Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico

25May/170

Kids are going to die!

Of course the rhetoric will begin. Children are going to die. People will suffer and starve. Spending is being slashed to the point to that we will not recognize anything that the government can do or that the deficit will spiral out of control. Pres. Trump and the Republicans want you to die. It is typical but still as I’ve said before unbelievable the way opponents of Pres. Trump and conservatives twist the facts. There are no cuts in overall spending in the budget proposed by Pres. Trump. If you hear anybody say anything different they are lying lying lying. There is no other way to put it. There are cuts in the growth rate of spending which means quite simply we will be spending more on the federal government this year than we did last year. Two years from now will be spending more than we did next year. Over the 10 years of the budget proposal would will spend $50 billion more than we do this year. Are some programs being cut? Yes. Like the $700,000 to fund a play that promotes the idea man is causing climate change. Those types of things are being cut. But Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, CHIP, and similar transfer payment programs are not being cut. They are getting more money every year under the budget.

But you also need to understand is that this budget will balance the federal budget and reduce the deficit, eliminating it in 10 years, if we achieve a 3% rate of growth. Anybody to says we cannot grow at 3% per year does not know history and does not believe in the ability of the American people. If the government gets out of our way this economy can grow four or 5%. And if that gives us the ability to pay the deficit down will grow even faster.

If the economy grows even 1 to 2%, that means more people will be working and fewer people will need the benefit programs such as Medicaid and welfare. So those programs will not need as much money as they do right now. People will be able to purchase their own health care with their own money, if Congress does its job and gets the hell out of the way on the health insurance side of the equation.

Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi said that this budget is unimaginative, shows disdain for the millions of Americans were struggling to make ends meet and throws them out to the wolves. Those comments should prove to you once and for all what we have been telling you all along: the liberals believe you cannot do it for yourself and you have to have the government teat to suckle from in order to succeed. How’s that been working out for the last four decades?

Nancy Pelosi said that Medicare and Medicaid will wither on the vine. That is not true but she goes on to say that if the American people knew what was in the budget they would not support it. In fact they would call for everyone who did support it, including those who voted for speaker Ryan’s budget which she claims to be identical, to be thrown out of office. So we need to read the budget before its past? We need to read the law before its past to find out what’s in it? When did we have to start doing that?!

The Democrats are saying that the budget if it is passed and implemented would be an albatross around the neck of the Republicans in 2018 and would return control of the government to the Democrats. If that is true why don’t they vote for it? They want to be back in control and they see this as a way to get control back then they should be out there pushing John McCain and the other liberal Republicans to get behind it and vote for it. Then they can go back to doing things the way they been doing for the last 40 years.

The simple fact is this: the budget continues to grow in almost every major program or department that the federal government operates. There is some training of the fat but not enough. But if anybody tells you that there are real cuts in any department’s budget you should turn around and walk away because that person is either willfully ignorant or willfully lying to you. And you don’t need that kind of negativity in your life.

Filed under: Politics No Comments
22May/170

Diversity of opinion? Really?

It never ends. Democrats on the Senate finance committee were hearing testimony about tax reform proposals and thought there were some very good ideas from the five people who testified. However every one of them said that was not enough ethnic diversity among the five witnesses. One senator said there were not enough African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, or women on the witness list. The same senator said that he thought there were some very good ideas spanning some broad viewpoints. But then immediately said that because of the lack of diversity in the ethnic and gender areas of the witness list that there really was not true diversity of opinion.

So once again the liberals are showing you what they truly believe as opposed to what they say. Those senators believe that if you have a certain skin color or gender that you must agree on every issue. They don’t really want a diversity of opinion they just want to look at the panel and say there are people that look different so there must be diversity. Never mind that Maxine Waters and Condoleezza Rice, both African-American females, hold philosophically diverse opinions on almost every issue. Never mind that George Soros and Arthur Laffer hold significantly different viewpoints on economic issues. Yet both are white men. Apparently words don’t mean anything it’s only the demographic characteristic that’s important.

Here are a couple of facts about this situation: the Democrats had equal input into the witness list and who could be called to give testimony. If they had truly wanted to see ethnic or gender diversity, they could have provided it. However once again they manipulated the situation so they could grandstand during their opportunities to speak. This was organized prior to the hearing by the Democrats to try and embarrass the Republican majority.

Let’s not forget that tax reform will benefit all of us, regardless of the color of our skin, or sexual orientation, or gender. I have not seen anyone put forth a tax reform bill that provides benefits only to certain that is that these or other demographic groups. It’s all based upon income without regard for any demographic characteristic.

While we are at it, let’s talk about this whole identity politics movement. We as a country and a society have made a great deal of progress in civil rights over the past 50 years fighting primarily against the Democrat party who have tried to stall the march towards equality. Remember it was them who put in place all of the Jim Crow laws and other laws that promoted and allowed segregation and racism. Why aren’t the people pushing for a quality celebrating how far we have come as opposed to continuing with this victim mentality?

And if we really have not made progress as they claim, we have been following their tactics and their plan to achieve racial equality for three or more decades. If it’s not working then let’s try something new to improve the status of race relations and the standing of minorities in America. Once again it just shows you that it’s more about having power as opposed to achieving a true goal.

22May/170

John Kennedy has some really good ideas

Sen. John Kennedy from Louisiana as a couple of great ideas that are gaining traction. First the big complaint about Dodd Frank is the onerous regulations placed upon all banks which have really prohibited smaller banks from being able to loan money. This hurts middle income and lower income wage earners in America. Because often they don’t meet the strict criteria, being able to check off a box or put a number in the right place, that big impersonal banks have. Small local banks have more flexibility in loaning money; or at least they use to.

The stated purpose of the Dodd Frank was to rein in the big banks so Sen. Kennedy has proposed a solution, since it seems that there isn’t the political will to completely repeal the law. All you have to do is exempt the medium and small sized banks from the regulations put in place by the Bell. His proposal is that if you have less than $10 billion in capitalization you do not have to comply with Dodd Frank. Doesn’t that seem really simple and straightforward? Which probably means it doesn’t have much of a shot.

Secondly, he has offered a new bill that would require you to go to work if you are receiving Medicaid. Simply, if you are between the ages of 18 and 55, are not disabled; do not have kids; then you must go to work in order to continue to receive Medicaid benefits. The bill he has authored would require you to get a part-time job of at least 20 hours a week, in the alternative you can do 20 hours of community service, or you could enroll in a college degree program for the equivalent of 20 hours a week.

These are the kind of simple straightforward solutions that people will oppose, the media and the political elite will say it’s not that simple but it is. If our politicians really want to help the middle class they would give the smaller banks the exemption they need to begin loaning money again. This would stimulate the economy through increased housing purchases or construction; loans to people who want to start a small business; and so much more. And requiring Medicaid beneficiaries to work will be called and bigoted but the rest of us have to work to get what we need or want so why shouldn’t someone receiving benefits from the government, which is our tax money after work also?

26Apr/170

The First Amendment is under assault, again

26Apr/170

This discussion about tax reform isn’t about us; it’s about retaining power.

As we have watched the “debate” about tax reform over the last few weeks, it’s become apparent that changing things in Washington DC is going to be more difficult than anyone thought. There are many reasons for this but of course the underlying theme is that it’s all about power and control. We here in the mainstream media which parents the liberal mantra is that we can’t cut taxes because that will increase the deficit. For that the poor, the elderly or some other subgroup of Americans will be devastated because of the increased deficit and possibility that spending would be cut. Then there’s the old saw about giving tax breaks to the rich. The other consistent theme to this whole argument and discussion is that our political elite with their friends in the media ignore history.

We’re told that tax reform is complicated because people make decisions based upon the current tax laws and tax treatment of certain situations. They act like as if no alternative plans have ever been tried or proposed. Certainly people do make decisions based upon tax policy but a large majority of these deductions or so-called loopholes affect a small percentage of the population. A few years ago the Republicans put forth again a very simple and straightforward solution. It was basically a tax filing form that fit on a large postcard. This applied to individual income taxes. Basically you filled in a few boxes that included your gross income, then a lot of deductions for mortgage interest, child tax credit, charitable contributions, college tuition tax credit, and the earned income tax credit. Little bit of simple math and you either owed taxes or got a refund. Not only is that simple but it covers the vast majority of common deductions that people currently take. It would also reduce the size of the IRS saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year potentially.

Reforming corporate and business taxes would not be much more difficult. Certainly there are a lot more deductions for expenses that could be allowed. It’s not uncommon for most businesses to have capital expenditures for example or even research and development expenses. But limiting a lot of other specialty deductions that don’t apply to a majority of the corporate and business filers would be easy to do although politically difficult and of course that’s what this is all about.

Ignoring history is also part and parcel of the political elites modus operandi. Every time our government has cut taxes, revenue has grown. Whether it was Dwight Eisenhower, John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton, revenue has grown every time. Lowering the tax rate on businesses and individuals has stimulated the economy which not only means there are more sales and revenues to tax, but more people are in the workforce which means there are more individual taxpayers. And many of these corporations will repatriate money that has been sitting in foreign bank accounts because they don’t want to pay double taxes on that income.

When Ronald Reagan first took office the highest tax rate was 75%. He cut the top tax rate to 28% and everything else below that was similarly reduced. Revenues to the federal government double. Now I know some of you will say that the deficit grew under Ronald Reagan and it did. But that’s because Tip O’Neill and the rest of Congress went back on their promise to cut spending or even keep spending level. Once they saw the extra money coming in they spent it rather than using it to pay down the deficit.

The simple fact is this if you want to grow revenue to the federal government, or any government for that matter, cut spending. And get rid of baseline budgeting which is just as big of a culprit in growing the size of government and the deficit is anything else.

If this 'discussion' truly was about us and the taxes we pay or growing the economy or reducing the deficit, then it would be easy for Congress to come up with a plan and take action. But because this discussion is more about retaining power in Washington D.C., it's complicated; the politicians and bureaucrats are trying to figure out a way to pull the wool over our eyes once again and not do the job we said we wanted done with our votes in the last election.

19Apr/170

U.S. regulations increase costs exponentially

I was watching a segment of 60 Minutes Sunday night, yes I do watch left wing news programs, unlike our counterparts on the other side of the aisle who rarely watch anything with which they disagree or might disagree. But that’s a topic that we’ve covered before and not what I want to talk about today. This was a really nice feel-good story about two doctors helping blind people in poor areas of Asia. It’s also a story about how overregulation makes healthcare unattainable for some in America.

These two doctors, one from Asia and one from Utah, are eye surgeons. Apparently a huge problem in southern Asia is blindness caused by cataracts. For a few years now these two surgeons have been donating their time to give people back their eyesight. They have also trained other doctors in these countries to perform the same surgery and it is estimated that a total of 4 million surgical procedures have been performed either by these doctors or the people they have trained. That is amazing, 4 million people now have their site back and it’s not just older people but very young people as well.

It’s a fantastic story but the underlying theme, we could almost call it the elephant in the room, was the cost of providing these surgeries in Asia as compared to America. First we need to understand that these two doctors perform on average 500 operations in a 10 hour day. There are rarely any complications and it is even more rare that the surgery does not work. In fact they couldn’t remember the last time there was a negative result.

The two doctors have perfected a technique of making one incision to remove the cataract and install a lens. This allows them to perform that many surgeries and do so with very few complications. It also makes it much easier to train other doctors to perform this procedure. The total cost of the surgery is $20. That’s all. Think about that and compare it to what this doctor charges in America. The hospital where he performs the surgeries charges $2000. Sorry left wing nuts, it is not purely greed that sets the price in America.

But before we get to some of the discussion about why there is such a difference, you also need to know that the doctors built a small factory in Burma that manufactures the lenses. You would not know the difference between that factory and one in America. It’s the same equipment the same standard of production. That factory sells the lens for four dollars apiece. In America that same lens costs $200. Can you imagine how many more people in America would be able to afford this surgery if it cost only 20 or $25?

The doctor from Utah made a comment about why such a difference in costs. The simple answer is the regulations placed upon the manufacturer, the doctor, and the hospital with regards to safety and other requirements. All of the documentation that has to be done, all of the casting in the time to get the procedure and or the product approved by the FDA or other regulatory bodies. And let’s not get started about the malpractice insurance.

No no one is saying that we want to give up safety but at some point the regulatory process becomes so onerous that the costs increased to a point that the average person not only can’t afford the procedure but can’t afford insurance that could pay for it. America has been beyond that point for a long time. Pres. Trump has promised to cut some of those regulations all across government. If you truly want to help out the average American you will support that effort because we can still have the level of safety we expect and bring the cost down.

Filed under: Politics No Comments
19Apr/170

Georgia Special Election; what it is and what it’s not

We will have a runoff in the Georgia special election because no candidate got 50% or more of the vote in an open election. Running up to the election the left wing was telling you that this was potentially a referendum on the presidency of Donald Trump. Of course the results would determine whether or not they would continue with that line of reporting. This was not a referendum on Donald Trump in any way shape or form. Let’s get a few facts straight about this election.

If the Georgia special election was truly a referendum on Donald Trump and the job he is doing is president, then why wasn’t the Kansas election also a referendum? Oh that’s right, a Republican one that election. So once again, when the left wing and the mainstream media don’t get the result they want, they move on as if there is nothing to see here.

Jon Ossoff garnered 48% of the vote and will face a runoff election with Karen Handel. Ossoff is the Democrat candidate while Handel was the top Republican. Handel garnered just under 20% of the vote creating the narrative that voters in Georgia and thus around America are tired of Donald Trump and don’t like the job he is doing. But looking beyond the headlines and the pablum being fed to you by the left-wing media, Karen was one of 15 Republican candidates who clearly split the vote on that side of the aisle. Ossoff was one of three Democrat candidates and benefited from a tremendous amount of outside money poured into the race by the Democrats.

It should be noted that the ad campaigns run by the Democratic National Committee and other Democrat organizations rarely even mentioned Ossoff and what he stood for. Instead they concentrated their advertising on running against Donald Trump. Samuel L Jackson’s radio had never even mentions the candidate’s name but talks about the racism and bigotry of Donald Trump. Maybe that’s because also is a borderline communist who supports high taxes, large government; in fact he has proposed a 100% tax rate on income and profits over a certain level. I don’t think that would go over well in the sixth District of Georgia which is generally conservative. So don’t run on what you believe run against some other Dragon.

It’s likely that many of the people who split the Republican vote will come out in support Handel in the June runoff election. It’s also likely that more of Ossoff’s beliefs and principles will become an issue in this election between now and then. Either way, those results still will not be a referendum on Donald Trump.

How is it that also can even run for Congress in this district? He lives outside the district. In several interviews he said that he is, “only one and a half miles down the road” from the district. He said he will move back to the district when his girlfriend graduates from medical school but how does she know she’s going to do her internship for residency in that district? But even then he does not live in the district and could not even vote in this election. Further, he claimed that he had grown up in the district. So what?

If you want to follow his logic, using that term very loosely, then everyone should be able to run in any political race for any political office wherever they want to. I live about a mile outside the city limits but I cannot run for political office in the city. Ossoff should not be able to run for office in the six the district either. I grew up for the most part in SilverCity living on Panorama Road, 12th St., Oak Street, and other places in SilverCity. Also said growing up in the six the district gives him knowledge about what the people of the district want. While I grew up in SilverCity and work inside the city limits so I must have knowledge about what the people of SilverCity want, so why can’t I run for city Council?

This is just another example of why so many Americans are fed up with the political process. It’s not just the hypocrisy of the left wing saying this is a referendum on Donald Trump when the election they lost is not a referendum, but it’s the bending and breaking of the rules that we all thought we knew allowing somebody like Ossoff to run for Congress in district in which he does not live. It’s another example of why we need to get rid of all the career politicians and bureaucrats. Maybe we need term limits not only on politicians but on bureaucrats as well.

Filed under: Politics No Comments
16Mar/170

Our judicial system in crisis

We have talked about the state of our judicial system off and on for quite some time. Usually we’re talking about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, also known as the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, which regularly ignores the Constitution and the laws of this United States as an act of people’s representatives to try and accomplish what they believe to be right.

However, over the last few years and now in the last couple of months, we have seen judges become blatantly proactive in coming up with some of the most convoluted reasons to “justify” their decisions. These recent decisions in which courts have granted injunctions against Pres. Trump’s executive orders regarding immigration from seven countries are the most egregious examples of judicial activism yet.

While two judges ruled against Pres. Trump in different jurisdictions, the judge in Hawaii is the most idiotic. Even Alan Dershowitz, no fan of Donald Trump or his executive order, disagreed with the judges “logic” in justifying the ruling. Probably the most troubling reason the judge gave for filing the injunction was that Pres. Trump had made certain comments during the presidential campaign that led this judge to believe he and everyone who helped write the Executive Order were bigoted towards Muslims. Now this had not been argued nor had it been presented as a justification by the plaintiff but even if it has is not supposed to be allowed into a court hearing. But the judge came up with it on his own.

As Dershowitz pointed out, based upon that ruling alone this decision should be overturned quickly. Because what happens is the argument that okay, if you use statements that Pres. Trump made outside of any action related to this Executive Order then this order would have stood the judges test at Pres. Obama been the one signing it. That is not the standard for judicial review. It is beyond the pale for a judge to do that.

As Dershowitz also pointed out, if Pres. Trump were trying to ban all Muslims from entering the United States and why did he not include every Islamic country in the Executive Order rather than a small percentage of the population of Muslims from around the world as represented in the seven states identified by Pres. Obama as promoting terrorism against the United States?

Which takes us to another point; this judge in Hawaii said that Pres. Trump had not established a case to prove that the Muslims emigrating from these countries were a danger to the United States. First of all the seven states identified in the Executive Order were placed on the list by Pres. Obama and his security and national defense staff. They identified the seven states as promoting terrorism against the United States and its citizens. They use that list to justify their own immigration ban just a few years ago. That said, under the statute that gives the president clear authority to take this action, the standard of proof is very low. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would disagree that the seven countries contained a large number of people involved in terrorist organizations and have exported that terroristic acts to other countries. This would include the United States.

The judge went on to say that the state of Hawaii would suffer economically because of the decrease in tourism and the lack of students coming to their universities from the seven countries. Hawaii could not show factual documentation that this was the case and that a significant number of tourists come from places like Iran, Iraq, Syria or the Sudan. I would venture to say that the number of people traveling anywhere from some of these countries is minuscule when it comes to tourism. And let’s not forget that the Executive Order very clearly set out exemptions for people who already had visas as tourists, workers or students or had a green card.

But the most damning action taken by this judge, and is certainly not the first, is to grant protection to noncitizens under our Constitution. He claimed that banning Muslims from these countries was a violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Let’s be very, very clear: The U.S. Constitution does not provide any rights to non-citizens. Period. End of story. And apparently we do have to say it again, this is not a ban on Muslims this is a ban on anyone in that country and these are not 100% Muslim countries.

These recent decisions paired with the increasing frequency of activist judges, decisions foretell a serious crisis in our country. The judges are creating policy and creating law when they do not have that power. They are here to act as a check up on the other two branches of government to ensure that the laws that are passed in the way those laws are applied are in accordance with the founding documents of this United States of America. They are not to further goals and cannot be achieved politically in any way shape or form. It’s either a yes you can do that or a no you can’t.

To continue allowing these judges to exceed the authority granted to them by we the people is to take this country down the road that we do not want to travel. Many of us have been worried about the expansion of government and the possibility that either the legislative or more likely the executive branch of government would become something of a dictatorial body ruling over the citizens of America. The real danger has been and now more than ever is the judicial branch. We watched the Supreme Court come to decisions, most obviously with Obama Care, that were unbelievable. Twisting the language of the law in ways was not intended in order to find that it was constitutional. Do you remember Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid telling us that the individual penalties in the bill were not taxes? Yet Justice Roberts had to find that these were taxes in order to uphold the constitutionality of the bill.

You might be asking now, what do we do about it? First, let’s Pres. Trump appoint true constitutional judges to the Supreme Court. And while I know the reasoning behind having lifetime appointments for judges, in today’s world that doesn’t necessarily work well. Maybe at levels just below the Supreme Court, we need to have a judicial review panel that can recommend to Congress whether to keep or remove judges based upon their adherence or nonadherence to the Constitution. I think it’s also time to start looking at non-attorneys as judges. Having a law degree does not mean that you are any smarter or more well-versed in our Constitution than anyone else. I would put any graduate of Hillsdale College against almost every one of our appeals court judges when it comes to arguing constitutional law.

I know that some of these ideas need to be fleshed out as to what to do with these judges but if we don’t do something soon it may not matter what reforms Donald Trump tries to put in place because some judge somewhere is going to try and stop him. Maybe he can do what Obama did, ignore the judges and do what he wants anyway, it seemed to work pretty well for him.

15Mar/170

It’s all about power: example # umpteen million

I have said it recently but it bears repeating; the actions of our political elite, primarily the liberal Democrats, but including the leaders of the Republican Party in Congress, care more about power than they do about having principles and doing what is right. Maybe they do have principles, it's just that their guiding principles have to do with staying in power and not trying to improve this country.

Chuck Schumer is threatening to shut down the federal government to prove a point to Pres. Trump and the Congressional Republicans. He wants to stop things like the building of the wall in the Mexico border and some other plans that Pres. Trump has outlined, and he's willing to filibuster the budget bill to get his way. As a side note, it's interesting to watch the Democrat leadership who are acting like they are still in charge of Congress and the White House. If the Republicans had leaders in either house with the backbone and principles, they would do exactly what the Democrats did to them when the Democrats controlled Congress; tell them to shut up and go along.

It is worth pointing out that in 2013 when Republicans threatened to filibuster the budget bill and shut down the federal government, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and their brethren screamed to high heaven. They talked about how much those actions would hurt the average citizen especially the poor, the elderly, those that rely on the government for their income, not to mention the federal employees that would be laid off. Yet here they are threatening to do the same thing and ignoring all the reasons they gave against shutting down the government in the first place. So to play by their rules, they must be wanting grandma to guide to she can get her Medicare or Social Security check; they must want little children to start because school lunches will be funded or mommy's welfare check wont come through.

Let's ignore the fact that if there is a government shutdown there is already a law that provides for the providing of essential services such as the administration of transfer payments, Social Security benefits, veterans benefits, so on and so forth. No one is going to start or die because the government "shutdown".

But here is why I think Chuck Schumer may not want to go through with this plan. If he shuts down the government he plays right into the hands of Pres. Trump in keeping one of his campaign promises; to cut the size of the federal government and get rid of the fat. If you shut down the government, especially for an extended period of time and begin to see which departments are considered non-essential, that helps him identify where to cut waste and excess government departments. That of course will diminish the power that government hands over the average American citizen and our lives.

So I say, "shut it down!" Let's figure out where we can start cutting people and the sooner the better. Microphone off

1Mar/170

Black History Month and Real History

February is Black history month, a time to celebrate the achievements of black people in America and to reflect upon what still needs to be done to minimize the effects of racist people and racist policies in America. That we can have a discussion about how far minorities have calm, how well they have it in America as compared to other countries, and so on. But it's interesting that the Democrats tracked themselves out every February and claim to be the champions of minorities and to decry what the conservatives or Republicans want to do to the black community. As we know, whomever controls history controls the future. So it's worth going back and looking at the actual facts in our past when it comes to racism.

the Democratic Party supported slavery since its inception and it became popular in America especially in the South. In 1816 the 13th amendment 100% support from the Republican representatives to Congress while 78% of the Democrats in Congress opposed abolition.

In 1868 the Democrat party nominated Horatio Seymour and Francis Blair as candidates for president and vice president respectively. Their campaign slogan was, "this is a white man's country. Let white men rule".

In 1916 president Woodrow Wilson issued an order segregating restrooms in what is now known as the Eisenhower executive building. The order read. "Beginning Wednesday, August 9, 1916, the toilets in the state, war, and Navy Department of buildings will be allotted for use as toilets for women, for white men, and for colored men". It was signed by none other than secretary of the Navy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In January 1922, Republicans in the house of representatives passed a bill that would make the lynching of black people a federal crime. It was a crime that was not being prosecuted in the South by states which were controlled by Democrat governors and legislators. Democrats control the United States Senate and filibustered the bill ultimately killing it.

in 1937 Pres. Franklin Roosevelt nominated Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Opponents were concerned about his association with the Ku Klux Klan. Black never said a word but let his supporters denied that he was ever a member or supporter of the KKK. After being confirmed Justice Black admitted that not only had he been a member of the Ku Klux Klan but that he had earned the gold passport or lifetime membership.

United States Senators Al Gore Sr. and John Kennedy rallied the Democrats against of the original civil rights act sponsored by Pres. Dwight D Eisenhower and Congressional Republicans. Pres. Kennedy then reintroduced the Civil Rights Act and in Congressional debate in 1964 Sen. Robert Byrd, former grand Cyclops of the KKK, filibustered the measure. Republicans finally garnered enough votes to break the filibuster but Sen. Byrd and 22 other Democrats still voted against the Civil Rights Act.

When it came time to vote on the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to be the first black Supreme Court justice of the United States, there were 11 votes against him. 10 of them were Democrats. The only Republican to vote against Marshall was Sen. Strom Thurmond who had been a segregationist Democrat before joining the Republican Party.

We could go on about Governor George Wallace or Bull Connor of Alabama, or the Jim Crow laws and efforts to keep black from voting in the south, all carried out by Democrat politicians; but we won't. Those are, or should be well known examples of the racism of the Democrat party.

Filed under: Politics No Comments