Category Archives: Civil Rights

Who Says The Tea Party Is Racist?

Posted on by

Well, actually the Tea Party does.

When President Obama recently visited Arizona, he was met by a demonstration organized, in part, by the Tea Party. In addition to the inevitable “Obama is a Fascist” and “Impeach Obama” signs, the protesters sang “Bye Bye Black Sheep.” They carried signs that read “Impeach the Half-White Muslim” and “47 Percent Negro.” They shouted that our president is “un-American;” that he’s “destroying American values.”

These pathetic morons are cut from the same cloth as the rodeo clown who mocked our president by wearing an Obama mask at the Missouri State Fair.

At least the clown was told he could never work at the fair again. Apparently the same punishment was not meted out to the obnoxious public address announcer who asked how many wanted to see Obama run down by a bull, the clown who played with the mask’s lips, or the rodeo organizers who likely knew about the plans in advance.

It’s nothing new to see detractors protest a president or make fun of a president. But it crosses the line when those detractors veer into racial taunts. Such taunts do more to offend others than the president himself.

It should come as no surprise to the old white men controlling the Tea Party that African-Americans and other minorities identify with President Obama; that they view him as a role model; that his success is a source of great pride to young African-Americans and for whites who stood alongside blacks during their fight for civil rights.

Here’s some free advice for the Republican Party and your Tea Party parasites. Your racist slogans and taunts will not harm President Obama. They will not change his policies. They will not cause him to be impeached or leave office early. Your behavior simply galvanizes minorities (soon to become the majority) against you.

Therefore, your offensive, demeaning and divisive behavior will only ensure your future failure at the polls. It will only result in future presidents who oppose your so-called values. And those presidents may not be as inclusive and as tolerant as President Obama.

Still Gutless After All These Years.

Posted on by

The Democratic Party can claim a number of major accomplishments for the American people. It’s the party that led the US out of the Great Depression. It’s the party that created Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. It stood behind workers in their fight for labor unions. And it passed the Civil Rights Act at the risk of alienating Southern voters.

All of those things took strong leadership.

But in recent years, Democrats in Congress have been content to read the tea leaves (aka public polling) before taking a step.

Following a succession of failed presidential campaigns in the 1970’s and 80’s, the party became hesitant to take strong, principled stands. Certainly, many Democrats have offered support for gay rights and women’s rights. Most have supported labor and jobs initiatives. Democrats have supported education and environmental groups. They have supported government regulation of financial markets, pharmaceuticals, food safety and more.

But Democrats have also allowed Republicans to block presidential appointments and legislation. They have allowed an unelected political operative (Grover Norquist) to dominate economic policy with his no new taxes pledge.They have allowed Republicans and their Tea Party parasites to dominate the political narrative. Worse, like their Republican opponents, too many Democrats have become dependent on large corporations and special interests for campaign donations.

The rare exception to this pattern of weak-kneed governing is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare.

It’s time for Democrats to show they can do more. They need to show they’re willing to take strong, principled stands regardless of the consequences; to push big initiatives such as rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, creating a modern and efficient electrical grid, and creating a modern rail system. Initiatives that would create tens of thousands of high-paying jobs and push the US back into a leadership position for decades to come.

It’s time for our Attorney General to prosecute and jail those on Wall Street who crashed our economy by engaging in high stakes gambling with depositors’ money. It’s time for Congress to reform our tax codes and eliminate corporate incentives that send jobs and cash offshore. It’s time to punish those who evade taxes by parking money in the world’s tax havens.

Yes, the GOP-controlled House will likely try to block such initiatives. It shouldn’t matter.

If Democrats show a commitment to do what’s right; if they put the needs of our nation above special interests; if they clearly explain the benefits of their initiatives; if they draw a stark contrast between themselves and the opposition; if they show they are serious about exposing and punishing corruption, they will dominate the political landscape for generations.

Governing should not rely on political polls. I trust the American people to recognize honesty and strength. If our representatives do the right thing, they will almost certainly be re-elected. If they don’t, they deserve to lose.

General…er…Sheriff Joe Goes To War.

Posted on by

The original motto of most law enforcement organizations was “To Serve And Protect.” But, in recent years, the motto may as well be “To Harass And Intimidate.” Many purposefully engage in racial profiling (New York City even singles out African-Americans for its “Stop And Frisk” program). Many live outside the cities they serve. Most spend their days in cruisers only leaving them when they need to. All are heavily armed.

In the eyes of the citizens, particularly poor minorities, law enforcement officers have become the enemy; uniforms to be feared, or at least viewed with suspicion. And with the proliferation of guns, officers necessarily view citizens with suspicion. Their reaction is to treat citizens with polite arrogance. They pump out their chests, stand tall and strive to look as intimidating as possible.

Many officers have visually, physically and mentally detached themselves from their own communities. The neighborhood beat cop virtually no longer exists. The only time most cops are welcomed is when there’s a crisis.

Like most things, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County has taken this to an extreme. He encouraged his deputies to racially profile in order to round up illegal immigrants. He has harassed citizens with roadblocks seeking minor vehicle infractions in order to check immigration status. He has conducted neighborhood sweeps for illegal immigrants. He misspent millions of taxpayer dollars in order to purchase armored vehicles. He participated in TV episodes with dozens of his heavily armed storm troopers crashing down doors in the middle of the night to arrest non-violent criminals. He has armed a volunteer “posse” to patrol schools.

Now, following the murder of one of his detention officers, Arpaio has ordered all of his deputies and officers to carry AR-15 assault weapons at all times…even off-duty. What could possibly go wrong?

It doesn’t have to be this way. Law enforcement agencies could tone down their militaristic image. They could put away the military-style assault weapons and armored vehicles until they are actually needed. They could get out of their cruisers and get to know their fellow citizens. They could encourage everyday conversations and interactions with those in their communities. They could drop the attitude that everyone is a criminal. They could support reasonable gun regulations. They could reinstate the beat cops. And, most of all, they could focus less on military training than police work…work that includes building trust.

But don’t expect the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to do any of this anytime soon. Arpaio has an image to keep up…as America’s Toughest Sheriff.

Race Or Economics?

Posted on by

Following the acquittal of George Zimmerman and the ensuing discussion of race by President Obama, conservative race-baiters have gleefully blamed the victims. “It wasn’t Zimmerman’s fault. Trayvon Martin was a young, black thug high on marijuana who had it coming. There’s no race problem. The real problem is the black culture of dependency. Black people are violent…just look at black-on-black violence. Obama is playing the race card to distract people from his failures. Yadda, yadda, yadda…”

Yes, there has been a breakdown of the African-American family unit…just like the breakdown of the white family unit. More and more people are having children out of wedlock, and more married couples are getting divorced.

Still, the race-baiters have a point. According to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 73 percent of African-American babies are born out of wedlock as compared to 29 percent of non-Hispanic white babies. On the surface, those numbers would seem to support racist loudmouths like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. But if you delve deeper, you learn that 66 percent of Native American children and 53 percent of Hispanic children are born out of wedlock, while just 17 percent of Asian children are born outside of a traditional family.

Hmmmm…

That would seem to disprove the right wing talking point that the problem is a lack of Christian values. After all, Hispanics and African-Americans tend to be the most devout Christians of the lot, while Asians tend to represent other faiths, such as Buddhism and Hinduism.

So if the problem isn’t religion, what next?

Right wingers suggest that the issue is IQ. You may remember that Teapublicans recently seized upon a Heritage Foundation “study” that claimed Hispanics have lower IQ than whites. The “study” was the basis of a report that assimilating such low IQ people into the US would cost us trillions. Then some academics examined the “study” and found that its racist conclusions were completely fraudulent. Not only is there NOT a difference in IQ, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) found that the Senate immigration bill would shrink the nation’s deficit by $897 billion over 20 years.

That leaves only one possible conclusion from the birth data…economics. The cultures with the highest percentage of single-parent households are the cultures that were systematically destroyed by the Euro-American concept of Manifest Destiny; that caucasians were destined to rule; that white people were superior to people of color; that people of color were incapable of taking care of themselves.

Using this despicable philosophy, whites enslaved blacks. Whites committed genocide on Native Americans, leaving them defeated, broken and poor. And whites have routinely discriminated against all other races, denying them the vote, good-paying jobs, safe neighborhoods, and respect. Such conditions have a negative impact on all races. For example, where there are large concentrations of impoverished white people, the percentage of white, unwed mothers dramatically increases, along with violence.

People of color didn’t choose to live in poverty. They didn’t choose to work at meaningless, minimum wage jobs. They didn’t choose to live in slums, poor barrios and on reservations. They didn’t choose to send their children to under-financed schools. They didn’t choose to have greedy gun dealers import weapons into their communities.

They didn’t choose these things anymore than Trayvon Martin chose to take on a gun-toting vigilante with nothing more than a bag of Skittles.

Playing The Race Card!

Posted on by

On Friday, President Obama held an unannounced press conference during which he spoke personally and sensitively about race in hopes of generating an adult conversation about racism in the US. Of course, his remarks were met with derision and anger by many conservatives and their media mouthpieces. (I’m looking at you, Rush Limbaugh and anyone who has ever worked at Fox News Channel!)

Keep in mind that our nation just watched a white adult who had stalked and murdered an unarmed black teenager be acquitted of all charges. Despite the verdict, Trayvon Martin’s parents have handled themselves with class…much more class than the conservative pundits who have pilloried the young man who was murdered.

Not content with accepting the verdict and hoisting George Zimmerman onto their proverbial shoulders, the right wing nitwits have attacked those who took to the streets to protest the verdict. They have also seemed to delight in attacking Martin’s character. “He shouldn’t have been walking through the neighborhood at night. He shouldn’t have been wearing a hoodie. He was smoking pot earlier in the day. He called Zimmerman a cracker during his phone conversation with a friend. He shouldn’t have defended himself against Zimmerman. Etc., etc., etc.”

These are the very same people who have glorified the Tea Party parasites who carry signs with racist depictions of our president. The same people who have questioned the president’s birthplace and eligibility to be president. The same people who applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act that protected minority votes. The same people who applaud legislative bills that would suppress African-American and Latino votes then accuse those who object of “playing the race card.”

Following the Zimmerman verdict, the president was not only justified in raising the subject of race. He was obligated to do so.

Anyone with dark skin, or anyone with a friend or relative who has dark skin, understands the problems. And they absolutely must be addressed! I have personally seen black people unlawfully beaten by police. I have seen a white cop set fire to an apartment building then blame it on his black neighbors. I have seen a cop chain his dog in a black neighborhood, so that it could attack any unsuspecting man, woman or child who walked down the sidewalk. Every one of my black friends has been repeatedly pulled over by police for driving while black. A young, black male co-worker and close friend was stopped by police, guns drawn, just for walking down the street.

I have seen the statistics showing the disproportionate number of black men and women in prison. I’ve seen how differently black people who become addicted to crack cocaine are treated compared to white people who are addicted to powder cocaine. I’ve seen how the War on Drugs is used to harass and imprison minorities. I’ve listened to conservative politicians call Latinos dirty, stupid and disrespectful of our culture. And I’ve seen young white men parade through the streets with Confederate flags following President Obama’s election.

There are thousands of George Zimmermans out there, some in uniforms, who are armed and assume everyone with dark skin is a criminal or a welfare moocher, living off the hard work of others. That image is perpetuated by loudmouths like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. And even though race wasn’t mentioned, it was most certainly implied by Mitt Romney in his off-the-record comments about the 47 percent.

Certainly, not every right winger is going to act on their misguided beliefs. But a few armed racists will undoubtedly be encouraged to act as vigilantes thanks to the insane Stand Your Ground law that the NRA and ALEC have pushed through legislatures throughout the country – especially in the South.

Yes, President Obama needed to talk about race. Race has been an issue in our country for 3 centuries. It’s long past time for us to learn how to live with each other, treating all of our neighbors with dignity and respect.

The issues facing our nation have never improved by refusing to discuss them.

Getting Away With Murder.

Posted on by

George Zimmerman isn’t the first person that the courts have allowed to get away with murder. But he is one of the few to be acquitted after admitting to intentionally shooting an unarmed person. Zimmerman can thank Florida’s ill-conceived “Stand Your Ground” law for that, along with an inept prosecution and seemingly naive jurors.

The “Stand Your Ground” law was created as “model” legislation by the NRA (National Rifle Association) and ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) then introduced to state legislatures throughout the country. Designed to protect rootin’ tootin’, gun totin’, cowboy wannabes from prosecution, the law removes any obligation for gun owners to back away from a confrontation. If a pistol packin’ nitwit fears that his or her life is endangered or fears great bodily harm (an arbitrary standard as demonstrated by the Zimmerman trial) it appears that it is now legal to blast away.

Without this law, Zimmerman would have been forced to demonstrate that he tried to avoid a lethal confrontation. Without this law, the jury would have been obligated to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter. In other words, the fact that Zimmerman stalked his victim against the advice of a police dispatcher would have been reason enough to find him guilty.

The ensuing comments of juror B37 also demonstrate a lack of understanding of violent confrontations by the all female jury. The jurors apparently do not understand the difference between a fistfight and a life-endangering situation. Zimmerman’s wounds (and I use the term loosely) were consistent with the effects of a single punch. In no way do they meet the criteria of life-threatening or great bodily harm. Almost everyone who has ever been in a schoolyard fight has suffered worse.

There was no evidence that Zimmerman’s head had been repeatedly slammed onto concrete as he claimed. And that was just one of the flaws in Zimmerman’s story exposed during the trial.

The worst was Zimmerman’s claim that, when Martin was on top of him, Martin reached for Zimmerman’s gun. If the situation was as Zimmerman claimed, Martin could not have seen the gun behind Zimmerman’s right hip, let alone reached for it. Moreover, in the situation described, it would have been impossible for Zimmerman to have reached for it. Martin’s lower leg would have blocked access to it. (Having taught martial arts, including ground fighting, I have been in a similar position many times.)

The prosecution failed to clearly demonstrate this critical point. Had they done so, the jury might have reached a very different verdict.

Even more troubling than the outcome of the trial are the inconsistencies of our justice system and the perverse voyeurism of our media. As Zimmerman was getting away with murder, a Florida woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison for merely firing a warning shot to keep her estranged husband from attacking her. No one was shot. No one was hurt. The clear message is that, if you’re going to fire your gun during a confrontation, you better make sure the shot is fatal. And since the woman is black, the two incidents demonstrate the duality of our justice system.

Such inconsistency, especially the appearance of racism, deserves a serious public discussion…one free of the sensationalism demonstrated by media coverage of the “trial du jour.” Unfortunately, in search of ratings, our media would rather treat our judicial system as a series of reality shows.

What’s Wrong With The US? Connect The Dots.

Posted on by

It’s probably self-evident, but our government is no longer of the people, by the people and for the people. A more accurate description would be of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

But how did we get here? How have a few powerful multinationals and one percent of the population usurped power from the vast majority of the people? In order to fully understand this, all you need to do is connect the dots.

  • We have allowed a few large corporations to create virtual monopolies, often with the help of government subsidies. These corporations buy out, squeeze out and drive out small businesses.
  • The CEOs of these corporations sit on each others’ Boards and approve each others’ compensations.
  • A portion of CEO compensation is based on the companies’ productivity and share price. That means the CEOs strive to cut costs (employee benefits and salaries) while increasing the price of products and services.
  • Once corporations achieve maximum productivity and profit with US employees, they are encouraged to offshore jobs in order to further reduce labor costs and employee benefits.
  • As corporations expand around the world, it becomes easier to stash profits offshore in order to reduce their tax burden and further increase profits.
  • These increased profits and compensation allow corporations to “invest” millions in the political campaigns of those who will support corporate interests.
  • The campaign contributions by corporations and corporate leaders leads to a massive increase in the cost of running for office, driving away those who might represent ordinary working people.
  • Corporate-financed Political Action Groups and associations, such as the US Chamber of Commerce spend additional millions to support corporate-friendly candidates.
  • Once the corporate-friendly candidates are sworn into office, they pass legislation that benefits their contributors.
  • Corporations and industries finance large lobbying efforts to further impact legislation resulting in large government contracts and subsidies.
  • Eventually, the corporate-friendly politicians nominate and approve judicial appointments that make the courts more friendly to corporate interests (see Citizens United v FEC, Buckley v Valeo and Bowman v Monsanto).
  • Politicians, with help from the courts (see Shelby County v Holder), undermine the voting rights of minorities and others who oppose them. At the same time, they wage war against the poor by cutting education, unemployment benefits and food stamps. They allow corporations to steal their savings, even their homes without repercussions.

We can take back our government, but it won’t be easy. It starts with election finance reform that takes the massive amounts of money out of political campaigns. It ends with politicians who, in the interests of ordinary people, are willing to break up “too big to fail” corporations as President Theodore Roosevelt once did.

Grand Old Party Of Hate.

Posted on by

After last year’s failure to elect a president, you would think that the GOP would stop trying to be the stupid, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-poor party.

You’d be wrong.

Confirming that the Tea Party Parasites are firmly in control of the GOP, red states across the country are refusing to expand Medicaid making it difficult for the working poor to get access to healthcare. Many states are also using bullying tactics and tricks to pass legislation that not only takes away a woman’s right to choose. The same legislation is forcing women to pay for ultrasounds they neither want nor need; to eliminate women’s health clinics; to limit women’s access to contraceptives.

Already this year, Speaker John Boehner has stated that he will not bring forward the Senate’s immigration reform bill. GOP legislators are, once again, trying to suppress the voting rights of minorities. And GOP legislators and congressmen are still trying to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

What all of these issues have in common is that they are attempts to deny rights to individuals.

Instead of following their oft-stated goal of limited government, GOP leaders are trying to use the government to discriminate against large segments of our population. And they’ll continue their politics of discrimination and hate until voters make them pay. Not just for a single election year, but for three or four election cycles. Long enough to force a permanent change in the party.

A Divided Nation.

Posted on by

I began this blog several years ago with a post “Why We’re Divided.” The point was that our political divide is not merely the result of differing ideologies. It’s the result of differing “facts.”

Never has that been more clearly demonstrated than by two competing advertising campaigns running on this Independence Day. In my state’s largest newspaper, there is an ad bearing the headline “In God We Trust.” Paid for by a company that is owned by a religious zealot, the ad uses a variety of quotes from our Founding Fathers to support the claim that our nation was founded on Christianity.

A few pages later, there is an ad bearing the headline “Celebrate Our Godless Constitution.” Paid for by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, it, too, uses a variety of quotes from our Founding Fathers to support the claim that our nation was built on the principle of separation of Church and State.

This is a classic example of proof-texting – selectively choosing quotes that support a particular point of view. This technique is often used by the religious to justify actions or beliefs. Religious leaders use verses from the Bible to justify war, to rationalize genocide, to discriminate against gays and others, to ignore – indeed blame – the poor for struggling as the result of policies they didn’t create, etc.

No matter how ugly your point of view, you can find a verse in the Bible, the Torah or the Qur’an to justify an action or inaction.

The same is true when it comes to quotes by our Founding Fathers. As Michael Austin writes in his book That’s Not What They Meant! Reclaiming the Founding Fathers from America’s Right Wing, the Founders were so diverse, you can find a quote from one of them to support almost any point of view. Among the Founders were Protestants, Catholics, Quakers, Jews, Deists, Agnostics and Atheists. There were idealists and slave owners. There were farmers, plantation owners, printers, attorneys, inventors, ship owners and many others.

There were Founders in favor of a strong central government and those who believed the power should reside exclusively with the states.

So which ad is correct? Both of them. And neither of them.

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, who authored our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, strongly believed in separation of Church and State. The majority at the Constitutional Convention agreed. However, many of the Founders spoke of “divine providence” and the “principles of Christianity.”

More important, the ads demonstrate the growing divide between Americans; between the Federalists and those who believe in states’ rights; between the devoutly religious and the agnostics; between science and religion; between those who trust government and those who despise it; between the wealthy and the poor; between red and blue; between black, brown, red and white; between the educated and the uneducated; and between those who believe the US is the greatest nation on Earth and those who recognize its faults and intend to change them.

I think it no exaggeration to write that our nation is at a crossroads, more divided than at any time since the Civil War. Independence Day is the perfect time to consider the consequences of such a divide. Committing to compromise and finding common ground are imperative to the future of our nation.

The New Jim Crow.

Posted on by

When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law in 1965, everyone thought that would be the end of Jim Crow laws that mandated segregation throughout the South and prevented African-Americans from exercising their right to vote.

Everyone was wrong!

Within days of the Supreme Court striking down the portion of the law that forced many southern states to seek pre-clearance from the Department of Justice before changing their voting laws, the Republican-dominated legislatures in Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia have introduced laws designed to restrict minority voting. South Carolina and Mississippi are also considering changes designed to marginalize minorities.

Thanks to the conservatives on the Supreme Court, minorities in these states no longer have the protection of the Department of Justice. Their only recourse is to file lawsuits. By the time these lawsuits wend their way through the court system, the damage will have already been done.

In other words, the Supreme Court and the GOP have set the Way Back Machine to 1964!

This is at the heart of the new GOP strategy. Following the Romney defeat last November, Republican strategists realized that the party was unlikely to win if Democrats continued to dominate the growing minority vote. Then the more conservative wing of the GOP stepped forward with an alternative strategy. Instead of pandering to minorities, they intend to institutionalize racism by focusing almost exclusively on white voters – particularly those struggling in the new GOP economy.

After reviewing the demographics of the 2012 presidential vote, GOP strategists discovered that there was a sizable portion of white people who didn’t vote. So the new strategy is to maximize the white vote while suppressing the votes of minorities.

If you’re white, uneducated, religious and poor, the GOP wants you.