American Communism by Any Other Name Still Means Destruction of America

Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments of Progressivism [1]

"Watching Elizabeth Warren give a speech to her fold, you realize she's one of the rare Democrats who can excite her base in the same way Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders can excite their own." As Politico's Katie Glueck wrote on Friday, July 17th, 2014, liberals' minds may be with Hillary Clinton, but their hearts lie with Warren.

Speaking on Friday at Netroots Nation, a convention for liberal bloggers and activists, Warren got the crowd more fired up than Vice President Joe Biden was able to do the day before. (To be fair, the crowd was in a solemn mood at the time in reaction to the news of the Malaysian passenger plane crash). In her speech, Warren outlined more clearly than other Democrats the social issues that galvanize progressives. Her performance was reminiscent of a certain other young senator in 2008.

"What are our values?" Warren asked the audience, some of whom held up "Run Liz Run" signs. "What does it mean to be a progressive?" [Glenn Beck would say "Progressives are Communists with patience."  BUT history shows and tells us that Progressives are Revisionist Socialists. Some would say its semantics BOTH means the destruction way of the American way of life and Freedom. I feel based of on research of the writings Karl Marx as well as that of Socialists and Communists from early ca. 1880's - 1890's; Progressivism is a a hybrid of both or as I have come to believe and called American Communism]

She went on to outline 11 tenets of progressivism:

- "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it." [Does she REALLY mean, "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank, [we are ready have one] with State capital and an exclusive monopoly" (Karl Marx, The Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848, page 26) or is she implying that "The government shall also loan money to States and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works." (Morris Hillquit, History of Socialism in America, 1910 Pages 369-377)?...OM] 

- "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth." [Does she REALLY mean, "...the bringing into cultivation of wasteland, and improvement of soil generally in accordance with a common plan." (ibid) or maybe she means "The extension of the public lands to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power." (ibid page 376) or perhaps, "The scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of swap lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the pubic domain."(ibid)...OM]

- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality." [Could she mean, "Centralization of the means COMMUNICATION and transport in the hands of the State (ibid Page 26) or maybe she meant, "The collective ownership of railroads, TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, steam lines and all other means of SOCIAL transportation and COMMUNICATION (ie. Internet...OM)" (ibid Page 376)...OM]

- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."[Or in other words, "The capitalist class, in its mad race for profits, is bound to exploit the workers to the very limit of their endurance and to sacrifice their physical, moral and mental welfare to its own insatiable greed. Capitalism keeps the masses of workingmen in poverty, destitution, physical exhaustion and ignorance." (ibid page 370)...OM]

- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them." [Is this the same as "The Organization of the working class into a political party  to conquer the public powers now controlled by capitalist"? Or maybe she is hinting that "The struggle between wage workers and capitalists grows ever fiercer, and has now become the only vital issue before the American people. The wageworking class, therefore, has the most direct interest in abolishing the capitalist system."(ibid Page 371)...OM]

- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt." [Maybe she should have just said, "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,..."(ibid Page 26) ...OM]

- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions." [Maybe she should have first reminded everyone that, "In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."" Thus taking the Social Security TRUST fund and putting it in the General budget so that it could be "borrowed from". Or that the "National insurance of the working people against accidents, lack of employment, and want in old age", (ibid Page 376) or maybe she wants, "The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted for American use." Didn't FDR take these socialist/progressive ideas and put them into law ca.1935?...OM]

- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work." [Maybe she should tell her fearless leader, President Obama after all "Women paid significantly less in Obama White House than their male counterparts" Can we say "woman speak with forked tongue" or is it just hypocrisy?...OM] 

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America." [Change traditions, you change the culture, change the culture you change the nation....OM]

- "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform." [So do the majority of the American people, except we believe that it should be done legally, not by flooding the borders an attempting to "tug on the heart strings" because they are children, thus using Cloward & Piven [3] to flood the system....OM]

- "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!" [Warren better re-read the 14th Amendment and the definition of citizen, "a person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country or a person who lives in a particular place." Thus, "While a corporation is a "person" within this Amendment, it is not a "citizen" of the United States whose "privileges or immunities" a State is forbidden to abridge. A State may therefore impose upon a corporation created by another State restrictive conditions respecting its doing business (but not interstate commerce) within the first named State. (Corporation is citizen of State creating it. Bank of United States v. Deveaux (1809), 5 Cranch. 61, ref Amend.,Art.14,Sect.1,Cl.2 but is not citizen of United States, therefore liberty may be abridged by State. Western Turf Assoc.v. Greenberg (1907), 204 U. S. 359, ref Amend.,Art.14,Sect.1,Cl.2)[4] and of course there is always Citizens United.]

And the main tenet of conservatives' philosophy, according to Warren? "I got mine. The rest of you are on your own." [Actually we work for what we earn and the government has no right to redistribute our or anyone else's wealth...OM]

Sources:
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/elizabeth-warrens-11-commandments-of-progressivism/455955/
[2] Berger, Victor L., Social Democratic Herald, whole no. 1, July 9, 1898.
Platform of the Social Democratic Party of America, 1900; published in Appeal to Reason, Sept 15, 1900, page 3
[3] Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty", The Nation, May 2, 1966.
[4] *Norton, Thomas James, The Constitution For The United States, Its Sources and Its Application, Devin-Adair Co., 1940.

*Thomas James Norton was a Member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the 7th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

They May Call Themselves Progressives, I Call Them American Communists

Since Obama began his campaign and after his election news people, conservatives and various “talking heads” have thrown around the terms, labels if you will, Socialists, Communists and of course Progressives.

There have been articles, blog postings, etc. dealing with Progressives and the Progressive agenda and its history. Yet no one has really looked or written about the relationship between Progressivism and Socialism. Yes, I am neglecting Communism because history has shown that though there may be some similarities in goals, the means of achieving them are entirely different.

In fact, recently I posted an article concerning possible Socialist Progressive presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren's eleven commandments of progressivism and compared it to the Socialist agenda from 1908 Socialist Party Platform and Manifesto of the Communists Party (Manifesto). But like all speeches by Socialists Progressives, they don't always tell the real story.

Now I will good further in depth and attempt to enlighten those who don't know that when Progressives talk about their agenda, they are REALLY talking about a Socialist Agenda.

In the following I am going to use two main sources, Center for American Progress (CAP), The Progressive Tradition in American Politics, Part 2 and the Socialist Party of America Platform of 1908 as found beginning page 373 of the History of Socialism in America by Morris Hillquit, 1910. 

Other sources will be noted as required.

The format will be Progressive reforms in bold print, followed by the what the 1908 Socialist Party platform had to say on the same subject in italic with Editor's Note in bold as needed. So open your mind and look at what actually is the Socialists agenda that has been put in place by the so-called Progressives.

The eight-hour workday and 40-hour workweek – 1908 Shortening the workday in keeping with the increased productiveness of machinery and securing to every worker a rest period of not less than a day and a half in each week.

Worker’s compensation for on-the-job accidents – 1908 Abolishing official charity and substituting in its place compulsory insurance against unemployment, illness, accident, invalidism, old age and death.

Unemployment insurance – 1908 See above on Worker's compensation.

Social Security and Medicare to aid the elderly and Medicaid and CHIP to help low-income families and children – 1908 See above on Worker's compensation.

Prohibitions against child labor and workplace exploitation – 1908 Forbidding the employment of children under sixteen years of age and forbidding the interstate transportation of the products of child labor.

The legal right of people to organize within labor unions and engage in collective bargaining for fair wages and benefits – Editor's note: Although the 1908 Socialist Party Platform does not directly address this subject, it does state, The government shall also loan money to States and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works. It shall contribute to the funds of labor organizations for the purpose of assisting their unemployed members, and shall take such other measures within its power as will lessen the widespread misery of the workers caused by the misrule of the capitalist class. Also if one researches the forming of the various labor unions though out American history you will find that a majority of those founders were socialist. 

The constitutional right to vote, full legal equality, and the elimination of formal discrimination for women and minorities – 1908 Unrestricted and equal suffrage for men and women, and we pledge ourselves to engage in an active campaign in that direction.

The graduated income and inheritance tax – 1908 The extension of inheritance taxes, graduated in proportion to the amount of the bequests and to the nearness of kin and a graduated income tax. Editor's note: This is also addressed in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Manifesto of the Communists Party (Manifesto) of which Engels wrote in the Preface of the 1888 Edition: “Yet, when it [sic The Manifesto of the Communist Party] was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated” classes for support.”

Protections against contaminated food and medicines – 1908 The enactment of further measures for general education and for the conservation of health. The bureau of education to be made a department. The creation of a department of public health.

Hundreds of millions of acres of protected wilderness areas, waterways, and national parks – 1908 The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power and the scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of swamp lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the public domain.

National infrastructure including electrification, railways, airports, bridges and roads, and the Internet – 1908 The collective ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, steamship lines and all other means of social transportation and communication.

Minimum wage laws and income support for the working poor – 1908 The immediate government relief for the unemployed workers by building schools, by reforesting of cutover [sic] and waste lands, by reclamation of arid tracts, and the building of canals, and by extending all other useful public works. All persons employed on such works shall be employed directly by the government under an eighthour [sic] work-day and at the prevailing union wages.” (Does this sound at all familiar?...OM)

Public education, college loans and grants for students, and the GI Bill – Editor's note: Although the 1908 Socialist Party Platform does not address this, I once again draw your attention to the Manifesto, “Free education for all children in public schools.”

National supervision of banks and the creation of a flexible national currency – Editor's note: Again one must draw their attention to the Manifesto, Centralisation [sic] of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Can anyone say Federal Reserve?)

Federal insurance of bank deposits – Editor's note: Please see above.

Bans on speculative banking practices – Editor's note: Please see above.

The Progressive reforms that were not directly mentioned in neither the 1908 Socialist Party Platform nor the Manifesto:

Anti-monopoly and anti-competitive regulations of corporations

Direct elections of U.S. senators, although the 1908 platform does mention abolishing the senate.

Direct primary elections of political candidates, and the initiative and referendum process in the states.

Civil service tests to replace political patronage

Regulation of the securities industry although by stretching the meaning of the Manifesto's, Centralisation [sic] of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly this could fall into part of the Socialist agenda.

Refinancing and foreclosure protections for home and farm owners.

Considering that sixteen (maybe 17) out of the twenty one or 76% (81%) of the Progressive reforms that the Center for American Progress brags about can be traced directly to the Socialist Party and/or the Manifest of the Communist Party.

I will allow you the reader to draw your own conclusion that when Democrats call themselves Progressives, they are actually American Communists using a name that won't scare the sheeple or actually show their true agenda and the media both conservative gleefully goes along.

Finally consider what the poet and Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg, a former socialist who later supported Democrats such as Adlai Stevenson and John Kennedy, said of the 1960 Democratic platform: “That’s a very good imitation of the national Socialist Party platform adopted in Chicago in 1908.” Note: Not to be confused with the National Socialist Party of Germany, NAZI...OM

Special thanks to Igor for his assistance and editing.

Let me know what you think.

Semper Fi

People Trust Their Lying Ears More Their Brain

Pop Quiz: How much spending is actually Constitutional?

On May 8, Neil Cavuto presented a show on Fox Business that IF YOU DON'T GET IT, DEMAND IT, called America's Trust Deficit. As with many shows that Mr. Cavuto presents, it hits the target. Particularly in the first ten minutes which dealt with American's lack of trust in the government. A lack of trust that the government has earned by wasting TRILLIONS of American taxpayer's dollars on various programs which are not truly authorized within the Constitution, but have been passed and signed into law. These laws were never challenged, they were just accepted and now they are out of control and NOW people are concerned.

So, the question arises, is it the government that cannot be trusted or is it the people who believe everything a politician or some “talking head” tells them, not bothering to stop and think, “Is this truly what our founding Fathers intended to be the role of the federal government in its citizen's lives.”

This was evident within the first ten minutes of Neil's show when the discussion began with the government's failures with its various programs and showed that even a well respected “talking head” like Steve Moore, a Heritage Foundation visiting fellow, seems to have a lack of understanding of the Constitution and the role of the federal government.

Mr. Moore began by bringing up how much Washington has change and federal spending increased in the 25 to 30 years he had been in the District of Corruption. According to Mr. Moore, federal spending has increased from about a trillion dollars per year in spending to about four trillion in the coming year. He then continued to discuss spending for schools.

Mr. Moore drew attention to the fact that the per pupil spending when compared with the 1950 and 1960's when schools were considered much better, the cost has increased ca. three times as much as it did then. He failed to mention however, that in the 1950's and 1960's there was very little federal money given to local schools.

What followed was usual discussion and various opinions on federal spending, which in my opinion is the same old B.S.. The same B.S. that many others and I have heard over the years from both sides of the aisle. HOWEVER, no where in the discussion about federal spending did anyone bring up the fact that a lot of this federal spending is no where authorized in the Constitution.

In fact, Mr. Moore said, “...(the) problem is this...that government has gotten away from the core functions of what its suppose to do,...its suppose to educate our kids, its suppose to build good roads and highways, its suppose to defend us...”.

Now, such a well educated man like Mr. Moore should realize that the founding Fathers DID NOT intend for the federal government to use tax money to educate our kids. To build (post) roads, YES (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7). To provide for the common defense (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1) by raising and supporting an Army and a Navy (Article 1 section 8, Clauses 12 & 13) definitely YES.

No matter how hard I search the Constitution and read the Federalist papers, I can not find anything that says that the federal government should educate our children. In fact, even the Department of Education admits that “The responsibility for K–12 education rests with the states under the Constitution.”

So, where did Mr. Moore come up with the idea that the federal government is suppose to educate our children? Was it from the Manifesto of the Communist Party, “Free education for all children in public schools...” I don't feel so. 

Was it from the Socialist Party Platform of 1908 and bragged about by the Center of American Progress? Again I don't think so.

I feel that Mr. Moore and many Americans have forgotten one very important thing, even though Mr. Moore eluded to it, “schools were considered much better in 1950 and 1960's”.

That important thing is that “the primary source of federal K–12 support began in 1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).”

This law, basically took the funding of schools at the local level from the states and allowed for the redistribution of wealth from wealthy states to less wealthy states by the federal government. This redistribution of wealth also gave the federal government the opportunity to gain control of the school systems, can anyone say, “Common Core” or "standard testing" which has lead to corruption among those people trust to educate their children and this is just one case, how many more are out there not discovered.

This redistribution of wealth also lead to the increase in the size of government by the creation of the Department of Education in 1979.

I must ask again, just where is the use of federal taxes “to educate our kids” authorized by the Constitution?

This same question can be asked of Medicaid, the various welfare programs and unemployment compensation.

Just where are any of these programs authorized by the Constitution. Or were these programs put in place over the years as part of an agenda to slowly but surly change America from what the founding Fathers intended?

Over all, I found the show informative, but found that Neil Cavuto and the others did not fully explore the real reason why so many people do not trust the federal government or our elected officials.

The reason; is that to REALLY place the blame of this lost of trust would offend many of his viewers. The true source of this distrust is THE PEOPLE. The very same people who would rather believe the politicians who promise to bring “home the bacon” then stop and think, “Is this what the Constitution authorized the federal government to do?”

You tell me, is our current educational system better NOW or was it better before the federal government got involved? Is America better off now, either financially or spiritually, then before the federal government got involved in things not authorized in the Constitution.

Semper Fi!

The Hour of the Wolf – Musings on What is Fair?

As I slowly wake up with my first cup of coffee and cigarette, I turn on the the T.V. and as usual there is a Progressive Socialist complaining that the congress hasn't passed a higher minimum wage. As usual, the Conservative counter point is that the minimum wage should be left to the businesses to determine, something I fully agree with. Then, just as predictable as my second cup of coffee, the Socialist says, “But it’s not FAIR that the owner or CEO of the company makes more then the workers and the government needs to do something about pay inequality.” Isn't the redistribution of wealth one of the main tenets of Socialism?

Later, on a different show, the usual debate on taxes was raging and as regular as clock work, the idea for a FAIR tax was brought up and the usual debate soon followed suit.

I flashed back to something I heard on The Five, when Eric Bolling brought up Obamacare and the Democrat said and I paraphrase, “Its not FAIR that if you don't have insurance and go to the hospital, I have to pay for it.” (ca. 19 March, 2015). Mr. Bolling let a great opportunity pass, all he had to say, "Isn't our tax money paying for Obamacare? Medicaid?What's the difference?"

As I lit my second cigarette and half listened, I started thinking and that's hurts and is rather difficult for me with only two cups under my belt, “WHAT IS FAIR? Who determines JUST what is FAIR?”

Before my rant, let’s take a look at “FAIR”.

I figured it would be easier for readers to check my source if it were online instead of using an old fashion dictionary, so I looked up the meaning of FAIR.

The word FAIR is an interesting word. It can be used as a noun, an adverb, a verb or an adjective.

When it comes to minimum wage, taxes and every other Socialists Democrat talking point, the word FAIR is used as an adjective, so let’s look at those definitions:

1. Agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable

2. Treating people in a way that does not favor some over others

3. Not too harsh or critical

After reading and understanding the word FAIR, I turned to the Constitution and what it has to say about FAIR.

For those who haven't taken time or are too lazy to understand it, I'll remind you that the Constitution lays out WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO, so I'll save you some time, there is only one phrase in the Constitution that may be construed concerning FAIR; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:

“...; but all Duties, Imposts (something imposed or levied : tax...) and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”

There is absolutely nothing concerning FAIR when it comes to a minimum wage, in fact there is nothing about the FEDERAL Government getting involved in what private businesses pay their employees. The same holds true when it comes to health care. Or basically anything else in a citizen's life.

In fact, even the much hated 16th Amendment:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Does not say anything about FAIR.

So. according to the Constitution, the Federal government has absolutely no authority in “Agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable”. But, the Constitution does authorize the Federal government to “treat people in a way that does not favor some over others” and “not too harsh or critical.” Yet it doesn't.

Yet, a minority of people will get out in the streets, riot and yell,”_______(fill in your own pet peeve) is not FAIR.” Is this minority determining or “agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable” for the rest of America.

If that's the case, then I as a minority of one can say, ”Its not FAIR that:

1. That America made a promise to my Brother & Sister Veterans, and BROKE it.

2. Peoples' hard earned money is taxed and used for things not authorized in the Constitution, i.e. welfare, medicaid, Obamacare.

3. Friends of mine, as well as many other Americans, have to work a full time job and then work part time jobs just to make ends meet; yet others, who are fairly capable of working, can sit at home and draw government handouts.

4. That a person is promoted, allowed to commit fraud and given special treatment, because of race or sex.

I could go on, but I fully realize that like beauty, what's FAIR is in the eye of the beholder, so before you yell and cry “That's not fair” ask yourself:

Is it FAIR that a person who HAS worked hard to achieve success, did just about everything that America expected and finally earned the privilege to live and use his hard earned “wealth” anyway that person desires and not be demonized, called names, or be degraded? Isn't this the type of propaganda that Socialists/Communists used and are using to take over a country?

Only in a Socialist country that is on the road to Communism is it FAIR for a small group of people or politicians to determine what a person can do with their own money, what they can say, what they can eat or what they can buy (Some will say that the government doesn't control what you can buy. To them, I say, "Can you buy an incandescent light bulb?)? 

How soon will it be that a small group will determine whether a person should work in an office or on the factory floor, no matter the knowledge or skill, because it is FAIR?

Why should a group of elected politicians who are more concern with their own power than what's right for ALL the people.

"I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service."...Theodore Roosevelt (August 31,1910)

What do you think? Let me know.

Thanks to my "Brain Trust", Igor & the Riceman for their assistance.

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