Recently the NAACP passed a resolution against the tea party condemning what it stated where racist elements within the tea party. Shortly after it was passed Ben Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP stated "Expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take the responsibility for them and their actions. We will no longer allow you to hide like cowards.'' Wow, how civil and open minded of the man.
Now lets get one thing straight. The Tea Party movement was founded on a belief in responsible government and as a reaction to the policies of the Obama administration which many Americans disagree with. While I have yet to see any supposed "racist" signs at any pictures of this rally I will proceed with the assumption that they are there somewhere on the outskirts of these events as more of a fringe element. Now most people will acknowledge that you have a few "crazies" and the fringe at just about any event, family, or organization and that they, the fringe, are to be considered representative of the movement as a whole. In fact in one interview with a NAACP rep he acknowledged that yes, they know it's just the far out fringe and that the Tea Party has little to no involvement in that part of their ideology, but gosh all the NAACP really wants is for some leader of the Tea Party, whomever that may be since it's a grassroots movement, to come forward and denounce these activities.
The accusation here is nothing more than a red herring and so far as I can see those who are identified as part of the Tea Party movement have done the right thing in calling it what it is and refusing to bow to the needs of some thin skinned race baiters. Let them go pound sand and shout to the heavens in indignation for all conservatives care. We will not bow down and ask forgiveness for a sin we have not committed no apologize for a wrong in which members of the NAACP organization acknowledge there is no proof of. If there is to be a discussion between conservatives in the tea party and the NAACP than it should center around the issues of fiscal responsibility. Sit down at a table and talk over these differences and see if some common ground may be found and the tea party will find a way to gain a more diverse crowd at their rallies. The first thing that will need to happen though is the NAACP will need to rescind their resolution condemning these elements because such a measure undermines any effort by either organization towards mutual respect.
Only when the rights of both are respected despite differing political views can progress be made in national dialogue in this country. No greater example of the good that such a dialogue can bring can be found in our own founder father's debate and discussion over the union of our great country. If the best of mankind can find that out and work together over the petty politicians this world will be a great place. Till than it will be the same snipes and gripes that do nothing but keep us all down and worse yet, divided.
-Zach
Ref: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/17/1734535/naacp-made-the-right-call-on-racists.html#ixzz0u38D7vqo
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The Second Amendment. Why is this so difficult?
Recently the supreme court, in a case similar to DC V Heller, struck down a hand gun ban in Chicago in McDonald V Chicago. The vote on this case, again like two years ago, was split down the middle 5-4 with the court deciding that the second amendment allows individuals the right own firearms and that no form of government may take this right away.
WOW, amazing right? Truly revolutionary, or at least that's probably what our founding fathers were thinking when they made it the second amendment in the bill of rights. Those would be the same bill of rights that all states across the U.S. made clear would be required for them to ratify the constitution. You see they were concerned that without such a bill of rights a government might start to take their individual rights away. Those crazy overreacting colonists, like THAT could ever happen.
Anyway, what I wrote above any person with a high school diploma who has attended a basic US History course could tell you. It's that simple to understand that the second amendment is an individual right and yet for the second time in TWO years 4 very highly educated supreme court justices have answered in the negative when asked what the second amendment. In both cases it has been made clear that the four dissenting justices are applying their own personal views to how they will make their judgements with goes beyond their responsibilities as judges, which is simply to interpret and uphold the constitutionality of our system of government. Their actions have left us with a dangerous situation where if they acquire one more vote like them they have gone from a neutral arbitrating body to one that effectively is seeking to set policy and write laws themselves.
Folks, this is not something that should be taken lightly. If we as a country think it is unwise for people to own firearms than we have the option of repealing the second amendment through our representatives. THAT is the proper channel to make such a change and our constitution is set up as such to prevent government tyranny over individual liberty. When a Supreme Court has such a hard time making such an easy call as to what the hell the second amendment is we are very close to finding ourselves in a situation where that safety net the founding fathers gave us is now gone. I urge all that hear this to write to your local papers and your representatives making it clear that this kind of conduct from judges on this countries high court is simply not acceptable.
-Zach
WOW, amazing right? Truly revolutionary, or at least that's probably what our founding fathers were thinking when they made it the second amendment in the bill of rights. Those would be the same bill of rights that all states across the U.S. made clear would be required for them to ratify the constitution. You see they were concerned that without such a bill of rights a government might start to take their individual rights away. Those crazy overreacting colonists, like THAT could ever happen.
Anyway, what I wrote above any person with a high school diploma who has attended a basic US History course could tell you. It's that simple to understand that the second amendment is an individual right and yet for the second time in TWO years 4 very highly educated supreme court justices have answered in the negative when asked what the second amendment. In both cases it has been made clear that the four dissenting justices are applying their own personal views to how they will make their judgements with goes beyond their responsibilities as judges, which is simply to interpret and uphold the constitutionality of our system of government. Their actions have left us with a dangerous situation where if they acquire one more vote like them they have gone from a neutral arbitrating body to one that effectively is seeking to set policy and write laws themselves.
Folks, this is not something that should be taken lightly. If we as a country think it is unwise for people to own firearms than we have the option of repealing the second amendment through our representatives. THAT is the proper channel to make such a change and our constitution is set up as such to prevent government tyranny over individual liberty. When a Supreme Court has such a hard time making such an easy call as to what the hell the second amendment is we are very close to finding ourselves in a situation where that safety net the founding fathers gave us is now gone. I urge all that hear this to write to your local papers and your representatives making it clear that this kind of conduct from judges on this countries high court is simply not acceptable.
-Zach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)