Obama Administration Moves To Sharply Curtail Authority Of Government Watchdogs

President_Barack_Obama600px-US-DeptOfJustice-Seal.svg DOJThe Obama Administration has been accused by public interest groups of being one of the most hostile administration toward whistleblowers since the Nixon Administration. Not only whistleblowers but reporters have been subject to abusive investigations and crackdowns under President Obama. Now, that record has taken an even more dangerous turn. The Justice Department is facing bipartisan criticism after it moved to restrict access of inspectors general to documents needed to ferret out corrupt and abusive practices. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued a controversial 68-page memo that says that the department’s inspector general would be required to get permission from the agencies it is investigating to obtain wire taps, grand jury testimonies, and credit information.

For the record, I have been a long critic of the OLC due to what I have viewed as a significant decline in both the neutrality and quality of work in that office. The office has been wrong on a number of important constitutional questions, including the unconstitutional use of recess appointments by the President. In my view, these opinions were a departure from the tradition of the OLC in offering detached and apolitical analysis.

DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz has correctly noted that federal law gives his office independent authority and that having to coordinate documents requests from the very agency under investigation is counterintuitive: “I strongly disagree with the OLC opinion. Congress meant what it said when it authorized Inspectors General to independently access ‘all’ documents necessary to conduct effective oversight. … Without such access, our office’s ability to conduct its work will be significantly impaired.”

He is joined in this view by key members of Congress from both parties, including Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., as well as Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and John Conyers, D-Mich. As Senator Grassley correctly noted “If the Inspector General deems a document necessary to do his job, then the agency should turn it over immediately.”

The requirement that IGs get permission and access from the subject agency is inimical to the very function of their office and the effectiveness of these offices. When combined with the controversial measures taken against whistleblowers by the Obama Administration, the new policy would allow an Administration far greater power in controlling investigations of its authority and would guarantee notice of potential controversies or scandals within its ranks.

207 thoughts on “Obama Administration Moves To Sharply Curtail Authority Of Government Watchdogs”

  1. Ninny,

    History, by definition, is over.

    You are trying to impose guilt.

    Only fools accept it.

    Sorry. Look elsewhere.

    Physical axiom:

    “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

    – Chariman Mao

    1. Forgotwhoiam:

      Audrey Hepburn said: “I don’t believe in collective guilt, but I do believe in collective responsibility”.

      You need to start looking at life in a more positive way and then you might not feel so bitter.

      1. ninny – Audrey Hepburn also said “I’m like cat here, a no-name slob. We belong to nobody, and nobody belongs to us. We don’t even belong to each other.”

        1. Audrey Hepburn was a Dutch Aristocrat from her mothers side. Her father (incorrectly) believed himself descended from James Hepburn, (aka the Earl of Bothwell) the third husband of Mary, Queen of Scots.

          She would never use the words “no-name slob”. Her Hollywood screenwriter would though – and hence the line.

          And that’s what you do Mr Shulte. Only in your case you have demostrated a clear inability to think for yourself.

          1. ninny – you quoted Audrey Hepburn, I quoted Audrey Hepburn. Which of us cannot think for himself? I am not even sure where that comes in. That has been a meme with you lately.

  2. “But they did make them equals.”

    Ninny, did the Extreme Court approve and not order an injunction against the egregiously unconstitutional acts of Abraham Lincoln during his “Reign of Terror? Did the Extreme Court rewrite the commerce clause and tax law, then rewrite the English language to corruptly uphold Obamacare?

    The Extreme Court has engaged in judicial “overreach” orders of magnitude greater than the ineligible imposter, Obama. The Extreme Court has clearly committed “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” for which it shall be impeached and convicted as criminal and, as such, has no constitutional authority.

    You cite unconstitutional acts and expect obedience?

    Prohibition lasted until it was repealed.

    Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

    Ben Franklin, 2015, we gave you “…a republic, if you can take it back.”

    Obama engaged in “overreach” until a professor, overcome by honesty, sued.

    It is impossible to rewrite a physical axiom. Just ask the producers of Jeopardy.

    Equality or physical balance or imbalance, exists, or not, under a physical axiom.

    Equality was said to have been given by God as “created” not as an outcome.

    All actions taken by Lincoln during his unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” were unconstitutional.

    Lincoln’s “Reconstitution Amendments” have no force and carry no weight as they were adopted without a quorum, through coercion and under duress (if there was a quorum, that means the Confederate States of America legally seceded, were attacked unconstitutionally in Lincoln’s war of Northern aggression and that no act of Lincoln, including amendments, bore or bear on Confederate States). Any and all circumvention of the legal immigration process effected by the unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments” renders the status of affected individuals null and void reverting citizenship to that of the country of origin.

  3. Slavery was begun by African tribal chiefs and perpetuated by Arab slave traders and British shippers.

    1.4% of Americans owned slaves.

    No living American has any relationship to slavery.

    “The British did some dreadful things” What did the Romans, Vlad the “Impaler,” Maya, Aztec and Inca, etc. do, chop liver? Oh yeah, how about those pesky Vikings? They were pretty brutal, right, all that raping and pillaging? And, correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t the Egyptians have some slaves?

    Human beings have lived with some very unusual customs and practices throughout history.

    You are discussing a subject absurdly out of context.

    You always conclude by demanding guilt and confessions by America and Americans who had absolutely nothing to do with slavery or Egyptian slavery, for that matter.

    “Dreadful things?”

    Can you say ISIS, Al-Qaeda or Nazi Germany?

    You collectivist liberal psychocrats feebly attempt to propagandize with deliberately false and misrepresentative facts of dramatized history.

    1 million Americans died to free Africans from slavery.

    This is not a discussion about accurate American history, this is a ridiculous indoctrination session where in lies and fabrications are substituted for truth and accuracy.

    Your extreme efforts to assign undeserved guilt, out of the era and completely out of context, should fail and have failed.

    Lincoln was right about slavery and its definition resolution:

    “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.” “…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.”

    1. Forgotwhoiam: But they did make them equals. And then conveniently ignored it.

  4. “The British did some dreadful things but admit their failings.Their misdemeanours fade into insignificance in comparison to American historical behaviour and the level of abuse dished out especially to black Americans and other ethnic groups.”

    This is truly one of the silliest things I’ve ever read. Their “misdemeanors”? Tell that to the Irish. The British atrocities against the Irish would take you a lifetime to get through.

    And while their is no doubt that we as a country should be ashamed of our history of slavery, please tell me what the British did to help end it? Make sure your answer addresses the assistance the British provided the Union when it fought the Confedereacy. Oh wait…the British helped the Confederacy. Another one of their “misdemeanors” right?

    1. Edward: There has never been anything silly about the Irish Troubles and this is an example of what religious strife can bring. The War that William of Orange propagated was part of a larger campaign against Catholic Europe and involved European Troops wI thin a larger European Theatre of War. It wasn’t Ireland vs England at all – although that’s how it has i’s sold. It was about Protestant William taking on Catholic Europe. He was obsessed by it and hated the French King. And that’s what it has always been about (at least since the Reformation). to ensure the people of Ireland would be “settled in a lasting peace”.

      William is celebrated to this day as a champion of Protestantism, but he was nonetheless backed by the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Alexander VIII. The Pope was part of a ‘Grand Alliance’ against Louis XIV’s warring in Europe and supported William’s reconquest of Ireland. This astonishing information just shows how obtuse and convoluted politics was at the time.

      What good has it done?

      None at all.

      The Protestants (note I don’t use the word English because many were Protestants were Scots) displaced the Catholics in the same way as Americans displaced Native Indians from land ownership.

      And this too was an unforgivable Crime. It led to hundreds of years of discrimination and justifiable violent reaction and viciousness.

      It was a crime against humanity.

      But it wasn’t about England vs Ireland. It was about Protestantism vs Catholicism

      This is the legacy of religion in Europe and this is mirrored all over the globe. Religion has a lot to answer for….

      It’s all absolutely pointless and illustrates the stupidity of Man and an inherent megalomania.

      It is interesting that wars inside the USA do not seem to be religiously motivated at least to the same degree. And this is maybe unusual. American wars seem to be about money and power and the ability to seize resources from the weaker participant through abuse of the law of the time.

      So I share Edward’s disgust.

      1. ninny – evidently you have forgotten the Plantation of Ireland by James I (James VI of Scotland) or the invasion of Ireland while Elizabeth I was alive. I have a 20 volume History of England written by the English and it is hogwash.

        1. Paul C. Schulte: No I haven’t forgotten. I thought I’d made it clear. Elizabeth I and James VI (I) were protestants. James’mother was catholic and her execution for plotting to kill Elizabeth was carried out by parliamentary officials against the specific instructions of Elizabeth. This prompted invasion by Spain and the Spanish Armada.

          All these conflicts were religiously motivated.

          Your books sound interesting. Have you finished colouring them in yet?

          1. ninny – you have yet to explain the legality of giving Northern Ireland to James I supporters.

            1. Paul C. Schulte: There is NO legitimacy to conquest. But countries are created on the foundations of conquest.

              In America an attempt was made to build an empire on “self declared freedom” that permitted subjugation of 500,000 slaves and God knows how many Native American Indians.

              I am just pointing out how hypocritical this was; how the law of the time was broken to secure theft of land and to procure the murder indigenous peoples; how this is recognised by rational thinking people – and exposing bigots who try to defend this behaviour.

              The British are no saints either. They practised genocide against aboriginal peoples of Australia for example. They completely exterminated the Aboriginal population of Tasmania within the living memory of my grandparents. Aboriginals were shot for sport after church on Sunday. Something a certain American Dentist would understand. This is a much better example of British Viciousness. The wars in Ireland were religiously/politically motivated. The murder of aborigines in Australia was just plain Evil with a capital E. Just like the murder of the Native Indians in the United States. Both are crimes against humanity.

              The difference between you and I, Paul is that I have finished colouring in my history book whilst yours remains on the shelf.

              You really need to grow up and stop talking rubbish. Then people may take some of the things you say a bit more seriously. The way you are arguing your case will only ensure you will get nothing of what you want.

              The future success of America lies in the strength of its multicultural population which maximises the talent available to the country. After all that’s what you are – a Nation of Immigrants, as are we all if you think about it.

              1. ninny – the difference between us is that I long ago gave up coloring books.

      1. Paul C. Shute: No need to be selfish wit yourself. You must share what good things you have. And there should be something good in everyone. Except when there isn’t. That is called consensus and it creates a better society with justice for all. Set an example like the Founding Fathers did – but this time stick to what was written down. And treat folks like you want to be treated yourself. If you use the charm we all know you must have you will achieve a great deal.

        Hint – I am led to believe that burning crosses and organised lynchings are no longer regarded as entertainment.

        1. ninny – I have heard tell that starving Irishmen is not in fashion anymore. And, have you quit burning witches?

          1. Paul C. Schulte:

            I never believed in witches nor warlocks nor that the U.S.
            Constitution was ever truly adopted.

            1. ninny – the Constitution has an adoption date. You can look it up even if you won’t read the Constitution.

  5. LOL, Congressional medal of wrongness, consistently wrong, “Paul Always Wrong” is what we used to call him. I see you have recognized this great talent of his.

    1. Inga – the Constitution and Bill of Rights has nothing to do with how he is stating his case.

  6. Ninny, you’re not making any sense. Is that your forte? In case you are unaware, 1607 was over 400 years ago; an entirely different era. People lived for maybe 40 years, sliced up animals for dinner and executed the penalty of capital punishment in about an hour. Civilization was expanding; was in its growth phase, and people respected authority, that could be terminal, without question.

    “It was an abuse of the law, unjust, fraudulent, immoral and downright theft.”

    Please cite the abused law and describe what kind of justice is “unjust” when there is no law to reference.
    Fraud and immorality are fair in “love and war.” British citizens didn’t go east to colonize France, the went west into the New World where there were no other countries, bodies of law or real property.

    Indians had only personal or “moveable” property. They had no surveys, real property, national boundaries or country.

    You attack “sitting ducks” by taking the activity out of its era and out of its context.

    You cheated. This institution will be required to inform your Mum.

    Go sit on the dunce chair in the corner.

    1. Forgotwhoiam:

      It’s clear that if there was any tyranny this lay fair and square with the US Government of the time which disregarded everything they claimed to stand for. And this thinking prevails in the minds of extremist views today. There is no possibility of building success with this fascist attitude. Two world wars have already been fought to rid the world of this scourge.

      1. ninny – it was the British who were press ganging American seamen, not the other way around. We went back to war with the British in the War of 1812 (as we call it) over that and a couple of other issues. You were the ones who illegally loaded munitions on a passenger vessel (Lusitania) and when the Germans sank it pretended there were no munitions on it. I don’t know if they teach it in merry olde England but the US could have come in on the side of the Germans if it had not been for the Zimmerman Telegram. Your prime minister convinced our President to commit one or more acts of war leading up to our entry into WWII. By Pearl Harbor, Hitler’s military adviser told him the German navy was effectively at war with the US so it made no difference to declare war on them. (Actually it did, Congress would have forced the focus of the war to be in the Pacific). So that tyranny of the government of the US has had to save your sorry asses twice. Frankly, historically, neither time was worth it.

        1. The British did some dreadful things but admit their failings. Their misdemeanours fade into insignificance in comparison to American historical behaviour and the level of abuse dished out especially to black Americans and other ethnic groups.

          Your lack of regret is very telling and provides a snapshot of right wing republicanism and its total decadence.

          1. ninny – you are aware that press-ganging was a Naval policy. I am not sure they have ever really apologized for doing it or released the sailors. BTW, kidnapping is a felony (that is a hanging offense in England), not a misdemeanor. Shall we talk about how the British treated the Irish or the Indians?

            1. You haven’t addressed any the issues I have raised. Why? Because you are in the wrong. I have never discussed any topic with some one who is consistently as wrong as you. If there was a Congressional Medal of Wrongness you would have it with Oakleaf Clusters.

              Your tactics when you are trapped in an argument is just continue to try to change the subject. When you make a statement it frequently cannot be verified.

              You cannot answer my questions because you are unable to challenge the truth of the brutality of American Government which cast the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the trash can of convenience when it continued with slavery and seized land and massacred native Indians.

              I believe most Americans understand that this was a crime and it is interesting that you do not. This says much about the character of Right Wing America and it is very fortunate that this group will never win power.

              1. ninny –

                You cannot answer my questions because you are unable to challenge the truth of the brutality of American Government which cast the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the trash can of convenience when it continued with slavery and seized land and massacred native Indians.

                You still have not read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights yet have you? It is hard to take advice from a country that has not had a native king since the death of Queen Elizabeth I. They are all Germans. You did not even have a competent Englishman to crown. Even when you got rid of slavery in most of the Empire you kept it in Ireland and India. When you got into world wars you needed the United States to bail, your asses out.

            2. I found this on HISTORYNET

              I don’t think the British, even at their worst, mirrored this chilling behaviour. It is my case that this is not what America is about and in no way would the majority of Americans be proud of this period – except the Radical Right.

              One would find it hard to refute that Abraham Lincoln’s political idol was Henry Clay. Lincoln would say of Clay; “During my whole political life, I have loved and revered Henry Clay as a teacher and leader.” Lincoln delivered the eulogy at the funeral for Clay. When elected President, Lincoln set about implementing Henry Clay’s political philosophies.

              Throughout Clay’s political life he was a strong believer in National Socialism and a complete racist in all references to the American Indian. As Secretary of State Clay would declare: “The Indians’ disappearance from the human family will be no great loss to the world. I do not think them, as a race, worth preserving.”

              This mentality lead to the forced walk of all Cherokees from the mountains of Tennessee, North Carolina and Georgia to Oklahoma during the winter of 1838. Over 20,000 Cherokees were dragged from their homes, which were then plundered and burned. They were force marched most of them barefooted to Oklahoma during the dead of winter with the sky for their blanket and the earth for their pillow. Over 4,000 Cherokees died on this march and it became known as the “Trail of Tears.”

              Similar atrocities occurred all through the Lincoln Administration. In 1862, the Santee Sioux of Minnesota grew tired of waiting for the 1.4 million dollars they had been promised for the sale of 24 million acres of land to the federal government in 1851. Appeals to President Lincoln fell on deaf ears. What made this even more egregious to the Sioux was the invasion of this yet unpaid for land by thousands of white settlers. Then, with a very poor crop in august of 1862, many of the Indians were hungry and facing starvation with the upcoming winter.

              When Lincoln outright refused to pay the owed money, remember he had a war to finance the Indians revolted. Lincoln assigned General John Pope to quell the uprising and he announced at the beginning of his campaign: “It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromise can be made.” Lincoln certainly did not challenge this statement.

              The Indians were quickly defeated in October of 1862 and Pope herded all the Indians, men, women and children, into forts where military trials were immediately convened. None of the Indians tried were given any semblance of a defense. Their trials lasted approximately 10 minutes each. All adult males were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death with the only evidence against them being they had been present during a “war” which they themselves had declared against the government.

              The authorities in Minnesota asked Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.

              So, on December 26, 1862, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota.

              Lincoln’s western armies, using the tactics of murder, rape, burning and pillaging, simultaneously being used against Southern noncombatants by the eastern armies, turned their attention to the Navajos.

              In 1863-64, General Carleton and his subordinate, Colonel Kit Carson, invaded the Navajo land, especially those concentrated in the Canyon de Chelly area. Crops were burned, innocents were murdered, women were raped and general chaos was rained upon these noble people simply because, like the Santee Sioux, they demanded from Lincoln what they had been promised; their land and to be left alone. General Carleton, believing there was gold to be found in the area, stated: “This war, will be pursued against you if it takes years until you cease to exist or move.” Again, there was no protest of this policy from Lincoln, his Commander in Chief.

              The Navajo were forced to march over 300 miles to Bosque Redondo in eastern New Mexico. Over 200 Navajos died on this march and, eventually, over 2,000 perished before a treaty was signed in 1868. While at Bosque Redondo, the Navajo suffered the vilest conditions; bitter water, no firewood and impossible growing conditions for crops. The soldiers and the Mexican guards subjected the women to rape and humiliating treatment. Children born at this “concentration camp” were lucky to survive their first few months of life.

              As our Founding Fathers did in our Declaration of Independence from the British, the Cherokee Nation listed its grievances with the Union when they declared their unification with the Confederate States on October 28th 1861. These brave people had already observed the atrocities of Lincoln’s war criminals and saw through any so-called war for liberation.

              “When circumstances beyond their control compel one people to sever the ties which have long existed between them and another state or confederacy, and to contract new alliances and establish new relations for the security of their rights and liberties, it is fit that they should publicly declare the reasons by which their action is justified.

              The Cherokee people had its origin in the South; its institutions are similar to those of the Southern States, and their interests identical with theirs. Long since it accepted the protection of the United States of America, contracted with them treaties of alliance and friendship, and allowed themselves to be to a great extent governed by their laws.

              In peace and war, they have been faithful to their engagements with the United States. With much hardship and injustice to complain of, they resorted to no other means than solicitation and argument to obtain redress. Loyal and obedient to the laws and the stipulations of the treaties, they served under the flag of the United States, shared the common dangers, and were entitled to a share in the common glory, to gain which their blood was freely shed on the battlefield.

              When the dissentions between the Southern and Northern States culminated in a separation of State after State from the Union, they watched the progress of events with anxiety and consternation. While their institutions and the contiguity of their territory to the states of Arkansas, Texas and Missouri made the cause of the seceding States necessarily their own cause, their treaties had been made with the United States, and they felt the utmost reluctance even in appearance to violate their engagements or set at naught the obligations of good faith.

              But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions. The number of the Confederate States increased to eleven, and their government is firmly established and consolidated. Maintaining in the field an army of two hundred thousand men, the war became for them but a succession of victories. Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves.

              They claimed only the privilege asserted by the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of the Northern States themselves to self-government is formed, of altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties.

              Throughout the Confederate States, we saw this great revolution effected without violence or suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts, The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man, all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men TO SERVE, or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.

              But, in the Northern States, the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In states which still adhered to the Union, a military despotism had displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right of the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right, approved by a President sworn to support the constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men.

              The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of the cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on the women.

              While the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law, in jails, in forts, and prison ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet Ministers; while the press ceased to be free, and the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed.

              The officers and men taken prisoners in the battles were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of the Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat, to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by southern hands”

              Lincoln’s armies, after decimating and destroying the South in the War for Southern Independence, turned its war criminals loose on the Indians of the Great Plains and the Southwest. The tactics of murder, rape and pillaging, perfected in such places as Atlanta, the March to the Sea and the Shenandoah Valley, were repeated in places with names like Sand Creek and Wounded Knee.

              Small wonder one of Lincoln’s favorite Generals was William T. Sherman, who wrote to his wife in 1862 that his goal was the “extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people of the South.” He said while campaigning against the Indians: “The only good Indian I ever saw was dead,” and lamented to his son shortly before his death that he had been unable to kill all of the “Red Sob’s.”

              Abraham Lincoln’s “American System,” adopted from Henry Clay, brought about the necessity for the removal of the Indians from the west. This concept of government had been vetoed as unconstitutional by virtually every president, beginning with James Madison.

              The system called for the subsidizing of the railroads with stolen taxpayer money. Lincoln had long been the primary attorney representing the railroads before being elected President. For the railroads to complete their lines into the west, the Indian had to be either “neutralized” or eliminated. Thus, Lincoln left his fingerprints on the campaign against the Indian well into the 19th century.

              Lincoln’s policies of taxpayer-supported railroads would lead, not only to the attempted annihilation of the Indian, but to tremendous scandals in the administration of another of Lincoln’s war criminals, Ulysses S. Grant. Grant, like Lincoln, handed out his “political plum” appointments of Indian Agent to cronies who proceeded to gain tremendous wealth by selling supplies and stealing money that should have gone to the Indians.

              Today, as we Southerners protest the conversion of the Battlefields of the National Park Service into “the beginnings of reparations for slavery,” by Marxist politicians and journalists, and challenge the erection of a statue of Lincoln in Richmond, we might ask ourselves as the Indian has done for years: Why, in the most sacred land of the Sioux, is there a monument carved into the granite mountain, a figure of Lincoln, who promised the annihilation of a band of the Sioux to please his political cronies?

              To continue to idolize Lincoln is to refute history and intellectual thought and to worship at the foot of Marxist government. Perhaps, in the not too distant future, Americans will be able to see the Lincoln Administration and its legacy of how we are governed today in the light of truth. We may even be able to see its consequences as clearly as the Cherokee Nation saw them in 1861!

              1. ninny – bad history is bad history. You still have not read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  7. “I don’t think that Indians submitted to American Rule by freedom of choice so I fail to understand why American Laws applied to them.”


    First the people that came to America were opportunists and seekers of religious freedom. The repulsion of tyranny, I believe was a concept born around 1776. To be sure, there was no American law or American anything before 1789.

    We are writing in the year of our Lord, 2015. Since 1789, American law has been the law of the land. Indians did not properly and successfully negotiate American immigration procedures and law and have no documentation of legal immigration. The only possible status is illegal alien under American law. There exists no Indian immigration law. The only law that bears is American. Indians accomplished and accepted no surveys, established no ownership and recorded no bills of sale, receipts, deeds or titles to real property on the North American continent. There was no established country or legal system. To reiterate, the only possible legal status of people who have not legally immigrated, with legal documentation as proof, is illegal alien. Alternatively, if there is documentation of citizenship of an Indian reservation under a treaty by America, their status, currently, would be “visitor” or “guest.”

    To be sure, I fully understand and appreciate that law is continuously and ubiquitously, arbitrarily “interpreted” and modified to suit the ideology of the “overreaching” “authority” du jour. An excellent example being the recent rewrite of the English language by the Extreme Court when it commingled the definitions of the words “state’ and “federal” to suit its collectivist/liberal benefactors.

    1. Forgotwhiam: Indians and Rule

      And they called this freedom and liberty.

      It was an abuse of the law, unjust, fraudulent, immoral and downright theft. It was a crime against humanity that has never been addressed and was absolutely unaccetable then as it is now. It was an exercise in persecution and revealed the true character of American government of the day which was shoot first and don’t bother to ask questions later.

      Moreover it created an inherrant political intolerance the minds of right wing extremists, who think they can behave in the same way today.

      This is the picture you have painted of America,

  8. “No “Caucasians” landed at Jamestown. When Jamestown was founded the term “Caucasian” would not even exist for another century and a half (when it was coined by an early “racial Scientist”) Jamestown was an English settlement.”


    Fiver, Sidebar. Did you miss my inclusion of the Popham Colony, Maine, which was the other half of the initial two-part colonization effort, including Jamestown? Colonization of the New World at Jamestown was not a singular effort. Two chartered colonization companies left England.


    Thank you for conceding. You made my point by stating that whatever Europeans were referred to as, it was subsequently modified, for scientific reasons, to “Caucasian.” Japanese have been Japanese, Africans have been African, Arabs have been Arab, etc. for millennia. The only reason for a change of title is ideological.
    Indians were titled “Indians” which was similarly modified, for purposes of ideological indoctrination, to “Native American,” being oxymoronic because those people were from Asia and Americans were their enemy. Indians are technically “native” Africans. The impossible and preposterous assignation of status as “Americans,” the mortal enemy of Indians, is designed solely to establish, if not in property records, then in the minds of naïve and malleable people, a insupportable and invalid claim of title and ownership to the North American continent.

  9. Ask the Indians if the mostly British, European Caucasians landed at Jamestown and Popham Beach, Maine, and proceeded westward for the next 300 years to the Pacific Ocean, clearing the land for settlement. This is history.

    No “Caucasians” landed at Jamestown. When Jamestown was founded the term “Caucasian” would not even exist for another century and a half (when it was coined by an early “racial Scientist”) Jamestown was an English settlement.

    How many English-Americans do we have the U.S. today? Less than one out of ten.

    If it is history, it’s still leaving 90% of it out.


    1. Fiver:
      The English American population appears to more than have halved from 1980-2010. 26% – 9% It’s not that the population has been diluted. They appear to be dying out or else they are leaving the USA.

      There must be a reason for this?

      It looks like Irish Americans are the largest group followed by German Americans. But I understand that in future the largest ethnic group of Americans will have Spanish as a first language.

      So the population is changing and it would appear the USA is becoming more Latinised.

      It will be intestine to see if / how demographic change affects American politics.

  10. Thanks guys. If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with bull—-, right?

    That was my original point. The “Native American” moniker is oxymoronic designed to “baffle with bull—-.”

    Indians are from Asia. Indians were nomadic without surveys, real property or recorded deeds. No boundaries, formal Indian country or government existed. Indians were “wild” not “tamed” or otherwise “domesticated” and they engaged in violence among their own various tribes. Americans did not introduce Indians to violence.

    Westward expansion and conquest has occurred for millennia. Ask the Indians if the mostly British, European Caucasians landed at Jamestown and Popham Beach, Maine, and proceeded westward for the next 300 years to the Pacific Ocean, clearing the land for settlement. This is history.

    Indians came from Asia and pursued a nomadic existence in America. To fit the current collectivist, political agenda, Indians have been renamed “native Americans” to denigrate the European, British and American westward expansion, which is history in its context and era, and to dismantle America – to “fundamentally transform” America.

    Did Gen. Custer run around calling Indians “native Americans” and treating them to Sushi and Chardonnay at the Ritz-Carlton?

    If anything, Indians were, technically, illegal aliens without property or documentation.

    I very much appreciate your effort to change the subject rather than lose the debate.

    I’ll consider that a concession.

    Thank you.

    1. Forgotwhoiam:

      I think you will find that Japanese cuisine became more popular after the Little Big Horn and that General Custer had his hands full at the time. It may interest you to know that one of his soldiers is buried in St John’s Church át the West End of Princes Street on Edinburgh, Scotland. Well worth a look if you are ever over there.

      “Indians were, technically, illegal aliens without property or documentation”. I don’t think that Indians submitted to American Rule by freedom of choice so I fail to understand why American Laws applied to them. Until their land was seized by force. I am having difficulty in understanding how they suddenly became illegal and alien when they had been there for hundreds and hundreds of years. As far as documentation was concerned I would imagine that their culture maybe didn’t work in this way. But they must have had some forms of legal system and justice surely?

      I don’t understand especially when one considers the concepts of freedom liberty and rights we are told were valued by Americans for Freedmen how this did not apply to a conquered Nation. It seems that the early Americans made and broke laws at will – because they could. They had become the tyrants that they had escaped.

      This is not good Forgotwhoiam.

      Go and stand in the corner….

      1. ninny – think of how the Irish suddenly became illegal aliens on their own land and you will understand the Indians.

        1. Paul C. Schulte:

          Yes the Catholic Irish were very badly treated indeed over hundreds if years by the English (and Scots for that matter).

          Also especially badly by Cromwell who is still really hated in the Republic and quite rightly so.

          This conflict was of religious origin rather than nationalistic. The English had a rabid hatred of catholicism since the Reformation and did everything they could to make lives impossible for catholics. It was a dreadful business and as I have explained ad nauseum, if you treat people badly they will come and bite your ass.

          This is a bit different to the ethnic cleansing and pseudo genocide that the US Government carried out against the Indian Nations – herding them on to useless land / reservations and then moving them on and seizing the land when for example gold was found. If this is American Freedom and Liberty you can keep it.

          At least the Irish were citizens and had some protection under the law. But the business still makes me ashamed of being British. It is a stain on the country.

          It’s interesting that President De Valera signed the book of condolences at the German Embassy when Hitler died in 1945 as did all Irish Ambassadors at German Embassies throughout the world. (joining Spain and Portugal in this tribute). So there are lots of skeletons in lots of cupboards.

          Main thing is to admit when you are wrong….

          At least I can admit when my country is at fault and the world might be a better place if others could follow suit.

          That why an understand of history from call sides is important.

          1. ninny – in return for signing the book and not being invaded by the Brits, De Valera gave up info on the IRA during WWII.

            1. Paul C. Schulte:

              I think you are referring to Plan Green which was a planned invasion of Ireland by the Germans in conjunction with Operation Sealion, the invasion of Britain. This information had been intercepted by the British Intelligence and passed onto Dublin. The Irish and British, who previously had been fighting each other agreed on a plan, Operation W. This involved a British “invasion” of the South by invitation of the Irish Government at a time of their choosing. What was never made clear was who would control any British Troops on Irish soil. I don’t think de Valera “gave anything up”. The Irish would have killed him.

              Anyway it never happened. But the story does show how enemies can co-operate for mutual benefit.

              There are maybe lessons to be learned from this.

            2. There was also a notion that Operation Green may have been a feign and that Hitler considered that Britain might invade Ireland and the Irish might ask for German help.

              Operation Kathleen was a plan for the IRA to invade the Northern Ireland with German assistance and this plan was submitted to Hitler for consideration. A German agent Hermann Görtz parachuted into Ireland and apparently wasn’t very impressed with the planning of the operation.

              The Garda arrested the activists and broke up the operation.

              I think on balance de Valera didn’t want the Germans in Ireland but who really knows?

              1. ninny – the American Heroes Channel has a series called Nazi Collaborators and they did a segment (1 hour) on the IRA and the Germans. De Valera was trying to keep Churchill from invading the Republic of Ireland and in return outed the IRA in Northern Ireland. It is one of the reasons the IRA has a new name.

                1. Paul Schulte: TV Doc

                  Sounds interesting programme but de Valera and Churchill were in it together by the sounds of it?
                  Otherwise Görtz and Co. Wouldn’t have been caught? Is the TV show on line?

                  1. ninny – it is probably available on DVD. You can check for online. Not sure what is available in your area.

  11. Greece, as a modern construct, didn’t really apply to a region of city states (e.g. Athenian vs. Spartan vs. Macedonian). But they did have plenty in common. I think ninianpeckett was spot on with the language: they all spoke Ancient Greek. They also worshiped the same gods, and had military alliances (notably against the Persians in the Greco-Persian wars).

    Modern Greeks in Greece definitely claim Alexander as their own, as, of course, do the Macedonians. But, as a somewhat lazy, modern foreigner with no local pride at stake, I’ll just go with “Greek.”

  12. Gotta love that “pesky Roman Empire builder,” Alexander the Great. He not only died about three centuries before the founding of the Roman Empire, he also never set foot on the Adriatic Peninsula; he never spoke Latin; and the Greek, Empire he founded didn’t survive his death and was divided among his generals.

    Of course, there were other Persian dynasties which followed including the Parthian Empire (247 BC–224 AD), also called the “Arsacid Empire”; and the Sasanian Empire (224–651), also called the “Neo-Persian Empire” and “Second Persian Empire.”

    These dynasties began before the rise of the Roman Empire, they battled the Roman Empire, and lasted for centuries after the Fall of Rome. Following the Arab conquest in the Seventh Century (which, unlike Alexander’s conquest, lasted centuries), other dynasties ruled Persia for over four centuries till 1979. So much for “destroying the Persian Empire ‘forever’.”

    Also, “Persia” is what westerners formerly called Iran. “Iran” is the name in Farsi and has been for over a millennium.

    I could go on, but first have to ask: Have you considered the possibility that others are not rewriting history and that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about? Taking free history courses from FOX News does have its drawbacks.

    1. forgotwhoiam and fiver:

      Alexander was from Macedonia at a time when Macedonia and Greece were considered separate. So it is contentious as to whether he was Greek. Whatever he was, he wasn’t Roman and probably spoke Ancient Greek.

      Interestingly he may have had a form of epilepsy, but despite this handicap, he was undefeated in battle.

      His death aged 32 yrs is shrouded in mystery and he may have been poisoned.

      According to Plutarch, Alexander developed a fever after a day and night of heavy drinking. His illness worsened until he was unable to speak. The common soldiers, anxious about his health, were granted the right to file past him as he silently waved at them. It’s possible he had a form of meningitis.

      Diodorus recounts that Alexander was struck with pain after downing a large bowl of unmixed wine in honour of Heracles, followed by 11 days of weakness; he did not develop a fever and died after some agony. This could be related to poison although the time lag is unusual.

      Alexander’s Empire was transient as all others. America is centre stage at the moment, but there is some heckling from the Audience, especially from the Middle East, China and Russia.

      Can this performance be rallied I wonder?

    2. fiver – technically Alexander the Great was Macedonian, not Greek. He and his father conquered Greece, but that did not make him Greek.

  13. “Like I’ve said on here, truth and reason should reign supreme over nationalism or ethnic superiority when dealing with intellectual matters.”

    So you’re saying that welfare and affirmative action are bias as archaic, false artifices that have no business existing in an environment of objective “truth and reason,”

    and that the enlightenment of freedom is preferable to the oppression of slavery in this post-“expansion-cum-subjugation” era.

    The American Thesis is Freedom and Self-reliance.

    People must adapt to and live with the consequences of freedom.

    “Basic history” and “nationalism?” Now you’re talking Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Adams, Mason et al., my favorite ancestors. Aren’t they yours? Aren’t you proud to be their “posterity?” You are their posterity, aren’t you?

    It’s funny. It’s sounds as if you’re saying you want something other than the history that occurred,

    the de facto “truth and reason.”

    Are you a “light being” – a pure intellectual entity with no ties to the mess that is humanity – where the rubber meets the road?

    Are you able to revise and rewrite history where you live? You know, that’s what they do in propaganda shops – produce propaganda like morphing “Indian” into “Native American” to fit into the propagandist’s agenda.

    The native name of the native Americans, who are only native to Asia, is Indian, given to them by the nation-expanding Europeans who were native Europeans, not Americans, that were expanding into wild lands inhabited by wild “savages,” which are defined as “from the woods, wild,” that were actually nomads that owned no country at all.

    How about that pesky Roman Empire builder, Alexander the Great? He destroyed the “Persian Empire forever” (hey, maybe some of his detractors renamed the Persians, Iranians for political purposes). He was Roman expansion, Manifest Destiny, ethnic superiority and nationalism all rolled up in one.

    When we get done with those hated “Americans,” we can start in on the Romans.

    It’s a target rich environment. For the time being. Until the “Sleeping Giant” awakes from his slumber.

  14. “Tired of Justice” – out for revenge!

    Boy, you present incontrovertible facts and compelling argument as you pose constraining and inculpating questions; they just ooze cogitation…like Jeopardy.

    I love that show. Don’t you?

    I’m reluctant to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Persist if you must.

  15. forgotwhoiam

    so you are the manifest destiny propagandist for the site?

    Otherwise, most of what you said merely demonstrates your lack of understanding of basic history. I’m not going to change your espousal of ideas based on propaganda. Like I’ve said on here, truth and reason should reign supreme over nationalism or ethnic superiority when dealing with intellectual matters. I don’t care if it’s Caucasians, Persians, or Russians.

  16. chipkellyshouldgoogleleibniz

    Indians are not native to America. It is disparaging and oxymoronic to refer to Indians as Americans, their enemy. Next you’ll be calling Aztecs Spanish. Are the Chinese still Chinese or have you incoherently propagandized that name also?

    You are not discussing, revealing, learning or edifying, you are attempting to indoctrinate. You are subversive of the American thesis and founding documents. You don’t appear to love America, its history or its Founders.

    DNA evidence reveals that Indians, on what is now referred to as the North American continent, are Asiatic and native to Asia having traversed the “Alaskan Land Bridge.” If you take license and use terms loosely, you are forced to concede that Indians may have some interpretation of multiple nativity. It’s obvious that objectivity is not your goal but subjective history revision and attacking British, European and American existence is.

    Which aspect of America and American history makes you so small? Which aspect of your attack on America makes you big?

    Your criticism of human exploration, conquest and settlement is a preposterous attack on nature. Will you next criticize human beings for eating? Your rewrite of the history of life on planet earth is false and ridiculous. All nations throughout history expanded, conquered and settled.

    Through usage of the contrived, false reference, “native American, you are openly critical only of American westward expansion when human expansion began in Africa about 200,000 years ago and was conducted by every civilization since. If one extrapolates, it is revealed that you, of course, are critical of British, European, Roman, ney, Caucasian existence in its entirety. Which Caucasian or group offended you so severely that you inexplicably defected?

    Accuracy and consistency might serve you well. British colonists did not invade another country on the North American continent because there was none. The land was covered by wilderness, wild animals and “undocumented” nomads, AKA savages, defined as “silva”-ticus, “of the woods, wild,” which is accurate.

    American nomads roaming the land when Europeans arrived were named Indians. Elitist, revisionist, Marxist apologists don’t have the authority to rewrite history – to rewrite the facts – to rewrite the truth.

    You must be proud of your courageous engagement of “sitting ducks” taking events out of the context of the era; as if the same reality and concerns apply in the year of our Lord, 2015 as they did in 1607.

    You’d have nomadic Indians owning every country from Canada and America in the north, to Honduras, Peru and Patagonia in South America, simply because they wandered around for a while in those locations – even as there were no surveys of land, bills of sale, receipts, deeds or recorded documents.

    If you were a lawyer, you’d be engaging British medical practitioners in malpractice litigation for not using Penicillin in 1607 – again, taking the facts out of context.

  17. Mr. Schulte,

    Always goes to name calling. And that’s a rather stunning admission. You loathe freethought…

    So no, it is not I who lie, but rather you who is ignorant.

  18. Mr. Schulte,

    Are you aware that America is simply an extension of Anglo rule over lands that has developed over the years? Native Americans are not European…

Comments are closed.