Congress, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

Massive Resistance and the Government Shutdown

 By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger 

“We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation. 

-The Southern Manifesto,  Cong. Rec., 84th Cong. 2d Session, Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956)

‘This was an activist court that you saw today.  Anytime the Supreme Court renders something constitutional that is clearly unconstitutional, that undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court.  I do believe the court’s credibility was undermined severely today.” 

-Michele Bachmann (R. Minn.),  June 26 2012

Most people are familiar with the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al., 349 U.S. 483 (1954), in which a unanimous Supreme Court summarily outlawed public school segregation by tersely declaring, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” 349 U.S. at 495.  But many people do not know that Brown involved a consolidation of cases from four states.  The “et al.” in the style refers to decisions on similar facts in Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia.  And the response of Virginia to the ruling in Brown provides an interesting comparison with the actions leading to the current government shutdown.

In 1951 the population of Prince Edward County, Virginia was approximately 15,000, more than half of whom were African-American.  The county maintained two high schools to accommodate 386 black students and 346 white students.  Robert R. Moton High School lacked adequate science facilities and offered a more restricted curriculum than the high school reserved for white students.  It had no gym, showers or dressing rooms, no cafeteria and no restrooms for teachers.  Students at Moton High were even required to ride in older school buses.

Suit was filed in federal district court challenging the Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating segregated public schools.  Although the trial court agreed that the school board had failed to provide a substantially equal education for African-American students, it declined to invalidate the Virginia laws, concluding that segregation was not based “upon prejudice, on caprice, nor upon any other measureless foundation,” but reflected “ways of life in Virginia” which “has for generations been a part of the mores of the people.”  Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337, 339 (E.D. Va. 1952).  Instead, the court ordered the school board to proceed with the completion of existing plans to upgrade the curriculum, physical plant and buses at Moton High School.  When the plaintiffs took an appeal from the decision, the Democratic machine that had for many years controlled Virginia politics under the firm hand of Sen. Harry Byrd had little reason to believe that “ways of life” that had prevailed since the end of the Reconstruction era would soon be declared illegal.

When the Brown decision was announced, the reaction in Virginia was shock, disbelief and anger. Reflecting the prevailing attitudes, the Richmond News Leader railed against “the encroachment of the Federal government, through judicial legislation, upon the reserved powers of the States.”  The Virginia legislature adopted a resolution of “interposition” asserting its right to “interpose” between unconstitutional federal mandates and local authorities under principles of state sovereignty.  And Sen. Byrd organized a campaign of opposition that came to be known as “Massive Resistance.”

In August of 1954 a commission was appointed to formulate a plan to preserve segregated schools.  Late in 1955, it presented its recommendations, including eliminating mandatory school attendance, empowering local school boards to assign students to schools and creating special tuition grants to enable white students to attend private schools.  Enabling legislation was quickly adopted and “segregation academies” began forming around the state.  Subsequent legislation went even further by prohibiting state funding of schools that chose to integrate.

In March of 1956, 19 senators and 77 house members from 11 southern states signed what is popularly known as “The Southern Manifesto,” in which they declared, “Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.”

Throughout this period the Prince Edward County schools remained segregated, but when various court rulings invalidated Virginia’s various attempts to avoid integration, the school board took its final stand.  It refused to authorize funds to operate any schools in the district, and all public schools in the county were simply closed, and remained closed from 1959 to 1964.

There are striking similarities between Sen. Byrd’s failed plan of Massive Resistance and Republican efforts to prevent implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  There was widespread confidence among conservatives that the Supreme Court would declare the Act unconstitutional.  When that did not occur, legislators such as Michele Bachmann, quoted above, attempted to deny the legitimacy of the Court’s ruling.  Brent Bozell went further, denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as “a traitor to his own philosophy,” hearkening back to the days when southern roadsides were replete with billboards demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.

The House of Representatives has taken over 40 votes to repeal the ACA, quixotic efforts pursued for reasons known only to John Boehner and his colleagues.  And in accordance with the Virginia legislative model, the House has attempted to starve the ACA by eliminating it from funding bills.  Following the failure of these efforts, Republicans have elected to pursue the path ultimately taken by the school board of Prince Edward County and have shut down the government.

Even the strategy followed by Republicans is largely a southern effort.  Approximately 60% of the Tea Party Caucus is from the South.  Nineteen of the 32 Republican members of the House who have been instrumental in orchestrating the shutdown are from southern states. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the current impasse is characterized by the time-honored southern belief in nullification theory as a proper antidote to disfavored decisions by a congressional majority.

In reflecting upon the experience of Virginia many years later, former Gov. Linwood Holton noted, “Massive resistance … served mostly to exacerbate emotions arrayed in a lost cause.”  Republicans would do well to ponder the wisdom in that observation.

1,677 thoughts on “Massive Resistance and the Government Shutdown”

  1. I cast no aspersions and what I said is true. SOTB mentioned Caryl Chessman the last couple days. I didn’t say you didn’t know about Chessman. I did not say you never mentioned Chessman in the more distant past. I did say SOTB mentioned Chessman just the other day. You CONTINUALLY DO cast aspersions @ my integrity. Again, I just pointed out what you CONTINUALLY do to me, but DID NOT question your integrity. Further, I stated I have NEVER called you, or anyone a liar here and I gave specifics of what would be needed for me to so, besides using “my bullshit detector,” as you stated you do. I don’t expect empathy or concern, I will be respected. Act like a GB, not a troll..

    1. “I cast no aspersions and what I said is true. SOTB mentioned Caryl Chessman the last couple days. I didn’t say you didn’t know about Chessman.”

      Nick,

      You are a cowardly liar. Cowardly because you use attempted subterfuge to attack me and then when proven wrong backtrack to make yourself the poor misunderstood victim and liar because when caught you deny it. As I will demonstrate:

      “OS,
      I had a high school history teacher get into a big argument with me in class because he was insisting that Caryl Chessman was being executed for murder, rather than under the “Lindbergh Law.” He was wrong and so were many other history teachers I had, because they allowed their own personal animus get in the way of the truth.”

      My original post that you commented on with:

      “Gee, Caryl Chessman is mentioned by SOTB just a couple days ago and now here. However, I won’t cast any aspersions and call someone a liar. I’ve never done that here, and NEVER would w/o evidence beyond a reasonable doubt”.

      To which I responded with two guest blogs that I’ve written mentioning Caryl Chessman prior to SOTB’s comment:

      “In Re me mentioning Caryl Chessman:

      http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/21/zimmerman-media-circuses-make-for-bad-justice/#more-48140

      http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/02/should-we-care-about-casey-anthony/#more-36728

      As usual someone’s researching ability is ……….horseshit.”

      To which Nick responded:

      “Both of your mentions of Chessman are prior to my coming here. You remember, the good ol’ days!”

      Now a more honest man may well have admitted his mistake, but you are not an honest man Nick. You are a somewhat disturbed man with an enormous ego that covers up an even greater feeling of intellectual inadequacy. You also cover up your pitiful excuse for unjustifiably attacking me by an implication that your presence here is a thorn in my side. Well first of all you are not even in the league of some of the ballbusters we’ve had in the past, especially because they could make a coherent case and were actually capable of research. You unfortunately are too lazy to research and thus prefer to make stuff up, including convenient anecdotes used as argument since you’re too lazy to even research the nonsense you spout.

      Nick, it is quite clear you don’t like me, or Gene or Elaine and now you’re working on OS. You actually think you contribute enough here to justify status and that if you try hard enough you can be a “big shot” here. This is of course a figment of your enormous imagination because the only “big shot” here is Jonathan. Now you claim to respect Jonathan, but that too is merely another figment of your hyper-imaginative nature. You are continually disrespecting him by denigrating this blog to all and sundry people you see as “newcomers”, some who’ve been around as long as I have. You are also disrespecting Jonathan and his blog by trying to make each thread about you and your hatred towards some of the Guest Bloggers. None of us asked Jonathan for a job, he chose us as Guest Bloggers, as he will be choosing others in the future. You won’t be among those chosen, because frankly your product doesn’t meet his standards,

      Finally though, your disrespect for Jonathan and the purposes of this blog is shown by how you take advantage of the fact that this is one of the few “free speech” blogs on the web. With your constant vitriol and with your inability to ever present cogent arguments, you test the boundaries constantly. However, as I said you aren’t the first to attack GB’s here and you won’t be the last. The problem is that you’re not good enough to be anything more than an annoying producer of cheap one liners, with pretensions to an intelligence you lack.

      Now when it comes to Bron, DavidM and Hskiprob they are all coming from the same basic political stance as you. They are not disruptive though they are oprolifc in commentary. Why I differentiate them from you is that they actually put effort into their comments and are more that willing to supply the sources of their opinions. I mat not agree with the, but I respect them for putting some effort into their comments. They are also quite civil in commenting and very well-read. You aren’t civil and your comments are slap dash throwaways, or as you put it….”You don’t do links”.

  2. I said: “You cannot use your property to break the law…”
    David says: “I never suggested any such thing.”

    On the contrary, you said that because it is your property you should be able to build a parking lot on it without a handicapped slot, and that would be a violation of the law as it is written, since it is written in the law this one guy has the final say. Ergo, you want to use your property to break the law.

  3. P.S. You are NOT blocked from using that area of your property; you are blocked from using it for an illegal purpose. You can tear down the parking lot and plant a garden in that spot, nobody is stopping you. To the extent you want a parking lot, you must pay the tax on the parking lot, which is a space reserved for handicapped drivers.

  4. DavidM: You will have to pay me to watch Fox News; my most recent contract rate (a lump sum for a working solution) worked out to about $400 per hour.

    What I said was that there is not one person to ever use that spot. That includes me. I am blocked from using that area of my property.

    And I do not believe you. What I asked, and you refuse to answer (probably because the answer is damning), is why you felt it necessary to build a parking lot. For whom? If the parking lot is for anybody that MIGHT be disabled, the law says you need a handicapped spot. For employees, for government officials, for other business people, it makes no difference. You wanted a parking lot for SOME reason.

    If it really was JUST for you, you could have built a garage, carport, car stall, or wide driveway and circumvented the law that way; you might have been able to use blacktop without lines, because … who are you going to run into, yourself?

    But I doubt that, I think you wanted a parking lot so strangers or employees could park in it, and that would mean you do not control whether they are disabled or not.

    1. Tony C – Sorry, Tony. I can’t afford you. 🙂 You must be a member of the upper 1%.

      I did not realize that I skipped over a serious question from you. The reason I built the parking lot is explained as follows:

      I had been working out of my home for years, but the demand for my services was more than what I could keep up with. Government regulations did not allow me to have employees come to my home, so I bought some property that was zoned for business. The property actually was mixed zoning, either residential or commercial. Up to this point in time, it was used only as a residence. There was no driveway at all, only grass in front of the building. No room for either a garage or carport on either side of the building. My first job was having to move a water meter that was right in the front lawn to be located at the edge of the property. That way I would not hit it when I parked in front of my front door. I hired an employee as planned, and so the two of us parked in the front lawn for several months. The aggravating part was that we both tracked in leaves and dirt into the building all the time, especially when it rained. So I was constantly sweeping and mopping the floor, as well as cleaning my shoes. I wanted to pave the front so we would walk on clean concrete instead of dirt. The two cars driving on the lawn was killing the grass anyway. To pave it, I had to get a permit. I did not want to paint any parking lines, but the government said that I had to paint parking lines on it and they had to be a certain dimension and a certain color. I also had to present a drawing showing exactly what I would do, and I had to hire a licensed concrete man to pour it. I did what they said, then another inspector came along after the permit had been approved. He stopped construction in the middle of the project and complained that I was not compliant with the Disabilities Act. They said I could not have 5 parking spaces like the plan showed, but only four, with one being handicap, making only 3 useable parking spaces. The parking lot is like 60 feet wide by about 30 feet deep. It is smaller than my driveway at my home. Making it a “parking lot” with painted lines was what the government forced me to do. By the way, the parking lot is not blacktop. It is concrete. Perhaps someday I might hire a disabled employee, but you know what? I will give that person his own private parking spot like I do for all my other employees, so he does not need a special handicap spot that only handicap people can use.

      I’m sorry to see you are prejudice against Fox News. You really should consider expanding your horizons and willing to listen to information from various sources, not just liberally biased sources. In any case, you don’t like Fox News, so following is a YouTube with John Stossel talking to two CEO’s (one from Bestbuy) about government regulations. Nothing about Fox News on it. It is only 5 minutes and explains how government regulations hurt the little businessman more than big businesses.

      http://youtu.be/7bLcja6Qe0I

  5. DavidM:

    If I remember correctly John Locke said that we enter into society for the protection of Life, Liberty and Property. Sam Adams said the same thing and Jefferson, unfortunately, used Pursuit of Happiness as one of the 3 pillars of what government protects. Never dreaming that property would someday need to be protected from the whim of some government or court system in the future.

    200 years ago I could down as many trees as I wanted and put fences in, stonewalls, change the grades, put in a pond without any government whatsoever involded. In fact I could do that into the 20th century.

    To the founders it would be heresy for a person to not be able to cut down trees or put in a pond unless they had government permission.

  6. David,
    Are you are complaining about having to pay taxes on your property?? Aren’t taxes the price you pay for a civilized society? In Illinois most of the education costs come out of our real estate taxes. Without them, the schools and the city government and police and fire would not exist.

    1. rafflaw wrote: “Are you are complaining about having to pay taxes on your property?”

      No. Just explaining how property taxes push some people from the middle class to the poor class by eliminating ownership.

      Marx and Engel defined the middle class as being property owners. Once the government creates ways to keep people from being property owners, they have a method of pushing more people into poverty.

      Here in Florida we have Homestead exemption laws to try to prevent senior citizens from losing their homes and falling into poverty. Still, some fall through the cracks in the law and become impoverished when they lose their home.

      The point is that laws and regulations limit true ownership. Some people like that because it moves our society toward the communist ideal where nobody owns property privately. Others in our society object to it because it impoverishes the people of our nation. When capitalism and free enterprise are curtailed, poverty is the result.

      1. “No. Just explaining how property taxes push some people from the middle class to the poor class by eliminating ownership.”

        DavidM,

        More smoke again because property taxes aren’t the cause of people being impoverished. They are, however, annoying to people whose property is worth alot, because they are like you and want to hold onto their wealth. Middle class people don’t build private parking lots on their property, but wealthy people do.

        1. Mike Spindell wrote: “Middle class people don’t build private parking lots on their property, but wealthy people do.”

          What? Ridiculous. I highly suspect that the personal car of a person like Tony who earns $400 per hour cost much more than what it cost me to treat my employees right by building them a place to park.

          Ownership of property is what allows people to get ahead. When they stop paying the landlord and are able to appreciate the fruit of their own labor, that makes them part of the middle class. To borrow the terms from Marx, they are part of the bourgeoisie rather than the proletariat if they own property. Do you own your own home? Then you are part of the bourgeoisie or middle class. According to Marx, you should be overthrown and your property taken away from you, because in his mind, private ownership of property is what led people to oppress others who could not afford to own their own property. Do you rent your house from a landlord? Then you are part of the proletariat, the working class. You are part of the poor working class who are oppressed by the middle class landowners.

          If a person works for himself rather than enriching an employer with his labor, he is likely to find himself extending his property ownership toward his means of income, which is his business. That might move him toward creating a place where the public or his employees can park. Such does not suddenly distinguish him as wealthy. A business owner often still earns less than the median income of other Americans. I certainly did for many years, but now after many years, my income is higher than the median income of $42,000. I suspect Tony’s income also is higher.

          The thing that distinguishes the poor from the middle class is property ownership. When a person owns property, they are part of the middle class. They would not be part of the wealthy class until household income started to exceed $175,000 (upper 5%), or according to President Obama, when income exceeded $250,000.

          Do you see it differently?

          1. “The thing that distinguishes the poor from the middle class is property ownership.”

            DavidM,

            That is nonsense in service to trying to keep your point afloat. There are plenty of wealthy people who don’t own real estate and plenty of working class people who do. The distinguishing factor is income and financial wealth. However, back in feudal times your distinction had validity and considering that your philosophy will return us to feudal times, from your perspective must make sense.

        2. Mike – I guess you haven’t heard how profitable the property tax lien investment programs are. That’s when investors buy the tax liens on properties where people have not been able to pay their property taxes. When the property is foreclosed on, they are in first lien position. Sometimes with you Mike, I feel like I’m listening to someone from another planet. Are you really paying attention to what is happening in the lower socio-economic sectors of our society. Properties sit vacant when there are tons of homeless and then the properties are striped of all appliances, aluminum and copper wiring. Saw this happening back in the mid 80’s but then it was only in the highly blighted area. Now lower middle class neighborhoods.

  7. DavidM: That is a non-reply, you complete ignore the fact that law has always controlled what you can do with your property, be it land, weapons, even water.

    Your “philosophy” is useless if it doesn’t apply to the real world. You cannot use your property to break the law, which is what you think you have some “right” to do by some fantasy redefinition of what “ownership” means.

  8. The flawed premise is entirely yours David and it is that property rights are absolute at law. They are not. Very few rights are absolute. Property rights become finite as a condition of the social compact. The instant you agree to allow third parties to enforce your property rights, you limit them, and the adjudication of rights related to property versus self-help (i.e. appealing to the courts) by its very nature limits property rights. Your valid interest in property is defined by law, not what you think it is, and that interest varies widely depending upon both the nature of the property and how you acquired it, but it is not absolute.

    1. Gene H wrote: “The flawed premise is entirely yours David and it is that property rights are absolute at law.”

      I never made this premise. That is a your premise based upon a misunderstanding of what I said.

  9. DavidM: The difference is government takes money by force. If you don’t pay, they put you in prison.

    The government isn’t taking money by force, they are collecting your dues and rent and service fees by force, they are collecting their fair share of your profits.

    That money is not YOURS, all of us individuals are like tenants in the mall, we owe the mall for our rent, we owe money for our utilities, we owe money for the maintenance and cleaning of the common area, and we owe the mall a commission on our profits over a certain threshold of income, which they have the right to audit.

    The mall has a right to that money, they don’t “take” your money, they receive your payment; and if you refuse to pay what you owe THEN they will have the law come and take it by force if that is necessary.

    In that respect, it is no different than any other business, and just like the mall, you don’t get to quibble over how the mall owners spend the money it earns.

    In this case, when the country is the “mall,” it is run by elected representatives that are supposed to represent the wishes of the majority, that is the design of the government. Majority rule, except for certain prohibitions against majority rule detailed in the Constitution (like limits on how much the majority cannot impair free speech, or gun ownership, etc).

    How the majority spends its money, morally or immorally, is not your choice, or mine; it makes no difference if we agree. Just like the mall, if my store in the mall doesn’t like the fact that the mall owners contribute heavily to Republican candidates, that is not my call; I do not get to put conditions on how my rent gets used by them.

    They aren’t taking “your” money by force, they are collecting what you owe, and if force is necessary it is because you are criminally trying to steal from the public a share of profits that is rightfully theirs as your partner in your money-making enterprise; the partner that provides all the public infrastructure you use and that protects you and allows your enterprise to function at all.

  10. Is somebody screwing with this thread or WP? I got to the comment box and it had in fairly large type (48pt-ish) “Leave a Reply To Mike Spindell” and on the next line “Cancel Reply”. Then my bluetooth mouse stopped working and I had to re-install it. Coming back to this thread it looks OK. Is my hardware possessed?

  11. A Texas Rep’s Message To Veterans
    By Lt. Col. Robert Bateman
    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/texas-rep-response-to-veterans-not-getting-checks-from-shutdown-102213

    Just the other day NBC affiliate news station KRIS in Corpus Christie sat down with the local congressman about the effects of the government shutdown. I really do not need to add anything to their reporting.

    We asked him about the people who say he’s lost their vote; people like retired veterans who were on the verge of losing their disability checks next month. He said the stalemate in Washington was necessary to achieve party goals.

    OK, that is pretty straightforward. They asked the question, and he answered. But think about this again for a second and then watch the video in the link above. Remember, we are talking about disabled American military veterans not getting their disability check, which is often the only source of income for a guy who lost both legs in Vietnam or his eyesight on Guadalcanal or his arm and two ribs in Ramadi. These are the guys who sacrificed years of their lives deployed overseas, living in shitty conditions, getting mortared, rocketed, shot at, and ultimately becoming disabled because, for example, they took a couple of bullets for the nation. Bullets or shrapnel or explosives which robbed from them the use of an arm, or a leg, or a lung.

    The congressman’s response to the concerns of disabled American military veterans not getting their disability check from the government that sent them into combat included this line:

    “‘… freedom isn’t free, and sometimes you have to make a small sacrifice to move forward with what you’re after,” Congressman Farenthold said.”

  12. Bron,

    How Long Can You Receive Unemployment Benefits?
    3/19/13
    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/19/how-long-can-you-receive-unemployment-benefits/

    Excerpt:
    At the height of the jobs crisis, unemployment benefits lasted as long as 99 weeks in many states. Today, they last less than half that long in many states.

    *****

    I have a relative and a couple of good friends who lost their jobs after the financial meltdown. Those individuals–two men and one woman in their sixties–had worked hard all of their lives. Had it not been for unemployment insurance, they might have used up all of their savings and maybe gone into debt. Unemployment insurance helped those individuals get through the period when they were out of work. Two are now back to work…and one has retired. I don’t see unemployment insurance as a handout. I see it as a temporary safety net that helps working people who have fallen upon hard times. Those folks were never takers. They worked hard, paid their taxes, and contributed to society–a society that helped them in their hour of need. I prefer to live in that kind of society rather than the Rand Land of Smug Selfishness.

  13. RTC:

    just to set the record stright, I am not talking about physically or mentally handicapped individuals doing work like sweeping streets or volunteering if they arent able.

    Unemployment insurance is a very small percentage of your salary.

    I am not sure how you could call 99 weeks of unemployment anything but a handout. People dont contribute that much money to the fund.

  14. Gee, Caryl Chessman is mentioned by SOTB just a couple days ago and now here. However, I won’t cast any aspersions and call someone a liar. I’ve never done that here, and NEVER would w/o evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

    1. “Gee, Caryl Chessman is mentioned by SOTB just a couple days ago and now here. However, I won’t cast any aspersions and call someone a liar. I’ve never done that here, and NEVER would w/o evidence beyond a reasonable doubt”.

      In Re me mentioning Caryl Chessman:

      http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/21/zimmerman-media-circuses-make-for-bad-justice/#more-48140

      http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/02/should-we-care-about-casey-anthony/#more-36728

      As usual someone’s researching ability is ……….horseshit.

  15. Lot’s of horseshit history teachers, more than any other subject. I was pretty good. Got lots of kudos from parents and kids, sniped @ by fellow in the box teachers, mostly for giving writing assignments and “making them look bad” for them not doing so. The administration would hear from parents complaining their kids never got writing assignemnts[kids never complained!] and get on the lazy teachers. I worked hard.

  16. “…I understand history through a clear lens.”

    Understanding is a relative term. We had a history teacher who was a Osage elder. His view of American history differed somewhat from the material in our state approved books. He had a clear lens too.

    My dissertation supervisor was Navajo. He had more than a few bones to pick with official accounts of history as well.

  17. I’m a high school history teacher. Somewhat of an “expert” in your world. I don’t have all the answers like yourself, but I understand history through a clear lens.

    1. OS,

      I had a high school history teacher get into a big argument with me in class because he was insisting that Caryl Chessman was being executed for murder, rather than under the “Lindbergh Law.” He was wrong and so were many other history teachers I had, because they allowed their own personal animus get in the way of the truth.

  18. “Mike Spindell – you have attributed Bron’s post to me in several of your posts. If you are going to pontificate, at least pay enough attention to get the author right. [sigh]”

    DavidM,

    Please show me where I did that and I will unequivocally apologize.

      1. “Mike Spindell –
        You did it here:”

        DavidM,

        You are absolutely correct and I fully realized my mistake at the first link. I apologize to you without reservations and admit that not only was my attributing Bron’s quote to you an error on my part, but that it was a sloppy error. My bad, I’m sorry.

  19. Yes, People who have problems w/ unions are slavers. People who have problems w/ Obama are racist. Yada, yada.

Comments are closed.