In an amazing twist, two very distinct, disparate voices have weighed in on the Supreme Courts’ ruling from last week:  that the Second Amendment applies to the ability of state and local authorities to regulate gun laws.  Marc Lamont Hill– progressive scholar and professor– feels this ruling favors those in black communities because of the preponderance of gun violence, and the threat of violence initiated by past incarnations of government:

As citizens of the United States, we live in a nation founded on revolutionary violence and sustained through a range of violent practices. It was this belief in the redemptive possibilities of violence that informed the creation of the Second Amendment, which allows citizens to keep and bear arms to prevent the creation of an unjust, anti-democratic, or outright tyrannical government. In other words, American democracy is underwritten by the possibility that everyday citizens can fight back if the government no longer acts in the interest of freedom and justice. For Blacks, who have never received the full protection of the State, such a right must be viewed as an indispensable nonnegotiable component of complete citizenship.

Despite (or perhaps because of) its romantic cultural obsession with guns, the United States government has gone to great lengths to disarm Black bodies. From the pre-Civil War “Slave Codes” that explicitly prohibited Blacks from possessing firearms, to exorbitant post-war gun tariffs that priced Blacks (and poor whites) out of the gun market, the State has always attempted to take guns out of the hands of Black citizens. Such conditions rendered Blacks even more vulnerable to state sponsored forms of terrorism, abuse, and exploitation.

In the ruling opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas– the only black sitting justice–wrote an almost entirely race-based concurring opinion, excoriating America’s past obsession with disarming blacks:

“It was the ‘duty’ of white citizen ‘patrols to search negro houses and other suspected places for firearms.’ If they found any firearms, the patrols were to take the offending slave or free black ‘to the nearest justice of the peace’ whereupon he would be ‘severely punished.’ ” “Never again.”

“The black man has never had the right either to keep or bear arms,” and until he does, “the work of the Abolitionists was not finished.”

It is an absolutely amazing opinion– in scope of power, imagery, and allusion.   And it’s amazing that Clarence Thomas pulled it out of his hat.  It’s also unbelievable that these two black men–who are polar opposites ideologically–have arrived at the same conclusion:  The Second Amendment– if applied evenly and fairly– preserves the full, unfettered rights of Black Americans in their quest for political and social equity with their white counterparts.  This is certainly a controversial take–especially on the part of Professor Hill, given his leftward leanings.  But while it is tempting to trod the path of the liberal line on gun rights and ownership, these two opinions force me to stop and pause my own ideological play button.

The narrative here is tricky.  How do you support arming Americans in order to protect them, knowing that a disproportionate amount of gun violence occurs in the same communities you’re trying to arm?  It is irresponsible to preach Second Amendment screed without violence  prevention and proper vetting. I am not advocating an all out blitz on gun purchases here.  I think there should be reasonable attempts to prevent gun purchases at gun shows and straw purchases.  I think it’s perfectly logical to require special licensing for those who are too mentally incapacitated to own guns.  These efforts are solely in place to prevent violent criminals and unstable citizens from becoming threats to themselves, or others.  One of the ways to curb gun violence is to keep them out of the hands of those who don’t need to use them.

Perhaps it’s time to advocate for the rights of all citizens, to protect all communities from the violence that may be perpetrated upon them.  Guns are no panacea for curing violent behaviors, but neither is stripping American citizens of the right to defend and protect.  On this score, count me in with Thomas and Hill.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Al Franken, the junior senator from Minnesota, shows off his prodigious sketching abilities yesterday at the senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.  Senator Franken’s portrait is of Senator Jeff Sessions.  I suppose he had to stay alert doing something, given Sessions’ constant droning about nothing in particular.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It may be too easy to say that the president hasn’t provided proof of his place of birth (Which he has on countless occasions.  Those in question just don’t think it’s proof enough.  Tough shit  ). It may be too easy to totally discount the fact that various independent souces have verified and confirmed all documents pertaining to President Obama’s birth certificate and birthplace.  Let’s just accept the fact that some Americans are just bat shit crazy, and couldn’t see factual information if it were stapled to their foreheads.

Let’s face some hard truths here.  Over 60 percent of Americans can’t name a single Supreme Court justice.  60 percent.   Less than half of Americans polled can name all three branches of government.  They know that they’re taxed too much, even though they don’t know who exactly is taxing them. I’m sure most of these dumb asses also know who won American Idol, or what man Kim Kardashian is dating this week.

My point is simple:  America is becoming a country full of idiots– dumbed down by reality television and insipid, talk radio.  Some Americans want to be told what to think.    I won’t be putting any more stock in surveys and polls like this, because some people are just too stupid to know any better.  Some of them think Barack Obama is a space alien, or a magic negro, or the Antichrist.  America is becoming an awfully dangerous place to think.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I enjoy political commentators and pundits who drape themselves in nostalgia, regaling their readers with stories of how things used to be–and in some cases how things ought to be.  Pat Buchanan likes to indulge in that type of, my old America circa 1955 rhetoric– and as a result– some of his work reflects that narrow, stodgy thinking.

Buchanan’s piece on the bias against WASPS (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) by liberals illustrates that fact.  Mr. Buchanan simply longs for the days when white men were picked for every powerful position in industry and government.  Here is the money quote:

Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats’ idea of diversity?

But while leaders in the black community may be upset, the folks who look more like the real targets of liberal bias are white Protestants and Catholics, who still constitute well over half of the U.S. population.

Buchanan’s need to prevent diversity from destroying his 1955 sensibilities, complicates the convoluted point he’s trying to make.  My questions is simply this:  What is his idea of diversity?  Is it nominating more men who look like he does?  Let’s examine his argument about Jewish Americans on the supreme court, and part of the quote in bold above. Here are some facts about bias that Mr. Buchanan might want to think about:

In American history, there have been 111 Supreme Court justices. Of that 111, only two have been black.  Only one has been Hispanic.  Only three have been women.  Only seven have been Jewish.  Buchanan’s claim that their is liberal bias toward white men when applied toward the court is beyond ludicrous.  Throughout history, Blacks, Hispanics, women and Jews were never significant parts of the political power structure.  Presidents were compelled to nominate those that are closest to them. 

That familiarity comes from a variety of factors, not the least of which is their physical resemblance and personal affinity. Since 43 our our 44 presidents have been white males, the majority of justices nominated have been white males.  Where does Buchanan’s argument have merit?

A closer look inside the rhetoric reveals a much more deeply rooted problem for Buchanan and his compatriots:  Fear.  The fear of the erosion of white male privilege.  Clearly the rise to power of Blacks, Hispanics, women, and Jews has unnerved elitist conservatives.  Conservatives like Buchanan were and are fearful that programs such as affirmative action would winnow away the built in pillars that support the white male power structure. 

Buchanan’s spiel reignites that self-fulfilling prophecy.  His ardent belief that the new liberal diversity is a detriment to the existing power dynamic, is allowing some white males to now exhibit a skewed sense of fairness.  They fear not getting into the right schools, or not getting the right job because minorities will get them instead.  They fear targeted for irrelevancy.

Buchanan’s self-preservation narrative is coated in bigoted, anti-Semitic vitriol.  He neglects to mention that three-fourths of supreme courts justices have been protestant, and even more than that have been Anglo-Saxon.  I assume he would like to see those numbers increase.  If that’s his thinking, I have no issue with that.   I take issue with continuing the false narrative of the endangered white male, considering white males are overwhelmingly entrenched in positions of power in all institutions. 

But America’s face is slowing changing.  And as a result, so are some of those same institutions.  Times are changing, and the old conservative guard–led by Mr.Buchanan — would be wise to adapt to that, rather than lob lyrical grenades.  Buchanan’s America reflects his goal of  continuing WASP political hegemony.  Sadly for him, it is no longer 1955.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I am not a Michael Steele fan.  I won’t try to deny this fact.  But I’ve always thought that Mr. Steele was a bright man, fully capable and respectful of the moment–even though I tended to disagree with his political ideology.  As chairman of the Republican National Committee, Steele’s responsibility is elevating the profile and prospects of potential candidates for the republican party.  Mr. Steele would be wise to remember his history, and his responsibility to use his position to spread truth.  Here is Steele and his thoughts on supreme court nominee Elena Kagan:

“Over the past year, the American people have been witness to President Obama’s massive expansion of the federal government into our daily lives. To assure the American people, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, will need to demonstrate that she is committed to upholding the vision of our Founding Fathers, who wrote a Constitution meant to limit the power of government, not expand it. The President has stated repeatedly that he wants a justice who will understand the effects of decisions on the lives of everyday Americans. But what Americans want is a justice who will stay true to the Constitution and defend the rights of all Americans, adhering to the rule of law instead of legislating from the bench. Given Kagan’s opposition to allowing military recruiters access to her law school’s campus, her endorsement of the liberal agenda and her support for statements suggesting that the Constitution “as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective,’” you can expect Senate Republicans to respectfully raise serious and tough questions to ensure the American people can thoroughly and thoughtfully examine Kagan’s qualifications and legal philosophy before she is confirmed to a lifetime appointment.”

In trying to appease the irrational conservative ideologues of his party, chairman Steele callously perpetrates the crime of tomfoolery–and blindly allows his sycophantic tendencies to override good sense (though I’m now feeling he may lack that).  Steele denounces Kagan’s statement that the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was defective.

Elena Kagan was actually parroting the words of legendary Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall.  A point of fact Mr. Steele:  The United States Constitution– in its original conception– was in fact flawed and defective.  A few instances:

1) The Three-fifths compromise found in article 1 section 2.  The compromise counted Black Americans as three-fifths of a person solely for monetary reasons.  Blatant racism.

2) The original constitution, in its “perfect crafting,” denies voting rights to women and non white men.

The more shocking aspect of Steele’s diatribe is his cavalier attitude toward his own history as an African-American man, and his ambivalence toward another iconic civil rights pioneer:  Thurgood Marshall.   We are respectable Negroes expounds fully on this:

The irony of Mr. Steele’s comments are not lost, as America’s first Black Supreme Court Justice, and litigator for the NAACP in a series of cases leading to the monumental Brown vs. Board decision, struggled to make the freedoms and opportunities enjoyed by the chair of the GOP a reality. Despite Steele’s questionable loyalty to the tribe that is Black America, and his earnest boot licking for the tea baggers and his White Republican Masters, men like Thurgood Marshall are the proverbial fathers of 21st century Black America. He, like Brother Malcolm and Brother Martin, is our father, brother, cousin, mentor, and sage. A giant of a man, we are forever in Judge Marshall’s debt. Lest we forget, without Thurgood Marshall, there would be no President Obama.

I’m not peddling race dogma here.  It’s just important to determine how one’s political philosophy can cloud and obfuscate facts and reality.  Mr. Steele lives in a fantasy world– ruled by a conservative monarchy that deems it proper to defame someone of Marshall’s caliber– in order to distort the truth.  Add this to Steele’s growing bill of ineptitude.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Sonny Perdue is the republican governor of the state of Georgia.  Perdue is at the tail end of his second and final term in the statehouse.  His administration is presiding over a fiscal crisis–one with steep prolonged budget cuts– that are destined to cripple the state’s services and economy for the foreseeable future.  But Perdue is now distracted by his newest crusade: Repealing health care reform.  He, along with 13 other governors, have joined together to pursue legal action toward the federal government regarding the implementation of the new health care legislation.

Thurbert Baker is Georgia’s Attorney General.  He’s a democrat, who objects to Perdue’s course of action regarding the health care lawsuit.  Baker is refusing to initiate the lawsuit.

There’s nothing new about governors and attorney generals clashing over a particular issue or law.  In fact, it’s rather common.  Both positions are popularly elected, so one has no autonomy over the other.  In fact, 43 states popularly elect their attorney general– which can set in motion many a conflict on many issues.

So it should come as no surprise that in Georgia, the democratic attorney general Thurbert Baker is clashing with the republican governor over the implementation of the newly signed health care reform bill.  Baker is refusing to move a  lawsuit forward against the federal government because he believes it’s an inappropriate allocation of resources.  Baker confirmed his thoughts in a letter to Governor Perdue:

“I do not believe that Georgia has a viable legal claim against the United States….I cannot justify a decision to initiate expensive and time-consuming litigation that I believe has no legal merit. In short, this litigation is likely to fail and will consume significant amounts of taxpayers’ hard-earned money in the process… I am unaware of any constitutional infirmities and do not think it would be prudent, legally or fiscally, to pursue such litigation. I must therefore respectfully decline your request.”

It should be noted that Baker is a gubernatorial candidate, and his stance– while seemingly principled– may be part political posturing.  It should also be noted that Perdue, who’s in the waning stages of his term, has now decided to sue the federal government himself– hiring a “special attorney general“  to prosecute the case. Perdue- along with other conservatives in the Georgia legislature– have also initiated articles of impeachment against Baker.  Is Perdue posturing as well, or simply holding the republican line on health care?  Is there a difference anymore?

Putting empty political posturing aside, let’s examine how and if a lawsuit would work for the state.  The contention on the part of Governor Perdue regarding this suit is that the government– specifically congress, has never passed a law requiring Americans to purchase a product before– thus making the federal mandate to purchase insurance unconstitutional.  Let’s take this point first. It can be argued that under the 10th amendment, states are protected from being forced to follow federal laws not in the constitution.  So in essence, a federal mandate to buy health insurance would be considered unconstitutional–and therefore not legally binding.  Some constitutional scholars don’t believe that the 10th amendment adequately addresses the unconstitutionality of the legislation.  Robert Langran, a Supreme Court and constitutional law expert, thinks that while the case has merit, it would ultimately fail:

“It might be politically incorrect but not legally incorrect,” says Mr. Langran. “The Supreme Court has held for over a century that the federal government does have the police power to look out for the welfare of their citizens (and it has held since Reconstruction that we are federal citizens and state citizens).”

Langran believes that so long as a first amendment right is not being violated, then usage of the 10th amendment would not hold up.  There are other legal precedents that may cause health care to stand.  During the New Deal, the courts greatly expanded the powers of congress to regulate commerce, so a challenge to the new law such as Governor Perdue’s may ultimately fail.

So is it good politics to challenge such a law, or is it good policy?  The political divide is widening in the state of Georgia, much like the rest of the country.  Governor Perdue believes he is taking a principled stance, and that the suit will prevail.  Baker believes the end results of a challenge to the law would fail, and squander resources in the process.  Who’s on the right path?  Precedent and history say that it is Baker, but those indicators are definitely not absolute. In today’s heated political  environment, one can never underestimate passion and blinding partisanship.  Perdue and Baker seem to fall right in line with divided climate.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Photo courtesy of The Nation

Okay, let’s take a closer look at President Barack Obama’s first year in office.  Realizing that every possible medium is doing the same thing one year after the historic inauguration, I plan on taking a different approach here.  After this turbulent year in politics, who do we have in the oval office?  Is President Obama the change we all expected?  Was he the transformative agent the masses made him out to be?  To put it simply, yes and no.

Barack’s Finest hours:

Declassifying memos from President Bush’s legal counsel, that exposed torture techniques the CIA was engaged in.  Look, you can crap on the move all you want, but if you’re an incoming president, determined to transform the atmosphere in Washington from the previous administration–Then this is an important move.  Trying to instill a sense of openness and transparency in government, will go a long way in restoring trust on the part of the people. It was bold, controversial, and correct in my opinion.

His Oslo acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize;  His speech in Cairo. They were fine moments, because they injected heft back into our foreign policy, and they rejected the theme of all-out war with the Islamic world.  That distinction is vitally important.   Having military gravitas with direction is a necessary substitute for an aimless foreign policy.  The president’s speeches re-affirmed our position in fighting a war against rogue states and terrorists bent on our destruction– while seeking to remain grounded to the ideas of pragmatism and relationship building– with those who’d be best served as our allies.

Health Care, Health Care, Health Care. Even those who don’t agree can see that this was a bold, potentially defining (one way or the other) initiative.  I think most of the blow back has occurred because of the amount of time this issue has sapped from other issues.  And in a tough economy, health care reform was always going to be a tough sell.  But it was the right sell, and the right time to sell it, despite the obstacles.  The ideas in the bills on the hill will initiate greater change than we’ve ever seen in this country’s history.  Keep in mind health care reform has been contemplated for over 100 years.  It is, potentially,the greatest piece of legislation this country has ever seen– and it is closer to coming to fruition than ever before.  Kudos President Obama.

Sonia Sotomayor:  It was indeed a year of change.  Nominating the first Hispanic to the nation’s highest court deserves a finest hour nod.  Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation was not without its share of controversy, but the pick was the right one, and it will resonate with Latino-Americans– and all Americans– for years to come.

Coming Friday:  Barack Obama’s low points

George W. Bush:  Defense Secretary Robert Gates

Barack Obama:     Defense Secretary Robert Gates

George W. Bush:  Federal Reserve Chair Benard Bernake

Barack Obama:    Federal Reserve Chair  Bernard Bernake

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

WELCOME MADAME JUSTICE!

Pray for Eunice Kennedy Shriver…

Lying must come naturally to John Boehner...

Protest against the health care reform bill on its merits, not on misinformation and egregious lies perpetrated by fringe groups…

Health care gone wild!

Nightmare in the Hudson River...

This is potential good news that no one is talking about…

The President heads to Mexico...

A torture probe is coming...

Our future president, Cory Booker, discusses the stimulus on Meet The Press...

Disaster strikes China...

A motley crew is gathering for 2012…

Finally some good financial news for the president...

Is Sarah Palin out of her mind?

Despite the great box office, it’s still the raping of my childhood…

More bad parenting…

Democrats are out to get my favorite congresswoman…

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The United States senate has confirmed judge Sonia Sotomayor has our nation’s 111th Supreme Court Justice, and the first Hispanic-American to ever wear the black robes.  The vote was 68-31.  This is a historic day for our nation.  Congratulations to Justice Sotomayor.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

As expected, judge Sonia Sotomayor will win approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee in her quest to become the 111th Justice to the United States Supreme Court.  The full senate will take up her vote next week.  The panel was split along party lines with only one republican senator, Lindsay Graham (R-SC), voting in the affirmative.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.