is the big kitty your friend.
Wonder if these people don't realize how they're damaging their brand with a lot of people, or just don't care?
Speaking of damaging your brand,
The Harris County District Attorney’s office on Tuesday dismissed all
charges against anti-abortion activists who secretly videotaped Planned
Parenthood officials in Houston.
David Robert Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were charged with tampering
with a governmental record, for using a fake identification to gain
access to the facility. In a surprise move before a hearing on the legitimacy of the indictment, prosecutors dismissed the charges.
Texas, you really need to clean that office out.
According to attorney for Daleiden, District Attorney Devon Anderson
shared confidential information with the abortion business, which she
was supposed to be investigating for running afoul of state laws
prohibiting the purchase or sale of body parts form aborted babies.
Yet, in recent court filings by the Harris County District Attorney’s
Office, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s attorney Josh Schaffer admitted
in a sworn declaration that the Harris County DA’s office shared
evidence with Planned Parenthood. That occurred even after the Texas
Attorney General’s office had forbidden Anderson’s office from doing so.
Disbarment would be a good start.
While Clinton & Co. are screaming about the horrors of Citizens United, remember exactly what it was about:
In all of the bluster surrounding Citizens United, it
is easy to forget what the case was truly about. Citizens United, a
conservative nonprofit, produced a documentary, "Hillary: The Movie."
The film excoriated then-Presidential primary candidate Hillary Clinton,
urging viewers not to support her run for president. But when Citizens
United wanted to air its movie in 2008, it was prohibited from doing so
by federal campaign finance laws. These laws banned independent speech
by corporations (and unions) if it opposed (or supported) the election
of any federal candidate. And Citizens United, itself a nonprofit
corporation, was partially funded with for-profit corporate funds.
The question brought before the court in 2010 was whether it was
constitutional for the government to ban the airing of this political
The answer was 'No'. And that's what these dirtbags want to change.
During the argument, Justice Samuel Alito asked United States
Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, "What's your answer to [the]
point that there isn't any constitutional difference between the
distribution of this movie on video [on] demand and providing access on
the Internet, providing DVDs, either through a commercial service or
maybe in a public library, [or] providing the same thing in a book?
Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all of those as well?"
Stewart confirmed he thought that such a law would be
constitutional and would allow the government to ban a book published by
an organization like Citizens United. There was a gasp in the
The idea that book-banning, perhaps the quintessential act of
state oppression, was something the American government thought
acceptable under the First Amendment, caused quite a stir. In a second
oral argument, the government’s lawyers attempted to walk back the claim
— saying that books had never been banned under this statute before,
and that, while a political pamphlet might be restricted, this law
probably doesn’t apply to books (no definition was given as to the
difference between a “pamphlet” and a “book”).
And we can trust them not to change that 'probably' to 'does', can't we?