Tag Archives: discrimination

Evidently, ‘Black America’ Doesn’t Get It

One Baltimore protester exclaimed to FOX News’ Geraldo Rivera, “I want to tell White America to stop not giving a damn about Black people.” And there you have it in a nutshell, the underlying sentiment trying to be vocalized by a violent, frustrated Black urban demographic that has taken to the streets in cities areas across America. There is just one thing wrong with that narrative. It is based in obliviousness of a cultural reality that has been prevalent for the last two to three generations. And it is truly sad.

I grew up in the 1960s. I remember full well the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The 1960s and the 1970s were decades of true and real change; change that reshaped and redefined American culture in many ways, some for the better, some for the worse. Those years gave way to the Civil Rights movement and the understanding of a need for gender equality, to name but a few of the good things that came from that era. But it also gave way to a degradation of the importance of personal responsibility, civility and a need to be a productive and positive member of a community.

During those years, children were taught to be painstakingly aware of what today would be referred to as racial privilege. In our schools and in our homes, Americans of all racial backgrounds began to understand, fully, the brilliance of the words of Civil Rights movement leaders, especially Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We were brought up – taught in our schools and by our parents – that we were to form our judgments of other people not on the color of their skin but on the conduct of their character. It made sense. And for at least two to three generations now that is the way White American children have been raised, the first of those generations now in their mid- to late-50s.

But where in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a real issue with racial disparity and discrimination, today we face a moment in time when an entire faction of American society – urban “Black America” – either won’t acknowledge or is incapable of acknowledging the fact that racial disparity and discrimination – societally and systemically, as history accurately recalls – has ceased to exist in the form they have been led to believe.

That sounds like a denial that racism exists in today’s culture. It is not. Rather, it is an observation – based in reality – that systemic racism and discrimination against Black Americans does not exist today, not in the form in which they are led to believe. Are there racists among us? Yes. That intellectually stunted way of thinking, sadly, will always be with us. It is human nature, and humans – no matter how dedicated Progressives are to perfecting the human race (even going so far as to practice eugenics, which is intrinsically detrimental to Black Americans) – will never reach perfection. But that societal malady is not systemic. It is a malady that affects individuals, not the entirety of cultures. Three generations of White Americans have been taught and conditioned to see past race; to see past the color of a person’s skin. Three generations have learned and benefited from a simple idea, that people should form opinions of other people based on their character, the actions, their deeds and the way they interact with others, not their skin color. But, evidently, sadly, urban “Black America” doesn’t seem to get this fact.

“I want to tell White America to stop not giving a damn about Black people.”

I don’t doubt that the person who made that statement truly believes in what he says. In fact, I am certain that he does. I am certain that he believes that every single White American that he passes on the street sees a difference between them. But that is a perception issue based on assumption, not a racial issue. And therein lays the crux of the problem we are facing today in Baltimore, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Ferguson and elsewhere. Entire urban Black American communities are judging the entirety of “White America” by the sins of eras past (even though over 600,000 men, mostly White, died in pursuit of eradicating slavery in the US Civil War) and by the intellectually stunted actions of individuals today. The sad irony in all of this is that Black America is judging White America by the color of their skin and not the content of its character. Black America – especially urban Black America – is being racist against White America. Where post-Civil Rights Movement White America has learned from the wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it appears urban Black America has jettisoned his wisdom in preference to special interest racial privilege, at least in a macro sense.

“I want to tell White America to stop not giving a damn about Black people.”

Logic mandates that there is no possible way that one person can ever truly know what is in another person’s heart – regardless of their race – unless they engage them one-on-one. I would suggest that the man who made that comment has never taken the time to actually talk to the average “White American” about the issue; that he has never had an honest “conversation” about the issue outside of his own like-minded community. Instead, the person who made this statement has been conditioned by the opportunistic politicians and the permanently disgruntled to believe a false narrative, one that divides the nation along racial lines for the purposes of acquiring and maintaining power, and one that will be hard to remove from society unless we all – not just White Americans – start looking past skin color and more towards the character of all Americans, individually.

As for me, I will not be bullied back into the false narrative. I do not judge anyone on the color of their skin, nor do I know anyone, anywhere who does. It is an antiquated thought process that serves no good thing. Instead, I judge people on their actions, their deeds; the way they interact with others, whether they are kind and supportive or jaded, uncaring and indignant, whether they live by the rule of law, working to affect change through a peaceful process, or use violence to destroy, to bully, to intimidate and coerce…I judge them on their character.

Today, as I watch Baltimore burn, I can’t say much for the character of the urban Black American community. Their actions speak for themselves. They are, sadly, disappointingly, trapped in the death-cycle false narrative that institutional racism still exists in the United States…blind to the fact that they could, alternatively, truly be “free at last.”

Selective Application of Tolerance

Tolerance is a virtue. But to be a positive force in a nation, or a community, it must be applied universally, not selectively. Definitionally, it denotes not only forbearance of behavior, but of opinions that are disagreed with. Yet the degree of intolerance shown to those who oppose the radical homosexual agenda is immensely disturbing, especially coming from those who are such ardent advocates of toleration.

Those who oppose the leftist agenda are often subjected to threats, obscene anonymous phone calls, character assassination, and disturbing mischaracterizations in social media for having the courage to express their opinions.

A courageous couple, Ralph and Rochelle Lillig of Pocatello, ID, have felt the wrath and intolerance of the radical left. And what is the heinous injustice the Lilligs are guilty of? They have the chutzpah to suggest the citizens of their town exercise their right to vote on whether to accept a proposed “anti-discrimination” ordinance that criminalizes any perceived discrimination against homosexuals or transgenders. Encouraging democratic involvement is fundamental to the American tradition. The Lilligs should be lauded for advancing the notion that their community should actually have a direct voice in the laws the citizens are beholden to, rather than just leaving it in the hands of elected officials, some of whom have proven susceptible to coercive pressure from a small yet vocal minority.

640px-Westerkerk_-_Gay_symbols_2There is a local group that calls itself 2Great4Hate, which is supporting the ordinance. They are exercising their freedom of speech to advance their agenda. They are not being vilified for doing so. So why do they display such intolerance to the Lilligs for exercising their freedom of speech? It would appear that the left’s version of tolerance is very selective and exclusive. I was unceremoniously ostracized from their Facebook group because I failed to comport with their selective concept of “tolerance.” Apparently it’s not enough to simply oppose any form of discrimination, but one must accept the entirety of their narrow, codified version of it, regardless of the unintended consequences.

The left’s version of tolerance obviously excludes social conservatives who have the temerity to support the nuclear family, and broad exercise of freedom of speech. This was made painfully clear by their reaction to Chik-Fil-A last year when the company CEO revealed they were supportive of the traditional nuclear family. The left’s reaction evidenced a selective tolerance disorder, where it’s not enough to merely advocate treating others the way you want to be treated, but you have to buy into their precise agenda of forced acceptance of aberrance, deviancy, and codified enforcement.

As a principle, and a characteristic to be aspired, tolerance is antithetical to ideological conformity. If tolerance is publicly demanded of behavioral and ideological aberrance, it should likewise be extended toward people of contrarian values. Freedom of speech and expression should be absolutes for all citizens and groups, not proscribed for those who believe differently. Applying a common aphorism, if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.

It’s disconcerting when the primary means of advancing a particular agenda is verbal guerilla warfare of intimidation and personal attacks against those who have the audacity to disagree with them. It smacks of a fascistic tyranny of the minority by attempted intimidation of nonconformists.

I was critical of Attorney General Eric Holder when he claimed that we’re a “nation of cowards” for not addressing racial issues to his liking. But it’s no wonder we’re becoming a nation of cowards, since whenever someone has the courage to exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and it doesn’t conform with the left, they get vilified and publicly excoriated. That doesn’t seem very “tolerant” to me.

Christopher Hitchens, the secularist and author of “God is not Great” said in a New York Post interview, “More and more I find that those people are the real enemy intellectually. There’s no dishonesty like liberal dishonesty, just like there’s no intolerance like liberal intolerance. There’s nothing they won’t excuse and no excuse they won’t deploy. Their piety is a big aspect of that.”

The ultimate hypocrisy is to claim adherence to a standard of behavior yet fail to hold oneself accountable to that standard. If tolerance is a noble virtue to which our society must aspire, it must be applied universally, not just demanded of those who believe differently by those who have so little to spare. The bigotry and churlish behavior exhibited by the left on these kinds of issues should be sufficient to give any sentient person cause to spurn not only their conduct, but their agenda.

Tolerance is “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.” It doesn’t mean we have to agree, but it does require civility and mutual respect, in spite of perceived differences. It’s a worthy virtue to aspire to collectively as a society. But to have any collective efficacy, it must be applied universally, not selectively.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at [email protected].

 

Congressional duel between McDermott and Ryan

First, here is a small segment of Congressman Jim McDermott, apparently attempting to educate individuals at the IRS hearings about whether or not the government was attempting to silence conservative groups through the IRS.

Yes, you heard that right. It’s not the fault of the IRS, but the fault of the organizations for attempting to get tax-exempt status in the first place. Most importantly, McDermott does not believe that the IRS targeted the groups because of their political beliefs, in spite of previous testimony to the contrary. But, at least Congressman Paul Ryan was next in line to speak:

Yes, at the beginning of that you heard McDermott attempting to get the attention of the Chair, presumably to call a point of order to silence Ryan. But, no need to pick on that here, since the content of Ryan’s statement is oh so much better. He asked the individuals from the organizations that were targeted whether or not they believed that they were investigated by the IRS simply because they applied for non-profit status – McDermott’s contention – or because of their beliefs. Of course we all know their reply. However, Ryan was kind enough to point out that there already testimony stating that terms often used by progressive organizations were not used to weed out potential organizations for IRS investigations.

Student claims forced participation in anti-gun propaganda

Student claims forced participation in anti-gun propaganda

America’s college campuses are notoriously hostile toward traditional values and conservative students, fairly frequently, are faced with the proposition of publicly denouncing their own views or possibly failing a class.
Such was the case in the classroom of Midwestern State University at Provost professor Jennifer Yucus, according to a complaint filed by one of her students.
In an ongoing effort to bring attention to other anti-gun efforts, including a circulating petition and a social media campaign, the complaint claims Yucus issued a mandatory assignment to make posters with pointed, leftist messages.
The student wrote she “compelled students from her Computers For Artists class to advocate in favor of a political petition opposing firearms on campus, in opposition to a pair of bills currently before the Texas legislature, using personal art materials and MSU resources.”
According to the complaint, several fellow students expressed some level of disagreement with the assignment, to which Yucus “asked students to rationalize objections by thinking of it as a job from an employer (or words to that effect).”
After the students made the objectionable posters – including the website of the online petition – Yucus reportedly took pictures of them holding their coerced work as though they were unanimously in support of the expressed message.
The professor also used her employee email to send her class a link to the petition, the complaint alleges, and evidence shows she used pictures of her students on a now-deleted Facebook page called, “Anti Concealed Carry on Campus.”
A university administrator said Yucus is under investigation, calling the allegations “serious,” though noting the professor is still on active duty pending the completion of the inquiry.
The student complaint and other circumstantial evidence certainly suggests Yucus violated a state law barring public employees from using their authority “to interfere with or affect the result of an election … or to achieve any other political purpose.”
Only a comprehensive investigation will make that conclusion, however she is hardly alone among today’s institutes of higher education.
These bastions of leftist claptrap consistently bash otherwise conservative students with ideals completely separated from those they learned from their parents and church. Meanwhile, the so-called progressives claim all high school graduates need college.
Ostensibly, leftists push college as an added benefit when establishing one’s career. With half of college graduates either unemployed or working in an unrelated field out of necessity, this claim holds less water than ever before.
In reality, they just want another four years or more to finish the indoctrination that took place little by little in grades K through 12.
Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Christian Ideals Not Welcome in Chicago or Boston?

Since January 1 there have been 300 murders in Chicago. The terrible violence in the city, often killing innocent children does not seem to make the news. But, when Rahm Emanuel heard about Chick-Fil-A being a company founded on Christian beliefs, suddenly it was “Stop the Presses!” This was a major news story.

Really?

Did you hear about this?

A quick background: The president of Chick-Fil-A Dan Cathy was quoted in the Baptist Press saying he was “guilty as charged” for supporting “the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

In response the mayors of Boston and Chicago have published statements indicating that this business is not reflective of their communities and they are not welcome in their cities.

Chicago Tribune: Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel in a statement. “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.”

Emanuel was vowing his support for Alderman Moreno’s announcement that he would block construction of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in his district.

The owner of the only Chicago Chick-Fil-A store, like many, has taken offense at Emanuel’s statement.  Silich has asked for a meeting with Emmanuel.

Chicago Tribune: Lauren Silich, who owns a Chick-fil-A franchise just off the Magnificent Mile that opened last year, wrote in a press release that she is dedicated to “serving all of our guests with honor, dignity and respect. . . . We alone created 97 jobs this past year and our passion is building leaders for future generations, regardless of sexual orientation or beliefs.”

Boston Mayor Menino said he would block the chain from opening in Boston because of Cathy’s opposition to gay marriage.

Yahoo News: “In recent days you said Chick-fil-A opposes same-sex marriage and said the generation that supports it has ‘an arrogant attitude,'” Menino wrote in a letter dated July 20.  “Now—incredibly—your company says you are backing out of the same-sex marriage debate. I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.”

In response former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has organized a support Chick-Fil-A day.

 “The goal is simple: Let’s affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1,” Huckabee wrote on Facebook.

“If Chick fil-A forced its customers to sign an oath stating they are heterosexual before they could buy a chicken sandwich, the angry critics would not only have a point, but I would join them. I think it is great that Chick-fil-A is run by people with a Biblical world view and they operate it based on Biblical values, but there is a bigger issue. That’s not what this is about. The company sells chicken and doesn’t force a view on its customers or employees, but the owners shouldn’t be disenfranchised from their citizenship and rights of free speech, nor should they be kept from operating their business in cities across the country because a few “wanna be tyrants” disagree with their beliefs.”

Others agree. In an editorial the Los Angeles Times published their concern over the Chick-Fil-A President Cathy’s first amendment rights.

“We disagree heartily with Cathy, but are far more troubled by the reaction of Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who vowed to block Chick-fil-A’s effort to open an outlet in that city.”

I am reminded of Chick-fil-A’s beliefs every time I drive past one on Sunday and see they’re closed. I respect this decision but each time think how much business they might have if only they were open. . . If I find this company’s prominent religious belief offensive I can choose not to shop there.

As a conservative I don’t have to believe what the Cathy family does but I will staunchly defend their right to free speech. If the company does not discriminate and follows the Civil Rights Code then they should have every right to build—or not build in an area. The mayors and aldermen blocking a business solely on its religion is appalling. There are many of us in the silent majority. We cannot allow the loud voices of the minority liberal take away our rights.

I don’t know about you but all this fuss makes me think I might need to, “Eat More Chikin.”

Discrimination — The Politically Incorrect Guide

Choose the car you like, the woman you marry, or the supermarket you shop at, and you “discriminate.” We all discriminate every minute of our lives—to discriminate means to choose between endless options that suit your needs, values, or preferences. Personal discrimination means having the right to choose what you do with your body, values, and the money or property you own .

When we “discriminate” with our property, we exercise our right to make choices. But sometimes we make bad choices that offend others. Some people don’t wish to sell to, buy from, or associate with minorities, Catholics, old people, homosexuals, or women with children. People can be irrational or bigoted in a thousand ways.

However, respect for each other’s freedom ironically requires that we respect each other’s right to make decisions that may offend some people. For example, if a homeowner doesn’t want to rent his upstairs apartment to bald men, homosexuals, or Indonesian women, that should be his right, because it is his home.

The homeowner may be “prejudiced” against certain people, but he has the right to make that choice with his own property. The person denied the apartment, while their feelings may be offended, had no claim to that apartment, for it was not their property in the first place. In free trade between people who respect each other’s property and freedom of choice, you have the right to buy or sell anything, but only if the other person is willing to trade with you. Every trade requires the free consent of both parties.

Remember, an insulted would-be tenant also has free choice. He can decide who he rents from. Doesn’t a tenant also “discriminate” against a homeowner if he chooses not to rent the apartment because it is dirty, in a neighborhood too far from where he works, or because he doesn’t like the owner’s race or personality?

The same applies to all privately-owned property in a free country. The owner of a restaurant has the right to not serve someone who can’t order in English. It’s his restaurant. A private-school owner has the right to say, “I will only admit Asian students with wealthy parents.” It’s his school. These businessmen may be fools to believe bad things about whole groups of people, but they have the right to be fools with their own property.

A school or business owner earned the money and took the risks to buy that school or business. However, if he irrationally excludes too many people as customers, he may soon find himself out of business and bankrupt. The free market often punishes a business owner for being stupid or bigoted.

We all dislike bigots, but one man’s bigotry is another’s truth. No one has the right to dictate our opinions or moral values, or to control our property without our consent. That’s what property rights means.

Yet, anti-discrimination laws violate this principle. These laws say a man can’t choose who he wants to do business with. This means that government now presumes to control that man’s mind, hard-earned property, personal decisions, and freedom of choice. It means tyranny.

If government officials can tell us what opinions we can or can’t have about other people, it can also tell us what we can or can’t do with our bodies, property, and even our children. It can wipe out our freedom of choice. Isn’t that what compulsory public schools do against parents? Isn’t that what a suffocating web of government regulations does to all businessmen? Haven’t the bureaucrats, like a spreading cancer, eaten away ever more of our choices, our freedom, and our property rights?

Also, in the end, anti-discrimination laws end up hurting the very people they want to help. The more that government strangles businesses with a suffocating web of anti-discrimination, wage, health, and environmental regulations, the worse off minorities get. A massive Federal government needs massive deficit spending. That pumps up inflation. Inflation sharply raises the cost of living for everyone, which hurts low-income minorities most of all.

Strangling government regulations also cripple small businesses and either stop them from opening, or restrict their expansion. That means less jobs for minority workers. Also, every time Congress raises the minimum wage, small-business owners who can’t afford these raises have to fire some of their minority workers.

It is only governments, at any level, that have no right to discriminate. Government’s purpose is to protect all citizens’ liberty. Also, government bureaucrats do not earn or create property. They mostly loot money (through taxes) from some people to give to others. They therefore don’t have the right, for example, to tell all restaurant owners in white neighborhoods that they can’t serve Blacks (as some states did with Jim Crow laws). That violates the right of a non-bigoted restaurant owner to serve whoever he pleases. Such laws also violate the political and economic liberty of a black person.

One reason discrimination against Blacks lasted so long in many southern states was because Jim Crow laws legalized segregation, but these laws were created by local governments. Such laws forbid competition between bigots and non-bigots. The restaurant or bus company who serves all people makes more money and has a greater chance at success. Bigoted businessmen lose money. In the end, without government-enforced discrimination laws, the free market would wipe out most organized discrimination.

In short, we, as individuals or businesses, have the right to “discriminate” with our own minds, bodies, and property. I say this not because I agree with bigots, but to protect our most fundamental liberties, the liberties that, in the end, are the only real protection for those “discriminated” against.

Meet the FFB, the Largest D C Slush Fund Ever Part 2

In part 1 of Meet the FFB, we discovered how Congress had created their own mafia-style loan sharking Federal Financing Bank where designated Congressional committees have had little to zero oversight in billions of dollars in “loans” where taxpayers lose huge amounts of money. ( think Solyndra here ) Meanwhile, politicians are stuffing their campaign coffers, crony-capitalists, union bed-pals, friends,and relatives wallets, through mafia-style influence peddling. The political appointees of the Treasury dept.’s ‘head nod’ is all that is required for billions of taxpayer dollars to be doled out, sometimes at little to zero interest. The Treasury believes that the FFB loan-sharking and political influence-peddling is strictly legal according to the FFB’s charter, but that false belief comes from the fact that Congress just decided to give themselves the power to ignore the United States Constitution when they created their own loan sharking and influence-peddling bank.

The creation of the FFB was illegal according to the U.S. Constitution and therefore should be abolished immediately, and all it takes is a summary look at what our Constitution mandates. relative to the U.S. Congress authorizing the spending of  tax dollars. Before one dime of taxpayer’s money is spent, it must be drawn up as a bill, go through relative committees in the U.S. House of Representatives, be debated, ( with possible amendments voted upon) and in passing by a majority a vote, be sent to the U.S Senate for consideration. If the Senate authorizes the spending in the bill and passes it, it is then sent to the President for his signature of authorization to spend said amounts of taxpayer dollars. ( That’s the short version, and yes, there are also other factors and legislative procedures involved in spending legislation that are simply too numerous to mention here, for all the nit-picking, tax-dodging felons of the world posing as lawyers such as current Treasury Secretary Timmy Geitner, who might want to cry about it )

No where in our constitution does it even come close to implying that Congress has the authority to bypass congressional spending legislation by creating their own loan-sharking, graft, bribery and influence-peddling bank as they did in creating the FFB in 1973. That fact alone proves the FFB to be more in line with a mafia-style loansharking criminal enterprise, as opposed to the fairy tale that it is legal to loan out the people’s money at near zero percent interest rates to friends, relatives, Unions, and campaign-donor-crony-capitalists simply because the tyrants of Congress said it was within their power to do so. Congress over-stepped their authority and the FBB should be shut down immediately. Like so many pieces of legislation over the years, Congress starts out with apparently good intentions only to have the people suffer at the hands of an over-reaching big government expansion of power. Now we shall provide our readers with a few examples just how Congress has been using the FFB to give away our tax dollars to political bed-pals, Unions, friends, and relatives, while also enacting the Marxist wealth redistribution agenda that is so heavily embedded in the Liberal ideology of Barack Obama and the fake Democratic Party of today.

The now famous Solyndra scandal where taxpayers lost over half a billion dollars due to the FBB loan sharking program, is largely responsible in bringing this fraud upon the taxpaying public into the sunlight. This episode in Congressional connivance contains all the elements of the Liberal Democratic agenda that we have seen come out of the closet, so to speak , during the past five years. First it contains a heavy dose of Marxist wealth redistribution at it’s very roots in the fact that it picks and chooses just who gets near zero interest rate loans, how much they get, and then even goes so far as to forgive “colleges of color” interest due on already handed out loans.

Since when is it legal for the U.S. Government to favor a black college over say a historically Asian college in America? Well, with the election of a half-black POTUS in 2008, this seems to be standard operating procedure more and more every day. From Part 1 of Meet the FFB: The bank also lets the General Services Administration [GSA], as well as “Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” and the Veteran Administration slide on interest costs on their loans, too. The bank lets them defer interest costs “on their loans until future periods,” the KMPG report say. Either give every college in the United States equal loans and then forgive the interest until a later date on said loans to all of them, or get out of the college loan business all together! That is a classic case of race-based discrimination 101, and FYI, it is against Federal law! That example is also a form of stealth wealth redistribution in which taxpayer dollars are being used to give an unfair financing advantage to “colleges of color.” When we talk about the wealth redistribution inherent in the loan sharking bank of congress called the FFB, we also see political favoritism as to who gets what green energy loans. First, the majority of the cash is sent directly to mostly Democratic Party/Obama supporters out in Liberal la-la land, California. Nothing to see here folks, just move along. The Daily Caller exposes the proof here:More solar companies led by Democratic donors received federal loan guarantees.

Weekend update: From TheHill.com, Energy Department approves $4.7 billion in solar loans. ( last minute cash grab before deadline cuts it off)

The Energy Department finalized Friday more than $4.7 billion in loan guarantees for four solar projects, bringing an embattled stimulus-law program aimed at financing renewable energy projects to a close.

This Congressional loan sharking scheme appears to be coming to a close, as far as the FBB dishing out green energy loans for Democratic campaign contributions goes… for now. We must keep an eye on the FBB Congressional slush fund bank from here on out.

In Meet the FFB part 3, we shall follow the money trail of billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars flowing into campaign coffers. Guess which politicians are filling their campaign coffers with the newest form of D.C. “green” cash? 

Black Group Sues Democratic Party for Racial Discrimination/Demands Apology From Obama

  A class action lawsuit was filed in a U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington against the Democratic Party of America for it’s long history of racial discrimination against African-Americans. The lead plaintiff is listed as one Wayne Perryman, an African-American Minister, author and community organizer from Mercer, Washington.  This group is neither a small group of rabble-rousing trouble-makers out to make a name for themselves in a publicity stunt, nor are they in this for money. They are in fact, not suing for a dime, but instead are demanding an apology for the Democratic Party of America’s longstanding and continuing racial discrimination against black Americans stretching from the year 1792 right up to 2011. Mr Perryman also names the President of the United States as a defendant in the lawsuit, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, seeing as he is the head of the Democratic Party today, and because of things Barack wrote in his book Dreams From My Father.

   Apparently Barack Obama played it a little too cool, for Mr Perryman’s liking when he sent a letter to President Obama back in 2009, demanding that President Obama issue a national apology for his Democratic Party’s long time discrimination against blacks, and to which Obama either completely ignored, or flat out refused to do. Either way President Obama didn’t make the public apology, so now it is going to court demanding nothing more than an apology from Obama on the behalf of the Democratic Party of America. After the news of this lawsuit gets out, I,m betting someone will be called to the White House for maybe another beer summit, to say the least. This is the last thing Obama needs to deal with, while running around the country in campaign mode 24/7.  I,m sure the questions will be asked as to why he refused to offer up a simple apology for the proven Democratic Party transgressions against blacks throughout American history. Just like when Mr. Perryman sent him the letter demanding the apology, Mr. Obama will simply refuse to acknowledge it, let alone to answer the questions.

A press release from The Frederick Douglas Foundation  lays out some pretty heady stuff about the merits of this lawsuit, and just who is behind it:

The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as “Father of Racism,” allege that as an organization, the Democratic Party has consistently refused to apologize for the role they played in slavery and Jim Crow laws and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011.

The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation’s top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat’s National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.

Perryman said, “Any organization that has such a racist history and receives 97% of the African American vote (after doing all they could to deny blacks the right to vote), should willingly apologize without being forced do so through a lawsuit. He said, “I guess they feel they have nothing to apologize for.”

 

 We have to wonder if any of the Congressional Black Caucus members pictured here will be willing to maybe give a little bit of their microphone/TV time to utter this apology instead of devoting it to their recent barrage of ignorant, racist rhetoric like calling Tea Party folks terrorists, and saying that Republicans want to hang them all up from a tree?  As we see in the paragraph above, the CBC isn’t the only one who is referring to Jim Crow laws, as many blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South have testified about the Democrat’s history of discrimination and are in fact, including those documents in their brief. How about it Maxine Waters? Will you tell this group of black professors, scholars and top history professors to go to hell too, just like you told the Tea Party which we saw broadcast on national TV?  How about Barack Obama giving up 10 minutes of  his seemingly 24/7 Hollywood movie-star-like desires to be seen and heard on our TV’s 7 days a week to tell us about the Democrat’s long-standing history of discrimination against blacks, lawsuit here? Hang on a minute here, do any of our readers think for just one minute that Barack Obama is going to admit how his Democratic Party has oppressed and discriminated against black Americans while at the same time, begging for their very important support for another four years in office?  Didn’t think so.