Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 18:02:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 11, 2013 18:37:38 GMT -5
Well, the NAACP is one of the more racist organizations in the US. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 11, 2013 19:56:50 GMT -5
Good for them .
Why wouldn't they back states rights?
I know why you brought that up . The civil war was about slavery .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 19:59:11 GMT -5
That's rather ironic, considering that the NAACP has supported the dissolution of states rights since their inception.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 11, 2013 20:04:48 GMT -5
I can't find any info on the NAACP being against states rights.
Some examples?
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 11, 2013 20:08:18 GMT -5
Here's their release:
If you are a minority, you are much more likely to be arrested for a marijuana charge than your caucasian counterparts, even though usage rates are about the same. In some cities like St. Louis or New York City, you are up to 8 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana. Again, usage rates are about the same for all races. Arrest rates for marijuana by race highlight just how racist the policy of marijuana prohibition is.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) recently passed a resolution to support state’s making their own marijuana laws, not the federal government. If states like Colorado and Washington want to legalize marijuana, the federal government should step away from enforcement. This is a big move by the NAACP, because they don’t always support state’s rights due to the history of policies in some states, especially in the South.
“For obvious historical reasons, many civil rights leaders who agree with us about the harms of marijuana prohibition still remain reluctant to see the states chart their own courses out of the failed ‘war on drugs.’ Having the NAACP’s support for a states’ rights approach to marijuana reform is going to have a huge impact and will provide comfort and cover to politicians and prominent people who want to see prohibition end but who are a little skittish about states getting too far ahead of the feds on this issue.” Said Tom Angell, Chairman of the Marijuana Majority.
Below is a copy of the resolution’s language:
WHEREAS, as a result of the “War on Drugs” and mandatory minimum sentences imposed largely at the federal level, the prison population has exploded in the past few decades; and
WHEREAS, one crucial result of these misguided and misplaced policies has been the disproportionate over-confinement of racial and ethnic minorities: more than 60% of the people in prison are now racial and ethnic minorities; and
WHEREAS, two-thirds of all persons in prison today for drug offenses are people of color; and
WHEREAS, more than 700,000 people annually are arrested in the United States for the possession of marijuana; and
WHEREAS, even though numerous studies demonstrate that whites and African Americans use and sell marijuana at relatively the same rates, studies also demonstrate that African Americans are, on average, almost 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession, and in some jurisdictions Blacks are 30 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites; and
WHEREAS, there are also extreme economic consequences to the present day enforcement of marijuana laws; nationally, states spent an estimated $3.61 billion enforcing marijuana possession laws in 2010 alone; money that could be spent on education, job training, and other valuable services; and
WHEREAS, several states throughout the U.S. have departed from current federal law to develop more well-tailored and effective guidelines and sentencing ranges for small, low-level marijuana use which are moderating some of the more extreme federal policies and their repercussions; and
WHEREAS, these state laws are at times at odds with federal laws; and
WHEREAS, legislation has been introduced in the 113th Congress, H.R. 1523, with strong bipartisan support, which would prohibit the federal enforcement of marijuana laws in states which have lesser penalties.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP supports H.R. 1523 and encourages its swift enactment; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the NAACP Washington Bureau shall contact Members of the Congress and urge the swift enactment of H.R. 1523.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Sheriff of Rock Ridge on Nov 11, 2013 20:10:44 GMT -5
That's rather ironic, considering that the NAACP has supported the dissolution of states rights since their inception. I can't find any info on the NAACP being against states rights. Some examples? Yeah, let's see some evidence of that claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 11, 2013 20:11:16 GMT -5
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded in 1909 in New York City by a group of bi-racial activists. Originally called the National Negro Committee, it is the nation's oldest civil rights organization. One often-overlooked aspect of the NAACP's history is that the Jewish community contributed hugely to the NAACP's founding and continued financing.
United in its opposition to the preaching of Booker T. Washington, who urged blacks to accept segregation, the NAACP first sought to make whites aware of the need for racial equality. The organization launched a program of speechmaking, lobbying, and publicizing the issue of racial discrimination and inequality in housing, education, employment, voting, and transportation. It also launched the Crisis, a magazine edited for 25 years by the black intellectual and leader, W.E.B. DuBois.
It appealed to the Supreme Court to rule as unconstitutional several laws passed by Southern states, and, beginning in 1915, won several important judgments regarding housing and voting rights.
In 1916, the NAACP began to expand its membership in the South, under the leadership of field secretary James Weldon Johnson, where the organization faced its most fierce opposition. By 1920, by which time Johnson became the first black executive secretary, membership had grown to 90,000, of which nearly half was in the South. The NAACP began to publicize the evils of the Jim Crow laws that sanctioned racial discrimination, and fought for a federal anti-lynching law.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the NAACP devoted much of its energy to publicizing the lynching of blacks throughout the United States. To show to the world that the members of the organization would not be intimidated, it held its 1920 annual conference in Atlanta, Georgia, considered at the time to be located in one of the most active Ku Klux Klan areas in the nation.
In 1948, the NAACP pressured President Harry Truman into signing an Executive Order to ban discrimination by the federal government. In 1950, the NAACP began its campaign against the legal doctrine* that separate but equal schools for black and white children were constitutional. The Supreme Court had ruled that separate schools were acceptable as long as they were "separate but equal." The NAACP set out to prove that separate facilities provided to black students were not equal to those for whites. One study in 1937 revealed that school spending on pupils in the South was $37.87 per white pupil, compared to $13.08 per black pupil. Five desegregation lawsuits were launched in different states.
The 1954 Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Kansas) declared segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional. Most states accepted the ruling and began to desegregate, but others, notably in the deep South, refused to accept the court's decision. Orval Faubus, governor of Arkansas, used the state's National Guard to stop black children from attending the local high school in Little Rock. After 18 days of attempting to persuade the governor to obey the Supreme Court ruling, President Eisenhower sent in federal troops to ensure that black children could attend the school. Nine black students entered the building, then had to endure severe and constant physical and verbal abuse from their white classmates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 11, 2013 20:13:03 GMT -5
They were against the right of some states to have slaves! I'm guessing maybe that was the state right they were against? It's a wild guess on my part!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 20:13:32 GMT -5
We can start with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, not to mention the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 11, 2013 20:15:20 GMT -5
Oh! They were also against the states rights they allowed for state approved segregation!! Those whacky radical African Americans!  |
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 11, 2013 20:15:45 GMT -5
That's rather ironic, considering that the NAACP has supported the dissolution of states rights since their inception. I can't find any info on the NAACP being against states rights. Some examples? Yeah, let's see some evidence of that claim. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 marked a major shift in power from the states to the feds, particularly that part which forced certain states to submit the most minute change in their voting policies to the feds for approval. I'm pretty sure the NAACP was fully on board with the act as written, their venom particularly strong after the Supreme Court invalidated part of that act last spring. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 20:17:14 GMT -5
That's rather ironic, considering that the NAACP has supported the dissolution of states rights since their inception. I can't find any info on the NAACP being against states rights. Some examples? Yeah, let's see some evidence of that claim. Any questions? Denials? |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 11, 2013 20:18:38 GMT -5
Yeah, let's see some evidence of that claim. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 marked a major shift in power from the states to the feds, particularly that part which forced certain states to submit the most minute change in their voting policies to the feds for approval. I'm pretty sure the NAACP was fully on board with the act as written, their venom particularly strong after the Supreme Court invalidated part of that act last spring. This is what said: That's rather ironic, considering that the NAACP has supported the dissolution of states rights since their inception. Well? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 20:20:21 GMT -5
Yeah, let's see some evidence of that claim. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 marked a major shift in power from the states to the feds, particularly that part which forced certain states to submit the most minute change in their voting policies to the feds for approval. I'm pretty sure the NAACP was fully on board with the act as written, their venom particularly strong after the Supreme Court invalidated part of that act last spring. Thank you. BTW, I'm not condoning or disapproving said Act, however you guys asked a question and I'm simply answering your question. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 11, 2013 20:21:11 GMT -5
It would be way more accurate to say
Rarely is the NAACP against states rights. You provided two examples 100 years apart
|
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 12, 2013 6:21:23 GMT -5
What I noticed was their explanation of how the money saved from fighting drugs could be used other places, how about they just not spend it at all and lower taxes, now that would be a novel concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 12, 2013 16:02:51 GMT -5
What I noticed was their explanation of how the money saved from fighting drugs could be used other places, how about they just not spend it at all and lower taxes, now that would be a novel concept. Democrats and thier vote bought hand maidens never ever want to spend less taxpayers money. |
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Nov 12, 2013 16:36:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 12, 2013 20:55:06 GMT -5
What I noticed was their explanation of how the money saved from fighting drugs could be used other places, how about they just not spend it at all and lower taxes, now that would be a novel concept. Omg really? That's how you interpret that stance of theirs?  Hahahaha They kick white puppies too. Good lord |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 12, 2013 20:56:42 GMT -5
There you go!!! Damn hypocrites! Gee I wonder why blacks vote for democrats? Keep up the good work |
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Nov 13, 2013 10:01:36 GMT -5
BS! If the NAALCP was really concerned about gun safety they would teach the punks that you can't shoot straight holding the damn gun side ways! Also it would be nice if the would take the non-combatants under the age of let's say five off the streets after 2 AM.  |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 14, 2013 17:41:48 GMT -5
The NAACP has no proper role in advocating for gun control. They do it because they want solidarity with other largely liberal organizations.
|
|
