Posts Tagged ‘race’

Scott Brown Files Lawsuits Against Two Coakley Criminal Tactics

January 17, 2010

Is it okay for a political candidate to use state resources to promote their election?  No?  Is it okay to transparently lie about a candidate with provably untrue demagogic propaganda?  No?

Well, then Martha Coakley deserves to be behind bars more than she deserves to be a United States Senator.  And the fact that too many of the United States Senators we now HAVE deserve to be behind bars is because too many people tend to overlook blatant garbage like this:

From the Gateway Pundit:

This email was sent out earlier from the Scott Brown Campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Felix Browne
January 16, 2010

MEDIA ADVISORY FOR TODAY

Dan Winslow, counsel for the Scott Brown for U.S. Senate campaign, will hold a media availability to announce the filing of a criminal complaint against the Massachusetts Democratic Party regarding a recent mailing paid for and sent by the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Winslow will make a statement and take reporters’ questions at MassGOP Headquarters in Boston TODAY at 4:00 PM.

Massachusetts GOP Headquarters
85 Merrimac Street, 4th Floor
Boston.

Scott Brown filed this complaint against the SEIU in December.
FOX News Boston reported:

BOSTON – Republican Senate hopeful Scott Brown has filed a complaint with the State Ethics Commission after a report that a union backing rival Martha Coakley used state resources to urge workers to volunteer for Coakley’s campaign.

The report by FOX25 said the Service Employees International Union used state computers and e-mail addresses to direct state employees to volunteer for Coakley, the Democratic state attorney general.

UPDATE: Today’s complaint was in response to this horrible Democrat Party mailer:

— Brown filed a complaint against the democratic party for this outrageous attack.
The Washington Post reported:

Republican Scott Brown charged Saturday that a Democratic mailing against his U.S. Senate campaign violates a Massachusetts law prohibiting false statements against a political candidate.

The cover of a four-page mailer sent by the Massachusetts Democratic Party says, “1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away.”

Brown is a state senator, and in 2005 he filed an amendment that would have allowed workers at religious hospitals or with firmly held religious beliefs to avoid giving emergency contraception to rape victims. The amendment failed, and Brown voted in favor of a bill allowing the contraception. He also voted to override a veto issued by his fellow Republican, then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

UPDATE: Even some hardcore liberals are upset with the Coakley rape ad.

UPDATE: The penalty is $1,000 or up to 6 months in jail.

A section of the Massachusetts General Laws prohibits false statements against political candidates that are designed or tend “to aid or to injure or defeat such candidate,” with a penalty of to $1,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Brown campaign legal counsel Daniel Winslow said, “People can shade things and spin things, but it has to have some kernel of truth.”

Brown is locked in a dead heat with Democrat Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general, in the race to succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. Independent Joseph L. Kennedy, who is not related to the famed Kennedy family, is also on Tuesday’s ballot.

Winslow called on the Democratic Party and the Coakley campaign to disavow the mailer’s claim. The Brown campaign plans to wait until Tuesday, the next business day, before seeking a legal remedy, he said.

UPDATE: Here’s the video from the press conference this afternoon.

We’ve seen plenty of Democrat cheating through labor unions.  That happens all the time, and while despicable, is not beyond the pale.  But that ad Martha Coakley ran IS beyond the pale.  Way, WAY beyond.

It’s not enough to say that Martha Coakley is dishonest after seeing that ad stating that Scott Brown wanted every single woman who was raped in Massachusetts in 2008 to be “turned away.”  It is rabidly dishonest.  And for that matter, it is ideological kook nutjob dishonest.

It is the dishonesty of a pathologically immoral and mentally unstable person who will stop at absolutely nothing to win.

I’ve written an article on Martha Coakley’s bizarre and frankly dangerous dismissal of the Civil Rights Act in her dismissal of Catholics’ and other Christians’ civil rights.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act reads:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e, makes it unlawful for an employer to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his/her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This covers hiring, firing, promotions and all workplace conduct.

Martha Coakley had this exchange with a radio talk show host:

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

It has long been realized that many Americans oppose abortion on moral grounds.  But that in no way matters to Martha Coakley, who in hard-core totalitarian-liberal ideology demands that all Americans offer dead babies as sacrifice to the bloody gods of abortion.

This goes beyond the legality or illegality of abortion.  This goes to Martha Coakley wanting to force people to do something they morally oppose, or else forfeit their careers which required years of costly training.

Thomas Jefferson said:

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” –Thomas Jefferson

If it is “sinful and tyrannical” just to compel someone to subsidize ideas which he disbelieves and abhors with taxes, how much more sinful and tyrannical is it to compel a person to actively perform those “ideas” or lose his or her very livelihood?

It is evil of Martha Coakley to have such fundamentally intolerant views (and that’s not me speaking; that’s Thomas Jefferson); but Coakley then goes way beyond that extreme viewpoint.  She proceeds to accuse anyone who harbors pro-life views as being a kind of monster who would “turn away” rape victims.

Pro-life people do not care about the life of an innocent unborn child; they merely hate rape victims.  And so their careers should be destroyed.

If medical professionals who oppose abortion are so few and therefore protecting their civil rights so irrelevant, then why not merely have one of the OTHER medical professionals who support abortion administer the drugs?

No, Coakley says.  You must ALL offer sacrifice to the gods of abortion or be destroyed.  There can be no exceptions.  Everyone must directly take part in abortion or suffer the consequences.  We can tolerate NO demonstration of individual morality, lest people start to question and the entire religion collapse.

And it is within this dangerous, intolerant, civil-rights-abandoning, hateful view that Martha Coakley proceeds to viciously and hatefully lie about Scott Brown’s record.

Scott Brown did not vote to “turn away” 1,736 rape victims from Massachusetts hospitals.  He did not vote to turn away a single rape victim from a single hospital.  All he did was offer a measure to allow those who personally opposed abortion on moral grounds not to be forced to administer abortion.

To go even further, Brown went ahead and voted for the bill in question after his measure was defeated.

And to go even further yet, Brown even voted to override a veto from Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Now, I oppose Brown’s voting for the bill without the measure on abortion, and I oppose Brown’s voting to override his governor’s veto.  But that just goes even farther to prove that Martha Coakley is a vicious and hateful liar who fundamentally believes in crushing the rights of anyone who opposes her.

Harry Reid Invokes Slavery To Attack Republicans: The Real Story

December 8, 2009

Another day, another profoundly dishonest and immoral Democrat lie.

The Democrat Senate Majority Leader had this to say about the Democrats’ health care agenda and its relationship with wanting to own slaves:

“All Republicans can come up with is this: Slow down, stop everything and start over. If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right,” Reid said on the Senate floor Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it is too early, let’s wait. Things are not bad enough.’ “

As Republicans erupted into outrage at the ugly and utterly despicable tactic – and presumably after Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called on Reid to apologize for his “disgraceful statement” – Harry Reid spake again through his spokesman:

“Today’s feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy to distract from the fact they have no plan to lower the cost of health care, stop insurance company abuses or protect Medicare.”

Harry Reid conveniently forgets that his Democrat party is trying to strip Medicare of $460 billion in funding at a time when it needs those funds the most, against unanimous Republican objection.  But facts don’t really amount to much with hard-core liars.

Let me try Harry Reid’s trick:

“All Democrats can come up with is this: tell lies, make stuff up and use deception to make the cost of their bills look different than it really is. If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right.  When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of child molestation, there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, buggering little boys is fine, it’s discrimination to go after them. Things are not bad enough.’ “

And if Democrats become outraged at being compared to being a bunch of child molesters over their takeover of the health care system, I’ll just trot back out and say:

“Today’s feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy.”

Because, after all, when I slander you with the most hateful demagoguery, how DARE you respond in outrage?

I tell you what: Joseph Goebbels is just so freaking happy listening to Harry Reid from his special place in hell.  Every demagogue in history has got to be dancing.

If I really wanted to continue with the Democrat tactics, I would make sure that everyone knew that this was hate speech that would incite black people to begin murdering Republicans.  And the moment I found any registered Republican killed by a black guy, I would immediately cite the event and decry Harry Reid as a blood-faced murderer.

Harry Reid wants to talk about slavery.  So let’s talk about slavery.  Democrats fought the bloodiest war in American history to keep blacks in bondage; Republicans under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln won the emancipation of black slaves at the cost of their own lives and limbs.

During the 1860 presidential election, Democrat candidate Stephen Douglas supported the doctrine of popular sovereignty: allowing settlers in each territory to decide for themselves whether abortion – oops, I mean slavery – would be allowed.

On October 13, 1858, During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) stated: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever.”

An article entitled “The African Civil War” has a very simple entry as to how the Civil War began:

Abraham Lincoln was against slavery. When he was elected President in 1860, seven Southern states left, or seceded, from the United States. They formed the Confederate States of America

The Democrat Party: the Party of slavery.

A little history lesson:

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

The above-cited article entitled, “The Democrat Race Lie,” goes on with numerous entries detailing well over a century of Democrat opposition to racial equality, to match their support of the institution of slavery.

So in other words, Harry Reid is accusing Republicans of being so vile, so hateful, so ugly, so despicable, so depraved, so morally evil, that they have become like Democrats.

And those are fighting words.  Because as bad as Republicans are, there’s no way they are THAT loathsome.

After the Civil War, the Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan as a violent terrorist organization which

resisted Reconstruction by assaulting, murdering and intimidating freedmen and white Republicans.

So you can understand why I would be deeply offended and appalled that Harry Reid would say that I’m such a nasty piece of work as a Republican that I’m somehow like a Democrat in wanting to continue slavery.

Let’s move ahead to 1924, to see how the Ku Klux Klan still owned the Democrat Party:

The 1924 Democratic National Convention, also called the Klanbake,[1] held at the Madison Square Garden in New York City from June 24 to July 9, took a record 103 ballots to nominate a presidential candidate. It was the longest continuously running convention in United States political history. It was the first national convention in which a major party had a woman, Lena Springs, placed in nomination for the office of Vice President. It was also known for the strong influence of the Ku Klux Klan.

That’s why Martin Luther King, Sr., a major civil rights figure before his son took his mantle, “had been a lifelong registered Republican, and had endorsed Republican Richard Nixon.”  And that’s why Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., registered as a Republican in 1956.

The section entitled, “The Modern Civil Rights Era,” from an article, “Republicans for Civil Rights,” is worth reading:

During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, it was the Democrats who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protestors were fighting. Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor in Birmingham let loose dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. In 1963, Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse chanting, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”. In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, enforced the desegregation of the military, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools (using the 101st airborne), and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education (which ended school segregation). Eisenhower also supported the civil rights laws of 1957 and 1960.

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s. In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Conveniently forgotten today are significant facts about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law guaranteed equal access to public facilities and banned discrimination by any establishment receiving federal government funding. The law was an update of Republican Charles Sumner’s 1875 Civil Rights Act which had been stuck down by the Democrat-controlled US Supreme Court in 1883.

In-fact, Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright (credited as Bill Clinton’s political mentor) and Robert Byrd (a former Kleagle for the Ku Klux Klan), filibustered against the bill for 14 straight hours before the final vote. Former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for the bill. When the bill finally came to a vote, the House of Reps passed the bill 289 to 124. 80% of Republicans voted for the bill VS only 63% by Democrats. The Senate vote was 73 to 27 (21 Democrats voting no VS only 6 Republicans voting against). Simply put: Republicans are responsible for the bill being passed, not Democrats as they’d lead you to believe.

Equally important was the 1965 Voting Rights Act that abolished literacy tests and other tests used to prevent blacks from voting (a right granted by the 15th Amendment). With images of violence against civil rights protestors led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shaping the national debate, Democrats in Congress finally decided not to filibuster the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When the bill came up for a vote, both houses of Congress passed the bill. In the House of Representatives, 85% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats voted for the bill. In the Senate, 17 Democrats voted no, and only one Republican voted no.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is championed as a civil rights advocate. In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act as a senator along side Democrat Senator Al Gore Sr. After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was also a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.

In a historic apology, issued unanimously on January 20, 2007 by the North Carolina Democratic Executive Committee, composed of over 700 party leaders and activists from 100 counties, resulted from the1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission Report of May 31, 2006. The report concluded that the Democrat Party was solely responsible for that 1898 murderous rampage against blacks.

“The Democrat Party was soley responsible” become the overarching theme.

The Democrats’ record regarding slavery is a record of abject shame and moral evil.

Democrats might point out that Strom Thurmond filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act signed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.  But they should also recognize that he was a member of the Democrat Party when he did it.  And then they should account for the fact that their very own Robert Byrd – who continues to serve as a Democrat Senator today – not only filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but actively served the Ku Klux Klan in the leadership positions of “Kleagle” and “Exalted Cyclops.” And this now revered Democrat wrote a letter to Senator Theodore Bilbo that said:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

— Sen. Robert C. Byrd, honored Democrat in good standing.

And for Harry Reid to lecture Republicans, using slavery as an example, is an insult to history, in addition to generation after generation of Republicans trying to win first emancipation and then individual liberties for blacks against the bitter and steadfast opposition of the Democrat Party.

How dare he?  How DARE he?

Harry Reid should not only apologize, he should frankly resign in disgrace.  He won’t, only because the Democrat Party wallows in disgrace like pigs wallow in mud.

Question For Jimmy Carter: If We Despise Obama Because Of Racism, Why Is It That We Despised You?

September 17, 2009

Well, you can count on Democrats accusing conservatives of racism the way you can count on the sun to rise in the morning.

In remarks decried by Republicans, former president Jimmy Carter told NBC’s Brian Williams in an interview Tuesday that he believes race is at the core of much of the opposition to President Obama.”I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African American,” Carter said. “I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country that shared the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans”

Continued Carter, who is famously from Georgia: “And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.”

I wonder if you’ve looked in a mirror lately, Jimmy.  Maybe you’ve figured out that most of America despises you on account of the color of YOUR skin.

But it was never about your melatonin level, Jimmy.  It was about the fact that you were an incompetent nincompoop who ran the country into the ground.

Same as Barack Obama is doing now.

Allow me to provide you with a smattering of articles that I have written over the past months to demonstrate how desperately wrong you truly are:

Messiah Obama Really IS The Second Coming… Of Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter Addresses Barak Obama’s Convention: How Appropriate

Carter-era Economist Sees Deja Vu In Barack Obama

The Obama ‘Crisis In Confidence: Welcome Back, Carter’

So you see, Jimmy, you incompetent and morally-blind disgrace, the reason we despise Obama isn’t because he’s black and therefore not qualified to lead.  We despise Obama becuase he’s like YOU and therefore unqualified to lead.

And just how did Barack Obama ever get elected in the first place if people really thought the way you now demonically accuse them of thinking, anyway?

Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly disagree with your view, just as they came to overwhelmingly agree that your entire presidency was a pathetic joke:

The suggestion that race is behind criticism of Obama has been made by New York Gov. David Paterson and Reps. Charlie Rangel of New York, Diane Watson of California and Hank Johnson of Georgia, among others.

But a poll released Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports showed that just 12 percent of voters believe that most opponents of Obama’s health care reform plan are racist. The survey of 1,000 likely voters, taken Monday and Tuesday, found that 67 percent disagree with that contention, while 21 percent are not sure. The survey had a margin of error of 3 percent.

Rush Limbaugh boldly predicted that an Obama presidency would make race relations worse.  In a call from an Obama voter who said he voted for Obama BECAUSE of his race, Rush Limbaugh responded:

RUSH:  I said — you must have missed it — this is what I want to ask you about.  Well, no.  Several occasions I had people who were very hopeful, as you expressed you were hopeful, that the election of the first African-American president would end or really crimp racial strife in the country.  People asked me if I thought this and I said no.  It’s going to exacerbate it.  It is going to make it worse.  We are going to have more race related problems in this country than we have ever had.  Did you hear that and not believe me?

CALLER:  Well, I did hear that.  I took it into consideration.  But I also had the possibility of McCain getting in as president, and all he’s done is trash Republicans his whole life, so I didn’t feel we were gaining much.  It might just be a slower —

RUSH:  No, no.  I understand that, but I mean you were hoping, this is a pretty big reason to vote for Obama.  You were hoping —

CALLER:  Yes.

RUSH:  — that the elephant in the room that’s dividing this country along racial lines would be obliterated.  That’s the primary reason for voting for him, at least as you said.

CALLER:  Correct.

RUSH:  You heard me say that that would not happen.  You must have doubted me.

And, yep, he was right, as a CNN poll revealed:

During the 2008 election, 38 percent of blacks surveyed thought racial discrimination was a serious problem. In the new survey, 55 percent of blacks surveyed believed it was a serious problem, which is about the same level as it was in 2000.

Candidate Barack Obama was discovered to have sat for 23 years in a hard core racist and anti-American church under the ranting of Jeremiah Wright, and offered a patronizing speech to cover for what should have disqualified him from the presidency in the minds of voters.

During the campaign, we had key Obama surrogate John Lewis unleash a vicious dose of race hatred:

“I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign,” said Lewis, an Obama supporter, civil rights icon and Georgia Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse,” he said.

We had the media literally inventing incidences of Republican racism, and Obama jumping on the lies to deal another race card.  Just as he dealt the race card when he gave his famous “And did I mention he’s black?” line.  Obama said Republicans would use race when HE was the one using race.

In February, Rep. James Clyburn decreed that any opposition to Obama’s ultra-leftist and frankly socialist agenda was actually racism:

COLUMBIA, S.C. – The highest-ranking black congressman said Thursday that opposition to the federal stimulus package by southern GOP governors is “a slap in the face of African-Americans.”

And of course, that’s the new line from the “post-partisan” Democrat Party.  The Democrats who used to butcher Thomas Jefferson by citing him as the source of “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” are now accusing that “Dissent is the lowest form of racism.”

When corrupt scumbag Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich selected a scandal-tainted Roland Burris to fill Obama’s Senate seat, former Black Panther Rep. Bobby Rush issued a racial declaration when he said:

“I — my prayers have been answered because I prayed fervently that the governor would continue the legacy established by President-elect Obama and that the governor would appoint an African-American to complete the term of President Obama.”

And in a blatant display of racism, Rush warned white Democrats who didn’t want to see Blagojevich pick ANYONE to fill Obama’s seat:

“I will ask you not to hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer.”

And then Roland Burris proves that he is such a naked ideologue that he “voted for ACORN” – a “community organization” that is so blatantly evil that it has been caught on tape repeatedly (at least five times now, with promises of more to come) trying to help a pimp and prostitute cheat on their taxes and buy a house so they can import over a dozen 13-15-year-old illegal immigrant girls and use them to set up a brothel.

I could go on.  The blatant racism from Democrats has been amazing.

Obama attacking a white police officer as “acting stupidly” for doing his job and then holding his patronizing “beer summit.”

And now we’re at the sorry and pathetic state where the words “You lie!” are classified as “racism” from the PARTY OF RACISM:

Making an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Tuesday that people will be putting on “white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside” if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Wilson, are not rebuked.  He said Wilson must be disciplined as an example.

But lest we forget, it was the Democrat Party that literally went to war with a Republican President to keep the institution of slavery.   And it is a rather ironic historical fact that the Ku Klux Klan was created by Democrats to thwart the rise of the Party of Lincoln in the South.  And that it was the Democratic National Convention of 1924 that was so dominated by the Klan that it went down in infamy as “the Klanbake.”

Just a little trip down memory lane, for those who want to understand why we are more racially polarized under the presidency of Barack Obama than ever.

And of course, Barack Obama all the while gets to position himself as being loftily above such petty things while his demonic surrogates unleash their racist hell.

Maybe a little less racist demagoguery, and a lot more shutting the hell up would help.

I am now completely immunized against any charges of racism by a party that has used race as a club to advance their ideology in the most grotesque mockery of genuine racism.  If anyone wants to accuse me of being a racist, my simple retort is, “What a racist thing of you to say, you racist bigot.”

Sonia Sotomayor: Another Radical In Robes

May 26, 2009

In a nutshell: Sonia Sotomayor is an activist judge whose decisions have nearly always been overturned by the very Court to which she aspires, as well as a judge who has expressed racist views.

Let us begin with her racist views.

Have you ever seen the statue representing justice?  Ever notice that “Lady Justice” is wearing a blindfold?

Lady Justice wears the blindfold so that she will NOT be biased by what her eyes see.  She will not notice the race, the gender, the religion, or any other such factor.  Instead, she will balance each case before her with the scales of justice, as determined by the law.

We immediately discover that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has no resemblance whatsoever to Lady Justice.  As CNN provides:

At a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:

“I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society….

“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that – it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others….

Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

Judge Sotomayor has ripped the blindfold off, and makes race and gender major focal points of her view of “justice.”  That she feels that a Latina woman is able to reach a “better conclusion” than a white male is simply racist.

Imagine for a single nanosecond that a white man said, “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.” Imagine the OUTRAGE.  Her statement is every bit as racist; but it is radically leftist, and so it is ignored for any purpose of criticism.

What about the scales of justice that Lady Justice uses to weigh cases?

Sonia Sotomayor lacks proper scales, as well.  She certainly lacks impartiality, by her own acknowledgment.

First of all, let us see how she views the law:

In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where “policy is made.” She and other panelists had been asked by a student to describe the differences between clerking in the District Court versus in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Sotomayor said that traditionally, those interested in academia, policy, and public interest law tend to seek circuit court clerkships. She said, “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.” [Duke University School of Law, 2/25/2005, 43:19, http://realserver.law.duke.edu/ramgen/spring05/lawschool/02252005clerk.rm%5D

Should judges legislate from the bench?  Should they make policy?  Sotomayor clearly acknowledges her view, even as she recognizes how radical and wrong it is, and therefore says the pro forma things to cover her arse.

She uses her position on the bench to impose her views upon the law, to make policy rather than allow the legislative branch to make policy and issue verdicts on the basis of the laws that are written.

Chief Justice John Roberts once put it this way:

“Judges are like umpires.  Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

Amazingly, this statement has been attacked by the left.  That is because they want a judge to be able to change the color or shape of the baseballs, or change the size or length of the bats, or subjectively alter the way the game is called.  And they believe that a judge should be able to call the game in a way that favors one chosen side over another (using their “empathy” or their preference for a particular race, for example).  Because THEY are the side that features the activists judges who will do those things to favor leftists causes and arguments.

Justice Scalia, in his response to ACLU president Nadine Strossen’s favoring judicial activism and finding opinions in foreign law that corresponded with the verdicts they wanted to impose, said:

“Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court… And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.”

Because the left would howl in unholy outrage if rightwing justices abandoned the Constitution the way the left have and imposed their own views and sought their own sources to justify their subjective rulings.  If you’re on the left, imagine how you would feel if a far right judge invoked sharia law to suppress the homosexual agenda, and you’ll understand how conservatives feel about judicial activists invoking European law to promote it.  We didn’t place ourselves under the authority of European law; we placed ourselves under our very own Constitution.

Justice Roberts made another relevant and powerful statement:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.

But this ISN’T the oath that Sonia Sotomayor will hold herself to.  Rather, she will pull off the blindfold, and judge cases by race and by gender.  And she will “make policy” rather than follow the law.

What did Thomas Jefferson say about the threat of Supreme Court Justices imposing their own will upon the Constitution and imposing laws on the nation based on nothing but their own wills?

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I don’t hear Jefferson praising “empathy” as the defining quality of of our Supreme Court Justices. I don’t hear him lamenting that a Latina woman isn’t on the bench due to her superior wisdom over his own (as a white man).  I don’t hear him praising Sotomayor’s desire to “make policy” from the bench.  In fact, what I hear Jefferson doing is rolling in his grave over the abomination that Barack Obama’s and Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy is inflicting upon the nation.

Finally, Sotomayor doesn’t make good law.  Too many times, her activist decisions have been overturned.  Of the cases in which she ruled that went before the US Supreme Court, Sotomayor has been reversed fully five out of six times.  And the one time she WASN’T reversed, her reasoning was unanimously faulted by every single justice:

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court

• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) — decision pending as of 5/26/2009

• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) — reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) — upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted

• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) — reversed 8-0

• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) — reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

Sonia Sotomayor is a judge who has been humiliated with an 8-0 smackdown of her judicial reasoning.

And the case that is “pending review” – Ricci v. DeStefano (aka the New Haven firefighter case), is precisely the sort of terrible and racist reasoning that should demonstrate how unfit for the highest court in the land Sonia Sotomayor truly is.

A couple of paragraphs from an excellent article on the case:

Mr. Ricci’s saga started in 2003. At the time, he was one of more than 100 firemen who took a written and oral exam that the New Haven Fire Department (NHFD) administered in order to determine whom it would promote to fill 15 openings for lieutenant and captain positions. In preparation for the test, Ricci, a dyslexic who struggles with reading and retaining information, simply outworked most of his competition. He spent more than $1,000 to purchase books that the city had recommended as useful study guides, and he studied for 8 to 13 hours each day. When the test scores were ultimately tabulated, Ricci’s name was near the top of the list. The promotion should have been his.

It didn’t happen that way. It soon emerged that New Haven’s black firefighters, on average, had performed quite poorly on the same test that Ricci had aced. In fact, not a single African American had scored high enough to qualify for a promotion. When word of this got around, a number of local black leaders with political influence thundered that the exam itself was to blame, arguing alternately that it was racially biased on the one hand, and a poor predictor of an applicant’s potential to fulfill the duties of a leadership position on the other.

This is exactly the sort of thing that Roberts was talking about in his analogy.  We had a law in place; we had a universally recognized system of promotion.  One man, in particular, tried to work as hard as he could within the rules that were supposed to be for everyone, and aced the exam.  But Sonia Sotomayor decided she didn’t like the results, and so she changed the rules quite literally after the game had already been played.

Let’s demand a justice who rules according to the law without prejudice rather than a justice who makes prejudice a basis for her rulings.  Let’s demand a justice who understands that she is under the rule of law rather than a justice who uses the legal system to “make policy.”

We don’t need another radical in robes.

The American people have enough black-robed masters and government bureaucrats imposing their will upon us in blatant disregard of the intent of the Constitution which is supposed to be our source of law.  We have enough officials who conflate their own power and explode the size and role of government as master over every sphere of our lives.  We can do far better than Sonia Sotomayor.

Bill Clinton: Obama Has “Political Instincts of a Chicago Thug”

August 27, 2008

I don’t remember ever seeing this much overt bitterness between a party’s nominee for President and the past President of the same party. And this from the Great Messianic Uniter who will inspire all mortals with his inspirational (albeit hollow as an empty piggy bank) message of hope and change.

Bill Clinton gave Obama a nice little endorsement in his speech (and Bill Clinton always knew how to give speeches), but there was little doubt that he would say at the Convention what he’d been saying everywhere else.

Slick Willy may not have a lot of room to talk, but the fact is that the “candidate of hope and change” has some dead bodies in his closet.

Bill Clinton is still clearly outraged over the Obama’s allegation that Clinton “played the race card” by comparing the Obama campaign to Jesse Jackson’s. Clinton said, “They played the race card on me.”

It’s like we’ve been saying to your wife, Bill: welcome to the Republican Party. Obama played the race card on John McCain, too. It stinks having your party’s bag of cheap and dirty tricks opened up on you, doesn’t it?

Clinton also still hasn’t gotten over vote rigging he claimed he personally witnessed by the powerful Obama-endorsing Culinary Workers’ Union in Nevada.

All that said, the quote, “Bill Clinton believes the Democratic nominee, far from practicing a unifying, transformational brand of politics, has the political instincts of ‘a Chicago thug,'” is still quite a doozy, coming out the day of the Democratic Convention. (more…)

Barack Obama: All Hail the Complainer-in-Chief

August 20, 2008

The other day Barack Obama had this message. Too bad there were no violins playing in the background:

But one of the things that we have to change in this country is the idea that people can’t disagree without challenging each other’s character and patriotism. I have never suggested that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America’s national interest. Now, it’s time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.

Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain. When I look out at this audience, I see people of different political views. You are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. But you all served together, and fought together, and bled together under the same proud flag. You did not serve a Red America or a Blue America — you served the United States of America.

So let’s have a serious debate, and let’s debate our disagreements on the merits of policy — not personal attacks. And no matter how heated it gets or what kind of campaign he chooses to run, I will honor Senator McCain’s service, just like I honor the service of every veteran in this room, and every American who has worn the uniform of the United States.

Wah-ha-ha-whah-boo-hoo-hoo. Snif. Oh. I’m sorry. Are you through reading?

Obama claims he wants a “serious debate.” He just isn’t willing to go on any tough programs that would make him defend his policies. Or even actually HAVE a real debate with a John McCain who has already proven he would clean his clock.

Obama claims he has never questioned McCain’s character or patriotism. I’m not so sure of that: he’s questioned McCain’s commitment to veterans over veterans funding programs, his senior adviser said McCain “shot from the hip, very aggressive, belligerent statement. He may or may not have complicated the situation,” clearly suggesting that he was politically posturing at the expense of American foreign policy. His campaign literally called him a cheater (without any proof) due to McCain’s strong performance at the Saddlback debate. Rick Warren called that charge bogus. And all that’s just been in the past few days.

But let’s go back the last few months, with chief Obama surrogates repeatedly attacking John McCain’s war record and his POW experiences in what was nothing less than one cheap, vicious shot after another. Obama was whining about people questioning his patriotism even as his thugs tried to undermine a war hero’s record.

And Barack Obama’s bogus cheap shot at McCain, alleging that he would use racism in his campaign, was so far beneath contempt that he himself now deserves ANY attack.

So pardon me for my lack of tears.

Obama has been taking his complaints against his opponents to record heights. I’ve never seen anything like it. Again and again, I hear Obama deliver a “somebody’s always picking on me” whah-fest.

He started a “truth squad” which hysterically cries foul about one thing after another. It’s almost like this guy wants to start his own secret police to arrest his detractors or something.

I pointed out some time back that:

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others have mocked the fact that Barack Obama says his ears are off limits, his race is off limits, his church is off limits, his pastor is off limits, his new pastor that replaced his former pastor is off limits, the visiting pastor who spoke at the invitation of the new pastor who replaced his former pastor is off limits, his “typical white person” grandmother is off limits, his great uncle is off limits, and now his wife is off limits.

The constant whining over allegations of unfairness had even liberal maven Maureen Dowd questioning whether Obama was much of a man.

I have long since become sick and tired of Obama’s constant whiny complaining. At some point, it will backfire on him as Americans realize this guy just isn’t tough enough to be our leader.

Hillary Clinton’s Next Move

June 4, 2008

Although Barack Obama holds all the required delegates, Hillary Clinton still holds a lot more cards than most liberals want to acknowledge.

People have been debating Hillary’s end-game strategy for some time.  Obviously, with Obama ostensibly clinching the magic number of delegates, Hillary’s strategy must necessarily begin to reveal itself.

One of the guests on June 3rds Larry King Live was Kamala Harris, the District Attorney for uber-liberal San Francisco.  She said, “I have faith in Democrats to do the right thing,” expressing her Obama-camp hope that Hillary Clinton will swiftly do the best thing for the Democratic Party and fold up her campaign tent.

Well, I sure don’t.  I count on Democrats to do the most self-serving thing imaginable, and then spin their self-centeredness with the smarmy rhetoric of, ‘It’s a far, far better thing I do…’.

Larry King asked Wolf Blitzer, “The pundits all said she was going to withdraw tonight.  What happened?”

You see, too darn many in the media – who couldn’t be more in the pro-Obama camp if they were on his payroll – have been telling us what Hillary should do, and would do, in a further effort to pressure her to drop out so their Golden Child could win.

Arianna Huffington was also on the program, talking of the wonder of having a black man as the nominee near the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I have a Dream” speech.  She also said that Barack Obama’s candidacy marks “the end of the fear of God,” which just goes to show just how godless liberals have actually become.

The fact that Obama has now lost state after state by the largest margins ever seen by a nominee of either political party, and the fact that Obama lost South Dakota last night by near double digits when everyone predicted he would win it handily doesn’t fit into the media narrative.  So they ignore it, or “put it in context” in an Obama-favoring way.

Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary Clinton have been increasingly becoming frustrated with being treated like Republicans.  Everything they say is spun in an unflattering way.   Every flaw is magnified, while the media quickly spins the positive side of their liberal darling’s every problem in the interest of “providing context.”  Nasty stories are published  about them that generate a lot of negative attention even though they have little in terms of substantiation to them. that sort of thing.  Republicans have been experiencing this sort of treatment for years.

Heck, the very fact that Hillary Clinton even spoke last night was spun by the media as somehow constituting a slap in the face of Barack Obama on the night of  his “historic victory.”  It was given to the Obama campaign to oh-so-magnaminously say that they didn’t consider it an insult.  Oh, Barack; you’re so… so wonderful!

And the Clintons – who benefited from that same media bias for years – certainly deserve the talionic justice of experiencing the other side.

Bill Clinton got a chance to erupt a bit about the instantly famous Vanity Fair hit piece:

“You know he didn’t use a single name, cite a single source in all those things he said. It’s just slimy. It’s part of the national media’s attempt to nail Hillary for Obama. It’s just the most biased press coverage in history. It’s another way of helping Obama. They had all these people standing up in this church cheering, calling Hillary a white racist, and he didn’t do anything about it. The first day he said ‘Ah, ah, ah well.’ Because that’s what they do– he gets other people to slime her. So then they saw the movie they thought this is a great ad for John McCain– maybe I better quit the church. It’s all politics. It’s all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don’t think anything about it.”

“But I’m telling ya, all it’s doing is driving her supporters further and further away– because they know exactly what it is– this has been the most rigged press coverage in modern history– and the guy ought to be ashamed of himself. But he has no shame. It isn’t the first dishonest piece he’s written about me or her.”

“Anytime you read a story that slimes a public figure with anonymous quotes, it oughta make the bells go off in your head. Because anytime somebody uses those things– he wrote the story in his head in advance, and he just goes around and tries to find some coward to say whatever they want to say, hoping to get some benefit out of it. It didn’t bother me. It shouldn’t bother you.”

Does this sound like the tone of a man who just can’t wait to patch things up with the Obama campaign for the good of the Democratic Party?  Bill Clinton is mad as hell about Obama’s character assassination by proxy and the biased liberal media elite that piles on.

Don’t think there aren’t a lot of sour grapes packed into that Clinton w[h]ine.

So the same media that has been saying that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for months is now predicting that she will drop out in order to show that she is a loyal Democrat.  The implication, of course, being that if she doesn’t drop out she will be revealing that she is a traitor to the Democratic Cause.

And so we come to the Lanny Davis open letter:

Dear Senator Obama,

We write you because we believe it is very important for the Democrats to win back the presidency in 2008.  To do so, we must field the strongest possible ticket for the Democratic Party.  We believe the 2008 election could be close.  And your selection of a vice presidential candidate may make the difference between victory and defeat.

We write to urge you to select  Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to be your choice for vice president because we believe that she would be, by far, the most qualified and strongest candidate to be your running mate.

Both you and Senator Clinton during this campaign have demonstrated strengths in different segments of the electorate and in different parts of the country. Together,  you stand the best chance of making U.S. history not once but twice — the first African American president and the first female vice president since the founding of our great nation.

We know this is ultimately your decision on who is to be your running mate.  But with the greatest respect, we ask you to select Senator Clinton in recognition of the more than 17 million Democrats who supported her at the polls and who, in combination with your more than 17 million supporters, would form the base of a successful presidential campaign in the November election.

Lanny Davis was on the June 3 Larry King Live program claiming that Hillary Clinton would certainly never attempt to force her way onto the Obama ticket.

But Davis’s letter “polite advice” to the Obama campaign provides the narrative for Clinton’s future moves.

Hillary Clinton is perfectly poised to say, “If the Obama camp wants to reconcile the Democratic Party, they know how to do it.  And I have already expressed my willingness to serve on the ticket for the good of the Party and the good of the country.”

If Barack Obama refuses to allow Hillary on the ticket, and loses the election as her supporters don’t turn out for him, well, who’s fault is that?

Hillary doesn’t have to drop out of the race, because she still has the ostensibly selfless cause of standing up for the rights of Michigan and Florida voters to have their votes fully counted.  She can push this thing all the way to the DNC convention in August.

Hillary has the twin option of either forcing her way onto the Democratic ticket, or else allowing Obama to twist in the wind while her supporters stay home or actually vote for McCain so she can run in 2012 – and she can do either one while claiming to be trying to do the best thing for the Democratic Party and the will of the Democratic voters.

It is a widely acknowledged fact that Barack Obama does not want Hillary Clinton (and Bill too, of course) as his running mate.

But if Obama blinks under the pressure, and accepts Hillary Clinton on the ticket, one thing you can bet is that the media headline WON’T be “Obama Appeases Clintons.”

That, you see, would be spinning right; and the media only spins left.  So it would be worded something like “Obama Unites Divided Party” instead.