Error: Unable to create directory uploads/2019/02. Is its parent directory writable by the server?

Leftist Kook Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.): Racist or Doddering Old Fool?

Posted on May 3 2010 8:00 am
Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

I’ve followed the career of my congresswoman, the extremist Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) a long time but I can’t say with certainty what she meant in her recent reference to the Supreme Court.

A longtime member of the socialist Congressional Progressive Caucus, the ornery old pinko and self-described radical seemed to be bashing the sole black member of the high court, Clarence Thomas.

Norton was quoted in The Hill saying President Obama will not pick a black judge to fill the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens: “We’re not sure this president is ever going to nominate another African-American to the court. [Barack Obama]’s African-American. We’ve got someone who proposes to be African-American on the court.”

Perhaps Norton was searching for the word purports when she said proposes.

Fortunately, as representative of a non-state, Norton doesn’t have a vote in Congress.

Let’s hope it stays that way.

Like another D.C. politico, the perpetually embarrassing Marion Barry, Holmes is a serial tax cheat. Even though the issue came up during Norton’s campaign for the District of Columbia seat in the House of Representatives in 1990, D.C. is so left-wing voters didn’t care.

Norton supports blatantly unconstitutional legislation pending in Congress that would give D.C. a voting seat in the House. The legislation is unconstitutional because the Constitution stipulates that only states shall have voting representation in Congress. The only constitutional path to full voting representation in Congress would be a constitutional amendment, but Norton knows that’s hard so like any good leftist she’s willing to shred the Constitution to get her way.

For a past civil rights campaigner, Norton is amazingly selective when it comes to which civil rights she supports. She detests gun rights and is a fervent opponent of the Second Amendment. She’s quite happy letting poor, defenseless people in bad parts of town get gunned down by criminals because to let them protect themselves by owning guns would be an affront to her liberal dogma.

To Norton, one dead constituent is a tragedy but a thousand dead constituents are a mere statistic.

She’s unhappy with the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in D.C. v. Heller, which struck down the District’s longstanding handgun ban. The D.C. city council has since enacted regulations allowing gun ownership but it’s expensive and a major-league hassle to jump through all the hoops the council erected to discourage gun ownership.

Norton’s delighted by this de facto handgun ban that makes poor District residents cannon fodder. After all, what’s a few dead constituents in the service of social justice?

Be Sociable, Share!
8 Responses leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry