Well so much for THAT pledge.
Seeking to avoid the politics of division and the to restore respect for the rule of law, President Biden (or someone pulling his strings) has, ironically, nominated Kristen Clarke to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. In January, with this post, Ethics Alarms urged fairness after a letter surfaced from Clarke’s college days espousing anti-white racist attitudes:
….that letter to the Crimson from 27 years ago should not, by itself, disqualify Clarke for national service. Students say and write a lot of foolish stuff in college; that’s part of what it is for. Student presidents of niche campus groups like BALSA are expected to say extreme things….However, that letter is pure black supremacy, and thus racist. In the hearings on her fitness to lead the Civil Rights division, which requires no bias for or against any race, she must be asked about the letter and, under oath, rebuke its assertions to the satisfaction of all.
Now we know, however. That letter was not just young, raw, still-learning Kristen Clarke. That is Kristen Clarke. The career NAACP lawyer has a history of opposing civil rights prosecutions of black defendants. She criticized the Justice Department for bringing a complaint against an African-American party boss in Mississippi who worked to suppress white votes.
A federal judge found that political boss Ike Brown violated the Voting Rights Act by suppressing white votes in a rural Mississippi county where whites are the minority, directing election workers to count deficient absentee ballots from blacks but disqualify ballots from whites. Brown also was shown to have held biased and manipulated caucuses in the homes of friends and supporters.
According to 2010 testimony from Justice Department official Christopher Coates before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Clarke “spent a considerable amount of time criticizing the [civil rights] division and the voting section for bringing the Brown case.” He described Clarke as a civil rights litigator who believes “incorrectly but vehemently that enforcement of the protections of the Voting Rights Act should not be extended to white voters but should be extended only to protecting racial, ethnic, and language minorities.” Like, for example, her.
President Biden nominating such a racially biased individual to lead a civil rights division that must serve all Americans is an audacious and defiant example of doing the opposite of what one claims to be. It is a good time to recall this tweet:
If anyone is paying attention (and don’t expect the mainstream news news media to point it out) the nomination of Clarke is a clear and unambiguous statement of racial preference and an endorsement of double standards. Clarke personified the infuriating but common Catch 22 argument by anti-white black racists (and their non-black “woke” allies) that only one race can be guilty of racism, an assertion that is and will always be a catalyst for suspicion, resentment and distrust.
When the Senate vote comes, notice who submissively endorses this nominee who directly contradicts President Biden’s assurances. Take names, and remember. Rejecting Clarke is ethically mandatory and beyond reasonable objection.
Source: Washington Free Beacon
15 thoughts on “The Unethical And Divisive Nomination Of Kristen Clarke [Updated]”
“If anyone is paying attention (and don’t expect the mainstream news news media to point it out) the nomination of Clarke is a clear and unambiguous statement of racial preference and an endorsement of double standards. ”
Of course it is, and if you’re surprised, then YOU haven’t been paying attention. This is the Democratic Party’s big chance to crush the opposition once and for all, or at least to move the Congress to more of a parliamentary system, where the majority sets the agenda, the minority opposes it but can’t stop it, and defections from either party are very rare. Civil rights lawsuits and voting rights reform are the key.
If you think either party represents all Americans when they are in power, then you’ve got another thing coming. They represent themselves first, their key constituencies second, and anyone else after that. Interestingly, they point often to the larger number of people represented by the 50 Democratic senators to justify this. It’s proof that the Democratic Party is like Islam. While it’s in the minority, it’s obsessed with minority rights. When it’s in the majority, there are no minority rights. At least it isn’t as bad…yet…as Gaddafi, who once said in an interview that there was no need for further elections, because all of the people were already in power.
…and Janet Yellen received $7 million for speaking fees in just 2 years from the companies she now regulates and…
They are all corrupt. I wonder if 4 years of Donald Trump developed alternative news pathways that have made it easier to see that they are all corrupt. I mean, is this woman really any worse than Eric Holder, or is it just that negative information about her is more readily available than it was for Holder?
Which begs the question.
Why would not people of that particular race embrace racism?
Have you heard of the trope “Then let Me Be Racist”?
I haven’t openly said it, but hey, I’m a strong conservative who isn’t woke. If that makes me a racist, then so be it. Wanna hear the sprinkler joke?
I didn’t realize this “only white people can be racist” mentality was out there until about 4 years ago. I had begun to leave the left because of the totalitarian trends on the left. One of the most eye opening moments was how college students were literally crying over Halloween costumes and even surrounding college administrators almost like they were going to attack them!
Anyway, I had a “friend” on Facebook who is a professor of library science (f I remember correctly). Somehow, we ended up in a debate about racism, and I commented that every race had people who were racist. Black people towards whites, whites towards Asians, Asians towards whites, etc.
Then, I was told by another person that only white people could be racist because racism required a power element. I was pretty floored because the definition of racism has generally been believing in the inherent inferiority of a particular race or believing in extreme negative stereotypes about a particular race. Nope. Not under the loony left definition. When I asked this person what the proper label is for a black person who has “racist” views towards a white person, I was told to label the attitudes “rude of mean.”
Not that i don’t understand why a black person may be more likely to be racist, but racist is still racist.
Small moments like this made me realize there was no way I could belong in the Democratic Party, because people like my “friend” and her friend now make up the thought leaders of the party. The overracializing of our society is, like you said, just going to create more suspicion and distrust.
Democrats have decided to use racism as a political weapon, and then they wonder why our country feels so divided.
For Biden to even consider nominating someone like Clarke shows he is willing to use race as a political weapon. His rhetoric doesn’t match his actions, but it feels like he’s not even trying.
I’d encourage you (and everyone else trying to understand intellectual and political bedrock of the ‘Woke’ ideology) check out James Lindsay’s website https://newdiscourses.com/
Suffice it to say that many of what seems to be new concepts coming from the Left, actually have roots in, or are directly pulled from various Critical Theory schools of thought that date all the way back to the early 20th century.
Thanks for the excellent resource. I quickly found this article, which describes a method for engaging “Woke” friends for the purpose of making them define the Rubicon for the “Woke” ideology. Here is a cogent and, I think, very important recommendation I consider the crux of the biscuit:
Ask: When is enough, enough? Who has to get cancelled? Fired? How many people have to lose their livelihoods? How overt does the racism have to become? How many people have to humiliate themselves in “Antiracist” Struggle Sessions? Who has to be doxxed? Destroyed? Beaten up? Killed? Does it take a public lynching? Or would it take horrors we believed we left behind in the darker chapters of the twentieth century? Where is the uncrossable line between here and there?
In the manner of Marcus Aurelius, Lindsay cuts straight to the heart of the matter with this paragraph. Where is the line drawn for the opposition when it comes to the presumed benefits found in the “Woke” catechism? Where do the punishments end? How far do the “Woke” true believers get to go before the proles finally say, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”?
Defining the Rubicon for every policy position that punishes one group for perceived wrongdoing is an important step in defining the humanity of those espousing it. Punishing bad behavior can be relentless and cruel or measured and appropriate, but there is a lot of gray area in between that has major ramifications for the both the adherents and opponents of “Wokeness.”
Defining limits is what sets human society apart from criminal gangs. Gangs establish no limits, often requiring a putative member to engage in the ultimate “punishment” of killing an opponent or offender of their interests before the new member is accepted into their fold. The Western legal systems clearly define these limits in most cases, leaving to judges and juries the collective task of arbitrating the gray areas.
But what about “Woke”-ism? How far is too far, and who gets to define those limits? Who arbitrates the gray areas? How much do the uninitiated and skeptical have to accept in terms of remonstration, “education,” and discipline?
More importantly, when are we, individually and collectively, going to stand up and say, “This far, and no further! There are four lights!”
Inquiring minds, and all that.
Oops, linky. “This article” above refers to this one.
Denying that anyone but white people can be racist is just another transparently cynical way of shutting down any counter-arguments. What they really mean is that the left cannot be racist because they represent racial minorities, so only the right can be racist because they represent white people. I don’t mean that it is actually true that the left represents racial minorities and the right represents white people, it is just the dichotomy they have created in people’s minds through propaganda. I don’t think the left represents anyone but the totalitarians seeking tyrannical power. This white-only racism garbage is just what the leftist elites want everyone to think, so that they can be racist with impunity and call it virtue, while also pigeon holing the right as racist. It is a load of crap.
Pretending to be virtuous is a heck of a lot easier than actually being virtuous, so just get everyone to agree that fake virtue is virtue, everyone can be lazy and virtuously virtue-free, no one has to make a valid argument, valid arguments can be shot down easily by cynical lies, and no one wants to go near those icky racists on the right. It is a power game, pure and simple.
That power element cop out doesn’t work. My first experience of racism was as a child in the Congo in 1960, when the (black) gendarmerie tried to kill all us whites, whether former colonialists or not. The thing is, they had power.
I think you point out another logical problem. If racism requires a power element, then a person can only be racist in certain parts of the world. Racism by geography is an absurdity.
Very good point!
I wonder who else pointed it out.
But minorities and their ‘allies’ hold all institutional power right now. So, only white people CAN’T be racist now!