Are there people out there who don’t like me because of race? I’m sure there are. That’s not the overriding issue here. – President Obama in CNN interview, September 18, 2009
Giving credit where credit is due here. Unlike former President Carter, at least President Obama has a clue on this. Race may be an issue to a small minority, but for the vast majority it is disagreement on freedom vs statism.
“If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.” President Obama, September 16, 2009
Now, in Washington-speak “undocumented” means that they are here illegally – they broke the law of the United States to get here. So 12 million people came here seeking freedom and opportunity that they didn’t have in their own country, but their first act here was to break the law.
Now consider that approximately 13.2 million people were unemployed in April 2009 and around 14.9 million in August 2009 for a 9.7 percent unemployment rate.
14.9 million minus 12 million equals 2.9 million. What is the unemployment rate then?
There is nothing wrong with immigration, but make it legal.
The Politico states that Obama’s “gift for healing words would combine with the power of his biography to transcend the rancor of modern politics.” (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=9C86A356-18FE-70B2-A8CD0AA335449DD4). Rancor in politics is caused by one group attempting to gain power over another and that group fighting back. To take freedom and turn the United States into a socialist paradise. To take our liberty for what they claim as a good purpose. The Founders knew this which was why they enumerated powers in the Constitution. The authoritarians knew this too and since at least the 1930s have attempted to pit one group against another for the aggrandizement of their own power. Group politics and group envy is the basis of those power hungry groups who only care about one thing – their own power.
Should the North avoided “rancor” with the South in April of 1861? Should Roosevelt should have avoided “rancor” with Japan on December 8, 1941? Should the Africans who were being sold into slavery by their own people to the Europeans have fought or should they have avoided “rancor” in politics?
Anyone who is being sold into serfdom should fight back to preserve their freedoms. Rancor is perfectly fine. Rancor is good, it means you are engaged and care about being free or being serf. Rancor means not compromising when it comes to protecting your freedoms. Rancor means that power-hungry authoritarians are not getting their way. Rancor means that the line of liberty in the sand is drawn and defended. Rancor means that the defenders of liberty are not willing to compromise their liberty away bit by bit.
Freedom implies free markets. Freedom implies free minds. Freedom implies the freedom to make good, and bad decisions. Every compromise is a grain of sand dripping out of the hour-glass of freedom. It may only seem like a single grain, but given enough time eventually the top of the glass will be completely empty.
The Obama administration claimed that Sotomayor’s statement about a wise latina woman making a better decision than a white man were “a poor choice of words” earlier this week.
Unfortunately for the Obama administration’s honesty deparment, she has used the phrase repeatedly so her poor choice of words continued over years. Her filings to the Senate show it was a regular refrain over years. See http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/legal_beat/2009/06/sotomayor-repeatedly-reference.html
At least the sexist, racist, bigot Sonia Sotomayor was a consistent sexist, racist bigot. Kudos to Sotomayor for consistency.
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
While speaking about Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama stated that justices are “charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 centuries ago” May 26, 2009 (see YouTube).
Where was the press endlessly repeating how “stupid” the President is or how uninformed? Yet another example.
“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.
(see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html)
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.”
(see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html)