Civil Rights

Justice for Jena?

The mistreatment of the “Jena Six,” as they’re being called more and more frequently, is atrocious. However, it’s not horrible because of race, but because of injustice through a double standard. Where are we as a society when a district attorney can walk into a school and threaten a particular group of people regardless of their deeds? Does the name Nifong ring any bells?

Where's the Outrage over the Jena 6?

Just when I was wondering whatever happened to Jesse Jackson, he pops up to accuse Barack Obama of “acting like he’s white” — for not making a bigger deal about recent events in Jena, La.

He’s wrong about Obama, who has condemned what happened in Jena. But Jackson’s right about this: Why aren’t we all more outraged about what’s going on down there? And why aren’t we hearing more about Jena, and less about O.J.? 

Gays and Children

While, in my opinion, the Maryland Appeals Court got it wrong with its decision upholding the state's ban on gay marriages, the ruling was precisely correct in defining what the uproar is all about.

Here's what the majority wrote: "Marriage enjoys its fundamental status due, in large part, to its link to procreation."

They're right on the money. Matrimony is not about living happily ever after, or even until the couple splits up. It's about the primal need to maintain the species.

The Great Democratic Surrender

Use it or lose it. That’s the first lesson of political power — and one Democrats still haven’t learned. Look what happened last weekend, before they ran out of town.

After Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush deliberately broke the law. Ordered the National Security Agency to tap the phones of law-abiding Americans without getting a warrant from the court, as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires.

Democrats have raised hell about that for a couple of years now, and rightfully so. The FISA court is there for a reason. And it’s the law, which even presidents are expected to obey. 

‘Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death’

In today’s edition of The Hill newspaper I wrote an op-ed with the hope of initiating a serious discussion about how much freedom we should give in, in return for how much safety.

In recent days Congress passed and the president signed a new law that significantly increases the scope of domestic eavesdropping without any serious debate considering the magnitude of the issue.

It was done, yet again, in an atmosphere of fear, which in my view is unworthy of the people and Congress of our nation. I am reposting the op-ed here and if others are interested, hope we can begin a serious discussion, and I would be glad to respond to comments, questions and thoughts.

Return of the Junior G-Men

J. Edgar Hoover is grinning in his grave.

The FBI’s adopted a plan to recruit 15,000 covert informants in the United States to help keep America safe. Their job? Reporting to the FBI anybody “suspicious” — in other words, anybody with a different accent, skin color, lifestyle, hairstyle, religion or sexual orientation.

To My Colleague Ron Christie, on the NAACP

It is interesting you turn the NAACP meeting into another defense of the Libby commutation, and ignore the one question you could be offering an important opinion about, which is this:

Don’t you agree with me, that it is profoundly unwise for Republican presidential candidates, with only one exception, to disrespect the NAACP and simply refuse to attend?

There have been other African American-related meetings, and there will be more, and the common denominator is that the Republican presidential candidates give them the back of their hand.

Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade Are in Mortal Peril

The United States Supreme Court is moving to reverse long-cherished American notions of constitutional law.

The divisions that plague American society have invaded the sanctity of the court, with angry dissents and at times personal criticism among justices that illustrate both the passions and dangers of the debate.

These events escalate a pattern of extreme actions that violate cardinal American ideals on matters including torture, the Geneva Convention, attacks on the Bill of Rights, presidential assertions of authority to violate statutes with non-binding statements, secrecy of unprecedented scope, the inability of Congress to perform its historic function of preventing executive abuse, and now a bitterly divided Supreme Court that threatens values long thought to be part of our national consensus.

As The Jim Crow Flies

Now for a quote: “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

That of course is the key finding in the 1954 landmark Brown decision, written by the chief justice, Earl Warren.

Now another definition from Webster’s — actually three synonyms — for chutzpah: Nerve, temerity, gall.

Using it in a sentence: “This chief justice, John Roberts, has a lot chutzpah having the nerve, the temerity, the GALL to claim that Brown supports his ruling against the Seattle and Louisville, Ky., school programs, which aim to promote DEsegregation.

It is true. Affirmative action, which is what this is, favors one race over another, as a factor in the struggle to achieve diversity. We claim as a nation that we support the idea of races and ethnic groups living together.

Meritocracy vs. Bureaucracy

On a stage last night in Washington, D.C., 10 Democratic presidential candidates took turns criticizing this week’s Supreme Court’s decision banning school districts from using race as a criterion to assign pupils to public schools. Those of you who have been asleep for the last 50 years might have thought this practice was banned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, but liberals have resurrected the practice in the name of “diversity.” The Supreme Court quite rightly noted such a reason was not sufficiently compelling to invalidate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which liberals in other circumstances have held to be sacrosanct.