Dedicated to the advancement of the State of Indiana by re-affirming our state's constitutional principles that: all people are created equal; no religious test shall be imposed on our public officials and offices of trust; and no special privileges or immunities shall be granted to any class of citizens which are not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Advance Indiana, LLC. Copyright 2005-16. All rights reserved.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Amos Brown Makes National Headline For Becoming First African-American To Attack Newly-Appointed Senator Tim Scott
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley appointed the sole African-American member of the U.S. Senate today when she named U.S. Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Sen. Jim DeMint, who left the Senate to head up The Heritage Foundation. No sooner had Haley made her appointment public than Indianapolis' outspoken radio talk show host went on the attack, condemning Scott as "black only in skin color" on Twitter, which caught the attention of Breitbart News:
Tim Scott has been appointed to fill the South Carolina Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Jim DeMint and immediately the racebaiters jumped in with both feet to attack him. One of the early hatemongers was Amos Brown, a host on a religious radio station in Indianapolis, Indiana. Brown used his Twitter account to claim that African American Tim Scott isn't really a black man.
Tim Scott is, of course, a Republican just like Governor Haley who will appoint him to the vacant seat. All one need be is a black man in the GOP and the hatemongers come out in force with their racist name calling and radio host Amos Brown rose early to the rote attack.
On his Twitter account (@Amoswtlcindy), Brown wrote, "Gee, courtesy of S Carolina GOP, the nation gets Tim Scott an ultra-rightwing, Tea Party devotee US Senator who's Black only in skin color."
Mr. Amos Brown calls himself a man of God and works for AM 1310, "The Light," a religious station that caters to the African American community in Indianapolis, Indiana.
I really feel for African-Americans who dare to think for themselves and, God forbid, associate with the Republican Party. The vitriolic attacks made against black Republicans by people on the Left, particularly from other African-Americans, knows know bounds. Thirty years ago, people across the political spectrum would have applauded the appointment of an African-American to the U.S. Senate regardless of his or her party affiliation. In the political world of Barack Obama, any African-American who ventures from the Democratic Party is subjected by people on the Left to endless public lashings void of any semblance of civil discourse.
DNA says we're all African Americans, I prefer to call them black Americans.
Democrats seem to forget that President Johnson vetoed the civil rights act of 66, which was over-ridden by a Republican congress.
The reason they forget is that this was 1866 and it shows a 'slight' amount of prejudice towards blacks by the self appointed defenders of the under served / disadvantaged / whatever term is currently used to describe blacks.
American Patriot, I'd focus on more recent history. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Civil Rights Act was supported by over 80% of Republicans but only about 60% of Democrats...in both houses of Congress. Republicans joined together in the Senate to stop the Democrats filibuster.
Even a superficial review of the 1964 voting shows that regionalism was the predominant factor in yea versus nay votes on this Act, not political party. The South voted nay save for nine brave souls (all Democrats, of course). In the non-South states, very, very few Democrats voted nay. Most of those came from "border states" like Missouri, Oklahoma, and Maryland. All other nay votes in the North were Republicans. Percentages without context are meaningless here, and you are twisting them to suit your own agenda without facts to back anything up. I'm very disappointed.
6 comments:
DNA says we're all African Americans, I prefer to call them black Americans.
Democrats seem to forget that President Johnson vetoed the civil rights act of 66, which was over-ridden by a Republican congress.
The reason they forget is that this was 1866 and it shows a 'slight' amount of prejudice towards blacks by the self appointed defenders of the under served / disadvantaged / whatever term is currently used to describe blacks.
BISCO - a new bigotted phrase coined by the *unbigotted* Left.
American Patriot, I'd focus on more recent history. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Civil Rights Act was supported by over 80% of Republicans but only about 60% of Democrats...in both houses of Congress. Republicans joined together in the Senate to stop the Democrats filibuster.
Why do we have black Americans and white Americans. Why aren't we all just Americans?
Who are the racists that keeps perpetuating this thing?
Paul, tsk, tsk, tsk.
Even a superficial review of the 1964 voting shows that regionalism was the predominant factor in yea versus nay votes on this Act, not political party. The South voted nay save for nine brave souls (all Democrats, of course). In the non-South states, very, very few Democrats voted nay. Most of those came from "border states" like Missouri, Oklahoma, and Maryland.
All other nay votes in the North were Republicans.
Percentages without context are meaningless here, and you are twisting them to suit your own agenda without facts to back anything up. I'm very disappointed.
What party was Abraham Lincoln? Which party lead the secession of the states to further slavery? Hmmm...
Post a Comment