Showing posts with label jim crow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jim crow. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

#SCOTUS Brings Back Jim Crow


photo scotus.jpeg
source: @conormcdonough























































Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Rand Paul Speaks at Howard University ~ Updated

photo Rand_Paul.jpg

From Business Insider ~ Rand Paul at Howard University
"The Democrats promised equalizing outcomes through unlimited federal assistance while Republicans offered something that seemed less tangible-the promise of equalizing opportunity through free markets," Paul said. "Now Republicans face a daunting task. Several generations of black voters have never voted Republican and are not very open to even considering the option."

"The Democrat promise is tangible and puts food on the table, but too often doesn't lead to jobs or meaningful success," he continued, adding later, "I would argue that the objective evidence shows that big government is not a friend to African Americans."

. . . "I can recite books that have been written, or I can plunge into the arena and stumble and maybe fall but at least I will have striven," Paul said. "My hope is that you will hear me out, that you will see me for who I am, not the caricature sometimes presented by political opponents."

Echoing a popular conservative talking point, Paul repeatedly reminded the audience that Democrats passed Jim Crow laws in the south and that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, as were the first black legislators and the founders of the NAACP.
“Would everyone know here they were all Republicans?” he said at one point, referring to the NAACP’s founders.
“Yes!” came the booming response from nearly the entire audience, who appeared offended Paul would even raise the question.
~ Talking Points Memo

Rand Paul Randsplains How Republicans Lost The Black Vote: Black People Just Don’t Understand
. . . The real star was his engagement in the fun-at-CPAC pastime of reminiscing about all of the great things Republicans did before 1964, and the concurrently crummy things Democrats did back then, but with the manner of a first-grade teacher explaining the alphabet. Believe it or not, Rand, lots of people already know about the shift that occurred in 1964.
~ Tommy Christopher on Mediaite

You can’t just yada yada yada the last 60 Republican years. A Republican freed the slaves, gave black people the vote, yada yada yada, and now all blacks vote Democratic, I mean, what the hell?
~ Jon Stewart


























































Fact Check:

Paul said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shouldn't apply to private business owners:

Via Think Progress 5-19-2010
INTERVIEWER: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.



Transcript of Rachel Maddow via Washington Post May 19, 2010
PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is, you know, you look back to the 1950s and 1960s at the problems we faced. There were incredible problems. You know, the problems had to do with mostly voting, they had to do with schools, they had to do with public housing. And so, this is what the civil rights largely addressed, and all things that I largely agree with.

MADDOW: But what about private businesses? I mean, I hate to -- I don`t want to be badgering you on this, but I do want an answer.

PAUL: I'm not -- I'm not --

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.

But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?

. . . MADDOW: -- for private businesses to be desegregated by the government. You're saying those people should have gone to different places? Left them segregated?

PAUL: People who commit -- people who commit violence on other individuals should go to prison and go to jail. And there's nothing we should ever do to condone violence on other individuals.

MADDOW: And should Woolworth lunch counter should have been allowed to stay segregated? Sir, just yes or no.

PAUL: What I think would happen -- what I'm saying is, is that I don't believe in any discrimination. I don't believe in any private property should discriminate either. And I wouldn't attend, wouldn't support, wouldn't go to.

But what you have to answer when you answer this point of view, which is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to bring up. But if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants and then you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants.

MADDOW: I can -- we could have a fight about the Second Amendment.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: But I think wanting to allow private industry -- private businesses --

PAUL: It's the same fight. It's the same fight.


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Justice Scalia Says Voting Rights Act a Product of "Racial Entitlement"

Photobucket

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, maybe it was making that judgment, Mr. Verrilli. But that’s — that’s a problem that I have. This Court doesn’t like to get involved in — in racial questions such as this one. It’s something that can be left — left to Congress.

 The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.

 Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it. And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this.  
I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

 I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.

 That’s the — that’s the concern that those of us who — who have some questions about this statute have. It’s — it’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act.

 Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?

Photobucket


It was unreal, unbelievable, almost shocking, for a member of the court to use certain language/
. . . It is an affront to all of what the civil rights movement stood for, what people died for, what people bled for, and those of us who marched across that bridge 48 years ago, we didn’t march for some racial entitlement. We wanted to open up the political process, and let all of the people come in, and it didn’t matter whether they were black or white, Latino, Asian-American or Native American.
. . . (the right to vote is) precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent instrument that we have in a democratic society. And if the courts come to that point where they declare this section, section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, unconstitutional, it would be a dagger in the heart of the democratic process.
~ Congressman and Civil Rights Freedom Fighter, John Lewis

There were audible gasps in the Supreme Court’s lawyers’ lounge, where audio of the oral argument is pumped in for members of the Supreme Court bar, when Justice Antonin Scalia offered his assessment of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. He called it a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
~ ThinkProgress

The arguments that we heard this morning gives us cause to pause and hope that we will not have to return to the streets to secure voting rights.
~ Reverend Al Sharpton at the Rosa Parks Statue Dedication today in Washington DC, via Addicting Info

The friggin' right to vote now is an "entitlement" like Medicare or Food Stamps.
Well no, it's not actually. Under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, the right of citizens of the United States to Vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or pre-existing condition of servitude. Well, that amendment was ratified back in 1870 under the Administration of President Grant, one of my heroes, actually.
But we all know it was put into effect after a century of poll taxes, literacy tests, and other gimmicks to keep blacks from voting only because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Yes, Justice Scalia, it has a wonderful name, as you put it.
And the reason is not the words or the spelling or the English language in which this Act is written or spoken about.
No sir, it's about its meaning.
That the United States Congress will ensure that people get to vote in places where they weren't before.
And that, sadly, does not refer only to the segregation of the past. It refers to people out there in state capitals today, sitting in bars and over poker tables, shouting out their latest gimmick to smother the electoral impact of blacks living in large cities from Harrisburg to Tallahassee.
They outbid each other with reptilic glee over their latest legislative squirm to convert electoral majorities into electoral minorities by denying blacks the right to vote.
~ Chris Matthews on Hardball







Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act doesn't represent the 'perpetuation of racial entitlement,' as Justice Scalia states. Rather, it is one of the most important tools we have for confronting the entitlement of those who believe some people's votes and voices should matter more than others ... I hope that Scalia's fellow justices will approach this issue more thoughtfully, and with a greater awareness of the reality in their country.
~ Minister Leslie Watson Malachi, director of People for the American Way Foundation's African American Ministers Leadership Council

We disagree with Justice Antonin Scalia, who today referred to the renewal of the Voting Rights Act as the 'perpetuation of a racial entitlement,' as if racial discrimination has ended. In the past two years alone, six of the nine states fully covered by Section 5 passed restrictions that would have made it harder for people of color to vote, and many of these were blocked thanks to Section 5. The Voting Rights Act is not an 'entitlement.' It is a critically needed protection for our most fundamental right.
~ Judith Browne-Dianis of The Advancement Project

Photobucket





















Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Joe Walsh Invokes Jim Crow with "Son" and "Head Pat"

Photobucket

There’s something different on the ground, and I think it’s going to overtake us all again, think it’s going to overtake the political class. I think it’s going to respectfully pick this president up and pat him on the head and say, son, son, son, Mr. President, you were never ready to be president, now go home and work for somebody and find out how the real world works.
~ Representative Joe Walsh, R-Illinois















Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)