jump to navigation

Black Activists Outraged Over Liberal Merger of Abortion and Civil Rights February 25, 2007

Posted by C.A.R.D in Abortion, Abortion and Civil Rights, African Americans, African-American, Black, black community, black leadership, Blacks, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, Discriminate, Discrimination, Djana Milton, Jatrice Martel Gaiter, LCCR, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Liberal, Margaret Sanger, National Birth Control League, Negro, Negro Project, Pew Research Center, Planned Parenthood, Project, Racism, Racism Abortion, Racist.
comments closed

Inclusion of Planned Parenthood in a self-described civil rights coalition has outraged members of the black leadership network Project 21, as Planned Parenthood advocates and provides abortions – particularly in the black community.”How can a civil rights group that claims to support underprivileged blacks embrace an organization created expressly to hasten the demise of black people?” asked Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie.  “People of conscience should be appalled and outraged by this alignment.”

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America recently became a member of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), a political coalition of almost 200 groups representing liberal racial, gender, age, disability and religious special interests as well as labor unions.  The LCCR is most often known in recent years for its opposition to judicial nominees who adhere to an orginalist interpretation of the Constitution.

The founding of Planned Parenthood, originally founded as the National Birth Control League in 1916 and later called the American Birth Control League before adopting its current name in 1942, is largely credited to Margaret Sanger.  In the late 1930s, Sanger began a program known as the “Negro Project” that sought to improve public health and welfare by encouraging abortions in the black community.  This agenda was promoted in part by befriending black ministers.

In announcing the new affiliation, Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington president and CEO Jatrice Martel Gaiter said her group and the LCCR now “share a dedication to promoting human rights” as well as alleged “committed to justice and equality.”  LCCR president Wade Henderson added that Planned Parenthood was “one of the nation’s leading health care advocates” and that “health care reform is the next frontier for the civil rights movement.”

In a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released in August of 2006, 70 percent of surveyed blacks of the Protestant faith believed that abortion should be more limited than it is today or made totally illegal.

(more…)

Advertisements

Hispanics vs. Blacks: The Battle For “Preferred Minority” Status February 8, 2007

Posted by C.A.R.D in African Americans, African-American, amnesty-for-illegal-aliens, Asian, Asians college admissions, Black, Blacks, Blacks college admissions, Card, Civil Rights, college admissions and racism, Discriminate, Discrimination, discrimination and college admissions, Hispanic, Hispanic-American, Hispanics college admissions, Hispanics vs. Blacks, Latino, minorities, minority, Minority Status, Negro, Preferred Minority, racial balance, Racism, Racist.
comments closed



by La Shawn Barber

As someone who loathes government-mandated race preferences, I look forward to years of laugh-riot fun as preference-loving blacks and Hispanics duel it out, fighting each other over government goodies.

I recently learned about a case involving a black cop named Kenneth A. Boyd in Wilmington, Delaware who claims he was passed over for promotion because he’s black.

Boyd alleges that police chief Michael J. Szczerba promoted an undeserving Hispanic instead. Oh, why does this sound familiar? According to The News Journal, Szczerba “fostered a diverse police force,” which is code for skin-color preferences. Only in this case, the Negro wasn’t the “preferred minority.”

A preferred minority group is one that is ostensibly under-represented in certain jobs, schools, etc. Asians also are a minority group, but they are not “preferred,” particularly as far as college admissions are concerned, because they tend to be overrepresented. In fact, admissions for Asians may be suppressed in order to conform to liberals’ notions of a proper racial balance. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights member Peter Kirsanow writes:

Asian Americans, though only four percent of the nation’s population, account for nearly 20 percent of all medical students. Forty-five percent of Berkeley’s freshman class, but only 12 percent of California’s populace, consists of Asian-Americans. And at UT-Austin, 18 percent of the freshman class is Asian American, compared to three percent for the state… President Clinton worried that, without preferences, “there are universities in California that could fill their entire freshman classes with nothing but Asian-Americans.”

Blacks have always been THE preferred minority group, but those days are coming to an end. Cases like Boyd’s are only the beginning of the battles between Hispanics and blacks for preferred minority status. Hispanic groups are already urging the federal government to hire more Hispanics. Incidentally, whites are becoming a minority group in states like Texas and California. Will they one day become a preferred minority?

With illegal aliens working on the cheap, look for more stories about blacks crying,”Hispanic racist!” If for no other reason than Hispanics are supplanting them as “preferred,” blacks should be speaking out against amnesty-for-illegal-aliens the loudest.

(more…)

Wal-Mart discrimination case will go to trial February 7, 2007

Posted by C.A.R.D in benefits, Card, CARD Sexism, Carl Tobias, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, corporate policy of discrimination, discrimination lawusit, female, females, Joseph Sellers, Lawsuit, sex bias, Sexism, sexism against women, sexism lawsuit, Supreme Court, Wal-Mart lawsuit, Wal-Mart sexism, Wal-Mart sexist, Women, work discrimination.
comments closed

Appeals court expands class-action suit that could include 2 million women

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the biggest U.S. private employer, lost a bid to prevent 2 million current and former female workers from proceeding as a group with sex bias claims in the largest employment lawsuit in U.S. history.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Tuesday upheld a 2004 lower court ruling granting class-action status to a lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart of paying women less than men and giving them fewer promotions. That ruling expanded the suit, originally filed by six women, to include all women who worked at Wal-Mart stores from December 1998 to the present, excluding upper management and pharmacy workers.  With the decision, women employed during that period at Delaware’s eight Wal-Mart stores are now included in the suit. The company employs 4,056 workers in the state.

The court’s 2-1 decision is a blow to Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, which is facing more than 200 federal lawsuits by employees. While the workers still have to prove their claims at a trial, the ruling provides leverage for a settlement. The workers are seeking billions in back pay and punitive damages, court-ordered changes in Wal-Mart’s practices and independent monitoring.

“Expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination,” the appeals court said.  The potential number of women covered by the case, originally about 1.5 million, had grown to about 1.6 million by the time of the class certification decision in 2004, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers. The number of former and current women workers who could be part of the class is now closer to 2 million, said Joseph Sellers, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

(more…)

Quebec town’s rules highlight immigration debate February 7, 2007

Posted by C.A.R.D in André Drouin, burn women, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, Discriminate, Discrimination, Herouxville, immigration debate, Montreal, Racism, Racism against Immigrants, Racist, stone women.
comments closed

Immigrants to the small Quebec town of Herouxville must not stone women in public, burn them alive or throw acid on them, according to an extraordinary set of rules made public by the local council.The declaration, published on the town’s Web site, has deepened a debate in the predominantly French-speaking Canadian province over how tolerant Quebecers should be toward the customs and traditions of immigrants.

“We wish to inform these new arrivals that the way of life which they abandoned when they left their countries of origin cannot be recreated here,” said the declaration, which also says women are allowed to drive, vote, dance, write checks, dress as they want, work and own property.

“Therefore we consider it completely outside these norms to … kill women by stoning them in public, burning them alive, burning them with acid, circumsizing them, etc.”

No one on the town council was immediately available for comment Tuesday. Herouxville, which has 1,300 inhabitants, is about 100 miles (160 km) northeast of Montreal.

André Drouin, the councilor who came up with the idea of the declaration, told the National Post newspaper that the town was not racist.

(more…)

‘Diversity’ Rules Continue Racism December 20, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in Black, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, Discriminate, Discrimination, Diversity, Jim Crow, Racism, Racist, School, Supreme Court, White.
comments closed

It has been 52 years since the Supreme Court delivered its landmark anti-segregation decision in Brown vs. Board of Education. It has been more than 43 years since Martin Luther King Jr. declared, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Today, in the year 2006, it is safe to say there is not a parent of a schoolchild alive who had anything to do with the injustices of pre-Brown segregation. And yet much of officialdom, particularly in the educational bureaucracies of our fair land, continues to be judge and sort children by the color of their skin. The very thought of it ought to disgust all Americans.

Bizarre as it seems, the struggle for true equality continues in the courts, but with a generational twist. In King’s day, officialdom made decisions about where black children could attend or not attend school. Today officialdom stands at schoolhouse doors to block those who are not black or of other designated minority groups. The only difference between then and now is that Bull Connor was more honest about his aims. Today’s segregationists write legal briefs and write rules within the state and federal education bureaucracies, in the name of “civil rights.” George Orwell could appreciate the irony.

(more…)

NO: Schools teach students wrong lesson on discrimination December 5, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in admissions, American Indians, Black, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, court, Discriminate, Discrimination, Diversity, Lawsuit, minority, racism and discrimination, White.
comments closed

In 2000, Seattle public school officials told nearly 100 minority students in the eighth grade they couldn’t attend the high school of their choice. There was only one reason for the decision: the students’ skin color. They weren’t white.

For 200 white students, the news was the same: they couldn’t go to the high school of their choice because of their skin color.

Despite decades of advancement in our country on civil rights, some government officials wrongly insist that people should be judged on the color of their skin. In Seattle, despite racially diverse neighborhoods and schools, officials took it upon themselves to decide that certain schools weren’t “white” enough or “minority” enough.

The school district and hundreds of other school districts around the country do so in the name of “diversity,” a nice word that attempts to gloss over the wrong lesson for our children. If we don’t want our children to judge people based on the color of their skin, why are educators doing just that?

On Dec. 4, the U.S. Supreme Court will have a chance to tell school officials around the country that it is morally wrong — and unconstitutional — for them to discriminate against students based on their race.

The court will hear two cases brought by concerned parents from Seattle and Louisville, Ky., who objected to their children being turned away at schoolhouse doors simply because their skin was the wrong color.

(more…)

Hong Kong forced to act on racism November 30, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in Card, China, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, Discrimination, ethnicity, Racism, Racist, Schools.
comments closed

Hong Kong – Hong Kong, bowing to pressure from civil rights groups, proposed new laws on racial discrimination on Wednesday to protect the rights of the city’s ethnic minorities.

Under the Race Discrimination Bill, which requires legislative approval, “racial discrimination and harassment” in certain areas and “vilification on the grounds of race” will become illegal and punishable by fines and jail terms of up to two years.

“We are introducing the bill because we have international obligations to do so (and) because we have now gained general community support for legislation,” said Carrie Lam, the government’s Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs.

Racism is not often explicit or violent in Hong Kong but the city’s many foreign migrant workers have often been denied jobs, accommodation or school places on the basis of their ethnicity.

(more…)

Newspaper Editorial: “Facts in black, white” October 15, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in Blacks, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, Poor, poverty, Racial, Racism, Racist, Uncle Tom, White, White Guilt, Whites.
comments closed

Why not just go ahead and call me an Uncle Tom and a sellout? Why bother with trying to put a new coat of paint on the same old personal attacks by saying that I am “demeaning black people,” that I’m the “black Ann Coulter” and a turncoat against the cause of racial progress for black people in the United States?

That’s a sampling of the nastiness flying at me since I wrote a book that holds today’s civil-rights leaders accountable for serious problems inside black America. I’ve suggested that many poor people are capable of helping themselves by graduating high school, keeping a job and having children when they’re married and ready to be parents.

It is easier to attack me than to deal with some hard facts.

One hard, unforgiving fact is that 70 percent of black children are born today to single mothers. This is at the heart of the breakdown of the black family, the cornerstone of black life for generations. Some of these children without two parents may turn out just fine, but most add stress to the lives of their grandparents, neighbors, police and teachers who have to take up the slack for absent or bad parents.

It is easier to attack me than to deal with the hard fact of a dropout rate now at about 50 percent nationwide for black and Hispanic students. The average black student who gets a high school diploma today is reading and doing math at an eighth-grade level. Even with a diploma, that young person is ill-prepared to compete for entry-level jobs or for a college degree.

In an era of global economic competition – when it is harder to find a job, pay the rent and afford health insurance – there is little room to argue with the fact that it is a national crisis to find so many children of any race failing in school. But it is especially disturbing that so many of those children are black and Hispanic; they have the added burden of being people of color in a society in which race remains a real factor.

And what about the tragic fact of a 25 percent poverty rate among black Americans? That’s more than twice the 12 percent national poverty rate and more than triple the poverty rate among whites.

(more…)

Banish The Bling August 21, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in African-American, Black, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, Hispanic, Supreme Court.
comments closed

Have we taken our eyes off the prize? The civil rights movement continues, but the struggle today is not so much in the streets as in the home — and with our children. If systemic racism remains a reality, there is also a far more sinister obstacle facing African American young people today: a culture steeped in bitterness and nihilism, a culture that is a virtual blueprint for failure.

The emphasis on young people in today’s civil rights struggle is rooted in demographics. America’s black, Hispanic and immigrant population is far younger than its white population. Those young people of color live in the big cities and rely on big-city public schools.

With 50 percent of Hispanic children and nearly 70 percent of black children born to single women today these young people too often come from fractured families where there is little time for parenting. Their search for identity and a sense of direction is undermined by a twisted popular culture that focuses on the “bling-bling” of fast money associated with famous basketball players, rap artists, drug dealers and the idea that women are at their best when flaunting their sexuality and having babies.

(more…)

Pontiac Agrees to End Hiring Quotas July 31, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in affirmative action, Agrees, Anti, Anti-White, ballot, Black, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, Discrimination, firefighter, Frantz, Gratz, Hiring, Job, jobs, Michigan, minority, non-minorities, Pontiac, Quota, Quotas, Racism, Racist, Sexism, White, white male, woman.
comments closed

The Justice Department and the city of Pontiac have agreed that the city will end a practice designed to hire and promote more women and minorities in its Fire Department.

Under the consent decree, the city will offer jobs, promotions, back pay or seniority to four white males deemed to have been unlawfully denied or delayed opportunities as a result of the policy.

Critics on Monday condemned the unusual decree, which still faces final approval, as evidence of a desire by the Bush administration to dismantle affirmative action. Proponents say it ends a form of discrimination that was particularly obnoxious because it was practiced by government.

The agreement comes amid a fierce debate in Michigan over a ballot initiative that would ban such affirmative action policies. State voters will decide in November whether to ban the use of race as a factor in university admissions and government hiring.

(more…)

Deja-Katrina? US rescue bogs down in Lebanon July 18, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in African-American, Americans, Beirut, Black, Bush, Bush administration, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, Cyprus, Discrimination, emergency services, Human Rights, Hurricane Katrina, Israel, Katrina, Lebanon, minorities, New Orleans, Politics, President, Race, Racism, rescue, response, UN.
comments closed

BEIRUT — Thousands of Americans whose vacations and business trips to Lebanon have degenerated with sickening speed into stints in a battle zone remained stranded here under Israeli bombardment Monday, their frustration and anger mounting because the U.S. government hasn’t gotten them out faster.

Waiting around Beirut with bags packed and fingers crossed, U.S. citizens derided the embassy for busy phone lines, a lack of information and gnawing uncertainty over when and whether they will get out. Hundreds were expected to be shipped to Cyprus today, but how long the full evacuation will take remains uncertain.

“I had heard it might take a week, two weeks. You hear so many things,” said Pamela Pattie, a 65-year-old professor. “Why in the world aren’t we getting it together?”

The frustration has been intensified by news that other countries have already pulled many of their citizens out of Lebanon, efficiently and free of cost. A ferry chartered by the French government carried about 800 of its citizens and several dozen Americans to Cyprus on Monday. The U.S. military evacuated about 60 Americans by helicopter Sunday and Monday.

Other nations have packed people into rented tour buses and driven them over the mountains to Syria. The U.S. State Department has warned Americans against traveling to Syria.

The main U.S. evacuation plan involves a Pentagon-contracted cruise ship, the Orient Queen, due to arrive in Lebanon today to ferry people to Cyprus. The ship can carry about 750 passengers for the five-hour trip. Defense Department officials said other private ships were likely to be hired as well.

Americans have been told to wait for a telephone call that could come in hours — or days. They’ve also been told they can’t board a ship unless they’ve signed a contract agreeing to repay the U.S. government for the price of their evacuation.

The rules have angered Americans who are already fatigued and nervous after days of explosions. “I’m freaked out that our government is treating us this way,” snapped a Rutgers University student who had been studying Arabic at the American University of Beirut. She declined to give her name for fear she would be taken off the passenger list in retribution for criticizing the evacuation effort.

“Are we a Third World country or what?” she said.

(more…)

White Guilt, Deciphered July 15, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in African-American, Black, Books, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Civil Rights, Discrimination, racial privilege, Racism, Shelby Steele, White, White Guilt.
comments closed

This week we printed a except from the book White Guilt. George F. Will of Newsweek goes on to give us a overview of what White Guilt is about and some history of “racial privilege”:

Black ‘militants’ preaching militant dependency want guilt-ridden whites to feel obligated to deliver black advancement.

By George F. Will
Newsweek

June 5, 2006 issue – The unbearable boredom occasioned by most of today’s talk about race is alleviated by a slender, stunning new book. In “White Guilt,” Shelby Steele, America’s most discerning black writer, casts a cool eye on yet another soft bigotry of low expectations—the ruinous “compassion” of a theory of social determinism that reduces blacks to, in Steele’s word, “non-individuated” creatures.

That reduction is the basis of identity politics—you are your (racial, ethnic, sexual) group. A pioneer of this politics, which is now considered “progressive,” was, Steele says, George Wallace. He, too, insisted that race is destiny.

The dehumanizing denial that blacks have sovereignty over their lives became national policy in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson said: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others’.” This, Steele writes, enunciated a new social morality: No black problem could be defined as largely a black responsibility. If you were black, you could not be expected to carry responsibilities equal to others’.

So, being black conferred “an almost reckless moral authority,” a “power of racial privilege.” The “power to shame, silence and muscle concessions from the larger society” was black power. The demand for equal rights became a demand for “the redistribution of responsibility for black advancement from black to white America, from the ‘victims’ to the ‘guilty’.”

Link

Book: ‘White Guilt’: America’s race problem July 14, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in African-American, Book, Book: ‘White Guilt’, Books, Civil Rights, Discrimination, Guilt, race problem, Racism, Shelby Steele, White, White Guilt.
comments closed

Today Show:

Society treats African-Americans as victims, not equals. In his new book, Shelby Steele, a scholar on race issues, offers a solution.

Raise the issue of race in America and the topic will likely lead to a heated discussion. The same will happen if you read Shelby Steele’s “White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era.” Steele, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, was invited on “Today” to discuss his book. Read an exerpt:

Chapter One
A Dilemma

Sometimes it is a banality — something a little sad and laughable — that makes you aware of a deep cultural change. On some level you already knew it, so that when the awareness comes, there is more recognition than surprise. Yes, of course, things have changed.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

So it was not long after the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal began that it occurred to me that race had dramatically changed the terms by which political power is won and held in America. When I woke on that January morning to the sight of President Clinton wagging his finger on the morning news and saying “I never had sex with that woman,” I thought two things: that he was lying and that he would be out of office within two weeks. It was a month later that I realized not only that he might survive his entire term but also that his survival, even for a month, already spoke volumes about the moral criterion for holding power in the United States.

I came to this realization on a drive back to northern California from Los Angeles with the scandal keeping me company on the car radio. A commentator said that President Eisenhower would not have survived a single day had he been caught in circumstances similar to President Clinton’s. Having grown up in the fifties, I thought this was probably true, and this is when the deep cultural shift became clear.

I seemed to remember — in the way that one vaguely remembers gossip about the famous —someone once telling me that Eisenhower occasionally used the word “nigger” on the golf course. Maybe he did; maybe he didn’t. In that era we blacks fully assumed that whites in all stations of life used this word at least in private. However, I cannot imagine that a reporter in that era, overhearing Eisenhower speak in this way, would have seen it as anything more than jocular bad taste. Certainly no one would have questioned his fitness to hold office. Yet, if an affair with a young female intern had exploded in the national media, with details of secret retreats off the Oval Office, thongs, cigars, etc., there is little doubt that 1950s America would have judged him morally unfit to hold power. It was taken for granted in that gray-flannel era that public trust had to be reciprocated by a rigorous decorum around sexual matters, even if that decorum was the very face of hypocrisy.

Yet, on that long drive talk-show callers passionately argued that private indiscretions were no bar to public trust, that what Clinton did in his private life had no bearing on his ability to run the country. It was unapologetic moral relativism — the idea that sexual morality is relative only to the consent of the individuals involved, and that there is no other authority or moral code larger than their choice. In the voices of many callers you could hear this expressed as a kind of pride. Relativism spares us from far worse sins, they seemed to be saying, those greatest of all sins for my baby-boomer generation — judgmentalism and hypocrisy.

All this drew me back to my college days in the sixties when we would sit around in the student union, smoking French cigarettes and arguing that monogamy was a passé bourgeois convention. Of course it was an adolescent argument of perfectly transparent wishful thinking, since beneath all the big ideas — at least for us boys — was the fervent hope that the girls would actually believe it. There was a lot of lust in this kind of thinking — lust everywhere in baby-boomer thinking — and over time it became part of the generational license that opened the way for a sexual revolution. But it was jarring these many decades later — so deep now into adult life — to hear such thinking hauled out in defense of the president of the United States.

But then something occurred to me. I wondered if President Clinton would be defended with relativism if he had done what, according to gossip, Eisenhower was said to have done. Suppose that in a light moment he had slipped into a parody of an old Arkansas buddy from childhood and, to get the voice right, used the word “nigger” a few times. Suppose further that a tape of this came to light so that all day long in the media — from the unctuous morning shows to the freewheeling late-night shows to the news every half hour on radio — we would hear the unmistakable presidential voice saying, “Take your average nigger … “

Today in America there is no moral relativism around racism, no sophisticated public sentiment that recasts racism as a mere quirk of character. Today America is puritanical rather than relativistic around racism, and if Clinton had been caught in this way, it is very likely that nothing would have saved him. The very legitimacy of the American democracy in this post–civil rights era now requires a rigid, if not repressive, morality of racial equality. A contribution of the civil rights movement was to establish the point that a multiracial society cannot be truly democratic unless social equality itself becomes a matter of personal morality. So a president’s “immorality” in this area would pretty much cancel his legitimacy as a democratic leader.

The point is that President Clinton survived what would certainly have destroyed President Eisenhower, and Eisenhower could easily have survived what would almost certainly have destroyed Clinton. Each man, finally, was no more than indiscreet within the moral landscape of his era (again, Eisenhower’s indiscretion is hypothetical here for purposes of discussion). Neither racism in the fifties nor womanizing in the nineties was a profound enough sin to undermine completely the moral authority of a president. So it was the good luck of each president to sin into the moral relativism of his era rather than into its puritanism. And, interestingly, the moral relativism of one era was the puritanism of the other. Race simply replaced sex as the primary focus of America’s moral seriousness.

MSNBC Link