Class Action Lawsuit WHOA DUDE

[Advisor]

For Immediate Release
Reparation Lawsuit Against The Democratic Party

In the class-action Reparation lawsuit against the Democratic Party, will the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rule against the Democrats and order them to apologize to African Americans in 2006? In their brief to the Court of Appeals (Case No. 05-35890), Democrats are not denying the fact that their party was behind many of the racist acts that have affected Blacks during the past 200 years. The Democrat's own Political Platforms as well as Congressional Records show that as a party:

1. Democrats supported Slavery and its expansion into the northern states
2. Democrats introduced the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act to expand slavery into the northern states.
3. Democrats support of the Dred Scott Decision
4. Democrats supported Fugitive Slave Laws
5. Democrats collectively opposed the 13th Amendment to end slavery
6. Democrats collectively opposed the 14th Amendment to give blacks citizenship
   Democrats collectively opposed the 15th Amendment to give blacks the right to vote
7. Democrats exhausted every efforts to destroy Reconstruction including opposing the 1867 Reconstruction Act and coming up with the Compromise of 1877
   Democrats opposed the Freedman Bureau
8. Democrats opposed Senate Bill 60 of 1866 to give blacks 40 acres and mule (It was Democratic President Andrew Johnson that vetoed the Bill.
9. Democrats supported of the Slaughter House Case
10. Democrats opposed the 1866 Civil Rights Acts
11. Democrats opposed the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and continue to oppose anti-lynching laws up through 1965
12. Democrats passed a multitude of Jim Crow Legislation
13. Democrats passed of Black Codes
14. Democrats establishment of the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist auxiliaries for their Party to keep blacks in their place
15. Democrats promoted White Supremacy
16. Democrats opposed blacks schools and colleges
17. Democrats supported of Plessy v Ferguson legalizing Segregation
18. Democrats were against the decision in the case of Brown v Board of Education
19. Democrats supported, participated and endorsed over 5,000 lynching in states under their control
20. Democrats opposed to the NAACP and other organization designed to help blacks
21. Democrats were in opposition to blacks holding political office and drove many from office during Reconstruction with terror and violence
22. Southern Democrats debated against the passage of the 1964 Civil Right Act
23. Southern Democrats debated against the passage of 1965 Voting Rights Act
24. Southern Democrats fought against Affirmative Action
25. Southern Democrats fought against the integration of Southern schools
26. Democrats supported and participated in burning down middle class black communities like those in Rosewood, Florida, Wilmington, North Carolina and the Greenwood District (Black Wallstreet) in Tulsa Oklahoma.
27. Southern Democrats fraudulently took over two million acres of black property according to an investigation by Associated Press.
28. Democrats in an effort to keep blacks in their place used sadistic torture, terror and violence including: lynching, mutilations, murder, decapitations and beating and burning to death countless number of blacks.

In their brief to the court, Democrat's are not arguing that they did not commit these horrific inhumane acts, their only defense is that according to Lujan v The Defenders of Wildlife case, the Plaintiff, Rev. Wayne Perryman, an inner-city minister from Seattle, do not have the legal authority (or "standing") to bring this matter to the court. This is the same arguments used to dismiss the reparation cases sponsored by Johnnie Cochran and Professor Charles Ogletree.

In their brief to the court, attorney David Burman (representing the Democratic Party) told the court: "Conceding to the horrors of slavery and racism and even accepting for purposes of this motion that the Democratic Party in the past supported or acquiesced in those horrors, nowhere does the Complaint makes the required showing of any 'concrete and personalized injury' necessary to confer standing. The Plaintiff's injuries are the same injuries that were inflicted on all African Americans over a 200 year period and affect the entire African American Community."

The Democrats are spending thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight this case. Rev. Perryman responded with the attached 10 page Reply Brief to challenge their position on standing. Rev. Perryman is not seeking monetary damages only a public apology. He is the only black leader not afraid to go after the powerful Democratic Party while challenging the Republican Party.

Staff of Rev. Wayne Perryman

(206) 232-5575 Home Office
(206) 860-6880 Church Office
1412 23rd Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122
href="http://www.wayneperryman.com/" target=_blank>http://www.wayneperryman.com/

[Jerry D]

Andrew Johnson

With the Assassination of Lincoln, the Presidency fell upon an old-fashioned southern Jacksonian Democrat of pronounced states' rights views. Although an honest and honorable man, Andrew Johnson was one of the most unfortunate of Presidents. Arrayed against him were the Radical Republicans in Congress, brilliantly led and ruthless in their tactics. Johnson was no match for them.

Born in Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1808, Johnson grew up in poverty. He was apprenticed to a tailor as a boy, but ran away. He opened a tailor shop in Greeneville, Tennessee, married Eliza McCardle, and participated in debates at the local academy.

Entering politics, he became an adept stump speaker, championing the common man and vilifying the plantation aristocracy. As a Member of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the 1840's and '50's, he advocated a homestead bill to provide a free farm for the poor man.

During the secession crisis, Johnson remained in the Senate even when Tennessee seceded, which made him a hero in the North and a traitor in the eyes of most Southerners. In 1862 President Lincoln appointed him Military Governor of Tennessee, and Johnson used the state as a laboratory for reconstruction. In 1864 the Republicans, contending that their National Union Party was for all loyal men, nominated Johnson, a Southerner and a Democrat, for Vice President.

After Lincoln's death, President Johnson proceeded to reconstruct the former Confederate States while Congress was not in session in 1865. He pardoned all who would take an oath of allegiance, but required leaders and men of wealth to obtain special Presidential pardons.

By the time Congress met in December 1865, most southern states were reconstructed, slavery was being abolished, but "black codes" to regulate the freedmen were beginning to appear.

Radical Republicans in Congress moved vigorously to change Johnson's program. They gained the support of northerners who were dismayed to see Southerners keeping many prewar leaders and imposing many prewar restrictions upon Negroes.

The Radicals' first step was to refuse to seat any Senator or Representative from the old Confederacy. Next they passed measures dealing with the former slaves. Johnson vetoed the legislation. The Radicals mustered enough votes in Congress to pass legislation over his veto--the first time that Congress had overridden a President on an important bill. They passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which established Negroes as American citizens and forbade discrimination against them.

A few months later Congress submitted to the states the Fourteenth Amendment, which specified that no state should "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

All the former Confederate States except Tennessee refused to ratify the amendment; further, there were two bloody race riots in the South. Speaking in the Middle West, Johnson faced hostile audiences. The Radical Republicans won an overwhelming victory in Congressional elections that fall.

In March 1867, the Radicals effected their own plan of Reconstruction, again placing southern states under military rule. They passed laws placing restrictions upon the President. When Johnson allegedly violated one of these, the Tenure of Office Act, by dismissing Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, the House voted eleven articles of impeachment against him. He was tried by the Senate in the spring of 1868 and acquitted by one vote.

In 1875, Tennessee returned Johnson to the Senate. He died a few months later.

[SuperScout]

29. The Democrat party, led by Sen Robert Byrd (D-WV) filibustered against passing an anti-lynching bill.

30. The Democrat party, with Sen Al Gore, Sr. (D-TN) leading in a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Gimpy]

some truth for a change?

Wouldn't that be refreshing?

Let's take a slightly different view of recent history, ok...........?

You know, kinda like the 'truth' instead?

Here we go................

When you cut right through it, this "NEW" right-wing ideology is just ?dime-store or voo-doo? nonsense? intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don?t really need to know much about economics or history to understand it. GeeDubya certainly don?t. It all gets down to two simple words.

?Cheap labor?. That?s their whole philosophy in a nutshell ? They like to call folks who think like me ?big-government liberals?. Well, if that's so, then they are ?NEW" -cheap-labor conservatives?. It's just that a whole lot of 'average' americans (republicans & democrats) are unaware of these "New" right-wing conservatives taking over the republican party.

These "NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America ? whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you?ll work, and the more power those ?corporate lords? have over you. If you are a wealthy elite ? or a ?wannabe? like most dittoheads ? your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.

Don?t believe it? Well, let?s apply this principle, and see how many of these "NEW" right-wing positions become instantly understandable.

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives don?t like social spending or our ?safety net?. Why? Because when you?re unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like ? which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you ?over a barrel? and in a position to ?work cheap or starve?.

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives don?t like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why? These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you ?over a barrel?.

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives like ?free trade?, NAFTA(yeah, I know, Clinton signed this shit, but it was PUSHED by the Repubs in Congress ), GATT, etc. Why? Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are ?over a barrel?, and will work cheap.

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman?s right to choose. Why? Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women ?over a barrel?, forcing them to work cheap.

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives don?t like unions. Why? Because when labor ?sticks together?, wages go up. That?s why workers unionize. Seems workers don?t like being ?over a barrel?.

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about ?morality?, ?virtue?, ?respect for authority?, ?hard work? and other ?values?. Why? So they can blame your being ?over a barrel? on your own ?immorality?, lack of ?values? and ?poor choices?.
"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.

Maybe you don?t believe that these "NEW" cheap-labor conservatives like unemployment, poverty and ?cheap labor?. Consider these facts.

? Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.1 percent early in his second term.

? That same period ? especially from the late forties into the early seventies ? was the ?golden age? of the United States. We sent men to the moon. We built our Interstate Highway system. We ended segregation in the South and established Medicare. In those days, a single wage earner could support an entire family on his wages. I grew up then, and I will tell you that life was good during that time-- especially for the many Americans insulated from the tragedy of "our" war in Vietnam, as I was not. (But as GEE-DUBYA and his buddies WERE!).

These "NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives continually claim that ?liberals are destroying America.? In fact, cheap-labor conservatives have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception all the way back in the 1930?s to the present day. You can go to ?Free Republic? or Hannity?s forum right now, and find a "NEW" cheap-labor conservative comparing New Deal Liberalism to ?Stalinism?.

? Cheap-labor conservatives opposed virtually all of the New Deal, including every improvement in wages and working conditions.

? Cheap-labor conservatives have a long and sorry history of opposing virtually every advancement in this country?s development ? going right back to the American revolution

? Cheap-labor conservatives have hated Social Security and Medicare since their inception.

? Many cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. They think it should be privatized. But why are we surprised? Cheap-labor conservatives opposed universal public education in its early days. School vouchers are just a backdoor method to ?resegregate? the public schools.

? Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax like the devil hates holy water.

? Cheap-labor conservatives like budget deficits and a huge national debt for two reasons. A bankrupt government has a harder time doing any ?social spending? ? which cheap-labor conservatives oppose, and . . .

? Wealthy "NEW" cheap-labor conservatives like say, George W. Bush, buy the bonds and then earn tax free interest on the money they lend the government. [Check out Dubya?s financial disclosures. The jerk is a big holder of the T-bills that finance the deficit he is helping to expand.] The deficit created by cheap-labor conservatives ? while they posture as being ?fiscally conservative? -- may count as the biggest con job in American history.

? ?Free Trade?, globalization, NAFTA and especially GATT are intended to create a world-wide ?corporate playground? where national governments serve the interests of corporations -- which means ?cheap labor?.

The ugly truth is that these "NEW" cheap-labor conservatives just don?t like working people. They don?t like ?bottom up? prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. If people are too prosperous their corporate lords have a harder time kicking them around. As soon as everyone understands this about these "NEW" cheap-labor conservatives, the real motivation for their policies makes perfect sense. Remember, cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the average guy ? or more often the woman ? who works for an hourly wage.

So you see, it's all about "their agendas" and making SURE the "average Joe" doesn't get TOO much in the way of "help" from anybody----ESPECIALLY the government!

If enough people in this country will ?get with the program?, it won?t be long before you can?t look at an editorial page, listen to the radio, turn on the TV, or log onto your favorite message board without seeing the phrase ?NEW" cheap labor conservatives? ? and have plenty of examples to reinforce the message. By election day of 2006, every politically sentient American should understand exactly what a ?cheap labor conservative? is, and what he stands for.

Less Government? is the central defining right-wing slogan. As it has been all along.

Included within the slogan ?less government? is the whole "NEW" conservative set of assumptions about the nature of the ?free market? and government?s role in that market.. In fact, the whole ?public sector/private sector? distinction is an invention of the cheap-labor conservatives. They say that the ?private sector? exists outside and independently of the ?public sector?. The public sector, according to this "NEW" cheap-labor ideology, can only ?interfere? with the ?private sector?, and that such ?interference? is ?inefficient? and ?unprincipled?

Using this ideology, the cheap-labor ideologue paints himself as a defender of ?freedom? against ?big government tyranny?. In fact, the whole idea that the ?private sector? is independent of the public sector is totally bogus. In fact, ?the market? is created by public laws, public institutions and public infrastructure.

But the "NEW" cheap-labor conservative isn?t really interested in ?freedom?. What the he wants is the ?privatized tyranny? of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is ? you guessed it -- ?cheap labor?.

For proof, you need only look at exactly what constitutes ?big government tyranny? and what doesn?t. It turns out that "NEW" cheap-labor conservatives are BIG supporters of the most oppressive and heavy handed actions the government takes.

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives are consistent supporters of the generous use of capital punishment. They say that ?government can?t do anything right? ? except apparently, kill people. Indeed, they exhibit classic conservative unconcern for the very possibility that the government might make a mistake and execute the wrong man.

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives complain about the ?Warren Court? and how they were ?handcuffing the police? and giving ?rights to criminals?. It never occurs to them, that our criminal justice system is not only set up to protect us from lawbreakers, but innocent citizens from abuses or just plain mistakes by government officials ? you know, the one?s who can?t do anything right.

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservative ? you know, the ones who believe in ?freedom? ? say our crime problem is because ? get this ? we?re too ?permissive?. How exactly do you set up a ?free? society that isn?t ?permissive??

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives want all the military sysytems we can stand to pay for....and MORE...... and never saw a weapons system they didn?t like.

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives support every right-wing authoritarian hoodlum in the third world. (remember WHO helped Sadamn get all that military power???)

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives support ?domestic surveillance? against ?subversives? ? where ?subversive? means ?everybody but them?.

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservative believers in ?freedom? think it?s the government?s business if you need an abortion or sleep with somebody of your own gender.

"NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives say that liberals are ?Stalinists?.

Sounds to me like the "NEW" conservatives have a peculiar definition of ?freedom?. I mean, just what do these guys consider to be ?tyranny? anyway???

Wanna see. Take a look. Their actions speak as loud as their words!

?Social spending? otherwise known as they define it, ?redistribution?. While they don?t mind tax dollars being used for subsidizing corporations, using their taxes to feed & educate people, or for Veterans programs is ?stealing?.

Minimum wage laws.

Conservatives -----OLD & NEW-----have opposed very piece of legislation ever proposed to improve working conditions, including the eight hour day, OSHA regulations, and even Child Labor laws.

Labor unions, who ?extort? employers by collectively bargaining.

Environmental regulations and the EPA.

Federal support and federal standards for public education.

Civil rights legislation. There are still "NEW" conservatives today, who were staunch defenders of ?Jim Crow? ? including, conspicuously Buckley?s ?National Review?. Apparently, federal laws ending segregation were ?tyranny?, but segregation itself was not.

Public broadcasting ? which is virtually the only source for classical music, opera, traditional theatre, traditional American music, oh yes, and Buckley?s ?Firing Line?. This from the people constantly braying about the decay of ?the culture?. The average cost of Public Television for each American is a whopping one dollar a year. ?Its tyranny I tell you. Enough?s enough!?

See the pattern? "NEW" conservatives support every coercive and oppressive function of government, but call it ?tyranny? if government does something for you ? using THEIR money, for Chrissake. Even here, these "NEW" conservatives are complete hypocrites. Consider the following expenditures:

150 billion dollars a year for corporate subsidies.

300 billion dollars a year for interest payments on the national debt ? payments that are a direct transfer to wealthy bond holders (like GEE-DUBYA), and buy us absolutely nothing.

Who knows how many billions will be paid to American companies to rebuild Iraq ?(like Cheneys old friends at Halliburton)

Is the pattern becoming clearer? These "NEW" Republicans have no problem at all opening the public purse for corporate interests. It?s ?social spending? on people who actually need assistance that they just ?can?t tolerate?.

And now you know why. Destitute people work cheaper!

These "NEW" Republicans are "Cheap-labor" conservatives and claim to believe in "personal responsibility". That's why they say they don't like social spending. They say that everyone should "stand or fall" in a competitive economic environment. They say that the working poor in such an environment are just "losers". They say the unemployed should "get a job" -- regardless of unemployment rates. They say there should be no minimum wage, and corporations should be free to export jobs to third world dictatorships. And they don't like unions.

So what happens to the wage scale, when we do things on the "NEW" "cheap labor conservative plan". What happens when we abolish the minimum wage, eliminate all social spending, open our borders to cheap goods from the world, and capital flight to the third world. Which direction will average wages paid to Americans go. Do they go up? Or do they go down?

The answer of course, is down. We are talking about policies whose effect will be to erode the wages and living standards of ordinary American wage-earners. We are talking about a deliberate effort to undermine the bargaining position of American labor. We are talking about an economic environment of 'haves" and "have nots".

What sort of "personal responsibility" is possible in such an environment? If a wage earner's only asset is his ability and willingness to do a day's work for a day's pay, where does he get the wherewithal to improve his circumstances? He gets that wherewithal from the wages he earns. But in the environment created by these "NEW" conservatives, that wage scale will not support accumulatioon of any savings. It will not support job training or higher education. It will allow the wage earner to survive -- in an economic environment where he lives paycheck to paycheck, hoping he doesn't lose his job.

But that isn't what the "NEW" cheap-labor conservatives mean by "personal responsibility". What they mean is "blame". If you have nothing, and can accumulate nothing "its your own fault". Thus does the conservative wash his hands of the poverty and exploitation inevitable in such an economic environment. It isn't his fault, it is "impersonal market forces". It is the "natural order" of things -- which government has no business correcting, according to him.

All of which utterly overlooks all of the laws, institutions and government created infrastructure that benefits the wealthy. First on the list of these is the corporation itself. Corporations exist because state & federal law creates their possibility. State & federal laws give them a benefit no partnership enjoys -- limited liability for investors. They were and are a government created means to encourage investment in large scale industrial enterprises.

They amount to "organized capital", and have grown into institutions so large, many have annual revenues that exceed the Gross Domestic Product of many third world nations. They obviously create an imbalance of economic power between those who hold capital on the one hand, and wage earners on the other. Add to that the rapid movement of capital made possible by technology, and you have an even more uneven playing field. That rapid movement of course, is made possible by computers -- developed with government subsidies and assistance -- over communications networks built by government subsidy. [How many private companies out there launching communications satellites?].

In fact, the largest beneficiaries of all government built infrastructure, including hydroelectric dams, railroads, air traffic control systems, and even roads and schools, are the corporations who buy power, transport goods by rail and over the roads, and employ workers educated at public expense. They are the primary beneficiaries of the banking system, of Federal Reserve efforts to stabilize the currency, and of the regulation of securities creating confidence in the financial markets.

But these "NEW" Conservatives are oblivious to all this government spending, government infrastructure, and government regulation that directly benefits American corporations. They only see the government spending that helps the wage earner -- and hypocritically claim that the "wage earner" should "stand on his own two feet" -- as if they do.

In fact, they stand on the backs of labor. Having formed hugely powerful corporations, they complain when wage earners respond by forming unions to counterbalance the power of these giants. Apparently, it is a-o-kay for capital to "stick together", but not labor???

So don't even bother suggesting to these "NEW" cheap-labor conservatives that we build a "wage earner friendly" economic environment. Don't suggest that we strengthen unions. Don't suggest that we adopt labor friendly trade policies -- that at a minimum restrict the ability of American corporations to take advantage of third-world police states. Don't suggest that we put full employment over controlling inflation in our list of priorities. Don't suggest fiscal policies -- read that, "balanced budgets" -- the help create a low inflation environment supporting "full employment".

All of those things are "big government". And these "NEW" Cheap-labor conservatives believe in "less government" -- at least for THEM anyway.


****

[Advisor]

Your tirade does not negate the FACTS cited in the lawsuit. Even the lawyers for the DNC deny it. Facts Facts Facts...the DNC sure doesn't want the po black folk to know about the sorry history of the party..may not be true today, but I'm old enough to remember how it used to be, with Byrd & Wallace talking about the 'nigra's.

[Advisor]

Oh, yeah...by the way the DNC is as big a whore to business as the GOP...the GOP are streetwalkers & the DNC covers the outcall service. Both parties are about power..and power only comes with money...and who has money??? Not we the people thats for dadburn sure.

[Gimpy]

What "tirade"?

I was simply offering some MORE of those "facts" you like to mention ?

[SuperScout]

Gimpy, nice try at the "Spin Machine" but you never refuted one of the charges made in the original lawsuit. What does the so-called "cheap labor" whatever have to do with the FACT that Democrats (you know, da dims) did exactly everything as alleged in the lawsuit, plus a couple that I threw in as well? Those are FACTS, Jack, and there's not a blessed thing you can do about them, but try to spin the thread into a different direction. You are as transparent as cellophane, but not nearly as useful.

[Gimpy]

your dark little corner of the world there SuperFella ............

You're one to be talkin about "refuting" something, ya know what I meen???????? Or, is your memory 'failing" you once again?

Just asking...................

[SuperScout]

No, Gimpy, I don't know what you "meen." I simply asked you to refute any of the the charges originally brought in the lawsuit, instead of trying to spin the original topic to your own purpose. Or, has your memory failed you completely? Methinks you didn't, because you can't.