http://blogs.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/8386
By Tanya Roth on February 2, 2010 2:10 PM
Unless you have been spending the bulk of your time on the International Space Station lately, and even then, you have heard a great deal about the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. That ruling, overturning decades of legal precedent and the bulk of the McCain Feingold Act will, most agree, send cannon balls of corporate money whizzing at high speed toward the election process, with potentially devastating results.
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who stepped down from the bench in 2006 and who was a supporter of campaign finance reform, made her thoughts known on the subject this past week. She said that she hoped the ruling would not allow a landslide of corporate money to unduly effect elections, but feared it would.
According to ABC News, Justice O'Connor also highlighted another area of concern when speaking to an audience at Georgetown Law School. Her main worry, and one not often commented on, is the effect the new rules (or lack thereof) for corporate spending will have on the election of judges at all levels of sate courts. "This rise in judicial campaigning makes last week's opinion in Citizens United a problem for an independent judiciary," she said in her speech in Washington. O'Connor went on to note that nearly 80% of state judges face election at some point during their time on the bench.
Last year's case regarding the election of a West Virginia judge only reinforces Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's concerns. According to an ABC News investigation, mining executives spent millions of dollars on the election of a member of the West Virginia Supreme Court. The judge then presided over a case brought before him involving the same mining company. It came as no surprise when the same judge then cast the swing vote in favor of the mining company. That particular case, Caperton v. Massey, made its way to the High Court and was decided by a 5-4 majority, this time finding that the judge's refusal to recuse himself was seen to be, per the majority opinion, "an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal."
It is clear Justice O'Connor, among others, is concerned over how many more cases like Caperton will continue to spring up like mushrooms after the rain of corporate cash begins.
Related Resources:
* O'Connor Calls Citizens United Ruling 'A Problem' (ABC News)
* O'Connor Worries Corporate Cash Will Taint Judicial Elections (U.S. News & World Report)
* The Supreme Court Rejects a Limit on Corporate-Funded Campaign Speech (FindLaw's Writ)
* Hey Big Spender! Supreme Court Cuts Limits on Corp Campaign Spending (FindLaw)
* Caperton v. Massey (Brennan Center for Justice)
Showing posts with label Supreme Court Recall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court Recall. Show all posts
Friday, February 5, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Supreme Court 5 And Their Magic Fact Appearing Cabinet
The Supreme Court 5 And Their Magic Fact Appearing Cabinet, Because Only The People Speaking Out Can Reverse The Dreadful Corporate Personhood Decision
From The Pen:
Read the rant, get the free bumperstickers, add this rant to your favorite social media site! ~Hypatia
This is the third in our series of lambasts against the various multitude of gross errors in the ruling by the Supreme Court 5 (Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia & Thomas) to turn corporations into super citizens. The first alert addressed their constructive treason in expressly empowering foreign corporations to speak in our elections, the second vivisected their haste and derelict abandonment of all prudent procedure.
Be sure to submit the two action pages on this issue from which we are just starting to build the movement and political will to repudiate the rogue Supreme Court 5.
Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php
Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php
And if you have a web page of your own, please get the simple code from one of the pages above to place a button to help us give away bumper stickers to protest this hideous injustice.
This third installment will demonstrate their ad hoc prestidigitation of findings of fact on which to ground the opinion. Again we will reference specific page citations to the actual opinion, together with our review of all the legal filings in this case, including the so-called "amicus" (friend of the court) third parties, and the transcript of the oral argument, itself telling in many ways.
We had already pointed out that Kennedy, writing for a skin's teeth of a majority, plowed ahead without sending the case back down to the lower court for the development of a factual record on the issue THEY wanted to rule on (in a predetermined and unprecedented way as it turns out). Instead he conjured facts out of thin hot air to justify his holding, and we will have to play detective somewhat to figure out where this factual garbage even came from.
Critical to Kennedy's justification for why corporations should for the first time be awarded the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to tilt the tables of our elections was the finding, as a matter of fact, that existing PAC (political action committee) alternatives were too BURDENSOME and suppressive of this magical new corporation free speech right to drown out the voice of actual citizens in our elections. (opinion pp. 21-22).
And as support for this sweeping and totalitarian assertion of factual reality, what source does Kennedy lean on?? Why, little more than his OWN DISSENT in the one of very Supreme Court cases (McConnell) this opinion revisits and overrules (so much for respect for stare decisis), where HE made that assertion in DEFIANCE of the majority ruling in that case. Again here, he just recites his personal grudge list of the cruel and unusual (in his opinion) filing requirements for PACs, absent any determination by any trier of fact (besides his absolute self) that these requirements are per se onerous.
Oh, but it gets worse. For you see, no actual party to this litigation made any such factual claim that we can find in the record on appeal. Instead, in this part of the opinion Kennedy is just essentially regurgitating verbatim the ARGUMENTS of one of the THIRD PARTY amicus briefs!! (opinion p. 22) What he did here was take the assertions of a non-party in a tangential filing, the ONLY one to make such arguments, totally after the fact of anything tried in the actual case, and he elevated those arguments to the pedestal status of a complete factual record from the court below.
How much more offensive to any sense of judicial fair play could it possibly get? The point of a TRIAL is to take testimony, to try factual assertions in the crucible of a fact finding court, to have a judge determine based on a full and fair record what facts are to be given weight, with both parties given an opportunity to present any relevant evidence. But in our new Supreme Court of the Five Kangaroos, they can sit as judge, jury and executioner of all facts without any such procedural fairness, and based on their OWN prejudicial predetermination.
To her credit, in oral argument Justice Sotomayor attempted to address the fact that the Court appeared to be bent on proceeding in the absence of an adequate factual record on the issue it purportedly was to decide (oral argument p 25, lines 12-22). Here was attorney Ted Olsen's response to her question.
"It is the government has the burden to prove the record that justifies telling someone that wants to make a 90-minute documentary about a candidate for president that they will go to jail if they broadcast it. The government has the obligation and the government had a long legislative record and plenty of opportunity to produce that record and it's their obligation to do so." (oral argument p. 25, line 25 - p. 26, line 7, and please take careful note of Olsen's unbelievably snaky reference to a "legislative" record, as contrasted with a FACTUAL record by trial in a lower court, and his inflammatory use of the word "jail").
Where did this guy get his law license ... out of a cereal box??
In the first place, the government was not the "plaintiff" (the one bringing the case) here. The government was not prosecuting a case here to put anybody in jail. The plaintiff in this case was so-called Citizens United, both on appeal and in the court below. In our system of justice the plaintiff is ALWAYS the one with the burden of proof, and where, as here, they ABANDONED the issue that the Supreme Court 5 raised from the dead by a wave of their unilateral godlike hand, there was NO requirement for the government to make a case to the contrary. Indeed, on the issues that WERE tried below, the government DID develop whatever factual record was necessary to win, even by the biased standards of this Supreme Court (opinion p. 10).
What kind of dishonest advocate would try to throw the obligation of proof back on the defendant so long after the fact of an issue waived?
And what kind of dishonest Supreme Court would try to pass off as justice such a short shrift of a factual record? Kennedy asserts in the opinion that it's really all OK because in one of the stare decisis cases (which they are REVERSING) there was a record of 100,000 pages on roughly the same issue (opinion p. 15), so they can rely on that, totally disregarding that THAT case ruled AGAINST Kennedy's zombie proposition. What has changed? Nothing has changed but an additional right wing drop kick ideologue on the court to vote to take the SAME facts and arrive at the diametrically contrary result many years later. 100,000 pages of record that went the other way against a new record in this case of ZERO pages. Some record!
It just so happens that Anthony M. Kennedy is the LAST person who should ever be allowed to make a finding of a fact about anything in the real world, let alone from the bench of the Supreme Court. Consider this pearl of cave dwelling mentality from his mouth in the oral argument, in defense of the admittedly ad hominem corporate hit piece about Hillary Clinton in this case.
"But, No. 1, the phenomenon of -- of television ads where we get information about scientific discovery and -- and environment and transportation issues from corporations who after all have patents because they know something, that -- that is different." (oral argument, p. 73, lines 5-10)
Oh sure, that's what corporations do all day long with their TV ads, finance educational and enlightening public service announcements. You mean like all those ads from defense contractors pitching their new missile system as being people friendly? If any court ever needed a factual record to tell them what is actually going on out here in the real world it surely must be this one.
But alas, at this point this alert is already quite long, and we have still only scratched the surface of the totally bogus findings of purported fact on which this outrageously heinous decision was based. So we will have to keep you in suspense until the next installment of the analysis of this shameful decision in ... the ongoing and tragic Saga of the Outlaw Supreme Court 5.
Bumper Stickers Shipping Today!!
We have all the labels printed for the many thousands of you who have already requested your "Corporations Are NOT The People" bumper stickers and your "Impeach The Supreme Court 5" bumper stickers protesting the Supreme Court decision, and will be shipping all of those in the next day or so by first class mail. Otherwise, please get your request in from this page so we can all demonstrate our opposition together.
Bumper Stickers for no charge:
http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php
You can have your choice of either action bumper sticker for no charge, not even shipping. If you want both at the same time please make a donation of any amount, and especially please make a donation if you CAN, because this is what allows us to send free bumper stickers to anyone who cannot make a donation right now.
And again, be sure to submit the two action pages on this issue from which we are just starting to build the movement and political will to repudiate the rogue Supreme Court 5, comprising Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.
Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php
Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php
Facebook participants can also submit the ALTERNATE action pages at
Corporations Are Not The People:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1029
Impeach The Supreme Court 5:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1030
And on Twitter, just send the following Twitter reply for the
Corporations Are Not The People action
@cxs #p1029
From The Pen:
Read the rant, get the free bumperstickers, add this rant to your favorite social media site! ~Hypatia
This is the third in our series of lambasts against the various multitude of gross errors in the ruling by the Supreme Court 5 (Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia & Thomas) to turn corporations into super citizens. The first alert addressed their constructive treason in expressly empowering foreign corporations to speak in our elections, the second vivisected their haste and derelict abandonment of all prudent procedure.
Be sure to submit the two action pages on this issue from which we are just starting to build the movement and political will to repudiate the rogue Supreme Court 5.
Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php
Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php
And if you have a web page of your own, please get the simple code from one of the pages above to place a button to help us give away bumper stickers to protest this hideous injustice.
This third installment will demonstrate their ad hoc prestidigitation of findings of fact on which to ground the opinion. Again we will reference specific page citations to the actual opinion, together with our review of all the legal filings in this case, including the so-called "amicus" (friend of the court) third parties, and the transcript of the oral argument, itself telling in many ways.
We had already pointed out that Kennedy, writing for a skin's teeth of a majority, plowed ahead without sending the case back down to the lower court for the development of a factual record on the issue THEY wanted to rule on (in a predetermined and unprecedented way as it turns out). Instead he conjured facts out of thin hot air to justify his holding, and we will have to play detective somewhat to figure out where this factual garbage even came from.
Critical to Kennedy's justification for why corporations should for the first time be awarded the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to tilt the tables of our elections was the finding, as a matter of fact, that existing PAC (political action committee) alternatives were too BURDENSOME and suppressive of this magical new corporation free speech right to drown out the voice of actual citizens in our elections. (opinion pp. 21-22).
And as support for this sweeping and totalitarian assertion of factual reality, what source does Kennedy lean on?? Why, little more than his OWN DISSENT in the one of very Supreme Court cases (McConnell) this opinion revisits and overrules (so much for respect for stare decisis), where HE made that assertion in DEFIANCE of the majority ruling in that case. Again here, he just recites his personal grudge list of the cruel and unusual (in his opinion) filing requirements for PACs, absent any determination by any trier of fact (besides his absolute self) that these requirements are per se onerous.
Oh, but it gets worse. For you see, no actual party to this litigation made any such factual claim that we can find in the record on appeal. Instead, in this part of the opinion Kennedy is just essentially regurgitating verbatim the ARGUMENTS of one of the THIRD PARTY amicus briefs!! (opinion p. 22) What he did here was take the assertions of a non-party in a tangential filing, the ONLY one to make such arguments, totally after the fact of anything tried in the actual case, and he elevated those arguments to the pedestal status of a complete factual record from the court below.
How much more offensive to any sense of judicial fair play could it possibly get? The point of a TRIAL is to take testimony, to try factual assertions in the crucible of a fact finding court, to have a judge determine based on a full and fair record what facts are to be given weight, with both parties given an opportunity to present any relevant evidence. But in our new Supreme Court of the Five Kangaroos, they can sit as judge, jury and executioner of all facts without any such procedural fairness, and based on their OWN prejudicial predetermination.
To her credit, in oral argument Justice Sotomayor attempted to address the fact that the Court appeared to be bent on proceeding in the absence of an adequate factual record on the issue it purportedly was to decide (oral argument p 25, lines 12-22). Here was attorney Ted Olsen's response to her question.
"It is the government has the burden to prove the record that justifies telling someone that wants to make a 90-minute documentary about a candidate for president that they will go to jail if they broadcast it. The government has the obligation and the government had a long legislative record and plenty of opportunity to produce that record and it's their obligation to do so." (oral argument p. 25, line 25 - p. 26, line 7, and please take careful note of Olsen's unbelievably snaky reference to a "legislative" record, as contrasted with a FACTUAL record by trial in a lower court, and his inflammatory use of the word "jail").
Where did this guy get his law license ... out of a cereal box??
In the first place, the government was not the "plaintiff" (the one bringing the case) here. The government was not prosecuting a case here to put anybody in jail. The plaintiff in this case was so-called Citizens United, both on appeal and in the court below. In our system of justice the plaintiff is ALWAYS the one with the burden of proof, and where, as here, they ABANDONED the issue that the Supreme Court 5 raised from the dead by a wave of their unilateral godlike hand, there was NO requirement for the government to make a case to the contrary. Indeed, on the issues that WERE tried below, the government DID develop whatever factual record was necessary to win, even by the biased standards of this Supreme Court (opinion p. 10).
What kind of dishonest advocate would try to throw the obligation of proof back on the defendant so long after the fact of an issue waived?
And what kind of dishonest Supreme Court would try to pass off as justice such a short shrift of a factual record? Kennedy asserts in the opinion that it's really all OK because in one of the stare decisis cases (which they are REVERSING) there was a record of 100,000 pages on roughly the same issue (opinion p. 15), so they can rely on that, totally disregarding that THAT case ruled AGAINST Kennedy's zombie proposition. What has changed? Nothing has changed but an additional right wing drop kick ideologue on the court to vote to take the SAME facts and arrive at the diametrically contrary result many years later. 100,000 pages of record that went the other way against a new record in this case of ZERO pages. Some record!
It just so happens that Anthony M. Kennedy is the LAST person who should ever be allowed to make a finding of a fact about anything in the real world, let alone from the bench of the Supreme Court. Consider this pearl of cave dwelling mentality from his mouth in the oral argument, in defense of the admittedly ad hominem corporate hit piece about Hillary Clinton in this case.
"But, No. 1, the phenomenon of -- of television ads where we get information about scientific discovery and -- and environment and transportation issues from corporations who after all have patents because they know something, that -- that is different." (oral argument, p. 73, lines 5-10)
Oh sure, that's what corporations do all day long with their TV ads, finance educational and enlightening public service announcements. You mean like all those ads from defense contractors pitching their new missile system as being people friendly? If any court ever needed a factual record to tell them what is actually going on out here in the real world it surely must be this one.
But alas, at this point this alert is already quite long, and we have still only scratched the surface of the totally bogus findings of purported fact on which this outrageously heinous decision was based. So we will have to keep you in suspense until the next installment of the analysis of this shameful decision in ... the ongoing and tragic Saga of the Outlaw Supreme Court 5.
Bumper Stickers Shipping Today!!
We have all the labels printed for the many thousands of you who have already requested your "Corporations Are NOT The People" bumper stickers and your "Impeach The Supreme Court 5" bumper stickers protesting the Supreme Court decision, and will be shipping all of those in the next day or so by first class mail. Otherwise, please get your request in from this page so we can all demonstrate our opposition together.
Bumper Stickers for no charge:
http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php
You can have your choice of either action bumper sticker for no charge, not even shipping. If you want both at the same time please make a donation of any amount, and especially please make a donation if you CAN, because this is what allows us to send free bumper stickers to anyone who cannot make a donation right now.
And again, be sure to submit the two action pages on this issue from which we are just starting to build the movement and political will to repudiate the rogue Supreme Court 5, comprising Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.
Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php
Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php
Facebook participants can also submit the ALTERNATE action pages at
Corporations Are Not The People:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1029
Impeach The Supreme Court 5:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1030
And on Twitter, just send the following Twitter reply for the
Corporations Are Not The People action
@cxs #p1029
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Impeaching the Opus Dei 5
by Deborah Lagutaris July 1, 2007
We now have five conservative Catholics sitting on the highest court in the USA. I have nothing against Catholics. I was raised Catholic and I know many powerful progressives who were raised Catholic. But these men have an extreme right wing viewpoint and it is showing in their rulings. They are so far out of the mainstream of American life, they can't even see it. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy are all right wing Catholics.
When the Democrats are in control after the next election, the first order of business should be impeaching Scalia and Thomas, for starters. They should have recused themselves due to conflict of interest during Bush v. Gore. Both had family members working for Bush and the Heritage Foundation.
Here are some articles regarding this serious problem.
None Dare Call It Treason: Vincent Bugliosi
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi
The Politicization of the Supreme Court: American Progress
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/supreme_court.html
Gerald Ford's article on the legal methods of impeachment of Supreme Court Justices
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/700415e.htm
We now have five conservative Catholics sitting on the highest court in the USA. I have nothing against Catholics. I was raised Catholic and I know many powerful progressives who were raised Catholic. But these men have an extreme right wing viewpoint and it is showing in their rulings. They are so far out of the mainstream of American life, they can't even see it. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy are all right wing Catholics.
When the Democrats are in control after the next election, the first order of business should be impeaching Scalia and Thomas, for starters. They should have recused themselves due to conflict of interest during Bush v. Gore. Both had family members working for Bush and the Heritage Foundation.
Here are some articles regarding this serious problem.
None Dare Call It Treason: Vincent Bugliosi
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi
The Politicization of the Supreme Court: American Progress
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/supreme_court.html
Gerald Ford's article on the legal methods of impeachment of Supreme Court Justices
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/700415e.htm
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Alito is impeachable
Now, why can't the Democrats build a broad-based support movement against Alito? His association with the Federalist Society should provide enough ammunition to take him down. The Federalist Society tries to cast itself in a favorable and rational light by its statement of purpose: to foster debate. What it actually does is inject right-wing propaganda instead of facts and analysis into civic discourse.
"And Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and doesn't reach for the political outcomes he desires. His colleagues of all stripes speak highly of him. His integrity, notwithstanding efforts to smear him, remains unimpeached."
The Washington Post is missing the point here. Alito, ascended to the Supreme Court, would be the SIXTH Justice with ties to the Federalist Society, a thoroughly impeachable organization. Members of the Federalist Society and the College Republicans, a feeder organization, celebrate deception and dissimulation as the proper way to influence people to adopt their political views.
See my articles here, Alito's Shady Associations and the linked article, Dirty Tricksters, the Federalists and Young Republicans.
"And Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and doesn't reach for the political outcomes he desires. His colleagues of all stripes speak highly of him. His integrity, notwithstanding efforts to smear him, remains unimpeached."
The Washington Post is missing the point here. Alito, ascended to the Supreme Court, would be the SIXTH Justice with ties to the Federalist Society, a thoroughly impeachable organization. Members of the Federalist Society and the College Republicans, a feeder organization, celebrate deception and dissimulation as the proper way to influence people to adopt their political views.
See my articles here, Alito's Shady Associations and the linked article, Dirty Tricksters, the Federalists and Young Republicans.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Alito's Shady Associations
Samuel Alito may not have been deeply involved with The Concerned Alumni, but he is involved up to his neck with The Federalist Society. The Federalist Society is not overtly discriminatory, but the effects of their policy initiatives creates the same result as if they were. The actions of The College Republicans and the Federalist Society on campus chill the blood. I have written about my observations of their bad acts over the last seven years. If Kennedy really wants to get him, I have the ammo, and I am going public. These incidents I describe are not a fluke, or just the acts of some "bad apples". It is part of a national campaign to discredit progressive thought and eliminate thoughtful analysis of complex issues in service of a far-right ideology.
This weekend, I decided to republish an article that originally appeared under a pseudonym, Frankie Lake. It exposes the nature of the Federalist Society, College Republicans, and Young Republicans. I am hoping that people will distribute the article with the intent that Democrats will find enough backbone to filibuster the Alito nomination. Samuel Alito is a Federalist Society member. The Federalist Society supports an extreme right-wing agenda far outside the intent of the Constitution and the consensus of the American people. Alito supports a "unitary executive" branch, which destroys the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution, and opens up America to control by a dictatorship. If this sounds familiar, it is similar to what happened in pre-war Germany.
For starters, Alito is a supporter of the Presidential Signing Statement, whereby the President attempts to subvert the will of the legislature.
Here is the original article.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lake08202005.html
After I published this article I set up an email account under my pseudonym. People from across the country contacted with with stories very similar to my own. Some of them spoke of events like this that occurred decades ago. There is a pattern and practice of lying and deception at the core of this organization's culture.
The people who commit bad acts are not mere minions of these organizations; they are its leaders. People like Jack Abramoff, for example. Abramoff was President of the College Republicans, a feeder organization to the Federalist Society. This mentality is rewarded, not punished by these organizations.
This weekend, I decided to republish an article that originally appeared under a pseudonym, Frankie Lake. It exposes the nature of the Federalist Society, College Republicans, and Young Republicans. I am hoping that people will distribute the article with the intent that Democrats will find enough backbone to filibuster the Alito nomination. Samuel Alito is a Federalist Society member. The Federalist Society supports an extreme right-wing agenda far outside the intent of the Constitution and the consensus of the American people. Alito supports a "unitary executive" branch, which destroys the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution, and opens up America to control by a dictatorship. If this sounds familiar, it is similar to what happened in pre-war Germany.
For starters, Alito is a supporter of the Presidential Signing Statement, whereby the President attempts to subvert the will of the legislature.
Here is the original article.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lake08202005.html
After I published this article I set up an email account under my pseudonym. People from across the country contacted with with stories very similar to my own. Some of them spoke of events like this that occurred decades ago. There is a pattern and practice of lying and deception at the core of this organization's culture.
The people who commit bad acts are not mere minions of these organizations; they are its leaders. People like Jack Abramoff, for example. Abramoff was President of the College Republicans, a feeder organization to the Federalist Society. This mentality is rewarded, not punished by these organizations.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Nooooo doubt about it-Goebbels and us
By Deb
The nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court ought to be the Gunfight at the OK Corral. The nuclear option should be used. The Democrats will either have to show some backbone or watch, for the next 40 years or so, as the now-creeping fascism smartly picks up its pace.
Our grandchildren will wonder why we just went along with the takeover. They will read German history before WWII and say, look. You knew what happened then. It wasn't so long ago. Why didn't you heed the warnings?
Think I'm kidding? Go take a look at the speeches of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of (Love) Propaganda. This choice comment hit me right between the eyes.
The positive national discipline of the German press would never have been possible without the complete elimination of the influence of the liberal-Jewish press. That happened only because of the years-long work of our propaganda.
Joseph Goebbels, 1934
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb59.htm
The nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court ought to be the Gunfight at the OK Corral. The nuclear option should be used. The Democrats will either have to show some backbone or watch, for the next 40 years or so, as the now-creeping fascism smartly picks up its pace.
Our grandchildren will wonder why we just went along with the takeover. They will read German history before WWII and say, look. You knew what happened then. It wasn't so long ago. Why didn't you heed the warnings?
Think I'm kidding? Go take a look at the speeches of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of (Love) Propaganda. This choice comment hit me right between the eyes.
The positive national discipline of the German press would never have been possible without the complete elimination of the influence of the liberal-Jewish press. That happened only because of the years-long work of our propaganda.
Joseph Goebbels, 1934
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb59.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)