Hard Day
2013-07-10 - by
Monday was a hard day for Reverend William Barber.
For months, Reverend Barber has been leading ‘crusades’ for the poor, the needy, against racism, and against Republicanism.
But Monday, the Civitas Institute put a dent in his image – it reported the groups sponsoring Reverend Barber’s ‘Moral Monday’ protests have received over $100 million in tax funding and then asked whether his demonstrations were really about the poor – or about stopping budget cuts that would hurt the groups’ funding?
The second blow fell just after the Civitas report; for months, Reverend Barber’s been saying Republicans drew districts to return North Carolina to the days of Jim Crow – but Monday a three judge court ruled against his lawsuit to stop redistricting. Two of the judges were Democrats. And one judge was an African-American woman.
But before the sun set, the wily ole fox was back on his feet telling the News & Observer the judges hadn’t disagreed with him about the facts in his case – there’d simply been a little disagreement over the interpretation of the law.
It sounded pretty good. But if you think about it, it was a little like John Dillinger saying, The Judge and I saw eye to eye on the facts – we just didn’t see eye to eye on the law (when it comes to robbing banks).
Hard Day
2013-07-10/
Monday was a hard day for Reverend William Barber.
For months, Reverend Barber has been leading ‘crusades’ for the poor, the needy, against racism, and against Republicanism.
But Monday, the Civitas Institute put a dent in his image – it reported the groups sponsoring Reverend Barber’s ‘Moral Monday’ protests have received over $100 million in tax funding and then asked whether his demonstrations were really about the poor – or about stopping budget cuts that would hurt the groups’ funding?
The second blow fell just after the Civitas report; for months, Reverend Barber’s been saying Republicans drew districts to return North Carolina to the days of Jim Crow – but Monday a three judge court ruled against his lawsuit to stop redistricting. Two of the judges were Democrats. And one judge was an African-American woman.
But before the sun set, the wily ole fox was back on his feet telling the News & Observer the judges hadn’t disagreed with him about the facts in his case – there’d simply been a little disagreement over the interpretation of the law.
It sounded pretty good. But if you think about it, it was a little like John Dillinger saying, The Judge and I saw eye to eye on the facts – we just didn’t see eye to eye on the law (when it comes to robbing banks).