Ronald Reagan

Read Ronald Reagan’s executive order on immigration the GOP won’t talk about

President Ronald Reagan | AFP Photo/Mike Sargent

Raw Story

The following statement was made by then-President Ronald Reagan on July 30, 1981:

Our nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. No free and prosperous nation can by itself accommodate all those who seek a better life or flee persecution. We must share this responsibility with other countries.

The bipartisan select commission which reported this spring concluded that the Cuban influx to Florida made the United States sharply aware of the need for more effective immigration policies and the need for legislation to support those policies.

For these reasons, I asked the Attorney General last March to chair a Task Force on Immigration and Refugee Policy. We discussed the matter when President Lopez Portillo visited me last month, and we have carefully considered the views of our Mexican friends. In addition, the Attorney General has consulted with those concerned in Congress and in affected States and localities and with interested members of the public.

The Attorney General is undertaking administrative actions and submitting to Congress, on behalf of the administration, a legislative package, based on eight principles. These principles are designed to preserve our tradition of accepting foreigners to our shores, but to accept them in a controlled and orderly fashion:

  • We shall continue America’s tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries. We shall also, with other countries, continue to share in the responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression.
  • At the same time, we must ensure adequate legal authority to establish control over immigration: to enable us, when sudden influxes of foreigners occur, to decide to whom we grant the status of refugee or asylee; to improve our border control; to expedite (consistent with fair procedures and our Constitution) return of those coming here illegally; to strengthen enforcement of our fair labor standards and laws; and to penalize those who would knowingly encourage violation of our laws. The steps we take to further these objectives, however, must also be consistent with our values of individual privacy and freedom.
  • We have a special relationship with our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Our immigration policy should reflect this relationship.
  • We must also recognize that both the United States and Mexico have historically benefited from Mexicans obtaining employment in the United States. A number of our States have special labor needs, and we should take these into account.
  • Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.
  • We shall strive to distribute fairly, among the various localities of this country, the impacts of our national immigration and refugee policy, and we shall improve the capability of those agencies of the Federal Government which deal with these matters.
  • We shall seek new ways to integrate refugees into our society without nurturing their dependence on welfare.
  • Finally, we recognize that immigration and refugee problems require international solutions. We will seek greater international cooperation in the resettlement of refugees and, in the Caribbean Basin, international cooperation to assist accelerated economic development to reduce motivations for illegal immigration.

Immigration and refugee policy is an important part of our past and fundamental to our national interest. With the help of the Congress and the American people, we will work towards a new and realistic immigration policy, a policy that will be fair to our own citizens while it opens the door of opportunity for those who seek a new life in America.

H/t: D.B.

 

GOP Lie Debunked: Every President Since Eisenhower Used Executive Authority On Immigration

obama-big-point

Obama – Immigration

PoliticusUSA

For any American who has been conscious over the past six years, the idea of a Republican, or any iteration thereof, displaying tenderness, compassion, and empathy for people is laughable if not a complete fallacy; especially people who are suffering or in some way distressed. If anything, Republicans and their cohorts are inhumane by choice, and next to being hypocrites, rivals their racism as major defining characteristics of the entire conservative movement. Since President Obama announced he was fed up, like a majority of Americans, waiting for Republicans to take action on immigration reform, Republicans revealed, in grand fashion, their inhumanity, racism, and hypocrisy in their outrage over executive action on immigration.

Even before the President threatened he would use his authority as head of the Executive branch to “reform” immigration enforcement policy if Republicans failed to act, all manner of conservatives called such a move unprecedented, outrageous, and a gross display of Presidential overreach. They have since threatened impeachment, a lawsuit, eliminating executive authority for President Obama, and force the government to shutdown if the African American President dared do what Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush did in regards to immigration; use executive authority in a humane act towards immigrants.

Now, Republicans will never admit it, but their man-turned-god, Ronald Reagan, was the first Republican president to take executive action on immigration to put a screeching halt to his party’s inhumane treatment of Hispanic immigrants. In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed the what would prove to be the last comprehensive immigration reform bill to pass Congress. The legislation, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) granted up to 3 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship if they had lived in America “continuously” since 1982, or four years; nearly identical to President Obama’s proposal for comprehensive immigration reform Ted Cruz will not let House Republicans debate or vote on.

There was a problem with the new immigration law that bothered Reagan’s conscience because it did not include spouses and children of the 3 million immigrants the law affected. At the time, the Senate Judiciary Committee said that the “families of legalized aliens would be required to ‘wait in line.” This abomination of “split-eligibility families” also wore on the consciences of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) that drove them to condemn the separation of families that conflicted with Reagan’s so-called “pro-family” bona fides.

A year later some members of Congress offered up a legislative fix to include the now-legal immigrants’ family members in the IRCA, but it failed. So when Congress failed to do the humane thing and keep immigrant families intact, Ronald Reagan took it upon himself and changed the policy under executive authority, and “prosecutorial discretion” to extend the protections against deportations. Not surprisingly,  there was no outrage, claims of presidential overreach, threats of impeachment, lawsuits against Reagan, government shutdowns, or summary elimination of his use of executive orders. Current Republicans are well-aware of Reagan’s executive action but it was a different story ‘then’ because that president was a white man.

The next white Republican president, George H.W. Bush, took nearly identical executive action in 1989 as his predecessor Reagan without the approval, or input, of Congress. The first President Bush agreed with Reagan, and President Obama, that immigration law “would be enforced humanely” without tearing immigrant families apart. Like his white Republican predecessor, the elder Bush’s executive actions were not unprecedented, outrageous, presidential overreach, and he was not threatened with a lawsuit, government shutdown, impeachment, or summary loss of his executive authority through the budget process.

The next white Republican president, and another less-intelligent but no less compassionate Bush, George W, in 2008 signed into law a humane immigration reauthorization to protect immigrant children from three Central American nations. The bill was co-sponsored by Republicans Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, and Chris Smith of New Jersey. The children get a fair hearing, are placed with family members or appropriate homes to ensure they are not victims of human trafficking.

This is the Bush-Republican law President Obama is following to that has Republicans apoplectic and summoning armed militias, and national guard units to the Southern border.  There were no threats to impeach, sue, shutdown the government, or abolish Bush’s executive authority. In fact, Bush had said a couple of years earlier that “We’re a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways.” The only difference between what President Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush did in taking humane action on immigration is that one of those four U.S. presidents (the Black one) is taking unprecedented action and abusing executive authority. That one President is also being threatened with a congressional lawsuit, impeachment, a government shutdown, and loss of executive authority for the high crime and misdemeanor of taking the same humane executive action as three white Republican presidents.

It is noteworthy that every president since and including Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower has taken executive action on immigration without facing threats of lawsuits, government shutdowns, impeachment, or loss of executive authority; because they were white. No American dare ever say the current crop of Republicans, teabaggers, conservative pundits, and conservative media are not inherently racist, hypocritical, and living representations of vile inhumanity. Fortunately, history will portray them for exactly what they are; hypocritical and inhumane racists who hate immigrants just as much as they hate the African American man occupying the White House.

John Oliver presents: The enduring influence of Ayn Rand, ‘selfish *sshole’

Ayn Rand via Last Week Tonight (YouTube)

The Raw Story

On HBO’s Last Week Tonight, host John Oliver presented an informational segment on the enduring influence of libertarian writer Ayn Rand on politicians and captains of industry, asking, ‘Ayn Rand: How is she still a thing?”

Noting that Rand is popular with conservatives, despite the inability by many of them to pronounce her name correctly, the narrator explains that Rand became famous for her philosophy of objectivism, “which is a nice way of saying, ‘being a selfish asshole’.”

Rand is shown in interview saying, “Why is it good to want others to be happy? You can make others happy and when and if those others mean something to you selfishly.”

Rand is noted for her two novels, Atlas Shrugged and The Foutainhead, “Stories about rapey heroes complaining about how no one appreciates their true genius.”

“Ayn Rand has always been popular with teenagers,” we are informed. “But she is supposed to be something you grow out of, like ska music or handjobs.”

The segment notes that Rand is still popular with “a certain type of adult,” using tech billionaire Mark Cuban as an example, pointing out Cuban’s “287-foot yacht is named ‘Fountainhead,’ because sometimes having a 287-foot yacht just isn’t enough to warn people you’re a douchebag.”

Partucular attention is paid to Rand’s popularity with conservative politicians and commentators such as former vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and TV host Glenn Beck, noting that her views on subjects near and dear to conservative hearts — such as abortion, atheism, and love of Ronald Reagan — are in direct conflict with mainstream conservative thinking.

The segment concludes by wondering why people still love Rand when there are so many “other advocates for selfishness they could choose, like Donald Trump, or Drake, and basically anyone on Bravo.”

Watch the video below, via Crooks & Liars:

http://embed.crooksandliars.com/embed/8z054InY

Thank You, Robin Williams, the Comedy Giant Who Made Us Think

Ap590330286650

Robin Williams at the 6th Annual Stand Up For Heroes benefit concert for veterans in 2012 | IMAGE: CHARLES SYKES/INVISION/AP/ASSOCIATED PRESS

I’m still processing the loss of this giant of a man/entertainer (along with countless others, no doubt)…

Mashable – Chris Taylor

It was the smile that did it — that toasty-warm, utterly genuine smile. Watching it spread across his face, impossibly wide, bringing out the rose in his cheeks, setting those blue eyes to twinkling, was one of the greatest joys of watching Robin Williams perform.

When Williams smiled, you couldn’t help but smile, too. That his jokes were likely to make you bust a gut — this was icing on the cake. But the smile was always there, bursting out even in his serious work. Look at John Keating in Dead Poet’s Society: filled to the brim with love of poetry and pride in his freethinking pupils, smiling even when he is forced out of his classroom.

There’s a moment at the end of Bobby McFerrin’s music video for Don’t Worry, Be Happy, which starred Williams, in which he looks straight at camera and lifts the sides of his mouth, very slowly, until his whole face is beaming. It’s no shame to McFerrin to say that this one moment of infectious joy from Williams conveyed the message of the song far better than the song itself.

Now that smile is gone forever, and it’s almost too much to bear. As was the case with many of the greatest comedians, that smile could mask depths of despair, depression and doubt that the audience, rollicked with laughter, could hardly begin to guess at.

In her statement about her husband’s untimely death, Williams’ wife Susan Schneider begged us to focus on “the countless moments of joy and laughter he gave to millions.” But it’s no disservice to also remember that much of Williams’ tremendously diverse body of work seemed driven by a certain dissatisfaction, a restlessness, a desire to find out what ills of mankind — and of his own — his talents could address next.

Hilarity, sadness, anger, thoughtfulness, all of it turning on a dime: these were all part of the whole Robin Williams’ package. Turned out we loved it all, the whole mercurial grab-bag. If he had left us a century from now, it would have been too soon.

Many comedians would have been happy to be where Williams found himself in the late 1970s and early 1980s: the star of a sitcom, Mork and Mindy, that was wildly popular and accessible to kids and adults alike. Spun off from Happy Days on the strength of his performance, written entirely around his improvisation, Mork was a plum role for a thoughtful comedian. It required him, week after week, to catalog the strange behaviors of mankind, even if he did have to bust out a catchphrase every now and then and put up with canned studio laughter.

For Williams, it wasn’t enough, and thank goodness.

Many comedians would also have been happy to stay on the road, touring with one of the greatest stand-up routines in history. To watch Williams’ HBO special A Night at the Met (1986) is to see a comedian at the absolute height of his powers.

Thejokes and impressions come so thick and fast you’d be advised to have an asthma inhaler to hand, even now. Though the subject matter includes Ronald Reagan, South African apartheid and Dr. Ruth’s sex advice, the performance has not aged one bit. Nobody has ever done madcap scattershot stand-up better than this. No one is ever likely to.

Still Williams wasn’t satisfied, and thank goodness.

His movie career blossomed when he refused to be limited to wacky comedy roles like Popeye (1980). With The World According to Garp (1982) and Moscow on the Hudson (1984), he tentatively branched out into the type of movie generally known as comedy-drama, but better described as uncategorizable — like life itself.

Good Morning Vietnam (1987), which garnered Williams his first Oscar nod, was a classic of that genre. In playing a desperately funny man who was desperately angry about the hypocrisy of war, Williams certainly made some viewers uncomfortable when the jokes vanished towards the end of the film. As for the rest of us, dare I say the majority, he made us think. DJ Adrian Cronauer may have sounded a little like Mork on the air, but Mork this was certainly not.

But it was Dead Poets’ Society (1989), Williams’ first fully serious role, that really made us think. The film introduced me to Walt Whitman and the concept of carpe diem; it opened my eyes to the possibilities of education; it was my first hint that not all teachers were rote-learning sadists.

Indeed, if there is to be a national day of mourning for Robin Williams (and I hope there is), let us all stand on desks and recite “O Captain, My Captain.”

The serious roles came fast from there. Williams’ stunning turn as a damaged homeless man in Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King (1991) not only earned him his second Oscar nod, but also made us think differently about homelessness and mental health (plus, it taught us how to turn champagne tops into miniature chairs). But just when you thought he was getting too serious, he surprised you with Aladdin (1992) and Mrs. Doubtfire (1993).

Sometimes the roles got too serious, too intense, too worthy. Though I love the whole concept and the special effects of What Dreams May Come, Williams’ husband, scouring heaven for his late wife, was a one-note character. But for every Bicentennial Man there was a Birdcage. We may have rolled our eyes at Jakob the Liar, but he blew us away in Good Will Hunting, for which he was finally — almost criminally late — awarded an Oscar.

Actors would have killed for just one of these roles. Comedians would tie themselves in knots to get one-tenth of the laughter. This was a life well lived, an astonishing array of characters and thoughts investigated and propagated. Every one of them was filled to the brim with joy and passion, laughter and tears, with sheer soul.

We can only thank this man, this legend, for his prolificness, for sharing so many of those smiles. Though the original may be gone forever, the memories of that infectious grin will live on forever.

The White House Is Exhausted

The National Journal

The past week has not been kind to Obama. But could it be a turning point for his presidency?

Day 1,956 of his presidency was not too kind to President Obama. Having to announce within a four-hour span that he had lost both an embattled Cabinet secretary and his chief spokesman, Obama looked Friday like a man gamely trying to get a stalled administration back on track. He entered the week still stuck with low approval ratings and facing fierce criticism of his policies both at home and abroad. On Wednesday, he tried to chart a new course internationally with a West Point speech setting out a new foreign policy. On Thursday, he dealt with widespread criticism of the speech. On Friday, he tried to dig himself out of a troubling Veterans Administration scandal by jettisoning VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, a man he thought was being unfairly blamed for the problems. Then he accepted the resignation of press secretary Jay Carney, the longtime public face of his White House. It is a cliché to note the aging of our presidents, to count the gray hairs sprouting with each passing day in the Oval Office. But Obama does look weary. And he is at a point in his administration when his agenda seems tired and many of his appointees are exhausted. In that regard, he is no different than every second-term president since World War II. For all of them, the sixth year was troubled and filled with administration scandals, political challenges and executive turnover. A second-term president has to figure out how to govern effectively without his original band of hardy loyalists. Most of them have fled government at this point. When Obama looks around his White House these days, he sees Valerie Jarrett and Dan Pfeiffer and only a handful of other aides who were with him on that frigid day in 2007 in Springfield when he announced his long-shot candidacy. Only three of Obama’s original 16 Cabinet officers remain—Eric Holder at Justice, Tom Vilsack at Agriculture, and Arne Duncan at Education. He is on his fourth budget director, his fifth chief of staff, and, soon, his third press secretary.
The turnover at press secretary is the least surprising. Few appreciate what a tough job that is. Marlin Fitzwater, who served Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said that the biggest shock to him when he became press secretary was how hard he had to dig to get the facts and to make sure what he said publicly was accurate. As Carney was later to learn, most of that work is done off-camera, fighting to be included in the inner circle. The two-term presidents since Dwight Eisenhower have all worn out their press secretaries. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush each had four, and Ronald Reagan had three. Lyndon Johnson, who served less than two full terms, had four. Each had to struggle with the reality that the public starts to tune out a president in his second term. This is a highly personal office. A president is the only politician whom voters, in effect, invite into their homes and watch on television every night. But in a sixth year, people tend to believe they have pretty much heard it all from the president and about all they hear seems to be bad news. In making his announcements on Shinseki and Carney, the president did all the things expected of him in the circumstances, projecting determination and even smiling bravely. But what he didn’t do was signal convincingly that he knows how to provide a way forward for the 966 days he has left in the White House. How he responds now will determine whether this week is regarded as a low point or a critical turning point for his presidency.

Paul Ryan’s race flap even worse than it looks

Paul Ryan's race flap even worse than it looks

Paul Ryan (Credit: AP/Jacquelyn Martin)

Salon

The notion that Ryan was dog-whistling to racists is actually the best-case scenario. Here’s the scary alternative

I spent a depressing amount of time this weekend trying to think up a scenario in which someone might say the following without being motivated, to at least some degree, by malign intent.

“We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.”

What I came up with was strained and unlikely, but troubling if true.

In case you slept through last week, the person who said this was congressman and one-time GOP vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan. It ignited a fairly heated debate over whether he was intentionally trafficking in racial code words to pander to white conservatives. Ryan claims he spoke inarticulately and was thus misunderstood. For proponents of the dog-whistle theory, the fact that Ryan cited Charles Murray, author of “The Bell Curve,” was the smoking gun.

For my part, I don’t think they need a smoking gun, because Occam’s razor does all the dirty work. You can take Murray completely out of the equation and the likelihood that Ryan wasn’t at least subconsciously playing to the prejudices of resentful or racist whites is pretty low.

But let’s assume Ryan’s playing it straight, and his defenders, like Slate’s Dave Weigel, are correct when they argue that this is just how Ryan and other conservatives “think about welfare’s effects on social norms.” If that’s true, it’s actually a bigger problem for the right. If Ryan was even a little bit aware of how people would interpret his remarks, or understood the reaction to them when it exploded online, we could just say that some conservatives want to play the Southern Strategy at least one more round, and leave it at that. Close the book on this controversy, without drawing any larger conclusions about the state of conservative self-deception.

But if Ryan genuinely stumbled heedless into a racial tinderbox then it suggests he, and most likely many other conservatives, has fully internalized a framing of social politics that wasdeliberately crafted to appeal to white racists without regressing to the uncouth language of explicit racism, and written its origins out of the history. If that’s the case it augurs poorly for those in the movement who are trying to broaden the Republican Party’s appeal, because it’s easier to convince people to abandon a poor tactic than to unlearn rotten ideology.



In his 1984 book “The Two Party South,” political scientist Alexander Lamis quoted a conservative operative later revealed to be Ronald Reagan confidant Lee Atwater, who traced the evolution.

”You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N—-r, n—-r, n—-r,’” Atwater explained. “By 1968 you can’t say ‘n—-r’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘N—-r, n—-r.”’

Treating intergenerational laziness of inner-city men as established truth, and bemoaning the ways social spending programs supposedly nurture that “culture,” blends seamlessly into Atwater’s framework.

Weigel interprets the fact that Charles Murray has lately softened his claims as exculpation for Ryan and other conservatives who cite him. But Murray’s just following a social Darwinist’s rendition of the trajectory Atwater traced. I suspect both men are wiser to their intentions than their apologists give them credit for. There are ways to promote conservative social policies that aren’t remotely racialized — they just don’t ignite the passions of resentful white people in a politically meaningful way. If I’m wrong, though, conservatives better hope the party doesn’t nominate Ryan or any like-minded thinkers in 2016.

A quick point of trivia: I first learned about Atwater’s comments years ago, in this New York Times column by Bob Herbert questioning why anybody was surprised to hear GOP education secretary-cum-talk radio host Bill Bennett say, “I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”

Guess whose program Ryan was a guest on when he stepped in it last week?

Meet The Five Most Overrated American Presidents

Think Progress

Americans love to rank things. So lists of the best presidents in American history frequently allow historians to duke it out over whether George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Delano Roosevelt should be remembered as our nation’s greatest leader. Meanwhile, recently departed President George W. Bush already ranks close to the top in polls of historians asked to rank the worst president in American history. Rather than wade into the thicket of which men best or worst served their nation during their time in the White House, we would like to offer a different kind of list. Here are five presidents who routinely rank far above what their performance in office deserves in surveys considering presidential performance:

1. Andrew Jackson


The Democratic Party frequently hosts Jefferson-Jackson Dinners honoring President Jackson and another historic president who is also on this list. It should reconsider this practice, as Jackson’s policy towards Native Americans was only a few steps shy of genocidal. In theory, President Jackson’s Indian Removal Act, permitted him to negotiate voluntary agreements with tribes in the southeastern United States encouraging them to exchange their eastern lands for new territory in the west. In reality, Jackson’s forced migration policy was anything but voluntary. By his last year in office, 46,000 Native Americans were removed from their lands, opening up tens of millions of acres to white settlement and slave-worked agriculture. As many as a quarter of the southeastern Cherokee people died of cold, hunger, and disease in the Trail of Tears march that began shortly after Jackson left the White House.

Beyond his indefensible treatment of Native Americans, it is ironic that Jackson’s face is now featured on the $20 bill, because he proved such a poor steward of the nation’s economy. Jackson waged war against the Second Bank of the United States, an early predecessor to the modern Federal Reserve, and he required federal land sales to be conducted in gold or silver. Historians disagree somewhat about the role Jackson’s retrograde monetary policy played in triggering the economic depression that began shortly after he left office. But there’s little doubt that, by taking away America’s ability to centrally manage its money supply, Jackson deprived his nation of a key tool it would need to fight off the looming depression. America would not have a central bank for most of a century after Jackson left office, and we paid the price for this fact. Today, banking panics are viewed as rare, disastrous economic events. Yet in the years that America had no central bank, according to Harvard Business Professor David Moss, we experienced more bank panics than any other industrialized nation — such panics occurred in 1837, 1839, 1857, 1873 and 1907.

2. Ronald Reagan


President Reagan ushered in the misguided era of massive deficitsbloated military spendingand tax cuts for the very rich that America still struggles to this day to put to an end. Yet Reagan wrongly receives credit for the economic boom that began a few years into his presidency due to events entirely outside of his control. When Reagan took office, America faced double-digit inflation rates matched with a sharp spike in unemployment. Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, a Carter appointee, chose to break the first problem by exacerbating the second — driving up interest rates in a successful effort to break inflation. When Volcker finally took the brakes off the economy and ended the recession he created by lowering interest rates back to more normal levels, housing and auto sales took off, the economy boomed back to life, and Reagan rode the undeserved credit to a second term in the White House.

As Rosalynn Carter once said, Reagan made America “comfortable with our prejudices.”Reagan infamously began the final leg of his presidential campaign by traveling to the Mississippi town where three civil rights workers were brutally murdered and proclaiming “I believe in states’ rights.” Reagan ignored the AIDS crisis for years. He gave us Justice Antonin Scalia. And he tried and failed to appoint another justice who once claimed that the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters is rooted in a “principle of unsurpassed ugliness.”

3. Woodrow Wilson


Unlike the first two names on this list, Wilson presided over a far more mixed legacy as President of the United States. Wilson created the Federal Reserve. He expanded federal anti-trust law. He signed a law effectively banning child labor, although it would eventually be struck down by a conservative Supreme Court. And his League of Nations formed much of the framework for the modern UN — even if Wilson could not convince his own nation to join the League.

Yet, for all of his accomplishments, Wilson belongs on this list because of his inexcusable record on civil liberties. Wilson’s Espionage Act criminalized the mere act of presenting conscripted men with arguments regarding why they should avoid the draft. And his Sedition Act went even further, banning “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the U.S. government, military or flag. Wilson was a racist who signed laws banning interracial marriage in the District of Columbia and segregating DC’s streetcars. And his elevation ofJustice James Clark McReynolds ranks among the worst appointments to the Supreme Court in American history.

4. Thomas Jefferson


Like Wilson, Jefferson’s legacy is far more mixed than malign, as no one can question the significance of his contributions to American history — beginning with the document thatdeclared us an independent nation. Yet Jefferson’s most important accomplishment as president was also the most important flip-flop in American history. During the Washington Administration, Jefferson led a losing faction seeking to constrain federal power to foster the nation’s economic growth far beyond the limits contained in the Constitution’s text. This narrow vision of the Constitution initially led him to oppose the Louisiana Purchase as president, although he eventually relented and doubled the size of the United States in the process.

Nevertheless, Jefferson’s initial view of the Constitution lives on in the modern tenther movement which would declare everything from Medicare to Social Security to national child labor laws unconstitutional, and it occasionally inspired future presidents to stand athwart American progress. President James Buchanan, who is widely viewed as among our nation’s worst presidents, raised Jeffersonian constitutional objections when he vetoed land grant colleges. President Abraham Lincoln, considered one of America’s greatest presidents, would later sign the same bill Buchanan blocked.

Additionally, while Jefferson may have written that “all men are created equal,” his actions did not match his words. Our third president held hundreds of slaves over the course of his lifetime, freed only a handful upon his death, and often engaged in the unspeakably cruel practice of punishing slaves by selling them away from their families and friends.

5. James Madison


Madison was another man of accomplishment who belongs on this list despite his tremendous contributions to his nation and to the world. Madison’s Bill of Rights formed the backbone of America’s single greatest export: the idea that a nation’s charter should embrace fundamental civil rights that cannot be abridged by government — although these rights would not be understood as limits on state governments until many years after Madison’s death. Like Jefferson, however, Madison also believed that we should ignore the text of the Constitution and impose limits on Congress’ power that, if they existed today, would make Medicare, Social Security and much of America’s educational infrastructure impossible. As president, Madison vetoed a bill to create new roads and canals, claiming that it violated the Constitution.

To his credit, however, Madison would oppose the efforts by modern conservatives to revive the least appealing aspects of his constitutional vision. Although Madison opposed the creation of the First Bank of the United States on constitutional grounds, he signed the bill creating the Second Bank, noting that “Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and (most important, by failing to use their amending power) the American people had for two decades accepted” the First Bank. Unlike so many of today’s conservatives, Madison understood that he had no right to toss out decades of well-settled constitutional law just to satisfy his own pet theory.

The Slow Motion Lynching of President Barack Obama

The following essay is by author,  Frank Schaeffer.  When I started this blog I mentioned him here.

The essay is compelling and thought-provoking yet may be uncomfortable for some…

Patheos

I’ve watched liberal and right-wing commentators alike blame the president for being lynched. They say “he’s not reaching out enough” or “he’s too cold.” It’s the equivalent of assuming that the black man being beaten by a couple of thug cops must have “done something.”

I am a white privileged well off sixty-one-year-old former Republican religious right-wing activist who changed his mind about religion and politics long ago.  The New York Times profiled my change of heart saying that to my former friends I’m considered a “traitorous prince” since my religious right family was once thought of as “evangelical royalty.”

I’ve just spent the last 7 years writing over 200,000 words in blogs and articles in support of President Obama. My blogs on the Huffington Post alone would add up to a book in support of the President of over 300 pages. Weirdly, I just realized that through all my writing, this has been the first time in my life I’ve personally gone to bat for a black man. It just happens that he’s a president. But my emotional stake in his life is now personal.

So I’ve changed from a white guy who used to read news about some black man getting shot or beaten by cops or stand-you-ground types who assumed that the black man must have “done something,” to a white guy who figures that the black man was probably getting lynched. I’ve changed ideology but I’ve also changed my gut intuitive reactions.

I’ve changed because if this country will lynch a brilliant, civil, kind, humble, compassionate, moderate, articulate, black intellectual we’re lucky enough to have in the White house, we’ll lynch anyone. What chance does an anonymous black man pulled over in a traffic stop have of fair treatment when the former editor of the Harvard Law review is being lynched?

One famous liberal commentator wrote a book on how Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil could disagree and still be friends. Why, he asked on many a TV show promoting his book, couldn’t President Obama be like that? Because, I yelled at the screen, those two men were white Irish Americans and part of a ruling white oligarchy.

Because, I yelled, you might as well ask why Nelson Mandela didn’t talk his jailers in South Africa into seeing reason.

Because, I yelled, the president is black and anytime he’s reached out he’s pulled back a bloody stump.

Because, I yelled, liberal white commentators have been as bothered by a black man in the White House, who’s smarter than they are as much as right-wing bigots have been bothered.

Because, I yelled, President Obama has been lied about, attacked, vilified, and disrespected since Day One.

Because, I yelled, this country may have passed laws so blacks can vote and eat in a white man’s world, but in our hearts are stuck in a place more like 1952 than 2013.

We’ve been watching a slow motion lynching of a moderate brilliant family man, a father, and faithful loving husband. The Republicans in Congress are so dedicated to lynching the President they’ve been willing to shut down our government and risk the future of our economy.

Evangelical “Christians” have been so stuck on putting a rope around this black man’s neck they have denied their faith and been the backbone of the lying Tea Party who spawned the so-called “birthers” and the rest of the white trash driving our news cycle.

Roman Catholic bishops have denied their tradition of helping the poor and been so eager to destroy this president they aligned themselves with white Evangelical bigots and tried to stop health care reform, all because the President wants to give women a fair shake. The bishops even called him “anti-religious” because the president wants insurers to pay for contraception.

This is a slow motion lynching of a black man who is so moderate and centrist that he favored Wall Street enough so that the Left is all over his case. He’s so “radical” and “leftist” and “hates America” so much, and “coddles our enemies” so much, that he killed bin Laden and used drones to kill our enemies. He’s such a “socialist” that he presided over the revival of our economy from the worst recession since the Great Depression, and led us to the present day stock market boom. President Obama is such a “Marxist” that he tried to give insurance – not socialized medicine – to all Americans.

President Obama never answered back to the disgusting southern right-wing rubes from the former slave states that have tried to belittle, mock and stymie his presidency shouting “You lie” in a million ways, while actually meaning “You lie, nigger!”

And did the “enlightened” Left have President Obama’s back? No. They carp about his “failure” because a website was slow to get running! The white privileged “progressive” few were too busy blaming him for getting lynched and telling him how to craft policy while a rope was put around his neck again and again and tightened with each filibuster, each lie told on the radio, each self-defeating scorched earth action to stop him from succeeding, even if it meant taking us all down too.

We don’t like to admit who we really are. So we make excuses and blame the victim. I’m ashamed for our country, a country my Marine son fought for in two stupid wars this president has been working to end. And I’m still rooting for the best, smartest and most decent man who has been president in my lifetime. I pray for his health care reform to succeed. I pray for his immigration reform to succeed. I’m amazed he’s gotten anything done, but he has, even while the lynch mob gathers again and again to laugh, lie and spit and claim he’s “failed” while “liberal” commentators nod sagely and talk about his “mistakes” as if President Obama has been playing on a level playing field.

We have a lot to do to heal this country of the damage done by the right-wing Obama-haters and the Left wing know-it-all pundits who did not have his back because they don’t have the honesty to admit that we still live in a backward racist swamp of prejudice. Maybe in 50 years our country will be worthy of someone of President Obama’s forbearance again. For now we can just hope that the hatred of the Republican Party for our first black president doesn’t drive us to the brink of ruin again as they strip food from the mouths of the poor, and try to get people to not sign up for health care, just to get even with the black man they swore to destroy from the day that “uppity” black who is smarter than all of them put together took the oath of office.

God bless you Mr. President. I’m praying for you. I am so very sorry. But take heart, in the long reach of history the door you opened will stay open for the millions of Americans of all colors, genders and beliefs who will follow you. They will bless your name. So will history.

H/t: DB

Michael Eric Dyson rips Mary Matalin for ‘amnesia’ after Cheney branded Mandela a terrorist

The Raw Story

Georgetown University Professor Michael Eric Dyson lashed out at conservative strategist Mary Matalin, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, after she defended her one-time boss for branding Nelson Mandela a terrorist in the 1980s.

Following Mandela’s death last week, several media outlets pointed out that Cheney had not only voted against sanctions on South Africa’s apartheid government, but had also maintained that he didn’t have “any problems” with the vote as late as 2000.

On ABC’s This Week, Dyson observed that “conservatives get a little bit of amnesia when they forget that Dick Cheney wanted to put him on the terrorist list and insisted that he stayed there, that Ronald Reagan resisted — he said on the one hand that Nelson Mandela should be released, but he depended upon a white supremacist government to reform itself within.”

“When will you ever get tired of beating up on Darth Vader, who said Nelson Mandela is a good man,” Matalin shot back, referring to Cheney. “It was a complicated situation, the ANC was a terrorist organization at one point. He has since said wonderful things about Nelson Mandela.”

“But when you say about excusing Darth Vader, so to speak, this is not just about rhetoric,” Dyson insisted to the former Cheney aide. “This is about public policy that prevented the flourishing of ANC, and look, when they had the feet on the neck of Nelson Mandela and millions of black people in South Africa.”

Watch the video from ABC’s This Week, broadcast Dec. 8, 2013.

 

Maybe if Obama Had Sold Illegal Arms to Iran, Then Republicans Would Call Him a Hero

reagan-obama

Forward Progressives – 

Since the announcement of the temporary nuclear deal with Iran, Republicans have been outraged at the thought of using any sort of diplomacy when dealing with the situation.  And despite the fact that several of our biggest allies were involved in this agreement, Republicans are focusing all of their anger toward President Obama.

I know, you’re as shocked as I am.

But like with most things, this over the top outrage being displayed by many Republicans is filled with irony and complete hypocrisy.

After all, wasn’t their “conservative hero” Ronald Reagan the same guy who got caught selling illegal arms to Iran?  Oh, yeah—he did.  Iran-Contra was the willful act by the Reagan administration to sell arms to the Iranian government, despite Iran being the subject of an arms embargo.

Just imagine for a moment if instead of reaching a six-month agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, President Obama got caught illegally selling arms to the Iranian government.  The Republicans would be going out of their minds with anger and outrage.

Well, that’s exactly what Ronald Reagan did.  You know, the president many conservatives see as the greatest of all-time and a beacon of American values.

Mind you, Iran-Contra happened just five years from the Iran hostage crisis when fifty-two Americans were held hostage in Tehran for 444 days.

Again, just think about that for a second.  Imagine if fifty-two Americans were taken hostage inside Iran in 2009, then in 2014 the Obama administration gets caught selling arms illegally – to Iran. 

Republicans have talked impeachment because of the Affordable Care Act — could you imagine if Obama was caught selling illegal arms to Iran just five years removed from fifty-two Americans being held hostage inside Iranian borders?  Hell, look at how outraged they are because Obama worked with several other nations on a short-term plan to tackle Iran’s nuclear program.

Even after President Obama said this:

“It is in our national interest to watch for changes within Iran that might offer hope for an improved relationship. Until last year there was little to justify that hope. Indeed, we have bitter and enduring disagreements that persist today. At the heart of our quarrel has been Iran’s past sponsorship of international terrorism. Iranian policy has been devoted to expelling all Western influence from the Middle East. We cannot abide that because our interests in the Middle East are vital. At the same time, we seek no territory or special position in Iran. The Iranian revolution is a fact of history, but between American and Iranian basic national interests there need be no permanent conflict.”

Wait, no, that wasn’t President Obama.  That was actually said by President Reagan on November 13, 1986, addressing the Iran-Contra scandal.

Ouch.  I guess that means Reagan was “soft on terror” and supported countries that harbored terrorists, right?

But hell, he didn’t just support them – he armed them. 

Then during the trials to determine what criminal activity might have taken place, the Reagan administration refused to declassify certain documents that would have helped to reveal what actually went on.  Oh, but please, let’s talk about Benghazi and the made up right-wing conspiracies.

Reagan flat-out denied the declassification of documents that might show true criminal activity within his administration in the facilitating of illegal arms to Iran, a country that just a handful of years earlier took fifty-two Americans hostages for 444 days.

So I just have to laugh at Republicans falling over themselves to attack President Obama for agreeing with several other nations on this short-term nuclear deal with Iran.

Maybe if Obama had sold illegal arms to the Iranian government, then they’d consider him an American hero.  After all, that’s what Ronald Reagan did — and they absolute love him.