See the DVDs shocking the nation:
When the Darkness Falls: The Racially Divided States of America
---------------
Making Criminals of Christians
---------------
The Line in the Sand: America's Forgotten Borders
---------------
The Persecution of Revisionists: The Holocaust Unveiled
---------------
Zionist War Crimes: The Case for the Prosecution
---------------
Judea Declares War: A Critical Look at WWII
---------------
Understanding Anti-Semitism: Why Do Some People Dislike Jews?
---------------
Rep. Paul Findley Dares to Speak Out: A 22-Year Veteran Congressman Exposes Israel's Lobby
---------------
Ritual Murder Revisited: The Hidden Cult
---------------
Human Sacrifice among the Fanatical Hasidic Jews and Other Cults from Ancient Times to the Present
---------------
---------------
---------------
Slave Trade in the World Today
---------------
---------------
The Whole Story of Zionist Conspiracy
---------------
Michael Collins Piper Live Radio 7-8 PM EST
Politically Incorrect Cartoons
Paul Grubach's Writings on the Holocaust, Etc.
South African/ Zimbabwean Headlines
*****************
(This website is hosted by the above, and supports both Free Speech and America.)
Clarence Thomas Was a White-Hating Quota when Appointed Supreme Court Justice
Some of you may
have read that Justice Thomas recently finished a
book, and how
he's now this great "conservative,"
blah, blah, blah. I can only understand this for one of three reasons: 1.)
People only see what they want to see; 2.) They have trouble grasping the brutal
truth and see the world through rose-colored glasses; or, 3.) They don't like to
do a dirty little thing called "research," because, well, it involves that
four-lettered word: work.
Let me lay down the record once and for all about Thomas, exposing the truth as few conservative writers dare (for fear of being called names).
I wrote the following report a few years back. Some of the links in the footnotes may no longer be current, but I can assure you that it is factually correct.
Thomas was not a good candidate for his position. He was an "affirmative action"* case. He was affiliated with the White-hating Black Panthers and Nation of Islam (that group that has a special pin for killing white folks**). It is questionable whether he sexually harassed Anita Hill, but his actions were that of a toad at best, flirting with her while he was still married (while also flirting with Virginia Lamp, who would later become his wife). There is so much else out there about him that it defies the imagination. Have a glimpse at the truth, for a change.
Thomas Received His Position for No Other Reason than Besides the Fact He is Black
The preferential treatment that was given to Blacks followed Thomas since his earlier days. Senator Biden interviewed Father John Brooks, board member of Holy Cross at the time of Thomas's acceptance At Holy Cross, where Clarence Thomas attended. During the course of the interview, Father Brooks noted that the school operates “under a mandate from the board of trustees to conduct an aggressive and vigorous recruitment of African-American students, in fact all minority students” and that members of the school even “go out into the field” to recruit such students. Senator Biden asked Father Brooks a question: If the school finds “African-Americans who are capable of competing at Holy Cross College, does that mean they will be admitted?” Father Brooks answered: “If they meet the positive judgment of the admissions board, they are certainly admitted.” Senator Biden asked the same question, but about Whites: “Now, assuming you find White Americans who are qualified, does that mean they will be admitted?” Father Brooks responded: “No. . . . [T]here are a number of [White] students who are applicants [at] Holy Cross, certainly well qualified, and are denied admission.” After a bit more discussion on the matter, wherein another prior board member, Mr. Gibbons, commented that Holy Cross takes “affirmative steps to increase the percentage of minority enrollment in the schools,” Senator Biden noted that he felt it was a “wise policy” to discriminate against those “equally qualified” Whites.(1)
Later in the interview, Senator Biden asked if Clarence Thomas would have been admitted to Holy Cross if he was not Black. Father Brooks replied that Thomas “probably would have” been admitted. Thomas was quite hard-working. Brooks continued, noting that Thomas's “academic record” was “very, very good, and he would have got in under any set of circumstances, in terms of academic achievement.”(2) (Eventually, he graduated cum laude from Holy Cross, an honor meaning “with praise.” There are two other honor designations that are above that: magna cum laude, which is “with great praise”; and summa cum laude, meaning “with highest praise.”)
Still, Thomas's admittance to Yale, despite his strong academic showings at Holy Cross College, was probably the result of a quota. (Yale is a tough college for students to be admitted, even those who score the best for their college--summa cum laude--which Thomas did not. Nor were Thomas's extracurricular activities extensive, aside from "Protest," mentioned later.) In fact, Yale Law School was striving for a 10 percent quota (of 170 students) the year Thomas was admitted, though it took in about half of that (9 minority students), one of which was Thomas.(3) Despite his being a quota in Yale, he angrily denies it: “I don't think Black people are indebted to anybody for anything. Nobody had done us any favors in this country, buddy. This thing about how they let me into Yale--that kind of stuff offends me.”(4) No mention was made of what Thomas's Grade Point Average from Yale was. (In Comparison, former Justice Sandra Day O' Connor was so intelligent that she was accepted into Stanford at age 16 and graduated third from the top of her Stanford Law School class, despite her young age.)
Thomas decided to major in “corporate law.” According to Lester Johnson, one of Thomas's childhood friends, Thomas chose that because his “perception was that Whites don't think we are intellectually equal[;] and if we are doing civil rights law, it is because we can't put our minds to anything else.”(5) Thomas once said: “If I ever went to work for the EEOC or did anything directly connected with Blacks, my career would be irreparably ruined. The monkey would be on my back to prove that I didn't have the job because I'm Black. People meeting me for the first time would automatically dismiss my thinking as second rate.”(6) Despite having avoided civil rights law, despite claiming that Blacks “can't put [their] minds to anything else [other than civil rights law],” despite saying that Blacks should not “sacrifice your institutions to be next to White people,” Thomas accepted a job as head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Thomas must have known, just as with other appointments, noted Thomas, that there was no “other reason besides the fact that I was Black.”(7)
When William Bradford Reynolds suggested to Thomas, during lunch together at the White House, that he should be more aggressive, Thomas disagreed: “Don't tell me what to do, Brad. All I have to do is die and stay Black.”(8)
Indeed, all he needed to do was "stay Black." In fact, Clarence Thomas seems to have been selected as a Supreme Court Justice because he was Black.(9) There were more qualified candidates who were not Black.(10) The American Bar Association rates nominees, and Thomas's ratings were not too good. Although 12 members rated Thomas as “qualified,” 2 members felt that Thomas was “unqualified”; no one felt that he was “well qualified” for a Supreme Court position. According to the magazine Newsweek, the American Bar Association gave Thomas “its lowest approval rating, in part, because of his lack of judicial experience.”(11) During his confirmation, when Thomas was repeatedly asked to name a “handful of the most important cases” that the court decided since he entered law school in 1971, he could only mention Roe and one other case. Former President Bush probably selected Thomas in the hope of attracting Black voters; Bush had once stated that he would do everything possible to “score points with Black voters.” (If that was the case, Bush's plan did not work out too well when he ran for re-election.) Bush denied that Thomas was a quota, suggesting that “Thomas is the best man I could find for the job.” Of course, Bush was never known for his honesty, like the “no new taxes” pledge that he broke shortly after his election (the biggest increase ever, at the time). Thomas had only served 14 months on the U.S. Court of Appeals, which he probably attained as a quota from someone else; had never written a single major decision on any case; and was only 43 years old when Bush selected him. When Thomas was questioned, he resorted to eliciting emotions with a response that characterized the people who had the queries as being the participants of “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.”(12) Whether he actually believed those comments, which appears to have been said to generate an emotional appeal from those following the nomination process, or actually believed them and just refused to admit his own inadequacies is another worldly mystery.
Clarence Thomas and Sexual Harassment
Most everyone
has heard of Anita Hill and the problems that ensued between her and Clarence
Thomas. There is no need to go into great detail. Suffice it to say that,
according to Hill, Thomas asked Hill about her sexual fantasies, described in
graphic detail some pornographic videos that he watched, and asked Hill for a
date--while he was still married to his first wife and was dating Virginia Lamp
(the White woman whom he would later marry--despite having once said that “the
whole push to assimilate
does
not make sense to me”).
Neo-conservative Rush Limbaugh argues that the Hill-controversy was merely a plot of some sort of--to use Limbaugh's words--“feminazi” conspiracy to keep Thomas from receiving a job.(13) That occurred while Hill was an employee of Thomas's at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (which Limbaugh conveniently forgets to mention in his book The Way Things Ought to Be and calls “a large federal agency”). Although those moral and legal grounds were not enough to prevent Thomas's appointment, that still does not make those actions appropriate.
Clarence Thomas's Affiliation with the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam
While Clarence
Thomas was questioned for consideration in the Supreme Court, Senator Heflin
asked, “What did you minor in” at Holy Cross College? Thomas responded, “I
think protest.” Senator Heflin then proceeded to note some interesting facts
about Thomas's past: “At Holy Cross, of course, you were proud of that time that
you had been involved in demonstrations. In Karen Tumultree's Los Angeles Times
article, it says, `In combat boots and army fatigues and sometimes a leather tam
of the Black Panthers, Clarence looked the part of the angry radical as he
strolled down the campus of Holy Cross College. He opposed the Vietnam War, but
helped found the College
Black
Student Union.'”(14) Thomas even wore a black leather jacket and had a
goatee.(15) “The Panthers offered for some of us who were young hot-blooded
and ill-tempered, another way,” said Clarence Thomas in an interview with Bill
Kauffman of the magazine Reason.(16) Thomas even “wore the black beret of the
Black Panther Party and signed his letters 'Power to the People.'”(17) The
Black Panthers were an extremely militant anti-White group, who were responsible
for numerous bombings and deaths in the 1960s and 1970s. They have once again
experienced a resurgence of members, and some past members have been elected to
Congress.
Indeed, as another writer puts it, Thomas “arrived in 1968 when the nation's campuses were seething with Vietnam protests and Black Power. Thomas, a self-professed angry young man, took a militant stance, exploring the ideologies of the Black Panthers and Malcolm X. He helped found the Black Student Union, which petitioned the school to have a black residence section for the small number of Black students.” Thomas even hung a poster of Malcolm X in his room.(18) That should not be too surprising, since Thomas has called Malcolm X, the Black man who was vociferously anti-White until his death, a “hero.”(19) In fact, Thomas has quoted Malcolm X from memory: “The American Black man should be focusing his every effort toward building his own businesses and decent homes for himself. As other ethnic groups have done, let the Black people, wherever possible, however possible, patronize their own kind, and start in those ways to build up the Black race's ability to do for itself.”(20) That's perfectly acceptable for him to say that, but substitute “White” for “Black” and suddenly it's racist.
Clarence Thomas's fondness towards militant Blacks did not end with the Black Panthers or Malcolm X. Clarence Thomas himself said that he “was also partial to the Black Muslims” (Nation of Islam--link to report on its founding and some of their beliefs--use the back button of your browser to return).(21) Those feelings must have continued for some time--long after completing college--and may even continue to this day. For “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas expressed a fondness for Farrakhan in a 1983 speech,” noted a reporter.(22) Although it is not known for certain to which particular 1983 Farrakhan speech Clarence reportedly liked, there was a speech copyrighted in 1983 by Louis Farrakhan entitled “Warning to the Government of America.” In that speech, Farrakhan gives a few choice words to Whites, suggesting “that your nature was evil; that you are by nature, the devil.” Farrakhan also has a few choice words to “those people who call themselves the Jews.” And Farrakhan even comments on fellow Blacks “who would dare work for the United States government as an agent of theirs to destroy the work of righteous men and women”: “We will chop off your head and personally deliver your head to the head of the FBI.”(23) Or , judging from Thomas's past militant stance, he could have been talking about another speech, which was published in the 1983 Nation of Islam booklet: The Meaning of F.O.I. (The FOI stands for the "Fruit of Islam, the Nation of Islam's branch dedicated to “military training.”) The FOI, Louis Farrakhan says, was created to establish “a beachhead in enemy territory and then proceeding to take control.” “Military training,” says Farrakhan, “implies WAR” (Farrakhan's emphasis).(24) Can you guess whom the FOI is planning to battle or guess where the “enemy territory” is? Farrakhan continues: “And then when we [African-Americans] get all of our people, at least a majority of them, thinking like we think and organize, the devil--the whiteman--becomes no problem at all.”(25) The end-all purpose of the FOI is quite simple. Farrakhan states it quite succinctly in The Meaning of F.O.I.: “The objective of it is to turn the earth back into the hands of its original owners. And that's why you are asked the question, `Who is the Original Man?' And you are asked, `Who is the Colored Man?' so you will know who the earth belongs to, and who the false owner is that must be removed.”(26) Although you cannot be sure, without speaking directly to Thomas, which speech of the Nation of Islam he admired during 1983, you can be certain what the Nation of Islam discusses among its followers.
Was Clarence Thomas Simply the Right Color at the Right Time?
When you look at Thomas's inexperience, rating by the American Bar Association, and lack of knowledge of legal precedents, it should have prevented him from becoming a justice on the Supreme Court. He was affiliated with the Black Panthers, an anti-White group that caused many deaths and much destruction in America's past, and has expressed an admiration for the Nation of Islam, which has been militantly anti-white as well. But he is Black, just like Thurgood Marshall. And it has become commonplace for aristocratic Whites, who live in lily-White suburbs far away from their (Black) constituents, to promote these Blacks to positions they don't deserve (read: quotas) to placate their constituents, thereby avoiding (with a bit of luck) Black riots and violence.
In today's politically correct environment, with Whites petrified to take a stand for fear of being labeled with a sobriquet such as "racist," this acceptance of Blacks with low morals seems to be prevalent among the legal profession. Look at the show Judge Mathis: It's about a Black who claims to have had several brushes with the law, landing him in jail repeatedly. He didn't have any trouble getting his law license. I honestly would not be surprised to discover that the law school recruited him from jail, as some colleges go to jails to find more Black college students. Now, he is a "brilliant" judge (sarcasm intended). Still, his background is probably less checkered than that of Thomas's.
Clarence Thomas, the racist Black, was eventually promoted to positions he did not merit and eventually became a Supreme Court Justice. And now he has become the “conservative darling,” and is writing in his book about prejudice received and how his hard work and ethics “earned” him his position. How quickly we forget.
------------------------------
Footnotes
*I'm using the term "affirmative action" in the common context, though there is certainly nothing "affirmative" about the "action" that discriminates against whites in favor of blacks. Nor is it fair to call it "civil rights," for these "rights" to discriminate against whites are certainly not "civil." Nor would it be right to label it "reverse racism," as that implies that converse is usually true, which it is not. Perhaps, "anti-white discrimination" would be best used to describe this particular malady of civilization, but then no one wants to admit that it exists; and, when forced to do so, resort to childish name-calling of "racist" in response to such brutal honesty.
**See the report issued by the Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities, Louisiana, 1963, for more about the Nation of Islam’s kill-pin. More information can be provided upon request.
1 Thomas Hearings, September 17, 1991, Morning Session, http://www.people.virginia.edu/~govdoc/thomas/0917a06.html
2 Thomas Hearings, September 17, 1991, Morning Session, http://www.people.virginia.edu/~govdoc/thomas/0917a06.html
3 Nancy Langston, “Clarence Thomas: A Method in His Message,” http://carver.holycross.edu/studentorgs/hcprelaw/clarence.html
4 Juan Williams, “A Question of Fairness,” The Atlantic Monthly, February 1987, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/race/thomas.htm
5 Nancy Langston, “Clarence Thomas: A Method in His Message,” http://carver.holycross.edu/studentorgs/hcprelaw/clarence.html
6 Juan Williams, “A Question of Fairness,” The Atlantic Monthly, February 1987, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/race/thomas.htm
7 Bill Kauffman, “Clarence Thomas,” Reason Online, http://www.reason.com/cthomasint.html
8 Juan Williams, “A Question of Fairness,” The Atlantic Monthly, February 1987, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/race/thomas.htm
9 Rush Limbaugh, the self-proclaimed “talent on loan from God,” has stated that Clarence Thomas earned that position. “[Thomas] is a man who has escaped the bonds of poverty by methods other than those prescribed by civil rights organizations,” suggests Limbaugh in his book (Rush Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be, [New York: Pocket Star Books, 1993], p. 118). Not true. Thomas was “admitted to Yale Law School under an affirmative action plan.” Annie Johnston, “Thomas' Promises,” No KKK-No Fascist USA! (Summer/Fall 1991), p. 24. And, his appointment was probably because of a Bush-mandated quota, although Bush would more than likely deny it. Newsweek was quick to point out that those who suggest Thomas was selected for "nonracial reasons . . . can't be serious": "Indeed, White House officials acknowledge privately what is clear circumstantially: picking a black conservative with a rags to riches story was a political bonus. The former claim is undercut by the fact that Thomas wasn't even the runner-up in 1990, when David Souter was nominated." When asked to name "a handful of the most important cases" decided since he entered law school in 1971, he could only name Roe and another case. David A. Kaplan, “Court Charade,” Newsweek (September 23, 1991), pp. 18-20. He was given preferential treatment because he was Black and for no other reason, and this continued throughout his entire life. The only reason he was probably accepted as a Supreme Court Justice is that some representatives were worried about being called "racist."
10 Robert Bork, who had much more qualifications than Thomas, was rejected in 1987 because of what Senator Ernest Hollings, D.-S.C., described as a “lynch mob” of the NAACP and other organizations. Associated Press, “Hollings' Remarks Start Flap,” The Cincinnati Enquirer (December 16, 1993), p. A15.
11 David A. Kaplan, “Court Charade,” Newsweek (September 23, 1991), p. 18.
12 Richard Berke, “Thomas Accuser Tells Hearing of Obscene Talk and Advances: Judge Complains of `Lynching,'” The New York Times (October 12, 1991), p. A1.
13 Limbaugh suggests that Hill is lying. Doubtful. If she created the entire ordeal to defame Thomas, she probably would have lied and said that he fondled her or something more severe than merely him sharing his perversions. Also, she never accused Thomas of “sexual harassment”; she left the decision of whether the incident was to be considered sexual harassment up to the people deciding on Thomas's appointment. Limbaugh argues against Hill's testimony on two main premises: 1.) Hill did not complain immediately, Limbaugh states. True, but to whom would she complain? She certainly would not complain to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where she was one of the employees underneath Thomas. Even if she had complained, I doubt if Thomas's actions would warrant his dismissal (although some type of a reprimand would be warranted for his morally repugnant comments at work, spoken to someone who found them offensive). 2.) Some of the dates stated about when the ordeal occurred were off by a few months from Hill's “corroborating” witnesses, argues Limbaugh. True, but the ordeal did not happen to them, specifically; the incident did happen to Hill, who was correct. And the witnesses were asked to recall something that had been told to them several years ago. If it was part of an organized plan to defame Thomas, as Limbaugh implies, the same date would have been corroborated by each witness. Also, Limbaugh argues that there were many phone calls--all of which were purportedly “phony and orchestrated by those desperate to defeat Thomas”--to keep Thomas from being nominated. Partially true. Although there were many phone calls to “defeat Thomas,” the phone calls were not “phony”; they were made by people who had legitimate concerns about Thomas receiving his seemingly race-based appointment, for one reason or another. Rush Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be (New York: Pocket Star Books), 1993, pp. 115-127. Although Limbaugh's book does have its finer points, it seems painfully obvious that Limbaugh supports Thomas because of these reasons: 1.) Thomas is a Black who made it; 2.) Limbaugh thinks that, much like himself, Thomas is a “conservative”--whatever that is supposed to be today-and, therefore, deserves Limbaugh's protection as such; and, 3.) Limbaugh believes that Hill is part of the feminist-misanthrope secret police, merely because she brought forth those accusations against Thomas. There are misanthropes who have an agenda, which is a wicked one; but Hill was not one of them and was innocent of any wrong-doing, in my opinion.
14 Thomas Hearings, September 13, 1991, Morning Session, http://www.people.virginia.edu/~govdoc/thomas/0913a03.html
15 Juan Williams, “A Question of Fairness,” The Atlantic Monthly, February 1987, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/race/thomas.htm
16 Bill Kauffman, “Clarence Thomas,” Reason Online, http://www.reason.com/cthomasint.html
17 Brian Richardson, “The Making of a Revolutionary,” International Socialism, Issue 70, March 1996, http://www.isj1text.fsnet.co.uk/pubs/isj70/huey.htm
18 Nancy Langston, “Clarence Thomas: A Method in His Message,” http://carver.holycross.edu/studentorgs/hcprelaw/clarence.html
19 Rolling Stone (November 26, 1992), p. 39.
20 Nancy Langston, “Clarence Thomas: A Method in His Message,” http://carver.holycross.edu/studentorgs/hcprelaw/clarence.html
21 Bill Kauffman, “Clarence Thomas,” Reason Online, http://www.reason.com/cthomasint.html
22 Salim Muwakkil, “The Coming Tribal Wars,” Utne Reader (July/August 1992), p. 81.
23 Louis Farrakhan, “Warning to the Government of America,” (Chicago: Elijah Muhammad Education Foundation, 1983).
24 Louis Farrakhan, The Meaning of F.O.I. (Chicago: Elijah Muhammad Educational Fund, 1983), p. 12.
25 Farrakhan, The Meaning of F.O.I., p. 1.
26 Farrakhan, The Meaning of F.O.I., p. 14, p. 1.