Townhall.com ^ | February 8, 2014 | Sarah Roderick
Does the (R) after a politician’s name represent his/her views on race? It
seems so, according to MSNBC and their liberal cohorts.
Recently, on the Melissa Perry-Harris show, a comment was made regarding
former presidential candidate, Mitt Romney and his family. Romney’s crime, on
his lap, he held the latest addition to the Romney family, an African-American
grandbaby. How dare he parade an African-American child in his family portrait?
He and his family are Republicans, and everyone knows Republicans are racist.
More recently, MSNBC tweeted a snide comment regarding the Cheerios ad that
aired last year depicting a bi-racial family. The tweet insinuated conservatives
would be appalled at a bi-racial family. Congressman Tim Huelskamp responded
with a family portrait of his four African-American children.
The tweets that followed were nothing short of a cyber-lynching, accusing the
congressman of “borrowing” his children for a family photo-op. It must be true
that Rep. Huelskamp and his wife adopted, or rented the children for political
purposes. After all, Kansas is known to be a deep purple state, right?
Time after time the left-wing establishment has concocted a negative
stereo-type depicting Republicans and conservatives as racist, intolerant,
narrow-minded bigots. The left-wing would like Americans to believe the (R) is
an acronym for racist.
Many Americans have subscribed to the liberal school of thought that
Republicans are a large group of old, fat, uneducated, white Anglo-Saxon men who
sit around drinking Southern Comfort and smoking on the porch of a southern
plantation. How history has been altered in the past 150 years since the days
Abraham Lincoln fought to free slaves. Lincoln, a Republican, for his time was a
progressive thinker and envisioned an America where people of all color could
live equally. If MSNBC were around during Lincoln’s era, how would he have been
portrayed?
The cowardly attacks on the Romney and Huelskamp families hit home for me. I
am from a large Catholic family, who grew up in a small Midwestern town. I was
raised with conservative values, and my parents made their eco footprint by
producing five children. We were surrounded by liberal elitist academia in a
university town. It was not uncommon for people to make comments regarding the
size of our family. One retired professor even made the comment that childrens’
IQ decreased by the number of children born in a family. This was, and is a
liberal logic to prevent “excessive” reproduction. How is that for open
mindedness?
My parents did not stop. Other people were brought into our home. When I was
eight years old my parents rescued a teen-aged Filipina who had been brought to
the U.S. by Saudi Arabian students as a slave. The Saudi slave owners skipped
the country before prosecution, thanks to a liberal academia who tipped them
off. She lived with my family for nearly three years, and, to this day refers to
my family as her own. When I was a senior in college, my parents adopted a
newborn African-American girl. In 2002, this was a rarity. My parents, the
ultra-conservative, middle American, white, heterosexual married couple were
trendsetters even before the days of Brangelina and Madonna.
When I announced the joyous news of my long awaited baby sister, I was met
with criticism. The critics were not my conservative leaning friends; no, they
were academic liberal elites. The biggest concern was that she was being taken
out of her “culture.” Her culture? What culture were they inferring? Her
birth-mother, an alcoholic and drug abuser, lived in a poverty-stricken and gang
infested neighborhood. Her birth-mother had intended on aborting her, but she
could not produce $200 to pay for the abortion. Was her culture and
predetermined future to live a life of poverty and hunger, surrounded by drug
dealers, violence and a decaying education system? Or was she better off being
scraped off an abortion clinic floor into a trash can? Who were the real racists
and bigots in these two situations? My parents, the conservatives, or the
liberal academia?
It is difficult for liberals to accept that conservatives and the Republican
Party are the future of progressive minorities. The success of African-Americans
who happen to be Republicans have been touted as Uncle Toms on parade. The (R)
stands for respect and rights. It is the right for every human being strive for
a brighter future. It is the respect for all human life to be given an
opportunity to pursue dreams.
My family, the Romneys, the Huelskamps, and many other multi-racial families
have adopted out of love, not political gain. Our families are giving these
children a hope for a better future. To those who made hurtful, slandering
remarks accusing our families of racism, because of our political leaning, why
is the first thing they noticed, color? When I look at family photos, I don’t
see color, I see love.
As a conservative Republican, am I a racist for wanting a brighter future for
my sister? Success, economic stability, strong family values, deep routed faith
and pride in our nation are not the foundation for bigotry, but the foundation
of hope, freedom and prosperity.
I personally rather be associate with the party that idealizes the
philosophies of Abraham Lincoln, than the party that idealizes the philosophies
of Margaret Sanger.
DIOGENES invites you to pull up a chair on this fine day and read posts from around the world. The writing may lean to the right...but that's the way Diogenes wants it! You may leave your opinion, but Diogenes rarely changes his! WELCOME!
-
Free Government ^ | 1997 | Sraff Free government assisted cell phone programs have become more popular, in part, due to the poor economy ...
-
The Dems went down to Georgia They was looking for a seat to steal They were in a bind, 'cause they were way behind They were willing t...