If You Want To Know Who’s To Blame Over SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision, Blame OBAMA And Blame The Left. Here’s Why.

The Supreme Court is not a group of people who can (or even should be) trusted to “interpret” the Constitution.  I think both sides amply attest to that.

Thomas Jefferson certainly warned us about the danger of unelected black robed masters having the power to decide what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is in the U.S. Constitution:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

When the founders’ original intent gets thrown out the window – as liberals long ago threw it out – do you want to know what the Constitution “means”?  It means whatever the hell they WANT it to mean.  And nothing more.  That’s why homosexuality is suddenly the wonderful thing that is sacred and holy and “constitutional” and it doesn’t mean a damn thing that the men who wrote the Constitution are spinning wildly in their graves over the insult to everything they believed in.

If you live with the Supreme Court says, you should die with what it says as well, I suppose.  I myself certainly have no confidence in these goons after John Roberts rewrote the ObamaCare law to make what was very clearly described as a PENALTY AND NOT A TAX into a TAX AND NOT A PENALTY (see here and here).

I suppose if Obama gets to “fundamentally transform America,” John Roberts ought to be able to “fundamentally transform” ObamaCare.  And of course both are “fundamentally transforming” the Constitution.

I remember a quote from Obama’s favorite Supreme Court “Justice” Thurgood Marshall who said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”  These people don’t give a flying DAMN about “the law” or the Constitution.  It is completely besides the point to them.  It is irrelevant.  It doesn’t matter.  They do what the hell they want.

And they want hell.  Their destiny is to burn in it forever and ever.  And they want to bring that hell to earth as much as they can.  It’s their gift to Satan.

I often hear people use the fact that if both sides disagree with you, that you must somehow be right – or at least “moderate.”  That is simply asinine.

As an example, take Adolf Hitler (please! as the joke goes).  Do you know that there were Nazis who believed Hitler didn’t go far enough?  As just one example, Hitler removed (liberal hero) existentialist philosophy Martin Heidegger as rector of the prestigious University of Freiburg because he literally took his Nazism too far (see here and here):

Eventually, Heidegger did fall out of favor and had to give up his rectorate, not, however, out of enlightened opposition to fascism but because he came out on the losing side of a major ideological battle within the Nazi Party.  As Farias shows, in aligning himself with the Storm Troopers of Ernst Rohm and insisting on persecuting Catholic student groups, Heidegger was considered too radical even for Hitler.  – Modern Fascism, by Gene Edward Veith, Jr., pg 87

So would we be right to conclude that Hitler was therefore a “moderate” or that he must have been right because there were loons to either side of him?  According to the “logic” Obama frequently uses, he sure was a “moderate.”

And that is just the way Obama is a “moderate.”  He’s a “moderate” just like Hitler was a “moderate.”  Because Adolf had people on both sides of him, too.  So clearly he wasn’t “extreme.”  Just like Führer Obama.

I’ve got to note that Ernst Rohm was as flaming of a homosexual as you can GET.  And there was NO ONE who was MORE RESPONSIBLE for the rise of Hitler than Rohm.  Rohm brought Hitler into the Nazi Party to begin with; Rohm protected Hitler as he rose to power with his powerful paramilitary group the SA Brownshirts that grew to some three million.  And rampant homosexuality was the norm within the SA.

Hell, there are people who are crazier than the whackjob who just shot up Fort Hood.  I guess that must make the guy “normal.”

Yeah, it turns out that both sides can disagree with you and you can still be wrong, wrong, WRONG.  And just because you can point to a nutjob on either side of you doesn’t mean that you yourself are not ALSO a raving nutjob.

So I’m not going to play that idiot’s game of claiming the Supreme Court was right just because it disagreed with the left (even though the left is always [morally] wrong by definition.  Rather, I’m going to point out that the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding Citizens United and now in McCutcheon were a reaction to the worst and biggest campaign whore who ever lived (that would be Barack Hussein Obama).

Allow me to explain by citing no other authority than the uberliberal Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck another major blow against long-standing restrictions on campaign money Wednesday, freeing wealthy donors to each give a total of $3.6 million this year to the slate of candidates running for Congress.

Rejecting the restriction as a violation of free speech, the 5-4 ruling struck down a Watergate-era limit that Congress wrote to prevent a single donor from writing a large check to buy influence on Capitol Hill. It was the latest sign that the court’s conservative majority intends to continue dismantling funding limits created over the last four decades.

Okay, so this was a really, really bad thing because this was “long-standing” in that it reversed stuff that dated back to the damn Watergate era and had lasted for “the last four decades.”

Would you like to know about something else that someone ELSE blew away that had all of those hallmarks?

For the official, historical record, I was pointing this crap out as it happened back in 2008 – so please don’t accuse me of revisionist history.  A few bits from a few news articles I pointed to then:

Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.

By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.

Hmmm.  1976.  How many decades ago was that?  Let me get out Mister calculator and… yep.  It was the same four decades that the LA Times says was so sacred and inviolate regarding laws limiting corporations from participating in political campaigns.

And:

Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

Obama promised to only spend $85 million at the same time he promised to use public matching funds.  Well, maybe that’s all he spent after he broke the matching funds promise?  Try NOT.  He lied.  “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” was nowhere even CLOSE to this liar’s first lie.  He actually began his campaign in a lie – when he went on ABC’s This Week program and promised the American people he would NOT run for president in 2008 but would serve his Senate term (which of course the liar didn’t do).

And:

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause [and to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network] when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

I pointed out in that 2008 article:

Barack Obama isn’t just a hypocritical liar; he’s a self-righteous hypocritical liar, which is the very worst kind. It’s bad enough when someone breaks his promises, but when he does it with a smarmy “holier-than-thou” attitude, that’s when you know you’ve got the rarest breed of demagogue on your hands.

And we can now look back at history and realize that Obama has not only been the most documented liar who ever lived, but that this is how he has ALWAYS lied: with an arrogant, holier-than-thou self-righteousness that I have little doubt is second only to Lucifer’s appalling gall.

Again for the historical record, John McCain accepted public matching funds – as ALL nominees from BOTH parties had done since “the Watergate era.”  Guess who refused to either keep his own damn word OR accept the matching funds that had kept the system from flying apart?

The guilty culprit’s name bears the initials B.H.O.  Which apparently stands for “Beyond Hypocrite Orator” if not something more snide.

No human being who has EVER lived in ALL of human history EVER amassed such a massive campaign war chest as the guilty culprit whose initials are B.H.O.  There has NEVER been IN ALL RECORDED HISTORY a bigger whore for political money than anyone who ever lived from any civilization in any place or in any time.

Which is why I proceeded to write articles such as this one:

Democrats Finding Themselves Hung On Their Own Petard As The Campaign Financing System THEY Corrupted Starts To Work Against Them

I link to and cite an article that documents that Obama had held more fundraisers as president than the previous FIVE PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

And this one:

Cockroach Left That Outspent Republicans 3-1 Now Whining That Republicans Are Outspending Them: ‘The End Of The USA As We Know It Just Happened!’

And then a little later this one:

Obama Claims Campaign Raised More Money After ObamaCare Verdict Than Romney – Then Caught On Tape NEXT DAY Desperately PLEADING For Donations

Anybody want to defend the turd who as candidate for president whored for more campaign money than any politician in all of human history and then as president did more fundraising than the previous five presidents combined???

Again, for Obama and his demonic party to raise more money than any money-grubbing political whores who had EVER LIVED and then demonize the Supreme Court for allowing the other side to do the same makes them such appalling hypocrites that it is simply beyond unreal.

Simply put, Democrats perverted unions and unions perverted the Democrat Party such that more campaign funds could be and were raised than any human being or any party EVER raised in all of human history.  Barack Obama raised more than a BILLION DOLLARS in 2008.  He did it by breaking his word and he did it by being the biggest and worst whore who ever lived.  You go back to the freaking pharaohs and no one ever did anything like this.

Barack Obama blew the doors off of public matching funds.  I stated at the time that the system was dead thanks to Obama and would never be used again.

Democrats don’t want to limit campaign money: they want to limit REPUBLICANS from being able to raise campaign money while they roll in the money they raise like pigs wallow in filth.  Because they are fascist hypocrites.

Barack Obama has fundamentally perverted America on every issue under the sun.  He has abrogated the Constitution and ruled as a tyrant fascist god king.  He has perverted health care.  He has perverted immigration.  He has perverted foreign policy.  And yes, he perverted the campaign finance system.

You just go ahead and white about the evil of the Koch brothers and the evil conservatives on the Supreme Court, Democrats.  You go ahead and wax more and more and more hypocritical so the temperature in the hell you will one day soon be burning in for murdering more than fifty-five million babies and worshiping homosexual sodomy will be all the hotter when you show up for your eternity.

But the rest of you need to know that the Supreme Court was forced to re-tilt the scales after Barack Obama the fascist stuck his thumb on them in 2008 and then kept his thumb on them as “the whore president.”

As liberals say that the Supreme Court is an unjust body, just remember that it was this same august unjust body that imposed sodomy on America and the same august unjust body that made the holocaust of babies the law of the land.

And realize that the beast is coming to finish what Obama started.

Here’s another thing to realize as liberal “journalists” who work for BIG CORPORATIONS demonize corporations for being allowed to participate in politics:

The law drew a line between two types of corporations: media corporations, and everyone else. Intentionally or not, it tilted political power toward the media and away from every other type of corporation (many of which, as Justice Kennedy observed, have limited resources, unlike, say, CNN). The mere fact that media organizations were able to speak at all in the 30 days leading up to an election gave them an advantage over other corporations. Even if a media corporation tries to be scrupulously fair in its coverage of an election, the inevitable choice to cover one story over another gives an advantage to one side. By removing the government’s muzzle from corporations, the Supreme Court has restored some balance to the playing field.

Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of  the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media. Why shouldn’t he be able to hear that Candidate X’s support for cap and trade will destroy his employer?

That kind of changes the liberal demagoguery, doesn’t it?  People who write for big corporations are denouncing other people who work for big corporations from doing the same thing THEY do.

And so I pointed out:

Why hasn’t Obama decried that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN – corporations all – have exercised their rights to free speech???  Why hasn’t he demanded that THEY be marginalized along with Fox News?  And who do those corporate bastards at the New York and Los Angeles Times think they are spouting their views and influencing our elections?  Do you realize that they depend on advertisements from OTHER corporations that are quite often foreign-owned?

Let me expand on that slightly.  I went out to my garage and instructed my car and my motorcycle to pay taxes.  Neither said anything, because only PEOPLE can pay taxes as opposed to inanimate things.  So I have to pay taxes on my motorcycle and my car rather than my motorcycle and car paying anything.  Liberals say corporations are inanimate things and yet somehow they can be expected to pay taxes.  If corporations have to pay taxes – which unions that get to participate in elections to the hilt DON’T have to pay – then why should corporations be denied the right to influence the political system that they have to pay MASSIVELY to fund???  Why should corporations that pay taxes be banned from doing what unions that don’t pay taxes get to do???  This is just an extension of the above hypocrisy as “journalists” who work for corporations decry other corporations from getting to do what they have always been allowed to do.  And on the same vein, if corporations can pay taxes as only people have to do, then why can’t corporations do OTHER stuff that only people can do  – such as worship God???

I’m not through with the whopping extent to which Barack Hussein Obama is a dishonest fascist.  Let’s drag the IRS scandal into this.  Do you know what that was?  It was nothing short of an end run around the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United verdict.  Obama didn’t like it and publicly demonized the Supreme Court on national television.  You might remember Samuel Alito mouthing “That’s not true” as Obama slandered the highest court in the land.  Every single American got to see Obama’s naked contempt for the Supreme Court of the United States.  And then what did Obama do?  Well, after deciding, “I’m the Pharaoh-god king and only I should get to decide what the law is,” he instructed his IRS thug agency to target nearly 300 conservative groups who had the gall to believe that the Constitution (or the highest court in the land) mattered.  He had his IRS specifically target groups on the basis of blasphemy – or more specifically for the “anti-Obama rhetoric” that amounted to blasphemy in the mind of the malignant narcissist-in-chief.

If you liberals want to sever corporations from having the ability to influence elections, all you’ve got to do is a) make corporations tax exempt and b) ban labor unions from having the right to participate.  And impeach your fascist monster.  And until you do these things, please shut the hell up about the outrages and injustices of corporations getting to do what YOUR groups get to do.

Just realize that liberals are ALL fascists.  And the first order of business for a fascist is to make sure you get to stay in power so that you and ONLY you have the power “to control the people.”

 

 

Cockroach Left That Outspent Republicans 3-1 Now Whining That Republicans Are Outspending Them: ‘The End Of The USA As We Know It Just Happened!’

I kept hearing over and over again in the media that Scott Walker was outspending the Democrat loser 7-1.

Here’s one particularly pathetic take on that:

Voter Cries Over WI Recall: Signaling Death Of Democracy, ‘End Of USA As We Know It’
video
by Meenal Vamburkar | 11:35 pm, June 5th, 2012

Wisconsin’s intense, passionate recall battle came to a close Tuesday night, with Scott Walker retaining his title as governor. After the projections were in, CNN headed to Badger State to get some reactions — including one from a Tom Barrettsupporter who was very emotional. Unable to hold back tears, he lamented the results, angrily decrying the end of democracy.

RELATED: Republican Scott Walker Wins Wisconsin Recall Election

Before cutting to the voter, Mike, John King noted that he “underscored” his disappointment. “We’re not just disappointed,” the voter said, “this is the end of democracy.”

Noting they got outspent $34 million to $4 million, he said, “This was the biggest election in America.” Becoming more emotional, he went on to say, “Democracy died tonight.” Acknowledging he’s “very emotional,” he broke into tears, saying, “This was it. If we didn’t win tonight, the end of the USA as we know it just happened.”

Before King chimed back in, the voter got his message in once more: “Democracy’s dead.”

Take a look, via CNN [see site for embedded video]:

The same video is currently available on Youtube:

How terrible was it when Obama was outspending John McCain by 3-1 and even by as much as 5-1????  Oh, it was a good thing, then.  Great for democracy, you know.

Well, it turns out that it is a LIE that Democrats got outspent $34 million to $4 million, and that the Walker recall was won because Republicans unfairly amassed huge out-of-state money while honest Democrats tried vainly to use the state electoral process and got crushed.

It turns out that the same media that counted every single penny that Republicans raised somehow managed to overlook $21 million in out-of-state union money:

Spending Gap? Media Ignores $21 Million Unions Spent in WI
by Ben Shapiro June 6, 2012

The spin from the left on the morning after their disastrous Wisconsin recall election failure is that Governor Scott Walker (R-WI), who walked away with the election, did so because he spent oodles of money.

Politico’s takeaway: “Money shouts.” “Walker wins one for the plutocrats,” trumpeted Joan Walsh of Salon.com. “Outspent 7-1, Democrats couldn’t beat Scott Walker with a strong ground game.” Media Matters’ favorite Washington Post columnist, Greg Sargent, cited the Citizens United decision allowing corporate political spending no less than five times in his recap of the election – despite the fact that not one dollar spent in Wisconsin would have been illegal before Citizens United. The Post’s Chris Cillizza said, “Being outspent 10-1 (or worse) is never a recipe for success in a race. Democrats cried foul over Walker’s exploitation of a loophole that allowed him to collect unlimited contributions prior to the official announcement of the recall in late March.” Daily Kos said that with Walker’s spending edge, “It shouldn’t even be close.”

This is false.

Overall, over $63.5 million was spent on the recall effort by various parties. Walker spent about $30 million; Barrett spent about $4 million. Most of the money spent by Walker came from out-of-state sources – The Republican Governors Association spent about $4 million, almost all from out-of-state; the Kochs gave $1 million; the Chamber of Commerce gave $500,000. On the surface, then, it appears that Walker had a tremendous cash advantage.

Not so fast. As it turns out, labor unions spent an additional $21 million on the recall election. When it came to state senate recall elections back in September 2011, Democrats outspent Republicans $23.4 million to $20.5 million.

While Politico’s Glenn Thrush says that there’s “only one paragraph you really need to read this ayem, courtesy of the Center for Public Integrity,” then quotes a paragraph talking about Walker’s biggest donors, that’s hackish reporting. The CPI actually adds:

Campaign contributions tell only part of the story. National unions have kept Barrett’s campaign alive by funding outside groups dedicated to defeating Walker. More than a year since Walker limited collective bargaining rights for most public employees, the nation’s three largest public unions — the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — have channeled at least $2 million from their treasuries and super PACs to two Wisconsin-based independent expenditure groups.

It’s also worth noting that while Republicans largely had to build their ground game from the ground up, labor unions have a consistent ground game – funded by tax dollars. All of the donations to Walker and pro-Walker groups were not mandated. The same is not true of Big Labor dollars, which come from mandatory unions dues in most cases.

In terms of strict numbers, Walker spent some $30 million; Barrett and the unions spent $25 million. That’s not a 7-to-1 differential. And when you add in unions’ inherent advantage in ground game, you’re talking about a better-than-even split for Barrett.

Scott Walker won last night because he is a good governor. He didn’t win because of a money advantage, even though Wisconsin rules heavily favor incumbent politicians who are recalled (they can raise unlimited contributions from individuals after recall petitions are filed, whereas opponents cannot take more than $10,000 from individuals). The media’s attempt to pass this election off as a win for big money simply doesn’t hold water.

Okay, so Democrats tried to raise tons of money for this race outside Wisconsin.  Only Republicans raised more money from out-of-state.  And therefore Democrats say out-of-state money is unfair even though they have been doing it for YEARS and tried to do it again here.

So why did “The end of the USA as we know it just happen”????

Because now Republicans are fighting back.

I make a point in an article I just published that points out a few facts:

Speaking of fundraisers, it’s actually amazing: not only has Obama raised more campaign money from Wall Street “fat cats” than any politician in American history, but in fact Obama has plainly and simply pimped more money than any politician in the history of the entire human race. Which is to say that when Obama just keeps going from fundraiser to fundraiser to fundraiser (having attended more of them than the last five previous presidents COMBINED), he’s just obeying his weasel nature.

Obama has raised more money from “greedy” and “fat cat” Wall Street than any politician who ever lived:

The audacity is breathtaking.

The president has raised more money from Wall Street through the Democratic National Committee and his campaign account than any politician in American history. This year alone, he has raked in more cash from bank employees, hedge fund managers and financial services companies than all Republican candidates combined.

Even poor Mitt Romney was outraised by the Obama money machine at his former employer, Bain Capital, by a margin of 2 to 1.

It is a campaign operation whose wheels are greased by Wall Street bundlers like MF Global former chief, Jon Corzine. These financiers are so good at what they do that the Center for Responsive Politics reports that Obama’s Wall Street fundraising will “far surpass 2008 in terms of raw dollars and as a percentage of what he raises overall.”

That’s saying a lot considering that Obama’s “Hope and Change” campaign in 2008 raised more money from the financial community than any other politician in American history.

Obama has raised more money than any politician who ever walked the planet earth:

Washington, May 23 (ANI): President Barack Obama has been found to be the first U.S. politician ever to raise over a billion dollars in the course of his career.

According to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, his lifetime total hit has been found to be 1,017,892,305 dollars in April, nine years after he began his 2004 race for Senate.

According to the New York Daily News, the Center results found the President to have raised more than 217 million dollars so far for this campaign, while his November opponent Mitt Romney has made just fewer than 100 million dollars.

Obama has attended and whore himself out at more money-grubbing fundraisers than the last previous five presidents COMBINED:

Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.

Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.

The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.

Doherty, who has compiled statistics about presidential travel and fundraising going back to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March 6th this year, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.

In another recent article I wrote I point out that it was none other than Barack Hussein Obama who totally destroyed any limits on campaign contributions when he broke his word of honor and became the first presidential candidate in American history to abandon the public matching funds that set LIMITS on fundraising:

In 2008, Obama’s record haul was made possible by the fact that he broke a campaign pledge and opted out of the public financing system. He was the first candidate ever to take that step, and he justified it with the prospect of hostile outside spending.

And now the very same Democrats who pissed on limits for campaign money are the biggest whiners over the huge money because suddenly they aren’t able to raise as much.

As righteously outraged as the Democrats are over the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, that decision was merely the Supreme Court recognizing that in Barack Obama Democrats had destroyed the process that had always previously existed before – even though Democrats had always cheated in that process with big union money – and decided to completely open the process to allow the right to compete.

I point out in that immediately above article:

And understand: the Citizens United case – which Obama demonized and undermined the Supreme Court for deciding – hadn’t happened yet. And the only reason we probably ever GOT the Citizens United decision that Obama demonized the Supreme Court over is because Barack Obama broke his word and massively corrupted the political fundraising system to form the backdrop to which Citizens United came down.

You don’t like the Citizens United decision that opened up the fundraising floodgates even wider than Obama flung them open, Democrats? You have yourselves to blame for it and for a whole hell of a lot of other things by electing an evil malignant narcissist as your president. Because don’t you dare think that the Supreme Court didn’t look at the billion dollar whore who had ripped up all previously mutually agreed upon fundraising rules and standards and concluded that they might as well finish what Obama started.

And then there’s the fact that according to the Democrats’ “logic,” corporations – which are groups of people organizing to build a business – shouldn’t be counted as a “person,” but UNIONS – which are groups of people organizing to tear apart those same businesses – SHOULD BE counted as a “person.” So unions raising hundreds of millions of dollars is good but corporations that are backed by elected boards and millions of shareholders raising money is BAD.

The hypocrisy is astonishing.  The Democrats who are so livid over the injustice of “non-persons” contributing campaign money have greedily taken “non-person” big union money for decades.

Just like a corporation, a union is a group of people organized into a common cause.  So if Democrats want to get “non-persons” out of political contributions, just have them repay the Republican Party every single dime they’ve accepted from unions over the last hundred years, adjusted for inflation and along with componded interest.  And then we can undo Citizens United.  Until then, kindly eat your own fecal matter and die, Democrats.

In the news today is the following headline: “Breaking: Romney/RNC outraises Obama/DNC by nearly $17 million in May.”

Democrats are getting their asses kicked.  And now it’s all suddenly just so unfair and it’s the end of the world and the end of democracy and America just ended.

If you ever wonder why I have such an angry tone, this stuff is an example: there is such a constant stream of pure lies and distortions coming out of the Democrat Party and their mainstream media propagandists on a daily basis that it is positively unreal and proof of Mark Twain’s famous remark that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on.  And I am sick of the lies.

Democrats Finding Themselves Hung On Their Own Petard As The Campaign Financing System THEY Corrupted Starts To Work Against Them

Obama Democrats and the liberal mainstream media propaganda complex are eating their words on the Obama campaign’s boasted $1 billion fundraising campaign:

Other experts agreed that, compared to Obama’s $750 million campaign budget in 2008, $1 billion isn’t that much of a stretch.

“It’s a stunning amount of money,” said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “But what we’ve seen over the past couple of election cycles is that the trajectory only goes upwards.”

Obama set the bar for expensive campaigns in 2008 when he became the first major presidential candidate to refuse general election public financing. This removed the cap on how much money he could raise.

[…]

With fundraising strategies that have yet to be matched, Canary and others said, Obama could be using the $1 billion figure to psych out the competition.

“It’s a coded statement to all potential challengers that says, ‘My team knows how to fundraise,’” Canary said. “It says, ‘Don’t get into this race unless you want to take on $1 billion.’”

The reliably leftist Daily Beast simply states matter-of-factly:

The first post Citizens United presidential election is already shaping up to be one of the most lucrative in history—at least in certain quarters. President Obama is expected to raise more than $1 billion, a record that would eclipse the one he set in 2008 when he collected $750 million.

It turns out Republicans have a “code” of their own – in the form of the middle finger salute.  It turns out that a growing number of Republicans are saying, “I don’t care how much it will cost; let’s get this stinking sack of Marxist feces out of the White House while there’s still some America left that Obama hasn’t ‘fundamentally transformed.'”

Obama has been the biggest political whore in the entire history of the human race up to this point:

Obama first U.S. politician ever to raise over $1 billion in campaign funds
By ANI | ANI – Wed 23 May, 2012.

Washington, May 23 (ANI): President Barack Obama has been found to be the first U.S. politician ever to raise over a billion dollars in the course of his career.

According to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, his lifetime total hit has been found to be 1,017,892,305 dollars in April, nine years after he began his 2004 race for Senate.

[….]

To help fund his re-election bid, Obama has turned to a series of big-names to join him at fundraising events, the latest being Bill Clinton.

Obama is the money-grubbing–cynical-political-pig-in-chief who has attended more fundraisers than the past five presidents – COMBINED:

Obama has held more re-election fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined as he visits key swing states on ‘permanent campaign’
By Toby Harnden
PUBLISHED: 07:41 EST, 29 April 2012 | UPDATED: 14:16 EST, 29 April 2012

Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.

Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.

The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.

Doherty, who has compiled statistics about presidential travel and fundraising going back to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March 6th this year, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.

Since then, Obama has held another 20 fundraisers, bringing his total to 124. Carter held four re-election fundraisers in the 1980 campaign, Reagan zero in 1984, Bush Snr 19 in 1992, Clinton 14 in 1996 and Bush Jnr 57 in 2004.

Let’s also point out that this nuclear war over fundraising was started by none other than the cynical money-grubbing whore Barack Obama (again, from the reliably leftist Daily Beast):

In 2008, Obama’s record haul was made possible by the fact that he broke a campaign pledge and opted out of the public financing system. He was the first candidate ever to take that step, and he justified it with the prospect of hostile outside spending.

Let me put that another way: as the Daily Beast acknowledges, Barack Obama broke his word, which is to say he lied to the American people.  John McCain accepted the public financing system which had always been used previously.  Barack Obama saw his chance to rake in more money and said to hell with that public financing system and its limits, and exploded it for all time.  And the worst demagogue who has ever stunk of the Oval Office used as his deceitful ruse the threat that HE HIMSELF WAS ACTUALLY PERPETRATING: to raise giant sums of money from outside the public financing system.

And understand: the Citizens United case – which Obama demonized and undermined the Supreme Court for deciding – hadn’t happened yet.  And the only reason we probably ever GOT the Citizens United decision that Obama demonized the Supreme Court over is because Barack Obama broke his word and massively corrupted the political fundraising system to form the backdrop to which Citizens United came down.

You don’t like the Citizens United decision that opened up the fundraising floodgates even wider than Obama flung them open, Democrats?  You have yourselves to blame for it and for a whole hell of a lot of other things by electing an evil malignant narcissist as your president.  Because don’t you dare think that the Supreme Court didn’t look at the billion dollar whore who had ripped up all previously mutually agreed upon fundraising rules and standards and concluded that they might as well finish what Obama started.

And then there’s the fact that according to the Democrats’ “logic,” corporations – which are groups of people organizing to build a business – shouldn’t be counted as a “person,” but UNIONS – which are groups of people organizing to tear apart those same businesses – SHOULD BE counted as a “person.”  So unions raising hundreds of millions of dollars is good but corporations backed by elected boards and shareholders raising money is BAD.

Not that Democrats hadn’t already violated the fundraising rules in all sorts of sordid ways without Obama.  You know about that silly little limit of $2,500?  We know for a fact that Rachel ‘Bunny’ Mellon gave upwards of a million dollars to John Edwards campaign in an under-the-table transaction through third parties:

According to two sources close to Mrs. Mellon, her suspicions weren’t even aroused by the unusual method of payment: She was advised to write bank checks for “furniture,” made out to Bryan Huffman’s Monroe, North Carolina-based interior design business. Huffman in turn endorsed them over to Young, who then got the money to Edwards.

That “gift” then met with a request by John Edwards for another $3 million.  And if that wasn’t enough chutzpah, Edwards started asking for sums in the $30-40 million range.

John Edwards is one nasty whore, I believe it is wholly accurate to say.  But he is nowhere NEAR the whore that Obama has proven to be in terms of fundraising.

So it should surprise nobody that Republicans – who have had it past their eyeballs in Obama’s incredibly divisive and incredibly partisan and incredibly evil political games – to determine to finally beat Obama at his own twisted game and raise such a mountain of money that it will bury even “the billion dollar whore” once-for-all:

GOP groups plan record $1 billion blitz
By MIKE ALLEN and JIM VANDEHEI | 5/30/12 4:34 AM EDT

Republican super PACs and other outside groups shaped by a loose network of prominent conservatives – including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – plan to spend roughly $1 billion on November’s elections for the White House and control of Congress, according to officials familiar with the groups’ internal operations.

That total includes previously undisclosed plans for newly aggressive spending by the Koch brothers, who are steering funding to build sophisticated, county-by-county operations in key states. POLITICO has learned that Koch-related organizations plan to spend about $400 million ahead of the 2012 elections – twice what they had been expected to commit.

Just the spending linked to the Koch network is more than the $370 million that John McCain raised for his entire presidential campaign four years ago. And the $1 billion total surpasses the $750 million that Barack Obama, one of the most prolific fundraisers ever, collected for his 2008 campaign.

Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, proved its potency by spending nearly $50 million in the primaries. Now able to entice big donors with a neck-and-neck general election, the group is likely to meet its new goal of spending $100 million more.

And American Crossroads and the affiliated Crossroads GPS, the groups that Rove and Ed Gillespie helped conceive and raise cash for, are expected to ante up $300 million, giving the two-year-old organization one of the election’s loudest voices.

“The intensity on the right is white-hot,” said Steven Law, president of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. “We just can’t leave anything in the locker room. And there is a greater willingness to cooperate and share information among outside groups on the center-right.”

In targeted states, the groups’ activities will include TV, radio and digital advertising; voter-turnout work; mail and phone appeals; and absentee- and early-ballot drives.

The $1 billion in outside money is in addition to the traditional party apparatus – the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee – which together intend to raise at least $800 million.

The Republican financial plans are unlike anything seen before in American politics. If the GOP groups hit their targets, they likely could outspend their liberal adversaries by at least two-to-one, according to officials involved in the budgeting for outside groups on the right and left.

By contrast, Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting President Barack Obama’s reelection, has struggled to raise money, and now hopes to spend about $100 million. Obama’s initial reluctance to embrace such groups constrained fundraising on the Democratic side, which is now trying to make up for lost time.

Labor could add another $200 million to $400 million in Democratic backing.

The consequences of the conservative resurgence in fundraising are profound. If it holds, Romney and his allies will likely outraise and outspend Obama this fall, a once-unthinkable proposition. The surge has increased the urgency of the Democrats’ thus-far futile efforts to blunt the effects of a pair of 2010 federal court rulings – including the Supreme Court’s seminal Citizens United decision – that opened the floodgates for limitless spending, and prompted Obama to flip-flop on his resistance to super PACs on the left.

“We’re not making any attempt to match American Crossroads or any of those groups with television ads,” said Michael Podhorzer, political director for the AFL-CIO. Instead, much of labor’s money will be spent on talking directly with union members and other workers.

“Progressives can’t match all the money going into the system right now because of Citizens United, so we have to have a program that empowers the worker movement,” Podhorzer said.

Much of the public focus has been on how these outside groups will tilt the balance of power in fundraising at the presidential level. But POLITICO has learned that Republicans involved with the groups see the combined efforts playing out just as aggressively at the congressional level, in below-the-radar efforts designed to damage Democratic candidates for the House and Senate.

The officials said that if Romney looks weak in the final stretch, the vast majority of the money could be aimed at winning back the Senate. Republicans need four seats to do that, if Obama is re-elected.

Republicans have taken one big lesson away from campaigns conducted to date in 2011 and 2012: outside money can be the difference-maker in elections.

It was outside money from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson that single-handedly kept Newt Gingrich afloat against Romney. A super PAC spending surge fueled by Wyoming mutual fund guru Foster Friess was credited with powering Rick Santorum to an upset win in the Iowa caucuses. And outside money has helped lift tea party challengers past incumbents like Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) in this year’s primaries.

Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney super PAC, spent twice as much on the air as the campaign did in the thick of the primaries: Through March, the campaign had put $16.7 million into TV, while ROF shelled out $33.2 million.

In Florida, the super PAC outspent the campaign, $8.8 million to $6.7 million. (The campaign can get more spots per dollar because of more favorable rates.) In Michigan, it was $2.3 million to $1.5 million. In Ohio, ROF outspent the campaign, $2.3 million to $1.5 million.

Now Republicans are applying this approach – on steroids – to the remainder of the campaign:

—Groups affiliated with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are among the biggest behind-the-scenes players in Republican politics, will spend the most of any outside outfit on either side: roughly $395 million for issue and political advocacy by groups they support – twice the amount they previously had been expected to commit.

“People are energized because the future of our country and economy is at stake,” said an ally familiar with the Koch effort.

The flagship group in the Koch network is Americans for Prosperity, which gets about half its funds from other donors.

— American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (GPS) plan to do about two-thirds of their spending on advocacy related to the presidential race, and the rest relating to House and Senate races. Crossroads (a super PAC) was founded in April 2010, Crossroads GPS (a 501(c)4 non-profit group) started the next month.

—The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a goal of $100 million, according to outsiders familiar with the plans. All of that will be focused on congressional races, with the House as the top priority – what organizers call “the first insurance policy” if Obama were to get reelected.

But the Chamber’s message, which includes attacks on Obama’s health-care plan, can be expected to help Romney in several states with competitive Senate races that are also presidential battlegrounds – Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin.

—The YG Action Fund, the super PAC started by aides of the two self-styled “Young Guns” – House Republican Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — has a goal of raising about $30 million, including the YG Network.

—American Action Network, chaired by former senator Norm Coleman, raised about $30 million in the 2010 election cycle and is likely to try to at least match that amount in 2012, with most of that going toward congressional races.

—The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC supported by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other House GOP leaders, has reported raising $5 million so far.

—The pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, is likely to raise $50 million to $100 million for the general election. “They saw that the spending worked before, and with the race this competitive, it will be even easier for them to raise money now,” said a source close to the group.

Charlie Spies, co-founder and counsel of Restore Our Future, said: “While there are multiple other groups doing important work to assist Republicans up and down the ticket, ROF is the only group dedicated solely to electing Mitt Romney, and targeting every dollar that we raise towards supporting him. ROF will spend our resources fighting back against the Obama team’s distortions and smears.”

—FreedomWorks, the Dick Armey-led tea party outfit that has backed challengers in GOP congressional primaries, is expected to spend $30 million or more on issue advocacy, campaign ads and organizing — between its super PAC and 501(c)4.

—The Republican Jewish Coalition, a 501(c)4 group that works closely with the Crossroads outfits and the American Action Network, plans to spend more than $6 million on “the largest, most expensive, most sophisticated outreach effort ever undertaken in the Jewish community,” according to a source familiar with its plans.

—Club for Growth plans spending in congressional races but does not reveal totals.

It’s important to step back for a moment to understand the currents racing through the money chase right now. Republicans, back in the era of soft money, dominated fundraising, thanks in large part to big business donors. But when soft money was outlawed in 2002, a lot of business donors got uneasy about feeding their money through outside groups. Many sat out. At the same time, liberals got into the business of using tax-exempt and other groups to build their own web of think tanks, media monitors, vote-trackers and advocacy groups to influence politics. Rich liberals such as George Soros and union leaders funded much of it.

By the time 2008 rolled around, Obama and the Democrats were rolling over Republicans in the race for campaign cash raised in limited chunks, and Obama largely discouraged big-money outside efforts. Things have changed rapidly – and, in some respects, radically — since then.

First, Citizens United made it easy and less risky for rich donors to get back in the game. Second, a subsequent lower court case paved the way for the creation of super PACs, giving mega-donors arguably the most effective vehicle for funding ads in the modern campaign finance era. Third and perhaps most important, Obama scared many free-market millionaires into action with what they perceive as his outright hostility to capitalism.

So that’s the backdrop and that’s the outcome.  Just remember, it sure wasn’t Republicans who broke their word on the public financing system that had always worked before.  It wasn’t Republicans who then destroyed that public financing system and threw the political fundraising process into the sewer (probably for all time).  It wasn’t a Republican who became the first one billion dollar political whore.  It sure wasn’t a Republican who schmoozed huge sums of cash in secret through third parties from an elderly but apparently horny heiress.

Now Democrats are in a hell-hole of their own making: the fools who pissed on the public matching funds system are now forced to either match Republicans who are holy in their rage against an evil man, or to reach deeply into their pockets and somehow find a billion dollars to purchase the gold-plated turd a.k.a. Barack Obama.

And apparently it’s hard for Democrats to find their wallets given the fact that they have to hold their noses with one hand around their “messiah.”

Why They Are Dangerous: Liberal Justices Make Case Against The Constitution

The liberal justices pretty much say, “Screw the Constitution, except for the nonexistent “penumbra and emanations” parts of it that we can make up.”

The nonexistent right to murder your own baby that exists nowhere in the Constitution?  Check.  The clearly stated 2nd Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms (which) shall not be infringed”?  Well, the liberals say they don’t like it, they don’t want it to be there, so screw that right.

The Declaration of Independence makes it crystal clear: rights come from our being created in the image of God.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights

These are natural rights.  The Constitution doesn’t grant them to us; we have them naturally from God, regardless of where we live or what government we have.  And if a government doesn’t allow these natural rights to be expressed, the people have the right to remove that government.

Elena Kagan doesn’t give a damn about natural rights.  For her, they are meaningless.  Government is god; rights come at the whim of Big Brother.

That philospophy flies in the face of Abraham Lincoln’s view.  He believed that the Declaration of Independence DECLARED the foundation of and purpose for the Constitution, saying:

“I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?”

Our most fundamental rights derive from God.  They most certainly DON’T derive from government, or from the ideological whims of a bunch of half-wit morally idiotic liberal judges.

The fact that Kagan doesn’t believe that the Constitution itself derives from a more fundamental and more powerful authority, that there is no foundational moral law which itself stands above the Constitution, is why she believes that the government should have no power outside of it.  Which is why she believes that the government may have the power to dictate that you must eat your fruits and vegetables.

Another question which is emerging is exactly what constitutes judicial activism?  Is it violating the Constitution and imposing ones’ will upon it, or is it reversing a terrible decision that had violated the Constitution?

To Democrats, it is the latter:

Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, his voice dripping with sarcasm, said that for Republicans accusing Democrats of judicial activism, “I have two words for you: Citizens United,” the shorthand name of the campaign-finance case.

Democrats point to what they claim is a nearly century old Supreme Court principle limiting corporations from rights that American citizens clearly have, such as the right of free speech.  And that stare decisis makes overturning that ruling sacrosanct.

But their problem is that those who view corporations as having the same free speech rights as persons under the law has a nearly TWO century precedent supporting it:

In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment.^[1][2]

From the railroad case:

In an 1886 tax dispute between the Southern Pacific Railroad and the state of California, the court reporter quoted Chief Justice Morrison Waite telling attorneys to skip arguments over whether the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause applied to corporations, because “we are all of opinion that it does.”

Why does violating “sacrosanct” stare decisis for “a nearly century old” precedent qualify as “judicial activism,” but violating a nearly TWO HUNDRED YEAR-OLD precedent not count as judicial activism?

Let’s set aside that we on the right have the oldest precedent on our side, such that the stare decisis argument becomes utterly null and void.  Let’s consider the merits of the case itself.  Heritage responds to that by pointing out:

However, those criticisms ignore the fact that the Austin decision on independent expenditures and the part of the McConnell decision on electioneering communications were outliers in the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence. The majority’s actions in Citizens United did not constitute judicial activism, but rather upheld basic First Amendment protections against unlawful encroachments by Congress. It is not judicial activism when a judge overturns two relatively recent decisions that were wrongly decided and that are in conflict with a long line of other precedents—particularly if the decision corrects constitutional errors. If this were not true, then the same critics of the Citizens United decision must believe that Plessy v. Ferguson[15] should still be the law of the land today and racial segregation should still be considered “constitutional” since under their slanted and sophomoric definition, the justices of the Supreme Court engaged in judicial “activism” in Brown v. Board of Education.[16] After all, the justices in Brown overturned Plessy and repudiated the “separate but equal” doctrine as unconstitutional—and arguably did so when they decided subsequent cases striking down similar policies by recalcitrant jurisdictions that acted contrary to Brown and its progeny.

Which is to say that the Citizens United case wasn’t a case of judicial activism, in which judges literally invented out of their own warped minds by “penumbras and emanations” a right that had never existed.  It was, rather, a case of constitutional strict constructionists restoring the constitutional principles that had existed prior to a bad law (Austin) being enacted by a group of judicial activists.

You want REAL judicial activism?  How about the liberal justices who voted to overturn the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the individual right to keep and bear arms simply because they don’t like it?

Let’s look to see the vapid legal arguments “justifying” these four moral idiots’ votes:

Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against Constitutional Rights
Jacob Sullum

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to states and cities as well as the federal government. Judging from their objections, the four dissenters were still reeling from the court’s landmark 2008 decision recognizing that the amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

In their dissenting opinions, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) worry that overturning gun control laws undermines democracy. If “the people” want to ban handguns, they say, “the people” should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives.

What if the people want to ban books that offend them, establish an official church or authorize police to conduct warrantless searches at will? Those options are also foreclosed by constitutional provisions that apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The crucial difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy like ours is that sometimes the majority does not decide.

Likewise, Stevens defends “state and local legislatures’ right to experiment,” while Breyer is loath to interfere with “the ability of states to reflect local preferences and conditions — both key virtues of federalism.” Coming from justices who think Congress can disregard state decisions about the medical use of marijuana because a plant on the windowsill of a cancer patient qualifies as interstate commerce, this sudden concern about federalism is hard to take seriously.

Another reason to doubt the dissenters’ sincerity: They would never accept federalism as a rationale for letting states “experiment” with freedom of speech, freedom of religion or due process protections. Much of their job, as they themselves see it, involves overriding “local preferences” that give short shrift to constitutional rights.

Second Amendment rights are different, Breyer says, because “determining the constitutionality of a particular state gun law requires finding answers to complex empirically based questions.” So does weighing the claims in favor of banning child pornography or depictions of animal cruelty, relaxing the Miranda rule, admitting illegally obtained evidence or allowing warrantless pat-downs, dog sniffs or infrared surveillance.

When they decide whether a law or practice violates a constitutional right, courts cannot avoid empirical questions. In cases involving racial discrimination or content-based speech restrictions, for example, they ask whether the challenged law is “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest” and is the “least restrictive means” of doing so.

But unlike equal protection or freedom of speech, Stevens says, “firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty.” How so? “Just as they can help homeowners defend their families and property from intruders,” he explains, “they can help thugs and insurrectionists murder innocent victims.”

Every right can be abused, with results that are immoral, illegal or both. Freedom of speech can be used to spread hateful ideas, promote pernicious political philosophies, slander the innocent or engage in criminal conspiracies. If there were no potential for harm from exercising a right, there would be no need to protect it, because no one would try to restrict it.

The dissenters’ most frivolous objection is that making states obey the Second Amendment “invites an avalanche of litigation,” as Stevens puts it. Every day we hear about cases in which people argue that the government has violated their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth or Eighth amendment. Neither Stevens nor Breyer wants to stop this “avalanche.” Only when the Second Amendment is added to the mix do they recoil in horror at the prospect that Americans will use the courts to vindicate their rights.

I have to laugh that the author of the above piece recoils in horror at the prospect of the Supreme Court voting to ban books because, if they do [read ‘when’], they’ve got a “book banning” advocate in Elena Kagan.

Justice Stevens does not have to worry that his home would be broken into by “home invasion” attackers who storm into a house and terrorize and murder the occupants in the home.  If he did, do you think he would still argue that the ability of a homeowner to protect himself and his family with a gun was somehow nullified by the fact that the criminals could have a gun, too?

Elena Kagan’s mentor was Justice Thurgood Marshall, who once famously said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

WHAT IF WHAT THE JUSTICE THINK IS RIGHT IS REALLY DEAD WRONG?!?!?!

Activist judges have repeatedly throughout history justified slavery, segregation, and racism, abandoning the plain sense of the Constitution in order to impose their views upon the text.  Let’s not forget that it was Democrats who fought to impose slavery, and it was judicial activists who bound the country up with laws that took the bloodiest war in American history to overcome.

What did Thomas Jefferson say about the threat of Supreme Court Justices imposing their own will upon the Constitution and imposing laws on the nation based on nothing but their own wills?

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.  But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I don’t hear Jefferson praising “you do what you think is right and let the law catch up” as defining the role of our Supreme Court Justices.  In fact, I hear him turning in his grave over the abomination that Barack Obama’s and Elena Kagan’s philosophy is inflicting upon the nation.

[Note: I used the same quotes above in responding to the LAST abomination to the Supreme Court that Obama appointed].

Our Constitution is being poisoned by the left.  One day it will die, and they will be able to erect the Marxist-fascist state they’ve always dreamed of.

How long it will be before that evil day comes – which will undoubtedly occur in a 5-4 decision – is entirely up to you.