January 20th, 2012
11:25 PM ET

Video: Lead-up to the SC primary

It’s primary day in South Carolina and there are signs Newt Gingrich is surging in the GOP presidential race there and may win. Anderson talked it over with Ari Fleisher, former press secretary for Pres. George W. Bush, Erick Erickson, editor-in-chief of RedState.com and political analyst Roland Martin.

October 28th, 2010
09:20 PM ET

Meek says rumors of deal with Clinton 'absolutely not true'

Roland Martin
CNN Contributor

(CNN) – Rep. Kendrick Meek said it is "absolutely not true" that he ever agreed to any kind of deal with former President Bill Clinton to drop out of the Florida Senate race, in an interview shortly before 9 p.m. ET Thursday with CNN contributor Roland S. Martin.

Full story on the CNN Political Ticker

Filed under: 360° Radar • Roland S. Martin
August 10th, 2010
03:50 PM ET

Opinion: Ditch the 14th Amendment? Why stop there?

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/06/art.immigration.police.jpg.jpg]
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of Roland Martin.

Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor

Republicans such as Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Kyl and John Cornyn are tripping over themselves to jump on the latest "Dumb Way to Solve the Illegal Immigration Problem" bus by suggesting Congress examine repealing the 14th Amendment, which deals with one way of becoming a U.S. citizen.

The far right has latched onto the idea that the provision in question - which grants citizenship to children born in the U.S. - is being abused by illegal immigrants who choose to come to America to have their children, thus worsening the illegal immigration problem.

Some are even trying to suggest that how it is being used today is counter to the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Of course, the 14th Amendment was not in the first U.S. Constitution as drawn up by our framers. It was adopted on July 9, 1868, to prevent Southern states from denying citizenship to former slaves and their children, since they didn't choose to come to America. They were brought here for the purpose of the vicious and dehumanizing free-labor plan that helped build the nation - slavery.

It's clear that overall Congress is choosing to apply a Band-Aid to the illegal immigration problem instead of dealing with it head-on.

We have members on both sides of the aisle who care more about protecting their precious jobs and partisan poll numbers instead of actually finding a bipartisan solution. So instead of leadership, we get asinine suggestions like this one, which will do absolutely nothing about the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in the country.

That's right, nothing.

Keep reading...

Filed under: Immigration • Opinion • Roland S. Martin
August 10th, 2010
09:42 AM ET
May 10th, 2010
01:58 PM ET

Left is mute on racial double standard in Kagan pick

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/10/art.kagan.profile.jpg width=292 height=320]
Roland S. Martin | BIO
CNN Political Analyst

If a white Republican president of the United States appointed a white male as his next Supreme Court justice, and upon the inspection of his record, it was discovered that of the 29 full-time tenured or tenured track faculty he hired as dean of Harvard Law, nearly all of them were white men, this would dominate the headlines.

It would be reasonable to conclude that the special interest groups that vigorously fight for diversity - civil rights organizations, feminist groups and other liberal institutions - would be up in arms, declaring that this person's records showed him unwilling to diversify academia, and unqualified to consider diverse views as one of nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court. There would be widespread condemnations of Republicans having no concern for the nonwhite males in America.

But what if the choice were made by a black Democratic president, and it was a woman? A white woman? A white Democratic woman?

Some of you may not like the fact that I am focusing on the race of the individual, but when diversity is raised, the person's skin color, gender and background are considered germane to the discussion. And if there is silence from black and female organizations, their race and gender matter as well.

We may very well witness this now that President Obama has selected Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Guy-Uriel Charles, founding director of the Duke Law Center on Law, Race and Politics, has heavily scrutinized Kagan's hiring record as head of Harvard Law School. In a scathing blog post, he has said that of the 29 positions Kagan had a chance to fill, 28 were white and one was Asian-American. And of the group, only six were women - five white and one Asian-American.

Keep reading...

April 19th, 2010
10:51 AM ET

Tea Party protests are a good thing

Roland S. Martin
CNN Political Analyst

An angry bunch of Americans has taken to the streets to protest government spending and the direction of the nation, and judging by the massive media coverage, it's as if we have been invaded by a foreign entity, marching on state capitals and Washington ready to lead a coup d'état against our elected officials.

The rise of the Tea Party is being chronicled as a threat to democracy, or a grassroots collective unlike anything we have seen in many years.

As Public Enemy wisely put it with their hit song in 1988, "Don't Believe the Hype!"

First, let's deal with the Tea Party haters. Please, shut up.

How can any liberal, progressive, moderate or conservative be mad about a group of Americans taking to the streets to protest the actions of the country? What they are engaged in is constitutional. The freedom to assemble, march, walk, scream and yell is right there in the document we all abide by.

Keep Reading...

Filed under: Roland S. Martin • Tea Party
April 12th, 2010
05:32 PM ET

Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

Program Note: Tonight on AC360° at 10pm ET we'll be digging deeper into the controversy over celebrating the Confederacy.[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/12/art.confederateflag.jpg]

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of Roland S. Martin.

Roland S. Martin | BIO
CNN Political Analyst

Based on the hundreds of e-mails, Facebook comments and Tweets I've read in response to my denunciation of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's decision to honor Confederates for their involvement in the Civil War - which was based on the desire to continue slavery - the one consistent thing that supporters of the proclamation offer up as a defense is that these individuals were fighting for what they believed in and defending their homeland.

In criticizing me for saying that celebrating the Confederates was akin to honoring Nazi soldiers for killing of Jews during the Holocaust, Rob Wagner said, "I am simply defending the honor and dignity of men who were given no choice other than to fight, some as young as thirteen."

Sherry Callahan said that supporting the Confederacy is "our history. Not hate; it's about heritage and history."

Javier Ramirez called slavery evil, but prefaced his remarks by saying that "Confederate soldiers were never seen as terrorists by [President Abraham] Lincoln or U.S. generals on the battlefield. They were accorded POW status, they were never tried for war crimes. Not once did Confederate soldiers do any damage to civilians or their property in their invasion of the north. The same is not true of Union soldiers."

Realskirkland sent me a Tweet saying, "Slavery is appalling, but was not the only reason for the CW [Civil War]. Those men, while misguided on some fronts stood up for what they felt was right. They embodied that American ideal that the states have a right to govern themselves. THAT is what a confederate soldier stood for."

If you take all of these comments, don't they sound eerily similar to what we hear today from Muslim extremists who have pledged their lives to defend the honor of Allah and to defeat the infidels in the West?

Keep Reading...

Filed under: 360° Radar • Opinion • Raw Politics • Roland S. Martin
April 5th, 2010
01:54 PM ET

Martin: Purge clergy who allowed sex abuse

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/WORLD/europe/03/19/pope.letter.abuse.ireland/story.pope.afp.gi.jpg caption="Defense of abuse in the church is coming from the top, including the Pope's personal preacher, says Martin." width=300 height=169]

Roland S. Martin
CNN Political Analyst

"If it would just go away."

That could be the new motto of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, a plea for an end to the constant drumbeat of stories related to years and years of sexual abuse against boys by priests.

And I'm sure that same statement is uttered daily by those same boys, now men, who desire to have the thoughts, memories and raw feelings of being sexually abused by priests in the United States, Europe and other countries go away as well.

But it won't. And just like the boys and men have to deal with the fallout from this criminal behavior - yes, sexually assaulting a minor should have sent these pathetic men to prison - so must the church.

Keep Reading...

Filed under: Religion • Roland S. Martin
March 26th, 2010
02:54 PM ET

GOP needs to grow up, get back to work

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/POLITICS/03/23/health.care.battle.senate/story.mccain.afp.gi.jpg
caption="McCain: Republicans will no longer cooperate." width=300 height=169]

Roland S. Martin
Special to CNN

Republicans on Capitol Hill are acting like spoiled brats after Democrats snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by passing health care reform.

On the day President Obama signed the bill into law, Sen. John McCain, who often touts his ability to work across the aisle, said Republicans will no longer cooperate with Democrats because of the passage of health care.

In an interview with an Arizona radio station, McCain said: "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year. They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

Keep Reading...

Filed under: Health Care • Republicans • Roland S. Martin
March 1st, 2010
11:37 AM ET

Ex-NBA star is the fallen athlete, not Tiger Woods

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/CRIME/01/05/jayson.williams.crash/story.williams.gi.jpg caption="Jayson Williams was sentenced this week for fatally shooting a limo driver in 2002." width=300 height=169]

Roland Martin
CNN Political Contributor

A little over a week ago nearly every media outlet was fixated on Tiger Woods and his apology news conference. We saw pundits, columnists, journalists, radio talk show hosts, psychologists, body language experts, entertainers and anyone with an opinion weigh in on the sincerity of Tiger: Was he really sorry for committing adultery, should he apologize further and hundreds of other angles.

Some even described him as a fallen athlete who will lose millions of endorsements and a man who has destroyed the trust he built up with his fans. I even heard one woman say she needed Tiger to apologize, yet couldn't articulate why it mattered so much to her, especially since she wasn't his wife, kin to him, and wasn't a family friend.

Yet if there was ever one athlete we could truly place in that category of fallen athlete, it would be former NBA star Jayson Williams.

Keep Reading...

Filed under: Opinion • Roland S. Martin • Tiger Woods
« older posts