A 14-year-old girl named “Sarah” asked lawmakers in Maryland on Tuesday to vote against marriage equality for her birthday. Testifying before Maryland’s Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, Sarah said it “would be the best birthday present ever if you would vote no on gay marriage.” “I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender,” the girl explained. “Even though some kids feel like it’s fine, they have no idea of what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on. I don’t want any more kids to get confused about what’s right and OK.” “People have the choice to be gay, but I don’t want to be affected by their choice,” Sarah continued. “People say they were just born that way, but I’ve met really nice adults who did change.” “So, please vote no on gay marriage.” The New Civil Rights Movement’s David Badash pointed to Sarah’s home schooling as possible source of her opposition to equal rights for gay men and lesbians. “This is the kind of ludicrous stupidity that comes when children are home schooled,” he wrote. “[B]y and large, home schooled kids are subject to an education of their parents’ making and that means they can be brainwashed like this 14-year-old.” “While we’re at it, how is it even possible that this 14-year old was allowed to testify? Who arranged this? What value does her testimony have, since she wasn’t raised by a same-sex couple?” Bash added. “Perhaps they’ll have a 13-year-old weigh in on the healthcare debate next?” The Maryland Senate is expected to eventually approve the marriage equality bill. But things do not look as hopeful in the House of Delegates, where lawmakers rejected a similar bill last year.
“The Trouble With the ‘64 Civil Rights Act” -by RON PAUL
“On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act. Only the heroic Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments.”
Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”
Me- First of all, there was no “forced integration” but your choice of words says a lot. Maybe you forgot but people were fighting for this “forced integration” because they had been suffering through the hell of “forced discrimination”. They were “forced” to use separate benches and “forced” to sit in the back of the bus. Relations absolutely did improve but with social conditions, such as poverty and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, it took some time. What is wring with you? How can someone claim he’s not racist because he wants to end the “war on drugs” yet he opposes the Civil Rights Act? Right..
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.”
Me- This is hilarious for a few reasons. The Civil Rights Act had no effect of private property owners whatsoever. Desegregation laws allowed people on public property including schools, hotels, and restaurants. Nothing about having to share private property. It sounds like you’re really just against Affirmative Action, but you’re skirting around it as per usual. So in a nutshell, you oppose Civil Rights because it infringes on your right to discriminate, and property rights for “those whose actions decent people find abhorrent” are a better way to “maintain a free society” then to actually give people freedom and protect their rights.. Oh. This is why you have such a huge white supremacist fan base p.s.he intended purpose of Affirmative Action is to
“This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.”
Me- We get it. You are obsessive about the federal government and you know what the framers of the Constitution “intended” because you’re psychic. Got it.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife”
Me- Again, you are so full of it! The Civil Rights Act did nothing to violate any laws and it protects people from discrimination. You seem to have a huge problem with this which concerns me. No the bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds, but hey, neither can you asshole! They don’t need to be able to read minds to investigate a crime. Ask Randy Gray or Don Black about the times they were arrested for hate crimes. .
“Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”
Me- Have I mentioned how full of shit you are? HOW DO YOU THINK PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND EFFORTS WERE INFLUENCE??? pfft..
“In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676”.
Me- And, fuck you very much Ronald. No one wants a “color-blind” society. It’s called “diversity.” This was the most flawed argument I’ve ever read. Furthermore, eat a dick. What’s wrong with you?? Take a Xanex or something and calm the fuck down.
What Paul fails to see whenever he discusses the Civil Rights Act is that these such acts not only removed discrimination in private businesses, but it also stopped any kind of violence against another person that is triggered solely by race. Essentially, if Paul were actually supportive of individual freedoms, he would support this for the safety of the blacks as individuals and citizens of the United States of America.
GREAT JOB TAKING NOT TAKING A STAND AGAINST NDAA.
YOU KNOW HOW MUCH A VOTE MATTERS. LOOK AT HOW YOU WHORE YOURSELF FOR CAMPAIGN MONEY!
THIS WAS ACTUALLY HIS BEST CHANCE TO GET SUPPORT
AND HE FUCKED IT UP
HE FUCKED UP HIS ONE CHANCE TO IMPRESS ME
When legendary civil rights activist Reverend Fred L. Shuttlesworth died today, many Americans had no idea who he was or what he’d accomplished in his 89 years on earth. It’s an unfortunate reality that people often think Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were the beginning and end of black activism in the Civil Rights era. In fact, nothing could be more wrong. From the 1950s onward, Shuttlesworth was a major factor in ending Jim Crow laws in the South, and many other oppressive forces throughout the United States. Here are the top five things you should know about him.
1. From the start of his career, Shuttlesworth, who was raised poor in Alabama, was fiery and obstinate. After Alabama officially banned the NAACP from operating within the state in 1956, Shuttlesworth, then a pastor, founded the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. The ACMHR’s first major order of business was a Birmingham bus sit-in, during which Shuttlesworth and others boarded city buses and sat in the “whites only” sections. The ACMHR would eventually become charter member organization in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
2. He lived nearly nine decades, but many people tried to kill Shuttlesworth much earlier for his outspokenness. He was the target of two bomb attacks, one on his home and one on his church. And when Shuttlesworth tried to enroll his daughters in an all-white Birmingham school in 1957, an armed mob attacked him, beating him unconscious and stabbing his wife. The couple survived, and when a doctor remarked that Shuttlesworth was lucky to have avoided a concussion,Shuttlesworth said, “Doctor, the Lord knew I lived in a hard town, so he gave me a hard head.”
3. Though he worked closely with King, Shuttlesworth’s style was decidedly different. “Among the youthful ‘elders’ of the movement,” historian Diane McWhorter told The New York Times, “he was Martin Luther King’s most effective and insistent foil: blunt where King was soothing, driven where King was leisurely, and most important, confrontational where King was conciliatory—meaning, critically, that he was more upsetting than King in the eyes of the white public.” Despite their differences, King once called Shuttlesworth ”the most courageous civil rights fighter in the South.”
4. Shuttlesworth’s fiercest enemy in Birmingham was infamous public safety commissioner Bull Connor. Connor’s violent responses—attack dogs, fire hoses, billy clubs—to Shuttlesworth’s peaceful demonstrations were integral in changing America’s attitude about Jim Crow. “The televised images of Connor directing handlers of police dogs to attack unarmed demonstrators and firefighters’ using hoses to knock down children had a profound effect on American citizens’ view of the civil rights struggle,” says the Shuttlesworth Foundation’s website.
5. After his actions helped spawn the passage of the federal Civil Rights Act in 1964, Shuttlesworth continued fighting for justice in realms both racial and economic. In 1988 he founded the Shuttlesworth Housing Foundation to help low-income families own their own homes, and in 2004 he became president of the SCLC. A firebrand to the end, he resigned from the SCLC within months, saying “deceit, mistrust and a lack of spiritual discipline and truth have eaten at the core of this once-hallowed organization.” Three years ago, the city of Birmingham named its airport after Shuttlesworth. There are still no monuments named after Bull Connor.
Ashamed to admit I had never heard of this man. Wow. What a legacy to leave behind!