High Court Says States Can End Racial Preferences

Univ of Michigan protest affirmative action in front
of the US Supreme Court,  June 2003. - Reuters

April 22, 2014 - Nearly 150 years have passed since the Civil War ended slavery in the United States. But institutionalized racial inequality -- supported by so-called "liberals" and "progressives" -- has persisted, propped up by the same Federal Government that has become to adept at violating states' rights.

Finally, the Supreme Court today "voted 6-2 that states may end racial preferences without violating the U.S. Constitution," reports The Wall Street Journal, "upholding a Michigan law that grew out of the state's long-running debate over affirmative action policies at public universities."

What does this mean? Quite simply, that public schools and other instutitions in Michigan can no longer discriminate against certain ethnic and racial groups. That is, after all, what "affirmative action" really is: Reverse discrimination, the favoring of some groups over others. Call it what you will, it is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has now officially said so.

Suing the NSA: THREE PRISM-Related Lawsuits - Obama, Holder Named As Defendants

June 12, 2013 - There is a lot of buzz today about "the lawsuit over PRISM" the NSA program created in 2007 to monitor electronic communications.

Most people do not seem to realize that there are at least three separate lawsuits concerned with the NSA's controversial domestic spying program.

One of the suits was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and two other suits are by former Justice Dept. prosecutor Larry Klayman. He is currently the General Counsel for Freedom Watch, Inc.

The Klayman Suits:

"Having already filed a 3 billion dollar class action with regard to the alleged government privacy abuse by the Obama administration and Verizon," reports Before It's News, "Larry Klayman....filed a new $20 billion dollar companion class action suit in DC federal court today. Like the prior class action suit concerning Verizon [filed on June 10], this new case names President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, the heads of the NSA and the 12 other companies who have collaborated with the government in violating the privacy and other constitutional rights of American citizens. The companies named in the suit which are tied to the government’s PRISM- NSA scheme are: Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Skype, YouTube, Apple, PalTalk, AOL, and Yahoo. The users and subscribers of these companies comprise, combined with the Verizon class plaintiffs, a majority of the entire U.S. citizenry and thus these complementary class action suits pit the American people against their government and corporate enablers."

1) Klayman filed a lawsuit on Monday, June 10. This is "the lawsuit against Verizon." This is Civil Action No.: 1:13-cv-00851 and was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. See the full civil complaint here. Klayman  amended it to make it the first class-action lawsuit in response to the publication of a secret court order instructing Verizon to hand over the phone records of millions of American customers on an "ongoing, daily basis." The defendants are: Barack Obama; Eric Holder; Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency; Lowell C. McAdam, Chief Executive Officer of Verizon Communications; Roger Vinson, Judge, U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; Verizon Communication; National Security Agency; U.S. Department of Justice. More about this lawsuit at US News & World Report.

2) The suit filed today (June 12) asks for $20 billion in damages and attorney fees plus an injunction to stop PRISM. The three plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit: Charles Strange of Pennsylvania, and California private investigators Michael Ferrari and Matt Garrison. More at US News & World Report.

The ACLU Suit:

The ACLU file their lawsuit on Tuesday, June 11 in response to "revelations about the NSA's unprecedented mass surveillance of phone calls," says the ACLU website. They say that the NSA program, PRISM, "violates Americans' constitutional rights of free speech, association, and privacy."

The ACLU's case is No. 13 CIV 3994 as filed with the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. See the full complaint at the ACLU website. This case is commonly called "ACLU v. Clapper" because one of the defendants is Keith B. Clapper, Director of National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service.

Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director, said that NSA's PRISM "goes far beyond even the permissive limits set by the Patriot Act and represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association and the right to privacy."

"In other lawsuits against national security policies," reports the New York Times, "the government has often persuaded courts to dismiss them without ruling on the merits by arguing that litigation would reveal state secrets or that the plaintiffs could not prove they were personally affected and so lacked standing in court.  This case may be different. The government has now declassified the existence of the program. And the A.C.L.U. is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services — the recipient of a leaked secret court order for all its domestic calling records — which it says gives it standing."

Also See: My fight against Obama's abuse of power by Larry Klayman Renew America

Obama's Weaponized IRS and Dept. of Justice

May 14, 2013 - The Obama Administration scandals just keep coming. The bungling of the Benghazi tragedy, and events leading up to it, was enough to make the administration scramble for cover and excuses. Within the past week, however, we've learned that the Department of Justice used a secret subpoena to snag Associated Press phone records of reporters and editors, and that the IRS improperly targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny in 2011 and 2012. These abuses of power have a lot of people upset, including quite a few Democrats.

One of those Democrats is former Clinton Administration attorney Howard Fineman had harsh criticism for the Obama Administration. He was a guest today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show (video, left).

Fineman spoke about the AP phone records. "Every possible thing that DoJ could have done wrong, they did wrong in this case. Widely overbroad, in terms of the people whose records they got, no notice whatsoever, before or til long after the fact. No evidence that they exhausted other ways to find the information. One of the key things you have to do is look for other ways to find the information before you do this, and they apparently slapped it on quickly, did it very broadly, and the DoJ guidelines say at the top 'our goal here is to be as unintrusive to the press, as protective of the press as we possibly can be.' So, they violated both the letter and the spirit of their own guidelines in doing this. The question is 'Why?'"

Why? Willful abuse of power for political gain might well be the answer, and Fineman himself has said in the past that the Obama Administration is not above using government agencies as weapons. He said that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a good example of such abuse.

Appeals Court Says Email Privacy Protected by Fourth Amendment

Good news, more or less, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): "In a landmark decision issued today [Dec. 14, 2010] in the criminal appeal of U.S. v. Warshak, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the government must have a search warrant before it can secretly seize and search emails stored by email service providers. Closely tracking arguments made by EFF in its amicus brief, the court found that email users have the same reasonable expectation of privacy in their stored email as they do in their phone calls and postal mail." Full article at EFF's website... The court's decision, says EFF, "is the only federal appellate decision currently on the books that squarely rules on this critically important privacy issue, an issue made all the more important by the fact that current federal law--in particular, the Stored Communications Act--allows the government to secretly obtain emails without a warrant in many situations." Yes, this is good news, I suppose, but before you pop a bottle of champagne in celebration, keep in mind that the government breaks its own laws frequently and all to often doesn't give a damn about what the Constitution says. Take a look at the quasi-fascist Obamacare, for example, which will require each of us - through the "individual mandate" - to purchase health insurance or pay a fine or, if you don't pay the fine, be imprisoned. Also See: Court Ruling Grants Email the Cloak of Privacy Technewsworld.com

Sept. 9, 1957: Republicans Pass First Civil Rights Act

Most Americans are not aware that the first Civil Rights Act since just after the Civil War was passed in 1957, on Sept. 9, not 1964. Both acts were passed despite opposition from most Democrats in Congress. It was exactly 53 years ago today that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 into law. The Civil Rights Digital Library has this: On September 9, 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Originally proposed by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, the Act marked the first occasion since Reconstruction that the federal government undertook significant legislative action to protect civil rights. Although influential southern congressman whittled down the bill?s initial scope, it still included a number of important provisions for the protection of voting rights. It established the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department, and empowered federal officials to prosecute individuals that conspired to deny or abridge another citizen?s right to vote. Moreover, it also created a six-member U.S. Civil Rights Commission charged with investigating allegations of voter infringement. But, perhaps most importantly, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 signaled a growing federal commitment to the cause of civil rights." Was the Civil Rights Act of 1957 perfect? No, but it was a good start in the right direction. Robert Mann wrote this interesting column in 2007 for the The Boston Globe (emphasis added): The 1957 bill is a discounted and forgotten stepchild of the civil rights movement, accorded lowly status when compared with its more impressive younger siblings, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Yet at its half-century mark, the much-disparaged 1957 law is worthy of celebration. It paved the way for subsequent, stronger rights legislation by giving lawmakers confidence that voting for once-radical ideas wouldn't make the sky fall. The law's passage cleared the way for solid progress on the most important social issue of the 20th century. Full article... Given these facts, why is it that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is so well known but the 1957 Civil Rights Act is virtually unheard of to most Americans? Let's see: Eisenhower was a Republican. The Congressional support that carried both Acts came from Republicans. President Lyndon Johnson, who signed the 1964 act into law, was a Democrat. The Left-leaning teachers unions, school boards and so on would rather that you didn't know that it was really Republicans, not Democrats, who were responsible for these enormous gains in civil rights. Ditto for the Liberal Mainstream Media, who make a lot of favorable noise about the 1964 act but rarely even mention the 1957 version. It's that simple. Democrats and liberals are embarassed by their history of institutionalized racism. Not necessarily ashamed, mind you, just embarassed. The truth about federal civil rights legislation makes them look bad to their most loyal - and most brainwashed - voters. One incredible example of this leftist rewriting of history can be found at eduref.org. They have page there which is called "Civil Rights Movement, 1954-1968" with the subtitle "An Educator's Reference Desk Lesson Plan." Note the date spread in the title. They give a link to the 1964 legislation, but make only two passing mentions of it with no related links. They have a link, however, to the 1964 legislation. Read More: Republicans and Civil Rights NewsMax The 1957 Civil Rights Act History Learning Site (UK) Republicans Passed the 1957 Civil Rights Act Grand Old Partisan Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Digital Documents and Photographs Project eisenhower.archives.gov Martin Luther King was a Republican National Black Republican Association 1957 Civil Rights Act Big Government

Andrzejewski Demands Equal Voting Rights for Republicans

A hot press release from Adam Andrzejewski this afternoon calls on the Illinois legislature to allow Republican voters the same rights as those who are registered as Democrats. The press release, below (all emphasis has been added): October 14, 2009 PRESS RELEASE Contact Email: mediarelations@adamforillinois.com Contact Phone: (630) 899-9191 (Elmhurst) Today Adam Andrzejewski, Republican candidate for Governor, called on Michael Madigan and the Illinois House to allow a floor vote on SB 600. Andrzejewski personally visited Speaker Madigan’s office in Springfield to request the bill be called. “I wanted the Speaker to know of my personal commitment to this important reform measure and to understand the broad based support that this bill has among rank and file Republicans.” This bill, which passed the Illinois Senate 44-13-0-2 earlier this year, would allow every Republican Primary voter the right to cast a vote for Republican Party leadership. Democrat primary voters are already empowered to elect their State Central Committeemen and Committeewomen. Republicans lost this right under Governor Jim Thompson who moved to consolidate political power among the few precinct committeemen, rather than the many grassroots primary voters. "Real Republican reform begins with the passage of SB 600," Andrzejewski concluded. "How can politicians like Bill Brady (R-Bloomington) ask a Republican primary voter for her vote for his campaign for Governor, when he does not respect them enough to allow them and vote on who will be her representative on the Republican State Central Committee?” "This issue is very simple. Give Republican voters a seat at the table, and a say in the party's business, and we will have a stronger party," Andrzejewski said. Conservative Caps, Shirt and more! Leave a Comment - Chicago News Bench RSS Feed Visit us on Twitter!

AG Eric Holder, Sloth

The Democrat Party loves to pretend that they care about civil rights. Equally applied, of course. Sadly, they do not care, as demonstrated by the now-infamous case of those New Black Panthers intimidating voters at a polling station last year (see the amazing video and the followup news report). If they care so much, why the delay by Obama's Justice Department in an investigation into a clear violation of voters' civil right?... The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Wednesday [Sept 30] to name a Justice Department official to oversee the production of what it called "our overdue information requests" for documents in the dismissal of a civil complaint against members of the New Black Panther Party accused of disrupting a Philadelphia polling place in the November elections. More at ACORN Watch Report... Conservative Caps, Shirt and more! Leave a Comment - Chicago News Bench RSS Feed Visit us on Twitter!

Urban League's Declaration of Dependence

Star Parker

Star Parker (photo) is a brilliant columnist on, and the founder and President of, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education (CURE), a 501(c)(3) social policy think tank. She writes what she thinks, and she always thinks carefully about what she writes. 

This week, Parker thought a lot about the National Urban League and their shameful willingness to declare, in effect, that African-Americans are not able to make it on their own, and that Big Government is the only hope for them. Those are my words, not Parker's. She says it a whole lot better than I can: 

The National Urban League has just issued its annual State of Black America report. It provides a troubling statistical snapshot of where blacks stand today in our country. Like Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, I'm concerned. But after concern, we part company. We have very different ideas of what it is we should be concerned about. Morial, I am sure, sees his organization as part of the solution. From what I see, it is a well-funded symptom of the problem. 

Note: If you want a copy of the State of Black America report, the National Urban League will gladly sell you a copy for $19.95. However, you can find a free Executive Summary and free abstracts at no charge on their website.

Parker jumps right into to her declaration that the National Urban League, a suck-up organization in the pocket of the Democrat National Committee, is not part of any solution. The National Urban League, she says, is a big part of the problem: Shouldn't it embarrass black Americans that one the nation's largest and most prestigious civil rights organizations offers a long list of proposals to improve black life in our country, and every single proposal is a government program? Government funded jobs as the answer to unemployment, more government money in public schools, government health care, government business loans, government money for retirement accounts, government programs for counseling homebuyers, government worker training programs, government money for building construction, and on and on. 

Indeed, it should embarrass not just black Americans but all Americans that, in the year 2009, so much of the failed policies of Lyndon Johnson's not-so-"Great Society" are still clung to by race-baiting opportunists. The National Urban League is such an opportunistic organization, eager to take the tax dollars of hard working men and women regardless of race and redistribute it to those who have not earned it. A main motivation of such immoral action: Power. He who controls the gold controls those to whom he doles it. Why do you think 90 percent of black voters, in a typical election, will vote for the Democrat? Because organizations like the Urban League are in a devil's pact with the Democrats and the redistributionists. 

Parker continues: There's not a single proposal that I could find in a several hundred-page report about improving black life that does not start with government. The civil rights movement once was about freedom and liberation. Now it's about government dependency. We should be ashamed. 

Ashamed, yes. Surprised, no, not with reflection and critical thought. One of the most disturbing nightmares for the Democrat Party leadership and groups such as the National Urban League is one in which black people and other minority groups begin to realize that freedom and liberty is killed by dependence. Whether that dependence is that of a child to parent or welfare recipient to government bureaucrat, freedom dies and the recipient is co-opted. Creativity is discouraged, enterprise muted, progress retarded. 

But, you may whimper, blacks and minorities need more help than, you know, the rest of us. That's liberal code for "white people." The Democrat Party and the Urban League don't mind that at all. The notion that one cannot make it with Uncle Sam's hand up one's rear end, as with a ventriloquist and his dummy, is just fine and dandy. The ventriloquist, after all, controls the dummy. What good would it do the ventriloquist if the dummy got off his lap, walked away, and booked his own act? 

Racism still exists, but it can no longer be blamed as a blanket reason for blacks to fail. Too many black Americans are succeeding, thank God, for that to be a valid reason any longer. It is now an shirker's excuse. As Parker writes, "Regarding discrimination, you have to wonder what it will take to get off this convenient excuse. Some 40 million white Americans voted for Barack Obama for president. That is two million more white Americans than voted for John Kerry in 2004." 

It is, perhaps, an ironic statement for Parker to make, considering that Kerry and Obama have been and continue to be part of the cabal that encourages groups like the National Urban League - and the myth that black Americans can't make it without them. 

Free: Martin Luther King Day Poster

Just a little something I made to remember why we're all free today. Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Subscribe to Chicago News Bench

BLOGGERS ASSAULTED BY FIRST RESPONDERS

Two Chicago journalists were assaulted on June 28, 2008 by a police officer and a paramedic - in front of Alderman Joe Moore's office. Other police officers and a paramedic stood by and watched as they tried to steal our cameras. Meanwhile, they forgot all about the "man down" (known on the street as "Scotty") that they were supposed to be assisting. 

Related: JOURNALISTS ASSAULTED IN ROGER PARK

UPDATED: JOURNALISTS ASSAULTED IN ROGERS PARK

UPDATED 6/29/08:

Rogers Park - Two local journalists were assaulted by Chicago EMS and CPD personnel - right in front of Ald. Joe Moore's office this evening (49th Ward). Another blogger and I were insulted, sworn at, threatened and nearly lost our cameras to bully paramedics and police officers at the strip mall where Joe Moore has his ward office. 

At approximately 6:40 p.m. on Saturday, June 28, police dispatch sent out a "man down" call for officers and EMS to respond to the intersection of W. Jarvis and N. Greenview. 

Craig Gernhardt and I both heard the call on our scanners and both of rode to the scene. I arrived a few moments before Gernhardt and watched a fire truck, a CFD ambulance and a CPD squad car drive south, past the strip mall. Curiously, they stopped under the CTA overpass immediately south of the mall, looked around the intersection and moved on. I had my scanner on. They called in that the person down was not there and had apparently walked away. They left the scene. 

Moments later Gernhardt spotted the man, laying on the inner sidewalk of the mall, in front of a dry cleaner, a few yards from Ald. Moore's office. I called 911. CFD and CPD were dispatched again. When the paramedics arrived, they quickly became more concerned about our cameras than with the well being of their patient. In fact, they completely lost control of their patient (man in red hat). 

Hitchens: Obama's Bad Circle

Christopher Hitchens is a guy I love to hate, depending upon what he's saying or writing at the moment. He's also a guy I hate to love, and with the same conditions. If Hitchens didn't exist, the conservatives would have to invent him, for he is a Liberal who - to be fair - calls it like he sees it and rarely with a trace of dogmatism. He's a brilliant writer and speaker. Even when you disagree with Hitchens, you feel smarter for having listened to him, or read his writing. Plus, he's just a lot of fun if you've a mind for mind play. This past week, Hitchens wrote a brilliantly hard hitting, unapologetic column that sears Obama and, more specifically, the scum that encircles him and his campaign. Without further adieu, here is an excerpt that gives a fair idea of the tone of Hitchens' column: The thing that this gaggle of cranks and parasites has in common is the extreme deference with which it is treated by the junior senator from Illinois. In April 2004, Barack Obama told a reporter from the Chicago Sun-Times that he had three spiritual mentors or counselors: Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, and Father Michael Pfleger—for a change of pace, a white Catholic preacher who has a close personal feeling for the man he calls (as does Obama) Minister Farrakhan. This crossover stuff is not as "inclusive" as it might be made to seem: Meeks' main political connections in the white community are with the hysterically anti-homosexual wing of the Christian right. If Obama were to be read a list of the positions that his clerical supporters take on everything from Judaism to sodomy, he would be in the smooth and silky business of "distancing" from now until November. And that is why he hopes that his Philadelphia speech, which dissociated him from everything and nothing, will be enough. He seems, indeed, to have a real gift for remaining adequately uninformed about the real beliefs of his "mentors." Wow. Read the whole damn column at Slate now.

The True Champions of Civil Rights

No, Virginia, the Democrats are not the champions of the Civil Rights Movement. Credit should be given where it is due. President Lyndon Johnson certainly deserves credit. Martin Luther King obviously deserves credit. But not the Democrat Party. Rather, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could not have passed had it not been for the Republicans in Congress at the time. We should not forget, either that "It was a Republican federal judge who desegregated many public facilities in the South. Appointed by President Eisenhower in 1955, Frank Johnson had overturned Montgomery, Alabama's infamous "blacks in the back of the bus" law in his very first decision. During the 1960s, Judge Johnson continued to advance civil rights despite opposition from George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and other Democrat Governors." Let me point out that Eisenhower challenged institutionalized racism long before President Lyndon Johnson did. It is all too convenient for Democrats to forget the Civil Rights Act of 1960 - the one that came four years before the next one. The 1960 Civil Rights Act was born towards the end of 1958. Following the 1957 Civil Rights Act, Eisenhower introduced another civil rights bill in late 1958, which was his reaction to a violent outbreak of bombings against churches and schools in the South. Though Eisenhower is not automatically linked to the civil rights issue, his contribution, including the 1957 Act, is important as it pushed the whole civil rights issue into the White House. (Read more...) Additionally, "By demonizing Republicans and conservatives the left can continue to impose the big lie, which will be accepted as gospel by minorities, whom Democrats believe 'owe' them." (More...) And lest we forget, it was the Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves. Nothing that happened after Lincoln could have been possible had the Democrats been allowed to appease the South and let them break away from the United States. Had that happened, the Confederate States of America might still be an apartheid-like Hell on Earth. RELATED: National Black Republican Association - DYK-Why MLK was a Republican

Transsexual Can Sue Library of Congress

I heard about this case on the radio the other night. Seems like a clear case of discrimination to me. Who cares if this guy is now a gal? Can this person do the job? That's all that should matter. Essentially a job applicant, while interviewing as a man, was offered a position with the Library of Congress as a Terrorism Research Analyst. Once the applicant disclosed that she was undertaking steps to change gender and would be changing her name and presenting herself as a woman, the job offer was revoked due to her not being a “good fit” for the organization. The applicant, Diane Schroer, after exhausting administrative remedies, sued under Title VII. MORE from HRLORI... Related: Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Transsexual's Discrimination Claim Against Library of Congress

Huge Civil Rights Setback

This is serious. After millions of years on this planet, most primates are still denied the right to sue in a court of law. Is that fair? SAN ANTONIO — A Texas appeals court has affirmed a lower court decision that nine chimpanzees and monkeys that were brought to the Primarily Primates sanctuary in 2006 don't have a legal right to sue. FULL STORY at The Houston Chronicle... RELATED: PETA Kills Animals People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals YouTube - Bullshit-Peta Animal Scam AnimalScam.com

Have You Lost Your Rights?

Let's play a guessing game. We all "know" that the Bush Administration has taken all of our civil rights away, right? Right? We have all lost the right to free speech, which is why anybody criticizing Bush on the Internet has already been killed or whisked away to a secret concentration camp, right? We have all lost the right to move freely from neighborhood to neighborhood, city to city, state to state, right? We have all lost the right to pursue whatever job we want, right? What about the list of lost rights below? Police cameras on the streets. Bush? Nope. Local authorities, largely. In Chicago, last time I checked, the ruling class is all "Democrat." Private property rights are being threatened. Bush? Nope. A 2005 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to abuse, which has been enthusiastically used by Democrats such as Chicago Alderman Joe Moore and Eugene Schulter. The right to keep the money you earn. Bush? Nope. Republican and Democrat lawmakers alike, from federal to local, love to take your money. Remember that taxes are taken at the point of a gun: Refuse to pay them and you'll be hauled into court. Refuse to go to court and you'll be arrested by gunmen wearing badges. The right to use controlled substances is being eroded. Bush? Partly, but on a local level around the country it's primarily Democrats with their fanatic anti-smoking campaigns. Come January 1, 2008, we can't smoke in a bar (in a bar!) because of a Democrat-controlled Chicago City Council. The Democrat-controlled Illinois State Legislature has passed similar anti-smoking laws. (And yet, they love the tax revenue from cigarettes.) The right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun is being eroded. Bush? Hell no. Democrats, almost exclusively. How does a politician with any conscience tell a woman who lives in a bad neighborhood that she cannot own a handgun, while thugs and scumbags all around her are packing? Make all the guns illegal and only the bad guys will have guns. Don't you have a right to protect yourself? Not according to Democrats. The right of free speech is being eroded. Bush? I don't think so. But if you're a university student and you want to criticize your professor's politics, you damn well better be criticizing a conservative prof and not one of the Marxist professors. Have YOU lost any rights? How? Give specifics. Give a us a list. RELATED: You don't need a libertarian to know which way the wind blows

MLK, Republican

This is interesting. Let's see how many pieces of hate mail I get for linking to it. During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military. FULL ARTICLE at NBRA...