Tag Archives: Civil Rights Act

Rand Paul Did OK At Howard University

By capblack

Rand Paul 4 SC Rand Paul Did OK At Howard University

There was only one Jack Kemp. God knows we need his all-American appeal to conservative and urban audiences at a time when the GOP is attempting frenzied “minority outreach.”

(I put “minority outreach” in quotes because involvement is more my cup of tea.)

That aside, Senator Rand Paul’s Howard University speech set the outreach march on steadier ground.

Instead of sounding like a Democrat with a removable “R,” he was himself, which is all American blacks (pro and con) should ask of him.

I don’t think I’m alone is saying I don’t need White folks adopting minstrel show phony drawls (see Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden), nor drop obvious applause lines based upon our religious or civil rights experience.

Just talk to us.

From the podium and during Q & A, he addressed his stance on issues like the Civil Rights Act that got him in hot water in the past.

One mistake I think Black folks make is demanding that those far removed from our community magically address us as if they’ve been lifelong insiders.

Rand Paul is obviously a White male libertarian and Republican US senator. Some of his conclusions on the GOP or icons like Ronald Reagan differ from those of the Black liberal mainstream.

That his conclusions differ from those of the Black liberal mainstream doesn’t necessarily make him a villain.

American Blacks of Paul’s generation should focus less on what happened in the past and more on what can be done now to distance ourselves from the limitations of yesteryear.

Rand Paul was born in the South three years ahead of me. We came of age in a region forced to confront its Apartheid by federal troops and legislative leveraging from the White Hosue and Capitol Hill.

A lot of Black liberals will charge that he doesn’t “get” Black folks. I wonder: does “Mt. Negro Dialect” Harry Reid “get” us any better?

I’d argue that Rand Paul’s decriminalization of what he calls “victimless drug crimes” alone has the potential to liberate several generations of Black men who chose drug-dealing as a profession.

That stance resonates far more with the Black liberal (and parts of the conservative) mainstream than with anti-drug hardliners like myself.

I consider crack, heroin, meth, and other chemical angels of slow motion death to be nothing less than satanic in their design and impact.

Drug decriminalization is a big libertarian coalition builder, and within it lies the glue for adding American Blacks who feel that the War on Drugs is racist.

This topic, along with libertarian aversion to intrusive policing and an aptly named “warfare state,” were rightly shared by Paul at Howard University– just like he does elsewhere.

I think he did ok during his Howard University speech, precisely because he remained himself and didn’t deviate from trademark philosophical positions.

I expect White folks to be themselves and not put on patronizing productions designed to pacify us.

Rand Paul did ok at Howard University and thus far is ok by me as someone offering the GOP political viagra if they’re willing to take it.

Donate/Stop Socialist Hate!

http://www.gofundme.com/197xk8

False Prophets And Fake Presidents

By Allan Erickson

Obama Prophet SC False prophets and fake presidents

“I hear all the time the expression ‘the good old days.’ Well, the good old days, we forget they have been good for some, but they weren’t good for everybody. It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling people back … for blacks to be back in the back of the bus, for women to be back in the kitchen, for gays to be in the closet, and for immigrants to be on their side of the border.”

So says Rev. Luis León, Rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church, situated not far from the White House.  León’s remarks were part of his Easter message March 31, with the First Family in attendance.  His church and his ministry endorse homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and practicing homosexuals in ‘ministry.’  Obviously, the ‘good’ pastor denies Scripture is inerrant, Christ’s clear assurance. Thus León, completely contradicts the Lord he claims to serve, which is, quite frankly, insane.

“It drives me crazy . . . “

Yes, one would have to be crazy to point the finger of accusation at fellow pastors and other Christian believers, accusing them of ridiculous things, on Easter Sunday no less.  León did not name the “captains of the religious right” who drive him crazy.  In the present day, such captains might include Tony Perkins, Mat Staver, Gary Bauer, Sarah Palin, Cal Thomas, Jay Sekulow, Billy Graham, or James Dobson, all good people holding to traditional values for legitimate reasons, none of which have anything to do with discrimination or persecution.

Not one of these good people has ever suggested blacks return to the back of the bus.  Blacks have not been forced to the back of the bus for more than 50 years.  Just as a reminder, it was the Christian Right in the 19th century that freed the slaves, helped slaves escape the South, died for justice in the Civil War, and ministered to the suffering of all colors during and after the war. Without the religious right, the civil rights movement would not have gained altitude.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian Republican, just for the record. Without Republican votes, the Civil Rights Act would never have passed.

No one has called women back to the kitchen.  Women, like Sarah Palin and millions of others, can freely choose home life, or a professional life, or both; and this has been true in growing measure since Christ liberated women, most especially in America.

Not one of these respectable Americans has insisted homosexuals stay in the closet.  Christians of all political affiliations have been the most loving toward homosexuals, demonstrating that love by providing far and away the most support when the AIDS epidemic struck.  Homosexuals enjoy the greatest freedom and prosperity here in America thanks to the traditions of tolerance and acceptance cultivated by centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition.

And no one from the religious right has ever denied anyone the right to immigrate.  Indeed, Christians have been the most supportive of new citizens.  Christians from the right and …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Catholic universities offer support to Boston College on condom giveaway stance

Boston College is getting support from prominent Catholic universities in its efforts to stop a student group from giving away condoms on campus.

According to the Boston Globe, officials at Catholic colleges and universities – including Notre Dame, Georgetown and Catholic University – say their policies are similar to that of Boston College, which threatened disciplinary action against students distributing condoms on school grounds.

“One of the teachings of our faith is that contraception is morally unacceptable,” Victor Nakas, a spokesman for Catholic University, told the paper. “Since condoms are a form of contraception, we do not permit their distribution on campus.”

A letter sent by Boston College telling on-campus groups they could face disciplinary action for a condom giveaway provoked angry reactions from students, and the American Civil Liberties Union said it might pursue legal action.

BC is saying that they’re a private university, so we can do what we want,” said Sarah Wunsch, staff lawyer at the ­ACLU of Massachusetts. “But that’s actually not true.”

According to the Globe, Wunsch cited the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act of 1979, which prohibits interference with civil rights by private as well as public entities. She cited a court case lost by Boston University in the 1980s after the insti­tution attempted to force students to remove an antiapartheid poster from their dorm windows. In that case, the judge ruled that the state Civil Rights Act protected the free speech rights of the students, even though they attended a private school.

Most Catholic universities agree when it comes to distributing contraception on campus, said Michael Galligan-Stierle, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.

Galligan-Stierle said Catholic educational institutions follow John Paul II’s “Ex Corde Ecclesiae,” a document he issued on church principles in 1990. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a US-specific interpretation of John Paul‘s document in 2001.

“There are certain ways of living that we, Catholics, believe lead to a healthier and holier life,” Galligan-Stierle said, according to the Globe. “This falls into one of many of those ways.”

Click for the full story from the Boston Globe

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

It's How You Play the Game

By John Zogby, Contributor Affixed to the backstop of the St. Anthony Little League Stadium in Utica, NY was a small and not terribly pretty sign that simply said: “It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.” This was where I played Little League in the late fifties, a simpler time. Sure, we were scared stiff of nuclear war, the Russians, being able to keep up with our neighbors, and dad keeping his job during “factory layoffs”. Ike was President and Speaker Sam Rayburn and Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson controlled Congress. One was a Republican, the others were Democrats. But that didn’t seem to matter. They were our leaders and we believed them. They were not ideologues but somehow we got balanced budgets, enough money for social programs, the first Civil Rights Act in nearly 100 years, the desegregation of public schools, and a successful space program. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

Honoring Rosa Parks on the 100th Anniversary of her Birth

By Valerie Jarrett

Rosa Louise McCauley Parks was born on February 4, 1913. Her life inspired millions of people and challenged the conscience of our Nation. Her refusal to give up her seat on a bus on December 1, 1955, inspired a civil rights movement that led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act on July 2, 1964. “When I made that decision,” she later said, “I knew that I had the strength of my ancestors with me.”

We stand on the shoulders of Rosa Parks, and so many other leaders who struggled and worked to ensure our country’s founding principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are achievable for everyone.

President Barack Obama sits on the Rosa Parks bus

President Barack Obama sits on the famed Rosa Parks bus at the Henry Ford Museum following an event in Dearborn, Michigan.

April 18, 2012.

(Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at The White House

A Liberal History Of Union Thuggery And Civil Rights Perversion

By Shawn Paul

Democrat SC A Liberal History of Union Thuggery and Civil Rights Perversion

In the unfolding of recent events, well-informed citizens have likely noticed the hypocrisy that has shown through the actions and inactions of many affiliated with trade unions and the modern civil rights movement.

Most recently, this hypocrisy related to union practices could be seen in last month’s union protest of then-pending right-to-work legislation in Lansing at the Michigan State Capitol.

Just as is almost exclusively true with all public union activity, many of the protestors gathered in this assembly spewed insults and foul language and carried out violence against not only their outspoken detractors, but even against reserved individuals who they perceived might be in disagreement with their cause.

Two examples gaining much exposure involved Steven Crowder and Clint Tarver.

Steven Crowder, Fox News contributor, comedian, and political activist, is known for his irreverent and politically incorrect humor, as well as his outspoken conservative stances on practically every major current issue. That said, based on video captured at the event featuring his encounter with union protestors, he seemed to be on his best behavior. At least one of the union protestors, though, launched a profanity-ridden verbal attack on Crowder, only before launching a physical one on him that left Crowder with significant injuries.

Clint Tarver, on the other hand, was on the sidelines of the event, simply doing his job when he became a victim of the violence. Tarver had been hired by the pro-right-to-work group Americans for Prosperity to serve hotdogs in a tent set up for the organization at this event. Racial slurs were spouted at Tarver, who happens to be a black man, before his vending equipment and other property was overturned, trampled on, and destroyed. As he scrambled to try to salvage what he could of his property, a friend reportedly told him “You gotta get out of here.” It seems obvious that as the stirred-up protestors were looking for their next victim, he must have made for an easy target in that he was perceived to be associated with AFP. The fact that he was also a black man seems to have only fueled the fire of the attack, in that popular sentiment now tells us that black Americans who stand up for, or associate themselves with, conservative causes are somehow disloyal to their race (or, to quote a recent statement from a certain sports commentator, they are “not down with the cause.”) The objectives of this “cause” seem to become more painfully clear every day.

It is very telling that in just these two examples, so much typical liberal hypocrisy comes to light. The same liberal crowd that aligns themselves with union interests is also typically the one that presents themselves as the exclusive champions of free speech and assembly and of the modern civil rights movement. If that’s true, the attacks on these two men and others serve as another of many poor examples in showing their loyalty to these interests; and they seem to tell an entirely different story. The message of this mob of union thugs (and of most other liberals) seems to be: “We support your right to free speech and assembly as long as you agree with us and fall into the roles and stereotypes we’ve assigned to you.”

President Obama and various union officials and supporters have continually maintained that unions remain vital to the survival of certain industries, as well as regional, state, and national economies. On their watch and under their control, though, businesses, entire industries, and state economies have increasingly failed. The outcome has been no different for the auto industry in Detroit and for the state of Michigan, the birthplace of the UAW and the nation’s organized labor movement, under union control. As the unions have gained power and saturated the local market, industry has increasingly taken a downturn.

With this knowledge, union proponents continue to hide their selfish and power-hungry intentions behind the lies of supposed intentions for the good of the public and business majority. The fallout that follows hurts the economy and industry (at all levels), as well as the public at large and even union members themselves.

Well, it seems that the working public and state legislatures in Wisconsin, Indiana, and now Michigan are forming a consensus that right-to-work states allow for greater growth and opportunity and that union membership and dues are no longer necessary. Closed shops now seem to account for little meaningful workplace protection but only offer unequal promotion, waste, a decline in product and service quality, and a lack of marketplace competition as a return on their investment.

As it turned out, of course, in spite of all the threats and violence of these union thugs, Michigan became the nation’s 24th right-to-work state.

If these events alone are not enough to show the hypocrisy and destruction that is union control, the modern civil rights movement, and liberalism in general, then we need only to look into their history in this country.

While it’s certainly true that many involved in the efforts and in receiving the rewards of these causes have remained honest and sincere, the core of their power structure has historically been dishonest and self-serving; and so it also remains today.

As for unions, American unions can be traced back as far as 1786, when Philadelphian printers conducted the first recorded labor strike for higher wages. But the tradition of 20th century unionism was largely the work of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and its leader, Samuel Gompers.

This movement, beginning in 1881, enjoyed a small but growing membership throughout the 1880’s and 1890’s. Gompers and his federation enjoyed their greatest influence, though, during WWI, when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson appointed Gompers to the Council of National Defense, a position he used as leverage in convincing the president to enable government support for trade unions and collective bargaining in WARTIME! As this may sound familiar and similar to the current relationship between our government and unions, it also shows that unethical union practices are nothing new.

In fact, on AFL-CIO’s own official website, it is admitted that Samuel Gompers “…socialized with a group of émigré socialists and labor reformers whom he would always credit for his commitment to trade unionism as the essential vehicle for bringing about social reform.”

Like me, do you remember a time when “socialism” and “socialists” were seen as dirty words that were best kept unspoken, held at bay, or at least kept in secret? They now seem to be gaining acceptance and viewed, by some, as words to associate with and to be proud of. Even so, socialism and communism have always lain at the root of many societal problems that have been unnecessarily kept alive until the modern day.

Even to my own dismay in some respects, much of the history of the civil rights movement has evolved from less-than-honorable legacies. This is not in reference to the brave souls who defied an evil system, at the risk of their own lives, to rid society of very real and dangerous racism (they are to be commended and honored), but to those who used this cause, like many others, for personal and political gain, generally to the detriment of those they claimed to protect and defend.

The American civil rights movement of the 20th century is often traced back to 1948 when President Truman signed Executive Order 9981, which states: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.”

The next notable advance usually cited in this movement occurred on July 2, 1964, when Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only after facing alienation from a Republican Congress that penned and passed the bill.

The same Congress also passed the Voting Rights Act the next year.

Johnson then issued Executive Order 11246, which first enacted “affirmative action” in the workplace. This was apparently a presidential overreach intended to secure a personal, politically expedient stance for the civil rights movement. In actuality, it was and remains a very discriminatory policy that placed race above qualifications for prospective employees.

The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the president’s executive order were all met with strong opposition and opposing votes from the president’s own Democrat party.

Many have seen through what they believe to have been obviously dishonest intentions on the part of President Johnson, based more upon personal, political, and party-line gain of power and money than upon civil rights or equality. Many more seem to speculate that this historical reality seems plausible.

To that effect, after weathering strong racist and segregationist resistance from fellow Democrats to his signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Lyndon Johnson is quoted in John Kessler’s Inside the White House as saying, “I’ll have those n*gg*rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years!” That’s not the sort of language we usually look for in a modern champion for civil rights!

In the person and presidency of Barack Obama, American liberals and Sharia law proponents find an unprecedented 21st century dream connection of possibilities. What a veiled imposter, thinly as it may be applied, this president has turned out to be.

We would all do well to prepare ourselves for the damage that such an American leader and commander-in-chief might inflict upon his own nation and the world.

In spite of this overly cautious era of political correctness, we ought to consider that this man, in some measure, shares similar appearance and DNA with those brave and peaceful civil freedom advocates of the 1960’s, but with demonstrated racially divisive, anti-Israel, and pro-Islamic allegiances that could not be further from the noble cause so bravely fought by those devoted men and women of history.

Ironically, in the face of this reality, the sitting president now invokes the name of the most honored leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., every time it is politically expedient to do so (and will evoke his memory, as he reportedly intends to use the “traveling Bible” of King in the inauguration ceremony to usher in his second term.)

It should be obvious to even newcomer students of American history that there is a pattern of government interference into public life that is always followed by failure and destruction. Although our government is always seeking new avenues for corruption (i.e. green energy incentives) that always end in failure, their fraudulent use of unionism and the civil rights movement has become their traditional institution of deception. Gun control now stands to be their next institution, capitalizing upon tragedies that could not be thwarted by the addition of yet another law to the already saturated legal system. As informed and concerned Americans, we should not only be aware of the tricks and trade of the left. But we should also be vigilantly involved in the political processes of our communities, states, and country; in regular communication with our representatives (because corruption knows no bounds); and always relying on the Creator and ultimate founder of America, our Almighty God.

Photo Credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Smithsonian exhibit parallels 1863 Emancipation, 1963 Civil Rights March on Washington

By hnn

WASHINGTON — President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington for Civil Rights were 100 years apart, but both changed the nation and expanded freedoms.

Beginning Friday, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture is presenting a walk back in time through two eras. A new exhibit, “Changing America,” parallels the 1863 emancipation of slaves with the 1963 March on Washington.

An inkwell Lincoln used to draft what would become the Emancipation Proclamation is on display on one side of the timeline, while the pen President Lyndon Johnson used to sign the Civil Rights Act is on the other….

Source:

AP

Source URL:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/smithsonian-parallels-1863-1963-events-that-changed-america-from-emancipation-to-civil-rights/2012/12/14/303da5da-45b6-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html

Date:

12-14-12

Source: History News Network – George Mason University