Tennessee Clergy for Educational Choice to Hold Press Conference Supporting Parental Choice

Coalition will present collected petitions supporting educational choice to the governor and legislature

Press Release, NASHVILLE, TENN. (Feb. 19, 2015) - The Tennessee Clergy for Educational Choice will host a press conference at the State Capitol in Nashville on Thursday, February 26 to present the governor and legislature collected petitions from Tennesseans that support educational choice. Pastors in the Memphis Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference initiated the petition drive in November 2014 to give families more power and options when it comes to their children’s education.

What: Tennessee Clergy Press Conference Supporting Parental School Choice
Where: State Capitol, Room LP30
When: Thursday, February 26, 8:00 AM
Who: The Tennessee Clergy for Educational Choice, a coalition of 29 clergy members who support empowering parents through educational choice and represent approximately 50,000 congregants. The coalition strongly supports the passage of educational choice legislation that puts children first and foremost like the Tennessee Choice and Opportunity Scholarship Act.

Pastor Dwight Montgomery of the Memphis Chapter of the SCLC wrote an educational choice petition letter which can be found here: http://bit.ly/1CPfmHV

Members of the Tennessee Clergy for Educational Choice:

Rev. Dr. James Adams,  TN Regular Baptist Convention, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. J.C. Bacchus,  St. Mark Baptist Church, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. Brain Bartlett, Lake Grove Baptist Church, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. Bassil Brooks, Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church,  (Shelby County)
Bishop E. Lynn Brown, Memphis Baptist Ministerial Association CME, New Mt. Zion Church,(Shelby County)
Rev. Wendell Coward, Greater Mt Zion Baptist Church, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. Coleman Crawford, Grace Baptist Church, (Shelby County)

Dr. Jacqueline Crockett, Word of Deliverance Faith Ministries, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. Leonard Dawson, Cane Creek Baptist Church, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. James Delaney, St. John Baptist Church, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. Maurice Dickerson, Chairman of Education Committee Memphis Baptist Ministerial Association, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. C.S. Greer, Vice-President, Memphis Baptist Ministerial Association, Hopewell Baptist Church, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. Frank Harris, Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. R. B. Holmes, Jr., Bethel Missionary Baptist Church, (National)
Rev. Dr. Roosevelt T. Joyner, Koinonia Baptist Church, (Shelby County)
Elder JE Lewis, Pastor, Memphis Baptist Ministerial Association, (Shelby County)
Rev. H. K. Matthews, Civil Rights Pioneer, (National)
Rev. Dr. Marvin Mercer, President, TN Baptist Missionary Edu. Convention, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. Dwight Montgomery, Annesdale Cherokee Missionary Baptist Church, Pres., Memphis Chapter SCLC
(Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. J. L. Payne, Greater Mt. Moriah Baptist Church, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. Stacy Spencer, New Direction Christian Church, (Shelby County)
Bishop Ed Stephens, Jr., Golden Gate Cathedral, (Shelby County)
Rev. Nelson B Stokes, Breath of Life SDA Church,  (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. C.W. Tutton, Ellis Grove Baptist Church, (Shelby County)
Dr. Eunice Warfield Superintendent (SDA), South Central Conference,  (Davidson County)
Dr. Kenneth T. Whalum, Jr.,The New Olivet Baptist Church, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. Luther Williams, President, Memphis Baptist Ministerial Association New Mt. Zion Church, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. John Wilkins,  Hunters Chapel Church, (Shelby County)
Rev. Dr. Walter Womack, Faithful Baptist Church, (Shelby County)

My Comment: It is worth noting that The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, is an African-American civil right organization and the church leaders who are part of Tennessee Clergy for Educational Choice are Black ministers. School choice is an issue that has been championed most ofter by conservatives and generally opposed by teachers unions and other liberals.  Many liberals would prefer to see Blacks remain in failing schools rather than let Black parents have choice to send their child to a better school. I do not expect this crack in the liberal coalition to lead to a political realignment immediately, but it is encouraging. School choice is the civil right battle of our time. A welfare check traps a person in poverty, but giving a child a good education liberates a person from poverty. Time and time again charter schools have shown that Black children from low-income homes can excel if given the right educational environment where expectations are high.

Top Stories

‘Policing for Profit’ Discussion Coming Up Again in 2015 Legislature

by Alex Harris, Jan. 6, 2015, TNReport - Drug-enforcement cops confiscating large sums of cash from motorists on Tennessee highways has been issue that’s gotten more and more attention the past few years, both from media outlets and state policymakers.

The practice of law enforcement officers seizing a person’s money or property without charging them with any actual crime has come to derisively be known as “policing for profit.” It has been explored in depth on a number of occasions over the past few years in Tennessee, in both investigative news pieces and legislative hearings. And Volunteer State cops have been among those nationally who’ve been mocked for assuming their legal authority includes the power to purloin.
The Tennessee chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Beacon Center of Tennessee recently announced they’re teaming up to push legislation in the upcoming session to reign in forfeiture abuses by police.

One issue critics have taken with the operation of the state’s drug task forces is that they’re funded through asset seizures, which they say creates an incentive to seize cash and property, rather than focusing on drug seizures.

Beacon’s “top priority will be to send all forfeited property to the state’s general fund,” according to a statement from Lindsay Boyd, the center’s policy director. Taking this step would “remove the perverse incentives associated with the current system” by stopping officers from lining “agency budgets with the proceeds confiscated from search and seizures,” she said.

Hedy Weinberg, executive director Tennessee ACLU, said a step in the right direction would be to remove the appearance of the profit-seeking incentive. She added that they would also like to see a requirement for arrest and conviction before property can be seized, as well as shifting from the individual to the government the burden of proof to justify a seizure. Law enforcement agencies should also provide better data in instances where property or cash is seized from individuals, in order for the state to discover the true “extent and prevalence” of the practice, Weinberg said.
Both organizations said they’re still in discussions with lawmakers to work out the specifics of the legislative action.

State Sen. Mike Bell, a Riceville Republican and lest session’s chairman of the Senate Government Operations Committee, has said he is working on a bill to address the matter, but the particulars aren’t nailed down. “I’m still trying to figure out exactly how I’m going to approach this,” said Bell, who chaired a Senate hearing last year that took a look at the oversight of the state’s Judicial Drug Task Forces. He added that he expects several bills dealing with the issue this year.

In Georgia last year, the ACLU and Americans for Prosperity teamed up to push legislation that would require greater oversight and scrutiny of law enforcement and prosecutors use of assets seized in investigations.

Federal officials with the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program also recently released a new code of conduct for how law enforcement officers should handle themselves in drug interdiction stops.

And this August, the voters of Tennessee’s 23rd Judicial District — which has been one of the
districts at the center of the the policing for profit controversy — elected Ray Crouch as the new district attorney general.

Since being elected, Crouch has pledged his DTF will no longer use the practice to confiscate anyone’s property unless a crime can be proven. Additionally, he said his agency will be more focused in the future on seizing drugs coming into Nashville, as opposed to snatching the money leaving.

Top Stories

4th of July DUI Checkpoint abuse in Rutherford County

At over a million and a half views already, this video filmed in Rutherford County of the police violating the right of a young man is going viral. It occurred on Independence day. The sheriff deputies know they are abusing their authority and admit so on camera. I know that this is routine but it should not be. The officers should be disciplined and the kid should be paid for any dog scratches to his car and he should get an official apology. Police are not "the law" and they should not be above the law.

"...but he's perfectly innocent and he knows his rights. He knows what the Constitution says."

Top Stories

Ward Connerly comes to Nashville, this Wednesday

Wednesday, February 13, 2013, 6:30 PM

Fifty Forward Knowles 174 Rains Ave, Nashville, TN

Ward Connelly

Ward Connerly is considered to be the man behind California’s Proposition 209 prohibiting race- and gender-based preferences in state hiring, contracting and state university admissions, a program widely known Affirmative Action.

From J. Lee Douglas of 9-12 Project Nashville:

Ward Connerly has agreed to come to Tennessee and he will be speaking at our next 912 Project on the evening of Wednesday, February 13.

You can imagine the names this witty, very intelligent man has been called:  Oreo, white on the inside, black on the outside; Uncle Tom who’s married to a white woman.

I call him a patriot for helping to restore America to its commitment of equal application of the law towards all with privilege for none.

Senator Jim Summerville is introducing a series of bills aimed at removing from state government all discrimination and preferential treatment on the basis of race, gender and ethnicity.  Who better to come here and talk to us and to also talk to the legislators about the harm being done to all men when granting privileges for the few.

Were you aware that currently 10% of all state business contracts must be performed by minorities?  Sweet if you’re a minority but sucks to be you if you’re a gringo.

Local News Channel 2 did a story recently on Summerville’s bill and they conducted interviews at predominantly black TSU to test the reaction of black students there.  Take a peek, I think that you’ll be pleasantly surprised.  Click here.  It appears that those who resist equal treatment for all men are the race hustlers most typified by Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.  What father doesn’t want his son to succeed because the son worked hard and earned it?

If you’d like to read Summerville’s bills, go here.

Despite Jesse Jackson’s protests throughout California, Ward Connerly, almost singlehandedly saw  to the passage of Proposition 209 in California. Connerly went to war against the Ford Foundation, ACLU, The Carnegie Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation and most importantly, the California Teachers Association.  Eleven years later, Connerly succeeded with the same bill in Michigan, passing it 58%-42 and later an identical accomplishment in Washington State.

I hope to see you Wednesday, February 13 at The Knowles Center, 174 Rains Ave, Nashville, TN - Lee

I plan on attending this meeting. and I strongly support the effort of Senator Jim Summerville. It is time to end racial preferences. Rod

Top Stories

MLK Day Nashville to Feature Dr. Steve Perry

Dr. Perry is the best selling author of Man Up! Nobody is Coming to Save Us and his book on education, Push Has to Come to Shove: Getting Our Kids the Education They Deserve--Even If It Means Picking a Fight.  He is passionate about education reform and was the principal of one of the best performing schools in America, one that sends 100% of its mostly minority students to four-year colleges. He has been a regular contributor on issues of education for CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. Dr. Perry is also on a national college tour where he discusses issues ranging from personal responsibility to educational reform.

Martin Luther King Day is MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 2012. For more info, click here.

Top Stories

Government agents can legally sneak onto your property and plant a tracking device.

Our Constitution rights are slip, slip, slipping away.

"Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway - and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements." (read more)

So ruled The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is the most liberal of the circuit courts. The ninth covers California and eight other western states. Hopefully this decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court and be reversed, but for now this is the law. The ruling stems from a 2007 case when Drug Enforcement Administration agents suspected an individual of growing marijuana and snuck onto his property in the dead of night and placed a GPS tracking device underneath the suspects Jeep parked in the driveway just a few feet from his home.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The ninth ruled that because the vehicle was in an area readily accessible that 4th Amendment protections did not apply. Think about that: If the owner would have had the car parked in a garage or had a gate, the placing of the device would have been illegal, but because it was readily accessible, the slipping onto the property and placing the tracking device was legal. So, poor people who do not live behind gated driveways or have garages have lesser rights than those who do.

In the last few years we have seen a steady erosion of our rights. Following the attack on 9-11, the administration of George W. Bush weakened our constitutional protections in the name of security and the administration of Barack Obama has accelerated that weakening of our rights in the name of health care reform and financial reform. Now the 9th Circuit Court has further eroded our constitutional rights in the name of combating marijuana.

Chief Judge Kozinski, a conservative justice appointed by President Ronald Reagan, dissented form the ruling saying, "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last."

Top Stories

The Arizona Law has been fixed.

"Fixed," as in when you have your dog fixed. It has been neutered and that is a good thing.

I have been a critic of the Arizona law lining up with other conservative critics like Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Fred Barns, Charles Krauthhammer and Mario Rubio. I know our own local Rush imitator and the big showmen of talk radio thought the Arizona law was just dandy as it was and they denounce all critics of the law as not real conservatives. Critics of the law are "RINO's," "inside-the-beltway types," and "the chattering class."

I don't take my marching orders from Steve Gill and Sean Hannity. I am disappointed so many conservatives seem to. When they are right, I am with them but I don't like those who would shred the constitution be they conservative or liberal. And to Steve and Sean, please stop yelling at me to read the bill. I have read it and it is not that difficult to understand. I would suggest you read it. It is only ten pages long. I will send you a link to it if you like.

Anyway, I am not now as critical of the law as I was on April 23rd when it was passed. On April 30, Governor Jan Brewer signed an amendment to the law that makes it "crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated in Arizona." Also, the law changes the standard for demanding someones papers from "reasonable suspicion" following a "lawful contact" to a standard like that in the other states of the union. As amended, police can stop suspected illegal immigrants only while enforcing some other law or ordinance.

It still may be an ugly law, but now it is not much more than meaningless empty symbolism. It is probably no longer unconstitutional.

The Arizona law is now like an offensive dog that is less offensive once it has been fixed. The worse part of the Arizona law has been fixed.

And, Steve and Sean and their followers, if the law was so wonderful as it was, why do you think they had to fix it?

Top Stories

Glenn Beck on Civil Liberties

Unfortunately there are few on the left or the right that consistently support civil liberties. Conservatives are willing to shred the constitution in the name of national security and liberals will shred the constitution in the name of equality, fairness and social justice. It is wrong to have access to my bank account without a warrant and it is wrong to arrest and hold an American citizen accused of terrorism without due process. We should not respect the constitution only when it is convenient.

Please watch this clip of Glen Beck. He is the voice of reason and has distinguished himself in my eyes from the rest of the conservative talk show showmen.

Top Stories

Show me your papers

I am a small government Republican. As such, I am opposed to the nanny state. I don’t want a safety net that protects people from the consequences of their actions. If I rode a motorcycle and wanted to be stupid and ride without a helmet, I don’t want the government requiring me to wear a helmet. I don’t want womb to tomb government welfare programs. I want some people to excel and others to fail. I want it to still be possible to get rich in America. I don't want government taking money I earn and giving it to someone else. I reject the notion that if it moves we must regulate it and tax it. I want less bureaucracy and lower taxes.

Also, however, being a small government Republican means I don’t want a police state. I don’t want the government reading my email or listening in on my phone conversations without a warrant issued for probable cause. I support the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” I don’t want the government pressuring my employer to make be pee in a cup to insure I have not been smoking marijuana. I don’t want the government keeping track of what library books I read or websites I visit. I don’t want the police beating confessions out of suspects. I like "innocent until proven guilty." I don't even want cameras catching me running red lights.

This week Arizona passed an anti-illegal immigration bill. This bill would require law enforcement officers to investigate, detain and arrest people if there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a person may be undocumented. It would give state and local police the power to detain people who cannot prove their citizenship or legal right to be in the country.

Unfortunately, many conservatives are applauding this law. I don’t know about you, but I don’t carry a passport or a birth certificate. Many Americans don't have passports. We do not have a form of national ID and I don't want one. With fifty states, each with their own design for birth certificates and with birth certificates easily forgeable, I am not sure that a birth certificate proves citizenship. This bill gives too much authority to the police.

I don’t want America to become a nation where the police stop you and make you show your papers. I like the idea that the police can’t stop you without probable cause. I want a government that fears the people, not people who fear the government. I don’t want America to become a nation where you must “show me your paper.”

Top Stories

Obama’s Gitmo

The Next Guantánamo
The New York Times, Editorial, April 12, 2009

The Obama administration is basking in praise for its welcome commitment to shut down the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay. But it is acting far less nobly when it comes to prisoners held at a larger, more secretive military detention facility at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. [full article]

Commentary

As a Senator and as a presidential candidate, Obama repeatedly and forcefully said that he thought prisoner held at Guantanamo deserved the right to challenge their detention in a U.S. court. Now on the same issue, but a different facility, he is singing a different tune.

Recently the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that non-Afghan detainees at the US Bagram Prison in Afghanistan captured outside Afghanistan had the same due process rights that the Supreme Court last year gave to prisoners at Guantánamo. At issue were three prisoners at Bagram, two from Yemen and one from Tunisia, held by the U.S. military at the Bagram facility in Afghanistan without charges for more than six years. The Court ruled they have a right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. The Obama administration is appealing the ruling.

I am not quite sure how I feel about the whole issue of giving captured prisoners due process rights. I oppose extending constitutional protection to captured POW’s. We should follow the Geneva Convention and established rules of war. However, in an unconventional war, how does one determine if someone is an “enemy combatants” or someone who just got rounded up accidentally? When the enemy is not the army of an opposing nation and wears no uniform, it makes the rules a little murky. I don’t want to turn loose terrorist to kill again, however we should not hold indefinitely people who may be innocent. While the issues are not simple, the Court has ruled narrowly and I think wisely. I think the Bush administration was wrong and the Court was correct.

The issue regarding Bagram is exactly the same as at Guantanamo and the position of the Obama administration is exactly the same as the position of the Bush administration. Obama is appealing the ruling and arguing that the ruling would “impose serious practical burdens on, and potential harm to, the Government and its efforts to prosecute the war in Afghanistan.” Does that sound familiar?

The NY Times has taken issue with Obama on his reaction to the court ruling, but most of the establishment is keeping quite. It seems Obama can do no wrong even when his position is indistinguishable from the Bush position on the same issue. Where are all of those voices that condemned Bush? Were they expressing a principled conviction or just anti-Bush? Do I detect some hypocrisy? Either Bush and Obama are right; or, Bush and Obama are wrong.

Top Stories

Am I an Enemy of the State?

The Department of Homeland Security Report Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (read the PDF file here) is a piece of propaganda that identifies those who hold views contrary to the politically acceptable liberal position as potential terrorist. Those concerned about the threat to their second amendment rights, those who are concerned about illegal immigration, those who oppose free trade, returning war veterans, and those who oppose abortion are profiled as potential terrorist.

Imagine if a similar report had identified gay rights activist, pro-choice advocates, peace activist, and environmentalist as potential terrorist. What would be the response of civil libertarians and the mainstream media?

I am actually somewhat moderate on several of the positions listed in this report. I am pro free trade and I advocate comprehensive immigration reform, nevertheless I feel a chill. I love my country but I am beginning to fear my government. I assume the purpose of this report is to intimidate those who hold views that differ from those of the administration. It contains nothing that could be of value to law enforcement.

A report in the Washington Times says that a Department of Homeland Security spokesman, confirmed that the department's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties raised objections about some of the language in the nine-page report before it was sent to law enforcement officials nationwide, yet it was issued over their objections. This report should concern anyone who loves liberty.

Top Stories

Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican

By Frances Rice

National Black Republican Association

.

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's.

(To continue reading: Why Martin Luther King... )

Top Stories