Mirovne demokrate

Mirovne demokrate


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Demokrate su bile loše podijeljena politička stranka kasnih 1850 -ih, jer su postale žrtve svađa između sekcija. Nisu se mogli ujediniti 1860. godine, što je nedostatak koji je osigurao izbor Abrahama Lincolna. Tokom građanskog rata, Demokratska stranka na sjeveru sastojala se od dvije frakcije:

  1. Ratne demokrate. Ova je frakcija čvrsto podržavala vojne napore za održavanje Unije, ali je glasno kritizirala Lincolnovo vođenje rata. Ova kritika je porasla produžavanjem popisa vojnih gubitaka Unije i predsjednikovim žestokim akcijama, poput obustave habeas corpus. Ratni demokrati predstavljali su ogromnu većinu članova sjeverne stranke.
  2. Mirovne demokrate. Mnogi demokrati unutar ove grupe nadali su se da bi se Unija mogla spasiti, ali su smatrali da vojna sredstva nisu opravdana. Ova frakcija je tvrdila sljedeće:
    • Sever je bio odgovoran za guranje juga u secesiju
    • Republikanci su bili predani uspostavljanju rasne jednakosti, čemu se protive mnogi imigranti iz radničke klase koji su htjeli zaštititi svoja nisko plaćena radna mjesta i rasisti
    • Lincoln je postao tiranin i bio je sklon uništavanju građanskih sloboda
    • Rat je bio nacionalna tragedija i mora se završiti, čak i ako je to značilo davanje nezavisnosti Konfederaciji.
    Podrška mirovnim demokratama bila je najjača na Srednjem zapadu, posebno u Ohaju, Indiani i Illinoisu. Stanovnici ovih područja imali su duboko nepovjerenje prema Istoku, sjedištu republikanske moći, i održavali snažne komercijalne i sentimentalne veze s jugom. Ime "Copperhead" primijenilo je na ovu grupu neodobravajuća republikanska štampa, koja je uporedila demokratske akcije otrovne zmije. Mirovne demokrate pokušale su ime promijeniti u svoju korist noseći na reveru bakrene novčiće na kojima je glava božice Slobode.Clement L. Vallandigham iz Ohaja bio je najistaknutiji glasnogovornik frakcije. Međutim, 1863. mu je sudio vojni sud i protjeran je u Konfederaciju zbog izražavanja simpatija južnjaka. Drugi istaknuti demokrata mira bio je Fernando Wood, bivši gradonačelnik New Yorka koji je ušao u Kongres 1863. 1864. godine, Mirovne demokrate su kontrolirale Demokratsku konvenciju. Vallandigham, koji se vratio natrag u zemlju, uspio je izraditi ploču za stranačku platformu koja je rat označila kao neuspjeh i pozvala na mir putem pregovora. Taj stav je demokratski kandidat, George B. McClellan, odmah odbacio. Pad Atlante u septembru preokrenuo je tok rata, osigurao ponovni izbor Lincolna i uklonio vjetar iz jedra demokrata mira. U poslijeratnom periodu Na sjeveru, mnogi glasači su smatrali Demokratsku stranku odgovornom za postupke Copperheadsa, pripisujući im odgovornost za produženje sukoba. Demokrate nisu uspjele izbjeći neodobravanje birača sve do 1870 -ih. Tek 1884. godine demokrata je izabran za predsjednika.

Antiratni pokreti u SAD -u

Demonstranti u Vijetnamskom ratu s antiratnim natpisima marširaju u San Franciscu od Market Streeta do stadiona Kezar u parku Golden Gate na skupu pod nazivom Proljetna mobilizacija za okončanje rata u Vijetnamu

Povezano

7. listopada obilježava se osma godišnjica američke invazije na Afganistan — rata koji je prešao od kampanje do križarskog rata do blizu močvare jer su SAD preispitale i redefinirale svoju strategiju u ratu protiv terorizma. Prema nedavnom CBS -u/New York Times anketa, 53% Amerikanaca sada kaže da stvari idu loše po SAD u Afganistanu. I rijetki to govore tako žestoko kao oni koji su godišnjicu odabrali za svoj dan za demonstraciju. Studentske organizacije u 25 fakultetskih kampusa, zajedno s članovima antiratnih grupa poput koalicije Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) i Veterans for Peace održavaju skupove 7. oktobra, a drugi su već sišli u Washington. 5. oktobra, 61 osoba je uhapšena u demonstracijama u glavnom gradu, uključujući Cindy Sheehan, nekadašnju masku iračkog antiratnog pokreta, koja se vezala lancima za ogradu Bijele kuće. (Pogledajte slike u spomen na 50. godišnjicu simbola mira.)

Demonstracije poput ovih protiv vojnih avantura nacije pojavile su se u gotovo svakom važnom sukobu u historiji SAD -a. Mirovni demokrati 1860 -ih postali su pežorativno poznati kao Copperheads — nakon zmije s jugoistoka koja napada bez upozorenja — zbog protivljenja građanskom ratu. Mirovni demokrati bili su uglavnom skorašnji doseljenici Srednjeg zapada (Ohio, Indiana i Illinois) s južnim korijenima i interesom za očuvanje Unije, te su napravili zajednički cilj sa sjevernim grupama koje su se protivile emancipaciji i nacrtu. Neredi protiv nacrta iz 1863. i#151 dramatizirani u filmu Martina Scorsesea iz 2002. godine Bande iz New Yorka — izazvano je protivljenjem vladinom nedavno usvojenom Zakonu o regrutaciji, a dijelom i strahom među irskim imigrantima da će oslobođeni robovi doći na sjever i oduzeti im poslove.

Regrutacija je igrala ponavljajuću ulogu u protestima narednog stoljeća. Početkom Prvog svjetskog rata, socijalisti i izolacionisti usprotivili su se nacrtu na osnovu građanskih sloboda: Charles Schenck, generalni sekretar Socijalističke partije Amerike, osuđen je za kršenje Zakona o špijunaži iz 1917. zbog distribucije letaka koji su pozivali muškarce da odoljeti propuhu. U poznatom slučaju Schenck protiv Sjedinjenih Država, Schenck je (neuspješno) tvrdio da je regrutiranje ekvivalent "prisilnog ropstva" i da je stoga zabranjeno 13. amandmanom.


Demokratski mir

Naši urednici će pregledati ono što ste poslali i odlučiti da li želite da prepravite članak.

Demokratski mir, teza da demokratske države nikada (ili gotovo nikada) ne ratuju jedna protiv druge.

Koncept demokratskog mira mora se razlikovati od tvrdnje da su demokratije općenito mirnije od nedemokratskih zemalja. Dok je potonja tvrdnja kontroverzna, tvrdnju da se demokratske države ne bore jedna protiv druge naučnici i praktičari međunarodnih odnosa općenito smatraju istinitom. Zagovornici demokratskog mira vraćaju se njemačkom filozofu Immanuelu Kantu, a odnedavno i američkom predsjedniku. Woodrow Wilson, koji je u svojoj ratnoj poruci 1917. Kongresu izjavio da Sjedinjene Države nastoje učiniti svijet "sigurnim za demokraciju".

In Projekat za vječni mir (1795), Kant je zamislio uspostavljanje zone mira među državama koje su konstituisane kao republike. Iako je demokratiju izričito izjednačio s despotizmom, suvremeni znanstvenici tvrde da Kantova definicija republikanizma, koja naglašava reprezentativnu prirodu republičke vlasti, odgovara našem trenutnom shvaćanju liberalne demokracije. Dakle, uslovi demokratski mir (ili liberalni mir) i Kantovski mir danas se često koriste naizmjenično.

Projekat za vječni mir dobilo je malo obavijesti od studenata međunarodnih odnosa sve dok, u nizu utjecajnih članaka objavljenih sredinom osamdesetih, američki naučnik za međunarodne odnose Michael Doyle skrenuo je pažnju na Kantov rad i ustvrdio da je zona mira koju je zamislio Kant postupno postala stvarnost . Nakon toga, a posebno nakon završetka Hladnog rata, demokratski mir postao je jedan od najpopularnijih subjekata istraživanja međunarodnih odnosa. Mnogo je studija posvećeno tome, od kojih su mnoge koristile kvantitativne metode kako bi pokazale da je demokratski mir povijesna činjenica. Ono što je to istraživanje pokazalo nije da su ratovi između nedemokracija, ili između demokracija i nedemokracija, umjesto toga bili česti, pokazalo se da su, iako je međudržavni rat općenito rijedak događaj, ratovi među demokratijama bili još rjeđi.

Iako je veliki broj kritičara doveo u pitanje vjerodostojnost ove tvrdnje, tvrdnja da se demokratije ne bore jedna protiv druge i dalje je široko prihvaćena u disciplini međunarodnih odnosa. Manje je slaganja o tome zašto postoji demokratski mir. Razrađena su dva glavna konkurentna (ako se međusobno ne isključuju) objašnjenja. Dok neki tvrde da su demokratije mirnije jedna prema drugoj zbog zajedničke kulture, drugi smatraju da je glavni faktor strukturni (ili institucionalni). Zagovornici prvog stava tvrde da je politička kultura demokratskih društava prožeta normom da se sporovi rješavaju mirnim putem. Demokratsko građanstvo, tvrdi ovaj argument, primjenjuje tu normu na svoje odnose s drugim demokratskim društvima, pa stoga, kada su dvije demokratije zaključane u sporu, njihovi lideri očekuju da jedni od drugih izbjegavaju nasilne načine rješavanja spora. Zagovornici drugog objašnjenja tvrde da su političke institucije u demokratijama važnije od normi koje gaje njihovi građani. Podjela vlasti i kontrola i ravnoteža karakteristični za demokratske političke sisteme ograničavaju sposobnost izabranih lidera da svoje zemlje naglo pokrenu prema ratu. Stoga, kada dođe do sukoba između dvije demokratske zemlje, njihovi lideri ne trebaju se bojati iznenadnog napada, inherentno spor proces donošenja odluka o nacionalnoj sigurnosti na obje strane ostavlja diplomatama dovoljno vremena za mirno rješavanje sukoba.


Demokracije i rat 1900 -ih

Možda najjači dokaz koji podržava teoriju demokratskog mira je činjenica da nije bilo ratova među demokratijama tokom 20. stoljeća.

Kako je stoljeće počelo, nedavno završeni špansko-američki rat vidio je da su Sjedinjene Države porazile špansku monarhiju u borbi za kontrolu nad španskom kolonijom Kubom.

U Prvom svjetskom ratu SAD su se udružile s demokratskim europskim carstvima kako bi porazile autoritarna i fašistička carstva Njemačke, Austro-Ugarske, Turske i njihovih saveznika. To je dovelo do Drugog svjetskog rata i na kraju Hladnog rata 1970 -ih, tijekom kojeg su SAD predvodile koaliciju demokratskih nacija u otporu širenju autoritarnog sovjetskog komunizma.

Nedavno, u Zaljevskom ratu (1990.-91.), Iračkom ratu (2003.-2011.) I tekućem ratu u Afganistanu, Sjedinjene Države su se zajedno s raznim demokratskim nacijama borile protiv međunarodnog terorizma radikalnim džihadističkim frakcijama autoritarnih islamista vlade. Zaista, nakon terorističkih napada 11. septembra 2001, administracija Georgea W. Busha zasnovala je svoju vojnu silu da sruši diktaturu Sadama Husseina u Iraku na uvjerenju da će to donijeti demokratiju - dakle mir - na Bliski istok.


Predsjednik Kennedy osniva Mirovni korpus

Dana 1. marta 1961. godine predsjednik John F. Kennedy izdaje Izvršnu naredbu #10924, kojom se uspostavlja Mirovni korpus kao nova agencija u sastavu Stejt departmenta. Istog dana poslao je poruku Kongresu tražeći trajno finansiranje agencije, koja bi poslala obučene Amerikance i Amerikanke u strane zemlje da pomognu u razvojnim naporima. Mirovni korpus zaokupio je maštu američke javnosti, a tokom sedmice nakon stvaranja hiljade pisama mladih Amerikanaca stiglo je u Washington u nadi da će volontirati.

Neposrednog preteču Mirovnog korpusa — Omladinskog korpusa Tačke četiri — predložio je predstavnik Henry Reuss iz Wisconsina krajem 1950 -ih. Senator Kennedy saznao je za Reussov prijedlog tokom svoje predsjedničke kampanje 1960. godine i, osjećajući sve veći entuzijazam javnosti prema toj ideji, odlučio je dodati je svojoj platformi. Početkom oktobra 1960. poslao je poruku Mladim demokratama u kojoj se traži osnivanje “Youth Peace Corps, ”, a 14. oktobra je prvi put javno govorio o ideji Mirovnog korpusa u jednom ranom jutarnjem govoru na Univerzitetu iz Michigana u Ann Arboru. Noć prije toga angažirao je potpredsjednika Richarda Nixona u trećoj predsjedničkoj debati i iznenadio se kada je otkrio da približno 10.000 studenata čeka da ga čuje kada je stigao na univerzitet u 2 sata ujutro. Okupljeni studenti čuli su budućeg predsjednika kako izaziva : Koliko bi njih, upitao je, bilo voljno služiti svojoj zemlji i cilju slobode živeći i radeći u zemljama u razvoju godinama po vrijeme?

Prijedlog Mirovnog zbora dobio je zamah u posljednjim danima Kennedyjeve kampanje, a 8. novembra usko je izabran za 35. predsjednika Sjedinjenih Država. 20. januara 1961. godine, u svom čuvenom inauguracionom obraćanju, obećao je pomoć siromašnima svijeta. “Tim narodima u kolibama i selima pola svijeta koji se bore da razbiju veze masovne bijede, ” je rekao, 𠇚jemo sve od sebe da im pomognemo, bez obzira na period koji je potreban —ne jer komunisti to možda rade, ne zato što tražimo njihove glasove, već zato što je to ispravno. ” Takođe je apelovao na Amerikance da ne pitaju#šta vaša zemlja može učiniti za vas, pitajte šta možete učiniti za svoju zemlju. ”

Nakon 1. marta, hiljade mladih Amerikanaca odazvalo se ovom pozivu na dužnost volontirajući za Mirovni korpus. Agencija, koju je vodio Kennedyjev zet, R. Sargent Shriver, na kraju je 1961. odabrala oko 750 volontera koji će služiti u 13 nacija. U kolovozu je Kennedy bio domaćin ceremonije Bijele kuće u čast nekima od prvih Dobrovoljci Korpusa mira. 51 Amerikanac koji je kasnije sletio u Accra, Gana, na dvije godine službe, odmah je ostavio povoljan utisak na svoje domaćine kada su se okupili na aerodromskoj asfalti da pjevaju himnu Gane na Twi -u, lokalnom jeziku.

Kennedy je 22. septembra 1961. potpisao kongresno zakonodavstvo kojim je uspostavljen stalni mirovni korpus koji bi “promovirao svjetski mir i prijateljstvo ” kroz tri cilja: (1) pomoći narodima zainteresiranih zemalja u podmirivanju njihovih potreba za obučenim muškarcima i ženama ( 2) kako bi se pomoglo u promicanju boljeg razumijevanja Amerikanaca od strane naroda koji služe i (3) u pomaganju u boljem razumijevanju drugih naroda od strane Amerikanaca.

Do kraja 1963. godine na terenu je bilo 7.000 volontera koji su služili u 44 zemlje. Godine 1966. učlanjenje u Mirovni korpus doseglo je vrhunac, s više od 15.000 volontera u 52 zemlje. Smanjenjem budžeta kasnije je smanjen broj volontera Mirovnog korpusa, ali danas više od 7.000 volontera Mirovnog korpusa služi u više od 60 zemalja. Od 1961. godine više od 240.000 Amerikanaca pridružilo se Korpusu mira, koji je služio u 142 zemlje.


Lažno oglašavanje: Kako demokrate pokušavaju prepisati povijest

Od predsjednika Donalda Trumpa Donald Trump 'QAnon šaman' trebao je polagati ispit za osposobljenost u saveznom zatvoru u Coloradu Trump pogađa Bidena, demokrate u post-predsjedničkom povratku na fazu okupljanja Watchdog je otkrio da zaposlenici EPA-e drže Trumpove zaposlenike na platnom spisku nakon što su dobili otkaz: izvještaj VIŠE se pojavio na političkoj sceni , Demokrate su nemilosrdno osporavale istinitost njegovih izjava.

Ismijavajući Trumpove takozvane "alternativne činjenice", demokrate imaju neke svoje "alternativne činjenice".

Uzmite ovu izjavu sa stranice "Naša povijest" na web stranici DNC -a: "Više od 200 godina naša stranka vodi borbu za građanska prava, zdravstvenu zaštitu, socijalnu sigurnost, radnička prava i ženska prava."

Svaki student historije može odmah utvrditi zašto ova izjava nije samo zavaravajuća, već u nekim aspektima i čista laž.

Današnji demokrati mogu tvrditi da podržavaju ove ideje, ali to zasigurno nije bio slučaj „više od 200 godina“.

Ono što je najvažnije, demokrate teško da su bile zagovornici građanskih prava. Veći dio svoje istorije stranka se borila s podjelama po pitanju manjinskih prava. Pitanje proširenja ropstva razdiralo je demokrate prije i poslije građanskog rata.

Zapravo je Republikanska stranka bila zasnovana na ideji da ropstvo treba ukinuti.

1864. u platformi Republikanske stranke navedeno je: „Ropstvo je neprijateljsko prema načelima republikanske vlade. Pravda i nacionalna sigurnost zahtijevaju njezino potpuno i potpuno istrebljenje s republičkog tla. ”

Žao mi je, Tom Perez, vaša je stranka započela građanski rat jer ste podržavali "građanska prava" vlasnika robova.

Neslaganje oko pitanja građanskih prava unutar Demokratske stranke nastavilo se dugo nakon građanskog rata. Zbog podjele unutar stranke, demokrate su mogle imati samo jedno mjesto predsjednika između 1896. i 1932. Godine 1948., prvi put kada su demokrate službeno usvojile platformu za građanska prava, južne demokrate su u znak protesta napustile Demokratsku nacionalnu konvenciju.

Podjela se zadržala tokom 1950 -ih i 60 -ih godina, dok su južne demokrate pokušavale uništiti Zakon o građanskim pravima iz 1964. godine.

Zapravo, 80 posto republikanaca glasalo je za njeno konačno usvajanje, za razliku od manje od 70 posto demokrata koji su ga podržali.

Zvuči li ovo kao stranka koja je „vodila borbu za građanska prava“ više od 200 godina?

Demokratska stranka je takođe istorijski bila protiv prava glasa žena. Republikanska stranka podržala je pravo glasa žena na svojoj platformi 1854. Međutim, zbog demokratskog opstrukcionizma, ženi je 1920. godine dodijeljeno opće pravo glasa.

Kad je amandman došao prije kongresa, 82 posto članova GOP -a glasalo je za njega, dok ga je podržalo samo 59 posto demokrata.

Zvuči li to kao stranka koja je više od 200 godina vodila borbu za ženska prava?

Demokrate imaju selektivno pamćenje kada je u pitanju historija njihove stranke. To ne znači da je historija Republikanske stranke godinama besprijekorna, GOP se nesumnjivo borio i sa svojim identitetom kao stranke. Međutim, u svjetlu njihovih kritika Trumpove iskrenosti, prekrajanje demokrata iz prošlosti očito je licemjerno.

Uzmimo na primjer Andrewa Jacksona, prvog predsjednika koji se identificirao kao demokrata. Zabava brzo zaboravlja Jacksona, nakon njegovog brutalnog istjerivanja Indijanaca.

Ili Woodrow Wilson: Demokrate će ga proslaviti kao borca ​​za mir, ali će propustiti spomenuti da mu je bilo malo stalo do građanskih prava i da su segregaciju u federalnim agencijama gledali kao korist za manjine.

Ili John F. Kennedy: njegovo zagovaranje građanskih prava je istaknuto, ali mnogi demokrati zanemaruju dubinu političkog računa i krajnje kolebljivosti s kojom je JFK pristupio pitanjima građanskih prava.

Ova tendencija previđanja ili rebrendiranja nekih istaknutih demokratskih ličnosti ne odnosi se samo na demokrate iz prošlosti, već i na stranačke vođe sadašnjosti.

Jedan od razloga zašto je zemlja odbila Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonTrump pogađa Bidena, demokrate u post-predsjedničkom povratku na fazu mitinga Conan O'Brien završava kasnonoćno trčanje nakon više od 4.000 epizoda Glasanje o pričesti stavlja u središte pozornosti katolike latinoameričkog porijekla VIŠE je zato što je pokušala biti sve za sve ljude, i na kraju, niko zaista nije znao gdje ona stoji po tom pitanju.

Demokrate tvrde da imaju 200-godišnju istoriju vođenja borbe za građanska prava, zdravstvenu zaštitu, socijalno osiguranje, prava radnika i prava žena?

Ali istorija kaže drugačije.

U zavisnosti od toga u kog demokrata gledate, taj broj možda neće biti ni deset godina.

Ako će demokrate napasti Trumpa zbog laganja i obmanjivanja američkog naroda, trebali bi paziti šta se oglašavaju.

Christopher Reid advokat je opće prakse u Birminghamu u Alabami. Radio je za republikansko vodstvo u Predstavničkom domu Predstavničkog doma Sjedinjenih Država u Washingtonu, DC i bio savjetnik za zdravstvenu politiku guvernera Alabame. Trenutno je suvoditelj konzervativne radijske emisije za informativni radio na Yellowhammer-u koja se čuje u cijeloj državi Alabama.

Stavovi koje su izrazili saradnici su njihovi i nisu stavovi The Hill -a.


Gdje stoji Demokratska stranka o ratu, miru i međunarodnim odnosima?

Nakon gotovo četiri godine Trumpove administracije, američki glasači imaju prilično dobru predodžbu o politici koju predsjednik i njegovi republikanski saveznici zagovaraju kada se radi o odnosima Amerike i drugih država. Ove politike uključuju ogromno povećanje vojne potrošnje, dugotrajne ratove u inostranstvu, prijetnje nuklearnim ratom, povlačenje iz sporazuma o klimi i nuklearnom razoružanju, suzbijanje izbjeglica i napuštanje međunarodnih institucija.

Ali šta je sa demokratama? Da li oni, kako su neki tvrdili, jednostavno preslikavaju republikance kada je u pitanju američki i svjetski angažman? Zvanična platforma Demokratske stranke, usvojena ovog avgusta na nacionalnoj konvenciji Demokratske stranke, daje koristan odgovor na ovo pitanje.

Odeljak platforme za vanjske poslove otvara se oštrim pobijanjem Trumpovog i zaraćenog, nacionalističkog pristupa. Osporavajući militarizam, on se obavezuje da će "ubiti snagu samo kada je to potrebno, uvijek kao posljednju mjeru, i uz svjestan pristanak američkog naroda." Također obećava da će se oslanjati na međunarodna partnerstva i institucije za rješavanje zajedničkih izazova s ​​kojima se nijedna država ne može suočiti vlastiti. & rdquo

Razgovor o vojnoj politici SAD -a na platformi i rsquosu posebno je upečatljiv. & ldquoMoramo zauvijek privesti naše vječne ratove odgovornim krajem, & rdquo navodi se u dokumentu. & ldquoNaši vojni angažmani, koji se protežu od Zapadne Afrike do jugoistočne Azije, koštali su više od 5 biliona dolara i odnijeli više od pola miliona života. Naš rat u Afganistanu je najduži rat u američkoj istoriji. & Rdquo Dakle, & ldquoit & rsquos je vrijeme da se okonča skoro dvije decenije neprestanog sukoba. & Rdquo

U skladu s tim, platforma poziva na mirno rješenje u Afganistanu, prekid američke podrške ratu u Jemenu pod vodstvom Saudijske Arabije (rat koji je ldquo odgovoran za najgoru svjetsku humanitarnu krizu & rdquo) i na primjenu naučenih lekcija iz ovih katastrofalnih sukoba. To znači, između ostalog, da će & ldquowe surađivati ​​s Kongresom na ukidanju višedecenijskih ovlaštenja za upotrebu vojne sile i zamijeniti ih uskim i specifičnim okvirom koji će osigurati da možemo zaštititi Amerikance od terorističkih prijetnji uz okončanje vječnih ratova. & rdquo Platforma dodaje: & ldquoUmjesto da okupiraju zemlje i sruše režime kako bi spriječili terorističke napade, demokrate će dati prioritet efikasnijim i jeftinijim diplomatskim, obavještajnim i policijskim alatima. & rdquo

U skladu s ovim novim pristupom, platforma poziva na smanjivanje Trumpove administracije i rsquos napuhanog vojnog budžeta & mdash kako to naziva, tipično za Washington, ldquorestoring stabilnost, predvidljivost i fiskalnu disciplinu u troškovima za odbranu. & Rdquo U opravdanju, platforma napominje da & ldquowe troši 13 puta više o vojsci nego o diplomatiji. Svake godine trošimo pet puta više u Afganistanu nego na globalno javno zdravstvo i sprječavanje sljedeće pandemije. Možemo održati snažnu odbranu i zaštititi svoju sigurnost i sigurnost za manje. & Rdquo

Platforma također obećava da će demokrati pokrenuti druge reforme u američkoj vojsci. To uključuje napore da se zaustavi & ldquothe Trumpova administracija & rsquos politizacija oružanih snaga, & rdquo iskorijeni seksualni napad u njihovim redovima, i zaštiti & ldquothe nezavisnost vojnog pravosudnog sistema & mdashnot ne pomilovaju ratni zločinci. & Rdquo

Obećavajući da će & ldquorevitalizirati američku diplomaciju, & rdquo platforma tvrdi da će, & ldquora, osim što će militarizirati našu vanjsku politiku, & rdquo demokrati učiniti diplomatiju & ldquoour alatima prve pomoći. & Rdquo Pod demokratskom administracijom, američka vlada će se ponovo pridružiti Svjetskoj zdravstvenoj organizaciji, UN Human Human Vijeća za prava i Fonda UN -a za stanovništvo i nastoje modernizirati međunarodne institucije. Zalažući se za programe inozemne pomoći i razvoja, ova platforma podržava američka i ldquoinvesticije u sprječavanje i ublažavanje siromaštva, gladi, bolesti i sukoba, & rdquo i & ldquot osnaživanje ranjivog i marginaliziranog stanovništva. & Rdquo Također obećava da će & ldquoDemokrati voditi međunarodne napore u razvoju zemlje izdržavaju i oporavljaju se od dužničkih kriza uzrokovanih pandemijom COVID-19. & rdquo

Zaista, Demokratska platforma oštro odbacuje uski nacionalistički pristup Trumpove administracije. Sadrži snažne obveze djelovanja u suradnji s drugim državama radi osiguranja globalnog zdravlja (na primjer, vraćanjem uloge SAD -a kao vodećeg finansijera i tehničkog partnera SZO -a), borbe protiv klimatskih promjena (ponovnim pridruživanjem Pariskom klimatskom sporazumu i razvijanjem ambicioznijih globalnih ciljevi za smanjenje zagađenja stakleničkim plinovima), korištenje tehnologije za opće dobro (održavanjem otvorenog interneta) i proširenje prihvata izbjeglica. U još jednom pokušaju poštivanja prava drugih nacija, platforma obećava da će američku vladu & rsquos & ldquorelationships na Bliskom istoku odmaknuti od vojne intervencije & rdquo i okončati okrutnu politiku Trumpove administracije prema Kubi i Venezueli.

U skladu s ovim smanjenim naglaskom na vojnoj moći i povećanim naglaskom na međunarodnoj suradnji, platforma navodi da demokrate podržavaju & ldquoelimination & rdquo kemijsko, biološko i nuklearno oružje. Oni favoriziraju & ldquoreducing našu preveliku ovisnost i prevelike izdatke za nuklearno oružje & rdquo i izjavljuju da je & ldquothe Trumpova administracija & rsquos prijedlog za izgradnju novog nuklearnog oružja nepotreban, rasipan i neodbranjiv. & Rdquo Nadalje, & ldquoDemokrate se obvezuju na jačanje & ndquo nuklearnog Ugovora o neširenju oružja, & ldquoquo; testiranje, zagovaranje ratifikacije Ugovora o trgovini oružjem UN -a i Ugovora o sveobuhvatnoj zabrani testiranja, te produženje novog START -a. & rdquo Štaviše, oni bi ldquoradno radili s Rusijom & rdquo da bi pregovarali o [nuklearnom] naoružanju. . . i maknuti svijet s nuklearne provalije. & rdquo

Doduše, Demokratska platforma 2020. također sadrži povremenu retoriku koja se maše zastavom i brojne pozicije koje će zasigurno iritirati barem neke kritičare Trumpove politike. Takođe, naravno, stranačka platforma je izjava o političkim preferencijama i mdash nije garancija njihove implementacije.

Čak i tako, kada je riječ o ratu, miru i međunarodnim odnosima, Demokratska stranka je ocrtala program koji se značajno razlikuje od programa njenog republikanskog kolege. Na ovim novembarskim izborima rsquos, američki glasači imat će jasan izbor kakvu ulogu žele da njihova zemlja ima u svijetu.


Stranka mira i slobode: historija, činjenice i vjerovanja

Stranka mira i slobode. Stisnuta između velikih političkih partija poput republikanaca i demokrata, ova mala ljevičarska stranka nastoji pronaći čvrsto tlo u zapletenom svijetu politike vođene ciljevima jednakosti, feminizma i demokracije. Ovaj članak OpinionFront prati istoriju, činjenice i vjerovanja Partije mira i slobode.

Stranka mira i slobode. Stisnuta između velikih političkih partija poput republikanaca i demokrata, ova mala ljevičarska stranka nastoji pronaći čvrsto tlo u zapletenom svijetu politike vođene ciljevima jednakosti, feminizma i demokracije. Ovaj članak OpinionFront prati istoriju, činjenice i vjerovanja Partije mira i slobode.

Komičar Roseanne Barr bio je službeni kandidat Stranke mira i slobode za predsjedničke izbore 2012.

Ova ljevičarska kalifornijska stranka ni na koji način nije povezana sa Ženskom međunarodnom ligom za mir i slobodu koja je anti-ratna organizacija, iako je nastala iz antiratnih demonstracija. Nijedan vođa nije priznat kao njegov osnivač, umjesto toga bilo je nekoliko pojedinaca koji su služili tokom njegove konstitutivne faze iz različitih sfera života. Poljoprivredni radnici, građanska prava i antiratni aktivisti osnovali su ovu stranku zbog političkih frustracija koje je nacija izložila Demokratskoj stranci.

Nakon svog početka, stranka je postala poznata u multikulturalnoj državi Kaliforniji, a do početka 1968. uspješno je stekla glasački status u državi registriravši preko 105.000 birača pod svojim prepoznatljivim političkim znakom.

Kratka istorija

Stranka mira i slobode osnovana je 23. juna 1967. godine zbog direktnih posljedica Vijetnamskog rata. Antiratni aktivisti održali su miran protest protiv administracije Lyndona Johnsona zbog guranja Amerike na navodni ratni front.

Dana 23. juna 1967. godine, dok je predsjednik Johnson držao govor u Century Cityju u Los Angelesu, hiljade bijelih muškaraca, žena i djece izašli su na ulice protestujući zbog okončanja vijetnamske propagande i pozvali trupe kući. Policija je napala gomilu i počela tući demonstrante stvarajući pandemonijum i haos čak i dok su mediji snimali cijelu scenu uživo. Ova pojava izazvala je više nepovjerenja među građanima prema Demokratskoj stranci.

Drugi katalizator pokazali su se nesrećni poljoprivrednici koji su željeli osnovati sindikat i započeti nacionalni bojkot protiv demokrata zbog njihovog povećanja poreza. Tako su se poljoprivrednici, antiratni aktivisti okupili i osnovali svoju nezavisnu stranku koja će se baviti ekonomskim, političkim i društvenim pitanjima.

Partijska uvjerenja

Stranka nema nikakav službeni slogan, ali njegova temeljna uvjerenja općenito se temelje na demokratiji, socijalizmu, feminizmu, ekologiji i rasnoj jednakosti. The logotip stranke sastoji se crnog kruga koji se sastoji od bijelog goluba sa ‘Mir i Stranka slobode ’ ispisanim zelenim tekstom, i dva odlomljena, crvena metalna okova s ​​lijeve i desne strane.

Socijalizam
Stranka koja na dnevnom redu uglavnom drži radničku klasu zalaže se za poljoprivrednu i industrijsku proizvodnju za ljudske potrebe, ujedinjenje rada, ukidanje imperijalnog kapitalizma, stvaranje boljih uslova rada, roditeljski dopust za brigu o djeci, odbranu radničkih prava, ukidanje prekovremeni rad uz 30-satni rad i 40-satnu platu, promociju zakona o sigurnosti i univerzalni osnovni prihod sa zajamčenim socijalnim davanjima.

Podržava mir i međunarodnu pravdu
Posvećeni su radu na uspostavljanju mira među narodima s globalnim razoružanjem, ukidanju destabilizacije stranih vlada, rješavanju svih vladinih tajnih agencija poput CIA -e, NSA -e, AID -a i drugih agencija, ukidanju naoružanja i trgovini, preraspodjeli vojnih sredstava za socijalna pitanja dobrobiti i uklanjanje svemirskog oružja i bespilotnih letjelica koje narušavaju privatnost ljudi.

Jednaka prava i slobode
Stranka vjeruje u jednake mogućnosti rada i poštivanje radnika od strane njihovih poslodavaca, kao i vlade.

Ženska prava
Njihova uvjerenja predstavljaju okončanje opresivnih seksualnih uloga u društvu, promicanje jednakih prava na odgoj djeteta, pružanje visokokvalitetne brige o djeci, besplatni pobačaj na zahtjev, sprječavanje prisilnih pobačaja, osiguravanje prenatalne njege i okončanje društvenog i porodičnog nasilja nad ženama.

Rasizam i nacionalna potlačenost
The party proposes to put an end to all forms of racism and social discrimination, and legally prosecute law and prison authorities who mistreat and murder prison inmates.

Establish Language Rights
They encourage co-equal status for Spanish language and culture in the state of California and abolish all English-only laws.

Protection of Undocumented Workers
They aim to establish full political, economic, and social rights to the immigrant workers, opening up of the borders, and end deportation of illegal immigrants.

Defends the Native Americans
The party strives to work for the acknowledgement of indigenous tribes, honor their hunting, fishing, and natural resources, abolish the FBI harassment of these tribes, and stop the desecration of their sacred burial grounds.

Acknowledges Varied Sexual Orientations
The party promotes equal rights for every individual despite their personal sexual orientation, rights to gay marriage, healthy sex education at schools, and insures equal child custody, adoption, visitation privileges, and foster parenthood rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Equality for People With Disabilities
The party encourages equal rights for people with disabilities to receive education, housing, health care, recreation, and transportation rights.

Propagation of a Healthy Ecosystem
They believe in creation of open public spaces, regulate pesticides, herbicides, industrial wastes and genetically modified foods to defend human food, air and water, and species habitat. They aim to end environment racism, protect species and bio-diversity.

Efficient Agricultural System
The party believes in developing an agricultural system that assures sufficient food and farm products to meet all human needs, end animal husbandry, end the use of genetically engineered organisms in food production, ban terminator seeds and chemically induced agricultural products.

Better Education
The PFP believes in promoting multi-lingual and multi-cultural education, cancellation of student debt, federal funding for special education, free education till graduation level, and snips on public library services.

Promotes Housing and Rent Control
Their ideologies include rent and eviction laws to be re-evaluated and re-updated, introduce collective bargaining for tenants, promote affordable homes for all, and emphasize public financing for housing the homeless.

Equal Voting and Election Rights
The party ascertains direct voting facility to the public, voting rights to non-residents especially in school and local elections, voting rights for people of color, homeless, and non-English speakers, and free access to media for all political candidates.

Better Health Care
PFP believes in promoting free and high-quality health care for all, price control on drugs and medical installations, more funding on research of diseases caused by man-made substances, and more substance abuse treatment, prevention of epidemic diseases, and free immunization.

Reduction of Tax Burden
PFP advocates the abolition of Proposition 13, removal of property taxes on modest homes, increase in registration fees on luxury vehicles, high tax on unearned income, restoration of renters tax credit, and tax business activities of churches on the same basis as other organizations.

Famous Candidates

Political activist and beatnik poet John Haag was one of the prominent leaders. He ran for the public offices of California lieutenant governor in 1970 and California state controller in 1986. Eldridge Cleaver ran for presidential elections and Douglas Fitzgerald Dowd for vice presidential elections on its ticket for the 1968 election.

Other presidential candidates who stood for elections include activist and pediatrician Benjamin Spock in 1972, feminist activist Sonia Johnson in 1984, and Native American activist Leonard Peltier in 2004. Vice-presidential candidates included Benjamin Spock in 1976, Matinecoc Nation Native American activist Asiba Tupahache in 1992, and lawyer and politician Matthew Edward Gonzalez in 2008. California candidates for governor have included Chicana feminist and activist Elizabeth Martínez, Chicana activist Maria Elizabeth Muñoz in 1986, and again in 1990, and activist Janice Jordan 2006. godine.

More recently comedian Roseanne Barr contested the 2012 presidential elections.

Pros & Cons

Pros:
1. An efficient platform for Native American rights, equal social, sex, and women rights, better health and education goals, tax cuts, labor benefits, and agricultural production.

2. The party completely opposes all kinds of war and harbingers peace.

Cons:
Extremely active, but only in California other states have yet to witness its beneficial agenda.

Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) relentlessly make their presence felt in the nation’s political scene by nominating presidential, congressional, and senate candidates. The party holds regular demonstrations against the wealthy society and corporate houses who hoard public wealth for their benefits. It also carries out protests against the biased mandate of the media and cash-rich political parties who deny other candidates a ballot chance to present their views. With all these efforts, it will soon gain enough attention from the public to establish their party goals.


Democratic peace theory and historical examples.

The subject of democratic peace theory (the idea that democratic states don't fight each other) has come up on here a few times. Aside from the fact that there are plenty of historical exceptions to this rule (Philippine-American war, Irish war of Independence etc) one of my hunches is that democracies havent fought it each other simply due to the fact that they have little to fight about anyway. Democratic peace theorists on the other hand would explain this using regime type.

For example Joanne Gowa (playing devils advocate) sums up this argument by saying
“The checks and balances that define a democracy
constrain the autonomy of its leader. These constraints apply a fortiori to decisions
involving force, delaying the dispatch of troops abroad even in international crises. As
such, they create a window of opportunity that diplomats can exploit to settle conflicts of
interests without recourse to arms.”*

However if this was the case you would think that there was some example of two democracies having some dispute that they would have fought over were it not for democratic constraints, so presumably there would be some case where two democracies came to the brink of war and then stopped. Does such an example exist?
*http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/wip/dempeace_final.pdf p5

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod

I am always wary of broad generalizations and absolutes in politics.

For instance, simply defining what is a "Democratic nation" is difficult. Some nations have the FORMS of democracy without the substance. Then there's the question of "pure democracy" vs "representative democracy", and the question of who gets to vote or hold office, and the question of civil rights and so forth.

Usually we end up just assuming that we're talking about the sort of governments that currently exist in the USA, Britain, Canada, and most of Western Europe. Well there's actually a LOT of variation just in that group, but we'll set that aside for now and accept the popular assumption for the sake of argument.

I would disagree with the assertion that two "Democratic" nations would NEVER go to war with each other.

I would however, support this statement: "Democratic nations retko engage in wars of aggression against other democratic nations, absent substantial provocation or dire necessity."

And this one: "Autocracies, Oligarchies, Fascists and Theocracies are generally more likely to engage in wars of aggression than Democratic Republics."

Nations go to war mainly for one of these reasons:

1. Expansion, either of territory or influence, or the acquisition of resources.
2. Defense, including pre-emptive attack of a nation that seems to be a threat.
3. Other vital conflicts of intrest koji su insoluble through diplomacy.

I think Number 3 is worth further consideration. Two "democratic" nations (whatever that really means) could still find themselves in an insoluble conflict of intrests. If both nations needed resources available in a border region to prevent their economies from collapsing, and there wasn't enough resource in that border region to share between the two of them, that might do it.


Pro-War Democrats Push Revisionist History at DNC

Beyond the fact that the Democrats&rsquo virtual national convention appeared to have been produced by a high school A/V department , the event was one of the most blatant exercises in revisionist history ever foisted on the American body politic.

While nominating one former senator who voted to authorize the Iraq War -- Joe Biden -- the DNC enlisted another , John Kerry, to portray Democrats as the &ldquoparty of peace.&rdquo

Biden and Kerry are career politicians who have supported war for the length of their time in Washington and are members of the military/industrial/congressional complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.

&ldquo[Trump] doesn&rsquot know how to defend our troops,&rdquo Kerry claimed, based on a bogus and debunked &ldquoRussian bounties&rdquo scandal that he, President Obama, and Joe Biden either knew about or treba have known about because it supposedly happened and was first reported under their watch.

Kerry and the rest of the Obama-Biden administration dramatically expanded the war in Afghanistan, leading to over 1,000 Americans killed in action, and dragged the country into new, thankless interventions in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere &mdash never intending for them to win in the field.

These open-ended military engagements without military value or clearly defined objectives or outcomes result in the diminution of military morale and capability and simply grind up our finest men and women. Kerry even had the nerve to claim that &ldquoOur troops can&rsquot get out of harm&rsquos way by hiding in the White House bunker.&rdquo

Buried within that idiotic jibe about the president, who was following Secret Service protocol while radicals attacked U.S. Park Service Police outside the White House, Kerry unintentionally got something right.

Our overtaxed soldiers can only get out of harm&rsquos way if they have a president who is committed to 1) letting them win a war when they are deployed and then 2) getting them home and out of harm&rsquos way as soon as possible after the victory.

After fulfilling his promise to destroy ISIS, President Trump brought our troops home from Northern Syria &mdash where Kerry, Biden, and Obama had sent them to sit for years in a war zone for the benefit of &ldquomoderate rebels&rdquo (note: there is no such thing as a &ldquomoderate rebel&rdquo). Against incredible pressure from the foreign policy establishment, Donald Trump also committed to getting thousands of additional American troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.

Next up was Kerry&rsquos predecessor, Colin Powell, who was among the leading engineers of the Iraq War while serving as secretary of state under former President George W. Bush.

&ldquoOur country needs a commander-in-chief who takes care of our troops in the same way he would his own family,&rdquo Powell said while endorsing the Democratic ticket, as he has done in all four presidential elections since leaving office. &ldquoWith Joe Biden in the White House, you will never doubt that he will stand with our friends &hellip he will trust our diplomats and our intelligence community[.]&rdquo

Powell, after all, is the same man who sat before the United Nations Security Council and lied, bald faced , about weapons of mass destruction in order to start a war. How dare he talk about &ldquotaking care of our troops&rdquo when he is personally responsible &mdash as a politician, not a soldier &mdash for the deaths of 4,507 American servicemen and women? How dare the man who lied to and coerced our closest allies into needlessly sacrificing hundreds of their own brave soldiers in a quagmire of his own administration&rsquos creation talk of &ldquostanding with our friends?&rdquo How dare Powell &mdash who pushed obviously false intelligence reports that confirmed his views and twisted those that did not, and who elevated the word of self-interested Iranian-backed conmen into Gospel truth, humiliating America and undermining our credibility to this day &mdash talk of &ldquotrusting our intelligence community?&rdquo

The height of hypocrisy, however, came during the three-minute tribute to the long personal friendship between Biden and the late Sen. John McCain. &ldquoIt was a friendship that shouldn&rsquot have worked,&rdquo the narrator intoned .

Never addressed in the entire video is zašto that friendship &ldquoshouldn&rsquot have worked&rdquo &mdash in many ways, Biden and McCain were two sides of the same coin. The two men, both establishment figures in their respective parties and occasional presidential candidates, were integral members of the same Washington foreign policy &ldquoblob&rdquo for decades. To the extent that the two men differed on foreign policy views, it was only in that McCain was a more extreme devotee of the failed interventionism ideology to which they both subscribed.

John McCain was the single leading advocate of military adventurism in post-Cold War America. In addition to being the Iraq War&rsquos greatest booster, he also tried to push America to the brink of war with Russia. He tried to pressure our allies into adding the tiny, Russia-adjacent country of Georgia into NATO, which would have obligated us to go to war with a nuclear power over the breakaway &ldquorepublic&rdquo of South Ossetia, which has a population of just 53,000. When the Obama-Biden administration was bungling its schizophrenic intervention in Syria, McCain was right there on the ground, posing for photos with the jihadist-allied &ldquomoderate rebels.&rdquo

It is only thanks to a new breed of Republicans who repudiated and marginalized the Biden/McCain school&rsquos foreign policy views &mdash Donald Trump foremost among them &mdash that this country has avoided more of the saber-rattling lunacy of the Iraq War era. These new Republicans demand accountable use of the military. They believe the military should be used as a last resort, but when used should be given clear, achievable objectives and ALLOWED to win. They believe in ending the meandering, vague, and open-ended military engagements that cost blood and treasure but secure nothing for the U.S. or our allies &mdash engagements that Biden has openly called for and supported throughout his entire 47-year political career.

The consistently anti-Trump McCain&rsquos proxy endorsement from beyond the grave only proves the president&rsquos point: establishment figures from both parties were in cahoots with each other all along.

In 2016, Donald Trump called out the D.C. establishment&rsquos lies and the bellicose dogmatism that got thousands of Americans killed and permanently alienated many of our closest allies. Since then, the Trump administration has reoriented our foreign policy toward peace, restraint, effective and limited use of military power, and putting America first. Joe Biden would return us to the old ways, and all the revisionist history in the world can&rsquot change this fact.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (ret) is a Bronze Star recipient for combat in Afghanistan, a retired CIA-trained senior intelligence operations officer, and president of the London Center for Policy Research.


The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

Have you heard of Josiah Walls or Hiram Rhodes Revels? How about Joseph Hayne Rainey? If not, you&rsquore not alone. I taught history and I never knew half of our nation&rsquos past until I began to re-educate myself by learning from original source materials, rather than modern textbooks written by progressive Democrats with an agenda.

Interestingly, Democrats have long ago erased these historic figures from our textbooks, only to offer deceitful propaganda and economic enticements in an effort to convince people, especially black Americans, that it&rsquos the Democrats rather than Republicans who are the true saviors of civil liberties. Luckily, we can still venture back into America&rsquos real historical record to find that facts are stubborn things. Let&rsquos take a closer look.

An 1872 print by Currier and Ives depicts the first seven black Americans elected to the U.S. Congress during the Reconstruction period of 1865 to 1877-- and they&rsquore all Republican!

  • Sen. Hiram Rhodes Revels, R-MS (1822-1901): Already an ordained minister, Revels served as an army chaplain and was responsible for recruiting three additional regiments during the Civil War. He was also elected to the Mississippi Senate in 1869 and the U.S. Senate in 1870, making him America&rsquos first black senator.
  • Rep. Benjamin Turner, R-AL (1825-1894): Within just five years, Turner went from slave to wealthy businessman. He also became a delegate to the Alabama Republican State Convention of 1867 and a member of the Selma City Council in 1868. In 1871, Turner was even elected to the U.S. Congress.
  • Rep. Robert DeLarge, R-SC (1842-1874): Although born a slave, DeLarge chaired the Republican Platform Committee in 1867 and served as delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1868. From 1868 to 1870, he was also elected to the State House of Representatives and later Congress, serving from 1871 to 1873.
  • Rep. Josiah Walls, R-FL (1842-1905): Walls was a slave who was forced to fight for the Confederate Army until he was captured by Union troops. He promptly enlisted with the Union and eventually became an officer. In 1870, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, harassing Democrats questioned his qualifications until he was officially expelled. Although he was re-elected after the first legal challenge, Democrats took control of Florida and Walls was prohibited from returning altogether.
  • Rep. Jefferson Long, R-GA (1836-1901): Long was also born into slavery, and he too became a successful business man. However, when Democrats boycotted his business he suffered substantial financial loses. But that didn&rsquot stop Long, who in 1871 became the first black representative to deliver a congressional speech in the U.S. House.
  • Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey, R-SC (1832-1887): Although born a slave, Rainey became the first black Speaker of the U.S. House for a brief period in 1870. In fact, he served in Congress longer than any other black America at that time.
  • Rep. Robert Brown Elliot, R-SC (1842-1884): Elliot helped to organize the Republican Party throughout rural South Carolina. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1870 and reelected in 1872. In 1874, he was elected to the State House of Representatives and eventually served as Speaker of the House in the State Legislature.

Clearly, the latter half of the 19th Century, and for much of the early half of the 20th Century, it was the Republican Party that was the party of choice for blacks. Kako je ovo moguće? Because the Republican Party was formed in the late 1850s as an oppositional force to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. Republicans wanted to return to the principles that were originally established in the republic&rsquos founding documents and in doing so became the first party to openly advocated strong civil rights legislation. Voters took notice and in 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President along with a Republican Congress. This infuriated the southern Democrats, who soon afterwards left Congress and took their states with them to form what officially became known as The Slaveholding Confederate States of America.

Meanwhile, Republicans pushed full steam ahead. Take, for example, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution that officially abolished slavery in 1864. Of the 118 Republicans in Congress (House and Senate) at the time, all 118 voted in favor of the legislation, while only 19 of 82 Democrats voted likewise. Then there&rsquos the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments guaranteeing rights of citizenship and voting to black males. Not a single Democrat voted in favor of either the Fourteenth (House and Senate) or Fifteenth (House and Senate) Amendments.

In spite of this, in almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party&rsquos achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office. For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn&rsquot elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!

Political Gangs With Pointy Hoods

By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party&rsquos alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats&rsquo struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).

This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK&rsquos first Grand Wizard. But don&rsquot bother checking the Democratic National Committee&rsquos website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Now, for the 2016 election cycle, they&rsquove scratched even more history. Apparently, they believe it&rsquos easier to just lie and claim to have fought for civil rights for over 200 hundred years, while seeing fit to list only a select few distorted events as exemplary, beginning as late as the 1920s. Incredibly, the DNC conveniently jumps past more than 100 years of American history!

Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There&rsquos even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan&rsquos connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK&rsquos prominent role in the Democratic Party.

One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: &ldquoEvery Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation&hellip. Democrats must go in as large numbers&hellipand well-armed.&rdquo An issue of Harper&rsquos Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him. At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: &ldquoOf Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!&rdquo

This is reminiscent of the 2008 Presidential election when members of the New Black Panther Party hung out at a Philadelphia precinct wielding big batons.

The Klan&rsquos primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out &ldquopush cards&rdquo -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) &ldquoRadicals&rdquo of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other. Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process. Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.

By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills. Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress. Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions. Talk about disenfranchising black voters!

There were also lynchings, but not what you might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks i 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan.

Today, the Democratic Party no longer needs the help of political gangs wearing pointy hoods to do their dirty work. Instead, they do it themselves. You may recall the case of black Tea Party activist Kenneth Gladney, who was brutally beaten by two SEIU members during a 2009 health care town hall meeting. In February 2011, a union thug with Communications Workers of America was caught on tape physically assaulting a young female FreedomWorks activist in Washington, DC. Then in 2012, Michigan Education Association President Steve Cook jumped on the protest bandwagon against the state&rsquos new right-to-work legislation stating, &ldquoWhoever votes for this is not going to have any peace for the next two years.&rdquo An even worse threat was issued on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives the next day by Democratic Representative Douglas Geiss who charged, &ldquoThere will be blood!&rdquo

As we forge ahead into this critical 2016 election season, let us not forget the real history of America when blacks and whites, primarily Republicans, worked side by side defending the rights and dignity of all Americans. It&rsquos a history that has been kept out of the history books--a history that today&rsquos Democrats routinely lie about while promptly pointing their finger at Republicans, calling white Republicans racists and black Republicans Uncle Toms. This is because Democrats have a secret past that must be protected and an agenda that must be fulfilled. If history is any indication of what the future might hold, brace yourself. There will be some in the Democratic Party who will be prepared to do whatever it takes to silence any opposition.

Kimberly Bloom Jackson is a former actress turned teacher who holds a doctorate in cultural anthropology. Her many writings on Hollywood, education, and culture can be found at SnoopingAnthropologist.com.

Have you heard of Josiah Walls or Hiram Rhodes Revels? How about Joseph Hayne Rainey? If not, you&rsquore not alone. I taught history and I never knew half of our nation&rsquos past until I began to re-educate myself by learning from original source materials, rather than modern textbooks written by progressive Democrats with an agenda.

Interestingly, Democrats have long ago erased these historic figures from our textbooks, only to offer deceitful propaganda and economic enticements in an effort to convince people, especially black Americans, that it&rsquos the Democrats rather than Republicans who are the true saviors of civil liberties. Luckily, we can still venture back into America&rsquos real historical record to find that facts are stubborn things. Let&rsquos take a closer look.

An 1872 print by Currier and Ives depicts the first seven black Americans elected to the U.S. Congress during the Reconstruction period of 1865 to 1877-- and they&rsquore all Republican!

  • Sen. Hiram Rhodes Revels, R-MS (1822-1901): Already an ordained minister, Revels served as an army chaplain and was responsible for recruiting three additional regiments during the Civil War. He was also elected to the Mississippi Senate in 1869 and the U.S. Senate in 1870, making him America&rsquos first black senator.
  • Rep. Benjamin Turner, R-AL (1825-1894): Within just five years, Turner went from slave to wealthy businessman. He also became a delegate to the Alabama Republican State Convention of 1867 and a member of the Selma City Council in 1868. In 1871, Turner was even elected to the U.S. Congress.
  • Rep. Robert DeLarge, R-SC (1842-1874): Although born a slave, DeLarge chaired the Republican Platform Committee in 1867 and served as delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1868. From 1868 to 1870, he was also elected to the State House of Representatives and later Congress, serving from 1871 to 1873.
  • Rep. Josiah Walls, R-FL (1842-1905): Walls was a slave who was forced to fight for the Confederate Army until he was captured by Union troops. He promptly enlisted with the Union and eventually became an officer. In 1870, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, harassing Democrats questioned his qualifications until he was officially expelled. Although he was re-elected after the first legal challenge, Democrats took control of Florida and Walls was prohibited from returning altogether.
  • Rep. Jefferson Long, R-GA (1836-1901): Long was also born into slavery, and he too became a successful business man. However, when Democrats boycotted his business he suffered substantial financial loses. But that didn&rsquot stop Long, who in 1871 became the first black representative to deliver a congressional speech in the U.S. House.
  • Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey, R-SC (1832-1887): Although born a slave, Rainey became the first black Speaker of the U.S. House for a brief period in 1870. In fact, he served in Congress longer than any other black America at that time.
  • Rep. Robert Brown Elliot, R-SC (1842-1884): Elliot helped to organize the Republican Party throughout rural South Carolina. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1870 and reelected in 1872. In 1874, he was elected to the State House of Representatives and eventually served as Speaker of the House in the State Legislature.

Clearly, the latter half of the 19th Century, and for much of the early half of the 20th Century, it was the Republican Party that was the party of choice for blacks. Kako je ovo moguće? Because the Republican Party was formed in the late 1850s as an oppositional force to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. Republicans wanted to return to the principles that were originally established in the republic&rsquos founding documents and in doing so became the first party to openly advocated strong civil rights legislation. Voters took notice and in 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President along with a Republican Congress. This infuriated the southern Democrats, who soon afterwards left Congress and took their states with them to form what officially became known as The Slaveholding Confederate States of America.

Meanwhile, Republicans pushed full steam ahead. Take, for example, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution that officially abolished slavery in 1864. Of the 118 Republicans in Congress (House and Senate) at the time, all 118 voted in favor of the legislation, while only 19 of 82 Democrats voted likewise. Then there&rsquos the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments guaranteeing rights of citizenship and voting to black males. Not a single Democrat voted in favor of either the Fourteenth (House and Senate) or Fifteenth (House and Senate) Amendments.

In spite of this, in almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party&rsquos achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office. For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn&rsquot elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!

Political Gangs With Pointy Hoods

By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party&rsquos alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats&rsquo struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).

This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK&rsquos first Grand Wizard. But don&rsquot bother checking the Democratic National Committee&rsquos website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Now, for the 2016 election cycle, they&rsquove scratched even more history. Apparently, they believe it&rsquos easier to just lie and claim to have fought for civil rights for over 200 hundred years, while seeing fit to list only a select few distorted events as exemplary, beginning as late as the 1920s. Incredibly, the DNC conveniently jumps past more than 100 years of American history!

Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There&rsquos even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan&rsquos connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK&rsquos prominent role in the Democratic Party.

One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: &ldquoEvery Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation&hellip. Democrats must go in as large numbers&hellipand well-armed.&rdquo An issue of Harper&rsquos Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him. At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: &ldquoOf Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!&rdquo

This is reminiscent of the 2008 Presidential election when members of the New Black Panther Party hung out at a Philadelphia precinct wielding big batons.

The Klan&rsquos primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out &ldquopush cards&rdquo -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) &ldquoRadicals&rdquo of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other. Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process. Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.

By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills. Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress. Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions. Talk about disenfranchising black voters!

There were also lynchings, but not what you might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks i 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan.

Today, the Democratic Party no longer needs the help of political gangs wearing pointy hoods to do their dirty work. Instead, they do it themselves. You may recall the case of black Tea Party activist Kenneth Gladney, who was brutally beaten by two SEIU members during a 2009 health care town hall meeting. In February 2011, a union thug with Communications Workers of America was caught on tape physically assaulting a young female FreedomWorks activist in Washington, DC. Then in 2012, Michigan Education Association President Steve Cook jumped on the protest bandwagon against the state&rsquos new right-to-work legislation stating, &ldquoWhoever votes for this is not going to have any peace for the next two years.&rdquo An even worse threat was issued on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives the next day by Democratic Representative Douglas Geiss who charged, &ldquoThere will be blood!&rdquo

As we forge ahead into this critical 2016 election season, let us not forget the real history of America when blacks and whites, primarily Republicans, worked side by side defending the rights and dignity of all Americans. It&rsquos a history that has been kept out of the history books--a history that today&rsquos Democrats routinely lie about while promptly pointing their finger at Republicans, calling white Republicans racists and black Republicans Uncle Toms. This is because Democrats have a secret past that must be protected and an agenda that must be fulfilled. If history is any indication of what the future might hold, brace yourself. There will be some in the Democratic Party who will be prepared to do whatever it takes to silence any opposition.


Pogledajte video: Kadrovi sa sastanka PDP - Demokrate