May the New Year find you with a smile on your face, faith in your heart & the continued dedication to bring hope & cheer to those who need it most.
Monthly Archives: December 2009
In a much anticipated interview of Sen. Tim Johnson by Ben Dunsmoor of Keloland news today, Johnson clearly cited where his priorities are:
Senator Johnson says it was a bit of a compromise to vote for the Senate bill because he would have liked to see health care reform that included that public option.
Instead, the Senate bill includes non-profit private plans that would be overseen by the government
Yes, they do not need a public option as long as the government still has control over the insurance companies and can mandate/regulate what they charge for those so called private plans, what they must pay our for and when payments can be made. This is just another backdoor, cleverly disguised way of passing the public option and I can’t believe he thinks so little of the intelligence of his constituents as to think we would fall for this disgusting piece of garbage.
And he obviously also doesn’t feel he needs to follow what he advertises on his Senate webpage. Nope, Nada, it’s all about the fictional power he believes he has to rule over us.
Sen. Johnson then concludes by citing his requirements for ANY legislation thta he predicts will pass by February:
the final bill must make health care more affordable, decrease the deficit, and eliminate higher costs for patients with pre-existing medical conditions
If this is his true stance then why did he vote on Dec 24, 2009 to pass a bill that does none of the above. In fact, according to the CBO, the Senate bill is worse than the House bill that passed and in fact, the Senate bill will increase deficits, increase medical/health care costs, and it most certainly will increase the cost of health insurance for ALL whom are mandated to buy it.
So, it is all about redistribution in Johnson’s eyes and controlling the lowly little constituents at home while making himself exempt from the mandates.
Have no fear though, it wasn’t all for naught. I hear there is some disguised relief/exemption for SD in the bill for the increases in medicaid that state would have to pick up. A ‘yes’ vote for Obama nominating his son to a US Attorney’s position with a just announced new chairmanship position in a brand new division of the US Attorney’s Office?
I’ll let you judge that one for yourself.
Want a peek at what is in our future if the disastrous & unconstitutional healthscare legislation is passes?
Look no further. Reporting from the Uk today: Ministers to ‘take control’ of hospital charity cash
Hundreds of millions of pounds of charity donations to hospitals are to be “nationalised” under an NHS accounting change, which critics say will make it easier to slash health budgets.
Ministers are imposing new rules on NHS charities requiring all donations — including those to specialist children and cancer units, local fundraising campaigns, teaching hospitals and local community trusts — to be listed on a hospital’s balance sheet.
The Charities Commission says that this is “wholly inappropriate” because combining the trust and charity accounts will jeopardise the charity’s autonomy and discourage donations.
I guess this is the UK governments way to pay for their ‘care for government coggers’, because I know personally that it is not the hard working people of the UK that enjoy the so called ‘British cadillac health care plan’. I have a friend over there who’s husband was nearly on his death bed and it wasn’t until he could no longer walk across a room without being out of breath, that he finally got the corrective stint he so desperately needed for nearly a year.
This is absolutely disgusting and we must keep fighting against it with every breath we have. The state legislature will be back in session soon and its high time we get them on board in passing some state sovereignty laws, election reform laws, education/indoctrination reform laws, etc, etc to protect us from all the madmen & women in DC who wish to control every last detail of our personal lives.
First, thanks to the readers for their patience in my non-posting days leading up to Christmas. Yes Christmas has now past, but for those of us who were snowbound and whose 18 wheels must keep rolling to pay the bills, our holiday gatherings will have to be revisited after the new year has rung in.
Now, back to the business of our Constitution & US citizenship, in which I have had some spirited debates on recently, I bring to you a snippet from Edwin Meese III’s 2005 release of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. I came across this while researching back through Article I in my effort to better understand the commerce clause & the general welfare clause.
It was like fate that the word ‘dual’ jumped out at me while fanning to get to the page I was headed to.
Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.
Yet today there are millions of American citizens who are also citizens of other countries. Many are naturalized American citizens whose native countries do not recognize the renunciation of loyalty that their native citizens make in the American citizenship oath. Others are the off-spring of one American parent and one foreign parent, deriving citizenship from both sides, or foreign-born children adopted by American parents. Because the courts now prohibit the government from expatriating those who maintain an active citizenship in a foreign nation (some American citizens have even held public office in other countries), dual citizenship has become a fact of American life, despite statutory law. ~ Joseph Bassette
Meese’s full review of the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution covers the War of 1812 and numerous Supreme Court cases, but let these facts ring loud and clear:
1) America has never legally recognized dual citizenship, and the framers never intended for a dual national to hold the highest office in the land
2) The American judicial system has over-stepped its bounds and created fictitious laws that they had no authority to do so
3) It is a fact, that as of this day, there is no statutory law allowing for dual citizenship that has ever passed out of the US Congress
Which brings me back to THIS, a list of Congressional aactivities since 1973 to remove the term ‘natural born citizen’ from Article II and replace it with ‘citizen’ as well as Congressional aactivities to change the laws and confer natural born status on all anchor babies that would have been retroactive if passed. They were also ALL Congressional activities that all died in committee because they knew full well the public would not stand for a foreigner to become President.
Oh, wait, they didn’t need the legislation, they only needed a dumbed down public & corrupt election process.
Does it make it law? absolutely not!
Does it make it irreversible? absolutely not!
Will it ever be reversed? I pray for our Nation’s national security & sovereignty that it does.
I’ve been engaged in some rather exhilarating debates this week regarding American history, which got me thinking of an old movie, a favorite of mine in regards to the 1888 election that lead to the separation of the Dakota Territory into what we know today to be North & South Dakota.
This 1968 hollywood musical is a classic… Enjoy…
by Michael Boldin
In response to what some opponents see as a Congress that doesn’t represent their interests, State Legislators are looking to the nearly forgotten American political tradition of nullification as a way to reject any potential national health care program that may be coming from Washington.
In 2010, residents of Arizona will be voting on a State Constitutional Amendment that would let them effectively opt out of any proposed national health care plan. Legislatures in Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are also considering similar State Constitutional Amendments.
And now, Missouri is joining them. According to a report in The Missourian, “Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O’Fallon, pre-filed a bill Dec. 1 that, if approved by voters, would effectively put a halt on any national health care legislation. Davis said her intent was to give voters a way to protect themselves.”
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
Early nullification movements began with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that the people of the states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds – to the point of ignoring federal laws.
Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.
Nullification was regularly called upon by states all over the country in response to everything from higher taxes to the fugitive slave law of 1850.
Continue here to read the entire article
Via Keloland news:
Sioux Falls students had an extra hour of sleep Wednesday morning because of the winter storm…It’s the first time in a long time [years] that parents and teachers [of the liberally run SF school district] have had to deal with a late start. [emphasis mine]
On behalf of the Chrysler dealers, who were illegally forced to close their businesses by the Obama administration’s legal hacks, Leo Donofrio & Stephen Pidgeon have been retained to represent the dealers in 2 upcoming legal actions and the blogosphere is abuzz over the pending litigation. Especially by those who are still loyal to their messiah.
A lot of discussions are being had as to whether or not these new cases will gain traction. I believe they will and this is why.
In all my research, I seem to have missed one very important legal thesis at the Federalsit Society by PA Madison. Not only does Madison dispute every legal theory the left uses to sanitize Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, Madison brings to light just how corrupt the ‘Fuller’ Court was by blatently disreagarding and bypassing US Laws & the US Constitution in many of their decisions:
By P.A. Madison on December 10, 2006
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is a notable court ruling for its dramatic departure over an earlier holding in the meaning “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” found in Elk v. Wilkins. It is also notable for the majorities insistence that the debates in Congress would not be admissible for controlling the meaning of the words.
Reading the majorities opinion in Wong Kim Ark, one can’t help but wonder why so much emphasis is being placed on such obscure and irrelevant historical overviews as colonial and foreign law. With two previous established court decisions that substantially covered the same ground regarding the meaning and application of the words found under the fourteenth amendments citizenship clause, leaves one to wonder what is going on here?
Deeper into the decision, justice Horace Gray (writing for the majority) reveals exactly what the majority is up to: They are attempting to avoid discussion over the construction of the clause by the two Senators whom are most responsible for its language found in the Constitution, Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull. They are also attempting to keep their holding to what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in Elk v. Wilkins out of the discussion, or else Wong Kim Ark can’t be said to be a citizen of the United States.
It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote: “Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”
Whatever credibility the court may had at the beginning was soon lost when Gray wrote:
The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment … as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…”
Here the court is assuming what Congress may have intended while also arguing the written debates that could easily disclose this intent is inadmissible as evidence. This has to be one of the most incompetent and feeble rulings ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens would take issue with this inept attempt by the majority to rewrite the Constitution: “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”
Reviewing the intended purpose behind the words of the clause by both Sen. Howard and Sen. Trumbull, who were responsible for the drafting of the citizenship clause, clearly revealed the intended effect of the clause; leavening little doubt to why justice Gray desired to avoid the legislative history of this language. Howard presents a major hurdle for the majority when he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law,” never once making any reference to England’s common law doctrine. Perhaps this is why Gray wasted much of his commentary along common law themes.
An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.”Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.
Sen. Trumbull, who was the author of this national law, said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”
However, Gray insists Trumbull really meant to grant citizenship to everyone born due only to the fact they were born on American soil. Moreover, if everyone owed allegiance by simply being on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps the true answer is because locality itself was never enough to confer complete allegiance.
Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Trumbull goes on to declare: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Sen. Howard follows up by stating, “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
The Supreme Court had earlier discussed the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause In the Slaughterhouse cases and noted, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Even the dissenting minority affirmed that the result of the citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the court was specifically asked to address “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and held it meant:
The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
In Wong Kim Ark the court reverses itself because the “decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.” But this isn’t the real reason.
The definition for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” handed down in Elk posed a real problem for Wong Kim Ark because Wong’s parents did not owe the United States direct and complete allegiance nor did they possess any political rights. To try and sidestep the judicial meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” found in Elk, Gray attempts to obfuscate the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” found in Elk:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State…
No longer is anyone required to be completely subject to the United States political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. Gray knew he could not come out and repeat what he had said in Elk because then Wong Kim Ark could not had been found to had been born a citizen of the United States because his parents were not “completely subject to their [United States] political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Instead, they were merely subjects of China residing in California unable to become U.S. citizens by treaty.
When all was said and done, the majority in Wong Kim Ark reveals their true nonsensical position: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
Well now, the issue was not citizenship being withheld on account of the 14th Amendment to American citizens, and had the court bothered to consider the history of the amendment, they would have easily discovered it was all about granting citizenship as established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child. The idea of withholding citizenship upon birth to subjects of other countries who owed this country no direct allegiance was, well, the desired result of declaring who is, and who isn’t, a citizen of the United States.
The court in Minor vs. Happersett (1874) acknowledged that some, not all, but some authorities go as far to “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [born to American citizens].”
It was these kind of doubts Howard desired to settle through constitutional amendment. Sen. Howard said of the amendment: “It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.” This was needed to prevent rebel States from refusing to recognize former slaves (now citizens) as citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth’s first section (privileges and immunities).
Furthermore, these former slaves could be said to had no political attachment to any other country – meaning they did not owe “allegiance to anybody else.” To add additional insult, the court says: “Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” Yet, the court refused to recognize the fact the United States had done just that through its revised statutes and Constitution.
The most significant truth to come out of the entire Wong Kim Ark ruling comes from Chief Justice Fuller himself when he said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” He was absolutely correct.
Only reason the language of the Fourteenth differs from the civil rights bill of 1866, which used the language “and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” to restrict citizenship, is because Sen. Howard feared a State could begin taxing Indians, thereby making them eligible for citizenship. Because Indians, and other classes of foreigners whom Congress and the States desired to withhold citizenship from, owed allegiance to a foreign power (Indian tribes were considered independent nations), the Fourteenth would become just as restrictive against Indians by demanding full jurisdiction on part of the United States as with any other class of foreigners.
It is worth mentioning that it was the U.S. government who argued Wong Kim Ark was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Obviously, the Federal Government had no difficulty in understanding the words of its own revised statutes or constitutional amendment.
For the majority to have been correct with their conclusion they would have to demonstrate how it was possible the States and Federal Government retained England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine. This “natural allegiance” was something most everyone despised and hated. Fuller argued this “rule making locality of birth the criterion of citizenship because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.”
There is also a disturbing ethical aspect of Wong Kim Ark in terms of the majorities’ apparent willingness to place themselves unethically above both facts and the supreme law of the land. The United States by treaty with China was prevented from admitting Chinese subjects to citizenship. This treaty was ratified by the same senators who had adopted both Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Furthermore, the court was also prohibited under 22 Stat. §14 to admit subjects of China to U.S. citizenship, “that hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.” The court thought it could get around that by saying Wong Kim Ark was born a citizen of the United States per the Constitution by sweeping the holding in Elk under the carpet.
The Fuller court was no stranger to criticism or controversy when it came to interpreting law or the Constitution. For example, in the cases of Brooks vs. Codman, and Foote v. Women’s Board of Missions the question was who should get the money appropriated as indemnity for spoliations of William Gray’s (Justice Gray’s grandfather) ships? Codman was the administrator of William Gray’s estate and under a 1891 law payments could only go to “creditors, legatees, assignees or strangers to the blood.”
What did the court do? They did just as they had done in Wong Kim Ark; they simply said forget what the law says because we say payments should go to the “next of kin,” i.e., Justice Horace Gray.
Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause – and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings – leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling as worthless as a three-dollar bill. The Court will never be able to sugarcoat over history or deny the acts of Congress in order to maintain England’s old feudal common law doctrine while rendering unethical and legally unsound rulings.
In the decision, the court again refers to foreign precedent instead of US Laws:
In the construction of wills and settlements, after considerable conflict of opinion, the established rule of interpretation in England is that the phrase ‘next of kin,’ when found in ulterior limitations, must be understood to mean ‘nearest of kin,’ without regard to the statutes of distribution…What little recent authority there is beyond that of the English courts supports the English view; and, on the whole, we are inclined to adopt it.
So, instead of going to law that was adopted by the US Congress, who is the body who has the authority to write and pass the law, the Fuller Court took it upon itself to overturn Congress and rewrite the law for the benefit of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
You can read the entire Fuller Court decision here. It is lengthy & delves well beyond the scope of US laws adopted by Congress as well as the US Constitution just as the WKA decision does regarding the 14th Amendment & US Naturalization laws passed by Congress.
For over a year now, the Hawaiian officials have refused to release the information by which they have come to their conclusion that Obama is a ‘natural-born’ citizen.
Obama himself has never claimed this status, he clearly states at his site that he is a native to the soil, but never goes as far as to say he is a natural born citizen.
Then we have the DNC nomination documents of 2008 that also never make the claim that Obama is a natural born citizen:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:…”
But we also have this one, exclusively sent to Hawaii:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”….
So, which is it? It is high time Hawaii puts its laws before its politics. Hawaiian laws that state that any and all material used to make a public statement MUST be released to the public when requested under Hawaiian UIPA(Uniformed Information Pratices Act).
One of my readers is still working to pursue this as Donofrio now must give all his time & attention to his new clients. Please visit Marie G.’s site to learn more of the Hawaiian UIPA laws and how they should be working for ‘We the People” not the politicians who wish to destroy our great Nation. Here is Marie’s request:
Hello Fellow Patriots,
Recently I posted a message on our forum about the intent to send a “mass” mailing out to Hawaii.
The letters are now available to be viewed and printed from my blog, the mission statement is posted there as well.
For your convenience, you can visit the forum, Natural Born Citizen Coalition for Legal Action, and find the links to my blog in the message titled : “The Date For The Mailing Has Been Set”.
There are copies of several of the provided “letters to Hawaii” on that thread.
I, and several others, are sending alerts out to other blog owners also requesting that they post the invitation to join in this campaign. We are expecting an excellent result.
Thank you in advance for your help and your Patriotism.
To Marie & all others still pursuing the UIPA laws, best wishes & God Speed.
I have done my own pursuit to no avail and thus have decided to continue my research of American history and will continue to publish my findings. There is a vast ocean of information out there, you just have to be willing to take the time to read it and understand it, as it was written in the 18th & 19th centuries. For with that knowledge, we can begin to right the wrongs done by staying silent while liberal, progressive socialists indoctrinate our youth for their marxist dreams.
Those that are not learned in past history shall have no future; because if it were not for the past, there would have never been a future. ~ Author Unknown
Taking a direct tactic out of the Marxist Alinsky ‘Rules for Radicals’ playbook to try and push support for his ‘StealthScare’ bill to nationalize and take over 1/6th of the US economy, Dirty Harry pulled out the race card this morning:
Let’s review the history Dirty Harry uses as support for his plan. He talks of filibusters in Congress that belated true civil rights reform, which included emancipating the slaves and then of course the Civil Rights Act of 1964; but he never comes out and tells the truth as to who did the fillibustering.
This is the Democratic Platform of 1864:
1864 Presidential Campaign
By 1864, the Country had grown weary of the long and bloody Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of the countries’ best and bravest young men had fallen on the fields of Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, and countless more. Many began to think that the war was not worth it, and the price of freedom too great. The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln (Republican) thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin. Unfortunately, after four long years of war, Lincoln’s support was dropping fast, and people were looking for a way out of the war.
With this backdrop, the Democratic Party chose General George McClellan to be their Presidential Candidate at the Chicago National Convention in 1864. The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of “Compromise with the South”, which became known as “The Chicago Platform”. While on its surface the Chicago Platform was seductive in that it promised an immediate cessation of hostilities, and a restoration of the union. What was unsaid in the platform, but clearly implied, was that the “compromise” would be to agree to make permanent the institution of slavery in exchange for an end to the Civil War and restoration of the Union. In other words, the Democratic party was ready to “Sell Out” the enslaved, in order to stop further loss of white lives.
The 1864 Democratic Platform began with the words:
Resolved, that in the future, as in the past, we will adhere with unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution, as the only solid foundation of our strength, security, and happiness as a people, and as a framework of government equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity of all the States, both Northern and Southern.
Nast wrapped these words around an image of their true meaning, showing men and dogs hunting down runaway slaves. The image to your left presents this portion of the illustration above.
Nast also points out in this drawing that the “people” referred to were clearly the white people. That returning to the Constitution of that day meant a return to a country where Blacks were property, and had no rights. The “Prosperity of the Southern States” clearly was a Democratic Promise to make slavery a permanent institution in the country, in exchange for an end to the Civil War.
Now via left-wing wikipedia, let’s take a glance at the ‘Civil Rights’ activity of the mid 20th century when the next substantial civil rights legislation came to the table via a Republican president after the Democrats had occupied the White House for 2 decades. Keep in mind that the Democrats had also retained control of Congress for most of this time:
The restructuring of race relations took on a new urgency, an importance reserved for matters of national security. White supremacy, at least its most blatant and embarrassing manifestations, had become too costly to defend to sustain. In October 1952, when the Justice Department filed an amicus brief in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, it explained the interest of the president and the executive branch in the eventual decision. Nothing less was at stake than the very credibility of the United States in the international anti-Communist struggle. “It is in the context of the present world struggle between freedom and tyranny that the problem of racial discrimination must be viewed… Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills, and it raises doubts even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.” The brief also cited a response from Secretary of State Dean Acheson affirming the importance of this case in the conduct of foreign relations. “The undeniable existence of racial discrimination, he declared, “gives unfriendly governments the most effective kind of ammunition for their propaganda warfare,… and jeopardizes the effective maintenance of our moral leadership of the free and democratic nations of the world.”
The day after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in which segregated (“separate but equal“) schools were ruled to be unconstitutional, Eisenhower told District of Columbia officials to make Washington a model for the rest of the country in integrating black and white public school children. He proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. Although both Acts were weaker than subsequent civil rights legislation, they constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the Civil Rights Act of 1875, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant (another Republican). The “Little Rock Nine” incident of 1957 involved the refusal by Arkansas to honor a Federal court order to integrate the schools. Under Executive Order 10730, Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into Little Rock Central High School, an all-white public school. The integration did not occur without violence. Eisenhower and Arkansas governor Orval Faubus engaged in tense arguments.
HMMMM…’Dirty’ Harry, it’s time you quit spending so much time in ‘O’ blamo’s office. It is not helping your cause and it cetainly is not boosting your intellect.