The Monster of Monticello

This Fourth of July we should read Professor Paul Finkelman's excellent article after many incidents of recent racial hatred, gun violence, and President Obama's eulogy at Charleston, S.C. for the victims of another senseless racially motivated killing at a Bible study inside a sanctuary. It had been the target of racists before.  We might look at the third president of our country and see where some of these roots derive from despite the traditional reverence accorded to Jefferson because of his role in writing the Declaration of Independence. Even the flag of the confederacy has provoked many to act to bring it down or request that governors consider that. Obama mentioned in his eulogy bringing it down would not be an act of political  correctness, nor would it detract from those who fought in the civil war, but rather that the purpose the South fought to preserve slavery was wrong. Perhaps now we can face the need to make it harder to put guns into the hands of people not fit to handle a gun. Here are some sobering thoughts on one of our national heroes who was a slaveholder when he drafted the Declaration of Independence. You may be surprised to find his behavior fell far short of what we now expect of our leaders, yet in his time, and even now, he was, and is, revered for his passionate embrace of independence and the American Revolution.



Durham, N.C.

THOMAS JEFFERSON is in the news again, nearly 200 years after his death — alongside a high-profile biography by the journalist Jon Meacham comes a damning portrait of the third president by the independent scholar Henry Wiencek.

We are endlessly fascinated with Jefferson, in part because we seem unable to reconcile the rhetoric of liberty in his writing with the reality of his slave owning and his lifetime support for slavery. Time and again, we play down the latter in favor of the former, or write off the paradox as somehow indicative of his complex depths.

Neither Mr. Meacham, who mostly ignores Jefferson’s slave ownership, nor Mr. Wiencek, who sees him as a sort of fallen angel who comes to slavery only after discovering how profitable it could be, seem willing to confront the ugly truth: the third president was a creepy, brutal hypocrite.

Contrary to Mr. Wiencek’s depiction, Jefferson was always deeply committed to slavery, and even more deeply hostile to the welfare of blacks, slave or free. His proslavery views were shaped not only by money and status but also by his deeply racist views, which he tried to justify through pseudoscience.

There is, it is true, a compelling paradox about Jefferson: when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, announcing the “self-evident” truth that all men are “created equal,” he owned some 175 slaves. Too often, scholars and readers use those facts as a crutch, to write off Jefferson’s inconvenient views as products of the time and the complexities of the human condition.

But while many of his contemporaries, including George Washington, freed their slaves during and after the revolution — inspired, perhaps, by the words of the Declaration — Jefferson did not. Over the subsequent 50 years, a period of extraordinary public service, Jefferson remained the master of Monticello, and a buyer and seller of human beings.

Rather than encouraging his countrymen to liberate their slaves, he opposed both private manumission and public emancipation. Even at his death, Jefferson failed to fulfill the promise of his rhetoric: his will emancipated only five slaves, all relatives of his mistress Sally Hemings, and condemned nearly 200 others to the auction block. Even Hemings remained a slave, though her children by Jefferson went free.

Nor was Jefferson a particularly kind master. He sometimes punished slaves by selling them away from their families and friends, a retaliation that was incomprehensibly cruel even at the time. A proponent of humane criminal codes for whites, he advocated harsh, almost barbaric, punishments for slaves and free blacks. Known for expansive views of citizenship, he proposed legislation to make emancipated blacks “outlaws” in America, the land of their birth. Opposed to the idea of royal or noble blood, he proposed expelling from Virginia the children of white women and black men.

Jefferson also dodged opportunities to undermine slavery or promote racial equality. As a state legislator he blocked consideration of a law that might have eventually ended slavery in the state.

As president he acquired the Louisiana Territory but did nothing to stop the spread of slavery into that vast “empire of liberty.” Jefferson told his neighbor Edward Coles not to emancipate his own slaves, because free blacks were “pests in society” who were “as incapable as children of taking care of themselves.” And while he wrote a friend that he sold slaves only as punishment or to unite families, he sold at least 85 humans in a 10-year period to raise cash to buy wine, art and other luxury goods.

Destroying families didn’t bother Jefferson, because he believed blacks lacked basic human emotions. “Their griefs are transient,” he wrote, and their love lacked “a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation.”

Jefferson claimed he had “never seen an elementary trait of painting or sculpture” or poetry among blacks and argued that blacks’ ability to “reason” was “much inferior” to whites’, while “in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.” He conceded that blacks were brave, but this was because of “a want of fore-thought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present.”

A scientist, Jefferson nevertheless speculated that blackness might come “from the color of the blood” and concluded that blacks were “inferior to the whites in the endowments of body and mind.”

Jefferson did worry about the future of slavery, but not out of moral qualms. After reading about the slave revolts in Haiti, Jefferson wrote to a friend that “if something is not done and soon done, we shall be the murderers of our own children.” But he never said what that “something” should be.

In 1820 Jefferson was shocked by the heated arguments over slavery during the debate over the Missouri Compromise. He believed that by opposing the spread of slavery in the West, the children of the revolution were about to “perpetrate” an “act of suicide on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world.”

If there was “treason against the hopes of the world,” it was perpetrated by the founding generation, which failed to place the nation on the road to liberty for all. No one bore a greater responsibility for that failure than the master of Monticello.

Paul Finkelman, a visiting professor in legal history at Duke Law School, is a professor at Albany Law School and the author of “Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson.”


Police Enabled by Prosecutors

Hello Friends: Here is an excellent article discussing how prosecutors enable police engaged in brutality and excessive force around the country from a knowledgeable civil rights lawyer and even a judge who remarked that this system is not what the founding fathers envisioned. Furthermore, our jails are filled with thousands of innocent people who the criminal "justice" system placed there and continues to do so regularly: police misconduct we can't Breathe poster 121014

By Barry Sussman (about the author)

The American criminal-justice system currently holds the world's largest population of incarcerated people, approximately 2.3 million at last count. It is a system that has people serving life sentences for non-violent offenses and, despite celebrated anecdotal instances of occasional leniency, tends to punish even the most trivial of offenders to the nth degree.

The stunning ease with which indictments and convictions are often obtained has resulted in a flood of false imprisonments. Stories of people spending decades in prison for crimes they did not commit are reported with sickening regularity, begging the question of how prosecutors can be allowed to wield such unchecked power. Incredibly, even when prosecutors are found to have engaged in deliberate withholding of exculpatory evidence, subornation of perjury, and other acts that subvert justice, meaningful accountability is absent. Numerous courts have held that prosecutors are immune from civil liability for such acts.

This unbridled and unchecked power has caused more than one prosecutor to brag about possessing the ability to "indict a ham sandwich." Being before anything else an extension of the prosecutor, the entire grand-jury process in America is ripe for whimsical outcomes and prosecutorial abuse. To obtain an indictment, all a prosecutor must do is present their best examples of inculpatory evidence, explain to the grand jurors how this evidence satisfies the elements of the charges being sought, and let the jury vote. The burden for indictment is nowhere near "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." A prosecutor must only show that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed.

"If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn't get one, something has gone horribly wrong," said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. "It just doesn't happen."

The ease with which prosecutors obtain indictments allows for an overall indictment rate of about 98 to 99 percent. The rate of indictment is even higher in federal court where in 2010, the most recent year for which statistics are available, approximately 162,000 criminal cases were brought before grand juries with indictments being returned in all but 11 of them.

The grand jury is essentially a rubber stamp for prosecutors. This ability to completely control the grand jury's outcome is an invitation for endemic abuse.

Packing prisons with outright innocent and largely over-sentenced, over-prosecuted prisoners is one type of prosecutorial abuse. The statistical certainty of indictment virtually assures defendants that they will be subjected to trial, where conviction rates run as high as 99.5%. This leaves many who fall victim to an overzealous prosecutor with no choice but to plead guilty, regardless of their level of culpability. The problem has become so prevalent in federal court that a federal judge, USDJ Jed Rakoff, recently penned an article entitled "Why Innocent People Plead Guilty."

Rakoff's piece begins with an interesting observation. "The criminal justice system in the United States today bears little relationship to what the Founding Fathers contemplated, what the movies and television portray, or what the average American believes." It goes on to describe how a prosecutor "has all the advantages."

Recent events in Ferguson, MO, and Staten Island, NY, highlight another type of unchecked prosecutorial abuse. Two grand juries, one in New York where Eric Garner was choked to death by officer Daniel Pantaleo, the other in Missouri, where Michael Brown was fatally shot by officer Darren Wilson, defied the statistical certainty of indictment and failed to return criminal indictments against offending police officers. These were both highly anticipated grand-jury results with their respective decisions coming a little more than a week apart. Indictments failed to be returned despite a wealth of inculpatory evidence, including in the Garner matter videotape of the offending officer applying an illegal chokehold while the victim states 11 times that he could not breathe. The tape later shows police officers and EMT personnel failing to make any attempt at resuscitation.

The aforementioned ease with which an indictment can be obtained, coupled with the abundance of inculpatory evidence against the offending officers, strongly suggests that a competent first-year law student vested with ordinary prosecutorial power could have succeeded in securing indictments in these cases. The failure to indict signals this was the goal of the respective prosecutors from the beginning.

While the Garner and Brown killings have brought national attention to the issue, the failure of prosecutors to properly prosecute police is not a new phenomenon and may be more widespread than earlier believed. For example, according to a study by the Houston Chronicle, grand juries in Harris County, Texas, have not indicted a police officer in a decade. Grand juries in Dallas looked at 81 possible cases of police criminality between 2008 and 2012 and indicted only one police officer.

Despite the documented reticence of prosecutors to indict police, their law-enforcement counterparts in various media accounts wrote of the recent results as if they were objective, albeit inexplicable, outcomes.

"The reality of what we saw and what the grand jury's decision is, is really what people are clamoring to understand better," New York state Senate Democratic Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins told USA Today.

"Daily Show" comedian Jon Stewart said of the Garner grand-jury decision, "I don't know. I honestly don't know what to say."

Ekow N. Yankah, a professor at Cardozo School of Law, said, "It is hard to understand how a jury doesn't see any probable cause that a crime has been committed or is being committed when looking at that video, especially." Conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer called the outcome in the Garner matter "totally incomprehensible."

These observers, as well as others, spoke of the grand-jury process as if it was independent of prosecutorial predetermination. When viewed against the backdrop of total prosecutorial control, the decisions not to indict in the Brown and Garner killings are rather easy to understand and point directly to prosecutorial misconduct.

One observer who seemed to have a firmer grasp on how prosecutors run grand juries when police are defendants is retired NYPD detective Frank Serpico. In a column published by the New York Daily News, Serpico wrote, "Was I surprised by the Staten Island grand jury? Of course not. When was the last time a police officer was indicted?" Serpico's piece continued, "Today, we have cops crying wolf all the time. They testify 'I was in fear of my life,' the grand jury buys it, the DA winks and nods, and there's no indictment."

Exculpating the guilty is just another type of prosecutorial abuse and misconduct that can be viewed as the flip side of convicting the innocent. It is another way for prosecutors to project their will with no meaningful oversight or accountability. The prosecutors conducting the theatrical productions posing as the grand juries examining the Brown and Garner killings should admit as much and stop pushing responsibility for the results on grand jurors. Prosecutors' failure to truthfully acknowledge their singular control of the process is not only misleading but offensive to even marginally informed observers.

Prosecutors also need to end the bifurcated system of grand-jury empanelment where ordinary targets are quickly indicted by introducing only the most damning evidence for jurors to consider, while conducting grand juries for police that are replete with exculpatory evidence. Adding insult to injury, prosecutors typically point to a fictitious duty to "seek the truth" as the reason for allowing police defendants the benefit of exculpatory evidence at their grand-jury proceedings. If all defendants were afforded this right, grand-jury indictment rates would be well below their current level of de facto statistical certainty. Prosecutors must place a higher value on equal protection and stop affording their law-enforcement counterparts outrageously disparate preferred treatment.

Barry Scott Sussman- Born and raised in New Jersey. Graduated from Rutgers University with a BA in Sociology. Graduated with a JD from the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law specializing in Federal Criminal Procedure.

The Brown/Garner Killings are about a Larger State of Official Terror

Unarmed Black men killings by police demonstrate Official Police Brutality. Video Tape shows ticketing for Garner selling cigarettes or for Brown,  arrest for robbery, might have been proper, not killing in these disgusting  travesties of justice that seem to be escalating around America depriving all of us of our FREEDOM guaranteed by our Constitution:    Ferguson Protest 12714        

By Harvey Wasserman (about the author)

"These un-prosecuted killings of African-American men go way beyond racial prejudice. They are the calling card of an Orwellian state.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me

Pastor Martin Niemoller, speaking about Nazi Germany

First, they've come for the people of color.

America's police forces increasingly serve as a private corporate army, beyond the reach of the law.

But our nation is distracted by race. And millions of white Americans are under the illusion that what was done to Michael Brown and Eric Garner can't happen to them.

These un-prosecuted killings of African-American men go way beyond racial prejudice. Ferguson Protest, NYC 25th Nov 2014 (image by The All-Nite Images)


They are the calling card of an Orwellian state:

America's founders established grand juries to protect citizens from frivolous prosecution. But today's corporate state has twisted the system to protect killer police from public scrutiny, putting them above the law.

The ultimate message is clear: police can kill American citizens without cause and face no public trial. (Steven Rosenfeld lays out the details here.)

The current focus is on skin color. Thankfully, Americans throughout the US have risen up in protest, demanding social justice and an end to racism.

But the larger issue is a police apparatus now inflicting random terror in service of a corporate state that has mutated far beyond public control.

We are still being assaulted by a cynical 40-year drug war used to disenfranchise and violate the basic rights of millions of Americans with no real recourse.

In the name of that drug war, and the one on terror, police randomly confiscate (steal) billions in cash from citizens of all races, in direct violation of the Bill of Rights and any sense of a real legal system. Police departments use these officially sanctioned armed robberies to help fund heavy war-time weaponry also coming to them as "surplus" from the federal military. Citizens of color, the young, the poor and the elderly are being systematically stripped of the right to vote by a modern electronic Jim Crow. The dominance of a corporate one-party system is furthered by the use of privately-owed, easily-rigged electronic voting machines.

The NSA and other official agencies are spying on us without restraint.

Our ability to communicate through an open, neutral internet is also under attack. Meanwhile a San Diego rapper with no record of violence has been charged with multiple "crimes" based on his lyrics. As anger with America's billionaire elite spreads, we can certainly expect the counter-attacks on open speech to escalate.

That the victims of these latest police killings are most often men of color is tragic. It also gives the corporate media the perfect distraction behind which to hide the root problem.

Throughout our history, race has been the reliably lethal facade for all sorts of political repression. It's the hate-filled poison perfectly designed to divide and distract us.

That sickness is real enough. But the ultimate cancer we face is the rise of an all-powerful corporate state and its iron grip on a violent, unaccountable private army licensed to kill--no matter what the race or cause--while knowing that the once-sacred right to a public trial does not apply to them. Should the attacks on the internet succeed, we'll also be hearing less and less about them.

Thus we are all in the shoes of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. Those who think themselves somehow above it all by virtue of race or class are simply not paying attention.

Unless we rise up to secure social justice and our basic legal rights, we're all just a single cop away from being as dead as the very latest victim of official violence... at any time, for no reason, with no recourse.

Harvey Wasserman edits . His SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at . The Solartopia Green Power & Wellness Show airs at .

HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US is available at, as is A GLIMPSE OF THE BIG LIGHT and clues to the whereabouts of the Holy Grail.


Related Images:


Agent Orange and other herbicides were used widely in Vietnam. Vietnam vets have complained often about the symptoms of exposure to these herbicides.

With federal legislation in 1991, the Department of Veterans Affairs has recognized certain diseases suffered by Vietnam veterans could have a direct relationship to dioxin exposure. That includes ischemic heart disease, adult onset diabetes, Parkinson’s Disease, Hodgkins and non-Hodgkins Lymphomas and a number of types of leukemia and cancer, among other ailments.

But what about their children? Some have had health problems that could also be connected to their parents’ exposure to Agent Orange, including spina bifida, cleft lip and palate, webbed fingers and fused toes and some genital deformities.

A bill to fund research has been proposed to handle this legacy but with only two co-sponsors, there isn’t much chance to get it passed. It would pay for services if the bill passes. Support needs to come from proposed town meetings. Support may come from town-hall meetings.

Many Vietnam veterans were disengaged from the VA after returning home from the war, Porter said. While Many Vietnam veterans were exposed to Agent Orange but don’t their children could have been affected. Advocates urge veterans to file claims for compensation, even if a child’s problem has not yet established it is connected to Agent Orange exposure.

As scientific evidence accumulates, the VA has continues to add to the list of illnesses related to Agent Orange. If an award comes vets urge these children and grandchildren should receive some benefit.

Many vets feel mistreated by the VA system and never sought further help from the VA. With the recent exposure of intentional mishandling of health problems vets sought in Phoenix, and other cities now in the news, this issue will not go away and should open the door to a remedy.

Daniel C. Lavery (website)


Related Images:

Unfair Military Discharge for Minor Mistakes Strips Vet of Benefits Earned

  Join us in protecting veterans from being denied care due to paperwork! Take a few minutes to sign the petition and hear from Josh Christmon, a Purple Heart recipient and U.S. Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Iraq who was wrongfully discharged with a “less than honorable” military discharge.

Here’s Why: Veterans are being denied life saving care they have earned for injuries and illness sustained in service. Too many service members are wrongfully discharged from the military for displaying symptoms of a mental health condition when they should have received mental health care and a diagnosis - instead they got dumped with bad paper.

It's time to stop harming our servicemembers and veterans over paperwork. If we really care about the troops, we must make sure our veterans get the care they have earned.

SIGN THE PETITION   Winter Survival Water from canteen on soldier

Related Images: