Black Organization Responds to Ad Hominem Attack from PFAW Front Group

Black Organization Responds to Ad Hominem Attack from People for the American Way Front Group

Project 21 Members Reassert That John Roberts's Civil Rights, Constitutional Views Are Closer to Views Publicly Expressed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Than King's Are to the Left

For Release: August 26, 2005 Contact David Almasi at: (202) 543-4110x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org

Responding to an ad hominem attack from a left-wing front group, members of the black leadership network Project 21 defend the assertion that the beliefs of civil rights legend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are more in line with the record of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts than they are with the agenda of left-wing special interest groups currently laying claim to Dr. King's legacy.

In an August 24 press release, Project 21 member Mychal Massie said: "John Roberts is the type of jurist who represents the beliefs of great Americans such as James Madison and Martin Luther King, Jr. Roberts is someone who can be relied upon to administer our Constitution as it is written and not how he or his political benefactors think it should be."

In response, African-American Ministers In Action (AAMIA), a front group of People for the American Way, issued an August 25 press release in which AAMIA chairman Reverend Tim McDonald charged that Massie sought to "pull the wool over the eyes of the African-American community." Professor Roger Wilkins, also quoted in the AAMIA release, said: "John Roberts is no Martin Luther King, Jr."

Responding to AAMIA's charges, Project 21's Mychal Massie made the following statement:

I neither apologize for nor shrink from my comments comparing the beliefs of Judge John Roberts, James Madison and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. To suggest that I have in some way discredited Dr. King is simply the knee-jerk, apoplectic hysteria of those who find fault with anyone not espousing their leftist mantra of self-segregation and special rights. As a result, much of what Dr. King stood for has been undermined by their lies and pathetic misrepresentations.

John Roberts has worked to ensure people are not judged by the color of their skin, but rather by the content of their character. Is that not exactly what Dr. King espoused so eloquently? Judge Roberts's rulings and beliefs are rooted in the same document - our Constitution - that both Dr. King and Madison so gallantly defended. It is the left that strives for an America governed by quotas and special rights for perceived oppressed special classes. It is the left, not Judge Roberts, Dr. King or James Madison, who seek to control what persons may say, how they may think and how our children are taught.

Dr. King's agenda was for blacks to be able to sit at the lunch counter of their choice and for black children to attend desegregated schools. He marched for the rights of blacks to participate freely in elections and be able to purchase and live in homes they could afford. He was attacked and jailed in his quest to ensure that all Americans received equal treatment. I defy those feigning insult to cite one example of Judge Roberts not supporting those ideals.

Commenting on this charged political rhetoric from the left preceding the Roberts confirmation hearing in September, Project 21 member Cherylyn LeBon adds: "In my experience as a former senior counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Roberts's record demonstrates that he is a careful, diligent and thoughtful lawyer who provided his clients with sound legal advice on civil rights issues. In private practice, Roberts has shown that he has an ability to see all sides of various civil rights issues and has the ability to recognize the complexity of current law in this area. John Roberts is a fair and thoughtful attorney, and I hope that his upcoming hearing in September will reflect these same qualities."

Project 21 takes no position on the confirmation of any particular judicial nominee, but believes that it is in the best interest of the United States that judicial vacancies are filled with appropriate speed.

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has been a leading voice in the black community since 1992. For more information or to schedule interviews, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11, email Project21@nationalcenter.org or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

Rev. Timothy McDonald III

The Rev. Timothy McDonald joined People For the American Way’s Board of Directors in May 1995. He is pastor of First Iconium Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia. He is also President of Concerned Black Clergy, an ecumenical organization of Black and White clergy and lay persons working on behalf of the poor.

McDonald previously served as Special Assistant for Community Concerns for Mayor Maynard Jackson.

******

Rev. Tim McDonald and Atlanta Faith-based Leaders to Deliver Petition to Israeli Consul

On Monday, December 13th, 2004, several community and religious leaders delivered a petition calling on the State of Israel to dismantle the Apartheid Wall currently being built in the West Bank. The delegation was headed by community figures including Rev. Tim McDonald (CBC), Rev. Don Edwards (ECAPC), Sara Humphrey (JHAH), Joe Parko (AFSC) among several others. The petition has been endorsed by numerous religious communities, organizations committed to justice and human rights, and individuals of conscience throughout the city.

On Monday, December 13 2004, a delegation of leaders from Atlanta’s faith-based community, led by Rev. Timothy McDonald fom Concerned Black Clergy, visited the office of the Israeli Consulate to deliver a petition calling on the Israeli government to dismantle the wall being built in the West Bank. The delivery of this petition marks the beginning of a campaign launched in Atlanta against Israel’s wall by congregations and members of faith-based communities.

The petition was received by a self-described representative of the Israeli Consulate, who refused to identify himself, allow the delegation to go up to the consulate office as a group, or call on an identifiable employee of the Consulate to come down and accept the petition. The entire interaction, with the exception of the delivery upstairs, was captured on camera by a WSB-TV cameraman, whose presence, as well as the presence of the delegation, was treated with open hostility.

The petition (test is included below) includes first endorsements from Every Church a Peace Church, Concerned Black Clergy, Masjid al-Muminum Mosque, Druid Hills United Methodist Church, Candler School of Theology Social Concerns Network, and Joining Hands Against Hunger: Palestine/Presbyterian Answer to Hunger.

“Contrary to what many would call a "security fence" , Israel is creating its own insecurity by constructing the world's largest prison. You cannot build trust and security by imprisoning your neighbors." stated delegation member Rev. Don Edwards of Every Church a Peace Church.

This petition is in response to the July 9, 2004 advisory ruling handed down by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal status of the wall the State of Israel is building in the West Bank. The ICJ found the construction of the wall, in the occupied Palestinian territory, violates international law, and that Israel must dismantle the wall and make reparations for damage caused by its construction. Some of the effects of the separation wall on Palestinians constituting violations of international law include:

* Destruction personal property, agriculture, and natural landscape
* Freedom of movement to places of employment, education, and health services
* Denial of access to places of worship for Muslims and Christians alike
* Annexation of 50% of the West Bank by Israel, leaving over 16% of the West Bank’s Palestinian population faced with no citizenship, in danger of expulsion

“These violations are not only illegal, but, for people of conscience, they are immoral,” declared delegation member Elizabeth Corrie. “Today marks the beginning of a campaign across this city to call for an end to the injustice and violence being perpetrated under the guise of security.”

TEXT OF PETITION:

We, the undersigned organizations, congregations, and individuals, call upon the State of Israel to dismantle the Wall that is currently being built in the West Bank. We base this call on the standards of international law, humanitarianism, and our consciences.

International agencies, non-governmental Organizations and the Supreme Court of Israel itself have all documented the many illegal and inhuman consequences on the Palestinian civilian populations caused by the construction of the Wall. On the 9th of July this year, the International Court of Justice ruled the Wall to be illegal under all applicable laws.

This Wall separates families and communities from access to their own property, educational facilities, and hospitals., The Wall is being raised on land held by Palestinians; and it is being
individually, collectively and illicitly seized for this purpose. The Wall does not follow any recognized border, nor separate the two areas of the West Bank and Israel. Rather, it divides Palestinians from Palestinians. Neither the cause of peace in the Middle East nor the quest for justice for its inhabitants can be served by the continued existence of this barricade and the further division that it creates.

We strongly urge the government of Israel to recognize its obligations under international law and concepts of human rights an dismantle the Wall now.

Georgia Leaders and Voters File Lawsuit Saying Georgia Amendment on Marriage is Deceptive and Unconstitutional

"This amendment is constitutionally flawed, period. Not only does it combine four different subjects, in violation of the Georgia Constitution, the clearly deceptive language voters will see on the ballot creates the misperception that its only purpose is to define marriage"

A lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County today asks that an amendment dealing with same-sex couples be taken off of Georgia’s November ballot. Represented by Lambda Legal, the ACLU of Georgia, and the law firm of Alston & Bird LLP, the plaintiffs allege that the ballot language is affirmatively deceptive and unconstitutional.

Earlier this year, the state legislature approved an amendment to the Georgia Constitution that would prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, may prohibit civil unions, and seeks to limit the court’s jurisdiction on matters involving same-sex couples. The legislature’s approval put the measure on the November ballot, but lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that the required process for amending the Georgia Constitution was not followed.

"The purpose and focus of this litigation is to insure that whenever we seek to alter the constitutional rights of the people of this State—regardless of the underlying subject matter—the process followed is, in fact, constitutional," said Johnny Stephenson, a partner at Alston & Bird. “Unfortunately, the process employed for adoption of this proposed amendment is fatally defective."

“This amendment is constitutionally flawed, period. Not only does is combine four different subjects, in violation of the Georgia Constitution, the clearly deceptive language voters will see on the ballot creates the misperception that its only purpose is to define marriage," said Jack Senterfitt, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Southern Regional office in Atlanta. “Further more separate and apart from the lawsuit, Lambda Legal believes that a group’s civil rights shouldn’t be put to a popular vote."

The lawsuit argues:

* The amendment is unconstitutional based on the “single-subject rule." The Georgia Constitution requires that ballot initiatives pose a single subject at a time to voters, rather than covering multiple issues.
* The amendment currently includes multiple issues, including:
o definition of marriage,
o prohibition of the recognition of other types of unions between same-sex couples,
o an attempt to limit the jurisdiction of Georgia courts,
o an attempt to limit the full faith and credit given to judgments and other proceedings from other states.

“The only thing the ballot question asks voters is the definition of marriage, – but voters’ answers to that question will be used to decide a much wider range of protections for gay couples and to rework the system of government in our state" said Beth Littrell, attorney at the ACLU of Georgia. “If the legislature only meant to deal with the definition of marriage, they would not have included more than 100 additional words that go far beyond excluding same-sex couples from marriage. The way this amendment is presented and what it may actually do are very different things."

"We are encouraged to see that the deceptive language of the amendment is facing a legal challenge," said Karla Drenner Campaign Director of Georgians Against Discrimination, a statewide coalition working to defeat the anti-gay amendment. "The ballot measure is puzzling: why don't proponents want people to know what they are voting on? Some voters believe gay couples should be allowed to marry while others prefer to limit recognition to civil unions or domestic partnerships. Don't they have the right to know exactly what they are voting on?"

Drenner adds, "As this lawsuit progress, Georgians Against Discrimination will continue to let voters know of the deception of the amendment wording so they are aware of the real impact on their friends, neighbors and coworkers."

The plaintiffs in the case are a diverse range of Georgia voters and leaders. They include: The Missionary Baptist Church as represented by Rev. Zach Lyde in Brunswick, Georgia; Chuck O’Kelley, a law professor at the University of Georgia, and his wife Judi, who is working to educate voters about the proposed amendment; Reverend Timothy McDonald III, Senior Pastor of the First Iconium Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia; Rep. Tyronne Brooks and Senator David Adelman members of the Georgia State Legislature.

Reverend Tim McDonald:

"We cannot have people of faith supporting discrimination in any form. I don't believe we should have an amendment to the Georgia State Constitution discriminating against any segment of our society and I call upon all people to look at the real issue of discrimination and not become entangled in the hot button political issues surrounding this amendment."

A word to the faithful

African American Ministers Join Congressional Leaders to Oppose Nuclear Option and Judge Janice Rogers Brown

Senator Debbie Stabenow, Congressman Jim Clyburn and Rec. Amos Brown recently held a press conference to voice their opposition to the nuclear option and the nomination of Judge Janice Rogers Brown to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

During the press conference Senator Stabenow said “the debate was not about judges, it was about ensuring that the voice of the minority is protected.” She also said that “the Senate leadership was trying to overturn our system of checks and balances, which put states in peril, because if the majority could change the rules on judges they also could change the rules on other issues.” Congressman Clyburn (Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus and Chair of the House Democratic Faith Working Group) also said that the federal courts have often been the only place where the rights of African Americans have been advanced and protected.

Joining Stabenow and Clyburn was Reverend Timothy McDonald, Chairman of African American Ministers in Action and Pastor of First Iconium Baptist Church, Atlanta, GA; Reverend Robert Shine, Vice-Chair of African American Ministers in Action and Pastor of Berachah Baptist Church, Philadelphia, PA; and Rev. Amos Brown, Pastor of Third Baptist Church in San Francisco. Rev. McDonald commented that African American Ministers in Action represent nearly 5,000 African American Clergy from 20 states and they are vehemently opposed to the nuclear option and Judge Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination. Rev. Brown amplified the opposition stating that Janice Rogers Brown’s race is not the issue; rather, her rulings have hurt people of color and her judicial philosophy threatens to further hurt African Americans if she is confirmed to the court. Rev. Shine also specifically asked Senator Arlene Specter of Pennsylvania to oppose the nuclear option and Judge Brown.

(Justice Brown was ultimately confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 56 to 43.)

Senators Should Not Confirm Roberts

People For the American Way
Opposes This Nomination

A review of John Roberts’ record and the tens of thousands of pages of documents so far released by the Administration show that confirming John Roberts would endanger much of the progress made by the nation in civil rights over the past half-century. If John Roberts replaces Sandra Day O’Connor the balance of the court will shift to the right for decades to come, imperiling Americans’ constitutional rights and liberties. The fundamental rights and liberties of Americans are too precious to entrust to someone who spent more than a decade trying to narrow them.

Lunatic, Ralph Neas, PFAW President.

"We're fighting to maintain and expand 50 years of legal and social justice progress that right-wing leaders are trying to dismantle. We won't let them turn back the clock on our rights and freedoms."

In 1987, he chaired the successful bipartisan effort by the 300-organization Block Bork Coalition to defeat (58-42) the confirmation of Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court. For his successful efforts, Ralph was named ABC's "Person of the Week."

Ralph, a native of Brookline, Massachusetts, earned his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame and his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School. Ralph has taught at the University of Chicago Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. From 1995 through 1999, he was president of The Neas Group. In 1998, Ralph was the Democratic candidate for Congress from Maryland's 8th Congressional District.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.