Nazi Platform

A reflection on the Nazi Platform and its possible basis of comparison to modern American politics.

The Program of the German Workers’ Party is a program for our time.
The leadership rejects the establishment of new aims after those set out in the Program have been achieved, for the sole purpose of making it possible for the Party to continue to exist as the result of the artificially stimulated dissatisfaction of the masses.

National Socialist German Workers Party Platform	American Equivalent	Basis
1. We demand the uniting of all Germans within one Greater Germany, on the basis of the right to self-determination of nations.	Right	Nationalism
2. We demand equal rights for the German people (Volk) with respect to other nations, and the annulment of the peace treaty of Versailles and St. Germain.	Libertarian	Isolationism
3. We demand land and soil (Colonies) to feed our People and settle our excess population.	Right	Nationalism
4. Only Nationals (Volksgenossen) can be Citizens of the State.	Right	Citizenship
Only persons of German blood can be Nationals, regardless of religious affiliation.	Right	Nationalism and Religious Freedom
No Jew can therefore be a German National.	Far Left / Far Right	Antisemitism
5. Any person who is not a Citizen will be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be subject to legislation for Aliens.	Right	Immigration
6. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State.	Right	Voter ID
We therefore demand that only Citizens may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state or local office.	Right	Nationalism
We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of making party considerations, and not character and ability, the criterion for appointments to official positions.	Left	Democracy over Republicanism
7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens.	Left	Government Job Creation
If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.	Right	Immigration
8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich without delay.	Right	Immigration
9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.	Left	Equal Rights
10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work.	Right	Duty to Work
Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good. We therefore demand:	Left	Limitation on Freedom of Expression
11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.	Left	Unearned Income
Breaking the Servitude of Interest.	Left	Anti-Bank
12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.	Left	War Profiteering
13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).	Left	Government Ownership of Production
14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.	Left	Profit-sharing
15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.	Left	Social Security
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class;	Left	"Maintenance" of Middle Class
the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen.	Left	Communism and Trade Unions
We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.	Left	Small Business over Low Prices
17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes.	Left	Eminent Domain for Public Use
Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.	Left	Anti-Speculation
18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.	Left	Anti-Bank
19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.	Left	Anti-Capitalism
20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system.	Left	Free Education
The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life.	Left	Government Mandated Curriculum
Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped.	Right	Civics
We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.	Left	Free Education
21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.	Left	Compulsory Education
22. We demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army.	Right	National Military
23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a German press, we demand:	Right	Anti-Press
a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the German language must be German by race;	Right	National Language
b) non-German newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the German language;	Right	Non-Citizen Laws
c) any financial participation in a German newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Germans and the penalty for any breach of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-Germans involved.	Right	Immigration
Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned.	Left	Government Controlled Media
We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements.	Right	"Right and Wrong" in Art
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.	Right	Freedom of Religion
The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination.	Right	Pro-Christianity
It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of: Public Interest before Private Interest.	Far Left / Far Right	Antisemitism
25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich.	Left	Authoritarian Government
Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general.	Left	Anti-Federalism
The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.	Left	Trade Unions

The Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points.
Munich, Germany
February 24, 1920.

---

source:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/platform-of-the-national-socialist-german-workers-rsquo-party

Why "Beto" should have won in a Red State and failed

"Beto O'Rourke came so close to beating Ted Cruz! Which is amazing because Texas is such a Red State™!"

"Beto should run for President in 2020! He had such a great turn-out in Texas, which is such a Red State™!"

These are the kind of things I've been hearing about the coming messiah, Robert Francis 'Beto' O'Rourke. I've heard how close he came to beating Ted Cruz, which shouldn't have been possible in a Red State™ like Texas.

Yes. I'm trademarking "Red State™" when it comes to Texas, because this couldn't be further from the truth. Texas used to be Republican-Red for many years. But demographics have been changing, and not in a natural, organic way. Like much of the rest of the country, the high-density population centers have become more Democrat-Blue. The rest of the country tends to have remained the usual mix of Democrat-Republican that should be normally expected. Sure, rural America has tended toward Republican since the 60's. That's a discussion for another post, but suffice it to say, there are common ideals held between the conservative and self-reliant American farmers and the Republican party.

There may be several reasons for it, but one obvious reason may be one of demographics:

• Urban areas have greater numbers of poor and low-income families.
• Urban areas have greater numbers of poorly educated with crumbling school systems.
• Urban areas have greater numbers of ethnic and racial minorities.

Don't read too much into that last one. Being ethnic / racial minority does not mean you are liberal or conservative. But there are social pressures which do occur in those communities to vote particular ways. Voting for a Republican may be cause to be called a "race-traitor" or worse. In addition, there are consolidated efforts in these areas to provide education and media which tells them they need to vote in their "self-interest" for liberal policies.

So let's look at the state of the State of Texas for a moment. There are thirty-six Congressional districts in the state for the US House of Representatives. Of those 36, twenty-four are held by Republicans. Sounds like a Red State™, doesn't it? In 2018, all 36 districts held a vote. Of these 24 Republican-held districts, 3.6 million voted Republican and 1.6 million voted Democrat. Sounds like a very solid Red State™ with 69% voting Republican.

But there are thirteen Democrat-held districts in Texas. In 2018, those districts voted 2.2 million Democrat to 0.6 million Republican. That's 80% voting Democrat in these districts! Those districts are firmly under Democrat control. For one-third of the districts in Texas, they are very far from being a Red-State™.

What about the State of Texas as a whole? Is it a bonafide Red State™ still?

Combining the votes from both Republican and Democrat districts, there were 4.1 million Republican votes to 3.8 million Democrat votes. That'a 52-48 split in a state that is supposed to be "solidly a Red State™"!

Guess what the vote split was between Cruz and Beto? Cruz had 4.2 million and Beto had 4.0 million. That's a 51-49 split; one-percent better than the state average.

Texas is not a Red State™. And this is only being driven by demographics in urban areas.

---

source:
Texas Midterm Election Results, By ABC NEWS - Nov 6, 2018

The ole' switcheroo

"The Republican and Democrat parties switched."

I'm hearing this less. What worries me is that I'm probably not hearing it much because it has become an accepted fact (even though it's not true, but we'll get into that). So, I've already asked about the racist Senator Robert Byrd, elected continuously by the Democrats of West Virginia from 1950 until his death in 2010. I can't get anyone to point out when he or, more importantly, when his constituents switched parties.

So I'm going to ask the same of the southern states. In the South, there are many cities which are currently Democrat strongholds. These cities are unlikely to vote in anything other than Democrat mayors. So, if the party switch theory holds true, then these cities must have had Republican mayors during the time of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Right? And if not then, surely the Republicans had the run of the place after the Civil War ended in 1865. Right? Surely there isn't an unbroken string of "racist-Democrats" in the racist-South up until modern day.

At some point, the constituency voted in the "non-racist-Republicans" who eventually transformed into the "non-racist-Democrats" of today.

Right?

Wrong.

Atlanta:
From 1855 until today, there have been two terms where the mayor of Atlanta was Republican (1871-1872 & 1877-1879).
157 years Democrat - 5 years Republican

New Orleans:
From 1866 until today, there have been two terms where the mayor of New Orleans was Republican (1867-1868 & 1870-1872).
146 years Democrat - 5 years Republican

Washington D.C.:
From 1910 until today, there have been zero terms where the mayor of Washington D.C. was Republican.
During a period from 1878-1967, the "mayor" was a Board of Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States. The president of the Board, elected by the Board, served as the city's Chief Executive, acting essentially as a "mayor". In all that time, there were only three Republicans who served as the president of the Board.
107 years Democrat

Richmond, VA:
Since 1840 until today, there have been two terms where the mayor of Richmond was Republican (1868-1870 & 1988-1990).
171 years Democrat - 6 years Republican

Re-Blog: "A Thought Experiment About Republicans"

The left has done a stellar job of demonizing Trump supporters and Republicans in general. Their excellent persuasion involves conflating the bad apples with the entire group. Both sides do it. The right calls everyone on the left selfish snowflakes, and the left calls everyone on the right racists. They do it because it works. The brain likes to conflate things. And if the shiniest object in our view involves headlines about racists, or lefty rioters, those images stick in our minds and taint our impressions of the entire group.

So let’s try this thought experiment.

Let’s say there is a group of Trump-supporting racists – the violent kind that I have never met – that starts terrorizing an African-American neighbor of yours. And let’s say it turns into a violent confrontation between the racists and the victim family. The neighborhood hears some commotion and pours into the streets. The racists have weapons and they are about to kill the family that was just minding its own business. The police are on the way, but not in time. Violence is about to happen.

Suddenly a shot rings out. A bullet goes through the back of the scariest racist’s head and hollows out his skull. He drops like a rock. The other racists drop their weapons and flee.

Who fired the shot that saved the African-American family? Was it a Republican or a Democrat?

One of the most underrated qualities of Republicans is that they police their own ranks. If you have a problem with a violent Republican racist, call some Republicans. They’ll solve it for you.

But don’t call a Republican if you are simply offended by another person’s opinion. In that situation you want to call some Democrats to ridicule and physically attack the person with the objectionable opinion.

By the way, I’m not a Republican. This is just an observation. I’ve been watching Democrats not police their own ranks – after the Berkeley violence for example – and it occurred to me that you don’t see that on the Republican side. Republicans generally appreciate free speech, but if someone attacks your family, your country, or your freedom in some physical form, keep some Republicans on speed dial.

Try it. You’ll be surprised how well it works.

Are you bothered by the fact that I am making sweeping and unsupported generalizations about Democrats and Republicans? If so, call a Democrat. I await your combined ridicule and physical violence.

---

source:
Scott Adams
A Thought Experiment About Republicans
Posted February 5th, 2017
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156850873521/a-thought-experiment-about-republicans

Trying to pinpoint the "party switch"

The theory goes something like this:
"The Democrats used to be racist. But they switched parties, and now the Republicans are racist."

Ok. When?

When did this happen? I realize that these things would necessarily happen over time, but when did the racists migrate from the Democrat party to the Republican party?

Take, for example, a well-known Democrat who was part of the KKK and the "racist" Democrats before the alleged "switch". Robert Byrd has held continuous national public office for the state of West Virginia from 1952 until his death in 2010. If Robert Byrd "switched" on racism, but never switched parties, how is that possible?

We can assume that a single man might have a eureka moment in which he suddenly and completely switches beliefs about a subject like racism. But can a whole state, like West Virginia, switch at the same moment?

And when did the entire state make that "switch"? Here's a short history of Robert Byrd's political and racial history. Tell me when you think the entire state of West Virginia changed on racism.

• Formed a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, early 1940's
• "Kleagle" for the KKK, 1943
• Wrote a letter stating, Byrd "shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side." 1945
• Wrote a letter to a KKK "Grand Wizard", 1946.
• When running for office, Byrd lied and said he quit the KKK "after about a year", 1952.
• West Virginia's 6th congressional district, 1952:
• Robert Byrd (D) - 104,387 (55.58%)
• West Virginia's 6th congressional district, 1954:
• Robert Byrd (D) (inc.) - 73,535 (62.73%)
• West Virginia's 6th congressional district, 1956:
• Robert Byrd (D) (inc.) - 99,854 (57.40%)
• West Virginia United States Senate election, 1958:
• Robert Byrd (D) - 381,745 (59.19%)
• West Virginia United States Senate election, 1964:
• Robert Byrd (D) (inc.) - 515,015 (67.67%)
• Byrd personally filibustered for 14 hours against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Voted against Thurgood Marshall's Supreme Court nomination, 1967
• Byrd "indicated it was time that [Martin Luther King, Jr.] 'met his Waterloo'" to the FBI, 1968, just months before MLK was assassinated.
• West Virginia United States Senate election, 1970:
• Robert Byrd (D) (inc.) - 345,965 (77.64%)
• Byrd was the Majority Whip, 1971-1977
• West Virginia United States Senate elections, 1976:
• Robert Byrd (D) (inc.) - 566,359 (100.00%)
• Byrd was the Majority Leader, 1977-1981
• West Virginia United States Senate election, 1982:
• Robert Byrd (D) (inc.) - 387,170 (68.49%)
• Byrd was the Majority Leader, 1987-1989
• West Virginia United States Senate election, 1988:
• Robert Byrd (D) (inc.) - 410,983 (64.77%)
• President pro tempore of the United States Senate, 1989
• President pro tempore of the United States Senate, 1991
• Voted against Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court nomination, 1991
• President pro tempore of the United States Senate, 1993
• West Virginia United States Senate election, 1994:
• Robert Byrd (D) (inc.) - 290,495 (69.01%)
• West Virginia United States Senate election, 2000:
• Robert Byrd (D) (inc.) - 469,215 (77.75%)
• Byrd refers to what he called "white niggers" on national television, 2001
• President pro tempore of the United States Senate, 2001
• West Virginia United States Senate election, 2006:
• Robert Byrd (D) (inc.) - 291,058 (64.41%)
• President pro tempore of the United States Senate, 2007
• President pro tempore of the United States Senate, 2009

---

source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Robert_Byrd
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061801105_pf.html
http://www.frumforum.com/remembering-robert-byrds-racism/

try strengthening the electoral college

with all of the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the electoral college following the 2016 Presidential Election, it is highlighting the disparity of power between populous states and more rural states... it highlights the disparity of power between the House (the people's house) and the Senate (the state's house)... there are 435 representatives (divided according to the latest census) in the House, and there are 435 electoral college votes associated with their states... there are 100 senators (two per state) in the Senate, and there are 100 electoral college votes associated with their states... add three for the District of Columbia, and you have 538 electoral votes at stake during any Presidential Election.

so, the population of a state has a 2-to-1 advantage... having a state with a higher population density (or one large city like Las Vegas which overwhelms the rest of the state) causes this 2-to-1 advantage skew to a 25-to-1 advantage, such as in California... New York City controls the electoral votes of the entire state, and it's not even the state's capital city!

but, what if we were to make a small change, such as adding Senators to each state, thereby adding electoral votes, also?... how would that affect an election?

below, I have taken the electoral college votes of each state as they were cast in the 2016 Presidential Election and tallied them... then I added one vote per state and tallied them... then added two.

STATE	EV-R	EV-D	TOTAL VOTES	R+1	D+1	R+2	D+2
Alabama	9	0	2,113,963	10		11
Alaska	3	0	253,624	4		5
Arizona	11	0	2,419,555	12		13
Arkansas	6	0	1,125,778	7		8
California	0	55	10,147,220		56		57
Colorado	0	9	2,725,831		10		11
Connecticut	0	7	1,642,330		8		9
Delaware	0	3	441,535		4		5
D. C.	0	3	286,275		4		5
Florida	29	0	9,478,590	30		31
Georgia	16	0	4,085,667	17		18
Hawaii	0	4	428,827		5		6
Idaho	4	0	692,216	5		6
Illinois	0	20	5,501,217		21		22
Indiana	11	0	2,729,896	12		13
Iowa	6	0	1,564,443	7		8
Kansas	6	0	1,147,143	7		8
Kentucky	8	0	1,923,346	9		10
Louisiana	8	0	2,028,196	9		10
Maine	1	3	736,660	1	4	1	5
Maryland	0	10	2,602,561		11		12
Massachusetts	0	11	3,231,531		12		13
Michigan	16*	0	4,792,240	17*		18*
Minnesota	0	10	2,945,238		11		12
Mississippi	6	0	1,162,607	7		8
Missouri	10	0	2,776,519	11		12
Montana	3	0	492,672	4		5
Nebraska	5	0	804,386	6		7
Nevada	0	6	1,122,990		7		8
New Hampshire	0	4	731,931		5		6
New Jersey	0	14	3,774,743		15		16
New Mexico	0	5	792,328		6		7
New York	0	29	7,113,118		30		31
North Carolina	15	0	4,688,821	16		17
North Dakota	3	0	344,156	4		5
Ohio	18	0	5,380,096	19		20
Oklahoma	7	0	1,452,992	8		9
Oregon	0	7	1,939,678		8		9
Pennsylvania	20	0	6,033,161	21		22
Rhode Island	0	4	460,165		5		6
South Carolina	9	0	2,103,025	10		11
South Dakota	3	0	370,047	4		5
Tennessee	11	0	2,490,799	12		13
Texas	38	0	8,933,179	39		40
Utah	6	0	905,485	7		7
Vermont	0	3	315,065		4		5
Virginia	0	13	3,972,371		14		15
Washington	0	12	2,927,086		13		14
West Virginia	5	0	712,419	6		7
Wisconsin	10	0	2,977,295	11		12
Wyoming	3	0	255,791	4		5
Total	306	232	130,076,807	336	253	365	274

*Michigan has not been finally called, but only marginally affects the outcome.

the outcome of this thought experiment is to widen the gap between the parties... with the electoral college votes as they currently are, the gap between the parties is 74 votes, or 13.8% of the votes.

with only one additional electoral vote per state, the gap widens from 74 votes difference to 83 votes, but only changes it to 14.0% difference in the votes.

by adding two electoral votes per state, the gap goes from 74 votes difference 91 votes, which is only a 14.2% difference.

what this appears to show is that smaller states begin to have greater impact on the overall race... while each iteration only changes the electoral college results by 0.2%, it becomes evident that the candidates will need to appeal to a much more diverse group, and not solely rely on population dense areas of the country... instead of knowing the result of every election after the east coast polls close, we would need to see how many more states vote.

and, in a republic, isn't that what we want?

Switching the narative

I just want ANYONE to answer me this.

When former KKK member and Exalted Cyclops, Robert Byrd, who wrote a friendly letter to the Grand Wizard of the KKK in 1946, was first elected in 1950 to the West Virginia Senate as a Democrat, had he "switched sides"?

When he was elected to the US House of Representatives in 1953 as a Democrat, had he "switched sides"?

When he was elected to the US Senate in 1959 as a Democrat, had he "switched sides"?

When he filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 hours as a Democrat, had he "switched sides"?

In his filibuster, he said, "Men are not created equal today, and they were not created equal in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was written." Had he "switched sides"?

When he remained in office, re-elected continuously from 1959 to 2010, when at age 92 he died, each time being re-elected by the same Democrats of West Virginia who first elected him sixty years prior, had he "switched sides"?

And the more important question is, when did the people who elected him "switch sides"? Democrats have controlled the WV state Congress since 1931 until 2014, four years after Byrd's death. Democrats have since 1933 until today (2016) held the Governorship of West Virginia 67 of 83 those years. In which year did they "switch sides"?

---

source:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/06/what_does_an_exalted_cyclops_do.html
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2001/03/democratic-sen-robert-byrd-ex-klansman/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061801105_3.html
http://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/756
https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/byrd/
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/article_bea0ee78-82a8-11df-8e4d-001cc4c03286.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/28/obit.byrd/
http://wvmetronews.com/2014/11/04/gop-makes-historic-gains-in-state-legislature/
http://www.nga.org/cms/home/governors/past-governors-bios/page_west_virginia.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_West_Virginia

“GOP and Dem’s switched ideology.”

if I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard this… “GOP and Dem’s switched ideology"... the Democrats want to take credit for everything from Abraham Lincoln to the Civil Rights Era… but facts just are so hard to come by.

but let us consider the recent Syrian refugee crisis… refugees are fleeing from ISIS in the Middle East, and we are supposed to take them without question… after all, that’s what Europe has done, and we ALL want to be more like Europe, don’t we?

well, conservatives (a.k.a. Republicans here in the US) warned that ISIS would use the cover of refugees to infiltrate into countries and enact terrible acts of terrorism in them… liberals decried this as blatant racism against “brown-skinned” and “POC”… it doesn’t matter if the intelligence agencies of multiple countries warned of this very thing… nope, it must be racism.

with the tragedy that was the Paris terrorist attacks, many people (some becoming suddenly conservative) are saying maybe we should hold off on letting Syrian refugees freely into our countries… a clear case of racism, liberals would say.

which brings me back to who is actually racist… the liberals in the US lay claim to President Roosevelt (FDR) for his generous social policies… and rightly so, as a more Democrat president could hardly be found, except perhaps in Jimmy Carter… FDR is held up to the sun as a shining example of liberalism… but, like Icarus, perhaps they hold him a bit too high.

in 1939, the German transatlantic liner St. Louis sailed from Hamburg, Germany, loaded with almost 1000 Jewish passengers… it was bound for Cuba, but Cuba was not willing to take any more refugees from Europe… with the size of Cuba and following the Great Depression, it can hardly be seen as surprising… however, modern liberals insist FDR rescued us from the Great Depression, so the US was more capable of handling a handful of refugees fleeing from the Kristalnacht pogrom… surely a liberal and Democrat hero such as FDR would welcome them to his bosom and rescue them from the scourge of fascism and racism.

not so much… [cue liberal outrage]… “but FDR was only following the immigration quotas imposed on him by those nasty racist Republicans!”… first, those quotas were passed in Congress by a margin of 323 to 71 (House)… by any measure, this was pretty bi-partisan… second, FDR could have issued an Executive Order to supersede the law.

[cue liberal outrage]… “we thought Republicans were against Executive Orders that were extra-Constitutional”… well, yes… however, i point this out to show that Executive Orders were not unknown to FDR, especially in relation to particular groups of people.

to which i’d like to address your attention to Executive Order 9066, issued by FDR in 1942… you might be more familiar with this as the order that caused thousands of people with Japanese ancestry to be taken from their homes in the US and interned in “evacuation” camps… Congress had not forced FDR to take US citizens from their homes by Executive Order… likewise, FDR could have taken in the Jewish refugees.

what is the point of all this, you might ask… at what point in FDR’s presidency did he switch from Democrat savior to Republican racist?

Rs vs. Ds - Questionist - Re-Blog

re-blog post of The Questionist... some formatting and all emphasis are mine... no edits of content.

Every once in a while a post comes along that shines a very bright spotlight on just how profoundly insulated some people's personal echo chambers are. This one is mind boggling in its contempt for reality. Before I deconstruct this fantastical narrative, I need to clarify that this is NOT a defense of Republicans, nor is it an indictment of Democrats.

Claim #1:
Democrats are responsible for 65 straight months of economic growth.
Facts: The economic collapse of 2008 resulted in economic indicators that reach 75 year lows. These numbers were so far from average that the chances of them improving were near 100%, no matter what the government did or who was in charge. This results from a statistical phenomenon called “regression toward the mean.”
One famous example of this phenomenon in action is the “Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx.” Athletes or teams that are featured on the cover are chosen only following extremely good performances. Regression toward the mean all but assures that their performance will not be as good as the exceptional performance responsible for getting them on the cover. The same phenomenon holds true for any variable metric.
The economic growth that we have realized is much smaller and slower than expected, and the evidence that Democratic policies are responsible is non-existent, especially considering more than half of that growth was realized under a Republican House.

Claim #2:
Democrats are responsible for record 56 months of private sector job growth.
Facts: See #1.

Claim #3:
Democrats are responsible for unemployment falling from 10.1% to 5.9%.
Facts: Both the Employment to Population Ratio (also called simply the employment rate) and the Labor Force Participation Rate have dropped to 30+ year lows.
The unemployment rate of 5.9% that we see on the news does not give us the entire picture. If you add those actively seeking employment + short term discouraged workers + long term discouraged workers + part time workers who want to work full time, the number is closer to 23%. And if we used the same unemployment measurement we used prior to 1994, unemployment would be around 18%.
Add to this that people who are reentering the labor force are getting jobs with lower wages and fewer hours, and add to this that income inequality is increasing, and add to this that wages are not keeping pace with inflation; and the 5.9% unemployment rate we see in the headlines is not particularly meaningful. And... See #1 – regression toward the mean.

Claim #4:
Democrats are responsible for the budget deficit being reduced by two-thirds.
Facts: This one is more complicated, and I'm not going to pretend to understand all the reasons for this. What we do know from looking at revenue compared to spending is that spending has largely leveled off, and revenue has slowly increased since a $500 billion dip following the collapse; so part of this reduction is due again to regression toward the mean. Spending under Bush increased at a faster than normal rate due to increased military spending and, because for most of his term, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Any time the same party is in control of both the executive and legislative branches, spending increases.
I'll conclude that this claim has some truth to it, but keep in mind that the National Debt has increased from $10.7 trillion to $18 trillion under Obama. In terms of debt as a percentage of GDP, it has increased under Obama from 65% to over 100%. As a comparison, under Bush it increased from 55% to 65%. This is a long term trend that has little to do with who is President or who is in control of Congress, but it is a distinctly unhealthy trend.

Claim #5:
Democrats are responsible for fewer Americans in harm's way in war zones.
Facts: The reduction in troops in Iraq was the direct result of the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement signed by Bush in 2008.
Yes, there are fewer troops overseas, but what Americans wanted and expected when they voted for Obama was a drastic reduction in military interventionism, not just the number of troops on the ground.
What we did NOT want or expect was hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan, an invasion of Libya, American citizens killed in Yemen, 17,000 residual forces, diplomats, and defense contractors left in Iraq, and 10,000 troops left in Afghanistan after the end of 2014.
As recently as September of 2012 Obama said. “We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And I've set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014. And when I say I'm going to bring them home, you know they're going to come home.” This is clearly not the case.
We did not want or expect an escalation in Iraq that included renewed airstrikes. We did not want or expect a new war in Iraq and Syria.

Claim #6:
Democrats are responsible for zero attacks by al Qaeda on US soil.
Facts: I'm not sure how Democrats are responsible for this, and there are far too few data points to draw any conclusions about which party is better or worse at preventing terrorist attacks.

Claim #7:
Democrats are responsible for record stock market growth.
Facts: This is perhaps the most clear example of regression to the mean. A stock market at rock bottom has nowhere else to go but up. In addition, the Federal Reserve dumped 16 trillion printed US Dollars into the market in 2008-2009, and has continued to pump 85 billion printed US Dollars into the market ever since. There is no possible way that the stock market could NOT have gone up under these conditions, and the negative effects are a dramatic increase in wealth inequality, a huge stock market bubble, and economic growth that is supported almost exclusively by debt. Despite the record stock market numbers, the US economy is very sick in a very real and long term sense.
Again, this has nothing to do with which party is in power, and much to do with short-sighted monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve. Almost all politicians focus on short term solutions with complete disregard to long term effects. This cliff will be very difficult, if not impossible, to retreat from.

Claim #8:
Republicans are responsible for two economic recessions.
Facts: Recessions are largely the result of natural economic fluctuations, and the only influence that politicians can hope for is to reduce the effect or shorten the duration. The recession of 2002 was a direct result of the bursting of the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s.
The collapse of 2008 was the result of several factors, none of them having anything to do with which party was in power. The precipitating factor was the collapse of the housing bubble which was, in turn, precipitated by artificially low interest rates by the Federal Reserve and ridiculously easy lending terms which resulted in millions of people getting mortgages that were above their abilities to maintain.
Another factor was the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which separated commercial and investment banking. This allowed commercial banks to, effectively, gamble with our money. The repeal of this act was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and signed by Bill Clinton.

Claim #9:
Republicans were responsible for the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.
Facts: See #8.

Claim #10:
Republicans were responsible for the worst terrorist attack in history.
Facts: This claim is probably the most disconnected from reality of any of the claims on this list. One only needs to read exactly what Osama bin Laden himself explained as the reasons for the attack. [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver]
Among the motivations stated by bin Laden for the attack were: long term US aggression in the Middle East, US attacks on Somalia, US support for Russian atrocities in Chechnya, Guantanamo Bay, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, immorality of Americans (including the President), US support for Israel, and US sanctions against Iraq. (People seem to forget that Clinton was bombing Iraq throughout his term on a regular basis.)
None of these alleged provocations had anything to do with which party was in power, although the most immediate of them (and infuriating for bin Laden) happened on Clinton's watch.
Another possible motivation for the 9/11 attack offered by terrorism experts is that bin Laden wanted to provoke America into a war that would incite a pan-Islamist revolution. Considering what is currently happening with the Islamic State, one can only conclude that this strategy has been largely successful.

Claim # 11:
Republicans were responsible for the two longest wars in US history.
Facts: This claim regarding the war in Iraq is mostly true. This happened on Bush's watch with fabricated claims made by his administration, and a large majority of Republicans supporting the Iraq War Authorization. Note that a majority of Democratic Senators also voted in favor of the resolution.
This claim regarding the war in Afghanistan is, however, completely false. Only three members of Congress did not vote in favor of this, one Democrat and two Republicans.

Claim #12:
Republicans are responsible for the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover.
Facts: It is true that job creation under Bush was the worst since Hoover, and a certain amount of blame can be placed at the feet of Republicans. Another factor is (you guessed it) regression to the mean. After the dot-com boom, employment was exceptionally high, and it was a statistical near certainty that job creation would slow down or decrease.
Another factor is that the forces that led to the 2008 collapse were working against the economy well before the actual collapse itself. It's also worth a reminder that governmental actions have limited effects on job creation, and what small effects there are can lag several years behind the action.

Claim #13:
Republicans are responsible for a complete collapse of the stock market.
Facts: See #8. (It's interesting that three of the seven claims against Republicans are essentially the exact same claim. I could have come up with a lot more legitimate complaints against Republicans.)

Claim #14:
A budget surplus turned into a trillion dollar deficit.
Facts: It's true that Republican led spending on military intervention added to the deficits experienced under Bush. But yet again this can, to a large degree, be explained by regression to the mean. The 1990s saw an unprecedented information revolution, and a dot-com bubble that was further inflated by a badly timed reduction in capital gains taxes (which was supported by both Democrats and Republicans and signed by Clinton).

https://www.facebook.com/janisianpage/photos/a.357587427661315.87486.357191544367570/736868986399822/?type=1&theater

---

Source:
The Questionist on Facebook - post