Illegitimate Criminal peetus Selects SCOTUS Justice Who Sez Predisent Is Above The Law

I agree with Rob Reiner regarding the peetus selecting Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy.

It's official. Trump, who is now under investigation for obstruction of justice and conspiring with an enemy to destroy Democracy, has selected the judges who could rule on whether he can be forced to testify, be indicted or pardon himself. Autocracy here we come. VOTE!!!

— Rob Reiner (@robreiner) July 10, 2018

As per Kavanaugh, "...I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office [because] the indictment and trial of a sitting President... would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function...".

Gee, I wonder why the Putin puppet chose this guy. "Kavanaugh's arguments reject history, legal precedents, and the logic of a system that is supposed to place the rule of law over the rule of men" John Nichols of The Nation writes.

This opinion came after the hypocrite urged the impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying about a bj. A change of heart which suggests that when he said (in 2006) "he considered Roe v. Wade binding under the principle of stare decisis and would seek to uphold the ruling of the higher court", he can't be trusted.

Charlie Pierce, appearing by phone on the 7/10/2018 airing of the Stephanie Miller Show, said (regarding Brett) "he's terrible on guns. He's an absolute corporate puppet. He's awful on unions. He thinks the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional".

So Brett is anti-choice, pro-gun murder, anti-consumer, anti-worker and anti-environment. So he checks off all the Republican boxes. Republican are all about less rights for the plebs and more rights for the wealthy. And they get votes they need to institute their plutocratic agenda by pandering to the intolerant religious zealots and racist nationalist bigots (aka Trump's base).

BTW, Brett was accused of misleading the Senate during his confirmation hearing when he was nominated to the DC Appeals Court by Bush in 2003. So you know he's going to lie about totally being about upholding precedent... and totally fool Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.

Both have said they support the Roe V Wade decision and would oppose a SCOTUS pick who is "hostile" to it. Which Brett is. But I say they'll end up voting for Brett. #trumpdupe The Debonair Dude sez "Judge Kavanaugh is a strong willed constitutionalist". Suggesting he would be apolitical and judge strictly based on the Constitution. To which I say BULLPLOP!

What else do you need to know about Brett Kavanaugh other than he worked with Ken Starr to impeach Clinton, worked to help W win Bush v Gore Supreme Court case, and worked in both Bush White Houses. Recommended to Bush to put Alito and Roberts on the Court. He must be stopped.

— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) July 10, 2018

John Roberts peddled the same BS when he promised that his role, as a SCOTUS judge, would be to "call balls and strikes". A Daily Beast article from 6/18/2012 titled "John Roberts Is Just a Liar" describes Roberts and Alito as "politicians in robes".

Kavanaugh is another politician in a robe, as Michael Moore points out. A far Right politician who will serve the far right trumper agenda. F*ck precedent and the Constitution. Obviously of utmost importance (to the person who selected him) is protecting the colluding Putin-puppet. You KNOW that's why the Orange Turd selected him.

Unless you are a member of the Orange Turd Cult. Then you think Kavanaugh is fantastic and are overjoyed... that democracy is coming to an end and America will soon be fundamentally transformed into a fascistic oligarchic theocracy.

SWTD #406

On Vilifying Americans Unwilling To Assent To The New Orthodoxy (i.e. Calling Out Bigots Who Won't Stop Discriminating)

The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent ~ Samuel Alito, in his Obergefell v. Hodges dissent, 6/26/2015.

Friday June 26, 2015 will be recorded as an historic day for equality! On that day marriage discrimination was ended by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling [1], making the US the 21st country to legalize same sex marriage [2]. The majority ruled bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional due to such bans being in violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. Marriage equality is now the law in all 50 states, to the horror of the Religious Right bigots.

I have no doubt, that if you were to check out message boards where these types preach their hate, you would find many people speaking about how this is a victory for Satan! I consider this to be the opposite. God does not sanction hate in response to love. Love is not a sin. When "traditional marriage" laws are compared to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women, the comparison is accurate and the people making them SHOULD be vilified for their bigotry.

Religious Right bigots like televangelist James Robison [3], who warns that... legalizing same-sex marriage is part of a satanic intent to take away freedom". Robison further warns that we should "keep in mind the enemy of God – Satan himself – is the father of all lies" [4].

With the first warning I disagree. Allowing gay people to marry has no effect on straight marriage at all. Suggestions that they do are made only by people who are stupid. With Robinson's 2nd warning, however, I agree! Satan, I believe, is deceiving those who oppose marriage equality. That many of these televangelists have accumulated vast personal fortunes is proof of who they serve [5+6]. Preaching the word of God should not be a path to enormous wealth. These preachers are being deceived, and are deceiving their flocks.

Now it might be amusing to witness how these Religious Right bigots react. Although, let us pray there is no violence. According to what I've read, signatories to a "defend marriage pledge" have been instructed by Rick Scarborough, a prominent Baptist pastor in Texas and one of the authors of the pledge, to resist all government efforts to require them to accept gay marriage. He said some, including himself, would accept any fine, arrest or even jail time to protect their religious freedom [7].

There will be no constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as desired by Mike Huckabee [8] and others. Nor will there be any amendment kicking the decision back to the states, as called for by Scott Walker [9]. This issue is now settled! There is no going back. Hopefully the bigots will accept this sooner than later.

And now that the marriage issue is resolved, hopefully we can put an end to all the other areas in which LGBT people face discrimination? The idea of a comprehensive bill covering discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, credit and federal programs is gaining traction. A bill that does not allow discrimination under the ruse of a "religious exemption". Or we could simply amend "the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - which provides protections based on race, color, religion, sex or national - to include the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity".

Whatever the approach, it is past time to completely ban discrimination of any kind in these areas. But Congressional Republicans will no doubt stand in the way, just as they have done in the states (Republican-controlled state legislatures being responsible for all these anti-gay state laws).

Footnotes
[1] Marriage discrimination was ruled unconstitutional in the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges on 6/26/2015. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
[2] See here for listing of all 21 countries with marriage equality.
[3] James Robinson's Wikipedia page and Huffington Post bio.
[4] Robison: Satan himself and Demonic forcers are behind push for marriage equality by Brian Tashman. Rightwing Watch, 6/11/2013.
[5] Wikipedia notes that Robison's Christian relief organization "Life Outreach International" (which he is the president of) "third-world mission outreaches include distributing emergency food, drilling water wells, establishing orphanages, rescuing girls from sex trafficking, and providing medical care". However, his organization does not meet charity accountability standards. The author of the article "Beware of James Robinson's Ministry, David J. Stewart, says the reason for this warning (that LOI does not do proper disclosure) is "to expose the greedy televangelists who exploit Christianity to make money".
[6] Greedy Televangelists! Where is all that money going?
[7] Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum among anti-gay marriage pledge signees by The staff of The Guardian, 6/21/2015.
[8] Mike Huckabee: I will not bow to the Court on this gay marriage decision any more than the Founders bowed to British tyranny by AllahPundit. Hot Air 6/26/2015. My commentary: This dum-dum is equating the SCOTUS judge ruling for equality to British tyranny pre war for independence? What a frigging moron.
[9] Scott Walker calls for Constitutional amendment to let states define marriage by Daniel Strauss. Politico 6/26/2015.

SWTD #293

House Republicans Using Fake IRS Scandal To Defund Affordable Care Act

...this is the beginning of a generational battle... "Repeal ObamaCare" is going to be the battle cry for Republicans for the next 20 years or longer ~ Thom Hartmann (dob 5/7/1951) an American radio host, author, entrepreneur, and progressive political commentator. His nationally syndicated radio show has 2.75 million listeners a week. From 2008 to 2011, Talkers Magazine rated Hartmann the most popular liberal talk show host in America... an excerpt from hour 2 of the 6/29/2012 broadcast of his radio program... the day after the SCOTUS decision upholding most of the ACA (8:08 to 9:47).

On 6/5/2012 I authored a commentary titled, "Tea Party Groups Allowed To Hide Donors Real IRS Scandal". In this commentary I explained that the IRS "targeting" Conservative groups was not an Obama Administration scandal, but a Republican scandal, as Republican groups were applying for 501c4 tax exempt status, getting it (none were denied), and then politicking when the law forbids it. 501c4 status is for groups engaged exclusively in social welfare. If they wanted to politick they SHOULD have applied for the 527 tax exempt status. Under both 501c4 and 527 designations your group will be exempt from taxes. The difference is that under 501c4 status your donors remain anonymous, while under 527 status donors must be disclosed.

Conclusion? The Tea Party groups that applied for 501c4 status LIED to get it. They politicked in violation of the law and SHOULD have received extra scrutiny (or been "targeted"). The REAL scandal was that they were ALL approved! The reason they wanted 501c4 status and not 527 status was so they could HIDE THEIR DONORS. Karl Rove did just that with his two groups: one a SuperPac and the other a 501c4 that accepted donations anonymously and then re-gifted the money to the SuperPAC. Because the SuperPAC couldn't accept donations without disclosing who they were from, but the LAUNDERED money from the 501c4? Those donors remained secret.

Today I'm going to fill you in on the SECOND way in which the IRS scandal is actually a Republican scandal. House Republicans are going to cut the IRS budget so the Affordable Care Act cannot be implemented... or it's going to make it a hell of a lot more difficult, at least.

Following are some experts from a 6/15/2013 Associated Press story by Stephen Ohlemacher titled, "IRS scandals threaten funding for health care law". My commentary will follow each excerpt...

Stephen Ohlemacher: Mounting scandals at the Internal Revenue Service are jeopardizing critical funding for the agency as it gears up to play a big role in President Barack Obama's health care law. Obama sought a significant budget increase for the IRS for next year, when the agency will start doling out subsidies to help people buy health insurance on state-based exchanges. Congressional Republicans, however, see management problems at the IRS as an opportunity to limit the agency's funding just as it is trying to put in place the massive new law.

My Response: The scandals are Republican in nature, as I just pointed out. But does the "Liberal Media" mention this? No. I had to do a specific Google search to pull up those stories when I was researching the article I mention above. The vast majority of people who read this AP story will automatically assume the "scandals" are the "targeting" of Conservative groups and denying/delaying their 501c4 status, which most readers will believe they should have been granted posthaste (even though they should have all been rejected). Also, the wasting of taxpayer money on lavish conferences and parody "training" videos (more on that later).

SO: Republicans have been fighting the health care law ever since Democrats enacted it in 2010 without a single GOP vote. Unable to repeal the law, some Republicans hope to starve it by refusing to fund its implementation. The IRS scandals are giving them a timely excuse.

Me: The last time the House Republicans voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act was 5/16/2013, and that was the 37th vote! The Washington Post says, "the vote was 229 to 195, with two Democrats joining Republicans in voting for repeal. The Democrats were Mike McIntyre NC and Jim Matheson Utah". Shame on these Democrats. And shame on the Republicans for wasting taxpayer money in a pointless exercise, as the repeal won't be taken up by the Senate, would be voted down there if it were, and would be vetoed by the president if it got to his desk. And there is also the fact that the Supreme Court ruled the ACA constitutional (with GWb-appointed chief justice Roberts among those in the majority).

SO: Last month, the IRS was rocked by revelations that agents had targeted tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when the groups applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections. A few weeks later, an Inspector General's report said that the agency had spent lavishly on employee conferences during the same time period. From 2010 through 2012, the IRS spent nearly $50 million on employee conferences. In 2010, the agency used money that had been budgeted to hire enforcement agents to instead help pay for one conference that cost $4.1 million, according to the watchdog's report.

Me: Note that the IRS was "rocked" by these particular revelations and NOT by revelations that ALL the Conservative groups that applied for the 501c4 status were approved when they shouldn't have been (because they were politicking), and that these groups are using the status to HIDE their donors. The "Liberal Media" is doing a bang-up job of covering that story, aren't they? Not.

As for the report from the Inspector General that said the IRS "spent lavishly on employee conferences", not so says US News & World Report. A 6/12/2012 article titled, "What Was so Lavish About the IRS Employee Conference?" says "tax experts and lawyers who have been professionally involved in reviews and in setting up conferences say evidence of wrongdoing is slim". One quoted expert says, "you want them to be conducting training conferences at a time like this...". Another expert says that a "$4 million outlay for a three-day national convention would not be out of line for a national conference for more than 2,600 senior managers".

The article goes on to give other examples of how the IRS spent less on conference related items than is typical in the private sector. Yes, those "Star Trek" and "Gilligan's Island" training videos were lame and embarrassing, but again, according to a tax lawyer cited in the article, "the IRS has a big training challenge, and you want to see them addressing it in a creative and out-of-the-box way". Although the videos were "dumb", the tax lawyer concludes that "you can't fault them for trying".

In any case, the IRS director during the time they spent "lavishly" on conferences was Doug Shulman, a Republican bush appointee. Shulman was director of the IRS from 3/24/2008 to 11/9/2012. It was also during this time period that Conservative Tea Party goups were "targeted". And, while it was not Shulman who directed the "targeting" of the Tea Party groups, it was another Republican IRS manager (in the Cincinnati office) who did so.

The individual, whose name has not been revealed, says "he and an underling set aside Tea Party and Patriot groups because the organizations appeared to pose a precedent that could affect future IRS filings". According to Rep. Elijah Cummings the IRS manager "is a conservative Republican working for the IRS". Cummings correctly concluded, "I think this interview and these statements go a long way toward showing that the White House was not involved in this".

The person who resigned, "acting" director Steven Miller, wasn't in charge at the time. By the way, Miller was only an acting director because Senate Republicans have refused to confirm anyone to fill the position permanently under Obama. Republican obstruction in not confirming an IRS director chosen by the President is another aspect of the scandal which is being completely ignored by the media.

SO: "For years Republicans in Congress have made repeated attempts to stop and slow down the Affordable Care Act. This is just the latest attempt to put up roadblocks to implementing the law", White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.

Me: Exactly. If only Democrats would go on the offensive instead of saying saying things like... "based upon everything I've seen, the case is solved. And if it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on". No Rep. Cummings, the case is NOT solved! We need 501c4 reform so Conservative groups (any group really, but Conservative ones in particular) cannot abuse the designation and use it to hide donors and launder political donations.

SO: Democrats in Congress say they are growing tired of Republican attempts to repeal a law that has survived a review by the Supreme Court and whose main champion — Obama — won re-election last year. "The American people will see over the next six months the lengths the Republicans will go to destroy the implementation of the Affordable Care Act", said Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington state, a senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. "I'm sad about it, it's awful", McDermott added. "But sometimes in a democracy people have to learn the hard way, and the American public is going to learn".

Me: What the American public should learn is that they need to vote out as many of these obstructing Republicans as possible and return the House to Democratic hands. I am beyond tired with these Republican shenaggians, endless obstructing and fake scandals.

SWTD #168

Activist Tea Party Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place ~ Reagan appointed Florida Federal judge Roger Vision, in his 1/31/2011 ruling declaring the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.

"A federal judge in Florida ruled Monday that President Barack Obama's entire health care overhaul law is unconstitutional, placing even noncontroversial provisions under a cloud in a broad challenge that seems certain to be resolved only by the Supreme Court"; according to a 1/31/2011 Huffington Post article. The judge's ruling, which included an obvious shout-out to the Tea Party, was characterized by the White House as "a plain case of judicial overreaching".

Four court rulings have thus far been handed down - with two judges upholding the health care legislation and two judges ruling against it. The two ruling in favor of ObamaCare were Democratic appointees, while the two ruling against were Republican appointees. A 2/1/2011 CNN reporter believes the case could head to the Supreme Court "as soon as later this year". How the Supreme Court will rule is "far less predictable than it might seem from the ruling by Judge Vinson".

A 2/4/2011 article from Global Research points out that while "The five Republican-appointed judges certainly embrace the political rhetoric of the ultra-right ... the entire court, including the four Democratic appointees, has been assiduously pro-corporate in their ruling[s]".

How the Supreme Court ultimately decides, I believe, will depend on what the health insurance companies truly desire, and not the what the Tea Party wants. Will the health insurance corporations want to overturn a law that mandates virtually every American purchase their product? Businessweek says "Insurers and other health care companies view the mandate as the law's bedrock - and the source of new profits".

Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) says, in regards to elements of the legislation that he agrees with, "[they] need to be preserved, need to be cuddled, need to be snuggled, need to be promoted and need to be implemented". Because "Frist has a fortune in the millions of dollars, most of it the result of his ownership of stock in Hospital Corporation of America, the for-profit hospital chain founded by his brother and father", my guess would be that the individual mandate is one of the "strong elements" he agrees with.

So, while FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe and Utah's Tea Party Senator Mike Lee believe ObamaCare will be overturned, I think the Tea Partiers, including those who responded to a recent World Net Daily poll (see below), may end up quite disappointed.

On the other hand, we know that (at least) two Supreme Court justices are sympathetic to the Tea Party. Antonin Scalia met with the House Tea Party caucus on 1/24/2011. Law professor and MSNBC contributor Jonathan Turley observed that the closed-door get-together, "suggests an alliance between the conservative members of the court and the conservative members of Congress".

And then there's Ginny Thomas, wife of SCOTUS justice Clarence Thomas, who "started a nonprofit Tea Party-affiliated lobbying group, Liberty Central [to oppose the] leftist tyranny of President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats". Ginny's group has lobbied against the health care legislation.

Can the House Republicans, which recently voted to repeal the "job killing" health care legislation, count on their activist Supreme Court allies to rule ObamaCare unconstitutional, or will the activists on the Supreme Court back their corporate buddies instead? I can't find anyone who believes with certainty the outcome will be one over the other. What do you think?

Further Reading
[1] Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance - In 1798 by Rick Ungar, Forbes 1/17/2011.
[2] Our Socialist Founding Fathers by Mark Brown, Jurist 10/12/2009.

SWTD #61

Racism is Patriotic And Other Right Wing Delusions

Racism isn't born, folks, it's taught. I have a two-year-old son. You know what he hates? Naps! End of list ~ Denis Leary, American Actor (DOB 8/18/1957).

This commentary is in response to a blog post from "The Oracular Opinion", a right-leaning site I visit infrequently. I say my visits are infrequent because, as of late, I have given up blogging and the reading of other's blogs. I decided to check in today, however, and after composing a reply, decided to turn my comments there into a post for my blog.

The issue the proprietor of "The Oracular Opinion" was concerned about was that five students at the Live Oak High School (in California) who wore T-shirts with the America flag on them (on Cinco de Mayo) had their free speech right violated when the Principal sent them home. The Principal determined that wearing the flag T-shirts on that particular day was incendiary.

"The Oracular Opinion" called for it's readers to show their support for the students who organized the "display of patriotism", by reposting Chris W's (a Libertarian blogger) thoughts (from his blog) on their blog. I agree with the sentiment. Which is why I've decided to post my support for the wronged party - the students who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo and subjected to an ugly display of racism in the process! As a frequent poster to "The Oracular Opinion" pointed out - the wearing of the T-shirts on that particular day could certainly be interpreted as a big "up yours" to the Hispanic students.

Other ethnicities have days on which they celebrate their heritage, such as St. Patrick's Day (Irish), Oktoberfest (German) and others. It seems to me that nobody has a problem with anybody who wishes to honor their heritage by celebrating one of these ethnic holidays. The only ethnic holidays some people seem to have a problem with are those celebrated by individuals with brown skin.

The Principal who decided to send the students home was later pressured into apologizing. Perhaps he was being overly PC, but I do not believe he was wrong for taking the feelings of the Hispanic students into consideration. If he felt that they had worn the T-shirts on purpose to make a statement against the celebration of Cinco de Mayo I believe he was correct to send them home. And he should have stuck to his guns and stood by his original condemnation of the American flag T-shirt wearing student's ugly display of racism.

Or not. After reading the actual news story, I think what really happened was that the students just acted insensitively. They saw the Hispanic students celebrating Cinco de Mayo during previous years and thought that they'd counter their fellow student's enthusiasm with a "patriotic" display of their own. When it was pointed out that they were being insensitive and perhaps they should apologize, their response was "fat chance".

Since insensitivity to the ethnic background of anyone whose heritage is different than yours is a vital component of being a patriotic American (or so the Right-wing would have you believe), I've concluded that this really isn't that big a deal. We just need to get these kids (and their parents) some diversity training.

Who we really should be condemning here are people like Chris W who use opportunities like this to spread their lies about America being under attack. Specifically he said that "our history, our culture and our way of life has been assailed by forces from within to the point to where if you celebrate America and what it stands for, you are called a racist, a Nazi or a tea-bagger".

He concluded by urging his readers to "band together to show the anti-America crowd that we will not accept these assaults on free speech and patriotism". This is all complete nonsense of course. It is, however, in line with the "culture warrior" BS perpetrated by the likes of Bill O'Reilly.

As for Chris W's claim that these student's free speech rights were infringed upon - in "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District", the Supreme Court ruled that students do not "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door". But the ruling also said that schools do have the ability to restrict the free speech rights of students if it is "necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others".

So the students acted insensitively and perhaps the Principal overreacted. In the end, I don't really care. What I do care about is posts like Chris W's. My conclusion, based on his blog post, is that those on the Right (Republicans and Libertarians) believe that racism is patriotic. Perhaps you've heard that Libertarians support open borders? The Libertarian party platform states that they believe "economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders", and they "condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant".

However, "freedom" and "liberty" demand that individuals be free to practice racism if they so desire. Rand Paul and John Stossel have been in the news recently voicing their support for the right of private businesses to ban anyone from their property they want to. Of course Mr. Paul and Mr. Stossel both droned on regarding how abhorrent they would deem such a decision to be. And they claim that they would not patronize such a business. I find their protests unconvincing.

In my opinion these arguments are simply a smokescreen used to enable racism. Why else would this Libertarian blogger be so eager to use this story to perpetuate the myth about America being "under attack"? (which plays into the Right-wing meme that we should blame the brown people for our problems).

The effect of Arizona's recent anti-immigrant laws has been to drive Hispanics away from the Republican party. Hopefully this law never is prevented from going into effect, although I have heard that people are presently being stopped and asked to present their papers proving citizenship or lawful right to be in the country. However, regardless of what happens, at least the Republican Party has been exposed for the bigots they are.

Or, at least to the majority of Hispanics. Otherwise it seems that these laws are receiving (unbelievably) broad support. How long will people continue to buy into these Right-wing delusions? We do not need a border fence. I am in support of protecting the wages of our workforce from being driven down by an influx of cheap labor, but the way to do this is through programs like E-Verify. Republicans going after the victims (Hispanics fleeing poverty and enticed to cross our borders by corporations offering them employment) is not the answer.

Republicans claim we need to close the border first for a reason. Because they don't really want to cut off the source of cheap labor their corporate donors crave. What they really want is to keep the "illegals" afraid. So afraid that when their employers force them to work "off the clock" or under hazardous conditions - they don't complain.

And the Republicans (and Libertarians) want us to know whom to blame for our declining wages - the brown people. This is why they encourage racism with preposterous claims of America being "under attack". This is why they have countered "diversity training" with the term "politically correct".

This is also why they attack the Left. Because the Left rejects the notion that we should blame the victims - the "illegal" aliens fleeing poverty who would not be coming here if nobody would hire them once they arrived - for our immigration problems. And because we support a "path to citizenship". Not because it's an ideal solution, but, again, because we do not believe in punishing the victim.

In conclusion I urge you not to fall for arguments like Chris W's. "America" (Loony Libertarians and far-right tea-bagger types) is not "under attack". They claim they are victims when, in actuality, they're attempting to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment. Because this is what the wealthy fascists who fund their astroturf organizations want you to believe. It's simple misdirection. Blame the "brown people" and not the wealthy corporatists who actually are to blame for the decline of the Middle Class.

SWTD #40

George W. Bush's Activist Supreme Court Rules For Fascism

I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country ~ Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States (3/4/1801 to 3/4/1809), in a letter to George Logan (11/12/1816)

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule (From the "Motion to Amend" website).

In an email dated 1/21/2010, author and political commentator David Sirota writes...

DS: By now I'm sure you've heard that the Supreme Court today not only reaffirmed that corporations are people, but that corporations may spend an unlimited amount of money to tilt election campaigns. This is a radical ruling that threatens the most basic fundamentals of American democracy. That's why I'm asking you to sign this petition for a Constitutional amendment that would declare that corporations are NOT people. Sign the petition [here], and then send this [link] on to as many people as you know. We are living in a nation that, as I said in my first book, is the victim of a hostile takeover by Big Money interests. This Supreme Court ruling today will complete that hostile takeover and shred the last remnants of democracy. In short, we will become a complete corporatocracy. Corporations are not people - they live forever and they can commit crime and cannot be put in jail. Moreover, the rights of personhood are not merely being extended to American corporations - this ruling means that foreign multinational corporations that operate in the United States will have more power over our election system than American citizens themselves. So again, I implore you to sign this petition and forward it on to as many people as you can. These are dark times - but we cannot give up. Rock the boat.

From the Move to Amend website...

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to... Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count. Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

In my strong opinion the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling is straight up facism. The Right says it is against activist judges and in favor of original intent. These are both lies. Chief Justice John Roberts, a member of the fascist Federalist Society, has argued in favor of corporate personhood his entire career.

This is the reason Preznit bush appointed him. Specifically he chose John Roberts to reward him for his help in stealing the 2000 election.

Further Reading
[1] Right-wing media absurdly declare Obama admin acted in "illegal" and "unconstitutional" manner by "forcing" BP to create escrow account 1/23/2010.
[2] Supreme Court ruling denounced as disastrous, shameful, a mockery, by Steven C. Day. Buzz Flash 1/22/2010.
[3] Useful Idiots of the Coup, by Madeleine Lee. United for Peace 1/22/2010.
[4] Citizens United decision is Terrifying, by Jason Linkins. The Huffington Post 1/21/2010.
[5] With no limits on campaign financing, corporations will take over the government: A special comment (Transcript), Countdown with Keith Olbermann 1/21/2010.

SWTD #38