Racism & Violent Rhetoric at a Rally!

I have commented frequently on the campaign of vilification waged by the Left against the Tea Party movement. That campaign consisted of two general arguments: that the Tea Party encourages political violence and that the Tea Party protesters are racists.

I have rebutted both charges in many posts. The charge of political violence was absurd interpretations of ordinary speech. In every case, the same speech and imagery that was supposed to be evidence of violent tendencies on the Right can be found in equal measure on the Left. That includes Sarah Palin's now infamous "crosshairs" map.

The charge of racism was built on even thinner material. The smoking gun was the story that Representatives John Lewis and Emanuel Clever were subject to racial epithets and that Clever was spit on by Tea Party activists. Despite the fact that the event was recorded and observed by many reporters, no evidence to substantiate the charges ever surfaced.

Common sense tells you that there had to be someone who was racist or militant or both at some Tea Party rally. No party or movement can expect to be pure. Nonetheless, the Tea Party rallies have provided very little material to substantiate the calumnies of their detractors.

A recent political rally provided a lot of both racist and violent rhetoric. Unfortunately for my friends on the Left, it was all directed at Justice Clarence Thomas. From the Daily Caller:

In an edited video released Thursday, progressive protesters are shown calling for violent attacks on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas while protesting outside a summit billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch held last week in Palm Springs, Calif.

Asked by the filmmaker to say what he would like to do to Thomas, one protester says: "put him back in the fields."

"He's a scumbag," the man says. "He's a dumb shit scumbag." The man also said Thomas's colleague, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, "should go back to Sicily."

A young woman at the rally said that though she was "all about peace," she would like for Thomas to undergo "torture."

Two other protesters appear to call for Thomas's death. When asked what should happen to Thomas, one person says "hang him" while another protester says "string him up."

All this is on the video, which I have watched. The clip may be heavily edited, but the editor surely had more to work with than any Tea Party detractor has ever had.

It would be unfair to judge the Left by one rally just as it is unfair to judge the Tea Party movement by a few signs here or there or by unsubstantiated innuendo. But just imagine what the New York Times would do with that video if the target were President Obama instead of Clarence Thomas! We'd be hearing about on a daily basis. Instead, the MSM is largely ignoring it.

Neither the Right nor the Left in America today is given to violent or racist rhetoric as a rule. There are of course exceptions in both cases, but they are such as to prove the rule. There is as much evidence of both on the Left as on the Right. We pay too much attention to these things because we are tempted to try to discredit one another. Maybe we should stick to arguing with one another.

Comments

[duggersd]

Well, I am sure the NAACP has condemned these remarks, right? Here is the link. http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/naacp-no-comment-on-racist-remarks-leveled-at-clarence-thomas

[Jimi]

Ken,

"There is as much evidence of both on the Left as on the Right."

As a matter of fact there is so much evidence that you had to write a post pointing out that there is a double standard, and how unfair that the "Left" does not have to take responsibility for their Rhetoric. :)

Why are you trying to walk the tightrope?

The problem exists with the classification and definition of "Left" and "Right." On the circle of Political Spectrum where would you classify the Nazi's or Hitler...are they "Left" or "Right?" An arguement can be made from both perspectives.

[larry kurtz]

Clarence Thomas is the Anwar al Awlaki of sexual harassment. The Anwar al Awlaki of Oreo-archy. The Anwar al Awlaki of hypocritheoreoarchy. He's a slut.

[Donald Pay]

I think Thomas is a very poor Supreme Court justice, but his race has nothing to do with it. There are idiots on both sides of the ideological spectrum and in the middle of it, too. It is too bad that people behave like this.

Still, I hope a few idiots won't get in the way of honest reporting on Thomas' ethical (perhaps legal) problems. He could be facing felony charges for failing to disclose sources of income.

http://www.protectourelections.org/index.php?q=node/118

[KB]

And you, Larry, are a full-tilt idiot. Sorry, but you asked for it.

[larry kurtz]

Hoka hey, wasicu.

[KB]

You can't call me a wasicu. I'm Irish!

On a more serious note, is everyone you disagree with a terrorist? That kind of language discredits any argument you might try to make, assuming you try to make one. As for calling a Supreme Court Justice a slut, that discredits you as a person. Come on, Larry: we all enjoy your colorful comments. You're better than the comment above.

[larry kurtz]

Scalia's Lapdog Upholding Theocracy. Any black man who can't see through the hypocritheocrisy of the roman catholic church is too stupid to be on the bench. He should be impeached.

[Jimi]

Larry,

"Any black man who can't see through the hypocritheocrisy of the roman catholic church is too stupid to be on the bench."

Well that all depends on what your defintion of "is" is?

[Jimi]

Larry,

"Any black man who can't see through the hypocritheocrisy of the roman catholic church is too stupid to be on the bench."

Well that all depends on what your defintion of "is" is?

[larry kurtz]

If ip is a full-tilt idiot, KB, what does that make Jimi?

[William]

Larry, you may think you're on a roll, but good grief man, I have dead blades of grass in my lawn mower more intelligent than that dribble!

[larry kurtz]

There is nothing ip can do about Clarence Thomas except sound as crazy as Michele Bachmann is. I thought you guys knew that already.

[BillW]

This is getting monotonous. KB writes posts laden with facts and logic ... the libs respond with ridiculous character assassinations of everything and everyone whose thoughts and beliefs are different from theirs.

Larry, Donald, Dave ... can any of you actually discuss an issue on an intellectual level or is branding conservatives sluts and criminals all you have?

[larry kurtz]

The Daily Caller is not "facts," Bill. The Koch Brothers are ecoterrorists, Bill. Ken is a redstater, Bill.

[William]

You need to get your meds checked, Larry.

[Dave]

Clarence called, wanted to know if anybody wanted a Coke. I said "no thanks" but I didn't want to speak for you guys...

[BillW]

Fellas ... there was a hearing, the allegations were fully aired ... a bipartisan Senate committee OK'd Clarence Thomas ... give it up. If all you have against Clarence Thomas are Anita Hill's unsupported allegations that the Senate rejected twenty years ago then you need to shut up andstop making fools of yourselves.

The Koch brothers are 'ecoterrorists' ... here we go with more over the top name calling and character assassination that you wackos think pass for intelligent debate.

It is no wonder your liberal agenda gets virtually no support from American voters.

[BillW]

Fellas ... there was a hearing, the allegations were fully aired ... a bipartisan Senate committee OK'd Clarence Thomas ... give it up. If all you have against Clarence Thomas are Anita Hill's unsupported allegations that the Senate rejected twenty years ago then you need to shut up andstop making fools of yourselves.

The Koch brothers are 'ecoterrorists' ... here we go with more over the top name calling and character assassination that you wackos think pass for intelligent debate.

It is no wonder your liberal agenda gets virtually no support from American voters.

[Donald Pay]

I think Thomas breaking the law requiring disclosure of sources of income for as long as he's been a Supreme Court Justice is far more important than what some powerless twits have to say. KB and BillW prefer that we focus on the twits. I understand why.

[Ken Blanchard]

I am not sure what "twits" are. I am very grateful to BillW here. He runs circles around the rest of you.

I have read many of Justice Thomas' opinions. They are better by far than your average Supreme Court writ. The same is true of Scalia's opinions, which rank as the best both in Constitutional logic and eloquence in the last century.

Larry's anti-Catholic barbs are religious (0r anti-religious) bigotry of the old school sort. See "know-nothings".

[larry kurtz]

As you red state Koch/Thomas/Citizens United sycophants debate the mote in my eye, the log jam in South Dakota's goes unaddressed. The reservations are the next 9/11; fix them or duck and cover.

[William]

Donald, I assume you support further investigation in the improprieties of Justices Ginsberg and Breyer, as well?

Old "news", but at least as significant, if not more so than any allegations against Justice Thomas.
“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg May Have Violated A Federal Law 21 Times Since 1995 By Participating In Cases Involving Companies In Which Her Husband Owned Stock.” (Richard Carelli, “Justice Took Part In Cases Involving Husband’s Stocks,” The Associated Press, 7/10/97)

“Monroe Freedman, A Law Professor At Hofstra University And A Leading Expert On Legal Ethics, Said In An Interview That Because Of Breyer’s Interest In Lloyd’s He Should Have, Under Federal Law, Either Recused Himself From Participation In Superfund And Asbestos Cases Or, At The Very Least, Informed The Parties To The Lawsuits So That They Could Raise An Objection.”(Timothy M. Phelps and Michael Weber, “Supreme Court Conflict?” Newsday, 6/24/94)

http://www.committeeforjustice.org/articles/articles/old/boyle_talkingpoints2.aspx

[larry kurtz]

'94, '97? Does that mean Bush crimes are fair game, too? C'mon, Willy; try harder. Breyer interprets a fluid document; Scalia/Thomas defend a dead document.

[William]

You should try reading something in its entirety, as I stated "old news", however every bit as relevant as the current "controversy".

If we are to be a nation of laws, then a law is what it is, it's what is written. The Constitution has legitimate means to alter it, "interpreting a fluid document" is not one of them. A "fluid document" is nothing more than sophistry, meaning the law is what I say it is, regardless of what it says.

[BillW]

"Does that mean Bush crimes are fair game"

What crimes, Larry?

[Ken Blanchard]

Larry: one way to end up dead is to become too fluid. Ask someone who suffers from a intestinal disease. The Constitution has to be interpreted flexibly, but it also has to mean something binding on everyone, including the Courts. Ask Dred Scott.

[BillW]

Larry - Prematurely declaring the Constitution to be a "dead document" and no longer binding on what Obama, Reid, Pelosi et al could do with the power they held for two years had quite a bit to do with the rise of the Tea Party and subsequent handing them their collectives asses on a platter last Fall. If you libs want any sort of voice at all in DC you might want to reconsider your diagnosis of the Constitution's health.

[larry kurtz]

Distraction, fellers, is the mother's milk of fascism; guess ip can give you that. South Dakota is the definition of red state failure. Doogaargh, Jacklow et al are solidifying state control over its population. Praise Wakan Tanka that reservations enjoy immunity from the SD Department of White Public "Safety."

From the Anwar al Awlaki of the Xenocidal Right, Ann Coulter: "Put more journalists behind bars."

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/02/13/Coulter_Left_Trying_to_Co_Opt_Gays/

"The ACLU acknowledges the significance of this request, but it bears emphasis that the former President's acknowledgement that he authorized torture is absolutely without parallel in American history. The admission cannot be ignored. In our system, no one is above the law or beyond its reach, not even a former president. That founding principle of our democracy would mean little if it were ignored with respect to those in whom the public most invests its trust."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-letter-attorney-general-holder-urging-investigation-president-bush-violation-

From NPR's Nina Totenberg.

Justice Scalia: "“The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead,” he famously said. Scalia contends that the Constitution is not flexible and its meaning cannot change over time. To allow the Constitution's meaning to morph over time, he contends, just allows judges to say it means whatever they want it to say.

“People think we decide things politically,” Breyer says, “or that the only way to protect against subjective views of judges is to have something called originalism, which is as if you could reach decisions by means of an historical computer. I don't think any of those things are true.”"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129702855

[BillW]

Larry,

So that's it - no criminal charges, no indiments, no trials, nothing that remotely resembles criminal or judicial process - just a bunch of liberal jabberwockies yammering at each other ... that is the basis for your assertion that Bush is a "war criminal"? Not quite a compelling case, there Larry, but a typical one for you.

My friend, have you ever had an original thought on this or any other subject? Or do you merely cut and paste whatever the liberal bloggers vomit onto your computer screen.

[William]

If there is a case to be made for a Supreme Court Justice to recuse themselves, the stronger case is that of Justice Kagan.

"Kagan served as Solicitor General during the entire time that the PPACA was being considered by Congress. If, at any point during that time, her office provided legal advice to the White House regarding the Constitutionality of the law being considered, then there's at least an argument that she should be required to recuse herself. It's not a slam-dunk argument, but it's certainly stronger than the phony one that the House Democrats are raising about Thomas."
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/02/health-care-strategists-take-their-battle-to-the-supreme-court/71034/#disqus_thread

[larry kurtz]

The last Republican for whom ip had any respect whatsoever died last April. The only Democrat for whom he ever voted was Tom Daschle.

ip has eleven tabs open; my job is merely to plow the road. Ken's road is just one more to plow.

[Dave]

http://wonkette.com/448772/kentucky-tea-party-sells-patriotic-yup-im-a-racist-fourth-of-july-t-shirts

YUP, that's a guy selling "YUP I'm a Racist" t-shirts under a banner that says “Tea Party / Fox News”

Can you say "Keeping AmeriKa Klassy"?