Pardon My French, S'il voud plais

 My colleague, Laci is currently more French fluent than I am. My French is admittedly rusty, but still adequate to understand French protesters on the news.

Katie Miller, un-elected meddling wh*r* in extremist right wing policies, spouse of little Nazi swine -- a Jewish Hitler wannabe Stephen Miller -- just made a clear lying and fear-mongering public statement from her role as White House propagandist extraordinaire.

Her grotesque lie was that the protesters in France are immigrants, illegal aliens. And that if Trump and his evil servicer fascists do not win in the midterms, the same unrest will occur here.

To borrow a few lines from the French National Anthem (yes I know it):

Allons Citoyens! (Let's go citizens!)

Marchons marchons! (March march!)

Un Sang Impur... (An impure blood)

Nos SILLONS...(Our soil)

I just hit the high points, but the parallels were unmistakable. The national anthem dates back to the French Revolution and the rioting at the Bastille.

But listening to Bitch Miller, and listening to the audio of the unrest in French, that is massively NOT true. These are not illegal aliens, they are legal French born citizens of that country.

And it turns out, the cause of the violence, similar to our own January 6th, 2021 violent and damaging right wing extremist manipulated insurrection, was from right wing extremist funding and manipulation to ignite it.

Including definitely Russian money and influence, and quite possibly US as well.

Oligarch right wing extremists will do what they do. More anon.

Doggone: I'm back! Part 1

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Ending a big Juneteenth myth

OK, the premise of it being "celebrated annually on June 19 to commemorate the end of slavery in the United States" is plain off wrong.

There were two documents "ending" slavery: The Emancipation Declaration of 1863 and the Thirteenth Amendment.  

Slavery in the United States was officially abolished with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 6, 1865. However, the Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863, declared freedom for slaves in Confederate states, but did not end slavery nationwide.

On September 22, 1862, President Lincoln issued his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which stated that enslaved people in those states or parts of states still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be declared free. One hundred days later, with the rebellion unabated, President issued the Emancipation Proclamation declaring "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious areas "are, and henceforward shall be free." 

Because it was a military measure, however, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation, it did fundamentally transform the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of Black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 Black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

In the slave-owning areas controlled by Union forces on January 1, 1863, state action was used to abolish slavery. The exceptions were Kentucky, Delaware and New Jersey [1], where chattel slavery and indentured servitude were finally ended by the Thirteenth Amendment in December 1865.

“The Emancipation Proclamation did not lead to widespread freedom of African Americans,” says Berry. “It didn’t change that many people’s lives. Very few enslaved people were given their freedom after the Emancipation Proclamation.” --Time Magazine,When Did Slavery Really End in the U.S.? The Complicated History of Juneteenth

The Thirteenth Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

So, the Emancipation Declaration of 1863 freed slaves in Confederate states but did not apply to border states or areas under Union control. That meant that slavery was still practised in Kentucky, Delaware, and New Jersey up until 6 December 1865.

Juneteenth was not in any way the end of slavery in the United States.

That's because the Thirteenth Amendment, which was passed on  6 December 1865 officially abolished slavery in the U.S.

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states which were active members of the Confederate States of America. I couldn't get an accurate number on the amount of enslaved people in Delaware, Kentucky, and New Jersey at the time of the 13th Amendment, but I would guess it was more than heard General Order #3 in Galveston, Texas on "Juneteenth".

The final nail in the coffin for this nonsense is:

But even when slavery did end in Texas, formerly enslaved people still had a long road to freedom ahead of them, as they faced inadequate infrastructure to support them as they started new lives. As Laura Smalley, who was born into slavery in Texas, recalled that bittersweet moment in a 1941 interview, “We didn’t know where to go. They turned us out just like, you know, you turn out cattle.”  

Even more cold water: Furthermore, thousands of black slaves were not freed until after the Reconstruction Treaties of late 1866, when the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole tribes were forced to sign new treaties that required them to free their slaves.

So much for Juneteenth ending slavery in the United States. 

Footnote: there were 16 people enslaved in New Jersey when the 13th Amendment was passed! 

I don't agree with Thomas Massie about a lot of things, but

 I totally agree with him on this point

 There need to be alternative parties that truly represent the people.

My idea of how prayer in school should be

 OK, I'm not a great artist and I decided to use AI (craiyon) to create an idea I've have in my head.

The US is supposed to not favour one religion in the public sphere--so, this is my take on prayer in school.

Sorry if I left anyone out! It's not intentional. I want to be as inclusive as possible.

Especially since I imagine it to be pretty chaotic if you consider religious diversity. You really shouldn't be excluding ANY spiritual belief.

This seems particularly appropriate given that another airliner was diverted due to prayer recently.

Oh, and the prompts were:

A cartoon classroom full of children, five of them are in christian prayer, a couple are in Muslim prayer, a hasidic jewish boy is praying wearing tefillin, there is a boy who is an Appalachian snake handler, a hindu boy is meditating while levitating a foot off the floor, there are 3 dervish children dancing, native american and african children are dancing wildly.

A cartoon classroom full of children, five of them are in christian prayer, a couple of boys are in Muslim prayer, a hasidic jewish boy is praying wearing tefillin, there is a boy who is an Appalachian snake handler, a hindu boy is meditating while levitating a foot off the floor, there are 3 dervish children dancing, native american and african children are dancing wildly.

A cartoon classroom full of children, five of them are in christian prayer, a couple of boys are in Muslim prayer, a hasidic jewish boy is praying wearing tefillin, there is a boy who is an Appalachian snake handler, a hindu boy is meditating while levitating a foot off the floor, there are 3 dervish children dancing, a couple of rastafarians, native american and african children are dancing wildly.

 Prayer in school shouldn't be peaceful and serene: it needs to be inclusive.

Now, you do understand why the US needs to adopt laïcité?

Why New York Cops Thought Britain’s Unarmed Police Were “Ridiculous”.

 Ok, one thing which sort of makes me different from a lot of people on the "left" is that I have a more pragmatic view of defence and justice issues. So, I thought I would share this clip from Britain's ITN (Independent Television News) news from 1966.

 A lot has changed in 50 years and British police can be seen carrying guns, or have access to firearms.

Let's not forget that not only can we see the police improperly using their firearm, but we can also see civilians using firearms on the police. So, it's not a one way street.