Rewriting History

Gateway Pundit posted an article yesterday about the 65th anniversary of the march in Selma, Alabama.

The article reminds us:

On this day in 1965, state police under the command of the Democrat Governor, George Wallace, attacked African-Americans who were demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, Alabama. The rampaging Democrats used billy clubs and tear gas and dogs in their “Bloody Sunday” assault.

A Republican-appointed federal judge, Frank Johnson, soon ruled in favor of the demonstrators, enabling them to complete their march two weeks later.

Meanwhile, the Daily Caller reported yesterday:

A civil rights leader refused to march across the historic bridge in Selma during the 50th anniversary celebration Saturday because former President George W. Bush was also marching.

Diane Nash, described as a lieutenant to Martin Luther King Jr., said she did not wish to march across the bridge in Alabama because she said Bush represented violence — something she claimed was at odds with the Selma legacy.

History has been rewritten to erase the role the political parties played in the civil rights movement–the Southern Democrats opposed civil rights laws and the northern Republicans supported them. It is a shame Ms. Nash decided not to march instead of taking a stand for unity.


Twisted Logic posted an article today about President Obama’s remarks about the “Bloody Sunday” civil rights march in Selma, Alabama, fifty years ago.

The article reports:

Obama, who has enacted two executive amnesty programs for illegal immigrants since 2012, said that deporting DREAMers “is not true to the spirit” of the civil rights movement.

“The notion that some kid that was brought here when he was two or three years old might somehow be deported at the age of 20 or 25 even though they’ve grown up as American, that’s not who we are,” he reportedly said in an interview with Sirius XM’s Joe Madison, according to The Hill. “That’s not true to the spirit of what the march on Selma was about.”

I don’t even know where to begin. I have sympathy for the people who were brought here as children and had no voice in the matter. However, I also have sympathy for those people waiting in line and paying the fees involved to come to America legally.

We don’t have to deport these children. However, if they have broken laws or committed crimes (that includes identity theft and social security fraud), they need to be sent back with their families to whatever country they are from. There is an attitude that comes from breaking the law that is not needed in America. Many of these grown-up children have families in other countries that their parents routinely send money to. If laws have been broken, these grown-up children and their families need to be sent back to their relatives. If they have kept out of trouble, they need to be put on a path to citizenship–but not given instant citizenship. They need work permits, but do not need to be eligible for welfare benefits.

Meanwhile, the civil rights movement has no relationship to illegal aliens. The civil rights movement was a group of American citizens standing up for their rights. Illegal aliens are here illegally. They have already broken the law. We need to remember that.

The article concludes:

As Breitbart News has noted, “the civil rights movement of the 1960s was about ensuring that black Americans received all of the rights they were due as citizens of the United States while today’s pro-amnesty movement is about demanding full rights for non-citizens who entered the country illegally.”

But that has not stopped amnesty advocates like Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), who has said that the amnesty movement is “our Selma,” from trying to link the amnesty movement to the black civil rights movement.

Amnesty advocates will reportedly flock to Selma this weekend to try to push the false narrative that amnesty for illegal immigrants is akin to the black civil rights movement.