Sarah Palin and Her Son Trigg: Their Quest to End Liberal Hostility Toward Disabled Individuals

Introduction: The Background to the Democratic Party's Hypocrisy With Regards to Claiming It is the Party of the Women, Minorities, the Poor and Underprivileged, and the Disabled Which Will Lead to the Discussion on the Left's Attack on Sarah Palin's Son, Trigg, Who Suffers from Down Syndrome

From its founding when the first public meeting where the name "Republican" was suggested for a new anti-slavery party was held on March 20, 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, to today's incarnation dominated by conservative principles, the Grand Old Party (GOP) has held but one constant throughout the 157 years of its existence, and that is its utter and complete opposition to the Democratic Party. For more than 159 years, the party held the distinction of being the choice of the majority of the black community in the United States based upon Republican lawmakers' roles in ending slavery and promoting the nation's first civil rights laws. This, however, ended with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which former Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law.  The details regarding the legal details and history behind the Act of 1964 are below (Courtesy of The National Archives):

Teaching With Documents:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Background

In the 1960's, Americans who knew only the potential of "equal protection of the laws" expected the president, the Congress, and the courts to fulfill the promise of the 14th Amendment. In response, all three branches of the federal government--as well as the public at large--debated a fundamental constitutional question: Does the Constitution's prohibition of denying equal protection always ban the use of racial, ethnic, or gender criteria in an attempt to bring social justice and social benefits?

In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The word "sex" was added at the last moment. According to the West Encyclopedia of American Law, Representative Howard W. Smith (D-VA) added the word. His critics argued that Smith, a conservative Southern opponent of federal civil rights, did so to kill the entire bill. Smith, however, argued that he had amended the bill in keeping with his support of Alice Paul and the National Women's Party with whom he had been working. Martha W. Griffiths (D-MI) led the effort to keep the word "sex" in the bill. In the final legislation, Section 703 (a) made it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The final bill also allowed sex to be a consideration when sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. Title VII of the act created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement the law.

Subsequent legislation expanded the role of the EEOC. Today, according to the U. S. Government Manual of 1998-99, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are now protected classes. The proposal to add each group to protected-class status unleashed furious debate. But no words stimulate the passion of the debate more than "affirmative action."

As West defines the term, affirmative action "refers to both mandatory and voluntary programs intended to affirm the civil rights of designated classes of individuals by taking positive action to protect them" from discrimination. The issue for most Americans is fairness: Should the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment be used to advance the liberty of one class of individuals for good reasons when that action may infringe on the liberty of another?

The EEOC, as an independent regulatory body, plays a major role in dealing with this issue. Since its creation in 1964, Congress has gradually extended EEOC powers to include investigatory authority, creating conciliation programs, filing lawsuits, and conducting voluntary assistance programs. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not mention the words affirmative action, it did authorize the bureaucracy to makes rules to help end discrimination. The EEOC has done so.

Today the regulatory authority of the EEOC includes enforcing a range of federal statutes prohibiting employment discrimination. According to the EEOC's own Web site, these include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and its amendments, that prohibits employment discrimination against individuals 40 years of age or older; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in compensation for substantially similar work under similar conditions; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability in both the public and private sector, excluding the federal government; the Civil Rights Act of 1991 that provides for monetary damages in case of intentional discrimination; and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, that prohibits employment discrimination against federal employees with disabilities. Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 forbade gender discrimination in education programs, including athletics that received federal dollars. In the late 1970s Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This made it illegal for employers to exclude pregnancy and childbirth from their sick leave and health benefits plans.

Presidents also weighed in, employing a series of executive orders. The first use of the phrase "affirmative action" in an executive order appeared in March 1961, when President John F. Kennedy signed E.O. 10925. President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered all executive agencies to require federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." A 1969 executive order required that every level of federal service offer equal opportunities for women, and established a program to implement that action. President Richard Nixon's Department of Labor adopted a plan requiring federal contractors to assess their employees to identify gender and race and to set goals to end any under-representation of women and minorities. By the 1990s Democratic and Republican administrations had taken a variety of actions that resulted in 160 different affirmative action federal programs. State and local governments were following suit.

The courts also addressed affirmative action. In addition to dealing with race, color, creed, and age, from the 1970s forward, the court dealt with gender questions. It voided arbitrary weight and height requirements (Dothard v. Rawlinson), erased mandatory pregnancy leaves (Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur), allowed public employers to use carefully constructed affirmative action plans to remedy specific past discrimination that resulted in women and minorities being under-represented in the workplace (Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County), and upheld state and local laws prohibiting gender discrimination.

By the late 1970s all branches of the federal government and most state governments had taken at least some action to fulfill the promise of equal protection under the law. The EEOC served as the agent of implementation and complaint. Its activism divided liberals and conservatives, illuminating their differing views about the proper scope of government. In general, the political liberals embraced the creation of the EEOC as the birth of a federal regulatory authority that could promote the goal of equality by designing policies to help the historically disadvantaged, including women and minorities. In contrast, political conservatives saw the EEOC as a violation of their belief in fewer government regulations and fewer federal policies. To them, creating a strong economy, free from government intervention, would produce gains that would benefit the historically disadvantaged. Even the nonideological segment of the American population asked: What should government do, if anything, to ensure equal protection under the law?

In fiscal year 1997, the EEOC collected $111 million dollars in financial benefits for people who filed claims of discrimination. Its recent successful efforts include a $34 million settlement in a sexual harassment case with Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, resulting in the company's adoption of changes to its sexual harassment prevention policy . Working with state and local programs, the EEOC processes 48,000 claims annually.

You may see the public statement by President Lyndon B. Johnson of July 2, 1964 about the Act below:

The political aspect of the Act of 1964 is below (Courtesy of History.com)

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the Civil Rights Movement.  First proposed by President John F. Kennedy, it survived strong opposition from Southern members of Congress and was then signed into law by Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson.  In subsequent years, Congress expanded the act and also passed additional legislation aimed at bring equality to African Americans, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Lead-up to the Civil Rights Act

Following the Civil War (1861-1865), a trio of constitutional amendments abolished slavery, made the former slaves citizens and gave all men the right to vote regardless of race. Nonetheless, many states--particularly in the South--used poll taxes, literacy tests and other similar measures to keep their African-American residents essentially disenfranchised. They also enforced strict segregation through “Jim Crow” laws and condoned violence from white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan. 

For decades after Reconstruction (1865-1877), the U.S. Congress did not pass a single civil rights act. Finally, in 1957, it established a civil rights section of the Justice Department, along with a Commission on Civil Rights to investigate discriminatory conditions. Three years later, Congress provided for court-appointed referees to help blacks register to vote. Both of these bills were strongly watered down to overcome southern resistance. When John F. Kennedy entered the White House in 1961, he initially delayed in supporting new anti-discrimination measures. But with protests springing up throughout the South – including one in Birmingham, Alabama, where police brutally suppressed nonviolent demonstrators with dogs, clubs and high-pressure fire hoses – Kennedy decided to act. In June 1963 he proposed by far the most comprehensive civil rights legislation to date, saying the United States “will not be fully free until all of its citizens are free.”

The Civil Rights Act Moves Through Congress

Kennedy was assassinated that November in Dallas, after which new President Lyndon B. Johnson immediately took up the cause. “Let this session of Congress be known as the session which did more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined,” Johnson said in his first State of the Union address. During debate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, southerners argued, among other things, that the bill unconstitutionally usurped individual liberties and states’ rights. In a mischievous attempt to sabotage the bill, a Virginia segregationist introduced an amendment to ban employment discrimination against women. That one passed, whereas over 100 other hostile amendments were defeated. In the end, the House approved the bill with bipartisan support by a vote of 290-130. 

The bill then moved to the Senate, where southern and border state Democrats staged a 75-day filibuster --among the longest in U.S. history. On one occasion, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former Ku Klux Klan member, spoke for over 14 consecutive hours. But with the help of behind-the-scenes horse-trading, the bill’s supporters eventually obtained the two-thirds votes necessary to end debate. One of those votes came from California Senator Clair Engle, who, though too sick to speak, signaled “aye” by pointing to his own eye. Having broken the filibuster, the Senate voted 73-27 in favor of the bill, and Johnson signed it into law on July 2, 1964. “It is an important gain, but I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come,” Johnson, a Democrat, purportedly told an aide later that day in a prediction that would largely come true.

Provisions Within the Civil Rights Act

Under the Civil Rights Act, segregation on the grounds of race, religion or national origin was banned at all places of public accommodation, including courthouses, parks, restaurants, theaters, sports arenas and hotels. No longer could blacks and other minorities be denied service simply based on the color of their skin. The act also barred race, religious, national origin and gender discrimination by employers and labor unions, and created an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with the power to file lawsuits on behalf of aggrieved workers. 

Additionally, the act forbade the use of federal funds for any discriminatory program, authorized the Office of Education (now the Department of Education) to assist with school desegregation, gave extra clout to the Commission on Civil Rights and prohibited the unequal application of voting requirements. For famed civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., it was nothing less than a “second emancipation.”

After the Civil Rights Act

The Civil Rights Act was later expanded to bring disabled Americans, the elderly and women in collegiate athletics under its umbrella. It also paved the way for two major follow-up laws: the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited literacy tests and other discriminatory voting practices, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which banned discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of property. Though the struggle against racism would continue, legal segregation had been brought to its knees.

***

Sarah Palin Fights Back Against the Intolerance of the Left, Who Claim to Be the Champions of Those Who Are Disabled

(Above: Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska and Vice Presidential Candidate under John McCain in 2008.)

For nearly 50 years, the Democratic Party has proclaimed itself as the party that champions what the popular cliche states as "the great unwashed."  In the 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama received 95% of all African-American votes, while getting a slightly lesser percentage of 93% in 2012.  In 2012, he received 75% of the Hispanic votes.  Perhaps most telling is the percentage of women who voted for Obama in 2012. According to The Huffington Post, 55% of women voted for Obama, while only 44 percent voted for Mitt Romney. Men preferred Romney by a margin of 52 to 45%, and women made up about 54% of the electorate. In total, the gender gap on Tuesday added up to 18% -- a significantly wider margin than the 12-point gender gap in the 2008 election. While the reasons are clear -- women in America are largely licentious in nature and show no sign of a sense of personal responsibility and accountability -- that is not the topic of this article, and it will be further discussed in another entry.

What is the topic, though, is one of sheer bigotry and hypocrisy on the part of the Left in this country.  During a June 8, 2013 stand-up comedy performance in Las Vegas, Bill Mahar did what I consider to be one most terrible ways of insulting someone.  As many of you know, Palin's youngest son, Trig, is diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Maher, during his stand-up routine, called young Trig "retarded," angering Palin, and brought a rather harsh reply in defense of her son to him. 

As there are no videos online with Mahar making his remark about young Trig, I can, however, provide one where Barbara Walters on The View DEFEND Mahar's actions as a simple act of "ignorance," while Whoopi Goldberg states how our society has transformed the word "retarded" into a bad word because the word makes people "feel bad":

Of course, since Mahar is a liberal and, too, are Walters and Goldberg, they were willing to make excuses for him, and state that perhaps society was too sensitive to the word "retarded" when it decided to changed the manner in which people should refer to the mentally disabled.  There is an even greater observation to be made, however.  Liberals are always guilty of political correctness.  Rather than calling members of the black community "the N-word," they choose to use the term "African-Americans" because it is less offensive.  A liberal once tried to defend his manner of describing the situation with women becoming combatants in the military after I stated very bluntly that the number of rapes and sexual harassment lawsuits that would be brought before the courts would skyrocket by saying that "I just don't want to hurt their feelings unlike you conservatives."  We know better, though.  For the purposes of political expediency, a member of the political Left will say or do just about anything to propagate those policies which he or she champions.  To the contrary, when a conservative such as Sarah Palin defends her mentally-challenged son, Trig, who afflicted with Down Syndrome, she is accused of being "too rash," "too impetuous," etc.  

Conclusion: A Heartfelt Set of Admissions that Lead Me to My Total and Complete Disgust of Mahar and Those of His Political Persuasion Claiming to Championing Minorities of All Walks of Life

While I have been guilty in my life of saying the following words or phrases "retard," "that's retarded," or worse, "fucktard," I have come to greatly regret doing so.  The reason I rarely make a practice of saying the word as a derogatory term, unlike when I used to volunteer with special needs children in mostly preschool classes as a teenager during my summers off from school at the Knox County Schools Extended School Year Program during the 1990's when the accepted terminology for describing a child or any individual who was intellectually delayed were the terms "mental retardation," "mentally retarded," and "profound," is because my sister, who is not quite three full years my junior in age, was diagnosed with autism during the summer of 1988 at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.  While in the interest of maintaining her privacy I will not give any further personal details regarding her life, she is perhaps my greatest inspiration in life for having accomplished what things I have been fortunate enough to have done.  Like her, I also have a pair of disabilities as I suffer from the dual diagnoses of bipolar disorder and OCD.  During the Fall 2000 semester at the University of Tennessee after events within the School of Music did not work out as I had hoped, I left the school and transferred to a local community college on the third day of classes.  Upon doing so, I began my lifelong journey of battling mental illness when I experienced my first bout with clinical depression. Little did my family or I know at the time that my problems were far more serious than simply situational depression. My battles with mental illness, simply because many in the general public are frightened by unknown, have lost me many friends over the course of nearly 13 full years.  

For my sister, however, the battle is far more arduous.  While I am unmarried and still in the process of getting my life in order, she will never know the generally-accepted things in everyday life most "normal" people will simply take for granted, and that that is a terrible shame.  But I posit before you the following questions:  "What is normal?  What is this concept of normalcy? Is there any real anomalies in The Eyes of God?"  We are all His children whether or not we wish to accept this fact, and our diversity, while sometimes unbalanced and uneven, is perhaps His greatest gift.  I can say about my sister, however, that she is the happiest individual I have ever known.  While she cannot work because of the severity of her autism and she thus remains at home watching TV and listening to the radio everyday, I have never known a soul more content with his or her lot in life as I have seen in her.  She smiles 95% of the time, and she is always coming up to my parents and myself whenever she sees us to interact in some form of fashion, often times either blowing us kisses or actually "duck kissing" us on the mouth.  She always is desirous of hugs, of which the tighter and firmer they are, the more enjoyable for her. If only everyone -- myself included -- were more content with the gift of life God has bequeathed to each and every individual on Earth regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, or if a person is disabled, the world would be a far more hospitable place, free of not only such relatively minor things in the grand scheme of events as bigotry and intolerance, but of war and poverty brought upon those people based on either political ineptitude or a dictatorship that subjugates its citizens to inhumane living conditions in order to maintain his or its stranglehold on absolute power, or in the case of the United States and the Western nations in Europe where we see millions of people impoverished in societies where the vast majority are living relatively well not because of the a fore mentioned political shortcomings, but because of laziness brought upon by irresponsibility and a lack of accountability propagated by the messages that engaging in class warfare is a worthwhile virtue by those governments.  While I will not go into further detail about the rise in poverty during the Obama administration in which our nation is now experiencing a record number of people living on welfare, the government over the course of the past 80 years has transformed the mentality of America from ones of liberty, manifest destiny, and the mentality that through God, all things are possible and so, too, is the achievement of the American Dream, a concept first explored by the French American Hector St. John de Crevecoeur in his classic work, Letters of an American Farmer (1782).  The definition behind what is an American can be founding within the prose of Letter III (Courtesy of The University of Virginia Department of American Studies):

"What then is the American, this new man?  ...He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds.  He has become an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater.  Here individuals of all races are melted into a new race of man, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.  Americans are the western pilgrims."

(from Letter III, 1782) 

While not everyone can be equal in every conceivable fashion with regards to the daily functions within our society, all are free under The Law of God, and are thus equal in His eyes because we are all His children. Liberals such as Bill Mahar, Barbara Walters, and Whoopi Goldberg do not believe this to be true, unfortunately, and while they espouse the Left's position that it or they is or are the champions of the French Revolution's perversion of the trio of terms "liberté, égalité, fraternité," what they really mean is more in line with the Orwellian line near the conclusion of his famous book Animal Farm, which was published in the United Kingdom on August 17, 1945:

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

To close, I will post another video, one that is more insufferable in who made the insult than the case with Mahar insulting young Trig Palin.  It is from none other than former-Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama in June 2009, where he compared his poor bowling skills to that of special needs individuals who participate in the Special Olympics.  As an event created by Sargent Shriver, a member of the Kennedy family, the family who was chiefly responsible for the shaping of the modern Democratic Party after 1960, not only is he incompetent as our president, he is a poor representative to one of the few foundations and achievements I found to be favorable with regards to the achievements of those in his party, as well as his being a moral profligate.

Here below is the clip.  Out of its brevity speaks a lifetime of words about the man who has destroyed in just four and a half years the American way of life and the belief that each one of us has an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream: