Thursday, May 28, 2009


According to the Liberal cRats, only a white man can be a racist. When any other person commits the same "sin" as the white man, they are excused because they have been the victims of the evil white man for centuries.

A white man cannot refer to a black man as a "Blacky", but a black man can call a white man a "Whitie" and no one thinks twice about it. Have you noticed that a white man cannot call a Mexican, a Mexican any longer? You must use the term "Hispanic" or you could be labeled a racist. "Mexican" means someone from Mexico, but the facts only get in the way of white bashing. A black man can call another black man the "N" word and that is fine. Don't even think about using that word if you are white.

We have special organizations and schools for "Blacks", such as the Black Chamber of Commerce, a university for Blacks, NAACP (CP=Colored People), "Black" churches, etc. If a white man started an organization for only "Whites", he would be an outcast, branded as a racist and most would not associate with him. When a white, iCan't politician makes a racist comment, his career is over. When a black politician does the same, he is considered to be brave and gets re-elected.

Now, we are getting ready to add a racist to the Supreme Court. She, Sonia Sotomayor, is not only a racist, but an anti-Constitution, activist Judge who believes it is the proper role of an Appeals Court Judge to "make policy".

Why do I call her a racist? First, what does "racist" mean. According to, racist means the following:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

You determine if the following quote, which she said, is racist, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” 1. Is that a statement that reflects a belief that there is an inherent difference among the human races (and sexes)? 2. Does that statement portray that she believes the Latina would be superior to the white? If you answer "yes" to either or both, you have to agree that she fosters racist views, and maybe sexist views, also.

Also, "that life" that she refers to, that the "wise Latina" has lived is unique to that one person. Not even another wise Latina has lived that life. She has also not lived the life of a "white man" and cannot relate to those issues or see from that perspective. That is why her statement is nonsense! No one has lived another's life! Besides, personal background is not supposed to be a qualification for the Supreme Court, no mater how compelling the story might be. She is supposed to be considered because of being immensely qualified for the position. As she is not to consider race in how a case is decided, her race should not be relevant in her confirmation.

Sotomayor (henceforth referred to as "the Soto", or since we are being culturally correct, "Desoto") is not only a racist, she has issued opinions where a large majority have been reversed by the Supreme Court. She has issued an opinion that states that an individual does not have a Constitutional right to own a gun. She has issued an opinion on a discrimination case, where substantial Constitutional issues were involved, without ever addressing any of them and basing her decision on the right to discriminate by a City, since the victims were mostly white. She fails to see "reverse discrimination" as "discrimination".

Desoto gave a talk to some graduating law students. In the talk, she made the statement that the Appeals Court level is where "policy" is made. This shows a total disregard for the Constitutional limits on the rights and duties of a Federal Judge. She has made statements that show her belief that empathy and emotions and personal background should all play a part in Judicial rulings.

America cannot afford to have a person with these beliefs and prejudices appointed to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.

Whatever happened to, "Justice is Blind"? From what she has said and the way she has already ruled, it appears that her decisions are based largely on the issues she is supposed to be "blind" about. Justice is not justice where the issue is decided based on race, sex, religious belief, etc. The Law is the Law! It is not to be interpreted based on empathy or racist views.

Her appointment will be another "nail in the coffin" of the late, great USA.

Remember, they were at war with us, but we were not at war with them.

No comments:

Post a Comment