151 Band

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Radicals or Freedom Fighters?

The Tulsa World published a story today about the Southern Poverty Law Center's attack and targeting of three Oklahoma legislators:  Representatives Randy Terrill, Charles Key and Sally Kern.  In the article, the three legislators are called "radicals" by the SPLC. 

Randy Terrill has been an outspoken advocate for controlled borders and punishment of those who come to the United States illegally as well as punishing employers who knowingly and willingly hire illegal immigrants.  Is that a radical concept or is a question of standing up for the rule of law?  It is Constitutional for states to enact laws that deal with illegal immigration because the federal government has failed to do anything about the issue. 

Sally Kern is the wife of a Baptist minister first and foremost and her religious affections drive her.  She has campaigned on conservative, religious moral issues and has resoundingly won re-election in her House District.  While many would disagree with her push of Christianity in the public schools, her District approves of her doing so because she campaigned on these issues - and as a former school teacher, it gives her more credibility with her base of supporters.  Is she a radical or is she fulfilling campaign promises that meet the desires of her constituency? 

Charles Key has always leaned more Libertarian in his views of the role of government and has been a Ron Paul supporter in the past.  Key is a guy who has authored plenty of legislation to reduce the size and scope of government and again, it is what his constituency in his House District asks of him.  Is Key a radical because he believes, according to the article, that the federal government was aware of the attack on the Murrah Building or is he simply misguided and overly suspicious?  Key is not a part of any militia and frankly, there are a lot of people who question the federal government's role in Ruby Ridge, in Waco and in the Oklahoma City bombing but does that make each and every one of them a radical to be targeted by the SPLC?

It seems to politically expedient in today's media climate to attack what most would have considered just a few years back as "common sense" leadership - particularly where the issue of illegal immigration is concerned.  Illegal immigration is expensive to taxpayers, so much so that We The People have decided that something must be done.  We elect members to state legislatures to do something about it but then the Chamber gets a hold of them and with a few exceptions, the argument is forgotten or pushed under the rug to focus on "more important" issues such as "job creation."

You can judge for yourself whether or not the SPLC is off base.