She opens by saying: “There has been much controversy regarding my Uncle Martin’s view on abortion. I have always stated that my uncle was pro-life and would never support Planned Parenthood. There are those that contend that because he was given the PPFA Margaret Sanger Award from PPH (follow link Martin Luther King, Jr. and Planned Parenthood) that he was indeed pro-choice and would today support them. First of all, my uncle was a man of non-violence as evident by the 10 commandments of non-violence that all those working in the civil rights movement with him had to sign (scroll to bottom of page). He often spoke out against violence and for peaceful protests. Abortion is nothing but violence.”

I’ve heard her speak of this many times. While not explained in this article, Alveda has said that Planned Parenthood tried to convince Alveda’s mom to abort her, but Uncle Martin came to the rescue. She tells what happened here: http://endingabortion.com/event (scroll down to bottom of the page, Alveda speaks during the last session).

She also explained that Uncle Martin wouldn’t accept the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood, so the PP folks engineered Coretta Scott to accept it on his behalf and they wrote the acceptance speech too. Have to dig up that recording, but, in the meantime, here’s Alveda King telling us to “stop killing the dream”:

CONTACT: Jay Collins
Libertas Global Partners
Jay@libertasglobal.com

What would you do if you realized that what you believe and what you practice don’t line up?

This was the question facing Ron Miller, author of the new book SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom’s Porch, once he left home and began to ponder the values with which he was raised and the political allegiances he inherited from his parents. Miller says, “Once I left my parents’ home, I concluded I couldn’t practice my faith and support liberal policies.

“That epiphany was the beginning of a journey that brought me personal peace but pitted me against the overwhelming majority of my own race,” says Miller. “When my mother asks me why I align myself with conservatives, my reply is, ‘Because you raised me that way.’”

“In SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom’s Porch, I take on the volatile mix of politics, race and faith, and I do so with complete openness and vulnerability, using my personal story as the jumping off point for a wide-ranging discussion on the role of the black church, the active practice of faith in the public square, the disintegration of the black family brought about by the rejection of God’s Word and the replacement of God with government,” explains Miller.

Regarding the disproportionate impact of abortion on the black community and the black church’s blind eye to the slaughter, Miller declares, “There will be an accounting one day, not just for the millions of babies murdered, but also for all the people led astray from obedience to God for political purposes.”

From beginning to end, the author’s faith is the catalyst for his personal transformation, struggles and eventual peace, and his public political activism. SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom’s Porch is a provocative and revealing portrait of a black conservative who ultimately sold out to Christ alone.

Join Ron Miller for His Official Book Launch
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

The Army and Navy Club
901 17th Street Northwest
Washington, DC

What Others Are Saying
“African Americans have been told for two generations that they are supposed to be liberal. Ron Miller’s journey serves as an affirmation that it is okay to be both black and conservative.” ~Niger Innis, national spokesperson, Congress On Racial Equality

“Ron offers a personal, poignant and spiritual account of a journey through the quagmire of race in America, a journey that leads to redemption for all. Challenging and conciliatory, Americans of all races will be stirred by this book.” ~Ken Blackwell, co-author of the No. 1 bestselling book The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency

Black conservative Ron Miller’s gutsy new book Sellout: Musings from Uncle Tom’s Porch couldn’t be more timely as the NAACP and other liberals are charging the Tea Parties with racism and – in the wake of President Obama’s election, no less – Shirley Sherrod’s husband Charles claims that black people can no longer let “the white man steal elections” and they must oust  “Uncle Toms.”

Ron Miller says that now we have millions of good and decent Americans who oppose the Obama Administration being called racists, as if half of all the people who at first approved of his performance donned white robes and hoods overnight. Disagree with the biggest spendthrift in presidential history? Racist. Hold two veteran lawmakers (Reps. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and Maxine Waters (D-CA)) accountable for abusing the public trust? Racist. We are more divided by race than we’ve been in decades.

Thus, Ron takes on all the players of the race card in his new book, “SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom’s Porch.” This personal, candid and compelling account of one black conservative’s journey leaves no stone unturned and lets no race baiters off the hook. He exposes the real sellouts, the black liberals and their white sponsors who’ve treated the black community like lab rats for 45 years. The experiment must end, people are dying or living without hope while black preachers and politicians line their pockets and keep the lie of racism alive.

To order a signed copy of Sellout for yourself, family, friends or neighbors as pre-election Christmas gifts, here’s the direct link: http://www.teamronmiller.com/sellout.php and it’s also on Amazon.

As Ron’s editor and contributor, I echo bestselling author Ken Blackwell in saying, “Ron offers a personal, poignant and spiritual account of a journey through the quagmire of race in America, a journey that leads to redemption for all. Challenging and conciliatory, Americans of all races will be stirred by this book.”

Sellout isn’t some dry political narrative. It’s very personal on every count because Ron Miller exposes the failed liberal experiment, he speaks to the dignity of his fellow Americans and he shares his deeply moving memoir.

Chapter 9, “Trials of Many Kinds,” is my favorite because Ron reveals what it meant to be FEMA’s chief information officer during the 9/11 crisis, the consequences of working for then-Director Joe Allbaugh, and the sometimes comical weirdness of Washington. I dare anyone to keep a dry eye while reading about Ron’s run for the Maryland legislature, his son’s love, the agony of defeat and the answer Ron received when he wailed to God asking, “Why?”

At this time in history as so many Americans fear losing everything from their rights to their businesses or jobs and homes, Ron’s faith, courage and intelligence are inspiring.

In Sellout, Ron Miller boldly discusses these topics:
-Are we truly “a nation of cowards” on race?
-How and why he became a conservative Republican
-The damage done by the liberal ‘experiment’  on the black community
-The sellout of the black church to liberal politics over God’s Word
-The chances for reconciliation between blacks and the GOP
-The black community’s defense of scoundrels
-His personal experiences with the civil rights movement and racism
-Interracial dating and marriage
-Seeking God’s will in life and politics
-Should blacks love America?
-Is the Tea Party movement racist?
-Where do we go from here?

Ron Miller is a conservative commentator who writes extensively about identity politics and the repercussions of placing race above values, emphasizing the harmful effects of liberal policies on the black community.

Ron is executive director of Regular Folks United, an organization dedicated to the advancement of liberty and our nation’s founding principles. The nine-year plus veteran of the U.S. Air Force and married father of three writes columns for RegularFolksUnited.com and other publications.

He is an outspoken advocate for free enterprise, low taxes and reasonable regulation, limited and effective government focused on national security, public safety and administering justice, traditional two-parent families and the sanctity of human life.

From 2001 to 2004, Ron Miller served in the federal government as a senior executive with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, then the Department of Homeland Security, and finally with the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Members of the Freedmen Band of the Cherokee Nation protest the Bureau of Indian Affairs at its Muskogee, Oklahoma office in September 2008.

The lengthy saga of the black Cherokees fighting racism in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is slowly but surely moving forward. To understand the crux of the cases, see a brief but thorough report in last year’s story Who’s the racist now?

Before we get to the most recent statement by the Freedmen’s leader Marilyn Vann and their lead counsel Jon Velie, a few notes.

Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA), author of the 2009 bill to defund the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma until the Freedmen are reinstated, is retiring at the end of her term. It remains to be seen whether any other members of Congress will carry a torch for the black Cherokees. Incidentally, the CNO’s Washington office, probably a great expense to the tribe, has only one item on its website’s “Current Issues” section – an old complaint about Watson’s bill.

As you may recall from last year’s story, the CNO filed a lawsuit against itself in its own court but in the name of black Cherokee Raymond Nash. It did this without his knowledge and the case was heard a year ago, but still there is no ruling. The delayed ruling is hardly a surprise because the CNO also filed a lawsuit against Nash and other black Cherokees in federal court. Now for the latest on that case.

On July 2, 2010, Oklahoma Northern District Court Judge Terrance Kern transferred the case Cherokee Nation v. Nash et al to Washington, DC. The Oklahoma filed action will be tried along with the Cherokee freedmen case Vann et al v. Salazar, filed in August 2003 in the Washington, DC District court of Honorable Judge Henry Kennedy.

Issues in both cases deal with the rights of Cherokee freedmen tribal members (descendants of free mixed African Indians and blacks enslaved with the protection of Cherokee Nation government policies prior to the end of the Civil War) based on the 1866 treaty between the U.S. government and the Cherokee Nation which guaranteed citizenship to persons of African descent living in the Cherokee Nation at the beginning of the Civil War.

In the Washington, DC case, defendants are the Department of Interior and Cherokee Chief Chad Smith. In the Oklahoma case, defendants are five individual plaintiffs who are registered as Cherokee freedmen tribal members as well as the U.S. Department of Interior. In the Oklahoma case, both legal counsels for the U.S. Department of Interior as well as the Cherokee freedmen tribal members had filed motions requesting that the Oklahoma case be transferred to the Washington, DC federal court.

Marilyn Vann, president of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association and band chief of the Freedmen Band of Cherokee Nation, said, “We are extremely happy with the decision of the Northern District Court that permits the five freedmen which were sued by their own nation the ability to fight for justice in DC where the Freedmen Band which has been prosecuting the same issues in the Washington, DC court since they were denied the right to vote and run for office in 2003.

“We eagerly await the day when all descendants of Dawes enrolled Cherokee freedmen can register/reregister as Cherokee Nation tribal members, vote and run for tribal political office as promised to our ancestors by the U.S. government and tribal officials in 1866. Just as the U.S. government owed protection of citizenship rights to descendants of blacks in Mississippi who had been enslaved by U.S. government policies, so does the Cherokee Nation owe protection of citizenship rights to descendants of black persons whose ancestors were forced to endure chattel slavery under the blessing and protection of Cherokee Nation government policies.”

Jon Velie, lead counsel for the Cherokee Freedmen in both the Oklahoma and Washington, DC filed cases, said, “The Northern District decision to transfer the case brought by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma against five individual freedmen turned on the fact that that the case had essentially the same issues as the case brought by the Cherokee Freedmen Band and several individual freedmen in Washington, DC, which was the first filed case. Another matter of interest was the court’s finding that the tribe had waived sovereign immunity by filing the case especially while the DC court action was still pending. The DC Court of Appeals has previously held in 2008 that the 13^th Amendment and the treaty of 1866 have whittled away the tribe’s right to discriminate against the freedmen.”

Lest we forget, Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, condemned the United States as “a nation of cowards” who discriminates against its black citizens. In that Black History Month speech, Holder also promised, “[T]his Department of Justice, so long as I am here, must and will lead the nation to the new birth of freedom so long ago promised by our greatest president.” However, under Holder the Justice Department is helping the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (CNO) to expel its own black citizens, the descendants of Cherokee slaves known as “Freedmen.”

According to our 1866 Treaty with the Cherokee Nation, Cherokee Freedmen and their descendents “shall have all the rights of native Cherokees.” These rights include voting in tribal elections, per capita representation in Cherokee government, as well as assets and benefits bestowed by the U.S. Department of the Interior through its Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

Since the treaty can be abrogated only by an act of Congress, in 2007 Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) introduced a bill to cease federal funding of the Cherokee Nation until the Freedmen’s rights would be restored. She also requested support from presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). As reported in The Hill, Obama refused in 2008. In part, he replied, “Discrimination anywhere is intolerable, but the Cherokee are dealing with this issue in both tribal and federal courts.” Watson’s bill died with the 110th Congress. Nevertheless, Obama’s golden opportunity has arrived. The 1866 Treaty, a supreme federal law, says the president of the United States “is hereby authorized and empowered to correct such evil.”

Justice Department v. Black Cherokees

While Bill Clinton was president, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma attempted to expel its Freedmen in 2000. Consequently, the Interior Department withheld funding to that tribal nation because it had violated its 1866 Treaty with the United States. As George W. Bush was president, the Seminole Nation filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Interior Secretary Gale Norton, and it lost the case in 2002. Federal funding resumed to the Seminole Nation after its Freedmen were reinstated.

Likewise, over the centuries, the Cherokee Nation has attempted to disenfranchise its black citizens. Under Chadwick Smith, principal chief since 1999, the matter has come to a full-blown crisis because he claims that the Freedmen have no tribal rights unless they can prove Cherokee blood through the federal government’s Dawes Rolls.

From 1898 to 1907, the scene for racism was set by government agents who took the Dawes Rolls to determine members of the Cherokee Nation. Jon Velie, lead counsel for the Cherokee Freedmen, explained that those agents took it upon themselves to segregate people according to perceived race. “As a result,” said Velie, “the Freedmen were subjected to Jim Crow laws and other forms of state-sanctioned discrimination.”

On the Dawes Rolls, some persons are labeled as “Cherokee by Blood” and others as “Cherokee Freedmen.” Yet the 1866 Treaty lacks any requirement of Indian blood for Cherokee Freedmen to be tribal citizens.

Still, under Smith in 2003, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma denied certain Freedmen their right to citizenship, and others with Cherokee voter cards were physically blocked from the polls. Smith was reelected and an illegal ballot measure was passed to remove federal oversight of amendments to the Cherokee Constitution.

Therefore, Marilyn Vann established the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association in Oklahoma City. She and numerous other black Cherokees filed a 2003 federal lawsuit against Secretary Norton in the same court that settled the Seminole case.

Ironically, like many Freedmen, Vann has Cherokee blood. She said, “I am a person of mixed African, Cherokee and Chickasaw descent. As a Freedman, my citizenship is guaranteed by the Treaty of 1866. But Chief Chad Smith uses some of the Cherokee Nation’s hundreds of millions of dollars to file frivolous lawsuits against the Freedmen and block the progression of our federal lawsuit.”

Smith, a lawyer, and his attorneys have tediously delayed the Vann case. He and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma were inserted as defendants. Meanwhile, the BIA permitted violations to the 1866 Treaty. Then, after Vann and her fellow Freedmen won a Dec. 2006 hearing, Smith and the CNO filed an appeal.

In May 2008, five hired guns, including Cherokee Nation contract lobbyist and lawyer Lanny Davis, represented Smith and the tribe in the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In July 2008, Judge Thomas Griffith issued the court’s decision that Vann, et al, may proceed with their lawsuit against tribal officers, but a district court must determine whether they can sue the Cherokee Nation itself.

Griffith wrote, “Denying the Freedmen the right to vote in tribal elections violates the Thirteenth Amendment and the 1866 Treaty, so the Cherokee Nation cannot claim tribal sovereign immunity against a suit complaining of such a badge and incident of slavery. … The tribe does not just lack a ‘special sovereignty interest’ in discriminatory elections – it lacks any sovereign interest in such behavior.”

Currently the case is pending against Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Smith.

Nevertheless, 11 days after Obama was inaugurated, Justice Department lawyer Amber Blaha filed a hefty motion to dismiss the Vann case. So the court’s decision could disenfranchise an estimated 25,000 black Cherokees and their descendents, but Eric “New Birth of Freedom” Holder hasn’t withdrawn the motion to dismiss it.

Cherokee Nation v. Citizen Nash

In 2007, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma further breached the 1866 Treaty with a constitutional amendment expelling its Freedmen.

Freedman Raymond Nash, a resident of Nowata, Oklahoma, who earns his living as home improvement contractor, voted against the amendment via absentee ballot.

After the vote, the CNO registrar sent some 2,800 black Cherokees notice of tribal disenrollment, indicating they had 30 days to send a written appeal. When 386 replied, the CNO filed a class-action lawsuit in its own District Court of the Cherokee Nation as Raymond Nash v. Cherokee Nation Registrar.

Nash said, “People had been calling me and asking what this case is. I said, ‘No. It can’t be me because I don’t know [any]thing about this.’”

The CNO court provided an attorney to represent Nash and the other so-called plaintiffs. When that attorney was disbarred, the court appointed Ralph Keen II, a 2003 tribal council member. Keen said the suit was filed according to tribal law. He also admitted, “I’m not sure they [the Freedmen] realized anything because the notice that was mailed out by the Cherokee Nation did not offer a good description of the legal appeal process.” Jon Velie said Nash didn’t receive notice until two years after the CNO filed this suit in his name. Keen said he notified the Freedmen 30 days prior to the July 17, 2009, hearing for summary judgment and the Cherokee court’s decision is pending. Keen also said, “And if we prevail, we could literally render the two federal actions moot.”

Evidently, filing the tribal case in Raymond Nash’s name wasn’t pleasure enough for Smith and his collaborators. On Feb. 3, 2009 – the same day that Holder took his oath of office – the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma filed a federal lawsuit against Nash and four other black Cherokees, plus Secretary Salazar, in the U.S. District Court for Northern Oklahoma. Again Velie said the Cherokee Nation didn’t notify Nash or his fellow defendants, but he found out and took up their case. In other words, the unsuspecting black Cherokees could have lost rights for all Freedmen as soon as they failed to show up in court. Furthermore, Mike Miller, communications officer for the CNO, didn’t dispute Velie’s claim.

Keen has petitioned the court to intervene for the Freedmen in this case, but Velie opposes it as another CNO attempt to be on both sides. In May, under Holder’s nose, anti-Freedmen Justice Department lawyer Blaha filed as Salazar’s defense attorney. The case is stalled as all parties await court decisions.

The President’s Power

Considering the Freedmen’s plight, on April 30, 2009, Rep. Diane Watson and six other U.S. representatives, including John Lewis (D-GA), sent Attorney General Holder a letter requesting that he launch a full investigation. So far, Holder has not replied.

Excluding the Freedmen, Mike Miller estimates 290,000 Cherokee citizens. He said, “Congress has unilaterally shredded many aspects of the Treaty of 1866 and one of those aspects had to do with the treaty rights of non-Indians.” He also said that federal courts “have specifically stated that non-Indian freedmen descendants do not have the right to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.”

As noted above, federal judges of the Vann case have ruled precisely the opposite.

Thus, on June 8, Watson introduced a House bill to sever government relations between the United States and the Cherokee Nation until the CNO restores full tribal rights to its Freedmen.

Watson’s bill threatens losses of at least $380 million in annual federal funding to the CNO, $5 million in stimulus funds, plus the other assets and benefits. In March, when Smith testified before a House appropriations subcommittee, he referred to the 1866 Treaty to bolster his request for a $40 million increase to cover health services in 2010. Yet according to Smith’s agenda, and despite ever increasing Cherokee casino revenues ($441.2 million in 2008), Freedmen would be ineligible. In fact, one Freedman in the Vann case was denied treatment for glaucoma until she got legal assistance. And on the CNO website, Smith decries Watson’s bill as an injustice to the needy, but he expects Obama to do nothing for the Freedmen.

No wonder. On June 15, President Obama rewarded the rogue Cherokee Nation by announcing the new position of senior policy advisor for Indian Affairs. He appointed Kimberly Tehee, a Cherokee, and said, “[S]he will provide a direct interface at the highest level of my administration.”

Now, under Eric Holder, the Justice Department is trying to prove his absurd notion that the United States is a nation of cowards. Blacks in Nowata tell 62-year-old Raymond Nash that there must be a reason he’s the Cherokee Nation’s sacrificial Freedman. Indeed there is reason and President Obama has the lawful power to end it. New York Times, Huffington Post, and MSNBC, do tell us: Who is a racist?