Why Trash the Founding Fathers on the 4th of July President Obama?

1. 67

   AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

   OBAMA:  We celebrate the principles that are timeless, tenets first declared by MEN OF PROPERTY AND WEALTH but which gave rise to what Lincoln called a new birth of freedom in America, civil rights and voting rights, workers' rights and women's rights and the rights of every American.
   
   
   
   The founding fathers?   We remember them because they were men of property and wealth? 
   
   Were they all wealthy property owners even?  No.
   
   "A few of the 1787 delegates were wealthy, but many of the country's top wealth-holders were Loyalists who went to Britain. Most of the others had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent, but there are other founders who were less than wealthy. On the whole they were less wealthy than the Loyalists."  Wikipedia
   
   
   
   Maybe Communists and Socialists refer to the founding fathers as "men of property and wealth" but that is hardly the reason why American patriots honor and esteem these most excellent and brave, brilliant and honorable, wise and good men who stood up to the powerful British Empire to buy our freedom.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Good post.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      But they were men of property and wealth.  Why take that as an insult?

      replyreport
      1. 67

         AnnCeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "But they were men of property and wealth.  Why take that as an insult?"
         
         
         
         Why would the president of the United States on the day this nation celebrates our independence refer to our founding fathers as rich men who owned property?
         
         What does that have to do with the nation they founded?
         
         What does it have to do with the great things they did?
         
         They were not the wealthiest men in the country.  Some of them, weren't wealthy at all.
         
         Barack Obama referred to them as "men of property and wealth" because he sees them as powerful white men.   
         
         He is not content with the Constitution they wrote and adopted, nor with the Bill of Rights. 
         
         He wants to fundamentally transform this country, as he said, he doesn't like the FOUNDATION of this country.
         
         He thinks it was founded by rich white men for rich white people.  Don't forget the minister under whose teachings he sat for 20 long years.
         
         "Not God bless America, NO NO NO, God damn America!"  Yes.  That minister.  Those teachings.  Twenty long years.  Married there. Children baptized there.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            His mentor Jeremiah Wright is at it again too.  Have you read the latest rant from him?

            replyreport
         2. 84

            psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            What is has to do with America is that America is almost the only nation founded on the priviledge elite voluntarily sharing that power with the masses--moving away from tyranny rather than towards it.  That is what he is saying. I really do not see where you are getting your interpretation of his word from.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               AnnCeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               He plays up the class aspect, Psyche. 
               
               I found it shocking to hear the president refer to the founding fathers as men of property and wealth.  I would expect it in a black studies classroom.  But not on the 4th of July from the president of the United States.
               
               It is drawing a class line between Americans.  Which Democrats do on a regular basis.  Class and race are the source of all their power.  I found it in very poor taste.

               replyreport
            2. 60

               Strophiosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "Voluntarily sharing power with the masses"?
               
               You have a warped view of American history. What of the struggles of the unions during the Gilded age? What of the struggles of those trying to obtain legal racial equality? What of the struggles of the suffragettes? What of the fact that many of the founders are recorded with strong anti-democratic sentiments (as seen out by the fact that Senators were not directly elected until the twentieth century and that the president is still not directly elected)?
               
               It was not voluntary. It has been fought for every step of the way.

               replyreport
         3. 60

            Strophiosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Everything. He was making a comparison for rhetorical effect. He was pointing out that even though this nation was founded by white men of privilege, it has managed to steer itself along a path towards greater freedom and equality, towards a goal of liberty and justice for all, as opposed to just white propertied males.
            
            
            
            See above.
            
               
            
            Which they were. In fact, if you had to level a demographic judgment upon them as a group, that is the judgment which you would have no choice but to make.
            
             
            
            Niether were they. They knew it might be insufficient, that's why the created the amendment process. Additionally, there were those among the most famous of the founders who simply did not like the Constitution: see Thomas Jefferson, among others.
            
            Also, on the Bill of Rights, they weren't content either, which is why we have the Ninth Amendment at all.
            
            
            
            In the same way this country has been fundamentally transformed over the past two hundred odd years. If you don't think women's suffrage, emancipation, and civil rights were fundamental changes, then you have a very warped definition of fundamental. You may recall that the foundation of this country had a provision specifically stating that slaves were to be counted as three-fifths of a person. That's a part of the foundation I want nothing to do with.
            
            
            
            Because it was.

            replyreport
         4. 84

            kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            What does that have to do with the nation they founded?
            
            Well, for starters, in the original Constitution, the Founders left it up to the states to decide who should have the right to vote, and 10 of the 13 states made property ownership a requirement.
            
            Obama is not insulting the Founding Fathers, he's celebrating how far we've come, from a society (which was nevertheless progressive for its time) where only white men who owned property were allowed to vote to one where all adult citizens in good standing have that right. He's saying that we took a good hand and made it better. This is insulting how?

            replyreport
      2. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         yeah... doesn't "having money" mean that you're actually working hard and providing society with things that it needs?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Like Madoff and Ken Lay?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               like steve jobs, bill gates, rockefeller, ford, hill... and every other non-government-leeching rich person? (rockefeller did end up leeching off government, but he made his fortune honestly)

               replyreport
   3. 60

      Strophiosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Seems right to me. Especially as his reference to Lincoln and then to women's rights demonstrates very clearly that he may well mean "property and wealth" in comparison to the state blacks and women at the time. Blacks, you may recall, were mostly slaves (in fact, many of the founders owned a few) and women were still little above property. They were certainly not politically active or even faintly able to hold property or wealth.
      
      
      
      Well, we're certainly not remembering the bravery of the likes of Daniel Shays (of Shays' Rebellion) nor the men of the Whiskey Rebellion, who even all owned land.
      
      So, although it may be fair to say that we don't remember them for their property and wealth, it is very likely that we remember them to some degree because of their property and wealth.
      
      
      
      Compared to the vast majority of Americans, yes they were. Keep in mind here two things: first, that even if they weren't wealthy in comparison to white, landowning, males (the only ones really considered effective political people at that time), they were still wealthy in comparison to women and slaves.
      
      Additionally, even ignoring the massive proportion of the population which the founders themselves would discount based on sex and race, the founders were still wealthy compared to the average American, if only by dint of their power. Has anyone ever explained to you the great swindle of the Revolutionary War? How the money which was used to pay the average dog soldier, being worth nearly nothing, was subsequently bought up by the rich, so that the founders could then order that it be redeemable on a one to one basis? Because that's quite the interesting story.
      
      
      
      That's a very nice citation you have there, I'm actually a bit impressed (citations are so rare these days). However, it proves very little. The conclusion is that "On the whole they were less wealthy than the Loyalists." That may well be true, but given that "many of the country's top wealth-holders were Loyalists," that isn't saying very much. I might add that if you continue down the page you will discover this: "The Founding Fathers had strong educational backgrounds." In those days, "strong educational background" almost invariably meant wealth. Hell, literacy was abnormal in some places.
      
      
      
      Maybe Communists and Socialists know their history and historical demographics then. It would really be a shame though, if such historical education were ideologically restricted.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Obama keeps showin' that chip on his shoulder, daring people to knock it off.   Until someone with some clout actually gets the nerve to verbally stand up to him, he will continue his insinuations and insults toward anyone he chooses.   I've noticed he doesn't play favorites---not only does he insult the intelligence of people who are living, but he also the deceased who can no longer defend themselves.    He is sooooo diverse and tolerant, ain't he?  LOL
      
      Thanks for being in tune to notice his manipulations; you have a keen eye;  and boldness in truth.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It is not possible to be more transparently misleading - the founding fathers were the top wealthy and political figures of the day.   In fact there is often debate about their interpretation of 'freedom' as they were slave owning people and many of what you would now call people were bonded to them and the class they represented.  It was a slave owning society, like most of the colonial west and the other colonies around the place.  Today you are bonded by debt and enslaved to your employer is the only difference, of course you can change your job and choose your master but it is the same principle.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Same principle my A$$!  14 years ago I quit my job, paid all my debts but my home and walked away from it all.  Tell the slave he should do the same!
         
         14 years ago I owned a car, some clothing and a TV.  I now own a comfortable home, 3 cars and 2 TV's.  My children are educated and married on their own - they call no one "owner"  Tell the slave he should have  these same things.
         
         I, and only I, choose where I live, how I live and who (if anyone) I work for.  Tell the slave he has the same freedom.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Congratulations on being one of the lucky ones - I notice that you say you are free because you 'quit your job', surely you can see that you are agreeing with the principle in how you write if not in what you write.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The principle was that I was indeed free to quit that job and find another, not that I was free only after quitting.  The slave can do none of the things I listed and to insist there is no difference can be only political posturing.  Do you also claim the holocaust never happened?  Not much difference - no slavery, no holocaust.......

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Now there is a wild jump of subject to bring in the Holocaust for whatever warped reasoning - just like our TK SabOh - :d
                  
                  slavery is when you have no freedom to live your life, you are forced to live it for others - just because it is now a corporate 'other' rather than the guy in big house who comes around on sunday after church to rape your wife and daughter - does not change the fact that it is an apparent freedom, you are held in place by your debt with the illusion that mowing your lawn on saturday and being free to go to the bar once a week and the rest of the time sucking up bull***t from your TV does not make you free.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I see.  We just have vastly different definitions of the word "slavery".  To you it means that I cannot have whatever I want without working or paying for it; to me it means I cannot have what I want at all.
                     
                     To equate slavery to my freely agreeing to debt never occurred to me; I apologize for my misunderstanding.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        That is ok - your apology is accepted, everyone can make a mistake once in a while
                        
                        However having what you want without paying or working for it is not the opposite of slavery.

                        replyreport
                  2. 56

                     Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     The way that some people play with the word "slavery" for dramatic effect when discussing politics and/or economics is incredibly offensive when considered in light of the actual suffering of actual people who struggled for centuries under actual - NOT METAPHORIC - slavery.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Ah - there you are!    Using a metaphoric description of one thing to describe the same situation in another is not offensive it is a description.
                        
                        If you can't see the slavery of people working around you who are unhappy in their job, can't keep up with their debt, and are forced to work for low value then you should get out more and look around you.

                        replyreport
                        1. 56

                           Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           If you can compare people who aren't happy in their job with the very real horror of ACTUAL slavery then you don't understand one or both of them and you are disgracing the memory of all those who suffered and all those who died to end the evil practice of ACTUAL slavery that you so glibly play with for dramatic effect.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Yeah yeah yeah I am responsible for all slavery ever - I thought you were going to discuss the issues instead of this painful and unlikeable twisting up bulls**t and making personal attacks ?

                              replyreport
                              1. 56

                                 Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 "Yeah yeah yeah I am responsible for all slavery ever "
                                 
                                 Who said you were?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    For crying out loud - when you stop trolling and actually discuss issues I could almost get to like you - I will go back to cleaning the kitchen - it is preferable to being in the forums when you are awake.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 56

                                       Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Not sure what you mean, but I never said nor implied that you were "responsible for all slavery ever" or for any slavery at any time. I think I made it very clear that I find the use of the term "slavery" for dramatic effect in political and/or economic discussion to be very, very, very offensive in light of the horrific reality of ACTUAL slavery.

                                       report
                     2. 94

                        wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        You are right, Sab, and it touched a nerve in me.  I have always considered the owning of slaves to be the worst of mankinds crimes.  Murder, rape, infanticide; nothing else even comes close.
                        
                        Not even a bank loaning me money that I voluntarily agree to pay back at a later date or an employer that I voluntarily work for and that pays me for that work.

                        replyreport
                        1. 56

                           Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           It seems that for some people political posturing is more important than anything else, no matter how serious or significant.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Having conversations with yourself is not healthy - and I think against Hub rules ?

                              replyreport
                              1. 56

                                 Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 What do you mean?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 94

                                    wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    I think he thinks you are me.  If that makes sense.

                                    replyreport
2. 86

   rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago

   do you people sit around and research posts to bash Obama?
   
   sic. these threads are ridiculous.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      ReuVeraposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ridiculous? Why?  Is it bashing? It is more like analyzing.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Strophiosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Except that it's all incorrect, overblown, and apoplectic. See my post above.

         replyreport
      2. 84

         psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Very biassed 'analysing' that considered only one side and not the literal meaning of the words.
         
         He is saying leaders from a narrow and elite group gave power to all people--an act almost unparalleled in world history.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            AnnCeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "He is saying leaders from a narrow and elite group gave power to all people--an act almost unparalleled in world history."
            
            PsycheSkinner,
            
            True, that is what he is saying.  And you said it far better. 
            
            If Obama isn't playing the race card, he is playing the class card.  As a Communist born and bred, he just can't help himself.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Strophiosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Stating historical truths for rhetorical effect does not make him a Communist, not even slightly. And it is entirely appropriate that he should play the class card, if you'd read my above post (the long one, replying to your original), you'd know that. (If you don't want to take my word for some of my claims, you can ask me for citations. I'll be happy to provide them.)

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You've been warned about introducing facts and logic...
                  
                  Now I must report you.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes - I must agree with you here Ron - the poster should be reprimanded for using facts, discussing rationally and using good English.  We don't wont nun of that rownd ere !!!!

                     replyreport
   2. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Sure beats lookin' fer a job.

      replyreport
   3. 91

      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, they do.  Isn't that obvious?

      replyreport
3. 86

   rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago

   I like to read quotes in their context, so I found his words that he spoke to his guests on the white house lawn.
   
   Calling the Declaration of Independence more than words on an aging parchment, President Barack Obama marked the Fourth of July on Sunday by urging Americans to live the principles that founded the nation as well as celebrate them.
   
   "This is the day when we celebrate the very essence of America and the spirit that has defined us as a people and as a nation for more than two centuries," Obama told guests at a South Lawn barbecue honoring service members and their families.
   
   "We celebrate the principles that are timeless, tenets first declared by men of property and wealth but which gave rise to what Lincoln called a new birth of freedom in America — civil rights and voting rights, workers' rights and women's rights, and the rights of every American," he said. "And on this day that is uniquely American we are reminded that our Declaration, our example, made us a beacon to the world."
   
   He is making a comparison as to the gains in freedom which followed. I don't see anything wrong with his words at all.
   
   I simply don't understand why those who dislike him so much spend their time finding fault in everything he says and does. 
   
   this forum has been filled with these kind of threads the past couple of days. I don't see it as analyzing. Look at the title of this thread and threads throughout the political forum.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Quite.

      replyreport
   2. 86

      livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Terrific post.

      replyreport
   3. 82

      ReuVeraposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Different people understand one and the same situation differently.  It all depends on their disposition. Some people see just the surface, other people see deeper.  Everyone can express their vision.  It is not like “Quod licet jovi, non licet bovi”?
      It is also not like “King is always right”
      This is real freedom when people can express their opinion, even when it is different from those in power. This is real freedom that is taken for granted.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Strophiosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Agreed, this is indeed "real freedom." On the other hand, just because an opinion or idea is allowed to be expressed, doesn't make it right, as so amply demonstrated here.

         replyreport
   4. 59

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I read teh commentin context (kudos rebekkah) and if you apply any objective reading skills, it's pretty obvious Obama was not *trashing* the 'men of property and wealth'. He was making an observation hos much this democracy has progressed since it's foundation.
      
      Wingnuts don't seem to know - The original Constitution didn't just permit slavery - it institutionalized it for the benfit of men of wealth and property. Until the 19th century, only land owners could vote. Women could not vote. It's quite appropriate that the President observe that the foundation of the United States was imspired, but imperfect.  After 2 centuies, it's improved but STILL imperfect. Ther's no dishonor in that.
      
      The concept is enshrined in the Prologue of the Constitution as one the FIRST goal of the Constitution .. "in order to form a more perfect union"
      
      Or maybe the prologue was just trashing the Constitution...

      replyreport
4. 67

   AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

   Liberals all over the blogosphere whine when they can't defend Barack Obama's words or actions.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Spoken like a true Tea Bagger.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Are you still resorting to silly playground name-calling of political movements you don't support? Come on, you can do better than that. You have actual political and philosophical differences with that particular movement, but when you fall into juvenile name-calling it makes your position seem like a purely emotional one that need not be given serious consideration. I'm sure you don't need the kid-stuff to make your point.

         replyreport
   2. 86

      livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Liberals are whining?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The OP was one big whine - based on a false premise....

         replyreport
5. 70

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Slavery means past in actuality and reality.
   
   So, actually, it shouldn't even be a topic for discussion, because it leads nowhere, except to piss people off and allow others to show how ignorant they can be.
   
   (*no offense to the conversation taking place)
   
   I realize "slavery" is a horrible tragic part of America's history, however, it IS history. Leave it F##k there. Live in the here and now.
   
   However, minimum wage is what was exchanged for the bonds that could no longer be tied through race, due to civil rights.
   
   Hence, why minimum wage and the employment program was enacted. There are plenty of people who will tell you they "slave" at their job, yet not truly understanding what they are saying.
   
   It's just an expression and not racial or anything else.
   
   Those who talk about "slavery", usually have no point to make, because the argument is actually long dead.
   
   Just a thought.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "I realize "slavery" is a horrible tragic part of America's history"
      
      A terrible part of humanity's past and present.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Unfortunately Sab Oh, that is quite true in many parts of the world, however, this topic is about the United States.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So on this basis we don't talk about war, famine, the Holocaust, nazism, etc etc - as somebody said, Churchill I think, "we ignore history at our peril" not discussing these things, and pointing up elements of them that are still in our so called modern society, is to walk blindly into the future, you can try walking blindly across a road if you really want to test it.
      
      It is acceptable, even quite normal, to reference these things - especially like fascism and slavery they are still part of daily life in parts of the world and elements appear in every culture. They don't go away becaaue you don't speak about them they just remain hidden.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No one is walking blindly anywhere. Maybe you don't understand the fact of moving on and like living in the past. I do not, and things of the past for which drove society are not as what drives society now, therefore, why bring back into a conversation when it has no relevance. It is not a matter of talking about it or not talking about it. It's gone! End of story. Slavery just does not happen IN the United States. We, as a society, must move beyond the innuendos and stay steadfast on growth.
         
         Idiot conversations with regards to America about "slavery" are meaningless, because it is not in existence anymore. Got it? I hope so.
         Yes, parts of the world, but NOT in America. The same fact I brought up to Sab Oh, the topic is about the United States and NOT about the rest of the world.
         
         You want to discuss the topic(slavery) on the global stance, that is fine, I'm sure you find takers for the subject matter. Open a new thread. When it comes to America, keep the facts in proper context. America's slavery problems are a thing of the past and not coming back any time soon.
         
         Btw- I am not saying that I'm willing to discuss a global stance on the subject, nor am I willing to discuss it with you, of all people(coming from previous chats we have had- your too limited in your thinking).

         replyreport
      2. 56

         Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "So on this basis we don't talk about war, famine, the Holocaust, nazism, etc "
         
         
         NO, it means we don't seriously try to describe a couple quarreling over what movie to watch as being "at war," we don't try to literally describe the guy who missed lunch as "starving to death," a Jewish person losing their job as another "Holocaust," or anyone who disagrees with your political views as a "Nazi," because that is simply ridiculous. Important historical issues should be studied in their own right and not misused as props for dramatic effect in unrelated discussions.

         replyreport
         1. 68

            Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Sab, you're asking a lot from people who only know how to use words as hyperbole in order to make their point.  There's really very little that Americans are unhappy about as a whole.  There's not a lot of them moving out of the country, certainly not a lot of these unhappy libs leaving the country.  They know they have to exaggerate things to make the small dissatisfactions large.

            replyreport
6. 61

   jjmylesposted 13 years ago

   Well lets see, hmm, Obama is quite wealthy as was his mother and her parents. So he is a a bit of a hipocrite if he continues to try to enable the idea of class warfare. He needs a different speech writer who can actually write speeches that are relevent and not just empty rhetoric as most of these speeches are.

   replyreport
7. 76

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   It's just like Hasbarats...they are paid to go all over the internet and tout the Zionist party line.
   Seems like there are a lot of "Obamarats"..going everywhere insidiously putting all this "commie", "terrorist", "muslim", "anti-American" propaganda on Obama.
   
   It's been going on since 1 and 1/2 years BEFORE he was elected. It's orchestrated. ALL of talk radio was doing it.
   A Right Wing Conspiracy? YOU BET!
   
   Operation Gladio...right wing fascist group orchestrating the destruction of the communist party in Italy. They used to KILL people, civilians, just so they could blame it on "the left"....
   
   Same kind of sh*t going on here. They take a perfectly normal statement made by Obama and insert sinister intentions into it.
   
   They are schills for the corporate fascists, IMO. Who want Obama gone and Big Business back.
   
   OR a fascist version of America....Their religion, Their rules. Total Corporate and Religious Control.
   
   Obama represents freedom.

   replyreport
8. 67

   AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

   SLAVERY?
   
   
   The 2010 Trafficking in Persons Report on 177 nations is the most comprehensive worldwide report on the efforts of governments to combat severe forms of trafficking in persons. Its findings will raise global awareness and spur countries to take effective actions to counter trafficking in persons.
   
   The annual Trafficking in Persons Report serves as the primary diplomatic tool through which the U.S. Government encourages partnership and increased determination in the fight against forced labor, sexual exploitation, and modern-day slavery.   
   
   
   
   REPORT A TRAFFICKING VICTIM
   1.888.3737.888
   
   The Office To Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP), led by Ambassador-at-Large Luis CdeBaca, provides the tools to combat trafficking in persons and assists in the coordination of anti-trafficking efforts both worldwide and domestically.
   
   http://www.state.gov/g/tip/
   
   It would be nice if the Democrat Party which is so interested in using historic slavery of Africans sold by Africans or Arabs to Europeans  would develop an interest in contemporary slavery which far outpaces the slave practices of the southern states in the past.  But how to give today's slaves a voice?   How to give them a vote?  Problematic.  If they can't be used, they are useless to politicians and therefore ignored.

   replyreport
9. 67

   AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

   BTW,  I am going to start carrying that phone number for reporting trafficking.
   
   I was in a large city recently on a shuttle in a downtown shopping/eating area.   There was a man with a pre-teen girl, he was behaving sexually toward her.  They were foreigners.  I didn't know what to do.  That little girl was far from home and I imagine she was helpless.  In the United States. 
   
   What is a person supposed to do in a situation like that?

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Dont' call Representative Jeff Perry, Tea-Party member...he will defend the child molester. Wait, only if it's a fellow cop....

      replyreport
10. 60

    TMMasonposted 13 years ago

    Yup... I didn't even bother with this place for the entire holiday.
    
    And reading this thread reminds me fully why I did not.

    replyreport
11. 67

    AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

    Aww shucks!!   I drop in and I try so hard to provide a little entertainment around here just to find I'm boring you. 

    replyreport