This past weekend the Washington Post published a hit piece on the grand opening of a museum in Georgia dedicated to the birthplace of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The paper was desperate to make some grand conspiracy, some lawbreaking evil out of the project. But whatever is going on with the museum, this story was just one more shot orchestrated by the left aimed at forcing Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the upcoming hearings on whether or not Obamacare is Constitutional. Of course, this is all a smoke screen to hide the fact that it is really left-wing darling Justice Elana Kagan that should recuse herself from the case.

The Post story was a mishmash of innuendo, guesswork, and partisan claims, all amounting to much of nothing for proof of wrong doing. The Post even took the opportunity to use the word “whitewashed” when describing the color of the building housing the museum commemorating Justice Thomas’ birthplace. None too subtle, that.

There was plenty of other coverage of the opening of the museum that was positive, of course. Still it is apparent that the left hates Justice Thomas so much that they can’t even stand it that a small commemoration of his place of birth be created.

But real facts weren’t on the agenda for this article on Thomas. This article was meant as yet another slap at Thomas in order to mount pressure against him for the upcoming case against Obamacare. The left has been floating the demand that Justice Thomas recuse himself because his wife has worked as a “conservative activist and lobbyist, where she specifically agitated for the repeal of ‘Obamacare.’”

Contrary to the left’s new attack on Thomas, in America we do not hold the work of a spouse against someone. If we did that, half the members of Congress would have to be removed for the boards, or agencies, or organizations that their spouses work for. The pertinent fact is, though, that Justice Thomas himself was not the one working for any group that advocated for or against Obamacare.

This, however, is not true of another member of the Supreme Court. Justice Elana Kagan was actually involved in advising how to defend against challenges to Obamacare. If that isn’t directly relevant, what is?

(more…)

What we’re seeing happen to Herman Cain today at the hands of Leftist MSM race-baiters was absurdly predictable. Simply put, the Left cannot allow a Black conservative to remain “black,” nor can they allow white conservatives to be seen as embracing what the Left defines as an “authentic” black man. Because that blows all those trumped-up narratives about Republicans being racist right out of the water.

As Big Journalism has documented over the past few weeks, the merciless MSM’s unholy crusade to undermine Cain’s identity is well under way and today Time Magazine joined the electronic mob with a vicious column written by somebody named Toure’:

This presidential election has not lacked for clowns, and in a circus Herman Cain fits right in. But as the Black clown, Cain’s foot-in-mouth moments mostly involve insulting the Black community. This could be to establish his independence from the community in order to earn his bona fides with the GOP electorate or a way of appeasing the white conservatives he’s courting. Or it could be that his foot and his mouth are magnetized. Whatever the reason, as a Black person, the Hermanator experience has been as distasteful as rancid, spoiled, stinky, curdled milk.

From there it only gets worse…

• The Black Sarah Palin
• Big Daddy Cain
• Cain is a clown. You see it in the way he constantly mollifies white audiences with self-effacing, racialized comedy that borders on minstrelsy

Other than their tactics, what the MSM is doing here is no different than what we saw done to Southern Blacks in the pre-Civil Rights era. The biggest threat to the establishment, to those in power, is a free-thinking black man. He simply must be destroyed. In 1991, when he was under a similar assault by Senate Democrats and the Left-wing MSM, Justice Clarence Thomas summed up what was being done to him perfectly:

(more…)

SCENE: Two of the most amusing people in politics sit on a poorly lit set for a fledgling d-list network founded by the man who claims to have invented the Internet (who also has four kids but wants everyone else to keep their knees kissing). They talk about how the tea party is racist — and in the next breath shrug off the political leanings of conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as being nothing more than views of a black man too stupid to see that he’s being used by his white masters.

“Explain that one to me now, you have an African American gentlemen married to a white woman who is in cahoots with a group that has a lot of racists in it. Is that Stockholm Syndrome on his part or what’s going on?”

Olbermann says:

“You can be 100% white and not be racist … you don’t have to be integrated.”

Because he went from an all-white network to an all-white show, he was quick to slip his backside from that sling.

Garofalo:

“If it was a white Democrat, you couldn’t get so many Tea Party people so upset whatever it is they’re upset about – showing up armed to town hall meetings,” she said. “By the way, if a black person showed up armed at a town hall meeting where a white politician was speaking, it would be on lockdown martial law and we’d never hear the end of it.”

No, it was the media who went into lockdown mode when an armed, law-abiding conservative black American showed up to a rally exercising his Second Amendment rights — in fact they went beyond lockdown and tried to erase his existence by omitting his race.

(more…)

In the wake of reports that wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Ginny Thomas, called Anita Hill for an apology for her performance before the Judiciary Committee nearly 20 years ago, the Washington Post has come out with a purportedly new story that contains absolutely nothing new, or the least bit scandalous, or damning of Thomas at all.

Well, there is one bit of scandalous information. The subject of the story, Lillian McEwen, an alleged former intimate of Thomas’s is shopping a manuscript. According to page 384 of Carl Bernsein’s Hillary book, A Woman in Charge, Clinton cronies such as George Stephanopoulus, who is quoted, will no doubt now cast her as of the “cash for trash” variety of woman, just as they did to Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers. I can hardly wait to see those fireworks on ABC.

And she is silent no more.

She has written a memoir, which she is now shopping to publishers.

Not only that, but McEwen admits to having what looks like a political motivation for now having issues with Thomas. Good luck digging this out of the three-page article. Of course, if you want to know about any political motivations of women once, or now, in Justice Thomas’ life – fear not! The Post was all too happy to label his wife, Ginny Thomas, a “veteran political activist” just two days ago. (more…)

Welcome once again to our top ten most left-biased working journalist list and now it’s time for number five in the countdown. As we begin our downward slope to the number one most biased, it is fitting that we come to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker as our fifth worst, most biased American journo.

Unlike the other left-wingers that merely hate conservative Americans, Cynthia Tucker seems to hate all of us. That seems true at least if her latest outrageous comment on MSNBC can be taken for granted.

In recent remarks made on Chris “Leg Thrill” Matthews’ MSNBC show, Tucker said that, unlike the Cold War days, today’s American enemy is “us.” Naturally Matthews chipped in with a hearty “exactly.”

Expounding upon her claim that we, each of us, is an enemy to the country, Tucker went on:

And one of the differences between the ’50’s when Sputnik was launched and now, that was a battle against Communism. It’s always much easier to rally Americans against an external threat, an external enemy. In this case, the enemy is us. Americans are addicted to petroleum. We use way too much oil. So it’s a little harder for the president to turn around and call on Americans to sacrifice. You remember what happened to Jimmy Carter when he did that.

Now I happened to think Jimmy Carter was right. Well, if he had done the things that, if we had done the things that Carter called for then, we may not be looking at this huge oil spill now.

Carter? One of the most failed presidents in American history comes in for praise? From Cynthia Tucker he sure does. But she should know. She’s an expert. (more…)

The word of the week is “transparency.”  No, this isn’t the vapid hopey-changey wordage that the Obama campaign and administration has been using for the past two years, rather the transparency I’m speaking of here involves the literal process of revealing truths, exposing potentially negative material and providing a fair playground on which lovers of rational thought can explore and determine reality for themselves.  At the end of the day, transparency is all about providing access to information and ideas, while shifting power to the people to subsequently formulate conclusions.  This week, two transparency medals of honor should be given out – one to the Sunlight Foundation and the other to Andrew Breitbart (naturally).

First and foremost, in a bid to once again outdo itself in the categories of “way too cool” and “ultra useful,” The Sunlight Foundation has created a timely democracy tool that offers the American public a first-hand look into the opinions and past work of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.  The new project, called “Elena’s Inbox” takes Kagan’s public e-mails from her Clinton administration years and organizes them in an easy-to-view format, thus providing unprecedented access and perspective.  In an e-blast from Sunlight yesterday afternoon, Jake Brewer wrote,

All of the emails sent and received by Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan during her time in the Clinton White House were recently put online… [We] built a site to take Elena Kagan’s emails and make them readable…While we’re in the middle of Kagan’s hearing for the Supreme Court, it’s fascinating to get a sense of her through her public emails.

In the past, I’ve voiced concern over Kagan’s take on the first amendment, so I personally plan to sift through her e-mails to gain a better sense of her worldview and how she’ll function on the Supreme Court. This website couldn’t have come at a better time, as the American public (and Congress) learns about the woman who might very well partially shape American law for decades to come. (more…)

The late William F. Buckley, Jr., once famously observed that he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the entire faculty of Harvard. Buckley was prescient and correct about many things, but in this case his wish turned out to be spectacularly wrong: with President Obama’s choice of Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court, Buckley’s nightmare has come true, and the Harvard faculty now really is running the country.

Starting with Obama himself, whose transition team alone included 20 Crimson classmates, there are more than 70 graduates of Harvard Law in the administration. Sure, Harvard has a lousy football team, and its record of reflexive anti-Americanism is second to none, but no mafia racket ever organized more effectively, or with such a baleful influence on the hapless country south and west of the Charles River.  Were it a conventional criminal organization,it would be under investigation by both Congress and the media for its “disproportionate” and deleterious effect on American society.

Even liberals are starting to notice. As my good friend Walter Shapiro wrote recently on Politics Daily:

If Elena Kagan (Harvard Law ‘86) is confirmed for the Court, all nine justices would have received their legal training at Harvard or Yale.

(more…)

In case you didn’t know it, Linda Greenhouse covers the Supreme Court for the New York Times. Not surprisingly, her coverage has long been infused with her leftist agenda, during which she has sometimes confused her personal beliefs with her professional obligations, leading to her 1989 reprimand by the Times for participating in an abortion-rights march and her own domestic conflicts of interest via her husband, Eugene Fidell.

An honest newspaper would have fired her long ago, or re-assigned her to the bridge column or the Mets, but no: today she is the Times’s “emeritus” Supreme Court correspondent.

Now she’s weighed in — in an utterly impartial New York Times sort of way — on the Arizona “illegal aliens” controversy. And guess which side she’s on?

I’m glad I’ve already seen the Grand Canyon.

Because I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.

What would Arizona’s revered libertarian icon, Barry Goldwater, say about a law that requires the police to demand proof of legal residency from any person with whom they have made “any lawful contact” and about whom they have “reasonable suspicion” that “the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?” Wasn’t the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?

Right… Arizona is now a “police state,” akin to the U.S.S.R. and South Africa. On the Upper West Side, maybe, but OK… (more…)

As a child, I watched a lot of westerns and cowboy movies. I saw the same scenario in countless films. The sheriff had a prisoner locked up in his jail waiting to stand trial when the judge arrived in the morning. Some loudmouth, convinced the prisoner was guilty, would stand on the steps of the jail house and rally the crowd. His words whipped them into a frenzy, “Let’s drag the no good piece of scum out here and hang him, now!” The angry mob would overrun the sheriff and his deputies, drag out the terrified prisoner who was proclaiming his innocence and pleading for his life and hang him. I was always amazed how people could so easily be manipulated and sheepishly follow one loud mouth.

In his gazillionth, and most recent health care speech, Obama used the same “give ‘em somebody to hate” tactic against the insurance industry. Outrageously displaying behavior unbecoming to the office of the presidency, Mr. Obama, with no holds barred, attempted to make the American people hate, and seek political vengeance against, the insurance industry.

After masterfully portraying them as cruel monsters who only care about profits, President Obama basically said, let’s drag those no good S.O.B insurance companies out and hang them by passing government run health care. And yes, Obama’s ultimate goal is to drive insurance companies out of business. In an earlier speech, Obama admitted it, while warning that it may take ten years or more to get it done: (more…)

A major provision of the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002″, aka McCain-Feingold, was largely dismissed by the Supreme Court on January 21, 2010. President Obama’s reaction was swift and almost comically over the top.

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

Uh-oh! Whenever they use the term “bipartisan” you know they’re trying to sucker us. It’s become as transparent as their disingenuous names for bills like the so called “Stimulus” which was supposed to fund “shovel ready jobs” and instead went to non-existent zip codes. Our unemployment rate went up dramatically.

But why is Obama so upset about the decision? He’s upset by unions and special interests donating large sums of money to candidates? This is the president who took $60 million from SEIU members and was visited by its head, Andy Stern, more than any other person last year. Obama’s “outrage” deserves a closer look. (more…)

The Huffington Post is reporting that everybody’s favorite, too-classy-for-words feminist attorney, Gloria Allred, has written a protest letter to CBS over their decision to run the Tim Tebow celebrate-life ad during this year’s Superbowl.

Ms. Allred’s complaint?  That the ad (which she has not seen) will imply or state outright “false” and “misleading information.”  You see, Ms. Allred contends that since Mrs. Tebow was living in the Philippines (as a Christian missionary) at the time she became pregnant with Tim, and that since Philippine law prohibits abortion, then she would not have – could not have – been advised by her doctor to have an abortion for health reasons.

Now, I’m no lawyer but I am a woman.  And every woman knows full well that women were getting counseled to have abortions for health reasons before abortion became legal in the United States.  In fact, doctors were performing D&Cs for women who were pregnant without a single soul outside the operating room being the wiser.  Even before Roe, doctors were advising an expectant mother about health problems and risks to her pre-born child.  It would surely take a fool to believe that doctors in the Philippines are so different. (more…)

President Obama’s State of the Union address last night was notable for many reasons.  First, it is not often that you hear such petulance from a sitting president of the United States – complaining about not receiving applause from your political opponents is simply ridiculous.  Second, it is not often that a president directly lectures the American people – it failed when Jimmy Carter tried it in his infamous “malaise” speech, and it failed last night when President Obama told us that we needed to man up and follow him to glory.  Comparing his agenda’s stall to Bull Run, Omaha Beach, Black Tuesday and Bloody Sunday, and calling on Americans to “again … answer history’s call” is foolish and self-aggrandizing.

What’s worse is telling us that he is the spiritual embodiment of our collective strength:

And what keeps me going – what keeps me fighting – is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism – that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people – lives on.”  I couldn’t help but shake my head in amusement when he told us that “It lives on in the struggling small business owner … it lives on in the woman … it lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana … it lives on in all the Americans … [it] lives on in you, its people.

Quoting the Broadway version of The Lion King is not profundity.  It is silliness: (more…)

Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam, are going to be in a Super Bowl ad. For those who aren’t college football fans, Tebow is the quarterback for the University of Florida Gators. He was the first underclassman to win the Heisman Trophy and led the Gators to two BCS championships. He’s also headed to the NFL draft, where he’s likely to be the top quarterback pick.

All right, you say, so a college football star is going to be in a Super Bowl ad. Big deal. But wait! The ad was purchased by the dreaded Dr. James Dobson’s pro-life  Focus On the Family! And Tim’s mom will discuss her decision not to abort Tim when he was in her womb. (more…)

Five hours before the January 22 March for Life rally even began, Newsweek blogger Krista Gesaman posted a highly misleading piece on the March’s age demographics as well as the route itself.

In a piece entitled, “Who’s missing at the Roe v. Wade anniversary demonstrations? Young women,” Gesaman wrote:

Today is the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case legalizing abortion, and droves of women are prepared to face rainy weather to support their positions during the annual Washington, D.C., demonstrations. But there will be one major difference with the demonstration route this year—it’s shorter.

The organizers are getting older, and it’s more difficult for them to walk a long distance,” says Stanley Radzilowski, an officer in the planning unit for the Washington, D.C., police department. A majority of the participants are in their 60s and were the original pioneers either for or against the case, he says.

So this raises the question: where are the young, vibrant women supporting their pro-life or pro-choice positions? Likely, they’re at home. (more…)

The debate over same-sex marriage has cooled in many parts of the country. People have turned their attention to the healthcare bill and the new possibility of being blown up by guys with explosives strapped to their underpants.

In reality, however, the same-sex marriage fight is now being joined in earnest. Opponents of California’s Proposition 8, which provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized in California, have sued in federal court. The plaintiffs—Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami, and Jeffrey Zarillo—allege that defining marriage as a monogamous union of opposite-sex couples violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14^th Amendment.

The case is currently at trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, but it is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision regarding Prop. 8’s constitutionality likely will, for all intents and purposes, permanently determine whether states can limit marriage to its traditional meaning. Of course, it is theoretically possible to amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage in the U.S., but practically speaking it’s almost impossible. (more…)

I love to grab a weekend lunch at the fabulous Tomboy’s Burgers in Manhattan Beach, and when I’m there I always pick up one of the discarded LA Times front sections lying by the bottles of Tapitio hot sauce.  “Maybe this time,” I think as I munch fries, “I’ll find that they’ve clued in, that I can re-subscribe and once again walk out to my driveway and carry back a real paper each morning.”  But every single time I come away wondering when this great metropolitan newsroom became the newspaper equivalent of Jonestown.  I envy the guy holding its Kool-Aid concession — he’s going to be making a mint right up until they finally shutter the place forever.

So it was no surprise that I nearly spit out my mouthful of cheeseburger when I read Tim Rutten’s opinion piece about how the Citizens United decision will destroy our nation by interpreting the First Amendment to actually mean what it says.  There, on the Los Angeles Times’ editorial page, was one of the dying fishwrap’s premier columnists arguing furiously that it should be perfectly acceptable for the government to toss someone into jail for talking about a politician.

This week’s Supreme Court decision granting corporations the right to spend unrestricted amounts of money supporting or opposing candidates in federal elections is so strained in its reasoning and so removed from the realities of American life that it would be grotesquely comedic, were its implications not so dire. (more…)

Still trying to sort out the implications of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision this week?

Puzzled by President Obama’s threat of a “forceful response”?  Wondering what sort of legislative remedies against the First Amendment are being cooked up even now by Sen. “Schemer” Schumer?

Tempted to believe the moonbat ravings of New York Times readers or the unhinged, Howard-Beale-like broadcasts of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann that the 5-4 opinion presages a wholesale corporate takeover of the electoral process?

To get a sense of what really was at stake — nothing less than freedom of speech – have a look at this video, produced by the libertarian Cato Institute.  As Mark Tapscott noted yesterday in the Washington Examiner: (more…)

Thursday, in his resounding defense of the First Amendment in the Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority:

…[w]hen Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

“Censorship” is a dirty word in America, and that is why the restrictions at issue in our case were cloaked in the guise of “campaign finance reform.”  But the fact remains that any restrictions on political speech, especially those that criminalize such speech, send us down a very slippery and very dangerous slope.

Last March, our government argued in court that it has the Constitutional authority to ban books that mention a candidate for federal office.  The government later retracted that statement, but is there any doubt that such a statement never would have been made if there had not been 100 years of progressively more intrusive restrictions on political speech preceding it?    Had the Court not acted, what was to prevent the government from asserting that authority over the internet, which does not have the benefit of two centuries of tradition and jurisprudence protecting it?

(more…)

An entire generation of Democrat voters failed to vote in Massachusetts Tuesday night.  The same generation of Democrat voters failed to thwart recent GOP victories in New Jersey and Virginia.  But no one’s reporting on them.  They’re the silent generation.

The Silent Generation is between the favored ages of 18 and 37 years old.   There are over 49 million of them, and they make up approximately 15% of the American population, certainly enough to swing any election in any state in any race.  Problem is this:  they have been denied the right to vote in these elections.

That’s because, thanks to Roe v. Wade, which was decided 37 years ago today, they’re not even here.

Ironically, the ACLU does not concern itself with them.  They are never interviewed and are rarely mentioned by Democrat candidates.  No one knows for sure how many of them are Democrats or Republicans or independents for that matter because they are invisible and unregistered.  They are those Americans, those voters, who have been aborted since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized their demise.  They cannot vote because they were denied lives as American citizens. (more…)

For long-suffering conservatives, Christmas arrived about a month late this year.  But considering all the presents we got this week, it was like coming downstairs and finding the Budweiser Clydesdales under the tree, instead of that crummy used Radio Flyer your dad managed to find on eBay for twenty bucks.

First, on Tuesday, there was the Massachusetts Miracle, in which an obscure state senator named Scott Brown came out of nowhere — okay, Wrentham — to defeat a lackluster and morally dubious Democrat machine party hack who had expected to slow-walk herself, with David Gergen’s blessing, into “Teddy Kennedy’s seat.”  But the Bay State voters had other ideas for the “Massachusette” –

Brown ran hard on the selling point that he would be the 41st vote in the Senate against Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s screwball tax-and-wreck “health care” plan, a Rube Goldbergian contraption that would have made Elbridge Gerry weep with envy at all its cut-outs, set-asides, bribes and special-interest stroking.  He also campaigned on the notion that taxpayer dollars would be better spent fighting terrorists instead of paying for lawyers for them.  So, naturally, the first questions he got yesterday from the press corps in Washington were all along the lines of: “You’re not really a Republican, are you?”

To which the Democrats, caught flat-footed as usual, basically reacted like this: (more…)