Archive for discrimination

No reparations – just an apology for a racist past: Blacks file Suit against Obama & Democrats

Posted in Black Conservative, Black Genocide, Black Victims, Democrat, Obama, Wayne Perryman with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 23, 2011 by saynsumthn

Click here to read the lawsuit

Blacks file Class Action Racial Discrimination Suit Against Obama & Democrats

• Posted by Robert Oliver (MoveonUp) on September 12, 2011 at 1:30pm

SEATTLE, WA — On September 11, 2011, blacks from the West Coast and the East Coast joined together and signed one of the most comprehensive legal briefs ever prepared on racial discrimination, then filed their brief today, September 12th, at 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time in US District Court in Seattle (Case No. C11 – 1503). The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as “Father of Racism,” allege that as an organization, the Democratic Party has consistently refused to apologize for the role they played in slavery and Jim Crow laws and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011. Rev. Wayne Perryman, a former Democrat himself and the lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, said he was inspired to file this action after seeing the recent movie The Help. The movie takes place in the region that was exclusively controlled by Democrats for more than 150 years (the South). Mrs. Frances P. Rice, the Chair of the National Black Republican Association is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Mrs. Rice is a resident of Sarasota, Florida and has lived in the the South most of her life.

The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation’s top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat’s National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.

Perryman said President Obama was named as a defendant not only because he is the official leader of the Democratic Party, but because of certain statements he made about his own party in his book, Dreams from My Father. In 2009, the President was asked to issue an apology to blacks on behalf of his party, but he refused. Unlike other reparations lawsuits, this lawsuit merely asks for a public apology but no monetary damages.

In the 40-page brief, Rev. Perryman tells the court that the Democratic Party, (the party that is quick to call the Tea Party and Republicans racist), is the same party that refuses to confess and/or acknowledge (in public and on their website) that they are the party that supported the institution that packed millions of black men, women and children in the deep dark hulls of slave ships with just barely enough food and water to keep them alive, and forced them to lie in their own urine, feces, and vomit for the duration of a long trip across the Atlantic. And after arriving in America, it was the members of their party that forced these poor souls to work from sunup to sundown for the next 70 years and never paid them one dime. And when the black victims were fortunate enough to escape, it was the Democratic Party that passed Fugitive Slave laws to return them to their brutal slave masters. When their inhumane institution of slavery was challenged by the opposing party, Democrats countered by placing threats in their political platforms (1844-1856), – threatening anyone who dared to interfere with what they called, “the sectional issue of Domestic Slavery.” On May 21, 1856, they carried out their threats when they attacked their opposition, Senator Charles Sumner with a walking cane on the Senate floor and when they attacked with guns, freed blacks and abolitionists on the streets of Lawrence, Kansas. Six years later, Democrats called themselves ‘Confederates” and went to war killing thousands to defend and protect their racist institution of slavery. After losing the war, they fought against constitutional amendments and civil rights legislation for blacks, and chose instead to form terrorist organizations, legislate Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws and support every landmark case that was designed to deny blacks their constitutional rights including the Slaughterhouse Case,Plessy v Ferguson, the Civil Rights Cases of 1881 to overturn the 1875 Civil Rights Act, and Brown v. the Board of Education. While many of these cases were pending, Democrats proudly adopted the name “The Party of White Supremacy” and committed every inhumane violent act known to mankind (from 1867 to 1977) to keep blacks in “their place.” And to add insult to injury, after killing millions of blacks through their racist institutions, they hired powerful attorneys to keep this information from blacks and to avoid apologizing to blacks.

Perryman said, “Any organization that has such a racist history and receives 97% of the African American vote (after doing all they could to deny blacks the right to vote), should willingly apologize without being forced do so through a lawsuit. He said, “I guess they feel they have nothing to apologize for.” Perryman went on to say that he is “convinced that Democrats will only apologize if the media, or the courts (with public pressure) will force them to do so. The man who authored the book: The Audacity of Hope, now has the “audacity” to refuse to apologize forhis political party and their racist institutions, that took the lives of millions of his own people.

Apologies for Racism – Precedent Set

In the 40-page brief covering a period from 1792 to 2011, Perryman makes the following claims regarding past apologies for racism and racial injustices. Perryman said history reveals that an apology or reparation for blacks would not be an issue today had the Democratic President Andrew Johnson chosen to sign Senate Bill 60. Since Johnson’s veto of Senate Bill 60, the door for reparations involving racial injustices remained closed for over 120 years. In 1988, Congress opened that door with the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Under that new bill, Japanese internment victims received an apology plus $20,000 each in reparation pay. In 1993, the victims of the Rosewood, Florida Massacre received an apology and reparations from the State of Florida. On May 16, 1997, President Clinton issued an apology to the victims of the Tuskegee Experiment and paid the African American victims a total of $10,000,000 in reparations. On February 7, 2005, the 109th Congress issued Senate Resolution 39and apologized for not enacting lynching laws to protect those who were victims of lynching. In that resolution, Congress stopped short of acknowledging that all of the lynchings took place in regions controlled by Democrats. And finally on January 20, 2007, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of North Carolina apologized for the 1898 riot and massacre that killed several black Republicans and drove them out of office.

Who is Rev. Wayne Perryman?
Rev. Wayne Perryman is the same Seattle-area minister who used his biblical research in 1994 to persuaded the world’s two largest Christian publishers and the Encyclopedia Britannica to apologize and remove the “Curse of Ham” theory from all of their publications. The curse theory had existed for over 500 years and was used by Southern Christians and Democrats to justify slavery and their mistreatment of blacks.

Obama’s References to His Party’s Racist Past
President Barack Obama is one of the only black elected officials and one of the only black leaders in modern-day history – who has openly discussed how badly Democrats have treated black voters and he does so in his book: Dreams From My Father. The book highlights a conversation where black Democrats referred to their relationship with the Democratic Party as “Plantation Politics.” (p. 147). Obama reports that during this conversation blacks in the barber shop asked themselves, why do they keep voting Democrat when blacks have “the worst jobs, the worst housing, Police brutality rampant, … and we all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket. Sell our soul for a Christmas Turkey. White folks spitting in our faces and we’d reward them with the vote.”Obama also states in his book that some white Democrats said they would “vote Republican before voting for a black [Democrat] to be mayor” of Chicago. (p. 148)

During Obama’s Victory Speech on November 5, 2008 he talked about Ann Nixon Cooper, a black woman who could not vote because of his party’s voting policies in the South and during that same speech he referred to “the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, the bridge in Selma and the preacher from Atlanta,” – all racist situations that occurred in areas where Democrat elected officials were in control.He also talked about his party’s racist past during his March 18, 2008 speech regarding Rev.Wright. The then Senator Obama said, “…so many of the disparities that exist in the African American community today can be traced directly to the inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the [Democrat’s] brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.”Obama, a student of history knew that his party made the following statements in several of their national platforms:DEMOCRATS’ 1844 PLATFORM for SLAVERY“All efforts by the abolitionist and others made to induce Congress to interfere withquestions of slavery… are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerousconsequences….”

“The Democratic Party standing on this national platform will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts [meaning Fugitive Slave Laws]… for reclaiming fugitives…. The Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt is made.” Not one Democrat voted for the 13th Amendment to end slavery and as a party, Democrats did not vote to pass the 14th Amendment to make blacks citizens nor did they support the 15th Amendment to give blacks the right to vote.Obama is one of the only black leaders who have acknowledge these wrongs by his party. so with this lawsuit we are simply asking: based on what he knows about his party’s racist past and how they have treated black folks, why is he and the leaders of his party reluctant to issue a public apology?

Obama repeals DADT for gays, sets sight on repealing conscience laws which will discriminate against pro-life physicians

Posted in Abortion, Constitution, Health Care, Obama with tags , , , , , , , , on December 21, 2010 by saynsumthn

While progressives cheer the recent Obama “victory” of the repeal of Don’t Ask/ Don’t Tell, which allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military openly, no one is speaking out against the Obama policy which would muzzle the rights of pro-life Christians.

Documents the Obama administration filed in November and December have Obama administration attorneys admitting the administration wants to finalize a rescission of the conscience rules but has been delayed because of other business — likely due to the HHS working on implementing the provisions of the ObamaCare law.

Jonathan Imbody, the Vice President for Government Relations at the Christian Medical Association, an advocate for medical professionals said medical workers stated that,

“The government is now telling the court, in response to a lawsuit by several states against the conscience-protecting regulation, that HHS plans to eliminate or replace the conscience regulation by as early as January 31,” Imbody added. “That means we must act to raise awareness of this threat to conscience rights, which has the potential to push life-affirming healthcare professionals out of medicine and strand the patients who depend upon them for care.”

“Whether you are a student or a doctor, federal conscience protections will have a significant impact on your ability to continue to practice ethical medicine. Don’t wait for someone else to stand in the gap on this one—take action yourself to protect your rights,” he added.”Share your story if you’ve experienced overt or subtle discrimination, contact your legislators, tell your patients and engage your colleagues.”

If the conscience clause is rescinded, many of the faith-based hospitals (Catholic hospitals make up 15-20% of hospital patient care in the US) around the country that provide services to millions of patients could be shut down rather than perform abortions.

The conscience clause is a necessary regulation to preserve the exclusive patient to doctor relationship. Without it, the government will be able to effectively limit where patients can go for care.

By giving ultimatums to healthcare providers on whether or not they perform a certain procedure they are morally opposed to, government is limiting the number of doctors a patient can see and interfering in individual care.

If the Obama Administration rescinds the conscience clause, it is only the first step towards allowing the government into personal, and sometimes life and death, decisions.

Death Panels, Eugenics, Rationing, Quality adjusted life ? what does Uncle Sam think your Life Value is?

Posted in Death Panels, Eugenics, Fascism, Health Care, Obama with tags , , , , , , , , on December 8, 2009 by saynsumthn

Health Care vs. the Value of Human Life

December 7, 2009 – by Sarah Durand
Posted on the blog: Pajamas Media

Don’t believe the left would cut medical costs by rationing care? Check out their formulas to calculate your life’s value.

Under the Democrats’ proposed health care reform legislation, we know that the government will have to determine some sort of rationing system in order to control costs. We are aware that part of the rationing will be absorbed in the discrimination that the bill inflicts upon the elderly; we know that it cuts $500 billion from Medicare [1]. What has remained puzzling is how exactly this rationing will be determined for the rest of us.

Similarly elusive is how the new Health Benefits Advisory Committee will decide whether or not you get certain medical treatments, regardless of the opinion of your doctor. After all, how do you put a dollar value on a human life?

If you think there is no answer to that question, you are way behind the progressives. In fact, most countries with socialized medicine, including Britain, are already using a mathematical formula that expresses the numerical value of one year of a human life in a measurement called the QALY [2], or “quality-adjusted life year.” In terms of determining medical care, the mathematical formula of the QALY is based on both how much a treatment may lengthen your lifespan and the quality of the life you will be living.

Basically, if you are in optimal health, the QALY of one year of your life is 1.0. But if you have any underlying conditions, like asthma or muscular dystrophy, your QALY is much lower.

Under the QALY system, the blind are worth less than those with sight, as those who can walk are worth more than those in wheelchairs. Sound like discrimination against persons with disabilities? It gets worse.

In a paper entitled “Cost-Effectiveness and Disability Discrimination [3],” the director of the Division of Medical Ethics at the Harvard Medical School, Dan Brock [4], argues “prioritizing health care resources by their relative cost-effectiveness can result in lower priority for the treatment of disabled persons than otherwise similar non-disabled persons.”

He says that type of system not only “implies that disabled persons’ lives are of lesser value than those of non-disabled persons,but it also “conflicts with equality of opportunity; it conflicts with fairness, which requires ignoring (some/most) differential impacts of treatment; it wrongly gives lower priority to disabled persons for equally effective treatment; it conflicts with giving all persons an equal chance to reach their full potential; and, it is in conflict with giving priority to the worse off.”

The “double jeopardy [5]” scenario that describes how the disabled are not only already suffering with an illness or disability, but are also given a lower priority of health care treatments to preserve or improve the quality of their lives, has been widely debated in countries with universal health care. It does little good to pass health care reform that restricts denying insurance to those with underlying conditions when treatment is still withheld from these individuals as an inherent flaw within the system.

As if that’s not bad enough, the health advisor to the president, Ezekiel Emanuel [6], is proposing a system even more deleterious. His system, similar to the QALY, is “the complete lives system [7],” which not only allows for discrimination against the elderly and disabled, but also targets the very young, i.e., our children.

Emanuel says of his system: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”

Leave it to American progressives to take the QALY one step further by defining quality of life as how useful you are to society — that is, how likely you are to increase the government’s tax revenue, hence the emphasis on those between ages 15 and 40. Health care gets a lot cheaper by rationing care to all non-taxpayers.

According to Emanuel [8], “The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a two-month-old girl.” I doubt the parents of the two-month-old agree.

And, if you are a child with disabilities, the government has already completely given up on you. Emanuel believes [9] “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.” What’s worse, since he does not believe in “guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason,” once the public option puts the private sector out of business, these types of life-changing services for children will no longer exist.

Years of research in treating children with autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and dyslexia are in jeopardy of being rendered null and void. Years of progress in passing anti-discrimination laws may be undone in one single bill.

Article printed from Pajamas Media:

URL to article:

URLs in this post:

[1] $500 billion from Medicare:,0,5095885.story
[2] QALY:
[3] Cost-Effectiveness and Disability Discrimination:
[4] Dan Brock:
[5] double jeopardy:
[6] Ezekiel Emanuel:
[7] the complete lives system:–aytlpznG-DJKn43SWhTZv8lWL65qwppjfzGiQI6TYZR326d8a6AvGl0ezxGxI7_soaWMTv64S5wXPlvN74_1p&sig=AHIEtbSJ_7bTAwb8abvp6lKGCq6DLB-R0w
[8] According to Emanuel:
[9] believes:

READ: Death Panels? H1N1 shots refused to people over 64 years old ?

Pregnant Ft Worth teen almost has abortion after alleged school discrimination

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on December 4, 2009 by saynsumthn

Mackenzie McCollum was barred from playing on her school’s volleyball team in Ft. Worth, Texas, because she was pregnant. She fought back — and was finally allowed to play after she obtained a doctor’s note.

In the meantime, the school’s Coach allegedly told all of McCollum’s teammates she was pregnant without her consent. Once she was back on the team, he allegedly cut her playing time. The U.S. Department of Education is now investigating the matter.

She said, ‘I’ll just get an abortion. I’ll just end it. This’ll be over. Why are they doing this to me? Why is this happening?’” — Barbara Horton, Mackenzie’s mother, about the ordeal leading her daughter to consider terminating her pregnancy

One of the other players was really concerned and she’s like, ‘Well is she hurt? Did she get sick?’ And our coach is just like, ‘No, she’s pregnant.’ And I just kind of stopped. I was just like, ‘Did he just say that?’” –– Whittney Davis, Mackenzie’s friend and teammate, recalling the team meeting when their coach revealed Mackenzie’s condition

Read more: Here

Watch News Story Here:

Posted using ShareThis

Good for the Goose? New Law Discriminates Against Pro-Lifers

Posted in Abortion, Religion, Violence against women with tags , , , , , , , , , on June 9, 2009 by saynsumthn

A New York City law that will go into effect in July could make it easier for pro-life protesters to be arrested outside abortion clinics. Current law allows authorities to make arrests only if the person directly affected, such as a woman entering a clinic, is willing to press charges. However, the new law would allow third parties, such as clinic workers, to press charges if they witnessed the activity.

This is a very dangerous and ridiculous law. It leaves the decision in the hands of the very business making a profit off the abortions. What do you think they will do with all that power?

I wonder if the State of New York would also allow pro-lifers who witness women suffering from post abortion injuries to “press charges” against clinics? Suppose the New York State Medical Board allowed “third parties” to file complaints and never interviewed the person injured.

Perhaps the State of New York could save money by allowing all those who “Witness” a speeding car on the highway to issue a ticket to the offender.

The entire premise of this law is absurd and is meant to discriminate against the free speech rights of pro-lifers. I only hope and pray that if a false accusation occurs, those other pro-lifers who witness the accusation by the pro-abort will file charges as well.

I guess if we can dismantle the rights of all human beings to “Life” as granted in our Constitution, we can also chop out the right a person has to “face his accuser”. Just goes to show you the unlevel playing ground the pro-abortion mindset has.