Clarence Thomas pushing vaccine conspiracy theories

"Uncle Clarence" needs to sit down and shut up. How did this maniac end up as a judge at all, much less one the supposed "highest court"?

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...d-from-the-cells-of-aborted-children-00043483

 

Well, he's on a diet of fruitz and nutz, that takes a toll.

 

Is he really a Vagan?

 

No idea really.

 

Thomas hasn't pushed any vaccine conspiracy theories, but Pharma, Pfauci and the rest of the Medical Industrial Complex certainly have. That 'safe and effective' claim is still being advanced by the Covidian Cult.

 

You are repeating fake news: Either your sources are idiots or they are confident that their audience is. Al Gore invented the internet so that you could check claims rather than be so easily fooled. One day you will actually do this, rather than embarrass yourself, again, and you'll feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment.

​

Lying Fake News Politico claimed that Justice Thomas claimed that COVID-19 vaccines were developed from cells from aborted children, a claim that Lying Fake News Politico insisted was false.

“They object on religious grounds to all available COVID-19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” Thomas said in a quote cited by Politico. In response to this claim, Politico insisted, “None of the Covid-19 vaccines in the United States contain the cells of aborted fetuses.”

Lying Fake News Told Two Lies:

After being called out as bald-faced liars, Lying Fake News Politico was finally forced to admit that justice Thomas didn’t actually make the statement:

"An earlier version of this report misattributed the claim that Covid-19 vaccines were “developed using cell lines derived from aborted children” to Thomas. The headline and article have been updated to directly state that Thomas was referencing petitioners’ claims."

Lying Politico's other fake news claim is that no one claimed "the vaccine contained cells from aborted fetuses. It’s that these cells were used in the development of the vaccines—which is factually correct. Lying Fake News Politico was forced to admit this lie as well.

Please promptly issue a correction apologizing for spreading misinformation on this board.

Also please also apologize for your racist slander of Justice Thomas by referring to him as UNCLE Clarence.

 

Politico issued a retraction to the story so it wasn't "fake news" at the time the OP posted this.

And, Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom, loser, creep and idiot. Just because he didn't say this doesn't mean he has not said 1,654,983,652 other things that on par.

 

@Gateman_Wen, Politico issued a retraction on July 1, 2022.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/polit...s-promoted-covid-vaccine-aborted-fetus-theory

 

Yes it was. It was always a false claim the instant it was made.

Your claim there tells us much more about you than the Good Justice Thomas

Fearless Justice Thomas Leads The Final Slave Rebellion:

Free People With The Means To Remain Free.​

Clarence Thomas' Favorite Anarchist - Lysander Spooner.

"In his concurring opinion in the landmark gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago, Good Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas offered a sweeping account of how the anti-slavery movement laid the foundations for the 14th Amendment, which declares, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." As Thomas explained, the authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment wanted the recently freed slaves to enjoy all of the rights they had long been denied, including the rights protected by the Second Amendment. The evidence he cited included the writings of the Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner (1808–1887), who argued that among its many crimes, slavery violated the "natural right of all men 'to keep and bear arms' for their personal defence."

The 14th Amendment was our second founding. While slavery was ALWAYS unconstitutional, before the 14th amendment it was not clear that Government was fully empowered to secure all these rights and privileges and safeguard all, against ALL oppressors. Layer by layer, with Justice Thomas currently leading this 150 year long journey to more secure and complete freedom, the onion layers are steadily being removed from the covering over this great truth.

"Spooner was a key figure in the abolitionist movement and one of the most innovative legal and political thinkers of the 19th century. At a time when abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison denounced the Constitution as a pro-slavery "covenant with death and an agreement with hell," Spooner responded with a powerful book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (1845), making him a hero to the anti-slavery Liberty Party and a major influence on the abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass. An individualist anarchist and tireless foe of government overreach, Spooner published a brilliant defense of jury nullification, argued that victimless crime laws should be taken off the books."

​

"Unlike the slaveholders and abolitionists, who both saw the Constitution as permitting human bondage, Spooner held that the document in fact forbade slavery and empowered the federal government to wipe it out. Slavery violated every tenet of "Natural Law," and could therefore only be justified by positive, or man-made, legal strictures. Yet in order for such laws to possess any validity, they would have to be "clear, definite, distinct, express, explicit, unequivocal, necessary and peremptory," leaving no doubt whatsoever about their pro-slavery agenda. After all, the stated purpose of the Constitution was to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." If the document were to permit slavery—the most extreme violation of liberty short of murder—it had to be absolutely clear about it. Yet just look at the Constitution, Spooner instructed, where "not even the name of the thing, alleged to be sanctioned, is given."

Spooner: "This is the true test for determining whether the constitution does, or does not, sanction slavery," he wrote. "Whether a court of law, strangers to the prior existence of slavery or not assuming its prior existence to be legal—looking only at the naked language of the instrument—could, consistently with legal rules, judicially determine that it sanctioned slavery. Every lawyer, who deserves that name, knows that the claim for slavery could stand no such test."

Frederick Douglass soon concurred: "The escaped former slave who would later become the most influential black leader of the post–Civil War era. Douglass had previously damned the Constitution as an "agreement with hell," but in an 1851 editorial he said "a careful study of the writings of Lysander Spooner" prompted him to change his mind. "Take the Constitution according to its plain reading, I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it." In fact, Douglass told the crowd, "Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document."

While Frederick swept the North with that argument, Spooner traced Jury Nullification all the way back through our rich traditions to the Magna Carta. The final government check against tyranny is when the government presents its case against a Free Person to a jury of the Free Person's peers, and there, if a law be unjust or illegitimate, the Jury has the power to forbid the administration of sanctions or guilt on the innocent person, regardless of the desires of the government.

The three legs undergirding the platform of Liberty: Ballot Box, Jury Box, Cartridge Box.
"For Frederick Douglass, this position translated into the slogan, "No war but an Abolition war; no peace but an Abolition peace." As the war came to a close in 1865, Douglass began the tireless work of securing that "Abolition peace." This meant explaining to lawmakers, voters, journalists, and anyone else who would listen why "no class of people could live and flourish in this country" without "the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box." Blacks required the same right to life, liberty, and property as whites, Douglass declared. Nothing less would do."

https://reason.com/2010/09/16/clarence-thomas-favorite-anarc/

Though you do not now see it, you are living in one of the momentous advances of Liberty in a half dozen generations, but, one day looking back you will be grateful that you saw this first hand.

 

I find it hilarious that you're willing to believe PJ media over politico.

And Uncle Clarence he was dubbed by Samuel L. Jackson himself so Uncle Clarence he will be forevermore. Better get used to it.

 

I can find Faux claiming a retraction was issued but I can't find the retraction itself. And the article is still up and unaltered.

 

I find it hilarious that you believe Politico's fake news but not Politico's retractions.

 

Post it.

 

This is what I found on it. It appears the statement, itself, is accurate, but is mischaracterized relative to the vaccines being used in the US. That's how I read it.



https://dailycaller.com/2022/07/01/...ronavirus-vaccine-abortion-fetal-cell-tissue/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clarence-thomas-cells-aborted/

 

That is not any different than you not believing their news but believing the retraction. /smdh

Being condescending is not a good look for Trumpers. You all don't do it well, as a group.

 

But still not the retraction they have claimed?

 

They probably were legally obligated to publish the retraction because the statement is mischaracterized.

He did make the statement - that part is true.
It was slanted that he was referring to the vaccines shipping to or made and used in the US - which is not true.

He's still a major POS and should be impeached along with the liars that just reeked havoc on women across the country.

 

Actually, he didn't say THAT; he said that was the argument the defendants were using.

 

I'm not the one who posted the false claim that titles and is the subject of the OP. I posted the truth about it. You're welcome!

​

Be thankful that you live in a nation where a Free People have the Liberty to post the Truth.

 

Have you seen this retraction?

 

It's at the bottom of the original article. Legally, it's not a "retraction" as the statement, itself, is true. This is a "correction".



https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/30/clarence-thomas-covid-vaccines-dissent-00043483

 

Lying Fake News:



Media Hoax: News Outlets Misreport Justice Clarence Thomas Quote in NY Vaccine Mandate Case.

Justice Thomas wants to rehear Sullivan, the case that gave the Lying Fake News a license to lie while making it very difficult for those they lie about to collect damages for the harm done to them by their lying.

Freedom's Final Revolt.
​

"Justice Clarence Thomas urged the Supreme Court on Monday to revisit libel protections set by the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case — the court should reconsider the standards that make it harder for public figures to sue media organizations" that libel and slander them.

Thomas dissented from the Court's decision to not take on a defamation case.

 

Imagine you feeling like it's okay to call him and Uncle Tom....
Maybe if he calls himself a Christian you can go for the trifecta and call him whatever else you want.

And here we had all thought that you only claim that white males are the victims of the oppressors or the oppressors of the victims!

Basically in your world anyone with a conservative opinion is the oppressor of every victim in your book which includes everyone that's not a white male

 

Please don’t forget fascist and traitor

 

@cd8ed,