On A Klanbake

RichTAkes! On a Klanbake

The 1924 Democratic National Convention was held at New York’s Madison Square Garden, which was not air-conditioned. They convened on June 24, and did not come up with a nominee until July 9, after 103 ballots. A summer heat wave also happened.

Over 60 names were eventually placed in nomination, the DNC rules demanded a 2/3 majority vote to win nomination. A resolution in the platform to condemn the KKK failed to pass by one vote. There were at least 300 Klansman delegates, maybe more, who all supported the Prohibition and McAdoo from California. The other major nominee was Al Smith from New York. He was in favor to repeal Prohibition, and was also a Catholic.

The Klan was a huge movement at the turn of the 20th century. They saw themselves as defenders of Christianity, suppressing blacks and other inferior peoples, like Jews and Catholics. Nearly all were Democrats, and many local elected politicians, as well as some national politicians were members wearing a white hood at night. The Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party in effect. Not all Democrats, mind you, but large enough to wield huge power in the 20s and 30s.

The Klan held a Patriot party for NY, NJ, and PA on July 4, where they burned effigies of Al Smith, and had a baseball toss carnival type thing. 20,000 were in attendance.  At the time, the Klan was not confined to the deep south. They were, however, confined to Democrats.

The Ultimate “Messy” Convention: the 1924 Democratic Convention

By the third day the Washington Post was reporting “Delegates in Fist Fights on Floor Over Klan.”

Al Smith and his anti-prohibition forces had the whiskey flowing, while McAdoo and his pro-prohibition delegates piously called for divine retribution against the “big city wets.” (~McAdoo was the Klan supported nominee. The Klan did not hold a high opinion of Catholics, either)

“The deadlock that developed might as well have between the Pope and the Imperial Wizard of the KKK, so solidly did the Catholic delegates support Smith and the Klan delegates support McAdoo.” Some reporters claimed even the prohibition forces were drunk by this point.

1924 “Klanbake” Dem. Convention Sheds Light on Democratic History

The image featured at the link is said to be from a 1924 Klan march in support of a fallen police officer in Madison WI, killed by two Italians selling liquor during Prohibition.  (~hmm, Catholics who liked to drink)

1924: The Wildest Convention in U.S. History – POLITICO Magazine

On Independence Day, the 10th day of the convention, 20,000 Klansmen amassed across the Hudson River in New Jersey to burn crosses and punish effigies of Smith.…The convention is often called the “Klanbake” because one of the front-runners, white shoe lawyer and former Wilson Cabinet member William G. McAdoo, was supported by the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan was a major source of power within the party, and McAdoo did not repudiate its endorsement

The 103rd Ballot: Democrats and the Disaster in Madison Square Garden – Robert K. Murray – Google Books

>>Floor demonstrations abounded between ballots, with the chants for “Mac! Mac! McAdoo!” countered by Smith’s forces who cried out, “Ku, Ku, McAdoo,” as Robert K. Murray writes in his splendid 1976 book The 103rd Ballot. Fistfights and screaming matches, featuring choice obscenities were common. On Independence Day, the 10th day of the convention, 20,000 Klansmen amassed across the Hudson River in New Jersey to burn crosses and punish effigies of Smith.<<

Democratic National Convention: a wild ride in 1924 – CSMonitor.com

Finally, after 102 ballots, just two candidates remained in the running. One was “an eastern Wall Street lawyer” from West Virginia. The other was, of all things, a “wet anti-Klan southerner.”

The lawyer, John W. Davis, got the nomination on the 103rd ballot. He was a compromise and, ultimately, a loser. The incumbent, Calvin Coolidge, would be elected president with 54 percent of the vote. Davis couldn’t even reach 30 percent. Davis would eventually abandon his party and embrace the GOP. (~LOL!)

Grant, Reconstruction and the KKK | American Experience

By 1868, the Klan had evolved into a hooded terrorist organization that its members called “The Invisible Empire of the South.” The reorganized Klan’s first leader, or “Grand Wizard,” was Nathan Bedford Forrest, who had been a Confederate general during the Civil War.

Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history?

They are also the party of interment, rounding up Americans of Japanese descent under FDR in WWII.

(7) Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican? – YouTube

The often cited talking point about Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” debunked.

On The Wall

I’ve been railing against the invasion of illegal aliens for thirty years. Walls are dumb, they have been around for at least 4000 years because they work.  President Trump and the Republicans in Congress need to hold out until they can pass legislation and appropriations to secure our border. Defending our nation is the first order of business, it’s far past time to actually do it.

The McAllen southern Texas Sector has only about half of the border fenced or barriers installed. It is no wonder that 96% of their apprehensions occur in the western area with no barrier. This single sector of our southern border makes around 700 or more apprehensions each week. Drug cartels insert “migrants” who turn themselves in to the Border Patrol, while at the same time they are smuggling drugs a few miles away.

A wall alone will not solve the problem, we also need to eliminate the magnets that draw alien invaders to begin with. We should start with bogus asylum policies which as it stands today means that anyone Other Than Mexican with one foot on our soil can claim asylum. Illegally crossing our border purely for economic reasons is not grounds to claim asylum. Demonstrating good reason that the government that you’re fleeing will kill, imprison or otherwise persecute you, however is good grounds. That is not the case for 99% of these illegal invaders.

With 750,000 back-logged asylum cases awaiting a hearing, over a three year wait, ICE has no choice but to release those apprehended on our soil, after issuing a notice to appear. Less than 10% ever show up to their hearing, and are ruled deported, even though we have no idea really who they are or where they are at. We need to set up INS courts in each of the 14 border sectors and fast-track the hearings within two weeks. End catch & release.

With medical care, education and in many cases housing, the costs to taxpayers are skyrocketing. Illegal aliens in many respects have more rights than American citizens.

Finally, nothing will change significantly unless our willy-nilly policy of granting birth-right citizenship to anyone born in the USA is ended. Contrary to what many believe, the 14th Amendment has never granted citizenship based solely on the fact that a child was born in the USA. Granting citizenship status to all is a fairly recent phenomina. The Supreme Court, nor any lower court has never ruled on it either. This is perhaps the biggest magnet of all, and it is not limited solely to illegal aliens. Legal aliens here on visas of any sort also take advantage of our idiocy.

Welcome to RichTAkes! On The Wall

Border walls only work if illegal immigration is…illegal

There is only one way to stop illegal immigration, and it’s quite easy. Make illegal immigration unambiguously illegal, once and for all.

President Trump has full constitutional power to stop the border invasion – even without Congress

The bottom line is that we need to repel the invasion, not manage it.

Sorry Democrats, Trump Has The Power To Declare A National Emergency For A Border Wall

H.R.3884 – 94th Congress (1975-1976): National Emergencies Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The law requires the POTUS to cite why there is a National Emergency when declaring a National Emergency and allows Congress to terminate it in 180 day intervals with a Resolution from both the House and the Senate.

Nancy Pelosi Whines That a Border Wall Discriminates Against People Entering Illegally

Duh! The law necessarily discriminates against law-breakers. Isn’t that why we have laws to begin with?

US pledges $10.6B aid for Central America, southern Mexico

No problem for Democrats here. 5.7 billion to upgrade and extend the border barrier is a problem? Obama’s 787 Billion complete waste of money “Stimulus” Bill wasn’t a problem for Dems either, was it?

Continue reading On The Wall

On the ACA and Pre-Existing Conditions

Question and Answer:

Question:  

Trump and most of the politicians I’ve heard all said they will protect pre existing so I don’t know why its such an issue?

Answer: 

All Republicans campaigned on a full repeal of the ACA during the ’16 campaign. McConnell himself said they would rip it out root and branch. Once elected, it somehow became “repeal and replace”. 

They didn’t rip it out root and branch. Instead they tried a very complicated two-step boogie to fix the damn thing. It didn’t work.

The pollsters reported that the people liked the pre-existing conditions mandate. The problem with that is that it encourages uninsured people to stay uninsured until they face a critical health issue. This is what Obamacare tried to address with the individual mandate, which is now repealed under the tax reform bill earlier this year. The biggest issue with pre-existing conditions under the ACA is that it spread the costs out only among those in the private health insurance market.

There are lots of other issues with the ACA which are unnecessary, violates the doctor-patient relationship and mandates all sorts of reporting, forbids private doctors from opening or expanding an existing private practice hospital, and mandates so-called minimum coverages which affects group coverage as well.

Most Obamacare enrollees were simply dumped into Medicaid, while stealing 787 billion from Medicare.

Those who were productive, had previous private health insurance coverage and didn’t qualify for a subsidy found that they could not keep their doctor or insurance. Their new Obamacare premiums had doubled and their co-pays and deductibles increased by up to 500%. Even some who were subsidized found that they could not afford to use the insurance.

Obamacare was never meant to fix anything, it was meant to fail, with democrats hoping for an outcry for Medicare for All. AKA, single-payer, with the government making all meaningful health care decisions for all of us. Sound familiar? Medicare for all, really means healthcare for none. All current private, group, and employer plans will vanish overnight, including current Medicare plans.

Obamacare still needs a full repeal. If we want to cover pre-existing conditions we can certainly do that outside of traditional insurance plans by adding some language to current Medicaid law, spreading the base out to everyone, not being restricted to private health insurance as is the case today. You can’t buy home insurance when your home is burning down, so why should anyone expect to move that burden to the private health insurance market?

There are lots of ways that we can drive down health insurance costs, while maintaining or even improving health care. Obamacare rejected all of them.

 

On Patriots

We need to get out the vote. 

If you don’t vote, Pelosi and Schumer will be running Congress.

Do you want those socialists running Congress?

 

On Birthright Citizenship

RichTAkes! on Birthright Citizenship

I’ve posted frequently on illegal aliens, the daily alien invasion and natural born citizens for years. Especially since Obama’s natural born status was a hot topic of debate. Earlier today, news broke that Trump was asked a direct question for an HBO special by Axios, and Trump being Trump, answered it directly. 

He flatly stated that he was advised that he could end birthright citizenship outright by means of an Executive Order. That would not be my first choice, but I agree that this policy, which just seems to have evolved willy-nilly needs to end. Critics claim that a Constitutional Amendment would be required, and I agree that it would be a good proposal for the Convention of States. I disagree with the critic’s claims, Trump would not be changing the Constitution, he would be enforcing it.

Imagine for a moment that you come home from work and find a couple who have no legal basis, or jurisdiction for being here have birthed a child in your bedroom, and when you open the door they present you with their child and say congratulations, you are now a proud daddy (or mommy) of our lovely baby girl. That is exactly what birthright citizenship is.

Welcome to Rich Takes!

Harry Reid has an opinion on birthright citizenship in 1993. He must have been sane at one time.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are the slave amendments. The 13th abolished slavery. The 14th addressed certain laws in the south which restricted former slaves rights, which it intended to correct. Sadly, it did not envision illegal aliens, persons present on our soil without our consent, whose very presence violates our law from bestowing citizenship upon their offspring. We did that to ourselves, and the 14th neither prescribes nor condones birthright citizenship for those without a legal presence.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.<<

Section 2 raised some interesting points. The first deals with the Census (without specifically mentioning the census) and Representation. It says “counting whole persons residing in each state, excluding Indians not taxed”. First, the Indians not taxed means that they weren’t to be counted for purposes of representation, since they were considered citizens of their respective Indian Nations, and thus, not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. 

Second, we have states today who benefit from representation not meant, in other words, by counting illegal aliens for purposes of the census and representation. Illegal aliens in California alone account for as many as 8 seats in the House of Representatives that they don’t deserve.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, …

14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Exclusive: Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order – Axios

Nothing, not even birthright citizenship, trumps consent of the nation

…for anyone who breaks into our country without consent or overstays the terms of his or her entry, it’s as if they are physically not present on our soil. Constitutional rights on our soil, much less the ultimate prize of citizenship, only apply if you come here with consent. That is deeply rooted in social compact theory and settled law. As the court said long ago in United States v. Ju Toy (1905), a person who comes to the country illegally is to be regarded as if he had stopped at the limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its boundaries.

Already as far back as the 1950s, the Supreme Court had already said, “For over a half century this Court has held that the detention of an alien in custody pending determination of his admissibility does not legally constitute an entry though the alien is physically within the United States.” Leng May Ma v. Barber, 1958.

This is why the court said in Turner v. Williams (1904) that an inadmissible alien does not have First Amendment rights because “[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law.”

In the notorious Zadvydas v. Davis case (2001), the court reiterated that any alien “paroled in to the United States pending admissibility,” without having “gained [a] foothold,” has “not effected an entry.”

It’s absurd to assert that people who are supposed to be off our soil can, strictly by trespassing on it, achieve the ultimate benefit of citizenship for their kids.

…The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the child be born here and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It is indisputable that even according to those opinions in which jurisdiction means territorial jurisdiction and not political jurisdiction (absurdly rendering the phrase superfluous, as noted earlier), the language of “subject to the jurisdiction” is certainly more restrictive than the purely geographical and literal phrase “dwelling in the United States.” After all, everyone concedes that Indian tribes and children born to foreign diplomats were excluded by this phrase, even though they are physically born on our soil.

Levin: ‘Completely False’ That Children Born to Illegals Have Constitutional Right to Citizenship

Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – he spoke – he told us what he meant. He defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.

 

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 also defines citizens:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

So the Jurisdiction clause in the 14th Amendment not only excluded foreigners, but also native American Indians from birthright citizenship status. American Indians were considered to be citizens of their own native Indian nation, which is why they conducted and ratified thousands of treaties with the various Indian nations. It would be two or three decades until an Act of Congress bestowed US citizenship upon native Indians, who today are still the only legally recognized dual citizens of these United States.

Earlier posts:

Rich TAkes on Natural Born Citizens | Rich TAkes!

The Undocumented TAkes! | Rich TAkes!

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168. | Rich TAkes!

On Asylum

From last July,

…Once the drug cartels succeed in getting the illegal aliens onto our soil, it’s almost impossible for us to stem the tide. This is not due to logistical limitations but to extra-constitutional lawsuits that create death by a thousand cuts through every aspect of the asylum process. To that end, the Trump administration issued a new guidance through USCIS to finally stop the invasion at our border and turn back most of the bogus asylum seekers

…In comes the USCIS with new guidance to automatically dismiss any “credible fear” assertion at the border that is premised simply on fleeing violence unless there is evidence of government-condoned persecution. Asylum adjudicators will also be required to take into account, as a mitigating factor in true asylum seeking, the fact that these people are crossing illegally at the behest of the cartels rather than requesting entry at the points of entry.

Is the Trump administration finally blocking the border invasion?