Over The Top

On Wednesday, the Hartford Courant reported that the Connecticut Democrats will be changing the name of their annual fund raising dinner. The dinner has previously been called the Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey Dinner. John Bailey is a former Democrat party boss. It is possible that his name will remain in the new title given to the dinner. Jefferson and Jackson are being eliminated because of the fact that they were slave owners.

The article reports:

“Let’s work together to show the rest of the state exactly what it means to be a Connecticut Democrat,” party Chairman Nicholas Balletto said before introducing the resolution.

In part, the resolution said, “As members of the Democratic Party, we are proud of our history as the party of inclusion. Democrats have led the way on civil rights, LGBT equality and equal rights for women. … It is only fitting that the name of the party’s most visible annual event reflects our dedication to diversity and forward-looking vision.”

The article further reports:

Connecticut Democrats have had various ideas about the issue. U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, one of the state’s top liberal Democrats, has defended Jefferson — but at the same time said that both Democratic presidents are “very complicated” historical figures.

“I’m proud of Thomas Jefferson,” DeLauro told The Courant recently. “I think Thomas Jefferson is a founding father.”

Scot X. Esdaile, president of the Connecticut NAACP, had also asked state Democrats to consider a new name for the annual fundraiser.

“Democrats have a deeply rooted history with slavery,” he said recently. “They need to do the right thing.”

Before you rush to condemn slave holders in Colonial times, you need to remember that slavery was legal worldwide. It was an accepted practice. Slavery was outlawed in England in the early 1800’s due to the work of William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, who saw it as his Christian duty to end the practice. Slavery is a horrible practice, but before you condemn those who practiced it, think of the way future generations will look at abortion in America and the selling of baby body parts. Every generation is a mixture of good and evil. We do not have the right to condemn past generations when we are doing things as bad or worse than what they did.

If the Democrats no longer want Jefferson and Jackson, I am sure the Republicans will be glad to acknowledge the part both men played in the founding and keeping of America. They were not perfect men, but they were men used by God to guide this country.

Another Reason To Stop Funding The United Nations

Trails of Tears (English version)

Trails of Tears (English version) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Last time I checked, America was a sovereign country. We are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but we are what we are. Well, the United Nations wants to make us better. The UK Guardian reported yesterday that the United Nations has stated that the United States should return the stolen land it took from the Indians. Now that could get very messy very quickly.

The article reports:

A United Nations investigator probing discrimination against Native Americans has called on the US government to return some of the land stolen from Indian tribes as a step toward combatting continuing and systemic racial discrimination.

James Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said no member of the US Congress would meet him as he investigated the part played by the government in the considerable difficulties faced by Indian tribes.

Anaya said that in nearly two weeks of visiting Indian reservations, indigenous communities in Alaska and Hawaii, and Native Americans now living in cities, he encountered people who suffered a history of dispossession of their lands and resources, the breakdown of their societies and “numerous instances of outright brutality, all grounded on racial discrimination”.

Man, there are a whole lot of connections made in those statements that I am just not seeing. I totally agree with what is being said about the horrible way we have treated the Indians. I just have a real problem with what is seen as the solution. We took land from the Indians and forced them on reservations. Would giving them back land have any impact on the way they live or their prosperity? There are specific instances where it might–In 1830, Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democrat Party, signed the “Indian Removal Act of 1830.” The Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, and Seminole Indians (known as the “Five Civilized Tribes”) had prospered, and President Jackson had ordered the Army to relocate them. Gold had been found on their land, and they were relocated. Is the gold still there? Is it accessible? How is the land currently being used? The answers to those questions would make an interesting addition to the discussion.

I am not sure anyone has a solution to righting the wrongs done to the American Indian. Giving them their land back really won’t change a whole lot. Giving them an education and helping them transition into the twenty-first century might, but how do you do that without destroying their culture? I will admit to being something of a pro-American snob–I think the American economic system with all its faults is better than any other economic system. I just don’t know how to enable the American Indians to take part in it successfully. I simply am not convinced that giving them back their land is the answer.

Just to be difficult, I also think the United Nations has more important things to worry about–people are being killed in Syria by their own government, Christians are being murdered in Nigeria, and there are some serious questions about human rights in China. Aren’t these things a little more pressing than whether or not to return land in America to the Indians?


Enhanced by Zemanta

A President Who Chose To Ignore A Ruling By The Supreme Court

The American Thinker reminds us today that there has been only one President in American history who ignored a ruling by the Supreme Court. What happened after that was not good.

In 1830, Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democrat Party, signed the “Indian Removal Act of 1830.”  The Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, and Seminole Indians (known as the “Five Civilized Tribes”) had prospered, and President Jackson had ordered the Army to relocate them. The Supreme Court intervened, and in 1831 SCOTUS ruled on behalf of the Cherokee Nation in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. President Jackson ignored the order.

The article reports what happened next:

…the deaths of thousands of Cherokees followed.  The ruination of their businesses, culture, and theft of their lands was the outcome.  Those lands were ostensibly given to whites, while the Cherokees and the four other tribes were forcibly marched west to uncharted territory and left to die. 

Mr. Jackson was succeeded by another Democrat, Martin VanBuren, who had been Jackson’s Secretary of State.  He followed in his predecessor’s footsteps and made sure that the slaughter and theft of land, businesses, and pride continued long after Mr. Jackson got the ball rolling.  

Part of the problem was that gold had been discovered on the Cherokee land in Georgia. Greed was the obvious motive. This was one of the darkest moments in American history. The Supreme Court was right ot oppose what was happening.

I believe that the Supreme Court will be correct in opposing Obamacare. They will prevent the death of many Americans by refusing to ruin one of the best healthcare systems in the world.



Enhanced by Zemanta