Quit Picking on the Republicans
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
Fox & Friends Says Protecting Atheists From Discrimination Is Anti-Christian
While Fox News cheered on the Indiana "religious freedom" bill as a way to protect Christians, they sure don't feel the same way about a Wisconsin ordinance, pushed by the evil Freedom From Religion Foundation, which protects atheists. On this morning's Fox & Friends, we learned that this action is anti-Christian because Christians have a right to discriminate against atheists!
Paragon of tolerant Christianity, Tucker Carlson reported that Madison, Wisconsin is now including atheists as a protected class. Jesus BFF, Anna Kooiman set the propaganda message in asking Fox's favorite race baiting, GOP activist, and former DOJ attorney J Christian Adams "where does this hostility come from." Adams informed us that the measure was driven by the Freedom From Religion Foundation which is one of Fox's favorite targets for its patented war on atheists and atheism. In Fox's Christian crusade, Adams described the group as "a bunch of angry atheists." (As opposed to the perennially pissed off Christians who host Fox News shows?)
Adams whined about how the FRFF "hectors governments to pass anti-Christian anti-Christian, anti-religious ordinances." (As opposed to anti-gay ordinances such as the one, promoted by Fox, in Houston?) Despite the fact that Madison's measure was passed unanimously, the banner proclaimed that it is a "Controversial Change." He continued to whine about the FRFF's evil ways and how they are "full of hostility towards people of faith." Tucker Carlson joined the attack: "It's never about tolerating their views, it's attacking other people's views." (Oh, the irony! This is being said on Fox News which does this ALL THE TIME!)
Cuing the requisite Christian death threats directed towards enemies of the Fox state, Carlson read a statement from one of the city council members. In suggesting an insidious conspiracy against Christians, Carlson said that while her comment seems fair, "that's not exactly their aim, is it."
Adams blithered about how this ordinance will spawn a "body of "bureaucrats" who will be "tasked" to harass "people of faith" who have good reason to not hire atheists because the New Testament says to "avoid them." He used the hypothetical example of an airline that wants to hire pilots who believe in hell (WTF) and opined that this shows why religion is "important to so many people." He claimed that telling people that they can't hire those who are religiously simpatico "intrudes on their free exercise of faith." (So who cares about Title VII of the Civil Rights Law which states that it is "unlawful" to discriminate on the basis of faith.)
Kooiman engaged in some patented Fox fear mongering when, after warning that the FRFF is "trying to make this into a trend," read a quote from the FRFF which advocates that other localities pass similar measures. The banner: "Expanding Its Influence, Will Madison's New Code Spread Across US." Adams continued to bloviate about how these nasty atheists hate Christians and Jews which is a big, fat lie because the group, as does the ACLU, acts to enforce the First Amendment "wall of separation" between church and state. He even brought Easter and Passover into the discussion because these observances are all about "escaping from this kind of hatred" which is shown by the FRFF, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Carlson suggested a "political" motivation because "if there is no God, the highest authority is government." (Uh, Tucker, in the US, that is the highest authority.) Adams pimped the popular and bogus Christian right screed about how our country was founded on the notion that "we are created in the image of God" and how the FRFF just hates that.
Fox News is always pimping perpetual outrage over alleged anti-Christian discrimination. Meanwhile, they believe that discrimination against atheists is just dandy cuz the Bible.
video
Fox & Friends Says Protecting Atheists From Discrimination Is Anti-Christian! | Crooks and Liars
While Fox News cheered on the Indiana "religious freedom" bill as a way to protect Christians, they sure don't feel the same way about a Wisconsin ordinance, pushed by the evil Freedom From Religion Foundation, which protects atheists. On this morning's Fox & Friends, we learned that this action is anti-Christian because Christians have a right to discriminate against atheists!
Paragon of tolerant Christianity, Tucker Carlson reported that Madison, Wisconsin is now including atheists as a protected class. Jesus BFF, Anna Kooiman set the propaganda message in asking Fox's favorite race baiting, GOP activist, and former DOJ attorney J Christian Adams "where does this hostility come from." Adams informed us that the measure was driven by the Freedom From Religion Foundation which is one of Fox's favorite targets for its patented war on atheists and atheism. In Fox's Christian crusade, Adams described the group as "a bunch of angry atheists." (As opposed to the perennially pissed off Christians who host Fox News shows?)
Adams whined about how the FRFF "hectors governments to pass anti-Christian anti-Christian, anti-religious ordinances." (As opposed to anti-gay ordinances such as the one, promoted by Fox, in Houston?) Despite the fact that Madison's measure was passed unanimously, the banner proclaimed that it is a "Controversial Change." He continued to whine about the FRFF's evil ways and how they are "full of hostility towards people of faith." Tucker Carlson joined the attack: "It's never about tolerating their views, it's attacking other people's views." (Oh, the irony! This is being said on Fox News which does this ALL THE TIME!)
Cuing the requisite Christian death threats directed towards enemies of the Fox state, Carlson read a statement from one of the city council members. In suggesting an insidious conspiracy against Christians, Carlson said that while her comment seems fair, "that's not exactly their aim, is it."
Adams blithered about how this ordinance will spawn a "body of "bureaucrats" who will be "tasked" to harass "people of faith" who have good reason to not hire atheists because the New Testament says to "avoid them." He used the hypothetical example of an airline that wants to hire pilots who believe in hell (WTF) and opined that this shows why religion is "important to so many people." He claimed that telling people that they can't hire those who are religiously simpatico "intrudes on their free exercise of faith." (So who cares about Title VII of the Civil Rights Law which states that it is "unlawful" to discriminate on the basis of faith.)
Kooiman engaged in some patented Fox fear mongering when, after warning that the FRFF is "trying to make this into a trend," read a quote from the FRFF which advocates that other localities pass similar measures. The banner: "Expanding Its Influence, Will Madison's New Code Spread Across US." Adams continued to bloviate about how these nasty atheists hate Christians and Jews which is a big, fat lie because the group, as does the ACLU, acts to enforce the First Amendment "wall of separation" between church and state. He even brought Easter and Passover into the discussion because these observances are all about "escaping from this kind of hatred" which is shown by the FRFF, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Carlson suggested a "political" motivation because "if there is no God, the highest authority is government." (Uh, Tucker, in the US, that is the highest authority.) Adams pimped the popular and bogus Christian right screed about how our country was founded on the notion that "we are created in the image of God" and how the FRFF just hates that.
Fox News is always pimping perpetual outrage over alleged anti-Christian discrimination. Meanwhile, they believe that discrimination against atheists is just dandy cuz the Bible.
video
Fox & Friends Says Protecting Atheists From Discrimination Is Anti-Christian! | Crooks and Liars
Tom Cotton Suggests We Could Take Care Of Iran With 'Several Days' Of Bombing
Eliminating Iran's nuclear facilities with U.S. missile strikes would take a matter of days, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said in a radio interview Tuesday.
"Even if military action were required -- and we certainly should have kept the credible threat of military force on the table throughout which always improves diplomacy -- the president is trying to make you think it would be 150,000 heavy mechanized troops on the ground in the Middle East again as we saw in Iraq. That's simply not the case," Cotton told Tony Perkins on the Family Research Council's Washington Watch program, according to CNN.
Tom Cotton Suggests We Could Take Care Of Iran With 'Several Days' Of Bombing
sheer bona fide lunacy
Senate Republicans Vote To Sell Off Our National Parks To Private Industry
Last month, nearly every Republican in the US Senate voted on a budget amendment allowing states to seize public lands, which means every National Park in the country would be subject to the whims of state lawmakers who could authorize the selling of these lands to private industries for exploitation.
And by exploitation, that means deforestation of lumber resources, the privatization of freshwater sources, drilling and mining for oil and minerals, or used as dumping grounds for hazardous materials. In short, Republicans would be allowing private industries to buy and rape our public land reserves until they are unrecognizable.
The amendment, known as SA 838, was introduced by Alaska GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski. And it sailed through the Senate by a 51-49 vote with all but three Republicans in favor while every Democrat voted against it. A rival bill that would stop the effort to sell public lands was prevented from coming up for a vote.
Senate Republicans Vote To Sell Off Our National Parks
Last month, nearly every Republican in the US Senate voted on a budget amendment allowing states to seize public lands, which means every National Park in the country would be subject to the whims of state lawmakers who could authorize the selling of these lands to private industries for exploitation.
And by exploitation, that means deforestation of lumber resources, the privatization of freshwater sources, drilling and mining for oil and minerals, or used as dumping grounds for hazardous materials. In short, Republicans would be allowing private industries to buy and rape our public land reserves until they are unrecognizable.
The amendment, known as SA 838, was introduced by Alaska GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski. And it sailed through the Senate by a 51-49 vote with all but three Republicans in favor while every Democrat voted against it. A rival bill that would stop the effort to sell public lands was prevented from coming up for a vote.
Senate Republicans Vote To Sell Off Our National Parks
A Return to the Peace Party
Republicans once stood for peace through strength, not endless war.
A Return to the Peace Party | The American Conservative
A few weeks ago, I spoke to about 200 people at the famous Willard Hotel in Washington in a program put on by the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. I had been told that this was a group of CEOs and owners of major companies in Southern California, obviously a very upper-income group.
I got to a point in my speech where I said: “It is long past the time when we need to stop trying to run the whole world and start putting our own people and our own Country first once again.”
Much to my surprise, the audience broke into applause. Middle- and lower-income groups have applauded when I have said similar things in my district and around the country. But many upper-income people claim to be moderates, and, contrary to popular belief, conservatives lose most very wealthy areas two-to-one or worse.
I have spoken to a very wide variety of groups in Washington, around the country, and in my district, and I have gotten an overwhelmingly positive response every time I have said that it has been a horrible mistake to spend trillions on unnecessary wars in the Middle East.
When I was a teenager, I remember reading a publication from the Republican National Committee that said, “Democrats start wars, Republicans end them.”
There was a time, until recent years, that the Republican Party could make a legitimate claim to being the Peace Party.
I sent my first paycheck as a bag boy at the A & P—$19 and some cents—as a contribution to the Barry Goldwater campaign. I have worked in Republican campaigns at the national state and local levels for over 50 years. And it saddens me to hear almost all the Republican candidates for President try to outdo each other in their hawkishness.
Based on the response I have gotten, I think it is a recipe for defeat if my Republican party becomes known as a party favoring permanent, forever wars—war without end.
All of our candidates try to convince people that they are like Ronald Reagan. President Reagan once wrote that we should follow these four principles:
(1) The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest;
(2) If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win … and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives;
(3) Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress, and
(4) Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
Reagan was certainly no warmonger Republican, or a man eager to go to war.
President Eisenhower, one of our greatest military leaders, was another “Peacenik” Republican. He knew the horrors of war, unlike many modern-day chickenhawks.
He famously warned us at the end of his Presidency about the dangers of being controlled by a very powerful military-industrial complex. I think he would be shocked at how far we have gone down the road that he warned us against.
In his book Ike’s Bluff, Evan Thomas shared this story:
When Defense Secretary Neil McElroy warned him that further budget cuts could harm national security, Eisenhower acerbically replied, ‘If you go to any military installation in the world where the American flag is flying and tell the commander that Ike says he’ll give him an extra star for his shoulder if he cuts his budget, there’ll be such a rush to cut costs that you’ll have to get out of the way.’
Thomas added that Eisenhower “would periodically sigh to Andy Goodpaster, ‘God help the Nation when it has a President who doesn’t know as much about the military as I do.’”
Pat Buchanan wrote in these pages on March 20, “In November 1956, President Eisenhower, enraged he had not been forewarned of their invasion of Egypt, ordered the British, French and Israelis to get out of Suez and Sinai. They did as told. How far we have fallen from the America of Ike…”
Sen. Robert Taft, who was sometimes referred to as Mr. Republican in the 1940s and ‘50s, once said, “No foreign policy can be justified except a policy devoted… to the protection of the liberty of the American people, with war only as the last resort and only to preserve that liberty.”
Most of the Republican presidential candidates have attacked President Obama for acting in some ways that are unconstitutional, and he has. But where in our constitution does it give us the authority to run other countries as we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, even making small business loans and training local police forces?
My Republican party was always the party of fiscal conservatism. Yet with a national debt of over $18 trillion, how can we justify continually spending mega-billions in religious civil wars between Shia and Sunni?
Some people and companies that make money off an interventionist foreign policy always very quickly fall back on the slur of isolationism.
But I and probably almost all readers of The American Conservative believe in trade and tourism and cultural and educational exchange with other countries, and in helping out during humanitarian crises. We just don’t believe in endless war.
We are told that if we don’t support an interventionist foreign policy, that this means we don’t believe in American exceptionalism. But this nation did not become exceptional because we got involved in every little war around the globe. It became exceptional because of our great system of free enterprise and because we gave our people more individual freedom than any other country.
I have said in thousands of speeches that we are blessed beyond belief to live in this country, and that the United States is without question the greatest country in the history of the world.
But there was much less anti-Americanism around the world when we tried to mind our own business and take care of our own people. And this nation had more friends when we followed a policy of peace through strength, not one of peace through endless war.
Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. represents the 2nd District of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.
No question that in the past many Republicans stood for principle. Sad that this is not so anymore. Even this CONSERVATIVE site agrees to that truth.
Republicans once stood for peace through strength, not endless war.
A Return to the Peace Party | The American Conservative
A few weeks ago, I spoke to about 200 people at the famous Willard Hotel in Washington in a program put on by the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. I had been told that this was a group of CEOs and owners of major companies in Southern California, obviously a very upper-income group.
I got to a point in my speech where I said: “It is long past the time when we need to stop trying to run the whole world and start putting our own people and our own Country first once again.”
Much to my surprise, the audience broke into applause. Middle- and lower-income groups have applauded when I have said similar things in my district and around the country. But many upper-income people claim to be moderates, and, contrary to popular belief, conservatives lose most very wealthy areas two-to-one or worse.
I have spoken to a very wide variety of groups in Washington, around the country, and in my district, and I have gotten an overwhelmingly positive response every time I have said that it has been a horrible mistake to spend trillions on unnecessary wars in the Middle East.
When I was a teenager, I remember reading a publication from the Republican National Committee that said, “Democrats start wars, Republicans end them.”
There was a time, until recent years, that the Republican Party could make a legitimate claim to being the Peace Party.
I sent my first paycheck as a bag boy at the A & P—$19 and some cents—as a contribution to the Barry Goldwater campaign. I have worked in Republican campaigns at the national state and local levels for over 50 years. And it saddens me to hear almost all the Republican candidates for President try to outdo each other in their hawkishness.
Based on the response I have gotten, I think it is a recipe for defeat if my Republican party becomes known as a party favoring permanent, forever wars—war without end.
All of our candidates try to convince people that they are like Ronald Reagan. President Reagan once wrote that we should follow these four principles:
(1) The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest;
(2) If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win … and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives;
(3) Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress, and
(4) Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
Reagan was certainly no warmonger Republican, or a man eager to go to war.
President Eisenhower, one of our greatest military leaders, was another “Peacenik” Republican. He knew the horrors of war, unlike many modern-day chickenhawks.
He famously warned us at the end of his Presidency about the dangers of being controlled by a very powerful military-industrial complex. I think he would be shocked at how far we have gone down the road that he warned us against.
In his book Ike’s Bluff, Evan Thomas shared this story:
When Defense Secretary Neil McElroy warned him that further budget cuts could harm national security, Eisenhower acerbically replied, ‘If you go to any military installation in the world where the American flag is flying and tell the commander that Ike says he’ll give him an extra star for his shoulder if he cuts his budget, there’ll be such a rush to cut costs that you’ll have to get out of the way.’
Thomas added that Eisenhower “would periodically sigh to Andy Goodpaster, ‘God help the Nation when it has a President who doesn’t know as much about the military as I do.’”
Pat Buchanan wrote in these pages on March 20, “In November 1956, President Eisenhower, enraged he had not been forewarned of their invasion of Egypt, ordered the British, French and Israelis to get out of Suez and Sinai. They did as told. How far we have fallen from the America of Ike…”
Sen. Robert Taft, who was sometimes referred to as Mr. Republican in the 1940s and ‘50s, once said, “No foreign policy can be justified except a policy devoted… to the protection of the liberty of the American people, with war only as the last resort and only to preserve that liberty.”
Most of the Republican presidential candidates have attacked President Obama for acting in some ways that are unconstitutional, and he has. But where in our constitution does it give us the authority to run other countries as we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, even making small business loans and training local police forces?
My Republican party was always the party of fiscal conservatism. Yet with a national debt of over $18 trillion, how can we justify continually spending mega-billions in religious civil wars between Shia and Sunni?
Some people and companies that make money off an interventionist foreign policy always very quickly fall back on the slur of isolationism.
But I and probably almost all readers of The American Conservative believe in trade and tourism and cultural and educational exchange with other countries, and in helping out during humanitarian crises. We just don’t believe in endless war.
We are told that if we don’t support an interventionist foreign policy, that this means we don’t believe in American exceptionalism. But this nation did not become exceptional because we got involved in every little war around the globe. It became exceptional because of our great system of free enterprise and because we gave our people more individual freedom than any other country.
I have said in thousands of speeches that we are blessed beyond belief to live in this country, and that the United States is without question the greatest country in the history of the world.
But there was much less anti-Americanism around the world when we tried to mind our own business and take care of our own people. And this nation had more friends when we followed a policy of peace through strength, not one of peace through endless war.
Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. represents the 2nd District of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.
No question that in the past many Republicans stood for principle. Sad that this is not so anymore. Even this CONSERVATIVE site agrees to that truth.
House Republicans try to gut a key American principle
By Dana Milbank Opinion writer April 29
The Civil War era’s 14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to any baby born on American soil, is a proud achievement of the Party of Lincoln.
But now House Republicans are talking about abolishing birthright citizenship.
A House Judiciary subcommittee took up the question Wednesday afternoon, prompted by legislation sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and 22 other lawmakers that, after nearly 150 years, would end automatic citizenship.
The 14th Amendment, King told the panel, “did not contemplate that anyone who would sneak into the United States and have a baby would have automatic citizenship conferred on them.” Added King, “I’d suggest it’s our job here in this Congress to decide who will be citizens, not someone in a foreign country that can sneak into the United States and have a baby and then go home with the birth certificate.”
It’s no small task to undo a principle, enshrined in the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court, that defines the United States as a nation of immigrants. It’s particularly audacious that House Republicans would undo a century and a half of precedent without amending the Constitution but merely by passing a law to reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s wording in a way that will stop the scourge of “anchor babies” and “birth tourism.”
Judiciary Committee Republicans brought in three experts to testify in support of this extraordinary maneuver (a lone Democratic witness was opposed), and they evidently had to search far and wide for people who would take this view, because they ended up with a bizarre witness: an octogenarian professor from the University of Texas named Lino Graglia.
This would be the Lino Graglia who caused a furor in 1997 when he said that Latinos and African Americans are “not academically competitive with whites” and come from a “culture that seems not to encourage achievement.” He also said at the time that “I don’t know that it’s good for whites to be with the lower classes.”
This is also the same Lino Graglia who said in a 2012 interview that black and Hispanic children are less “academically competent” than white children, and he attributed the academic gap to the “deleterious experience” of being reared by single mothers. When the interviewer, a black man, said he had a single mother, Graglia said that “my guess would be that you’re above usual smartness for whites, to say nothing of blacks.”
And this is the very same Lino Graglia whose nomination for a federal judgeship in the 1980s fell apart amid allegations that he had urged Austin residents to defy a court-ordered busing plan and had used the racist word “pickaninny” in the classroom.
Abolishing automatic citizenship for babies born on American soil, and having Graglia make the case, probably won’t help Republicans overcome their problems with minorities, who are gradually becoming the majority. Democrats, by happenstance, presented a sharp contrast to the GOP effort Wednesday: Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and others met at Washington’s Carnegie Library with a coalition including immigration and civil rights advocates to launch a new jobs campaign, “Putting Families First.”
At the birthright hearing, King got things going by informing his colleagues that “birth tourism has grown substantially” and that it costs $48,000 for a Chinese national to fly to the United States, have her baby, get a birth certificate and take the child back to China. Though conservatives generally take a dim view of international law, King said the United States in this case should follow “almost every other industrialized country” in abolishing birthright citizenship.
Graglia dutifully informed the committee that “a law ending birthright citizenship should and likely would survive constitutional challenge.” But consider the source: a man who by his own account takes “a very limited view of the power of the Supreme Court” and breezily dismisses contrary precedents.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) mentioned Graglia’s “pickaninny” comment and his position on busing. After Lofgren’s time expired, Graglia blurted out: “Your bringing up . . . this alleged statement of ‘pickaninny’ is in the nature of slur. I don’t know why you’re bringing up these insulting things that have nothing to do with” his testimony.
Minutes later, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) read aloud some of Graglia’s other comments about minorities. “It seems some underhanded move is being made here,” the professor protested, saying he “never made a comment that in any way implied the inferiority of any group.”
And this is the very same Lino Graglia whose nomination for a federal judgeship in the 1980s fell apart amid allegations that he had urged Austin residents to defy a court-ordered busing plan and had used the racist word “pickaninny” in the classroom.
Abolishing automatic citizenship for babies born on American soil, and having Graglia make the case, probably won’t help Republicans overcome their problems with minorities, who are gradually becoming the majority. Democrats, by happenstance, presented a sharp contrast to the GOP effort Wednesday: Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and others met at Washington’s Carnegie Library with a coalition including immigration and civil rights advocates to launch a new jobs campaign, “Putting Families First.”
At the birthright hearing, King got things going by informing his colleagues that “birth tourism has grown substantially” and that it costs $48,000 for a Chinese national to fly to the United States, have her baby, get a birth certificate and take the child back to China. Though conservatives generally take a dim view of international law, King said the United States in this case should follow “almost every other industrialized country” in abolishing birthright citizenship.
Graglia dutifully informed the committee that “a law ending birthright citizenship should and likely would survive constitutional challenge.” But consider the source: a man who by his own account takes “a very limited view of the power of the Supreme Court” and breezily dismisses contrary precedents.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) mentioned Graglia’s “pickaninny” comment and his position on busing. After Lofgren’s time expired, Graglia blurted out: “Your bringing up . . . this alleged statement of ‘pickaninny’ is in the nature of slur. I don’t know why you’re bringing up these insulting things that have nothing to do with” his testimony.
Minutes later, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) read aloud some of Graglia’s other comments about minorities. “It seems some underhanded move is being made here,” the professor protested, saying he “never made a comment that in any way implied the inferiority of any group.”
House Republicans try to gut a key American principle - The Washington Post
Racist? Don't be silly. They're PATRIOTIC!
By Dana Milbank Opinion writer April 29
The Civil War era’s 14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to any baby born on American soil, is a proud achievement of the Party of Lincoln.
But now House Republicans are talking about abolishing birthright citizenship.
A House Judiciary subcommittee took up the question Wednesday afternoon, prompted by legislation sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and 22 other lawmakers that, after nearly 150 years, would end automatic citizenship.
The 14th Amendment, King told the panel, “did not contemplate that anyone who would sneak into the United States and have a baby would have automatic citizenship conferred on them.” Added King, “I’d suggest it’s our job here in this Congress to decide who will be citizens, not someone in a foreign country that can sneak into the United States and have a baby and then go home with the birth certificate.”
It’s no small task to undo a principle, enshrined in the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court, that defines the United States as a nation of immigrants. It’s particularly audacious that House Republicans would undo a century and a half of precedent without amending the Constitution but merely by passing a law to reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s wording in a way that will stop the scourge of “anchor babies” and “birth tourism.”
Judiciary Committee Republicans brought in three experts to testify in support of this extraordinary maneuver (a lone Democratic witness was opposed), and they evidently had to search far and wide for people who would take this view, because they ended up with a bizarre witness: an octogenarian professor from the University of Texas named Lino Graglia.
This would be the Lino Graglia who caused a furor in 1997 when he said that Latinos and African Americans are “not academically competitive with whites” and come from a “culture that seems not to encourage achievement.” He also said at the time that “I don’t know that it’s good for whites to be with the lower classes.”
This is also the same Lino Graglia who said in a 2012 interview that black and Hispanic children are less “academically competent” than white children, and he attributed the academic gap to the “deleterious experience” of being reared by single mothers. When the interviewer, a black man, said he had a single mother, Graglia said that “my guess would be that you’re above usual smartness for whites, to say nothing of blacks.”
And this is the very same Lino Graglia whose nomination for a federal judgeship in the 1980s fell apart amid allegations that he had urged Austin residents to defy a court-ordered busing plan and had used the racist word “pickaninny” in the classroom.
Abolishing automatic citizenship for babies born on American soil, and having Graglia make the case, probably won’t help Republicans overcome their problems with minorities, who are gradually becoming the majority. Democrats, by happenstance, presented a sharp contrast to the GOP effort Wednesday: Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and others met at Washington’s Carnegie Library with a coalition including immigration and civil rights advocates to launch a new jobs campaign, “Putting Families First.”
At the birthright hearing, King got things going by informing his colleagues that “birth tourism has grown substantially” and that it costs $48,000 for a Chinese national to fly to the United States, have her baby, get a birth certificate and take the child back to China. Though conservatives generally take a dim view of international law, King said the United States in this case should follow “almost every other industrialized country” in abolishing birthright citizenship.
Graglia dutifully informed the committee that “a law ending birthright citizenship should and likely would survive constitutional challenge.” But consider the source: a man who by his own account takes “a very limited view of the power of the Supreme Court” and breezily dismisses contrary precedents.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) mentioned Graglia’s “pickaninny” comment and his position on busing. After Lofgren’s time expired, Graglia blurted out: “Your bringing up . . . this alleged statement of ‘pickaninny’ is in the nature of slur. I don’t know why you’re bringing up these insulting things that have nothing to do with” his testimony.
Minutes later, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) read aloud some of Graglia’s other comments about minorities. “It seems some underhanded move is being made here,” the professor protested, saying he “never made a comment that in any way implied the inferiority of any group.”
And this is the very same Lino Graglia whose nomination for a federal judgeship in the 1980s fell apart amid allegations that he had urged Austin residents to defy a court-ordered busing plan and had used the racist word “pickaninny” in the classroom.
Abolishing automatic citizenship for babies born on American soil, and having Graglia make the case, probably won’t help Republicans overcome their problems with minorities, who are gradually becoming the majority. Democrats, by happenstance, presented a sharp contrast to the GOP effort Wednesday: Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and others met at Washington’s Carnegie Library with a coalition including immigration and civil rights advocates to launch a new jobs campaign, “Putting Families First.”
At the birthright hearing, King got things going by informing his colleagues that “birth tourism has grown substantially” and that it costs $48,000 for a Chinese national to fly to the United States, have her baby, get a birth certificate and take the child back to China. Though conservatives generally take a dim view of international law, King said the United States in this case should follow “almost every other industrialized country” in abolishing birthright citizenship.
Graglia dutifully informed the committee that “a law ending birthright citizenship should and likely would survive constitutional challenge.” But consider the source: a man who by his own account takes “a very limited view of the power of the Supreme Court” and breezily dismisses contrary precedents.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) mentioned Graglia’s “pickaninny” comment and his position on busing. After Lofgren’s time expired, Graglia blurted out: “Your bringing up . . . this alleged statement of ‘pickaninny’ is in the nature of slur. I don’t know why you’re bringing up these insulting things that have nothing to do with” his testimony.
Minutes later, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) read aloud some of Graglia’s other comments about minorities. “It seems some underhanded move is being made here,” the professor protested, saying he “never made a comment that in any way implied the inferiority of any group.”
House Republicans try to gut a key American principle - The Washington Post
Racist? Don't be silly. They're PATRIOTIC!
Do you even know what "passé" means, Walter?
Actually, it was passed for former slaves and to reassure the Confederates they would not lose their citizenship. But thanks for confirming your ignorance and blindness to any fact that doesn't support your prejudices.
Typo, thanks for pointing it out. FIFM
That's what my post says.
OK, Walter, why don't you point out for me specifically the part of your post that addresses the fact that the 14th Amendment was intended to reassure Confederates that they wouldn't lose their citizenship for their treason?
You'll note that my answering post covers both aspects of the 14th.
But I'll just wait here for you to point out where you addressed the other aspect. Calculate I'll be waiting a long time.
I was a sub 11.5 seconds in the 100m in my salad days. You just can't stand being bested.