Inside “Gamechanger Salon,” The Left’s Action Network

By: Brian Sikma | August 04, 2014

Organizations

By: Nathan Schacht, Brian Sikma

An extensive membership list and a calendar of events offer insight into a leftwing network first revealed by Media Trackers last week. Gamechanger Salon is a members-only Google group run by Billy Wimsatt for forward thinking and top-level political activists on the Left. Members of the group include senior level political hands at NARAL, the SEIU, the AFL-CIO and Planned Parenthood, among dozens of other groups.

Media Trackers first uncovered the network in records obtained through an open records request filed with a University of Wisconsin professor. The membership list released today is far more detailed than the list released last week, and the calendar offers insight into the group’s plans for coordinated action in the future.

Wimsatt, the moderator of Gamechanger Salon according to a member policy manual, currently works as chief ideas officer at Gamechanger Labs, an incubator for leftwing political and social action with the motto, “R&D for the movement.” In 2008, Wimsatt worked for the Obama campaign and the Ohio Democratic Party, according to his LinkedIn profile. A former columnist he is the author of several books and contributed columns to the Huffington Post until 2012.

In 2010 he co-wrote a column about voter guides for the Huffington Post with the controversial Van Jones, who resigned from the Obama Administration in 2009 amid outrage over his advocacy for a convicted cop killer and signature on a petition saying the Bush Administration willfully allowed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 to happen.

The detailed version of the membership list contains names and group affiliations for members, as well as brief biographies and contact information for some members.

A book club section of the list contains recommended reading material and occasional quick reviews of the books explaining why they are important for liberal activists and organizers. Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Church makes the list because, as Wimsatt notes in his review, “it’s a F#$@ING BRILLIANT and provocative book about the art and science of organizing that in part shows on many levels why right-wing evangelicals are organizing circles around us (even though much of what they’re selling is snake oil).”

Another book that Wimsatt recommends to the membership is Mockingjay, the third and final installment of The Hunger Games series. According to Wimsatt’s review, “Third Hunger Games Book. People say it’s great and complex parable of revolution – and it will help us get ready to leverage the next 2 movies better.”

Other portions of the extensive membership document recommend movies, songs, television shows, recommended websites and blogs, and goals for the online Gamechanger community. Two of the goals listed are “Recruit 200 key community-based organizers, especially women and people of color,” and “Recruit 100 key diverse bloggers, movement journalists, and pundits.” Another goal involves theorizing about a “TED-like conference for folks.”

To facilitate interaction among the groups represented in Gamechanger Salon, a calendar detailing upcoming events is maintained with ample notes about the importance and focus of each particular item.

For August, two training events and a festival are on the calendar. On September 23, liberal groups appear to be working on holding a day of action registering voters ahead of the mid-term election in November. A “Trick or Vote” event is scheduled as a national action step on October 31.

The full calendar that Media Trackers obtained from a non-password protected link (that has since been closed) and the full membership list are below.

Gamechanger Salon member list (Excel file): Gamechanger Salon
Gamechanger Salon calendar (PDF): Movement Calendar – Calendar 2014

Why the Voters Don't Win: Big business crushed ballot measures in 2014

Haven't we all on at least one occasion been puzzled how we (the people) could lose such a vote in our legislature? It had been a slam-dunk we'd thought.

Well, here's your answer, and you won't like it. Washington's corporate corruption has run down hill, and now in our backyard - - many made possible by taxpayer-subsidized IRS non-profit tax-exempt charters!
How could anyone miss their own foot from a range that close!

• Business interests among the top 50 donors were almost always successful, winning 96 percent of the time.
  
  
• Four out of every five dollars that the top contributing business groups gave to ballot measure fights went to the sides trying to defeat the proposals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's a California example. Some of the individual state corporate donors follow at bottom...

Feb. 5, 2015

Anthem Inc. quickly mounted its defenses when consumer advocates pushed for a 2014 ballot initiative in California that would have made it more difficult for the nation’s third largest health insurer to raise rates.

The company, based in Indianapolis, Ind., shelled out $12.8 million to back television ads and a website that warned voters the measure would “give one politician too much power,” “create more bureaucracy” and “interfere with your treatment options.”

Anthem’s money, combined with millions from other interested parties, swamped efforts by Consumer Watchdog, the advocacy group that spent four months gathering the signatures to put Proposition 45 on the ballot. Opponents of the bill together gave more than $31.5 million — dwarfing supporters’ $2.6 million.

In November, Anthem and the other big business interests won at the polls, with nearly 59 percent of the vote. 

Anthem, formerly known as WellPoint, was the second-biggest donor to groups fighting over ballot measures in the nation last year, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis. The donors gave the money to political committees that advocated for or against the propositions. The health insurer did not respond to requests for comment.

Anthem’s victory on Proposition 45 was part of a pattern that played out across the country: Business interests poured money into ballot question fights, largely to protect their own revenue, with overwhelmingly positive results.

More than three-quarters of the $266 million given by the top 50 donors to ballot measure groups nationwide came from corporations or business trade groups, according to the analysis. They gave most of their money to defeat proposals and were almost always successful, winning 96 percent of the time.

“There’s no question that when business or corporations or entities that are affected by ballot initiatives give to the ballot initiative process, they're not doing so out of altruism," said Joe Tuman, a professor of political and legal communications at San Francisco State University. "They’re doing so out of rational self-interest." 

Who tried to buy the 2014 ballot measures?

By Chris Zubak-Skees and Liz Essley Whyte

February 5, 2015

Business/Trade group

Independent political group

IndividualParty/CampaignUnion
__________________________________________________________ 

STATES

Alaska 

California Colorado 

Florida 

Hawaii

Illinois 

Maine 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Missouri 

Nevada 

North Dakota 

Oregon 

Tennessee 

Washington

Shock: CNN Editorial Calls for a North American Union

CV readers aren’t shocked at this resurrection of establishing the NAU. CNN just moves it forward on the shelf positioning it for a closer reach, now imminent, for CNN’s corporatist slavemasters. 

And… Heidi of Goldman Sachs, and coincidentally the wife of Ted Cruz, might just be the foundress chosen to shackle our ankles into the advancing NWO!

You can now begin to see why it's vital to our survival as sovereign nations (Mexico, US, Canada) to nullify un-Constitutional elements within the US states before this NAU wave sweeps in, adding another layer of distant government and buttressing the Treason in DC. Be brave - dare call it a Conspiracy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Shock: CNN Editorial Calls for a North American Union

January 27, 2015

Why we need a North American Passport ... The future success of North America depends partly on how the U.S., Canada and Mexico work together ... The future of the United States lies in North America. This is not a geographic truism, but a strategic imperative. Generations of Americans, distracted by far-flung crises, have long taken our own region for granted. This must change if the 21st century is to be an American century. – CNN

Dominant Social Theme: It is very important for everyone to get together everywhere all the time.

Free-Market Analysis: Is the campaign for a North American Union officially underway with this editorial appearing in CNN?

Certainly conspiracy theorists might be justified in thinking so.

For years, more than a decade, some have suspected that powerful bureaucracies in North America – especially in Washington – might seek to combine Mexico, the US and Canada into a single super-state.

This was always greeted with howls of contempt by those in the mainstream media, especially in the liberal congregation, who knew better. There was no need, no possibility, that Canada, Mexico and the US would ever form a single trading – and perhaps political – union in the manner of the EU.

But here we go. Those derisive hoots are now drowned out by the reality of what this editorial proposes.

More:

The United States, Canada and Mexico are bound by a shared economic, environmental, demographic and cultural destiny. How we move forward together is key to our success.

In recognition of our shared destiny, the three countries should create a North American passport that would, over time, allow their citizens to travel, work, invest, learn and innovate anywhere in North America.

Work, tourist and student visas are necessities in the modern world to regulate the flow of people between sovereign states. In the North American context, much like within the European Union, our economies and societies are far more integrated than our immigration system recognizes – and a North American passport, much like the EU passport, would align our laws with reality.

Such a move would provide a dramatic break from Washington's historical negligence of its "near abroad," which stems from a rare luxury. In contrast to other major continental powers through the centuries, the United States has not had to worry much about its neighbors and devote the bulk of its military resources to protecting its borders.

... A North American passport would reflect the unique relationship and shared interests among our nations. In the face of growing competition from rising powers elsewhere in the world, simply taking our geography for granted and focusing our attention elsewhere is no longer a viable option.

One can see many dominant social themes in this editorial – and these are evident from the beginning: "The United States, Canada and Mexico are bound by a shared economic, environmental, demographic and cultural destiny."

Wait a minute. The United States, Canada and Mexico are lines on a map. These geographical regions are not bound by anything, let alone cultural destiny. Having stated this fallacious assumption, the editorial proclaims, "How we move forward is key to our success."

Why should lines on a map move "forward"? And why is moving forward the key to success for arbitrary geographical regions? This is simply language jumbled together to sound like a logical argument.

The editorial gets even worse, building on this nonsensical rhetoric to rewrite history in order to make a closing argument that the three governments in question ought to offer a single passport.

In making this argument, the editorial cites NAFTA, which it claims has been "a boon to our growth and competitiveness ..."

It continues: "But the promise of NAFTA has fallen short in a critical respect; while trade and investment have grown, the barriers to movement have remained too high for the people who help drive and stand to benefit from that growth.

Now we begin to understand the importance of NAFTA. Those who wanted a North American Union understood they would need a treaty, a series of treaties, to rationalize industrialization between Mexico and the US. Once this evening-out had been accomplished, the next argument could be made, which is that regulation must follow growth.

This is a tremendously cynical way of utilizing treaties and government. One creates the conditions one wants and then moves to regulate the new reality. 

US workers have remained angry over NAFTA and CAFTA, but these treaties were intended to provide the necessary justification to proclaim a larger NAU.

There are other manipulations that have taken place recently. The Bush administration and now the Obama administration have attempted to undermine US border security and to allow in as many Mexicans as possible.

US intel agencies have seemingly fueled an already violent drug war in Mexico, thus increasing pressure on Mexicans to seek employment in the US. Guns have been shipped to Mexico with US governmental complicity, apparently to heighten the violence. 

The "conspiracy" lies not with those (ourselves included) who have continually pointed out the surreptitious groundwork that has been laid to build the NAU. The conspiracy lies with those internationalists that continually push to expand and unite whole continents and more.

All around the world, "unions" are being proclaimed, often with the potential for new currencies. Surely, those who have as their goal a kind of hyper-globalism are the real conspirators here.

Conclusion: 

Directed history, anyone?

via thedailybell

Teacher Unions Shape Cultures & Character for Children in Govt Schools

 

Homeschooling parents and taxpayers are up against it. Under the existing system of educating our children being decided under collective bargaining labor union contracts, without greater civic participation you'll lose (worsening education with ever escalating costs) every time. 


We learned this painful lesson in civics on-the-job with children in government schools at the time. First and foremost  we were shocked to discover that our local school board (Shenendehowa NY) negotiated the teacher salaries and contracts with the union itself! Look at those salaries - they are way out of line with the respective lower standard of living wages.


Now, you may say, what's wrong with that, somebody's gotta do it!


Well, I'll tell you what's wrong with 'that'. With little parental/taxpayer interest the voting public is dwarfed by the thundering herd of union voters - that's right voting for the candidates who were most likely to give them what they demanded! Naturally, in keeping with "solidarity" they honored the union leadership's commands who to vote for. How's that any different for choosing your correction officers in state prison?

It is this growing awareness by the public that is reviving the hatemongering directed at the home-schoolers. Anyone that can still think for himself can readily see it's not about 'educating our precious children'. It's about expanding control and power over Americans and their families.


The subversion of America is seeping into your home from the schools. Think for a moment of the many conflicts with our religions, prayer, culture, guns, childbirth, healthcare, military, race, ethnicity, etc. that these disruptors have caused us. You can be an activist on the offensive on many fronts just by using your human energies to dethrone the academic oligarchy and save our country. Informing neighbors, friends, voters, and others will be your goal.


All state teacher labor contracts are on Google that I could see. It takes just two rebels to rumble. Won't you be one to ask someone else?


The below article is a snippet  (pg. 391)



Union Strength and Collective Bargaining Agreement Restrictiveness


Because the CBA lays out the parameters of many aspects of local education policy, the statutory authority to negotiate with the district over the content of the CBA is an important source of influence for the local union. Unions have incentives to push for the regulation of as many aspects of district operations as possible to advance the interests of their members. The more precisely and comprehensively teachers’ rights are outlined in the contracts, the less able district administrators are to, for example, impose new duties on union members or make changes to the school operations that negatively affect working conditions.


The CBA, however, is the result of a bargaining process, which implies that it is the outcome of a negotiation between two parties whose interests are not aligned. The degree to which one party can obtain its objectives in a negotiation is determined by its power relative to the opposing party. In traditional conceptions of management–union bargaining in the private sector, union power is derived from its work denial powers, or the power to strike. Indeed, 14 states allow teacher strikes, including California (Loeb & Miller, 2007). We focus on another source of local union power that is pervasive in education but about which the empirical research base is small: political influence.

A primary source of unions’ political power comes from their ability to influence local board elections (Moe, 2006a). Ninety-six percent of board members are elected through popular vote by residents of their school districts (Hess, 2002). These elections are typically low turnout affairs, which makes their outcomes more susceptible to influence from mobilized interests (Moe, 2005). There are at least two ways in which organized interests might work to influence elections: campaign activity that promotes favored candidates and getting their members to the polls to vote for those candidates. Studies suggest that unions do both—and to no small degree. Seventy-seven percent of respondents to a national survey of board members conducted by Hess and Leal (2005) identified unions as active in campaigning in board elections—a larger share than for any other interest group. Similarly,  Moe’s (2006b) analysis of voting data from two Southern California counties shows that teachers are between two and seven times more likely than non-teachers to vote in board elections.

Moreover, his analysis suggests that these voting rates are driven by “occupational interest” in the outcome rather than just greater civic-mindedness... Read more

The "War on Terror" is a Fraud: The NYPD shooting story makes no sense

As for us....we are of the growing belief that it was contrived for the purpose of the NY policeman's labor union (FOP) to get a federal law passed declaring it a "Hate Crime" to harm a policeman:

Fraternal Order of Police lobbies for new federal hate crime law

Not only is federal government decreeing what is law for our local police un-Constitutional, but even all the existing federal 'hate crimes' passed down should be nullified as unlawful by every state under the federal boot. The FOP isn't an isolated example of special interest labor unions feeding off the federal teat. Check 'em out for yourself.

As if that kick in the cojones isn't enough for the taxpayer, the FOP "lodges" are sheltered as non-profits under the IRS - - which means those taxes that might normally be paid by a privileged tax shelter are picked up by the American taxpayer. Here's a snapshot below of Philadelphia which has over $6 million just by itself.

As the taxpaying citizen you really have no political control over your respective local police. They know full well whose lap in which they rest: police loyalties with few exceptions are bought, but paid for by you, as they are the gatekeepers, the protectors of the ruling political authorities. Your safety is way down on the list.
Our active national military is also  retained to ensure the safety of the ruling elite and their collaborators. Safety from whom, you might ask. From you, of course.

From our search results there are upwards of over 1,000 of these taxpayer-sponsored 'fraternal' lodges. ( Your search for fraternal order of police produced 1,966 results.Viewing 1 - 25 of 1,000 results)

More videos like this

Are you going to believe your own eyes?

So many things stink about this story:

1. The timing is too perfect. Just as the protests against police violence in the US were reaching critical mass, two police are assassinated for supposedly political reasons.

2. The story makes little sense: He shot his girlfriend in Maryland and then travels all the way to Brooklyn to randomly kill cops?

3. Read His Tweet Threatening The Police. He Wrote Everything Like This Capitalizing Every Tweet. Who Writes Like That?

4. The police who were shot were part of an active anti-terrorist drill taking place in that neighborhood at the time they were shot!!!!

5. The area was crawling with police before the shooting as close as 50 feet away from where it happened.

6. Where is the broken glass around the car? It's winter in NYC. It's freezing. No one leaves their car window open in this weather for any reason. There should have been broken glass everywhere.
 
 7. The "CPR" that was administered was applied to the victim's legs!!!!! And there was no blood left where he was laying. 
While we are on the subject of timing...

The "convenient" timing of the Paris operation:

1. French president had lowest ratings of any president since measurements were made

2. Obama administration witch hunt against journalists was creating widespread outrage (see James Risen case)

3. French don't tolerate Homeland Security-type bullshit

4. The Oil Warriors always need a reason to create fear and hatred of Moslems

Can a politician who is on his way out be convinced to "go along" with a terrorist event to save his skin? is the widespread outrage by journalists and others against the White House enough to stage an event that makes Obama look like a hero?

Remember, these are people who will rain drone missiles down on a wedding party to kill one person and sit back while Israel savages a civilian population in Gaza.

This kind of chicanery would be will within the range of their monstrousness.

This is commentary on the Paris shooting. Unfortunately, the video was taken down by YouTube.

Click here for common sense analysis of the Paris shooting video

About Lincoln and His Republicans You Might Not Know

Little attention is given to the punishing protective tariffs imposed by the Republican congress on the South to eliminate the import of foreign manufactured goods. As industrial production of the ante-bellum period was largely in Pennsylvania and purchased by the southern agrarian states, the additional penalties were passed along to the South. Today, we call a government "law" such as this a "wealth transfer scheme", or more accurately Corporatism or Fascism.

As it is, reading the below certainly screams out to be identified as a repeat of Washington's policies to interfere in America's cultural, race, and economic mix. Even the coloreds of today now recognize it as a scheme to import foreigners to take their jobs. 

Union members can see it as a hammer to break unions, replacing any strikers with immigrant scabs (union leaderships cannot be counted on to 'interfere' to protect their current members).  Organized workers: Look to whom your union dues are politically supporting - Republican or Democrat is inconsequential. Tell us how tolerant communist governments are of labor unions - - only in the establishment of total government, then jettisoned and banished under death. While your union job may have been exported from the US, was it re-incarnated in Red China?

 

Corporatist dinner menu - we're still on it

Only communist or fascist you say? Bone-up on the Versailles Treaty after WWI prompting German workers in the Ruhr Valley to strike because Germany could not pay the horrendous reparations to the allied victors.

Indeed, we do not learn from history because human nature does not change.

---

The 'Great Emancipator' and the Issue of Race

Abraham Lincoln's Program of Black Resettlement

By Robert Morgan

Many Americans think of Abraham Lincoln, above all, as the president who freed the slaves. Immortalized as the "Great Emancipator," he is widely regarded as a champion of black freedom who supported social equality of the races, and who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865) to free the slaves.

While it is true that Lincoln regarded slavery as an evil and harmful institution, it is also true, as this paper will show, that he shared the conviction of most Americans of his time, and of many prominent statesmen before and after him, that blacks could not be assimilated into white society. He rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States.

Early Experiences

In 1837, at the age of 28, the self-educated Lincoln was admitted to practice law in Illinois. In at least one case, which received considerable attention at the time, he represented a slave-owner. Robert Matson, Lincoln's client, each year brought a crew of slaves from his plantation in Kentucky to a farm he owned in Illinois for seasonal work. State law permitted this, provided that the slaves did not remain in Illinois continuously for a year. In 1847, Matson brought to the farm his favorite mulatto slave, Jane Bryant (wife of his free, black overseer there), and her four children. A dispute developed between Jane Bryant and Matson's white housekeeper, who threatened to have Jane and her children returned to slavery in the South. With the help of local abolitionists, the Bryants fled. They were apprehended, and, in an affidavit sworn out before a justice of the peace, Matson claimed them as his property. Lacking the required certificates of freedom, Bryant and the children were confined to local county jail as the case was argued in court. Lincoln lost the case, and Bryant and her children were declared free. They were later resettled in Liberia.¹

In 1842 Lincoln married Mary Todd, who came from one of Kentucky's most prominent slave-holding families.² While serving as an elected representative in the Illinois legislature, he persuaded his fellow Whigs to support Zachary Taylor, a slave owner, in his successful 1848 bid for the Presidency.³ Lincoln was also a strong supporter of the Illinois law that forbid marriage between whites and blacks.⁴

"If all earthly power were given me," said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, "I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land." After acknowledging that this plan's "sudden execution is impossible," he asked whether freed blacks should be made "politically and socially our equals?" "My own feelings will not admit of this," he said, "and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not ... We can not, then, make them equals."⁵

One of Lincoln's most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.⁶ In this address, he explained why he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have admitted Kansas into the Union as a slave state:

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...

Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, "must be effected by colonization" of the country's blacks to a foreign land. "The enterprise is a difficult one," he acknowledged,

but "where there is a will there is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

To affirm the humanity of blacks, Lincoln continued, was more likely to strengthen public sentiment on behalf of colonization than the Democrats' efforts to "crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him ..." Resettlement ("colonization") would not succeed, Lincoln seemed to argue, unless accompanied by humanitarian concern for blacks, and some respect for their rights and abilities. By apparently denying the black person's humanity, supporters of slavery were laying the groundwork for "the indefinite outspreading of his bondage." The Republican program of restricting slavery to where it presently existed, he said, had the long-range benefit of denying to slave holders an opportunity to sell their surplus bondsmen at high prices in new slave territories, and thus encouraged them to support a process of gradual emancipation involving resettlement of the excess outside of the country.

Earlier Resettlement Plans

The view that America's apparently intractable racial problem should be solved by removing blacks from this country and resettling them elsewhere -- "colonization" or "repatriation" -- was not a new one. As early as 1714 a New Jersey man proposed sending blacks to Africa. In 1777 a Virginia legislature committee, headed by future President Thomas Jefferson (himself a major slave owner), proposed a plan of gradual emancipation and resettlement of the state's slaves. In 1815, an enterprising free black from Massachusetts named Paul Cuffe transported, at his own expense, 38 free blacks to West Africa. His undertaking showed that at least some free blacks were eager to resettle in a country of their own, and suggested what might be possible with public and even government support.⁷

In December 1816, a group of distinguished Americans met in Washington, DC, to establish an organization to promote the cause of black resettlement. The "American Colonization Society" soon won backing from some of the young nation's most prominent citizens. Henry Clay, Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, Millard Fillmore, John Marshall, Roger B. Taney, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen A. Douglas, and Abraham Lincoln were members. Clay presided at the group's first meeting.⁸

Measures to resettle blacks in Africa were soon undertaken. Society member Charles Fenton Mercer played an important role in getting Congress to pass the Anti-Slave Trading Act of March 1819, which appropriated $100,000 to transport blacks to Africa. In enforcing the Act, Mercer suggested to President James Monroe that if blacks were simply returned to the coast of Africa and released, they would probably be re-enslaved, and possibly some returned to the United States. Accordingly, and in cooperation with the Society, Monroe sent agents to acquire territory on Africa's West coast -- a step that led to the founding of the country now known as Liberia. Its capital city was named Monrovia in honor of the American President.⁹

With crucial Society backing, black settlers began arriving from the United States in 1822. While only free blacks were at first brought over, after 1827, slaves were freed expressly for the purpose of transporting them to Liberia. In 1847, black settlers declared Liberia an independent republic, with an American-style flag and constitution.¹⁰

By 1832 the legislatures of more than a dozen states (at that time there were only 24), had given official approval to the Society, including at least three slave-holding states.¹¹ Indiana's legislature, for example, passed the following joint resolution on January 16, 1850:¹²

Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be, and they are hereby requested, in the name of the State of Indiana, to call for a change of national policy on the subject of the African Slave Trade, and that they require a settlement of the coast of Africa with colored men from the United States, and procure such changes in our relations with England as will permit us to transport colored men from this country to Africa, with whom to effect said settlement.

In January 1858, Missouri Congressman Francis P. Blair, Jr., introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to set up a committee

to inquire into the expediency of providing for the acquisition of territory either in the Central or South American states, to be colonized with colored persons from the United States who are now free, or who may hereafter become free, and who may be willing to settle in such territory as a dependency of the United States, with ample guarantees of their personal and political rights.

Blair, quoting Thomas Jefferson, stated that blacks could never be accepted as the equals of whites, and, consequently, urged support for a dual policy of emancipation and deportation, similar to Spain's expulsion of the Moors. Blair went on to argue that the territory acquired for the purpose would also serve as a bulwark against any further encroachment by England in the Central and South American regions.¹³

Lincoln's Support for Resettlement

Lincoln's ideological mentor was Henry Clay, the eminent American scholar, diplomat, and statesman. Because of his skill in the US Senate and House of Representatives, Clay won national acclaim as the "Great Compromiser" and the "Great Pacificator." A slave owner who had humane regard for blacks, he was prominent in the campaign to resettle free blacks outside of the United States, and served as president of the American Colonization Society. Lincoln joined Clay's embryonic Whig party during the 1830s. In an address given in 1858, Lincoln described Clay as "my beau ideal of a statesman, the man for whom I fought all of my humble life."¹⁴

The depth of Lincoln's devotion to Clay and his ideals was expressed in a moving eulogy delivered in July 1852 in Springfield, Illinois. After praising Clay's lifelong devotion to the cause of black resettlement, Lincoln quoted approvingly from a speech given by Clay in 1827: "There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children," adding that if Africa offered no refuge, blacks could be sent to another tropical land. Lincoln concluded:¹⁵

If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery, and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland, with bright prospects for the future, and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation.

In January 1855, Lincoln addressed a meeting of the Illinois branch of the Colonization Society. The surviving outline of his speech suggests that it consisted largely of a well-informed and sympathetic account of the history of the resettlement campaign.¹⁶

In supporting "colonization" of the blacks, a plan that might be regarded as a "final solution" to the nation's race question, Lincoln was upholding the views of some of America's most respected figures.

​FINISH READING​

On Labor Unions : Whom are They Organized Against?

Get book

DECEMBER 01, 1983 by PERCY L. GREAVES JR.

Mr. Greaves, economist, lecturer, and author of numerous articles and books, served with the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor during the preparation and passage of the 1947 revisions of the National Labor Relations Act, popularly known as the Taft-Hartley Act.

Unemployment can be a dreadful condition. The inability to find a needed job is a heart-rending experience for anyone. For those with young children to feed and clothe, it is a terrifying predicament. It gnaws at and destroys the spirit and self-confidence of even the strongest souls. With nerves on edge, family harmony too often flies out the window.

In addition to the deep mental anguish, there are also physical and financial losses. An adult’s health, as well as his spirit, may suffer irreparably. A child’s growth may be permanently stunted. The loss of the family car can reduce both the hope and the possibility of getting another job. The foreclosure of a mortgage on the family home can liquidate the savings of a lifetime. In short, a prolonged period of unemployment can wreck a person’s life.

Then, too, the unemployed are not the only sufferers. With millions of able-bodied persons searching for a source of income or twiddling their thumbs in frustrated idleness, the potential quantity of goods and services available in the market place is greatly reduced. This means higher prices and lower living standards for everyone. Government programs to provide a floor for the unemployed also mean higher taxes and/or still higher prices as a result of the political creation and distribution of unearned dollars. Actually, mass unemployment and its aftermath is probably the greatest single driving force behind our politically sponsored inflation.

So solving the problem of mass unemployment is a major task of our time. Before we can solve it, we must locate the root cause. There was no unemployment at Plymouth or Jamestown. There was no mass unemployment during this country’s first hundred years of existence. What is different today?

Not a Free Market

One major difference is that there is no longer a free market in jobs and wage rates. There are now laws on the statute books that grant certain groups of workers the privilege of demanding and getting higher wages than they could and would earn in a free market. The unemployed are no longer permitted to compete and thus reduce the higher than free market wage rates of the privileged few. So those shut out from the higher paying jobs must compete for work and drive down the wage rates in unorganized occupations. Then, they face the floor decreed by minimum wage laws which often prevent employment at these reduced market wage rates.

Employers cannot long pay workers the legal minimum wage rate if consumers cannot or will not buy the resulting goods and services at prices that cover costs. As a result, rail-lions are now legally prevented from taking either high paying jobs or lowpaying jobs. The free market in jobs and wage rates has been legally destroyed.

It should thus be evident that the remedy for mass unemployment is to repeal the laws which prevent people from competing for the higher paying jobs or taking the lower paying jobs—lower paying, until workers acquire the skill and experience needed to climb the ladder to higher incomes.

Historian Clarence B. Carson has written a small book, Organized Against Whom?, which tells some of the story of how we strayed from the free market path for jobs and wage rates. It is an ugly story vividly describing the coercion and violence employed by many in the labor union movement in their effort to convince the electorate that they are entitled to special privileges and immunities. They have successfully convinced many that labor unions are the protectors of downtrodden poorly paid workers who are supposedly at the mercy of greedy all-powerful employers who rob them of their rightful earnings.

Today, thanks to socialist and labor union propaganda, there is little understanding of the fact that employers are merely middlemen operating in a heavily taxed and very competitive market place. Actually, employers have very little to say about wage rates. Employers are compelled by market forces to pay employees in accordance with the value that consumers place on the production of their marginal employees, the last hired. If employers pay higher wage rates than they get back from consumers, they suffer losses and sooner or later cease to be employers. If employers seek to increase their profits by paying lower than market wage rates, competitors soon bid away their employees. Thus, the free market competition of employers is the salvation of workers looking for higher wages.

The Voluntary Way

In a free society, labor unions, like other organizations, would be voluntary groups trying to advance the interests of their members. They would abide by the laws and seek no special privileges or immunities. Unions that offered employers the most competent and reliable workers, who were willing to work for competitive free market wage rates, would grow and prosper. Labor unions that offered incompetent workers, insisted on featherbedding, or other unnecessary or costly conditions and demanded higher wage rates than competent non-union members would willingly accept would soon fade away. Certainly, in a free society no group should or would resort to violence, coercion or special privileges to obtain what it seeks.

The free market operates according to the Golden Rule. The higher values one contributes to the market place, as valued by consumers, the more one receives in return. Free market operations are always voluntary transactions by which all parties exchange something they have for something on which they place a higher value. Goods and services thus continually move to persons who place a higher value on them. Barring human error or the use of force or fraud, all parties gain from all such transactions. The prevention of the use of force or fraud is a prime function of government.

Dr. Carson tells us how many labor unions now operate, with the help of laws and court decisions, coercing employers to join with them to grant them a monopoly of certain jobs. Such unions are thus able to shut out the competition of competent applicants for those jobs. Then, by demanding still higher wage rates, some unions further reduce production and employment by pricing some of their own members, those with low seniority, out of their high paying jobs. In short, labor unionism, as now practiced, is not only the enemy of employers, investors and consumers, but it is primarily the enemy of competent job seekers who, as a result of union action, must remain underpaid or unemployed.

Unions Gain Monopoly Status

Today, we live in an economy of political privileges with all kinds of lobbies trying to get for their members what they consider their “fair share” of the political largesse. Un questionably, labor unions have been one of the first and strongest of these political pressure groups. As Dr. Carson narrates, they won their first great political victory in 1914, when they persuaded Congress to decree: “That the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.” Congress has great powers, but it did not by this legislation alter the fact that labor is one of the factors of production traded in the market place.

With this law on the books, union leaders waged a propaganda campaign demanding that government help them raise wage rates above those of the free market, which they maintain, falsely, are set too low by the whims of all-powerful employers. Their propaganda campaign was accompanied with strikes and violence that disturbed the entire nation and contributed to the mass unemployment of the depression period that started in 1929.

As a result of this propaganda and the show of force, Congress and the courts were persuaded in the 1930s to grant these labor union advocates of self-serving coercion most of the special privileges and immunities they sought. Now, we have the results. Employers as a breed are becoming scarce. So are investors willing to place their savings in new or expanded production facilities. The combined result is that the ranks of the unemployed are now reckoned in the millions. Mass unemployment has even caught up with many of the legally privileged union members. The economic laws of the market cannot long be circumvented without eventually producing undesirable consequences.

As Dr. Carson tells us, our constitutionally chosen government has empowered the labor unions to accomplish all this. He may be a bit harder on the unions than they deserve. There can be no excuse for their resort to violence and coercion. However, they can hardly be blamed for taking advantage of the special privileges and immunities from prosecution that Congress and the courts have conferred on them. In taking advantage of existing laws, they are doing no more than many college kids, lots of old folks and millions of persons in between. Of course, that does not make it right or permanently possible. Neither Congress nor the courts have any power to repeal the laws of economics. They could make us all millionaires, but only by destroying the value of the dollar. A price must be paid for every interference with the inexorable laws of economics. 

It would seem we are fast losing the freedom for which our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. As Dr. Carson writes: “The thrust of the American Revolution was in the direction of removing special privileges and legal supports from groups and organizations.” For decades now the courts have supported Congressional grants of “special privileges and legal supports” on a wholesale basis. As Carson writes, this has been “a fundamental departure from the principles of good government,” not to mention the principles of sound economics.

Our government has permitted, encouraged and even underwritten the power of labor unions to coerce all other elements of our society to bend to their will. This small book tells much of the story of how this came about. In doing so, it exposes many of the errors in the popular fallacies, the acceptance of which has permitted labor unions to attain their present position of power. This story is one with which every American should be familiar.

The book is not without its faults and contradictions. Some are only the result of an unfortunate choice of words. For example, lawlessness is referred to as the “state of nature.” Or, “An ancient union complaint could certainly be disposed of if governments neither recognized, gave status to, taxed, or otherwise noticed private organizations, except as they might disturb the peace.” That would mean no legal recognition or taxation of corporations or any other private organizations. In effect, it would repeal the First Amendment. For no press or religious organizations would have any status or right to be recognized in court. Or when Carson writes, “Congress is empowered to make laws regulating commerce.” The Constitution carefully limited that power to “interstate commerce,” and that is what it meant until the Supreme Court, in 1937, ignored the key word “interstate” in a 5 to 4 decision which upheld the National Labor Relations Act, popularly known as the Wagner Act.

There are some unfortunate contradictions in the book, as when we read, “Let me confess at the outset that I do not know what labor unions are.” Then the author proceeds in chapter after chapter to tell what they are and what they do. At another point we read, “Violence is not essential to unionism.” That is true, of course, if they operate within the rules and ethics of a free society. However, the thesis of this book is that labor unions are organized against society in general and against other workers in particular. As the author describes so well, they have for years pursued their policies by resorting to violence and coercion. For decades now the government has given its support to their anti- social actions—actions that impede not only full employment and prosperity but also the legitimate activities of many governmental entities.

Criticism might be made of such statements about labor unions as, “They are not economic organizations,” and “Nor is the labor union primarily a political organization.” If economics is the science of human actions to attain selected goals, then attaining union goals by boycotts, strikes and stopping others from working are certainly economic actions. This book presents many incidents illustrating how labor unions have used both economic and political means to attain their present position of power.

Perhaps this reviewer’s greatest disagreement is with the author’s assertion that “Labor unions are religious, or religion-like organizations and, as I say, once this is grasped they come into focus. Their immediate goals are ethical in character; their ultimate goals are religious. Their economic claims are ethical in character.” The latter might be so if they sought their legitimate ends by ethical means. However, there is nothing ethical or religious about the use of coercion, be it legal or illegal.

As for labor unions being religious, many economically ignorant labor union members and Congressmen undoubtedly swallow the propaganda and follow the wishes of the union bosses with a “religious” faith and fervor. We may live “in the age of the divine right of majorities,” as the author rightly states, but the fact that labor unions are “supported by compulsory tithes and taxes” does not make them religious or “established churches.”

Religion pertains to the supernatural—metaphysics. Except for the fact that reason tells us there must have been a Creator, religions deal with matters which cannot be logically proved or disproved. 

Religions are concerned with the irrational aspects of human life. Consequently, honest people, who are both sane and intelligent, can and do differ on religious matters. The aims and actions of labor unions are certainly neither heavenly nor irrational. They are earthy and concrete. Labor unions seek more for their members. There is nothing wrong with that objective if they pursued it by ethical means—by voluntary agreements for the mutual benefit of all parties. However, as Dr. Carson has so vividly pointed out, our present problems have arisen from the use of violence, coercion and special privileges which are neither ethical nor particularly metaphysical.

The mass media, which are largely manned and edited by labor union members, constantly present a one-sided favorable picture of union policies, privileges and activities. The public needs to know more about the antisocial effects of the prerogatives exercised by labor unions. This book strips away much of the veneer that covers the unfortunate deification of labor union activities, activities which, if committed by individuals or other organizations, would be properly labeled as crimes. We need more books which, like this one, expose the root cause of mass unemployment, a major blight not only on economic peace and prosperity but also on the pursuit of human happiness.
 Source FEE
 

Robin Frazier launches write-in campaign against corrupt unions

By: James Simpson DC Independent Examiner Robin Bartlett Frazier's story personifies the threats we face nationwide by the corrupting influence of public employee unions. For the last four years Robin has been District 1 Commissioner in Carroll County, MD. You may have seen her on the Megyn Kelly show when she was interviewed after saying in a public meeting that she would be arrested if necessary but would not stop praying before meetings and invoking the name of Jesus Christ. The video is posted here. She and fellow Commissioner Richard Rothschild were pretty much the only voices on the five member board for spending restraint, cutting taxes, reducing government, protecting property rights and protecting freedom. The power of their arguments often won the day despite the fact that two of the other three commissioners were hardcore RINOs and the third went whichever way the wind was blowing. She and Commissioner Rothschild spearheaded the effort that turned Carroll County into the first "Second Amendment Sanctuary County" following the state legislature passing Governor O'Malley's unconstitutional gun control bill last year. There is a stunning video on her website where a full house cheers wildly when she talks about it. Really inspiring talk. The three hapless RINOs on the Board saw the writing on the wall and fell in behind, so it was a unanimous decision in favor of the 2nd Amendment. Her leadership has also prevented the County planning board from adopting many regulations that threaten private property. Anyway, the state teacher's union put big bucks into defeating her in this year's primary. They won and got a lifelong union man, Steve Wantz, to take her place. They also supported the two RINOS, Rothschild's opponent (but Rothschild won anyway) and another candidate slated to replace one who is retiring. The Maryland State Education Association (MSEA), bragged on its website that it won "four of five Carroll County commissioner seats" in the June primary. Wantz was bought and paid for by them. His only articulated issue is unions, supporting them and giving them more money. He also supports other big government spending projects promoted by state Democrats and county RINOs, but that support is couched in very vague, mealymouthed terms. He claims to want to "change direction" in the County, long recognized as the most conservative county in Maryland and routinely savaged in the press for being so. Wantz wants to make nice, and not surprisingly, the local leftist media has gotten behind him 100 percent. The whole exercise is a fraud. In Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker defeated public employee unions after a hellacious fight, but they are still fighting, and have taken that war nationwide. They will do everything they can – corrupting the process and undermining our Republic – to take ever more of our hard won tax dollars. Robin decided she wouldn't allow it to happen. She is running a write-in campaign. Her website is www.robinbartlettfrazier.com. Please share her website on Twitter and Facebook and ask your friends to visit the site. Just visiting it makes it more visible to Google search engines. If you can, also give her a little support. She is in an uphill battle in this critical race against a massive, taxpayer-funded union machine. Her opponent is a RINO at best, and may well be just another Democrat plant, put there to undermine conservatism. It is happening everywhere and we need to fight it!

View article...