Since I seem to be having the same argument over and over in the comments section regarding the racial history of the Republican and Democrat parties, I decided to just run through some history for anyone interested.
*History shows that Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
*President Abraham Lincoln (the first Republican president) signed into law the Emancipation Proclamation.
*Republicans fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the U.S. Constitution to grant blacks Freedom (13th Amendment), Citizenship (14th Amendment) and the Right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans also passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, which was unfair to blacks.
*Democrats who started the Ku Klux Klan that became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to lynch and terrorize Republicans, black and white.
*Democrats passed discriminatory Black Codes and "Jim Crow" laws; all the while fighting every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960’s. Democrats fought anti-lynching laws (called "The Klan Act"), and when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
*Republicans founded founded the NAACP and historical black colleges.
*It took Republicans six decades to finally enact civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.
*It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, enforced the desegregation of the military, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools (using the 101st airborne), and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education (which ended school segregation).
*You can believe or not believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, but the fact is that most blacks were Republican at the time.
Ok, now that those facts are out of the way, let's move on to the Republican party after 1960. This is the time that I grew up in, in Mississippi, during the civil rights movement. I can say from personal experience that the Democrats I grew up with were still struggling with racism. The very important and best thing that happened was integration. In elementary school I was bused across town to a formerly all black school. I graduated from a formerly all black high school. This might give you some insight to why this issue is so important to me. It changed everything. Black children got to know white children. And what we discovered, through the innocent perspective of children, is that we weren't really different from each other at all.
Democrats of today love to tout Nixon's "Southern Strategy" as if it were written in the Republican platform. It wasn't. It is a theory that has been blown up into fact by Democrats. There are arguments on both sides whether it was a strategy or just one aide's idea to win the south, but nonetheless, it never defined the Republican party. People seem to forget that George Wallace (of "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever' fame), who actually did define racism, was running as a third party candidate as well. I'm pretty sure racists would have voted for him.
It is especially ironic when Democrats bring up Nixon and the so called "Southern Strategy" considering all Nixon did for the black community. They never seem to remember the fact that Nixon helped initiate affirmative action and did more to desegregate holdout Southern schools than any president since the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling. In 1968, a year before Nixon entered the White House, 68 percent of black students in the South went to all-black schools; just two years later, in 1970, only 14 percent did. I was part of that. I was one of the children of integration. The single most important thing done to end racism since the civil rights laws were enacted, was done under President Nixon, the one who supposedly used racism to win the Presidency. Funny how that worked out.
The mistake that Republicans made in the following years was assuming that blacks would vote Republican based on our ideas and issues. Republicans refused to acknowledge that there were still concerns in the black community that needed to be specifically addressed to them. We also never properly rid our party of people that were prejudice. We turned a blind eye to it in order to keep votes. But I haven't seen us making that mistake in a long time.
In the 80's Democrats tried to paint Ronald Reagan as racist largely because of his opposition to the government programs that many blacks had come to depend on since the sixties. But Reagan never believed in big social programs and believed in small-government solutions. Color had nothing to do with his belief. But he also failed to realize that addressing concerns and explaining convictions and reaching out to black leaders would have helped dispel any racist notions. His mistake was in not speaking directly to the black community. Making them understand that the polices of low taxes and smaller government help them along with everyone else.
The proof was in the pudding. Under Reagan more blacks rose into the middle class than in any other time in history. From 1982 to 1989 the number of blacks employed jumped from 9 million to 11.4 million, a jump of more than 25%. Black unemployment dropped 9% and the number of poor blacks fell by 400,000. Black-owned businesses increased from 308,000 in 1982 to 424,000 in 1987, a 38 per cent rise.
The biggest mistake Republicans made was not articulating those numbers to the black community every chance they got. There should have been a mantra of what Reagonomics did for them, as well as the rest of the country. Instead we let Democrats paint a twisted picture of Reagan as one who didn't care about the black community.
Republicans never answered the charges, never fought back and totally gave up on the black vote in the 90's.
I grew up in an ugly time, and yet a beautiful time. I saw the ugly face of racism, but I also saw the beginning of change. I saw a people, not afraid to face the fire, come out on the other side free, with opportunities wide open. There was still some tough times ahead, but the door was wide open and blacks stepped through it.
I am still amazed at all that has been accomplished in my lifetime. I am stunned that we came so far so fast. When I was in fifth grade my best friend was a black girl named Sondra. I've blogged about this before, so forgive me if you have read this, but at that time we talked on the phone for hours each day, yet we never played at each other's house. We never even asked. It just wasn't done.
20 years later my little girl never thought twice about having friends of color over to play. This was Dr. King's dream. This was what we hoped for. A time when blacks and whites saw each other for what we were, people who yearn for the same things; love, family, children, peace, and a belief that anything is possible.
40 years later we have a black President. We have had and have black Justices, Secretary of States, Mayors, Governors, and Congressmen, head of the RNC. Black and white, we live and work together. Despite all the problems, this is all truly wonderful.
What my posts have all been about is bringing the black community into our party. We do that by reaching out to you in the black community, by speaking to you, listening to you, by being a part of your experience. I just believe in my heart that Republicans would not only be a better party with you, but you would be a better community by supporting more than one party.
I'm sort of like the old boyfriend who once loved you so well and you loved too, but left you heartbroken. We are back at your door, asking for a second chance. Reminding you of what was good, and hoping that you might just take us back.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Since I seem to be having the same argument over and over in the comments section regarding the racial history of the Republican and Democrat parties, I decided to just run through some history for anyone interested.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:20 PM
If you think Joe Biden saying, "Now, people when I say that look at me and say, 'What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?' The answer is yes, that's what I'm telling you" is the stupidest thing he has said this week, think again:
From The Weekly Standard:
Michael Shear reports:
Vice President Biden plans a political broadside this afternoon in the home district of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), accusing the senior Republican lawmaker of joining in his party's smear of the $787 billion Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
"To those who say that our economic decisions 'have not produced jobs, have not produced prosperity, and simply have not worked' I say, take a look around," Biden will say, according to prepared remarks obtained by The Washington Post.
"I say, 'Don't let your opposition to the Recovery Act blind you to its results,'" Biden plans to say in the Richmond speech. "'Come see what I see everywhere I go: workers rehired, factories reopened, cops on the street, teachers in the classroom, progress toward getting our economy back on the move.'"
Really? Seriously? Mr. Biden, do you think the people of Michigan, where unemployment has hit 15%, are seeing these miraculous things of which you speak? Does anyone reading this honestly believe that anyone in the U.S. can look around where they are and see positive results from the Stimulus bill (and notice that obviously the memo went out to start calling it "the Recovery Act," which it was called in Congress, but no one prior to now has called it anything but the Stimulus Bill). Since it is OBVIOUS that it isn't stimulating anything, it's better wordplay to call it "The Recovery Act." Maybe the American people won't notice, or maybe they will think it's something different!
Let's face it. The Stimulus only created a windfall of new programs and the biggest peacetime spending increase in American history, giving us larger deficits and more taxes. When we had an opportunity to lessen the length of the recession, we didn't. It's that simple. Now it will drag on for at least a year more than it needed to be. We will eventually recover. This is America, after all. But it will leave a wound that will take much longer to heal.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:06 PM
From Grand Old Partisan:
On this day in 1862, the Republican-controlled 37th Congress enacted, despite unanimous Democrat opposition, the second Confiscation Act. This law, written by Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL), declared that all slaves held by Confederate rebels "shall be forever free." President Abraham Lincoln (R-IL) would cite this law in the provisional Emancipation Proclamation two months later.
I also want to introduce you to another great blogger, Kevin Jackson of "The Black Sphere." Be sure and pick up his book "The Big Black Lie 'How I learned the truth about the Democratic Party'."
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:58 AM
Thursday, July 16, 2009
I hope all of you have seen this. The Black Chamber of Commerce, President and CEO Harry Alford smacks Senator Boxer down and accuses her of playing race politics during an EPW Committee hearing on green jobs. First of all it's delicious to see this smug self involved narcissistic woman taken down on racial issues.
Gosh, Did you notice he called her "Ma'am?" Over and over. Heh.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:43 PM
Karl Rove at the WSJ:
So what's a president to do when the promises he made about his economic stimulus program fail to materialize? If you're Barack Obama, you redefine your goals and act as if America won't remember what you said originally. That's a neat trick if you can get away with it, but Mr. Obama won't. His words are a matter of public record and he will be held to them.
I have to disagree with Karl on that last part. The msm will never hold Obama accountable for his words. They will never remind us of them. They will be ignored (except by Fox News). It is a neat trick and Obama will get away with it. The media has too much invested in Obama. They love Obama too much to actually do their job. The media threw away the last vestiges of their integrity during the Presidential campaign. Now they see their job as a way to keep Obama looking good until all the liberal policies they believe in are implemented.
People seem to forget that Newsweek sat on the Monica Lewinsky story during the Clinton administration. The media was not going to harm their precious Bill. It took the Internet to break the story, and then it was simply too big to ignore. If the press was going to suppress that story for Clinton, you can imagine what they would do for Obama.
But, we will do what we can here in the blogosphere to remind people of the truth:
When it came to the stimulus package, the president and his administration promised, in the words of National Economic Director Larry Summers, "You'll see the effects begin almost immediately." Now it's clear that those promised jobs and growth haven't materialized.
So Mr. Obama is attempting to lower expectations retroactively, saying in an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post that his stimulus "was, from the start, a two-year program." That is misleading. Mr. Obama never said if his stimulus were passed things might still get significantly worse in the following year.
Earlier this year, Mr. Obama assured us that most of the stimulus money "will go out the door immediately." But it hasn't. Only about 7.7% of the stimulus has been spent in the six months since its passage, and more of it will be spent in the program's last eight years than in its first year. So now the president claims he said something different. "We also knew that it would take some time for the money to get out the door," Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio address on Saturday.
Pres. Obama says what needs to be said at the moment. He blatantly lies about what he has said in the past, and the media lets him get away with it. In the above example he even uses the same wording with the lie. "Will go out the door immediately" to "We also knew that it would take some time for the money to get out the door." He doesn't worry about using the same wording, because he knows the msm will never call him on it. I can assure you that if Bush had done the same thing we would have seen the two statement side by side, on video, over and over on every news channel until the American public got it. SNL would have done a skit on it.
Another example of a lie:
As is Mr. Obama's habit, he has answered his critics by creating straw-man arguments. In last weekend's radio address, he attacked detractors as those who "felt that doing nothing was somehow an answer." But many of Mr. Obama's critics didn't feel that way. They offered -- and Mr. Obama almost completely ignored -- constructive ideas to jump-start the economy.
For example, House Republicans offered an alternative recovery package of immediate tax cuts and safety-net measures that cost half as much as Mr. Obama's stimulus program. Republicans have also calculated that their plans would have created 50% more jobs than the stimulus. They reached that estimate by using the same job-growth econometric model that the president's Council of Economic Advisors used for the stimulus.
What Obama knows is that the vast majority of the American public will never hear about the offered alternative recovery package proposed by Republicans. He knows he can get away with saying "felt that doing nothing was somehow the answer" because no one is going to call him on it.
Since the economy has gotten worse than Obama expected or claimed that it would, he has now taken to lowering our expectations. He tells us things will get worse before they get better.
But when he was ramming through the Stimulus bill he said:
"Economists from across the political spectrum tell us that if nothing is done, and we continue on our current path, this recession could linger for years,"
So we passed the stimulus bill, putting our country in so much more debt, and now he tells us that the stimulus bill “was not designed to work in four months -- it was designed to work over two years.” Umm.. isn't that "lingering for years?" Isn't that what you said would happen if we DIDN'T pass the stimulus?
In January, the Obama administration predicted that without a the stimulus package, unemployment would reach just over 8%, and would be contained at under 8% with a stimulus package.
That didn't happen of course. In June Pres. Obama told Bloomberg News that umemployment will reach 10% by the end of the year.
Remember when Obama said that the stimulus would "save or create between three and four million jobs."
You have to love the wordplay there. By putting "save" in there you pretty much cover all your bases. Even if there were only four million jobs left in the entire United States, you could say that the stimulus "saved" those last 4 million jobs.
Since the Stimulus bill became law, 2 Million jobs have been lost.
Have we learned our lesson here? Nothing Obama predicts or insists about the outcome of these massive spending bills ever materializes.
Now we are suppose to believe Obama when he tell us that in the healthcare bill we will have more choices and will be able to keep the doctor we choose. We are told that it will lower costs. We are told healthcare will be more affordable and more accessible.
Given the track record of this President, do we really believe that those things will happen in healthcare?
Let's not keep making the same mistake, listening to pretty words that never come true.
Your health care depends on you paying attention.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:27 AM
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
I don't care about baseball. I don't care if Pres. Obama was cheered or booed at his first pitch at the baseball all-star game in St. Louis.
But it is amazing to me the lengths Obama will go to to stage craft every move he makes.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 11:17 AM
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:41 AM
It starts with this quote from Sarah when she resigned as Governor:
“I will go around the country on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation,”
Now, I have no doubt she means that, and will probably speak for any Conservative Democrat who has the brass to ask her to, but we all know that her main focus will be with Conservative Republicans. And that is the delicious part.
I just never thought about it. But she will be unencumbered by not running for anything herself. She will be able to campaign and raise money for Conservative candidates. The kind of candidates that Conservatives like me truly want to be elected!
We all know she can bring in the crowds and the excitement AND the news coverage. She can also bring in the money for the candidates that need it.
As Patrick points out in the house in an midterm election she could make all the difference:
"There are lots of districts where she can help, especially in an off-election year, whose candidates, if they win, will be quite grateful for her assistance. Based on the 2008 election, I count at least 19 seats that went narrowly for Democrats and could go narrowly, or better, for Republicans with enough nudging and some good candidates"
It makes me smile just to think of it. Not only will Palin help us win, but she will show what kind of star power she really has to the GOP establishment, which could use a smart kick ass Conservative woman to show them how to remember their roots and stop betraying Conservatives.
She will be our ANTI-RINO warrior!
I just love it.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:00 AM
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The Obama administration is looking for every way possible to tax Americans without them noticing. I call it back door taxing. As long as you aren't taking the money directly out of the paycheck of the average worker, the administration hopes that the average worker won't pay enough attention to the talking heads on TV to understand that taxing the company you work for means you will not get that raise you need, or worse, you might lose your job.
Cap and Trade is about that. Tax the energy, not the person, and maybe they won't notice. What the Obama administration is looking at now affects your company directly. And you better be paying attention, because the tax man is coming through your back door at the absolute worst time possible.
What Obama wants to do is increase the taxes on the foreign earnings of American companies. The Economist reported on May 7th:
“On May 4th Mr Obama unveiled his plans to reform the rules on taxing the foreign earnings of American firms. They came with a fusillade of rhetoric about companies ‘shirking’ their responsibilities, and the iniquities of a ‘broken’ tax system that rewarded firms for creating jobs in Bangalore rather than Buffalo, New York.”
Why is this so bad?
John Castellani in The Richmond Times Dispatch from June 5th explains:
“The Obama administration now wants to change the international tax rules in a way that will give foreign competitors an unfair advantage over U.S. companies in the global marketplace, allowing the foreign companies to reinvest more, expand faster, and sell products at lower prices. The administration claims it is protecting Americans against companies that export jobs; in reality, the proposal would put the U.S. increasingly out of sync with the rest of the world.”
Today at NRO Veronique de Rugy reports that when Obama was in Ghana this weekend, the he encouraged African governments to embrace economic growth. He said, "No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top."
I think this is what we call "irony." As Rugy explains:
"However, he doesn't think that American businesses deserve the same treatment. The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent (at the federal level). That's the second highest of all the OECD countries. It's higher than France and Sweden. If you add the state rate, that's an average of 40 percent. And yet, he wants to reform the system in a way that that would punish U.S. firms by closing the loopholes that allow them survive competition abroad.
In my Reason column this month, I look at president Obama's corporate tax reform proposal. It's not pretty.
President Barack Obama is very insistent on the need to “save American jobs.” The spending and the Buy American provisions of his massive stimulus package, approved by Congress in February, were meant to “create or save” millions of U.S. jobs. “Saving jobs” was also the stated goal of his recent pledge to eliminate tax advantages for companies that do business overseas. But instead of saving American jobs, Obama’s new corporate tax is apt to worsen what is already the highest unemployment since 1983 and make America’s companies even less competitive in the global marketplace."
What the tax code does now, and what Obama wants to change, is it prevents double taxation for American companies in foreign countries, and it allows American companies to compete on an equal footing with their foreign competitors. What Obama will do is give foreign competitors and unfair advantage over U.S. companies in the marketplace.
The spin that the Obama administration is trying to put out there is that these are jobs that have been sent overseas and why should you care about that? He hopes that this will force companies to keep the jobs here. Forcing is what this administration is all about.
But the truth is that a recent study showed that as U.S. companies grew overseas, jobs and work were created here. That is how business works. A growing corporation means more jobs.
Spinning about overseas jobs is just that...spin. Although many American companies do operate overseas, the base of their company is in the U.S. Of these companies with overseas operations, roughly 79% of their employees are here in the United States.
The problem is that most American workers will never read this column. They won't understand the exact reason their company isn't competing in the global market place, and has to let him go to save costs to pay more taxes.
This grand plan to generate more revenue for the government will stifle job creation at a time when it has never been needed more.
Punishing the successful never works. Punishing companies never works. In the end it is the American worker who pays the price. The tax man got him. And he never saw him coming because the tax man came through the back door.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:11 AM
Monday, July 13, 2009
It seems Democrats in general keep wanting to re-write history. Liz Cheney sets our President straight on the truth:
There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.
Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."
The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.
It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:15 AM
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Claver's "Martin Luther King Jr. Was A Republican" billboard was vandalized and torn down last night. This comes as no surprise from the party of "free speech only if you agree with me" and the party of "tolerance only if you agree with me."
Stay tuned for a message from Claver.
Update: Claver has heard that the sign company may have taken the billboard down themselves because of demands from the opposition. He hasn't spoken to them yet though. If that is true. Then I apologize for accusing vandalism on anyone. But the opposition's denial of free speech remains.
I'll keep you updated
Update: My feeling on this is that if there is an argument on whether King was a Republican at the time (remember, most blacks WERE Republican at the time) then we should change the focus onto things in history that are not in question.
It was Democrats who passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. It was Democrats who started the KKK. It was Democrats who stood in the school house doors.
It was Republicans that pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It was a Republican President that sent troops to desegregate schools. It was Republicans that founded historically black colleges and universities. It was Republicans who began the NAACP.
So, if our purpose is to make sure that we all remember the true history of civil rights, then lets focus on these things.
In the last 40 years as blacks started voting Democrat, we see the results. If you are a black adult I ask you these things. Is the black community in general better off? Or has the family unit broken down? Are your communities thriving? Or have gangs and drugs become a part of every day life? In the 1960's most black children were born into intact families. Today 70-85% of black children are born to unwed mothers. Are your children staying in school? Are the schools, good schools? Are more black men in prison than in the 60's? Do you feel that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's dream has been achieved?
Because of all that was achieved in the 60's, thanks to Republicans, many blacks moved into the middle class and beyond. Education and drive brought them to success. But sadly too many in the black community were left in communites that do not serve their needs. Democrats have convinced them that they serve their interests, but the proof is in the pudding. The proof is all around us.
Claver and I have a great desire to bring many from the black community into the Republican party. We believe that the vision and policies of the Republican party better serves the black community. But Republicans have done a lousy job in reaching out and explaining why that is. Claver and I want that to change and that is what this is all about.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:23 PM
I love how this video gives the reader's digest version of history for blacks.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 5:38 PM
A few posts down I caused a stir by quoting Justice Ginsburg on her thoughts regarding population control. In that light, I thought you might enjoy the following quotes from John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Ad visors on Science and Technology. Also known as the United States' Science Czar.
In 1977 Holdren co-authored a book called "Ecoscience." In it he describes extreme measures that he felt might be needed to control the population.
Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
Page 798: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions:
"One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption-especially those born to minors who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans through drugs in the water supply is OK as long as doesn't harm livestock:
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple food is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such a sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."
Page 786-7: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control:
"Involuntary Fertility Control.....A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men."
The development of a long term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."
Page 838: The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children
"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility-just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource consumption patters- providing the are not denied equal protection."
And this is our new"Science Czar" under Obama. Unsettling to say the least. Remember the quote from Ginsburg? That there was a "concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of." These quotes from our new Science Czar re-emphasizes that point. To find a way to keep people from producing children that "contribute to general social deterioration." Who decides who that is? Why, they do! Of course.
This is how these elite liberals think.
They keep telling us who they are. Why aren't we listening?
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:58 AM