Skip to main content

NAACP Chair Renews Attack on Conservatives


Renewing his attack on conservatives and the Bush administration Sunday, NAACP chairperson Julian Bond accused national leaders of rolling back past civil-rights gains, crippling efforts to battle racism and undermining democracy.

President Bush has turned down five invitations to attend NAACP gatherings, including this year's, and Bond on Sunday invited Bush to the next one, in Washington.

The NAACP has been battling an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, which has said NAACP officials' political statements, mainly attacking the Bush administration, are partisan comments that violate the group's nonprofit status.

The Baltimore-based group also dealt this year with allegations that former president Kweisi Mfume granted workplace favors to an NAACP employee with whom he had a relationship, and it has struggled in recent years to raise money.

Its national board last month selected a new president, retired Verizon executive Bruce S. Gordon, who has pledged to raise an endowment and improve efficiencies in the organization. He is expected to be confirmed Thursday.

The group's 96th convention, a six-day event, is being attended by more than 8,000 people, including 2,200 young adults.

Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin also spoke to the group Sunday evening, saying he would help fight for reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, portions of which are due to expire in 2007.

Bond stressed the convention's theme, Conscience of a Nation, saying the NAACP has been a pivotal force in shaping the U.S. and plans to continue doing so.

He criticized Democrats who agreed recently to support conservative judicial nominees. And he pointed to conservative blacks and some black churches that receive federal funding and promote conservative causes such as attacking affirmative action.

Earlier Sunday, civil-rights advocates and other NAACP officials echoed those sentiments, saying blurring the lines between religious groups and politics threatens equal opportunity.

Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia said religious groups that receive federal funding for social programs are increasingly hostile to program participants who disagree with their views on social issues.

"When you allow discrimination based on religion in federal programs, you lose all your moral authority to enforce civil-rights legislation," Scott said. (AP)
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
President Bush has turned down five invitations to attend NAACP gatherings, including this year's, and Bond on Sunday invited Bush to the next one, in Washington.


Kevin:

Can we be honest for a second?

Do you think that Bush is stupid enough not to know who his political opposition is?

He met with the Congressional Black Caucus in the early part of this year.

The fruit of that meeting was the claim that he did not know what the Voting Rights Act was and other negative points. I was disappointed that one of the "statesmen" in the CBC (Rangel or Cummings) didn't put a public statement such as "although our disagreements with the President's policies are well known we look forward to working with the administration, having the door open to us in the White House in the future so that we can let our positions be known and favorably shape proposals coming from this White house".

Instead these CBC members went in as Democrats who are Black, attempting to stick it to the "opposition president" with the hopes that "one of their own" (Democrat) will one day replace him.

Why should a politician who is attempting to leverage his power into getting reelected or others elected submit himself to such stacked deck? I beg you to find one politician on the "other side" (meaning your side) who would do as some folks expect Bush to do.

The fact that it is the NAACP as some magical reference that if you "diss the NAACP" then you "diss" all Black people is flawed. The NAACP has taken off it's "Red Cross" from it's helmet and picked up a rifle to start firing in the war.

I look hopefully at their new President who is a business man rather than a politician or a civil rights leader who's claim to fame is that he "Marched with MLK" but has done little else since will reorient the organization.
Last edited {1}
I think one of the best things Bush can do for African American is to continue to refuse the invitation of the NAACP.

Good for Julian Bond. In fact, he is being nice.

I wouldn't extend the invite.

Bush's refusal is the most honest act, as in representative, he can take in his relationhip with African America.

Redressing grievances under the law are done throgh a petitioning in the cours.

Bush will honor nothing less.

PEACE

Jim Chester
CF,

JWC has spoken on my behalf....do you wonder why Clinton did not have a problem with the NAACP that Bush does? Conservatives stand diamterically oposed to the black majority on every issue damn near...which means one of two things.....either they are racist and live for the oppression of Black Americans as their M.O......or the majority black people are too stupid to think in their own best self-interest....i know the former to be true and the latter to be false. I think the black majority approach whites with the philosophy of forcing equality through law...black conservatives seem to want to take away the protections gained and live off of trust and acceptance....which black and native american history here should teach them to know better.......
quote:
black conservatives seem to want to take away the protections gained and live off of trust and acceptance


Can you detail for me what about the "White liberal" that has him to be so "down with the brothers"?

It is interesting that when I put up the numbers about the "Turning Point" of a neighborhood, which is the percentage of influx of non-Whites into a community that they begin to depart. The rate is 42% non-white.

What is interesting is that this takes place across the board, regardless of ideology.

You have the White Homosexual community, otherwise Liberal who are RACIST as they demand that the greater society not discriminate against them.

I am not getting your war on Black Conservatives. In my recent research there are approximately 10,000 Black Elected Officials in America today. I would bet that less than 10% of them would classify themselves as Republicans or Black Conservatives.

Yet despite this FACT you, Faheem, Noah and plenty other folks spend most of your time fighting against these few individuals rather than inspecting what PEOPLE WHO YOU ACTUALLY VOTED FOR are doing.
quote:
black conservatives seem to want to take away the protections gained and live off of trust and acceptance


This is ridiculous.

This is equivalent to a White person saying "Black Americans are not grateful for the land that we acquired for us all in North America". If you look at any nation of color you will see a certain distribution of ideologies. Clearly this is the case in Jamaica, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and other places around the world.

What all of us might have been united against as we attempted to impose rules upon ALL AMERICANS, especially White folks where any violation of civil rights of any other American, specifically Black folks is punishiable by the same laws that would apply to the violation of a White person.

PLEASE DETAIL A SINGLE CIVIL RIGHT THAT A BLACK CONSERVATIVE SEEKS TO DESTORY FOR BLACK PEOPLE?

Please, please name a single one.
I don't play "who's got the better white man" game with black people.....but i'd rather someone agree with me and not give a schit about me than to not agree with me and lead a fight to undo everything that I am trying to do.....so if you want to look at it that way.....I betcha Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton would probably be less harmful to me politically than Clarence Thomas or Ward Connerly. Are you familiar with the NAACP's legislative report card they give politicians from BOTH parties? I guess you can give some of those brothers and sisters credit for knowing what is best for blacks in terms of how these people vote. The black majority is not buying the conservative message because there is rhetoric where there should be legislation and measurable outcomes that exceed those of anything they decry...and that "ain't" happening............
quote:
Are you familiar with the NAACP's legislative report card they give politicians from BOTH parties?



Yes I am very familiar with the NAACP Legislative Report card. I laugh at it each year that it comes out.

My donations to the UNCF and Urban League put me on the NAACP mailing list. I also laugh each year that Julian Bond sends out his "NAACP Opinion Poll". Of course it is multiple choice with a long list of SLANTED questions. They just so happen to have a donation card at the end of the poll with a message to the effect of "Help us stop the radical right wing from taking away the civil liberties of Black people".

I have yet to donate a dime.

It is interesting that YOU are under the view that whatever the NAACP stands for that it must represent the best interests of Black people.

Of course you are a liberal and you have it out for those Blacks who are not.

When I see Jesse Jackson's weekly article in a local free paper he is listed on the "Left Side" section of the "Rightside/ Leftside" section. I guess I as a Black man should believe that the only Real Black people are Liberal Black people.

It took a meeting of national rights groups that included NOW, Lambda Legal Defense League, ACLU and a few others for me to realize that the NAACP has lost it's way of late and is not in the cluster of other left wing groups and is virtually indistinguishable.

For the first time in the organizations history it has taken a position on abortion. In it's slant toward the left it has left behind it's strong church roots and has adopted a more secular/left wing ideology than ever before.

I support the Urban League. I can't support the NAACP nor NAACP Legal Defense Fund in their current forms. My shredder loves the taste of their mailings.
believe what you want...just know that the conservative message will not fly with black people....and the way you laugh at the NAACP report card is the reason that I see blackCon's as uncle tom handkerchef heads.....because when you get down to the nuts and bolts of policy stance on issues....they divert, deflect and try to say little indignant azz schit as a response...you laugh at the NAACP report card....I have graduate work in policy analysis under my belt as a student and professor....i take that serious.....so since it is a joke to you...you are a joke to me....they have a report card that is a basis for how they rate a candidate, maybe blackCon's should try a similar method or process.....they might learn why the schit they espouse is limited to them and the george bush loving types.....all I know is that all of your rights in the last 50 years came from a liberal pro-black philosophy that was inclusive....you laugh at that......as a black man who was educated by blacks and progressed to the highest educational levels at a young age as a result of the gains on my behalf other blacks forged for me....i laugh at anyone who thinks as a black college graduate and professor....that I would support anything that lowers black educational attainment and professional inclusion....that would make me be either a)an idiot or b)one who hates my race and wants to punish them as a result of that hatred....sorry...neither category applies....
quote:
all I know is that all of your rights in the last 50 years came from a liberal pro-black philosophy that was inclusive


Where is the mass Black Conservative faction that protested ALONG WITH BLACKS but held up signs that were PRO-WOOLWORTHS?

It's funny how Black Conservatives seem to be your whipping boys for all that is wrong with Black America.

I went to hear Michael Eric Dyson at a local event. He gave his cursory damnation of Clarence and Condi.

He said nothing about Sharpe James of Newark and the leaders of Camden, Detroit, Gary, Baltimore, Benton Harbor or East St. Louis. These Black leaders seem to get a pass because they are successfully able to blame outside forces for the failure of their cities despite their being in the leadership and despite the fact that Black Democrats hold most of the seats of power including - mayor, city council, police chief, fire chief, librarian and PTA head.

At some basic point when folks are unable to hold their own accountable they in fact decide that they have no control of their situation. It is the outside forces that are the problem. Why then do you need to talk to these people. One only needs to talk to those who hold the real power.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
quote:
all I know is that all of your rights in the last 50 years came from a liberal pro-black philosophy that was inclusive


Where is the mass Black Conservative faction that protested ALONG WITH BLACKS but held up signs that were PRO-WOOLWORTHS?

It's funny how Black Conservatives seem to be your whipping boys for all that is wrong with Black America.

I went to hear Michael Eric Dyson at a local event. He gave his cursory damnation of Clarence and Condi.

He said nothing about Sharpe James of Newark and the leaders of Camden, Detroit, Gary, Baltimore, Benton Harbor or East St. Louis. These Black leaders seem to get a pass because they are successfully able to blame outside forces for the failure of their cities despite their being in the leadership and despite the fact that Black Democrats hold most of the seats of power including - mayor, city council, police chief, fire chief, librarian and PTA head.

At some basic point when folks are unable to hold their own accountable they in fact decide that they have no control of their situation. It is the outside forces that are the problem. Why then do you need to talk to these people. One only needs to talk to those who hold the real power.



As so far as the protest days, That is when all blacks were in the same predicament and whites did not need them or offer them trinkets and rewards (positions)to parrot their racist ideologies...hell do not think that every black was with MLK, but they damn sure was glad to eat in the white section when the movement reached full force.


I know damn well that dysfunctional behavior is based along socioeconomic lines and not something that is unique to blacks. And as long as people try to present schit to me as a black thing they are going to hit a brick wall...because they are buying into white supremacy and their mind has been properly indoctrinated into thinking that black people are inferior...and those kind of people I do not have time for.....why do you people go into some kind of diatribe like black people sit on their azzes making excuses for being sorry when the things we complain about are real? Is that some ploy to shut black people the hell up and make them satisfied with the status quo....no one said blacks in leadership roles were angels....yet they do no differently from anyone else....that does not make it okay....it just makes it not be a black thing. BlackCons are not whipping boys for anything....they are just walking around trying to convince black people that what racist whites say is best for us is actually best for us....Like Tim Duncan said when they wanted him to sing or rap or something in their parade, "That is just not going to happen"
The Democrats are losing their following of longtime loyal Democratic Party supporters.....,

......... me being one of them.


*******************************

"Box office blues stem from blue-state bigotry

By Govindini Murty, Govindini Murty is an actress, screenwriter and co-director of the Liberty Film Festival. She is also a film columnist for Newsmax.com and editor of Libertas, a leading blog for conservative discussio

July 10, 2005

Hollywood's box office has hit the skids, and the entertainment media are in overdrive trying to explain why. The most obvious explanation for box office malaise is consistently overlooked: Hollywood's ruling liberal elites keep going out of their way to offend half their audience.

Constant gibes about Republicans, Christians, conservatives and the military litter today's movies and award show presentations like so many pieces of trash on theater floors.

Did we really need to hear another anti-Bush diatribe from Chris Rock at the Oscars this year?

Did the industry have to go out of its way to snub "The Passion of the Christ" at award shows because of its perceived conservatism "” even though the movie saved last year's box office?

Did we need a movie like "Kingdom of Heaven" asserting moral equivalency between medieval Crusaders and modern Muslim terrorists, by putting lines in Crusaders' mouths such as: "To kill an infidel is not a sin"?

Did we need George Lucas implying that his latest "Star Wars" film is intended as an anti-Bush parable about the Iraq war, in which America plays the evil empire? (I thought the movie was an artistic success, but Lucas' comments spoiled my enjoyment and kept me from repeated viewings.)

Did we need to hear from "War of the Worlds" screenwriter David Koepp that the aliens in his movie are stand-ins for the U.S military "” and the innocent Americans they attack are stand-ins for Iraqi civilians? Or that Americans are guilty of post-9/11 anti-Muslim "paranoia"? (A question to Koepp: Were we "paranoid" after Pearl Harbor too?)

Hollywood could turn things around, but that might mean tolerating films with pro-conservative themes. Hollywood liberals are so consumed with hatred for George W. Bush and the right, they would rather go down with the ship than allow a conservative message. The result is a creative paralysis in which liberals are out of ideas and have to resort to endless sequels and remakes "” while conservatives who have new ideas aren't allowed into the mix.

Since Mel Gibson's "Passion," no studio movies have been made celebrating traditional religious faith. And post-Sept. 11, no studio movie has been made supporting America's war on terrorism, or denouncing Islamic terrorism.

A conservative writer/director friend was developing a script last year about the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein. My friend says that after $500,000 was spent developing the project, the studio head pulled the plug because, as he put it, any movie depicting the capture of Hussein might help Bush.

Another writer/producer friend, a former president of a major industry association, said that immediately after Sept. 11 he wanted to do a pro-American project that denounced Islamic terrorism "” but none of his colleagues would support it.

And my husband, Jason Apuzzo, and I wanted to make a film that depicted the realities of Islamo-fascism. Our script featured positive and negative Muslim characters (I was to play the lead positive Muslim character), and did the rounds of various independent production companies.

The script received great feedback but encountered a stumbling block when creative executives expressed concern that our Muslim terrorists "weren't sympathetic enough." They wanted us to "explain the terrorists' motivations more."

Even when the film industry isn't stopping conservative projects, its left-wing ideological rigidity is having a deadening effect on free speech and creativity.

A screenwriter friend who has written a number of big family movies described how stifling it was to sit in on story sessions and listen to executives rant for hours about President Bush. As my friend put it: "George Bush had nothing to do with the movie we were making, yet the executives would rather complain about politics all day than figure out how to make our project better." When asked why he didn't say anything, my friend responded: "If I did, I'd be fired."

Fortunately, a new conservative film movement is arising to give hope to those on the new Hollywood blacklist. Michael Moore's emergence showed us we could no longer passively yield Hollywood to the left, and Gibson's success showed us there was a market for films that lean to the right.

Everyone "” liberal and conservative "” acknowledges that a once-great film industry is out of ideas and in dire shape. Wouldn't it be smart, then, to let some new ideas in from the right, and give everybody a real choice again at the box office?

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times"

****************************

....and since money talks, and B.S. walks, the Republican Party being the political party that generates wealth, the Bush Administration is on very solid ground. In contrast, the actions of many leading members of the Democratic Party, and the liberal community who overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party, as stated by the misconceptions of many liberals associated with the entertainment industry, may drive the Democratic Party out of business in the event the Democratic Party membership maintain this path of onward ignorance!

Attachments

Last edited {1}
quote:
....and since money talks, and B.S. walks, the Republican Party being the political party that generates wealth, the Bush Administration is on very solid ground.




George W. Bush

The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted June 24-26, finds that 45% of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, while a slim majority, 53%, disapprove. Since he took office, Bush's lowest disapproval ratings occurred in September 2001, a little over a week after the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. A Sept. 21-22 poll found 90% of Americans approving and only 6% disapproving of Bush. In contrast, the current results represent the worst ratings of Bush's presidency. The current approval rating ties Bush's lowest (45% in March 2005), but this poll finds his highest disapproval rating ever.

An analysis of Bush's disapproval ratings on a year-to-year basis shows that just about a quarter of Americans, 24%, disapproved of Bush across 31 polls conducted in 2001. This disapproval average declined by two points in 2002, to 22%. Beginning in 2003, Bush's disapproval average started to increase sharply. About a third of Americans (35%), on average, disapproved of Bush in 2003. This jumped once again in 2004, when 46% of Americans, on average, disapproved. Across the 20 surveys conducted since the start of this year, 47% say they disapprove of Bush -- not much different from what Gallup found last year.
oh yeah....the opinions of movie watchers about movie content is more important than opinions of voters regarding a breach of security with the CIA, a false war started on lies, a schitty economy, a huge huge deficit that was a surplus....I guess that is how such a mediocre guy became president....take many many americans who don't have their minds on much already and help them get distracted by small issues of no relative importance whatsoever....in the meantime, their jobs are being outsourced, their kids are dying in a unnecessary war and the antagonistic nature of this imperialist administration is placing the country in more danger each day....people get what they asked for....
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
And who are these evil "Black Conservatives" who have came out in direct opposition to the renewal of the VRA? Please list their reasoning as well if you would.


Whoa!! Whoa!!

Your answer is a QUESTION????

You challenged the existence of an example. I gave you an example, AND NOW you challenge the identity of the people who are doing the deed??

That's an old trick.

Don't address the issue.

I 'named one'.

So there such deeds being done.

I didn't characterized the doers. You did.

The people doing this are Republican and Democrat.

You have zero curiosity, or concern for the deed.

Damn the people!!!

The deed is what kills us.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965;

JWC:

I printed Section 4 of the VRA and read it over my lunch break. I say unconditionally - ANY PERSON who opposes this section of the VRA is unAmerican.

If you can find me a Black person who opposes this I will lead a one man attack against him, regardless of his ideology.

There SHOULD NOT be any device used or test (poll tax, literacy, history or otherwise) required for someone to express their right to vote.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
quote:
Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965;

JWC:

I printed Section 4 of the VRA and read it over my lunch break. I say unconditionally - ANY PERSON who opposes this section of the VRA is unAmerican.

If you can find me a Black person who opposes this I will lead a one man attack against him, regardless of his ideology.

There SHOULD NOT be any device used or test (poll tax, literacy, history or otherwise) required for someone to express their right to vote.


Not only do they oppose it with the addition of Section 4 J(a)(8) which terminates it, but they do not do the same for 18-year olds nor women. Both piggybacked on the law to protect their right to vote.

The list of people ia almost endless.

Ronald Reagan initially proposed in 1982 to the Senate that the section be terminated. Bush I was Vice-President

Orrin Hatch R-Ut along with [B]Jesse Helms R-NC concocted the section in 1982

Today:

Hilary Shelton Chief of the Baltimore Branch of the NAACP

Ted 'I-forget-his-name' Chief Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund

Jesse Jackson, Sr

All of the Congressional Black Caucus

All of the leadership of the NAACP

All of the United States Senate

All of the United States House of Representatives.


Support for the termination of this protection cuts across all lines.

And...most of us sit quietly by watching it happen.

Some of us actually defend it as 'alright'.

Scary.


PEACE

Jim Chester
Can you tell me this:

In doing research on the VRA Jesse Jackson Sr. is opposed to attempting to make it PERMANENT because he fears that this will bring forth a review by the US Supreme Court and a ruling that it is "Unconstitutional".

What about the VRA is at risk for being viewed so?
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
Can you tell me this:

In doing research on the VRA Jesse Jackson Sr. is opposed to attempting to make it PERMANENT because he fears that this will bring forth a review by the US Supreme Court and a ruling that it is "Unconstitutional".

What about the VRA is at risk for being viewed so?


I recently posted this in response to a related questiion from MBM:

Jesse is the only national leader who, to my knowledge, has championed the VRA. He spoke about it at the Essence Music Festival and is sponsoring a march in Atlanta on 7/6.---MBM

Your right. His voice is recent.

My dissatisfaction lies in the fact that he is asking for signatures to a petition to extend the VRA, BUT ONLY TEMPORARILY.

Temporary protection on the basis of 'race and color' is less than I want, and less they we deserve.

As follow up in the same thread, I later posted this.

Apparently there is not to be any defense/support for holding up the position of the petitioners on VRA Extension. I will expand my reasons for dissatisfaction, anyway, for the 'greater good.' Apparently there is not to be any defense/support for holding up the position of the petitioners on VRA Extension. I will expand my reasons for dissatisfaction, anyway, for the 'greater good.'

The rationale of the petitioners offered to explain, if not to justify, pursuit of temporary protection by the VRA.

'Although some people question whether the Voting Rights Act should be made permanent or should apply uniformly throughout the nation, civil rights lawyer Ted Stephens, Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, indicates that such efforts, no matter how well-meaning, constitute a "trap" that may render the Voting Rights Act unconstitutionally unenforceable.'

Where is the trap here? Hoping of course the 'unconstitutionally unenforceable' is unintended.

There are two issues mentioned. The first is permanence. The second is uniform application across the nation.

Such efforts says, Ted Stevens, 'constitute a trap' on the basis of constitutionality.

Application nationwide, and/or permanence approach unconstitutionality. These precepts are outside of the intended scope of the constitution.

Is this what he is saying?

The constitution is a construction of the rule-of-law that is applicable not only nationwide, but wherever the flag flies.

Please tell us that is true.

Mr. Stevens goes on to say:

'Race-conscious remedies for racial discrimination must be narrowly tailored to address a legitimate governmental interest. Thus, provisions of the act probably cannot be applied indefinitely, or to regions of the country with no comparable history of race discrimination.'

There is specificity.

Section 4(a) of the VRA, which is the subject of discussion here, is a 'race-conscious solution, AND it is specific in that it directly addresses 'race and color'.

Further...that terminology is the terminology used in 15th Amendment to the Constitution.

Additionally, the law (VRA) is specific to protection of the 'right to vote'.

This also is the cited intent of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution.

And...Section 2 of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact legislation to enforce the amendment.

Clearly, drafters of the amendment anticipated there would be difficulty in getting the States, and citizens of those States to obey the 'rule' of the amendment.

Should one wonder why such 'clear vision' was held by the drafters, you need to look at certain facts of historical behavior of these entities.

1. The 'right to vote' is not, specifically, conferred on anyone by the Constitution of the United States.

2. The 'right to vote' is inherent to citizenship.

3. Citizenship in any, and every, State is inherent in, and coincident with, the citizenship of the United States.

Citizenship was originally automatic with residency. It was implicit. It was assumed.

But that didn't apply to Africans in America. It required the 14th Amendment.

Some States said 'Okay'. Many States said, 'No. It's a 10th Amendment issue.'

Thus the 15th Amendment intended to 'protect the right to vote'. It DID NOT granted, or otherwise imbue, citizens with the right.

Congress did not see fit, could not be persuaded, or simply refused to create a mechanism to enforce the 15th Amendment even though fully, and specifically, authorized to do so until forced by the Civil Rights Movement in 1965.

But STILL hedged the issue. THE PROTECTION WAS MADE TEMPORARY IN THE LAW; THE MECHANISM FOR ENFORCEMENT.

EVEN THOUGH THE PROTECTION WAS PERMANENT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

So...What, in God's name is Ted Stevens talking about with 'unconstitutionally unenforceable'???

Mr. Stevens excerpted rationale concludes with:

'The most likely permanent solution would be a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote.'

HUH????

Do I hear 'permanence'??

Didn't this man just finish telling us 'permanence' was a 'trap'?

The 13th didn't do it.

The 14th didn't do it.

The 15th didn't do it until the VRA.

And.. he wants to ask for permanence in a new amendment.

And... not for protection of the 'right to vote', BUT a GUARANTEE.

Hell! The 15th GUARANTEES PROTECTION. AND IT'S PERMANENT!!!

THIS MAN IS MY LAWYER???

VOX!!!!!

Do you know somebody.

ANYBODY WE CAN CALL???

I/We are supposed to BLINDLY accept this reasoning??

I wondering how this dude got out of school.

Is he a member of any 'bar?'

Puleeze!!!!!!!11


I don't see anything at risk by demanding that Section 4(a) be made permanent.

PEACE

Jim Chester

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×