London Riots, Milwaukee Flash Mobs, Liberal Injustice

Below are 3 of my comments sent to the NYT online concerning thieves, looting, and the lack of punishment that encourages the criminal class..  Two of my comments were added to the NYT site, but then one of these was removed by the moderator.

Opinion

READERS' COMMENTS

Is London Burning?

Have the London riots exposed the weaknesses in Prime Minister David Cameron's leadership?

Share your thoughts.

Your Submitted Comments

Display Name

Hugh Murray 

Location

Milwaukee 

Comment

In Milwaukee today a man was found guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter for killing a "youth" who sought to rob from a scrap yard where the poor white man lived and worked. This is why there are riots in London and flash mobs in Milwaukee and Philadelphia and Chicago, etc. A poor man who tries to keep his job and prevent stealing from the business is convicted of a crime. Of course, his crime is trying to maintain an honest society, one the liberal courts and police are unable to do. In this instance, the real criminal did pay for this theft, but most often the thieves get away with it. The poor and honest are the victims of liberal society. The liberal elite, in the UK and the US, hates it when the poor defend their small properties, even a back pack, from the violent criminals.
The solution is easy. In schools, bring back the cane and permit corporal punishment. Expel those who disrupt. Have a harsh, bread-and-water type camp for those expelled. Cut off all welfare to unwed mothers, and provide it only for the physically and mentally disabled. And of course, have a quick, public, system of executing murderers. Crime would suddenly decrease, people could go out at night without fear from the criminal class, and some of the government's new surplus would go to retrain social workers so their sympathy would go to real victims and not the criminal class.

Display Name

Hugh Murray 

Location

Milwaukee 

Comment

Last week in Milwaukee a pregnant woman was shot and killed, while her young son watched. She refused to surrender her purse to a teenage criminal. The teen shooter had been released after involvement with the death of another person earlier. What does this have to do with London? In the West, liberal domination allows criminals to get away with their crimes. Yesterday in Milwaukee a poor man who lives at a scrap yard shot and killed a "youth," who sought to steal. The loot and plunder mentality is not limited to mobs in London. But in Milwaukee a jury today convicted the poor, honest man of manslaughter. He should be given a medal for protecting his property, shabby as is may be to some. The wealthy liberal elite cannot understand someone trying to stop thievery of scrap, or of TVs, of of jeans. If the London kid whose rucksack was robbed, had he shot the thief, the elite would condemn him for protecting his measly backpack. The liberal elite does not understand.
There is rioting in London and flash mobs in Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc., but the criminal class gets away with crime. The poor and honest pay for the "compassion" of the rich liberals. They pay in fear, in loss of property, in scars, and sometimes in lost lives. Until police are able and willing to use all means to stop crime, then the poor and honest must take appropriate measures on their own. The liberal elite has unleashed the criminal class. Dunn's book Death By Liberalism estimates such liberal "compassion" has cost America alone 250,000 lives of honest citizens. One hopes the UK will crack down and end the welfare policies that have fostered the growth of the criminal class. The class war in the UK, and in the US has pitted the criminal class (with its wealthy elite allies) against the poor and honest folks.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

August 13, 2011, 2:05 PM

English Historian Blames Black Culture for Riots

By ROBERT MACKEY

 

David Starkey, who has presented several documentaries on the Tudor period, said during a BBC debate: “the problem is that the whites have become black — a particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion — and black and white, boy and girl, operate in this language together; this language, which is wholly false, which is a Jamaican patois, that’s been intruded in England, and this is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country.”

Your Submitted Comments

Display Name

Hugh Murray

Location

Milwaukee

Comment

When I lived in Scotland decades ago, there were almost no people of color. Those there, were mostly at university, along with a few refugees from Kenya's Black-racist policies. Scotland was a more homogeneous society, not subject to the disasters of "diversity." I suspect that is still the case, and may explain the lack of riots in Scotland.

DiLorenzo's Distorted Mask on Lincoln

LINCOLN UNMASKED: WHAT YOU’RE NOT
SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT DISHONEST ABE
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo (New York: Crown Forum, 2006)

            A book should stand on its own; this one is unbalanced, distorted, and a disappointment.  DiLorenzo does present a strong case that the founders of this nation conceived of it as another confederation of sovereign states, with each capable of seceding should the need arise.  In support of this view, he cites Jefferson and Madison, the supporters of New England’s Resolutions during the War of 1812, the Nullification crisis in South Carolina over the “Tariff of Abominations,” and even the refusal of some Northern states to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act.  In short, DiLorenzo has written a legal brief for the right of secession, and he refers to the military conflict, not as the Civil War, but as “the War between the States.”  Although mentioning Pres. James Buchanan only regarding the tariff, in reality Di Lorenzo has provided a defense of Buchanan’s late policy of allowing the Union to dissolve.

            However, there is more to the story.  When small-government advocate, Jefferson, as president, purchased the Louisiana Territory from France, where was the Constitutional justification for such an act – one that nearly doubled the size of the nation and promised to respect the rights of the Catholic population?  And while Democratic Vice President Calhoun was championing states rights and nullification in the 1830s, Democratic President Jackson was just as determined to squelch it.  (There was an equestrian statue to honor the “hero of New Orleans” in what became known as Jackson Square in that city.  During the Civil War, once the largest city of the Confederacy had been captured by the Union, General “Beast” Butler added an inscription to the base of the statue.  Added were some of Jackson’s words, “Our Union: it must be preserved.”)

            While many Americans, abolitionists and slavocrats, may have believed that any state could simply secede from the Union, I think it clear that many more Americans, including Democrats like Jackson, Andrew Johnson, and Stephen Douglas, opposed that view.  So did the Republican Party.  The majority of Republicans supported Lincoln in his determination to retain Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston in 1861, even if rebels fired upon it.  Northerners agreed enough with Lincoln to answer his call for troops against the rebellion.

            DiLorenzo rightly exposes Lincoln’s views on race – he favored Black emigration to Africa, to Haiti, to Central America.  He did not believe Blacks and whites could live together in equality.  By today’s politically correct standards, Lincoln was a racist.  (Of course, by those standards, who isn’t?)  Like many Northerners, he may have opposed slavery because he did not want Blacks living in the free states.

            But did Lincoln change any of his views over time?  Could he have held two seemingly contradictory views at the same time?  While in 1861 Lincoln was willing to guarantee the continuance of slavery in the states where it already existed, by 1863, by his Military Order, he was abolishing slavery in areas already in rebellion.  Moreover, in recruiting Blacks, including run-away slaves into the Union Army, Lincoln was smothering the possibility of the continuance of slavery.  And though Lincoln continued to push for colonization of Blacks, in his last speech Lincoln spoke of allowing some Blacks to vote.

            While DiLorenzo dismisses slavery as a cause of the Civil War, it is interesting that when the Confederacy was facing loss of recruits, some proposed recruiting Blacks into the Confederate army.  The proposal was rejected, for the regime knew that armed Blacks, even in a Confederate army would spell the end of slavery.  The Confederate leadership preferred military defeat to using Black troops.  Lincoln used Black troops, won the war, preserved the Union, and slavery was abolished.

            DiLorenzo contends that the war was not about slavery, and instead mentions other issues like the high Morrill Tariff.  Yet, that tariff was passed by Congress and signed by outgoing President Buchanan before Lincoln was inaugurated.  I think the war was about what Lincoln said it was about – a war to preserve the union.

            To do so Lincoln had to use extraordinary measures.  Maryland and Virginia surrounded the Union capital, Washington, D.C.  Union troops were pelted in Baltimore as they marched to defend the capital.  Lincoln responded with harsh measures to keep Maryland, and other areas, in the Union – arresting legislators, destroying opposition newspapers and arresting their editors, deporting Ohio Representative Vallandigham, suspending the right of habeas corpus, issuing an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.  DiLorenzo complains that Lincoln violated the Constitution by allowing West Virginia to secede from Virginia.  Perhaps, Lincoln should be criticized for not promoting a new state of east Tennessee and western North Carolina.  He was using measures to win a war and crush a rebellion.

            DiLorenzo repeatedly indicts Lincoln on numerous charges, including voter manipulation.  Yet, despite limits on free speech and the destruction of the free press in many areas of the North, Democrats made gains in the off-year elections of 1862.  And even after dumping his vice president from Maine and getting Tennessee Democrat Andrew Johnson as his running mate in 1864 on the Union Party ticket, Lincoln anticipated electoral defeat.  Yet, when the votes were counted, Lincoln defeated the peace candidate, Democrat Gen. McClellan, not only in the civilian vote, but in the soldier vote as well.  Does DiLorenzo believe that the election was so rigged that the peace candidate had actually defeated Lincoln?

            In the end, DiLorenzo’s book is a brief for one side which so distorts the history of the era and the actions of Lincoln and the Union that the book cannot stand alone.  It is unbalanced.