Didn't anyone tell you?
They were so distraught over the passing of Rosa Parks that they threw themselves on her casket and were buried with her.
Posted on 11/04/2005 2:43:43 AM PST by pookie18
Denounce notion of 'black way of thinking that is expressly liberal'
Members of a coalition of black leaders condemned a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial asserting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should have an "asterisk" next to his name with regard to his race because he "does not represent the views of mainstream black America."
Justice Clarence Thomas
Project 21, a black leadership network, said its members strongly denounce the "notion that there is a black way of thinking that is expressly liberal in nature."
As WorldNetDaily reported this week, the newspaper's editorial board, lamenting the choice of Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, opined Tuesday: "In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."
Project 21 member Deroy Murdock said, "Agree or disagree with Justice Thomas, his personal journey from poverty in Pinpoint, Georgia, to academic achievement at Yale Law School to high-level service in several federal positions and on the nation's highest court is an admirable example of personal dedication and success, not an asterisk."
Murdock asserted Thomas is not on the court to "represent 'mainstream black America' any more than Justice Antonin Scalia is supposed to stick up for Americans of Italian descent or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is supposed to be the court's voice of American Jewry."
"Is there a mainstream black view on so-called 'right to die' cases?" Murdock asked. "What is the proper Jewish position on the Endangered Species Act's impact on property rights? Who knows? Justice Thomas represents the conservative judicial philosophy of the president who appointed him. So far, he is doing that quite well. If liberals want to affect the philosophical tone of the Supreme Court, they should consider winning the White House."
Project 21 member Mychal Massie, a WND columnist, said the editorial is "representative of the left's unambiguous contempt for decency."
"It gives one cause to question the depth of moral turpitude liberals will plumb to cast dispersions on blacks and women who do not ascribe to their perversion of reality," he said.
In its editorial, the Milwaukee paper said the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, an Italian-American, is "troubling" because "it's liable to divide America" and "it lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation's rich diversity."
Radio giant Rush Limbaugh blasted the editorial after reading WND's story during his national broadcast Wednesday, calling the newspaper's editors "bigoted" and "Stalinist."
"You will go out and you will write stories about Bill Clinton as the first black president and you will think that you are being brilliant, and you will think that you're being clever," said Limbaugh. "You take an African-American, Clarence Thomas, and you say he's not black; he doesn't qualify because he doesn't represent the views of the blacks in this country. ... "
Martin Kaiser, editor of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
On its website, the Journal Sentinel claims it has no political bent, stating, "We are independent, beholden to no special interest or political party."
It also notes, "We believe that diversity unites us all for our ultimate role as shareholders of the planet. Thus, anything that separates us also weakens us. The birthright of all people is equal opportunity."
Limbaugh called the paper's stance "Stalinist," acting as if Thomas were an enemy of the state.
"Clarence Thomas is an enemy of the liberal state because his mind is not right. His mind ain't under control, and so he's not really black. ... "
Where are Sharpton and Jackson?
This attitude is so racist.
":^(
This is the single issue gets me the most.
People want a female justice nominated, some want a Hispanic justice, etc, etc.
Is Black law different?
Is female law different? Is gay law different?
Nobody even thinks about these things anymore.
no wonder my poor white self is confused. first blacks mock the black supreme court member, now they defend him? i think this would make a perfect rap song, dont you?
There is a simple reason, the Justices are expected to legislate from the bench.
No.
Law is Law. It comes from the supreme creator, not a bunch of hacks sitting in Congress or sitting on the bench.
It is true. And it is pure. And it does not depend on Democrats, or Republicans, or donations, or political action committees.
We can no better change the law as we could turn the clock back. Or be born in a different body. Or change it by "voting".
More and more African Americans are disentangling themselves from the lies of liberalism and standing up to think for themselves, to agree and disagree with whom they want, and to take positions on issues because of what they actually think about the issue not because it's the Official Liberal Position. More and more, African Americans, looking back on the lie that is liberalism, can truly say: free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty I'm free at last.
www.moongriffon.com
www.wlsam.com
Diversity is defined as 1.) difference; 2.)variety. Unity is defined as 1.) a being united, oneness, 2.) a single, seperate thing; 3.) harmony; agreement, 4.) a complex that is a union of harmony; agreement. (Webster's New World Dictionary).
How can differences unite us?
I've always wanted to ask these racist liberals if black people require some kind of different food from mine. Different housing? Different bathroom fixtures? different medicines?
"More and more African Americans are disentangling themselves from the lies of liberalism"
Yes, and I am proud to be one of them. I am not ashamed to step away from the pack and think for myself. My views are not always popular and sometimes people look at me like I'm crazy, but I have to stand up for the truth.
They're in Maryland throwing Oreo cookies.
If the Internet is available to you, you can listen on his site or WABC.
You are preaching to the choir.
Critics can't disagree with Thomas using an argument that has any merit so they're just reduced to hate. BTW, they'd say the same thing if there was a female justice who was also conservative. To the MSM, diversity is group consisting of a white liberal, a black liberal, a Hispanic liberal, an Asian liberal, a female liberal, a gay liberal, a lesbian liberal, and a white male Christian conservative.
E Pluribus Unim.
I understand what you are saying. And freedom from a Party Line means freedom from all Party Lines, not just the Liberal one. That's what think I like about FR. Even though I am probably more of a party-line Bush supporter than some others here, I am glad to be in the company of those who sometimes strongly disagree with me (and even occasionally convince me I'm wrong, as in the case of a recent coffee-serving lawyer).
All I hope for in any person, no matter what their accident of birth happens to be, is that he or she thinks for him or herself.
"does not represent the views of mainstream black America."
Nice try. Once upon a time people came to the great melting pot to assimilate (unite--there's that pesky word again) and become Americans. The system was never perfect admittedly, but the goal was noble. Any pretense of that idea has long disappeared, and people, particularily muslims have no desire to become mainstreamed in America. I live in Southeast Michigan which contains the largest muslim population outside the M.E. and I can guarantee you that that particular pluribus has no desire to unum.
One of the most shameful displays I ever heard of. Throwing Oreo's at Mr. Steele.
Our side has stood silently by and let the left define what is mainstream.
Is it any wonder we are where we are.
That being said, "the times, they are a'changing"
It must be comforting to be so elite, so moral, so much better than the great unwashed masses. These utopian socialists pose a danger to our republic. Once your goals are unassailable, any means to achieve them are "moral". Character assassination is the least of them.
When one believes heaven on earth is possible, it is moral to destroy by any means that which stands in the way. That is why these people think it is right to denigrate and ultimately bring down the US.
These utopian socialists pose a danger to our republic. Once your goals are unassailable, any means to achieve them are "moral". Character assassination is the least of them.Exactly.
It's a cliche but it must never be forgotten:
What every utopian socialist really wants is to become a Utopian Socialist Master.
Again, another cliche, and again, one which should never be forgotten:
Socialism is the survival of feudalism into the modern age. And feudalism, by definition, means slave-owning.
But they aren't REALLY Black, cause the Journal Sentinal told us so.
This is a flat out lie!
I used to get the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, but their agenda is so politically driven is so sickening I stopped my subscription.
It is unquestionably the most biased newspaper in Wisconsin.
They continue to lose readership, and they can't explain it.
My days are spent in a pickup truck riding around the state. No internet available there.
Martin Kaiser, editor of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel just got a e-mail from me and a piece of my mind:
mkaiser@journalsentinel.com
I thought they were up in Detroit waving the race card around.
Can you imagine the furor if someone had lambasted Stevens for not being "truly white"?
After we moved back home we could not find a radio station that carried him. LOL Actually we are in an area where there is actually NO TV reception and very little radio. So we bought a DirecTV dish. Then we bought a DirecWay LAN. After that we got Rush's 24/7 because we are seldom able to take the time to sit in the puter room and listen unless it is in the evening, which makes the DirecTV dish useless as we never watch TV in the day time but it keeps my mother and step father occupied. :>)
Didn't anyone tell you?
They were so distraught over the passing of Rosa Parks that they threw themselves on her casket and were buried with her.
The laws of our land and our government change daily. You can philosophize about unchanging principles or morality if you wish, but the law is defined by statue, written and and agreed upon by men. If they weren't we would even be on this website because everything we discuss would be moot.
How true. The proletariat must be lead. God save us from the Hildabeast and her acolytes.
Even Story, an unabashed federalist, said that decisions of the court were not law, but were merely "evidence of the law".
There are about 1200 years of legal philosophy, from Bracton to Coke to Montesquieu to Kempis to Locke that disagree with you.
We cannot make law. We can only discover it.
"The birthright of all people is equal opportunity."
Doesn't this apply to Justice Thomas in his struggle to climb out of poverty and better his life? Shouldn't he be the paper's role model of equal opportunity?
"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today."
My favorite response to diversity hawks is:
"So, you say we need more minorities to have more diversity? Can you tell me how minorities are inherently different from whites? Do they eat different foods, listen to different music, are they better athletes? What is different about them?"
If your point is that the court decisions do not (should not) make law, I agree with you. If your point is that men cannot make laws, we clearly have a different definition of the word.
Are statutes not laws? Is a new statute not a new law? How did we "discover" the 20 MPH speed limit in a school zone?
Statutes are not laws. They are regulations.
It was against the law to murder someone, even before the Ten Commandments.
And to believe in the "law", and the "Law to the letter", is exactly what the defendents tried to do at the Nuremburg trials.
Read Les Miserables.
Why is everyone so afraid of diversity? My definition of diversity is the acceptance of all people from various backgrounds as equals. Nothing wrong with that is there?
I don't think we need more of anything to be diverse. We just need to be able to accept that everyone has a unique history and origin and that's okay. That's my own personal definition, apparently.
Is female law different? Is gay law different?
Nobody even thinks about these things anymore.
Liberal law is different. They will moan and whine no matter who is nominated if the candidate is not a flaming lib.
Pubbies whine too, just not near as much or as loud.
Do you know if it is possible to find Rush on Dish Network?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.