Tuesday, February 25, 2014

HIT JOB: Jon Stewart Attacks Judge Napolitano for His Views on Lincoln



Jon Stewart needs to read Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War real bad.

47 comments:

  1. Abraham Lincoln used the military as the means to achieve American government's goals, much like Sen. McCain and his group. He approved numerous forts throughout the west and established a "reservation" camp for, specifically, the Mecalero Apache and Navajo. This reservation and others like it were nothing but concentration camps. Lincoln, himself, enslaved Indians while "claiming" by way of the yahoos in the video clip to the "Emancipator" of black slaves. The man was a tyrant and an enslaved and destroyed cultures.

    From Bosque Redondo Memorial website (especially, the last paragraph):

    [As a result of Manifest Destiny, military installations were quickly established in New Mexico to protect settlers. Numerous forts emerged to help integrate this new territory into the expanding United States.

    James H. Carleton was a bright, aggressive officer and a young protegĂ© of General Edwin Vose Sumner. Carleton was summoned along with his highly trained California Column to counter the Confederate invasion in New Mexico. While he arrived too late to complete that mission, he quickly set his sights on putting his stamp on the Indian problem in New Mexico. He would soon be promoted to General and the Commander of the Military in New Mexico. Highly connected politically in the East Coast, in 1862 Carleton swiftly obtained President Abraham Lincoln’s approval to esablish a fort, which would be named after his mentor, “Fort Sumner.” He initially justified the fort as offering protection to settlers in the Pecos River Valley from the Mescalero Apache, Kiowa and Comanche. He soon had other plans in mind and felt the site of the fort on the Bosque Redondo on the Pecos River would be a good site for an Indian reservation.

    The U.S. government believed that subduing the native population and settling these lands was their duty, their mission and their destiny. It was with this understanding that Carleton and the U.S. Army established Fort Sumner.

    It is ironic that while President Lincoln decreed freedom for all slaves through his Emancipation Proclamation issued in 1862 during the Civil War, he was setting the stage for another period of slavery of the Mecalero Apache and Navajo people.]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And let us not forget, the large number of "colonial" societies (i.e. a euphemism for organisations whose goal was to get black either forcefully or voluntary to leave the US to various countries or colonies like Liberia) in the non-slave northern states of which Lincoln was the head of the branch in Illinois before he became president, and actively pursued while president until his assassination with the British through diplomatic channels to get blacks to leave the US (as the US "lost" all the archives related to this, we have to thank the British for their skill at keeping records). A true humanitarian that Lincoln!

      Delete
  2. If Stewart is concerned about being contaminated by the views of a "Confederate apologist", he could pick up a copy of Lerone Bennett's "Forced into Glory" instead, since his gimmick of having a "Senior Black Correspondent" indicates a prejudicial belief that only blacks are qualified to address this subject.

    But because he's nothing more than a clever TV clown whose livelihood depends on distorting and demeaning those who disagree with him (to the approving jeers of his smug and sanctimonious audience), I'm sure he would find a way to mock Bennett too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, what this with a Black Correspondent? You'd think we'd have moved way past that kind of Michael Stivic tokenism by this point. Guess Stewart is really just a well camouflaged racist after all.

      Delete
    2. What white lefty isn't? Most of them project their racist feelings onto others. They feel guilty about their racist thoughts and I guess that's why the go overboard demonstrating in overt ways to the world that they are beyond their stereotypical view of race. Where their racism really comes out is when they go after minorities that don't hold the same political positions as they do. Then their repressed racism comes out for all to see. Bill Maher is the prime example of this. You can spot them very easily as they are the ones that can't leave out a person's race when referring to them.

      Delete
    3. I hope you realize that this "Senior Black Correspondent" is just meant to be taken as a joke, which Stewart does for other races and religions too. If you can't take it as a subtle joke, well, that's your problem.

      You probably didn't know anything about this because "durr durr left-turds" but keep on babbling, and somehow maybe you'll realize that you're just overreacting to this because you disagree with anything that Stewart ever does, even if he's just restating facts to prove a "news" analyst on FOX wrong.

      Delete
    4. We don't disagree with anything Stewart ever does (even though we don't get the chance to agree with him often enough), nor did he restate "facts" that disprove a "news" analyst on Fox wrong. (I love how you people always seem to imply that Fox is the only network that presents faux news. Really, it's getting old in this day and age of MSNBC, ABC and CNN being de facto pimps for Obama)

      I hope you realize that you just come off as another Republican obsessed idiot who mistakenly thinks he's got us pegged just because we're not libruls and therefor must be consurvtives..

      This, while we here are the ONLY ones right now openly calling for an end to the war on drugs, an end to ALL illegal wars and an imperialist foreign policy, to the police & surveillance state (including all alphabet agencies) and subsequent violations of constitutional rights, clemency to whistleblowers, amalgamation of big business with government, and other issues that were, ahem, supposed to be championed by "progressives".

      Delete
    5. **You probably didn't know anything about this because "durr durr left-turds" but keep on babbling, and somehow maybe you'll realize that you're just overreacting to this because you disagree with anything that Stewart ever does, even if he's just restating facts to prove a "news" analyst on FOX wrong.**

      LOL! What facts were re-stated to prove Napolitano wrong? Funny how you don't mention any. Now back to the Daily Pol Pot you go, clown.

      Delete
  3. The real purpose of government schools is to propagandize, to glorify the state. And what better character to deify than our good friend, Honest Abe, America's first dictator?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The real purpose of government schools is not to propagandize, to glorify the state.

      Delete
    2. Re: Jerry Wolfgang,
      -- The real purpose of government schools is not to propagandize, to glorify the state. --

      So what is the real purpose of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem, then? Because to educate children does not seem to be it.

      Delete
    3. Jerry, if that is not the purpose of government schooling, why are the walls and halls of every school in America adorned with the pictures of dead presidents?

      Delete
    4. Oh yes it is, troll.
      Learn some history.
      Public education historically had very much the purpose of making children into good obedient citizens, a.k.a. worshippers of the state.
      That's how it started in Prussia, and that's how it came to the U.S.

      It has been, and is, the aim of both conservative and liberal/socialist worshippers of the state.

      It most certainly is NOT to prepare kids properly for life, by fostering intellectual diversity, a critical mind and basic reading and math skills. Since these are the last things teachers obviously care about.
      Even back in history kids had better reading skills before the institution of public education got its slimy tentacles wrapped in children's' brains.

      Delete
    5. Pubic schools are designed to give kids basic reading a math skills as well as basic historical knowledge about our country. If anything public schools propagandize sports as the only way to success in life. College is where kids develop a critical mind to be better aware of our government and compare its faults to other governments. Perhaps your public schools and teachers were bad or you were lazy, but I applied myself and thought my school was alright.

      Delete
    6. @ Anonymous February 25, 2014 at 5:43 PM

      Uh huh.
      That's why you now think public schools are for edumecation and the development of "critical thinking". I'm sure you also think critical thinking skills are bred into you by those P.C. indoctrination camps called colleges that systematically persecute people (students and teachers alike) who don't show the proper worship of leftist ideals. Speech codes? Hearings over "insensitive" remarks? Give us a break. They're thought police bastions.

      Maybe you also missed the various bits of news where public school are using strong arm tactics with kids in order to brainwash them into believing certain politically correct social conduct such as not owning toy guns or hugging other kids. Where they are expelled, suspended or sometimes even ARRESTED and put in handcuffs. Where kids have actually been taught to rat out their own parents for having weed in the house. Oh yeah, it's all about basic math and reading skills. That explains "women's studies" and "Mexican Lesbian Chihuahua studies". That's why so many illiterates are coming out these days no matter how much the budget keeps getting increased. That's why teachers are almost impossible to fire, thus basically guaranteeing them a job no matter how much they SUCK at it, at taxpayer expense. Because it's all about giving the kids a good education.

      You too need to learn history. Historically public education has been about INDOCTRINATION of obedient, pro-government sentiments, both conservative and progressive. And that is exactly what we still see today. It came over from Prussia to America.
      Even logically this can be deducted. After all, why would public schools and public teachers criticize the very institution that pays its bills and butters their bread? Yes, they can criticize certain specific governments. Big deal. We're talking about the very institution itself.

      Oh and yes you are right. Public schools ALSO propagandize sports. One does not exclude the other.
      Because of "teamwork", discipline and proper obedience to hierarchy and authority. And because of "bread and circuses". Isn't it wonderful how those massive sports events glorify the state, worship the flag and tell people about how beautiful the homeland is? Oh and support the troops or you're unamerican. This goes whether the warmonger is Bush or Obama.

      Delete
    7. Tony, take a pill.

      While I am not defending all public schools, not all of them are bad. Mine was actually quite good. It depends greatly on how and to what extent a school is funded, a particular school's curriculum, and the abilities and attitudes of the teachers and students alike.

      Everyone's experiences and perspectives are different but I found that at my public school, when I put in the effort, the positives that I received were many times greater than the negatives.

      Delete
  4. JudgeNap is probably pleased his views are getting more attention.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's obvious that the writers have read DiLorenzo's book because they address and easily rebut every argument made in his book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Jerry Wolfgang,
      -- It's obvious that the writers have read DiLorenzo's book because they address and easily rebut every argument made in his book. --

      Like which one?

      Delete
    2. Looks like I'm slipping. Anon is beating me to it. But anyway:

      JW: Troll.

      Delete
  6. The "humor" in this sketch seems a bit forced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, his assorted audience of hyenas that are usually easy to please don't seem to be laughing that much for the most part. The question is this:

      Do they smell a rat or do they simply not fully understand the context of everything and are actually exercising their own judgement?

      Delete
  7. I think the judge should take it a little easy on the notion of compensated emancipation, although that is how Lincoln himself in fact freed the slaves in the District of Columbia. (At $300 per slave, a tidy sum.) Not that one would expect Stewart or his sidekick to know such a thing.

    It was, after all, the libertarian John Bright, I think, who quipped that upon emancipation (in the British colonies) something along that line that it is the slaves and not the masters who should be compensated.

    A better point for the judge to emphasize -- and an argument well made by Jeff Hummel -- is that slavery in the South was far better protected under the constitution than outside of the constitution. So either the southern elite was stupid to secede (quite possibly the case) or there were other considerations which tipped the scales in favor of secession.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stewart touched on tariffs and then made a big joke about them like they weren't a factor. He carefully crafted his response about the secession charters by qualifying slavery as a "major" point, thereby invalidating any consideration surrounding tariffs to the audience he was feeding pablum to.

      It was a very well done propaganda piece.

      Delete
    2. Yes! Why do libertarians always soft-peddle their principles? Ron Paul would always bring up compensation of the slave owners when they'd go after him for not worshiping Lincoln and his mass murder.

      I recall Spooner writing that the slave owners should be horse whipped in proportion to the whippings that they doled out. Who are the Judge and Ron pandering to when they mention compensating the slave holders rather than the slaves? Its like they have this involuntary conservative tic that they can't control even though they know better.

      Delete
    3. You know Wally, I appreciate your comment in that I never thought of your point specifically that way.

      I think another question along those lines might be, "When is it justifiable to use force against another that is violating the NAP in his interaction with another?"

      I think the only issue in this instance clouding the above question is that we all know that power was much more of a concern from both the North and the South than the plight of the slaves.

      Delete
    4. Wally before you carry on chastising supposedly evil whites from over 100 years ago I suggest you go spend the night in Detroit and see how much respect for the non-aggression axiom the average African American has today.

      Delete
    5. "I recall Spooner writing that the slave owners should be horse whipped in proportion to the whippings that they doled out. Who are the Judge and Ron pandering to when they mention compensating the slave holders rather than the slaves?"

      I can't be sure, but my guess is that Napolitano and Paul's point are that by compensating the slave owners, slavery could have been abolished without having to resort to mass murder, massive destruction of poverty and the wholesale violation of constitutional rights by Lincoln during the civil war.
      It is not that compensating slave owners would be the principled thing to do, but that the only other alternative would have been even worse. Libertarians, when FORCED to make a choice, tend to make the most peaceful, most non-destructive choice.

      After all, the prospect of horsewhipping slave owners is not exactly going to make them very willing to avoid an attempt at secession OR fighting a bloody, destructive war, is it?

      But i could be wrong about their reasoning.

      Delete
    6. Tony, you are correct that is exactly what Nap and Ron are saying.

      But why say that? Their libertarian heads understand--they've probably both read Spooner. But their conservative instincts take over and instead of talking about all of the good things the libertarians of the 1850s were doing to abolish slavery (fighting slavery's constitutionality in the courts, jury nullification, the underground railroad, criticism of Illinois Republican-style whites only laws, etc.) they bring up compensation of the slave owners as though they are negotiating right now against the status quo and don't want to come off as too radical. But Spooner and the libertarians of the 1850s didn't worry about that!

      I love the Judge and Ron, but I also recognize their limitations--foremost among them being their inability to fully extricate themselves from their conservative ideological upbringings and the lifetime effects of state mind control systems.

      The sad thing is that if they could break through their limitations and give hard core answers to all of this racist stuff, it could catapult the Love-o-lution giant steps forward. But as it is, the state propaganda machine further is consigning the love-o-lution to the Hate-triot scrap head along with Goldwater, Reagan, and the Contract with American.

      Can you imagine if during the 2008 and 2012 campaigns Ron Paul had responded to the constant racist newsletter accusations by sneaking out of wherever Jesse Benton had him locked away and conducted his entire campaign in front of America's court houses leafleting prospective jurors and preaching about how American juries were nullifying the fugitive slave acts and how today American juries can nullify the racist drug war and all other modern forms of government enforced slavery?

      Delete
  8. I'm not too concerned. The average Daily Show viewer is a slack-jawed, mouth-breathing imbecile incapable of original thought or intelligent discussion. Seriously, how many times can you watch Jon Stewart squeak out an ignorant, asinine comment before making a goofy face, and actually laugh at it before you're considered legally retarded? Once?

    Even Colbert is funnier than him, and Colbert's shtick is dried up, crusty, and sitting in someone's underwear drawer. It's incredible that some people can be so engulfed in murderous ignorance that they ridicule someone who happens to think that the abolition of slavery doesn't justify the deaths of 1.5 million people (including civilians), the complete destruction of the South (from which it has still not recovered), or the establishment of a dictatorship and policies that makes us suffer to this day.

    The slaves were never freed. Instead, all of us were made slaves to whichever group holds power at that moment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was always baffled by Libertarians who thought Jon Stewart was any sort of meaningful ally, just because he was nice to Ron Paul and calls out the most obviously insane elements of the State in a funny way.

    He is no such thing. He is the court jester of the State, who has a moment of clarity and insight once in a blue moon.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stewart claimed that Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia were approached by Lincoln in 1862 to end slavery with reparations, but they all refused because they couldn't afford it.( at 1:14 in video)...Which may be a fact of historical record, even if skewed by Stewart...
    so, I checked in my copy of "the Real Lincoln" to validate that claim. On pg. 51, DiLorenzo notes that these "border states" had been seeing a decline in slavery for the previous 30 years, and that "Lincoln could have put into motion a process to end slavery much more expeditiously- and peacefully- ....but he chose instead to wage a long and devastating war..."
    SO.....SOMEone isn't filling all the details here....
    Anyone at EPJ have access to the facts of the matter?
    (I've tried emailing DiLorenzo, but I have to sign up at Yahoo mail to do so....nope)

    ReplyDelete
  11. The facts are this- Abraham Lincoln was probably the greatest racist of all time. By "freeing" the slaves and putting them into positions that they were (and still are) biologically unsuited for, he condemned them to a life where they were always going to need help from white people. History doesn't lie. If he would have left slavery be, there would have been none of the problems that we face now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wow. You guys are disgusting. Slavery should have been stopped by violence decades earlier, with the execution of "owners". Humans are not property. But, its clear that in your horrible world view, "labor" is just another input.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slavery is bad but mass murder is ok. Got it.

      Delete
    2. "Humans are not property."

      Many parents of kids would disagree with you. But, there is a large push to make kids community property, under which I suppose we can all "enjoy" the tragedy of the commons if the Statists get their way.

      Maybe instead you should simply say "involuntary slavery is atrocious and should be stopped by violence if necessary" if you want to be more effective in your pleas.

      Delete
    3. Can i assume from this that violence against innocents is okay if done to stop modern forms of slavery? So violent revolution against the American state is justified, since you generally do not own your own body (war on drugs), do not own the fruits of your labor (taxation), do not own your property (eminent domain), do not own your privacy (NSA), do not own your conscience (taxation for the purposes of war), do not own your work/business (regulations/taxation) and the list goes on and on. Since the state can make you - by force - abide by laws concerning your life, livelihood, health, body, possessions, and other aspects of your whole being on this planet at whim, we must conclude that we are slaves of the state. So violence against innocents is justified in fighting this injustice, according to YOUR principles.
      Am i right?

      Gotcha. Then you think the suicide by plane by Andrew Stack (who was tormented by the government) which merely resulted in a very small scale tragedy, is a true hero's action.
      Am i correct?

      Delete
    4. @ Mike

      Yes.
      According to -M, enslaving people is bad, and slaughtering thousands and thousands of innocents to free slaves is just fine. Gotta break some eggs if you want to make an omelet.

      And -M also says that humans are not property. We agree of course. But i wonder how he feels about how the state owns people NOW. My guess is he would think "no no no. That is not owning people, that is democracy, that is the social contract, that is the will of the majority, that is the price we pay for civilization etc etc etc."

      Delete
    5. Hypocrites like him know no bounds. They're too stupid to realize that slavery NEVER ended. It was only transferred form blacks to EVERYONE.

      Delete
  13. So with all this outrage, how about someone calmly go point for point through Stewart's piece and rebut his statements/replies?

    I would much rather see that than everyone just calling him names. It sure doesn't help the case.

    There are a lot of people who don't have time to read 20 books on the subject, and while I like Tom, when there is a challenge to his case - or to anyone that I like and follow - it's better to have a detailed response other then "Read the book."

    I'd like to hear a response to martha's question, above (although there's no reason she needs to get a yahoo account to send DiLorenzo an email.. that's just silly)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ya know, for a moment I thought, "We should send e-mails to Jon Stewart asking him to consider having DiLorenzo on the show since he's always having people on who have written interesting books."

      I'm not sure it would be effective, as I still think he tows the statist line, but you never know. It seems like a reasonable request in light of him claiming Napolitano was "talking out his ass".

      Delete
    2. "It seems like a reasonable request in light of him claiming Napolitano was "talking out his ass"."

      Jon was projecting. Like almost all Leftist shit tards with no brain.

      Delete
    3. I'd love to read a commentary on Martha's question too. Anyone? Stewart is vulnerable if he was inaccurate.

      Also agree on the name calling.... Stewart was popular when he was pointing out the "disappearance" of RP during the election.

      Delete
  14. By reading some of these comments, it seems that some people believe that following the rules that a society makes to promote order, fairness, and justice is the same slavery as being forced to do what another person tells you to do every moment of the day, including mostly menial, manual labor. Not doing these things by your "owner" would result in being beaten severely, possibly starved, or as a final punishment, hanged. These two ideas don't seem to be compatible as being in the same category. Those who think that the laws we have as a nation are "slavery" are just pussies.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Did anyone see Napolitano on the daily show last night?

    He might as well have crapped his pants on national tv and it would've been a less humiliating experience.

    Every last one of his talking points was debunked.

    ReplyDelete