Search This Blog

Friday, May 16, 2014

May 16th- Interesting Day in History

Today we're going to try something a little different..

Normally when we do a 'This Day in History' posting, there's usually one specific event of interest which we comment on and which we can tie to either economic/financial matters or the greater 21st political and social world we're all trapped within..

But today May 16th there are many interesting little events and incidents through history worth comment but not a full posting, so that's what we will experiment with today..

You may or may not agree with us today or most other days but really our #1 goal is stimulating thought, something the media used to do back in the day when the PC corporate side kept their grubby noses out of the news department and journalists possessed educated opinions..

So we begin..
1532 – Sir Thomas More resigns as Lord Chancellor of England

Sir More was counselor to Henry VIII and resigned in protest over the Protestant Reformation.

In continental Europe, Protestantism may have been born of sincere motives but in England, it took root because King Henry was desperate to divorce so he could try to impregnate a younger, more fertile woman (Anne Boleyn) to get a male heir..  

Then tried a few more times..

Situations like this make us think about this whole debate on gay marriage and really by extension marriage on the whole.
Why are gays and lesbians and really less Anyone so damned eager-beaver to get married?  

Absolutely the most ludicrous thing to invest time, money and energy fighting for!

Marriage is not love and commitment.. it is only a legal contract that ties assets so the larger breadwinner is to pay a large portion of their money to the other when eventual divorce occurs..  

Then there's alimony, child custody, who gets the dog...

It is very possible for two people to love one another and live together forever without the government being involved in the process or at least minimizing it.  A life long partnership between a man and woman or two of same gender is far more ideal than a marriage that lasts a few years.
And one does not need to register their love with the government to do basic things that couples do

For instance, if a couple is to buy a house, you set all the parameters of who paid what, how future payments are to be divvied, etc in a normal legal contract and if the relationship does end and home is sold, each gets the proper percentage back they put in.

Marriage does not prevent wandering eyes or outright cheating or two people grown tired of one another.. it simply locks people into perpetual states of unhappiness for fear of losing money and possessions in exchange for pursuing continual happiness.
1868 – United States President Andrew Johnson is acquitted in his impeachment trial by one vote in the United States Senate.

This event.. the impeachment proceedings is a perfect illustration of what happens when a deeply vindictive branch of government (in this case the legislative body) seeks  bloody revenge against another branch based on ideology..

To be brief:  Lincoln is killed days after the Civil War ends and Andrew Johnson the VP becomes President.

Even though he is Republican like Lincoln and the vast majority who hold power in the House & Senate, he is not a 'Radical' Republican..  Being from the South he does not have deep hatred for the former Confederacy and does not sadistically seek to make them 'Howl' as many in the North wish...
~ President Andrew Johnson

So there's clashes in goals and aims.

Johnson was getting sick and tired of being dictated to by Congress and within his Cabinet which were really Lincoln's since all appointments were made by him..  

So he fired his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton..  Congress said he didn't have the authority and a battle was on by the Radicals to rid themselves of this 'pretend Republican' as they saw it.

in 1868, Johnson was impeached in the House of Representatives but acquitted in the Senate by one vote.   He won but it was a Pyrrhic victory because he was left powerless; a man without a party for the remainder of his term.
~ Edwin Stanton

We've seen this in government time and time again,

For example that scoundrel Lincoln decided he would completely ignore the Supreme Court when it ruled against him or his Administration committing Constitutional illegality while fighting the Civil War

Because the Supreme Court had/has no military to enforce its decisions, Lincoln got away with treating the judicial branch as if it didn't exist, thus making it for the duration of the Civil War, an impotent body

In modern times, a good example is the Clinton Impeachment.. 

The President did lie under oath and was guilty but because the Reps had gone after Clinton so relentlessly and personally since he was sworn into office in 1993, that it felt among most Americans like a witch trial and all legal basis became irrelevant to the point.
There's so many examples of one branch going far and above its legal boundaries..  

The Constitution says Congress must approve war yet when is the last time a President brought such such a request to them?  

1941

And how many technically illegal wars have we fought since?

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan and the whole 'War on Terror' umbrella of drones killing people in over a dozen nations we have not even declared war against...
1918 – The Sedition Act of 1918 is passed by the U.S. Congress, making criticism of the government during wartime an imprisonable offense

Woodrow Wilson.. the piece of garbage liar we selected Worst US President Ever and who promised in his re-election campaign to keep America out of WWI, then backtracked a couple months later...

He felt that during the Civil War, Lincoln had not done enough to trample on free speech of the individual and the press to keep the populace in line

So he pushed forth and got passed this horrible law which was rescinded two years later.

The first President to seek to crush individual freedom of expression and dissent was John Adams with his 'Alien and Sedition Act' and every time a President has sought to use such draconian methods, its harsher than the predecessor
~ JP Morgan.. A most detestable prick; because of him and Wilson's signature we have that monstrosity known as the Federal Reserve

Not only could people back then have been imprisoned for speaking out against a war solely fought to guarantee the G-D banks led by JP Morgan could get repaid their billions in war loans (if Germany won, the bankers would have gotten nothing back.. kaput!)..

If you spoke out and were foreign born, Wilson's law allowed the authorities to expel and deport that individual back to their home country.

In less than 8 months of actual fighting, 117,465 Americans died with another 204,000 wounded

Mathematically that comes out to about 470 Americans dead and 816 permanently wounded per day fighting for the banks.
~ Lovely teeth; as rotten as his soul

So think about it.. Either:

A) Wilson was a paranoid, weak, ball-less man who could not handle the slightest bit of dissent in what was supposed to be a Democracy

B) Wilson knew he was a lying piece of garbage and didn't want to be publicly called out on it

C)  Wilson knew the war was not as popular as the propaganda machine was making it seem and if he didn't crush all outward opposition, the slightest set-back in Europe would cause people at home to gun for his head

D)  Some combination of A, B and C
During the Vietnam War, both Presidents LBJ and Nixon went the other way, allowing complete unrestricted access to the war and freedom to protest.   

The 'give peace a chance' pot-puffing hippies did not slow down the war in any regard.. not even by one day, but it demonstrated to the government how difficult it is to fight when the populace is both unhappy and knowledgeable.

So starting with Desert Storm, the government would control the access of the media, often embedding them with the troops so the information released could be more tightly controlled plus many journalists would feel deep loyalty and empathy for those they traveled with and wouldn't want to give away too much info..
So now you have a populace that may not be happy with a 13 year and counting never-ending war but they're uninformed and non-inquisitive which means the government can handle that type of citizen without resorting to overt sedition

And then there's that whole Patriot Act and NSA spying thingy..

We'll end with something light..
1966 -  Janet Jackson was born..  She is now 48yrs old

That's 'Ms Jackson' if your 'Nasty'...

Wonder how many remember or know that reference?   

Have a good Weekend...