7-27-15 NCPW CARTOONAs notes this morning, it’s been two months and ten days since Governor McCrory announced that the “time is right” for the state to stop distributing license plates bearing the confederate flag. Since that time, here is what the Guv has done to make that change a reality: zip, zero, bupkis.

The reason for this is obvious. The Governor has placed a wet finger in the wind and determined that much of his conservative base likes the flag. As was explained back in July in a column:

“Of course, the actual reason behind the paralysis of the state’s conservative political leadership when it comes to confederate symbols is not hard to divine and has nothing to do with ‘legal authority.’ Rather, these politicians are simply bowing to the wishes of a large and noisy segment of their political base.

As NC Policy Watch editorial cartoonist John Cole neatly conveyed yesterday, the simple truth is that neither McCrory nor the leadership of General Assembly want (or feel they have the political muscle) to take on the far right on the issue. Once the modest national momentum that arose in the aftermath of the horror in Charleston subsided somewhat, McCrory et. al. quickly realized that a large segment of the conservative base actually likes confederate symbols and what they perceive them to stand for. Add to this the widespread resentfulness that any policy change at all attributable to progressives and civil rights activists is sure to provoke on Fox News and other dark corners of the conservative echo chamber and it’s easy to see why McCrory, Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore have disappeared into their shells.”

And so here’s the bottom line, hard truth about the confederate flag on the North Carolina license plate: it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. It would be nice if the Governor had the courage to be straight with the citizens about this fact.


For the past six and half years, it’s been obvious to anyone with even a shred of honesty and observational skills that a disturbingly large portion of the incessant opposition to President Obama’s every move is the byproduct of one simple factor: his race.

The haters and obstructionists will deny this and try to attribute it all to Obama’s supposed “leftist” or “socialist’ leanings  — even when the thoroughly moderate President is frustrating progressives and championing one-time conservative and Republican ideas — but you don’t have to be a MENSA member to see and understand what’s really going on.

Fortunately for the sake of the truth — if not the near term well-being of the country — a gaggle of confederate flag waving knuckleheads in Oklahoma cut through all of the B.S. last night and showed both: a) the true nature of the ignorant and irrational hatred with which our President must contend every day and b) its often symbiotic connection to a symbol of racist hatred and treason that continues to stain the country.

Say no to racism


It’s great that conservative politicians, business leaders and sports moguls are speaking out in favor of ending government displays of the Confederate flag.

As Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson said the other day: “Divisive symbols and actions should not stand in conflict to progress, healing and the unification of all our citizens.”

Even the folks at NASCAR (who, to their credit,  have previously spoken out against laws designed to preserve marriage discrimination) chimed in by saying they would “continue our long-standing policy to disallow the use of the Confederate flag symbol in any official NASCAR capacity.”

Of course, as anyone who has attended a NASCAR race or big-time football game in many parts of the country can attest, just because the flag is not officially a part of the festivities doesn’t mean it’s not widely and prominently displayed. Try hanging out in the infield at a NASCAR race (or the campgrounds that surround the tracks) or tailgating before a Panthers game (or the games of any number of college teams) and you’ll see all you want of this hateful symbol.

Of course, attempting to ban such displays would be problematic in numerous ways and raise all kinds of First Amendment issues, so that’s likely not the way to go. But that doesn’t mean that the NASCAR and football folks can’t get a whole lot more proactive and energetic in countering the flag and its message.

Even the corrupt knuckleheads at FIFA who preside over world soccer long ago took to making the message “Say No to Racism” a regular and prominent feature in the events they sanction as a direct response to the racist acts that have been perpetrated by soccer hooligans (see the above photo).

If NASCAR and American football bosses are really serious about opposing the display of the Confederate flag and combating its racist message, the least they could do is to follow FIFA’s lead and develop genuine and visible anti-racism campaigns of their own. Heck, the NFL dresses its players and officials in pink the entire month of October each year to support breast cancer awareness. And NASCAR races are nothing but three-to-four hour TV commercials each week.

How about a new symbol on all cars and player uniforms that features a Confederate flag crossed out or some other symbol of racial harmony and progress?

Come on guys — if you’re really serious about this, do more than speak out on issues that are already decided and put a little skin of your own in the game.


Rev. William Barber and North Carolina Christian writer Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove recently authored the following essay on the close connection between modern “religious freedom” proposals and the dark history of racial discrimination in the U.S.  We’re delighted to publish it here.

Extremists also remember Selma:
The ugly history behind “religious freedom” laws

By Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II and Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove

From Ava Duvernay’s award-winning film to President Obama’s speech at the Edmond Pettus Bridge, to the thousands we crossed the Bridge with and the millions that joined by TV, America has remembered Selma this year. We have honored grassroots leaders who organized for years, acknowledged the sacrifices of civil rights workers, and celebrated the great achievement of the Voting Rights Act. At the same time, we have recalled the hatred and fear of white supremacy in 1960’s Alabama. But we may not have looked closely enough at this ugly history. Even as we celebrate one of America’s great strides toward freedom, the ugliest ghosts of our past haunt us in today’s “religious freedom” laws.

Many able commentators have pointed out the problem with laws which purport to protect a First Amendment right to religious freedom by creating an opportunity to violate another’s 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law. But little attention has been paid to the struggle out of which the 14th Amendment was born—a struggle which continued to play out in Selma 50 years ago and is very much alive in America’s state houses today. We cannot understand the new “religious freedom” law in Indiana and others like it apart from the highly sexualized backlash against America’s first two Reconstructions.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was part and parcel of America’s first Reconstruction, guaranteeing for the first time that people who had been legally codified as three-fifths persons would enjoy equal protection under the law in this country. The very notion of equal protection for black Americans was so offensive that it inspired an immediate backlash. Two features of resistance to America’s first Reconstruction are essential to note.

First, it was deeply religious. White preachers led the charge, calling themselves “Redeemers” and framing equal justice for black Americans as a moral danger. At the same time, the threat was explicitly sexualized. Black men were portrayed in respectable newspapers as “ravishing beasts,” eager to rape white women.

Here in our native North Carolina, white vigilantes were armed and encouraged to defend their women, leading to the “Wilmington Race Riot” of 1898. Violent demonstrations of white men’s sexual fear led to lynchings throughout the South and Midwest in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Ida B. Wells, the courageous African-American journalist from Memphis, did the dangerous investigative work to show that the great majority of these lynchings were not about sex but political power.

When the Civil Rights Movement—a Second Reconstruction—was finally able to draw national attention to the vicious patterns of Jim Crow in the 1960’s, the challenge to white power was again conflated with sexual fear. As Danielle McGuire has chronicled in her book “The Dark End of the Street,” civil rights workers were consistently accused of wanting interracial sex and/or having homosexual tendencies.  Read More


#ConfirmLoretta2It’s no particular news that conservatives in Washington continue to raze basic rules and traditions of American governance. When a block of U.S. Senators starts trying to seize authority to conduct U.S. foreign policy from the chief executive, you know things have hit a new low. Still the ongoing stonewalling of Attorney General nominee and North Carolina native Loretta Lynch (which even includes North Carolina’s two senators, for crying out loud) is an especially offensive exercise in dysfunction (and maybe something worse).

As Roll Call’s David Hawkings writes:

“The most amazing thing about the Loretta Lynch story is that the congressional community no longer views it as amazing….

For essentially the first two centuries under our Constitution, senators afforded the president free rein to stock his Cabinet as he chose, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Getting over the ‘advice and consent’ hurdle was about proving competence for public service, demonstrating good manners and keeping your moral nose clean.

It would not have been newsworthy at all — let alone a rationale for disqualification — for an attorney general nominee to take the same position as the president who nominated her in a balance of powers battle with Congress. (In fact, it would have been much more problematic for a nominee to openly break with the president in such a dispute.)”

Now, as Hawkings points out, a majority of Republican senators would deny Lynch the job merely because they disagree with her position of sticking up for the President’s immigration policy.  They can’t even point to some broad ideological divide with the well-respected prosecutor as was the case when some Democrats balked at approving the far-right conservative John Ashcroft back in 2001.

Of course, the elephant in the room of which Hawkings fails to take note is the little matter issue of who and what Lynch is. That is to say, isn’t it interesting that Senators feel free to break such extraordinary new ground when it’s an African-American president nominating someone who would be the first African-American woman Attorney General?