Immigration Reform Sounds Great, But Get It Right

English: Benjamin Franklin National Memorial i...

Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

 

Immigration Reform is finally front and center in our national debate, no thanks to a feckless President unwilling to show his hand in this controversial debate. A group of republican and democratic Senators have come forward with a framework for a bill they hope to write, then pass on to the GOP controlled House by Spring. It’s a noble effort that will only become law if priorities are straight. And so far I’ve not seen evidence that their priorities are straight. So far, the only priority I’ve seen bantered about is the news medias claim the Republicans might come on board due to their desire for Hispanic votes. How’s that sit with you for integrity?

Estimates place the number of illegal aliens in this country at 11 million persons. 40% of these immigrants came to the country legally and over-stayed their visas. 80% of these illegals came from Mexico or some Latin nation. All of them place heavy burdens on our countries resources; jobs, welfare, schools, hospitals, justice system, etc. It’s a blight on the country and a serious threat to both economic recovery and deficit spending. And unless the problem is solved there is no hope of it getting better. It will only get worse. So some compromise, in the spirit of Benjamin Franklin, seems in order.

One of our countries greatest statesmen was the Philadelphia printer who almost singlehandedly brought the French into the Revolutionary War, and through an established aura pressed authors of our Federal Constitution to accord. The 81-year old Franklin urged his fellow delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention to be willing to sacrifice, not their principles, but their overwhelming urge to be right.

Franklin said that day that through his long life, he had often been forced

“by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions . . . which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.”

Details of the proposed immigration reform plan can be read in detail here, in the ABC News story: Details of the Immigration Plan.

What has always been the sticking point is what to do with the 11-million illegals already in this country. Hard liners insist they not get “amnesty”. But lets face it. Such a stance is both un-American and cruel. Americans grant amnesty all the time. It was written into the Constitution that Franklin worked so hard on. But Liberal Democrats have never wanted to face the reality of Republican priorities first: secure the border and remove the magnets. Granting illegals a path to citizenship is absolutely fine with me. But first things first. The border must be secured and allowing illegals to suck-up every welfare and entitlement program this country offers will not diminish the uncontrolled flow of illegal immigrants into this country. It will, in fact, accelerate it.

I’ve never understood why Democrats failed to understand that the jobs and benefits taken by illegals more drastically affect people who statistically tend to be Democratic voters. When you employ a Spanish-speaking person to cook your hamburgers, lay your carpet or install your new roof you aren’t taking a job from some college educated intellectual. You are taking a job from the least educated in our society, and far too often that person is black. When you provide a Section 8, or welfare home, to an illegal Mexican family you aren’t shutting out that home from a Stanford University grad and their kids. The American family who needs the warmth and security of that shelter is poor and ill-educated.

The current compromise proposal calls for more border agents and security monitoring using unmanned drones before any amnesty is granted. This sounds like a step in the right direction. It also proposes stream-lining the legal immigration process to make it easier to come into this country than the current nightmarish system. It also allows for more immigrants to legally come during times of economic growth and slow immigration during times of no or slow growth. Again, good ideas.

American Civil Liberties Union

The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, has already come out against a registration plan allowing background checks for employers to see if potential new hires are legal residents in this country. They have an excellent point. A national ID card program, which this plan would certainly require, is an infringement on the implied Constititional right to privacy. But the problem can be easily solved by making the Federal Background check program and registration voluntary. If employers choose not to use it and are found to have hired illegals penalize them with such severe consequences that they would be unwise to not use it.

At the turn of the 20th Century and just before, this country was being overwhelmed by new immigrants. But at that time you were not allowed into this country without a sponsor and without a desirable skill. That too would seem to be a standard in our own national interests.

I don’t expect this bill to go anywhere. Because while I hope and expect Republicans to compromise on the “path to citizenship” issue; I expect Democrats to use the poor Hispanics/Latinos in this country as they continue to use the blacks in this country as political footballs with which to perpetually bash the GOP and subsequently remain in power. It’s not solutions they want. They’ll paint the Republicans reasonable positions regarding border security first as too tough and inhumane. And in doing so the complicit media will again drive more Latinos into the hands of their overseers, the Democratic party.

Conservatives look in the Mirror

English: Seal of the President of the United S...

 

Americans have re-elected a President presiding over 7.9% unemployment and GDP growth below 2%. These are by far the worst economic numbers overcome by a President winning re-election since Franklin Roosevelt in 1936.

 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. Lietuvių: Fra...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933.

 

It’s not too difficult to figure how this happened.

 

There are currently 47-million Americans on food stamps. Just how many of them voted for Mitt Romney? Seriously…can you really expect a dog to bite the hand that feeds it? President Obama received a total of 58-million votes. And if 95% of food stamp recipients voted for him then all he would have needed was 12-million non-food stamp recipients to vote his way to overcome Romney’s total. Obama has created this dependency. It’s not likely they’ll vote against the person who keeps giving them their candy.

 

In spite of the Federal Government-gives-candy-advantage Obama held; Romney still could have won this election had Conservatives not self-destructed. The most obvious failing comes from the selfish, masturbatory Libertarian voters who sent nearly 1.2-million votes to Gary Johnson.

 

Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson 

 

Add in the 0.1-1.4% (depending on the state) of “voters” who wasted their vote on the Constitution Party candidate and you have just enough Conservative voters to match Obama in the popular vote. There’s no doubt in my mind that had this 1-2% of voters not bashed Romney as equally and vociferously as they did Obama over the course of the past year we’d be celebrating a Romney victory this morning. Florida is still too close to call and Virginia, Ohio and Colorado went to Obama by less than 2%. That’s the whole ball game.

 

What troubles me now and did so throughout the campaign is the foolish, bigoted, and hateful comments about Obama and his supporters that continuously poured from Conservative corners. The “birther” issue was and remains idiotic. And it was clearly racist. What I never understood was the point of it. Obama could have been born on Mars. Because his Mom was an American citizen so was he. The end result was the extreme side of Conservative politics continually gave Liberals all the ammunition they needed to once again paint those with our point of view as angry, mean, and bigoted.

 

Since the 1930s more Americans have identified themselves as Democrats than Republicans. And over the past 20 years more and more Americans are identifying themselves as independent. Overall, it’s roughly 1/3 Democrats, Republicans and independents. Polls show Romney won independents. But he didn’t win Democrats, not enough of them anyway. If scary, angry, bigoted Conservatives (what few of them there are) scare-off even a small percentage of independents and all Democrats,  Republicans don’t have a chance…not in 2012, and certainly not going forward as our country increasingly becomes less white and more brown.

 

Karl Rove correctly points out that there is no reason Republicans shouldn’t enjoy more support from this countries Hispanics. Generally speaking they are more religious and focused on family values than the overall populous. With such values they should vote for the GOP. But they don’t. Yesterday and in 2008 they vote close to 70% for Democrats. Why is that? Only one reason: too many Republicans allow  hateful xenophobic attitudes to exist within our own political discourse without justly shouting them down. And I for one am sick of it.

 

It makes me mad as hell to have Liberals who don’t know me constantly assume I’m a bigot. It happens all the time. And it diminishes me in the eyes of my kids, my black kids. It’s important that my values are passed on to my kids so that they may pass them on to their kids, etc etc. But like all young people my kids are influenced not only by me but by what they see and hear in society. And if I’m less trusted and less understood simply because I’m associated with people who espouse bigotry I’m naturally going to be hurt in my efforts to stand as a good example to my children. I worry about this constantly.

 

Republicans have to bring people to the party and not repel them. With a country that is increasingly made up of people of color we’re going to have to see to it that we not only attract them but repel and reject the angry bigots. They don’t make-up a large percentage of Conservatives or Republicans. But they don’t need to in order to chase away any chance the party has of winning in the future.

 

God Bless America.

 

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

 

The Dumbest People in America

English: President Barack Obama shakes hands w...

President Barack Obama shakes hands with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Tell me, what’s wrong with this picture: The state of Nevada continues to have one of the worst unemployment rates in the country at 11.8%, 4-points above the national average and President Barack Obama maintains a slight edge in polling over Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

So this state that re-elected Dingy Harry Reid in 2010 to the U.S. Senate and then subsequently the Majority Leader position while battling unemployment over 14% at that time seems resistant to changing the leadership that has presided over their horrible conditions.

English: Night Panorama of the Las Vegas Strip...

Nevada also ranks sixth nationally in home foreclosures. At one time in the last four years they were number 1. And without looking this up to verify I can safely say the state of Nevada is first in the nation in gambling expenditures. And you can judge for yourself the morals and wisdom in Nevada being the only state in the country with legal prostitution.

And then there is the fact that Nevadans built their largest city in a desert, bereft of any sufficient water supply.

Las Vegas Strip in HDR

Las Vegas Strip

The polling numbers today got me wondering if the people in Nevada aren’t the dumbest people in the country. Why on earth would you continue to elect the leaders in charge of your horrible economic conditions.

So then I got to thinking about who the dumbest people in the country truly might be. I’d be interested in my readers nominations. But aside from Nevadans one group of people leaped into my head: television reporters and/or personalities. Calling tv reporters journalists is an insult to journalists.

This opinion isn’t based solely on partisan resentment for what is displayed daily on MSNBC. I was a journalist. I worked among newspaper, radio, tv, and magazine reporters for a number of years. I was at press conferences with the local, state or national politicians who had to face tough questions. I sat through more than my share of boring city and county and legislative council meetings. I stuck my microphone in the face of some of the country’s most prominent people; and usually did so side-by-side with other scribes and with the hot lights of television cameras shining over my shoulder.

And though its been 20 years since I worked professionally in reporting the news, all indications are that my personal experience with these walking, talking Barbie and Ken dolls remains a valid point of view. Let me state that like everything in life there are exceptions. But on whole I found tv reporters shallow primadonas without the intellectual capability of your average gas station attendant. I was awestruck on frequent occasions to hear questions of news worthy individuals that did little to expand on the story at hand, did little to enlighten the viewer. Usually, tv reporters benefited from the questioning of other more erudite journalists who usually came from the print or radio industry. Print reporters were generally quite arrogant and did little to hide their contempt for the average tv reporter…or news subject…for that matter. Radio journalist were the ones I respected the most. As a radio reporter you must ask your subjects questions that expand the story. Yes or No answers don’t work on radio. You need your subject to talk in order to get the sound bite that is long enough and interesting enough to include in your story. Being able to do this is not always easy and one reason I found more intelligence in the average radio journalist than in the average tv reporter.

TV news at the Empire State Building shooting

TV reporters were always more interested in how they looked on camera than in the facts of a given story. And in today’s world they seem utterly oblivious to fair and balanced reporting. It’s not so much that they boldly state ill-informed, uneducated opinions; it’s that they set a premise for their reporting and then work to shape the story to that premise rather than just gathering the facts with an unbiassed curiosity that allows for the truth to come out more frequently.

I also think its worth mentioning that among those who I learned to respect the most were the politicians. Politicians on the whole are genuinely smart people who care about the service they provide their constituency. I’m well aware of the average Americans contempt for politicians. And I understand that disrespect. But in my personal experience those who run for office have more education, wisdom, personality and compassion than other persons I’ve encountered in life. And I would say this of men and women from both parties. There are exceptions. But I am speaking generally.

So who would you nominate for the collectively dumbest people in America?

A friend posted on Facebook some time ago a quote I won’t soon forget because it’s true and its a little frightening. Half of all people are below average in intelligence. So now you have half the country, 1 out of every 2 people in which to choose.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

 

Understanding the Democrats

English: Number of self-identified Democrats v...

Number of self-identified Democrats vs. self-identified Republicans, per state, according to Gallup, January-June 2010

 

 

 

Every survey I’ve seen in the past decade or two indicates that most women consider themselves Democrats politically. Likewise, every survey I’ve seen in the past couple decades indicates that most men consider themselves Republicans, politically. Nobody should make the huge leap to argue that I am saying all women are Democrats and all men are Republican, or that Democratic men are somehow less manly. But I know some will. It’s inevitable.

 

Still, I do think some psychologic conclusions can be reached through these facts that will allow us to understand each other a little bit better where we disagree. And if you understand your political opponent more I’d like to think you are more likely to be able to find common ground.

 

Women crave security. Men crave independence. There. I’m done. These two statements sum up why Democrats and Republicans fight so much. If you don’t quite get it…allow me to explain.

 

In spite of Women’s Liberation, increasing freedom and less male dominance in the past 40-50 years woman still through nurture and nature have a strong desire for security. They don’t want to be fearful. They are averse to risk. Financial security is far more important to women than it is to men. The security of affection is stronger in women. A warm blanket to snuggle under on the couch while watching TV is cliche`. Knowing this, is it any wonder more women identify with the Democratic party? The Dems are the ones who want to provide you with everything you could possibly need, including…these days…cell phones.

 

Romney

Mitt Romney 

 

Also, with this in mind, it’s not surprising that President Barack Obama has been leading in polls over Mitt Romney among all women, (…at least until recently. More on this in a moment.) while Romney has been leading Obama among married women. Married women have far more security in their personal lives and have less of a need for security from the government. The converse can be said of single women.

 

English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the...

Barack Obama 

 

If women crave security, what is it that most men desire? Men desire independence. Men don’t want to be told what to do. Men want to be men. I realize that I’m falling back on cliche` for some of this. But ultimately I only know what I know and no more. It’s instructive to realize that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Men and women are different, no matter how much Democrats want to insinuate that they aren’t. And men are more comfortable with risk than are women. Let’s face it, some men crave risk more than they crave independence  And at least since the time of Ronald Reagan and possibly as far back as Barry Goldwater the Republicans have rallied under the banner of less government and more freedom (also known as “risk” in many aspects of life) and independence. For men, it’s as if the GOP were some tall, leggy blonde in a tight sweater constantly winking at them. It’s too hard to resist the lure of freedom and independence…and risk.

 

So what’s wrong with women and Democrats seeking security while men and Republicans seek independence? Can’t we co-exist under such dissimilar desires? The answer is no because if you desire security then you desire someone giving you that security; because to provide that security yourself would require independence, and risk. And if you only get security from someone else, you give up some independence. When you’re single as a man or woman you have freedom. You can have drinks, dinner or sleep with whoever you want. When your married you can’t…or at least shouldn’t. Being single you have more independence. Being married you have more security. It’s the same in politics or government. So by desiring security through government Democrats are telling Republicans, and most men, to relinquish some independence. They’re telling single men to strap on the old ball and chain. Something men and Republicans are reluctant to do. It’s not in our DNA.

 

As it turns out President Obama is beginning to lose the argument for security. In polls released today by USA Today Romney has moved up into a tie with President Obama among women in the ten swing states that will determine our nation’s next President.

 

Romney and Obama tied amongst women 3 weeks before election.

 

It appears our nation’s women are beginning to understand that a better job, and better economy provide better security than can Obama’s government. Certainly, I agree.

 

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

 

Call us for effective, affordable marketing

 

 

Gubernatorial Debate | KCTS 9 – Public Television Serving Seattle, Central Washington and British Columbia

Please be informed. Please watch the entire Washington State Gubernatorial Debate from Yakima here on this link.

Washington State Attorney General Republican Rob McKenna shows great command and knowledge; while Democratic Congressman Jay Inslee is sometimes incomprehensible.

Gubernatorial Debate | KCTS 9 – Public Television Serving Seattle, Central Washington and British Columbia.

Seriously, after watching in all fairness you have to come to the same conclusion I have. The only thing that keeps Jay Inslee from being the dumbest person in Congress is that Washington Senator Patty Murray beat him to it.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Think I’m Conservative? Your Wrong. I’m American.

 

English: Number of self-identified Democrats v...

Number of self-identified Democrats vs. self-identified Republicans, per state, according to Gallup, January-June 2010

 

What follows comes in response to a comment from my wife. She’s a Democrat, as is her mother. My VERY Democratic in-laws are not on Facebook, Twitter or any other Social Media; but members of their and our extended family are. My wife told me that my Mother-in-law was complaining that “I talk about President Obama like he’s a dog” on Social Media posts (obviously getting feedback from the extended family). Well, I would maintain that I talk about the President and other Democrats in regard to the issues, and not as a dog. But this revelation got me thinking it might be time to clarify my position and remove the “hardcore” label from my reputation.

 

Conservatives are Pro-Life and want to ban abortion. Right?

 

I’m Pro-choice. Like half of all Americans. I am in favor of an adult women being able to end a pregnancy should she choose to do so with little intervention or regulation from government.

 

Clarification

 

I am not in favor of any adult woman taking a life. In my mind it’s as simple as determining when life begins. I’ve often said its absurd to say that a wiggling, crying baby JUST removed from their mother’s womb is a life but 60 seconds earlier it wasn’t. That is why I support the Republican position restricting abortion. Life begins either at birth, at conception or somewhere in between. And as I’ve already said the idea that it doesn’t begin some time prior to birth following a nine-month pregnancy is ridiculous. In my mind NEARLY as ridiculous is the concept that life begins at conception. Whatever THAT is that remains as small as a finger nail at least 2 months into a normal, health pregnancy I wouldn’t call it human life.

 

Our nation’s Declaration of Independence claims the God-given Right to Life. So once Life is established and viable some time in the womb, at that point the woman’s right to abort should end. Prior to that point the woman’s right’s are paramount. Hardly a Conservative position.

 

Conservatives oppose higher taxes

 

This current election cycle is not unlike past ones. It’s just so much more clear the difference in tax policy between Barack Obama

 

Official photographic portrait of US President...

 

and Mitt Romney.

 

Mitt Romney

 

Obama has stated repeatedly, and even staked his election, on the premise that taxes need to be raised for people making $250,000-a-year or more. Romney wants to lower taxes and eliminate loop holes. I absolutely don’t agree with Obama’s policy. Romney’s is much more to my liking and belief system.

 

Clarification

 

I think wealthy people could and should pay more in taxes. I also believe the lower 47% of Americans who pay nothing in Federal Income taxes could and should pay something. Anything. But I absolutely don’t want any taxes raised on anybody until after our Federal and local governments learn to live within their means. They need to quit spending money they don’t have. Since that doesn’t appear to be happening any time soon whether we be under Republican or Democrat rule I stand with the Republican stand opposing higher taxes.

 

Conservatives support gun right

 

The National Rifle Association has always maintained a position opposing any restrictions on the ownership and possession of firearms. The Republican position seldom drifts far from that same position. Democrats platform calls for respect for the 2nd Amendment, but also calls for regulations requiring background checks, banning assault weapons  and “eliminating the gun-show-loophole” that allow guns to fall into the hands of those irresponsible law-breaking few”. Actually reality is that Democrats anti-gun positions are far more prominent outside their party’s platform.

 

Clarification

 

I see no need for hand guns. They are only used for killing people. Nothing else. I’ve never owned one and I never will. Studies have repeatedly shown that if you own a hand gun you substantially increase your likelihood of dying or having someone in your household die from gun violence. I wouldn’t oppose legislation opposing handguns. What’s that do to my Conservative credentials?

 

I oppose Democrats opposition to “assault” weapons. I oppose this simply because defining an assault weapon and what exactly would be banned is too unclear and impossible to enforce. By some definitions my 35-year-old automatic 22-caliber rifle is an assault weapon, because it’s automatic. Some say my manual, pump 12-gauge shotgun is an assault weapon…because its a shotgun.

 

My position is closer to the Democrats written platform, than it is to Republicans. But in the real world of legislative politics its closer to Republicans.

 

Conservatives oppose gay marriage

 

Democrats are in favor of it, including our President and Vice-President. In Washington State polls indicate my state will become the first in the Union to legalize Gay Marriage by popular vote.

 

Clarification

 

On this one I am 100% behind the Republican party position. Under most state’s laws as they have existed a gay man can marry anyone I can marry and is restricted from marrying anyone that I’m restricted from marrying. So where is the discrimination? And the argument that people ought to be able to marry who they love is absurd and childishly naive. Should I be able to marry my sister (if I had a sister) and commit incest with her just because I love her? No. Should I be able to marry a woman who I love if I’m already married to another woman I love? That’s called bigamy. And while such marital practices are legal in other parts of the world, our country and society has deemed it illegal. So, no. Should I be able to marry a girl of 12 years of age? What if she and her parents consent? No. The age-of-consent is different in different states all over the country proving THAT age is arbitrary and thus capricious. And if Gay Marriage is made legal all these other restrictions on marriage MUST also be removed in order to not discriminate and allow people to marry whomever they love. Is that what our society wants? On this issue I pass the Conservative test.

 

Conservatives are racist. Right?

 

Of course the above statement is wrong, and divisive. But unfortunately those few remaining Americans who harbor hateful racist viewpoints toward minorities find their political home in the Republican party far more often than in the Democratic party. Fortunately there aren’t many of them; which is a good thing for lots of reasons including the fact that however few there are they stain the GOP too much already.

 

Clarification

 

I am not a racist. My black wife of 25 years and our three children will back me up on this one. But, I detest group thought over individualism. And unfortunately the Democratic party is all about labeling and classifying people based on race, age, religion, disability, sexual preference, etc. It’s not something I understand. For instance when “Hate-Crimes” legislation became law I couldn’t, and still can’t, understand why an assault on a black man for bigoted reasons was any worse than an assault of equal severity against a white man or woman. An assault is an assault. It’s illegal. It should be punished.

 

Democrats seem to think that a white person even mentioning race or religion makes them hateful racists. On CNN today I saw Carol Costello looked pained and distressed and comment accordingly because Mitt Romney was seen on a video joking he might stand a better chance of winning were he Latino. Bad joke? Ya. Factually questionable? Certainly. Racist? Puhleeeez!

 

Conservatives are Hawks and believe in war. 

 

Democrats have continually tried to de-fund the military and Republicans have continually tried to keep funding as-is or increase it. Democrats, including Barack Obama, want us out of Afghanistan and never wanted us in Iraq. Republicans support or supported both wars and belief we should only leave Afghanistan when there is peace or when the Afghan government can stand on its own.

 

Clarification

 

Like most Americans, and Democrats in Congress, I supported the interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Like Democrats I want them out…yesterday. Our presence in Iraq should have ended long before it did. I am glad that President Obama followed George W. Bush’s withdrawal plan and got almost all of our troops out of that troublesome nation. To me, Afghanistan makes no sense. It serves no strategic or military or political purpose to have Americans continue to fight and die in that backwards far-away land. Obama already uses drones continually in Pakistan and Yemen to hit terrorist/enemy targets. I want to know why he can’t pull all of our troops out of harms way, park an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean and bomb the crap out of the Taliban or El Qaeda whenever they pop their heads into the open. But my hawkishness ends when no beneficial purpose remains for the killing.

 

What probably defines me as a Conservative and Republican more than anything else is the Social Nanny-State mentality Democrats have fully embraced. It seems to me that by wanting to do more and more for each individual and group of individuals from cradle to grave Democrats sell-short the capabilities of us all. We’re all so much more capable than they seem to want to give us credit for. When you continually grow government for the purpose of taking care of its citizens Thomas Jefferson, among others, had a word for that. He called it tyranny. And so do I. The safety net for our truly most needy must and will always be there. But it’s not our governments job to ensure that we all have the same size house, television, car, or bank account.

 

So there you have it. I’ve probably disappointed some of my more Conservative friends. And I seriously doubt I’ve newly endeared myself with my more Liberal friends, most of whom stopped listening to me long ago. But it bothered me to be labelled a hardcore Conservative for no other reason than I knew it not to be true. I am hardcore vocal for what I believe in. And I will continue to be so.

 

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

 

Co-opted Republican Ideals and Accomplishments.

This photo is from the Time 100 Gala - read ho...

Elizabeth Warren

In watching the great Native American leader (NOT) Elizabeth Warren speaking at the Democratic National Convention I heard a statement that caused me to think and say out loud, “What a lie!”. Actually, there were several. But the one of which I write came at a time when she was reciting a list of accomplishments she claimed to be Democratic Party accomplishments. On behalf of Democrats she took credit for Child Labor Laws in the U.S.

It seems Ms. Warren not only has challenges in telling the truth about her ancestry, having secured employment at Harvard University by claiming Native American ancestry that didn’t really exist; but now the Massachusetts Senate candidate needs American History lessons too.

English: "Glassworks. Midnight. Location:...

Republican Teddy Roosevelt is the single individual most responsible for bringing to national attention the plight of child workers as well as other abuses of labor. Twenty times while in the New York Legislature he championed different legislation addressing child labor. The National Child Labor Committee was created in 1904 during his Presidency. And Roosevelt’s hand chosen successor, President William Howard Taft signed into law the act creating the United States Children’s Bureau in the Federal Department of Labor. All this work laying the groundwork for the eventual passing of the Keating-Owen Act in 1916 prohibiting the buying or selling of goods manufactured or processed by child labor.

Anyone paying attention knows this isn’t the first time the Democratic Party has co-opted Republican ideas and accomplishments and claimed them as their own.

Democrats are always presenting themselves as the sole reason for the freedom and civil rights enjoyed in our country today by blacks and other minorities. Such false claims ignore the fact that the Civil War was fought almost entirely over the issue of slavery and the election of

English: Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth Presid...

Republican President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was the first-ever Republican President. It was a party formulated out of the former Whig party and included abolishment of slavery as its primary plank in its platform. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation made it real. The Presidential Proclamation was given Constitutional backing thanks to the Republican Party and the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

When President Lynden Johnson needed help passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act it wasn’t his fellow Democrats he turned to. Southern Democrats were blocking the legislation. Johnson got this and the Voting Rights Act passed through the support of Republicans in Congress. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Democrat James Eastland opposed the bill and wouldn’t give it a hearing in his Committee. Then after some parliamentary procedures, that would cause Harry Reid to turn his head, the bill was sent to the Senate floor for a vote but blocked by a Democratic filibuster. It was the Republicans who broke the filibuster, passing the most significant Civil Rights legislation since Republicans passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

Years later after blacks had won their voting rights and many other rights in the segregated south it was Boston, Massachusetts, Liberal and Democratic Boston, Massachusetts, where the largest opposition to intra-racial freedom occurred. Boston is where the stiffest opposition to school desegregation busing took place.

There are other issues too.

Democrats are the champions of the environment, right?

Well it was Republican President Richard Nixon who signed the Clean Water Act into law in 1972.

Richard Milhous Nixon, 37th President of the U...

Richard Milhous Nixon, 37th President of the United States

Nixon also was responsible for THE major Amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1970 that greatly expanded the federal mandate by requiring comprehensive federal and state regulations for both stationary (industrial) pollution sources and mobile sources.

What about continued claims that Democrats are peace-loving and Republicans are war mongers? Really?

It was Nixon who opened China after 25 years of isolation, and three Democratic Administrations.

Nixon also negotiated the SALT treaty with the Soviet Union, creating the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty.

Republican Ronald Reagan negotiated with the evil empire and its last leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It was because of Reagan’s leadership and under Republican President George H.W. Bush that the Soviet Union came crashing down without a shot, or a missile being fired after more than 70 years of reigning terror over Europe and Asia.

Democrats did none of this.

Is there more? Certainly. Ever heard of the G.I. Bill? The Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, as it was formally called, was originally written by former National Republican Party Chairman Harry W. Colmery on the back of a napkin at the Mayflower Hotel in 1944. The bill was championed in the U.S. Senate by Republican Warren Atherton and Democrat Ernest McFarland. The G.I. Bill provided returning servicemen with low-cost mortgages, loans for starting businesses; paid for college tuition and more.

Why these facts demonstrating the Republican party’s compassion and leadership in matters of civil rights, environmentalism, peace and government benefit programs is not more widely known is a mystery. How can it be that the Democratic party has stolen credit for all these things and not been held accountable for having done so? I don’t know the answer. But I know to claim credit for something you didn’t do is a lie. And Americans don’t much like those who lie. Do we?

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

  • Calendar

    • November 2018
      M T W T F S S
      « Oct    
       1234
      567891011
      12131415161718
      19202122232425
      2627282930  
  • Search