Posted on 10/06/2018 11:19:35 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Anyone who knew the late Andrew Breitbart knew that there was one seminal moment in his youth that altered the course of his life and, by extension, the course of American history: the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings of 1991.
Fresh from his American history degree at Tulane University, Breitbart was a self-described “default liberal.” As a child growing up on the tony streets of Brentwood in West Los Angeles, he was surrounded by liberals. The only real and legitimate “permissible” political identity was liberal. “It was my factory setting,” he would say. Four years at a liberal arts university did nothing to alter that fact.
So there he was with the rest of America watching the Anita Hill sexual harassment testimony play out on national television. He heard that Judge Thomas was some kind of predatory monster who had to be “taken down” for his horrible behavior. He tuned in expecting, wanting this man to get what he deserved for being so horrible to Ms. Hill.
“I watched Day One, I watched Day Two, I watched the entire thing,” he said years later in an interview on C-SPAN. “I went from wanting him to be taken down to saying, ‘Where’s the beef? What’s going on here?’
“I don’t understand what I’m watching here. I don’t understand the color commentary that’s on the screen, where they’re saying, ‘Oh, this is outrageous.’ And I didn’t understand the bumper stickers that were going by me on the streets that say ‘I believe Anita.’ I believe Anita WHAT? What’s going on here?”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Every time I see his name I think “Why didn’t he have regular heart check-ups?”
I think this will be bigger than even the Thomas debacle. People are PISSED.
All you can do is to encourage them to be their own person and to not let themselves be defined by someone else.
My thoughts go to something much more nefarious.
Although being conservative from a relatively early age, it was the Clarence Thomas fiasco that sparked a true and thorough detestation of/for leftists.
The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill controversy made me much more proactive in politics. Anita Hill is very pro-murder and I have always been pro-life but the dirt behind Hill and seeing how abortion nearly destroyed a friend of mine while all that was going on caused me to get off the sidelines.
Clarence Thomas is the one living human I would love to have dinner with.
Laura Loomer is one of the “next Breitbarts”. She goes into the belly of the beast and asks the questions no one else will.
“All of the leftist media are now telling us how Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony is so very credible.”
Well . . . if he DID INDEED die of natural causes.
I will say this no one is better then the left at destroying its self.
Not credible enough for a single person in her family to stand up for her under oath.
Seriously. I think Breitbart and Scalia we’re both hit
Very insightful assessment.
I kick her a little money each month through her Patreon and would ask others help as they can too. LL is fearless and I admire that.
He was murdered
I’ve struggled for years trying to understand how those on the Left can maintain their contradictions, their hypocrisy.
There is no logic or reason, just a passion for a dream. A wish for what they believe should be.
Their Wish/Dream is their truth and it’s the only truth that matters and it is very real to them.
Everything is literally upside down.
Conservationism stands on a foundation, a process over time building on itself through trial and error as we strive for greater understanding. Bottom Up.
The Left starts with a belief that they already have that “Understanding” and therefore, are the enlightened ones. Top down.
It’s difficult to comprehend, however, if you look at issues from their perspective, top down, it makes some sense to them. They start with the/their Greater truth and reject any and all truth claims, that if established, would undermine their Greater truth.
There’s a serious religious component at work here.
The Left has adopted the secular humanist/Buddhist view, “I am God”
Conservatives tend to be more humble.
“Conservatives" (actually seriously a misnomer) admit that their perspective has a name “Liberals” (also seriously a misnomer) - including journalists - hold the naive conceit that their thought is just “what is.” And anyone with a different view is off the reservation and can be dismissed/ignored.
- sophist
- 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.
- philosopher
- O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage."
"Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
“Conservative” talk show hosts always are open about being conservative. Contrast that with journalists (the worst) and any other liberals, who try to put it out that they are “objective.”
.
Some can accept Only Lies (behind Blue Eyes?)
.
Just so we are clear.
Conservatives are Ass*oles for pointing out truth?
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.