The Republican Party & Race Issues

As layed out in my previous post, many people wrongly believe that the Republican party has not been a friend of minorities. Once again, the facts do not support that argument. The Republican party, in fact, was founded on a strong anti-slavery position in early 1854 in Michigan.

The Grolier Mulitmedia Encyclopedia has a very good write up on the history of the Republican party from its founding in 1854 to GHWB's presidency. Here is an excerpt on the party's origins:

"Scholars agree that the origins of the party grew out of the sectional conflicts regarding the expansion of slavery into the new western territories. The stimulus for political realignment was provided by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. That law repealed earlier compromises that had excluded slavery from the territories. The passage of this act served as the unifying agent for abolitionists and split the Democrats and the Whig party. "Anti-Nebraska" protest meetings spread rapidly through the country. Two such meetings were held in Ripon, Wis., on Feb. 28 and Mar. 20, 1854, and were attended by a group of abolitionist Free Soilers, Democrats, and Whigs. They decided to call themselves Republicans because they professed to be political descendants of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republican party. The name was formally adopted by a state convention held in Jackson, Mich., on July 6, 1854.

The new party was a success from the beginning. In the 1854 congressional elections 44 Republicans were elected as a part of the anti-Nebraskan majority in the House of Representatives, and several Republicans were elected to the Senate and to various state houses. In June 1856, at the first Republican national convention, Sen. John C. Frémont was nominated for the presidency but was defeated by Democrat James Buchanan. During the campaign the northern wing of the Know-Nothing party split off and endorsed the Republican ticket, making the Republicans the principal antislavery party.
Two days after the inauguration of Buchanan, the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which increased sectional dissension and was denounced by the Republicans."

You can read the entire article here.

Republicans and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

It has been brought to our attention that many otherwise intelligent people—based on decades of propaganda from the left—think that it was Democrats who fought for and brought into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the facts, pesky as they may be, simply do not support that argument.

Here is how the final votes were cast:

House of Representatives:

• Democrats: Y=152; N=96 (63% against passage)
• Republicans: Y=138; N=42 (25% against)

Senate:

• Democrats: Y=37; N=27 (73% against)
• Republicans: Y=27; N=6 (22% against)

To be sure, most of the opposition in the Democratic ranks came from southerners, but the voting record clearly debunks claims by the Left that Republicans have a "race problem".

If either party needs to address its historical position on race, these facts suggest it should be the Democrats.

Details on how the 1964 CRA legislation made its way through the halls of Congress can be found here.

"Rolling Back Government: Lessons from New Zealand"

Hillsdale College's April 2004 Imprimis has a fabulous article by Maurice McTigue, a former New Zealand MP and government official on how New Zealand was able reform government and make it more efficient, smaller, and build a much better national economy through the application of free-market capitalism.

It's a great read, and you can find it here.

(Brought to our attention by Dissecting Leftism (see Links))

Max Cleland is a Bush Political Appointee

Sounds crazy, I know. Yes, the same man who went to GWB's Crawford, Texas ranch to very publicly demand that GWB order the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth to stop running their advertisments critical of John Kerry.

Rich Lowry of the National Review Online lays out all the details.

Anti-Kerry Ads and the Mainstream Media

Isn't it pathetic how the mainstream media takes a GWB comment and trumpets it totally out of context? Especially in their headlines. Today GWB expressed disappointment with ALL negative ads by the so-called 527 groups, including anti-Kerry AND anti Bush. But all the headlines said was, "Bush condemns anti-Kerry Ads".

It's interesting to note that Kerry has not yet condemned such ads, despite the fact that the anti-Bush 527 groups have outspend the SwiftBoat vets ads $60 million to $800,000.

Move-on.org Coordinating with the Kerry Campaign?

This weekend saw the Kerry campaign, obviously panicked by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth advertisements, claiming that this veteran’s group was illegally coordinating with the Bush campaign. They went so far today as to file a complaint with the FEC over the matter, despite having produced ‘zero’ evidence of such collaboration. They have also called for the president to denounce the Swiftboat ads, despite the fact that the Swiftboat group has spent only $800,000 compared to the nearly $20 million spend by George Soros funded Move-on.org. I guess the Swiftboat ads have hit a raw nerve in the Kerry camp.

In addition, the Kerry campaign tried to say, “Gotcha” over reports this weekend that the White House had dismissed an advisor on veterans affairs when they learned he was associated with the Swiftboat group. However, there is more to this story:

One of the Kerry advisors has been, and apparently still is involved with Move-on.org. Read more about it here: American Spectator

Classic Liberalism & Conservatives

Classical Liberalism of the 18th century was a political philosophy that espoused individual liberty and economic freedom through the idea of limited government, private property rights, and free market capitalism. Those ideals cannot be ascribed to today’s liberals, but applied well to conservatives. The founders of our Constitution would have been Classic Liberals, a label shared in name only with modern Liberals. In fact, modern-day liberalism represents the complete opposite of these ideals.

Liberalism as known today is merely watered-down Socialism, wherein the ‘rights’ of society are promoted over the rights of the individual. Socialism (including its 1st cousins Communism and Fascism) places above all else the State. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”, is socialism’s creed, but this ‘workers paradise’ is paid for by abrogation of individual freedom and rights. This is clearly in direct opposition to the founding principles established in the Constitution.

Indeed, when examined as a whole, the Constitution repeatedly and forcefully establishes the supremacy of the individual over the government. The founders did not fear too little government, they feared too much government. They wrote extensively in the Federalist Papers about limiting the role of government, and promoting the liberty and rights of individuals over the state. The Bill of Rights doesn’t protect the government from the people; it protects the people from the government. The founders believed that individuals should be free to succeed or fail without interference from the government. They established liberty as the very foundation of our Republic. For socialism to be “successful”, on the other hand, it must restrict and ultimately eliminate individual liberty, since only through conformity and uniformity can socialism succeed.

Modern liberals believe that all of society’s problems stem from inequalities in relative socio-economic power. They perceive the “rich” to have an unfair advantage over the poor and middle classes, and this perceived class inequality is what motivates liberals to pursue their socialist goals. Every policy and position liberals assume is based on their need to address their perceptions of socio-economic inequality. Until there are no more rich and no more poor, the liberals and socialists of the world will not be happy. They believe that the reason some are poor is because some are rich, and that the way to raise-up the poor is by bringing down the rich. They forget the words of one of their favorite presidents, (JFK) who, when justifying a very large tax cut said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

Conservatives, however, (like their Classic Liberal forefathers) seek to address socio-economic inequalities by bringing those on the lower rungs up through individual liberty and economic freedom and opportunity.

Penalizing the successful for simply being successful enslaves the poor and middle class to the State in that it is teaches that success is inherently evil. Not everyone will be successful, but instead of celebrating that success and finding ways to emulate it, liberals choose to despise it.

We are therefore presented with two philosophies on how our society should be governed: On the left we have the view that the rights of the State shall supercede those of the individual. On the right is the concept of individual liberty and the rights of the individual over those of the state. The left not only believes that you are not capable of succeeding on your own, they believe that if you do succeed without the help and “guidance” of the State then your success came at the cost of another’s failure, and for that you should be penalized.

Truth about the Bush Tax Cuts

There has been lots of discussion recently regarding how the Bush administration cut taxes “only for the wealthy”. A quick look at the facts shows how utterly fallacious these claims about “unfairness” really are:

According to the Tax Foundation, a family of four with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $40,000 saw a reduction in taxes under George Bush's plan of 96%, from $1,178 to $45, or $1,133 back in their pockets. Similarly, a family of four with and AGI of $50,000 realized a tax reduction of 42%, from $2,678 to $1,545, or $1,133.

Conversely, families of four with an AGI of $150,000 saw only a 10% reduction in taxes, from $22,878 to $20,632, or $2,247. For the record, the “richest” 5% of Americans had an AGI of over $127,000, and the “richest 1%” had AGI’s over $292,000.

So that family earning $150,000 did get a tax reduction in dollars almost double that of the family earning $40,000, but still paid over $19,000 MORE in taxes after the cut, or twelve times MORE than that $40,000 family!

One last thing, the Bush tax cuts effectively eliminated the income tax burden on a family of four earning less than $35,000.

You see for yourself here.

Welcome to our blog!

This blog is just getting started, but check back soon for new posts!