When
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and the other Founding Fathers gathered for
the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, their hopes for a
lasting republic were tempered by the realistic caution of men of the
world. When their historic work was
done, and they emerged from Independence Hall after creating the framework for
the world's first democratic republic, a lady in the crowd asked Franklin if the
delegates had opted for a monarchy or a republic. He famously responded, "A republic,
madame, if you can keep it."
Franklin and his illustrious colleagues understood that the preservation
of the liberty and freedom they sought to ensure in the Constitution was by no
means a foregone conclusion.
For two centuries, our Nation credibly fulfilled the cautious expectations of the Framers. Through civil wars, world wars, depressions, the New Deal, the civil rights upheavals, and countless other crises, the basic freedoms of American citizens have heretofore been faithfully preserved. But as we lurch forward into the darker days of the 21st century, Benjamin Franklin's cautious warning about the preservation of a free republic has been strikingly justified on the very streets of Philadelphia where he uttered it. And the suppression of constitutional freedoms occurring there is merely an especially egregious example of a menacing trend occurring at all levels of government in the era of Obama.
An arrogant, anti-constitutional
tyrant today runs roughshod over the liberties of the people of Philadelphia in
the very shadow of Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell. His name is Michael Nutter, the city's
Democratic mayor, and, if there were a scintilla of spirit left in the citizenry,
or if there were any justice left in our legal system, he would be quickly called
to account for his race-based assault on First Amendment freedoms. His recent attempt to censor a free press is
a glaring affront to the Constitution that was conceived in the city that he
misrules today. Regretfully, the spirit
of Philadelphia Freedom appears to have withered in that supine city, and
Nutter is likely to bluster on with impunity.
Earlier this March, the liberal Philadelphia Magazine published a
relatively timid and euphemistic article about the cowed and uncomfortable
status of whites in certain sections of Philadelphia, entitled "Being
White in Philadelphia." This was no
hard-nosed, combative argument on race issues like the ones that appear in
conservative publications or blogs like mine (see, e.g., "Two Generations of Racial Preference," on
www.splashingrocks.blogspot.com). It
simply related, with all the politically correct euphemisms, various situations
in which white Philadelphians had found it increasingly uncomfortable to be confronted with distrust, hostility, or worse by black fellow
Philadelphians. The atmosphere portrayed
in the article may help explain the 32% decline in Philadelphia's non-Hispanic
white population between 1990 and 2010.Nutter responded to the article in a manner that might be expected of an authoritarian bully in a Third World dictatorship. He furiously declared that this pallid and understated depiction of uneasy race relations in Philadelphia was "disgusting" and offended black sensitivity to the point of possible retaliation. Continuing in a vein that would be laughable were it not darkly threatening, Nutter contended that the article fell beyond the protections of the First Amendment because it might constitute "incitement to extreme action." He was particularly disturbed that the article focused on the views of white people on the city's troublesome racial issues. Of course that aspect of the article was hardly surprising, since the very point of the piece was to bring those often suppressed views into the open.
But Nutter was not content to merely
attack the article and leave it at that.
Nutter called upon the ironically named
Philadelphia Human Rights Commission (PHRC) to investigate the Philadelphia Magazine, with possible sanctions
to follow, for having the temerity to publish an article expressing a white
point of view on race issues. (This is the same Big
Brother Commission that was unleashed against the frustrated owner of Philly's
legendary "Geno's Steaks," Nick Taliaferro, for having the similar
audacity to post a sign in his popular cheese steak shop asking customers to
"please order in English.") The
Commission's executive director promptly fell in line with Nutter's
unconstitutional assault, saying that the Commission shared Nutter's concerns
about the article and denouncing its alleged perpetuation of harmful stereotypes. In short, verdict first, investigation to
follow.
In a sane and civil American city,
the newspapers, TV stations, and concerned citizens would have raised a furious
outcry against the mayor's blatant threat to the magazine's freedom of speech
and press. Instead, in the upside-down
world that is Philadelphia, the anger was directed against the victims. The magazine's
editor and the article's author soon found themselves placed on the defensive at a public forum that bore an eerie resemblance to the kangaroo courts
that were once used to punish deviation from the Party Line in Maoist China. Rather than vigorously standing behind his
writer and indignantly asserting the magazine's First Amendment rights against
government intimidation, the magazine's editor sheepishly confessed he was
sorry if the article offended anyone. He
was also forced to respond to the crowd's angry charges concerning the magazine's
alleged lack of diversity and other crimes of racial insensitivity. In other words, the victims of the mayor's unconstitutional oppression were subjected
to a form of public re-education reminiscent of Mao's proletarian cultural
revolution, while the mayor himself could trample on with the smugness of those
who enjoy the impunity of one-party urban rule.
This sorry episode was not the
first time that Mayor Nutter has demonstrated his contempt for the liberties
and beliefs of those who do not fall in line with the leftist policies of the
Philadelphia Democrats and President Obama.
During his campaign for mayor,
Nutter directed his political antagonism against the Boy Scouts of America and
their traditional moral values. In a
televised debate, he confirmed that he would use the mayor's powers to punish the
local Scouts organization for adhering to the BSA's established policy of
excluding practicing homosexuals from membership and leadership positions. Falsely depicting a policy designed to
protect the morals of young Boy Scouts as a form of unlawful discrimination,
Nutter supported a retaliatory measure that would effectively evict the Boy Scouts
organization from city-owned land it had rented since 1928 by raising their
rent from a $1 token payment to $200,000.
Nutter has pursued his anti-Boy Scout position as mayor, but a federal
court has thus far upheld the Scouts' lease rights.
More recently, Nutter has
demonstrated his antagonism for the Second Amendment and the right to keep and
bear arms. He is a determined advocate of extreme
gun control measures. In his role as
president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, he has not only advocated bans on so-called
assault weapons and even modest capacity magazines and mandatory background
checks on private gun sales, but has urged the government to adopt an even more
expansive anti-gun regime called the "Sandy Hook Principles." This Orwellian program seeks to frustrate citizen
access to firearms by imposing harsh economic sanctions against the companies who
manufacture and sell guns and ammunition if they do not comply with a list of
20 crippling gun control directives. The
directives not only target companies that sell government-disfavored firearms
but also would force companies to, among other things, conduct universal
background checks, adopt ammunition-tracking systems, and promote the use of
biometric locks on guns. Non-compliant
companies would be subject to "economic divestment" at the hands of
the government. In short, Nutter's
disdain for the First Amendment appears to be rivaled by his contempt for the
Second.
Moreover, in keeping with his hostility
to free speech by those who do not share his views, Nutter furiously attacked
the National Rifle Association when it ran an advertisement exposing President
Obama's hypocrisy in opposing the NRA's proposal for armed protection for
schools while Obama's daughters enjoy a phalanx of protection that would put
Caesar's Praetorian Guard to shame.
Nutter demanded that the NRA ad "should be removed
immediately."
These and other actions and policies
had already given a hint of Mayor Nutter's tyrannical tendencies. But whatever doubts may have lingered on that
score have been dispelled by his effort to suppress protected speech through
means of race-related intimidation. He
does not want white persons speaking their minds on racial issues.
Not so long ago, Obama's black
Attorney General, Eric Holder, declared that we were a "nation of
cowards" for not having "the guts" to talk about race
issues. The Philadelphia Magazine article attacked by Nutter was a
conscientious attempt to discuss the very race issues that Holder insisted
Americans must have the courage to confront. But because Nutter considers the white
perspective on these issues "disgusting," he not only seeks to
suppress the publication of such views by official condemnation, but enlists a
government commission to investigate and possibly sanction those who dare to
express them.
The Department of Justice has the
authority and responsibility to sue state and local governments that use their
power to violate the constitutional rights of citizens. Under Holder, that authority has been misused
to sue conscientious officers like the hard-charging Sheriff of Maricopa
County, Arizona, Joe Arpaio. DOJ has
sued Arpaio and Maricopa County for merely attempting to do what Holder and the
rest of the Federal Government refuse to do – enforce the immigration laws
against massive illegal immigration. The
Government's suit even makes the patently absurd allegation that Maricopa
County and Sheriff Arpaio have violated the First Amendment in
responding to efforts to undermine their legitimate enforcement efforts by illegal
aliens and their supporters.
Holder and his minions should make
better use of their time, and our tax dollars, by dropping their politicized claims
against Arpaio and actually filing a meritorious civil rights action against
Mayor Nutter and the PHRC. Not only does
Nutter's effort to employ the PHRC in a campaign against a magazine and an
author infringe freedom of speech and press, but, because the persecution is
based upon the racial viewpoint of the article, it also violates the Fourteenth
Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. But expecting even-handed law enforcement
from the Justice Department of Obama and Holder -- especially against their
political allies like Mayor Nutter -- is utterly delusional. Just ask the voters who vainly
requested the Justice Department to enforce the Voting Rights Act against
blatant voter intimidation at the polls in Philadelphia by the New Black
Panther Party in the 2008 presidential election. In the age of Obama, Holder, and Nutter,
Philadelphia Freedom is not for everybody.
No comments:
Post a Comment