Deserter Bowe Bergdahl: Continued Pentagon Cover Up

Nearly five months after the release of Taliban prisoner Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl (Calling him Sgt is an insult to ALL who have EARN the rank...OM), the military has yet to release a report on Bergdahl leaving deserting his Afghanistan post in 2009 that also makes recommendations on whether he should be punished. (If he isn't punished, that would mean ANY member of the military who decides to desert his post would / should go unpunished, an extremely bad precedent will be set or has that precedent already been set some 20+ years ago with the case of Robert Russell Garwood, another case that it my opinion had political overtones considering we had a Draft Dodging Commander in Chief in the White house...OM)

The Pentagon says it is not holding up the decision, though the review by Army Gen. Kenneth Dahl was finished in early October. (Waiting for Boo Boo's intervention? ...OM)

Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, recently acknowledged the report has been completed and said it is under review.

“As you know, in this building that can sometimes take a while, especially for major investigations like this," he said. (Considering that the Pentagon has become more about politics then about defense. ...OM)

Desertion in the military is technically punishable by death. But given the circumstances of Bergdahl's case, such a sentence is essentially out of the realm of possibility. (Why?...OM)

Editor's Note:

ARTICLE 85. DESERTION

Did Bergdahl

(a) Any member of the armed forces who–

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away there from permanently; YES.

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or - YES

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, (WAS AMERICA AT WAR...YES! DID BERGDAHL LEAVE HIS POST WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION?...YES! Whats the problem?) but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

Bergdahl, the only American prisoner in the war deserter in Afghanistan, could face a lesser administrative punishment including forfeiture of back pay or even jail time. But Army officials are acutely aware of the potential political backlash that could follow severely punishing a prisoner of war  deserter. (Since when does "political backlash" have any influence on the Military Justice system?...OM)

Meanwhile, Bergdahl is still serving as a sergeant(Be interesting to hear him giving a lower rank instructions / orders...OM) at Fort Sam Houston in Texas. He has a desk job with the Army after being held captive for roughly five years, much of that time spent in a metal box (Where's the proof? Considering there are photos of him holding a weapon and playing soccer. Isn't the first duty of an American POW as explained by Article 3 of the Code of Conduct:

Article III

a. If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy. ...OM)

Bergdahl’s May 2014 release, which was secured by exchanging five high-value Taliban detainees from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, has sparked widespread controversy.

Soon after President Obama announced the exchange, many of Bergdahl’s former unit members spoke out, calling him a deserter, saying he put fellow soldiers’ lives at risk. (Accessory before and after the fact?...OM)

At least some Republican lawmakers think it was a bad deal. (So do a lot of the American people....OM)

Sen. John McCain referred to the prisoners as “the Taliban dream team.”

"These are the worst of the worst, the hardest of the hardest,” the Arizona Republican (And former REAL POW...OM) told Fox News. “I can't tell you how dangerous these people are."

Now, California GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter, a former Marine (HEY FoxNews, There is NO SUCH THING as a FORMER MARINE...OM), wants to know whether the swap included a ransom and if the United States was swindled. (And the American people and the Critters will never know, just like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting scandal and the list goes on and on ad nauseam...OM)

"It has been brought to my attention that a payment was made to an Afghan intermediary who ‘disappeared’ with the money and failed to facilitate Bergdahl's release in return," Hunter wrote Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in a Nov. 4 letter.

The alleged payment, Hunter says, was made in February through the Joint Special Operations Command and might have exceeded $1 million.

“Number one, you can't pay ransoms,” Hunter told Fox News. “Number two, if there is an exceptional case when you can get an American back, then there ought to be some oversight and there has to be some congressional purview over this -- and there hasn't been. I mean the (Defense Department) can't break the law and have no repercussions whatsoever.”

The Pentagon told Hunter on Friday that no money was exchanged and that paying ransom is indeed against the law.

“There was no ransom paid,” Kirby told reporters. “Nor was there an attempt to do so that failed.”

Hunter’s office still alleges that FBI operatives and members of the Army’s elite Delta Force orchestrated a botched cash exchange and says the congressman will request a formal investigation of the matter by the Defense Department’s inspector general.

The deal purportedly involved Delta members giving the money to an informant who disappeared instead of giving Bergdahl to FBI agents at a predetermined spot inside Afghanistan, on the border with North Waziristan.

Concerns about the circumstances of the prisoner swap have increased in the wake of the Islamic State executing five Americans in the past four months.

The president has ordered a review of how American hostages are handled by the U.S. government. (In other words, Boo Boo wants America to START negotiating with terrorists...OM)

Families of the beheaded Americans have issued complaints about how their sons’ cases were handled. However, the White House says it has no plans to allowing ransom to be paid for hostages. (YEA RIGHT,,,OM)

Semper Fi!

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/26/public-awaits-military-completed-bergdahl-report-that-includes-recommendations/?intcmp=latestnews

Politically Correct DoD Renames “unlawful combatants” in Detainee Manual

In fact, captured terrorists went out of style a long time ago, so that’s not the actual change. Until recently — like, say, two weeks ago — the Department of Defense used the term unlawful combatant as the label for terrorists captured by American military and intelligence forces as a way to distinguish them from uniformed soldiers of a recognized state authority in a straight-up fight. Their new manual dispenses with that term, the Federation of American Scientists noticed today (November 26, 2011) (via Steven Aftergood and Olivier Knox):

When it comes to Department of Defense doctrine on military treatment of detained persons, “unlawful enemy combatants” are a thing of the past. That term has been retired and replaced by “unprivileged enemy belligerents” in a new revision of Joint Publication 3-13 on Detainee Operations, dated November 13, 2014.

The manual even has this helpful chart for readers:

The only actual mention of the previous term comes in the Summary of Changes on page iii, which notes that the revision “[r]evises terminology, taxonomy, and definitions for unlawful enemy combatant, unprivileged belligerent, detainee, and detainee operations.” There is no particular explanation for why unlawful combatant no longer suffices, or why “unprivileged” makes for a clearer understanding between the categories of legitimate POW and everyone else.

So what’s going on here? Political correctness run amok, like saying there’s no such thing as an unlawful person? A way to reinforce the idea of “privilege”? No, not really — or at least not on the DoD’s behalf. If anyone’s to blame for the blandification of nomenclature … it’s Congress. The new revision to the DoD manual brings the terminology in line with 10 U.S. Code § 948a, which provides definitions for detainee policies rewritten by Congress to refine the military-commission process. It provides a very precise definition of the two classes of belligerents (Don't they mean ENEMIES...OM):

(6) Privileged belligerent.— The term “privileged belligerent” means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

(7) Unprivileged enemy belligerent.— The term “unprivileged enemy belligerent” means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—

    (A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
    (B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or            its coalition partners; or
    (C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.

This section goes back to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, sponsored by Mitch McConnell, but the new terms were introduced in the 111th Congress in the NDAA for 2009. It passed in October 2009 and was signed a few days later by President Obama. The only contemporaneous discussion of this change I could find in a quick search was by Joanne Mariner at Findlaw, who dismissed it as “cosmetic.” Another change was somewhat more substantial:

The new law begins by tweaking the definition of individuals eligible for trial before military commissions — most obviously by scrapping the phrase “unlawful enemy combatant,” and replacing it with “unprivileged enemy belligerent.” This is a cosmetic change, not a real improvement, which mirrors the administration’s decision to drop the enemy combatant formula in habeas litigation at Guantanamo Bay.

In addition, the new definition sets out three separate grounds on which a person might be deemed an “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” which vary somewhat from the grounds for eligibility included in the previous definition. The third ground, now separate from the previous two, is membership in Al Qaeda, whether or not the member has engaged in or supported hostilities against the US. (Under the previous definition, membership in “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces” was relevant to the determination of whether a person had engaged in or supported hostilities, but was not itself a distinct ground for eligibility.)

Notably, the Taliban is no longer specifically named in the new definition. This suggests, perhaps, that the administration is acknowledging a meaningful difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and wants to leave open, at least for the future, the possibility that the Taliban is not the enemy (Then why doesn't Boo Boo invite the Taliban to the WH for a coffee summit?...OM).

That might seem a little more notable in the wake of the Bowe Bergdahl swap (Where is the media, FOWNEWS in particular, following up on what the Army did with this deserter?,,,OM). It’s possible that this could provide the White House a way to press for the release of more Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay (So that they can go back & join ISIS/ISSL or whatever they want to call it. I call them enemies...OM), but it would be a tendentious and silly argument. Publicly, the administration (The same administration that said if you like your doctor or your health insurance you can keep them?....OM) has argued that the risk from their release has disappeared by now, which is their main and most effective argument, even if experience has clearly proven it to be untrue — which we’ve known for years.

At any rate, the new nomenclature seems pretty silly, and the need to change from unlawful combatant non-existent. Don’t blame the Department of Defense for it, although we can certainly wonder why it took them five years to catch up to the changes (and what may have prompted the recent action). That silliness comes from one of America’s great resources of silliness and meaningless redefinitions of perfectly suitable language — from your elected officials on Capitol Hill. On the plus side, we can now ask terrorists to check their unprivilege as they enter the detention system, or something.

Let us know what you think.

Semper Fi!

A thank you to the Riceman for the tip!

Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/26/dod-renames-unlawful-combatants-in-detainee-manual-to/

Monarch (Tyrant, Despot?) or President?

This is a special post written by The Riceman, a friend, colleague and fellow Patriot. I'm honored to post it here.

In Federalist #69, Hamilton compared the powers and limitations of the proposed U.S. Executive to the powers of the British Monarch. Here are a few excerpts (emphasis is mine):

1. The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. (Apparently, the Republicans are treating the Current Occupant as a Monarch, since they cannot even bring themselves to utter the "I-Word".)

2. The President is to have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur. The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can of his own accord make treaties of peace, commerce, alliance, and of every other description. It has been insinuated, that his authority in this respect is not conclusive, and that his conventions with foreign powers are subject to the revision, and stand in need of the ratification, of Parliament. But I believe this doctrine was never heard of, until it was broached upon the present occasion. Every jurist of that kingdom, and every other man acquainted with its Constitution, knows, as an established fact, that the prerogative of making treaties exists in the crown in its utomst plentitude; and that the compacts entered into by the royal authority have the most complete legal validity and perfection, independent of any other sanction. (Witness the Current Occupant's recent Greenhouse Gas/Climate Change Agreement with China: He decreed it to be so--there's no talk of the Congress ratifying ANYTHING!)

3. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. (Taking the second point first: didn't the Current Occupant actually select the new head of General Motors, after the government took controlling interest in that corporation, as well as Chrysler Corp.? Lastly, what of today's planned announcement of the Executive Order granting Amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants plus the millions more that will come due to both the porous border and chain immigration?)

So, do we still have a national executive, or has it degenerated in to a Hereditary/Monied Aristocracy Monarch (Bushes & Clintons)? 

President or Monarch/Tyrant/Despot??

Sources: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa69.htm

                http://constitution.org/c5/

Semper Fi and thank you Riceman!

Our Veterans Still Facing Enemies Who Can Destroy Their Lives

Prior to the recent election, America was made aware of those who unselfishly gave up part of their lives to don the uniform of the American military were facing the broken promises of America just as those who went before them when it comes to receiving much needed healthcare from the VA.

Talking heads, T.V. and radio hosts jumped on the bandwagon, some even saying that they'll, "Give the VA 90 days for the VA to show some improvement" after Congress passed "emergency" funding and a new administrator was appointed and ratified. Where are they now?

Well, just as in the past there has been little improvement.

Some VA hospitals used the funding for big screen T.V.'s in the hospital, while the inpatient veterans were going without properly cleaned blankets.

Roughly 10% of all the Veterans Affairs patients are still waiting a month or more for appointments.

Now, though this may seem to be a minor problem for some, we learn that those who visit the VA are once again facing an enemy. This enemy may not take their physical lives but can take their personal lives.

Two years after a major security breach compromised the personal information of over 4,000 veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) continues to suffer from systemic “security weaknesses,” according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

“While the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has taken actions to mitigate previously identified vulnerabilities, it has not fully addressed these weaknesses. … Until VA fully addresses previously identified security weaknesses, its information is at heightened risk of unauthorized access, modification, and disclosure and its systems at risk of disruption,” the report found.

The VA has experienced multiple high-profile breaches in recent years, and the report cautions that unless it corrects “underlying” security vulnerabilities in its systems, breaches are likely to continue and could result in unauthorized access and disclosure of personal information.

Many of the weaknesses identified in the report are not new, but the inspectors say the agency has failed to sufficiently address some of the “previously identified vulnerabilities.”

The VA Inspector General released a report in February 2013 that identified deficiencies in “management controls intended to ensure that VA’s critical systems have appropriate security baselines and up-to-date vulnerability patches,” and made recommendations to resolve the problems.

The VA said they completed the recommendations and would continue to improve those security controls but the recent inspection found that the VA failed to deliver on that promise.(Haven't "we" heard this before?...OM)

“The department has not yet effectively implemented a program to manage vulnerabilities and apply associated patches,” the report notes. “Until it does so, it will remain at increased risk that known vulnerabilities could be exploited.”

The IG made eight recommendations to correct the problems, but the agency appears to be off to a poor start implementing those.

The VA received a draft of the findings, and responded that six of the recommendations were implemented. However, the report notes that inspectors “are concerned that the actions VA described as completed for at least two of the six recommendations may not comprehensively address the weaknesses we identified.”

The latest report marks the 16th consecutive year the agency has failed a cyber security assessment. The House Veteran Affairs Committee held a hearing on Tuesday to address the ongoing concerns.

Chairman Jeff Miller (R., Fla.) said in his opening remarks that the VA’s Technology Office has “greatly contributed to the problems of data manipulation” by failing to address the persistent weaknesses.

“These failures are not because of a lack of resources, as some VA senior officials want us to believe,” he said. “Within the past decade, Congress has provided over 28 billion dollars to VA’s Office of Information and Technology to ensure its goals and actions are aligned with and driving the strategic goals of the agency. Given the availability of resources, it is apparent that this office’s lack of success and repeated under performance is a leadership failure.”

Let us know what you think.

Semper Fi!

Source: http://freebeacon.com/issues/va-has-not-corrected-security-problems/

More than 600,000 veterans wait a month or more for appointments at VA

More than 600,000 veterans — 10% of all the Veterans Affairs patients — continue to wait a month or more for appointments at VA hospitals and clinics, according to data obtained by USA TODAY.

The VA has made some progress in dealing with the backlog of cases that forced former secretary Eric Shinseki to retire early this year. For instance, the VA substantially cut the overall number of worst-case scenarios for veterans — those who had waited more than four months for an appointment. That figure dropped from 120,000 in May to 23,000 in October. Much of that improvement occurred because patients received care from private providers.

Since May, the VA has been reduced the number of veterans waiting longest for care — its top priority — by 57%, according to James Hutton, a VA spokesman. From June to September, the VA completed 19 million appointments, an increase of 1.2 million compared with the same time last year.

"VA's goal continues to be to provide timely, high-quality healthcare for veterans," Hutton said in a statement. "Veterans and VA employees nationwide understand the need for reform, and VA is committed to putting these reforms into place. And while we have significantly improved capacity and access to care, we have not yet achieved our intended state — systemic and timely access across the board. It will be an ongoing and significant effort to reach our goals."

To recruit more health care providers, VA Secretary Robert McDonald has proposed pay hikes for VA doctors and dentists, Hutton said. McDonald announced a restructuring of the VA on Nov. 10.

The new data show that dozens of hospitals and clinics leave a quarter or more of all their patients waiting 30 days or more for an appointment.

• Some facilities still have extremely long wait times for basic care, including 64 that have average wait times over 60 days for new patients seeking primary care. They include major facilities, such as hospitals in Baltimore; Jacksonville, Fla.; Temple, Texas, and Atlanta. All have at least 30,000 pending appointments.​

In Jacksonville, the average new patient is left waiting 77 days, a fact that previously obscured in the VA's data because it was averaged into the much-better performance of the nearby Gainesville hospital. Jacksonville only sees two-thirds of its patients within 30 days, the worst rate of any major facility in the VA system.

The VA is hiring more staff to deal with those delays, Hutton said.

• Ten facilities reported waits of more than three months for a new patient to see a specialist. At the top of the list: the Westmoreland, Pa., clinic, where patients are waiting 174 days — nearly six months — for a specialty appointment.

Thirty-three facilities have kept new patients seeking a mental-health appointments waiting for at least two months (I wonder if there is any data on if any of these veterans, committed suicide during those two months?...OM) . Among those are large hospitals in Martinsburg, W.Va., Amarillo, Texas, and Tuskegee, Ala. And 10 clinics and hospitals kept established patients waiting at least three weeks longer than the patients wanted for mental health appointments.

• Some small locations have big waiting times, too. The Wagner, S.D., clinic near the Nebraska state line, has only 155 total appointments of any type pending — and its new patient wait time is 153 days.

The data looks at nearly 6 million appointments until Oct. 1 and scheduled through Veterans Health Administration.

Members of Congress continue to express dissatisfaction (They "express" dissatisfaction, BUT not doing anything about it...OM) with the delays in disciplining VA employees involved in covering up the long wait times.

"The events of the last year have proven that far too many senior VA leaders have lied, manipulated data, or simply failed to do the job for which they were hired," said Rep. Jeff Miller, a Florida Republican and chairman of House Veterans' Affairs Committee, during a hearing Thursday. "It is also clear that VA's attempt to instill accountability for these leaders has been both nearly non-existent and rife with self-inflicted roadblocks to real reform."

What do you think? Please let us know.

Semper Fi!

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/16/long-wait-times-persist-at-many-va-hospitals/19033789/

Remembering the Veterans Year Round

                             

The election is finally over, the future course for America may have been changed and the various news organizations and “talking heads” are dissecting, praising or making excuses for the victories or defeats of the various political races.

With all the chatter, it seems strange that there is little to no mention of how these races will affect the forgotten men and women who sacrificed to make these elections possible, THE VETERANS.

Americans are celebrating Veterans Day (Remembrance) with various sales, a day off from work, maybe a parade or two, some small gatherings or just resting.

Most people will not really be thinking about or asking what they can REALLY do to honor and celebrate those fine men and women, who stood up when the American people called to protect the Freedoms that many sheeple have taken for granted.

As a Veteran may I suggest a few ways for people to truly honor the American Veteran.

To me one of the most important ways to honor and remember the Veteran is to remind those in Congress, the talking heads, celebrities (be fore warned some do not like to be called out) and others that just because Congress passed and POTUS signed “The Veterans Access,Choice and Accountability Act of 2014” that now all is “well” with the VA. IT ISN'T! 

So, what can YOU do?

Start by continuing to remind those who “voiced” outrage about the pi$ poor treatment that the Veterans have / have not received, then disappeared from the public eye. They got their publicity or whatever they were seeking but nothing has changed. The plight of the Veteran continues.

To do this, do what every warrior does, use every “weapon” available to you.

“Weapons” like twitter, snail mail, email, telephones whatever YOU can, its up to You.

Another way to honor the Veterans year round, not just on the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month and it will mean a little sacrifice on your part. YES, a sacrifice.

This sacrifice will require some time and maybe foregoing that extra cup of custom coffee or that extra donut.

As far as time, search the Net for the phone number of the nearest VA in your area then pick up the phone and call the VA hospital and ask, “What 'health and comfort' items are needed for inpatient Veterans?” For those not familiar with “health and comfort” items, these are the things most Americans take for granted, things like toothbrushes, toothpaste, deodorant, etc.

Remember, a number of veterans admitted to the VA hospitals come in on weekends,completely unprepared and may not have someone to bring them these items,

"Those healthcare professionals who REALLY give a damn, have to hustle in the attempt to find those needed “health and comfort” items elsewhere in the hospital"

You may also ask them what other items might be needed to may help make the Veterans' stay in the hospital a little more pleasant. Items such as books, playing cards, etc.

As you can guess by now, the sacrifice of time and money are linked.

You are now armed with a “list” of needed items from your phone call to the VA and the money you save by foregoing that extra cup of coffee or donut; its time to “attack”.

On your next trip to the local Wally World (just as an example) wander back to the pharmacy section and look. You will find shelves of various travel sized “health and comfort” items, most cost about $0.97 plus tax.

You can also find other inexpensive items throughout the pharmacy area, use your judgment. Spend what you can afford. Remember every little bit helps.

You can figure out whether you want to take these items to the VA on a weekly or a monthly basis. OR if taking a trip to the VA hospital is not convenient, call the VA and ask them about mailing these items. REMEMBER to get the mailing address. 

Another way to help and remember the Veterans and I'm borrowing this from Jason F. Wright and his Christmas jar project. But instead of a Christmas jar, why not a Veteran's jar?

Mr. Wright's original idea was to have a jar, you may already have one, that you throw your change in at the end of the day. Then quietly and anonymously leave the jar on a needy family's doorstep during the Christmas season. Don't worry if there isn't a large sum of money in the jar, when a family is “hurting”, every little bit helps.

Let's just modify this a little bit. Instead waiting till the Christmas season, find a Veteran in your neighborhood that may be struggling and anonymously leave it for him or her on Veterans Day.

If you don't know of a Veteran who is struggling, donate it to one of the many Veteran's organizations.

Or you can use it to buy the needed items for those in the VA hospitals. IF you really care, want to help and honor the Veterans you can figure out what to do with the Veterans Jar.

So, as you leave the house this Veterans' Day to go and shop those Veterans' Day sales ask yourself, “Is this really the way to remember and honor those men and women who sacrificed for my freedom? Is there something more I can do?”

Semper Fi!

Once again, I must thank Igor for his proof reading and editing.

There Are Lies, Damn Lies and Then There Are Democrats

Charlie Rangel continues with the rest of the Socialists Democrats including Adolf Hitler in believing that "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed ", during a Thursday campaign rally for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D).

Rangel has joined the rest of the of the Democrats in their main campaign strategy of race baiting and FEAR by comparing some members of the GOP to confederates from the Civil War era [Whose leaders were mainly Democrats...OM]. But at the Thursday (October 30) evening event, he added that they "believe that slavery isn't over."

Not surprisingly I disagree with him. It has been the Democrats/ Progressives / Socialists or whatever you choose to call them that continue to believe in slavery.

Not the physical slavery of whips and chains, but chains of the mind and the whips of dependence on the government if they really think and choose to vote against Democrats.

Consider what President Lyndon B. Johnson said to two governors on board Air Force One after he launched the "Great Society" in 1964-1965,

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” [I will not apologize for the use of an offensive word, it is a DIRECT quote...OM]

or when LBJ said,

"These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference."

Thus LBJ successfully returned African Americans to mental chains of the plantation.

And now Obama is planning to add millions of new slaves to the Democrat controlled plantation. 

This new plantation is complete with the overseers, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who make millions of dollars and live rather well while those they oversee continue to in poverty within the inner city.

These overseers or their friends have ensured that IF one or more of their "charges" attempt to or even break the chains of poverty that they are "whipped" with everyone watching by a constant bombardment of degrading statements and insults.

"In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and there were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master ... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him." [Harry Belafonte about Colin Powell. YET Colin Powell chose to support race over freedom when he supported Obama in 2008. Strange Powell is very silent now...OM]

Rangel continued,

"We have to win. We have to be able to send a national message with Andrew Cuomo. And the thing is: Everything we believe in — everything we believe in — they hate. They don't disagree — they hate! They think if you didn't come from Europe 30 years ago, you didn't even make it. Some of them believe that slavery isn't over and they and think they won the Civil War!"

Sorry Charlie, but it was Abraham Lincoln, a REPUBLICAN, who guided America through the Civil War after the DEMOCRATIC Governors of the Southern States decided to succeed from the union over slavery.

It would be Lincoln who would issue Emancipation Proclamation, declaring all slaves in rebel territory free in 1862.

Finally, on the subject of slavery, was it not the Democrats who worked hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations? Wasn't it the Democrats who actually started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem?

As Rangel continued about the upcoming midterm elections,

"And so what we have to do is send a collective voice. Everything we're doing is God's work [God's work? or Karl Marx's work?...OM]: education [Why do Democrats constantly vote against Charter Schools?], healthcare, affordable housing, [protecting against] discrimination, paying people the minimum wage."

"Caesar, too, helped the people, but they lost their liberty to him."

Sources: 

http://www.businessinsider.com/charlie-rangel-some-republicans-believe-that-slavery-isnt-over-2014-10

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/some-of-the-lost-history-in-the-civil-rights-movement

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2309727/posts