Yes, this article's headline is deceptive and the source is right winged with a low factual content rating. And so, of course, they always want to go after Biden and the Dems. However, what they talk about in here is a bit disconcerting about Kristen Clarke because none of it had been refuted by any source as it all apparently happened as described within the article:
I say the headline deceptive because, no, Clarke didn't promote the particular poem of this racist that had the horrible words in this headline.
Here is my summary of what the article is saying:
1) When Clarke was the President of the Black Students Association at Harvard in 1994, she invited Tony Martin as a speaker there. Martin had the year before written “The Jewish Onslaught”, an anti-Semitic publication. It is key to realize that that was written BEFORE he spoke at Harvard. This 1994 speech was also full of anti-Semitism. Although she didn’t defend the actual remarks, she did after the speech defend her choice of having him speak.
2) She promoted in 1999 a poem by anti-white and anti-Semite Amiri Baraka that referred to cops as being KKK members. Why is this significant? Because Baraka wrote other poems denouncing whites and Jews in very nasty ways, including what you see in the headline. He also nastily denounced Jesus/Christianity by saying this:
“The fag’s death they gave us on a cross… they give us to worship a dead jew and not ourselves. The empty jew betrays us, as he does hanging stupidly from a cross, ..”
In addition, Clarke was an assistant editor at a periodical when Baraka was a contributing editor. Clarke lied about this association in a Senate confirmation hearing.
So, I have to really wonder how Clarke can be considered an appropriate choice to head the civil rights division at DOJ!
Wow Larry, it's insane that such a person, with a history of racism and hate could ever even ACCIDENTALLY get on a list to be appointed to a position like this.
She is nominated to head civil rights at the DOJ?
This tells us more about the ones nominating her than anything else...........THEY are the ones with the power............giving more power to people like themselves.
This is what its all about.
Scary because its not speculative, its happening.
Thanks for catching this and bringing it to our attention.
However, read my comments on the next page!
I had to chuckle at one of the comments at the article.
........If the US is so systemically (white) racist, then why in the heck are so many brown and black people in other countries doing everything possible(including illegally) to get into our racist country???
Wikipedia paints a completely different picture of this lady. One that describes her tremendous achievements and gives us reassuring explanations for the points in the article that started this thread.
It sounds very convincing.
So who exactly do we believe?
I sure don't have many hours to research her background/history thoroughly.
This is the dilemma that we often face on a number of topics/people.
Who do you believe when 2 sides are saying the opposite?
Which side is telling the truth, which side is lying and is the truth in the middle somewhere?
As an atmospheric scientist, I can discern what is authentic climate science and what is not but a only a very tiny fraction of people have the same understanding........and must trust their sources, which tell them to not believe the ones saying the opposite...because, they really don't know. They can't really know because they don't have all the information and couldn't even interpret all the information if they had it. So it's all about trusting their sources.
That describes our society today in a nutshell.....Trusting our sources.
People go to the sources that tell them the news the way they like to hear it. . Of course they do. This is human nature. This reinforces their belief system. Reinforces everything that they think that they know..........even if its wrong.
Most people affiliate with one side of the other. News sources know this and many try to attract one side only because telling news that contradicts both sides at times, will result in both sides, switching to a source that never contradicts the news they want to hear.
The right side focuses on ratings generated from just people of that mindset. The left side focuses on ratings that are generated by pulling in as many as possible from that side.
The politicians are even worse....by a wide margin. They are all about gaining power/votes to push for ALL of their agenda to be passed, with the least amount of compromising with the other side.
Its an ends justifies whatever the means required to get there battle. Once you finish on top.............it's a winner takes all mentality.
All their agenda and platforms are based on them being right on everything and the other side being wrong on everything.
They flood our heads with information, thats more like propaganda much of the time and often features false narratives and anti science to accomplish their objectives.
The media, that is 80% dominated by left side activists that intentionally picked that profession because it gives them the opportunity to have an impact on politics to do, what they think is change the world to a better place.............THEIR version of that world............pushes the propaganda and false narratives, along with providing interpretations of the news in their stories/reporting.........not just giving the objective version telling both sides with no spin.
There are some excellent news sources though and both sides tell the truth and provide accurate news some of the time.
AHA! The trick is how to tell when those times are and what sources are doing it because the news sources, almost always have access to MUCH more information than the average person..which is why we end up having to trust them........even when they are wrong, if its our favorite right or left biased news source.
1. Well, the wiki does confirm the Tony Martin stuff:
"The Jewish News Syndicate also noted Clarke's role as leader of Harvard's Black Student Association in 1994 in inviting antisemitic conspiracy theorist professor Tony Martin as a guest speaker on campus. Clarke characterized Martin as 'an intelligent, well-versed black intellectual who bases his information of indisputable fact.' On January 14, 2021, Clarke apologized for inviting Martin, saying, 'Giving someone like him a platform, it's not something I would do again.'"[6
2, So she apologized 27 years later for political purposes as she was picked by Biden. Does that negate what she did enough to make her suitable for a civil rights position? Why didn't she apologize or at least criticize him right after Martin made those remarks? And keep in mind that Martin had already written that piece, “The Jewish Onslaught” when he was invited.
3. The wiki didn't even mention that racist poet, Amiri Baraka. Why not?
So, let me ask you this:
If a white Republican nominated someone (call him "John"), who as a college student invited David Duke to speak, and John 27 years later while being considered for a civil rights position apologized for inviting Duke, and John a few years later also promoted a white supremacist's poem, should John get a pass?
I'm with you on this one Larry. You make a convincing case.
Wikipedia is very biased to the left side, which I always dial in when looking up things like this even though much of their political stuff is pretty good and their non political stuff is solid.
On this ladies past. I agree that a person that once believed and said things like she did is s huge concern and not likely to change enough to morph into an objective, see all sides and be fair person which should be required for an important position like this. It almost never happens, even if they outwardly project being that way in order to move up in the professional world, which could be the case here.
Should we give her the benefit of the doubt?
Why not just appoint somebody WITHOUT the very concerning history like this?
This is a dang important job and there must be many dozens of equally well qualified people that don't have this history.
1. Did the sources that nominated her just not vet her?
2. Or did they not care?
3. OR did they know this and actually like this background history about her and thought she is perfect for pushing their agenda?
Considering the nominating source must know 100 times more about this lady than we do, I'd go with #3.