Showing posts with label Smear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Smear. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

Gorsuch v. Gorsuch


Gorsuch vs. Gorsuch - An alien legal being seems to have captured the Justice.
By The Editorial Board    June 16, 2020 7:38 pm  

An alien appears to have occupied the body of Justice Neil Gorsuch as he wrote Monday’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, which sometimes happens when Justices breathe the rarified air of the Supreme Court building. But perhaps he’ll snap out of his living Constitution trance if he’s shown his own previous work.



In Bostock, Justice Gorsuch updated the meaning of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity. But in 2018 in Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. U.S., the Justice decried this approach to judging:

“Written laws are meant to be understood and lived by. If a fog of uncertainty surrounded them, if their meaning could shift with the latest judicial whim, the point of reducing them to writing would be lost. That is why it’s a ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction’ that words generally should be ‘interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning . . . at the time Congress enacted the statute.’”

And don’t forget New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira in 2019 where he quoted himself: “‘[I]t’s a ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction’ that words generally should be ‘interpreted as taking their ordinary . . . meaning . . . at the time Congress enacted the statute.’” He added: “After all, if judges could freely invest old statutory terms with new meanings, we would risk amending legislation outside the ‘single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure’ the Constitution commands.”



Yes we would, and nicely put. So what happened in Bostock?

One answer, we suppose, is that the other cases were obscure while Bostock was politically charged. But it’s in these high-profile cases that a Justice makes his reputation for standing on legal principle—or not. We still prefer the alien explanation, and we’re available for a legal exorcism upon request.


Monday, July 22, 2019

Training Camp for Fighting the Southern Poverty Hate Group, er Law Center.




Here is all that you need to know -- share this with every reporter that you contend with, and demand that the show integrity in their reporting!

------

1. The Southern Poverty Law Center is the real hate group, fully discredited. They basically label/libel every groups whose views they do not agree with, nothing more.

2. Their misuse of the label "hate" has become so well-known, the FBI no longer relies on them to monitor so-called hate groups. Government agencies do not trust them, so why should anyone else?

3. They are facing at least six lawsuits from different individuals and organizations because of their libelous slander against conservatives and other non-profit groups.

4. The agency's co-founder, Morris Dees, was fired for fostering a work culture of sexism and racism, as well as engaging sexual misconduct against female employees. Not exactly tolerant or loving, right?

5. The President of the SPLC, Richard Cohen, was forced to resign for enabling Mr. Dees' misdeeds. So did the SPLC legal director Rhonda Brownstein. Ironically, they fostered and permitted the very culture of hate they claimed to combat.

6.They are an inherently racist organization whose leadership routinely refused to hire minorities. Their organization routinely refused to hire anyone aside from white males and females.

7. Bob Moser, a former employee of the SPLC, informed the public in an exposé for The New Yorker that the whole SPLC is just a smear-machine fundraising mill, nothing more. The agency was never intended to actually stop extremism and hate, but just raise money off of gullible corporate donors who wanted to feel that they were helping the fight.



Moser states:

“All the time, dark shadows hung over everything: the racial and gender disparities, the whispers about sexual harassment, the abuses that stemmed from the top-down management, and the guilt you couldn’t help feeling about the legions of donors who believed that their money was being used, faithfully and well …. We were part of the con, and we knew it.”

This from an unabashed liberal who worked in the agency!

8. They are so reckless in their slander, the SPLC was forced to pay a $3.8 million settlement to Maajid Nawaz of Quillette, a reformist minded Muslim, for libeling (not just labeling) him as an "anti-Muslim extremist". Why? Because as a Muslim reformer he opposes Sharia Law. Former President Richard Cohen had to make an official apology, too.

9. The SPLC claims to want to protect groups that have immutable characteristics from hate, That is a lie, The claim to protect illegal aliens from "hate", when immigration status is a very mutable characteristic. People can enter a country legally by VISA, and then become illegal aliens when they VISA lapses. Conversely, there are those who enter a country illegally who become legal residents through marriage or legal retribution.

Moreso, when it comes to homosexuality and transgenderism, there is a growing community of people who witness that those behaviors are not immutable characteristcs.

10. Because of the SPLC's libelous attacks on the Family Research Council, a deranged gunman charged into their DC office and wounded a security guard there before being subdued by DC police. This is the SPLC, folks. They foment and foster hate.

11. Mark Potok, former senior member of the SPLC, has admitted on record that their organization exists not to monitor hate groups, but merely to destroy conservatives. Nothing more.

12. Telling the truth is not hate. The SPLC lies. What more need I more?

MORE REASONS:

13. Mother Jones and the Wall Street Journal have rejected the SPLC hate-mongering, too. Even the Washington Post is questioning their efforts and labeling. The Washington Post!



Saturday, December 2, 2017

ThinkProgress Fail: Smears Republican Congressional Candidate Over Social Media Profile

Edwin Duterte is running for Congress in California's 43rd Congressional District.

He is not my choice to replace Maxine Waters. Omar Navarro is, and he has already raised considerable sums of money. He has also received high-profile endorsements from Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Barry Goldwater Jr, Herman Cain, and Joy Villa.

I do not care for the tactics which Edwin Duterte has used, according to reports which I have received. He leaked information about a spurious arrest and conviction against Omar Navarro to the local press, which had the opposite effect of boosting Omar's profile.

So, with all of that said ...

I know for a fact that Edwin is no racist. He has reached out to and worked with men and women of all backgrounds.

He is Filipino himself!

I have spoken with him and he has invited people of different backgrounds to speak at the South Bay Republican Assembly when he served as its President.

So, when I found this article on ThinkProgress attempting to smear him, I laughed out loud!




What is going on here?

The social media site that ThinkProgress is smearing is "Gab".

This site is truly dedicated to Freedom of Speech and wants to stop the arbitrary silencing of different voices and eclectic views. Facebook, Twitter, and Google are engaging in a systematic crackdown on differences of opinion and freedom of speech, and Gab has emerged as a clear alternative to permit a true concourse and discussion of ideas.

We need this! America was founded on freedom, including freedom of speech!

Why would ThinkProgress want to smear freedom?

Why would they go after Edwin Duterte for wanting to promote his campaign?

And how dare they call Gab a "White supremacist" site.

It isn't. I have encountered some viciously anti-Semitic accounts, true. But the answer to free speech is more free speech. I am not going to be bullied into silence--or into silencing others--just because of their heinous views.

Again, why does ThinkProgress play the "White supremacy" card?

Gab launched in 2016 and describes itself as an “ad-free social network for creators who believe in free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of information online.” While it may not explicitly side with the political right, its green frog logo closely resembles the Pepe the Frog meme that was popularized by members of the white nationalist movement that calls itself the “alt-right.”

More distortions.

"Alt-right" is a left-wing movement, hence they are "alternative" right.

Second, Pepe the Frog has been popularized by men and women of all backgrounds. If white supremacists wanted to turn Mickey Mouse into a symbol of Nazism and hate, would Disney have to disavow Mickey Mouse?

This race card crap needs to be taken down a notch. ThinkProgress does not think, and they are not making any progress toward making this country great again for all.

Do they really think that a Filipino-American is a white nationalist or a white supremacist? I would find it very difficult for anyone to take these websites seriously. 

In fact, Duterte made it very clear about his egalitarian views, which are distinctly American anyway:

Though Duterte does not make explicit, incendiary comments about race himself, he engages with other Gab users who do not hold back their white nationalist opinions. After someone with the username “TwitterSucksHillarysBalls” told Duterte “I dont want a single fkn jew in the US,” Duterte responded by saying: “I am cool with every race.”

Of course, the reporter refused to capture that post and provide it on her article, although she provided other posts about his conservative views to support President Trump, especially on immigration.




I would go so far as to suggest that they are libelous!

Shame on them!

Contact the reporter, Kira Lerner, and ask her why she tried to smear Edwin Duterte as a racist, when that is completely untrue!