FIVE SUPREME COURT TRAITORS UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY

These five men are traitors to the American Constitution. From left to right, the traitors are Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas,  Samuel Alito, and below right, Anthony Kennedy whose smug crooked smile (up on one corner, down on the other) could be put on the face of all five of these very average men. They have made a mockery of the idea of fair elections in America, helping to return America to the days of Jim Crow election practices in the South. The most frightening thing about this Supreme Court misruling is the realization that these members of our Supreme Court are so corrupted by partisan politics that they willingly and openly participated in the brazen Teapublican plan to disenfranchise American voters. Not since Hitler's days has a top court of justice gone along so brazenly with one political party in an effort to destroy the right to vote of another group of voters. In Hitler's Germany, it was the Jews who were disenfranchised. In America, it's blacks, Hispanics and older citizens that these corrupt Supreme Court justices are helping the Teapublicans to disenfranchise. When a nation's supreme court of law is so corrupted as this one is by one party, no citizen is safe from politicians willing to destroy the democratic ways in which we select those who will represent us in our Republic. I think, if honest lovers of our Republic should ever achieve enough power to do it, these five Justices of the Supreme Court ought to be tried as criminals for their aid to the Teapublican Party's plan to undermine the Constitution of the United States. They are due no respect. They've dirtied their pants, crapped on the bench where they sit in shame. They stink. The five are corrupt Teapublicans, root and branch, with loyalty only to the wealthy people who fund the Teapublican Party.  

I’M SORRY TO SAY: REPUBLICAN (CONSERVATIVE-CHRISTIAN-FUNDAMENTALIST-MCCAIN) PARTY IS FASCIST IN NATURE TOP TO BOTTOM! WHY DOES MCCAIN CONTINUE TO BE A REPUBLICAN?

The evidence of vote tampering by Republicans continues to mount. The evidence pile is now about as tall as Mount Hood in the State of Oregon.

[SNIPPET]
Von Spakovsky, Schlozman's deputy, who has been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury because of his refusal to speak to investigators, was also alleged to have to misused his official position by setting aside the law to take actions to help Republican candidates.

When von Spakovsky was nominated to serve on the Federal Election commission, six career officials of the Justice Department's Voting Rights Section, who had worked under him, wrote the Senate asking that he not be confirmed.

The six alleged that "during the 2004 election cycle" von Spakovsky "broke with established Department policy by getting involved with contentious and partisan litigation on the eve of the election. Mr. von Spakovsky drafted legal briefs between the Republican and Democratic parties in three battleground states, Ohio, Michigan and Florida just before the election, all in favor of the Republican party's position." The six career officials further asserted: "These briefs ran counter to the well-established practice of the Civil Rights Division not to inject itself into litigation or election monitoring on the eve of an election where it would be viewed as expressing a political preference or could have an impact on a political dispute."

These briefs ran counter to the well-established practice of the Civil Rights Division not to inject itself into litigation or election monitoring on the eve of an election where it could be viewed as expressing a political preference or could have an impact on a political dispute.
[PASTEIT]

As reported by Murray Waas murraywaas@gmail.com | HuffPost Reporting From DC

GASOLINE FIRED RESOLUTION

Every day, I drive somewhere even though I'm retired and seldom "need" to be anywhere. So, I'm trying to resolve to stay home at least one day every 5 weekdays and, thus, cut my gasoline consumption by 20% each five day period. Weekends are a different matter, but on weekends, my wife and I usually drive together in one car and, thus, use less gasoline too. Add to that the fact that my wife and I both drive 4 cylinder autos and have always driven 4 cylinder (sometimes 3 cylinder) autos, and anyone can see that we've been doing our patriotic best to free America from foreign oil for a long time. For me, the elder of we two, I've been gasoline conscious since 1964 when I bought my first VW or People's Wagon, as I used to call it. I know... I know... I've mentioned this early on VW purchase I don't know how many times on this blog. OK! So slap me silly!

THE NEOCON FUNDAMENTALIST CHICKENHAWK CHRISTIAN REPUBLICAN PARTY: AT IT AGAIN

Dahlia Lithwick's recent article in Newsweek (June 2, 2008/Page 45) is the second article I've come across recently that shows how the Republican Christian Fundamentalist Neocon Chickenhawk Party is trying to disenfranchise American voters. These Christian Fundamentalist Neocon Chickenhawks used to be in the Democratic Party but have long since been driven out of that Party by liberal patriots and true Americans and have adopted the newly reorganized Republican Christian Fundamentalist Neocon Chickenhawk Party. . . .

Okay, so I'm just having fun, exaggerating the situation the Republican Party has created for itself, but one must admit that whereas it was the Democrat Party in the South which once upon a time found ways (poll taxes, threats and impossible quizzes) to disenfranchise Black voters, it is now the Republican Party that is spearheading voter disenfranchisement of the poor all over America by instituting new sorts of restrictions on the Constitutionally-protected right to vote. And it is Bushite Supreme Court appointees who support the disenfranchisement. (See Supreme's decision to support voter IDs in Indiana.) Can a reasonable man (or woman) assume that it is the shift of Bible Belt Southerners from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party that has caused this tactic of disenfranchisement to also move from the Democrat to the Republican Party?

Lithwick points out that the firings of U.S. attorneys by the Bushites were politically motivated by their frustration with attorneys who failed to find widespread voter fraud. But instead of letting their fruitless attempts lapse, the Republican Party is using the fear label, "voter fraud", as a way of disenfranchising America's poor. They are attempting to disenfranchise poorer voters by requiring them to purchase voter IDs (a new kind of poll tax) if they do not happen to have purchased driver's licenses or passports for foreign travel. How many poor people travel to Europe for summer vacations? How many rich people are without passports or, at the least, driver's licenses? You see how skewed this requirement is? As Lithwick writes: ". . . the circle is complete, and the crusade to end imaginary vote fraud will result in real vote suppression."

Of course if all voter IDs are furnished free of charge and sent through the mail, then, they cannot be interpreted as a new poll tax. Getting voter IDs does impose an extra burden not imposed on others if the handicapped and the non-driver (elderly and poor) and those who don't travel abroad are required to travel to county court houses to get them.

WHY THE SUPPRESSION OF LESS WELL OFF VOTERS IS DAMAGING

I'm going to admit a prejudice I caught myself harboring in the dusty closet of my brain. For most of my life, I thought that poorer and, thus, uneducated and therefore "ignorant" Americans supported the Vietnam War while we college-educated folk did not. Part of my prejudice was probably because my earliest attempts at higher education in the '60s occurred in the midst of a growing campus-oriented Vietnam protest. I was surrounded by protesters and joined in myself. Also, I recall clearly the New York construction workers who leaped into a protest march and beat the crap out of the marchers.

Lo and behold, I'm the ignorant one! In Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen on pages 297-299 (1995 edition) are some charts which slap me in the puss with the truth. According to a 1971 poll, only 60 percent of the college-educated wanted our troops brought home from Vietnam while 80 percent of the grade school-educated wanted them brought home.

But what's really revealing about this chapter in Loewen's book is that in another survey, the college-, high school- and grade school-educated all thought that the college-elite were more likely to oppose the war, whereas college-educated, specially doctors and lawyers, were more likely to support it. Granted, by 1971 things were changing rapidly in the nation and the surveys that Loewen cites might have come out differently in an earlier time. By 1971, the nation had pretty well been brought around to a different point of view. Also, the media's heated coverage of campus protests certainly gave the impression that all the anti-war sentiment was being generated on campuses around the country. Still, the view by poorer off, grade school-educated Americans that college people were more likely to be more able to sift through information, evaluate evidence and to know the score and, thus, oppose the war sure gives me an insight into how America's less well off tend to dismiss their own opinions and to look to others to lead them.

I've mentioned Loewen's book before, and I still recommend it. Try to get the most recent edition, if you can. The pages I reference in this blog entry might be different.