kingbee kingbee

Dems Deny Non-Black Americans Opportunity To Catch Up!

Dems Deny Non-Black Americans Opportunity To Catch Up!

Leave The Rest of Us Hanging.

the united states senate showed its true pitiful self yesterday when it permitted a democratic minority to prevail in a symbolic gesture and pass a resolution that effectively ended senate tolerance of a tradition dating back to precolonial times.  in so doing, they slammed the door shut,  effectively denying  millions of deserving ameicans any chance of achieving parity with a grossly over-represented--and dismaying ungrateful--ethnic minority group.

42 of the 44 democrats in the senate (in other words, all but two of the scurvy bastards) were joined by a motley contingent of 36 republicans (who leave us no choice but to pity them for their willingness to go along to get along--unlike the 18 who remained steadfast in their opposition) in co-sponsoring sr 39: an apology--an apology mind you--for (of all things) having previously stood up for our right to lynch each other.

as i've already mentioned, this resolution virtually eliminates any chance of bringing back the noose or attaining true racial equality on this endeavor. 

without meaning to make this issue any more inflammatory, i can't in good conscience spare you from seeing the numbers yourselves.

consider for a moment this fact:  blacks make up roughly only about 10-12% of our population.   despite that--as this senate resolution points out--3445 of the 4742 americans  elevated to the order of the noose between 1882 and 1968 were black. 

clearly this is one instance where there's no question  blacks received special consideration totally outta proportion to their numbers.  had all americans been treated equally that number would drop drastically to 521.62.  had that been the case,  fully 4220.38 equally suitable non-black candidates would have been selected to fill the open slots.

i could go on and on, but im just too upset.  so here's the text of this despicable resolution.  you can read it for yourself:  

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 39

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 7, 2005

Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. FRIST, Mr. REID, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BAYH, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DAYTON, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. DODD, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. STEVENS, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. TALENT, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. PRYOR, and Mr. SCHUMER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


RESOLUTION

Whereas the crime of lynching succeeded slavery as the ultimate expression of racism in the United States following Reconstruction;

Whereas lynching was a widely acknowledged practice in the United States until the middle of the 20th century;

Whereas lynching was a crime that occurred throughout the United States, with documented incidents in all but 4 States;

Whereas at least 4,742 people, predominantly African-Americans, were reported lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968;

Whereas 99 percent of all perpetrators of lynching escaped from punishment by State or local officials;

Whereas lynching prompted African-Americans to form the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and prompted members of B'nai B'rith to found the Anti-Defamation League;

Whereas nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress during the first half of the 20th century;

Whereas, between 1890 and 1952, 7 Presidents petitioned Congress to end lynching;

Whereas, between 1920 and 1940, the House of Representatives passed 3 strong anti-lynching measures;

Whereas protection against lynching was the minimum and most basic of Federal responsibilities, and the Senate considered but failed to enact anti-lynching legislation despite repeated requests by civil rights groups, Presidents, and the House of Representatives to do so;

Whereas the recent publication of `Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America' helped bring greater awareness and proper recognition of the victims of lynching;

Whereas only by coming to terms with history can the United States effectively champion human rights abroad; and

Whereas an apology offered in the spirit of true repentance moves the United States toward reconciliation and may become central to a new understanding, on which improved racial relations can be forged: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate--

      (1) apologizes to the victims of lynching for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation;

      (2) expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States; and

      (3) remembers the history of lynching, to ensure that these tragedies will be neither forgotten nor repeated.

      and here are the names of the republican senators who refused to support the resolution, thus recommending themselves to history as being proudly willing to prove that if you give a man enuff rope, hell wind up hanging hisself:

      Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee)
      Robert Bennett (R-Utah)
      Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi)
      John Cornyn (R-Texas)
      Michael Crapo (R-Idaho)
      Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming)
      Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)
      Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire)
      Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
      Kay Hutchison (R-Texas)
      Jon Kyl (R-Arizona)
      Trent Lott (R-Mississippi)
      Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
      Richard Shelby (R-Alabama)
      Gordon Smith (R-Oregon)
      John Sununu (R-New Hampshire)
      Craigh Thomas (R-Wyoming)
      George Voinovich (R-Ohio)

      11,343 views 36 replies
      Reply #26 Top
      disparaging them for not signing on as sponsors is just as bad.


      as bad as? (i was hoping you'd offer an opinion as to the turks and japanese.)
      Reply #27 Top
      Hmm. Those are rather curious parallels you're trying to draw there, kingbee. The Armenians and Chinese were victims of intentional overt acts of military aggression by Nations. There is no comparison to make here.

      Despicable as it was, lynching was murder like any other kind of murder and I'm reasonably sure murder was pretty much illegal already. Further, murder, for the most part, was and is not a Federal crime - it's up to the states to investigate and prosecute murders except in specific circumstances where Federal jurisdiction applies. If we're going to talk common sense here, if an apology is required or appropriate, it should be coming from the governments of the states in which it was ignored and allowed to happen despite laws against murder being on the books. It makes no sense for the Senate to apologize for not outlawing something which was already illegal.

      I ask again, what is the motive behind this particular resolution and why now? It is an empty gesture, a manufactured political issue which serves no real purpose other than to set people up or, in the worst case, to simply pander.

      Cheers,
      Daiwa
      Reply #28 Top
      lynching was murder like any other kind of murder and I'm reasonably sure murder was pretty much illegal already. Further, murder, for the most part, was and is not a Federal crime - it's up to the states to investigate and prosecute murders except in specific circumstances where Federal jurisdiction applies.


      anti-lynching laws like the failed costigan-wagner act (1935)were aimed at more than mere murder. as i indicated previously, the victim was often in custody and it wasn't uncommon for the custodial officers to hand their charge willingly and/or participate in the lynching.

      here's an excerpt from that bill:

      (1) Costigan-Wagner Bill, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session (3rd January, 1935)

      A bill to assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the equal protection of the laws, and punish the crime of lynching


      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, for the purposes of this Act, the phrase “mob or riotous assemblage”, when used in this Act, shall mean an assemblage composed of three or more persons acting in concert, without authority of law, [for the purpose of depriving any person of his life, or doing him physical injury] to kill or injure any person in the custody of any peace officer, with the purpose or consequence of depriving such person of due process of law or the equal protection of the laws.

      Sec. 2. If any state or governmental, subdivision thereof fails, neglects, or refuses to provide and maintain protection to the life or person of any individual within its jurisdiction against a mob or riotous assemblage, whether by way of preventing or punishing the acts thereof, such State shall by reason of such failure, neglect, or refusal be deemed to have denied to such person due process of law and the equal protection of the laws of the State, and to the end that the protection guaranteed to persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, may be secured, the provisions of this Act are enacted.

      Sec. 3. (a) Any officer or employee of any State or governmental subdivision thereof who is charged with the duty or who possesses the power or authority as such officer or employee to protect the life or person of any individual injured or put to death by any mob or riotous assemblage or any officer or employee of any State or governmental subdivision thereof having any such individual in his [change as a prisoner] custody, who fails, neglects, or refuses to make all diligent efforts to protect such individual from being so injured or being put to death, or any officer or employee of any State or governmental subdivision thereof charged with the duty of apprehending, keeping in custody, or prosecuting any person participating in such mob or riotous assemblage who fails, neglects, or refuses to make all diligent efforts to perform his duty in apprehending, keeping in custody, or prosecuting to final judgment under the laws of such State all persons so participating, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

      (b) Any officer or employee of any state or governmental subdivision thereof, acting as such officer or employee under authority of State law, having in his custody or control a prisoner, who shall conspire, combine, or confederate with any person who is a member of a mob or riotous assemblage to injure or put such prisoner to death without authority of law, or who shall conspire, combine, or confederate with any person to suffer such prisoner to be taken or obtained from his custody or control [for the purpose of being] to be injured or put to death [without authority of law] by a mob or riotous assemblage shall be guilty of a felony, and those who so conspire, combine, or confederate with such officer or employee shall likewise be guilty of a felony. On conviction the parties participating therein shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than five years or [for life] not more than twenty-five years.

      Sec. 4. The District Court of the United States judicial district wherein the person is injured or put to death by a mob or riotous assemblage shall have jurisdiction to try and to punish, in accordance with the laws of the State where the injury is inflicted or the homicide is committed, any and all persons who participate therein: Provided, That it is first made to appear to such court (1) that the officers of the State charged with the duty of apprehending, prosecuting, and punishing such offenders under the laws of the State shall have failed, neglected, or refused to apprehend, prosecute, or punish such offenders; or (2) that the jurors obtainable for service in the State court having jurisdiction of the offense are so strongly opposed to such punishment that there is [no] probability that those guilty of the offense [can be] will not be punished in such State court. A failure for more than thirty days after the commission of such an offense to apprehend or to indict the persons guilty thereof, or a failure diligently to prosecute such persons, shall be sufficient to constitute prima facie evidence of the failure, neglect, or refusal described in the above proviso.
      Reply #29 Top
      Move that answer be stricken as non-responsive.

      Cheers,
      Daiwa
      Reply #31 Top
      A) Murder is murder. If there were laws on the books for killing someone in this way, why did we need special ones? I despise "Hate Crime" legislation, because it makes murdering and victimizing certain people more trivial than others. If we are to uphold equality, then people shouldn't face more or less punishment because of who they attack.

      B)No one owes anyone an apology that didn't wrong them. I don't owe anyone an apology for slavery, or racial crimes, or anything that happened before I was born or that I didn't take part in. It's silly and empty for a bunch of white guys to say "sorry" for something they had nothing to do with.

      The only Senators that could owe an apology are Senators that opted not to undertake the legislation at the time. The apology is just moronic catering to people's irrational need for vengence, no more constructive than it was to cater to racism.
      Reply #32 Top

      Move that answer be stricken as non-responsive.

      Got to agree with Daiwa.

      Let me see if I have this right.

      Lynch the bastards!

      {switch to the present}

      I am sorry, did someone get lynched while I was playing politics?  Oh, sorry.

      Reply #33 Top
      except in specific circumstances where Federal jurisdiction applies.


      which is exactly the point of the proposed anti-lynching bills the senate rejected. the states weren't protecting the rights of those in custody or enforcing their own laws for that matter.
      Reply #34 Top
      Can't everyone just get along?????


      ya gotta go along to get along anthony.
      Reply #35 Top
      If there were laws on the books for killing someone in this way, why did we need special ones? I despise "Hate Crime" legislation, because it makes murdering and victimizing certain people more trivial than others. If we are to uphold equality, then people shouldn't face more or less punishment because of who they attack


      you musta missed my mention of the total number of lynchings and the percentage of blacks who were lynched. you didn't have to be black to be elevated, but it certainly helped. the anti-lynch laws would have required the states and their sworn officers to abide by the laws already on the books. if you read the text of that 1935 bill, you'll see it only went into effect when state officials had abrogated their responsibility.

      B)No one owes anyone an apology that didn't wrong them. I don't owe anyone an apology for slavery, or racial crimes, or anything that happened before I was born or that I didn't take part in. It's silly and empty for a bunch of white guys to say "sorry" for something they had nothing to do with.


      if it was the policy of the government never to apologize to the families of individuals and groups who were in the past unjustly accused, levied upon, convicted or not properly recognized, i'd be more likely to agree. that isn't the case tho.
      Reply #36 Top
      I am sorry, did someone get lynched while I was playing politics? Oh, sorry.


      better to sweep it under the rug and never admit it happened? sure you're not a secret clintonite?