Accusing the Arizona immigration law of leading to the slippery slope of racial profiling has apparently worn thin. Linda Sanchez decided to up it a notch:
“There’s a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups”,”It’s been documented. It’s not mainstream politics.”
I’m not sure where the documentation is. But, if she says it’s there, it must be. I can’t imagine she would make something up like that. No one in Congress would do that?
I can’t imagine she’ll back up her claims on Foxnews. I can’t imagine any other major media asking her to.
Bertha Lewis, CEO of Acorn, is proud to be a socialist. She applauds anyone who calls themself a socialist. But, that’s not the best part:
“Any group that says, ‘I’m young, I’m Democratic, and I’m a socialist,’ is all right with me. You know that’s no light thing to do — to actually say, I’m a socialist — because you guys know right now we are living in a time which is going to dwarf the McCarthy era. It is going to dwarf the internment during World War II. We are right now in a time that is going to dwarf the era of Jim Crow and segregation,” Lewis said……
“This is not rhetoric or hyperbole — this is real,” Lewis said. “This rise of this Tea Party so-called movement — bowel movement in my estimation — and this blatant uncovering and ripping off the mask of racism.”
Of course, Bertha didn’t get this started. When someone didn’t like what Obama was doing, Hank Johnson knew why:
My only gut understanding of these people is that by taking away everyone’s rights, it makes us all even? Either these people, and they’re certainly not alone in this administration, are incredibly stupid, or they’ve reached a conclusion I don’t get based on history I don’t see. They are both avowed socialists, but both believe that without socialism, you’re going to have McCarthyism, racism run amok, and internment camps. Does anyone else not see the irony in this? Do they not have any clue about the last few great socialist societies we have experienced?
There’s the downside of what Bertha Lewis is hoping for. Someone show me where it’s worked. In China today the government strictly controls what they want their people to know. In Russia today the government is ramping up their nuclear arsenal while the people live in barely industrial standards. One man alone nearly crippled the Russian economy. And, in all three instances, one man usurped the power of the government and led to disastrous consequences world wide with human atrocities Bertha Lewis apparently can’t fathom. When you centralize all power, that’s the inherant risk. The United States has had to deal with issues other countries have as well. Social discord is not unique to the United States. Ask the Jews in Germany, Russia, or the Christians in China or Iran or Africa. They live in fear in China to this day. However, the structure of the United States, although it’s being eroded, allowed for the pursuit of happiness as an individual defined it. If you were not happy in one environment, you had the option to move to a different one. Rights in Seattle are different than rights in Memphis or Bangor. That was the design of the Founding Fathers. That is what “states’ rights” means. Bertha Lewis doesn’t get it. She doesn’t get the fact that protesting as she does would get her persecuted by the government she so readily speaks about the downfall of now.
So, these people may be enlightened. But, they are terminally stupid if they truly think socialism will eliminate racism. The only thing that will eliminate racism is for people like Bertha to stop using it as a political prop. Sure, there are people that will toss out the n-bomb at a black person to get them riled. It’s just too easy. But, there are just as many that will insult someone’s religion if it will get the same reaction. When people know using racism won’t get a reaction, there will be no need for overt racism. And, apparently in the case of Bertha and Hank, they will have no motivation whatsoever.
That’s what Dan Rather said.
Now, I would have said “ice to an eskimo”, or “s**t to farmer”. But, that would be stereotyping. In Chris Matthews minds, connecting a black man to watermelons is nothing to blink an eye at. Some people will fein shock and horror at Dan for being so, well, obvious. Me, I’m saving it for Chris Matthews. If Dubya had said that, he would have been all over it. Keith Olbermann would have had an orgasm. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and a few others would have accused MSNBC of being complicit and urged everyone to boycott MSNBC until they donated $50 million bucks to their “cause”. But, when a liberal icon says something like that, well, it doesn’t mean anything because they could never be racist in any way if they were a member of the liberal media. It just can’t happen. Expect nothing from this. Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin will have some fun and that will be about it.
But, the next time someone accuses anyone who’s critical of Obama as being racist, they better make sure they documented the same disdain for Rather.
What I really like are the people that are seriously making the argument that equating watermelons with a black man in no way possible is racist.
Yeah.
One thing everyone has to give President Obaam, he sure knows how to keep people guessing.
In the past, Obama has made it a sort of semi-habit to bow to some foreign heads of state. Most usually, it’s to a head of state that bowing down to means absolutely nothing to. Like, the Queen of England. No other heads of state bows to her. Obama does. Go figure. Last week Obama took it to a new level, bowing to the mayor of Tampa, Florida. Now, at first I really didn’t care too much about the story. It’s not like Obama bowing inappropriately is new or anything.
But, Ms. Iorio was on Fox this morning to discuss the bow. The conversation went something like this. I have to paraphrase because the script’s not online yet:
- Fox: Ms Iorio, why did Obama bow to you?
- Iorio: Because he’s very nice. You should meet him sometime.
- Fox: Yeah, but don’t you think that’s kind of strange?
- Iorio: He’s very nice. You should meet him sometime.
- Fox: Yeah, but bowing to Mayors is kind of odd dontcha think?
- Iorio: He’s very nice. You should meet him sometime.
- Fox: I mean, that’s a weird looking picture.
- Iorio: Yes it is, he’s very nice. You should meet him sometime.
- Fox: Did you say something nice to Obama or something?
- Iorio: He’s very nice. You should meet him sometime.
- Fox: Would he bow to me?
- Iorio: He’s very nice. You should meet him sometime.
- Fox: Now we’ll look at the mass death and famine in Haiti.
- Iorio: He’s very nice. You should meet him sometime.
- Fox: OK, Pam, we’re off-air now.
- Iorio: He’s very nice. You should meet him sometime.
Now, I can see clearly what the problem here in this picture is. Fox ain’t so smart. Look carefully again at Ms. Iorio.
Done?
Got it? She LOOKS Asian in this picture don’t she? Had to be Buddhist. But, she’s actually Italian. So, I’m gonna guess she’s not Budhhist. Once again, just a matter of Obama not getting proper background info.
But, really, the absurdity of all this is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, on a US military base, feels obligated to show subservience to the mayor of a US city. At that point the miliitary guy standing right next to Obama should have arrested him for treason. I’m not subservient to Tampa. Great town, love it, used to have the best strip joints in the US. But, they do their thing, I do mine. I don’t answer to Pam Iorio or Tampa. It’s just that simple.
The additional absurdity of it all is Obama was in Tampa to announce funding of researching building a train while simultaneously cutting NASA’s balls. Ms. Iorio was thrilled he’s spending $8 billion researching what we already know. She apparently wasn’t too concerned about her constituents who will lose their jobs due to NASA’s cuts.
9
Nov
Immediately after Obama took office in January, the Department of Homeland Security seemed to take a drastic turn in policy. Rather than concerning itself with terrorism associated with known terrorist groups, it seemed to target everything BUT known terrorist groups:
DHS Report on Right Wing Extremism –
Normal people just groaned. It was that kind of groan you make when you’re a kid and the coach puts in a kid who is clueless on the court. You know you’re screwed. So, us radicals and extremist average white male conservative bloggers just kicked back and waited for the inevitable. Over the weekend, we got what I don’t think surprised much of anyone. A terrorist attack. It however, was not an average white male Christian redneck. It was, roll the drum please, a person belonging to the one domestic organization that DHS DARE not utter in their report. It was, are you ready? A Muslem.
Yup. It was a Muslem with terrorist connections, radical thoughts on the internet, and a very vocal dislike of the United States. That wouldn’t be such a big deal, but, he was in the military.
Not sure just how much more wrong a report could possibly be regarding extremism in the United States. However, last I recall, there are no Christian versions of Sharia. Some of these Muslims do practice Sharia within the United States. Some guy drove over his daughter a week or two ago. A year ago or so some guy beheaded his soon to be ex-wife.
Those acts seem kinda radical to me.
That stuff didn’t seem to bother the new DHS. They decided to target groups that have no proven history of extremism in the modern era.
Pandering to the President by targeting the people he personally dislikes will get a lot more people killed. There are extremists in every social clique. Ignoring the most dangerous, most organized, most visible, and proven history of terror is just disgusting in its sheer stupidity and bias.
22
Sep
Jimmy Carter, who blamed the most horrid economic policies in US history on the general public, has generally been a malaise since then. About once or twice a year, he takes jabs at the United States. I’m not sure if he’s had anything nice or relevant to say in the last thirty years. But, he’s sure had plenty of bad. The current debates over federal policy have opened the door for more Carter malaise:
Of course, he justifies that with the fact a lot of people refer to Obama being from Africa. That of course, has appealed to those that are quite sure racism affects everything and if you don’t agree with them 100% all the time, it’s because you’re racist. It of course, has nothing to do with his trip to Africa during the election or his father.
One black man has figured out what’s happened over the last twelve months:
Whatcha think about that Jimmy? Now, Carter’s point was there are some, not all, that are so racist they can’t accept a black President. And because of that, they’ll never support any of his proposals. Now, there are some, not all, who refuse to believe 9/11 was actually carried out by radical Muslims. Charlie Sheen comes to mind. And, there are some, not all, who believe we’ve never been to the Moon. There is no need for me to mention those people in regards to health care debate or cap and trade. They are not relevant to the discussion of the issue itself. Marginalizing them serves no purpose. So, again, what was the point of Jimmy saying what he did? What is the point of people agreeing with him? I’m going to toss out a profound concept here, you all can do with it whatever you like. Just, if you would, give attribution. I’d really love to hear Jimmy’s take on it, but I know I won’t. OK? Here goes:
What if there are people who don’t like having a black President, but still don’t agree with the health care proposals, cap and trade, or other major economic issues being debated? Are their opinions any less relevant than if they felt like electing a man to be President only because he is black?
And you know what, I know a few people who did just that. That’s just as racist, and most likely those people support his policies no matter how bad they may be. And, since, as Obama pointed out, he won the election, it can be argued there are most likely more of them than there are the people Jimmy says exists.
But, I know, Jimmy will never grasp that concept. It’s just so, not, 60′s.
Not sure if I got this exactly right. Let me take another stab at it. Kanye West, who is black, ripped the microphone from the hands of Taylor Swift, who is white, to assert the fact that Beyonce, who is black, should have won. Beyonce did indeed win the best video of the year. Kanye didn’t apologize.
Although President Obama supposedly called Kanye a jackass, Representative Hank Johnson so far has not had any issue with it.
When Representative Joe Wilson blurted out “You lie” at President Obama, Wilson did apologize. That’s not good enough for the same Hank Johnson:
Unless Hank Johnson is more than willing to assert that what Kanye West is overtly racist by attacking a young white girl to demand a black lady should have won, and in the past asserting that President Bush intended to kill black people, then in my opinion Hank Johnson is purely racist. What Joe Wilson did is debatable and supported by history where black Representatives have heckled white Presidents without recrimination. What Kanye West did was obviously wrong. Wilson apologized, West won’t. Where’s your evidence Hank?
Selective race cards are just another form of racism. And quite frankly, I think most of the USA is becoming way too tired of race card abuse.
13
Jul
I just listened to Russ Feingold’s ten mintues of fame during the Sonia Sotomayor hearings. He’s nuts.
“That is why I suggest to everyone watching today that they be a little wary of a phrase they may hear at these hearings – ‘judicial activism.’ That term really has lost all usefulness, particularly since so many rulings of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court can fairly be described as ‘activist’ in their disregard for precedent and their willingness to ignore or override the intent of Congress. At this point, perhaps we should all accept that the best definition of a ‘judicial activist’ is a judge who decides a case in a way you don’t like. Each of the decisions I mentioned earlier was undoubtedly criticized by someone at the time it was issued, and maybe even today, as being ‘judicial activism.’ Yet some of them are among the most revered Supreme Court decisions in modern times.
Perhaps he should accept that the best definition is the one most widely used:
: the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent —compare JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
That’s not my definition, that’s dictionary.com’s. Or perhaps:
Judicial activism is a critical term used to describe judicial rulings that are viewed as imposing a personal biased interpretation by a given court of what a law means as opposed to what a neutral, unbiased observer would naturally interpret a law to be. The term is most often used to describe left-wing judges.
That’s the definition according to the more fluid wikipedia. The only problem I have with that one is rather than calling it “left-wing”, the word “liberal” should have been used. Defining laws as one sees fit doesn’t get any more liberal than that. You don’t get any more liberal than Russ Feingold. First he tosses out any written definition, then he redefines the word as he wants it to be, then uses that personally re-defined word to attack those that he sees fit. In this case, it’s anyone who prefers the law be enforced as it’s written. If there’s a problem with that law, have the Congress change the law. It’s called sepration of powers. Here’s the written definition for Russ:
the principle or system of vesting in separate branches the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of a government.
Notice that legislative and judicial are two SEPARATE branches. Judicial is not supposed to make laws, legislative is not supposed to enforce laws. Therefore, in very simple text, that is accepted, are the very fundamental roles that keeps our government in balance. A judge that does not get that very fundamental balance doesn’t deserve to be in a position to conflict with the other branches. And quite frankly, a senator who doesn’t understand their role in the government doesn’t deserve to be there either. But, people will keep voting for them anyway.
Then Feingold takes it a little deeper:
“One attack that I find particularly shocking is the suggestion that she will be biased against some litigants because of her racial and ethnic heritage. This charge is not based on anything in her judicial record because there is absolutely nothing in the hundreds of opinions she has written to support it. That long record – which is obviously the most relevant evidence we have to evaluate her – demonstrates a cautious and careful approach to judging. Instead, a few lines from a 2001 speech, taken out of context, have prompted some to charge that she is a racist. I believe that no one who reads the whole Berkeley speech could honestly come to that conclusion. The speech is actually a remarkably thoughtful attempt to grapple with a difficult issue not often discussed by judges – how do a judge’s personal background and experiences affect her judging.
He’ll be even more shocked to find out that not one person has said anything against her racial and ethnic heritage. What we’ve taken exception to is her own words:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”
I would like to know how Russ Feingold can tell anyone that singling out a class of people solely on their race is anything BUT racism? How singling a class of people based on their gender is anything BUT gender discrimination? I could care less what her ethinicity is, she’s made a point of mine. I could care less what she’s got between her legs, she’s made a point of mine. Come on Russ, do me a favor, explain how I should feel any different about appointing someone who spoken racism and gender discrimination against both my race and my gender.
And, the last lie that I’m going to nail Russ on is this is not about “a few lines from a 2001 speech, taken out of context”. According to many readily available sources:
Sotomayor has used the “wise Latina” phrase repeatedly in speeches dating back to 1994.
That’s from Time magazine. It’s not taken out of context. She doesn’t claim that it is. Feingold just says it is to make his point that people are making stuff up to attack an imaginary issue.
Then he sums it up woth:
how do a judge’s personal background and experiences affect her judging
The answer is, it shouldn’t. If I were to assume it did, and that was OK, then I’d have to assume that as a white male living in Appalachia, she’d have absolutely no clue whatsoever how to deal with my problems. That’s troublesome to me. And, it should be troublesome to a white male living in mostly rural Wisconsin. Do mineral rights mean anything to her? Eminent domain? I mean, there are a lot of issues that aren’t normally dealt with by a “wise Latina” from the Bronx. If she were strictly interpreting the law as it’s written, she wouldn’t have to worry about whether the issue was regarding a white Latina or a wise male living in Mississippi. She’d just apply the law. Everyone would be treated exactly the same. I wouldn’t go to that extreme, but after singling out “white males” in her speech, she overturned a discrimination case involving white males. So, the evidence is there to be questioned.
I have supported my claims through links to sources. I’d like to see Feingold do the same. The fact is Russ Feingold is making stuff up. Given how readily available that information is, that means he’s just flat out lying.
I’m waiting for Keith Olbermann to scoop this story. And, I’m waiting for Nancy Pelosi to condemn Feingold’s actions as more of the same from the Culture of Corruption that is the Democrat Party.
And what’s even more amazing about this farce is that Al Franken should be speaking right about now about the merits of a Supreme Court Justice nominee.
13
Jul
Today we’ll start one of the most annoying processes in politics I can think of. Nominating a Supreme Court justice will bring us a week of guaranteed partisan political bickering and posturing. No ifs, ands, or butts. Guaranteed.
Now, I don’t have that much of an issue with that aspect of it. I just won’t watch any of it. But, I do have a problem when people forget the first principal of law.
Now, there is a reason that statue represents the fairness of the legal system. When a person walks into court or laws are determined for our entire society, it should make no difference whether a person is white, black, Latin, Asian, mixed, albino, Canuck, short, fat, too tall, or whatever. The law is the law. Period. The law applies to everyone equally. The law is not open to interpretation. When a judge decides it’s open to their own personal interpretation, then bias becomes an issue. Period. Whether intentional or not, a person’s opinions are biased on any subject. Outside of the legal system, that’s called opinion. When one forms an opinion, they have created a bias regarding that opinion. At that point, their judgment is no longer blind. At that point, whatever that opinion is carries the weight of the law. At that point, it is no longer possible to render a fair decision no matter how hard a person tries. That’s why I like very dull, very unimaginative judges. Just take the rules given to them and apply it. How simple can it be?
That however, almost never happens. People are people and they form opinions. Some people try to seperate their opinions from the legal practice, others don’t. I prefer the ones that at least try.
Now, that’s my underlying philosophy. The reason I go to all that trouble is beacuse in the case of confirming Sonia Sotomayor, if a person objects to any aspect of this woman, they’re immediately being put in the position of being an anti-Latina bigot. I’m not. I could care less what her background is. When the nominee renders a decisision, I want whoever it is reading what the laws are and applying them. I don’t want them thinking they are smarter than the law, more special than the law, or, can make that law a little better because of their own personal insight. Sonia Sotomayor just doesn’t fit that philosophy. She obviously feels her being both a Latina and a woman give her special insight that does not apply to anyone else. That’s just bias. As a white male. I would be concerned she would show a preferance to women and minorities. That’s not fair. As such, with her history, if a case conerning my gender or ethnicity made it to the Supreme Court based solely on her vote, I’d ask for her to be recused when rendering a decision due to her obvious bias.
Additionally, this is getting pretty pathetic. Not only has she illustrated repeated examples of bias, but not only does it not bother some legislators, they think it’s great:
“I take enormous pride as a woman in voting for her,” – Diane Feinstein.
Feinstein then states as fact that Sotomayor has a lot of experience. Feinstein won’t discuss the experience. She will however, discuss the fact she’s a woman.
Of course I’m pleased that we will have another woman on the court. I do think it’s important not to just have one. Our nearest neighbor Canada also has a court of nine members and in Canada there’s a woman chief justice and there are four women all told… About half of all law graduates today are women, and we have a tremendous number of qualified women in the country who are serving as lawyers and they ought to be represented on the Court. – Sandra Day O-Connor
Once again, the only issue that matters is that she’s a woman. No discussion on her legal opinions.
The Senate’s top Democrat praised federal judge Sonia Sotomayor Tuesday as an extraordinarily well-qualified Supreme Court nominee whose background as an “underdog” appeals to Americans.
The only discussion about her legal decisions is the fact she attended Princeton and Yale. All of the above basically dismissed Sotomayor’s speech that has drawn a lot of attention:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
None of them want to discuss the reverse discrimination case involving white males. It was a case in which both the judge in the lower court, and the Supreme Court, would side with the victims of discrimination. Being as everyone else thought she was wrong in that decision, it could be argued very easily that her personal opinion on the matter outweighed her concern for blind justice. And, if this were a situation where the law was complicated or obtuse, it would be different. Anthony Kennedy, in the vote to over-rule Sotomayor’s decision, cited this as support for his decision:
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited a violation of Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religion.
More specifically:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e, makes it unlawful for an employer to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his/her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This covers hiring, firing, promotions and all workplace conduct.
“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a minority woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
Barbara Lee, Laura Richardson, and Bobby Rush met with Raul and Fidel Castro yesterday. They met the Castro brothers under the auspices of the Congressional Black Caucus. They will report their findings to Nancy Pelosi very shortly.
Now, someone help me here. Why would the Congressional Black Congress be negotiating US policy? Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense if the Congressional Hispanic Caucus met with Hispanic leaders? Several of their members very openly support normalizing relations with Cuba, and I imagine a few can even speak the local language. So why didn’t they go or be invited?
Makes me go hmmmm. So far, it’s not raised any eyebrows on any major media that I am aware of.
Anyone want to take a stab at why the Hispanics were not invited to negotiate with Hispanics? I truly am open to suggestion. I’ve got my ideas, but I hope I’m wrong.
