2010 - A Race Odyssey: How the Civil Rights Movement Jumped the Shark

[FrankRep]

2010: A Race Odyssey — Disproving a Negative for Cash Prizes or, How the Civil Rights Movement Jumped the Shark (http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2010/03/25/2010-a-race-odyssey-disproving-a-negative-for-cash-prizes-or-how-the-civil-rights-movement-jumped-the-shark/)


Andrew Breitbart | Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/a-race-odyssey.html), Big Journalism (http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2010/03/25/2010-a-race-odyssey-disproving-a-negative-for-cash-prizes-or-how-the-civil-rights-movement-jumped-the-shark/)
Mar 25th 2010


As I have said over and over and over, the left has one trick that it will use again and again when its back is in the corner: shout ‘racist’ in a crowded country.

On Saturday, during the peaceful and patriotic tea party protest at the Capitol, the Democrats staged a series of symbolic acts meant to manipulate the media to do its bidding. The Congressional Black Caucus pulled the Selma card and chose to walk through the crowd in the hopes of creating a YouTube incident. This is what it looked like:

YouTube - Congressional Black Caucus 3 20 2010 - original video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SCs6pSE8_I)

and this:

YouTube - Tea Party protesters mob Reps Lewis, Carson, Cummings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPoJGNhWB-s)

There is no reason in 21st century America on an issue that is not a black or white or a civil rights issue to have a bloc of black people walk slowly through a mostly white crowd to make a racial point. The walk in and of itself — with two of the participants holding their handheld cameras above their heads hoping to document “proof” — was an act of racism meant to create a contrast between the tea party crowd and themselves.

This is the same failed symbolism that Janeane Garofalo and MSNBC have been trying to implant for the last year. The only supposed evidence of white-on-black racism at a tea party that MSNBC was able to find was a man carrying a gun at an Arizona Obama rally. But, wait, MSNBC cut off the man’s head (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/msnbc-turns-black-man-gun-obama-rally-white-man) with a photo editing software. That Second Amendment fan was actually black. Never mind.


http://bigjournalism.com/files/2010/03/obama-visit-014.jpg


Saturday’s “never mind” moment will live in infamy as the Congressional Black Caucus claimed the N-word was hurled 15 times (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/03/boehner-anti-gay-racial-slurs-reprehensible/1). YouTube video shows that at least two of the men in the procession were carrying video cameras and holding them above the crowd. They have not come forth with evidence to show that even one person hurled the vile racist epithet. The video also shows no head movement one way or another. Wouldn’t the N-word provoke a head turn or two? Is it really possible that in 2010, in a crowd of 30 or 40 thousand people — at the center of a once-in-a-lifetime media circus — not one person’s (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/03/about-those-attempts-to-smear-tea-party.html) flipphone, Blackberry, video recorder or a network feed caught a single incident? And if not, then at least someone could have found an honest tea partier to act as an eyewitness — or the Congressional Black Caucus would have confronted the culprit(s). If that had happened, there would be an investigation to see if the perpetrator was a left-wing plant.

YouTube - Tea Party Protest March 20, 2010 The Capitol 25,000 plus.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjCZ4zoOE6I)

Let’s remember that Nancy Pelosi followed this procession with a “perp walk” of her own, as she carried the giant gavel (http://www.necn.com/03/21/10/Pelosi-plans-to-use-Medicare-gavel/landing.html?blockID=201672&feedID=4215) that hammered down the passage of Medicare in 1965 to its rendezvous with destiny. Does any rational person seriously believe that the Capitol Police or her security people would have let the Speaker of the House — second in line of succession to the presidency, right after the Vice President — walk into danger as alleged by the Congressional Black Caucus? Please.

That’s how much the Democrats need a racist Tea Party moment. To stop it in its tracks. That’s why on Saturday they used the Congressional Black Caucus to try to manufacture the false appearance of one. And when they didn’t get it, they did what they always do: they lied.

Alinsky taught them well: the ends justify the means. And that’s how the Democrats play. They love using black people as symbols of oppression. They love to use them for staged rallies, staged walks and staged protests. It’s why they fought so hard to keep the heavily minority ACORN alive. They were the portable army that would cry racism in front of your place of business until the company paid them off to go away.

Haven’t we had enough? Are we going to allow the left to use its despicable acts of lies and intimidation to shut up legitimate dissent on a subject that has nothing to do with race? Are we going to allow the professional race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to continue their shakedown rackets — so memorably exposed by Shelby Steele in his book White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promised of the Civil Rights Era (http://www.amazon.com/White-Guilt-Together-Destroyed-Promise/dp/0060578629)?

YouTube - Actor Jon Voight Speaks At Tea Party Rally in DC (3-20-10) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Kol-BrY5ME)

If we let them get away with Saturday’s stunt — using the imagery of the Civil Rights era and hurtful lies to cast aspersions upon the tea party whole — then they really will have won the day.

It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.

And surely if those cameras did not capture such abhorrence, then someone from the mainstream media — those who printed and broadcast his assertions without any reasonable questioning or investigation — must themselves surely have it on camera. Of course we already know they don’t. If they did, you’d have seen it by now.

THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

Rep. Lewis, if you can’t do that, I’ll give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund.


SOURCE:
http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2010/03/25/2010-a-race-odyssey-disproving-a-negative-for-cash-prizes-or-how-the-civil-rights-movement-jumped-the-shark/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/a-race-odyssey.html

[FrankRep]

Note: This video is Controversial, but I assure you that Thomas E. Woods Jr is NOT a Racist and doesn't support Racism.


Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was UnConstitutional, Statist, and a Failure


Lecture by Thomas E. Woods Jr. presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's "History of Liberty" seminar held at the Institute in Auburn, Alabama, June 24-30, 2001. This Instructional Seminar of 23 lectures is modeled on the Mises University and presents a reinterpretation of the history of liberty from the ancient world--an ambitious agenda but a wonderfully successful conference.

http://mises.org/


YouTube - Civil Rights and Statism [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH52tkt0C1A)

[FrankRep]

Thomas E. Woods Jr asks you to read this book:


http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0688062695.01._SX140_SY225_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?

Thomas Sowell

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/e1/fb/ac4ec060ada08443c656d110.L._SY100_.jpg

Buy it:
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695

[torchbearer]

any response yet?

[torchbearer]

The original civil rights acts only applied to the southern states.
That in itself in unconstitutional.

[torchbearer]

Civil Rights Act of 1875
Mark Tushnet

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was the last of the civil rights statutes enacted by Republican-dominated Congresses after the Civil War. Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was a leader among the socalled Radical Republicans who sought to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves as a matter of principle and to preserve the Republican Party's power in the South. Sumner proposed a civil rights act in 1870 that would have banned racial discrimination in public schools, churches, and places of public accommodation such as hotels and theaters. Eliminating segregated public schools went well beyond what the nation's electorate was willing to support. As a result, Congress ignored the proposal until the 1874 elections, which gave the Democrats the majority in the House of Representatives. The outgoing Republican-controlled House knew that the incoming House would not adopt any civil rights legislation. They therefore pushed forward with Sumner's proposal. However, after Democrats in the House used procedural maneuvers to block the passage of the original proposal, Republican leaders stripped it of the most controversial provisions dealing with schools and churches.

In February 1875 Congress passed the Civil Rights act, which President Ulysses S. Grant signed on March 1, 1875. The act provided that: "All persons ... shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement." The act created a damage remedy of $500 to people who were victims of discrimination, and also made discrimination a criminal offense subject to a $1,000 fine and imprisonment for up to one year. Neither President Grant nor his successor, Rutherford B. Hayes, devoted much effort to enforcing the act, and relatively few private lawsuits were brought in the years immediately following its enactment.

SUPPORTERS AND DETRACTORS
The act's supporters drew on a rule developed by judges enforcing the general law of contracts, called the "common carrier" rule. According to this rule, which developed outside the context of race discrimination, transportation companies, hotels, and other places that offered services to the general public could not discriminate against anyone who sought to use the services. The common carrier rule required services be offered on a first come, first served basis. By the 1870s some state courts had begun to apply the common carrier rule to bar race discrimination in places of public accommodation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 attempted to extend the common carrier rule throughout the nation, and to provide a remedy for discrimination in federal court. The constitutional basis for the act was the power given to Congress under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact legislation to enforce section 1 of that Amendment. Section 1 provides: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Opponents of the act raised constitutional objections. The most forceful objection was that the Fourteenth Amendment applied by its terms only to actions by states, whereas the act attempted to regulate the activities of private companies. The act's supporters responded that states could use the common carrier rule to bar race discrimination by common carriers, and that their failure to do so was an action (or at least a decision in the form of inaction) by the state's lawmakers. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley put it in a private letter written in 1871, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited actions "denying" equal protection of the laws. Furthermore, "Denying includes inaction as well as action. And denying the equal protection of the laws includes the omission to protect, as well as the omission to pass laws for protection."

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
Constitutional challenges to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 reached the Supreme Court in a group of cases all decided in 1883 under the collective name, the Civil Rights Cases. Justice Bradley wrote the Court's opinion finding the act unconstitutional because it regulated not state action but actions by private companies operating hotels and theaters. The act, Justice Bradley wrote, "does not profess to be corrective of any constitutional wrong committed by the states." Bradley pointed out that the Civil Rights Act allowed the federal courts to displace state enforcement of its own laws even in states that had "the justest laws respecting the personal rights of citizens," and where those laws were really enforced. According to Justice Bradley, "The wrongful act of an individual ... is simply a private wrong," and "if not sanctioned in some way by the State, or not done under State authority, [the victim's] rights remain in full force." Victims of such wrongs, he said, could sue the wrongdoers in state courts and did not need the special assistance a federal claim provided. As Justice Bradley put it, the Fourteenth Amendment did not "authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for regulation of private rights."

Justice Bradley also rejected the argument that the Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to enact the Civil Rights Act. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, and the act's defenders asserted that racial discrimination in places of public accommodation was a continuing "incident" of slavery. The Court responded, "It would be running the slavery argument into the ground to make it apply to every act of discrimination which a person may see fit to make ... as to the people he will take into his coach or cab or car." For Justice Bradley, "When a man has emerged from slavery, ... there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the law." The former slaves in the United States, Justice Bradley believed, had reached that point. Only Justice John Marshall Harlan, a former slaveholder turned strong Republican, dissented, saying that the Thirteenth Amendment did give Congress the power to enact antidiscrimination laws.

MODERN APPLICATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
In 2000 the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Civil Rights Cases in a controversial decision, United States v. Morrison. This decision struck down a provision of the Violence Against Women Act that allowed victims of gender-based violence to sue their attackers in federal court. The Court held that, despite findings of bias against women in state court systems, Congress did not have sufficient evidence of a breakdown of the states' own enforcement processes to establish that the states had denied women the equal protection of the laws. For the Court, this case resembled the Civil Rights Cases. Once again, a legal claim had been made that a federal statute could apply to private conduct (in the 2000 case, violence against women) even if that conduct was not connected to a state's having denied a person equal protection under the laws.

An important result of the Civil Rights Cases was the creation of the so-called "state action" requirement. According to this requirement only decisions by the state, and not decisions by private parties or corporations, can violate a person's constitutional rights.

The problem, identified by Justice Bradley in 1871, is that most of what private companies do could be regulated by the states. In other words, how can courts decide when a private party's decision is the result of a state's failure to regulate—or, put another way, its inaction?

Congress did not attempt to enact further civil rights statutes until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s took hold. In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress did prohibit race discrimination in public accommodations by relying on the commerce clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court upheld the 1964 act as a valid exercise of that power.

Justice Bradley's initial thought that the government could be responsible for private acts of discrimination that it failed to prevent would have had a dramatic impact on the nation's understanding of the relation between individuals and the government. By 1883, when the Supreme Court confronted the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Reconstruction was over and the nation's white majority was unwilling to commit itself to the kind of large-scale transformation of social relations Senator Sumner had hoped for. Although the Supreme Court overturned the act, the theory underlying the Civil Rights Act of 1875 has never been successfully refuted. The people of the United States, however, have found it easier to act against racial discrimination using more specific legal theories aimed at limited rather than wide ranging goals.

See also: Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1957, 1964; Fair Housing Act of 1968; Force Act of 1871; Voting Rights Act of 1965.

BIBLOGRAPHY
Franklin, John Hope. "The Enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1875." In Race and History: Selected Essays 1938–1968. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989.

Mack, Kenneth W. "Law, Society, Identity, and the Making of the Jim Crow South: Travel and Segregation on Tennessee Railroads, 1875–1905." Law and Social Inquiry 24, no. 2 (1999): 377–410.

Westin, Alan F. "The Case of the Prejudiced Doorkeeper." In Quarrels That Have Shaped the Constitution, ed. John A. Garraty. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.

Wyatt-Brown, Bertram. "The Civil Rights Act of 1875." Western Political Quarterly 18 (1965): 763–775.

[torchbearer]

Holy shit, i just realized. the court case I posted would be important to have for any suits against obama care.
the judges ruled the original act unconstitutional because it wasn't regulating the states, it was directly regulating the activities of individuals and their businesses. Hence, supporting the obvious fact that the federal government has no authority- anywhere in the constitution- to directly control the actions of individuals or their businesses.

[FrankRep]

Disclaimer:

Do NOT post racist materials in this thread. This is a sensitive topic and needs to be handled with care and respect.

[torchbearer]

Holy shit, i just realized. the court case I posted would be important to have for any suits against obama care.
the judges ruled the original act unconstitutional because it wasn't regulating the states, it was directly regulating the activities of individuals and their businesses. Hence, supporting the obvious fact that the federal government has no authority- anywhere in the constitution- to directly control the actions of individuals or their businesses.

Ok, to expand on this-

the judges was saying, any individual has to right to be a racist prick. it is their right. but the state governments cannot be racist pricks, and only laws restricting the states from racial discrimination would be constitutional. it also follows the natural law.

[FrankRep]

Holy shit, i just realized. the court case I posted would be important to have for any suits against obama care.

Wikipedia also confirms your statement.

Civil Rights Act of 1875 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875#cite_note-0)


The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Republican Senator Charles Sumner and Republican Congressman Benjamin F. Butler in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Grant on March 1, 1875. It was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1883. Many of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were passed into law in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

[Stary Hickory]

They can lie if they want,they disgust me. More claims of racism from the racist left. The left lives and breathes off racism and class hatred, they are trying to invoke yet again to accomplish political ends.

Disgusting.

[FrankRep]

They can lie if they want,they disgust me. More claims of racism from the racist left. The left lives and breathes off racism and class hatred, they are trying to invoke yet again to accomplish political ends.

Disgusting.

Andrew Breitbart called a Racist at CPAC 2010

YouTube - Andrew Breitbart called a racist at CPAC 10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AfWkDrPvNA)

[torchbearer]

Wikipedia also confirms your statement.

Civil Rights Act of 1875 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875#cite_note-0)


The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Republican Senator Charles Sumner and Republican Congressman Benjamin F. Butler in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Grant on March 1, 1875. It was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1883. Many of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were passed into law in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Well, when someone ask you why the health care bill is unconstitutional, you can point to a specific ruling that tells why its unconstitutional.