September 6, 2012 - Kerry Washington at the Democrat National Convention: "Today, there are people out there trying to take away rights that our mothers, our grandmothers, and our great-grandmothers fought for. Rights that we fought for. Our right to vote. Our right to choose. Our right to affordable quality education. Equal pay. Access to health care. We the people cannot let that happen."
Video at Fox News, Laura Ingraham discussed with Jasmyne Cannick, a politics and race commentator, Ms. Washington's extreme charges.
Kerry Washington's remarks are typical talking points by the liberals in the Democrat Party, and Ms. Cannick, in her discussion with Laura Ingraham, confirmed that Kerry Washington's radical views are not isolated to celebrity types like herself. In reality, the extreme claims by Washington stem from labels the democrats have been trying to lay on republicans for over a hundred years.
Notice how Ms. Washington ensures the audience understands she is talking about "rights". The problem is, anything the democrats want to shove into place eventually connects itself to some kind of "right" because the liberal left knows that "rights" are very important to the American people. The problem is, not everything is a right, and in most cases what the democrats call rights are often, actually, responsibilities.
"Rights" are God-given. Government does not give you your rights, nor should they be able to take them away. Your rights belong to you, and they are yours because of natural law. The Constitution also does not give you your rights. It simply enumerates some of them in an attempt to expressly inform the central government that the politicians are not allowed to compromise those rights.
There is no republican, including Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, attempting to take away anyone's rights.
In her charge that "there are those out there trying to take away rights," Kerry Washington lists mothers, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers as being the ones who fought for these rights. Therefore, she is establishing that these are gender-specific rights that apply to women.
--- The first right she lists in her silly rant is "Our right to vote."
Is there a republican out there working to take away the women's vote? Of course not. The claim stems from the fight over Voter I.D. laws various States have been working to pass, and the Obama administration have been trying to stop. The laws simply require that voters provide identification to prove they are the person listed on the voter rolls before they go behind the curtain to exercise a right that is only afforded to citizens of the United States. The Democrat National Convention required identification to be shown before participants were allowed into the building. Unions require identification to be shown before you are allowed to vote in a union meeting. You are required to show identification to cash a check, to buy alcohol, and to buy cigarettes.
Why is identification required to be shown often in our society?
Showing I.D. is a way to ensure that fraud is not perpetrated, or that laws are not being broken.
These are the same reasons for the push for Voter I.D. laws.
Often, what happens is illegal aliens, felons (about a dozen States uphold bans for some felons), unregistered voters, underage persons, and other people who do not have the right to vote, are voting using the names of people on the voting rolls. Then, when the actual person comes in to vote, or their by-mail vote is looked at, they are denied because according to the computers, they already voted. Sometimes, people vote more than once, going to various locations using other people's identities. And as we saw with ACORN, often people are registering a number of times and are not being caught. Voter I.D. laws would largely protect the vote against these various fraudulent methods.
In short, Voter I.D. laws are designed to stop voter fraud, and protect the vote by citizens.
Voter fraud is being supported by the democrats when they fight against Voter I.D. laws. To hide their desire to protect voter fraud, the democrats call the Voter I.D. laws racist. How are those laws racist, we may ask? Some liberals argue because there are blacks that don't register to vote, or want to show I.D., because they don't trust the government (which is an interesting claim by folks that support bigger government). Therefore, it is argued, the laws are an attempt to keep these blacks from voting. The other argument, which they will not make vocally, is that they don't want illegal aliens to be kept from voting fraudulently.
If someone is not willing to register, should they be allowed to vote? It is a simple requirement in place for the purpose of ensuring only citizens are voting. Surely, such a protection against fraud is necessary considering how much voter fraud we have seen in recent elections.
In short, republicans are not trying to deny the right to vote. Republicans are working to protect the right to vote, by ensuring that only the citizen listed on the rolls is the one providing his or her vote.
--- Kerry Washington's next right she claims a Romney presidency will take away was "Our right to choose."
This charge obviously refers to abortion, though I am sure contraception was also one of her considerations when the words flitted past her lips. In other words, Ms. Washington is referring to the liberal's claim that the GOP is waging a war on women.
When it comes to abortion, the claim that a woman has a right to end the life of her unborn baby is akin, in the eyes of conservatives, to something as ridiculous as if women decided they should have the right to choose to murder their husbands. The majority of republicans see abortion as America's genocide. Most republicans believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but not for the purpose of making abortion illegal nationwide as the democrats claim. Roe v. Wade was an example of a federal court legislating from the bench, and on top of that, overturning a State law on an issue that, from a Constitutional point of view, is a State authority, not a federal one.
In other words, republicans want the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade ruling to be overturned so that the States can choose individually where they stand on abortion. Of course, pro-life individuals would pray that all States outlaw the barbaric practice, but these people are also well aware that as a State issue, some States may legalize abortion, while others will outlaw it. In other words, with the federal government removed from the equation, more than likely the States will not be uniform in their handling of the abortion issue.
Republicans don't want to take away a woman's ability to murder her children, but instead desire to return the issue to the States where the power legally belongs.
Once again, of course pro-life individuals hope that abortion would be made illegal by each State in such a scenario. This desire, however, has nothing to do with "rights of women," and everything to do with the "rights of children to live."
Kerry Washington, in her "Our right to choose" comment, was probably also referring to the democrat claim that republicans want to take away the "right to contraception."
First of all, abortion is not contraception, and should not be included in that discussion. Second, there is no republican wishing to outlaw contraception. The argument is actually regarding religious freedoms.
Sandra Fluke is the poster child for the democrats on this issue. The whole stink arose when it was revealed that the federal health care law requires all insurance companies to pay for contraceptives (including the abortion pill). The claim is that people have a right to free contraception, and Sandra Fluke stepped up to argue that she deserved free contraception and by not allowing the government to force insurance companies to pay for contraception, the republicans were taking away Ms. Fluke's "right" to contraception.
If someone is choosing to have sex, and they want to use contraception, that isn't a "right" as the liberal democrats claim. Contraception, if you don't desire to become pregnant, or wish condoms to be used to lessen your chance to get a venereal disease, is a responsibility. So first of all the question should be, "Should the taxpayers be required to pay for someone's decision to have sex?"
The issue goes deeper, however. Catholics believe that contraceptives are immoral, and I suppose that belief ranks right up there with their feelings on abortion. Understand, not all Christians believe that way. But, it is the Catholic Church's religious right to be against contraceptives, so they should not be forced directly, or indirectly through their insurance, to offer free contraceptives to their employees at Catholic hospitals, schools, et cetera. Now, if the individuals that are employed by Catholic institutions want to personally purchase products considered to be contraception, that is their prerogative. If the church doesn't like it, that is between the individual and the church. But it is not for government to dictate to a church that they have to offer contraceptives. That kind of a loss of choice is a direct attack on religious liberties, which are a cornerstone to our American society.
--- Kerry Washington's next right claimed to be at risk if the republicans win the election is "Our right to affordable quality education."
Due to her list of mothers, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers fighting for "our" rights, it is assumed she is indicating that republicans want to take away a woman's ability to be educated. Does that mean she believes public schools will be male-only, if Romney wins in November? Are colleges going to outlaw women attending their campuses? Does she believe financial aid will be offered to men, but not women?
Of course, what she is suggesting is completely ridiculous.
Let's look at the statement from a more general point of view, though. Let's say she was referring to education for all.
Republicans believe that government spending is too high and must be cut. Whenever spending cuts are on the table, often federal funding for education is considered for a reduction. With her statement, I believe Ms. Washington is claiming that Romney and gang will simply cut back federal spending for education, and in the end, that means those without the economic means to do it on their own will wind up losing their chance to go to college, while public schools in poorer areas will also lose federal funding.
First of all, education is not a right. If you want to pursue an education, then it is up to you to pursue it. Yes, for some people that comes easier than to others. That is simply a fact of life, and should serve as a driving factor that would make some people more determined to accomplish their education goals.
Though most republicans don't realize this, in reality it is unconstitutional for the federal government to fund education. That is a local responsibility. When the federal government funds education, they use that fact as an excuse to influence what is taught. As a result, education has become anything but. In other words, rather than an education, students receive lessons on the liberal agenda.
The reason democrats defend education like they do has nothing to do with education, and everything to do with their desire that the education system produce good little liberals.
Personally, I don't think a Romney Presidency is going to change the education system by much. Though he is a republican, he is a northeastern republican, which means on some issues Mitt Romney is quite the moderate. Education, I believe, is one of those issues. In fact, the claim that Romney and Ryan would “gut” Pell Grants for lower-income college students, for example, is false. Paul Ryan's budget, which would probably serve as a model for the Romney/Ryan plan as it pertains to education, calls only for “limiting the growth” of spending for Pell Grants. Additionally, Ryan has said the maximum grant of $5,550 would not be decreased.
The argument by liberals that we are losing ground in the world because we are not putting enough money into education is also a false argument. The more money we pump into education, the worse it is getting. Interestingly, the real vicious downward spiral of education in America began at about the same time Carter created the Department of Education. So, would it not seem reasonable to consider that the problem is not that there is not enough money, but that the federal government is involved?
In business, the best way to ensure you will be successful is if you model your business after successful models in the same industry. In other words, fashion your business after the successful companies in your kind of industry.
Should the same be true when it comes to education?
The public school system, and the public colleges, are a sad commentary when it comes to the education system in the United States. However, kids coming from private schools, and kids that are home-schooled, do much better than their public school counterparts in testing, and in their collegiate careers. The same goes for those who graduate from private colleges. When it comes to private schools and home schooled kids, the education that is producing better students with higher scores also comes at a lower price than the costs at the public schools being paid for by the taxpayers. Therefore, once again we are reminded that money is not the problem. Curriculum and discipline, I believe, are the keys.
As for the desire for Romney to cut funding to education, remember that Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin found a way to cut spending to education, while reducing the hold the teacher's union has on the system, and the result was improved scores, and no lost jobs for teachers, while not only balancing the budget, but creating a surplus.
In other words, it can be done, if the model functions on a conservative standard.
--- Equal pay was Kerry Washington's next point. Does she really believe that Romney and Ryan, along with a GOP dominated Congress, would do what they can to cut the pay of women through legislation? Are we Saudi Arabia?
In reality, in the United States the gap for women doing the same work as men and being paid differently is much less than it has been in history, and the gap is not entirely, or even mostly, the result of job discrimination.
Salary inequality is a worn out tactic, constituting a desperate attempt by democrats to create a non-existent narrative. In recent years, however, it is true that women's salaries have dropped. This reduction in women's pay have happened during Obama's presidency more than during any other recent presidency, and the unemployment rate for women is now in the double digits. Therefore, if there are problems when it comes to the salaries of women, it isn't due to republican sexism as we are being led to believe, but the result of President Obama's economic policies.
The claim by Kerry Washington is in reality a chop against women, because her claim that republicans want to take away the right of women to equal pay is to say that women are not capable of achieving these goals on their own - that they need government to manipulate the industry to ensure women get a fair shake.
Lastly, it is fascinating that all of this concern for women by the Democrat Party goes silent when republican women are attacked by the media, simply for having conservative views.
If the liberal left democrats really were about championing successful women, would they not have been thrilled about someone like Sarah Palin who was among the most popular State governors at the time she was chosen to be McCain's running-mate? What about Michelle Bachmann? She is a successful representative, and made a very good run for President during the primaries. Yet, rather than touting the success of one of their fellow women, these republican women were demonized for daring to not be liberal.
In the end, the democrats underestimate women, are not willing to give them enough credit, and when women do reach success, if they don't agree with the democrats politically, the successes are downplayed and the women are attacked politically.
--- Kerry Washington's final right on her list she believes a Romney presidency will take away from women is "Access to health care."
Words mean something.
Does Ms. Washington truly believe that republicans want to take away anyone's "access" to health care?
The democrats use the words "health care" on purpose, when in reality the issue has nothing to do with health care. By law hospitals must treat anyone that enters their emergency room. There is no denial to health care going on in this nation. What she means is access to government sponsored health insurance.
Democrats use the words "health care" because they want uninformed voters like ignorant little Kerry Washington to believe that republicans really want people to not be treated, that people will be denied care and bleed in the street, or die at the emergency room entrance as they are strong-armed out of the facility.
The federal health care law is a stepping stone towards single-payer health insurance. In other words, an elimination of the private health insurance industry, and for all health care to be paid for solely by the federal government.
Aside from the fact that, despite what any Supreme Court Justice may say, there is no authority expressly granted in the Constitution giving the federal government the power to have anything to do with health care, health insurance, or anything else that has anything to do with the medical industry, the democrats want the federal government to have full control over "health care," and they want you to believe that anyone that disagrees with them for any reason desires to "take way your right to affordable health care."
Ultimately, the health care issue comes down to "choice." Freedom equals choice. In other words, if you lose the allowance to make a choice as an individual, you have lost a freedom. The goal when it comes to the federal health care law is for government health care to be the only health care. We are told the insurance companies are evil, therefore, they must be eliminated (or at least heavily regulated). With the insurance companies gone, your only choice would then be the government choice. But, for the sake of argument, what if the "benevolent bureaucrats" of the federal government are replaced by not-so-benevolent folks? What if then the government's version of health care becomes poorly administered, and the government decides not to pay for everything? What if the quality of care goes south at the same time? Do you have a choice to leave it once the private industry is dismantled?
That loss of choice is not only a loss of a freedom, but puts us at the mercy of a federal government that, despite the liberal claim, is not as concerned about our welfare as they claim to be.
--- Kerry Washington wraps up her rant by saying, "We the people cannot let that happen."
By choosing the words "We the people," she is trying to connect what she is saying to the Constitution. After all, the first three words of the Preamble in the Constitution is "We the people," and when most folks think of the Constitution, especially the lefties, their first thought is about the Bill of Rights.
And remember, this was all about supposed rights.
Sadly, not only does Kerry Washington fail to have the slightest understanding of what the Constitution says, or what its original intent was, she did not use those words because she believes in the U.S. Constitution. She used those words to elicit an emotional reaction. That is how the liberal democrats play the game. All of Ms. Washington's points were designed to get the emotions boiling. Then, people react without thinking because their emotions tell them "it's the right thing to do."
Fear stirs the emotions, and that was Kerry Washington's goal. She used the politics of fear to try to sway voters towards making the Obama mistake all over again.
So, which do we want? Decisions based on the words of folks trying to manipulate us by ripping at our emotions? Or do we want to make our decisions based on facts, and well-thought-out conclusions?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Another good posting Doug. Thanks...
ReplyDelete