PALIN ON POLICY : OBAMA-CARE WILL KILL YOUR GRANDPARENTS, CHILDREN AND PETS

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Sarah Louise Heath Palin, B.S (Journalism/Communication, University of Idaho, 1987), Former Republican Candidate for Vice President of the United States (2008); Former Governor of the Democratic Republic of the State of Alaska (resigned 2009); Foreign Policy Expert (Russian Studies); Clay Pigeon Champion, Anchorage Gals With Guns Club (2006); Champion, Alaska State Women’s Basketball Tournament (1982); Master Chef (Specializing in Patented “Big Game Burgers,” including Moose Macs® and Elk-O-Steaks®); Health Care Expert; Republican.

Before the election last year, I wrote about my foreign policy experience. See http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-on-policy.html. In that article, I warned that America had to take swift action to protect Portugal against imminent Russian aggression because Russia and Portugal share a long border. I know all about Russia. I live right next door to them. And I know you can’t trust Ivan.

Thankfully, the Soviets never attacked the defenseless Portuguese. I am confident that my strong stance on the matter dissuaded Moscow from launching an attack on its Portuguese neighbor. I received wide praise for my foreign policy work. Although I did not win the election, I gained valuable experience in foreign policy matters. The Northern Alaska State Polytechnic Institute at Dead Gull even honored me with a Professorship in Russian Studies. So when it comes to Russia, I know what I’m talking about.

In the months since the election, I have gained insights into other policy areas. Now, I am not just an expert in Alaska State highway law and local drilling ordinances. I have also learned a great deal about health care. I resigned my post as Alaska governor in order to fully focus my efforts on national matters. In short, our country faces immense dangers from within. Specifically, we face an evil man: Barack Obama. It is my duty to unite all Americans against him. If we do not, there is no telling how many children he will kill.

I am determined to oppose Barack Obama’s health care reform efforts. Last week, I informed the public that Obama’s proposed health care legislation will constitute Federal “death panels” that will decide whether certain people receive medical care. As the mother of a disabled child—and as a Republican—I know that Obama’s “death panels” will refuse care for disabled Republican children. Obama’s “death panels” will only award care to black mothers, welfare recipients, anti-gun activists, conservationists, homosexuals, Democratic firebrands and smug CNN newscasters. They will not award care to innocent Republican children or FOX news anchormen like Shepard Smith or Bill O’Reilly. If Obama succeeds in passing this bill, Shepard Smith and Bill O’Reilly could go without medical care. Obama’s ruthless “death panels” will let good-looking liberals like Anderson Cooper live, but let crooked-faced conservatives like Greta van Susteren die. This is injustice. We must stop him.

As a health care expert, it is my duty to alert the American people about Obama’s plans. I have information that is not yet publicly available. I must speak. I owe it to America. America faces grave danger. Although Americans are rising up in opposition to Obama’s plan for many reasons, they will not truly stop him unless they know all the facts. At the moment, Americans resist Obama because they fear his plan will prevent them from seeing their own doctors or reduce their benefits. They do not know whether this will happen. They just fear it. Americans are rightly afraid. But they would be terrified if they knew what I know.

Let me put all doubts to rest: Obama’s health bill creates “death panels.” This is not a rumor. No matter what the New York Times says, Federal bureaucrats will soon decide whether people receive medical care. But it gets worse. According to my sources, Obama intends to staff his “death panels” with convicted criminals, hip-hop artists, gay DJs and radical filmmakers. Only Democrats will be allowed to serve on death panels. Additionally, Obama has personally drafted a “Death Panel Protocol” governing medical care award decisions. The Protocol creates a presumption that Republicans do not deserve care. The Protocol gives death panels full discretion whether to deny care to a Republican, but limits its discretion whether to deny care to a Democrat. Worse, the Protocol creates a universal right for African-Americans, immigrants and minimum wage employees to receive top-notch medical treatment, but denies that right to everyone else. In short, if you are not black, Democratic or an immigrant, or if you make more than $5.45 an hour, an Obama death panel might just let you die a horrible death.

This is not all. According to my sources, Obama’s Death Panel Protocol also creates a Special Death Panel Executive Arm. In essence, this Executive Arm empowers death panels to “eliminate unworthy life.” Thus, if Obama-Care prevails, “death panels” will not just decide whether sick Republicans get medical treatment. They will also have the authority to seek out and kill anyone—and any animal—they consider “unworthy of life.” My sources have revealed that Death Panels will have full authority to conduct secret investigations to locate “unworthy life” without court approval. Once a person has been identified as “unworthy,” he or she may appeal to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for mercy. But President Obama has instructed Justice Sotomayor to deny all appeals unless “eliminating the targeted individual would jeopardize the overall goals of the health care reform effort.” This means that no Republican will survive.

Americans have a right to know about this. We cannot yield to Obama’s sweet talk any longer. If we do not take a stand against Obama-Care now, we will lose far more than the contractual right to see whatever proctologist we choose. Quite simply, if we do not fight back now, Obama will kill our grandparents, children and pets. What’s to stop Obama’s death panels from declaring that our sick grandparents are not “unworthy of life?” What’s to stop his vicious bureaucrats from investigating our housecats and targeting them for execution? And what’s to stop the death panels from slaughtering our newborn Republican young? We cannot depend on Justice Sotomayor to save our grandparents, children and pets. We must do something now. We must resist the death panels before they open for business.

Information will win the health care debate. Obama thinks he can win the battle for health care by concealing the truth from the American people. I refuse to let him deceive us. I refuse to let him channel the debate away from death panels and government-run health care. I refuse to let him fool Americans into thinking that he wants to care for them, when in fact he wants to cut my grandfather's throat. Obama is not a savior. He is the angel of death. I will not rest until every American knows the truth.

Democracy cannot survive when the public lives in ignorance. President Obama has skillfully manipulated the health care crisis in order to implement his sinister plan for social reconstruction. He knows that Americans are worried about health care. He knows that no one has a straight answer about the facts. He knows people are confused. So he employs his artful rhetoric, hoping to gloss over his secret plan to kill our grandparents, children and pets. He says he believes in Democracy and “compassionate care for all.” Well, if “compassionate care for all” means drowning Republican children, gassing Republican seniors and butchering Republican puppies, we will have none of it. We refuse to support a system that will care only for blacks but kill everyone else. Americans deserve to learn the truth. This is not about hope or compassion. This is about killing Republicans and letting innocent pets die.

Join me in bringing rationality back to the health care debate. In my view, there was nothing wrong with the American health care system in the first place. It is not difficult to get private health insurance as long as you have a job, you’re healthy and you do not fall under a contractual exclusion in the policy. It’s your responsibility and right as an American to bargain for whatever contract you want. It’s your responsibility to read the contract, and it’s your responsibility to accept the consequences if the insurance company decides against you. This is the way it’s always been. Health care is no different from any other business.

As a health care policy expert, my solution is simple: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I have health insurance. I paid for it. I am responsible. So I have no complaints about the American health care system. If others don’t get health insurance—or if their existing insurance does not cover some special eye improvement surgery—well, they bargained for it. In this country, you get what you pay for. That’s what it’s all about, whether you’re buying health care or a car. Some people buy Mercedes-type health care. Others buy Hyundai-type health care. We can’t all have a Mercedes; that’s just not the way things work around here.

Yet this is why Obama’s rhetoric appealed to so many: He promised to give everyone Mercedes-type health insurance. Of course it struck a chord. Hey, I’d like to get a free car, too. But Obama blinded America with his idealistic promises. He wants to give blacks and immigrants Mercedes-type health care, all right. But he also wants to kill Republican grandparents, children and pets. He thinks he can slip in “death panels” as long as he gives away enough free health care, just as the ancient Roman emperors thought they could commit political atrocities as long as they gave away enough free entertainment to the mob.

We refuse to be manipulated. We are not ignorant Roman plebeians. We are 21st-Century Americans. We know when we are being hoodwinked. As a health care policy expert and a patriot, I am committed to dispelling the sinister lies about Obama-care. I am committed to telling America the truth. If we allow Obama to pass health care reform, we will give government the power over life and death. If you love your grandparents, children and pets, you will stand with me against this tyranny. When you stand with me, you tell Obama: “I am a rational person. I do not believe government has a right to kill my grandma or my parakeet.” When you stand with me, you tell Obama: “I believe in information and democracy, not death panels.” Obama thinks he can beat us by concealing the truth. But the truth will always come out in the end.

Informed Americans are powerful Americans. Informed Americans drive our democracy. Get informed. Learn the truth. Stop Obama-Care before it kills your grandfather, son and dog.

This is America. We care about everyone’s life in this country, not just Democrats and blacks.

STOP SOTOMAYOR : SHE DOES THINGS THAT YOU CAN SCARCELY IMAGINE

A MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

By : Mr. John Cornyn III (R-TX), United States Senator; Member, Judiciary Committee; Former Chief Justice, Texas Supreme Court; Member, Texans’ Alliance for Strong Borders and Marksmanship; Chairman, Lone Star Lethal Injection Fan Club, Dallas-Fort Worth Chapter; 1998 Champion Rifleman, “El Adios” Wetback Target Practice Gun Club; Believer in Christian Forgiveness (with qualifications).

Under our Constitution, the United States Senate has the power to confirm “Judges of the supreme court” following our “advice and consent.” See. U.S. Const. Art II, § 2, cl. 2. That means we have the power to interview the President’s nominees to the Supreme Court in order to determine whether they will protect our Constitution and the American people. Today, the United States Senate must decide whether Sonia Sotomayor has the requisite character and intellect to serve on the world’s most influential court. We must provide “advice and consent.” We face a serious task.

For two days now, Judge Sotomayor has given testimony concerning her abilities as a jurist. So far, she has entertained friendly questions from Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee. She has carefully refused to answer questions concerning her personal views about the Constitution, liberty, freedom and justice in America. She says she “respects the rule of law” and does not allow her “personal feelings” to interfere with her “legal judgment.” On the record, she puts on a good show. From her public testimony, it appears that she is thoughtful, circumspect, judicious and calm. If we had only her public testimony to evaluate, there would be no reason to say that she is not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

But this “performance” is sheer theater. Judge Sotomayor is no detached legal technician like Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Thomas. She is a maniacal lesbian Puerto Rican communist determined to sabotage the United States with Latin perversion. Although several of my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have reminded the world that Judge Sotomayor belonged to the “Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund,” no one really seems to notice how dangerous this is. The “Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund” does not just pay lawyers to argue cases involving Puerto Ricans. It practiced—and continues to practice—voodoo. Its members, including Judge Sotomayor, take part in pagan Caribbean rituals to the grass goddess La Mama del Verde Eternal, during which they burn pungent incense, curse “gringos” and chant prayers to make “Boricuan” the official language of the United States. In short, Judge Sotomayor is deceiving the American people. She is no judge; she is a Puerto Rican radical communist witch doctor with plans to wage war on every white English speaker in America.

I am determined to set the record straight on Judge Sotomayor. I refuse to listen to her song and dance any longer. I know a Puerto Rican woman when I see one, and there is a Puerto Rican woman sitting before me in the halls of the United States Senate, not a federal judge. I am duty-bound to tell the American people that there is much more to Judge Sotomayor than meets the eye. Put simply, she does things that you can scarcely imagine. If I do not tell the world about this Latina viper, she will slither into the Supreme Court to permanently taint our constitutional order. Unless I speak, every American will soon be forced to sing salsa songs and drink mango juice every morning. As an American and a Texan, I refuse to condemn this country to lesbian Puerto Rican terror.

We should have known from the outset that Judge Sotomayor was not what she said she was. Although we could not locate many public statements revealing just how dangerous she could be, we did find a speech in which she called herself a “wise Latina” who could answer some questions better than a comparable “white male.” That should have immediately raised red flags. If George W. Bush were still leading this failing Republic, Judge Sotomayor would have faced impeachment, not elevation to the Supreme Court. But we live in perplexing times. How can we possibly revere a judge who claims that Hispanic women are “wiser” than white men? This is a proposition too outrageous to entertain. To be fair, perhaps Judge Sotomayor meant that “wise Latinas” could be wiser only on certain matters, such as the best place to watch the Puerto Rican Day Parade or how best to translate Spanish phrases, such as: “Ay papi!” After all, there is no way Latinas can be wise when it comes to deciding a securities fraud suit. They don’t even know what a security is. And how can I elevate someone to the Supreme Court if they don’t know that?

But this is not just about legal knowledge. This is about character. I am informed that Judge Sotomayor does unimaginable things. She is not the hard-working, careful jurist she leads us to believe. No, she is a monstrous racist devil-worshipper who dresses as a banana in her private chambers. She castigates white men in Spanish, calling them “pedejos,” “maricons,” “cabezas de vaca,” “coños” or worse. She carries on lesbian affairs with married women in nursing homes. She eats mice, broils frogs and casts Puerto Rican voodoo spells on white litigants before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. She has lived at over 56 addresses throughout New York City since 2001. She has robbed banks while dressed in a Puerto Rican flag shawl. She drives a small Toyota automobile and blasts obnoxious Caribbean music through an expensive, bass-heavy stereo purchased with money filched from the Federal Judicial Fund. This is not the conduct of a prudent jurist. This is not even the conduct of a “wise Latina.” To the contrary, this is the conduct of a hateful racist criminal communist lesbian gypsy vagabond who is determined to undermine American society as we know it. We must stop her from wiping her culo with the Constitution before it is too late.

Judge Sotomayor’s jurisprudence is just as radical as her lifestyle. Although she would have us believe that she takes an “incremental” approach to deciding cases, I know better. So far in her confirmation hearings, she has refused to disclose her beliefs on abortion, choosing instead to say that Roe v. Wade is “settled law” before praising the importance of stare decisis to “careful judging.” But I know the truth. I know that Sotomayor hates children and belongs to the International Latin Fetal Roasting Society (ILFRS). That organization promotes the public disembowelment of pregnant white women, then the ritual boiling of unborn children in a skull-shaped cauldron—all conducted in the Spanish language. She not only supports abortion, but she verifiably boils children—then eats them. How can we defend children in America with an avowed child-eater on the Supreme Court? If we confirm Sonia Sotomayor, we risk enshrining child-eating as a constitutionally-protected right. Put simply, Judge Sotomayor doesn’t fool me when she says she will “carefully consider” abortion regulations. I know she secretly yearns to throw screaming white children into a boiling cauldron, then greedily devour them like scalloped potatoes. This should give us all pause before confirming her as our next Supreme Court justice. Liberal constitutional interpretation is one thing. Eating children is quite another.

But all these personal and intellectual flaws pale in comparison to Judge Sotomayor’s intention to interpret the Constitution in a “ compassionate, humanitarian manner.” In speech after speech and opinion after opinion, she has said that the Constitution should protect the weak and powerless. She has issued opinions granting asylum to Africans and faulting city governments for “not hiring more minorities.” She has freed criminals because the police searched them without warrants and she has said that public school students have a “free speech right” to mock their principals. She is prepared to open our borders to every foreign ruffian who shows up for welfare benefits, and she believes that major corporations should be subject to strict governmental review. In a word, these are dangerous sentiments. If we confirm Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, she will rule for freedom, not precedent. She will rule for justice, not procedure. She will rule for the individual, not the bank. And she will rule for compassion, not commerce.

This is simply unacceptable. Our Constitution does not stand for justice, compassion, freedom or sympathy. Rather, it stands for commerce, procedure, private property and banks. There are ways to interpret the Bill of Rights to protect commerce and banks; Chief Justice Roberts has already shown a marvelous ability to reconcile individual rights with the rights of banks and police investigators. In fact, in my view, a Supreme Court justice proves his worth by skillfully deconstructing dangerous individual rights in order to protect banks and police forces in America. If we protected individual rights too zealously, both government and industry would grind to a halt; every black fellow on the street could bring the police force to its knees simply by saying: “That cop beat me.”

This will not do. Our Constitution is not about sympathy, compassion, humanitarianism or justice. Rather, it is about order, procedure and commerce. Yet Judge Sotomayor threatens to bring sympathy, compassion and justice to the Supreme Court. That would betray the very ideals for which America stands. We must stop this revolutionary lesbian from destroying our country.

We still have time to stop this madness. If America knows the truth about Sonia Sotomayor, they will urge their Senators to vote “no” on her confirmation. At the moment, she is dangerously close to success. Unless we act now, we will promote an inveterate Puerto Rican child-eating communist to our high court. Unless we act now, the police will no longer be able to search people without warrants. Unless we act now, we will be forced to hold dinner parties at state expense for convicted Muslim terrorists. These are Sotomayor’s plans. We cannot allow her to bring her witchcraft to the heart of American government. We cannot allow her to hoodwink us with her calm, collected public demeanor. This is no detached jurist. This is an activist Puerto Rican voodoo dyke from hell who would rather castrate a white male this afternoon than have lunch with her immigrant mother.

For the sake of our Republic and our Constitution, we cannot allow Sonia Sotomayor to bring justice, fairness or “humanity” to the Supreme Court.

LIMBAUGH : I'M NOT A RACIST; SOTOMAYOR IS

By : Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, Media Commentator and Spokesman for the Republican Party and the true United States of America; Barack Obama Opponent; College Dropout; Proponent of Traditional American values; Equal Opportunity Employer; Divorcé; Anti-Drug Crusader; Proponent of Harsh Penalties for Drug Offenders; Drug-Free since 2006.

Several weeks ago, I said I hope Barack Hussein Obama fails in everything he does. I meant it then, and I mean it now. I hope he slips on a banana peel in front of the White House. I hope a terrorist flies a plane right into his bedroom window. I hope his black kids get cancer and die. I hope his black wife cheats on him with some hulking NBA star and he lies about it to the press. I hope the Senate impeaches him for lying. I hope Middle Eastern governments declare war on the United States so we have an excuse to get this Magic Negro out of our lives for good. In short, I hope Barack Hussein Obama never tastes success ever again. And I hope he dies a painful death bitter, forgotten and alone.

I am not a racist. I just think that black people are stupid. I don’t personally hire them to do anything meaningful on my show. I don’t invite them over for dinner parties or to watch Monday Night Football. That doesn’t mean I’m a racist. When it comes to employment, I don’t discriminate. I just hire people who can do the job. And that means no blacks. It hurts me when people say I’m a racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Racism is bad for America. I am trying to save America from racism. That’s why I oppose Barack Obama and his white-hating racist Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

We solved the race problem in this country a long time ago. In fact, as soon as old Abe Lincoln set the darkies free back in 1865, all our racial problems immediately disappeared. Yet black folk say that America still treats them worse than everyone else. They say that the law and our society make it difficult for them to achieve the same success as white folk. They say they go to prison in a greater proportion than whites; they say they die earlier than whites; and they say they earn less money than whites; they say it’s harder for them to get jobs than whites. Well why not? They are black. You know what blacks are like. They say the police assume all black people are all criminals. Well I have news for them: In most cases, they are. How can you blame a cop for assuming a black guy in a doo rag is a criminal? Numbers don’t lie. Blacks commit crime. Whites go to work and pay taxes. These facts do not prove there is racism in America. This is just the way things are. Blacks act black and whites act white. In fact, it smacks of ingratitude when black folks demand more advantages and “help” in American society. For goodness sakes, we already freed you! And you have a “brother” in the White House! What more do you want? We even call them people now; we used to call them property. That’s a big improvement. But no, that’s not enough for them—now they want equal pay, equal dignity, equal job opportunities and an equal chance at happiness in America. What a bunch of whining ingrates. If you want to be successful, shut up and get in line like everyone else.

Our government has bent over backward to help black people. Congress has wasted lifetimes trying to “level the playing field” between whites and blacks. In so doing, they have given black people entitlement after entitlement. In the process, our federal government has transformed black people into “the favorite of the laws.” So many laws favor black people; a white guy can’t get a word in edgewise anymore. If it ever comes down to a black candidate and a white candidate, the white guy should just quit the contest. Blacks get special bonuses in employment, education, housing…you name it, they get it. Your average white guy doesn’t stand a chance anymore. The sad part is that blacks don’t even need the help. Our Constitution already abolished slavery and guaranteed “equal protection” to everyone under the law. See, e.g., U.S. Const. Amds. XIII and XIV. Doesn’t that clear it up once and for all? I mean, they’re not slaves anymore and they are equal under law. What more do they want? There is no more racism in America. All this talk about “past discrimination” and “historical inferiority” just makes me sick. Black people need to stop living in the past. Basically, they need to stop whining, stop committing crimes, get up off their butts and go to work. If they get less pay it’s just because they are dumber than the white guy who does the same job. This isn’t about racism. It’s about ability and freedom.

But neither Congress nor Barack “the Magic Negro” Obama seems to understand this. They think black people face monumental injustices every day, even though they are not slaves anymore. They selfishly claim that blacks need even more help to overcome the “legacy of state-sponsored racism” and the “ignominy of slavery.” Excuse me, but this is ridiculous. These are historical problems, not modern-day issues. I don’t whine about something my ancestors endured. I just get up and go to work like any other guy. If black people want to help themselves, they should stop worrying about what happened in the 19th Century and get a fucking job in the 21st Century. But then they start complaining that they can’t get jobs because racism kept them from getting an education, and that’s why they turned to crime. You see the cycle? What self-serving bullshit. I am not a racist, but what a bunch of lazy, cowardly losers. No matter what the Magic Negro says about it, black people face no real challenges. They are legally equal to everyone. All their whining about “practical inequality in American society” is just one big excuse for their own laziness. Once you are equal in law, you are equal in fact. If you think otherwise, you are just imagining it. And you’re certainly not going to get anywhere imagining that something that happened in 1840 is still affecting you today.

Racism is over in America because we amended the Constitution. By abolishing slavery, we abolished racism. We live in a “post-racial” society. Everyone has an equal chance to succeed in America, and we are all Americans. Ancestry, race, national origin and language are irrelevant to the question whether we are Americans. Race does not matter anymore. Yet Barack Obama thinks it does. Now he’s trying to appoint Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. This Puerto Rican dragon-lady is a racist. She wants to introduce race back into the national dialogue. She thinks that ancestry, race and national origin actually affect the way people view issues. She thinks a white male might not be able to empathize with problems faced by blacks and Hispanics. She does not understand that race does not matter anymore. If anything, she wants to give special treatment to “minorities” because they are “disadvantaged.” No they aren’t. In our post-racial society, everyone is the same, whether they are black, white, Russian, Chinese or Sioux. Everyone is equal under our Constitution, and to suggest that black people deserve more “empathy” than white people is pure racism.

Racism is a thing of the past. But Sotomayor says she want to “freshen” the “conservative Supreme Court” with her “Latina” perspective. In a word, Sotomayor wants to make her heritage relevant to constitutional issues. This is despicable racism. Sure, lots of Supreme Court cases involve race. In fact, Sotomayor herself recently decided a case in which she refused to allow white firefighters to sue a Connecticut municipality for throwing out results from an officers’ test because no black people passed it. See Ricci v. De Stefano, Docket No. 06-4996 (Ct. App. 2d Cir.). When racism is clear in cases like that, aggrieved people need a remedy. White people can suffer discrimination, too, especially when vengeful blacks assume powerful positions over them. Sotomayor is always going to take sides in these disputes. She is always going to assume that the “bad whites” are sticking it to the “good blacks and Puerto Ricans.” But what about the white people? White people need help, too. We were here first. We used to own you guys. We conquered Puerto Rico and its natives. Now you want to discriminate against us? What the hell is going on here? Is the world upside down? Put simply, racism now only exists among vengeful blacks with a bone to pick with history. If Sotomayor is confirmed to the Supreme Court, she is going to splatter her racist agenda all over the United States.

Something strange happened to racism in America. In the old days, it was OK to treat black people like property because they were property. They were legally different. Since 1865, however, black people have achieved so many legal advantages and protections that they have gotten uppity. Now, all their advantages have rendered white people second-class citizens. Black people took constitutional language intended to equalize them and exploited it to make white people unequal. In short, black people want race to matter because it helps them get unfair advantages. Hey, if I ran a crooked poker game, I wouldn’t want to tilt the table back, either. Just ask a white Harvard applicant whether it’s better to be black or white. To get into Harvard now as a white kid, you need to be Albert Einstein, Lance Armstrong, Shakespeare, Michael Jordan and Mozart all rolled into one. But if you’re black, you just need to be able to form full sentences in pidgin English. Why? Because all these goddamned federal initiatives make race relevant to educational decisionmaking. This is racism, pure and simple. Defenders say these measures “help black people overcome historical prejudice and the injuries of past discrimination.” Oh really? So all the really smart white kids need to suffer to avenge so-called “crimes” allegedly committed by their ancestors? This is no solution. And in fact, there is no need for a solution to past racism because it doesn’t exist anymore. Why come up with a solution to a problem that is gone? It is fucking stupid. It says “past racism.” “Past” means that something is not here anymore. There is no more racism, so why are we trying to remedy a problem that is gone? I get all worked up just thinking about it.

We need to stand fast against Sotomayor and the race-baiters. Black people and “minorities” have absolutely nothing to complain about. We live a post-racial society where every person enjoys “equal protection” under the law. When we treat some citizens differently based on race, we perpetuate racism. Today, the only people who suffer racism are white. I hate racism. When I see proud white people suffering indignities at the hands of overprivileged blacks, my blood boils. I recoil from injustice. Race should never influence government decisionmaking because that leads to racism and unfair advantages in our society. In America, we believe in equality. We do not practice what we preach when we give black people “extra points” for being black. Qualified white people rightly feel outrage when they lose their Yale seats to some silver-spoon drug dealer from a crack-infested Brooklyn housing project. When people obtain advantages based on their skin color, something is wrong. White people do not deserve to suffer discrimination. Racism is wrong. Yet Sonia Sotomayor will perpetuate this dangerous cycle. She will make skin color relevant; and she will afford preferential treatment to people simply because they were lucky enough to be born a negro. Every American who believes in equality should condemn this repugnant racism.

Liberals say I’m a racist because I condescend, generalize, stereotype and patronize black people. They say I’m a racist because I use epithets like “porch money,” “darkie,” “negro,” “boy” and “coon” on my radio show. But I never use the “N-word” on the air. They say I have no sympathy for the institutional difficulties that black people face every day in America. But all my critics miss the point. I believe in equality, law and freedom; that makes it impossible for me to be a racist. Racism means you think a certain race is inferior. But how could I think that if I believe in the law? Our law says everyone is equal. According to the law, no one is inferior. Thus, according to the law, I don’t think anyone is legally inferior. Black people are our legal equals. Among my legal equals, I am free to choose the people with whom I want to associate. Black people are not the same as I am. They smell differently than I do. They drop the “R” sound from words ending in “R,” such as “floor,” “door” or “store.” They have black skin. They have different-looking hair. They call each other “homie,” not “buddy.” They commit crimes. They leech welfare money. They never get married and have 67 children out of wedlock. They initiate frivolous lawsuits. They encourage children to commit crimes with rap music about drive-by shootings. They live differently than I do. They might be my legal equals, but that doesn’t mean I have to invite them over for dinner. And just because I don’t invite someone over for dinner does not make me a racist. I don’t think blacks are inferior; I just think they are different from me in a worse way. I believe in freedom. Freedom means the freedom to think that others are different. Freedom means the freedom to hire whomever you want in private business. Freedom means the freedom to invite whomever you want over to dinner without governmental interference. And last I checked, America stands for freedom.

But Sotomayor is a racist. She wants to wage war on freedom by making race relevant to governmental policy again. It is so not 1865 anymore. Our government does not tolerate distinctions based on race, whether or not those distinctions aid or injure their subjects. Yet Sotomayor thinks the Constitution empowers government to “right the wrongs of history” by awarding special treatment to blacks and Hispanics. No it doesn’t. If anything, our Constitution forbids discriminating against white people. There is no more racism against blacks, Hispanics, Japs or redskins because we are all equal under law. But white people suffer injustice every day. They need help now; and Sotomayor will definitely not give it to them. She thinks all white people are evil conservative slaveowners who deserve to be punished for not being politically correct. Well, I have news for her: That is racism. She thinks white people are inferior because they are tyrannical and evil. Or at least their great-great-grandfathers were tyrannical and evil.

If you believe in freedom, you will tell your Senator to vote down Sotomayor. Make Obama fail. Tell him that racism has no place in American life. And tell him that white people refuse to live in bondage any longer.

QUICK NOTE

I have been having some bothersome computer problems lately. That's the reason I did not post yesterday. I am still looking for a decent alternate spot to get my writing done, but if I cannot get a post out over the next day or so, you know the reason why.

I apologize for this interruption. I have been writing articles out in longhand, so when I finally do get my internet working again, the Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer will resume flowing immediately.

We have several issues we need to address in the coming days. The Sotomayor confirmation, it appears, has triggered a fresh debate about the "relevance of race" in American discourse. Some pundits say we now live in a "post-racial society." Others go so far as to say that ancestry, national origin and race have nothing to do with a person's capacity to make decisions. They say it means nothing because we are all "Americans." According to this reasoning, a privileged Republican white male can make precisely the same decision with regard to the concerns of a poor black female as a Democratic black woman could.

I think this is all rubbish. No matter what anyone says, race is still America's leading national disgrace. In the race problem, we see all of America's bold aspirations and stunning hypocrisies revealed. This is not to say that America has not made remarkable progress on racial questions. It is merely to say that race remains a serious concern, especially in a country that professes principles as sweeping and as hopeful as ours. It is simply foolish to contend that ancestry means nothing. In my view, it influences almost everything about us. Italians approach questions differently than Jews, and the Dutch see things differently than the Puerto Ricans. We can trace our individual propensities, talents, outlooks, perspectives and basic values back to originators in our family tree. My ancestors were German Lutherans. I know my disrespect for authority and written law came from them, and I am not ashamed to give my ancestry credit for the way I turned out.

America made a bold break from history when it elected Barack Obama President. But that one act did not end the race problem in this country, nor did it suddenly eradicate all the vestiges of our checkered history with race. These are the issues we must discuss when I get a reliable place to start writing again.

Thanks again for your patience. And thanks to all who log in to read my posts.

Oesterhoudt

THE SOTOMAYOR CONFIRMATION : SHOULD WE EXPECT OUR JUDGES TO BE COWARDS?

AN ESSAY

I have little doubt that the Senate will confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as our next Supreme Court justice. I make this judgment on purely political grounds. After all, the power to confirm “Judges of the supreme court” lies with the Senate (see U.S. Const., Art. II § 2, cl. 2). And if history is any guide, it shows that the Senate party in power wins the confirmation fights. When the Republicans controlled the Senate, they easily overcame Democratic resistance to appoint fellow Republicans Chief Justice John G. Roberts (78-22) and Justice Samuel A. Alito (58-42). Now, the Democrats control the Senate by a healthy majority. They will similarly endorse their fellow Democrat, Judge Sotomayor. This has little to do with legal ability, conscience, honor or principle. It is all about politics. If you have more votes than the opposition, you win. If you don’t, you lose. If Plato were nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democratic President and the Republicans controlled the Senate, he would not be confirmed.

But of course the Republican minority will carp in this case, just as the Democrats carped when the Republicans controlled the Senate. It will not affect anything. It will just fill the air with bitterness and resentment; this is Washington and we should expect nothing less. Still, I always find it interesting when politicians bluster in vain because it gives me an insight into their values. Despite Judge Sotomayor’s obvious “Supreme Court pedigree” (i.e., she went to a top-tier law school; she got good grades; she clerked for the right federal judge; she served as a lower court judge; she curried enough political favor; she never went to prison or owed excessive debt), Republicans nonetheless will find issues to whine about. It is as predictable as the rain.

In a New York Times article today (Sotomayor’s Sharp Tongue Raises Issues of Temperament, May 29, 2009), I read that the Republicans find fault with Judge Sotomayor’s “sharp tongue.” According to several lawyers who practice before her on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, Judge Sotomayor is “occasionally combative,” “difficult” and “nasty” when she hears an argument she does not like. Some even said she is a “terror on the bench” who “behaves in an out-of-control manner.” This, in sum, has led Republican critics to oppose her “judicial temperament” rather than her intellectual qualifications. In other words, she may be smart, but she is not sufficiently polite to be a Supreme Court justice.

I actually like the fact that Judge Sotomayor volunteers her own opinions from the bench, especially when she criticizes a preposterous argument. I turned my back on the law because it is too technical. I reject its formalism, its inequalities and its vapid, hypocritical rhetoric. I reject it because it grandly claims to serve justice, when it generally only serves power. I reject it because it espouses principle, yet denies it to anyone who does not worship “procedure.” I reject it because it advances order over right, even when right is apparent. I generally despise judges because they buy fully into these hypocrisies to support a fundamentally unfair system. But sometimes judges surprise me. When they actually voice respect for justice and right, they redeem themselves. I even appreciate them when they dare to speak their minds about legal issues rather than merely reference arcane procedural rules to avoid the obvious, burning question. See, e.g., F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., Supreme Court Docket No. 07-582 (decided April 28, 2009). Judge Sotomayor does this more often than the Republicans like. This makes her an “activist” and “out of control.” As soon as a judge starts talking about justice, in other words, she has a “problem with temperament.”

What caused the Republicans to question Judge Sotomayor’s “manner on the bench?” They point particularly to her conduct in a recent appellate court oral argument in a case called Arar v. Ashcroft (see video at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1706247655617377220). This is a high-profile case about the Executive’s alleged power to “render” foreign citizens to third-party countries to be tortured for “counterterrorism information.” Mr. Arar is a Canadian citizen who claims he was seized in the United States when transferring to a flight to Canada at an American airport. Arar said there had been a terrible mistake. The agents saw things differently. After a short detention, American agents allegedly sent him to Syria in order to circumvent America’s ban on torture. There, Syrian agents imprisoned him for almost a year and subjected him to various bodily indignities. Finally, they determined he was not a terrorist and sent him back to Canada. Now he sues the American agents who handed him over to Syria, claiming they knew full well he would be tortured there. In response, the United States government denied responsibility and asserted that American courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case because “federal agents” are not liable for “constitutional torts” when “national security and foreign policy” are at issue.

During oral arguments in Arar, Judge Sotomayor questioned the government’s lawyer. She cut him off twice in order to confirm her understanding about the government’s position in the case. She wanted to know whether the United States government truly asserted that American agents face no liability for sending people to be tortured abroad as long as they doctor up some “national security explanation.” This angered Judge Sotomayor for good reason. In essence, the government contended that it was “OK” to render people to countries that allow torture because the Executive has unquestionable “power in foreign relations matters.” Judge Sotomayor did not like that contention. She made her feelings clear that it was an awkward argument to make, especially in a country that professes respect for individual rights and liberties. She did not like the argument that the Executive can “do whatever it wants” simply because it says “national security is at stake.” She thought those sentiments did not sit well with the principles that animate our constitutional system. And because she made her feelings clear, Republicans now call her “sharp-tongued,” “out-of-control” and “nasty.”

Judge Sotomayor won my respect by confronting the government’s lawyer in this case. She was not even disrespectful or “nasty” when making her points. She may have interrupted the lawyer, but she did not insult or humiliate him. That is normal business in American appellate courts. Judges always showcase themselves over the lawyers. The lawyer’s cursory statements simply provide fodder for the judges’ own rhetoric. Judge Sotomayor did the same thing that many Republican judges do every day. But here, she actually took a strong position on an issue that should concern us all: Torture. If a judge does not get passionate about claims that her own government endorses torture, what will spark her interest? Securities fraud? Accounting irregularities? Property disputes? If anything at all arouses a judge’s sense of right and wrong, it should be torture. The United States claims to be a progressive, civilized country that respects rights and laws. Yet torture represents an earlier, not-so-civilized age in which raw, ugly power ruled over principle and reason. America publicly condemns countries that practice torture today. Against this background, if a judge does not fundamentally recoil when confronting allegations that the American government endorses torture, she should be ashamed to call herself a jurist.

This reveals the absurdity in the Republican position. Did they expect Judge Sotomayor to sit inertly by while the government’s attorney tried to justify torture with disingenuous procedural arguments? If they did, what does that say about their values? That torture is “OK” as long as a Republican administration orchestrates it? That “procedure” should win out over “justice?” They would have preferred that Judge Sotomayor said nothing and merely allowed the government’s lawyer to spin his guilty logic. You can even see in the video that the government’s lawyer is uneasy, not just because he is on the hot seat, but because he knows that it is wrong to defend torture. His face contorts. He bites his lip. His eyes dart nervously through the courtroom. When judges confront him about his substantive position, he tiptoes around the real issue and starts talking about procedures and precedents. He cannot bring himself to admit that torture is wrong, yet his demeanor admits it for him. Thus, the contrast between his behavior and his words make him a glaring hypocrite. Only his mechanical legal training prevents him from breaking down altogether. To her credit, Judge Sotomayor showed that she could forgo logic when confronted with fundamental wrong.

She did not sit quietly through this nonsense. No person with a basic sense of justice could have. Yet the Republicans seem to think that speaking out about fundamental injustice makes a judge “out of control.” As soon as a judge departs from vacuous questions about procedure, jurisdiction and statutory authority, she reveals a “poor judicial temperament.” In short, it seems to me that the Republicans want cowardice in a judge. A cowardly judge would allow the Executive to get away with anything. A cowardly judge would resolve a torture case on procedural grounds rather than grapple with fundamental questions of justice. A cowardly judge puts full faith in the “law,” even when the law clearly will not do “right.” A cowardly judge sits by and lets others do the real work later. A daring judge, on the other hand, can at least acknowledge wrong when she sees it and set the country on the right rhetorical path to correct it. I think Judge Sotomayor showed some daring in her exchange with the government’s lawyer in the Arar case.

But in the end, it really comes down to politics. A liberal “daring judge” is a “coward” to conservative eyes, while a conservative “daring judge” is a “coward” to liberal eyes. Here, Judge Sotomayor spoke out about an issue that largely appeals to liberals: The ignominy of torture. Because she spoke out on that issue, liberals label her “daring,” while conservatives call her “out of control.” But if a judge passionately spoke out about an issue dear to conservative hearts, such as “national security,” conservatives would call him “daring,” while liberals would label him “a coward” or “out of control.” Sadly, we see that principle plays nary a role in these judgments. It is simply about who says what, and whether the issue appeals to conservatives or liberals.

Must our judges be cowards? If we adopt conservative rhetoric, judges must be cowards when addressing questions concerning individual rights, dignity and justice. If we adopt liberal rhetoric, judges must be “out-of-control” when addressing questions concerning procedure, unfair power relationships and judicial restraint. If I had to choose, I would prefer a judge to be daring about liberty, dignity, individual rights and justice. Despite all my cynicism and suspicion, I still believe that the Constitution stands for good. I believe that it stands for evolving liberty and gradual improvement in society through advancing principle. I would prefer a judge be passionate about those ideas rather than cowardly and technical. Unfortunately, modern “judicial thought” counsels strongly against “expansive judging” and “unnecessary explications of principle” in court opinions. But why even bother having a Constitution if we do not have daring judges to expand upon the liberties enshrined in it? How do we advance as a society when our own constitutional arbiters take a narrow view on liberty? Should we not expect our jurists to advocate for us, “We the People,” the ones who created the Constitution in the first place? The ones who delegated its authority after the Revolution? If Congress and the President fail us—as I think they did on the torture question in the Bush years—who will speak for us?

I think we should expect our jurists to advocate for us. Judge Sotomayor showed that she at least cares about how our government acts with respect to our rights as citizens in a constitutional system. She recoiled from the suggestion that the Executive can “do whatever it wants” whenever it conjures up a shadowy “national security reason.” In essence, she showed that individuals matter more than the government. That is certainly an advance over Roberts and Alito, who could care less whether government swallows up individuals, or whether innocent people die at the hands of the State. In other words, Judge Sotomayor’s conduct at the Arar argument shows that she cares at least something for justice. In my view, that is an auspicious qualification for serving on the Supreme Court. And among at least four of its current members, it is a qualification sorely lacking.

Having said all this, I am glad I am not a judge. I like thinking for myself, not attempting to shoehorn my beliefs into precedent and prior judgment. Judicial work lends itself to obedience and cowardice far more than it does to daring. After all, judges work with others’ words, not their own. It is hard to be creative when someone else tells you how to paint. I echo Nietzsche on this score. Judicial work is like “dancing in chains.” Menschliches, allzu Menschliches Teil II, Der Wanderer und Sein Schatten Aph. 140 (“For what we call ‘Invention’ [in art] (metric rhyming, for example) is always just another chain that we lay upon ourselves”). Judges constantly imprison themselves in others’ logic and arguments. It is what they do. Yet when some passion escapes the chains, we should embrace it with full hearts.