President Obama addressed the nation during prime time Monday night to try and read his way into the hearts of the American people. At one point during the 15-minute speech, the President estimated that most Americans didn't know what a "debt ceiling" was. While keeping to this assumption, he laid out a series of sound-bytes that he also hoped would also catch the unwashed masses ill-informed.
The problem for the President, is that more Americans have been following the debt debates that he thought. And many are aware that he hasn't ponied up his version of a plan to deal with the crisis. They are aware that it has been over 800 days since he has made even a marginal attempt to have a budget approved. They know that the GOP has produced and passed in the House, a budget and a comprehensive plan to raise the debt ceiling, control future spending, and work towards a balanced budget amendment. All while the Democrats have sat back and wrinkled their noses at whatever the GOP introduces.
Say what you will about the politics of the left and the right. Whether you are a jet-setting hedge fund manager or an unemployed union auto-mechanic, you see who is actually making an effort to avert disaster.
Now, with a week left before the August 2nd deadline, Sen. Harry Reid introduced a bill proposing 2.7 trillion in spending cuts in exchange for a 2.4 trillion raise in the debt ceiling. According to Reid, this plan fits "all GOP requirements" in that it cuts spending at a level higher than the proposed borrowing allowance, and it does not raise taxes. However, the plan uses an accounting trick to mis-represent 1 trillion of those savings that aren't savings at all.
Reid includes 1 trillion dollars in "savings" obtained by drawing down the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, these expenses were never budgeted or requested. Therefore, they are not cutting anything from future spending. This makes the revised 1.7 trillion in cuts much less than the proposed 2.4 trillion debt ceiling increase. And that is why it won't pass.
We've seen the Democrats pull this before. They've used phony accounting to trick Speaker Boehner into accepting smaller cuts than he asked for although they looked like more on paper.
So, with Cut, Cap & Balance dead on the Senate floor after Reid refused to even allow debate on it, Boehner has tried to cobble together a smaller version that averts immediate crisis, and gives the parties breathing room for about 6 months to tackle the issue again with more targeted cuts tied to subsequent debt hikes. Many Republicans and fiscal conservative groups are against the new plan because it doesn't cut enough, and even the President has threatened to veto it because it brings this issue up again before his reelection bid next year.
So, now Boehner is reportedly going back to the drawing board to try again.
This all become a sick game of "Mother, may I?" with the GOP making all the moves and Obama sitting atop his perch casting disapproval at everything coming his way. While time ticks down,it is no longer the threat of default (which Obama still threatens seniors with while privately assuring banks we will not) the real danger now is the potential loss of the U.S.A.'s AAA credit rating. If this happens, interest rates and the cost of borrowing will rise, and the US dollar will slip from it's current status as the most dependable currency in the World.
Obama knows that Cut, Cap & Balance will solve the issue, but fears the cuts will anger his entitlement-dependent base, and doesn't extract enough blood from the rich in the form of tax increases. To be honest, CC&B is a 100% political win for the GOP if it were ever passed. And that is why the Senate squashed it immediately after the House passed it. Despite how fiscally sound it is, the Obama base would run him out of office for caving.
There is no way the GOP can win. The ceiling MUST be raised to meet the interest and mandatory spending requirements. They have to realize that. People who think we can let the clock expire and force the President to start slashing are dreaming. But, the Democrats will never pass a cut-only bill (unless Harry Reid's sneaky trick had worked). You can point the finger at either party for being intransigent and be half right either way, but this still gets us nowhere.
Only a bill that includes some kind of revenues will pass the Senate, and only a bill that gets us past the 2012 election will earn Obama's signature. My suggestion is we give in on select tax exemptions that accomplish both. Even though they won't make a significant impact, the political points they score for the Dems will likely get them to pass it. For instance, Obama has blasted the corporate jet exemption in every speech since this debate became mainstream. Although it won't produce enough revenue to pay for anything, he'll get to claim victory on his favorite talking point. Hedge-fund managers paying a lesser marginal tax rate than me IS ridiculous and could be corrected. Both the debt hike and spending cuts need to exceed 2 trillion dollars to get through 2012.
2012 exposes 23 Democratic Senators to reelection campaigns and the Tea Party gets a crack at them that they didn't get in 2010. Contrast that with only 10 Republicans up for reelection, and we have an opportunity to control both houses of Congress. Even if we don't win the White House, the Presidential veto is the only thing that could halt most fiscal reform. But, a Balanced Budget Amendment is immune to the Veto-er in Chief. He can't veto it.
A Balanced Budget Amendment will likely garner support from those Democrat Senators who have gone on record as supporting it in the past (those that remain in the Senate after the 2012, at least). It has a very real chance of being ratified by the States, which would force future budgets to address deficit spending by law. No more partisan rancor over debt ceilings. The only caveat I can see, is that it must include some sort of provision to borrow in the event of a national emergency (read: WAR).
Give in on select exemptions and this battle is a Draw. You'll never get the fiscal reform we need with Obama in the White House. Set yourself up as the adults in this room and make your push for 2012. Even though he gets his debt hike this time, Obama knows better than to pick this fight again.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Racist History of the Democratic Party
The History of the Democrat Party
October 13, 1858:
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee.
April 16, 1862:
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no.
July 17, 1862:
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free.”
January 31, 1865:
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition.
April 8, 1865:
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition.
November 22, 1865:
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination.
February 5, 1866:
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves.
April 9, 1866:
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.
May 10, 1866:
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no.
June 8, 1866:
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.
January 8, 1867
: Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
July 19, 1867:
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans.
March 30, 1868:
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men.”
September 3, 1868:
25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress.
September 12, 1868:
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress.
October 7, 1868:
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule.”
October 22, 1868:
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan.
December 10, 1869:
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office.
February 3, 1870:
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race.
May 31, 1870:
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights.
June 22, 1870:
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.
September 6, 1870:
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell.
February 28, 1871
: Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.
April 20, 1871:
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.
October 10, 1871:
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands.
October 18, 1871:
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.
November 18, 1872:
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight.”
January 17, 1874:
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government.
September 14, 1874:
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed.
March 1, 1875:
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.
January 10, 1878:
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong.
February 8, 1894:
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote.
January 15, 1901:
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans.
May 29, 1902:
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%.
February 12, 1909
: On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP.
May 21, 1919:
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no.
August 18, 1920
: Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures.
January 26, 1922:
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster.
June 2, 1924:
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans.
October 3, 1924:
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention.
June 12, 1929:
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country.
August 17, 1937:
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation.
June 24, 1940:
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it.
August 8, 1945:
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”
September 30, 1953:
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
November 25, 1955:
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel.
March 12, 1956:
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation.
June 5, 1956:
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law.
November 6, 1956:
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President.
September 9, 1957:
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act.
September 24, 1957:
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools.
May 6, 1960:
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.
May 2, 1963:
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights.
September 29, 1963:
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School.
June 9, 1964:
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate.
June 10, 1964:
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.
August 4, 1965:
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor.
February 19, 1976:
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII.
September 15, 1981:
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs.
June 29, 1982:
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act.
August 10, 1988:
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR.
November 21, 1991:
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation.
August 20, 1996:
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law.
And let’s not forget the words of Liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…"
No wonder Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Sr. were both Republicans!
Rev. Al Sharpton had it right when he said, "Democrats will take us to the dance, but they won't take us home to meet mama." Democrats have hijacked the black vote and spend an inordinate amount of time and resources expanding and increasing dependence on social safety net programs. If they truly had minorities' best interests in mind, they would be working harder to decrease that dependency by trying to elevate their constituents' station in life. Constantly being told they are disenfranchised, dependent on the nanny state, and in need of more and more "rich racists' money" to thrive, crushes the drive and ambition of one of the country's most prolific and able-minded, able-bodied groups of exceptional Americans. Democrats and their ilk are sucking the life out of our minorities and sucking the funds out of the economy to keep them on self-imposed life support.
I can only hope that a new movement of black Americans will rise up and seize the opportunities this country provides to us all. A movement that refuses to wear the label of "dependent" and strikes out to make their mark on this country. A movement that idolizes other successful black business owners over rap stars and sports figures. A movement that sets out to show that they can do it as well, or better than their white counterparts. A call to provide for those in need rather than to join them. A call to reject the rhetoric of "leaders" like Revs. Jesse & Al who tell them they can't do it. Who mobilize to challenge the status quo rather than accept their perceived reliance on government....and don't believe they need another government program to do it.
I call on all Republicans to go back to the front on the issue of blacks in America. Republicans did all of the dirty work when it wasn't popular, against the will of the Democratic Party, to ensure blacks had every opportunity our Constitution provides. Republicans defeated Democrats efforts to deny the black vote, which they now overwhelmingly receive. They receive the black vote because they have convinced blacks that they still aren't equal, and that they need the government to survive. They have made them addicted to government like a drug, and they need a serious intervention.
Was LBJ correct when he said, "I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years," after signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The same Act that was passed by Republican congressmen despite the 14-hour democratic filibuster by then Senator and former Grand Cyclops of the KKK, Robert Byrd(D-WV).
October 13, 1858:
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee.
April 16, 1862:
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no.
July 17, 1862:
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free.”
January 31, 1865:
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition.
April 8, 1865:
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition.
November 22, 1865:
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination.
February 5, 1866:
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves.
April 9, 1866:
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.
May 10, 1866:
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no.
June 8, 1866:
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.
January 8, 1867
: Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
July 19, 1867:
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans.
March 30, 1868:
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men.”
September 3, 1868:
25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress.
September 12, 1868:
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress.
October 7, 1868:
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule.”
October 22, 1868:
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan.
December 10, 1869:
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office.
February 3, 1870:
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race.
May 31, 1870:
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights.
June 22, 1870:
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.
September 6, 1870:
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell.
February 28, 1871
: Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.
April 20, 1871:
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.
October 10, 1871:
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands.
October 18, 1871:
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.
November 18, 1872:
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight.”
January 17, 1874:
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government.
September 14, 1874:
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed.
March 1, 1875:
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.
January 10, 1878:
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong.
February 8, 1894:
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote.
January 15, 1901:
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans.
May 29, 1902:
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%.
February 12, 1909
: On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP.
May 21, 1919:
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no.
August 18, 1920
: Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures.
January 26, 1922:
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster.
June 2, 1924:
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans.
October 3, 1924:
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention.
June 12, 1929:
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country.
August 17, 1937:
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation.
June 24, 1940:
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it.
August 8, 1945:
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”
September 30, 1953:
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
November 25, 1955:
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel.
March 12, 1956:
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation.
June 5, 1956:
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law.
November 6, 1956:
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President.
September 9, 1957:
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act.
September 24, 1957:
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools.
May 6, 1960:
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.
May 2, 1963:
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights.
September 29, 1963:
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School.
June 9, 1964:
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate.
June 10, 1964:
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.
August 4, 1965:
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor.
February 19, 1976:
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII.
September 15, 1981:
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs.
June 29, 1982:
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act.
August 10, 1988:
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR.
November 21, 1991:
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation.
August 20, 1996:
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law.
And let’s not forget the words of Liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…"
No wonder Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Sr. were both Republicans!
Rev. Al Sharpton had it right when he said, "Democrats will take us to the dance, but they won't take us home to meet mama." Democrats have hijacked the black vote and spend an inordinate amount of time and resources expanding and increasing dependence on social safety net programs. If they truly had minorities' best interests in mind, they would be working harder to decrease that dependency by trying to elevate their constituents' station in life. Constantly being told they are disenfranchised, dependent on the nanny state, and in need of more and more "rich racists' money" to thrive, crushes the drive and ambition of one of the country's most prolific and able-minded, able-bodied groups of exceptional Americans. Democrats and their ilk are sucking the life out of our minorities and sucking the funds out of the economy to keep them on self-imposed life support.
I can only hope that a new movement of black Americans will rise up and seize the opportunities this country provides to us all. A movement that refuses to wear the label of "dependent" and strikes out to make their mark on this country. A movement that idolizes other successful black business owners over rap stars and sports figures. A movement that sets out to show that they can do it as well, or better than their white counterparts. A call to provide for those in need rather than to join them. A call to reject the rhetoric of "leaders" like Revs. Jesse & Al who tell them they can't do it. Who mobilize to challenge the status quo rather than accept their perceived reliance on government....and don't believe they need another government program to do it.
I call on all Republicans to go back to the front on the issue of blacks in America. Republicans did all of the dirty work when it wasn't popular, against the will of the Democratic Party, to ensure blacks had every opportunity our Constitution provides. Republicans defeated Democrats efforts to deny the black vote, which they now overwhelmingly receive. They receive the black vote because they have convinced blacks that they still aren't equal, and that they need the government to survive. They have made them addicted to government like a drug, and they need a serious intervention.
Was LBJ correct when he said, "I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years," after signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The same Act that was passed by Republican congressmen despite the 14-hour democratic filibuster by then Senator and former Grand Cyclops of the KKK, Robert Byrd(D-WV).
Sunday, July 10, 2011
SEIU - Connect the dots
A + B = C
Today's blog is a series of videos. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
I'll save you some time. Just skip ahead to the 3:00 mark
So, SEIU President Andy Stern was chief among Obama's advisers during the healthcare talks. Who is Andy Stern?
And what do SEIU meetings sound like when they think no one is listening?
***Update*** 9/15 video of SEIU speaker at Progressive Summit:
Scared yet?
Today's blog is a series of videos. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
I'll save you some time. Just skip ahead to the 3:00 mark
So, SEIU President Andy Stern was chief among Obama's advisers during the healthcare talks. Who is Andy Stern?
And what do SEIU meetings sound like when they think no one is listening?
***Update*** 9/15 video of SEIU speaker at Progressive Summit:
Scared yet?
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Tightening the Loop...hole
On the eve of the Sunday White House talks, there doesn't seem to be any waffling on either side of the debt ceiling debate. Repubs have restated their refusal to raise taxes, and Pelosi has parroted the Dems' refusal to touch entitlement spending.
So, the latest push is to get get Republicans in the House to agree to "close loopholes" in the tax code that allow certain wealthy individuals to deduct income (and thereby skirt the taxes on said income) for certain expenditures like the newly demonized corporate jet owner. Language that pits the evil rich vs. the poor and unemployed resonates with Obama's base and he gains significant political traction from the latest round of class-warfare rhetoric. And what better target for the poor to target than the poster boys of wealth and privilege, the corporate jet owner. Sounds like a good plan.
First, let's clear up what a loophole is and isn't. Loopholes are mistakes. Unintended gaps in the tax code that well paid lawyers and tax attorneys exploit to allow their clients to legally game the system. Loopholes don't last forever and are usually cleaned up in a future amendment once they are discovered. The corporate jet issue is a modified depreciation schedule that Obama and his administration purposefully included in the Stimulus Package. It was not a mistake. It is not a loophole. It was an Obama-backed piece of legislation.
The obvious reason the jet exemption was included in the stimulus was that the 2008 financial meltdown all but destroyed the private aviation market. Consequently, 20,000 IAW union workers were laid off. In an effort to save the industry, get union members back to work, and assuage the fears of hesitant jet buyers, this exemption was included in the bill.
Now, the IAW and the aviation manufacturers are understandably pissed at Obama's newest talking point. In one of the only instances in recent memory of union workers and management colluding for their common good, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association(GAMA) and the The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers(IAM), both sent a letter to President Obama after his latest round of press conferences.
The jet issue is only a microcosm of the fallacy of Obama's tax-the-rich plan. It makes zero economic sense if the goal is to boost the economy and help create jobs. However, it makes perfect sense if the goal is to whip up the base who want to see the have-nots stick it to the haves. The appearance of Obama fighting for the little guy is more important than the fact that his proposed policies end up sticking it to the little guy. Taxing the few remaining business that are surviving, and who might still be able to hire people, is intuitively counterproductive. But, the downtrodden want their "pound of flesh" and taking some rich peoples' money seems to be what will satisfy them. Misery loves company. Recent polls say they that over 70% of voters would favor a tax on the rich. Of course they do. Those 70% are likely not directly effected, unless they are out of work and actually want to be hired by someone.
The Dems love to draw incorrect correlations on the tax & spend issue. They say things like, "We are not going to cut benefits to seniors and children in order to give tax breaks to the corporate jet owners." This, of course, plants the illusion that it's one or the other. However, it is Dems who are putting entitlements into the discussion. They haven't identified any other areas of wasteful spending that can be cut to solve the spending issue. It's always "rich people vs. poor people." Class warfare wins elections when the majority are suffering. The Dems are not talking about cutting foreign aid, cutting funding to wasteful pet projects, simplifying the tax code, cleaning up the entitlement programs to stop abuse (the real loopholes), or anything of the sort. Ironically it is Rebublicans that are suggesting all of the alternatives and distancing themselves from cutting benefits.
The problem is that Republicans lack good talking points. They don't have catchy phrases that resonate with people. They make informed, factual arguments that bore the average American to sleep. But, "Tax the rich!" when so many are out of work, sounds awesome. If republicans could explain, in language that the masses could understand, that both parties want to get people back to work, but that they just differ on the methods to be employed, they may get traction. They are correct in their arguments, but they are not being heard. Slogans like "paychecks, not unemployment checks!," or "we don't want to cut your benefits, we want to make you independent of government handouts." "Restoring pride to the American worker by getting them to work." Hell, anything is better than just saying that it is "unwise to raise taxes in this economy." Again, factually correct but, that and, "no new taxes" is lost on the people who hear the Robin Hood mentality of the leftists on every radio and TV show all day, every day. To them, job creators are stuffing their mattresses with cash that really belongs to the great unwashed masses. Republicans need a better spokesperson.
So, the latest push is to get get Republicans in the House to agree to "close loopholes" in the tax code that allow certain wealthy individuals to deduct income (and thereby skirt the taxes on said income) for certain expenditures like the newly demonized corporate jet owner. Language that pits the evil rich vs. the poor and unemployed resonates with Obama's base and he gains significant political traction from the latest round of class-warfare rhetoric. And what better target for the poor to target than the poster boys of wealth and privilege, the corporate jet owner. Sounds like a good plan.
First, let's clear up what a loophole is and isn't. Loopholes are mistakes. Unintended gaps in the tax code that well paid lawyers and tax attorneys exploit to allow their clients to legally game the system. Loopholes don't last forever and are usually cleaned up in a future amendment once they are discovered. The corporate jet issue is a modified depreciation schedule that Obama and his administration purposefully included in the Stimulus Package. It was not a mistake. It is not a loophole. It was an Obama-backed piece of legislation.
The obvious reason the jet exemption was included in the stimulus was that the 2008 financial meltdown all but destroyed the private aviation market. Consequently, 20,000 IAW union workers were laid off. In an effort to save the industry, get union members back to work, and assuage the fears of hesitant jet buyers, this exemption was included in the bill.
Now, the IAW and the aviation manufacturers are understandably pissed at Obama's newest talking point. In one of the only instances in recent memory of union workers and management colluding for their common good, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association(GAMA) and the The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers(IAM), both sent a letter to President Obama after his latest round of press conferences.
“Words have consequences and, in this industry, a few misguided words can put at risk even the ever-so-modest recovery we have experienced,” said IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger. “What this industry and its workforce requires is more time to recover, a chance to book more orders and the opportunity to recall more workers.”Here we have a Union President, saying what Republicans have been saying for months. You can't tax the problem away and not hurt the recovery. Obama loves to say that the economy is slooooowly recovering. And in such a fragile recovery period, cause and effect are easy to predict. We are not enjoying a boom that can absorb unfortunate decisions in a whirlwind of growth and profits. It stands to reason that potential jet buyers are waiting to see what is going to come out of these debt talks. No one in their right mind is not going to wait this thing out. Even simply talking about the issue has put the brakes on production orders and will likely cause fallout.
The jet issue is only a microcosm of the fallacy of Obama's tax-the-rich plan. It makes zero economic sense if the goal is to boost the economy and help create jobs. However, it makes perfect sense if the goal is to whip up the base who want to see the have-nots stick it to the haves. The appearance of Obama fighting for the little guy is more important than the fact that his proposed policies end up sticking it to the little guy. Taxing the few remaining business that are surviving, and who might still be able to hire people, is intuitively counterproductive. But, the downtrodden want their "pound of flesh" and taking some rich peoples' money seems to be what will satisfy them. Misery loves company. Recent polls say they that over 70% of voters would favor a tax on the rich. Of course they do. Those 70% are likely not directly effected, unless they are out of work and actually want to be hired by someone.
The Dems love to draw incorrect correlations on the tax & spend issue. They say things like, "We are not going to cut benefits to seniors and children in order to give tax breaks to the corporate jet owners." This, of course, plants the illusion that it's one or the other. However, it is Dems who are putting entitlements into the discussion. They haven't identified any other areas of wasteful spending that can be cut to solve the spending issue. It's always "rich people vs. poor people." Class warfare wins elections when the majority are suffering. The Dems are not talking about cutting foreign aid, cutting funding to wasteful pet projects, simplifying the tax code, cleaning up the entitlement programs to stop abuse (the real loopholes), or anything of the sort. Ironically it is Rebublicans that are suggesting all of the alternatives and distancing themselves from cutting benefits.
The problem is that Republicans lack good talking points. They don't have catchy phrases that resonate with people. They make informed, factual arguments that bore the average American to sleep. But, "Tax the rich!" when so many are out of work, sounds awesome. If republicans could explain, in language that the masses could understand, that both parties want to get people back to work, but that they just differ on the methods to be employed, they may get traction. They are correct in their arguments, but they are not being heard. Slogans like "paychecks, not unemployment checks!," or "we don't want to cut your benefits, we want to make you independent of government handouts." "Restoring pride to the American worker by getting them to work." Hell, anything is better than just saying that it is "unwise to raise taxes in this economy." Again, factually correct but, that and, "no new taxes" is lost on the people who hear the Robin Hood mentality of the leftists on every radio and TV show all day, every day. To them, job creators are stuffing their mattresses with cash that really belongs to the great unwashed masses. Republicans need a better spokesperson.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Slavery and Porn - A Banner Day 7/8/11
7/8/11 Slavery and Porn
Today was a banner day for Michelle Bachmann. The left's favorite target has already been the subject of a coordinated smear campaign since she recently announced her bid for the presidency. It's not like she hasn't given them enough ammo. The feisty Bachmann has been quite vocal in laying out, in no uncertain terms, the platform she plans to run on. Her prominence in the Tea Party, and her outspoken resistance to the gay marriage wave sweeping the country, has put her square in the cross-hairs (can we say cross-hairs?) of the progressive left. Not to mention her husband's.
When news came out that Bachmann had signed "The Marriage Vow", Twitter lit up like a slot machine with tweets and re-tweets of, "Bachmann vows to ban pornography!!" and, "Bachmann think blacks were better off during slavery!!!" All followed up with links to the various leftist sites that had seized onto the story. Replies and RT's naturally followed with cries of indignity from those who could not believe this crazy wingnut could be so bold, and stupid.
I noticed none of the tweeters, and very few of the internet sites ,actually linked to the "vow." I finally found it and read it. And, as I suspected, the vow neither banned pornography, nor did it tout that blacks were "better off" during slavery. But, somehow I knew that if the left had said it, it probably wasn't true.
Rev. Al Sharpton led off his MSNBC segment on the subject and actually showed a graphic of the quote:
The language clearly points to data suggesting that, in 1860, a child born to black parents was more likely to be raised in a two-parent home than they are today. This section of the document was part of the "prologue" to the actual "vow" and was the 1st of several bullet-pointed qualifiers to justify the intent of the vows to follow. It's no surprise that this as the very first point and that most lefties stopped reading at that point.
The very next point went on to say:
In typical lefty literary gymnastics, they take a statement of empirical data, and turn it into a (gasp!) racist comment. I suppose if one wants to draw a correlation between growing up in a broken home vs. not growing up in one, and that having 2 parents is better than one, then you could make a cursory assumption that.....ahh screw it. Not going there. Bachmann never said "better off." The only place you will find that language is on the lefties feeds, blogs, and sites.
But, if you scream it to sheeple enough, omit the full document from the sites, and the Rev. Al Sharpton says it on MSNBC, then the message has been delivered. And few of the left's base or neutral parties are going to actually research it. Soundbites and headlines are as far as they get.
Bachamnn didn't even write it. Sure, she signed it, but I doubt the authors of the vow at The Family Leader factored in all the possible ramifications of the specific language used. Even though it was simply drawing attention to the alarming statistic that, whites(41%) and blacks(70%) have ridiculously high instances of broken homes, as one of the many justifications for the vows to follow later.
The pornography claim was equally ignorant. The section referring to that was actually in one of the vows Bachmann pledged to.
Never mind that the entire vow has enough crumbs for the leftist agenda to rail against for months. Anti-gay marriage, sharia law, abortion, etc. With all of that, they still can't resist the urge to INVENT something out of thin air and lie about it. Are the Libs so stupid that they can't see when they are being taken for a ride by their own media? It's not enough that they tow the Democrat party line, but we can expect a left-leaning spin from the MSM. But, spin is one thing. It appeals to the audience that tunes in. Overtly taking a document that is available to anyone who can navigate a Google search, and blatantly lying about the contents is a new low.
-Noxious
Today was a banner day for Michelle Bachmann. The left's favorite target has already been the subject of a coordinated smear campaign since she recently announced her bid for the presidency. It's not like she hasn't given them enough ammo. The feisty Bachmann has been quite vocal in laying out, in no uncertain terms, the platform she plans to run on. Her prominence in the Tea Party, and her outspoken resistance to the gay marriage wave sweeping the country, has put her square in the cross-hairs (can we say cross-hairs?) of the progressive left. Not to mention her husband's.
When news came out that Bachmann had signed "The Marriage Vow", Twitter lit up like a slot machine with tweets and re-tweets of, "Bachmann vows to ban pornography!!" and, "Bachmann think blacks were better off during slavery!!!" All followed up with links to the various leftist sites that had seized onto the story. Replies and RT's naturally followed with cries of indignity from those who could not believe this crazy wingnut could be so bold, and stupid.
I noticed none of the tweeters, and very few of the internet sites ,actually linked to the "vow." I finally found it and read it. And, as I suspected, the vow neither banned pornography, nor did it tout that blacks were "better off" during slavery. But, somehow I knew that if the left had said it, it probably wasn't true.
Rev. Al Sharpton led off his MSNBC segment on the subject and actually showed a graphic of the quote:
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President."
The language clearly points to data suggesting that, in 1860, a child born to black parents was more likely to be raised in a two-parent home than they are today. This section of the document was part of the "prologue" to the actual "vow" and was the 1st of several bullet-pointed qualifiers to justify the intent of the vows to follow. It's no surprise that this as the very first point and that most lefties stopped reading at that point.
The very next point went on to say:
"LBJ‟s 1965 War on Poverty was triggered in part by the famous “Moynihan Report” finding that the black out-of-wedlock birthrate had hit 26%; today, the white rate exceeds that, the overall rate is 41%, and over 70% of African-American babies are born to single parents4 – a prime sociological indicator for poverty, pathology and prison regardless of race or ethnicity."
In typical lefty literary gymnastics, they take a statement of empirical data, and turn it into a (gasp!) racist comment. I suppose if one wants to draw a correlation between growing up in a broken home vs. not growing up in one, and that having 2 parents is better than one, then you could make a cursory assumption that.....ahh screw it. Not going there. Bachmann never said "better off." The only place you will find that language is on the lefties feeds, blogs, and sites.
But, if you scream it to sheeple enough, omit the full document from the sites, and the Rev. Al Sharpton says it on MSNBC, then the message has been delivered. And few of the left's base or neutral parties are going to actually research it. Soundbites and headlines are as far as they get.
Bachamnn didn't even write it. Sure, she signed it, but I doubt the authors of the vow at The Family Leader factored in all the possible ramifications of the specific language used. Even though it was simply drawing attention to the alarming statistic that, whites(41%) and blacks(70%) have ridiculously high instances of broken homes, as one of the many justifications for the vows to follow later.
The pornography claim was equally ignorant. The section referring to that was actually in one of the vows Bachmann pledged to.
"Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence."Taking the unfortunate phrase, "innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy" (wow) out of the equation, anyone bothering to read this would see she was talking about CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. But, since she did sign a vow to work against a particular form of pornography, I guess the misleading headline, "Bachmann vows to ban pornography" is factually correct. And that's good enough for the character assassins to work with.
Never mind that the entire vow has enough crumbs for the leftist agenda to rail against for months. Anti-gay marriage, sharia law, abortion, etc. With all of that, they still can't resist the urge to INVENT something out of thin air and lie about it. Are the Libs so stupid that they can't see when they are being taken for a ride by their own media? It's not enough that they tow the Democrat party line, but we can expect a left-leaning spin from the MSM. But, spin is one thing. It appeals to the audience that tunes in. Overtly taking a document that is available to anyone who can navigate a Google search, and blatantly lying about the contents is a new low.
-Noxious
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)