A Moral Outrage

A Conservative Blog

Category: Conservatives

Clint Comes Out of the Closet, Endorses Romney

RogerLSimon

In recent years, Hollywood conservatives have been as deep in the closet as 1950s gays. But Barack Obama, the man of hope and change, has changed that. The times are so terrible that more and more entertainment industry conservatives are coming out and risking irritating their fuddy-duddy liberal peers, maybe even losing a job or two into the bargain.

The latter is not a problem for the latest Hollywood con to come out, Clint Eastwood, who just publicly endorsed Romney with the words “the country is in need of a boost.” (No kidding!) Clint has arguably been America’s finest director for the last decade or so. The likes of Sean Penn abandoned their bourgeois lefty politics in a heartbeat to work with him. So no job issues for Clint.

And everyone has known Eastwood was a man of the right for years now. He just hasn’t made a very big deal about it, unlike the mouthier libs. He has more class. Clint is a figure out of old Hollywood when stars shut their mouths and did their work.

So his coming out is not inconsequential. One wonders what his peers — the Redfords, Beattys, etc. – think. Some of them are such knee-jerk liberals that they probably just put it down to Clint imitating his make-my-day character and don’t give it another thought. But I suspect not all. The extremity of the economic situation is not lost on all these people. They just don’t have the guts to speak. Walking around Hollywood now is not like it was a year or two ago. You don’t hear anyone publicly defending Obama. What you get mostly is silence and a seeming desire to change the subject.

Whether Clint is the stalking horse for more major entertainment figures to start coming out for Romney remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: After three plus years of the Obama administration, it’s easier for Hollywood conservatives to declare themselves, not harder. What an irony.

Romney to Brian Williams: You’re A Boring White Guy

Ha!! Go Mitt!

On Wednesday, Mitt Romney told Brian Williams, the NBC News anchor, that he will not announce his VP pick while he is abroad:

I can tell you I’m not gonna announce it this week. While I’m overseas, I’m not gonna announce my vice presidential running mate. But when the decision is made, I’ll make that announcement. It’s not made yet. But I can’t tell you when it’s gonna be. That’s something which we’ll decide down the road.

Romney refused to be bullied by Williams, who was indirectly responsible for the Editgate scandal which supported Barack Obama’s racially charged response to the Trayvon Martin incident, and who once stuck his finger in President George W. Bush’s face.

When Williams tried to hector Romney and paint him exactly the way the Democrats would want, asking him if he was looking to choose “an incredibly boring white guy” as VP, he was in for a surprise. For a guy who has a reputation as a boring robot, Romney showed a facile, sharp sense of humor, swiftly eviscerating Williams: “You told me you were not available.”

 

Obama 2nd Term Israel Visit Vow a Mistake

Commentary

On the eve of Mitt Romney’s foreign tour that will take him to Britain, Poland and Israel, the Obama campaign made a classic mistake. Rightly sensing that Romney’s visit to the Jewish state would highlight not just the fact that the president had never gone there during his four years in office but the fights he had picked with Israel, the Democrats responded by pledging that some time during the next four years Obama would find a few days to go there himself. But rather than one-upping the GOP nominee, the promise merely worsened his difficulties with Jewish and pro-Israel voters. Having conspicuously avoided Israel throughout his first term even while feeling the need to go to Egypt and other places in the region, Obama’s vow is a lame rejoinder to Romney. He would have been far better off merely trying to ignore the Republican. Instead, by saying that if he’s re-elected he’ll deign to go there he’s admitted there’s a problem.

Obama’s supporters are right to respond that visits are symbolic and that the substance of the U.S.-Israel relationship transcends photo opportunities. But their problem is the Romney visit is a reminder this administration set out from its first moments in office to distance itself from Israel as part of its rejection of everything it associated with George W. Bush. Because Bush was close to Israel, they wanted more daylight between the two countries and quickly achieved their goal. Had President Obama not spent his first three years picking fights with Israel over the status of Jerusalem, settlements and the 1967 borders and relentlessly pressuring it to make concessions to a Palestinian Authority that had no interest in peace, it wouldn’t matter if Mitt Romney spent the whole summer touring the country.

 

It’s true, as the Democrats point out, that the president has not torpedoed the entire alliance. The security relationship between the two countries set in place by his predecessors has been maintained. But to claim he deserves the support of pro-Israel voters because he refrained from destroying the alliance infrastructure is hardly a compelling argument.

Only partisans and those committed to a policy of opposing Israel’s democratically-elected government can pretend that the years prior to the commencement of Obama’s election-year Jewish charm offensive were not primarily characterized by the administration’s determination to tilt the diplomatic playing field in the direction of the Palestinians. Though his defenders claim there was nothing new about what he did, Obama’s stands on settlements and Jerusalem did more to undermine Israel’s position than any of his predecessors. But the Palestinians not only did not take advantage of Obama’s gifts but predictably, were encouraged by the rift between Israel and the U.S. to avoid negotiations altogether. The result was that Obama took an already bad situation and found a way to make it worse.

The interesting thing about Obama’s worries about pro-Israel voters is that it wouldn’t have taken much from him to convince them he was Israel’s friend. A visit would have helped, but a stopover in Israel would have contradicted the signals he was trying to send to the Arab and Muslim world that he was more open to them than Bush. An avoidance of needless squabbles about settlements, Jerusalem and borders would have cost him nothing, especially as turning these points into major fights didn’t convince the Palestinians to even return to negotiations or win him the friends he wanted in the Muslim world. If the transition to the charm offensive after three years of battles with Israel seemed effortless, it was because there was never any strategic rationale for Obama’s obsession with downgrading the alliance with Israel.

If the president does go to Israel during his second term, he will be welcomed there as any American president would be. But there is no reason to think a belated attempt to rectify the problems he created will be fixed by such a promise. If Romney benefits from his visit, it is because of Obama’s policies, not just because the president has stayed away.

Conservatism 101: The Principle of the Thing

BigLizards

Most of the time, when regular folks debate politics, the difference between conservatism and liberalism is actually quite simple: it’s the difference between the head and the heart. It’s the reason why conservatives tend to view the world through the prism of the way things are, whilst liberals approach things from the standpoint of how they want them to be.

The result, of course, is predictable. Conservatives often come off as cold and unfeeling bean counters, content to leave everybody to the vagaries of the market. The best laid liberal plans, meanwhile, always seem to blow up in their faces because they never take into account basic human nature — which is, not to put too fine a point on it, often oriented toward doing as little as possible in order to get by.

This leads to a rather maddening conundrum. Conservative policies, even though they’re more effective, involve taking a more hands-off approach to government — cutting taxes, reducing regulation, dumping ineffective programs — which makes them a lot less tangible. That makes for a tougher sell, especially in times of crisis when liberal cries to “do something” are at fever pitch. How do you explain to people that sometimes, doing less is a far better option?

That’s why conservatives are always on the defensive. Not only do we have to work a lot harder to get our message out, we also have to rely on principle a lot more. Like Prince getting bogged down in too many side projects, we end up debating so many fine points about why conservatism is the moral choice that we lose the larger ideological battle.

When liberals, for instance, want to stop corporate money from influencing elections, they paint corporations as evil entities out to squash the little guy with their big money and issue ads. Conservatives, meanwhile, have to defend those corporations — whether they’re sympathetic or not — because they have rights under the First Amendment like anybody else. Inevitably, the headline reads something like, “GOP Backs Acme Corp Over Wile E. Coyote’s Citizen Initiative.”

See the pattern? Liberals don’t care about the law, unless it works to their advantage. Conservatives don’t have that option, even when the law works against us.

Nowhere is this split more pronounced than in the tax debate. Even now, Barack Obama is out there trying to convince the public that “the rich” need to shovel even more money into the government maw. Again, the conservative response relies mostly on principle — the top 25% of wage earners already pay 86% of all federal income tax, nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax at all, blah blah blah — but even though all these things are true, in the end the argument causes a lot of voters to tune out like they’re watching and old episode of Joanie Loves Chachi on Nick at Nite.

So what do we do about it?

As much as I hate to say it, some more hard selling is in order. To wit, what should you do if a liberal comes up to you and says, “We wouldn’t have such a big deficit if we didn’t have the Bush tax cuts for the rich?” A lot of conservatives would be inclined to hand the person a copy of The Road to Serfdom and debate the finer points of civilizational decline and its relationship to the debt to GDP ratio. Might I suggest a different course?

Try this one on for size: You could confiscate every penny earned by “the rich” in a given year and it wouldn’t even generate enough revenue to cover last year’s federal budget deficit. Never mind the actual budget–we’re just talking about the deficit.

Suddenly raising taxes sounds much like the band on the Titanic striking up a chorus of “Ain’t We Got Fun.”

The point isn’t that conservatives shouldn’t be debating principles. After all, there’s plenty of room for that in the pages of National Review and The American Spectator. But when it comes to convincing Joe Voter of the absolute necessity of kicking Barack Obama to the curb in November, a little less principle and a lot more Armageddon might be just the ticket.

Once more, with feeling..Do as I say, not as I do…

Nancy Pelosi Downplays Tax Return Demand

Facing questions about why she and other top Congressional officials won’t release their tax returns, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) downplayed her previous demands for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to release his, calling the issue a distraction.

As recently as Wednesday, Pelosi had strongly urged Romney to provide further disclosure of his tax returns. But today, while maintaining Romney should release more documents because of “custom” and “tradition,” Pelosi said the issue was trivial compared with economic issues.

“We spent too much time on that. We should be talking about middle-income tax cuts,” Pelosi said after answering two questions about the issue.

The Minority Leader faced questions about the issue after a McClatchy News report showed only 17 of 535 Members released their tax returns when asked.

Romney has faced increasing pressure to disclose more about his financial history in recent weeks, including — as Pelosi noted — from top Republicans.

The former Massachusetts governor has released his 2010 tax returns and has promised to release the 2011 returns when they are available.

Republicans say Romney will release the same amount of information that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) did in 2008 when he ran for president. McCain, however, had filed decades of financial disclosure forms from his tenure in Congress leading up to his presidential bid.

Pelosi also suggested that the media should face disclosure requirements.

“Some people think the same standard should be held to the ownership of the news media in the country who are writing these stories about all of this. What do you think of that?” she asked.

You show us your’s, Barry…

He’ll show you his:

The forms, filed with the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission during Romney’s run and tenure as Governor, show various Romney investments in Bain Capital funds and membership of boards until 2003. After 2003 time all of Romney’s assets became listed in a blind trust. While the years 2001,2002 are 27 pages long each, after 2003 the forms are just seven to ten pages long.

2001,

2002,

2003,

2004

2005

The 2012 White House race could see the re-emergence of the Reagan Democrats

Telegraph

One of the great electoral shifts that saw Ronald Reagan win the White House for the Republicans in 1980 and 1984 was thanks to a segment of voters who became known as the Reagan Democrats.

These were white working-class men and women who had been traditionally regarded as being in the Democratic party camp and who switched in their millions to support Ronald Reagan. The former governor of California’s messages, particularly on the cold war, social issues and immigration, resonated well and in 1984 the then Democratic Party challenger, Walter Mondale, was estimated to have secured the votes of just 31 per cent of working-class white men.

In his first attempt at the White House in 2008, Barack Obama is reckoned to have won 39 per cent of this grouping which was the party’s best performance since the Reagan years.

Now, four years on, things are looking very different. In an excellent analysis, Ronald Brownstein for the National Journal suggests that this grouping could be turning sharply against the president.

It is always dangerous drawing conclusions from demographic sub-sets in individual surveys. Where, however, the same trend is seen across a range of pollsters then you can have more confidence that something is happening.

Brownstein notes that in the latest Quinnipiac survey just 29 per cent of non-college educated white men say they will vote for Obama. In this week’s ABC/Washington Post survey the proportion was just 28 per cent. Those are sharp declines on four years ago, particularly as many working-class white men are in the so-called “rust-belt” states of Ohio, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania, also a crucial swing state, has a high proportion as well.

He observes that the reasons are straight-forward. Many working class white men are culturally conservative; are deeply sceptical of government and are struggling in the economic downturn.

The strongest grouping for the President are college educated women, with whom Quinnipiac has support at 52 per cent and the ABC/Washington Post poll at 49 per cent.

Everything is pointing to a tight battle.

Mitt Romney’s Surprisingly Strong Appearance Before the NAACP

NationalReview

Mitt Romney just completed his remarks to the annual NAACP convention in Houston.

The media will focus on the strong boos that greeted Romney’s pledge to repeal Obamacare, but the crowd was cordially welcoming and applauded quite a few lines. The audience gave him a standing ovation at its completion.

While it’s undoubtedly difficult for a Republican candidate to win over a significant portion of the African-American vote while running against the first African-American president, I think the speech was one of Romney’s best of the campaign, often articulating conservative principles. On Twitter, someone wondered if the tough crowd was somehow liberating to Romney and his speechwriters; with the odds of success so low, why not lay out one’s deepest principles, loudly and clearly, and let the chips fall where they may?

These are Romney’s remarks, as prepared for delivery:

Thank you, Bishop Graves, for your generous introduction. Thanks also to President Ben Jealous and Chairman Roslyn Brock for the opportunity to be here this morning, and for your hospitality.  It is an honor to address you.

I appreciate the chance to speak first – even before Vice President Biden gets his turn tomorrow.  I just hope the Obama campaign won’t think you’re playing favorites.

You all know something of my background, and maybe you’ve wondered how any Republican ever becomes governor of Massachusetts in the first place.  Well, in a state with 11 percent Republican registration, you don’t get there by just talking to Republicans.  We have to make our case to every voter.  We don’t count anybody out, and we sure don’t make a habit of presuming anyone’s support.  Support is asked for and earned – and that’s why I’m here today.

With 90 percent of African-Americans voting for Democrats, some of you may wonder why a Republican would bother to campaign in the African American community, and to address the NAACP.  Of course, one reason is that I hope to represent all Americans, of every race, creed or sexual orientation, from the poorest to the richest and everyone in between.

But there is another reason: I believe that if you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African American families, you would vote for me for president.  I want you to know that if I did not believe that my policies and my leadership would help families of color — and families of any color — more than the policies and leadership of President Obama, I would not be running for president.

The opposition charges that I and people in my party are running for office to help the rich.  Nonsense.  The rich will do just fine whether I am elected or not.  The President wants to make this a campaign about blaming the rich.  I want to make this a campaign about helping the middle class.

I am running for president because I know that my policies and vision will help hundreds of millions of middle class Americans of all races, will lift people from poverty, and will help prevent people from becoming poor. My campaign is about helping the people who need help.  The course the President has set has not done that – and will not do that.  My course will.

When President Obama called to congratulate me on becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, he said that he, “looked forward to an important and healthy debate about America’s future.”  To date, I’m afraid that his campaign has taken a different course than that.

But, in campaigns at their best, voters can expect a clear choice, and candidates can expect a fair hearing – only more so from a venerable organization like this one.  So, it is that healthy debate about the course of the nation that I want to discuss with you today.

If someone had told us in the 1950s or 1960s that a black citizen would serve as the forty-fourth president, we would have been proud and many would have been surprised.  Picturing that day, we might have assumed that the American presidency would be the very last door of opportunity to be opened.  Before that came to pass, every other barrier on the path to equal opportunity would surely have come down.

Of course, it hasn’t happened quite that way.  Many barriers remain.  Old inequities persist.  In some ways, the challenges are even more complicated than before.  And across America — and even within your own ranks — there are serious, honest debates about the way forward.

If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, then a chronically bad economy would be equally bad for everyone.  Instead, it’s worse for African Americans in almost every way.  The unemployment rate, the duration of unemployment, average income, and median family wealth are all worse for the black community.  In June, while the overall unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2 percent, the unemployment rate for African Americans actually went up, from 13.6 percent to 14.4 percent.

Americans of every background are asking when this economy will finally recover – and you, in particular, are entitled to an answer.

If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, black families could send their sons and daughters to public schools that truly offer the hope of a better life.  Instead, for generations, the African-American community has been waiting and waiting for that promise to be kept.  Today, black children are 17 percent of students nationwide – but they are 42 percent of the students in our worst-performing schools.

Our society sends them into mediocre schools and expects them to perform with excellence, and that is not fair.  Frederick Douglass observed that, “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”  Yet, instead of preparing these children for life, too many schools set them up for failure.  Everyone in this room knows that we owe them better than that.

The path of inequality often leads to lost opportunity.  College, graduate school, and first jobs should be milestones marking the passage from childhood to adulthood.  But for too many disadvantaged young people, these goals seem unattainable – and their lives take a tragic turn.

Many live in neighborhoods filled with violence and fear, and empty of opportunity.  Their impatience for real change is understandable.  They are entitled to feel that life in America should be better than this.  They are told even now to wait for improvements in our economy and in our schools, but it seems to me that these Americans have waited long enough.

The point is that when decades of the same promises keep producing the same failures, then it’s reasonable to rethink our approach – and consider a new plan.

I’m hopeful that together we can set a new direction in federal policy, starting where many of our problems do – with the family.  A study from the Brookings Institution has shown that for those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and wait until 21 before they marry and then have their first child, the probability of being poor is two percent.  And if those factors are absent, the probability of being poor is 76 percent.

Here at the NAACP, you understand the deep and lasting difference the family makes.  Your former executive director, Dr. Benjamin Hooks, had it exactly right.  The family, he said, “remains the bulwark and the mainstay of the black community.  That great truth must not be overlooked.”

Any policy that lifts up and honors the family is going to be good for the country, and that must be our goal.  As President, I will promote strong families – and I will defend traditional marriage.

As you may have heard from my opponent, I am also a believer in the free-enterprise system.  I believe it can bring change where so many well-meaning government programs have failed.  I’ve never heard anyone look around an impoverished neighborhood and say, “You know, there’s too much free enterprise around here.  Too many shops, too many jobs, too many people putting money in the bank.”

What you hear, of course, is how do we bring in jobs?  How do we make good, honest employers want to move in and stay?  And with the shape this economy is in, we’re asking that more than ever.

Free enterprise is still the greatest force for upward mobility, economic security, and the expansion of the middle class.  We have seen in recent years what it’s like to have less free enterprise.  As President, I will show the good things that can happen when we have more – more business activity, more jobs, more opportunity, more paychecks, more savings accounts.

On Day One, I will begin turning this economy around with a plan for the middle class.  And I don’t mean just those who are middle class now – I also mean those who have waited so long for their chance to join the middle class.

I know what it will take to put people back to work, to bring more jobs and better wages. My jobs plan is based on 25 years of success in business. It has five key steps.

First, I will take full advantage of our energy resources, and I will approve the Keystone pipeline from Canada. Low cost, plentiful coal, natural gas, oil, and renewables will bring over a million manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

Second, I will open up new markets for American products. We are the most productive major economy in the world, so trade means good jobs for Americans.  But trade must be free and fair, so I’ll clamp down on cheaters like China and make sure that they finally play by the rules.

Third, I will reduce government spending. Our high level of debt slows GDP growth and that means fewer jobs. If our goal is jobs, we must, must stop spending over a trillion dollars more than we earn. To do this, I will eliminate expensive non-essential programs like Obamacare, and I will work to reform and save Medicare and Social Security, in part by means-testing their benefits.

Fourth, I will focus on nurturing and developing the skilled workers our economy so desperately needs and the future demands. This is the human capital with which tomorrow’s bright future will be built. Too many homes and too many schools are failing to provide our children with the skills and education that are essential for anything other than a minimum-wage job.

And finally and perhaps most importantly, I will restore economic freedom. This nation’s economy runs on freedom, on opportunity, on entrepreneurs, on dreamers who innovate and build businesses. These entrepreneurs are being crushed by high taxation, burdensome regulation, hostile regulators, excessive healthcare costs, and destructive labor policies. I will work to make America the best place in the world for innovators and entrepreneurs and businesses small and large.

Do these five things – open up energy, expand trade, cut the growth of government, focus on better educating tomorrow’s workers today, and restore economic freedom – and jobs will come back to America, and wages will rise again. The President will say he will do those things, but he will not, he cannot, and his record of the last four years proves it.

If I am president, job one for me will be creating jobs. I have no hidden agenda. If you want a president who will make things better in the African American community, you are looking at him.

Finally, I will address the institutionalized inequality in our education system.  And I know something about this from my time as governor.

In the years before I took office our state’s leaders had come together to pass bipartisan measures that were making a difference.  In reading and in math, our students were already among the best in the nation – and during my term, they took over the top spot.

Those results revealed what good teachers can do if the system will only let them.  The problem was, this success wasn’t shared.  A significant achievement gap between students of different races remained.  So we set out to close it.

I urged faster interventions in failing schools, and the funding to go along with it.  I promoted math and science excellence in schools, and proposed paying bonuses to our best teachers.

I refused to weaken testing standards, and instead raised them. To graduate from high school, students had to pass an exam in math and English – I added a science requirement as well.  And I put in place a merit scholarship for those students who excelled: the top 25 percent of students in each high school were awarded a John and Abigail Adams Scholarship – which meant four years tuition-free at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning.

When I was governor, not only did test scores improve – we also narrowed the achievement gap.

The teachers unions were not happy with a number of these reforms. They especially did not like our emphasis on choice through charter schools, particularly for our inner city kids. Accordingly, the legislature passed a moratorium on any new charter schools.

As you know, in Boston, in Harlem, in Los Angeles, and all across the country, charter schools are giving children a chance, children that otherwise could be locked in failing schools. I was inspired just a few weeks ago by the students in one of Kenny Gamble’s charter schools in Philadelphia.  Right here in Houston is another success story:  the Knowledge Is Power Program, which has set the standard, thanks to the groundbreaking work of the late Harriet Ball.

These charter schools are doing a lot more than closing the achievement gap.  They are bringing hope and opportunity to places where for years there has been none.

Charter schools are so successful that almost every politician can find something good to say about them.  But, as we saw in Massachusetts, true reform requires more than talk.  As Governor, I vetoed the bill blocking charter schools.  But our legislature was 87 percent Democrat, and my veto could have been easily over-ridden.  So I joined with the Black Legislative Caucus, and their votes helped preserve my veto, which meant that new charter schools, including some in urban neighborhoods, would be opened.

When it comes to education reform, candidates cannot have it both ways – talking up education reform, while indulging the same groups that are blocking reform.  You can be the voice of disadvantaged public-school students, or you can be the protector of special interests like the teachers unions, but you can’t be both.  I have made my choice: As president, I will be a champion of real education reform in America, and I won’t let any special interest get in the way.

I will give the parents of every low-income and special needs student the chance to choose where their child goes to school.  For the first time in history, federal education funds will be linked to a student, so that parents can send their child to any public or charter school, or to a private school, where permitted.  And I will make that a true choice by ensuring there are good options available to all.

Should I be elected President, I’ll lead as I did when I was governor.  I am pleased today to be joined today by Reverend Jeffrey Brown, who was a member of my kitchen cabinet in Massachusetts that helped guide my policy and actions that affected the African American community.  I will look for support wherever there is good will and shared conviction.  I will work with you to help our children attend better schools and help our economy create good jobs with better wages.

I can’t promise that you and I will agree on every issue.  But I do promise that your hospitality to me today will be returned.  We will know one another, and work to common purposes.  I will seek your counsel.  And if I am elected president, and you invite me to next year’s convention, I would count it as a privilege, and my answer will be yes.

The Republican Party’s record, by the measures you rightly apply, is not perfect.  Any party that claims a perfect record doesn’t know history the way you know it.

Yet always, in both parties, there have been men and women of integrity, decency, and humility who called injustice by its name.  For every one of us a particular person comes to mind, someone who set a standard of conduct and made us better by their example.  For me, that man is my father, George Romney.

It wasn’t just that my Dad helped write the civil rights provision for the Michigan Constitution, though he did.  It wasn’t just that he helped create Michigan’s first civil rights commission, or that as governor he marched for civil rights in Detroit – though he did those things, too.

More than these public acts, it was the kind of man he was, and the way he dealt with every person, black or white.  He was a man of the fairest instincts, and a man of faith who knew that every person was a child of God.

I’m grateful to him for so many things, and above all for the knowledge of God, whose ways are not always our ways, but whose justice is certain and whose mercy endures forever.

Every good cause on this earth relies in the end on a plan bigger than ours.  “Without dependence on God,” as Dr. King said, “our efforts turn to ashes and our sunrises into darkest night.  Unless his spirit pervades our lives, we find only what G. K. Chesterton called ‘cures that don’t cure, blessings that don’t bless, and solutions that don’t solve.’”

Of all that you bring to the work of today’s civil rights cause, no advantage counts for more than this abiding confidence in the name above every name.   Against cruelty, arrogance, and all the foolishness of man, this spirit has carried the NAACP to many victories.  More still are up ahead, and with each one we will be a better nation.

Thank you, and God bless you all.

Romney to Illegal Aliens: Join U.S. Military or Go Home

CNSNews

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign office said that it is Romney’s policy that “young” illegal aliens who join the U.S. military should be able to remain in the United States and attain legal permanent residency status, but that Romney is otherwise sticking by his previously stated position that all illegal aliens must return to their home countries.

CNSNews.com had asked the GOP candidate’s campaign if Romney still holds the policy view he expressed in 2008 and 2011 that all illegal aliens residing in the United States must go back to their home countries and then, if they want to legally immigrate to the U.S., they will need to get in the back of the line.

In an June 22 e-mail to his campaign press office, CNSNews.com asked Romney: “In your 2008 and 2011 Republican primary campaigns–specifically at the January 30, 2008 debate at the Reagan Library and at the December 10, 2011 debate at Drake University–you said that you would make all illegal aliens in the United States, including those who had been here a long time, return to their home countries and, if they wanted to legally immigrate to the United States, they would need get in the back of the line. Is it still your position that all illegal aliens in the United States must leave and go back to their home countries?”

Andrea Saul, the campaign’s press secretary, responded in a July 6 e-mail: “Governor Romney wants to protect and strengthen legal immigration by ending illegal immigration in a civil and resolute manner. While President Obama has broken his promise and failed to offer any plan on immigration reform during his years in office, Governor Romney has announced a strategy for bipartisan and long-term immigration reform.”

The e-mail continued: “That strategy included specific proposals to secure our borders, discourage illegal immigration, and fix our nation’s broken immigration system so that it serves the needs of our economy. Governor Romney believes that young illegal immigrants brought here as children should have the chance to become permanent residents if they serve honorably in the U.S. military. And illegal immigrants should be able to register and get in line with other applicants.”

In a follow-up e-mail on July 6, CNSNews.com asked the Romney campaign to clarify–yes or no–whether the governor still held the view he expressed in 2008 and 2010, specifically:  “Does he still support having illegal immigrants go back home?”

On background, a Romney campaign spokesman responded, “Yes.”

According to Romney’s campaign office, under Romney’s plan, “young” illegal aliens who join the U.S. military would be allowed to stay and attain legality, but all other illegal aliens would need to return to their home countries. If they wanted to legally immigrate to the U.S., they would then need to get in the back of the line.

During a Republican primary debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., on Jan. 30, 2008, Romney had said, “Under the ideal setting, at least in my view, you say to those who have just come in recently, we’re going to send you back home immediately, we’re not going to let you stay here. You just go back home.”

“For those that have been here, let’s say, five years, and have kids in school, you allow kids to complete the school year, you allow people to make their arrangements, and allow them to return back home,” he said.

“These individuals are free to get in line with everyone else that wants to become a permanent resident or citizen,” said Romney. “But no special pathway, no special deal that says because you’re here illegally, you get to stay here for the rest of your life.”

“Do it in a humane and compassionate way, but say to those that have come here legally, you must return home, you must get in line with everybody else that wants to come here,” he said.

Similarly, on Dec. 10, 2011, during a GOP primary debate at Drake University, Romney said, “My own view is, those 11 million people should register the fact that they’re here in the country. They should be given some transition period of time to allow them to settle their affairs and then return home and get in line–at the back of the line–with everybody else that wants to come here.”

“Don’t forget, when we talk about the difficulty of people going home,” he said, “there are millions of people, many of whom have relatives here in this country who are in line, who want to come here. I want to bring people in this country who have skill, experience, family here, who want to draw them in.”

Unemployment Rate Dropped In Every State That Elected A Republican Gov. In 2010

Breitbart

In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011.

Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to theExaminer:

Kansas – 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8 [percentage points (11.6 percent)]

Maine – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6 [percentage points  (7.5 percent)]

Michigan – 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of [2.4 percentage points (22 percent)]

New Mexico – 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of [1.0 percentage points (13 percent)]

Oklahoma – 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of [1.4 percentage points - (22.6 percent)]

Pennsylvania – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of [.6 percentage points  (7.5 percent)]

Tennessee – 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of [1.6 percentage points (16.8 percent)]

Wisconsin – 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of [0.9 percentage points (11.9 percent)]

Wyoming – 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of [1.1 percentage points (17.5 percent)]

Alabama – 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of [1.9 percentage points  (20.4 percent)]

Georgia – 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of [1.2 percentage points (11.9 percent)]

South Carolina – 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of [1.5 percentage points (14.2 percent)]

South Dakota – 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of [0.7 percentage points (14 percent)]

Florida – 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of [2.3 percentage points (21 percent)]

Nevada – 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of [2.2 percentage points (15.9 percent)]

Iowa – 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of [1.0 percentage points (16.4 percent)]

Ohio – 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of [1.7 percentage points (18.9 percent)]

This was not the case for states that elected Democrats in 2010. For instance, the unemployment rate in New York actually went up. On average, states that elected Republican governors in 2010 saw their unemployment rates decrease at a faster clip than states that elected Democrats and the unemployment rate at the national level did.

This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working.

*an earlier version of this article incorrectly relied on an analysis that mistook a decline in percentage points for a percent decline.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 242 other followers

%d bloggers like this: