A Tribute to My Chicago Radio Sister

TRIBUTE TO LATE MS. KAREN GRACE JONES.

WHEREAS, Karen Grace Jones has been called to etemal life by the wisdom of God at the age of forty-three; and

WHEREAS, The Chicago City Council has been informed of her passing by Alderman Edward M. Burke; and

WHEREAS, Karen Grace Jones was one of Chicago's top midday radio personalities,known on the air at WGCI-FM as Shannon Dell; and

WHEREAS, Karen Grace Jones left WGCI-FM in January, 1996, and most recently had worked as disc jockey at WNMD-FM; and

WHEREAS, A native of Cincinnati, Ohio, Karen Grace Jones attended American University in Washington, D.C, where she studied broadcast journalism and political science; and

WHEREAS, Karen Grace Jones worked for radio stations in Washington, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Dallas, before joining WCGI-FM in 1989; and

WHEREAS, Karen Grace Jones will be dearly missed by her many relatives, friends and colleagues; and

WHEREAS, To her mother and brother, Karen Grace Jones imparts a legacy of faithfulness, service and dignity; now, therefore.

Be It Resolved, That we, the Mayor and members of the Chicago City Council assembled this first day of April, 1998, do hereby commemorate Karen Grace Jones for her grace-filled life and do hereby extend our condolences to her family; and

Be It Further Resolved, That a suitable copy of this resolution be presented to the family of Karen Grace Jones.

Black History Month -- On. Rev. Wayne Perryman

"Reading Rev. Perryman’s thoroughly-documented 106 pages of charges and specifications, establishing standing on behalf of the entire class of African Americans, I learned a great many things about black history that I had never known before. For example, I had always assumed that Democratic support for slavery was largely limited to the South. I was unaware that Democratic support for slavery was nearly as strong among northern Democrats as it was in the South....

"However, a quick review of web sites and articles on the Internet, all of them touting and promoting Black History Month, provides a stark contrast to the actual events of recorded history. These sources contain hardly a single reference to the elements of black history upon which Rev. Perryman bases his reparations lawsuit – as if none of it ever happened.

"In the last three decades, and more, the teaching of Black History has become a major focus in our public schools, particularly in schools of the inner cities. However, when we consider that our children are being taught by members of the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), both political subsidiaries of the Democratic Party, is it any wonder that the Black History curriculum is heavy on music, entertainment, and sports history, and very, very light on political history?

"It represents one of the greatest cover-ups in history, and although we are not generally in favor of paying reparations to entire classes of citizens, we can at least hope that the historical documentation contained in Rev. Perryman’s lawsuit will soon become part of the public debate."

Go to http://www.lincolnheritage.org/LHI-Black_History_Month.htm

AMOS 'N ANDY!

"NPR's Brooke Gladstone reports on the strange history of the serial "Amos 'n' Andy." The adaptation of the black minstrel show started on radio, moved to television, and has recently been released on video. In its 70 years, the show has gone from being hugely popular, to being reviled as racist, back to being accepted as great entertainment-- now even scholar Henry Louis Gates likes it." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1028430


Well did Kingfish ever call Saphire a "bitch" or a "ho" or "hoe"? Was Andy a "thug?"

Was Amos' pants dropping in the back? Did they ever call each other that "N-word" at anytime? Did they MF each other all the time?

Were they all hanging out, smoking blunts, talking about who they got laid with?

On that show, a "dog" was an animal you fed Alpo and housebroke, and a "hoe" was a garden tool.

And none of them were convicts.

Amos, Andy and Tony Soprano

"Amos 'n' Andy" was a popular TV sitcom in the 1950s with an all-black cast. It was taken off the air under protests from civil rights organizations. Blacks families like mine thought the show was often buffoonish, sexist and in bad taste. We also watched it every week....Compared to some of the buffoonish comedies that feature all-black casts on TV today, including some of the stand-up comedy and sit-com reruns on BET, the black-oriented cable network, 'Amos 'n' Andy' looks downright sophisticated."

Go to http://www.newsandopinion.com/0601/page061201.asp

Did We Drop the Ball on South Africa?

"To live with the statistics is not easy. A serious crime is committed every 17 seconds in South Africa and Johannesburg is the epicentre of the crisis.

"The reality behind the statistics means that I live behind a high brick wall, topped with an electric fence.

"I cannot see the street outside: I cannot see the horizon. My house is alarmed day and night: so is my garage. I pull in and out of it fast: most armed carjackings take place in people's own driveways.

"They are often serious in the extreme: they are fatal. I've worked across this continent for years on the basis that I'm happy to call an aggressive man with a gun "Sir" and to give him what he wants.

So far I have survived the ill-disciplined rebel fighters, militiamen and soldiers. But in South Africa it is different - the armed men don't always give you the chance to hand the car over. They just shoot.

"Of course, sometimes they don't shoot. But it is the fear of what may happen which is paralysing, which restricts your life, which is a daily exhausting stress."

Go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/05/99/south_africa_elections/353596.stm


Are there any African Americans speaking out about South African crime like they did with South African apartheid?

Where is the solidarity that we used to have with that country?

Black Speaker at DC Rally Mocks Obamas Teleprompter Dependence

Mason Weaver

Something I Wrote to MSNBC

First check out this video:




I tried to contact MSNBC:

HELLO MSNBC

I have some questions for her. Please tell her she is wacked out on her statements of the Tea Parties.

Racism? I'm black and from Chicago, the most segregated city in the North. When I was younger in the 60's, a large stone came through our house because we moved into a new neighborhood. (By the way, these were not the "racist Republicans.") These were all white Democrats. Were not the white Democrats supposed to love black people? I have experienced racism up close and personal many times in Chicago, all white Democrats, even on a daily basis at one time. I have even been "Heil Hitlered" in by Neo-Nazis.

When it comes to racism, I was out on the playing field getting knocked down for years. She was sitting in the nosebleed section of the bleachers just watching and eating hotdogs and going home unscathed. Her attempt to somehow sympathize with black people is very pathetic and very phony. She is only fooling herself with her rhetoric.

Racism is only a nice spectator sport for her.

If she really cared about black people, she would have been outraged about the four black students shot in New Jersey where she is from. Three of them died. But I did not hear a sound from her. As a matter of fact, here is what I found on Google: "Your search - 'Janeane Garofalo' 'black students shot' - did not match any documents." It was on the news everyplace. What is she doing to stop the deliberate destruction of the black community? Her actions speak so loud I cannot hear a word she says.

She benefits from the same white privilege that she pretends she is against. How clever. I know blacks much better than her and we can see that through that phoniness, but she cannot. She is completely blind yet touts herself as an expert in racial relations.

If you can give her my phone number I would appreciate it. It is (phone number). She needs to learn what racism is about from one who has experienced it and knows more about it than she would care to know.

A Letter from Rev. Wayne Perryman

Dear Friends

Given the fact that 97% of all poor people whether citizens or illegal aliens, receive health care services through Public Hospitals during the past 70 years andthrough Medicare and Public Hospitals in recent years, what is the urgent rush on Health Care?

We have all been deceived into thinking that citizens in America are not getting health care because they have no health insurance, but that is not true. Visit the county and public health hospitals throughout the America, many of which are being run by medical schools of universities and you will see that the poor and the un-insured are receiving health care services from these government sponsored hospitals - and have been for years. Ask yourself this question: What did Americans do before there was a Blue Cross and and Blue Shield? Most of the poor people and the un-insured do not even know what Blue Cross and Blue Shield is, but they do know about what they call welfare hospitals which exist in every urban center in America. Public hospitals have been meeting the needs of the poor and the un-insured for decades. Ask yourself this: How many people had health insurance from 1890 to 1960? If they did not health care insurance, who provided their health care? Public hospitals and country doctors.

If we made insurance available for those persons who are accustomed to going to Public Hospitals, would this mean that they will start going to private hospitals to get the care that they had been receiving from Public Hospitals near their communities? No, not necessarily. Most will continue to go to the Public Hospitals and most would not want to deal with the paperwork associated with filing insurance claims including the paperwork necessary for a government sponsored insurance program. The other question would be: could the current private hospitals and doctors accomodate this new (50 million) patient population and what would happen to the Public Hospitals?

This is not to say that we do not need health care reform, it is only to say that the population that Congress is focusing on, are individuals who are already receiving medical care without health insurance. The same government that will make insurance available to this population for a fee and a co-pay, is the same government that is currently financing Public Hospitals that provide those same services without the cost of purchasing affordable insurance and the up front co-pay that is often required with insurance programs.

Let's have health care reform, but let the focus first on allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to lower rates; covering person with pre-existing conditions who cannot obtain insurance and individuals who are dropped by their insurance companies because of their health, Then let's find a way to provide health insurance for the poor/un-insured and more importantly, the means for them to pay for it.

What do you think?


Rev. Wayne Perryman

There is Nothing New Under the Sun

"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs...I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public. "

-- Booker T. Washington

A Great Quote

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are more often influenced by the things that seem than by those that are."-- Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince

Should the Democratic Party Apologize for Supporting Slavery?

Before the Civil War, the Democrat Party was united in its support for slavery. After the war, Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan, established Jim Crow Laws, and repeatedly defeated anti-lynching and other federal legislation that became necessary in order to dismantle Democrat-created segregation in South.

There is a saying – “God cannot change the truth.”

I’m an African-American political independent. The purpose of this article is not to debate the merits of belonging to a certain political party nor to pursue political converts. The purpose is to clarify history and to ask, does the Democratic Party owe African-Americans an apology for past support of slavery and racism?

February is Black History Month. Sometimes Black History needs clarification. For example, a friend told me that an African-American employee in his New York City office thought that President Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat. Another African-American friend, a former liaison between the Democrats in the California State Legislature and the Clinton White House, as well as a campaigner for Bill Clinton’s presidency, thought that the slave owners in the Old South were all Republicans. He thought that the worst Democrat was better than the best Republican. I was even told that an African-American woman in Illinois actually thought that it was illegal for a Black person to vote Republican! Based on that sampling, is it possible that a vast number of African-Americans are laboring under similar false beliefs about Democrats and Republicans?

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Illinois said: “before the Civil War, the Democratic slavemasters used to hold anti-black conventions.” Hence, there were no Republican slavemasters at all. Why? The Republican Party was formed in the 1850’s for the purpose of abolishing slavery and polygamy. The Republican National Committee website [1] says: “The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge.”

Look at a portion of the 1860 platform:

That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; That as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that ‘no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,’ it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States . . . That we brand the recent re-opening of the African slave- trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a shame to (a) crime against humanity and a burning (for) our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

(To their credit, there were Northern Democrats who supported President Lincoln during the Civil War.)

I’m somewhat curious about some information on the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) website [2]. The late Ron Brown, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee said:

The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream. We remember that this great land was sculpted by immigrants and slaves, their children and grandchildren . . .

Wait a minute! From Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor? All of the slavemasters were Democrats. How many other Democratic Presidents before the Civil War opposed slavery? The answer is none. The Democrats kept in bondage those who were excluded, those who were disenfranchised and those who were poor – Black slaves. Rest in peace Ron Brown, but were you were ignorant of your own party’s history or did you lie through your teeth?

According to the PBS’s American Experience website [3], it says of the Democratic Party platform in 1840: “They opposed the government's interference with the spread of slavery.” It also said in 1852: “Democrats also supported the provisions of the Compromise of 1850 and united along pro-slavery lines.” It also said in 1856: “Democrats again united along a pro-slavery platform, endorsing states' rights, the Fugitive Slave Law, and popular sovereignty in the territories.

Mackubin T. Owens writes in his editorial “The Democratic Party’s Legacy of Racism [4]:”

The most liberal position among ante-bellum Democrats regarding slavery was that slavery was an issue that should be decided by popular vote. For example, Stephen Douglas, Lincoln’s opponent in the 1858 Illinois senate race and the 1860 presidential campaign, advocated ‘popular sovereignty.’ He defended the right of the people in the territories to outlaw slavery, but also defended the right of Southerners to own slaves and transport them to the new territories.

Whether or not some Republicans did not want slavery because they sincerely thought it was immoral or some did not want it for political reasons only, not out of love for the Black people (Lincoln thought that Blacks were inferior to Whites and there were northern states that barred Blacks from migrating into them), is irrelevant. The fact is that Republicans were never supporters of slavery, contrary to the belief of many African-Americans today.

The PBS website on “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow [5]” said: “The Democratic Party identified itself as the ‘white man's party’ and demonized the Republican Party as being ‘Negro dominated,’ even though whites were in control.” Some Democrats formed the terrorist organization the Ku Klux Klan in the 1870’s. An article in the 1992 Encyclopedia Britannica under the “Reconstruction” heading reported: “The Democratic resentment led to the formation of the secret terroristic organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Knights of the White Camilia. The use of fraud, violence, and intimidation helped Southern conservatives regain control of their state governments.” Blacks and White Republicans were the targets of the Klan’s wrath. All this information can be freely verified in libraries and on the Internet. My point is that in the minds of many African-Americans today, the Republican Party is identified with the Ku Klux Klan. Until an African-American friend of mine learned the true history of both political parties, she thought the Republicans and the KKK were basically the same and published imagery of that nature in a newspaper.

Look at these paragraphs concerning their history on the DNC’s website: “In 1848, the National Convention established the Democratic National Committee, now the longest running political organization in the world. The Convention charged the DNC with the responsibility of promoting ‘the Democratic cause’ between the conventions and preparing for the next convention. The next paragraph immediately says: “As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly. The Democratic Party embraced the immigrants who flooded into cities and industrial centers, built a political base by bringing them into the American mainstream, and helped create the most powerful economic engine in history.” We leave 1848 and timewarp to the late 19th Century? Why the 50-year gap in the DNC history? What about the Democratic Party during the Civil War and Reconstruction? Why don’t they talk about the first Black government officials on state and federal levels? Is it because they were 100% Republican, therefore persona non grata? A Black elected official I know personally admitted he did not know until recently that there were Blacks in Congress in the 19th Century. Why didn't that website celebrate the constitutional amendments that formally abolished slavery and declared the former slaves citizens of the United States? Why was that significant part of their history intentionally left out? Was it because they could not honestly claim that championing civil rights for Blacks — part of “the Democratic cause” – was a part of their history after the Civil War?

(As a matter of fact, do you recall any mention of the first Black governor, congressmen, or state representatives immediately after the Civil War in any Black History Month celebrations or programs? You hear of the first Black this and the first Black that, and that is wonderful. But you never, ever, hear about the first Black Americans in national or state government. Why is that?)

Did you know the “racist” Republican Barry Goldwater was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP? He was a member until his death in 1998! Could a White racist be a founding member of a Black civil-rights organization and a dues-paying member until his death? As an Air National Guard Colonel in the 1940’s, he desegregated the Arizona Air National Guard, 2 years BEFORE President Truman desegregated the entire Armed Forces. My mother, who is 87 years old, believed for the last 40 years that Barry Goldwater was a White supremacist. (I grew up believing he was a racist.) Now that my mother knows the real Goldwater, her 40-year bitterness toward him evaporated. She understands he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act based on his libertarian philosophy as far as the federal government intruding into private affairs and not because of “racism.” Also, Goldwater voted for two Civil Rights bills during the Eisenhower administration.

A Wikipedia article on the Democratic Party says: “The civil rights movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's liberal principles.” Rev. Al Sharpton (who I respect for traveling to Sudan and exposing chattel slavery there) said at a recent Democratic Convention in Boston: “Mr. President, you said would we have more leverage if both parties got our votes, but we didn't come this far playing political games. It was those that earned our vote that got our vote. We got the Civil Rights Act under a Democrat (President Lyndon Baines Johnson). We got the Voting Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the right to organize under Democrats.” Rev. Sharpton, I really wish you would have mentioned too that it was because of Democrats, not because of Republicans, that we needed the protection of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Southern Democrats were the segregationists, not the Republicans. The Southern Democrats were responsible for Jim Crow, not the Republicans.

I have asked several Black people if a majority of Democrats or Republicans in Congress supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. All but one said it was a Democratic majority. Therefore they believed it was a Democratic victory for civil rights. Have the Democrats claimed a victory that they never earned? Here is the historical record that you can look up today on the Internet: In 1964, in a Democratic Congressional majority, in the Senate, 82% of the Republicans voted for the Act while only 69% of the Democrats voted for it. Every Southern Democratic Senator voted against it. In the House of Representatives, 80% of the Republicans voted for the Act, while only 61% of the Democrats voted for it. Ninety-two of the 103 Southern Democrats in the House voted against it. It is all in the Congressional Record. Also the ignored or forgotten 1957 Civil Rights Act (which Senator Strom Thurmond tried to torpedo) and the 1960 Civil Rights Act, designed to protect us from the Southern Democrats, were passed by the majority of Republicans in Congress and signed into law by Republican President Eisenhower. Republicans, not Democrats, historically have been in the majority in support of civil rights legislation from the beginning of their history. Even Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy was no outstanding exponent for civil rights before his presidential bid. Who said, "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"? It was Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen speaking of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in percentages, 73.4% of the Democratic Senators voted for the law and 93% of the Republican Senators voted for the law. 78.4% of the Democratic House Representatives voted for the law and 82.3% of the Republican House Representatives voted for the law.

Republican Senator Trent Lott was nothing to shout about. (Same for the late Democrat Dixiecrat turned Republican Strom Thurmond). Lott was pilloried by the media after his remarks praising a Thurmond Dixiecrat presidency. However, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd said on national television, “There are white niggers.” I have not heard any cries of protests from recognizable Black leaders and politicians. (You know who they are.) It was reported that Senator Carol Moseley Braun excused him by saying that he was just “an old man.” An older Black man I knew who hated, with venom, White and Black Republicans, also defended Byrd! By the way, Senator Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, the "Invisible Empire of the South," years ago. He even recruited for the Klan as a “kleagle.” What if Trent Lott was an ex-Klan member and said “white niggers” on national television? We would have shouted “Crucify! Crucify!” right? We would have tarred and feathered him and ran him out of town. Was it because Byrd is a Democrat that we make excuses for him making racial slurs that no Republican could get away with? He can get away with being an ex-Klan member while we tell the Republicans to “come clean”? Is not that “selective outrage” dysfunctional if not hypocritical?

Rev. Sharpton said we never got our “40 acres and a mule.” Yes, we did, and they were taken away by a Democrat. Reparations to Black slaves were discussed by Republicans after the Civil War. Political activist and researcher M.D. Currington (websites: mdcurrington.tripod.com/mdc and moteandbeam.tripod.com) writes,

On January 12, 1865, General William Tecumseh Sherman and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton met with twenty Black community leaders in Savannah, Georgia to discuss freedom and reparations for former Black slaves . . . on January 16, 1865, General Sherman issued Special Field Order No. 15, which set aside 7,600 square miles in a 30-mile wide tract of land along the Atlantic coast stretching from Charleston, South Carolina to St. John’s River near Jacksonville, Florida, for the exclusive settlement by Blacks . . . This Field Order also guaranteed former slaves U.S. military protection, 40 acres of tillable land per Black family, other provisions such as a mule or horse in order to work the land, and any other animal that was no longer useful to the military. By June 1865, over 40,000 former slaves were settled on 40-acre tracts of land. Over 400,000 acres were allocated. In September of 1865, Democrat President Andrew Johnson reversed Field Order No. 15, issued special pardons, and returned the land to former slaveowners.

The Republicans gave, yet a Democrat took it away.

I was told that the Republicans of yesterday are the Democrats of today and vice versa. Former radio talk-show host and community activist Rev Wayne Perryman says in his book Unfounded Loyalty: “To praise the Democrats for what they did in the sixties is similar to praising a child who voluntarily cleans up part of his mess after tracking mud throughout the entire house.” He also quotes Black journalist Tony Brown (Tony Brown’s Journal on PBS):

It is out of ignorance of their own history that many Blacks demean the Republican philosophy and condemn Black Republicans. Blacks have been Republicans historically, Frederick Douglass and the first twelve Blacks to serve as U.S. Congressman were Republicans. And Congressional White Republicans were the architects of Reconstruction, a ten-year period of unprecedented political power for Black people. Democrats working hand-in-hand with the Ku Klux Klan gave us Jim Crow Laws that effectively reenslaved Blacks. If you know this history, you have to wonder: How did Blacks move from the party that gave them civil and political rights to join forces with a party with a history of racist demagoguery, support of slavery, Jim Crow and lynchings?

Let’s explore lynchings. Wikipedia says:

Lynching in the United States refers, primarily, to the practice in the 19th and 20th centuries of the humiliation and killing of people by mobs acting outside the law. These murders, most of them unpunished, often took the form of hanging and burning. To demonstrate a ritual of power, mobs sometimes tortured the victim . . . between 1880 and 1951 the Tuskegee Institute recorded lynchings of 3,437 African-American victims, as well as 1,293 white victims. Southern states completed disfranchisement of African Americans about the turn of the century. Their white Democratic representatives comprised such a powerful voting block in Congress that they consistently defeated Federal bills against lynching.

To its credit, the U.S. Senate, not the Democratic National Committee, in 2005 passed a resolution to apologize for failing to pass anti-lynching legislation. All the anti-lynching bills were initiated by Republicans. I did a Google search and what came up was “Your search – ‘Democratic anti-lynching’ – did not match any documents.”

Why did African-Americans switch parties? The previously mentioned Wikipedia Democratic Party article also says:

From the end of the Civil War, African Americans favored the Republican Party. However, they began drifting to the Democratic Party in the 1930s, as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs gave economic relief to all minorities, including African Americans and Hispanics. Support for the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s by Democratic presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson helped give the Democrats even larger support among the African American community, although their position also alienated the Southern white population.

Rev. Perryman wrote:

Prior to this time from 1866 to 1928, blacks had voted exclusively for the Republican ticket. Frustrated with the economy as well as with the Republican Party, the newspapers used their powerful voice to urge black voters to break tradition and vote Democrat. John Hope Franklin said, "The break was neither clean nor complete, however, for there were those who could not be persuaded to support the party that, after all, was the party of the Ku Klux Klan and other bigots." . . . Hard times were nothing new for the American Negro. They voted Democrat because the Pittsburgh Courier and other powerful black newspapers told their readers the "Republicans took their vote for granted."

Funny. Back then any Black person who voted Democrat would have been considered an “Uncle Tom” or a “handkerchief-head Negro,” as the Democratic Party was “the party of the Ku Klux Klan and other bigots.”

Rev. Perryman also writes:

Modern-day Democrats must stop preaching that they are the compassionate party of black people and confess that it was their predecessors who started many of the racist practices that we are now trying to eradicate. History clearly shows two things: (1) that the roots of racism grew deep in the hearts and souls of the Democrats and (2) without the past efforts of the Radical Republicans and the Abolitionists, the Civil Rights Legislation of the sixties would not have been possible. Republicans laid the foundation for civil rights by passing legislation and instituting programs that Democrats were adamantly opposed to, such as:

1. The Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 to abolish slavery.

2. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 to give Negroes citizenship and protect freedmen from Black Codes and other repressive legislation.

3. The First Reconstruction Act of 1867 to provide more efficient Government of the Rebel- or Democratic-controlled states.

4. The Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 to make all persons born in the United States citizens. Part of this Amendment specifically states, “No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; or deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

5. The Fifteenth Amendment of 1870 to give the right to vote to every citizen.

6. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 to stop Klan terrorists from terrorizing black voters, Republicans, white teachers who taught blacks, and Abolitionists.

7. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights and to prohibit racial discrimination in places of public accommodation.

8. The Freedmen's Bureau was a collection of social programs established by Republicans to feed, protect, and educate the former slaves.

9. The 1957 Civil Rights Act and the 1960 Civil Rights Act were signed into law by President Eisenhower who also established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in 1958, a commission that was rejected by Truman during his administration.

10. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, which key Republicans pushed law through while key Southern Democrats like Al Gore, Sr. debated against its passage. More Republicans (in percentages) voted for this law than Democrats.

There is good and bad in both parties. A great example of good is pro-civil rights Democrat Congressman Bob Filner of Chula Vista, California. He was part of the Freedom Rides in the South in the early 1960’s and was even imprisoned for months by racist Democrats. His life was constantly in danger as some other Freedom Riders were murdered. The Republican Party is not completely virtuous, either. It has dropped the ball a few times concerning Blacks. However, considering the immutable facts of history, which political party historically has a better civil rights and equality track record for Blacks?

Based on a correct interpretation of history based on documented facts, does the Democratic Party owe Black America an apology for its past support of slavery, Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, and violent acts of racism such as lynching? Since there has never been an offer of apology from the Democratic National Committee and 90% of the African-American vote goes to the Democrats, don’t you think the answer should be YES?

But another important question that African-American voters should ask is, what do we African-Americans owe the Democratic Party?

Addendum:

According to Democrats.org, the official website of the Democratic National Committee http://www.democrats.org/a/national/civil_rights/: "Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.

"On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. (I'm sorry. This is so laughable that I'm surprised they would dare to say such a thing in the light of historical facts -- Robert) We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America."

Oh really? My friend Bob Parks says: "This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an 'explosive expose' bringing us all those facts first, so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer…"

Read the rest of Bob's article here at http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

And many reparations advocates want to recover damages from any institution that benefited from slavery in the past. The Democratic Party officially endorsed slavery at one time and even the KKK was identified as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party." Should the Democratic Party also be responsible for reparations?

Something I Wrote During the Presidential Campaign Last Year

A Message for Reparations Supporters for Obama

by Robert Oliver

What is the matter with you all?

Reparations supporters in Illinois knew that Barack Obama did not support reparations back in 2004 when he ran for the U.S. Senate. Even his opponent Alan Keyes advocated a form of reparations. Therefore your movement did not have a friend in the Senate. Yet they supported Obama anyway. You still did not get reparations. And you all still support him. And you are really expecting reparations still?

There is a definition for “insanity”: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the different results.

Obama still does not support reparations. Can I repeat that? Obama still does not support reparations. I am amazed that there is a well-known black woman who is running for President of the United States who openly supports reparations. You ignore her. Yet you support a black man for President who does not support reparations. You expect the government, when Obama is in charge, to give you reparations? You cannot say it is the “white man’s government” anymore.

Cynthia McKinney is running for President on the Green Ticket. I’m not cheerleading for McKinney, but it amazes me how she is being disrespected by her own people as well as the black media. A radio DJ in the New York area said she represented the “Collard Greens” Party. He would not allow discussion of McKinney’s candidacy because he said the “brotha” had to get into the White House. Of course the white media, that supports Obama, pretends she is dead.

The website http://www.greenpartywatch.org said on July 30, 2008: “Yesterday’s vote by the House of Representatives to apologize for slavery and Jim Crow segregation laws may provoke a discussion on reparations for descendants of African slaves. Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente are on record in support of such reparations, and the Green Party platform has the following to say on the subject:

“‘People of color in this country have legitimate claims to reparations in the form of monetary compensation for centuries of discrimination. We also uphold the right of the descendants of African slaves to self-determination, as we do for all indigenous peoples.’

“There can be no question that Greens have been at the forefront of the fight for racial justice. A national discussion of reparations would give the Green Party a platform from which to articulate a clear and progressive reparative policy, so we need to think about how we want to approach the subject of reparations. I think there are at least two ways we can do that.”
(http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2008/07/30/greens-and-reparation/)

Why have not the masses of black reparations advocates gotten behind the “sista”? Check out the Democratic Party platform. It is freely available on the Internet. You see anything in it about reparations? No. There is absolutely nothing about reparations in the Democrat’s platform. Yet you ignore the candidate who is openly on your side, and you support a candidate who is not on your side and will be your opponent on the reparations issue as President of the United States. Why do you want to make things harder on yourselves?

When Obama becomes president, is not your movement killed?

The next time you yell “They Owe Us!” and “Yes We Can!” in the same breath, how will I know you are sincere? Do you really expect any reparations at all? I don’t think so. President Obama chooses his Secretary of the Treasury. You want to go after the Treasury to get “reparations”? It is Obama’s treasury you are going after. It is your black president’s treasury you are going after. You cannot say you are going after “the white man,” can you? You will vote for this black president so you can fight him later? I don’t understand that. He has made it clear he does not support reparations for years. You all knew his position, didn’t you? You want “change” instead of reparations? Will you have to pack up your movement because an Obama administration will nail the reparations coffin shut? Did you vote your reparations away after all these years?

So don’t yell to Obama, “They Owe Us!” Like Sergeant Carter on Gomer Pyle, your President Obama will say “I can’t hear you, but thank you for voting for me!”

Seems like you should get behind your friends and not your foes, shouldn’t you?

A Portrait of the Black Family

SAVE AMERICA Ministries
A PORTRAIT of the BLACK FAMILY
2007 Edition
Descent into Destruction!


“The black family has crumbled more in the last 30 years than it did in the entire 14 decades
since slavery.” Dr. Julian Hare, Dir. - San Francisco Black Think Tank
EBONY, Nov. 2003, p. 193

Financial Portrait
• 70% of African-Americans do NOT live below the poverty line.
• 61% of middle-class Blacks own stock.
• 40% live in suburban neighborhoods.
• ½ trillion dollars/year generated and circulated.
• Several named as wealthiest individuals in the nation.
• Black households earning over $100,000/yr. increased tenfold since 1960's.
Leadership Portrait
• 42 black members of Congress, 1 black member of the Senate - 9 times as many as 1964.
• More than ½ of 50 states, including Washington D.C., have black mayors.
• Blacks are directors of major corporations, university presidents, astronauts, political leaders and military generals and even
US Secretary of State (Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice).
• The number of Blacks with high school and college diplomas tripled since 1960's.
NOTE: It would seem logical that the Black family would have followed the astounding financial, political and educational improvements since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Statistics, however, paint a shockingly contrary picture that should grip the heart of every American, especially our pastors. Consider these grave facts prayerfully.

Marriage Portrait
• In 1963, when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared, “I have a dream,” more than 70% of black families were headed by married couples. Today, 40 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, married couples head only 46% of black families.
• More alarming, 45% of black men have never married and 42% of black women have never married.
• Married black women declined from 62% to 31% between 1950 and 2002.
• By age 30, only 52% of black women will marry compared to 81% of white women, 77% of Hispanics and Asians.
• Only 6% of black men and 2% of black women marry Whites.
• In 1970, just 33% of black women, age 20-29 were unmarried. By 1992, that number exploded to 70%.
“Black men and women are less likely to be married and more likely to divorce when we do marry.” -The Black Commentator, Margaret Kimberley "Black Families - A Glass Half Empty and Half Full," April 23, 2004.

Parenting Portrait
• 70% of all black children are born out of wedlock.
• 65% of never-married black women have children, double that for white women.
• 22% of never-married black women with incomes over $75,000 have children, 10 times that of white women.
• 62% of black families with children are headed by a single parent.
• 85% of black children do not live in a home with their fathers.
• Only 15-20% of black children born today will grow up with 2 parents until age 16.
• Over 80% of long-term child poverty occurs in broken or never-married homes.
• 70% of African-American boys in the criminal justice system come from single-parent homes.

Abortion Portrait
• 43% of all black children are aborted, nearly 3 times higher than for Whites. This fact is critical, since pastors and politicians argue that the reason for the illegitimacy rates for Blacks being dramatically higher is because they claim, “Blacks seldom abort their children.”
• Over 15 million African-American babies have been aborted (killed by their mothers) since Roe v. Wade. This is 14 times the total of all U.S. soldiers killed in all of America’s wars over 220 years from 1775 to present.
• Blacks abort their babies 3 times that of Whites, a ratio that has grown by 50% since 1992.
“The top three moral crises facing the Black family are rooted in sexual immorality.” - Star Parker, President,
Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE).

Sexual Portrait
• 70% of all black children are born out of wedlock.
• 50% of all new AIDS cases are in the Black community which comprises only 12% of the population.
• 85% of all AIDS cases in Atlanta are black women.
• A black woman is 25 times more likely to contract AIDS than a white woman and represents 72% of all women with AIDS. African-Americans are 20 times more likely than whites to have gonorrhea.
• AIDS is now the #1 killer of black women, age 25-44. “It’s devastating,” says Dr. Gayle E. Wyatt at UCLA AIDS Institute.
• 67% of black women with AIDS contracted HIV thru heterosexual sex.
• Black men on the “down low” are having sex with other men behind the backs of their wives and girlfriends while claiming not
to be homosexual or bisexual (New York Times). A study among black men in 37 colleges in North Carolina revealed that of
the 84 men with HIV, 1/3 had had sex with men and women.
• Black men in America engage in polygamous relationships, 3 ½ times that of White or Hispanic. In Cook County, Illinois, 21%
of black men had at least 2 partners. And, polygamy is more common among better educated black men who presumably have
more income (Univ. Of Chicago, “Sex and the City” study, Jan. 9, 2004).
• Marriage for blacks “has become an alternative lifestyle. It’s considered nonessential.” -Andrew Lyke, Coordinator of
Marriage Ministry for the Archdiocese of Chicago. Chicago Sun Times
• “Black women assume marriage will be monogamous. Black men don’t attach as much significance to monogamy.” -
Dr. Beverly Guy - Sheftall, Gender Talks
• “There’s a huge level of distrust among young black men and women.” - Dr. Beverly Guy - Sheftell
• “There is ‘an acute crisis’ in Black sexual politics creating a schism in Black male and female relations.” - EBONY, Nov.
2003

Prison Portrait
• Nearly 2 million black males are either currently in a state or federal prison or have been in one.
• 17% of black men have had prison experience compared to 7.7% of Hispanic and 2.6% of White.
NOTE: While racial injustice may account for some of these differences, the overwhelming weight of evidence points to a generation of fatherlessness as the driving force taking black men to prison.
NOTE: The astonishing crisis of the black family and obvious moral decay seems baffling in light of the Black statistical religious experience.

Religious Portrait
It is undisputed that the Black community in America is the most religious group not only in this nation but arguably in the entire world. Is this ongoing religious experience impacting Black Americans to love God as reflected in obedience to His Word in light of Matt. 28: 19-20, John 14:15-24, Jam. 1:22, I Jn. 5:2-3? This question haunts the lives of all professing American Christians. Statistics increasingly prove that American Christians do not truly love God, since our lives reflect virtually no difference from those of our non-Christian counterparts.
• 57% of Black Americans profess to be “born again” Christians compared to 33% of adults nationwide.
• 83% of Blacks say their religious faith is very important in their lives compared to 66% of whites.
• 75% of Blacks say they believe God is the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator who rules the world today.
• 2/3 of Blacks strongly affirm the Bible’s accuracy compared to less than 50% for Whites, Hispanics and Asians.
• 92% of African Americans report praying in the last 7 days compared to 82% for Whites.
-But Here Is A Telling Truth-
• Only 10% of Blacks believe moral truth is absolute compared to 26% of Whites and Hispanics. (All religious statistics taken from Barna Research Report)

CONCLUSIONS
1. While feelings trump truth increasingly for all American Christians, the overwhelming weight of the African American religious experience is so deeply rooted in emotion that Biblical truth is of relatively little significance affecting actual living. While the facts of orthodoxy seem strong, the actual faith is emaciated by unfettered emotion... hence, only 10% believe in absolute moral truth. This pattern of constant sublimating of eternal truth to the temporal and cultural cry to do whatever feels good has filtered through every aspect of African-American life, decimating the Black family as it is the rest of America.
2. Black politicians and pastors, intent on currying favor with constituencies, have consistently attributed nearly every statistical difference portraying African-Americans in a negative light as due to open or systemic discrimination. But honest observers who have no power, perks or position on the line are increasingly saying, “The explanation lies elsewhere.” As a Black research associate for the Acton Institute stated in Devaluing the Black Family, “We should be asking searching questions about churches and what they are teaching....”
3. “The severity of social problems within the black communities has intensified since the Civil Rights victories of the 1960's. The greater the prosperity, the greater the moral decay. In 1960, when Black America was economically far worse off, only 23% of black kids were born out of wedlock. By 1970, 1/3 of black women age 20-29 were unmarried, and by 1992, 70% were
unmarried.” “Since 1969, the largest increase in out-of-wedlock births was not among teens but among black women age 20-24.”
4. The fact that black women and their doctors now abort ½ of all black children conceived in black wombs reflects a moral and spiritual disconnect of unspeakable proportions.
5. “The quickest way to bring anger, tears and vitriol to any conversation among black people is to discuss the state of Black male and female relationships” (Margaret Kimberly, The Black Commentator, April 23, 2004).
6. EBONY’s 58th Anniversary Edition headlined its feature article, “The Shocking State of Black Marriage.” “Quiet as it’s kept, we are confronted with one of the biggest crises in the history of the African-American people.”
7. Sexual promiscuity is the common thread traceable throughout the shredded fabric of the Black family. It is rampant from pulpit to pew to politician.
A. Promiscuity has decimated Black marriage.
B. Promiscuity has resulted in over 70% of all black children being born out of wedlock.
C. Promiscuity has left 85% of black children without 2 parents.
D. Promiscuity has resulted in a level of fatherlessness unprecedented in modern history and perhaps in world history,
producing:
1. Explosive anger
2. Rebellion against all authority
3. A rampant drug trade
4. Murder and violence baffling law enforcement nationwide
5. Prisons filled with black men whose confused lives are torn to shreds, without hope, and determined that someone will pay.
E. Promiscuity is the cause of the AIDS explosion that is now the #1 killer of black women and more prevalent in black men than all of the races. AIDS kills twice as many black men as homicide.

We must be reminded that, “The unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” We must “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterors, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilors, nor
extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God” (I Cor. 6:9-10, I Cor. 5).
8. The fear of the Lord must be restored from pulpit to pew in Black America and in all America. It is the beginning of wisdom. This will require confession of sin, repentance from sinful ways, and a fresh commitment to obey God’s ways. Pastors will have a heavy account to bear and should set the example. It will be costly. It will require a willingness to risk power, perks
and position for the healing of the Black family and for the hope of eternity with the God we claim to serve. It is time for Black America to come OUT OF EGYPT if they have any hope of entering the Promised Land, either biblically or figuratively.

The Future of the Nation at Stake
It has been said that what happens in Black America in one generation happens in all America in the next generation. What then does America’s future look like? Black author Joan Williams calls it “Descent into destruction.” The “handwriting is on the wall,”except for a cry for God’s mercy and our humble repentance.

In the words of Harriett Beecher Stowe in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, “A day of grace is yet held out to us. [All] have been guilty before God; and the Christian church has a heavy account to answer. Not by combining together, to protect injustice... or to make common capital of sin, [are we] to be saved, but by repentance, justice and mercy.

Time to Pray... and Obey
From the Negro National Anthem...
God of our weary years,
God of our silent tears,
Thou Who has brought us thus far on the way,
Thou Who has by Thy might led us into the light,
Keep us forever in the path we pray.
Lest our feet stray from the place, our God, where we met Thee.
Lest our heart, drunk with the wine of the world, we forget Thee.
Shadowed beneath Thy hand, may we forever stand,
True to our God, true to our native land.

SAVE AMERICA MINISTRIES
A Voice to the Church, A Vision for the Nation
P.O. Box 70879 • Richmond, Virginia 23255 •(800) SAVE USA • (804) 754-1822 • www.saveus.org

Pro-lifer slayed ... double standard, anyone?

"Of course, the fact that the pro-choice crowd had made complete asses of themselves by hurling unfounded charges at the pro-life movement was quietly swept under the rug by their fellow degenerates in the media.

"Then came Friday. And the reason I urged caution in our reaction was because I knew, as we all know, that if we were to jump to a conclusion that eventually proved false, the magnanimous treatment shown our enemies in 1993 would not be shown to us today. Instead, the media would make sure we were soon rotating over a low flame

"But that concern is now gone. Prosecutors in Michigan have confirmed that, according to the suspect in custody, Jim was indeed targeted because of his pro-life activism. In a nutshell, an elderly man wearing leg braces and breathing through an oxygen tank was brutally murdered for protesting abortion on a public sidewalk.

"That leaves us with a very simple question. Simply put, will the responses to this killing match the responses we've seen in the past when some abortionist was shot. For example:

"Will the FBI launch an investigation to find links between the suspect and other pro-choice individuals or organizations?

"Will the United States Department of Justice try to establish that these killings were part of a larger pro-choice conspiracy?

"Will pro-choice organizations have their phones illegally tapped and their mail illegally opened by federal authorities?

"Will U.S. Marshals now be assigned to protect peaceful non-violent pro-lifers while they are exercising their First Amendment rights?

"Will Congress rush to pass new legislation that would protect people who exercise their constitutional right to protest abortion?

"Will pro-life protesters be given protective zones around themselves into which pro-choice activists may not legally enter?

"Will media pundits be suggesting that the heated rhetoric of the pro-choice movement is what led to these killings?

"Will any rabidly pro-choice media commentator be accused of creating the atmosphere that made such a killing inevitable?

"Will the Democratic Party's unwavering advocacy of abortion-on-demand be cited as a motivating factor for the shooter?

"Will those who call themselves pro-choice now be forever labeled, 'One of those fanatics who murder people they don't agree with'?

"Of course, we all know what the answer to each of these questions will be. We all know that the most likely response will be that the pro-life movement and the victim himself created the environment in which this killing occurred.

"You can count on it."

-- World Net Daily

Cass Sunstein: Regulating America to death

Ellis Washington:

"Space will not allow me to adequately detail the utter tyranny and naked assault on our constitutional rights Sunstein plans to launch against American capitalism in his new role as regulatory czar. Here is a summary of the autocracy Americans can expect from Czar Sunstein:

"Sunstein advocates a 'Second Bill of Rights' even more totalizing and all-consuming than initially proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt's 'New Deal' in the 1930s. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care and a right to protection against monopolies.

"Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it legal standing for suit.

"Sunstein has argued that 'we should celebrate tax day.'

"Rumor has it that Obama is grooming Sunstein as a future Supreme Court justice. Last week Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said, '[Sunstein] is to the left of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.'"

-- World Net Daily

Obama buyer's remorse … among blacks

By commentator and author Star Parker of the Coalition of Urban Renewal and Education (http://www.urbancure.com/):

"You might say, Star, a drop in approval ratings among blacks from 95 to 92 percent is trivial. But I say not so.

"If we assume this reflects the 16 million blacks who voted for Obama last November, a 3-point shift means there are about a half million blacks who now have buyer's remorse.

"This is meaningful. You take real risks going against the establishment in black America – psychological risks, professional risks and sometimes risks to personal safety. Peeling off a black who voted for Obama means moving heaven and earth.

"Even a star like Bill Cosby incurred the wrath of the black establishment when he started talking about black families and personal responsibility. As result, he backed off and toned down his message.

"Recall during the campaign, candidate Obama ruffled Jesse Jackson's feathers when he spoke about personal responsibility among black males. An inadvertently 'on' microphone picked up Jackson saying that he wanted to castrate Obama (not exactly in that language).

"The black conservative is not that rare freak of nature that so many think.

"According to a Pew Research Center report, almost a third of blacks consider themselves conservative.

"However, these folks have always been inclined to be quiet because of the social pressures and intimidation.

(My comment: That type of pressure is reminiscent of the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and Nazi Germany. There are those claim to believe and fight for "freedom" yet they do not believe in freedom of speech and diversity of thought. I call that hypocritical -- Robert)

"But this is changing.

"Despite slurs, intimidation and widely reported physical attacks from union thugs, a few brave black souls have showed up at tea party protest rallies.

"I'm getting more and more calls from black conservatives around the country running for local office. I see black conservative websites popping up, and there are even black rappers rapping a conservative message.

"Who, after all, could know more about the lie about government and the pretense of political answers to life's problems than blacks?

"It's black families that have been devastated by welfare-state programs and black kids now trapped in hopeless public schools. And it's overwhelmingly black unborn children that never see the light of day.

"How can blacks who have their eyes open not have noticed that it was Mr. Obama who killed the DC school voucher program and sent black children back to one of the worst public school systems in the country?"

-- World Net Daily

Click the post title for the full article.

To quote Maya Angelou: "I rise."

Obama's bitter medicine

"Can you briefly explain your experience with socialized medicine? I was prohibited from performing caesarian sections, from ordering CT scans or echocardiograms. … I had to work from a ridiculously limited prescription formulary. The hoops that had to be jumped through to get anything done were time consuming and demeaning. The system infuriated patients and providers alike. "

"What do Americans need to know about government-run health care? In surrendering individual responsibility, you also surrender individual autonomy. Ask the government to assume responsibility for your life and it will do exactly that. You will belong to it. We should be careful what we ask for; this could be bitter medicine."

"In 10 years when this system is proved to be a resounding failure and we long for the good old days of only quasi-regulated medicine, I'll try not to say 'I told you so.'"

-- World Net Daily

'Gay' man sues Bible publisher for 'mental anguish'

From World Net Daily:

"As WND reported, Fowler, who had a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website last year, filed his initial complaint against Christian publishers Zondervan and Thomas Nelson Publishing. Fowler, who represented himself in both lawsuits, said in his complaint against Zondervan that the publisher intended to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause 'me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder.'

"He told the Grand Rapids' WOOD-TV in 2008 that he wants to 'compensate for the past 20 years of emotional duress and mental instability.'"

Brother, get over it and quit playing the victim. If everyone thought the way you did, everyone could find someone to sue, like parents, relatives, ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends, teachers, classmates, the police and other government agencies, etc. They all cause emotional duress. You don't see people sueing all over the place, or should they?

And you want $10,000,000 because you are basically claiming "I am so weak in the brain they messed up my head and they got to pay me."

You must be joking!

From World Net Daily:

"NEW YORK – President Obama's newly confirmed administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has several times quoted approvingly from an author who likened animals to slaves and argued an adult dog or a horse is more rational than a human infant and should therefore be granted similar rights. "