Gun Control – It’s all about JURISDICTION…

This was a response to a post on a blog I read regularly… I got “wordy” so I thought I would post it here as well.

We do not have a gun control issue, we have an education issue. The second amendment states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” Period. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! What is it about words the grubberment has a problem with?

Well maybe it’s not the words but the jurisdiction under which they choose to enforce them…

I know – most people are scratching their heads right now and going huh? What do you mean jurisdiction?

What I mean is Congress has two different jurisdictions – Federal and Territorial and I want to know under which one do they think they can enforce Gun Control laws? Well I can tell you this; they will never answer the question. Why? If they do, they would let the cat out of the bag on every other grubberment scheme going. Bill Clinton ALMOST spilled the beans with that, “It depends on your definition of the word IS is” but the LAME stream media gave him a pass.

Federal jurisdiction is defined by the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 Paragraphs 1 through 16. These are the areas where the Federal grubberment can legislate for the States of the union.

Territorial jurisdiction is also defined in the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 17. There Congress is given the power to, “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” Exclusive Legislation – in other words, any law they deem fit in order to run the areas where the States of the union have ceded jurisdiction…

So since CONgress will never admit which jurisdiction they are operating under, the answer does not need to come from CONgress directly. We can simply go to the Law and decide for ourselves under what jurisdiction CONgress expects the Law to be enforced by looking to the definitions outlined in the text.

Title 18 is where the current crop of gun control laws exists. If we go to title 18 and look to the definition of United States and State we find the following in Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1 Section 5 – United States Defined: The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone.

So, Title 18 says United States is used in its TERRITORIAL sense… That ties it to Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 17, and the last time I checked, I didn’t live in a “territory” or other place where CONgress can exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction over me contrary to the rest of the Constitution.

We can even dig further and find the definition of State in Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 921(a)(2) – Definitions: “…The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone). “

So here we have the direct evidence from the LAW that the United States and a State do NOT mean what we think they do in the context of Federal Firearms Laws.  And if you take the time to dig, these definitions are sprinkled liberally (yes, pun intended) throughout Federal law. Most of Title 18 is territorial. The definition of United States is defined in Part 1 and unless it is specifically changed in a lower section, the initial definition is dominant. Motor vehicle and Income Taxes will also provide some interesting reading. (Hint – Health Care relies a LOT on Title 26. Go read through all the definitions outlined in there. I guarantee THAT will be an eye-opener. Why do you think Pelosi said it WAS Constitutional? Because it IS – it’s the JURISDICTION that’s important.)  Just remember to have the aspirin handy – I guarantee you’ll get a headache going through it all. And that’s the point. They make it crazy to understand so you won’t bother. Once you give up and assume they are right – they have free reign to do as they want.

We the People must demand that our Federal grubberment define what jurisdiction by which they are proposing laws are enforced. If the Feds won’t answer, our local and State grubberments MUST demand a clarification – if THEY (local and State grubberments) don’t get an answer then it should be assumed that the proposed “law” is for enforcement in the territories only.

Let the Feds take the States to court. Once there, they MUST prove jurisdiction. (And the Commerce Clause won’t hold water once the real definitions of United States and State get exposed…) And I’d bet real money that we’ll never see this happen. The Feds would make some other compromise and their “secret” would be safe for a while longer…


Posted in Commentary, Gun Rights, Jurisdiction, Politics | Tagged , , ,

Reasons Why I Carry a Gun…

This is about the best explanation I’ve seen for carrying a gun. Hat Tip Godfather Politics

Reason to carry a gun

Actually, here is the real list:

Reasons Why I Carry a Gun

The following was sent to me by a friend. Hope you enjoy it.

I don’t carry a gun to kill people.

I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.

I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.

I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.

I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.

I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.

I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.

I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy.

I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.

I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.

I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it.

I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.

Free citizens must protect themselves.

Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take a butt whoopin’.

Posted in Commentary, Gun Rights

Treaties and the Constitution… The Facts

This is a verbatum post taken from the comments section of a blog I read – The Patriot Update. The posting was on 13 Politically Incorrect Gun Rules. I was reading it because I was looking for some humor to lighten the usual garbage that fills the highways and byways of the Internet. Then while perusing through the comments on the post, THIS comment from Charles stood out like a beacon of light. SOMEBODY else gets it…

So with much thanks and all the credit going to Charles, here is his comment verbatum (Other than some formatting changes to make it easier to read…:

Charles Perkins:

I promised to look up the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled that a treaty cannot over ride the constitution, and here it is:

Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution”. The Second follow-up lie is this one: ”A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”. HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

  1. Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
  2. Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
  3. A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others.

When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that, ”… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares,

“This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’”

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…

“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question! At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

”The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”

Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it. The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:

”This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”


Posted in Commentary, Legislation, Observations, Politics

HIGH SCHOOL — 1958 vs. 2012

I’ve seen this posted before. I wish I could give credit where credit is due but unfortunately I’ll have to say this is reposted from Anonymous…

 – Joe

HIGH SCHOOL — 1958 vs. 2012

Scenario 1:
Jack goes duck hunting before school and then pulls into the
school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck’s gun rack.

1958 – Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun,
goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2012 – School goes into lock down, FBI called,
Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again.
Counsellors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario 2:
Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1958 – Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark
shake hands and end up buddies.

2012 – Police called and SWAT team arrives —
they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged
with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario 3:
Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.

1958 – Jeffrey sent to the Principal’s office and given a good
paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and
does not disrupt class again.

2012 – Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie.
He is then tested for ADD. The family gets extra money (SSI) from the
government because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario 4:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor’s car and his Dad gives him a
whipping with his belt.

1958 – Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college
and becomes a successful businessman.

2012- Billy’s dad is arrested for child abuse, Billy is removed to foster
care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy’s sister
that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison.
Billy’s mom has an affair with the psychologist.

Scenario 5:
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1958 – Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.

2012- The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations.
His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario 6:
Pedro fails high school English.

1958 – Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.

2012 – Pedro’s cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally
explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU
files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro’s English teacher.
English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but
ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario 7:
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July,
puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.

1958 – Ants die.

2012 – ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is
charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents –
and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated.
Johnny’s dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario 8:
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee.
He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.

1958 – In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2012 – Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job.
She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

Posted in Commentary

Abbott and Costello Explain Unenployment…

With apologies to Abbott and Costello…

This explains just how our current ruler gets his way with the statistics!

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America .

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 9%…

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.


ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work, can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.


ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work… Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how you get to 9%. Otherwise, it would be 16%. You don’t want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there’re two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

And now you know why Obozo’s unemployment figures are improving!

Posted in Commentary, Observations, Politics, The President | Tagged , ,

Destroying the Constitution by Legislation?

Just read this article from and it is really scary. Now Obummer wants States to give up their 11th Amendment rights just to get money under his new jobs bill… When will everyone else see Obummer forwhat he really is – a destroyer of the Constitution? Obummer has GOT to go. And I don’t think we the people should wait till the 2012 election. Isn’t abrogating the Constitution Treason?

Quote from

Section 376 of the Act guts the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution by requiring states to forfeit their sovereign immunity rights guaranteed by this Amendment upon receipt of certain government funds. This opens the door for expensive litigation against states. Such litigation is a boon for trial lawyers but serves as a millstone around the neck of drowning taxpayers.

The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

The Supreme Court held in 1890 that this amendment prohibits suits brought against a state by its own citizens as well as from citizens of other states. (Hans v. Louisiana,134 U.S. 1 (1890)). Without this doctrine of sovereign immunity, lawsuits brought by private individuals could result in states being forced to pay monetary damages for alleged violations. People with valid claims against the State would not be the only ones collecting monetary damages. As those experienced in trial law will attest, settlements are often paid out to those launching lawsuits even when the merits of the case are questionable. Settling a case in many situations is simply less expensive than paying exorbitant legal defense costs.

This doctrine of sovereign immunity does NOT eliminate recourse by citizens for constitutional rights violations committed by a state government. Lawsuits may still be brought in an effort to prevent the States from continuing conduct which violates such rights. Courts can then order the state to alter its actions. Those who ratified Amendment XI recognized that courts should be in the business providing constitutional guidance rather than transferring public funds to individual litigants. After all, those public funds are derived ultimately from individual citizens.

So, how does the President’s jobs bill view this important amendment of our Constitution? With disdain. Section 376 states, in part:

(a) Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this act…

(b)(1)(A) WAIVER- A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment of the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act…

(d) …..Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,… remedies (including remedies at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies would be available against a non-governmental entity.

Can you hear the chorus of trial attorneys chanting “Pass this bill”? Democratic politicians will be tempted to listen. After all, the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) gives millions to political campaigns—97% of these donations go to Democrats. Forcing states to forfeit their constitutional protections in exchange for federal funds comes at taxpayer expense. As with the ObamaCare bill, pausing to READ the bill rather the simply passing it would alert Congress and the public to the special interest bonanza represented within.

Things won’t get better in America until We the People put our collective foot down and tell this Socialist to get out of town…

’nuff said.

Posted in Commentary, Legislation, The President

FACTS about the true racists in American History…

OK – while perusing my favorite sites I came across a comment posted by Maggie on a post from The Patriot Update by Ann-Marie Murrell on the Reverend Wayne Perryman suing the Democratic Party for Racism. The thing that floored me was the number of accurate, check-able FACTS that support the premise that the MOST racist party in the history of the country is actually the Democrat Party.

Read through the list below. The facts are the direct and simple. Some are percentages, other are dates for legislation all posted as a list that can easily be verified and bring to light the overwhelming truth that the Republican, NOT Democrat party is the party that SUPPORTS racial equality – NOT racism.

I wanted to re post this here so that this information can be seen  in other channels that just the one blog. I know that no one else but myself may ever read this here but I am trying my best to get the truth out to the people however I can.

Comments by Maggie:

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862
Republican President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, each one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”

September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act led by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who served in the Senate until his death in 2010. At Byrd’s funeral, former Democrat President Bill Clinton said, “He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done come and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that’s what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians.”

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976
Republican President Gerald Ford formally rescinds Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981
Republican President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982
Republican President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
Republican President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
Republican President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and someone Hillary Clinton has said is one of her heroes. Sanger said, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….”

WOW – what a list. Who could believe that Democrats have got most people so snookered into believing the Republicans are the bad guys here that very few people actually go and look up the FACTS. The problem for Democrats is that FACTS are inconvenient things… Once a thing is known denying it becomes an exercise in futility. (And just makes them look silly and childish to boot.)

Come on people – wake up, read your history (from real text books, not the drivel that gets passed off today as history from the public schrool system) and get the facts yourself. Once armed with the facts, try and get others to learn what you’ve learned and open their eyes to the truth.

’nuff said! – Thanks Maggie…

Posted in Commentary, Democrats, Observations, Politics, Republicans