Justice Clarence Thomas' wife launches tea party group

By GottaLaff

Guess whose "other half" is a tea tantrumer! Mrs. Clarence Thomas, aka Ginni! You read that correctly. She also happened to create Liberty Central Inc..

And what is Liberty Central, you ask? Why, that's a nonprofit lobbying group. Mrs. SCOTUS created it, and it has its very own website that will "organize activism around a set of conservative 'core principles,'" she said.

They're going to provide score cards for Congress members. They're also going to involve themselves in Election 2010, but Ginni wouldn't say how.

She said it would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.

As the Church Lady would say, "how conveeeeenient."

"I adore all the new citizen patriots who are rising up across this country," Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said on the panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I have felt called to the front lines with you, with my fellow citizens, to preserve what made America great."

Aww, Mrs. SCOTUS doesn't just support the tea tantrumers, she "adores" them. How compassionately conservative of her.

Experts say Virginia Thomas' work doesn't violate ethical rules for judges. But Liberty Central could give rise to conflicts of interest for her husband, they said, as it tests the norms for judicial spouses.

Gee, ya think?

Under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage. [...]

In a brief phone interview, she did not directly answer questions about whether she and her husband had discussed the effects her role might have on perceptions of his impartiality.

Avoidance is always the best policy when you don't want to address a controversy. Way to go, Thomaseseses!

Mrs. SCOTUS isn't as "impartial" as her hubby Mr. SCOTUS claims to be:

Virginia Thomas has long been a passionate voice for conservative views. She has worked for former Republican Rep. Dick Armey of Texas and for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with strong ties to the GOP. [...]

Although Liberty Central is a nonpartisan group, its website shows an affinity for conservative principles. Her biography notes that Thomas is a fan of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America."

"She is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully," the bio says.

I'm sure Judge Clarence sticks his fingers in his ears and sings Lalalalala! when Bellowing Beck pops on the ol' Tee Vee Machine.

But about that pesky impartiality:

But it would be up to Justice Thomas to decide whether to recuse himself. He could not be reached for comment.

As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Liberty Central can raise unlimited amounts of corporate money and largely avoid disclosing its donors.

And of course, Mr. Impartial had nothing to do with that decision.

Because of a recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the group may also spend corporate money freely to advocate for or against candidates for office.

Justice Thomas was part of the 5-4 majority in that case.

Of course, I'm sure he had to excuse himself during the deliberation process. Glenn Beck was on, and the DVR was on the blink.

A conservative leap by Supreme Court

By GottaLaff

I often use the original title of an article to adhere to the original intent of the author.

The L.A. Times title to this piece was "A bold conservative step by Supreme Court". I didn't want to use that title, because the world "bold" has too positive a connotation, and "step" was too understated.

There was a lot more to the piece than this, but here are a few takeaway snippets:

Roberts has shown that when he has the support of moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, he is willing to move boldly on behalf of conservative causes. Long-standing laws and precedents need not stand in the way. [...]

If the Democrats find a way to enact a healthcare law that requires all Americans to have health insurance or else pay a tax, it will face a sure constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court. And there is less reason to be sure such a challenge would fail. [...]

The court's ruling jolted Congress, particularly Democrats. They will have to think twice before supporting legislation that could provoke corporations or industries to target them for defeat in November. [...]

But never has Roberts gone so far to reshape the law as he did in the campaign finance decision, raising questions about what will happen the rest of this year and in the years ahead.
Last week's ruling may be the first of several to reshape the 1st Amendment in a more conservative direction.

"They will have to think twice before supporting legislation that could provoke corporations or industries to target them for defeat in November."

Read that again. And again.

And that is part of what led to Why I Cried.

Supreme Court goes for ‘One dollar, one vote’

By GottaLaff

This is a scary truth:

Another way of looking at it: A very rough estimate puts total union income at about $10 billion per year. Most of that goes to pay staff and officer salaries, rent, utilities, arbitrators' fees and other necessary expenses. That might leave $1 billion left over for "discretionary" spending -- organizing, member education, political action. (*See note below.)

Corporate profits are in the neighborhood of $1,300 billion per year. This corporate discretionary money pool is 1,300 times as large as labor's. This is the pool each side can dip into for political campaigns. When you hear about the political influence of "big corporations" and "big labor", the real story is that of the corporate shark and the union sardine.

Please go read the whole thing. He qualifies his estimates.

There is much more to the piece, but he makes a great point that, forgetting all other arguments for the moment, there is such an imbalance here. If corporations and unions are now people, then Mr. Corporation is Mr. Moneybags, and Mr. Union is Mr. Peanut.

Well, not exactly people.

Do not pass go, do not collect, well, much of anything.

The Brainwashing of America, SCOTUS edition: Special Comment by my 72-year-old friend

By GottaLaff


My very caring, impassioned 72-year-old Twitter pal, who goes by the name 42bkdodgr, would like to share his feelings about the Supreme Court's latest jaw-dropping decision. I am more than happy to oblige.

But first, a personal note from 42bkdodgr:

Many of you may wonder why I chose to use the “ 72 year old friend” as the introduction to my Special Comments. I selected the moniker so readers could see that from my age and life experiences I give a different perspective to the issues of today.

Now for his Special Comment:

Brainwashing of America Part II

In my previous comment, I wrote about how the Conservative Republicans were trying to brainwash Americans by saying the 9/11 terrorist attacks didn’t happen on President George W. Bush’s watch.

Well, this fall you are possibly going to see the Brainwashing of Americans Part II, unless action is taken by Congress. I say this because yesterday the United States Supreme Court ruled that the government may not place any financial restrictions on corporations for spending on candidates in elections. In effect the Court is treating corporate speech the same as that of a human being.

Shareholders of a corporation are made up of individuals who maybe Democrats, Republicans, Independents and in some cases of people who may not be eligible to vote in an election. Yet the Supreme Court ruling will allow a corporation to use corporate general funds on a campaign even if their views may be contrary to the views of its shareholders.

Therefore I think its important for Congress to enact a law that would prohibit the use of corporate general funds on a campaign without first receiving shareholder approval.

In addition, Federal election laws limits the contributions an individual may make to a candidate; but the Court ruling places no limits on what a corporation may spend (not directly to a candidate) in campaigning for a candidate.

Now, who do you think will have greater influence on the election of candidate via its media ads in determining an election? Without a doubt, a corporation. This ruling makes corporate money more powerful than an individual’s vote. The old slogan ‘ the power of the people’ will have little or no meaning in future elections.

In addition, there has to be some accountability, with severe penalties, on corporations for what they say in campaign ads. Any information stated, such as in a 30 second corporate sound bites, must be truthful and verifiable or it will only lead to the brainwashing of Americans as the misinformation ad is repeated over and over.

As the Court set no such accountability standards, it's important that Congress provide penalties for untruthful ads, otherwise instead of these ads educating the electorate, they will be brainwashing the electorate.

Many thanks again for another important, relevant piece, 42bkdodgr. You often say what many of us are thinking and feeling, and we thank you for your unique perspective.

Will Foreign Companies Now Influence U.S. Elections?

By GottaLaff

Dear Supreme Court Gang of 5,

You pretty much suck.

Sincerely,

Laffy

I could have been more eloquent, but why bother? I am furious, TPC readers are furious, Twitterers are furious, Keith Olbermann is furious, Erwin Chemerinsky is furious, and we're all very, very concerned about our democracy slipping away:

Newsweek reports that foreign businesses might be the real winners in yesterday's Supreme Court decision on campaign finance that now "allows corporations and unions to spend limitless amounts of money on presidential and congressional political campaigns. A majority of large businesses are now owned by foreign entities, and this means international corporations could pour tons of money into the United States political scene, potentially swaying the political climate."

Who are the judicial activists now?

By GottaLaff

I'm trying my best to push through my Nyquil hangover and debilitating coughing fits to get back to posting again.

I'll start with a shorty but pithy one, via the L.A. Times, by Erwin Chemerinsky. It's about that little, insignificant, minor ruling by SCROTUS (<--- courtesy of Elvis Dingeldein), er, SCOTUS:

The conservative majority, which in recent years has dramatically limited free speech in other areas -- such as for government employees and for students -- was willing to expand the free speech of corporations. There is no way to see this other than as the conservative justices using judicial review to advance the traditional conservative ideological agenda.

Almost 10 years ago, in Bush vs. Gore, the five conservative justices for the first time decided a presidential election. One would have thought that decision would have laid to rest the notion that judicial activism is a tool of liberal judges and revealed that the real judicial activism today is from the right. Perhaps Thursday's decision will finally reveal the truth.

Please read the whole thing. That was just a snippet.

School: Obama speech too political, film of Muslim beheading infidels dandy

By GottaLaff

Mom, is Obama bad? At school today, they said I couldn't watch a Commiecrat talk about good study habits.

Mom, are beheadings good? At school today, they let me watch a movie about Muslims doing that:

A 17-year-old student is seeking counseling after her class at Pulaski County High School watched a short film that showed beheadings and other violence allegedly committed by Muslims, her father said Tuesday.

"Fitna", Rated G. Fun for the whole family!

Dad, Mom, please pass the popcorn? This is the good part! Oh em gee! That guy's head actually bounced! Aw man, there was hardly any blood!

Bill Cruey said his daughter Amber was horrified by images of children being injured and dead bodies interspersed with readings from the Quran while watching the film "Fitna," made by the anti-Islam and anti-immigration Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders. The film was shown to the class on Sept. 11.

Maybe Prez O should have wielded a machete while he discussed good study habits.

Eaton said the film was shown to about 10 students in the leadership class.

Because nothing says leadership like violent head removal.

Since the controversy arose, he said his daughter has been ridiculed and feels like an outcast at the school.

Pshyeah! Cuz, like, all the kewl kids are into beheadings.

Aly A. Farag, imam at a Louisville mosque, criticized the school for exposing students to a "very tilted and utterly hateful message about a religion."

"They are blatantly and willingly participating in smearing a religion in front of kids who do not have the full picture," said Farag, a University of Louisville engineering professor.

Presenting such a message can turn children into "haters, not peacemakers," he said. Farag said almost all Muslims "never showed any pride in Sept. 11, never associated with it, never wanted it to happen."

Stay tuned for coming attractions of "Barack Hussein Obama: Muslim Indoctrinator or Marxist Baby Killer ?"

H/t: Gr8RDH, mparent77772

VIDEO: "Tea Party Express" gets free publicity from Fox, CNN

By GottaLaff



The only report on the so-called Tea Party Express that I've seen was one rather pathetic one on CNN (I don't watch Cluster Fox).

As the reporter struggled (I am not exaggerating) to make the gathering sound newsworthy, the scene behind him was pretty embarrassing. The crowd looked sparse and unenthusiastic until the cameras were turned directly on specific individuals, at least IMHO.

But that didn't stop our dedicated Corporate Media:

The first was a [CNN] fluff piece about what a cool bus the people on the tour get to ride in. Awesome, dood.

Then Tony Harris did an interview with Mark Williams, the chief spokesman for Our Country Deserves Better PAC, the organization behind the "Tea Party Express." [...]

Most of all, Williams was able to flatly deceive the CNN audience about their purpose and intent. [...]

Harris, though, pretended throughout the segment that they were purely a nonpartisan outfit only angry about overtaxation. [...]

The "Our Country Deserves Better" PAC, in fact, was founded in August 2008 -- before the election -- specifically to oppose Barack Obama and his policies. (They called it "drawing contrasts between Senator Barack Obama and John McCain".) In October 2008, for instance, Williams was out on the stump campaigning against Obama as a "socialist" on a previous bus tour called the "Stop Obama Express". They've also runs ads comparing Obama to Hitler.

But that's not all, kids! Lookee here! ClusterFox is actively promoting it:

Clicking through to Fox Nation's "All Aboard" article, one finds nothing but promotions for the Express, including the final sentence: To find out how to participate in the Tea Party Express events across the country, CLICK HERE.

(click on image to enlarge)

And we wonder why the Democrats are struggling to get their message out? How can they when the airwaves are monopolized by anti-TeddyCare lies and propaganda?

Of course, it wouldn't hurt if our side got their act together, either. This approach is a good start.

VIDEO: Pollster Frank Luntz tries to convince focus group to oppose health care reform

By GottaLaff

"I know what rage is about," Luntz says. He sure does. He foments it:



Maybe he'll get fired... again.

Shallow Thoughts: No bias, no bull edition

By GottaLaff

Today's Shallow Thought:

If Campbell Brown would spend more time reporting stories instead of biasing and bulling her way through all that redundant Obama bashing, she'd have a much more enjoyable show.

That was Today's Shallow Thought, no bias, no bull. Thank you for wading in.

Awww, come on, Obama can be flexible with Fitzgerald's schedule, can't he?

By GottaLaff

Another chance for the news media [sic] to mangle the truth and manufacture suspicion about all those crimes that Obama's "keeping from us":

On Thursday, President-elect Obama will hold his fourth press conference in four days. He's expected to announce his appointment of Mary Schapiro as head of the SEC. It's scheduled for 10:45 am ET.

NBC News notes that in 11 press conferences so far, Obama has taken 48 questions.

Biased Brown does it again. Campbell "No Bias, No Bull" Senor is so in the tank for the GOP, it's to the point where she doesn't even try to hide it any more. (That was for all you trolls out there who froth on about "liberal media bias!!" Which universe do you inhabit?)

Jeffrey Toobin, one of the better talking heads and an accomplished attorney in his own right, was discussing-- what else?-- the Blagoeiiucbpuwqaich matter with Biased. He gave a very articulate, very straightforward explanation of why Obama is waiting until next week (per his latest press conference) to reveal whatever he can.

At that point, after Toobin had just finished reporting exactly what Obama had explained, exactly what Patrick Fitzgerald had requested, exactly the-- What's that word again? Oh yeah-- facts, Biased protested. Fitz has made it clear to anyone who bothered to listen: Obama has to keep his mouth shut for another week. So.... What does Biased ask?

[paraphrased] Well, come on, waiting until Christmas week... that's the same as a Friday White House dump when they're trying to hide something. Obama's the president-elect! He can certainly be a little flexible!

After which Toobin put her in her place.

Really? Is she that stupid? Biased, Full-o'-Bull Brown-Senor has no place on the airwaves if she can't even come close to acknowledging the truth. Making unrealistic demands, despite the U.S. Attorney's requests to the contrary, is insulting to Fitz, and to us as a viewing audience.