Clarence Thomas and the racism of the Democrats

"At the time of his confirmation, the public was twice as likely to believe Justice Thomas over Anita Hill (55% to 27%), and 58% favored his confirmation. Today, only 30% of Americans believe that he should have been confirmed, and 38% say he should not have been."
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/12/23/clarence-thomas-tells-his-story-in-a-new-documentary

I don't have a problem understanding what happened. The media and academe. They try to damage any black who leaves the plantation. They try to convince Americans that blacks who aren't Democrats are unfaithful to the "values" of America. What it really is, is the Democrat style of racism. And in all cultural venues, academe, entertainment, news media, tech giants that control social media--Democrats rule. You can hardly get hired if you don't toe their line.

I was still a Democrat in the 1990s, and I was shocked to hear a colleague at the university say that the only reason Bush nominated Thomas was because he was black! I thought I'd never heard such a racist comment. It took me a few years, but I eventually figured out the subtle racism of the Democrats--my party! I was a slow learner. I eventually left the party because of abortion, but then learned what was under my nose all the time.

Joe Biden is rethinking Anita Hill and revising history

Molly Hemingway is one of the best journalists out there. Here's her take on Biden and Hill. She actually does research, something unheard of for so many "talk at the camera" or "click and link" journalists.

"The issue [of Biden's revisionist history] is important, as the media and other partisans rewrite the historical record about Hill and her accusations. The widely watched hearings revealed inaccuracies in Hill’s various versions of events and ended with 58 percent of Americans believing Thomas and only 24 percent believing Hill."

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/28/joe-biden-on-anita-hill-in-1998-she-was-lying/?

Although it took me a few more years to leave the Democrat party, it was while watching the hearings I first became aware of the deep racism of that party.  They just could not fathom giving a black man who hadn’t sworn his loyalty to the master that kind of power.  He believes in the Constitution, and that was very scary.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/5185/6-pieces-evidence-anita-hill-was-lying-amanda-prestigiacomo

“. . . when I watched the hearings, just like probably many Americans, I accepted the idea that we had a contest of equal credibility between two people, between Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. I think the main message is that when you look at the evidence, when you go out, as I did, and interview third parties, pore over the documents and the records, the battle of credibility is settled hands down in favor of Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill's testimony is really shot through with false, incorrect and misleading statements, and I think so much so that at the end of that particular part of the book it's very difficult to believe that what she said about Clarence Thomas is also true.”  David Brock, NPR, 1993 https://www.c-span.org/video/?43009-1/the-real-anita-hill

Amanpour on PBS

I’ve had a cold, so my sleeping is a little off, and I happened to be awake at 11:30 last night and caught Amanpour on PBS, which is a half-hour replacement for Charlie Rose who left in disgrace. It’s a CNN program, so not sure how that works, but it is apparently shown in other venues, probably Europe.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/04/media/pbs-charlie-rose-replacement/index.html

Anyway. It’s an interview show, not news.  Definitely not news.  She interviewed the Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. (or maybe England)  and tried to trap him into saying something negative about Trump.  I didn’t have a pen and paper, but I do recall her using the phrase several times, “do you fear. . .” rather than “do you think.” The Ambassador, however, was more careful and professional than President Trump or Ms. Amanpour and delicately stepped over her trap. Yes, he used a lot of weasel words, but he definitely had been coached.  Also his English was so good, I was then not prepared to try to figure out what the next guest, a Brit, was saying.

https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/christiane-amanpour-brags-about-bias-i-insist-being-truthful-not-neutral

Her next interview was with two women, one a Brit with mid-chest length stringy gray hair and the other with shoulder length stringy dark hair, but a lovely smile. It was about the MeToo movement and whether there is now a backlash. 

So Amanpour felt “led” as we say in prayer groups of sharing intimately to bring up Anita Hill and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas back in fall of 1991. I was a Democrat back then—didn’t change my party for another nine  years.  I distinctly remember being sickened by the way Democrats treated a black justice—he was at that time a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. By that time we knew all about the sexcapades of the Kennedys and if any woman starlett or aging movie star had been brave enough, the whole “Weinstein me too” story would have tumbled out 25 years ago instead of late 2017. 

In 1991 I was horrified when I heard other liberals on the OSU campus deride his qualifications and say Bush had only nominated him because he was black. As if Democrats would NEVER do such a thing—play games with race or sex.  It was definitely a “high tech lynching” and I think Justice Thomas has done a fine job.  I also read his very moving autobiography.

But then Amanpour commented that the cases Justice Thomas as been a part of have actually led the women’s movement backward.  She cited no case, just threw it out for the self righteous liberal head nodders.  Hill was the only woman to bring this charge, which as I recall was an off-color joke.  Perhaps I didn’t take it seriously because I’d heard worse, and the world didn’t collapse. Obviously, if so many women have kept quiet all the years since of current women’s rights movement of the early 70s, many people were ignoring work place chit chat.

The identified sexual assault/harassment/rape/tighty whities cases—including Charlie Rose whom she was replacing--are currently identified as about 150.  All but 3 or 4 of the charges are against high profile Democrats in politics or media/entertainment. Yet, the only case she can find to recall a historical precedent is from 25 years ago? And this is the drip dribble of biased information Americans and Europeans get every evening.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437603/christiane-amanpours-daniel-hannan-interview-exposes-her-leftist-bias

Here’s the NYT account from 1991 and it is also biased and negative toward Thomas.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/16/us/thomas-confirmation-senate-confirms-thomas-52-48-ending-week-bitter-battle-time.html?