Esther 7:9-10
9 Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs attending the king, said, "A gallows seventy-five feet [a] high stands by Haman's house. He had it made for Mordecai, who spoke up to help the king."
The king said, "Hang him on it!" 10 So they hanged Haman on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the king's fury subsided.
Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts introduce a measure on Thursday May 6, 2010 to strip Americans charged with terrorism of the U.S. citizenship. This may seem odd considering that Mr. Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew, so pure in his faith until when he was on the ticket with Al Gore as Vice President, he refused to campaign on the Sabbath. However, I see Mr. Brown as a tableau on which to write history.
THE LORD OF THE SENATE IS IGNORANT OF 20TH CENTURY HISTORY
Senator Joe Lieberman on the Sabbath
THE NUREMBERG LAWS 1935
The Nuremberg Laws (German: Nürnberger Gesetze) of 1935 were anti-Semitic laws in Nazi Germany which were introduced at the annual Nuremberg rally. The laws classified people with four German grandparents as "German or kindred blood", while people were classified as Jews if they descended from three or four Jewish grandparents. A person with one or two Jewish grandparents was a Mischling, a crossbreed, of "mixed blood".[1] The Nuremberg Laws deprived Jews of German citizenship and prohibited marriage between Jews and other Germans.[2]
The Nuremberg Laws were heavily influenced by U.S. Plessey v. Ferguson, 1896, as was all Hitler’s eugenic principles. Plessey v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal."
The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate in the decision), with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.INTRODUCTION OF THE NUREMBERG LAWS
On the evening of September 15, 1935, two measures were announced to the Reichstag at the annual Party Rally in Nuremberg, becoming known as the Nuremberg Laws.[6]
The first law, The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour,[9] prohibited marriages and extramarital intercourse between "Jews" (the name was now officially used in place of "non-Aryans") and "Germans" and also the employment of "German" females under forty-five in Jewish households. The second law, The Reich Citizenship Law [10], stripped persons not considered of German blood of their German citizenship and introduced a new distinction between "Reich citizens" and "nationals".
Hitler made a speech before the Reichstag in Nuremberg, introducing the laws and their alleged motivation, before the laws were formally read and proposed for adoption by Göring, the President of the Reichstag:...Bitter complaints have come in from countless places citing the provocative behavior of Jews....a certain amount of [conspiratorial] planning was involved....[To prevent] vigorous defensive action by the [Aryan] people[11], we have no choice but to contain the problem through legislative measures....it may be possible, through a definitive secular solution, to create a basis on which the German people can have a tolerable relationship with the Jews.[12] ... This law is an attempt to find a legislative solution....if this attempts fails, it will be necessary to transfer [the Jewish problem] ... to the National Socialist Party for a final solution (German: endgültige Lösung).[13]
The measures were unanimously adopted by the Reichstag. In twelve years of Nazi rule, the Reichstag only passed four laws: the Nuremberg laws were two of them.[14]The Nuremberg Laws by their general nature formalized the unofficial and particular measures taken against Jews up to 1935. The Nazi leaders made a point of stressing the consistency of this legislation with the Party programme, which demanded that Jews should be deprived of their citizenship rights.
EFFECT OF THE LAWS
Legal discrimination against Jews had come into being before the Nuremberg Laws and steadily grew as time went on; however, for discrimination to be effective, it was essential to have a clear definition of who was or was not a Jew. This was one important function of the Nuremberg laws and the numerous supplementary decrees that were proclaimed to further them. People defined as Jews could then be barred from employment as lawyers, doctors or journalists. Jews were prohibited from using state hospitals and could not be educated by the state past the age of 14. Public parks, libraries and beaches were closed to Jews. War memorials were to have Jewish names expunged. Even the lottery could not award winnings to Jews.[15] With the so-called Namensänderungsverordnung ("Regulation of Name Changes") of August 17, 1938, Jews were required to adopt a middle name: "Sara" for women and "Israel" for men. At the instigation of Swiss immigration official Heinrich Rothmund, passports of German Jews were required to have a large "J" stamped on them and could be used to leave Germany - but not to return.[16]The obligation to wear the yellow badge, introduced in German-occupied Poland in September 1939, was extended to all Jewish people living within the Nazi empire in September 1941.MS ST. LOUIS 1939
The MS St. Louis was a German ocean liner most notable for a single voyage in 1939, in which her captain tried to find homes for more than 900 German Jewish refugees after they were denied entry to Cuba. The event was the subject of a 1974 book, Voyage of the Damned, by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts. It was adapted for a film with the same title, released in 1976.
Voyage of the DamnedSt. Louis sailed from Hamburg to Cuba on May 13, 1939, carrying seven non-
Jewish and 930 Jewish refugees (mainly German) seeking asylum from Nazi
persecution.[1][2] On the ship’s arrival in Cuba, the Cuban government under
Federico Laredo Brú refused the passengers entry either as tourists (laws
related to tourist visas had recently been changed) or under political asylum.
During negotiations, the government requested an additional $500 visa fee per
passenger, money which most of the refugees did not have. The demands
prompted a near-mutiny. Two passengers attempted suicide, and dozens more
threatened to do the same. However, 29 of the refugees managed to
disembark at Havana.[3]Early in 1939, Cuba enacted Degree 55, which stated there was a difference
between a tourist and a refugee. The refugee was required to have a visa and
to pay a $500 bond. However, a tourist did not have to abide to these
requirements. While Degree 55 stated that refugees were different from
tourists, one large shortcoming existed: it did not define what the difference
was between refugees and tourists. Manuel Benitez, Director of Immigration,
took advantage of this flaw and called the refugees abroad the S.S. St. Louis
tourists. This distinction enabled Benitez to sell landing permits (something
only tourists could purchase) to the S.S. St. Louis refugees for $150. Benitez
benefitted from selling the land permits until the President of Cuba, Frederico
Laredo Bru, discovered that Benitez was profiting from the Degree's loophole
and refused to share his profits. Angered by Benitez's actions, as well Cuba's
poor economy and growing resentment of refugees, President Bru passed
Decree 937, which remedied Decree 55's flaw. [4]
Some histories recount that on June 4, 1939, Captain Schröder believed
he was being prevented from trying to land St. Louis on the Florida shore.
Material from that time was conflicting. Legally the refugees could not
enter on tourist visas, as they had no return addresses, and the U.S. had
enacted immigration quotas in 1924. Telephone records show discussion
of the situation by Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Secretary of the
Treasury Henry Morgenthau, members of President Franklin D.
Roosevelt's cabinet, who tried to persuade Cuba to accept the refugees.
Their actions, together with the American Jewish Joint Distribution
Committee, were not successful.[5] The Coast Guard was not ordered to
turn away the refugees, but the US did not make provision for their entry.
[6] As St. Louis was turned away from the United States, a group of
academics and clergy in Canada attempted to persuade Canada's Prime
Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King to provide sanctuary to the ship,
which was only two days from Halifax, Nova Scotia.[7]
However Canadian immigration officials and cabinet ministers hostile to
Jewish immigration persuaded the Prime Minister not to intervene on
June 9.[8] Later research by Scott Miller and Sarah Ogilvie of the United
States. The Holocaust Memorial Museum gave a more precise, higher
total of 254 deaths:"Of the 620 St. Louis passengers who returned to continental Europe, we determined that eighty-seven were able to emigrate before Germany invaded western Europe on May 10, 1940. Two hundred and fifty-four passengers in Belgium, France and the Netherlands after that date died during the Holocaust. Most of these people were murdered in the killing centers of Auschwitz and Sobibór; the rest died in internment camps, in hiding or attempting to evade the Nazis. Three hundred sixty-five of the 620 passengers who returned to continental Europe survived the war."[15]
JAPANESE AMERICAN INTERNMENT 1942
Japanese American internment was the forced relocation and
internment by the United States government in 1942 of approximately
110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese residing along the Pacific
coast of the United States to camps called "War Relocation Camps," in
the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[1][2] The
internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the
United States. Japanese Americans residing on the West Coast of the
United States were all interned, whereas in Hawaii, where more than
150,000 Japanese Americans composed nearly a third of that territory's
population, 1,200[3] to 1,800 Japanese Americans were interned.[4] Of
those interned, 62% were American citizens.[5][6]
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the internment with
Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, which allowed local military
commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from
which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to
declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the
entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and
Washington, except for those in internment camps.[7] In 1944, the
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders,[8]
while noting that the provisions that singled out people of Japanese
ancestry were a separate issue outside the scope of the proceedings.[9]The United States Census Bureau assisted the internment efforts by
providing confidential neighborhood information on Japanese
Americans. The Bureau's role was denied for decades but was finally
In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald
Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf
of the U.S. government. The legislation stated that government actions
were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political
leadership".[12] Over $1.6 billion in reparations were later disbursed by
the U.S. government to Japanese Americans who had either suffered
internment or were heirs of those who had suffered internment.[13]
In October 1906, the San Francisco Board of Education separated the
Japanese students from the Caucasian students. It ordered ninety-three
Japanese students in the district to a segregated school in Chinatown.[15]
Twenty-five of the students were American citizens. That anti-Japanese
sentiment was maintained beyond this period is evidenced by the 1924
"Oriental Exclusion Law," which blocked Japanese immigrants from
attaining citizenship.[14]
In the years 1939–1941, the FBI compiled the Custodial Detention Index ("CDI") on citizens, enemy aliens and foreign nationals, in the interest of national security. On June 28, 1940, the Alien Registration Act was passed. Among many other loyalty regulations, Section 31 required the registration and fingerprinting of all aliens above the age of 14, and Section 35 required aliens to report any change of address within 5 days. In the subsequent months, nearly five million foreign nationals registered at post offices around the country.[16][17]
Of 127,000 Japanese Americans living in the continental United States at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, 112,000 resided on the West Coast.[18] About 80,000 were nisei (Japanese born in the United States and holding American citizenship) and sansei (the sons or daughters of nisei). The rest were issei (immigrants born in Japan who were ineligible for U.S. citizenship).[19]
EXECUTIVE ORDER 9066 AND RELATED ACTIONSExecutive Order 9066, signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, allowed authorized military commanders to designate "military areas" at their discretion, "from which any or all persons may be excluded." These "exclusion zones," unlike the "alien enemy" roundups, were applicable to anyone that an authorized military commander might choose, whether citizen or non-citizen. Eventually such zones would include parts of both the East and West Coasts, totaling about 1/3 of the country by area. Unlike the subsequent detainment and internment programs that would come to be applied to large numbers of Japanese Americans, detentions and restrictions directly under this Individual Exclusion Program were placed primarily on individuals of German or Italian ancestry, including American citizens.[26]
OPERATION PAPERCLIP 1939-1945
Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II (1939–45). It was executed by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA), and in the context of the burgeoning Soviet–American Cold War (1945–91), one purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific knowledge and expertise to the USSR[2] and the UK.[3]
Although the JIOA’s recruitment of German scientists began after the
European Allied victory (8 May 1945), US President Harry Truman did
not formally order the execution of Operation Paperclip until August
1945. Truman's order expressly excluded anyone found “to
have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a
nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of
Nazi militarism.” Said restriction would have rendered ineligible most
of the scientists the JIOA had identified for recruitment, among them
rocket scientists Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph, and the
physician Hubertus Strughold, each earlier classified as a “menace to the
security of the Allied Forces”.
To circumvent President Truman’s anti-Nazi order, and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Once “bleached” of their Nazism, the US Government granted the scientists security clearance to work in the United States. Paperclip, the project’s operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists’ new political personæ to their “US Government Scientist” JIOA personnel files.[4]
KEY FIGURES~NAZIS ALL
Werner von Braun
- Rocketry: Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Walter Dornberger, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Stuhlinger, Werner Rosinski, Eberhard Rees, Ludwig Roth, and Bernhard Tessmann (see List of German rocket scientists in the US).
- Aeronautics: Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans von Ohain, Hans Multhopp, Kurt Tank
- Medicine: Walter Schreiber, Kurt Blome, Hubertus Strughold, Hans Antmann (Human factors)[19]
- Electronics: Hans Ziegler, Kurt Lehovec, Hans Hollmann, Johannes Plendl, Heinz Schlicke
- Intelligence: Reinhard Gehlen
- Rocketry: Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Walter Dornberger, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Stuhlinger, Werner Rosinski, Eberhard Rees, Ludwig Roth, and Bernhard Tessmann (see List of German rocket scientists in the US).
- Aeronautics: Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans von Ohain, Hans Multhopp, Kurt Tank
- Medicine: Walter Schreiber, Kurt Blome, Hubertus Strughold, Hans Antmann (Human factors)[19]
- Electronics: Hans Ziegler, Kurt Lehovec, Hans Hollmann, Johannes Plendl, Heinz Schlicke
- Intelligence: Reinhard Gehlen
VOTING RIGHTS ACT 1965~FULL CITIZENSHIP FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS
The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1973–1973aa-6)[1] outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the United States. Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibited states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."[2] Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African-Americans from exercising the franchise.[3] The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. The Act is widely considered a landmark in civil-rights legislation, though some of its provisions have sparked political controversy. During the debate over the 2006 extension, some Republican members of Congress objected to renewing the preclearance requirement (the Act's primary enforcement provision), arguing that it represents an overreach of federal power and places unwarranted bureaucratic demands on Southern states that have long since abandoned the discriminatory practices the Act was meant to eradicate.[4] Conservative legislators also opposed requiring states with large Spanish-speaking populations to provide bilingual ballots.[5] Congress nonetheless voted to extend the Act for twenty-five years with its original enforcement provisions left intact.[6] BACKGROUND
The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865 after the Civil War, abolished and prohibited slavery and secured a minimal degree of citizenship to former slaves. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all people “born or naturalized in the United States,” and included the due process and equal protection clauses. This amendment failed to explicitly prohibit vote discrimination on racial grounds. The prohibition of voting rights discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of slavery was first codified by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution in 1870. Soon after the end of Reconstruction, starting in the 1870s, Southern Democratic legislators found other means to deny the vote to blacks, through violence, intimidation, and Jim Crow laws. The 15th Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, provided that The right of U.S. citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress was given the authority to enforce those rights and regulate the voting process. From 1890 to 1908, however, 10 Southern states wrote new constitutions with provisions that included literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses that permitted otherwise disqualified voters whose grandfathers voted (thus allowing some white illiterates to vote), some with the aim and effect of re-imposing racially motivated restrictions on the voting process that disfranchised blacks. State provisions applied to all voters and were upheld by the Supreme Court in early litigation, from 1875 (United States v. Cruikshank) through 1904. During the early 20th century, the Supreme Court began to find such provisions unconstitutional in litigation of cases brought by African Americans and poor whites. States reacted rapidly in devising new legislation to continue disfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites. Although there were numerous court cases brought to the Supreme Court, through the 1960s, Southern states effectively disfranchised most blacks. 
In 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was created with the mission to promote blacks' civil rights, including to "secure for them impartial suffrage." The NAACP's success was limited: although they did achieve important judicial rulings by the Supreme Court and some legislative successes, Southern legislators quickly devised alternate ways to keep many southern blacks disfranchised through the early 1960s.
BACKGROUND
The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865 after the Civil War, abolished and prohibited slavery and secured a minimal degree of citizenship to former slaves. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all people “born or naturalized in the United States,” and included the due process and equal protection clauses. This amendment failed to explicitly prohibit vote discrimination on racial grounds. The prohibition of voting rights discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of slavery was first codified by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution in 1870. Soon after the end of Reconstruction, starting in the 1870s, Southern Democratic legislators found other means to deny the vote to blacks, through violence, intimidation, and Jim Crow laws. The 15th Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, provided that The right of U.S. citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress was given the authority to enforce those rights and regulate the voting process. From 1890 to 1908, however, 10 Southern states wrote new constitutions with provisions that included literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses that permitted otherwise disqualified voters whose grandfathers voted (thus allowing some white illiterates to vote), some with the aim and effect of re-imposing racially motivated restrictions on the voting process that disfranchised blacks. State provisions applied to all voters and were upheld by the Supreme Court in early litigation, from 1875 (United States v. Cruikshank) through 1904. During the early 20th century, the Supreme Court began to find such provisions unconstitutional in litigation of cases brought by African Americans and poor whites. States reacted rapidly in devising new legislation to continue disfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites. Although there were numerous court cases brought to the Supreme Court, through the 1960s, Southern states effectively disfranchised most blacks.
In 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was created with the mission to promote blacks' civil rights, including to "secure for them impartial suffrage." The NAACP's success was limited: although they did achieve important judicial rulings by the Supreme Court and some legislative successes, Southern legislators quickly devised alternate ways to keep many southern blacks disfranchised through the early 1960s.
The 15th Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, provided that The right of U.S. citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress was given the authority to enforce those rights and regulate the voting process. From 1890 to 1908, however, 10 Southern states wrote new constitutions with provisions that included literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses that permitted otherwise disqualified voters whose grandfathers voted (thus allowing some white illiterates to vote), some with the aim and effect of re-imposing racially motivated restrictions on the voting process that disfranchised blacks. State provisions applied to all voters and were upheld by the Supreme Court in early litigation, from 1875 (United States v. Cruikshank) through 1904. During the early 20th century, the Supreme Court began to find such provisions unconstitutional in litigation of cases brought by African Americans and poor whites. States reacted rapidly in devising new legislation to continue disfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites. Although there were numerous court cases brought to the Supreme Court, through the 1960s, Southern states effectively disfranchised most blacks.
In 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was created with the mission to promote blacks' civil rights, including to "secure for them impartial suffrage." The NAACP's success was limited: although they did achieve important judicial rulings by the Supreme Court and some legislative successes, Southern legislators quickly devised alternate ways to keep many southern blacks disfranchised through the early 1960s.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
David Biddle
jmac1949
Snowden
libbyliberalnyc
skypixie0
Jimmy Zuma
Salon.com
Comments
*Deep curtsy*
Thank you so much for this post. It's time that people stand up and take notice at what's being done here and take a stand against it. It is truly chilling what is happening. Rated highly.
Really? So Timothy McVeigh and Bill Ayers and Charles Manson are all going to have their citizenship revoked?
Really
Uh...don't think so.
IF no one sees how blatantly racist this is, they're an idiot.
That being said, considering the nature of the legislative process, who wants to take odds on this ever actually becoming law?
I'm guessing this is fearmongering diversionary tactics to avoid any real, federal immigration reform.
Which, by the way this doesn't even address, unless it becomes a terrorist act to jump a fence, or overstay a VISA
Just sayin'
If I learned nothing wasting away my childhood with saturday morning cartoons, it's that "I'm just a bill, yes Im only a bill", and there is a multi-level process before we have to worry about passage
Or have people forgotten health care already? (of course they have)
'ain't it a shame!' has been the limit. everyone knows the american government is crooked, murderous and unconcerned with maintaining a smooth functioning economy. no one imagines anything can be done about it, most accept continual war and unemployment as acts of god, inescapable.
i sympathize with your version of "somethings wrong!" but i can't get hopeful that the character of the people is going to change. so continue making waves only if it's fun.
R
R
"strip Americans charged with terrorism of the U.S. citizenship"
If indeed, the bill introduced by Lieberman and Brown refers to persons "charged" with terrorism then there is a horredous problem relating to every principle of jurisprudence we hold dear and directly controverts the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment.
If the bill said "convicted", I would tend to think that there may be at least a modicum of merit. However, to state that someone may be stripped of citizenship merely for being "charged" conjurs up all those nasty memories of Nazi Germany and some of the injustices in the U.S. which have taken so very long to remedy.
R.
Super job.