ACLU lynches Clarence Thomas

The BBQ Pit
1

This article makes my fucking blood boil.

Executive Summary: The Hawaiian chapter of the ACLU decide not to invite Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to a debate because he is “Uncle Tom”, “Adolph Hitler”, “Joseph Goebbels”, and the “anti-christ” all rolled up into one. What’s worse than that? “He’s married to a white person.”

What a bunch of fucking racists. They assume that since Thomas is a conservative black, he’s an “intellectual fraud.” They didn’t have any problems inviting Justice Scalia to an earlier debate, even though he and Thomas agree on most issues, they only have a problem with Thomas. And their problem with Thomas is, basically, that he’s black.

I guess the ACLU had better print up some special brochures for their members in Hawaii:

*The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution.

Except for African-Americans, who really can’t think for themselves and need to be publicly vilified if they dare oppose us. Remember, one black person thinking for himself is one too many. Stay alert! Trust no one! Keep your earplugs handy!***

My second favorite part of the story is when one of the board members warns that they shouldn’t invite Thomas to the debate because he might convince some people that his position is right! So, let me get this straight, Clarence Thomas is evil incarnate and an “intellectual fraud,” yet they’re still afraid that he might convince some of their members that he’s right?

My favorite part is this quote:

**“After the committee met,” explained Pam Chambers, “I went out to my friends. To a person, I got a bad reaction. … This [voting to not invite Thomas] shows we are sensitive.”
**

No, it doesn’t show that you are sensitive, it shows that you are a pathetic coward who lets your peers do your thinking for you! God fucking forbid that a member of the ACLU might actually do something that would upset her friends! God fucking forbid that a member of the ACLU might hear an opinion that doesn’t agree with her own! God fucking forbid that the ACLU would let some conservative black who married a white woman into one of their functions!

Burn in hell you spineless, electrical-outlet-fucking racists!

** If you recognize that phrase, please state your security clearance.

2

:eek: Holy fuck! Can that article be accurate and true!? If so…I just can’t believe they thought they would get away with it. Oh man, another clipping for the Atrocities File…

3

sigh It looks like it has to be at least truthful…written by a board member, quotes passed editorial scrutiny.

Now I understand why some people have this picture of the ACLU as a biased organization…

jayjay

4

BUT:

Is this the only source available on this?

ACLU Hawaii’s site just links to their ISP:
http://www.acluhawaii.org/

5

Well I went off half-cocked so I didn’t check for other sources before storming over here to bitch about it. I should have checked, I wouldn’t want to spread a hoax. Unfortunately, other than the extremely stupid quotes, I don’t see much reason to doubt it.

Maybe someone from Honolulu can tell us about the Honolulu Weekly, is it a good paper?

6

It looks to be a legitimate publication. I’m as much of a Thomas hater as it gets, but this is just so wrong. Geez, get the guy into a debate and spank his ass.

I can’t find any information on what the ACLU head office thinks of this crap, but I can’t imagine it’s good.

Ah, it’s nice to be liberal. We don’t have to accept and justify everything our cohorts do.

7

That’s pretty fucking pathetic, alright. The Hawaii chapter of ACLU thus proves themselves to be as closed-minded as they would charge their enemies such as Thomas with being.

I’ve never been an ACLU member, in large part because there are too many left-wing dumbshits such as these people.* But I do agree with quite a few of their announced goals, and I have known members who are the exact opposite of these–folks who are interested in protecting our rights, rather than just inflicting their version of the ideological Holy Truth on everybody. So it’s worth pointing out that according to the article (not everybody will bother to click on the link) national ACLU President Nadine Strossen is herself opposed to the Hawaii ACLU’s action, and may consider not participating in their forum to protest.

*Likewise, I have not been a member of the NRA for quite a few years because there are too many right-wing dumbshits. I guess the lesson is that there are way too many dumbshits of all sorts.

8

You have got to be kidding me.

Is this an actual press release? Does the main office know about this? Doesn’t the Honolulu office know that stupid shit like this diminishes any arguements they have with Justice Thomas?
I’ll be checking periodically for the apology and retraction.

9

ACLU Boy, I’ve got a friend in Hawaii that I’ve just contacted to see if I can get any verification on the story. Hopefully I’ll know more tonight.
While I agree that this is way over the top, I must take issue with a small part of the OP. This is not, IMO, a first amendment violation. This was an invitation given to speak and it was withdrawn, as is within their rights to do. Whatever their reasoning, however stupid those reasons may be, it is not against the right of freedom of speech to do it.

10

What are you saying here? Are you saying conservatives have to accept and justify everythings their cohorts do?

11

I look forward to learning more. And I agree with you 100%, the ACLU has the legal right to exclude anyone from their meetings, debates or other functions. Personally, I think they should invite him, but that’s just me.

However, excluding him because he’s not really black, or whatever it is they believe disgusts me. I think it’s racist, and excluding him on those grounds is not consistent with the ACLU’s principles.

12

Eh, I shed no tears for Clarence Thomas. He’s a hypocrite. He was the biggest cheerleader for an end to affirmative action even though, he himself, was a affirmative action success story.

13

I shed no tears for Clarence Thomas either–but if this story is as true as it looks like it is, I will certainly weep for the ACLU of Hawaii.

14

Mercutio

What the hell is he supposed to do? How does a black person opposed to AA in a system where it exists not benefit from it? Just because you benefit from something doesn’t mean that you must support it.

15

No, it was only a joke. More of a stab at the Rush Limbaugh conservatives, who consider “ditto head” to be a badge of honor.

But, since you brought it up. What Republican action do you offer no excuses for, yet disagree with as vehemently as we ACLU types disagree with this?

16

First of all, there’s no logic to the charge of hypocracy. If CT was directly involved with affirmative action, then he’s in a particularly good position to evaluate it. He may be right to disapprove of it. I am grateful that we Jews overcame anti-Semitism in America, before affirmative action could lock it in place.

Second, is it true that Thomas benefited from affirmative action? I’ve heard his political enemies make this claim, but I’ve never seen any evidence. In fact, I don’t even know at what level it’s supposed to have occurred.

Mercutio, where do you claim that he benefited from AA, and what is your evidence?

BTW I was a member of the ACLU for many years. I finally quit when they participated in a dishonorable campaign against Bork. Even as a non-member, I would still hate for this Hawaii story to be true…

17

I don’t agree with Republicans that try to be too intrusive in our lives. I think people should be able to make their own decisions. Therefore, I disagree with Republicans who want to have the church involved in everything. I disagree with any of the Pat Buchanon types. I think that everyone should have equal rights. I don’t like school vouchers. There are dozens of things that I dislike about the Republicans.

18

I don’t believe you’re cleared to ask that.

As for the OP, that is particulaly ridiculous. John Leo will get at least three columns out of this.

19

I’ve Googled around, but been unable to find any corroboration of this, short of this editorial in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin: http://starbulletin.com/2001/06/24/news/perez.html
I could be wrong, but it looks like this oped was lifted from the same source as the OP editorial. I’ve having a really hard time verifying it from any sort of factual source.

20

I like you already!

The Star-Bulletin piece doesn’t contain anything that wasn’t in the Honolulu Weekly Op-Ed, so I think it’s safe to assume that no original reporting went into it. I’ve looked as well, and haven’t found anything.

However, I have yet to see anything that would indicate the Honolulu Weekly Op-Ed was innacurate. For now I’m going to assume it’s true, although I reserve the right to change my mind should more information surface.