DISTURBED: Garofalo's Racial Ridicule of Clarence Thomas

Garofalo is a "self-loathing white trash" progressive who is too mentally disturbed to realize that she herself is not only racist, but totally clueless. She's too clueless to know that liberals DID have a problem with John McCain's birthplace, too stupid to figure out that the tea party has been around long before Obama was elected president and that the tea partiers are far from racist. (A true racist would support the progressive movement; just look at how damaging it has been to the black community)

Garofalo had admitted that she's NEVER even been to a tea party, yet she's some expert at knowing what the movement is about. She also seems to have a problem with interracial relationships...

Simply put, Janeane Garofalo is an ignorant, self-loathing, racist idiot...

By the way, don't these libtards know how to use Google?

MORE WHITE LIBERAL RACISM: NYT Tries Trashing Clarence Thomas Ahead of Obamacare Vote

PIN POINT, Ga. — Clarence Thomas was here promoting his memoir a few years ago when he bumped into Algernon Varn, whose grandfather once ran a seafood cannery that employed Justice Thomas’s mother as a crab picker. READ MORE...

Related- Liberal Racism- Discover the Networks

STAR PARKER: Why liberals hate Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin

In days when slavery was legal in this country, all slaves did not willingly resign to the grim fate cast upon them.

The human spirit longs to be free. In some individuals, that longing beats so strong in their breast that they will take large personal risks, against great odds, to rebel against tyranny that has transformed their life into a tool for someone else's will and whim.

Slaves who had the temerity to run away from their plantation "home" paid dearly if they were caught and returned. Measures were taken to make them an example to others who might harbor similar thoughts about freedom. READ MORE...

FRAUDS: 'White Liberal Owned' NAACP Won’t Directly Condemn Racism Against Clarence Thomas

The NAACP won't directly address the racism displayed by progressive protesters outside a summit hosted by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch at the end of January in Palm Springs, Calif., but the organization did call for an end to all "vitriolic language."

In response to The Daily Caller's request for comment on a video showing progressive protesters calling for somebody to "string up" African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or "send him back into the fields" or "cut off all his toes and feed them to him one-by-one," NAACP spokesman Hilary Shelton pointed to the organization's recent resolution calling for a "civil political discourse." READ MORE...

Federal Judge Upholds Government Funding of Sharia Law

Last week, Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff, a federal district court judge in Michigan, dismissed a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Government’s bailout of AIG, which used over a hundred million dollars in federal tax money to support Islamic religious indoctrination through the funding and promotion of Sharia-compliant financing (SCF). SCF is financing that follows the dictates of Islamic law.

The challenge was brought by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and co-counsel David Yerushalmi, on behalf of Kevin Murray, a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraqi War. TMLC filed a notice of appeal immediately after the ruling and will be seeking review of the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. READ MORE...

Fed Judge Rules Obamacare Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

RICHMOND, Va. (The Blaze/AP) — A federal judge declared the Obama administration’s health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia’s attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.

Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. However, the key issue was his claim that the federal law’s requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.

Hudson, a Republican who was appointed by President George W. Bush, sounded sympathetic to the state’s case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.

Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law’s implementation, noting that its two major provisions – the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets – don’t take effect until 2014.

On Monday, however, Fox’s Greta Van Susteren disagreed with that sentiment, saying that the provision that was struck down includes most of the funding for the bill: READ MORE...

WTF?!? Federal Judge Blocks Oklahoma Voters’ Ban on Sharia Law

Just days after 70 percent of Oklahoma voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that would bar state courts from using international law from deciding cases — namely Islamic Sharia law — the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed suit to block the measure.

Muneer Awad, the head of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter says the new law “demonizes” his religion and violates his First Amendment rights by embedding an “official disapproval of his faith” in the state constitution. He also argues that the ban would make it impossible for his family to legally execute his will, much of which is based on Islam.

On Monday, Federal District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining blocking the amendment.

The judge‘s injunction prohibits the state from certifying last week’s election results. Without this legal maneuver, the amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution would’ve gone into effect Tuesday.

The measure will now be temporarily delayed from taking effect until after the court holds another hearing on the matter, scheduled for Nov. 22.

NOTE- Why is this even an issue in America? For the people who want Sharia law in America, 'MOVE!'

Report: Soros spent millions to 'undermine' judiciary. Campaign sought 'commissions' that avoided public input on candidates for judgeships

Anti-American Communist George Soros, the biggest scumbag in America, yet he just won't leave.

Radical progressive billionaire George Soros has spent some $45 million in recent years on efforts to take away power from voters to select judges, a new report released today by the American Justice Partnership reveals.

The report by attorney Colleen Pero was introduced today at an event held by the Heritage Foundation. It identified $45 million spent by Soros, who funds a large range of left-wing action groups, to "remake the judiciary and fundamentally change the way judges are selected in the United States."

"This movement to end citizen participation in state judicial elections has been moving swiftly and silently, below the radar of the citizens who would be impacted by Mr. Soros' millions," said Pero in a statement about her report, "and it was time to bring this effort to the public's attention."

Learn what happens when the government breaks its own laws, in "Constitutional Chaos"

The American Justice Partnership explained that 39 states now have some form of judicial elections that provide judges be held accountable to the people they serve. However, Soros' goal has been to convert the procedures into various "merit" selection processes – which mostly have a special panel, often appointed and frequently political – to choose a slate of candidates from which someone, such as a governor, would appoint a judge. READ MORE...

Watchdog: We'll seek Kagan's disbarment and impeachment. Complaint alleges Obama's new Supreme Court appointee lied to Senate

A formal complaint has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court asking that Elena Kagan – the bench's newest occupant – be disbarred, and an attorney who submitted the request for a criminal investigation into her statements said the effort will be expanded also to seek her impeachment, following the Senate's 63-37 approval of her appointment today.

"On behalf of Freedom Watch and Declaration Alliance, and as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar, I hereby file a complaint to disbar Elena Kagan from practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and for referral to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal investigation and for obstruction of justice," wrote Larry Klayman, president of Freedom Watch.

The letter was dispatched to Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito.

"In addition to disbarment, this matter should respectfully be referred to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation of obstruction of justice and other related crimes," the letter said. READ MORE...

Critics: Kagan is sympathetic to Islamic law. What the hell are the democrats thinking confirming this nut for the Supreme Court?

Few fireworks erupted as the Senate opened up floor debate over Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan this week. Conventional wisdom remains that President Barack Obama’s second nomination to the high court will be confirmed with little trouble.

Despite the appearance of a fait accompli, numerous conservative groups have provided a wide range of reasons to oppose the Kagan nomination. Among the oft listed concerns are: her lack of experience, her perceived hostility to the military and free speech, her abortion and gay rights records, and her apparent reverence for foreign law. All these points have acted to obscure what some argue is one of her primary disqualifications — her sympathetic view of Sharia, or Islamic law.

Kagan’s detractors point to her time as the dean of Harvard Law School as the primary demonstration of her approval of Sharia. Andrew McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, wrote in an article on The National Review’s website that as Harvard Law School dean, Kagan “became the champion of sharia.”

Included in Kagan’s offensives as dean, according to McCarthy, was condoning the acceptance of $20 million from Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal — who blamed the attacks of 9/11 on American foreign policy — to fund programs on Islam. She also spearheaded the “Islamic Finance Project,” a program aimed at mainstreaming Sharia-compliant finance in America. And, as some point out, she awarded the Harvard Medal of Freedom to the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, who critics say is a promoter of Sharia.

Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, told The Daily Caller that Kagan would help advance Sharia law in America out of ignorance. “[Kagan] would knowingly and wittingly abet the advance of Sharia, but she wouldn’t do it understanding anything about Sharia. She would do it out of her ignorance.” READ MORE...

OH SNAP! Elena Kagan tied to Obama's birth certificate. 'It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it?

Just when you thought there couldn't be any more players in the ongoing soap opera over the hunt for President Obama's original birth certificate and his constitutional eligibility for office, there comes yet another name: Elena Kagan.

Yes, the same Elena Kagan nominated by the commander in chief to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has actually been playing a role for some time in the dispute over whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House.

Here's the connection. Kagan served as solicitor general of the United States from March 2009 until May of this year.

In that role, she legally represented the U.S. government in numerous cases coming before the Supreme Court.

A simple search of the high court's own website reveals Kagan's name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.


Docket No, 09-724, for instance, comes up with this in the search result:

Title: The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., Petitioner v. Federal Election Commission, et al. Reply of petitioner The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. filed. The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. Elena Kagan READ MORE...

NELSON SAYS NO: Sen Nelson First Democrat To Oppose Radical Kagan For Supreme Court

Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska said he will vote against confirming Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, becoming the first in his party to announce opposition.

Also today, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire said he will vote for President Barack Obama’s nominee, the fifth Republican to do so.

Nelson said he had heard “concerns” from people in Nebraska about Kagan.

“Her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded,” Nelson said. “Therefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan’s nomination.”

Still, Nelson said he would oppose any filibuster of Kagan’s nomination and favor allowing an “up or down vote.” It takes 60 votes to force a final vote. With 59 votes controlled by Democrats and five Republicans in support, Kagan’s nomination would have enough to end a Republican filibuster.

In announcing his support for Kagan, Gregg said she “has pledged that she will exercise judicial restraint and decide each case that comes before her based on the law, with objectivity and without regard to her personal views.” READ MORE...

SHE'S DANGEROUS: Sen. Jeff Sessions calls Kagan a 'dangerous' nominee for the Supreme Court..

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan picked up more GOP backing Wednesday in her drive toward near-certain confirmation next week, even as a top Republican lashed out at her as "dangerous."

(Photos: Elena Kagan' confirmation hearing and role in the Clinton administration)

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, warned senators in unusually dire terms against voting for President Barack Obama's choice, saying, "Be careful about it, because I'm afraid that we have a dangerous, progressive, political-type nominee."

Sessions' words of caution - he said they were primarily directed toward Democrats - came just hours after Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine became the fourth Republican to say she would break with her party to vote for Kagan, who's in line to succeed retired Justice John Paul Stevens.

Democrats already have more than enough votes to confirm her.

(Explore the Washington Post Kagan vote counter to see how close Elena Kagan is to being confirmed)

In a statement, Snowe said Kagan had met her standard for a justice, "with the strong intellect, respect for the rule of law, and understanding of the important but limited role of the Supreme Court that I believe is required." She said endorsements from leading lawyers, including prominent conservatives, had persuaded her that Kagan had the judicial temperament for the job.

Sessions, however, quoted Obama allies describing Kagan as someone who shares his political views, and argued she would be a liberal rubber stamp for Obama's policies.

"I don't think the American people are going to hold harmless those who vote to impose a legal progressive, activist legislator from the bench upon them," Sessions said. READ MORE...

Awesome Video: Sessions blasts Kagan nomination, rebuffs Schumer

This speech yesterday at the Judiciary Committee hearing before passing Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate is not notable so much for the attack on judicial activism by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as for his response to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). After Sessions talks about the apparently old-fashioned virtue of judicial neutrality, Schumer interrupts Sessions to challenge him on the recent Citizens United decision. Schumer says that some of his colleagues didn’t find that a “neutral” outcome, and Sessions politely but firmly puts Schumer in his place:

GET RID OF THIS MORON: RINO Lindsey Graham joins panel's Dems to approve radical Kagan

Carrie Dann writes: Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina on Tuesday voted in favor of the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, making him the only GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to back Obama’s pick for the high court.

The panel, made up of 12 Democrats and seven Republicans, approved Kagan’s nomination by a vote of 13-6. Every Democrat on the panel supported her, while every Republican other than Graham opposed her. The nomination will go to a full Senate vote within the next few weeks.

"I'm going to vote for her because I believe the last election had consequences," Graham said in announcing his support for Kagan. "This president chose someone who is qualified, who has the experience and knowledge to serve on this court ... and understands the difference between being a liberal judge and a politican." READ MORE...

PATHETIC: Specter to Obama: Um, can I have a job in your administration? In exchange for a yes vote on Kagan?

Alternate headline: “Confirmed: Obama bribed the wrong Pennsylvania Democrat.”

Even at 80 years old, he’d rather cling desperately to power than ease into a luxe retirement. Lot of that going around these days, huh?

Sources tell ABC News that Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Penn., has informed the White House that he would like to consider remaining in public service after his senate term ends at the end of this session, and White House officials are keeping an open mind about possible job openings for him…

Sources said the job discussions are far from anything other than preliminary, and were not part of any “deal” when Specter switched parties and began supporting President Obama’s agenda in earnest. Neither the White House nor Specter had any comment.

Talk of such a job, however, has raised eyebrows among Specter’s Republican Senate colleagues who are now eyeing his votes with added scrutiny.

As Tapper notes, it’s quite a coincidence that after making so much noise about how disappointed he was in Kagan, Specter’s finally decided to vote for her. Quid pro quo, Barry. Exit question: If Crist loses the Florida Senate race, then he, Specter, and Schwarzenegger will all be unemployed next year. Why not have the White House hire all three of them and use them as a team of RINO Superfriends dedicated to touting how much more “sensible” Obama’s policies are for the press?

REVENGE? Kennedy: I think I’ll stick around until 2013

Increasingly, Justice Anthony Kennedy has become the most important member of the Supreme Court. After the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor, Kennedy serves as the swing vote between the conservative and liberal blocs on the Court, siding more often with conservatives (but not often enough for their taste). At 74, though, Kennedy is at an age when most men think of retirement — and his departure would set off a political firestorm on Capitol Hill the likes of which haven’t been seen since Clarence Thomas endured his trial by fire in the Senate.

And maybe that’s why Kennedy tells close friends and relatives that he wants to wait a while before retiring … or perhaps it’s because of the man who would pick his successor: READ MORE...

IDIOTS: How did four Supreme Court justices wind up arguing against the Constitution?

Maybe we should avoid revisiting the McDonald decision too often, in order to avoid looking a gift horse in the mouth. The Supreme Court has made an individual right to gun ownership settled law, more than 220 years after the founders mistakenly believed they had settled the issue. Reason’s Jacob Sullum isn’t satisfied with the conclusion, however, after watching four Supreme Court justices argue against the Constitution and individual rights in general:

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. READ MORE...

Will Kagan Do A Sotomayor? Why You Should Never Trust A Liberal. VIDEO: Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power To Tell Americans What To Eat

Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor came off as a 2nd Amendment defender when she was being questioned during her confirmation hearings. She voted the other way when a gun rights case came to The Court.

Can we now trust Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan?

HECK NO!

VIDEO: Does the government have the power to tell you what to eat? Simple answer is 'heck no,' right?


This woman is scary. It's obvious she eats anything she wants. She's just another 'do as I say, not as I do' liberal.

The democrats are going to confirm this nut.

LIBERAL HYPOCRITE: Feinstein on Judicial Inexperience, Then and Now. VIDEO: Kagan Lying Through Her Yellow Teeth. Supports Foreign Law

Feinstein on Judicial Inexperience, Then and Now..

Dianne Feinstein, February 10, 2003:

Miguel Estrada has never been a judge. So we have no record of judicial decision-making to examine. This is not dispositive in itself, but it is the first area where we find no record to help us in our decision.

Mr. Estrada is not a prolific writer. So we have no real record of writing to examine. Again, this alone would not be dispositive, but it is strike 2 in terms of where we can get information about this nominee.

We have not been granted access to the memos he wrote at the Department of Justice. So we can only take the word of the man who supervised him that those memos were ideologically driven and that he could not be trusted.

Elena Kagan has never been a judge. She is not a prolific writer. We have not seen her internal memoranda and correspondence from when she was Solicitor General.

And so we see in the L.A. Times yesterday:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called Kagan’s lack of judicial experience “refreshing,” . . .

It’s just too easy. And I’m sure you could find examples of hypocrisy running the other way, too.

It’s the kind of thing that makes you long to watch actual kabuki theater.

If you’re interested in the snoozefest that is the Kagan confirmation, Jan Crawford has a number of videos at her Facebook page covering this and the gun rights case from yesterday. Check them out.

Kagan Bombs: OKs Foreign Law, Says Constitution Changes with Times

Kagan: Constitution Was Meant To Be "Interpreted Over Time" from RCP Video on Vimeo.

She's telling them what they want to hear. Senator Leahy is disgraceful.

Kagan: Citation of International Law "Appropriate" In Some Cases