - 07/2011

Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers' date=' the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. As President of Congress Henry Laurens explained:

I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule ["do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12']. 1

Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began:

Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it. 2

The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude–and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade]. 3

Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .

. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. 4

Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the "hell-hound of abolition" for his extensive efforts against that evil). Adams explained:

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. 5

While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, 6 not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery. 7