Monday, July 29, 2013
Conservative Black Chick: Trayvon’s Mom ‘Manufacturing Race War,’ ‘Didn’t Care About Him
By
Following Sybrina Fulton‘s powerful and emotional plea Friday to the National Urban League, conservative Black token du jour, Crystal Wright, who has coined the moniker, Conservative Black Chick, took to Twitter and attacked the grieving mother as being opportunistic and dishonest.
Wright cruelly accused Fulton of “manufacturing a race war” and suggests that she “move on” or “get on with writing her book.”
Move on from her murdered child?
Mimicking the crass, troll tactics of some of her GOP brethren, Wright agreed — and retweeted — followers who claimed that Sybrina Fulton “didn’t care about Trayvon till she copyrighted his name and made trash cans of money.”
Wright, who takes pride in being a “triple minority,” — Black, female and Republican — was a regular commentator on HLN during the George Zimmerman trial, obviously selected to be the lone Black voice who would support the former neighborhood watch captain’s version of events — re: lies — and place 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on trial from the grave.
And she took Fulton’s speech today as an opportunity to do it once again.
As previously reported by NewsOne, Fulton addressed the National Urban League in Philadelphia to call for action against Florida’s controversial and racially-biased ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws.
Recalling the moment that she handed a driver a photo of Trayvon, and he said “that’s my son, too,” Fulton said her message is resonating in the right way:
“My message to you is please use my story, please use my tragedy, please use my broken heart to say to yourself, `We cannot let this happen to anybody else’s child,’” she told the audience.
See Fulton’s speech below:
While Fulton may be spreading love the right way, Wright is spreading hate the GOP way — criminalizing an unarmed Black teen, ridiculing his mother and calling the love that she has for her child a media ploy.
When one follower — unsurprisingly, another White male — tweeted “gotta love parents-never paid attention-until his corpse brought fame/bucks,” Wright was quick to tweet her approval.
What is clear is that any criticism from Trayvon Martin supporters will likely feed the ugliness that Wright is perpetuating. After all, White, conservative, male America loves her and, if her Twitter feed is any indication, that seems to be all the validation that she needs.
Why Has This Story About George Zimmerman Molesting His Cousin Gone Viral Again? (AUDIO)
ELISABETH PARKER/Addicting Info
If you’re a journalist or scandalmonger, the George Zimmerman trial is the gift that keeps on giving. How can one possibly keep track of all the twists and turns in this sordid tale? With each passing day, the plot sickens thickens. In just the past three weeks alone — since Zimmerman’s “not guilty” verdict — we’ve had news of a juror’s ghoulish book deal gone bad, possible jury tampering, a juror calling him a “murderer,” a possible staged auto accident rescue gone awry, and Zimmerman’s brother Robert — the family “spokesthug” — threateningl the slain Travyon Martin’s family if they don’t shut up.
All of this makes it way too easy for us to forget that — no matter what five of the six women on the jury believe — we have ample proof that Zimmerman was enough of a bully and a racist to have been looking for trouble that night when he followed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin against the advice of local police. Due to anger and resentment over Zimmerman walking free, a very interesting article and audio clip have been making the rounds on the Internet again. Last July, Trymaine Lee from the Huffington Post reported that, on March 20, 2012, a female cousin of Zimmerman’s testified to investigators that he had sexually molested her for 13 years starting at age six. In addition, she claims that the Zimmerman family were over-the-top, “boastfully proud” racists who frequently said hateful things about black people. In an emotionally wrenching interview, the often-weeping woman first described the repeated molestations that occurred during family get-togethers:
It started when I was six. We’d all lay in front of the TV and we had pillows and blankets and he would reach under the blankets and try to do things and I would try to push him off but he was bigger and stronger and older. It was in front of everybody and I don’t know how I didn’t say anything, I just didn’t know any better.
Despite what the Martin family’s legal team described as “her emotional state,” the woman reportedly came forward because she strongly believed that Zimmerman was capable of shooting Trayvon Martin because of his skin color:
I was afraid that he may have done something because the kid was black. Because growing up they’ve always made, him and his family have always made statements that they don’t like black people if they don’t act like white people. They like black people if they act white and other than that, they talk a lot of bad things about black people.
Back in 2012, Amenda Marcotte from Slate wrote that — despite the mainstream media dismissing Witness #9′s testimony as “irrelevant,” her testimony was extremely relevant, due to the nature of sexual abuse:
Sexual abuse is a form of bullying, a violent crime whose pleasure for the attacker is far more about enjoying their power and dominance over the victim than it is about sexual urges. Subsequently, sexually violent men tend to be more violent generally, particularly against people they believe are lesser or weaker. If you’re trying to establish that Zimmerman had it in him to hunt down and murder a teenager who is much smaller than himself, then a history of sexual assault does help demonstrate this.
And when it comes to racism, Zimmerman’s mother sounds like a real piece of work. Here are just three choice tidbits recalled by Witness #9:
- I don’t like Obama, because he is black and I am a racist.
- I have a black girl that works right behind me and I’m like, what, are you just, let’s go, and I kind of just swept her in the back.
- She often talked about “marrying into white families in order to improve one’s status.
Yes, that’s right. Zimmerman’s mom openly declared herself as a racist, struck a black co-worker in their work place, and wanted her kids to marry lighter-skinned people. And when asked why she didn’t tell anyone in her family, or do anything until she escaped Zimmerman’s advances at a family gathering when she was 19, Witness #9 unwittingly provided the perfect portrait of a sociopath:
I was scared of what else was going to happen. With him, he like, he was a different person to me. He was very intimidating and the fact that he made everyone love him and made everyone laugh and be so happy around him, I knew if I said anything he would just deny it.
This chilling evidence makes us wonder how a jury of six women — five of whom are mothers — could possibly see Zimmerman as anything other than a bullying sociopath with a gun whose actions were clearly motivated by racism, rather than by self-defense. By their standards, the “Stand Your Ground” law can be used to justify shooting in all circumstances … unless you’re that African-American woman who fired a harmless warning shot in the air to deter her abuser. Then you get 20 years in jail.
Here’s the audio from LRJTV’s YouTube channel:
Don Lemon doubles down: ‘I’m gonna get the Uncle Tom award’
By Arturo Garcia/Raw Story
CNN anchor Don Lemon backed up his criticisms of the African-American community on Sunday, telling guest LZ Granderson he was reclaiming the label of “Uncle Tom,” classically used to describe a Black man who is subservient to whites.
“I’m taking that word back,” Lemon said to Granderson. “I’m being called an ‘Uncle Tom’ so much, I’m taking that word back. I’m gonna get the ‘Uncle Tom’ award.”
Lemon made the remarks in an allusion to the online criticism he drew for his Saturday commentary saying Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly “doesn’t go far enough” in chiding African-Americans, before suggesting that young Black males should stop wearing sagging pants.
“What is wrong with telling people to dress appropriately?” Lemon asked Granderson and conservative commentator Ana Navarro on Sunday. “These are things that I said [Saturday] that my mom taught me in kindergarten, that parents tell their kids in kindergarten. Dress nicely, speak well, speak appropriately.”
Lemon’s commentary was derided across social media, with the mocking #DonLemonLogicgaining traction. Lemon also addressed the controversy on Twitter, writing that it was not about racism, but “about bettering oneself in spite of. ie, abused woman at some point has to leave abuser.”
Lemon also re-posted an encouraging message from Fox News host Geraldo Rivera, who was himself derided in March 2012 for blaming the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on his choice to wear a hooded sweatshirt the night he was pursued, shot and killed by former neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman. Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder charges on July 13, 2013.
“I was amazed when I retweeted it that I got so much Twitter hate,” Navarro told Lemon about the furor surrounding his remarks on Saturday. “There’s people who call you in to schools, Don, and call you in to go speak to youth, and to groups, and tell them how you succeed. We are here on this panel — three minorities, two African-Americans, one Latino — who have succeeded. There’s advice to be given. Success is not going to be reached by not speaking English correctly, though I do have an accent and I do butcher it now and then.”
Lemon also cited his own past coverage of the Zimmerman trial, as well as a stand-alone special program he hosted concerning the use of the “N-word” in American culture, and alluding to his July 20 argument with conservative Ben Ferguson regarding white privilege.
“Did I not have those conversations on the air about privilege and about racism and about profiling and about having been profiled?” Lemon asked his guests.
“You absolutely did,” Navarro affirmed, before misidentifying who the defendant was in that trial. “I think the Trayvon Martin trial is an opportunity for us to have the deep discussions we need to have. Let’s not talk about each other, let’s talk to each other and also within our own groups.”
Granderson told Lemon that, while has taught his son that the use of terms like the “N-word” had to be viewed through different contexts, he did not pretend that there were not ramifications to using it in a social setting.
“You’re not gonna get hired for a high-power position job, you likely are not gonna be accepted at some prestigious university,” Granderson said. “I severely doubt you’d be able to get a decent date with anyone worth loving if you spend your entire time dropping the ‘N-word’ and you can’t keep your hands up.”
Watch the discussion, posted on YouTube by user “Den Havoc” on Sunday, below.
Florida Cops Shoot Unarmed Black Man In His Mother’s Driveway
BY REBECCA LEBER/Think Progress
This weekend, deputies from Escambia County, Florida shot an unarmed man who went to grab cigarettes from the car parked in the driveway of his mother’s home. A neighbor called police at 2 a.m. because he suspected 60-year-old Roy Middleton was stealing the car. Things quickly escalated when two deputies arrived and ordered Middleton to “get your hands where I can see them,” the Pensacola News Journal reports:
[Middleton] said he initially thought it was a neighbor joking with him, but when he turned his head he saw deputies standing halfway down his driveway.He said he backed out of the vehicle with his hands raised, but when he turned to face the deputies, they immediately opened fire.“It was like a firing squad,” he said. “Bullets were flying everywhere.”
The deputies reportedly fired about seven shots at the unarmed man; Middleton was shot in the leg, and another five bullet holes hit the car and the side of house.
With the Trayvon Martin case still a fresh memory for another Florida county, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the State Attorney’s office are now investigating the incident. For now, the involved officers are on paid administrative leave.
REPORT: Nation’s Second Largest Radio Broadcaster Planning To Drop Rush Limbaugh
BY JUDD LEGUM/Think Progress
Cumulus Media, the second-biggest operator of radio stations in the nation, is planning to drop Rush Limbaugh, according to a report from POLITICO.
Last year, over 140 advertisers severed their relationship with the Limbaugh program after the host launched a series of sexist attacks on women’s health advocate Sandra Fluke. Cumulus carries Limbaugh on over 40 stations, including WABC in New York, the nation’s largest market. Losing the New York market could damage Limbaugh’s ability to sell national advertising at all, according to some experts.
Cumulus, according the POLITICO report, will also drop Sean Hannity. In 2012, nearly 100 advertisers also dropped the Hannity show, which features a similar brand of caustic right-wing talk.
Limbaugh recently acknowledged difficulty selling ads, complaining ad buyers are “are young women fresh out of college, liberal feminists who hate conservatism“:
In May, the CEO of Cumulus publicly attributed a major decline in revenue this year to lost advertising following Limbaugh’s comments on Fluke.
New York Mayoral Candidate: Stop-And-Frisks Institutionalized Zimmerman-Like Profiling
The only African American candidate in New York City’s mayoral race, who has taken a moderate position on the city’s aggressive stop-and-frisk program, invoked Trayvon Martin’s death in lambasting racial discrimination in the New York Police Department’s rampant stops, saying the city has “institutionalized” George Zimmerman’s racially charged suspicion.
In comments that echoed those of President Barack Obama on Trayvon Martin and racial profiling, former city comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. broke into uncharacteristically impassioned and personal remarks that made plain he believes Martin died because he was black, and that no one else should have to. The New York Times reports:
“Here in New York City, we have institutionalized Mr. Zimmerman’s suspicion with a policy that all but requires our police officers to treat young black and Latino men with suspicion, to stop them and frisk them because of the color of their skin.” [...]Of what Mr. Thompson said were the 600,000 blacks and Latinos stopped by the New York police in 2011, a vast majority were innocent, he said — “profiled as Trayvon was profiled.”“If our government profiles people because of skin color and treats them as potential criminals, how can we expect citizens to do any less?” Mr. Thompson asked, as church members loudly applauded and occasionally interrupted with cries of “amen.” [...]“Trayvon Martin did die because he was black. Of that, there is no doubt,” Mr. Thompson said, adding, “The verdict in Florida was a verdict — but it was not the verdict.”
The New York Police Department’s aggressive program for stopping those on the street suspected of criminal activity has come increasingly under fire as amonths-long trial in a class-action challenge to the program revealed additional evidence that the Department sets quotas on the number of stop-and-frisks, instructs officers to target black men, and taunts young teens. In 2011, the Department made more stops of young black men than the population of young black men in the city.
Unlike fellow Democratic candidate John C. Liu, the current city Comptroller, Thompson does not seek to abolish the stop-and-frisk program entirely. He even opposes a legislature-passed bill to authorize racial profiling lawsuits against the police that was vetoed last week by Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I). But he would remove Police Commissioner Raymond C. Kelly, who has led the unprecedented expansion of the stop-and-frisk program; ban racial profiling; and put more officers on the street in high-crime areas to reduce false reliance on race as a proxy for criminal suspicion. In a debate with Liu on the topic, Thompson defended the measure as a means of fighting crime, snapping, “I’m the one who has to worry about my son getting shot on the street.” Thompson’s position, however, has thwarted an endorsement from Rev. Al Sharpton and other high-profile African American Democrats.
Fellow Democratic candidates Christine Quinn and Bill de Blasio would also stop short of abolishing stop-and-frisk, but have supported the legislature’s reform bills.
Since Mayor Bloomberg took office, the NYPD has expanded its use of the tactic, completing 5 million stops during his tenure alone — 4.4 million of innocent people. But some version of this tactic has been common nationwide, since a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision authorized police to stop individuals on the street even where they don’t have probably cause for their arrest. Under this decision, police may briefly stop individuals if they have “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity, and frisk that suspect if they suspect after questioning that the person is armed. Although the tactic was intended to protect against violent crime, the NYPD’s program has yieldedmore arrests for marijuana than anything else.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Fox's Starnes Boycotts Pro-Equality Restaurant After Condemning Chick-Fil-A Boycott
LUKE BRINKER/Media Matters For America:
Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes is outraged that a Manhattan barbecue joint will no longer rent space to an anti-gay church and vows to boycott the popular restaurant. Starnes' strong condemnation of a private business's actions contrasts sharply with his spirited defense of Chick-fil-A, which faced boycotts over anti-gay statements last summer.
In a July 24 post for FoxNews.com and in a series of tweets on July 25, Starnes denounced Hill Country Barbecue for its decision to stop allowing The Gallery Church to conduct services in the restaurant. Hill Country Barbecue's action followed mounting pressure in the neighborhood for the restaurant to stop renting space to the church after Pastor Freddy Wyatt gave a sermon series on same-sex attraction.
Starnes blasted Hill Country Barbecue's decision as "[a]nti-Christian," vowing that he'd never set foot in the restaurant again:
One year ago, when Chick-fil-A was under fire for anti-gay statements by President Dan Cathy, Starnes took a slightly different tack, instructing his Twitter followers patronize the chain and referring to boycotts of the chain as "anti-capitalism." He criticized media outlets for launching a "brutal assault" against the restaurant and warned that Chick-fil-A was "under siege" by "militant gays."
Writing for FoxNews.com on July 31, 2012, Starnes criticized the very principle of criticizing private businesses based on the political or religious views of their owners:
There's something about the public flogging of Chick-fil-A by government officials that seems un-American - lawmakers hell-bent on destroying a privately owned American company simply because of the owner's personal opinions.[...]There are efforts under way to shut down Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country. Student groups are launching similar campaigns on university campuses.Lost in their outrage over a belief held by a majority of the American public, is the fact that Chick-fil-A employs thousands and thousands of people.And with unemployment hovering around 8.2 percent, you have to wonder what sort of message Democrats are trying to send to the nation.Perhaps the party of President Obama believes it's morally better to be unemployed than to be anti-gay marriage? [emphasis added]
For Starnes, businesses should be free to make their own decisions when it comes to LGBT issues without having to worry about being criticized or boycotted - just as long as their decisions always line up with Starnes' personal biases about LGBT people.
UPDATE: Pastor Freddy Wyatt of The Gallery Church issued a statement on the church's website distancinghimself from Starnes' article, writing:
We recently shared through a blog post a short account of our church being asked to no longer meet at Hill Country Barbecue Market. Additionally, we have shared this story with three different radio shows. We shared our story so people would know how they can pray for our church, and how they can support our church financially during a time of need.We enjoy friendships with the individuals who work at Hill Country Barbecue Market and appreciate their willingness to host our church for the season they did. We had a month-to-month lease with the restaurant, which they chose to not renew. Some of the news reports have used the term "eviction" - this was not our term, nor is it the best description of their decision. Though this saddened us, we understood and respected their decision.We've also been saddened by the hateful and hostile things that have been written about this restaurant as a response to hearing our story. Please join us, Gallery Church in responding with neighborly love and grace toward our friends at Hill Country Barbecue Market. We look forward to continuing our friendships, finding tangible ways to bless our neighbors, and will continue to eat at Hill Country Barbecue Market.[emphasis added]
Fox News Continues To Push Phony Benghazi "Stand Down" Claim
ANDREW LAWRENCE/Media Matters For America:
Fox News host Martha MacCallum claimed that a "stand down" order was given the night of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi - an order that prevented U.S. troops from saving the lives of Americans stationed there. MacCallum's claim ignores the reality that no "stand down" order was ever given.
In the months following the September 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate, Fox hosts accused the Obama administration of ordering troops to "stand down" and not respond immediately to the attack. Media Matters analysis shows that on at least 85 different occasions Fox mentioned this accusation during segments in prime time.
On the July 26 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, MacCallum said, "My mind goes back to the order to stand down, and how none of this may have happened if that order to stand down had not been given. And we still don't know who gave that order, so that remains a really serious question here as well."
MacCallum also claims that the source of the alleged stand down order is unknown. This phony assertion has been repeatedly debunked.
During May 8 congressional hearings into the Benghazi attacks, then Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli Gregory Hicks testified that Lt. Col. Gibson, who commanded special forces troops in Tripoli, was ordered to "stand down." Following that testimony, Gibson met with the House Armed Services Committee on June 26 and told the Republican-led committee that no "stand down" order was given:
In a closed-door session with the House Armed Services Committee, Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson said his commanders told him to remain in the capital of Tripoli to defend Americans in the event of additional attacks and to help survivors being evacuated from Benghazi."Contrary to news reports, Gibson was not ordered to 'stand down' by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other special forces soldiers to Benghazi," the Republican-led committee said in a summary of its classified briefing with military officials, including Gibson.
Additionally, in February Leon Panetta testified before Congress that President Obama "ordered that the Defense Department respond to the attack with 'all available DOD assets' and try to protect U.S. personnel." Fox's own Benghazi special which aired in late June reported that an April House GOP interim report into the attacks confirmed that the "Department of Defense officials and military personnel reacted quickly to the attacks in Benghazi."
George Zimmerman’s heroic car crash rescue appears to be a fraud
By Dog Gone/IVN
This was a suspic/ious story from the beginning.
We have seen news reports of protesters doing thousands of dollars of damage to be wrong. The claims of separate attacks by protesters over the Zimmerman verdict turned out to be false. Now added to the list of false news reports appears to be the story of George Zimmerman heroically rescuing a family of four from a burning SUV.
The initial report was that George Zimmerman was ‘just coincidentally’ driving by after a car accident occurred, that he leaped out of his vehicle to come to the rescue of the family of four trapped inside as the vehicle caught fire, pulling them to safety. That was followed by the claim that the family he rescued had planned a press event to thank George Zimmerman, but that they canceled due to threats from Trayvon Martin supporters.
It appears they may have canceled the event because they did not want to be part of the fraud of making Zimmerman out to be a hero, when that story was not precisely true.
What did occur was that an accident occurred where a car slid on it’s side into a median. People at the scene called 911, which went to the Sanford office of the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office. BEFORE responding to the 911 call, News Ball.com reports that Seminole Sheriff’s Dept. Officer Patrick Rehder, a self-styled friend and supporter of Zimmerman,contacted Zimmerman by cell phone directing him to go to the accident so as to appear to be a hero. News Ball.com also provides a social media screen capture of a curious statement about Rehder taking pleasure when someone gets credit for something they did not do.
Rehder’s name appears on the accident report as the responding officer; social media shows his connection to Zimmerman.
There were plenty of people driving by who witnessed the accident, and stopped to help the family out of the vehicle, BEFORE Zimmerman showed up, according to the 911 calls, but no ‘thank you’ press conference mentioning anyone else by name specifically was scheduled by the family, and no mention of anyone other than Zimmerman was made by the sheriff.
Zimmerman showed up AFTER he was called by a SCSO member according to a report at News Ball.com, Zimmerman then got out of his car with a fire extinguisher, and apparently left without doing anything especially heroic. You can hear the course of events here in the 911 calls; many people who were there as the accident happened stopped to get people out, and the fire and smoke problem from the calls, appeared some time after they were out of the car. As you can hear from the calls, people were out before there was a smoke or fire problem; Zimmerman did not appear to risk his life to pull anyone out of a burning car, as was claimed. :
So, we have the claim that George Zimmerman just happened to be at the accident several days after his verdict called into question. We have established a relationship between George Zimmerman and the responding officer.
We have the actual extraction of the people in the accident by multiple citizens coming to the rescue who witnessed the accident, according to the 911 calls, we have the report in 911 calls that everyone was OUT of the vehicle for some time before there was any question of smoke or fire, and we have the sheriff and the victim ONLY mentioning George Zimmerman – by name. But there is no mention by anyone, especially the Sheriff’s office, of the other ‘good samaritans’ who appear to have done the actual hard part of helping people out of the car lying on its side.
We have no independent verification that Zimmerman was even there, much less that he did anything heroic. No photos, no cell phone video, no police video, no other people who were present as indicated by the 911 calls that support that Zimmerman was there, or did what was claimed – that he pulled people from a flaming car wreck.
That seems distinctly odd, on top of the suspicious timing of this heroic Zimmerman rescue. Enough strange and implausible quirks make this SUV accident rescue appear fake.
THIS new challenge to Zimmerman’s integrity in addition to the misrepresentation of funds donated when bail was set, as well as the conflicting statements made to police and in court, is why protesters both distrust BOTH George Zimmerman and the local Florida LEOs, and are protesting the validity of the trial verdict. It is also part of why there is opposition to the SYG laws that make it easier for someone to get away with homicide.
Tennessee Christians Say Majority Rule Gives Them The Power To Violate Rights Of Non-Christians
STEPHEN D. FOSTER JR/Addicting Info (for video please click to the link)
Remember when Republicans whined constantly in 2009 and 2010 that the Democratic majority was trampling their rights? Remember when they complained about majority rule and used their minority in Congress to obstruct any and all bills? Remember when they referred to majority rule as tyranny when Democrats controlled the House, and still do because Democrats control the Senate? Well, conservative Christian pastors in Tennessee are doing an about-face to force God down the throats of every non-Christian in the state, and they are perfectly willing to violate the Constitution to do so.
In February 2013, the county commission of Anderson County in Tennessee voted 12-4 in favor of inscribing the words ‘In God We Trust’ on the outside of the county courthouse. Just this week, the first of what will be four signs carrying the phrase was installed. According to Raw Story, “each granite plaque weighs 170 pounds and has the words “In God We Trust” in gold leaf lettering.”
The decision of the county commission and the unveiling on Tuesday has divided the county. Christian pastors, however, are telling non-Christians and the ACLU to go to hell. Raw Story reports that local pastors are invoking majority rule as an excuse to ignore and justify the violation of the constitutional rights of non-Christians.
“This is people standing up for what they believe in,” said Steve McDonald, pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church. “We have a right to the democratic process and majority rule.””
And Clinton Baptist Association Director of Missions Tom Byrge stated that “Whether you agree with this or disagree with this, the democratic process took place. The majority of the U.S. citizens will continue to believe, and will not be ashamed to say, ‘In God We Trust.’”
Here’s the video:
Except that in this case, the democratic process wasn’t properly adhered to when the commission voted to pass the measure. Committee Chair Robin Biloski said in February that the bill was passed swiftly by the full commission without a committee hearing to give full consideration of the measure and to allow citizens to add their voices to the debate. No committee hearing was ever convened to debate the measure. Therefore, there was no democratic process involved. The majority ran roughshod over the citizenry of Anderson County and the non-Christian minority and imposed their religious will on them in defiance of constitutional law.
In response to the measure, the Tennessee chapter of the ACLU has stated that,
“People of all faiths, as well as non-believers, should feel welcome in their government buildings. The County Commission should focus on doing real work that represents the interests of all residents, not sowing the seeds of religious divisiveness in the community by challenging the fundamental founding principle that government must remain neutral when it comes to matters of faith.”
Indeed, the separation of church and state mandates that government is prohibited from respecting an establishment of religion. It’s plain as day in the Constitution, and for good reason. The Founding Fathers wanted America to be a land where people of all faiths or none at all could practice their beliefs, or lack of, freely without fear of being oppressed. As such, the government was to remain neutral on religious matters and execute civil law and protect those whose rights were being infringed upon. In short, the government is supposed to make law that represents the interests of America as a whole, and certainly not for a group of religious bigots. For almost 200 years, this system, while not perfect, worked. Then the 1950s happened.
In 1954, right-wing Christian groups lobbied the Republican-controlled government to add “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Two years later in 1956, these same groups successfully lobbied to place “In God We Trust” on our money as a replacement or alternative to the E pluribus unum motto the Founding Fathers chose in 1782 for the Great Seal of the United States. In contrast to “In God We Trust,” E pluribus unum is Latin for ‘Out of many, one.’ As such, the motto specifically chosen by the Founders is far more inclusive. “In God We Trust” on the other hand, specifically refers to the Christian deity. The Christian Right will deny this, of course, and will point to Court rulings that have disingenuously claimed that the alternative motto is not religious and that it does not specifically mean that government is respecting the establishment of the Christian religion. But they are wrong. If American currency were to suddenly say “In Allah We Trust,” you can bet that the Christian Right would throw a temper tantrum about it. And you can be damn sure that the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court would freak out over it too. That’s because to conservatives, America is a Christian state that should be ruled by Biblical law. We don’t refer to the Christian deity as “Allah.” We refer to the deity as “God.” So by inscribing “In God We Trust” on government buildings, money, and so on, the government is clearly respecting an establishment of religion, which is barred by the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers wanted to establish Christianity as the state religion, they would have done so and would have stated as much in the Constitution, but they didn’t.
When Christians invoke majority rule, they commit hypocrisy since they were the ones who whined the loudest when Democrats used majority rule to pass laws for the benefit of everyone in our society. Infrastructure, jobs, health, food safety, labor laws- all of these are in the interest of the people as a whole. But passing a clear respecting of the Christian religion in violation of the rights of non-Christians is only in the interest of a few religious extremists. Therefore, Anderson County was not exercising majority rule. They were exercising the tyranny of the majority.
Justice Ginsburg Reacts To Epidemic Of Voter Suppression Laws: Told Ya So
By Ian Millhiser/Think Progress
“I didn’t want to be right,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says about her prediction that striking a key prong of the Voting Rights Act will lead to a wave of minority voter suppression, “but sadly I am.” In an interview with the Associated Press’ Mark Sherman, Ginsburg reiterated one of the core points of her dissent from the five Republican justices’ voting rights decision — “The notion that because the Voting Rights Act had been so tremendously effective we had to stop it didn’t make any sense to me,” Ginsburg said. “And one really could have predicted what was going to happen” once the law was struck down.
What has happened is a rush of voter suppression laws in states once subject to federal supervision under the provision gutted by Ginsburg’s Republican colleagues. Just two hours after the decision was announced, Texas’ attorney general announced that a common voter suppression law would take effect in Texas — and several other states are right behind Texas. In Arizona, Republicans want to redraw district lines to make them less “competitive,” now that federal supervision of the state’s redistricting has lifted. North Carolina Republicans are on the verge of enacting the worst voter suppression law in the country.
In her dissent, Ginsburg warned that “the evolution of voting discrimination into more subtle second-generation barriers is powerful evidence that a remedy as effective as preclearanceremains vital to protect minority voting rights and prevent backsliding.” One month later, it’s already clear that Ginsburg was right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)