Eleanor Holmes Norton just can't help herself. Everything is seen through the prism of color to her.
“We’re not sure this president is ever going to nominate another African- American to the court,” Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said. “He’s African-American. We’ve got someone who proposes to be African-American on the court,”
She of course is referring to Justice Thomas; who was born into abject poverty in the south during segregation, and is now a Supreme Court justice. His parents more or less left the scene when he was very young, and was raised by his grandparents. His grandfather taught him to work hard and pressed him to get an education. He was hardly handed anything, he worked for what he achieved.
This is just yet another example of the lunatic left making everything about race. You are a traitor if you happen to be black and don't want the government to take care of everything for you. If you dare to work hard and let that be its own reward. You have something wrong with you if you see color when choosing a spouse.
While I was looking for the exact quote I came upon this blog. Now the blog that I came upon was not at all sticking up for Norton's comments, but his readers didn't seem to agree with how wrong and racist her comments are. This is one of the biggest problems with the left. They want everyone to give somebody something because they are incapable of taking care of themselves. They can't possibly overcome hurdles on their own. Everybody is owed something. When a person of color and stands up and to say give me only what I earned by hard work they somehow sell out their race. It is sad, truly sad. The victimhood continues.
He’s married to a white woman that represents the Tea Party Movement. Need I say more?
I, however, love Eleanor Holmes Norton and I think she gave Justice Thomas all the respect he deserves. I find the supposed insult … tasteful and not at all shocking … and true.
Thomas has a a long history of trading on race when it souits him and then basically closing the door to other African-Americans behind him (e.g., his stint in the Reagan Administration). There’s nothing wrong with what Norton said. It would seem a little patronizing if a white liberal said it, but Norton isn’t a white liberal. And unlike Thomas, she was part of the civil rights movement and a protege of Bayard Rustin. Thomas played the role of militant when he was in college and changed his tune afterward. his commitment to African-Americans other than himself is neglibible and its not like Norton pointed out other non-Black aspects of his like such as his Caucasian wingnut wife.
Posts
9 comments:
Eleanor Holmes Norton represents the typical black liberal, demeaning black conservatives and thinking that they are somehow less worthy or less black since black conservatives don't believe in the government controlling every aspect of our lives.
Justice Thomas is an honorable man and a patriot. It's people like Ms. Norton who contribute to the racial divide in this country. When are we going to be Americans...sans the color? As far as I'm concerned, Democrats like Norton are the biggest racists of all.
"Justice Thomas is an honorable man and a patriot," or so says Conservative Lady who likely had a dozen or so TV observations to formulate her learned assessment. That certainly pales to another lady who worked for the great man, was promoted by him, and who gave the American Public testimony under oath about his true character. Here's what she said:
My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas
began to use work situations to discuss sex. On these occasions, he would
call me into his office for reports on education issues and projects or he
might suggest that because of the time pressures of his schedule, we go
to lunch to a government cafeteria. After a brief discussion of work, he
would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His
conversations were very vivid.
He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such
matters as women having sex with animals, and films showing group sex
or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting
individuals with large penises, or large breasts individuals in various sex
acts.
On several occasions Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual
prowess. Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with
him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not
want to talk about these subjects. I would also try to change the subject
to education matters or to nonsexual personal matters, such as his
background or his beliefs. My efforts to change subject were rarely
successful.
Now far be in from me to interrupt this little reactionary tea party here, but over at the Turley blog, which our host here disdains so much she will not even speak its name, we think folks really should be able to support their opinion with facts. Call us weak-kneed liberals in contrast to the swaggering real conservatives who bellow out patriotism and exude masculinity .. er, femininity I guess, in these parts. Maybe though our courageous host here will let you in on the name of our little blog, since that closed-minded crowd there allowed here to link to this sparsely commented island in the blogsphere? Doubtful though, since justaconservative girl thinks fair play only works one way.
Sorry, wrong again. I don't disdain the Turley blog. I don't normally disdain anyone. You on the other hand enjoy calling people names simply because they don't agree with you. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of it. You think that we are too dumb to think for ourselves and that we need to spend our lives living in the past. Get over playing the victim card, you just may find that most people don't look at skin color and pay more attention to character. Once you understand that, you may be just be able to get the chip off your shoulder.
"A belief in the written constitution" is a guiding principle proclaims justaconservative girl, as she strikes my comment. That's about the level of principle and maturity I expected. Carry on, oh, bastion of conservatism. Maybe someone will read this before your tender sensibilities compel you to censor it too.
I deleted because you mentioned my family, something that I don't do on this blog.
I deleted because you mentioned my family, something that I don't do on this blog.
***************
I guess you only do it on other people's blogs. Take a trip over to the Turley blog for your post where you cited your family as an example. One can't feign resentment when they first exploit their family for their own purpose. Fell free to redact that part of my post and then post the rest!
Oh, my gosh you are truly lost. I am not exploiting anyone or anything. I made a choice when I started this blog not mention certain things. The reasons for that are not your business.
My point is that the people who fought for civil rights entire point was that they be treated as human beings that could make choices for themselves and be treated like everyone else. Once a person makes a choice that you don't like or agree with you call them an Uncle Tom. That is not what they were fighting for. People have the right to come to their own conclusions. If you want to attack him based on his decisions and how he does his job, go ahead. That is fair game.
If he truly did what Anita Hill said he did, you are right, he doesn't belong on the court. I had said that at the time. Attacking him on his choice of spouse and his color is something altogether different. It is tragic that you don't see it.
Post a Comment