Academia, Bizarre, Society

Smithsonian Insists That Clarence Thomas Simply Did Not Make The Cut Of Great African Americans At The Opening Of The African American Museum . . . While Anita Hill Did

220px-Clarence_Thomassmithsonian-nmaahc-outside-20160720The opening of the new Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History and Culture has been marred by a controversy over a political bias in the celebration of African American leaders. While the museum’s displays largely ignore Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, it celebrates the heroism of his accuser from his confirmation hearings, Law Professor Anita Hill. The failure to honor Thomas, in my view, is outrageous. His life story is not just one of the inspiring accounts in African American history, it is one of the most inspiring of American history. His triumph over abject poverty and discrimination should be celebrated by all Americans regardless of how you view his jurisprudential views. Now the Smithsonian has responded and its explanation is hardly compelling.

Thomas has the quintessential American story of perseverance and ambition in overcoming odds that would have left many in hopeless despair. Clarence Thomas was born on the Georgia coast in Pin Point, Georgia, on June 23, 1948. He grew up speaking Gullah, the creole dialect. His home was a one-room shack with dirt floors and no plumbing. He grew up without a Dad, who left him at two.  As a result, at the age of seven he and his younger brother were sent to live with their grandfather, Myers Anderson, and his wife in Savannah, Georgia. He used his Catholic education to overcome segregation and prejudice to eventually go to Holy Cross and gained admission to Yale, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania law schools. After a series of legal positions, he became the chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982 and later became just the second African American to join the Court.

Linda St. Thomas, chief spokesperson for the Smithsonian, insisted that it was just not a story that made the cut among the stories to be told: “There are many compelling personal stories about African Americans who have become successful in various fields, and, obviously, Associate Justice Thomas is one of them. However, we cannot tell every story in our inaugural exhibitions.” Really? But Anita Hill is such a story? I am not taking away from Hill or taking sides in their dispute. Yet, Thomas should have been on the top of any objective list of the great achievers among contemporary African American figures.

That is a story that should feature prominently in any museum on American leaders. The American public funded half of the cost of this $540 million museum and gave the museum a prime location on the mall. It should expect better.

207 thoughts on “Smithsonian Insists That Clarence Thomas Simply Did Not Make The Cut Of Great African Americans At The Opening Of The African American Museum . . . While Anita Hill Did”

  1. StepStepSteponToads, October 21, 2016 at 12:23 pm
    “Howler? I tell the truth, you lie. You’re howling because someone points out those lies.” Such wit. Such erudition.

    “The Oxford English Dictionary defines howler, “3.3 slang. Something ‘crying’, ‘clamant’, or excessive; spec. a glaring blunder, esp. in an examination, etc.”, and gives the earliest usage example in 1872.[1] Eric Partridge’s Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English says; the 1951 edition of Partridge defined it in part as: “… A glaring (and amusing) blunder: from before 1890; … also, a tremendous lie … Literally something that howls or cries for notice, or perhaps … by way of contracting howling blunder.‘ “[2] Another common interpretation of this usage is that a howler is a mistake fit to make one howl with laughter.[3]”

    As in, “ ‘Held in check’? Israel hold (sic) less territory than it did 50 years ago and hasn’t been at war with any Arab state since 1973. It has never been at war with any Arab state without gross provocation.” [Emphasis added]

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html

    For now, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute your howler to ideologically blinkered ignorance rather than deliberate prevarication, despite my noticing that Zionists and their apologists tend to have a very uneasy relationship with truth when it comes to Zionist behavior. Regarding the aggressor in the six-day war in 1967, for example:

    “Neither U.S. nor Israeli intelligence assessed that there was any kind of serious threat of an Egyptian attack. On the contrary, both considered the possibility that Nasser might strike first as being extremely slim.

    “The current Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael B. Oren, acknowledged in his book, Six Days of War, widely regarded as the definitive account of the war, that ‘By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed.’

    “In the Israeli view, ‘Nasser would have to be deranged’ to attack Israel first, and war ‘could only come about if Nasser felt he had complete military superiority over the IDF, if Israel were caught up in a domestic crisis, and, most crucially, was isolated internationally–a most unlikely confluence’ (pp. 59-60).

    “Four days before Israel’s attack on Egypt, Helms met with a senior Israeli official who expressed Israel’s intent to go to war, and that the only reason it hadn’t already struck was because of efforts by the Johnson administration to restrain both sides to prevent a violent conflict.

    “ ‘Helms interpreted the remarks as suggesting that Israel would attack very soon’, writes Robarge. He reported to Johnson ‘that Israel probably would start a war within a few days.’
    “ ‘Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center’, which had received the report ‘that Israel had launched its attack’ and that, contrary to Israel’s claims that Egypt had been the aggressor, Israel had fired first. [Emphasis added]

    “Yitzhak Rabin, who would later become Prime Minister, told Le Monde the year following the ’67 war, ‘I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent to the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to start an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.’

    “Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of ‘choice’ and that, ‘In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.‘”
    \http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/

        1. She has accomplishments in the same sense that Fat Tony Salerno had them.

          1. StepStepSteponToads – Ginsberg has the same accomplishments that Hillary Clinton does as Sec. of State. None.

            1. I think she was GC to the ACLU at one point. She accomplished things no doubt. Evil things.

        2. One of nine women in Harvard Law class (of about 500) when she enrolled in 1956.

          First woman on two major law reviews (Harvard and Columbia) after transferring to Columbia when her husband took a job in New York.

          Professor at Rutgers and Columbia.

          DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

          US Supreme court justice.

          I don’t care for her views on the US Constitution about which she has been critical, but she’s not exactly an underachiever.

          1. You want your children to be achievers. You also want them to do decent things with their life. She didn’t.

          2. JR – that pot-smoking Obama went to Columbia. I wouldn’t get all hot about their faculty.

  3. StepStepSteponToads, October 19, 2016 at 10:03 am
    “That Anita Hill, the subject of a wretched little human interest story, is in the museum is an indicator that the seminal culture of the place is rancid. Shut it down, because you cannot fix it without firing every salaried employee in the place except the accountants. Ship any valuable artifacts elsewhere and demolish the building. That is one hideous piece of modern architecture.”

    Will you be leading the charge, and do you have enough brown shirts for everybody?

    1. It’s a government museum run by transparent sectaries. That’s a malicious waste of public funds. Sorry you’re too stupid to get it.

            1. It’s the plural of ‘sectary’. A sectary is an ideologue or votary, especially one who adheres to ethical conceptions wherein what’s good and right is what advances the sect’s interests. We live in an age where standard issue characters in the Democratic Party think just that way.

              1. Steps – not sure you have the right definition, but it is a real word. Give you that one. 😉

  4. @TIN October 20, 2016 at 1:51 pm
    “Oh, sorry, Obama’s white mother only had a master’s in anthropology and his white grandparents were only middle class and his father was only a Harvard educated economist and he only went to an exclusive private school. How sad! Yes, he definitely should have received preferential treatment over white applicants whose fathers worked in construction or lumber or steel mills.”

    If you’re interested in additional evidence regarding Obama’s having received preferential treatment in his ascent to the US presidency, you may want to check out the book of former Naval Intelligence officer and NSA analyst Wayne Madsen, The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA’s Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House (2012).

      1. The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA’s Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House (2012).

        You’re almost certainly wasting your time. The John Birch Society’s official line was that American politics was an artifact of a small corps of wire-pullers organized in the Council on Foreign Relations. There are kooks in this world and some of them are articulate kooks.

        1. StepStepSteponToads – I am wondering why you know so much about the John Birch Society.

          1. How? They were, 40-odd years ago, quite obtrusive. I read some of their literature, which was nutty stuff. They were even more peculiar a decade prior (e.g. declaring Dwight Eisenhower a ‘conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy”).

            1. StepStepSteponToads – you would have to read a lot of their literature to make such a blanket statement. So, the question is, did you read a lot of their literature or were you a member?

              1. I was not a member.

                I read their magnum opus, None Dare Call it Conspiracy. No, I don’t think their director of public relations was trying to put their worst foot forward when he wrote that. I riffled through issues of American Opinion. It was the same mess. Funny, their foundational manifesto was quite unremarkable. No clue why you’re trying to suggest I must have read a court reporter’s transcript of Robert Welch’s verbal apercus to make an evaluation of the organization.

                1. Steps – where did you lay hands on American Opinion? You seem well versed for someone who just scanned the pages or looked at the ads.

                  1. They actually had it in the college library 35 years ago. I doubt they had much ad revenue, or no more than your high school yearbook. It was a small booklet like publication, a bit larger than Reader’s Digest, but just one leaf stapled. It’s actually quite an odd thing for a library to have, but may have been purchased initially in an era when university librarians aspired to engage in comprehensive collecting. Supposedly, it merged with the Birch Society’s other publication and is known under another title.

  5. So JT’s latest post “After Accepting $180 Million in Aid, Duterte Travels To China To Announce the Separation of the Philippines From The United States” is not accessible to read in full, much less comment on Am I the only person experiencing this???

    2. Autumn,
      I, and a few others, commented on the story this morning. I have been busy today and when I tried to check back in this evening it was gone. No idea why Professor Turley deleted it. It was an interesting article about our strange foreign policy.

  6. @Autumn, October 20, 2016 at 8:35 pm

    “maybe off topic”

    Yes, as was your comment at 1:46 PM on 10/19.

    But as it elicited the howler posted by StepStepSteponToads, October 19, 2016 at 2:06 pm, it would have been unconscionable to let it pass unchallenged.

    2. Howler? I tell the truth, you lie. You’re howling because someone points out those lies.

    1. Israel relinquished the Sinai peninsula in 1982 (by mutual agreement), unilaterally relinquished the Gaza strip in 2004. The Syrian government has never been willing to bargain for the Golan Heights or engage in any agreements with Israel other than cease fires. As for the West Bank and the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, the result of attempts to negotiate with the PLO was the 2d intifada and a horrendous decline in security in Israel. Even so, 85% of those living on the other side of the 1949 armistice lines are under an Arab civil administration and most of the rest are in metropolitan Jerusalem.

      Advocates of the Arab cause simply cannot stop lying.

  9. And he used affirmative action to get access and finally a ticket on the gravy train…a great role model for the pinky-ring set and sellouts everywhere.

    1. Claudia – he admits he used AA to get thru colleges. If I could have used it I would have. 🙂

      1. Same here. Does Harvard or Yale have any set-aside seats for TINs? If so, I’ll be there tomorrow! And unlike Thomas, I won’t accept their benevolence but then gripe about it!

    2. Um, no. He graduated from Holy Cross with honors and graduated in the middle of the class at Yale. Unlike Hilligula, he passed the bar exam without incident. He needed no mulligans to perform in those institutions. He received his public positions the same way anyone receives a discretionary federal appointment: through having a baseline of expertise and then getting on short lists through endorsements from his connections.

      1. Thomas graduated with honors (in English literature) from Holy Cross, so he would have been admitted to a good law school even if he were white. Probably not Harvard or Yale, however, so he wouldn’t be on the SCOTUS. A white guy with comparable credentials would likely have a successful career as an attorney, but not get appointed head of a federal agency or a federal judge, much less to the Supreme Court. But Thomas does acknowledge that he benefitted from AA, unlike Obama, who grew up in privilege at an elite private school in Hawaii with a white mother who had a Ph.D in anthropology and worked for the Ford Foundation.

        1. Probably not Harvard or Yale, however, so he wouldn’t be on the SCOTUS. A

          There is no requirement, formal or informal, that you have a Harvard or Yale degree to receive a SCOTUS nomination. Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not, Douglas Ginsburg did not, Robert Bork did not, Sandra Day O’Connor did not, John Paul Stevens did not, William Rehnquist did not, Warren Burger did not, Harrold Carswell did not, Thurgood Marshall did not, Arthur Goldberg did not.

          1. Neither did WO Douglas (Columbia) or Earl Warren (Cal-Berkeley) attend Harvard or Yale, and neither had been a judge before his appointment to the Court. All those liberal opinions – Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – would have left us in KCFleming’s Pleasantville had it not been for them.

            And the one modern-era jurist who was better than both of them didn’t attend Harvard or Yale either: Roger Traynor (Cal.)

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_J._Traynor “Traynor has generally been viewed by the American legal community as the single greatest judge in the history of the California judiciary, and one of the greatest judges in the history of the United States.[8] His obituary in the New York Times noted that “Traynor was often called one of the greatest judicial talents never to sit on the United States Supreme Court. . . .”

            1. You are correct, historically. But there has been much discussion recently about the current lack of diversity on the Supreme Court. Even Trump has addressed it. There are no Protestants on the SCOTUS, only Catholics and Jews, and only Harvard and Yale clerks, and all from the East Coast. Trump addressed this issue by publishing a list of 20 potential candidates from whom he would select for the Supreme Court, with a variety of academic and geographical backgrounds, and experience actually practicing law. Much to the consternation of the NY bred, Harv/Yale, SCOTUS clerkship, BigLaw, ticket to the court crowd, ha ha.

              1. Antonin Scalia was, with scant doubt, a serious Catholic. In re Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts, you can make an argument; it’s murkier. Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor are, at best, silly cafeteria Catholics. I doubt Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, or Ruth Bader Ghastly keep kosher or say their prayers; Jews who manifest a minimal level of religious observance are perhaps 30% of the total, and the Orthodox < 10%. Stephen Breyer intermarried (to a daughter of the British gentry), as did one of Ruth Ghastly's two children. Elena Kagan is a spinster.

                In truth, at least 5 members of the court are bicoastal professional class types who have no discernable dissents from the pathologies of the age. It hardly matters what their grandmother did on Saturday or Sunday.

        2. But Thomas does acknowledge that he benefitted from AA, unlike Obama, who grew up in privilege at an elite private school in Hawaii with a white mother who had a Ph.D in anthropology and worked for the Ford Foundation.

          BO grew up in a condominium in Honolulu, just like about half the people who live there. His grandmother was a vp of a local bank and some sort of specialist in real estate escrow. There is no indication Madelyn or Stanley Dunham had any consequential connections at all. That’s an above-the-median bourgeois upbringing, one enjoyed by tens-of-millions of his contemporaries, not a ‘privileged’ upbringing. You’re privileged when your daddy can make something happen for you with a phone call. His mother’s employment at the Ford Foundation may have been cushy. She wasn’t getting rich off it because hardly anyone in the philanthropic sector can. She had no doctoral degree until her son was 31 years old. The only handsome element in BO’s background is the Punahou School, and that type of schooling is not what it’s cracked up to be.

          1. Oh, sorry, Obama’s white mother only had a master’s in anthropology and his white grandparents were only middle class and his father was only a Harvard educated economist and he only went to an exclusive private school. How sad! Yes, he definitely should have received preferential treatment over white applicants whose fathers worked in construction or lumber or steel mills.

            1. Obama didn’t know his father from a cord of wood. They spent all of 9 weeks in the same city during the years running from 1961 to 1982 (when that sick old man finally killed himself in a drunken road wreck). His mother was awarded a master’s degree in 1986, when he was 25 years old. He had a quite ordinary, above-the-median upbringing. He likely did get a series of mulligans for his schooling. The thing is, he also graduated from Harvard Law School with honors. IIRC, they have blind grading on examinations there. He doesn’t suffer general intellectual deficits. He suffers from an absence of seriousness and focus. If he hadn’t gotten the mulligans, he was still adequate material for the University of Hawaii. It’s hard to know what he would have done with his life in that set of circumstances, of course. In the course of the life he had, he spent about four years (pro-rating part time and seasonal employment) working in law offices, spent about five years (pro-rating part time employment) teaching law, published no scholarly work, landed no partnerships, was a recognized maven in no area of policy. He’s a thoroughgoing empty suit. I cannot imagine attending city schools in Honolulu or the University of Hawaii would have made him worse in that respect. Purveyors of elite education are generally engaged in a gross v. net scam, selling the idea that the life trajectory of their graduates is a consequence of what the school brings to the table. See Thomas Sowell on this point. You compare graduates of elite schools to those accepted at elite schools but attending state schools, and you see a trajectory that is not much different.

              In the other thread, you were pissing about Myers Anderson’s fuel oil distributorship. Now it’s Madelyn Dunham’s bank job and Ann Dunham’s degrees. Give it a rest.

  10. We had the same problem when they put up the ‘Enola Gay.’ The contention of the museum was that dropping the A-bomb was not necessary and was a war crime. Enough people rose up to have the display neutralized. The Smithsonian is a left-wing organization and is expected to bow to its masters.

    The more I read about exhibits at the Smithsonian, the less I want to visit it.

    1. Paul, please don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater my friend! Despite the “PC” special exhibits the Smithsonian is truly an incredible institution. While I don’t miss living in the DC area, I do miss those fabulous museums!!

      1. Autumn – I am the type of person who leaves nasty notes to the exhibit director when they get in over their head. Most of the exhibits would be fine, but it would just be my luck they would do something stupid like this.

  11. Here is a portion of the Juan Williams article in the Wall Street Journal back in early 2015:

    In his dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger, a case that preserved the affirmative-action policies of the University of Michigan Law School, he quoted an 1865 speech by Frederick Douglass: “‘What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice.’ . . . Like Douglass, I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators.”

    The principal point Justice Thomas has made in a variety of cases is that black people deserve to be treated as independent, competent, self-sufficient citizens. He rejects the idea that 21st-century government and the courts should continue to view blacks as victims of a history of slavery and racism.

    Instead, in an era with a rising number of blacks, Hispanics, Asians and immigrants, he cheers personal responsibility as the basis of equal rights. In his concurring opinion in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (1995), he made the case against government set-asides for minority businesses by arguing that “racial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination.” The Constitution, he said, bans discrimination by “those who wish to oppress a race or by those who have a sincere desire to help.”

    In the same vein he contends that people who insist on racial diversity as a worthy principle are hiding assumptions of black inferiority. “After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks,” he wrote in his concurring opinion in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995). “Under this theory, segregation injures blacks because blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based upon a theory of black inferiority.”

    Justice Thomas holds that quality education should be the focus of educators for children of all races and argues there is no proof that integration necessarily improves education. Black leaders, from Martin Luther King Jr. to Thurgood Marshall, he has noted, were educated at black schools.

    He also makes the case that diversity in school admissions has never been proven to raise black achievement to the level of people admitted with no special consideration. “Racial imbalance is not segregation,” he wrote in a 2007 case ending Seattle and Louisville plans to reverse racial segregation in schools, “and the mere incantation of terms like re-segregation and remediation cannot make up the difference.” Federal judges, he said, are “not social engineers” charged with creating plans to achieve racial equality.

  12. Don de Drainn , I made that statement because of the topic being discussed. And I do think Justice Thomas is being discriminated against by the Smithsonian.

  13. Thomas was completely unqualified for the position he holds on the Supreme Court and has distinguished himself in no way at all on the court. In fact, he is an embarrassment on the court and a right wing hack just as Alito is and Scalia was. That he overcame poverty is not unusual in this country so by making himself a protégé of the powerful former Senator Danforth he was able to quickly climb the ladder of success—-also not uncommon or extraordinary. Likewise, Anita Hill’s notable part in public events decades ago doesn’t seem like a great accomplishment worthy of mention in a museum of this kind.

    1. Undistinguished? Hardly.

      Jeffrey Toobin, who all thinking people consider an execrable partisan hack, thinks Thomas’ legal opinions had posed the greatest threat to progressive jurisprudence because he consistently applies “orignalism” philosophy, and he is willing to sometimes break through precedent to do so. His opinions are well researched, exquisitely well written, and consistent. Thomas has often been in the dissent because “originalism’ is not the mainstream jurisprudence. However, legal scholars know that sometimes the dissents of today provide the framework for a shift in jurisprudence 10, 20 or 30 years in the future. So Thomas has spent almost 30 years laying the groundwork for a resurgence in “originalism” jurisprudence. If the resurgence were to happen, he’d be the most consequential justice since Oliver Wendell Holmes. But now it is not going to happen. You and Toobin can breath easy.

      Because in their infinite wisdom Republican primary voters decided to nominate the host of Celebrity Apprentice to be their nominee for president. A man with the highest unfavorable ratings in history and who has never won an election to any office before. That guaranteed Democrats would win the presidency. And with so many vacancies on SCOTUS expected to be filled by the next president, we are looking at 30 years of liberal dominance on the Supreme Court. Obama stacked the judiciary with far left kooks after Harry Reid nuked the filibuster, so “originalism” is pretty much dead now. I would not be at all surprised if Thomas resigns during Clinton’s presidency. He’s spent almost 30 years laying the groundwork for a resurgence in originalism jurisprudence, and Republican primary voters decided to throw his 30 years of work away by nominating an unelectable blow hard charlatan with more personal baggage than Samsonite. If they don’t care, why should he?

    2. Thomas was completely unqualified for the position he holds on the Supreme Court and has distinguished himself in no way at all on the court.

      Compared to whom?

      He was a federal appellate judge on the DC circuit and, prior to that, chairman of a regulatory commission. He had nine years experience in adjudication. Thurgood Marshall had three years and change as an appellate judge and two years as solicitor-general. Marshall’s predecessor, Tom Clark, had been federal attorney-general during the Truman administration but had never held any kind of judicial position. William O Douglas was an academic who had spent a few years on a regulatory commission but otherwise had no judicial experience. Sandra Day O’Conner had about 5 years as a state judge, mostly doing trial work. William Rehnquist had no history in judicial positions before being appointed to the Court.

      1. WO Douglas being my favorite jurist ever, I might add that he was on the faculty at Yale, was appointed to the SEC at the height of the Great Depression, and in 1937 became its Chairman. That period was marked by social justice meted out by Congress and the Executive. By the way, 1937 was the magical year when the fundamental right to freedom of contract (that notion that employers can screw their employees in binding contracts without state remedy, see Lochner v. New York) was generally laid to rest.

        It’s too bad Congress and the Executive only protect corporate justice these days, but that’s capitalism for you.

    3. a right wing hack just as Alito is and Scalia was.

      The word ‘hack’ does not mean what you think it means. See Mary Ann Glendon on the sort of reputation William O. Douglas had when she was in law school. The best candidate for the hack designation as we speak is the candidate for bariatric surgery.

      The real Antonin Scalia was a legal academic, federal appellate judge, and THE expert on administrative law. Samuel Alito (Princeton, summa cum laude, 1975), had 15 years under his belt as a federal appellate judge (after a stint as a federal prosecutor).

  14. “His life story is not just one of the inspiring accounts in African American history, it is one of the most inspiring of American history. His triumph over abject poverty and discrimination should be celebrated by all Americans regardless of how you view his jurisprudential views. Now the Smithsonian has responded and its explanation is hardly compelling.”

    Agreed. I more often than not disagree with his opinions, but his rise to a seat at that bench was no less than stellar and truly against all odds.

  15. That Anita Hill, the subject of a wretched little human interest story, is in the museum is an indicator that the seminal culture of the place is rancid. Shut it down, because you cannot fix it without firing every salaried employee in the place except the accountants. Ship any valuable artifacts elsewhere and demolish the building. That is one hideous piece of modern architecture.

    1. Well, just don’t go. You can instead go to the Trump Hotel or have they already changed the name?

      1. Well, just don’t commit tax money and prestige to the work of worthless political sectaries.

  16. The African Americans that are in charge of the African American Museum can pick whomever they want to be included. If they don’t want Thomas, fine. He seems to be more popular with the white anti-affirmative action crowd than with black people. Hope he retires soon and is replaced with a true civil rights champion.

    1. It’s a public museum, not a sandbox for black pseudo-academics to play in.

    3. You do realize multiple studies have shown that the ones who benefit most from affirmative action are white females right? Also this man is more of a role model for all black men who live without thinking “whiteys got me down” all the time. From your mindset it was people like you who used to make fun me in grade and high school for reading books and talking “proper”. You seriously make me sick.

      1. The problem I have with AA is that it no longer even remotely resembles the original purpose, which was to address the after-effects of slavery on American blacks. Like everything administered by the federal government, it soon exploded into a program for every “minority” no matter what their circumstance. So you have middle-class white women, as well as immigrants from places like India and Sri Lanka and with no history of discrimination in the U.S. benefitting from AA. While at the same time, the inner-city black situation isn’t getting any better because black people like Obama whose father was a Harvard educated economist and mother a white Ph.D anthropologist, or Eric Holder, whose father was a wealthy immigrant real estate developer, get the benefits of AA. I would support AA if the benefits were limited to American descendants of slaves who are still suffering from below-average income and education. But as to immigrants, white women, and blacks who have already made it, let them compete on their own.

        1. TIN writes, “The problem I have with AA is that it no longer even remotely resembles the original purpose, which was to address the after-effects of slavery on American blacks. . . .”

          Are you sure it was just for African-Americans? There are lots of other minorities who were discriminated against.

          1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all the court challenges to AA, cited the 14th Amendment, which authorized the government to “enact such measures as are necessary, to address the badges and incidents of slavery.” The government can’t discriminate against non-blacks without some constitutional basis. The constitutional basis for giving preferences in employment, education, minority set-aside contracts, etc., was the “badges and incidents” language of the 14th amendment. And that applied only to American blacks who were the descendants of slaves, not to someone who immigrated here yesterday from the Himalayas or wherever……sure, other people have been discriminated against, but they were not slaves and the constitution did not authorize government spending and programs to help them get up to speed with reparations for their previous condition of servitude. Whether that should still be going on 150 years after Emancipation is another issue, but that’s the legal and historical basis for AA.

  17. Amazing! Unfortunately, unlike every other ethnic group to hit the shores of America, there’s a downward pointing strain that has infected and still infects this community. Upward pointing African Americans like Booker T Washington, Dr. Ben Carson, who don’t toe the line are derided. People like Snoop and Tupac and others are held up as paragons of ethnic identity. I, for one, choose to live off the plantation.

  18. Maybe it’s because despite his accomplishments he’s really just a terrible human being?

    3. Where is the evidence that he’s a ‘terrible human being’? That he went through a divorce proceeding 40 years ago?

      In truth, gliberals and leftoids fancy that anyone who embarrasses them or stands in their way is a ‘terrible human being’. Gliberals and leftoids are commonly irredeemably shallow.

    4. “Maybe it’s because despite his accomplishments he’s really just a terrible human being?”

      Wow, that’s really deep. What an impressive accomplishment then for him to disconnect what you perceive his character to be when in the performance as a public servant. That is the epitome of honor and humility; something that is seriously lacking among the political class these days.

      1. As for Thomas’s character, I think probably the most scandalous of all Supreme Court Justices must have been Wild Bill Douglas, for having a young girlfriend . . . or two. I’ve never researched it, but I think next in that hall of infamy is Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her burp earlier this year, and lest we forget Samuel Alito shaking his head at the President while being criticized for Citizens United. Morally turpitudinous lechers, all!

        Thomas is what I would consider a mellow guy, unless you’re talking Nebraska football. He’s in no way of bad character. So what if he talked about Long Dong Silver to Anita Hill? He was effen horny! I’m much more worried about people who haven’t done things like that.

        The Justices are so restrained by the duties and ethics of their jobs that you won’t find much to criticize other than their opinions.

        One o’clock, two o’clock, three o’clock rock, . . .

    5. Justice Thomas is not a terrible human being, he’s truly the nicest justice and person. Well, he can share the distinction with his future colleague on the Court, Justice Turley. I rarely agree with Justice Thomas on his legal decisions — occasionally we line up on weird criminal procedure issues or other rare things — but as a person, there is a ton of depth and kindness to him.

  19. It is common for the liberal elitists in this country to treat black people w/ the temerity to think for themselves like a slave that has left their plantation.

    1. The Democratic Party still tells African Americans, vote for us or else. Vote Democratic or be labeled an Uncle Tom, or any other of a series of racist epithets which is OK to use as long as it’s against a conservative.

      We really are watching the rise of fascism, all over again. And like previous incarnations, the public will be in total denial until they get to the point where the rest of the world asks how they let this happen.

      Let’s review. We have a State Approved political party. Wildly illegal behavior by HRC is neither prosecuted nor condemned; rather her aids are given immunity for free. The media, for the most part, acts as a State Propaganda Office for the Left. The IRS was weaponized against conservatives. The FBI ignores a bribery request on behalf of a Left public figure. The Department of Education is Left, textbooks are Left, and it’s basically become Government Indoctrination. In order to get a good grade in college, students often have to skew papers Left. Professors in academia are Left, conservative professors face bias and harassment. Merely writing Trump’s name will get a student threatened by the school. Conservative speech is shut down on universities, and conservative invited speakers are shouted down, with the implicit consent of the school which refuses to notify the police. Even a conservative gay speaker is threatened and intimidated, because, as with racial minorities, it is completely fine to physically threaten a gay man as long as he is a conservative. Social Media censors anything other than Left (see Facebook and Twitter, the two major powerhouses.) Our government lends legitimacy to the anti-semitic BLM movement, which promotes violence against the police and considers all African American inmates to be political prisoners…did I leave anything out?

      So I ask…how did we allow this to happen? How did we allow a single political party to gain so much power, over so many aspects of our lives? The government and the education system is supposed to help all people, equally, regardless of creed.

      This is why a protest candidate has become so popular, despite his rather crass demeanor.

      2. http://www.dailywire.com/news/5185/6-pieces-evidence-anita-hill-was-lying-amanda-prestigiacomo#

        Here is why I have so many doubts about Anita HIll’s story, as to be concerned she would be honored by one of our most prestigious museums:

        1. The witness who claimed Anita Hill told her about the harassment, as it happened, while they were both living in Washington had actually moved away before Anita ever moved there.
        2. Anita Hill followed Clarence Thomas from job to job. She claimed it was for job security, but we all know how incredibly hard it is to lose a government job. It’s renowned for job security, which explains the sloths who work at the DMV.
        3. Anita Hill claimed she never called Clarence Thomas after she stopped working for him. Phone records show she was lying.
        4. Why would she request her name be kept anonymous when presented to Thomas? If they were true, he would know exactly who was making them.
        5. She lied 5 times under oath regarding speaking with a Democratic staffer. This led to allegations this was a political hit.
        6. A dozen women refuted Anita Hill’s story. They said that Thomas never acted inappropriately, nor did they ever see him act inappropriately with Anita Hill.

        Sexual abusers rarely target one single woman in their entire lives. There is a history.

        I could understand Anita keeping this story to herself out of misplaced shame or fear of notoriety. I could see her convincing herself it didn’t happen, and pretending everything was normal with her boss, even calling him.

        But, if she was supposedly telling her friend (who didn’t even live there at the time) that it WAS sexual harassment, why the continued phone calls?

        I recall Juanita Broderick tried to convince herself it was all her fault. But when she went to that event with Bill Clinton, she became visibly upset, and never saw him again after that. A victim would react. I even understand why she would deny it ever happened. The Clintons destroyed their enemies, and she would have every reason to fear them, and feel embarrassed about what happened. But her story was corroborated (a friend saw her bitten lip right after her assault, for example). Her behavior was consistent with being a victim of assault.

        Anita lied about talking to that staffer. What could possibly be the motivation besides politics? She lied about living near the only witness that said she heard about the alleged abuse. Such a lie unravelled her entire story about telling anyone while this happened. But my main problem is that all the other women who worked for Thomas refuted her story.

        With sexual harassment in the workplace, it’s “that guy.” The one all the women know to steer clear of or complain to each other about. He’ll have a long history of acting like an aggressor at work and elsewhere. That’s what hanged Bill Clinton. There were so many women with similar stories of cheating, harassment, and even assault. There was never just one woman. Same with Bill Cosby.

          1. His accusers are people he was only tangentially acquainted with and their accusations are that he kissed them, touched their thigh, &c.

          2. Kirsten – here is what I think about Trump’s behavior.

            He has a long history of calling people names, insulting a woman’s appearance, and saying crass things. He had earned that reputation so thoroughly, that should someone tell me he called some woman a dog, I would believe it, even if he was innocent that particular time. Because of that long, well established history, he would lack credibility claiming innocence of any new allegation.

            I know of two sexual assault allegations.

            One if from a Jane Doe using the pseudonym Johnson. She claims Trump raped her at Epstein’s rape parties. The problem(s) are:
            1) She described lavish parties just as they had been written in gossip mags. However she claimed that the assaults and sex parties happened there. Actual, verified Epstein victims all, universally, say that nothing illicit ever happened at his lavish huge social parties. Rather, sex parties involved at the most 3 men, no other, non involved women. He never mixed those two sides of his life.
            2) The attorney for the verified Epstein victims refused her case. He could not place her there at all. None of the other victims had ever heard of her, but she claimed she was right there at all the parties. None of the victims said Trump ever was even present at any of the illicit sex parties, or that he did anything wrong. With the other victims, their stories corroborated each others’. Her story didn’t match, he couldn’t find anyone who saw her or knew her. The PI involved says that he believes she just stuck Trump’s name in there.
            3) The man representing her to the media is a former producer for Jerry Springer, who actually threatened the media when they found out. He also threatened to sue journalists if he didn’t like what they wrote.
            4) Her attorney is a patent attorney who has never tried this type of case before, but read her story in a gossip mag and felt bad for her.

            The only way this case would have a shred of merit or credibility is if she comes forward with evidence that she inexplicably withheld from the original Epstein victim attorney. I suppose anything is possible. So if new evidence comes out I would certainly keep an open mind.

            The other one claims he assaulted her on an airline. She claimed the armrest came up and he groped her, trying to shove his hands up her skirt, so she got up and fled to the back. The problems are:
            1) The arm rest did not raise on that airline during that era.
            2) At first she made it sound like a man jumped on top of her, in the middle of First Class, and the other passengers and attendants were…totally blind? Engrossed in the in-flight movie?
            3) Then she said that this actually went on for 15 minutes, and she was OK with the groping as long as it stayed at the waist and up. It was only when his hand strayed low that she was out of there. So, wait a minute. Was this groping or making out? Now it’s gone on for 15 minutes and she was fine with it all until he tried to move up a base? She did not say that she froze in terror or horror. She said she was OK. And the absolute second she got up to leave, this man allowed her to do so. At what point is it groping or making out? For me, if it’s unwelcome and you do not want, accept, or invite it, it’s groping. If you are totally on board with it, it’s making out. She, herself, said she was totally OK with the waist up “groping”, that it went on for 15 minutes, and only when his hand went south did she get up and change seats. That is the description of a make out session with a stranger who misread her cues as to how much touching she would welcome. Again, what the heck is going on in First Class where two people are totally making out in front of everyone? Her admission that she was OK with it for 15 minutes makes this a make out session rather than a sexual assault at all. The definition of “sexual assault” is, at minimum, that the victim is very much not OK with what’s happening. Merely making out with a guy and then ending it when his hand strays is not sexual assault, or most men would be in jail.
            4) This was her only interaction with him, and it was 30 years ago. I’m unclear why she thought it was Trump. Is she certain? And if so, why?

            As you can see, I have difficulty with both stories. One accuser’s story didn’t match those of other victims, and the other one claimed she was enjoying it. So…not much I can do with either unless more information or evidence comes out.

            Now with Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby, there was a steady stream of women with very similar stories.

            I do not give men a pass on sexual assault. That is a terrible crime.

            1. Karen S. – Bill Clinton has a new accuser out today. She is from back in the Arkansas days. She was a TV reporter. Clinton humped the back of her chair until he ejaculated.

              Given what we are seeing in the National Enquirer today, there is something sexually wrong with the Clinton’s. Both of them.

            2. Karen S, so in other words, you’re saying Trump’s a total A-hole. I’d have to agree with that, but I still think I’d rather see an orangutan in office than a slithering Clinton.

              1. I’d rather see a potty mouth in the White House than have open borders. The first won’t effect me personally, but the second will burden me with ever increasing taxes as we undertake to support a deluge of impoverished immigrants and refugees.

                  1. No one wants open borders.

                    Open borders has been the effective policy for some time. And, yes, Paul Ryan, Vin Weber, Robert Bartley, and Bryan Caplan have explicitly advocated open borders. For others, such as John McCain and George W. Bush, the policy is to do little to enforce the border.

                  2. Call it whatever you will: Pathway to Amnesty; resettling of 50,000 Syrian refugees, any one of whom could shoot up the mall while I’m there with my kids. Yeah, the U.S. has certainly benefitted from the 10s of thousands of Somalis living on welfare in the U.S. Why don’t we just get it over with and admit every impoverished third-world economic immigrant? If Angela Merkel can ruin Germany, certainly Hillary can do the same for the U.S. Why not? There’s a desperate shortage of poor people in the U.S. and Japan sure as Hell isn’t going to let them in!

              2. Trump’s accusers are transparent political tools and have accused him of doing things like kissing them and putting his hand on their thighs. Clinton was accused of a class B felony by a well-established businesswoman no one disputes came into contact with him.

        2. I think some of your details are off, but your general assessment hits the right points. Jane Mayer made a hay about four other women who accused Thomas of this and that. The claims of one of these women were published at the time, but they consisted of inconsquential things like Thomas showing up at her door with flowers. Another accuser had credibility issues: a wretched job history with multiple instances of being fired (and being fired by Thomas). There was a reason Biden and the Democratic staff counsel elected not to use these four as witnesses.

          You cannot assess in any direct way the veracity of these allegations. What you can do, is look at Hill’s behavior re Thomas over the period running from 1982 to 1991, interview the people who knew them both, and look for telling details in their narratives. There’s very little to go on. The one corroborative morsel would suggest that Hill was getting flak from another lawyer at the firm Wald, Harkrader, not from Thomas.

          Now look at Hill’s career since. If she were an honest woman, she’d be practicing law in Oklahoma City or Tulsa. Instead, she’s a professor of ‘social policy’ at Brandeis, the latest school to throw her a bone.

      3. What? The republican party currently controls the House, the Senate, most state governorships and most state legislatures. That is going to change Nov.8. People are rising up against Trump.

        2. That is going to change Nov.8. People are rising up against Trump.

          See Rothenberg & Gonzalez. Careful students of public opinion say you’re bound to be verrry disappointed.

      4. (((Yair Rosenberg))) Verified account
        ‏@Yair_Rosenberg

        (((Yair Rosenberg))) Retweeted Noga Tarnopolsky

        “Obama’s Kenyan half-brother wants to abolish Israel and backs Hamas, which advocates Jewish genocide. Trump is bringing him to the debate. ” Do you think Trump will succeed in getting even with Obama and rattling Hillary or do you think this will backfire?

        1. It’s time the Zionists in Israel were held in check. good for the Donald. Should be amusing.

          1. “Held in check”? Israel hold less territory than it did 50 years ago and hasn’t been at war with any Arab state since 1973. It has never been at war with any Arab state without gross provocation.

        2. Trump’s antics are a stupid sideshow. Who really cares about what Obama’s half-brother thinks about anything? Trump needs to stay on point and come across as a serious alternative to the Clinton machine if he is to have any hope of turning his sagging polls around.

      5. Excellent post Karen. The American people have been divided and conquered by the political class. What unifying principles are promoted these days? Equality? Hardly. Justice? Gone. Liberty? Nope. Prosperity? See the previous three. We as a people cannot even agree on what rights we have, with or without government. This republic was founded on certain principles that many ignorantly treat as 18th century slogans. What’s the point of self-evident truths if the citizens of this country aren’t taught them? When you eliminate teaching the history of our founding you erase the unifying purpose for government itself. There can be no greater insanity than empowering the government to be our masters. At this point we deserve either Trump or Clinton. We are in for 4 years of misery either way; that is of course dependent on one’s worldview.

      7. Excellent post KarenS. The only thing I can see you left out is that the DOD is in her camp as well:

        During the Democrat primaries this year there was “an unprecedented turnout, up 50% from 2008, 34,570 voters cast their ballots from over 170 countries all around the world, through in person voting, by fax, email, and post, and the results are as follows:

        Bernie Sanders received 69% of the vote in the Democrats Abroad’s Global Presidential Primary, Hillary Clinton 31%.” (from Demcrats Abroad site)

        Now the Department of Defense is trying to rally overseas voters for HRC. Does the corruption never end? I think Soros is as evil as the Koch brothers! Same coin, different sides – total corporate control of the US of A. European press is overwhelmingly pro Clinton, but if these folks had enough sense to vote for Bernie hopefully they’ll vote for Jill or Trump.

        http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/19/u-s-defense-department-joins-soros-overseas-voters-appeal-to-stop-trump/

        1. A vote for Jill is a vote for Hillary. Politics is the art of compromise. There are two realistic candidates. Vote for one or the other or stay home.

          1. disagree. I live in SC which will go for Trump so I feel comfortable voting for Jill. I want the Green Party to get to 5% so they can get federal funding. I am sick of the duopoly –and I am telling my family/peeps in NV to vote for Trump. Of course they don’t even have the chance of voting for Jill since the Clinton machine destroyed that option.

      8. Karen S, the “The Democratic Party still tells [everybody!], vote for us or else.”

        I’ll never vote for a Democrat again as long as I live, and then they can vote with my dead body. The greatest candidate on earth runs as a Democrat, and s/he automatically loses my vote.

        Eight years of war from Hope and Change, expanded to Libya, Syria, and now Yemen, is effen enough.

  20. I sincerely doubt Thomas’ legacy is dependent on a museum as his accomplishments do not need to be enshrined in some building for them to be real. Men and women of principles don’t seek to honor themselves but rather the positions in which they are entrusted.

Comments are closed.