Federal Judge Attacks Trump As Adopting The Same Rhetoric and Tactics As The KKK

There is a controversy out of the University of Virginia where federal Judge Carlton Reeves gave a scathing speech against President Donald Trump — likening his conduct to that of the Kl Klux Klan and segregationists from the Jim Crow period. The speech (accepting an award) raising troubling issues about Reeves engaging in political speech in violation of core judicial ethical rules.

A U.S. District Court Judge of the Southern District of Mississippi, Reeves is an Obama appointee from 2010. He was receiving the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law at the University of Virginia and gave a 16-page speech with 130 footnotes.

In the speech, Reeves takes thinly veiled swipes at Trump, using his unmistakable tweets to make historical comparative points:

“When politicians attack courts as ‘dangerous,’ ‘political,’ and guilty of ‘egregious overreach,’ you can hear the Klan’s lawyers, assailing officers of the court across the South. When leaders chastise people for merely ‘using the courts,’ you can hear the Citizens Council, hammering up the names of black petitioners in Yazoo City.”

I have previously denounced those same attacks by Trump on the courts. However, I am a legal commentator, not a sitting federal judge. Thus, the issue is not the merits but the messenger.

The most basic canons of judicial ethics dictate that judges avoid political activities and positions:

A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

A judge shall conduct the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.

A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.

Most judges would not give such a speech that ventured so deeply into the political debate. Reeves had justifiable anger over Trump’s attacks — a view shared privately with me by many judges. However, Reeves made the comments publicly:

“When the powerful accuse courts of ‘opening up our country to potential terrorists,’ you can hear the Southern Manifesto’s authors, smearing the judiciary for simply upholding the rights of black folk. When lawmakers say ‘we should get rid of judges,’ you can hear segregationist Senators, writing bills to strip courts of their power.”

While some may cite the recent statement of Chief Justice John Roberts to show that judges cannot be expected to remain silent in the face of acts on the courts. I do not agree. I previously wrote about the Roberts controversy. First, and foremost, Roberts’ statement was essentially one line confined to the rejecting the notion of Democratic and Republican judges. Reeves went far beyond that.

Second, this was a speech at a public event that addressed objections to the conduct and comments of a sitting president. Reeves clearly was denouncing the President’s views and rhetoric.

Finally, Reeves tied the President’s comments directly to threats and insults directed at himself personally:

“I know, because I am there. The proof is in my mailbox. In countless letters of hatred I’ve been called ‘piece of garbage,’ ‘an arrogant pompous piece of s…, ‘a disgrace,’ an ‘asshole…(who) will burn in hell,’ and the ‘embodiment of Satan himself.’”

He also ventured into judicial appointments — again an area of politics that most judge avoid: “Justice (Sonia) Sotomayor was originally a George H.W. Bush appointee. And the last Republican administration confirmed 24 black judges,” Reeves said. “This administration has confirmed one.”

The controversy is disappointing given Reeve’s moving personal story. Reeves was the first in his family to attend a four-year college. He graduated in 1986 magna cum laude from Jackson State University and then attended the University of Virginia School of Law as a Ritter Scholar. When Reeves was a teenager, he cleaned the office of Judge William Henry Barbour, Jr.

The comments are, in my view, clearly inappropriate for a sitting federal judge. It is the price that must be paid for an Article III lifetime appointment as a federal judge. Judges must accept that their political views must remain private and their activities strictly apolitical. That standard was not met in this instance.

425 thoughts on “Federal Judge Attacks Trump As Adopting The Same Rhetoric and Tactics As The KKK”

  1. Let’s just be honest. A Black speaking before other Blacks neither ever feels the need to hold themselves to normative standards of behavior (look up Code Switching) nor are ever held by others to those normative standards. As such, Reeves’ words are largely without meaning or worthy of comment.


    Federal naturalization laws (1790, 1795, 1802).

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof

  3. Excuse me “genuine Blacks”.
    Peter somehow knows the difference between “genuine Blacks” and those who are just “trying to pass”.

      1. Tom:

        “Genuine Blacks as opposed to Trumpers in an echo chamber”.

        And that’s all this comment thread would be without us few liberals. You guys would telling each other Blacks are politically confused. ‘The victims of brain-washing by the DNC and Mainstream Media’.

        This narrative is absurd! And we never heard it until the Trump era. Said narrative encourages Blacks to think of themselves as victims of a 50 year conspiracy. Only supporters of Donald Trump would buy such a plot.

        Then you guy wonder why a Federal Judge is leery of Trump.

        1. P Hill – you really never heard of the negative consequences of Democrat policies, especially their concerted effort against Welfare reform, and how it has decimated the black community? You never listened to the Welfare Reform debate going back decades?

          You never heard the argument that Democrats have had control of cities, promising the black community they would solve all their problems, and instead it’s like a bombed out third world country? How their problems aren’t solved, and getting worse?

          If not, then I suggest starting with Thomas Sowell.

          It’s not that the DNC was sneakily out to destroy black people’s lives. Rather, they have employed the following methods to get votes, and thereby power. Sell themselves as saviors. Convince the community they are victims, and demonize white guys. Call any efforts at preaching responsibility racist. Above all, promise free stuff and benefit programs that are addicting and very difficult to get off of. Fight against any measures such as the work requirement, and label such suggestions racist. Fight against any efforts to end the tsunami of single motherhood that is the gang pipeline.

          There are predictable consequences to such policies. Although these are vote generating methods, the result is very negative. I think most Democrat voters truely believe they are helping people, and have absolutely no idea of the devastating consequence of these policies. The worst of these is that nuclear families are penalized under Welfare. A mother gets the most support if she doesn’t name the father of her children on their birth certificates, and does not live with him. There was a long propaganda campaign that women didn’t need men to raise kids. They could make it on their own. The reality of single motherhood is grim. This led to the destruction of the nuclear family.

            1. The ‘narrative’ happens to be true. If you’ve got your fingers in your ears, that’s your problem.

            2. Says Hollywood Hill, “The World’s Only Reliable” and objective news source.😄😃😂🤣
              Next to Weekly World News and The Onion, it’s the funniest publication out there.

            3. Ignorance is an amazing thing Peter. It can blind the eyes to what is happening immediately in front of the face.

            4. Okay P Hill:

              What do YOU think the consequences are of the Welfare system that financially penalizes mothers who live with the fathers of their children?

              What is YOUR take on the numerous studies indicating the risk factors for the children born to single motherhood. Why do YOU believe the rate of single motherhood in black communities went from lower than that for whites, to over 95% in some parts of the country? Considering it is the highest known risk factor for those kids to join gangs, what do YOU believe is the connection between 95% single motherhood and gang violence, and by extension, gun violence?

              Are you just going to say Trump…or something of value? I criticize Trump plenty on the blog, when I feel it is warranted. I formed my own opinions about this matter long before Trump ever ran for office, as you would know if you’d read the blog over the past few years.

              Is all you are capable of saying is you don’t believe my facts, without any dispute other than name calling?

              1. In order to reply the shill has to look for a news story written by the Washington Post so he can copy it on the list as a rebuttal.

          1. Took awhile for je to realize Karen’s overlong repetitive and mindless posts are scroll over worthy,

            By the way we call our party the Democratic Party, and it is common courtesy to use the name given selected by an organization – or parents – and not that devised by negative PR professionals. It’s not like we would be unable to come up with mocking names for you Republicanists if we were similarly small minded.

            1. Anon – are you familiar with common curtesy? From your posts, I was not aware.

            2. Anon get a dictionary and go to a school to obtain remedial reading skills.

        2. There’s no liberal echo chamber here, though, and that is to be expected because liberals as Soo much better than anyone else😇
          I know this to be true because I’ve heard it from St.Peter himself, who I found loves actually 💓 echo chambers himself and reverted to those echos the few times I made the mistake of thinking he was serious about having an actual debate.
          I’m not likely to make that mistake again.
          Once he made it clear that he want only to spew propaganda in his unbiased, “unechoed”🤭😄😃
          CAPITALIZED PROPAGANDA PLATFORM, then the ground rules changed in “communicating with” the David Brock/Soros mouth piece known as Hollywood Hill.

  4. Democrats created Jim Crow and still enslave blacks with their racist demeaning view of people of color. You cant change a horse’s color, nor a donkey’s


    Wrong on Race
    The Democratic Party’s Buried Past
    – by Bruce Bartlett

    “Bruce Bartlett brandishes a damning history of the Democratic Party, which for 100 years after the Civil War provided a fertile ground for Jim Crow and white supremacy. Democrats have long acted behind an ethos of racial equality, yet, as Bartlett powerfully illustrates, the reality of their patchy record over the last two centuries in fact lends little credibility to that claim. Compelling and incisive.” —Grover G. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform

    “Wrong on Race is an important contribution to the study of party politics in America. Bartlett offers a thorough, well documented account of the racial roots of the Democratic party. This book should be a required reading for African-Americans of all ages, and especially for the nation’s youth.” —Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science and Law, Vanderbilt University, and editor of Debating Immigration

    “Wrong on Race powerfully recapitulates a twentieth century journey into racial pettifogging and outright confusion, and in doing so shines a light as clear as the meridian sun on the realities of racial politics…Bruce Bartlett has done what no one before him has done, and it is all the more remarkable, therefore, to say that it will probably never be better done.” —Professor William B. Allen, Michigan State University; and former chairman, U.S. Civil Rights Commission

    “The Democratic party is widely credited, not least by black writers, as the party that has done the most for civil rights. Yet for most of its history it has been the other way around. As Bruce Bartlett points out in Wrong on Race, Democratic icons like Woodrow Wilson worked to impose segregation on blacks, and even Franklin Roosevelt did little for equal rights.” —Michael Barone, syndicated columnist, co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, and author of Our First Revolution

    “It’s a fairly devastating indictment of the current administration’s economic policies from a conservative-to-libertarian perspective.” —Chris Suellentrop, The Washington Post, on Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the American Legacy

    “Liberal commentators gripe so frequently about the current administration that it’s become easy to tune them out, but when Bartlett, a former member of the Reagan White House, says George W. Bush has betrayed the conservative movement, his conservative credentials command attention.” —Publishers Weekly on Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the American Legacy

    “Bruce Bartlett is no impostor. He’s the real thing–a reality-based conservative who searches for supportable truths and then speaks them loudly and clearly.” —Ron Suskind, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Price of Loyalty, on Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the American Legacy

    “Bruce Bartlett has long been one of Washington’s most searching, thoughtful, and uncompromisingly candid analysts. That’s a view shared not only by those who agree with him, but also by people like me, who differ with him about 80 percent of the time. This book is a perfect reflection of Bruce’s gifts: he cares far more about being honest and consistent than about following anyone’s party line.” —E. J. Dionne Jr., author of Stand Up Fight Back and Why Americans Hate Politics, on Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the American Legacy

    1. Another right wing poster pretending the two major parties have not changed. He’d probably be one of the 1st yelling “states rights” in opposition to Lincoln and Reconstruction and on forward to the CR Act of 1964.

    2. Henron, Trumpers keep posting your narrative. But it’s just White conservatives talking to other White conservatives.

        1. Alan, the Trumpers on this blog need to bounce that revisionist history narrative off genuine Blacks to see what responses they get.

          As I noted earlier we never heard this revisionist narrative until Trump because the Republican nominee.

          Sure, we know about Abraham Lincoln and we know about Teddy Roosevelt. Republicans were progressive at one time. Even in the Reagan era there were cool Republicans.

          But in the last 30 years Republicans have shifted so far to the right they scarcely resemble the party of even Ronald Reagan. These days Republicans consider the very word ‘progressive’ totally abhorrent.

          Currently Republicans champion a host of policies that are punitive to the poor. Republicans are not just bad for Blacks, but bad for anyone making less than average income.

          1. “Trumpers on this blog need to bounce that revisionist history narrative off genuine Blacks to see what responses they get.”

            I guess that you don’t believe Thomas Sowell is black, or maybe Clarence Thomas? The narrative isn’t revisionist by the right rather it is the narrative the left choses to forget. The racism on the Democratic side of the aisle was astounding. Today they have gone crazy with intersectionality which is a combination of racism and sexism and plain stupidity. You think intersectionality isn’t racism? You think judging a person by the color of his skin rather than his character isn’t racism?

            I don’t talk for Republicans. I talk more for those that are non leftists and not Democratic hacks. They haven’t moved to the right rather the movement has been in a more leftward direction while the left has gone nuts. That is why Trump will win in 2020.

            You want larger and larger government taking power away from the states and the people. The other side believes in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence where individual freedom is cherished.

              1. Not a standby but true thinkers whether you like what they say or not. You don’t debate principles. It’s easier for you to spout nonsense and mistruths. Go ahead and demean two men that are brilliant simply because they are black and don’t agree with your nonsense.

              2. Anon:

                “Dos Uncle Thomases” – what an incredibly racist comment. Why are Democrats so often racist?

                1. Democrats seek to enslave all blacks and people of color on their welfare plantations to keep them in power. Instead of ceding from the union again, they use racist, hateful comments like…..

                  “I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a n*gger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America.”

                  -Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess

                  “You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.” -Senator Joe Biden

                  Mahatma Gandhi “ran a gas station down in Saint Louis.”

                  -Senator Hillary Clinton

                  Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve’s ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve’s fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him.”

                  — Roger Clinton, the President’s brother on audiotape

                  “You’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.” — Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)

                  “Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey’s cars?”

                  — Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers

                  Blacks and Hispanics are “too busy eating watermelons and tacos” to learn how to read and write.” — Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax

                  Black on Black

                  “In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master … exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell’s committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture.” — Harry Belafonte

                  “Republicans bring out Colin Powell and J.C. Watts because they have no program, no policy. They have no love and no joy. They’d rather take pictures with black children than feed them.” — Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s Campaign Manager for the 2000 election

                  (On Clarence Thomas) “A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom.” — Spike Lee

                  “He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black.”

                  — California State Senator Diane Watson’s on Ward Connerly’s interracial marriage


            1. hey Allan,
              Know where I can find any “genuine Blacks”? 😀😃😂🤣

              1. All one has to do is to look at the left’s reaction to any black that criticizes left wing policy. That tells everyone what they need to know.

                1. Well, it’s been 6-7 hours, and so far I haven’t crossed paths with any “genuine Blacks” yet in order to accept Hollywood Hill’s challenge.
                  Anybody else having better luck? -Tom
                  — As an aside, the portion of the column that I quoted twice in comments is now gone from the column.
                  That doesn’t help a hell of a lot when re-reading and referring back to the column’s contents.

                2. Yes, it does. Democrats still try to terrorize, harass, attack, and pressure blacks to vote and support Democrat.

                  1. “Democrats still try to terrorize, harass, attack, and pressure blacks”

                    t’s terrible. They gang up on blacks and people that don’t toe the ideological line. That is similar to kids ganging up on other kids for actually trying to do well in school.

                    Their type of behavior leaves the lowest common denonminator.

              2. Tom – these comments remind me of the Democrats who ran Candace Owens out of a restaurant, throwing water and eggs on her. Totally racist.

                The racist comments that black conservatives receive from Democrats are just disgraceful. Were Martin Luther King, Jr to be alive today, preaching that he wanted his kids to be judged based on their character rather than their skin color, he would have been called by any number of racist slurs by Democrats.

                There is no excuse for racism, regardless of whether one agrees or not with that person’s politics.

            2. Allan,
              About 20 years or so ago, Charles Barkley said he was (then) a Republican.
              Don’t know if he still is or not….this was around the same time that there were rumors that he was considering running for Governor of Louisiana.
              Barkley isn’t exactly a deep or analytical policital thinker, but with with his name recognition and other factors, he might have been successful if he went for it.
              A local left-wing editorial writer wrote ( shortly after Barkley mentioned that he was Republican) that “It was too bad that Charles Barkley wasn’t born black”.
              Those were his exact words to start out with, as he pontificated about how a ”’real black”, or words to that effect, would never choose GOP over the Democratic Party.
              This is the price that blacks are likely to pay if they “stray” from the Democratic Party. There have been demographic groups that have aligned themselves with one party or the other, and continue to vote a straight party ticket, even if the basic policies of that particular party are not aligned with their own political views.
              An example would be someone born c. 1920, who came of age during the Depression and then WWII. FDR was the only president they really knew from the time they were about 12-14 years old, to when they were in their mid-20s when FDR died shortly after starting a 4th term.
              He was a “dead man walking after 12 years in office but ran again anyway.
              Many of that generation worshipped FDR, and to a lesser degree, the Democratic Party .
              And for another 40-50-60 years, or whatever, there were some who would vote straight party Democratic ticket, regardless of any policy consideration.
              This was a real factor in the huge advantage Democrats had in (mostly) dominating both Houses of Congress for at a generation (c.30-35 years after FDR died.
              And they occupied the White House during a c. 35 year 1945-1980 period twice as often as the GOP did.
              So at least in part, “force of habit” can perpetuate strong and long loyalties to a political party.
              With a black voter, like in Barkley’s cae, openly supporting a Republican can leave them open to the “blacker-than-thou” or “Uncle Tom” -type remarks like the ones I cited from the editorial writer.
              Some diversity in the black voting block will probably slowly emerge over time, where the c. 90%/10% Democratic advantage will probably erode.

          2. I’m waiting for Howard Schultz to revive the brilliant “Race Together” program before I bounce that “revisionist history narrative” off of “a real black”.

          3. And and as ” the Republicans shifted so far to the right”, we know the Democrats have remained the moderate, centrist party…. take it from the perperspective from our man on the ground in America’s Heartland….Hollywood! 😉😀😁😄

          4. P Hill:

            “White conservatives”? “Genuine blacks”? Are black people only allowed, in your view, to voice Democrat opinions?

            That is incredibly racist.

            1. “That is incredibly racist.”

              Peter Shill doesn’t yet realize it but what he frequently says is incredibly racist. I’m trying to figure out who inadvertantly says more things that sound incredibly racist, Peter Shill or Anon.

        2. Henron oughtta try direct his comments to St.Peter instead of just “talking to other conservatives”.
          It’s fun and informative Henron, I promise.
          At the end of the day, no matter how many times he deflects and zigzags, it’ll almost always come down to why Democrats are good😇, Republicans baaad.😈.
          What’s humorous is that I think St.Peter actually believes his own propaganda🤭😄😃😂🤣.
          If you missed the commentary on his propaganda platform, HHHNN, stayed tuned.
          Or better yet, review his last 100 so HHHNN “news fllashes.
          They’re not hard to find, given his penchant for GENEROUS USE OF ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
          PS — I don’t think he likes emojis😞, so after careful deliberation🤔, I adjust the amount I use them with that in mind.

          1. Twit #2 shows up with the member gossip he prefers and nothing about the topic.

            1. I’m trying to remember if it was Anon who came here and almost drew a line on the sand, or some other snotty liberal.
              Hardly matters now, I guess.

          2. Tom, you’re emojis should be sour apples. You can easily find them. Just google ‘sour apples’ and they’ll direct you from there.

            1. It would seem that sour apple emojis mentioned by PH would be fitting for those who’ve been in shock, denial, and mourning since Nov. 2016.

              …couldn’t find sour apples for the TDS crowd…😳🤪😩😢😥…..these will have to do for now.

  5. Hmm, I wonder if Judge Carlton Reeves ever gave such a scathing speech attacking President Obama? Was Reeves similarly outraged when President Obama went on a sustained PR campaign to intimidate the SCOTUS into backing the Affordable Care Act? Did Judge Reeves similarly castigate President Obama when President Obama publicly assailed the SCOTUS for upholding the First Amendment in the Citizens United case? During President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union Address, with several of the justices sitting right in front of him, Obama delivered a blistering diatribe on the Court’s ruling in Citizens United, which he said “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”

    1. Of course Obama’s criticism of the 5-4 CU decision was absolutely correct – or do you like those with money having undue influence on our elections – and had nothing to do with the subject of Reeves paper.

  6. OT: Somewhere along the line I think this is telling us that we spend too much money and are not getting our bang for the buck. It also tells us that California is getting a lot of funding $18.6 Billion. I wonder how much of that goes to safe spaces?

    The 25 colleges and universities with the largest endowments in the country reaped $6.9 billion in Department of Education (ED) funding despite holding a quarter-trillion in existing assets, collectively. This money was distributed as grants, contracts, and direct payments (FY2017) as well as student loans (FY2017-FY2018).

    The 50 lowest performing junior and community colleges in the nation received $923.5 million in ED student loans (FY2017-FY2018) and grants (FY2017). Of these 50 schools, the 10 which received the most federal funding had a 12 percent graduation rate, on average.

    ED overpaid $11 billion in Pell grants and loans over a two-year period (FY2016-FY2017).

    Nontraditional schools reaped millions of dollars in federal funding (FY2014-FY2017) such as an international school for videogame design ($51.4 million), a school for wooden boat-making ($781,330), an Arizona college for gun-smithing ($10.4 million), a school for gambling and bartending ($9.5 million), and the Professional Golfers Career College ($4.5 million).

    The average wage at ED in FY2017 was $109,918. The average employee cost taxpayers $143,992, including benefits. In May 2018, ED disclosed 3,818 employees – a large decrease from 4,642 employees in 2012.

    Nearly $700 million in federal funding flowed to schools of cosmetology, beauty, and hair, including millions of dollars to industry juggernauts like Empire Beauty School ($65.6 million) and Tricoci University of Beauty Culture ($12.3 million) in the form of grants, direct payments, and contracts (FY2017), as well as student loans (FY2017-FY2018).

    Federal funding of $10.5 billion flowed to for-profit colleges in FY2017. Just 10 for-profit schools received nearly 30 percent of this funding. Many for-profit colleges have been cited for alleged discrimination, harassment, and even fraud. This funding is comprised of grants, direct payments, and contracts (FY2017) as well as student loans (FY2017-FY2018).

    ED spent $1.6 billion hiring companies to collect and disperse federal student loans.

    ED employees spent 6,522 working-hours (FY2016) doing union activities rather than working their department jobs. During this time, employees’ hourly wages are still taxpayer funded. This practice is known as ‘official time.’ In March 2018, ED eliminated this policy, saving taxpayers roughly $500,000 annually. Employee unions are private organizations, not public entities.

    The top five recipient states claimed 36 percent of all ED funding: California ($18.6 billion), Texas ($12.6 billion), New York ($11.9 billion), Florida ($9.5 billion), and Illinois ($7.2 billion). This funding included grants, contracts, direct payments (FY2017) as well as student loans (FY2017-FY2018).

  7. Anon wrote:

    Hard to characterize the obsessive vitriol aimed Judge Reeves here as anything but racist.


    Obnoxious Black Women Kicked Off Of A Train For Being Too Loud Blame Racism

    The awesome thing about racism is that it absolves some people from any personal responsibility. If you’re acting like an idiot and someone gets offended, instead of apologizing, you cry racism and suddenly your behavior is no longer the issue. A group of black women made this work for them after they were kicked off of a train for being loud and obnoxious.

    The SF Gate reports that Lisa Johnson and her black middle-aged book club took a train ride through California wine country Saturday. Dressed in matching t-shirts the women embarked on an 18-mile trip through the Napa Valley’s picturesque vineyards. It’s the kind of trip that yuppies and old people take, so it’s safe to say this isn’t exactly a party train. Well, that is, for most people.

    They do serve wine on the train, but there’s a difference between wine tasting and wine chugging. The black women were laughing loudly and being generally obnoxious. Johnson claims she and her group were not drunk, but admits they were “rambunctious.”

    Eventually other passengers started to complain. One female passenger told the black women “this isn’t a bar,” to which Johnson responded, “um, yes it is.”

    The train manager approached the women and asked them to please be quiet. They apparently didn’t give a crap that they were making a spectacle of themselves and being inconsiderate to other passengers as they continued to be loud and obnoxious. The manager came over again and told them if they didn’t “tone it down” they would be asked to leave the train. Again they didn’t care and kept acting like jerks to everyone around them.

    After complaints and two warnings from the manager, the women were kicked off the train at the next stop. Johnson called it a “walk of shame” as she and the other black women were escorted from the train.

    “People were looking at us. To get escorted into the hands of waiting police officers. That’s the humiliating part,” said Johnson.

    It turns out the police just happened to be at the stop and weren’t there to arrest the women, but it makes it sound worse when Johnson says she and her friends were taken into custody. It’s absolutely not true.

    Anyways, here’s how the train company saw things:

    In a statement Sunday, Napa Valley Wine Train spokeswoman Kira Devitt said the company “received complaints from several parties in the same car and after three attempts from staff, requesting that the group keep the noise to an acceptable level, they were removed from the train and offered transportation back to the station in Napa.”

    “The Napa Valley Wine Train does not enjoy removing guests from our trains, but takes these things very seriously in order to ensure the enjoyment and safety of all of our guests,” Devitt said, adding that about once a month guests need to be removed from the train.

    And then in a now-deleted FaceBook post someone from the company wrote this:

    Following verbal and physical abuse toward other guests and staff, it was necessary to get our police involved. Many groups come on board and celebrate. When those celebrations impact our other guests, we do intervene.

    Now matter how you look at it these women were obnoxious and hostile to other passengers and crew, but Johnson has a different take:

    “It was humiliating. I’m really offended to be quite honest. I felt like it was a racist attack on us. I feel like we were being singled out,” said Johnson.

    Accounts and pictures of the episode have been spreading across social media, spawning the hashtag #LaughingWhileBlack while the women involved have questioned whether they would have been treated differently if they were not African American.

    Clearly the non-African American passengers knew how to conduct themselves in public. These women weren’t kicked off the train because of the color of their skin; they got the boot for their behavior.

    Proving the “cry racism” ploy works every time, the train company gave the women a full refund and a free bus ride back to their point of origin. Of course this is not enough and the women would also like a public apology. Can a lawsuit be far behind?


    1. Gee, anyone else in this collection of non-racists posters have any other irrelevant gripes about black people they want to link to the judge?

      1. Anyone else here want to cry “racist’ directed at those who disagree with what the judge said?
        This is a replay of the “defense” by some of Obama policies if one disagreed with those policies and dared risked being called a racist.

        1. Posters aren’t disagreeing with what the judge said. Like Tom, they haven’t taken the time to understand what he said and like “black like me” are bringing up irrelevant grievances about blacks. If that is not racist, than neither is the President when complaining that his judge is a Mexican.

          1. Nice try….it would have been fun debating Obama policies with you to see how often you pulled the race card out of your sleeve.

    2. So ‘what’..?? Who is ‘Black Like Me’ and what is the point of this post??

          1. “Darned black people.”

            That is exactly how you feel when you are not virtue signaling otherwise you would be asking yourself what is wrong with the Democratic Party that has led to the problems we face nationally and in particular in Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, etc.

  8. Hard to characterize the obsessive vitriol aimed Judge Reeves here as anything but racist. It reminds one of the attention the ever polite enigma receives every time he shows up here, like the mob spots him and “There’s one! Get him!!”

    Now apparently, only those who lived through events like the KKK or Nazi Germany may raise them in discussion or else be called hypocrites pretending to be victims devaluing the sacrifice of others. If any of these obsessive took the time to read or quick scan the judges well documented paper which he presented – JT included the link above – he did none of that. Yeah, I know, he must have gotten a white clerk to do all that work while he was watching rap videos.

    It turns out that the Judge tells you all the things he grew up with – the ultra obsessive absurd who writes like he just caught a black man stealing recounts the wikipedia page but without the link – and he tells us how good it was, and a specific change from the racist past, since his was the first integrated elementary school class in Yazoo City. That past he describes earlier with specific footnoted references attacks on the judiciary after it stopped propping up slavery, racism, and Jim Crow. going back to Brown v Board and mouthed by supposedly moderate Mississipians like Senator John Stennis, who he does remember.

    “….The story of my Yazoo City isn’t unique. Black folks across the country who had the gall to ask
    for justice were interrogated, tracked, beaten, jailed, bombed, and murdered – sometimes by
    officers of justice themselves, the police.(64) Judges who sought to deliver justice faced an
    “onslaught” (65) of death threats and hate mail. Their pets were poisoned.(66) Their children’s graves
    were desecrated.)67)

    White power tried to snuff out the Light of Freedom.(68) But the brave leaders, judges, and plaintiffs
    who saw the truth – that We are “We the People” – prevailed. And in Alexander v. Holmes County
    – decided just 50 years ago this year– the Supreme Court ruled that “all deliberate speed” was no
    longer a strategy for keeping Mississippi’s schools segregated.(69) With the independence, power,
    and fortitude to do justice, our courts’ search for truth bore freedom’s fruit.

    I count myself among the harvest. Alexander came down when I was in kindergarten. So I was
    among that first full class to enter an integrated first grade classroom at Annie Ellis Elementary. I
    spent the next 12 years of public education with black and white children. Maxine and Melanie.
    Don and Thomas. Phyllis and Charles, and every other member of my class of 1982, whose
    graduation song was Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney’s classic, Ebony and Ivory.

    Across Mississippi, thousands of children like me learned from white and black teachers, played
    for black and white coaches, sang for black and white choirmasters. We were in harmony, learning
    that white and black kids could be hungry to learn, brilliant, curious, and silly – especially silly,
    as I’m sure all of my friends could tell you. We learned the truth that our courts had affirmed: that
    black people are equal with white folks, deserving of every opportunity given to the latter.

    I got many of those opportunities, including an education at this institution. This institution, which
    put me on the path to one of the greatest opportunities of my life: serving as a federal judge.
    That opportunity, just like the opportunity of an integrated education, came from an effort to
    defend and strengthen our courts…..”

    He pivots to the aftermath of that period, the increasing diversity of jurors and then to the present and the stupid racist attacks by Trump on the “Mexican” judge and the whitening of the court his nominees are creating.

    “Think: in a country where they make up just 30% of the population,(105) non-Hispanic white men
    make up nearly 70% of this Administration’s confirmed judicial appointees.(106) That’s not what
    America looks like. That’s not even what the legal profession looks like.(107)”

    It is what the GOP looks like and I guess that’s the problem. Judge Reeves has presented a well thought out attack on this administrations approach to the judiciary as well as that of our always self serving ignorant president, and highlighted by his own – not overly dramatized – experience. One can reasonably differ from his opinion and offer that he stepped out of bounds as JT does, but his posting deserves much more respect than that of the ankle biting racists on this board.

    1. Anon, what kills me is the number of comments regarding the alleged ‘Democratic Plantation’ and this preposterous narrative Republicans are the natural allies of Blacks. Whites asserting this are always talking to other Whites.

      1. The “free stuff” comment is a slur aimed at generations of blacks – since FDR – who are deemed too childish, stupid, and selfish to consider voting based on complex issues. Coming from the “free” tax cut and “free” wall crowd, this is a bit much

      2. The Democratic Plantation’ started during slave times and continues through today. Peter loves to virtue signal.

        1. As if today’s Democratic and Republican Parties bore any relationship to those of the 19th Century. Lincoln would be worse than a RINO to Trumpsters.

          1. The history of the Slave holding Democrats, KKK, anti-civil rights for blacks etc. continues on to today. What we see now is virtue signaling mixed with hate. Just listen to your voice.

            Go Kill a baby while you are at it. After all, that is a part of the Democratic Party of today.

    2. If you and Hill think this is about racism Anon, then you are both single-digit IQ imbecilic Untermenschen with zero capacity for insight into abject evil. Either that or you’re a hardcore proponents of abject evil and support it to its ultimate conclusion. Either way the good news is once the laws like the current post birth abortion laws that are based on the machinations of eugenicists like Margaret “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population” Sanger and Adolph Hitlers
      “Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring,” 
      they will include imbeciles unfit and unworthy of life like yourselves.

        1. A hardcore proponent whose only argument for extermination is to jump on an extra letter typo. At least you admit it. That’s the first step.

          1. I haven’t made any argument for “extermination” and I don’t know what typo you refer to.

            Sober up and come back – or not.

              1. That fact that the ultimate insult Hill can come up with is ridiculing people who live in trailers is proof that Hill hates poor people.

            1. Yes you are. You are supporting the Democrat Party’s absolute power grab, their dismantlement of the Constitution and their replacement of the Constitution with their own justice system using the same methods on the United States the Nazis used in Germany, methods that will yield the same results.

    3. How many of “the Klan’s lawyers are assailants ng office of the Court thought the South?”.
      I follow the news fairly closely, and multipke sources, and I never heard anything what what Judge Reeves “hears”.
      There are valid criticisms of those, especialy a judge, making those kind of wild claims and ridiculously exaggerating the Klan’s power, influence and connections.
      Contrary to what some claim, criticising a judge for what he said in the address he delivered is not racist.
      If someone wants to review the history of the Third Reich or the KKK or the civil rights movement, there’s nothing wrong with that.
      When the judge or people here try to tie that history in with what’s going on today, as though we were re-entering a Jim Crow era, Klansmen on horseback burning crosses and forming Lynch mob, that is stupid.

      1. The judge does not say the KKK is an active problem in today’s south.

        The judge compares the anti-judiciary position of the Jim Crow south with that which hears today from some quarters, including the President, who has also racially attacked a judge while appointing overwhelmingly racially pure new judges. Specifically he said this in the context of relating Mississippi’s past – which included attacks on the judiciary which he documents – to today:

        “When politicians attack courts as ‘dangerous,’ ‘political,’ and guilty of ‘egregious overreach,’ you can hear the Klan’s lawyers, assailing officers of the court across the South,”

        1. A better context setting passage than mine:

          “The second offensive came midway through the 20th century, Reeves said, and included the Southern Manifesto, a screed opposing the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the ruling against racial segregation in schools. More than 100 congressmen signed the document.

          “Its signatories pushed to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over civil rights claims and impeach judges receptive to those claims,” Reeves said.

          It was during this period, he said, that “White power returned to the playbook of the past: smearing judges, shrinking judicial power, and scrubbing diversity from courtrooms.”

          Now, half a century later, Reeves said Americans are “eyewitnesses to the third great assault on our judiciary.”…”

          1. OK, so we’re “eyewitness to the third great assault on our judiciary which does/does not include KKK’s lawyers assailing officer of the court across the South.”
            If that isn’t trying to link and exaggerate the conditions of today’s America with the Klan and the distant past, I don’t know what is.
            I think the judge would like people to believe, may come convince some that is true, but us mostly preaching to the choir.
            Last week Mad Max lectured as to how she’d been exploited and discriminated against …as a woman.
            Now here we have someone who can easily top the judge by claiming the we’re “eyewitnesses to” a return to pre-Susan B. Anthony days and, if she chooses to, an assault on the judiciary designed to target blacks.
            She’s card two strong cards in her hand.

            1. It’ is trying to link the present to real events of the past, and the judge was specific in his quotes. You think that’s an exaggeration. OK, but the judge is obviously closer to the history and current events than you are.

              1. I didn’t hear the Klan’s lawyers assailing officers of the court across the South.
                Since the judge is hearing that, he is either hallucinating or “closer to current events than” me……IF that is in fact happening and I missed the news.
                To a large degree it appears that he’s fear-mongering and trying to draw a parallel with today”s situation and the 1950s that does not exist beyond his own imagination.

                1. Your need to reread either what you comment on or what you post. The reference to the KKK was about their actions in the past.

                  1. I went back to the column and now I can’t find the “”I can hear the Klan’s lawyers” etc. quote anywhere in the column.
                    I read the original column, your comments and others, and my own comments.
                    So I won’t be re-reading them again. When he says “I can hear” these things, there’s a clear implication by him that he feels we are re-entering the age he’s (supposedly) referring to as the past. IOW, he’s working hard to draw strong parallels with today’s circumstances with the past.

                    1. I quoted the text and you can scan/read the paper the judge presented if you care enough. You have posted enough on this that one would expect you do care.

                      Your last 2 sentences are correct, and a long way from saying the KKK is riding again. As I noted two hours ago in response to you: You can disagree with that characterization of current events of course, but the judge has researched the issue, lived closer to it as a black man in Mississippi and as a judge than you have. He is not an uniformed partisan taking shots from a distance.

                  2. Hard to when the portion of the JT column that I quoted from is now gone. I did read to original column 4-5 times, and the “redacted column” a few times….I’ll try to post some relevant llnks from other publications if they haven’t changed the contents of their articles too.

                    1. I’ll try to cut though some of the clutter with a question for Anon; do you think Judge Reeves was trying to, even obliquely, link Trump’s complaints about the Judiciary to the Klan’s activities?
                      (2 questions, actually) Do you think that Trump is responsible for inciting much (or most ) of the hate mail the judge says he’s getting?

                    2. 1. Judge Reeves comments and criticism were not limited to Trump. He did seek to denigrate Trump and others as saying the same thing as KKK lawyers.
                      2. I have no way of knowing, but if you question the irrational hate some of his followers exhibit you can read all the posts here and those who did murder and plot to murder claiming an inspiration from Trump.

        2. “….he Jim Crow south..”

          created by the Democrats and today keep blacks enslaved with their promises of plantation accommodations if they vote for their slave masters

          Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, how is that working for you?

          1. Yeah, what an original thought. Haven’t seen that before!

            So blacks are too stupid or childlike to know what they are voting for, whether it was Republicans up until FDR or Democrats since?

            Another certifiable non-racist post to this site.

            1. “too stupid or childlike…”

              you buy votes for a reason…to keep in power just like LBJ and thereafter

              Own it.

          2. “Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. All were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures after the Reconstruction period. The laws were enforced until 1965“


            Diane you have thoroughly embarrassed the Democrats and have proven that you and your ilk are the slave masters. Democrats never wanted to free their slaves and you still don’t.

          3. The proof is in the results, Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta etc. Take note how Anon can’t deal with reality. He would rather blame one innocent white cop then try and stop the deaths of thousands of youths, many black, or soon to be born babies, many black and including those just born within minutes. That is the mindset of the leftist Democrat.

            On the other hand, the ones he calls racists are those that wish to protect black children in the street and black babies from extermination. He lives in an upside down world and wants to remind us of how he supported the civil rights movement but turns a blind eye to ongoing deaths. He is more interested in adulation then in truly helping those in need.

              1. Anon, I am just trying to put things in proper perspective. You seem to have little problem with the deaths of black youths in cities run by Democrats because of Democratic policies. Then you insinuate that others have racist inclinations because their ineterests are in saving lives whether they be black youth in the inner cities or any other innocent. You don’t sound like you have your priorites in order and to make things worse your facts are all too often wrong or misleading.

                1. Yeah, that’s right. I have no problem with the deaths of black youths and that was exactly what Judge Reeves was celebrating in his comments, with which I fully concur. Let God sort them out.

                  What a twit.

                  1. “I have no problem with the deaths of black youths ”

                    That is one of the few true statements you have made. You are just interested in your ideology whichto you is a faith based religion. We don’t see your compassion for the black youth or the black babies that are killed on a regular basis.

                  2. Ed Koch and Mario Cuomo are deceased. Latter-day liberals never advocate anything that would actually quell social violence in slum districts.

          4. OK, that’s fair enough, Anon. Be was comparing Trump not to the Klan, but to the Klan’s lawyers. Either part of your comment has a link I didn’t get, or you might be referring to where it can be found, but…
            In the second part of your comment, did you say that the threats against Judge Reeves have been made public and that they could be read. I’m just asking for clarification on what you meant about the threats.

            1. I did not focus on the alleged threats toward Judge Reeves and know nothing about them.I do know that Trump has been claimed as inspiration by several terrorists.

              1. https://www.npr.org/2018/11/21/669878629/u-s-judge-strikes-down-mississippi-abortion-ban
                Ok, thanks.
                For obvious reasons, the judge and investigators can’t be expected to go into details about these kinds of threats.
                So for the foreseeable future, nobody outside of a small circle knows any details.
                Especially about the timing of those threats, the nature of them, and the volume.
                Mississippi is one of the key battleground states over the issue of abortion; 5 months ago Judge Reeve’s decision as a federal judge declared the more-restrictive state abortion laws passed by the legislature were unconstitional.
                On an issue like that, his decision could have started or accelerated hate mail to him.
                Regardless of whether Trump criticizes the judiciary or not.
                Another quick example of a few I can think of offhand….immediately after the Tuscon shooting of Rep. Gabby Gifford’s and the murder of many others, there was rampant speculation that a Tea Party activist might be responsible, and possibly “pushed over the edge” by a specific Palin political ad.
                I think it took a couple of days to figure out that the murderer was bat**** crazy with no discernable or coherent political beliefs.
                It came as a disappointment to some who were eager to lay the blame on her doorstep, but that’s the way it turned out.

      2. Tom, how close to Mississippi do you live? Have you ever been there?

        I have been there. My sister lived in the Jackson area for 10 years. It’s a pretty state but the natives march to their own drum. People in big metro areas have no idea what Mississippi is like.

        1. Closest I’ve ever been to Mississippi is probably Tennessee, not counting Hollywood ….the Mississippi of California.

    4. I don’t believe in the “Equality” of anything which is different. 1 does not equal 2. 2 equals 2. that which is different is not the same. that which is not the same can’t be expressed as an identity a = a.

      I also have strong racial feelings, which can come into the mix whenever my instincts and personal feelings suggest. Unlike other white folks, I don’t suppress this inside my own head. Of course, I edit my mouth and what i say, so as not to give offense.

      in some situations, i might allow my racial ethnic or national preferences, either for whites or other nonwhite subgroups which I prefer, or my sense of religious differences or gender differences for that matter, all the naughty things we are supposed to ignore– i will let them prompt me as the situation and facts dictate. This is usually not a problem for anybody as I am a very peaceful and law abiding person. but i keep certain things alive in my own head, most of all, the things that can keep me alive in a pinch.

      on the equality side, the only equality that i am committed to, is as a lawyer to equality before the law per the 14th amendment. that standard of equal justice i support professionally and as an American citizen. It is not as restrictive as a standard as some people may believe.

      now, it’s fine by me if the judge wants to have a sense of his own racial feelings and interests too. I am ok if he thinks Donald is racist. I am ok if he thinks I am. Or if you people do. People will think what they please. I dont require acceptance nor conformity. And I am never in his court so it doesnt matter. I have no problem with this. Let’s allow each other racial sentiments and yet still live in peace. That’s my thought for the moment

  9. Sounds less like an acceptance speech and more like Judge Carlton Reeves is taking the next step up in his career by publicly interviewing for his next gig as State Secretary of the R̶e̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶M̶i̶n̶i̶s̶t̶r̶y̶ ̶….er, I mean Democrat Party Ministry of Justice and the President of the Volksgerichtsh,
    Motto: “NO JUSTICE FOR YOU!”

  10. Judge Reeves is helping Trump’s re-election, as well as Dem Minnesota Rep Inhan Omar.



    Ilhan Omar Knows Exactly What She Is Doing

    The Minnesota Democrat is bringing Corbynism to the Democratic Party.

    There’s an old joke about upper-class British anti-Semitism: It means someone who hates Jews more than is strictly necessary. Ilhan Omar, the freshman representative from Minnesota, more than meets the progressive American version of that standard.

    Like many self-described progressives, Omar does not like Israel. That’s a shame, not least because Israel is the only country in its region that embraces the sorts of values the Democratic Party claims to champion. When was the last time there was a gay-pride parade in Ramallah, a women’s rights march in Gaza, or an opposition press in Tehran? In what Middle Eastern country other than Israel can an attorney general indict a popular and powerful prime minister on corruption charges?

    But America is a free country, and Omar is within her rights to think what she will about Israel or any other state. Contrary to a self-serving myth among Israel’s detractors, there’s rarely a social or reputational penalty for publicly criticizing Israeli policies today. It’s ubiquitous on college campuses and commonplace in editorial pages. And contrary to some recent comments from Senator Elizabeth Warren, no serious person claims criticism of Israel is ipso facto anti-Semitic. My last column called on Benjamin Netanyahu to resign. Last I checked, the Anti-Defamation League has not denounced me.

    Omar, however, isn’t just a critic of Israel. As the joke has it, her objections to the Jewish state go well beyond what’s strictly necessary.

    “Israel has hypnotized the world,” she tweeted in 2012. “May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” Last month, she wrote that U.S. support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins baby.” A few weeks after that, she told an audience in D.C. that “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K. to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Confronted with criticism about the remark from her fellow Democrat Nita Lowey, she replied: “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.”

    Under intense pressure, Omar recanted those first two tweets. But she’s standing her ground on her more recent comments. It’s a case study in the ease with which strident criticism of Israel shades into anti-Semitism.

    For those who don’t get it, claims that Israel “hypnotizes” the world, or that it uses money to bend others to its will, or that its American supporters “push for allegiance to a foreign country,” repackage falsehoods commonly used against Jews for centuries. People can debate the case for Israel on the merits, but those who support the state should not have to face allegations that their sympathies have been purchased, or their brains hijacked, or their loyalties divided.

    It’s also a case study in the insidious cunning and latent power of anti-Jewish bigotry— proof that anti-Semitism is not, after all, merely the socialism of fools. Omar, I suspect, knows exactly what she is doing. She pleads ignorance when it suits her, saying she was unaware that her references to hypnosis and “Benjamins” might be considered offensive. Or she wraps herself in the flag, sounding almost like Pat Buchanan when he called Congress “Israeli-occupied” territory. Or she invokes free speech, telling Lowey “our democracy is built on debate” — as if the debate she wants to force is as innocuous as a dispute over a spending bill.

    As the criticism of Omar mounts, it becomes that much easier for her to seem like the victim of a smear campaign, rather than the instigator of a smear. The secret of anti-Semitism has always rested, in part, on creating the perception that the anti-Semite is, in fact, the victim of the Jews and their allies. Just which powers-that-be are orchestrating that campaign? Why are they afraid of open debate? And what about all the bigotry on their side?

    The goal is not to win the argument, at least not anytime soon. Yet merely by refusing to fold, Omar stands to shift the range of acceptable discussion — the so-called Overton window — sharply in her direction. Ideas once thought of as intellectually uncouth and morally repulsive have suddenly become merely controversial. It’s how anti-Zionism has abruptly become an acceptable point of view in reputable circles. It’s why anti-Semitism is just outside the frame, bidding to get in.

    House Democrats are now wrangling over the text of a resolution that was initially intended as a condemnation of anti-Semitism, with Omar as its implicit target. At this writing it is mired in predictable controversy, as members of the party’s progressive wing and black caucus rally to Omar’s side in the first open challenge to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership. In the Senate, the presidential hopefuls Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Warren have weighed in with statements that painted Omar as a victim of Islamophobia — which she is — without mentioning that she’s also a purveyor of anti-Semitic bigotry — which she surely is as well.

    It says something about the progressive movement today that it has no trouble denouncing Republican racism, real and alleged, every day of the week but has so much trouble calling out a naked anti-Semite in its own ranks. This is how progressivism becomes Corbynism. It’s how the left finds its own path toward legitimizing hate. It’s how self-declared anti-fascists develop their own forms of fascism.

    If Pelosi can’t muster a powerful and unequivocal resolution condemning anti-Semitism, then Omar will have secured her political future and won a critical battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. At that point, the days when American Jews can live comfortably within the Democratic fold will be numbered.

    1. “Judge Reeves is helping Trump’s re-election, as well as Dem Minnesota Rep Inhan Omar.”
      You got that right. While some people love Trump and some hate Trump, many agree with his politics and many don’t, nearly everybody agrees they do not want to die beside their children in death camps and see Trump as the only person standing between them and that grim reality.
      BTW the death camps were not created for killing Jews but for killing political enemies of the State, defined as anyone who disagreed with or disobeyed orders of “The Party.”

  11. America is under the martial law of communists disguised as liberals, progressives, socialists and democrats.

    The Constitution has been set aside and replaced with the impulse, conspiracy and anarchy of the “resistance.”

    The American condition is that of insurrection.

    Whatever shall a president do to implement the “manifest tenor” of the U.S. Constitution; to preserve the republic?

    Lincoln seized power and imposed war.

  12. We no longer have 3 branches of government. Now it’s just the Democrats and the Republicans.

  13. Now we can’t complain about activist judges, legislating from the bench, or judicial overreach without being accused of being Klan?

  14. Like it or not, the federal judiciary is widely seen as just another political and activist organization and they have nobody but themselves to blame for this perception. It is unfortunate, but the stain on their robes will not easily be cleaned, if ever.

    1. Rachelle is correct. And it is hard to clean a stain on a robe. The judges may have to stop wearing robes. They look goofy. Especially with stains. But judges cannot quit talking. Or thinking. And those who read this blog should not be depressed because of my condemnation or whatnot. Trump will go away someday. The voters may give us another one like him. After Bill we almost got Hillary. I would not mind Trump’s wife.

    2. Roberts preposterously commingled the definitions of “state” and “federal” to support the immutably unconstitutional Obamacare and its “exchanges.” Roberts materially contributed to the abrogation of the U.S. Constitution as his ally, Ruthless Betrayer Ginsburg, maligned it to a foreign audience in a foreign country as if she herself were a foreigner entirely bereft of any concept of allegiance as a sitting Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

      And we ask how is “treason” defined. And we ask ourselves whatever is to be done about blatant abuse of power, usurpation, insubordination, subversion, insurrection and treason, nay, the American anarchy of a previous president and allied intel/security agencies conducting a coup, a judicial branch “legislating from the bench” and a riled, brainwashed public perpetrating hysterical and incoherent “resistance” while suffering the psychosis and disease of TDS.

      I suggest a proclamation.

  15. It is reprehensible and irresponsible for anyone, let alone a federal judge, to compare Trump to the Democrat domestic terrorists of the KKK.

    Opposing illegal immigration is not racist. Most legal immigrants are not Caucasian. Trump has his faults, but he does not make racist comments, or pass racist laws, or terrorize any race, or murder any race.

    Who attacks blacks for not voting or raising opinions as approved? Who ran Candice Owens, a black woman, out of a restaurant, throwing water and eggs at her and screaming she’s not welcome? Democrats.

    Racism no longer requires a bigoted view against a race. The term is misused for political purposes.

    1. “… for political purposes.”

      “The concept of public consensus is not always rightly understood. According to a widely prevalent view, it is simply a majority opinion, which may be based on fashion or emotion, or an ideology, basedon the self-interest of a class. John Courtney Murray, in his masterful work We Hold These Truths, explains that according to the classical tradition of political thought, consensus is a very different thing: it is a doctrine or judgment that commands public agreement because of the merits of the
      arguments in its favor.

      Public consensus, according to Murray, transcends sheer experience and expediency; it is basically a moral conception. Those who articulate it are the ones whom Thomas Aquinas called the “wise” (sapientes ) and whom George Washington called “the wise and honest.” The ability to discern what laws and policies best safeguard the dignity and rights of the citizens depends upon a careful inquiry in which intelligence is tutored by experience and reflection and guided by an instinct for the right and the good. The reason of the wise and the good is a responsible reason, concerned with fidelity to moral principle, and matured through familiarity with the complexities of the developing human situation.

      The consensus, therefore, must be articulated by those who excel in practical wisdom, but in order to be a real consensus it must also be accepted by the people. At the basis of the American experiment inordered liberty, Murray explains, there are truths. “We the People” hold these truths and, showing “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind,” declare them in public documents. The American
      consensus consists not only in the general principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence but also in the more specific provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These provisions likewise embody truths, formulated by the wise and accepted by the people at large.”

      – Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ


      1. Thanks, Estovir. That is a subtle but critical difference in the meaning of consensus.

    2. Karen, your beloved leader said a judge couldn’t be fair to him because he was a Mexican – he was an American citizen – and negatively stereotyped Muslims and Mexicans. He is a low life liar and braggart who is lowering the bar for presidential behavior practically every day he is in office and inspiring marginal and hateful characters who do worse things than pour water on people in restaurants. Once the bar is lowered, others regardless of political party will act similarly. You are responsible for this behavior if you continue to support him.

      1. a judge couldn’t be fair to him because he was a Mexican –

        The judge is a member of an ethnic chauvinist organization.

        Can’t imagine how Trump could ever get the idea that judge’s aren’t completely on-the-square.

        1. Tabby, why don’t you substantiate that with a credible story from a recognizable source. I know what organization you’re talking about. It got coverage in the media. I don’t recall any pundit describing it as radical or incorrect. If you got something show us.

          1. Peter, the best sources will not be recognizable to you. We have seen that already when you have discounted some of the best. Additionally on some things certain souces have been very accurate and far ahead of the curve but you have demonstrated that you don’t think those sources have any merit. Your favorite souces are secondary and tertiary sources that use anonymous tips that have been wrong and spun to a point whee your type of media is totally untrustworthy.

        2. Triply Absurd said, “The judge [Curiel] is a member of an ethnic chauvinist organization.”

          Out of curiosity, if a Jewish Judge were a member of the Anti-Defamation League, would that Jewish Judge also be the member of an ethnic chauvinist organization?

          If so, then would that be some sort of snide payback for excluding members of The Ku Klux Klan from the federal bench? (Assuming that they are so excluded.)

        3. Since you neglected to mention exactly of which ethnic chauvinist organization Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a member, I’m giving myself the warranted liberty to gues that it is the one I’m mentioning below:

          The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) is a 501(c)(4) nonpartisan membership organization whose constituency includes the nation’s more than 6,000 elected and appointed Latino officials. http://www.naleo.org

        4. The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is not a chauvinist organization.

          It’s a given that Trump is not on the square.

          1. The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is not a chauvinist organization.


          2. This La raza thing is a group of Mex-Am lawyers who mostly take the money from corporate sponsors to keep their profiles high and control the Mex and migrant community, the ever present “reserve army of the unemployed” so secretly beloved of capitalists employing labor in big cities

            take a look at their sponsors


            are they a racial advocacy group? sort of. not a very good one though. they’re all on the take. lol

            if we white guys had such a thing, we would not solicit donations from these kinds of law firms you can be sure of that. nor would we get them. roflol

      2. Another blooper by Anon. He has his facts wrong. He talks about lowering the bar but doesn’t think of how low the bar must go when an administration weaponizes the bureaucracy.

    3. Haha. Excellent. I invite you to read a newspaper instead of your current sources of hannity , rush, infowars or whatever wingnut-obscure “source” you’re getting all your fables from now. Not to get too deep into controverting your fantastical nonsense, but locking babies in cages because they dare to seek asylum–and happen to be brown, is considered “terrorizing a race” by any rational person who has even a passing connection to morality. So sorry for your loss, and your condition.

      this is to “but in the good ole days, we didn’t have so many of these dusky types” karen

      1. Mark M – those photos of kids in cages were from the Obama Administration.

        Are you suggesting that Obama terrorized a race?

        At the risk of threatening your faith, you should consider the reasons why Obama, the Presidents before him, and the President after him, separated children from adults. Child sex trafficking. It is so common, tragically, that they have to get the kids away from adults, and try to find out who is really a family, and who is a pedophile, or a cartel member trying to sneak in using the kid as leverage. Were you aware that Obama would separate the adult men from illegal alien families, and then transport them up to a thousand miles away from the place on the border where they crossed? Then he would just have them dumped off. Their families would have no idea where they were, and would have to apply to the Mexican Embassy for more information. Again, was this terrorizing a race, or do you only apply nonsensical logic to politicians from an opposing party. Truely, the complete ignorance of the double standard is breathtaking.

        The vast majority of people claiming asylum do not meet any of the five requirements. They are simply claiming asylum to try to get around our immigration laws. They are putting an enormous effort into refusing to go through the legal system. Just skip it and cross the border, jumping ahead of hundreds of thousands of people waiting their turn. Poor people from around the globe manage to heel-toe it through our legal immigration system. For some reason, the Left believes it is racist and rude to require our closest neighbors to go through the same process as those who live farther away go through.

        In addition, the Border Patrol facility rooms are rather nice. I’ve seen investigators reviewing them. Any chain link fencing used, similar to that found in schoolyards, is temporary until they can be transported to a permanent structure with proper facilities.

        Please also understand that the Mexican drug cartels run the illegal immigration industry now. Our policies that encourage illegal immigration pump billions of dollars into the very cartels behind much of the crime in Mexico. Those cartel members traffic women and children, mule drugs, force innocent people to mule drugs, and they run guns. They are often still mixed in with all those people. Our open border has also now attracted more immigrants from not only South America, but also the MIddle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe. We are going to pay a very steep price for Congress refusing to secure our border for political purposes.

        Finally, how dare you imply that I am racist? I am most certainly not, nor have I ever voiced a racist opinion on this blog. It is the most vile libel, in a lazy effort to avoid discussing sincere concerns. I support legal immigration, most of which is non-Caucasian. Values and character matter, not skin color. It is a sad trend that Democrats appear overfaced in arguments and instead resort to the most vile ad hominem every time. It appears to be impossible to reason with the irrational. Your arguments tend to run along the lines of Fox, Trump, Russian, Hannity, Racist, etc. You do not address a single point that anyone makes, and instead resort to childish name calling.

        You look extremely foolish every time you do this. It is almost excruciating to watch.

    4. why do you call the KKK terrorists? Who are you talking about? The first generation klan, that was roughly an insurgency against a military occupation? they may have used methods that amounted to terror, I Think that’s fair, although in their minds they were freedom fighters. that’s often a matter of which side folks are on.

      or the second generation 1920s civic group? hardly a terror group. book club mostly.

      or the 1960s klan that actually killed people in living memory? that might have amounted to terror, I’ll give them that. put aside what roy frankhouser a federal informant said once, that nearly half the people in the 1960s klan groups were snitches or agents– he would know, he was one of them.

      And the flaky tv klan of the 80s was just a joke cooked up by tv producers, clowns

      Now the mailbox mail order klan of today are nothing more than mail order clubs which do pretty close to nothing except collect money from suckers. no terror of anything. just fools.

      people always talking about klan this klan that, whether the republicans or democrats, overgeneralizing and not making very many useful points based in fact

Comments are closed.