Obama’s Supreme Court Pick is a Racist
May 26, 2009 by Steven Ting
Filed under General, Politics
President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Previously he said he was looking for someone that has intellect and empathy. While Sotomayer has two things going for her, the fact that she’s hispanic and a woman, this does not override the fact that she is a racist.
In 2001, Sotomayer gave a speech where she said:
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.
When it comes to the rule of law, it is not someone’s gender that makes them wise. It is not their race that makes them wise. It is their study and dedication to the law that makes the wise. Some may say, it’s just a speech. But what would happen if the roles were reversed? What if Justice John Roberts said:
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 Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.
Sotomayer gets a pass because she’s a Latina. By just switching just a few words, we see how racist she is. One can even look at the quote another way. Maybe this is one that we can all recognize as racist. What if Adolf Hitler said:
I would hope that a wise Ayran Man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Jewish male who hasn’t lived that life.
Can we see the racism now? Obama made a dumb pick. Also, Sotomayor does not understand that her job as a Judge is to interpret the law. Accordign to this video, she believes the court is where policy is made. Apparently she does not understand the three separate branches of government. She may say that she’s joking about it, but really, you don’t bring something up like that unless you really mean it.
New Surveys Show Centrism, Pro-Life Stance on the Rise
May 24, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General
We are living in a country led by the most liberal president in U.S. history, who also has many supporters in the Congress. However, surveys have shown that most of the country does not share in the liberal views of its current leaders. A Pew Research Survey has shown that the number of voters who identify themselves as independents has grown, leading to a large number of people with diverse views that will not always agree with the issues Obama is pushing. Here is an article that details some of the results of the survey:
Barack Obama‘s presidency has ushered in an era of centrism, with the country experiencing such a boost in independent voters that they now make up the largest proportion of the electorate in 70 years.
This fickle group doesn’t have uniform opinions, so its dominance carries potential risks for emboldened Democrats and opportunities for out-of-power Republicans.
A new, expansive Pew Research Center survey that contained those details also found that the nation’s values haven’t fundamentally changed. The country hasn’t become more ideologically liberal or conservative despite sweeping Democratic victories at all levels of government last fall and shrinking GOP ranks.
Broadly, the findings indicate that it’s politically dangerous for the new president and his fellow Democrats who control Congress to move too far to the left on domestic and foreign issues, lest they turn off middle-of-the-road voters whose support was critical in 2008 and will be important in upcoming elections.
The results also suggest that the public recently has rejected the GOP for poor performance, not because it disagrees with the party’s positions on key issues…
Because of its viewpoint diversity, analysts say the growing independent sector could slip from the Democrats’ grasp as Obama pushes an ambitious agenda that’s different from his predecessor’s.
“We’ve moved from a less activist government to a more activist government, and the two-mindedness in the reaction of independents, I think, to some extent is response to that,” Kohut said.
That said, Kohut added: “Obama’s doing very well with independents. But they have some reservations … about growing government and about growing debt.” He called those issues “red flags” for the party.
In addition, a Gallup Poll published recently has shown that for the first time since 1995, more Americans identify themselves as pro-life than pro-choice.  This offers a slight contrast (or addition) to the information obtained in the Pew Poll that said that there was essentially no difference in the makeup of conservative or liberal views in the nation, despite the large shift to centrism. Here are excerpts from the study and their conclusions:
A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.”…
The new results, obtained from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.
The May 2009 survey documents comparable changes in public views about the legality of abortion. In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion…
With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation’s policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans — and, in particular, Republicans — seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.
It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public’s understanding of what it means to be “pro-choice” slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.
It seems that having a liberal president will perhaps have the long-term effect of polarizing the country’s political views, and ultimately turning the tide in favor of conservative views on the controversial views facing the country. Obama and the Democrats would be wise to take notice of these changes, and discontinue their campaign for far-left legislation.
Exposing Pelosi’s Knowledge of Waterboarding
May 23, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, Politics
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has become known for her disparaging remarks about former President Bush and Republicans in general. When she began calling for an investigation into the use of waterboarding and bringing accusations against the Bush administration and the Republican party, it laid the stage for her to have her previous knowledge of this interrogation technique exposed; not only did she know about waterboarding long before she had acknowledged it, she also did nothing to stop or even protest its use. This calls into question many of the statements that she has made regarding Republicans, and means she is culpable in the business, as well.
Here is some of what a top Pelosi aide has said about her knowledge of the subject:
A source close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now confirms that Pelosi was told in February 2003 by her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, that waterboarding was actually used on CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah.
This appears to contradict Pelosi’s account that she was never told waterboarding actually happened, only that the administration was considering using it.
Sheehy attended a briefing in which waterboarding was discussed in February 2003, with Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, who took over Pelosi’s spot as the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
This source says Pelosi didn’t object when she learned that waterboarding was being used because she had not been personally briefed about it — only her aide had been told.
The source said Pelosi supported a letter that Harman sent to the administration at the time raising concerns. The source asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of matters discussed in classified intelligence briefings.
Pelosi’s response to this information is as follows:
“We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us is that they had some . . . Office of [Legal] Counsel opinions, that they could be used, but not that they would,” she told reporters on April 23.
A top aide reiterated that position yesterday. “The speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002,” said spokesman Brendan Daly. “The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used.”
It seems that Pelosi is trying to hide behind carefully phrased political rhetoric in saying that she “was not told” about waterboarding being used. If her top intelligence aide was invited to the briefing, and thus informed her of the use of waterboarding before she acknowledged it, what is the difference between her aide and herself? It seems clear that she would have been meant and expected to know about the information communicated during the briefing, and nothing short of hypocrisy to be accusing others of hiding what she was fully aware of herself.
Guantanamo: Not Closing Yet
May 22, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, International, Politics
President Obama faces a major setback in his plans and promises of change, as the Senate has disallowed all funding for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay military prison. This marks the first real opposition to Obama’s agenda by Majority Democrats, who are largely responsible for blocking the funds for closing the prison.
Here is some of what has occurred lately in the Senate over this issue:
Democrats had been hammered by Republicans, many of whom don’t want Guantanamo shuttered at all, over the possibility that detainees could be sent to live in the United States — in prisons or otherwise.
… It’s unclear what Democrats would be okay with approving in a closure plan. The party has been a state of disarray over the issue recently.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nearly had it both ways on Tuesday.
He first said, emphatically, that Democrats “will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States,” and then said Democrats also don’t want detainees to be transferred to U.S. prisons.
The suggestion was that the United States should not taken [sic] any prisoners under any circumstances, raising questions about where the Democratic leadership wants detainees to go should the closure plan be executed.
But Reid’s spokesman walked back his statement, saying the leader went too far and would actually be open to putting them in American prisons, if the administration puts forward a plan to do so.
The discord between Reid’s own words was emblematic of the clash among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va, said on a Sunday talk show that he opposes the release into the United States of 17 Chinese Uighurs who were captured in Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001. The prisoners, de-listed as enemy combatants by a federal court that deemed them not a danger to the U.S., are eligible for release.
The administration is considering releasing them in Northern Virginia, something Webb vehemently opposes. Webb’s language left the door open to an even broader opposition to any Gitmo detainees being released in the United States.
Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus, both Montana Democrats, have said emphatically that no detainees will be brought to their state. The same goes for Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
FBI Director Robert Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday that he’s concerned some detainees could support terrorism if sent to the United States, either through financial support to terror networks, radicalization of others or taking part in attacks.
Still, Inouye left the door open to bringing the prisoners to the U.S. eventually, refusing to rule out any opportunity to incarcerate detainees on U.S. soil.
Reid’s No. 2, Dick Durbin of Illinois, told FOX News that while Democrats were very concerned about taking a vote defending moving prisoners to the United States, he is not opposed to it, adding that American prison facilities can hold these prisoners safely.
Durbin took on Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor Wednesday, saying that while it’s true no prisoner has ever escaped from the Guantanamo, “it’s also true that no terrorists have ever escaped from U.S. supermax prisons.”
The outcry in the U.S. over the issue of closing the prison and where to house the prisoners has also caused some problems with foreign relations, and presented no solutions to the Obama administration:
Both Democrats and Republicans have been retreating from an uproar in their districts over the possibility that terror suspects would be housed in local prisons.
That’s a fairly empty sales pitch for administration officials who are trying to persuade European and Muslim allies to take some of the detainees.
And they got no help Wednesday when FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that bringing Guantanamo detainees to the United States could pose a number of risks, even if they were kept in maximum-security prisons.
Gibbs and Attorney General Eric Holder both quickly responded that Obama would never do anything to endanger Americans.
Obama has named senior diplomat Daniel Fried as special envoy on the issue. So far he’s had little success in garnering commitments abroad and his task only grows more onerous with the votes in Congress to deny money to close the prison.
While France has accepted one prisoner, fulfilling a promise made when Obama attended a NATO summit in April, other European allies have refused or given nonspecific commitments.
It seems that though Obama may be passionate about closing this prison, he has very little support from people in this country or others in how to practically make that happen. The people and leaders are justifiably concerned about the safety of their countries and/or states with the possibility that some of the most dangerous terrorists (and now possibly with more cause to hate the U.S. than ever) would be released or transferred to places where they could pose a greater threat than they ever had before.
Let’s Talk Cookies
Let’s talk cookies. Say, you want to sell some Girl Scout Cookies. But no one is buying them. What do you do? Pretty much you follow the good old fashioned rules of selling. You advertise the hell out of them and you put them in every city in every state, you make them hard to miss. You put your sweetest and cutest girls out there holding boxes of cookies and have them look up at guys with with wallets with their big cute eyes. That’s how you move those cookies. Ever Girl Scout knows this. This is how I’ve purchased about 985 boxes of girl scout cookies…. but that’s another story.
Okay, now lets say you want to sell some cars. You do the same thing, but leave out the puppy dog eyes. Every Car Guy knows this. Democrats evidently do not. Obama’s Posse told Chrysler to cut their advert budget in half. That’s half the advertising. Then they are told to cut dealerships. This is especially thick.
See, Dealerships are privately owned. Not owned by Chrysler or GM. You have independent owners who place orders with the factory. The factory builds the cars and ships them to the dealers. Thats all they do. To the customer, Chrysler or GM is the dealership. That’s all they see. What they are seeing is the Company cutting dealerships. What this is – is Chrysler slashing their own throats. This doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.
Every dealer wants to put new cars on his lot to show them off and move them. You cut Dealerships – you cut those orders for those new cars. You also cut all the jobs of all those people working for Not Chrysler or GM – but those that worked for those independent Dealerships. GM and Chrysler did just about the most stupid thing you can do.
Let’s say I was in the mood for another 5 boxes of Girl Scout Cookies… I’m going to go to where the cute little red haired girl has my Macaroons. Oh, wait… she’s not there. Where did she go? I don’t know. But I do know there is some Chips Ahoy right next door. Oh well… I’ll get some Chips Ahoy, because I need a cookie today. So right there – The Girl Scouts just lost a sale. That is how it works.
In my town, there use to be a Ford Dealership, and down the street was a Chevy Dealership. Well, the Chevy guy went Bat-Shit-Crazy, closed his dealership and started his own church. Reading too much L Ron Hubbard or something. Well, here we are 10 years later (or more) and there is no Chevy Dealership. Guess what most dudes are driving around in now. That’s right. Ford. (Most of the Chevy trucks you see running around tend to be either company fleet trucks owned by companies that are not local companies…. or their owners are die hard Chevy fans. And there is a lot of them here… but the majority of trucks going on here are Fords.
My point is this. The government makes for a completely shitty business manager. The government doesn’t know how to run a business. The government has no legal right to run a business. Any dealership that got shut down should sue the government because they overstepped their constitutional charter.
To read more from this author, visit www.madogre.com
