Thursday morning links

New England Federalists in the early 1800s feared that Virginia was gaining too much power and would act against the interests of New England states and in the interests of Southern ones. Many of them also opposed the War of 1812. After Thomas Jefferson’s election, Federalist Stephen Higgenson claimed the federal government “had fallen into the hands of infidel, anti-commercial, anti-New England Southerners” who would “govern and depress New England.”

The complaints of New England Federalists essentially mirrored those later made by Southerners advocating for secession in the 1860s. And in fact, in the 1830s and 1840s, abolitionists, chief among them William Lloyd Garrison, called for “disunion” over the slavery issue. A New England Anti-Slavery Convention was held and attendees voted in favor of secession by a margin of 250-24.

So we see that secession was not a wholly Southern construct. Even Abraham Lincoln, as a representative, recognized the states had the right to secede — he only changed his mind after became president.

https://boblivingstonletter.com/alerts/we-have-lincoln-to-blame-for-the-mess-were-in/

#1 feeblemind on 2019-12-05 11:28 (Reply)

The climate scam is losing it's steam. So the rhetoric is heating up. But it is becoming more clear everyday that this is about looting the U.S. and not about climate or saving the world. No one cares how much pollution China spews out because they are not stupid enough to buy into this scam and turn trillions over to the UN. This entire effort reminds me of how trial lawyers gen up an issue in the media and then sues the company with deep pockets after they have biased the jury pool. Perhaps the next president and the next congress will be stupid enough to give away our future to these scammers but it won't be pretty.

#2 OneGuy on 2019-12-05 11:35 (Reply)

Cecil Rhodes was a racist . Ergo : anyone who accepts the scholarship must also be a racist . < snark/off >

#3 treefroggy (Link) on 2019-12-05 11:45 (Reply)

What are the OPT and CPT programs? What are H-1B, L-1, J-1, and TN visas? They are put of the conspiracy to bring in foreign labor to replace Americans. About 1,500,000 a year and these jobs are not out in fields picking tomatoes.
https://iotwreport.com/busts-signal-that-chicoms-have-quite-a-labor-trafficking-racket-in-the-states/

#4 Anon on 2019-12-05 12:09 (Reply)

I am normally not a fan of Forbes but I found this article to be very well balanced. It refutes much of the hyperbole surrounding climate change.

It won't allow me to post the link so search for an article by Michael Shellenberger title Why Everything They Say About Climate Change is Wrong

#5 LB412 on 2019-12-05 12:44 (Reply)

RE: Ms. Pelosi's full-speed-ahead on impeachment this morning.

I think she knows:
1. The President is not going to be removed from office. There was never a legitimate cause for the inquiry, and all the Schiff and Nadler show accomplished was embarrassment for House Dems and further erosion of the public's trust in the MSM (who'da thunk that could even be done?).
2. The President is going to be re-elected. Her party's clown-car approach to the primaries is rapidly proving that there is no way the American electorate is going to take any of these idiots seriously enough to send one of them to the White House.
3. She has the House now, but her hold loosens the longer the ball is in her court. The endless floods of investigative shenanigans aren't winning over independent and swing voters; while at the same time, her party's growing radicalized (and increasingly unhinged) base seethes over the lack of action to oust the Donald.

Knowing all of that, she's realistic enough to see that articles of impeachment aren't going to change any of those facts . . . so, she's changing tactics and gunning for Dem control of the Senate. She thinks that if she can get her House Dems (and especially her capricious committee chairs) to wind up their jackassery and hand the whole mess to the Senate, then she and her party's allies in the media can spend the rest of the campaign season hammering on Senators for being part of the Bad Orange Man's corruption ("Top legal scholars said he should be impeached, Senator, why are you playing politics with the sanctity of our constitutional principles?") She can placate the loony progressive wing of her party ("Hey, we did our part, but Trump's stooges in the Senate covered everything up."). She can bamboozle low-info voters in swing states ("Trump's radical abuses of power threaten our very democracy and your Senator is doing NOTHING about it!"). She can threaten any moderate Dem Senators who try to treat this in any way fairly ("Look, don't even talk to me about fairness, it's time to put on your big-boy pants and play for keeps. And don't think I won't primary your sorry ass if you so much as hint that our report doesn't prove that Trump did every bad thing ever.")

#6 Thos. on 2019-12-05 15:30 (Reply)

Despite the risks, I think the Dems will vote to Impeach. It will give them access to a mountain of documentation including Grand Jury testimony, regardless of whether it was legally obtained. I suspect that anything juicy has already been leaked to them; they just aren't able to refer to it legally. I anticipate that they would be able to continue to give birth to mice, as they use it to leak and smear, as a pretext for harassing and extorting Trump associates with lawfare, or even bystanders. At the end of the day, this is all about Trump's judicial appointments. They can hope to put appointments under a cloud and, at some point, it may be used to predicate impeachment of those appointments. This matters because almost everything that Trump has done, they can undo, but the transformation of the courts is long lasting.

#6.1 Exasperated on 2019-12-05 18:12 (Reply)

Just have to wonder if the principal who banned Christmas cards on the principle that they contribute to global warming also pondered the global warming implications of hijab production and issued a fatwah against them as well. That would be silly, wouldn't it?

#7 Jerryskids on 2019-12-05 15:40 (Reply)

RE the Obama's overpaying for a dry-wall mansion in a posh liberal ghetto: what suckers!

Not unrelated: anyone else notice that we're being force-fed Michelle Obama these days. She's got a book on Walmart's shelves, my FM radio feed says she is featured in "People Magazine's Top Five Most Influential Women in America" [influential how? -ed], and now she and hubby just bought a glittery trifle in Martha's Vineyard with their unearned millions.

Everything wrong with American media and government life can be summed up with this gross pimping of the mediocre 'impact' of the unimpressive wife of an overpaid, middling politician, both of whom only get this piffling status, one must presume, because of their skin color.

I'm guessing Michelle is going to run for President, because Trump has made terrific in-roads into the Black voting community. And, since Kamala has pulled out, and since the Democrats believe whole-heartedly that so-called "Black" women carry their race's votes to the Democrats' (unless they idolize politicized sports-ball players, Black men don't really matter in the Democrats' electoral calculus), they have no choice but to float an every-Mom's look-alike candidate with straightened hair and a veneer of success on their ticket.

Why the media campaign?

#8 steveaz on 2019-12-05 21:12 (Reply)

I think that the Democrats will steal the election and whoever the Democrat candidate is will be elected magically (in much the same way the new governor of Kentucky was elected). I think at this time the candidate will be Biden. I also think that within Biden's term he will leave the presidency due to health issues. So the real mystery is who will be Biden's running mate? I suspect it will be a woman of color to get those voting blocks. I also think it will be someone the far left wants but does not believe could ever be elected directly. Voila; Michelle.

#8.1 OneGuy on 2019-12-06 11:38 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, December 5. 2019

Thursday morning links