I feel a need to comment on the ugly remarks made against Clarence Thomas by some people who were protesting in Palm Springs last month against the presence of the Koch brothers, who are currently the target of leftist rage. Some of these folks have been captured on tape saying reprehensible and truly racist things about Clarence Thomas.
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?41656-Lefty-Protesters-Send-Clarence-Thomas-Back-to-the-Fields-Hang-Him-etc.
I chose this report on the event not just because it shows liberal hypocrisy, but also because it does refer to the problem of large protest events that bring out folks whose agenda might be more drastic than you imagined. Last Sunday, I was at the Yorba Linda protest against the speaking appearance of two Muslim radicals. A few dozen folks decided to shout some things at the attendees that I wasn't comfortable with.
Nevertheless, there is nothing new here as far as Thomas is concerned. He has been the target of vitriolic attacks even before he was nominated to sit on the Supremem Court. Why? Because he is a conservative. Throughout his public life, the left has called him an "Uncle Tom" a "plantation slave" and other epithets.
In this case, it seems that the protesters in Palm Springs were energized from listening to ex-Obama official Van Jones-a true radical. One can only wonder what Jones might have said about Thomas that brought his name into an anti-Koch protest.
The bigger issue here is the treatment of minority conservatives by the left. Why hasn't the NAACP jumped into this with both feet? Where is Al Sharpton? Where is Jesse Jackson? If a conservative crowd had said those things, they would have already been marching in Palm Springs. Where are they? Where is the Congressional Black Caucus?
Clearly, Thomas does not deserve this. How many know of the work Thomas does in the DC area going and speaking to troubled youth? You never hear about that, do you? To the left, that means nothing. To them, black conservatives like Thomas have to be silenced.
I wonder how many of those white idiots who said those things would have the courage to go against the grain like Thomas and take all the hate that comes with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The Koch brothers have undoubted committed a number of felonies to get where they are. If this were diligently investigated, perhaps they could be properly prosecuted in a court of law. It appears the people at this rally are too lazy to attempt such a thing.
Their money should indeed not be allowed to dominate the political process -- something they seek to perpetuate their ability to extract profit at the expense of their underpaid employees. As a pro-labor libertarian, I despise their attempt to hide their own depredations behind the cause of "liberty." Slave owners also called abolitionism "an attempt to overthrow our liberties."
As for Clarence Thomas, the man is entirely unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court, for reasons candidly (if unintentionally) presented in his own autobiography. How his critics missed that at his confirmation hearings simply confirms my opinion of liberals.
He couldn't answer direct questions about the law. He hadn't done his homework. He wasn't up to the job. Reading his opinions confirms for me that he doesn't understand the law. There was no need to indulge in the circus about Anita Hill, who may or may not have been telling the truth, but was entirely irrelevant to the question before the Senate.
"The Koch brothers have undoubted committed a number of felonies to get where they are."
Undoubtedly, Siarlys. Actually, I never heard of them until a few says ago. Tell me about their felonies.
Economists and lawyers have estimated that to amass the fortune they possess is impossible without committing (wittingly or unwittingly) acts that could carry a prison term of up to twenty years. That says as much about our accumulation of sometimes inconsistent laws as anything else, but look up the businesses they are in. My point is, name calling doesn't amount to much, but due diligence might get them somewhere.
I notice you didn't think of anything to say in defense of Clarence Thomas. If those idiots denouncing him in crude language would just get their act together and point out the real reasons he shouldn't be on the court, it would clear the air nicely.
"Economists and lawyers have estimated that to amass the fortune they possess is impossible without committing (wittingly or unwittingly) acts that could carry a prison term of up to twenty years."
Siarlys,
You couldn't put a dog in the pound with that kind of evidence.
"Economists and lawyers have estimated that to amass the fortune they possess is impossible without committing (wittingly or unwittingly) acts that could carry a prison term of up to twenty years."
Siarlys,
You couldn't put a dog in the pound with that kind of evidence.
Oh I can defend Thomas. I think he has been a good justice because he rules sensibly. He also devotes a lot of his time to speaking to troubled kids who are in institutions. He has borne the abuse he has received with grace and dignity-unlike his vile critics.
Clarence Thomas is to grace what Nancy Pelosi is to charisma.
I've read several of his opinions. They betray gross ignorance of our constitution and legal precedent, and disorganized thought process.
Of course you couldn't put a dog in a pound on a mere allegation. I said, these characters ought to do an investigation rather than stand on a soap box calling names.
Post a Comment