Print 
PDF
President Biden's nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States is revealing, to say the least.
Ms. Jackson's nomination has become a mirror image---a reflection of what racism and secular progressivism looks like in America---and it's not pretty.
It certainly isn't the picture progressives promised and painted if they could only get control of our country.
Well, they are currently in control of the White House, the House of Representatives, the US Senate, public education, the entertainment industry--- and the news media for the most part.
And they claim they are "making progress."
Be informed, not misled.
The revelation.
Back during the presidential primary when candidate Joe Biden was struggling to even stay in the race-- his third attempt at becoming president of the United States, and Kamala Harris was unable to stay in the primary due to her lack of support within her own political party, Biden promised if he were to be elected president he would nominate a "black woman" to the US Supreme Court.
He promised his first consideration would not be the most qualified. It would be the color of her skin. His second consideration would be the person's gender.
Brown Jackson's judicial record is troubling, to say the least.
But no worry. The media has both her and the president covered.
Sen. Ted Cruz was the first to call out some of the hypocrisy surrounding the nomination, but the New York Times was there to run interference.
The Times began with this:
It was a striking moment, in a day full of them.
On Tuesday afternoon, during the confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Senator Ted Cruz quoted the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a world where children would be judged “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” — before sharply questioning Judge Jackson about her views on critical race theory.
He held up two books by Ibram X. Kendi that he said had been assigned or recommended at a school where she is on the board of trustees, describing their contents as “the exact opposite” of Dr. King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech.
“Are you comfortable,” he asked, “with these ideas being taught to children?”
At this point, the New York Times pivots from reporting to instructing. Brown Jackson needs help.
It was a salvo aimed squarely at today’s pitched battles over critical race theory, a once-obscure academic discipline that has emerged as a potent political weapon for the right. From the floor of the Senate to the report of the Trump administration’s 1776 Commission, it has been painted as the antithesis of the colorblind America that Dr. King supposedly wanted to create.
But some scholars who tuned into the hearings said they saw a familiar distortion.
The rest of the lengthy story is not reporting the news, but indoctrinating an uninformed public that MLK actually meant something different than what he said, and what Sen. Cruz---and others think he said is "distorted."
As the hearing progressed, the conservatives asked more questions about her actual qualifications, while the leftist progressives focused more and more on the color of her skin, claiming those who would not vote to confirm her are essentially racist.
Three Republicans: Susan Collins, Maine; Mitt Romney, Utah; and Lisa Murkowski, Alaska; signaled their virtue by announcing they will be voting to confirm Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.
That, of course, was celebrated by the left.
However, when Republican Senator Tim Scott---a black man--- announced his informed intention to vote "no" on Brown Jackson's confirmation, the meltdown began.
The mighty meltdown.
He said this:
"The historic nature of Judge Jackson’s nomination reinforces the progress our country has made. However, ideology must be the determining factor—not identity—when considering such an important lifetime appointment," Scott released in a statement. "It is clear that Judge Jackson’s judicial philosophy and positions on the defining issues of our time make her the wrong choice for the Supreme Court. From leaving the door open on court packing to her multiple overturned opinions, I cannot support a nominee with her record of judicial activism. I remain disappointed that President Biden missed the opportunity to unite the country with a mainstream nominee that could have received resounding bipartisan support. For all these reasons, I will be voting no on Judge Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court."
On cue, the meltdown began:
"Can you believe that Tim Scott is NOT voting for Judge Ketanji Brown-Jackson, the first Black woman to be nominated for Supreme Court Judge? But he voted for Amy Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. I feel sorry for him bc [because] if you don't know that u are Black, believe me, they will show you", tweeted "Angel."
Can you believe that Tim Scott is NOT voting for Judge Ketanji Brown-Jackson,the first Black woman to be nominated for Supreme Court Judge? But he voted for Amy Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh!
— ANGELplz (@NotoriusNormani) April 4, 2022
I feel sorry for him bc if you don't know that u are Black,believe me they will show you.
Another tweeted "MLK had some words for people like Tim Scott." Another, "Wow, Sen. Scott must be getting paid a whole lot of money to turn his back on the most qualified nominee to ever be nominated."
But that's the problem. She is not only among the least qualified based on her record, she is also an activist who will--- based on her record, use the highest court in the land to push the far-Left agenda.
What about Justice Clarence Thomas? He's black.
Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, wrote an article this week talking about how the left is trying to destroy US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Perkins said this:
The Left has never needed an excuse to vilify Clarence Thomas. The longtime Supreme Court justice has been a thorn in the side of Democrats' lawless agenda for 30 years. So it's really no surprise that of the thousands of pages of texts submitted to the House's January 6th Committee, his wife's messages to the White House just "happened" to be leaked to the press. Now, in their latest attempt to dispatch their judicial foe, the president's party is arguing that being married to someone with political views should be grounds for impeachment.
Thomas's wife Ginni Thomas, had email exchanges with Mark Meadows, Trump's Cheif of Staff. The leftist party is trying to use this to connect Clarence Thomas to the January 6 protest at the Capitol via his wife having communicated with Meadows, although the communications had nothing to do with the protest.
Like a lot of Americans, Ginni Thomas had serious concerns about the integrity of the 2020 elections. Many of us did. And still do. The Left is using this to embarrass Ginni and destroy her husband.
There is even an attempt to impeach Justice Thomas.
Where is their allegiance to the color of his skin?
Perkins' article is excellent.
He concludes: "There's nothing Democrats would like more than to eliminate Thomas and replace him with someone more agreeable to their lawless agenda. And if they can't do that, then the next best thing is casting doubt on the court that they use to fuel their court-packing scheme...But the clock is ticking, and they know it."
The next time you see outrage over racial injustice, take a closer look. Some of the outrages are merely virtue signaling---some are using "racism" as a tool to advance a political agenda.
Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Engaged. Be Prayerful.