Salon.com Suggests Nation’s Lone Black Senator Doesn’t Support Civil Rights
When the nation’s only black senator isn’t offered a speaking spot at the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech,” something is wrong with politics in America. To mark the March on Washington on August 28, not a single Republican was offered a speaking spot at the event, and if you’re Salon.com, the nation’s sole black senator did not deserve a speaking spot either.
While there are conflicting reports as to whether Tim Scott (R-S.C.) was denied a speaking role at the event because he was unable to attend, Salon takes it a step further by suggesting his conservative values deem him unworthy of a speaking role.
Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald ridiculously argues that because Scott is a Republican he is “pretty clearly at odds with that of the modern civil rights movement.” What Seitz-Wald means is that Scott does not support the Democratic Party’s definition of “civil rights.”
Among Salon’s criticism of Senator Scott is his support for traditional marriage, pro-life values, and worst of all, “supported the Supreme Court’s decision to essentially throw out the Voting Rights Act.” Senator Scott supported the court’s ruling by saying that “punishing six Southern states because of past failures does not help us in the present and certainly does not help find our path to the future.”
In addition, gay marriage and abortion had nothing to do with the original civil rights movement, but instead are simply part of the Democratic Party platform. Seitz-Wald never explains why valuing life, especially wanting to protect innocent black babies makes him the antithesis of the modern civil rights movement.
Black teenage girls are 4x as likely to have an abortion as white girls, and Scott’s pro-life record seeks to protect all babies, especially black babies. In reality, Seitz-Wald seems more upset that Scott doesn’t support the Democratic Party’s pro-abortion stance than Senator Scott’s insistence that all babies be given a chance to live.
Hilariously, Seitz-Wald notes that Scott’s “F” rating from the NAACP is even more evidence that the South Carolina Republican is against modern civil rights.
For those of you curious, one of the reasons the NAACP gave Senator Scott an “F” was because he does not support EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and the implementation of ObamaCare.
So now climate change and ObamaCare are civil rights issues? No, these are liberal issues that the left has deemed “civil rights” issues, and opposition to the left’s agenda means you are against civil rights.
In short, Salon has disgustingly distorted “civil rights” with liberal issues and has smeared Republicans who oppose the left’s agenda as being anti-civil rights.
Given that the 50th anniversary of MLK’s speech was more of a Democratic Party rally than an actual civil rights event, Scott’s conservative message probably would have been poorly received by the liberal crowd. Despite this, to accuse the nation’s sole black senator of being against civil rights because he doesn’t support the liberal agenda is shameful and defeats the true goals of Dr. King’s speech 50 years ago.