The New York Times' Editors reveal their Pathological Liberalism and it is Disgusting.

 By D.C.

 The news print hustlers and ink pen assassins are at it again.The Marxist propaganda division of the New York Times,the editorial board,have come down from their ivory tower offices in the Big Rotten Apple to deliver one of the most disgusting editorials in recent memory.

 The cowardly typewriter hit men,who do not even have the courage to sign their own names to their work,offer us this piece of leftist garbage pawned off as legitimate editorial,"The Court and the Next President".

 In this telling piece,the nations self anointed newspaper of record's editorial board makes no bones about how truly sick with the mental disease of liberalism they really are.If you do not believe that the left despises the Constitution and will,if given the chance,destroy the rights contained within it,you will after this.

 The NY Times' liberal propagandists waste no time and get right to it in this first sentence;

"The Republican presidential hopefuls have been saying alarming things about the federal courts."

  So Mr.un-named slime bucket,what are some of these "alarming things"?

"Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum want to abolish the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which Mr. Gingrich says is “consistently radical” — meaning it upholds civil rights and civil liberties and other things he doesn’t like. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul say they would forbid the Supreme Court from ruling on same-sex marriage, forgetting perhaps that presidents don’t actually get to do that. Rick Perry has called for term limits for Supreme Court judges, although he hasn’t said whether he meant all of them, or just the liberal ones."

 The editors reject the idea that the most liberal Court of Appeals,the Ninth Circuit,is "consistently radical" because in their eyes it upholds "civil rights and civil liberties".Liberals consider it justice when the so-called civil rights of one group,like gays,minorities,atheists or feminists,is allowed to trample all over the civil rights of the majority.They really do care about civil rights,so long as your not a white,straight,non dope smoking,Christian male,who works for a living.In that case,grab your ankles and grit your teeth.

 Liberals honestly believe that justice should not be blind,it should be weighted,unfairly,to favor some over others and be dammed what the Constitution says.This is called judicial activism and the definition of what it means to be a Progressive,to progress beyond that dusty old Constitution written by rich white devils so long ago.

 Liberals enjoy pulling civil rights out of thin air,ones that do not exist in a Constitutional context.In most American's eyes (only 20% of the population is liberal) that is "radical".Of course,the NY Times' editors are not looking through those eyes.

 The NY Times' un-named editorial board goes on to discuss how old many of the Supreme Court Justices are,then this;

"Since 80 is the average retirement age of justices over the past generation, whoever is elected president could shape the court for the next generation. That means voters should be alarmed by the fringe ideas they have been hearing from the Republican candidates so far."

 Oooooooo,be afraid,very afraid! Those evil Republicans and their fringe ideas,they believe in the Constitution and God,how crazy is that? The only people with fringe ideas are the current President and his cult of mind numb followers.The Times' editors continue;

"The Roberts court is closely divided but also the most conservative since the 1950s. Four of the nine members are very conservative, three of them under 64. If the president is a Republican and has the chance to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, that could turn the court decidedly conservative for decades. If President Obama is re-elected and has the chance to fill Justice Scalia’s seat, that could turn the court into a more moderate one."

"That could turn the court into a more "moderate" one"? Moderate like the Ninth Circuit perhaps? Look at the two justices this President nominated for the Supreme Court,a couple of leftist radical lesbian feminists who are hell bent on destroying the Constitution.Give these two judicial activists a couple more concurring votes on the court and you can kiss our Founding Father's vision of America goodbye.

"That could turn the court decidedly conservative for decades"? That would be a good thing,maybe it would give them enough time to undo the damage done by liberal courts in the previous 60 years,including ending the wholesale murder of millions of unborn American citizens.

 These Marxist paperboys then go on to cite some Supreme Court rulings that "they" do not agree with;

"The retired Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his new memoir that when the first President George Bush was elected and got the opportunity to replace the very liberal Thurgood Marshall with the very conservative Clarence Thomas, the “importance of the change” in the court could not “be overstated.”

"Justice Stevens focuses on major 5-to-4 rulings to explain why: if someone with Marshall-like views had joined the court, it would not have struck down federal gun control laws, or found that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to keep a handgun at home."

 So,the Times' editors agree with the judicial lunatic John Paul Stevens that the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not exist.They do not believe that a law abiding American citizen has the right to own a handgun and keep that handgun is his own home.For a person to believe this,they literally have to deny reality,but that is the bad acid trip called liberalism.

 The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows;

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first part directs the government to use tax money to support a professional army for the security of the nation,then we have the much argued about comma,and the last part says regular folks have the right to possess firearms for whatever reason they may want to possess firearms.Those reasons are irrelevant and none of your or the government's business.

 Second Amendment cases,like those cited above,should never make it beyond the federal district level.These cases should all be thrown out by the judge.The Founding Fathers made the Second Amendment so clear and simple (they did this for a reason) ,that it should not even be open to interpretation or challenge.

 Many years ago,I had a Second Amendment argument with a very liberal and dear friend,who was attending law school at the time.He actually and very seriously argued with me that he could legally interpret "bear arms" to literally mean the arms of a bear,like a bear in the woods.I know you find this hard to believe,but he was very serious about it.I reckon you can sell crap like that to liberal activist judges in the federal court's Ninth District.

  I won the argument when I pointed out that bears do not have arms,they have four legs.That is how weak and twisted of an argument against the Second Amendment liberals have to make.Unfortunately,that is what they teach in law school,a denial of reality.

 Now back to the rotten piece of literary pornography the NY Times calls an editorial.

 The un-named editors lament Sen.John Kerry's (who claims he served this country in the Vietnam War) 2004 electoral defeat in his run for President.Oh,if only Kerry would have only been elected President then we wouldn't have Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito.

 The editors forget the fact if Kerry would have been elected they would not be able to grovel at the feet of their atheist messiah,the second coming of Mao Zedong,Barry Obama.

 They are particularly upset with Chief Justice Roberts' courts,5-4,ruling on the Citizens United case.Here they express their displeasure with the ruling;

"The case came to the Supreme Court as a limited question about interpreting a federal campaign-finance statute. In an aggressive act of judicial activism, the conservative majority made the case a constitutional matter and the signature of the Roberts court. Sweeping aside established precedents that had not been challenged and inserting itself into politics, the conservative majority unleashed unlimited corporate and other money into American politics and gave the Republican Party a large advantage in fund-raising."

That statement is a flat out lie.The editors of the NY Times are just fine with printing lies on a daily basis but even for them,that is a whopper.The only act of judicial activism in that case was the four justices who voted against the majority.

 "Sweeping aside established precedents"? The reason the court ruled on the case is because there were no established precedents.They did what the Supreme Court is supposed to do,they made a ruling to clarify the law so the law would not be in dispute in the lower courts.If there would have been previously established precedent,then the case wouldn't have been before the Supreme Court in the first place.

 "Inserting itself into politics"? For the past 60 years until this very day,liberal activist judges have been sticking their noses into politics.I do not believe Chief Justice Roberts was inserting himself into politics in this case,but even if he was,I'm not sorry at all that a taste of their own liberal medicine doesn't excite their palettes.

 This idea that the ruling gave a huge advantage to Republican fundraising is also a lie.It gave the same advantage to the Democrats.It is not the fault of the Supreme Court that many large corporations don't care much for the Democrat party.That is the Democrat party's own fault.What this ruling really did was level the playing field.Liberals hate fairness unless it is tilted in their favor,which of course then is no longer fair.

 The Democrat party has sucked who knows how many millions,probably billions,of taxpayer dollars into their coffers via the money laundering operation known as public sector unions.Back in the old days,many a mafioso went up the river to Sing Sing for running money laundering operations like this.But this is perfectly OK,in a liberal's Prozac addled brain,to steal taxpayer's money and stick it in the pockets of Democrat politicians.

 One also has to add in the private sector unions and the untold billions they have spent supporting Democrats.It was about time the corporations,who these unions routinely shake down for more and more cash,had a chance to voice their opinions on political matters.

 Liberals love to talk about equality and fairness.In fact,they despise these things.They want things to be unfair and unequal.They work very hard to keep things this way.They need to keep people divided and put into little boxes such as,your a woman,your black,your a Mexican,your gay,your poor.

 Then,they tell the people in these boxes that somehow they have been done wrong,so vote for the Democrat party and we will avenge this injustice done to you.The only problem is that the Democrat party has no interest in honestly trying to solve this invented injustices.

 They need these folks to be trapped in poverty.They need these folks to feel they have been cheated due to their sex or race.The Democrat party has no interest in judging a person by their own merit and offering those people a chance at true social equality.They need those folks in the little boxes for their own political power.

 The proof of the Democrats having no interest in fixing these perceived injustices is right before your eyes.From the 1960's Great Society legislation,to welfare,to affirmative action,to judicial activist judges and trial lawyers distorting the Constitution to suit their own political ideology,to an unequal tax system that rewards those who do not contribute to it,to Obamacare,there is your evidence that liberals have no interest in fixing anything.All they are interested in is an accumulation of power in a centralized,all encompassing federal government that views its citizens as subservient to them.

 These people,who detest the Constitution,despise the idea of personal liberty and man's right to self determination,who call themselves the editors at the New York Times finish their demented editorial with this pathetic paragraph;

"It may not be in the Republicans’ best interests to have a sober national debate about this issue, which may well be why the G.O.P. contenders are sticking to red-meat throwaway lines."

You want red meat throwaway lines? Take a listen to what the current Marxist President is saying on a near daily basis.As for a "sober national debate",when you folks put down the crack pipe of liberalism and sober up for a while,I would love to sit down and have an honest debate on issues with you.But so long as you are smoking that crack pipe,I am the party of NO.