I am not going to get into politicians and pundits waving their wet fingers in the air to get a sense of the wind on this one. Forget the vagaries of the silly season — three months before an election, as important as one might think that is. I am not going to get into local vs. national responsibility, where it should or should not be built — two blocks, 10 blocks, in another state. I am not even going to get into religious freedom or the First Amendment or the history of building churches and synagogues in this country.
This is directed at all the people who claim they are all for the First Amendment rights of the Muslims who want to construct a mosque at the 9/11 site but insist it's an "insult" to build it there — a "stab in the heart," as Sarah Palin puts it, for the millions who have intense feelings about the Sept. 11 attacks. More than one politician cries out that the proposed Islamic center would violate "sacred ground.”
Question: What do you think about the plans of Glenn Beck to hold a "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial? Did I mention it is scheduled 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" rally on the very same spot?
It is a little startling to hear Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox Business publicly
explaining to millions of viewers ideas that were considered seditious and
marginal five years ago.
Tea Party ideas demonized by the MSM. Crazy Jeffersonian ideas from the Libertarian ghetto suggesting that states have sovereign rights protected by the Constitution. “Are you serious?” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) replied when the idea was first suggested to her.
The Hill invites two established bloggers from either side of the political spectrum to sound off in original commentary.
The ease with which the NAACP and other organizations dismiss the Tea Party debate by crying racism — and the vitriol reserved for those black Americans who deigned to disagree — tells us that the same old racial fault lines remain in this country.
While racial discrimination is nowhere near the insurmountable barrier it once was, we still can’t seem to get beyond the same old paradigms: Blacks must support the Democrats and anyone who thinks otherwise is labeled a racist — something we've seen reprised in recent months regarding Obama.
The NAACP is expected to approve a resolution today condemning the Tea Party movement for "explicitly racist behavior."
I would require a flow chart to explain all of the ways that this is wrong.
For starters, the mere act of criticizing a black president is not racist. Nor is it racist to raise public consciousness of the very important issues of spiraling debt, misguided bailouts and a series of social policies that may bankrupt the country.
Earlier today I had the opportunity to attend the United States Commission on
Civil Rights’ hearing on the U.S. Department of Justice and the New Black
Panther Party litigation. The testimony by the hearing's lone witness, former
DoJ lawyer J. Christian Adams, was nothing short of extraordinary.
During the 2008 presidential election, members of the New Black Panther Party were caught on videotape brandishing a nightstick and hurling racial taunts at white and black voters as they sought entry to a polling station in Philadelphia.
Changes to the Constitution have increased enfranchisement of the electorate (every citizen, upon reaching the age of 18, is granted the right to vote, regardless of color, class, education, ethnicity or other superficiality in the eyes of the law) and granted us greater authority in choosing our leaders (for instance, the 17th Amendment allows senators to be chosen directly by the people of their respective states).
It is this history and coveted freedom that Americans should commemorate as they exalt their country this July 4, 2010 — a day to celebrate the generations of men and women who have sacrificed their time, energy and, often, their lives in order to build a better country.
Make no mistake, Rand Paul is NOT a racist. He merely holds a very extreme view, at odds with the Constitution. He said, very clearly, to Rachel Maddow, that he would prefer the law not prohibit discrimination by private-sector firms that do not receive federal funds.
I have no doubt that in his life, Rand Paul treats all people fairly and decently. And I have always tried to be fair to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). In some areas, such as auditing the Federal Reserve, I agree with him.
Thirty years ago I had an essay in the Philadelphia Inquirer making the point that racial integration in the South had become a project primarily to satisfy the white liberal imagination of Northern people rather than to advance the economic progress of black people in the South. While the South had effectively integrated in the 1960s, the North and Philadelphia, where I lived, had not.