PAYING ATTENTION!
Click
the Devil to
Return to Main Page
.Commentary
on Attorney General Nominee John Ashcroft
The
nomination of Missouri Senator John Ashcroft for Attorney
General has brought scores of protest from the Democrats
and the media because of his personal religious
convictions. They’re questioning whether Ashcroft
can do his job without bias when his religious beliefs
conflict with the laws he must enforce.
Why this is a question at all? Vice Presidential
candidate Joe Leiberman, a Democrat, touted his strict
religious beliefs during the campaign. No fuss was made
of the possible conflict between his morality and his
ability to execute his duties if elected. He is their
ideological equal on major political issues, so of
course, that’s a different story.
The other major sticking point for Ashcroft is the charge
by so-called black leaders that he is a racist. The basis
of this charge stems from Ashcroft’s refusal to
support the nomination of a black man to a high court
judgeship. What is missing from the facts as presented by
the media and the Democrats, is the fact that Senator
Ashcroft has had 29 opportunities to oppose black
nominees to our high court system. Only one of those
twenty-nine nominees received opposition from Senator
Ashcroft. Another seemingly irrelevant fact that the
Democrats and the media have purposely left out of this
discussion is the reason Ashcroft opposed the appointment
of the black judge.
While sitting as a lower court judge, Justice White (the
judge in question) gave out lenient sentences to violent
offenders, and even went so far as to side with cop
killers in the courtroom. As Americans we may disagree
with Ashcrofts’ views on that, but he the right to
disagreed with Judge White. Ashcroft’s opposition to
Judge White had nothing to do with race, it had to do
with performance. The press and the Democrats both know
it. But they will continue to make a charge of racism
against him that they know is not true.
The real racist are those who believe that Judge White
should have been appointed because of the color of their
skin. Those who call Ashcroft a racist simply because he
opposed one out of twenty-nine black nominees. IT is a
disservice to the dream of Martin Luther King who wanted
people to be judged by the content of their character
instead of the color of their skin.
There is clear bias in America toward any white man who
does not bow down to the social terrorism of the black
political activists. But that’s not the only bias
going on here. Every elected and appointed government
official has some personal beliefs which differ from the
laws they must enforce. Only white, conservative
Christians, however, come under such a ruthless attacks
like John Ashcroft. As with police officers, teachers and
other public positions in our government, a man’s
morality should only be an issue when his beliefs have,
in fact, interfered with the way he has exercised his
duties. Ashcroft’s record on this is clear. He
disagrees with civil rights legislation, yet he has
enforced civil rights laws to the letter in Missouri for
four years as their state attorney General.
The truth is, Ashcroft is no racist and will enforce the
laws just as Joe Leiberman would have. The only
difference is, Leiberman is a Jewish liberal, and
Ashcroft is a conservative Christian. I’m starting
to think that simply being a religious conservative
automatically makes someone unfit for government service.
When was the last time you saw someone called to task for
labeling and degrading a white Christian conservative?
It never happens.
Because it is socially acceptable in our media culture to
attack Christian conservatives, while waving the banner
of civil rights for all. And that, my friends, is not
only hypocrisy, it is a hate crime.
|
