Furthermore, some observers may be puzzled by the fact that the ACLU, an organization dedicated to safeguarding the constitutional rights of all Americans, has not been inundated with applications for membership by the conservative Tea Party Patriots. But looking closer, these observers would discover that the tribalism fueling the Tea Partiers' interest in "defending the constitution" degrades their agenda, rendering their movement as no more than a narrowly-focused effort that has little to do with the interests of the country's entire multi-cultural pool of American citizens. Tea Party conservatives, for example, strenuously defend the right of American citizens to bear arms -- unless those citizens happen to live in an "urban" area. Likewise they are tough on border security -- focused primarily along the southern border.
Meanwhile, I wonder just how many free speech-defending Tea Party conservatives are aware of Supreme Court Justice William Douglas' description of the First Amendment as a measure intended to "invite dispute" and "create dissatisfaction?" I'd argue that even those who may have awareness of this are still unable to forgive the Dixie Chicks for dissing George W. Bush or Jesse Jackson for his grotesque application of this right when he called Jews "Hymies" some two decades ago. Yet, who among the rational-minded would register surprise if it turned out that our free speech guardians on the Right see no reason why Don Imus should apologize for his similarly-grotesque "nappy headed hoes" remark or Ted Nugent for the kind of barnyard ignorant statements he's been known to make about President Obama. Why is no apology necessary? Because both Imus and Nugent -- they'd correctly claim -- were simply exercising their free speech rights. It's as though in the eyes of conservatives, limits on free speech are required to suppress the speech of those who do not embrace the mantle of conservatism. But in reality, such brazen conflicts of logic are what provide the path to charges of hypocrisy commonly lodged against conservative leaders and those who follow them.
Yet, as noted, infringement of Schlessinger's right of free speech remains the charge establishing the backbone to the defense by her supporters of Schlessinger's racial meltdown. "I understand what she meant," insisted Palin in a Facebook post, "when she declared that she was "taking back my First Amendment rights' by turning to a new venue that will not allow others the ability to silence her by going after her stations, sponsors and supporters." Palin and other supporters also scoff at what they consider baseless "hypersensitivity" among blacks over perceptions of racial discrimination in general. Such hypersensitivity, they argue, is an impediment to moving forward and getting over the past. Yet they apparently see no irony in the fact that they are part of the chorus of critics whining over an "assault on the sensitivity of the 911 victims" by Muslims by their decision develop a "mosque" (actually, a cultural center with space set aside on its top floor for prayer) near Ground Zero.
Who's the patient? - Palin's advice to the "doctor": Don't retreat; reload!"
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
