The Second Amendment to the Constitution, the right to bear arms, should not require much interpretation yet it has been challenged on numerous occasions. It is shocking that circuit court judges and even Supreme Court Justices provide variant interpretations. The fact that the Supreme Court decision in the Heller v. District of Columbia case in 2008 regarding Washington’s strict gun prohibition was overturned by only a 5 – 4 margin, should give pause to freedom loving Americans.
Our freedoms can be ephemeral – they can be taken away in a flash. The “progressives” and the far-left in our country are relentlessly attacking our innate rights and freedoms, often in incremental and stealth ways. The Second Amendment not only allows us to protect ourselves from others who aim to harm us but as Thomas Jefferson noted, it also is what can protect us from a tyrannical, overreaching government.
We must be ever vigilant in protecting and defending these rights and freedoms.
'Right To Bear Arms' Means Just That
Investors Business Daily 03/03/2010
Gun Rights: Otis McDonald, 76, an Army vet who lives in a high-crime area of Chicago, thinks the Constitution gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he protected his country. We think so too.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on behalf of four Chicago residents led by homeowner McDonald, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association to overturn Chicago's three-decade-old ban on owning handguns.
In a 5-4 decision in 2008, Heller v. District of Columbia, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's draconian, 32-year-old ban on the private ownership of handguns. Scalia wrote that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The joy of Second Amendment defenders was short-lived. A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Judge Frank Easterbrook, rejected subsequent suits brought by the National Rifle Association against the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill.
According to Easterbrook, the Revolution was fought and independence won so that the Founding Fathers could write a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that applied only to the District of Columbia.
"Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government," he wrote, "while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state."
We're all for federalism, but the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Constitution. Surely he can't be serious.
Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., lawyer who won the Heller case, has expanded the argument to include the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 to prevent infringement on constitutional rights by states and others concerned about newly freed slaves owning firearms.
Introducing the 14th Amendment to Congress, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan referred to "personal rights" such as "the right to keep and bear arms, " explaining that his amendment would compel the states "to respect these great fundamental guarantees."
In 2008, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an amicus brief on behalf of 32 states that also challenged the constitutionality of the D.C. ban. Now he represents a group of 38 states fighting the Chicago ban. "The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a critical liberty interest, essential to preserving individual security and the right to self-defense," Abbott explained.
Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote in 2008 that in Chicago only two classes of people can possess firearms: "The criminals and the politicians."
City politicians, he noted, used their influence to "become deputized peace officers so they can carry" or "often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll."
Otis McDonald wants the same right to defend himself and his family. To deny him that right, city officials argue that repealing the ban will bring carnage in the streets. Yet in the forthcoming third edition of "More Guns, Less Crime," John Lott points out that the Windy City's murder rate fell relative to America's other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose afterward.
In an essay Monday for FoxNews.com, Lott noted that after the D.C. gun ban was ruled unconstitutional, murders in Washington plummeted 25% from 2008 to 2009. D.C.'s murder rate, he reports, is down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, its lowest since 1967.
More guns do seem to mean less crime. And as Mr. McDonald insists, those who gave us liberty gave us the means and the right to defend it.
Obama is clearly bothered by the Supreme Court’s abrogation of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Legislation. He has attacked the decision with vehemence numerous times including during this State of the Union address with the Supreme Court Justices sitting right in front of him. Is he that afraid of allowing unfettered free speech in our democracy? Absolutely!
Too bad he has not displayed such vigor and attention to the real important issues facing the American people like jobs, the economy, and terrorism.
Is Freedom Of Speech Really An Emergency?
By Thomas McArdle Investors Business Daily 01/26/2010
A full year into his presidency we suddenly discover what it takes to get Barack Obama all worked up.
Not terrorism.
In the president's estimation, a near repeat of the Lockerbie bombing Christmas Day wasn't worth remarking on until three days later.
Not the risk of a fiscal doomsday.
Only after 12 months of joint one-party rule to secure his place as the biggest-spending president in history does he call for a bipartisan spending-restraint commission and a spending freeze. Both the commission and the freeze don't come along until the fall at the earliest, if they materialize at all.
But when the Supreme Court nullifies congressional incumbents' legislative attempts to suppress the threat of political speech via modern means of communication, he runs to the microphone as if it were a national emergency.
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics," he declared, promising swift action. "We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."
Millions of Americans are suffering from double-digit unemployment. And now the nation has been assessed by the congressionally mandated Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation as being unprepared for a biological terrorist attack. The panel slapped the Obama administration with a failing grade on its readiness and response plans to combat the use of deadly viruses or bacteria by an enemy.
Yet what does the president devote his radio address to last Saturday? Accusing the high court of the land of issuing a ruling that "strikes at our democracy itself."
Most Americans may be under the misapprehension that terrorists such as underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab are the people to keep from striking at our democracy. Uh-uh. According to the president's priorities, the real threat to our democracy comes from Justice Anthony Kennedy and his warped view that American citizens should be able to use "their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks."
The president says, "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest" — not $12 trillion in federal debt; not an abysmal 26% of teens working (a record low since statistics began being kept in 1948, according to a report by Northeastern University); not the terrorist state of Iran on track to building nuclear bombs.
Let's look at that Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which our chief executive considers a calamity of such historic proportions that "When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision."
Kennedy is viewed by liberal Democrats as the most reasonable of the five conservative justices; he was co-author with former Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter in their joint Casey opinion reaffirming the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
Kennedy's 5-4 decision abrogating McCain-Feingold pointed out that under that law, "skits on YouTube.com" satirizing politicians too close to Election Day are a felony "solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the 'purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value' in order to engage in political speech."
Before posting that YouTube video with corporate funding, of course, McCain-Feingold lets you ask Uncle Sam's (specifically the Federal Election Commission) permission.
As Justice Kennedy's ruling notes: "If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question."
Then, "government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated."
As he and the four justices joining him recognize, "This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech."
Yet it is this victory for free speech last week that requires, according to Obama, "a forceful, bipartisan response" — not the whole myriad of more pressing challenges facing our country, ranging from the fiscal time bomb of out-of-control entitlement programs to our dangerously porous borders.
Blasting the Citizens United ruling may set the stage for another successful Supreme Court nomination for the Obama administration. But it won't restore the public confidence a president needs at a time of serious economic troubles and a continuing global war on terror.
The stealth insertion of affirmative action provisos in the Obamanocare legislation is reprehensible, dishonest and insulting to the American people. These racially based stipulations alone should relegate this proposal to oblivion. IBD captured its essence succinctly: “It's affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.”
This is massive program that will legislate and implement “legal” reverse discrimination which is blatantly wrong both legally and morally. This is remarkably similar to the recent Ricci vs. DeStefano and the City of New Haven firefighters case that “racially empathetic” Sonia Sotomayor ruled against but was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court.
IBD shrewdly noted, “Whether it's that firefighter coming up the ladder, or the brain surgeon about to remove that tumor in your head, everybody wants that person to be the best regardless of race or ethnicity — and not admitted by quotas and promoted by political correctness.”
Though not necessarily assuming fault or jumping to conclusions, Michael Jackson’s death may be the quintessential example on two counts of the downside of using race as a criteria versus qualifications. It is not clear if Michael Jackson selected his doctor, who now is being investigated for manslaughter in his death, solely because he was black (see Kanye West's deceased mother's scenario). Secondly, he should have thought more about checking the doctor’s training, credentials and qualifications before selecting of him. If he did, he would have discovered that apart from other significant issues, this doctor attended a medical school that historically trains black physicians who quite frequently lack the intellectual aptitude and scholastic credentials required to attend “mainstream” medical schools. This same medical school consistently ranks at or near bottom in comparison to the other medical schools in this country. If you want great quality, you have to start with the best raw materials.
There is also a significant and unfortunate unintended consequence of affirmative action that can be problematic for the countless members of those minorities who have succeeded because of their abilities and not because of quotas or racial preferences. For example, if you have an emergent medical problem and the doctor who is about to treat you who is Afro-American, can and should you trust his/her abilities and judgment? You think: Is he/she a doctor because he/she earned it based on personal merit and intelligence or because of skin color and affirmative action? This should never be a question that one is forced to ponder! On the other side of the coin, minority physicians who earned their medical degree based on merit like everyone else shouldn't have to deal with the questioning of their abilities just because race based affirmative action quotas.
In early April, Stanislav Mishin, a Russian columnist, wrote an extremely insightful as well as damning article about the monumental yet silent collapse of Capitalism in the United States. Even more ironic is that it was published in the Pravda which was the official “newspaper” of communist Russia during the Cold War. And this was still early in time regarding the Cap and Trade Bill, Supreme Court Justice to be Sonia Sotomayor and her rhetoric that some races and groups are more equal than others, and government takeover of America’s healthcare system.
The brutal intolerance and inexorable vicious personal attacks orchestrated by the liberal media and far left zealots against those who hold different opinions has reached a new low in civility. These attacks are ruthless, classless, abhorrent and know no limits and they must be stopped. Wanton vitriolic articles and on-air commentary by news people should be quashed by their superiors but they are not. Why is it not being done? The reason is because this reprehensible attitude pervades virtually all levels of most of the media and the attacks are supported and encouraged.
We are not talking just about relentless ad hominem attacks against public figures like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin or even Joe Arpaio (America’s Sheriff). What about the average private citizen like Joe Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber) who just happened to ask Obama a great and innocuous question during the Presidential campaign that exposed inconsistencies in Obama’s rhetoric? The far left then unleashed vicious personal attacks against him and conducted unwarranted and illegal investigations including on tax and other issues which were then made public. Some of this was perpetrated by government employees who were never charged for their crimes.
Another example is Carrie Prejean, Miss California 2009, who was asked about gay marriage during the Miss America contest by the hateful radical gay activist Perez Hilton. He did not like her answer which happened to be very tolerant and then proceeded to rip her to shreds including on ranting internet posts. Much of the far left piled on as well, trying to discredit her with a relentless smear campaign. By the way, where were the “women’s” groups who claim that they are the defenders of the women’s rights? They only defend women who support far left view points.
Now word is out that the new target is Frank Ricci of Ricci vs. The City of New Haven fame, whose appeal was rejected by Sonia Sotamayor of the 2nd District Court of Appeals whose decision was then overturned by the Supreme Court. These attacks on private American citizens are intolerable and we must unite and fight them aggressively and take action against these groups and individuals which also includes boycotting.
Testifying during the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, the lead plaintiff firefighter in the Ricci vs. DeStefano (The City of New Haven) case stated that “Americans have the right to go into our federal courts and have their cases judged based on the Constitution and our laws, not on politics and personal feelings”. He also unwaveringly asserted that Sotomayor’s ruling against the firefighters in his case was solely based on "politics" and "personal feelings" and not on the law.
During the confirmation hearings, Sotomayor has been evasive and guarded in her responses to some very important questions in order to avoid controversy and be able to quickly wrap up her confirmation. Many of her answers belied her previous rulings and statements. This is a particularly prevalent tack that Obama, his cronies and nominees have adhered to – say one thing to garner votes and then do something totally different which was the true, original underlying intention. Hence the warnings that we should adhere to when reading and listening to the idologues: Actions speak louder than words. No matter what Sotomayor states in the hearings, her past record belies her true positions which should definitely strike fear in the minds and hearts of the average citizen.
Many Americans have been duped by these despicable deceptions, prevarications and the complete absence of integrity. This is all part of a master plan base on ideology to shrewdly but resolutely acquire power so that the Federal government will ultimately control most aspects of each citizen’s life.
If you are watching closely, you will see that Obama is playing a very shrewd but lethal game with America’s political, economic and social systems. His ideological objectives clearly are to rapidly transform a free and capitalistic system where the individual is empowered to a socialistic system with government control of wealth, the economy and power and where the individual is reduced to dependency with limited liberties.
Americans who want to protect their freedoms and rights and not be taxed oppressively and controlled by an ever expanding, intrusive, intolerant, and power hungry government will find that we have the worst possible scenario now. It is the perfect storm for this radical transformation of America. With a far left socialist/Marxist President Obama, far left and rhetorically anti-American Speaker of the House in Pelosi, overwhelming filibuster proof Democratic majorities in Congress and a sycophantic, cheerleading press that fervently supports this radical ideology, preventing this bloodless coup will be a formidable task but IT MUST BE DONE!!
By their actions and attitudes Congress is essentially saying “to hell with the American public”. In a period of a few weeks, they are attempting to ram the massive Cap and Trade Bill and government takeover of the healthcare system down the throats of Americans as well as confirm the avowed ethnic-centric Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court justice. The Cap and Trade Bill which would impose the largest tax increase in the world and be excruciatingly onerous to the individual American taxpayer as well as for private industry. It would precipitate a plummeting of the quality of life and the standard of living. With unrestrained arrogance that has become the trademark of the Democrat controlled Congress, the bill was rapidly passed in the House of Representatives with little discussion and with no one actually having read the bill themselves. They ignored the general public’s sentiment and did not make the bill available for citizens to read. Why the hurry and scare tactics? Because if Americans had enough time to read and evaluate the bill, they would vehemently oppose it.
While this is still on the burner with tens of trillions of dollars at risk, our attention is diverted to the Sotamayor confirmation hearings this week. The outcome of these hearings may affect the legal landscape in this country for decades.
With all this and more transpiring, Obama has revealed that he wants to ram his massively bankrupting, tax sucking, inchoate healthcare bill through Congress starting next week. BAM! BAM! BAM! We are getting clobbered from every direction yet few people are paying attention. By the time most Americans wake up, turn off their iPods and get off their cell phones, it will be too late! America as we knew it will have been stolen away from us but we will still be burdened with the debt of tens of trillions of dollars. Our rights, freedoms and liberties will have been severely curtailed and we will have to wait interminably to possibly obtain the inferior healthcare that will be prevalent provided that our medical issue isn’t on the government’s “too expensive to treat” list.
In the recent history of these confirmation hearings, the Democrats have monolithically voted for the appointees if they were liberal and against if they were of conservative ideology – and aggressively and relentlessly challenged them. The Republican Senators have been far too gracious and derelict of their responsibilities, essentially mailing it in and accepting candidates that should have undergone far more rigorous questioning. Unfortunately, it appears that history is repeating itself again. This should rightfully enrage the countless conservatives who are placing their dwindling hopes that Sotomayor can be exposed for the racially divisive jurist that she has so patently demonstrated in the past and have her confirmation blocked. Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama has taken his responsibilities seriously and should be lauded whereas Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina initial comments to her that confirmation was inevitable essentially removed virtually all of the pressure off her.
The following is Senator Jeff Sessions in Senate Hearings discussing concerns regarding Sotomayor and the issue of "empathy"
In this video, Senator Sessions discusses his concerns about Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
This video shows Democrat Charles Schumer, the smarmy, arrogant, and condescending lawmaker that he is in his introduction of Sotomayor. You may not want to watch this on a full stomach!
Americans who want to preserve what freedoms and liberties we still have need to contact their Senators on both sides of the aisle regarding the Sotomayor confirmation hearings which are being conducted this week. Her confirmation, a lifetime appointment, would impose her abominable misguided “empathetic” legal input and judgments on the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans for decades! Her long dismal track record speaks for itself – someone who consistently considers race, sex, etc. as highly influential factors when she adjudicates thereby ascribing more legal rights to these individuals than to others. As we noted before, this is a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment where all Americans are mandated to have equal protection before the law. There is no legal authority for “oppressed” or privileged minority groups.
Whatever she reveals in her testimony before the Senate will be just plain expedient, hollow rhetoric. She stated that "Many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law - it is to apply the law." Her previous writings, judgments and statements even captured on video belie these comments, instead showing a racist, manipulative and intellectually dishonest arbiter. Just review her most recent case that was overturned by the Supreme Court, Ricci vs. The City of New Haven to understand the dangers to freedoms, liberties and impartial justice that she represents. This was the fourth out of her six cases that the Supreme Court has reversed – an ignominious record.
The following video captures Sotomayor's comments on judicial activism that contradicts her testimony given today before the Senate. Read between this lines of her comments.
In order for the legal system to function effectively and not be a disrespected sham, judicial impartiality is a sine qua non. This basic tenet is written in the American Bar Association’s “Canons of Judicial Ethics”. Bias based on factors such as race, religion, sex, and ethnicity are unacceptable. Sotomayor frequently boasts of her empathetic predisposition and decisions based on these factors which clearly should deprive her from consideration for a Supreme Court Justice. This is a well known fact and which is why we have vehemently called for vociferous opposition to her confirmation.
What we find appalling (as noted in the editorial below) is that the ABA chose to ignore Sotomayor’s violations of these basic tenets of impartiality that a judge must adhere to when they rated her. The reason: her liberal political pesuasion.
The doomsday clock for the rights of the average American is ticking down. The confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor begin this morning in the Senate and may last this entire week. If you are a regular reader of www.saveyourrights.com, you will know that we vehemently oppose her being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. We have written many columns exposing her racist, preferential, and socialistic attitudes and rulings which will cause irreparable harm to freedom, liberty, equal rights and the support of democracy in America. Call and e-mail your Senators today or ASAP. Although most all pundits say this is a done deal and the odds are overwhelming stacked against us, let’s not give up. We have to vehemently and relentlessly fight this and every other important issue that affects us. DO NOT GIVE UP! Our freedoms, liberties and way of life need to be defended.
The agenda that Obama and the Congressional Democrats want to impose on the American people is replete with items that will satiate their far left ideological wish list. If implemented, the consequences would be far more destructive than anything that this nation has faced in the past. Their proposals and legislation would cause severe, possibly irreparable harm to all facets of our existence such as our rights and freedoms, finances, wealth accumulation, and even education. We are witnessing relentless attacks on hard working, productive and motivated Americans with one bill after another seeking to levy high and punitive taxes then redistributing the money to those who are unproductive, unmotivated and loudly voice their entitlement mantra. Their rhetoric is intended to engendering class warfare in order to be able to pass imprudent reckless legislation. Penalizing the productive and rewarding the lazy is not the American way. Affirmative action and empathetic judicial decisions favoring specific chosen groups rather than allowing decisions to be based solely on ability, attitude and effort further erode our rights and the tenet of equality for all.
What are some of these bills, issues or newly passed laws? The pork laden, almost $800 billion dollar tax wasting stimulus bill which has been entirely ineffective as even noted by Biden and others in the Administration. Then there is the multi-trillion dollar plan for the government takeover of the healthcare sector which would not only bankrupt this country but also result in severe rationing of care, long wait times even if care was available, and plummeting of the quality of care. The Cap and Trade Bill is the largest, most oppressive tax increase in the history of the world.
These are just for starters. Then we have the issue of Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotamayor of “ethnic empathy” fame who has had four of her six case rulings in the U.S. Appeals Court overturned by the Supreme Court. Not very good record! And the government’s heavy handed takeover and edicts regarding GM and illegal mandates as regarding the disposition of Chrysler…
We must stop this insanity, this profligate, irresponsible and inexorable spending and borrowing that will encumber this country for generations, severely reduce the standard of living and place us at the mercy of countries like China who do not have our interests at heart. The Government’s actions will also noticeably curtail our liberties, rights and freedoms.
The following parable written by an anonymous author, illustrates the importance of aggressive, effective and vocal opposition to the agenda of Obama and the Pelosi led far left Democrats of Congress.
Dinner With Obama - A Parable
Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a free country. There's nothing that the government can do to me if I've broken no laws. My wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor.
I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.
The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen.
"Sorry about that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry."
"I don't appreciate..." I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. "Of course," I concluded, and reached for my glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp.
"And his brother, Eric, is very thirsty." said the President.
I didn't say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don't want to seem unkind.
My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite.
"Eric's children are also quite hungry."
With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.
"And their grandmother can't stand for long."
I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President.
"Their grandfather doesn't like the cold."
I wanted to shout, "that was my coat!" But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled.
Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table. I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn't moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him.
"Andrew's whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven't planned for retirement, and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do."
My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor. The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak, and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small gray circles on the tablecloth that were water drops.
"By the way," He added, "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I'll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There's a whole bunch of Erics and Andrews out there and they can't come to you for jobs groveling like beggars."
I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty ramekin which had been his crème Brule. He drained the last drops of his wine.
As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair. He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if were a ledge, and I were a man hanging over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle. Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I played and lost? I looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board between us.
What had I done wrong?
As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands…"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll," he said.
Yesterday in our post, we cheered the Supreme Court correct verdict in favor of Ricci and the Firefighters versus the City of New Haven. We also noted that this case was unequivocally a blatant and abhorrent example of reverse discrimination in order to allow the city of New Haven to realize greater ethnic “diversity” in its member firefighters. It egregiously abridged the rights of a group of individuals (largely White) who were more qualified and scored better on the test but did not have the correct ethnicity yet was overturned by only a 5 to 4 margin. We may not be so lucky in the future if Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court justice vacancy and whose decision the Supreme Court overturned, is confirmed. Her decisions, opinions, speeches and background are replete with “ethnic empathy” where some people (specific minority groups) have and will be afforded more rights and leeway than others.
The Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 margin overturned the decision of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotamayor rendered and that went against Ricci and the White firefighters in their case versus the City of New Haven. In the surprisingly close ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that these firefighters were unfairly denied promotions because of their race (reverse discrimination) in order for the city of New Haven to implement their diversity plan.
Though the decision was anticipated, what we find shocking is that the vote was only 5 to 4 to reverse the Court of Appeals judgment in a case that was patently was blatantly reverse discrimination by any criteria. This case and the razor thin margin should serve as a clarion call regarding the importance of vehemently opposing the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. A similar case like this in the future could go the opposite way resulting in the discriminatory abridgement of our rights thus attributing greater inherent rights and equalities to some favored groups or individuals versus others.
Contact your representatives and voice your opposition to Sotomayor being confirmed!
See Video regarding the case and Supreme Court verdict:
In the following brilliantly analysis of racial politics, retribution and people’s rights, Thomas Sowell lucidly and cogently presents his thoughts on “paybacks” perpetrated by minorities on the average American who does not believe in discrimination but is being targeted. He also outlines the dangers of confirming a Supreme Court Justice who has made a career of playing identity politics and which could have long term implications on the rights of hundreds of millions of Americans.
In the National Journal Review, Stuart Taylor closely examines the infamous New Haven firefighters affirmative action case. What he discovered was that the evidence and information reveal a far more indefensible decision reached by Sotomayor with manipulation of the legal system in order to facilitate the hiring of undeserving and unqualified minorities so as to obtain racial diversity. Even more abhorrent is that she used her legal position to pervert and “interpret” the law in accord with her race based ideologies in a very disingenuous, corrupt fashion. The result also is the violation of the civil rights of those individuals who passed the test and should have been given the jobs which they rightfully earned.
As we have emphatically stated in earlier posts, Sotomayor must not be confirmed to be a Supreme Court Justice!
Evidence uncovered from Sotomayor’s past reveals staunch opposition to the death penalty. Some of her reasoning is unequivocally refuted by data readily available to all thus substantiating that ideology for her trumps facts. Furthermore, it also makes quite apparent that she is both naïve and an intellectual lightweight whose empathy will pervert the law to where there will no longer be equal justice for a given crime.
Not surprisingly, like many effete liberals, she attaches greater empathy toward the perpetrator than to the victim and their family. This is not the type of empathy America needs!
Americans are getting restive and angry with the bloodless coup we find ourselves in the midst of thanks to the Obama Administration, Pelosi, Reid and other ultra-left Liberals in Congress. In every direction we turn, there are threats to our rights, freedoms and economic well-being. We have ubiquitous taxes and proposals for more taxes. Giving our fair share means taking as much as possible from those who are productive and distributing it to those who are lazy, undeserving or illegally living in this country.
Warp speed to Socialism with consolidation of power and wealth to the Big Brother Government! It is now the proud owner of GM, wants to determine pay for employees of companies even beyond those to whom it has bailed out and gives sweetheart deals to unions while illegally shafting bond holders.
In the legal department, we have a nominee (Sotomayor) that in no uncertain terms states that some individuals are more equal than others, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. She also has indicated disdain for the First Amendment (Right to Free Speech) and the Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) as well. We haven’t yet reviewed her stance on the other Amendments.
We can go on and on enumerating more of these radical changes and confiscatory policies being implemented but you get the point. Meanwhile, where is the opposition, the Republican Party who is supposed to represent and speak out for us? They are a minority party but their influence and presence appears to be microscopic. Perception and appearance is everything and they appear to be a feckless group though this may not necessarily the case. Instead, several passionate, articulate and well-informed Conservatives in the media have effectively taken on the challenges. Like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich, Thomas Sowell and many others. Conservatives in America have been active with grassroot organizations and, of course, the Tea Parties.
The Republican Party needs to be more articulate, passionate, aggressive, bold, persistent and omnipresent rather than just polite and trying to be thought of positively by the liberal media. Maybe they should seek inspiration from their New York counterparts who recently staged a coup in their State Senate.
The following editorial by Patrick Buchanan provides a more thorough analysis of who Sotamayor really is and her thought processes over time. The findings reveal consistency of attitude and thought over time but in a way that should frighten the average American who wants equal justice and not race based politics and justice (a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment). Though there are a few issues in this editorial that we take exception to, his assessment of Sotomayor is right on.
Michael Reagan weighs in on affirmative action in America today in the following editorial. He also discusses the poignant issues in the now infamous City of New Haven firefighter case of Ricci vs. DeStefano. Read: The Future of Affirmative Action
According to Politico, top Senate Republican strategists, unless some significant unknown facts about Sotomayor are uncovered, the GOP will not strongly oppose her confirmation. Hopefully, this statement is only to appear “open minded” at this time. In light of what has already been revealed about her racist rhetoric, judicial activism, emphasis on “empathetic” considerations in judgments rather than Constitutional interpretations, and her often disruptive, disrespectful and condescending demeanor in court, her confirmation should be derailed at all costs. This is a battle that needs to be fought vigorously or we will all pay for this mistake for years to come. Contact your Senators and voice your opposition!
The following editorial by Charles Krauthammer, expands on the details of the New Haven firefighters case that Sotomayor adjudicated in a fashion consistent with reverse racism with an extremely unusual one paragraph summary of the verdict. We must disagree with the editorial near the end that this confirmation should be accepted as a fait accompli. Those with morals and a backbone should fight this vigorously, indicating that this is not about race but about the wrong person with an activist agenda.
President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, Sonia Sotomayor, last year rejected the First Amendment claim of a Burlington, Connecticut student penalized by school administrators for using the words “douche bag” in a blog she wrote at home. Read full story
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments