The old play book of the Democrats

Sound familiar? Come in at the last minute with a "witness." Kavanaugh wasn't the first, and he won't be the last. It's the Democrat play book. Demand more witnesses. Now they are desperate--have to bring Trump down before the election because they can't win by voting.

"In 1991, President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. His confirmation hearings would test his character and principles in the crucible of national controversy. Like the Bork hearings in 1987, the Democrats went after Thomas’ record and his jurisprudence, especially natural law theory, but also attacked his character. When that failed, and he was on the verge of being confirmed, a former employee, Anita Hill, came forth to accuse him of sexual harassment. The next few days of televised hearings riveted the nation. Finally, defending himself against relentless attacks by the Democratic Senators on the committee, Thomas accused them of running “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas.” After wall-to-wall television coverage, according to the national polls, the American people believed Thomas by more than a 2-1 margin. Yet, Thomas was confirmed by the closest margin in history, 52-48."

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.

Clarence Thomas on liberals

Justice Thomas: "I felt as though in my life I had been looking at the wrong people as the people who would be problematic toward me," Justice Thomas said in the documentary. "We were told that, 'Oh, it's gonna be the bigot in the pickup truck; it's gonna be the Klansmen; it's gonna be the rural sheriff.' But it turned out that through all of that, ultimately the biggest impediment was the modern-day liberal. They were the ones who would discount all those things because they have one issue or because they have the power to caricature you."  https://pjmedia.com/trending/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-revenge-on-joe-biden-he-wanted-to-get-rid-of-me/

How true. Although I was a Democrat at the time, I was excited about this appointment by GHW Bush in 1991. I remember where I was when it dawned on me what liberal professors at OSU were about. They don't walk the talk. We were at lunch in the Faculty Club and I naively assumed all of us overeducated state employees would be thrilled with this nomination. "Bush is just doing it because he's black," she said, "He's just not qualified."

He has been an amazing justice, and his autobiography is one of the best political and cultural histories I've ever read, "My Grandfather's Son." You'll learn more about the black experience reading that book than attending a year's worth of SJW sniping at a university.

Is there womb discrimination?

Democrats are OK with discrimination because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or disability as long as it results in the death of an inconvenient baby in the womb. Democrats have been brutal to Justice Clarence Thomas as long as I can remember, but it has only made him stronger.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06/05/clarence-thomas-shows-lefts-hypocrisy-on-discrimination/

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

Former left-wing radical Clarence Thomas discusses his life and what he's learned

http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/07/justice-clarence-thomas-opens-life-faith-interracial-marriage/

"From a life that launched from economic deprivation, illiteracy, family dysfunction, and even time as a radical leftist, his accomplishments now reach to the U.S. Supreme Court—where he faces constant vilification and defamation. He says he learned the value of humility, patience, and persistence, but the bedrock of his rules for living came from simple aphorisms from his illiterate grandfather.""

He calls his life a miracle.

And he has quite a sense of humor.

Bigotry on the left

Clarence Thomas is the only black Justice currently sitting on the United States Supreme Court, and only the second to ever do so, but his life and accomplishments have been ignored at The National Museum of African American History and Culture except for a negative reference.  Is it racism? Bigotry?  Is it because he’s a Republican, the only party that consistently advocated full rights for black Americans? The party that tries to save black babies from the abortion machine of Planned Parenthood?

“Unfortunately, by ignoring the contributions of Justice Thomas, the National Museum of African American History and Culture implies that there’s no room for a black man who dares to challenge conventional wisdom of the Left. It also ensures that visitors will learn nothing about one of our nation’s most significant jurists.” http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog, October 4, 2016

Black on black crime

"Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas." Obama on Clarence Thomas

If you'd like to read about the real suffering of American blacks in the 20th century, read the autobiography of Clarence Thomas, who came up through severe deprivation and racism, not the whining of Barack Obama who's led a charmed life in comparison. The difference is in the behavior of the left, which attempted to destroy Thomas, and which created and protected Obama. Their only similarity is they were raised by grandparents.

As a Senator, Obama has spent most of his time running for President. What are his other accomplishments? He couldn't wipe the sweat from Thomas' brow.

4302

Liberals and Uppity Blacks

Liberals turn up their noses at Clarence Thomas' autobiography, "My Grandfather's Son." Thomas says it was all about abortion, and I wish it were so, although I'm pro-life. It is racisim, pure and simple. Look out Obama--don't you dare go after Hillary. Daniel Henninger in today's WSJ writes about Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" which has sold 30,000,000 copies. She has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom award.

"By now, "To Kill a Mockingbird" is wholly folded into the political life of the country. It is safe to say that most Democrats would consider the book to be an iconic testament to their legacy, liberalism's greatest achievement. One imagines that Harper Lee would agree with this. . ."

"But as with Justice Thomas's famously sphinx-like demeanor during oral arguments at the Supreme Court, there has been nary a peep in more than 40 years about the book's meaning from Miss Lee (it would sound absurd to refer to her as Ms. Lee). While schoolchildren today are assigned the book as an exercise in the formation of social virtue, Harper Lee herself saw the novel as about more than that. Indeed, one reads nearly 90 pages into the novel's account of Scout and Jem Finch in Maycomb before the racial drama arrives.

"We may assume that Harper Lee composed her remarkable story about the unjustly accused and gunned-down Tom Robinson so that some day a Clarence Thomas could rise from Pinpoint to the nation's highest Court. If so, we then have to account for this famous and still-astounding statement by Judge Thomas toward the end of his corrosive confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court:


"From my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

Borkiversary 20

In my lifetime I date the viciousness of political smearing to the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork. It got nasty during the Clinton years, and crescendoed with Bush, but Bork was a foretaste of things to come. A training camp for liberals and conservatives both. A new verb entered our language, "to bork" or to destroy a man while smirking and posturing in front of a TV audience. Gary L. McDowell wrote in the WSJ this week:

"The issue that united the judge's critics in their fiery, scorched-earth opposition was never his ability or reputation but rather his theory of judging. Mr. Bork's belief was that judges and justices in their interpretations of the Constitution must be bound to the original intentions of its framers."

"At its deepest level, Mr. Bork's defeat was the result of the very public affirmation by the Senate of a dangerous theory of ideological judging that had been developing for quite some time. It was the idea of a so-called "living" Constitution, one that various scholars have said means there need be "no theoretical gulf between law and morality," and that ordinary judges are empowered to interpret the fundamental law in light of their own "fresh moral insight" in order to effect a judicially mandated "moral evolution" of the nation."

Some say it was about abortion, but I think that was just the tossed bone used to whip up the masses--mainly women, because men really don't care. It was about judges taking over the responsibilities of the law makers--although why our linguini spined elected officials desired that, I can't imagine. Even Clarence Thomas says his "lynching" by liberals, black and white, was about abortion. You would almost hope that was it. In his case, I'd say it was pure racism, ugly and vile, with little or nothing to do with abortion or constitutional interpretation.

For all his other slip-ups from immigration to not fixing social security, Bush has at least given us Roberts and Alito.

4220

How social theory has hurt minorities and women

Forget Anita Hill for the moment. What Clarence Thomas has done with his memoir (My Grandfather's Son) is remind Americans that many of the laws and regulations put in place to help minorities, especially blacks, most with good intentions but poorly thought out and burdened by useless guilt, have actually held them back. Now we're in a huge mess because careers, reputations, and entire organizations are built on government regulations, affirmative action and keeping the civil rights pot stirred (like the Jena 6 story, or crack cocaine sentencing).

Even Eugene Robinson, an associate editor of the Washington Post (Oct. 10), updates what Thomas said about liberals putting blacks in a box (although Robinson seems not to have read the book and calls Thomas pugnacious for recording in terrifying detail what was common to many blacks in the 1950s through the 1980s, even if it isn't today) -- "editors, reporters, columnists and tv producers keep only 2 phone numbers on speed-dial for use whenever any news breaks concerning a black person."

He noted, for instance, that it made no sense to bus poor black children to the schools of poor white children where they would get an equally poor education. Another social experiment: Thomas believes that racial preferences actually hurt black kids and place their achievements in doubt even when they excell. That claim really brought out the accusations of "pulling up the ladder" after he got in.

Now there is some research by Richard Sander of UCLA that says the same thing, but you can be sure it will be quashed or it will be called racist. There are people fighting for their livelihoods to say nothing of their legacy.

"The schools involved are dozens of law schools in California and elsewhere, and the program is the system of affirmative action that enables hundreds of minority law students to attend more elite institutions than their credentials alone would allow. Data from across the country suggest to some researchers that when law students attend schools where their credentials (including LSAT scores and college grades) are much lower than the median at the school, they actually learn less, are less likely to graduate and are nearly twice as likely to fail the bar exam than they would have been had they gone to less elite schools. This is known as the "mismatch effect." Not to shock you senseless, but I was an A student at the University of Illinois--at Harvard I probably wouldn't have made it. That definitely would have been a "mismatch."

The problem as Sander sees it, isn't that black students can't make it in law school, but that because of preferences, they aren't attending the right school.

"In general, research shows that 50% of black law students end up in the bottom 10th of their class, and that they are more than twice as likely to drop out as white students. Only one in three black students who start law school graduate and pass the bar on their first attempt; most never become lawyers. How much of this might be attributable to the mismatch effect of affirmative action is still a matter of debate, but the problem cries out for attention."

Good luck getting funding to research that! I heard an interview with Don Dutton on Mike McConnell (700 am radio) this morning--haven't researched it myself--saying domestic violence tougher laws are actually hurting women, especially black women, because if men are hauled off to jail on a first complaint, women are less likely to summon police and after the required anger management (for just the man) instead of couples counseling, the man is more likely to just kill her the next time. I haven't looked into this, but a brief google search brings up only feminist hyped websites and hysteria about how many women are killed every so many seconds, so the unintended consequences of stiffer penalties at the first cry for help wouldn't surprise me.

Another example of failed social theory mention on McConnell's show is the crack vs. powder cocaine sentencing story. Supposedly, it's racist to treat the two drug criminals differently. When it became obvious that crack cocaine was a serious problem in the black community in the mid-1980s, the Congressional Black Caucus lobbied for harsher penalties and got it. It was primarily black on black violence. So now there is a huge discrepancy, some say by race, but studies show it is amount sold, prior history, and weapons used that cause the stiffer penalties, not the type of drug. City Journal

Oh, and it's now called IPV, Intimate Partner Violence, at least in Canada, I suppose so gays and lesbians can be included. Sounds like a feminine hygiene product.

Monday Memories--The Stalkers

Usually when I write a Monday Memory, it is something personal--a family or employment snippet. This memory surfaced while I was reading Clarence Thomas' My Grandfather's Son. Anita Hill's charges were so bizarre and unfounded, according to everyone who knew Justice Thomas, that you are left to wonder why would any woman do this, and how could she pass a polygraph test?

Unfortunately, there are people in every walk of life whose fantasies and longings are so strong you can't shake their beliefs with logic, recall or the facts. They may not fit any definition of mentally ill, but somewhere a false memory has taken root. I knew two such women about 30 years ago, and they were both "in love" with the same man, and firmly believed their love was being returned, if they could only get to him to consummate it. A glance, a kind word, a chance meeting at a grocery store--they were the building blocks of their burning desire.

One woman was divorced with 2 or 3 young children about the same age as mine; she was employed, homely, helpless and more than a bit strange. All of us at church felt sorry for her--until we had to spend more than 10 minutes with her. She was deeply in love with a staff member of the church and thought he returned her interest. He finally had to get police protection and a restraining order. I ran into her several years later on a job interview, but have no idea how that problem was resolved.

The other woman was also in love with this same staff member (he was extremely good looking and very charming with a great personality). They had had a bit more contact because her husband worked with him so they saw each other socially. She had almost become glue--I'm sure he had trouble shaking her once he became aware of it. You often saw them together--in a group of course, because it was a large staff, but she tried to be as close as possible. The adoration on her face was embarrassing. Eventually she divorced her husband--I don't know which one kept the children, but both left the church.

The much beloved staff member eventually "married" his gay partner.

4198

Why liberals are afraid of Clarence Thomas

He's written an autobiography titled, "My grandfather's son," and liberals are squealing and denigrating again. They used to just condemn his qualifications; now it's his emotional state. It's not just because he's an uppity black man who isn't grateful for all they've done (the whites). It's not just because he's got black skin and Negroid features (the Civil Rights leaders who grew up with the brown paper sack rule of acceptable appearance). It's not just because he complains about rich feminists hunting for more shackles and glass ceilings (as black women were still scrubbing floors). No. He stomps all over and rips up their favorite playgrounds giving them no place to hang out. So I suppose they have a right to pout and bully him, and call him too angry or disturbed to be on the bench. But, as John Yoo points out in today's WSJ, "Clarence Thomas is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take pot shots at him."

And if he's too angry,

does that include the other angry people who came out of the Civil Rights movement of the 60s and 70s?

Or who left the church because of its inaction on race issues?

Or who used company rest rooms with racial slurs on the walls?

Or who saw the futility in the black power movement after a brief, heady flirtation?

Or who dabbled in leftist politics in the 70s and found it empty rhetoric?

Or who disappointed and argued with his parents about his political views and life choices and lives with regrets?

Or who had to learn to speak standard English and give up his distinct (and ridiculed) childhood dialect?

Or who says a degree from Yale is worth about 15 cents in the real world if you are black?

Or who believes busing poor black kids to poor white schools did nothing for educating children?

Or who saves a complimentary letter to reread from time to time as an affirmation of his beliefs?

Or who believes criminals need to be tried by juries, not judges?

Or who went the lonely route and voted for Ronald Reagan, turning away from government engineering of social problems?

Now, for conservatives who read this book: they may wonder as I did, why he didn't know until joining the Department of Education that busing was never about education for disadvantaged black children, it was always about neighborhood integration and the real estate market. They may be puzzled that he knew so little about black on black crime when he began working in Missouri. They may wonder why he would stay eight years with the EEOC--did he think he was God, because if it was as bad as he said, that would be its only salvation. Why he didn't get rid of Anita Hill sooner if he knew she was trouble. Did the first Bush ever take his advice on black appointments?

I found the inefficiency and relationships between the various federal agencies and departments discouraging--I think more could have been said. More solutions offered. (Although as a Supreme, he probably has areas on which he isn't allowed to comment.) If it were me, I would have had a few regrets about that, too. Also, for this reader, many of his insights, sounded more like hindsight.

Still, it's well worth reading.

Jesse Peterson is looking for a few good (white) men. I wish him luck.

Needed: a savvy editor

I haven't yet finished Clarence Thomas' autobiography, My Grandfather's Son, but unless he makes a big reversal before I get to the end of the book, I think his editor made a huge, huge boo-boo. It's about Thomas' first marriage and alcohol problems.

Never, never let your author say he knew before the wedding that it was a mistake. This strips the woman (and child) of all dignity, no matter what nice things are later said about her, her parents, and other good things. It makes your author, whom you were hired to protect from himself, look like less than a gentleman.

Second, never, never let your author continue to say, "when I left her," "when I left the marriage," or "after I left her," because it makes him look like a pompous fool who doesn't realize two people make up a relationship. To a man, it might sound innocuous; but to a woman reader, it makes him sound like a first class clod. If he says it once, OK, maybe your editorial skills are shoddy and you missed it, but several times? Back to school for you!

Third, (and I haven't come to the part where he gets sober) don't let your author go on and on and on about how poor he was after his Yale Law degree and several government appointments and never have him acknowledge how expensive it is to drink away all your discretionary income. Whether liberals or conservatives read it, that's a financial lesson it's never too early or late to learn.

4176

Just bought two best sellers

They aren't in the library. Clarence Thomas' My Grandfather's Son is on order at the Upper Arlington Public Library, and has 8 holds from people who want to read it; Laura Ingraham's Power to the People has one copy, checked out, and 6 holds. However, if I wanted to read about Katie the real story there are 3 copies, all available; and Maureen Dowd's Are men necessary? has 3 copies, all available, plus one for sale for $2 on the Friends shelf (hard cover, book jacket, looks unused). There were 2 DVD sets of the first 6 episodes of "30 Days." I checked Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus--they seemed to have been alerted that there might be an interest in the Thomas book, and they had circulating copies (all checked out) with multiple holds.

When I asked the tattooed, earstudded clerk at the store for the Ingraham book, he didn't seem to know of it, and looked it up on the computer. He found it, and led me to the back of the store, to a bottom shelf in the history section. "Isn't this an odd place for a #1 title?" I asked. "Oh, it's probably up front; I just didn't want to look for it," he groused. Then I asked for the Thomas book. He turned on his heel and nearly ran to the front of the store and pointed. And there it was; under the table in plain view. How could I have missed it? With my two books in hand, I carefully looked at all the tables. Laura wasn't there.

However, both rang up for 30% off even though there was no sticker on her book.

If you live in Columbus and want to read one of these, let me know. It will be a long wait for the library to take action. You know it is BBW and they are probably busy dealing with cranky conservatives.

4159

Thank you, 60 minutes!

Years ago I was a regular 60 Minutes viewer. Then I watched a smear job they did on the people of little Polo, Illinois. I don't recall the details of the story, but I think the town had cut off the utilities of a down-and-outer who was scamming the whole community. Then there was the Dan Blather flap. But I did watch Steve Kroft's interview of Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas last night, and it was extremely moving with lots of added footage, plus an actual conclusion that gave Thomas the last word. How refreshing. What we know now. . . It was all about abortion for the hate-smear Clarence Thomas foes (I could have sworn it was racism, pure and simple). It was about standing on principle for him.

Flipping through blogs today, I saw one whiner that thought Thomas smeared Anita Hill. Not at all. He said she wasn't the meek and mild, demure young lady portrayed by the press. The Anita Hill he worked with was a fighter who would have never tolerated the indignities of what he was accused of, not for 10 minutes, let alone 10 years. What's demeaning about that? If she became a pawn of the press, slurping up the bright lights, she certainly wasn't the first.

Buy My Grandfather's Son. Let's show the Just-us Brothers (Al and Jesse) what a real man sounds like. Let's get this book into the school library. Ask my public library to buy 16 copies like they did for the anti-Bush titles. It will restore your faith in the very sorry mess that is Washington.