Mediaboss Marketing

Hillary Clinton piled on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Tuesday, calling him a person of grievance full of resentment and anger.

The former first lady, US senator and secretary of state as well as twice-defeated presidential candidate made the jaw-dropping comment during an interview with CBS Mornings host Gayle King.

I went to law school with him, said Clinton, a 1973 graduate of Yale Law School. (Thomas received his J.D. from the school a year later.) Hes been a person of grievance for as long as Ive known him. Resentment, grievance, anger.

Thomas has been the subject of an onslaught of outrage over his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Center, which overturned the courts landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and returned the issue of abortion to each of the 50 states.

In his opinion, Thomas insisted the court reconsider and correct precedents based on the legal doctrine of substantive due process including decisions that established the right to free contraception use and same-sex marriage across the country.

Clinton said the concurrence was Thomas way of signaling conservatives and Republican-led state legislatures to find cases and pass laws targeting those rights.

I may not win the first, the second or third time, but were going to keep at it, Clinton claimed Thomas was saying.

The people he is speaking to are the, you know, right-wing, very conservative judges and justices and state legislatures, she added. And the thing that is well, theres so many things about it that are deeply distressing but women are going to die, Gayle. Women will die.

Conservatives ripped Clinton for her comments while defending Thomas personal character.

Deplorable, irredeemable, a person of grievance, resentment, and anger The hatred Hillary Clinton has for conservatives is palpable, tweeted Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Just an absurd accusation, added Ohio GOP Senate candidate J.D. Vance. Justice Thomas is one of the warmest people Ive ever met. He has this amazing quality where he treats everyone with kindness regardless of their station.

Thomas is a happy, gracious, compassionate guy who has the reputation for literally none of these things, agreed Hudson Institute senior fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs.

Clarence Thomas is literally the one person on the Supreme Court even the libs who work there say is always smiling and happy, tweeted radio host Erick Erickson. Clinton is literally the one politician in America whose paid staff have to assure us shes likable.

Others implied a racial motivation for Clintons remark.

Difficult to ignore how Thomas who didnt even write the majority opinion in Dobbs is seemingly always the target of this kind of ire, tweeted The Federalist senior editor David Harsanyi.

So theyve settled on the angry black man and its totally fine to do this on national tv, opined Spectator contributing editor Stephen L. Miller.

Thomas critics have included Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the 2015 ruling legalizing gay marriage across the US.

Obergefell accused Thomas of protecting himself in his concurrence by omitting the 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling that declared it unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage. Thomas, who is black, has been married to his wife, Ginni, who is white, since 1987.

Its a clear indication that if its a case that impacts him directly, its safe, Obergefell told CNN Newsroom on Sunday. But if its a case that protects other people, other people who are unlike him, then were not very safe.

The right to interracial marriage is only six years older than a womans right to abortion, Obergefell added. Half of your country lost the right to control their own body, and that should terrify everyone in this nation who believes in our ability.

Our nation has a much longer history of denying interracial marriage. Do we want to go back to the late 18th century, the originalist whos saying we can only interpret the Constitution as of the time it was written? When that Constitution was written, We, the People did not include blacks, indigenous people, it did not include women, it did not include queer people. That is not a more perfect union, he continued.

We should be moving forward, not backwards, he added. And this court is taking us backwards, this extreme court is taking us backwards.

See more here:
Hillary Clinton blasts Clarence Thomas as person of grievance after ...

Ross K. Goldberg| Your Turn

I am a lifelong Democrat since my days as a student volunteer for Robert Kennedys presidential run in 1968. I provide that admission because I am about to endure the scorn of my political brethren by speaking ill of two of the partys beloved icons. But here it goes.

Much of the problems that America faces today can be laid directly at the feet of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and its about time they no longer get a free pass for their actions.There, Ive said it.

In 2016, the Democrats anointed Hillary Clinton with its partys nomination because it was her turn. But history tells us that my turn has never been a good enough reason for such an honor. Just ask Mondale, Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain or Romney. It was all of their turns and they all lost. In fact, the last my turn candidate to win the presidency before Joe Biden was George H.W. Bush 34 years ago.

Conversely, it is often the ones whose turn it isnt Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, Trump whose insurgency carried them to surprising victory. Sadly, the Democrats chose to ignore this truism and, instead, shamefully stacked the deck in the nominating process to favor their favorite. They should have known storms were on the horizon when, even despite the game being fixed, she barely edged out an aging, little known socialist from Vermont.

Once nominated, the carefully orchestrated crescendo eroded into a misguided campaign from Day 1. Her arrogance was apparent throughout and such inner divinity prevented her campaign from candidly acknowledging her weaknesses. Her relationship with the media was dreadful and its erosion was felt by ordinary people. She failed to get young people and minorities, two constituencies she desperately needed, excited about her candidacy. She miscalculated the electorates appetite for change over consistency. Worst of all, she never really could articulate why she was running other than because it was her turn.

Despite all this, she still won the popular vote by three million which indicates just what a winnable election it was. But popular vote has never been the payoff window. And consider this: while Clinton won the popular vote by three million, she won California (a state Trump strategically ignored) by four million. That means she lost the other 49 by over a million.

Ruth Ginsberg had her turn, too. Regrettably, however, she didnt know when her turn should have been up and for that she deserves both credit and criticism: credit for her passionate desire to serve and criticism for ignoring the political consequences of her actions.

As far back as 1999 her well-documented health challenges began when she was diagnosed withcolon cancer, the first of her fivebouts with cancer. Nearly a decade later, Ginsburg fell in her office,fracturing three ribs, for which she was hospitalized. While in the hospital a CT scanshowed cancerousnodulesin her lungs. She underwent a left-lunglobectomyand months later she completed three weeks of focused radiation treatment toablatea tumor found in herpancreas. Less than a year after that, Ginsburg was once again receiving treatment for a recurrence of cancer.

WhenJohn Paul Stevensretired in 2010, Ginsburg became the oldest justice on the court and rumors swirled that she would retire because of advancing age, poor health, and the death of her husband. Several times during Obamaspresidency progressive attorneys and activists called for Ginsburg to retire so that Obama could appoint a like-minded successor.

In 2013, Obama himself invited her to the White House when it seemed likely that Democrats would lose control of the Senate, but she again refused to step down. We all know how that ended. In the ultimate ironic twist, it turned out that the final act of this heroine among feminists was to do a great disservice to women by remaining on the bench through the transition to a Republican president.Credit must be given to Justice Breyer for not making the same mistake.

If the Democrats had not stacked the deck in 2016, or if Clinton would have run even an adequate campaign, there would have been no Trump presidency, meaning no scoffing at climate change, no cavalier response to COVID-19, no big lie and no Jan. 6.

As for Ginsburg, had she not let stubbornness eclipse logic in 2013, her seat would have been filled by Obama, not Trump. That would have meant no dramatic shift of the court to the right, voting rights would not be in jeopardy, Second Amendment challenges would likely have a far different outcome, issues of separation of church and state would be adjudicated more evenly and the cause for which she fought a lifetime to protect Roe v. Wade would not have been abolished.

Hillary and Ruth. Two very smart individuals. Two very loyal Democrats. Two heroes to millions. But as F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy. Sadly, the tragedy this time is the state of our republic.

Ross K. Goldberg is a resident of Westlake Village and author of the book I Only Know What I Know.

See the article here:
Guest column: Hillary Clinton and Ruth Bader Ginsburg deserve some of the blame - VC Star

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is slamming conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom she described as a person of grievance in an interview on Tuesday.

I went to law school with him. Hes been a person of grievance for as long as I have known him, Clinton said in an interview with Gayle King during an appearance on CBS This Morning. Resentment, grievance, anger women are going to die, Gayle. Women will die.

Thomas has been on the receiving end of sharp criticism from womens rights groups and Democrats following the courts blockbuster decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling granting abortion rights.

Thomas has long been an opponent of Roe, and in his abortion opinion said the court should reconsider other rights such as contraception and same-sex marriage.

He has signaled in the past to lower courts, to state legislatures to find cases, pass laws, get them up, Clinton said, adding Thomass message to conservative judicial activists has been I may not get them the first, the second, or the third time, but were going to keep at it.

Thomas has also been rebuked by Democrats over his refusal to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, despite his wife Ginni Thomas playing a prominent role in organizing around efforts to keep former President Trump in office.

Clinton ran for president in 2016 and lost to Trump. She has since written a best-selling book about her campaign and has engaged in dozens of television interviews, documentaries and speaking gigs offering her thoughts on politics, the media and pop culture.

Link:
Hillary Clinton: Clarence Thomas has always been a person of grievance - The Hill

On the day that Cassidy Hutchinson offered damning testimony about President Trumps scurrilous behavior on Jan. 6, Cathy McMorris Rodgers went on Fox to talk about President Bidens anti-American energy policies.

Do you think she knows what anti-American means?

The best way for her to find out would have been to pay attention to the hearings of the committee, which have masterfully built the case exposing the campaign of a former president to overturn an election he lost.

She hasnt done that, obviously. As with all things in the Trump era, McMorris Rodgers has adopted the three-monkeys strategy: Neither seeing, nor hearing, nor speaking any uncomfortable truths.

She is not alone, of course, in turning a blind eye toward the mountain of evidence, even as it grows more damning and revealing.

As the hearings played out debunking the fraud narratives and illustrating the devastating effect these lies had election integrity groups in Washington have been slinging innuendo about supposed chicanery in our elections, engaging in vigilante canvassing efforts to investigate, seeking ever more audits from county officials, and keeping aloft the idea, without evidence, that the system is corrupt and they are here to fix it.

The day after the Hutchinson testimony, a CD copy of 2000 Mules the much-derided and debunked documentary about the 2020 election showed up in my mailbox, courtesy of Spokane Citizens for Election Integrity.

Im not sure if this was a special gift for me (and others in the media whom I know received one), or more of a blanket community mailing.

But the idea that people who are supposedly interested in the security of our elections would offer up 2000 Mules as undeniable proof of election fraud in 2020 at the moment that the election-fraud lie is being eviscerated in the House committee hearings tells you all you need to know about the factual integrity of the movement.

The film, made by conservative conspiracy-monger Dinesh DSouza, has been mercilessly and repeatedly fact-checked. The Associated Press concluded it was based on faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper assumptions about cell-phone location data.

A point-by-point analysis by FactCheck.org concluded the supposed evidence is speculative and does not provide the definitive proof that Trump and the filmmakers claim.

Reuters said it examined the main claims presented in the film and did not find any concrete evidence definitively showing proof of fraud.

The Washington Posts Phillip Bump, in evaluating the irredeemable flaws of the films argument, said DSouza is elevating shaky, misrepresented, incomplete claims to bolster his rhetoric an apt summary of the movie overall.

And its not just media types scoffing. Bill Barr laughed at the films argument in his Jan. 6 testimony. Ann Coulter savaged the film in an essay titled Dineshs Stupid Movie.

Too crazy for Ann Coulter should be too crazy for anyone.

In the election-integrity game, though, it isnt.

Which brings me back, in a roundabout way, to the question of what our congresswoman has seen of the Jan. 6 hearings and what she thinks of them. Because election-fraud lies are what led to that awful day and because the case being laid out in those hearings is everything the mule mockumentary is not: rigorous, factual, on-the-record, sober, persuasive.

All signs indicate that McMorris Rodgers isnt bothering to notice.

And yet she assures us that Joe Biden is anti-American.

I asked her press office three times this week whether shes been watching the hearings, and once particularly about Hutchinsons testimony. I was referred to an interview she gave to the S-Rs Kip Hill two weeks ago.

Heres what she said at the time, after claiming shed watched parts of the hearings: Unfortunately, this commission was not set up for success. Its politically driven. And I dont believe that the way that it was structured, the members that were appointed to the Commission will be successful at really exploring the facts of what happened on Jan. 6, and what the truth is.

We would all like to get the answers. But unfortunately, this commission was not set up to accomplish that goal.

Would she really like to get the answers? Forgive me if I doubt it. She wants the answers like O.J. wants to find the true killer.

On the day McMorris Rodgers was calling Biden anti-American for the hundredth time, a real Republican patriot was talking about actual anti-Americanism.

Hutchinson said that when she saw Trump tweeting insults about Mike Pence even as he knew the crowd was calling for Pences hanging, As an American, I was disgusted. It was unpatriotic. It was un-American.

The congresswoman could have learned a thing or two, had she tuned in.

View post:
Shawn Vestal: A case of truth and courage about January 6, for those with the eyes to see - The Spokesman Review

Appearing on MSNBCs Morning Joe, the Rev Al Sharpton last week suggested that the left was as much to blame as Christian nationalists for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Why? Because Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college vote in 2016.

Vote Blue No Matter Who Democrats (also known as Blue MAGAs) love to blame their partys shortcomings and monumental incompetence on the left. The left is their boogeyman. They despise the left more than they hate the far right.

Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader and (inexplicably) the actress Susan Sarandon are Blue MAGAss favorite targets. Nader, because they blame his third party presidential run for Al Gores loss in 2000, just as Bernie gets blamed for Hillarys inconceivable loss to Trump in 2016.

They hate Sarandon becausewell, because Blue MAGAs are completely irrational beings.Naturally the recent US Supreme Courts decision overturning Roe v. Wade is the lefts fault too. One of my favorite tweets from the week came from a Blue MAGA who goes by the handle media witch:

Did you vote for Bernie Sanders, you privileged little cosplay socialists? Then we can blame YOU for this horrifying turn of events

I have tried to wrap my mind around why Blue MAGAs hate the left so much and I have come to the conclusion that it is because the left is not shy about pointing out the Democratic partys blatant hypocrisy, abandoned campaign promises, and abject policy failures.

Blue MAGAs maintain that the left should be good team players, by which they mean they should not put forth leftist candidates or vote third party, and they must never, ever criticize Democrats.

When the left does point out the Democratic Partys shortcomings, Blue MAGAs consider this to be the worst kind of betrayal. A crime far more heinous than anything conservative Republicans can do.

Meanwhile Blue MAGAs have continued to heedlessly pull the lever for the Democrats no matter how far right the party has drifted, no matter how pro-Wall Street the party has become. At the same time they have doubled down in their efforts to obstruct leftist or third party challengers, even as Democratic policies have proven disastrous for the working class.

It is an article of faith with Blue MAGAs that the left cannot possibly win elections, therefore they had no problem with the Democratic National Committee rigging the 2016 and 2020 primaries against the wildly popular Bernie Sanders (a February 2020 poll gave Bernie a 71 percent favorable rating from Democratic voters) and forcing all of the other Good Democrats (Warren, Buttigieg, Klobachar) to suspend their presidential campaigns in order to create a united front against the Democratic Socialist frontrunner.

Indeed, they will stop at nothing in order to prevent any and all leftist influence on the Democratic Party. They may not fight for the working class, but they will fight like hell to maintain a party that Wall Street and the Silicon Valley elites can embrace. At the end of the day, they would much prefer the party drift to the right than to the left which is why it is foolish for the left to continue to support Lesser of Two Evil Democratic candidates like Clinton and Biden.

Blue MAGAs have no choice but to trumpet the Big Lie that Bernie (or Nader, Sarandon, Jill Stein, fill in the blank) is to blame for their electoral losses, their horrible decisions, their pathetic campaigns, their poverty of ideas, their inability to pass their agenda. Like their Red MAGA counterparts, Blue MAGAs whole house of cards would come crashing down if they ceased believing in the Big Lie. Like Trump and his supporters they simply cannot afford to tell the truth. It would be foolish to expect them to do otherwise.

Excerpted: Blue MAGAs Big Lie.

Courtesy: Counterpunch.org

Follow this link:
Big lie - The News International