DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Friday, October 30, 2015

Email of the Week: Liberal Contributions in History?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A reader/listener asked in their email about a letter to the editor in a local paper that claims Liberals were responsible for giving women and African Americans the vote, created social Security, ended segregation, passed the Civil rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, ..and the Republicans opposed all those efforts.

What does our political history say?

Here's my response:

The women vote was something that was suggested by a number of the Founding Fathers, including Aaron Burr. The 19th Amendment finally was proposed and adopted after more than a century of work by Christian Women. The liberals later hijacked the women's movement, and from it emerged feminism, which ultimately changed the women's movement into something that has become destructive and divisive.

The Black Vote was brought about by the 15th Amendment, of which the Democrats fought against. The battle against allowing blacks to vote eventually led to poll taxes, which encouraged the civil rights movement and the proposal of the 24th Amendment. The Republicans wrote the Civil Rights Act and supported it, while the liberal Democrats filibustered against it (a group that included Al Gore, Sr.). Democrats tended to be very racist until Johnson reluctantly signed the Civil Rights Act, and then he vowed to gain the black vote (though he used the "N" word in one instance) by giving them gifts from the treasury to earn their loyalty. . . which became The Great Society. In other words, the liberal Democrats bought the black vote with welfare payments. Prior to that, blacks were usually Republicans. The Voting Rights Act is an unconstitutional law which establishes preferential treatment of some States over other States. So much for the liberal idea of equality and equal treatment.

Liberal Democrats did create Social Security, which is actually unconstitutional. There is no expressly enumerated authority in the Constitution for the Federal Government to administer such a program. However, it would have worked fine if the money in the Social Security program remained separated from the general fund. As liberals always do, in an effort to expand the government they always seek more revenue, and raided the Social Security fund so that they could use the money for other liberal policies. The raiding of the Social Security fund is what ultimately placed it at risk, and is leading the program to ultimate failure.

Ending segregation eventually became a policy supported by both sides, though originally most Democrats opposed it. However, it was the liberal left's idea to use military force to coerce the States into compliance. Using the military to force States into compliance was something the Founding Fathers feared. In fact, a standing army was the second most dangerous thing that was discussed. Jefferson remarked that a standing army that could be used against the States was something that must be met with force by the public (hence, the reason for the 2nd Amendment). In Jefferson's opinion, the only thing worse than a standing army is a private bank issuing the currency. . . you know, like the Federal Reserve.

I hope that answers your questions.

Blessings,

Douglas V. Gibbs
Director, Center for the Study of the U.S. Constitution
President, Constitution Association
Radio Host, KMET AM1490
Publisher, Table Top News
Author, "25 Myths of the United States Constitution," "The Basic Constitution,"
and "Silenced Screams: Abortion in a Virtuous Society"
www.douglasvgibbs.com
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.constitutionassociation.com
www.constitutioneducation.net
www.tabletopnews.net

No comments: