Revisiting Clarence Thomas’s Ordeal
by Star ParkerGinni Thomas’s call to Anita Hill has, not surprisingly, provoked columns and blogging speculating what motivated the call, some wanting to relive those hearings of 20 years ago.
But how about considering the simplest and most straightforward scenario?
Mrs. Thomas knows that her husband was slandered. That his name and reputation remain tarnished as result of the sleaziest kinds of lies and character assassination delivered by Anita Hill. She knows, better than anyone other than Clarence Thomas himself, the pain her husband endures as result of these lies.
The alleged point of those Senate hearings was to examine a man’s qualifications and confirm his nomination as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Justice Thomas’s performance on the Court over these twenty years has been exemplary. One might not agree with his conservative views, but his scholarship, professionalism, and original contributions are well established.
So is it inconceivable that Ginni Thomas might consider reaching out to Anita Hill to consider, after all this time, extinguishing, as only she can, the sordid cloud of innuendo that she created?
But it’s more than just how Clarence Thomas feels.
The “high-tech lynching,” as Thomas described it, was not about destroying one man, but destroying what that man stands for.
Would anyone believe for a microsecond that Anita Hill would have showed up in Washington if Clarence Thomas was a liberal?
This was not about a man’s qualifications for the Supreme Court but the threat of conservatism and the emergence of a black conservative icon that black Americans could look to and learn from.
When runaway slaves were captured and dragged back to the plantation, they were whipped in view of all, until no skin was left, so the lesson would be clear about what happens to renegades.
The civil rights movement, a movement about human freedom, morphed, after passage of the Civil Rights Act, into a left wing political movement. Freedom, once the prize, became the threat. It became all about politics and power.
Organizations like the NAACP, once about protecting life, liberty, and property of Americans of color, became about advancing a left wing political regime.
As Clarence Thomas writes in his autobiography “My Grandfather’s Son”, “Hypersensitive civil-rights leaders who saw racism around every corner fell silent when my liberal enemies sneered that I was unqualified to sit on the Court…”
It’s now business as usual that black conservatives are non-persons to traditional black civil rights organizations.
When the city of Oakland passed an ordinance aimed specifically to prevent a black pastor, Walter Hoye, from distributing pro-life literature outside an abortion clinic preying on black women, no civil rights organizations showed up.
When Crystal Dixon, a black Christian woman, was fired from her job at the University of Toledo for writing an op-ed in a local paper arguing that the homosexual rights movement is different from the black civil rights movement, no civil rights organizations showed up.
Justice Thomas writes that during his ordeal he received a call from Jehan Sadat, widow of the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. She offered words of encouragement, saying that “…They are laughing at the United States around the world….Women around the world are suffering real oppression.”
There is particular irony here. Anwar Sadat was a leader who chose to think for himself. He decided to look truth in the eye and courageously step forward in the name of freedom and peace and reach out to Israel. For this he was assassinated.
Human liberty is about courage, dignity, eternal truths, and personal responsibility.
It’s why those wedded to a world defined by politics and uniformity feel so deeply threatened by men like Clarence Thomas and Anwar Sadat.
So it’s not so amazing that a woman like Ginni Thomas would reach out to Anita Hill. And it is not so amazing why a woman like Anita Hill would find this bizarre.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
149 Comments
Character shows up in the strangest places, and so does lack of.
Revisit the Thomas ordeal?
I'd sure not like to.
It was disturbing then.
It is still disturbing.
Anita Hill was used as a tool of the left.
This was without a doubt, one of the sleaziest things I ever witnessed.
Right now Juan Williams is being publicly flogged for consorting with the enemy. Progressives feel free to humiliate and marginalize anyone who does not pass their loyalty test. This became obvious when NPR CEO suggested Williams had or needed a psychiatrist. Progressives believe they are the masters of black people.
One needs to dig rather deeply into the history and activities of Anita Hill as it relates to her fastidious infatuation with Justice Thomas. Her desire to establish a relationship with this great man was properly rejected in the work place. Justice Thomas made every effort to be a gentleman (study the history) in rejecting her advances. She was and is a scorned woman with pathological hatred for the man Ginny now has. Justice Thomas is a class individual who went so far as to even protect and dismiss much of the truth about Anita Hill. She is a despicable liar and deserves what she has become.
She lives with her lies…..sad. Another leftist/socialist failure. Stay tuned…more to come !
Thomas got "Borked". I wonder if they let him have a cigarette afterwords.
Sad and pathetic when a brilliant, dignified and courageous black thinker like Justice Thomas is forced to the "back of the bus" while a mediocre, bombastic and clamouring black like Al Sharpton gets a front row seat on the "bus of black public opinion". Wonder if there's any connection to blacks suffering disproportionately?…hmmm.
She was just pissed off because he chose a 'white woman' over her ignorant, liberal trashy ass!! I am sick of the rhetoric being thrown around from the left! You know she was paid 'something' to do what she did, and to hold on to that lie for all these years!
That whole ordeal was a disgrace for the country, but not surprising in that it's the normal behavior for the left to personally destroy anyone who strays from the liberal reservation. And yet a majority of black people still blindy vote for them. Sad.
Clarence Thomas is a living example of class and true character.
I am guessing he new better, and therefore, never held his breath expecting groups like the NAACP to come to his defense.
I wonder why these democrats/journalists continue to assume Clarence Thomas was at fault and then when asked, take the exact opposite opinion when discussing Bill Clinton. We all know there was a lot more than innuendo involved with Clinton (i.e. the blue dress, a book written by Ken Starr). Thomas was found guilty in the court of public opinion because of one uncorroborated persons stories. If innuendo equals guilt, Clinton should have been convicted after being impeached without the impeachment and conviction vote and the democrats should have led charge for guilt. In Thomas' case, no trial, no evidence and the irony is he's a lifetime appointed Judge who should be held to high standards (oh sorry, only if you Conservative, of course)!!
This issue should have remained buried in the dirt side of the political graveyard!
What I found bizarre is the way Ginni Thomas reached out: Hi Anita, it's Ginni Thomas. I am reaching out to you. Now apologize!
Agreed Cowboy. Somtimes, you just have to let sleeping dogs lie.
On a potential legal RAT meltdown. The left's worse nightmare could come, if and when, Barry's Soetoros's true identity is exposed, and Sotomayor and Kagan are frog marched out the front door of the SCOTUS.
I'm sure that Ginni Thomas has also exhibited superhuman restraint all these years, to stop herself from performing the "Dolly Parton" manuver on Hill– from the old movie 9 to 5, when Dolly's character discovers the boss has been trying to do a "Clinton" on all the female office workers, she exclaims "I say we drag him out back and beat the S**T out of him!"
Marginalize, vilify, embarrass….. it's all part of their play book. This apparently is just the lefts way of preventing any one who is not a leftist/statist from being moved into a prominent position.
The most recent being Meg Whitman and gloria allred and the lefts attempt at vilifying. Straight out of their playbook.
I don't see the reason why Justice Thomas's wife is doing this. It was clearly about his ideas and not the man himself that drove anita hill to go after him. It won't solve anything.
Clarence Thomas could have become one of the great success stories in American black culture for his life story of rising out of abject poverty, to sitting on the US Supreme Court. But those who hate black Americans (democrats), who only use them for political gain (democrats), who want to keep them in poverty (democrats), who support the abortion of their babies (democrats), who fought against civil rights legislation (democrats), who started and supported the KKK (democrats), and who today advocate policies to keep them from rising up out of poverty (democrats), could NEVER allow a success story like that to become the new normal.
This, among many other reasons, is why I despise the democrats, particularly the "progressive" democrats. Fortunately, their game is starting to come to light. With the firing of (the liberal) Juan Williams, the ONLY black correspondent on NPR airwaves, we're finally being shown the truth behind the "progressive" democrat facade. That they don't hate the black Americans that are Conservative or liberal. What they hate is any black American that speaks their mind, or that deviates from the "progressive" narrative the democrats have used to keep them oppressed.
The democrat party is the party of slavery. It always has been. The only difference today is that they use a slavery of the mind to oppress. Today the democrats, for the black American, are nothing more than poverty pimps.
Goes to show if you don't toe the lefty line …then its to the back of the bus boy……The left are racist and bigots
The whole ordeal was sordid and sleazy.
You summed up the whole matter quite eloquently.
It was a RAT drive by shooting.
And it all started with the Bork hearing where a guy with a questionable past with women lectured a brilliant man about morality all because they viewed the Constitution differently.
"There is particular irony here. Anwar Sadat was a leader who chose to think for himself. He decided to look truth in the eye and courageously step forward in the name of freedom and peace and reach out to Israel. For this he was assassinated…" by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Sadat's assassination should never be mentioned without pointing out that the Muslim Brotherhood did the deed.
As for Hill, she'll never come clean. She seems by all appearances to be a deeply disturbed pathological liar who truly believes the slanders she told.
In my opinion the Clarence Thomas Ordeal has some glaring similarities with the Juan Williams Ordeal. Not to disparage one, or lessen the ordeal that Thomas had over Williams, but I see a lot of racism involved. Every time a black man succeeds, and exceeds expectations, and moves off the plantation, and no longer maintains the "company line", there is someone in the shadows, wanting to pull them back. It stinks.
If memory serves me correctly, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson did not stand up for Thomas, just as they are strangely absent with their bull horns now. To me, there is a comparison between the two scenarios, and they both smack of pure hypocrisy.
Not to get off on a rant or tangent about Williams, but the past several days I have been digging into an aspect that everyone has overlooked concerning NPR. If the dots connect, it will make ACORN look like small potatoes.
As I watched the news reports this past week of this story, the media ran the sound bite of Justice Thomas saying "this is a high-tech lynching."
I don't know if anyone remembers, but that was not the whole quote, and I wish they would've played the whole thing. Here it is:
"This is just a high-tech lynching of a black man who deigns to think for himself."
—-
"For true patriots to remain silent, is dangerous."
Samuel Adams
The wife of any current or former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court has absolutely no business involved in an organization that is calling for the ending of the "tyrannical rule" of the current administration in Washington D.C. This type of hyperbole is way over the line and is damaging to our system of government. Additionally, Clarence Thomas's former girlfriend from the early 80's recently spoke publicly and her comments are right in line with Professor Hill's comments of his discussions of pornography and views towards women.
Justice Thomas must be really, REALLY pissed at his wife right now. What an absolute tool to stir up this hornets nest after it was completely forgotten about after all these years.
Yes, Husker, former girlfriends are always accurate barometers, espceially when they already know the charges.
Remember this when someone extols comity, reasoned discourse, a gentlemen’s debate if you will. This is what we’re dealing with, spoiled disciples, of ‘60s counter culturist, who don’t give a whit about our point of view. Attack, and attack constantly, these people must be utterly, and completely defeated. There is no middle ground with the jackals of the left.
I thank you, Sir…. As did you…. Sordid beyond the pale….
No Syntax, this is an important object study on how to deal with a liberal. Take the gloves off and attack, destroy your opponent, make it up if you must.
Sorry Husk, there are no rules, as defined by the left, “the ends justify the means,” “if it fells good do it,” and most importantly, “we’re sticking it to the man.”
Wow, do you really, really think his wife is a "perfect example of comity"?. Please. I believe I have a right to know if someone watches pornography before he becomes an associate justice, don't you?
Really, destroy your opponent by making stuff up iis a "liberal" tool. Hmmm. So calling the POTUS a Marxist, Communist, Socialist, witch doctor, foreign born, etc., is fair game. Better go look up the definition of hypocrite.
It sounds like racism. Juan was the only black radio personality at NPR, a distinction for a high minded liberal organization, that should be looked into…what’s good for the goose…
Possibly the least well understood effect of Clarence Thomas's elevation to and tenure on the Supreme Court is this: The Left has become extremely wary of black jurists. Otherwise Janice Rogers Brown, one of the most admirable legal minds in America, would have gotten a fair hearing without all the "Gang of 14" nonsense. (Granted, they would have opposed her anyway, but they wouldn't have let their cards show so obviously.)
I have already made my views of the phone call avaiable so I need not answer that question. As for the second question, can you please expound on your rationale for that view?
The only concern now Husk is, what’s in it for me? Right! You may have forgotten but, it was Ted Kennedy, the murdering misogynist deceased senator from Mass, that began the end of civil discourse, turnabout is fair play…right? He happily brought unfounded sleaze into the public discourse, enjoy.
"So calling the POTUS a Marxist, Communist, Socialist, witch doctor, foreign born, etc., is fair game"
Witch doctor? Haven't heard that one before. Did you make that one up?
As for the rest of that list, it's all demonstrably true. The only thing left to be verified is the foreign born thing. But, that'll come, sooner or later. And what will you do then? Cry?
Excuse me, but the question on comity has nothing to do with a phone call. It has to do with belonging to an organization which has either called or strongly implied the POTUS is a tyrant. As far as the second question, I suppose the issue of what is pornography has never come up before the SCOTUS.
Oh, now it is two wrongs make a right. I see. For a conservative, you should be ashamed. The conservatives I know want to play by the rules because they want to set an example for the next generation.
I think you’re older than fourteen Husk, right? We could go back to the late ‘60s and the beginning of the radicalization of the democrat into a devout Marxist. Barry is a disciple of ‘60s radicals, and therefore a Marxist, for that there is no question.
Excuse me, Husker, in my book, comity means civility or mutual respect. If you meant associations, you should have spelled out exacly what you were talking about. Don't blame me for your shortcomings in communications.
As for the second question, does that then mean that all women who are nominated to the court should answer a question asking if they have ever had an abortion?
Sorry Husk! I’m a conservative and a small “l” libertarian. I come from the ‘60s and ‘70s and fully understand what we’re up against. I know to try too have a reasoned debate with an Abbie Hoffman or his spawn is useless.
So I read the article and then read all these posts supporting Judge Thomas and what a great man he continues to be for our country. I agree with you, but I have to remind you we are supposed to be "racists" remember? The left and the MSM said it is so. Please tone it down OK? Great…thanks…they (left) appreciate our understanding.
Just another example with Thomas 20 years ago and Juan this week which side is tolerant and has better ideas. To the liberals in general and those who troll here on occasion you diminish your integrity and your intelligence when you won't admit your inferior stance and lack of reasoning. I look down on you with pity for you are not worth the time or effort. Wake up, put down the kool-aide, slap yourself out of your stupor then we may talk.
Speaking of small potatoes.. look what the Patriot uncovered about CAIR.
These two people that CAIR stood by in June 2000 ,when the suspicious activities were questioned on the airplane, parts of the file has been classified as of 2008, yet this remains. They tried to pull on the cockpit door, according to documents.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000815213849/http://...
or http://www.thefreelibrary.com/America+West+Airlin...
Same people. I'll tell you this about that proud CAIR moment , Zacaria Soubra attended a flight school in Phoenix, and a car Soubra drove is actually owned by al-Qudhaeein. al-Qudhaeein is one of the men that CAIR stood by under the guise of civil advocacy after the plane incident.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=h...
Well said…
"Coming clean" for liberals means group therapy where what you say is never allowed to be aired in public. "Coming clean" is anathema to liberalism as it forces one to consider the totality of what their beliefs system entails. This is why the old Soviet system never allowed people to criticize the state directly – if you allowed that sort of thing to start, where would it end? The same thing is repeated here. Liberals are pathologically and philosophically constrained from undertaking an honest appraisal of one self as that would force them to consider the reality of who they really are.
Bo the POTUS is a socialist where have you been dude? If the media would ever do their job it would be clear to you. "Redistribute wealth", enough said, checkmate you lose so go away, try huffpo you will fit right in trust me.
behind every apparent double standard, lies an unconfessed single standard.
So, freedom of speech and of association is for neo-Communists who agree with you and yours, but not for those like Virginia Thomas with whom you disagree? My, my… how progressive of you.
"Damaging to our system of government?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
being a liberal means NEVER having to say you're sorry…
Witch Doctor = LaRouche
Birthers started with Hillary
As for the rest, it's clear he's a statist and heavily influenced by Marxists.
Well, Dope, you are talking about the wife of a judge and not just any judge. She is lending her name to an organization which calls the current administration, tyrannical. Judges are to avoid even the appearance of impartiality. Hmmm.
Abbie Hoffman, really now. Talk about hyperbole.
First, all you had to do was read my first post. Who did you think I was talking about? Second, abortions in the country are legal, pornography is not, as well as sexual harassment.
Really, where have you been? You have never seen a sign at a Tea Party portraying Obama as a witch doctor? http://www.articles.cnn.com./2009-09-17/politics/obama.w... or just go to you-tube and type in Obama witch doctor. You will have plenty of signs to pick from.
A marxist. O.K. And that is why the government has been selling off its shares in the banks as a result of TARP for a profit and starting the same process with GM and Chrysler. You people really need to realize you are not winning friends and influencing people with your extreme rhetoric.
So you quoted something you actually didn't write? Your first post did not contain the phrase "perfect example of comity." Again, don't blame me for you lack of communication skills. Also, If pornography is legal how is it that when I was a (college) kid , a few of my buddies and I were able to go to the theatre and see Deep Throat. However, it is still possible for abortion cases to come before the court. As for sexual harassment, I merely responded to your post that said an ex-girlfriend corroborated Hill pointing out that (carcastically) that former girlfriends are really an excellent barometer.
You know, Husker, if you want to have an honest discussio, I am all for it, However you feel free to make up quotes that were never made and when talking about Mrs. Thomas's "comity" you fail to as I suggested to spell "out exacly what you were talking about." Just because the Huffington Post uses the term "tyrannical", it doesn't make it true!
Justice Thomas is a Rock Star and Ginny Thomas is the Rock of Gibraltar for not going Jerry Springer on Hill!
Great article, Ms. Star! We know what Justice Thomas has been up to for the last 20 years, what do we know about Anita Hill?
As usual, the regressive "progressive" DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION, so I'll pose it another TWO ways in the hope that one of them just might penetrate that indoctrination-addled brain of yours: Since when do the thoughts, words and actions of an independent, competent adult who happens to be married to a judge have any impact whatsoever on their spouse's performance in office – except, that is, in the fevered swamps of the "minds" of regressive "progressives?" Since when do the bonds of matrimony negate one's freedom of speech and of association when one's spouse happens to be a judge?
Concur. But!
The seeds of the Breitbart 'MEGA-Media Complex' were sown with the Thomas ordeal. We all went through living hell with Clarence. Thank God that the outrage I felt with that 'trial' has manifested one of the greatest American heroes in my generation.
This is all scripted, now they will start with the supreme court, they meaning Soros, Alinsky, etc,( the gang bangers) already started with Radio, Fox, Palin, Beck, Tea Partyers, Republicans, God, himself, can you imagine what its like to be locked up inside yourself filled with hate, amazing??????But truth overcomes evil always, they will be left with dirty diapers,
Yeah, well, your link goes nowhere. Maybe the witch doctor put a voodoo spell on it. Or maybe just like all your other comments; it just goes nowhere.
"Organizations like the NAACP, once about protecting life, liberty, and property of Americans of color, became about advancing a left wing political regime."
No, they were about advancing an ANTI-WHITE and leftist (same thing for all practical purposes) agenda from the start. Many of the founders were not Black but Jews.
I wonder why there is no mention of the background of that author of the NAACP report – hint: he isn't Black.
http://cofcc.org/2010/10/author-of-naacp-tea-part...
While disturbing, dragging up the past serves a purpose. We need to remind ourselves what happens to some of my fellow 'minorites' when we're not a Grade A liberal. Part if not much of the treatment Justice Thomas recieved was due to him being a black conservative. The sexual harrassment issue was largely a red herring.
It would be one thing if Hill merely refused Mrs. Thomas' effort to extend an olive branch. But her gross overreaction to it, and her FREAKING CALLING THE FBI over it, just shows up Hill for the hypersensitive that she is.
I guess you miss the point, oh well…figures.
Ewww… “extreme” now there’s a liberal PC buzz word, you should throw in “racist,” “homophobe,” …boring. And yes, Barry is a Marxist, and will be described as such. No more McLame, “I know Senator Barry he’s a good guy.” Yeah! …my left testicle. Thanks a pant load John.
Wrong answer dumbass, pornography is legal and you do not have a right to know. Furthermore you are wrong when you claim that a private citizen has no right to express their political views. Scum like you had no problem with the wife of a sitting senator belonging to an organization that was calling for the end to the "tyrannical rule" of the president in 2004. Hunt and peck away all you want. You've done nothing but prove that the left is full of ignorant piss-ants who cannot bear the thought that anyone does not buy their crap or toe their line.
It is becoming clear that the Republicans will retake the House.
What is clear too and evidenced by this Justice is the role of the
rube the Republican voters have and continue to play.
And now we have Star Parker writing an article in a blatant attempt
to sway these rube voters in her favor.
It is obviously clear that this man, Justice Thomas, from articles I
have read, has never had an original idea in his life, and after the
revelations of Anita Hill and the more recent validation of an ex
girlfriend, that this man should have never become a Justice in the
first place.
For Star Parker to defend the indefensible should make it clear that
she too is unfit to serve.
Star Parker should have titled this article: Revisiting Clarence Thomas's
Ordeal For My Personal Political Gain.
As usual the libturds apply rules to others that they will never apply to themselves. She is a private citizen moron. What part of that do you not understand? You certainly had no problem with bubba shoving a cigar up Monica's ass did you. You certainly do not have problems with judges who rule the way you want do you. Crawl back under your rock with the rest of your breed.
Exactly on point. Could not have said it better myself, and I'm also one of those black men that has wandered "off the plantation".
Well, genius, there is a rather "slight" if you will, difference between a senator and a judge. Senators by their very nature are involved in politics, associate supreme court justices are not.
Well, Dope, I answered your question. You just do not like the answer. I guess the first four letters of you name fit you well.
She is the wife of a Supreme Court associate justice. They have sworn an oath to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
I don't find it so strange that it shows up in Thomas or in his wife, or that it is missing from Anita Hill and her partisans.
Yep. The guy must be crazy to stray off the reservation. Obviously needs a little reeducation at Jesse hiJackson's Rainbow Camp.
OK smart guy, let's take a look at that oath of office for Supreme Court justices, shall we?
That's from 28 USC 453, the statute requiring justices to take an oath of office. There's nothing in there about "the appearance of impropriety," whatever that means, and it's eerily silent on the free-speech rights of the spouses of said justices. I very much doubt you'll be able to cite any relevant case law that applies to the Supreme Court, either, seeing as how most justices throughout history have been married. Then again, this is about the best argument one might expect from someone whose only "partner" has been his own right palm, I suppose…
Before you retort, allow me to take your argument to its logical extreme: By your standard, Michelle Antoinette better not comment on anything more controversial than, say, gardening, baking cookies or holiday decorating, or her husband has violated his oath of office merely by remaining married to her. That stuff about salt and fat in kids' diets? Completely off limits thanks to her husband's involvement in cramming "health" "care" "reform" down our throats. After all, we wouldn't want our president to have "the appearance of impropriety," would we?
Now do you see how silly your argument is?
Once again, you're regurgitating the crap your paymasters at Big Brother Barry Inc. and $oro$ Corp. stuffed into that pointy little head of yours. After a while, it's rather painfully obvious that you're a drone.
Folks, this is why universities shouldn't let sophos moros anywhere near Internet-connected keyboards…
Are you high? What the hell does this have to do with anything liberal you paranoid wacko?
HA! He was like 8 years old. Bwu ha ha ha. Stan lives in Magic Paranoia Kingdom where TV personalities tell him the voices in his head are Liberal gremlins and the Lucky Charms Leprechaun out to raise his taxes and strip away his freedoms. It was a plan hatched by an 8 year old boy in the late 60's. LOL
"But Glenn Beck said Obama made the Moon out of cheese so it must be true! WHHHHAAAAAAAA!!!!!"
Speaking of redistribution, you people still trying to get government to restrict and regulate an individual's freedom to make their own labor decisions and maintain their salary independence or have you moved on to abolishing Social Security so you can pull the plug on Grandma and redistribute her money to the elites on Wall Street you all so obediently serve? Who's the Socialists?
Oh I’m sorry Syntax, did somebody piss in your government issued Cheerios, sport? I was referring to the “hearing” for Thomas, and the circus that the murdering misogynist Ted (the swimmer) Kennedy orchestrated. And what was it Nina Totenberg “the legal reporter for NPR (vomit)” told us, too paraphrase “it’s the seriousness of the accusation that matters.” To answer your insipid question …it’s the scorched earth policy started by “The Swimmer” and the liberal criminals on the Senate panel, when the term too be “Borked” became part of the modern vernacular. The gloves must come off!
Hey stupid the operative word is “disciple.”
Well that was 20 years ago when I'm sure you or someone like you said the "gloves must come off". We're waiting.
Glenn Beck's viewers are called "disciples"? It's a sickness. Funny, but still a sickness.
Soon!
Huh!
Just your grandma Syntax!!!
Who bailed out and keeps bailing out Wall Street ? Remind us all.
If the Dems can dredge up stuff from GOP candidates' high school and college years, why can't Mrs. Thomas revisit the abominable treatment her dear husband received at the whim of a mediocre academic seeking the limelight 20 years ago?
Americans like Star Parker and Clarence Thomas are true patriots in my estimation. They dont follow the standard line that blacks in this country seem to follow and in not doing so, define themselves as outcasts in a way. It takes a great deal of integrity and thought to do this. Conservatives often find themselves in the minority especially when dealing with the media, but nothing like what these two have to endure. Surely there are others like them, I dont mean to say they are alone, but I just want to point out that they endure more then the rest of us. To read Clarence Thomas's opinions is to see true genius and passion for the law. In every Supreme Court decision I try to read Clarence's first so that I know what the baseline is because he is simply the most logical and forthright Judge on the bench today. If he was liberal he would be the most famous black man in the world because his genius would shine through. I feel sorry for the people who denigrate Justice Thomas because you're missing the man's opinion and wisdom.
George W. Bush, Hank Paulson bailed them out and the Tea Partiers and their elite backers they obediently serve want to keep Wall Street on tax-payer funded welfare and redistribute Social Security and everybody else's money to them. Why so Socialist?
Oh Dick, and you seem so sincere in your presentation, gobbledygook nonetheless. Thanks for playing.
Good luck with that redistribution plan.
Soon like maybe 1992? 1994? Had it and lost that one. 2000? Had and lost that one too. 2004 maybe? 2006? 2008? 2010? Is 2010 the big plan where you will get and lose it again for like the 4th time? LOL
Syntax, your becoming hysterical now! Why don’t you get your jammies on, retrieve your Barry, Harry, and Nancy action figures. Get in front of the TV set, maybe mom will get you some hot coco, in a sippycup, and watch “An inconvenient Truth.” You can suck your thumb, clutch your democrat action figures, and fall nite-nite to the soothing sounds of Owlgore. And maybe if you get up in a better attitude, you can come and play tomorrow.
Thanks StanH for replying, but, back to Star Parker, who, btw, I actually like. My advice to her is to stop pandering to the lunatic right and get about solving America's toughest problems sensibly and projecting this alternative image instead. This is how I would advise a Star!
Not too hysterical where I didn't notice you avoided the question. It's OK. People like you did the same thing in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. It's quite predictable really when you "take the gloves off" and we can see your pink nail polish.
And what’s wrong with my pink nail polish? Hey! Syntax is a homophobe! Homophobe! …woops, my bad – - nobody cares about such silliness around here. There was a question in that mess?
You must be logged in to post a comment.