Sotomayor Appointment Panics GOP - In a move that had Senate Republicans running for cover, Obama named federal appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his pick to replace retiring RINO (Republicans in name only) Justice David Souter on the US Supreme Court. Upon confirmation Sotomayor will become the first Hispanic to sit on the high court.
Obama praised Sotomayor as an inspiring woman who "will make a great justice." He went on to say, "Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system, providing her with a depth of experience and a breadth of perspective that will be invaluable as a Supreme Court justice. Obama does have a way with words.
Obama is right about one thing, Sotomayor will be invaluable in supporting his socialist/communist/Muslim agenda. Obama wanted a radical, liberal socialist on the high court and he has one. There is little doubt that Sotomayor will be handily confirmed by the Senate despite any objections by Republicans.
Sotomayor makes no doubts that she is a liberal, socialist, activist judge and admits that the court of appeals is as she said, "where policy is made." To hell with the Constitution seems to be the message here.
She is also a racist and once said that Latino women make better judges than white males. "I would hope a wise Latino woman with the riches of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she said. Well now, can't be much plainer than that.
Sotomayor voted to threw out promotions for Haven, Conn. white firefighters because too few minorities did well on the exam. In the 2008 Ricci v. DeStefano case Sotomayor sided with the city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions. Never mind that the white firefighters were top scorers on the exam. We can't have those nasty, white guys getting promotions based on high test scores and merit. Not until all the blacks and other minorities with low exam scores and poor work ethics are first promoted. Then maybe we'll give the whites a couple of promotions.
Sotomayor's colleague, Judge Jose Cabranas, a Clinton appointee, was very critical of her decision. The case is presently under review by the Supreme Court.
In a Berkley speech a few years ago, she said, "It is appropriate for a judge to consider their experiences as women of color. Really, I thought justice was to be judged solely under the Constitution and that justice was "blind." Experiences as a "person of color" should have no bearing on the case being judged.
Sotomayor has a horrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court as a result of her lousy decisions as an appeals court judge. Never mind that she has a terrible track record as a judge, she's a liberal, socialist Hispanic and a racist. Just the type of judge Obama wants on the high court. Let's face it, Obama may need all the judicial activism he can muster if his real "birth certificate" is made public.
On the Republican side Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will lead any opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation which at this point appears to be rather flimsy.
"She must prove her comment to impartiality based on the law rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings and preferences," Cornyn said. That will be hard to prove since she has already demonstrated in her many court decisions just the opposite. He went on to say he would urge his colleagues not to "prejudge or preconfirm" Sotomayor. Given the track record of the present bunch of Republican senators there will probably be more "preconfirming" than prejudging."
Cornyn said he'd ask Sotomayor whether she really felt the role of federal appeals courts was to make policy. Wow, what a really tough question. How will she ever come up with an answer to that one. Bet she says someting like "not really" and thanks for the softball question.
Cornyn then said Sotomayor's opinion in the New Haven firefighters case suggests that her preference is for a quota system of some type when it comes to employment. Suggests my butt. That's exactly what she prefers - a quota system for employment. If this is an example of the Republican opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation why even hold a hearing in the first place.
The Republicans are so damn afraid of alienating the Hispanics that they won't expose Sotomayor for the judicial activist judge she is.
If the Republicans are betting on a Republican comeback in 2010 and 2012 they had better start acting like conservatives instead of a bunch of wimpy, whining RINOs. Opposing the Sotomayer confirmation with the facts and the truth would be a good start otherwise they'll be riding in the back of the bus for the next four or eight years or longer.
Even if they don't have the votes to stop Sotomayor in the full Senate at least they could show a solid wall, with the probable exceptions of RINO Senators Collins and Snowe, of Republican opposition and vote no.
In fact the Republicans could stop Sotomayor as it will take one Republican vote to
confirm her in committee. They could also "filibuster' her confirmation as the Democrats, since the Ron Coleman/Al Franken seat is still in limbo, don't have the votes to stop them.
OMG a filibuster. Not according to the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who has weaseled out of a filibuster and speaks for his Republican colleagues. So much for a resurgence of the GOP.
Where are the Republican leaders? The conservatives? The fighters? Americans are wondering. So far the only ones speaking out have been former Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynn. Talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been strong voices for conservatives.
At least former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted Sotomayer as a ''racist" and called for her to withdraw her appointment. "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw," Gingrich wrote in an email. Not according to the Democrats Newt. This only applies to Republican appointees.
The Democrats didn't worry about alienating blacks when they tried to derail the appointment of Justice Clarence Thomas. They used every dirty trick in the book to smear and demonize him. They opposed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and finally forced him to resign. And are now trying to have him prosecuted for firing a few US Attorneys. They were critical of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and did their best to demonize her. Alienating Hispanics and blacks hasn't stopped Democrats if the minorities happen to be Republicans.
The only reason the Democrats didn't attack Colin Powell is because he has been a RINO from the start. He proved that when he came out and publicly supported Obama.
If it hadn't been for Republican President Ronald Reagan, President George H. W. Bush and later President George W. Bush, Powell would have never been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Secretary of State. If not for President Reagan I doubt that Powell, who also served as Reagan's National Security Advisor, would have been promoted to full general.
In the early 80s, Powell's commander Gen. John Hudachek said Powell was a poor leader and should not be promoted. The fact that Powell was black probably helped him overcome the bad report and still gain promotion to 4-star rank. He owes a lot of his success in the military and later in politics to Republicans. Powell needs to be booted out of the GOP. Let him pal around with Arlan Spector and the Democrats.
Personally, I've just about had it with the Republicans in Congress. Unless they (at least the men) grow some gonads and throw the RINOs under the bus they may as well get used to being a weak, ineffective, minority party relegated to running errands for the Democrats.
In the meantime Obama is going to pack the Supreme Court with judicial activists. Rejoice America - Socialism has arrived in Amerika!
Excuse me, since Janet Napolitano has branded all of us military retirees and veterans as "Right Wing Extremists" I must hurry off and buy more guns and ammo before Obama's "Civilian Security Force" goons show up.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Cheney Waterboards Obama's Speech
Obama Blasts Bush Security Policies - On May 21, 2009, in a long winded major address at the National Archives President Obama continued to blame the Bush administration for employing "harsh interrogation" policies in the "War on terror." "Water boarding and other harsh interrogation methods did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts- they undermined them," he said.
Obama then called the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay an inherited "mess" that has weakened American national security by providing a rallying cry for enemies. Really now Mr. President that's a big stretch. The terrorists have been determined to kill as many Americans as they can and proved it on 911. Besides these scumbags are growing fat and lazy in GITMO. They're living better there than at any other time in their lives. Special food, Korans, prayer times, excellent medical care, and planning future terrorists attacks when they're released on the streets of US cities and towns.
And who, besides liberal, socialist Democrats and the ACLU, says water boarding and other interrogation policies haven't worked. Obama released our secret interrogation memos to the media and the rest of the world including terrorists. And would have released photos of so-called abuse of terrorist prisoners if not for the outcry from the military and others in his administration, including CIA Director Leon Panetta. Even his own party in Congress refused to approve funds to close GITMO. They don't want these terrorist scumbags running around in their districts either.
If the Obama/Pelosi/Reid gang of losers and traitors wanted to come up with an example of torture why not show the video of terrorists beheading Nicolas Berg. I'll bet Nicolas Berg would have chosen water boarding over beheading with a dull knife while his torturers were crying Allah Akbar!
I believe the best thing we can do with GITMO is to turn it into a real WWII type POW compound. No fancy food, let them eat MREs same as our troops, no Korans or prayer rugs, housed in tents, wearing POW uniforms, outside latrines and showers same as our troops and basic medical support. Barbed wire compounds with machine gun towers. Military tribunals complete with firing squads. Those that aren't shot should be dropped off in the middle of an Iraqi desert with a canteen of water and some rations. Let the Iraqis handle them. If caught again by US troops as terrorists they should be summarily executed by a firing squad.
Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention in the first place. They are a bunch of cowards who wear no military uniforms or identifiable rank as leaders. They torture and murder indescriminately and recognize no rules of warfare. They should be shot outright when captured while attacking US troops or murdering innocent civilians.
The one thing that Obama hadn't counted on in giving his Muhammad Ali "I Am The Greatest" speech was former VP Dick Cheney. Cheney gave his speech across town at the American Enterprise Institute moments after Obama spoke. He said he supported the controversial policies "when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances." Way to go former Vice President Dick Cheney!" All real Americans agree with you.
Cheney went on, "The point is not to look backward. A lot rides on our President's understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history."
Obama said he rejected calls for a "truth commission" about the Bush administrations handling of the war on terror because he has "no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years." That's odd as he bashes Bush every time he gives a speech. I believe that Nancy Pelosi's lies about the CIA interrogation briefings had more to do with changing Obama's mind than investigating Bush's policies ever did.
Obama claimed that GITMO "has weakened American national security" by providing a rallying cry for enemies. What has weakened America's national security has been the defeatist policies of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid gang. If anything they have encouraged our enemies by portraying America as weak and undecided.
Obama says the paramount responsibility of any president is to keep the American people safe. If he feels that way why in the hell is he bent on closing GITMO and refusing to call the fight against terrorists a war on terror. He even refuses to call them enemy combatants. I wouldn't be surprised if they start calling them "Freedom Fighters."
If Obama were serious he would call for hunting down the terrorists and their cowardly leaders, who have tortured and murdered thousands of innocent men, women and children and beheaded American citizens and our US troops, and put them before a military firing squad. Justice demand no less. Instead he wants to blame the Bush administration and tell the rest of the world what a rotten country America is. Instead of cleaning up a mess Obama is making one. A really big one. He may be a gifted speaker but so far he has been a lousy president.
Cheney clearly "water boarded" Obama's speech in a way that only he could do. "Though, I'm not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. What I want to do today is set forth the strategic thinking that drove our policies.," he said.
Cheney went on to say, "Watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can effect how you view your responsibilities. To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy." Can't be any plainer than that and it kept America safe from another attack for eight years.
Despite the best efforts of the socialist Democrats to demonize and ridicule him, with his speech Cheney became the spokesman for all real Americans who still believe in their country and taking the fight to the enemy in the "War on Terror." Where are the rest of the Republican Party members in all of this? Who among them will take up the cause that Dick Cheney has so ably articulated to the American people?
Samuel Adams said it well, "The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." The Obama/Pelosi/Reid gang would do well to heed his warnings.
Obama then called the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay an inherited "mess" that has weakened American national security by providing a rallying cry for enemies. Really now Mr. President that's a big stretch. The terrorists have been determined to kill as many Americans as they can and proved it on 911. Besides these scumbags are growing fat and lazy in GITMO. They're living better there than at any other time in their lives. Special food, Korans, prayer times, excellent medical care, and planning future terrorists attacks when they're released on the streets of US cities and towns.
And who, besides liberal, socialist Democrats and the ACLU, says water boarding and other interrogation policies haven't worked. Obama released our secret interrogation memos to the media and the rest of the world including terrorists. And would have released photos of so-called abuse of terrorist prisoners if not for the outcry from the military and others in his administration, including CIA Director Leon Panetta. Even his own party in Congress refused to approve funds to close GITMO. They don't want these terrorist scumbags running around in their districts either.
If the Obama/Pelosi/Reid gang of losers and traitors wanted to come up with an example of torture why not show the video of terrorists beheading Nicolas Berg. I'll bet Nicolas Berg would have chosen water boarding over beheading with a dull knife while his torturers were crying Allah Akbar!
I believe the best thing we can do with GITMO is to turn it into a real WWII type POW compound. No fancy food, let them eat MREs same as our troops, no Korans or prayer rugs, housed in tents, wearing POW uniforms, outside latrines and showers same as our troops and basic medical support. Barbed wire compounds with machine gun towers. Military tribunals complete with firing squads. Those that aren't shot should be dropped off in the middle of an Iraqi desert with a canteen of water and some rations. Let the Iraqis handle them. If caught again by US troops as terrorists they should be summarily executed by a firing squad.
Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention in the first place. They are a bunch of cowards who wear no military uniforms or identifiable rank as leaders. They torture and murder indescriminately and recognize no rules of warfare. They should be shot outright when captured while attacking US troops or murdering innocent civilians.
The one thing that Obama hadn't counted on in giving his Muhammad Ali "I Am The Greatest" speech was former VP Dick Cheney. Cheney gave his speech across town at the American Enterprise Institute moments after Obama spoke. He said he supported the controversial policies "when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances." Way to go former Vice President Dick Cheney!" All real Americans agree with you.
Cheney went on, "The point is not to look backward. A lot rides on our President's understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history."
Obama said he rejected calls for a "truth commission" about the Bush administrations handling of the war on terror because he has "no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years." That's odd as he bashes Bush every time he gives a speech. I believe that Nancy Pelosi's lies about the CIA interrogation briefings had more to do with changing Obama's mind than investigating Bush's policies ever did.
Obama claimed that GITMO "has weakened American national security" by providing a rallying cry for enemies. What has weakened America's national security has been the defeatist policies of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid gang. If anything they have encouraged our enemies by portraying America as weak and undecided.
Obama says the paramount responsibility of any president is to keep the American people safe. If he feels that way why in the hell is he bent on closing GITMO and refusing to call the fight against terrorists a war on terror. He even refuses to call them enemy combatants. I wouldn't be surprised if they start calling them "Freedom Fighters."
If Obama were serious he would call for hunting down the terrorists and their cowardly leaders, who have tortured and murdered thousands of innocent men, women and children and beheaded American citizens and our US troops, and put them before a military firing squad. Justice demand no less. Instead he wants to blame the Bush administration and tell the rest of the world what a rotten country America is. Instead of cleaning up a mess Obama is making one. A really big one. He may be a gifted speaker but so far he has been a lousy president.
Cheney clearly "water boarded" Obama's speech in a way that only he could do. "Though, I'm not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. What I want to do today is set forth the strategic thinking that drove our policies.," he said.
Cheney went on to say, "Watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can effect how you view your responsibilities. To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy." Can't be any plainer than that and it kept America safe from another attack for eight years.
Despite the best efforts of the socialist Democrats to demonize and ridicule him, with his speech Cheney became the spokesman for all real Americans who still believe in their country and taking the fight to the enemy in the "War on Terror." Where are the rest of the Republican Party members in all of this? Who among them will take up the cause that Dick Cheney has so ably articulated to the American people?
Samuel Adams said it well, "The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." The Obama/Pelosi/Reid gang would do well to heed his warnings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
