Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's Wife Ginni Is a Anti-American Conservative Radical and No One Seems To Care

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's Wife Ginni Is a Anti-American Conservative Radical and No One Seems To Care

Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is no ordinary Supreme Court spouse. Unlike Maureen Scalia, mother of nine, or the late Martin Ginsburg, mild-mannered tax law professor who was good in the kitchen, Thomas came from the world of bare-knuckled partisan politics. Over the years, she has enmeshed herself ever more deeply in the world of political advocacy—all the while creating a heap of conflict of interest concerns surrounding her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Her role in Groundswell [1], the coalition of conservatives waging a "30 front war" against progressives and the GOP establishment that was revealed by Mother Jones on Thursday, revives questions about the propriety of Thomas' activism on issues that have or could become the subject of Supreme Court cases.

Conflict of interest issues were first aired during Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings in 1991 [2], when critics argued that Ginni Thomas' political work might compromise her husband's objectivity. At that time, her political resume included stints as a Capitol Hill aide to a Republican congressman; a staffer at the US Chamber of Commerce, where she fought the Family and Medical Leave Act; and as a political appointee at the Labor Department during the first Bush administration. Thomas didn't leave politics after her husband was confirmed. "I did not give up my First Amendment rights when my husband became a justice of the Supreme Court," she has said in the past. She would later return to the Hill as a staffer to House majority leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas) and work for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank. But in those jobs, Thomas kept a relatively low profile.

That changed around the same time that the tea party exploded in American politics, and Thomas became an outspoken member of the movement. In late 2009, Thomas founded the political advocacy group Liberty Central, which would later become a fierce player in the opposition to health care form. Detractors pointed out that Liberty Central was a potential vehicle for people with interests before the Supreme Court to make anonymous donations that might influence her husband.

The group was formed with a $500,000 anonymous donation that came as the Supreme Court was considering Citizens United, a case that ultimately resulted in loosening the restrictions on corporate giving to political campaigns. The anonymous donor was later revealed to be Harlan Crow, the Texas real estate developer. Crow was also a friend of Clarence Thomas', and he was later linked to a scandal involving the justice's failure to publicly disclose gifts from t [3]he developer and trips aboard his private jet. (It didn't help that Justice Thomas had also failed to include his wife's $150,000 [4] annual salary from Liberty Central on his financial disclosure forms, which he later had to amend.)

Good old fashioned pay for legal results from the nation's highest court. The kind of deep and unapologetic moral corruption and depraved form of patriotism that has come to define the radical conservative movement. No will do anything about removing the sleazy Justice Thomas from the court because the whining from the radical far Right conservatives will cause ear aches from coast to coast. Conservatives have taken playing poor little victim to new heights in melodrama.

Weirdo Conservatives Spread Lies About Supreme Court Decision That Brings Back Jim-Crow Lite

Weirdo Conservatives Spread Lies About Supreme Court Decision That Brings Back Jim-Crow Lite

Right-wing media are offering multiple false reassurances to those outraged at the Supreme Court's attack on voting rights in Shelby County v. Holder, while failing to report on the progress of one possible fix.

In the aftermath of Shelby County, which held that Congress' extensive 2006 findings of ongoing voter suppression did not justify the Voting Rights Act's formula for determining which jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination must "preclear" their election changes, right-wing media are incorrectly claiming that this decision will not have an adverse effect on voting rights.

Repeating the lie that the preclearance requirement in Section 5 of the VRA - gutted when the Supreme Court invalidated the formula within Section 4 that determines which jurisdictions are subject to it - was insignificant, right wing-media continue to argue that only a "small part" of this historic civil rights law was struck down.

Megyn KellyIn their day-after analysis of Shelby County, the editors of the National Review Online proclaimed the preclearance process to be "worthless," adding "[t]he decision brings an end to the automatic and perpetual punishment of states that are guilty of crimes in decades past. It does nothing else."

On the June 26 edition of America Live, Fox News host Megyn Kelly dismissed the idea that "racism was given the stamp of approval officially by the Supreme Court yesterday." Her guest, NRO contributing editor Andrew McCarthy, repeated the right-wing myth that voter suppression that engages in systematic racial discrimination "has long ago passed to the dustbin of history" and progressives who cannot recognize its demise are demagogues and "race hucksters." From America Live:

But this argument denying the "vital scaffolding" that is Sections 4 and 5 was debunked by the actions of states that immediately reanimated voter suppression measures, previously blocked or deterred as potentially racially discriminatory by preclearance, in the hours after Shelby County was decided.

Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina have announced they will proceed with voter ID and redistricting measures whose racial discrimination could have been scrutinized and stopped by the preclearance mechanism of the VRA. Indeed, Texas is going forward with both a voter ID law and redistricting plan that federal courts have already found to be forms of systematic racial discrimination. Alabama, and Shelby County in particular, may be an even clearer example of how Section 5 has repeatedly and recently deterred voter suppression on the basis of race. From The New Yorker:

    Reading the opinion it's possible to forget that a grand total of three African-Americans senators and two governors have been elected in the past hundred and thirty-six years, only one of them in a Southern state. In arguing that the preclearance section of the V.R.A. was outmoded and based upon aged presumptions about Southern states, the court had to bypass not only history but contemporary reality. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out during oral arguments, Shelby County--the Alabama county that brought the challenge to the Court--had failed preclearance some two hundred and forty times. Given that Section 5 of the V.R.A. allows districts covered by its provisions to move out of coverage by consistently demonstrating that their laws have no discriminatory impact, this decision was something of an end run: places that have consistently failed the litmus tests of discrimination were, in a second, given the status of those where there's been legitimate progress. 

Self-admittedly scared of being called "racist" for their opposition to the preclearance mechanism, right-wing media are offering a litany of hollow reassurances for why Shelby County will not negatively affect voters of color. If right-wing media really want to listen to the concerns of voters of color - a growing demographic that Republicans are desperately seeking to attract - perhaps they should actually report on the one reassurance about the decision they have mentioned that is actually true: Congress can, once again, reauthorize Section 4. So far, right-wing media have been silent on the efforts that were immediately launched to do just that, both on the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle.

This omission is peculiar.

Sections 4 and 5 were reauthorized in 2006 by bipartisan majorities of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House of Representatives, then signed into law by former President George W. Bush. The fact that many of the same congresspersons are now mobilizing to revive this bipartisan effort and save the heart of the Voting Rights Act is surely news.

At the very least, it's a more important story than dredging up demonstrably false claims about preclearance and voter suppression.

The UnAmerican freaks at Fox News and The National Review try very hard to appear to be adults and patriots. In reality, when the facts are presented, these freaky conservatives are left shouting lies because they have lost yet another debate.One of the great things true patriots have learned from history is that when one side constantly resorts to lies and disinformation to win a debate, they have a twisted radical agenda.

Anti-American Conservative Freaks at Fox News Ignore Fact That IRS Scrutinized All Political Groups

Anti-American Conservative Freaks at Fox News Ignore Fact That IRS Scrutinized All Political Groups

Fox News selectively covered new reports on the IRS' targeting of political groups, raising questions about how the network will handle the new revelations in future reports.

According to an internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press, the IRS targeted groups seeking tax exempt status by screening for terms that are not unique to tea party and conservative groups. Terms such as "Israel," "progressive" and "occupy" were also used by the agency to further scrutinize certain organizations.

On the June 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, host Bret Baier failed to mention the memo obtained by the Associated Press and instead suggested that the new information extended targeting to only religious groups, saying, "You can add Jewish and other religious groups to the agency's hit list." Fox's chief political correspondent Carl Cameron pointed out that "other religious groups" were targeted, and acknowledged that "as for those conservative groups that were targeted, they weren't just tea partiers and they included other type of policy groups." However, both Baier and Cameron neglected to mention that the words associated with left-leaning groups like "occupy" or "progressive" were also used in targeting.

On Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs also reported on new revelations in the IRS story but did not comment on the the Associated Press memo or the fact that left-leaning groups were also subject to improper scrutiny.

The Fox affiliated FoxNation.com also included an Associated Press story about the IRS' overreach, but focused on a conference call IRS commissioner Danny Werfel held with reporters in which he did not specify which terms were on the list of targeted words.

What day was it that evil became part of journalism. That was something that Fox News, which is nothing more than a fax machine for conservative propaganda, decided that journalism was to be. It is simple, you ut a lot of people in business attire, make them look like they might pass for respectable journalists, and use them to propel lies, half truths and rumors as news. Evil doesn't wear a red suit, have horns and pointed tail, it looks like the clowns in make-up at Fox News. They wrap their evil in the flag and the Bible, and pass their garbage out as patriotism.

Even the Evil and Incompetent Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Admits CIA Approved U.N. Ambassador Rice Talking Points On Libya

Even the Evil and Incompetent Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Admits CIA Approved U.N. Ambassador Rice Talking Points On Libya

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.

After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus’ statements. Rice’s television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice’s talking points, the CIA did approve them:

    Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated?

    KING: He didn’t know.

    Q: He didn’t know? What do you mean he didn’t know?

    KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

    Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?

    KING: No.

    Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report –

    KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”

Watch King’s statements here:

Rice has been hit by Republicans for weeks for indicating that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi stemmed from a spontaneous protest related to an anti-Islamic video. However, as Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) has pointed out, the talking points used by Rice were the same unclassified points given to both the administration and Congress by the intelligence community.

Contrary to the current GOP narrative, Petraeus’ testimony made clear that various intelligence sources at of the time of his initial briefing to Congress indicated that a protest arising in response to a similar one in Cairo was the impetus for the attack in Libya. While those initial assessments were later disproved, the Wall Street Journal has previously reported that this change in thinking began too late to alter Rice’s talking points.

Today’s comments by King towards the intelligence community’s assessments also mark a sharp departure from his previous accusations that Rice should have known sooner that the intelligence that was presented to her was incorrect. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have both also recently said that Rice should “have known better” than to make the statements she did during her interviews.

 Republicans, another word for people who have all the honor of rat turds, just can't seem to get traction on inventing scandals or exploiting deaths for political advantage. They lost the election, their conspiracy theories are falling apart, the general public are waking up to the anti-American agenda of the conservative movement. So expect them to continue to act like whiny lying rats with their tails caught in a trap.

Who's to Blame for the Hostess Bankruptcy: Wall Street, Unions, or Carbs? Its sad to lose the jobs - until Hostess is bought by a new company anyway, but why all the crocodile tears over the loss of tasteless bleached flour stuffed with sugar - oh the injustice, no one will ever be able to do that again.

When Right-Wing Republican Taliban Christians Stopped Thinking of Women as People