Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
In a continuation of a back and forth conversation I am having on the Opinion Pages of the Record Gazette newspaper in the Pass Area (Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley in Southern California) I offer my latest response to the ravings of a local liberal left critic of my opinions.
On November 3rd, Mr. Michael Tulledge once again added to what has become a verbal ping-pong match on the opinion pages of the Record Gazette. After spending a paragraph addressing a letter by R.S. Bibbo, Tulledge turns his attention to my latest offering to the discussion regarding civil rights and constitutional legalities. He begins his written assailment by calling me a “constitution thumper.”
I assume he came up with “constitution thumper” after drawing from a more common ad hominem, “Bible thumper.” The latter is meant to be derogatory, usually used by those who either do not believe in, or trust, biblical text; or they consider those who take the words of the Bible literally or from a position of “original meaning” as being less educated or foolish mindless followers. Therefore, my conclusion is that the “constitution thumper” label is a way of calling me a person who is either uneducated, or a foolish originalist. Be that as it may, once again, I recommend that Mr. Tulledge refer to the language of Article I, Section 1 of that document, which gives “all” legislative powers to Congress, and no legislative authority to the executive (President). On September 22 in Tulledge’s “Civil Rights Act of 1964” letter, he wrote that President Kennedy “formulated,” “introduced,” and “pushed through Congress” the history altering legislation.
In Mr. Tulledge’s November 3 letter he pulls out a passage from Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” In reality, Mr. Tullege actually supports my argument with his offering. The key words in that passage are “recommend” and “consideration.” The President of the United States cannot propose legislation. He can “recommend” for their “consideration” measures he would like to see as a bill, but in the end, that authority lies completely with Congress. As in the case of Kennedy (to repeat what I wrote to the Record Gazette on October 20), “Kennedy did indeed ‘call’ for Civil Rights legislation. He worked with the Republicans to write it because the Democrats were largely against the creation of such a bill.” Kennedy did not write the piece of legislation, nor did he technically propose it. That was the work of the Republicans in Congress at that time. So, while Mr. Tulledge may call my position “disingenuous,” the reality is that my position is accurate and factual based on the original intent of the United States Constitution.
Mr. Tulledge, in his November 3 letter, then turns to my position as Director of Civics and Constitution Studies for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), attacking the organization’s history and “ultra-conservative” turn in its latest evolution. He calls the organization “fraudulent,” and a “front organization for Uncle Toms who will provide a Black front man for anyone or company who can pay the price.”
The use of “Uncle Tom” is actually an indication that Tulledge has never read “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Persons like Tulledge define an Uncle Tom as being “a black who is overeager to win the approval of whites.” The origin of the term comes from Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” which condemns slavery. The problem with the term Uncle Tom and its accepted derogatory definition by the liberal left Democrats is that is does not line up with the real characterization of the character Uncle Tom as portrayed in Stowe’s book.
As for CORE, the organization is in a process of growth, altering its legacy from once being a “liberal” and “militant” organization to a potential conservative alternative to the NAACP. While at one time, as Tulledge accurately claimed, the organization was not functioning in a manner that it should be, that is currently something that is rapidly changing. As for his quip about CORE “advocating the use of DDT in Africa to control Malaria,” isn’t that a good position? While the liberal left claims DDT causes cancer in a small number of people, the elimination of the use of DDT has resulted in more than 50 million deaths from Malaria.
Tulledge’s suggestion that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was anti-abortion is laughable, and his unwillingness to recognize how the Democrats have kept minorities in poverty through welfare programs that have become a way of life instead of a hand up is, to use a word made popular by the 2016 Presidential Election loser Hillary Clinton, deplorable. While Tulledge claims the world is full of dragons, he fails to self-examine and realize it is he who more resembles a political basilisk - either an ill-informed one, or a disingenuous one, to boot.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary