Posted on 10/28/2003 9:31:57 AM PST by presidio9
Upon meeting me, white liberals take one look at my skin and presume Im a left-leaning, Congressional Black Caucus-supporting, racial preference-loving, pro-infanticide crony. They condescendingly offer opinions about diversity and multicultural this or Democratic fundraiser that. I usually excuse such transgressions because its natural to quickly size up people based on information readily available. When I rebut these presumptions and share my deeply held conservative beliefs, however, I get open-mouthed stares.
With 90 percent of the black vote locked down tight, Democrats dont quite know what to do with the other 10 percent, so they pull the old plantation routine by turning blacks against each other. While the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) shamelessly attacks California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a black conservative nominated by President George W. Bush for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, white liberals sit back and gaze upon their handiwork. Its life as usual on the old plantation.
Chains of physical bondage have been broken, but mental bondage still exists. Sometimes slave-owners recruited loyal blacks to be the overseers who crushed the will of other slaves longing to be free. Justice Brown -- unlike the CBC -- is not a slave to liberal dogma, and she is mercilessly berated as a result by the CBC and their white colleagues.
Slave-owners have always exploited human weakness to control slaves with fear, distrust, envy and lies, and the exploitation continues. You see, conservative blacks are the plantation systems greatest threat. Were the runaway slaves who followed the Underground Railroad to freedom. Were the uppity Negroes of the Jim Crow era who just wont stay in our place.
Modern-day plantation owners -- white liberals -- manipulate paranoid blacks into attacking each other in ways that would make a blackface performer blush. A black liberal web site (to remain unnamed) recently posted a shameful caricature that depicted Justice Brown as Clarence Thomas in drag. Without hesitation or reservation, blacks take the bait thrown out by white Democrats and viciously turn on one another. All the master has to do is sit back and watch. And laugh. Almost 300 years ago, a slave-owner named Willie Lynch assured other slave-owners it was that simple.
In 1712, Lynch (from whom the term lynching derived) delivered a speech on the banks of the James River in Virginia and shared his secrets to keeping slaves in line. One of his methods was to create division. I take these differences [light skin vs. dark skin, young vs. old] and make them bigger. I use fear, distrust, and envy for control purposes. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies and it will work throughout the South . The Black Slave, after receiving this indoctrination, shall carry on and will become self-refueling and self-generating for hundreds of years, maybe thousands.
Lynchs methods are still working today. In an attempt to malign Justice Browns character, the acerbic Rep. Maxine Waters called her a poster woman for the far right wing, and said that her legal record and her views on civil rights and constitutional issues place her so far outside the legal mainstream. Right. So far outside the legal mainstream is Justice Brown that 67 percent of liberal Californians voted for her in 1998. Non-voting D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton added that Justice Brown was cut from the same cloth as Clarence Thomas. Why?
Here are a few reasons why Democrats consider Justice Brown unqualified to sit on the D.C. Circuit:
*She dissented in a California Supreme Court opinion that upheld the right of a child to have her unborn baby killed without her parents' consent. Right-wing nut!
*She wrote the opinion that upheld Proposition 209, a voter-approved measure outlawing the use of race in public university admissions and hiring in California, a direct threat to the professional grievance lobby. A race traitor!
*In order to forward their far-left agenda, liberals know they must circumvent the U.S. Constitution and the will of the people, which Justice Brown vowed to honor. She wrote: When fundamentally moral and philosophical issues are involved and the questions are fairly debatable, the judgment call belongs to the Legislature. This, in the words of legislator Sen. Edward Kennedy, is despicable! Justice Brown -- and all independent thinkers -- are a menace to plantation society. Old master Lynch warned other slave-owners about such people when he said, It is necessary that your slaves trust and depend on us. They must love, respect and trust only us.
Looks like old Willie was a prophet.
My friend, I did not label you. Your about page where you provide personal information did that. I checked it before I replied.
Second, this issue is racial. The Judges opponents have made it so. They are desperate to not have a second Clarence Thomas on the Federal bench.
The hardest thing about being conservative is having to explain to people that I have my own mind. I see those too far to the left and those too far to the right operating from a list of assumptions.
I congratulate you for being a conservative, and recognize that having conservative views may be hard for you. That must expose you to a lot of criticism in your community. My only reply to your comment is that EVERYONE operates from a list of assumptions. Consider it your own personal philosophy.
The point of my reply was to challenge you to reconsider some of your assumptions. To consider where the middle of the stream is, and to determine if the Judge resides there. I always try to keep in mind that people like the editors of the NY Times and the anchors at the major broadcast networks consider themselves to be in the center of the mainstream. Are they? I dont think so. But thats my perspective.
I can only speak my opinion based on what I perceive the truth to be. Please tell me if the purpose of this forum has changed.
I could not agree with you more. Further, I dont run this forum and have no say over its purpose or philosophy. So my comments would have not value regarding any changes.
To the specifics, please refer to her speeches to the federalist society and come up with your own conclusion.
I will see if I can access her speeches to the Federalist Society. In general, I find myself in agreement with the philosophy of that group, so from what I know if this issue so far, I would not define her opinions there as ultra.
As I stated before, her problem seems to be that of the inconsistency between her public statements and her record on the bench. My opinion and apparently that of several others.
Thank you for validating a discussion I have had on another forum. She is a JUDGE. That means she has to follow the law and precedents. That means if she is a good judge that she cannot substitute her own opinions for the law. That means that if she is opposed to abortion, but abortion is legal, she cannot rule that abortion is illegal. The primary problem with todays judiciary is that they have begun substituting their personal views of the just, the good and the right for the law. If thats the case, lets dispense with legislatures and city councils as a waste of taxpayer dollars and be ruled by judges.
"where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege, war in the streets, unapologetic expropriation of property, the precipitous decline of the rule of law, the rapid rise of corruption, the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit."
The paragraph you cite refers to the rule of subsidiarity. It is anathema to those who believe that all good things flow from government. But think of it in this way using a very simple example:
Lets assume that in an effort to stamp out child abuse the government passes a law that prohibits a parent from punishing a child. Instead, the government passes laws that say when your child misbehaves, you have to call a cop. All sorts of procedural safeguards are established to protect the child there must be witnesses, evidence must be introduced, people must show up in court, testimony is taken, etc. What do you think happens to a community under these circumstances? The parent cant spank a child for misbehaving, cant send the child to his room, cant make him turn off the TV, cant force him to do his homework. The community (parents in this case) retreats as the state moves in to take over what was previously a family function. Our ability to manage our own families atrophies. For a real-life example that is especially destructive of the black community, think about the way that kids in many schools are disrupting their schools because of laws that severely limit what a teacher can do to an unruly student.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to have this discussion. You are - of course - free to disagree. But I hope we understand each other better.
free the south,sw
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.