Yet another ugly racist rears his head in the halls of the U.S. Congress. Congressman, Charles Rangel (Racist-NY) showed yet again that he cares more about the color of people’s skin instead of the content of their character.
Why do black people have to bargain for what is theirs? Why do we have to wait for the right to vote? Why can’t we get what God has given us? And that is the right to live as human beings and not negotiate with white southerners and not court the votes.
Sorry, Charlie, some people really care about the policies being discussed and implemented, not the color of people’s skin. It must be extremely difficult for a 79 year old racist who “forgets” millions of dollars on his financial returns to understand that while he may be a racist and care about skin color, most people are not. It is apparent to everyone that attempting to divide people on the basis of skin color helps your political career and helps you keep your power over the rest of us, but do something that is right for the country instead of yourself for a change. Tax evasion is only for the “rest of us” not the politicians in Washington like Rangel.
Stop playing the victim, get some guts and debate something on the merits instead of being a racist, playing the race card. Renounce your racist policies and statements and then resign. Stop projecting your own all-consuming racism on the rest of the country. Of course, Rep. Charles Rangel (Racist-NY) has been playing the race card for years, so what do you expect here?
In short, it is your policies, not your pigment, Charlie. The same goes for President Obama. When the mainstream media has been swallowing his guilt trips for years, Rep Rangel shouldn’t take all the blame because he expects that no one will dare call him on his blatant racism. But no more. The mainstream media no longer has a stranglehold on opinion and racists are racists no matter what their skin color.
That which was specifically forbidden by the Civil Rights Act is now explicitly (albeit covertly) required by the federal government. Employers are given quotas of black employees they will hire, records of minority-group employment are diligently maintained, and censuses repeatedly taken.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Reason Magazine, November 2000
The BIZARRO Martin Luther King dream is being realized by President Obama and Justice Sotomayor. Justice Sotomayor and President Obama essentially say “Judge someone based on the color of their skin, not the content of their character.” Her repeated comments that “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” (Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 2001 and others) show a temperament clearly unsuited for any court, let alone the highest court in the land. However, the politicians were much more concerned about not being labeled a racist, sexist than calling a racist, sexist, bigot what she is.
President Obama, it does not matter that Justice Sotomayor is of Hispanic origin or a woman. Just as it does not matter where President Obama’s relatives hailed from. Justice Sotomayor, it does not matter that you are of Hispanic heritage or a woman. It is terrible that both the President and a Supreme Court Justice would be so racist as to continue to worry about the color of someone’s skin, so sexist as to care about someone’s gender, and so bigoted as to worry about someone’s heritage, but there you have it: racist, sexist, bigots for both the Supreme Court and the Presidency.
The Supreme Court ruled today (June 29, 2009) that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. This reversed a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor supported as an appeals court judge.
Sotomayor: racist and sexist.
You can read more here:
Today is a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land. Janet Murguia, National Council of La Raza (“The Race” aka NCLR) President/CEO, May 27, 2009
If the name “La Raza” (‘The Race”) isn’t crazy enough, the concept of a United States citizen being at all concerned about race is completely insane. If Ms Murguia is more concerned about her “race” than about the United States, we would like to suggest she go elsewhere. Perhaps back in time before 1865 where there were so many open racists. She should feel quite at home. And Sonia Sotomayor should be equally at home with the racist, sexist bigots who were so common at the time. The Supreme Court is supposed to be about laws, not about race or skin color or gender.
In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American… There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people. Theodore Roosevelt 1907
“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” – Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 2001
Yet another quality racist in the Obama Administration. At least she is honest about her racism and sexism. Not that that should be any comfort for people concerned with the rule of law from a potential Justice of the Supreme Court. Sotomayor is completely and outrageously a sexist bigot. One marvels at the audacity to nominate her to the United States Supreme Court.
We do not judge people on skin color, gender or anything else except legal issues. Those are exactly what a judge should not use to decide a case, only what a sexist, racist, bigot would use.
A “court of appeals is where policy is made. .. And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.” Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 2005
Displaying her well-known eloquence, and lack of respect for the law, Judge Sonia Sotomayor in 2005 discussing making policy from the bench. I would urge Sotomayor to read the Constitution of the United States, the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. This is one person who needs to educate herself on the founding of this country.
Sotomayer is the antithesis of a judge or Justice. Compare her power-hungry philosophy with John Adams seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men.” Or since she is so cognizant of gender and race, a “government of laws and not of hispanic women.”
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences [for jurists who are women and nonwhite] our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
More rampant racism and sexism from the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
One item that surprises one the most is her statement about “national origins.” One would hope that judges and Justices are Americans so “national origins” would be irrelevant, but for this Judge, apparently not.
Colin Powell called for a more centrist Republican party on Tuesday (May 5, 2009). Whether Powell is a dupe or a closet statist isn’t clear yet, but it looks to be the later.
Mr. Powell, when you cave in on principles and on the defense of liberty you lose. Perhaps you didn’t realize you were fighting for the freedom Continue reading Powell calls for centrism, cares little for Liberty
At the Huffington Post, Democrat Senator Ron Wyden is quoted as saying that had “that legislation [a large tax on bonuses] been passed it would have been a very strong disincentive to anybody paying out bonuses in the future.” Wyden did vote against the major bailouts, but appears to have voted for the “stimulus.”
Let’s recall a few facts:
1. The “Stimulus” Bill that both Houses and the President approved included provisions authorizing the bonuses. Perhaps if Congress READ their Bills they would not be able blame someone else when people do what Congress is authorized.
2. A large number of people have made the statement, “but it is taxpayer money.” I agree that it is taxpayer money.
The real question though is whether we want to go down the path of controlling everyone who receives taxpayer money?
However, if we are going to do so, we need to think about the consequences in detail:
a. If you receive food stamps, shall we limit your choices to low-fat food? Soda?
b. If you receive Medicare, how much of your life can we control? Pretty much everything since we are footing the bill. Are you over-weight? Get on the treadmill. Do you drink? Stop, we’re going to pay for your new liver. Like chocolate? Sorry, diabetes. Ride a bike? Put on a helmet! Like to sunbathe? Skin cancer, get inside. It is taxpayer money paying for your vices. Should the taxpayers be paying and not having input?
c. Are you on Social Security? What can’t taxpayers control since we’re paying your bills.
d. Cash for clunkers? Hope you aren’t a lead foot!
e. ObamaCare – apply the Medicare rules to everyone!
Trading freedom for the chance to pick someone else’s pocket is a bad idea morally and fiscally.
While obvious for some time, the Politico (Politico) today confirms that President Obama is targeting Rush Limbaugh.
What Obama fails to realize is that this means that Rush begins to set the agenda for the Democrats and in that case they are going to have a tough time of it. Rush has three hours per day on the air to respond so anyone willing to listen to him will hear the truth instead of the Obama and mainstream media’s spin. While good for Rush, letting him set the agenda will be bad for the President.
It should also be noted that:
- Enemies lists are not acceptable. President Nixon would be proud.
- It is now acceptable for the President to target private citizens (well, it was before just ask “Joe the Plumber”). Imagine if it were you next and had no way to respond.
- It is acceptable for the President of the United States to take what a private citizen says out of context and publicize it. Amazing and scary.