Different Floors of the House

Monday, March 15, 2010

L.A. Times Joins Lostaglia's "NITSS" List

You know why the lefty blogs and newsbots aren't complaining about the lack of women in the tea party? Because there isn't a lack of women in the tea party.

Sure, they'll harp all day about the lack of "black faces" and whatnot. Certainly we've proven that it is simply the leftist worldview that disallows them from seeing the black people involved in the tea party. But women? The tea party's got 'em and the left know it. Boy, do they know it.

So. You're a smart, eager American woman with concerns for the direction the country you love and have served is heading? What do you do? You join a group of like-minded individuals to advocate for your way of thinking, of course! And then, if you've the clout to do so, you start your own non-profit organization and try to rustle up as much sponsorship for your cause as possible. THAT! My friends, that, is what America is all about. You have the right to assemble, to speak and to petition the government for redress of your grievances! YES! This is sweet!

So what's the problem?

You're husband just might happen to be a Supreme Court Justice.

(Insert deflated sighs here).

Yes, your name is Virginia Thomas and you're husband's name is Clarence. Roll credits.

That's it. That's--

Wait-wait-wait right there a minute. Where's the rule that says you, the smart and eager American woman, has to stay out of the fight for what you think is right? Hmm? Where is it exactly? This shadowy law that bans spouses of judges--even the most influential judges on the planet--from participating in the political process.

Right here.

Sad, but left-coastishly true. The almighty (a.k.a. dwindling, fainting, gasping for air) L.A. Times has passed a law that states something like: You're a tea-partier, so you're evil. And you're husband is evil. And your dog is evil. And if you grow flowers in your lawn it's only to mask your evil.

Evil. Evil. Evil.

Well, two can play that game. I hereby add the aforementioned Los Angeles newspaper to the "Not in the same sentence" list along with the paper from New York with the same catchy post-locale titular nomenclature.

Actually, to be fair, the article was meh-o.k.(read: boring and uninformative) until the very end when its originator pretty much came out and accused Justice Clarence Thomas of corruption.

Read it HERE. Or don't. Heck, I wouldn't if I hadn't already.

That's it. That's all.

No comments: