« The Inequalities of Multicultural Representation | Home | The Left Wing Conspiracy to Take Over Talk Radio »
DemoKKKrat Lynchings
By Matt Margolis | October 22, 2003
It seems that we keep saying, “The Democrats have hit a new low,” all too often in recent years. It never ceases to amaze me how their actions constantly reflect how determined they are to enforce their radical ideology on mainstream America.
Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court should be confirmed. End of story. She’s intelligent. She’s extremely qualified.
She’s also black. She’s a conservative. A black conservative woman has the DemoKKKrats sweating, because the idea of her being confirmed to the federal Court of Appeals, considered to be a stepping stone to the Supreme Court, doesn’t mesh with their big plan to legislate their agenda from the bench with far left-wing judges.
Now, Janice Rogers Brown is the target of a lynch mob by the DemoKKKrats. A lynch mob sure to make Senator Robert Byrd feel like he’s back in the old days when his sheets were still white.
Janice Rogers Brown has more in common with the mainstream than any DemoKKKrat who’s fighting to tighten the noose around her neck.
What makes her so dangerous to left-wing ideologues? She voted to uphold Proposition 209. 4.5 million Californians voted to ban racial quotas, and she voted to uphold the will of the voters.
Why are the DemoKKKrats filibustering her? Because she voted to uphold the will of the majority of the voters, not the liberals who wanted the state Supreme Court to overrule them.
The DemoKKKrats will do anything, even subvert democracy, to push their agenda on the American people.
When the will of the voters is not the will of the DemoKKKrats, the DemoKKKrats run to the courts, hoping to find a bench saturated in liberal judges to tell the voters what they want.
How do the DemoKKKrats accomplish this? The call nominees like Janice Rogers Brown an “extremist” or an “activist” to instill fear into the unquestioning public, and to give the media a headline.
Janice Rogers Brown, who grew up in the segregated South, excelled academically, and made something of her life despite her lack of privilege.
The black community should be praising her accomplishments, and be supporting her 100%.
But that’s not what’s happening. The National Association for the Advancement of Color People (NAACP) and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have joined in the on the lynching. Two organizations that should be behind a qualified black woman have turn their heads and unleashed their claws against her, solely because she is conservative, and amongst other things, is pro-life and against racial quotas.
Are black conservatives to be separated from the courts, but equal everywhere else? Are blacks to be equal in the workforce, but not on the bench? Are blacks to be equal in education, but not in the judiciary?
The DemoKKKrats have thrown a burning cross into the judicial nomination process. Should this continue, only the charred remains of democracy will be left.
Topics: The Right Idea |
Related Posts:
October 23rd, 2003 at 3:02 pm
“She’s also black. She’s a conservative”
Remember Justice Thomas? (and the problems he encountered?)
Remember Miguel Estrada?
Look at all the flack that:
Linda Chavez, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder (just to name a few) get?
it’s considered a “heresy” in many circles, especially activist ones for a minority to be a republican or a conservative.
October 24th, 2003 at 2:18 am
Speaking of Sowell, I just remembered that he’s been writing a series of opinion pieces on just this issue.
A Lynch Mob Gathers
A Lynch Mob Gathers–Part II
A Lynch Mob Gathers–Part III
October 24th, 2003 at 8:24 pm
Let’s see…
Liberals think the only way blacks can be successful is through affirmative action and quotas.
Liberals main reasoning for allowing illegal immigration among hispanics is because they bus tables, mow lawns, and clean hotel rooms…
And these pricks call Conservatives racist…
meh.
DM
October 26th, 2003 at 3:10 pm
The way liberals think, for us to suggest minorities can make it on their own is racist. How dare we think they’re not going to fall behind because of their race? Rush Limbaugh gets called a racist for suggesting a black quarterback who, according to many, is not that great of player, but gets hyped up because of his race… Isn’t he pointing out racism, not perpetrating it? I believe any reasonable person would think so.
October 27th, 2003 at 6:47 pm
There you go again, Matt. These judges are being rejected due to their rigid ideology not their race. In fact, its you who is bringing up race. I’ve noticed that you employ race when it suits your purposes, (i.e. your last post re: multicultural representation)– and then cry foul when you can try to score points.
Its not working.
If race doesn’t matter, why are you guys always bringing it up?
October 28th, 2003 at 12:23 am
Yo Mama,
Do you not think that a large reason why the Democrats can’t stand judicial nominees like Janice Rogers Brown is because she is a black, conservative female who made it on her own, and not by getting handouts from Democrats’ programs?
Is race not an issue when a group called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, seeaks to destroy a colored person because of her politics.
I’m not trying to make a case here for a culturally diverse bench. My point is, the so-called party of the minorities clearly is only the party of liberal minorities.
They only care about the minorities who fit into their agenda. How sad.
You all should be ashamed at your bigotry.
October 28th, 2003 at 1:40 am
More by Sowell:
The politics of judicial nominees
October 29th, 2003 at 3:40 pm
Matt- it seems to me that you only care about minorities that fit into YOUR agenda. No votes on the basis of ethnicity at school, but if someone (say a judge) is questioned about their ideology, you say its because of their ethnicity.
Hypocrisy at its worst.
October 29th, 2003 at 4:02 pm
For someone claiming to be a professor (one of my former professors nonetheless) you surely seem unable to make an intelligent argument.
You sound more like a liberal college student from Lewis & Clark College.
October 29th, 2003 at 4:08 pm
Nice try– but really, Matt. You and I both know about the grade. And what about the honor code violation. Did you think we would just forget about that.
Just like Florida– if you can’t get it honestly, you cheat.
October 29th, 2003 at 4:12 pm
Readers of this thread should be made aware that the comments posted by “Matt’s Professor At Hartford” logged an IP address which was traced to Lewis & Clark College. Hopefully this person will end the charade before he gets banned permenantly.
October 29th, 2003 at 10:59 pm
This reminds me of the Pryor nomination.
Remeber Pryor? He was the conservative ideologue who the Democrats were holding up because he was Catholic.
Remind us who made light of his Catholicism? It was Orin Hatch. Hatch asked Pryor in order to make it an issue.
Hey Matt are you opposed to a Joe Lieberman presidency? If, so you are an Anti-semite.
Hey Matt are you opposed to a John Kerry presidency? If so, you are anti-catholic and anti-veteran.
Hey Matt opposed to a Carol Mosley Braun presidency? If so, you are a racist bastard.
btw, i was attempting to be sarcastic.
October 29th, 2003 at 11:31 pm
Congratulations Drew, you completely missed the point. Mazel tov!
October 30th, 2003 at 12:12 am
You associate the Dems with the KKK and lyncings, because they oppose Ms. Brown. My point is don’t use such racial charged language. My sarcasism was an attempt to show the idiocy of your racially charged language.
Is she qualified? Is she an extremist?
The American Bar Association, who normally rubber-stamps nominees, gives her a rating of “partially not-qualified.”
Brown has stated the New Deal “represents the triumph of our own socialist revolution.” I’ve read Marx and certainly we haven’t had a socialist revolution in this coutry (thank God).
October 30th, 2003 at 12:26 am
follow up…
In sum she is an extremeist. She makes Scalia look like Ginsburg.
One question Matt? Why all the pictures of yourself?
Can you say narcissism?
October 30th, 2003 at 2:12 am
Estrada got high marks from the ABA, and yet he was shot down.
As for Brown, I’ve heard that she’s been re-elected to the CA Supreme court for at least one term, so she can’t be that far out to the Right.
As for this whole issue–now even Coulter is picking it up. I think Sowell did a much better job at approaching it though
October 30th, 2003 at 10:38 am
You really are a sad lot. You’d be better off spending your time downloading internet porn. It would be far more useful to the populace than this waste of time you call a website…
October 30th, 2003 at 8:32 pm
Just like Florida– if you can’t get it honestly, you cheat.
Why, are you a Republican? Could’ve fooled me. Were you as outraged as I was when Gore’s lawyers were down here in northwest Florida (where I live) trying to disqualify military votes? I saw it.
Don’t sweat this, Matt. Keep giving them the proverbial rope–they’re hanging themselves.
October 30th, 2003 at 8:36 pm
Drew–
Please give an example.
October 30th, 2003 at 9:34 pm
example of her extreme right-wing tendinces?
Well she called the New Deal socialist! You know you have a nut on you hands when they think socialism starts when $1 leaves the treasury to pay for some social spending.
October 30th, 2003 at 10:20 pm
I don’t think it (New Deal) was a bad thing, but why is it NOT socialist? It certainly wasn’t capitalist?
I’m talking about her judicial decisions. Where has she deviated from interpretation of the laws or the Constitution?
October 30th, 2003 at 10:46 pm
The new deal essentially expanded the size and function of gov’t, which is closer to the socialism side on the barometer than it is to capitalism.
October 31st, 2003 at 1:25 pm
Yes Jaws, it essentially opened up a Pandora’s box of ever increasing government intrusion into our lives.
I had to say it was a good thing, because my Grandpa (who is deceased now) told me that if not for it, they would have “starved”.
November 1st, 2003 at 1:12 am
The New Deal was certainly socialistic, as is all social spending, but the New Deal doesn’t amount to socialism. Capitalism and a Welfare state can exisit side by side, as the people like Bill Clinton and GWB have proven.
You know you have a nut on your hands when they can’t see any shades of grey between absolutly no socialistic government policies and complete free-market capitalism. Yes the New Deal was socialistic but it was great for the country, and certainly wasn’t a “socialist revolution.”
November 1st, 2003 at 11:13 am
The New Deal kept this country in The Depression longer, and programs like Social Security were meant to temporary. The hope was people would pump all this extra money into the treasury, and then the government wouldn’t have to ever pay it back… didn’t work out that way though.
You have to have little to no understanding of economics to defend socialiasm and speak ill of capitalism.
November 2nd, 2003 at 2:48 pm
Drew, you’re right when you say that Capitalism and a Welfare state can exisit side by side
Thus, the subsequent question is, how much (or how big) of a welfare state?
As for the New Deal, I think it was good for the country to an extent–especailly at the time. However, and someone can correct me if I’m wrong here, wasn’t it WWII that helped bring us out of (the) Depression?
I think what many are saying by criticizing the New Deal was that it “enhanced” the ideas behind “big goverment” (just a guess)
November 13th, 2003 at 10:28 am
If you can name one democrat that says that her race is a factor in their opposition, I’d agree with you. Otherwise you’re just palying the race card, and adding inflamamtory racist rhetoric to the debate.
Demokkrat?
Did they teach taht indebate class? How about insulting their mothers. I bet thatll go over like gangbusters!
November 22nd, 2003 at 1:39 pm
Asshatology Rule# 97: Act outraged about alleged inflamatory racist rhetoric. Never mind that said rhetoric is the liberal democrat asshat’s favorite tactic. Hope that nobody notices the hypocrisy. Make snide comments about “debate class” thus implying the ignorance of your opponent. Ignore the fact that your post is filled with spelling errors thus highlighting your own lack of intelligence. REMEMBER: Credibility is expendable in the name of the left-wing asshat cause.
November 27th, 2003 at 12:46 am
So, Ed Hill, is “DemoKKKrats” out of line but “Bush is a Nazi” acceptable?
DemoKKKrats - the shoe fits.
August 26th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
adult porn
Idinax33000i
August 27th, 2006 at 4:43 am
pissing lesbians
cr00topcheg