Racism, Gun Rights and Sotomayor

Get ready, shes on her way!

President Obama's Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor is on her way to becoming the newest member of the nations highest court.

Sotomayor who comes from a very humble background, is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents. She grew up in the Bronx and later attended Princeton University and Yale Law School. Sotomayor has received rave reviews from former co-workers and government higher ups, on the surface she seems to be the perfect fit.

However, you can't judge a book by its cover. Despite her qualifications for the office, it is Sotomayors liberal views on gun rights that should concern freedom loving Americans. Sotomayor, who will more than likely get the nomination, has been accused of being a "bully on the bench." In fact one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it this way. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."

The real concern over Sotomayor, however, should not be her egotistical character flaws, but rather her perception of two issues, gun rights and race. Concerning gun rights, she believes and has stated that only military personnel should have the right to own a gun, in fact Sotomayor has went on record stating that individuals have not had the right to own a gun since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. This position itself proves that she has no understanding of the founding fathers intent and that she is progressive in her view of the constitution of the United States. In 2004, in U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” In another case, Sotomayor ruled that it is illegal for citizens to keep nunchakus in their homes. For anyone who appreciates and respects the right to own a gun, this nomination should be of great concern.

Secondly, a huge controversy surrounding Sotomayor is a comment she made during a speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law in October 2001.
In that speech, she said, “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.” Needless, to say this comment has raised some eyebrows and it has brought some to even mention the "R" word.......Racism!

Now, I personally do not want to jump up and immediately accuse Sotomayor of being racist. I can see, however, where others might think that her comments insinuate such. It is common among progressives to believe that most social problems are generated by the white christian male. In defense of what is right, Sotomayor should clarify exactly what she meant by her statement and then allow us to decide whether or not the "R" word is appropriate.

Interestingly enough, I have to ask the question, would a conservative supreme court nominee have been given the opportunity to explain such comments had he or she made them? Of course not! The liberals would have crucified the nominee and they would have declared them an open and avowed racist without any further explanation. Which brings me to another question, why isn't the liberal media holding Sotomayor to the same standards?

"Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to inventory.."

During her recent trip to China, America's leading legislator showed her true colors in a statement regarding climate control.

In answering a question from a student about how Pelosi was going to get Americans to cut back on their carbon emissions, Pelosi said it was important to educate children on how to conserve energy and for citizens to build more environmentally friendly homes.

"We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ..."

Pelosi's, Orwellian like comment is a huge indicator of the measures that the progressives believe to be necessary in order to bring about a "green society." Pelosi's trip to China has garnered a wave of attention. Her harsh criticism of human rights violations and the authoritarian government of China have made her trip a newsworthy event. Ironically enough the very authoritarian government that she has so harshly condemmed is eerily similiar to the nanny state that she and her progressive comrades are trying to implement. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees...........

What Do Progressives Really Believe?

This past November, millions of Americans voted for "change." Whether it was a die hard Democrat wanting a change in power or a frustrated Republican that felt betrayed by their party, America was very clear, it wanted "change." In the past few months we have seen many changes, but I wonder how many people actually realized what they were voting for, when they voted for "Change?"

A self pronounced "modern Progressive," President Obama is not alone in Washington when it comes to persons of similar ideology. What the average conservative in Buchanan County and in America did not ask when they voted for President Obama and several other "modern progressives," is what do these folks actually believe?

First of all it is necessary to admit that this is not an attack on Democrats, after all George W. Bush was a progressive as well, his version could be called progressive "light." We conservatives in Buchanan County and across America, need to wake up and understand that BOTH parties have hijacked the U.S. Constitution and that the modern progressives are dead set on re-creating America in their image.

Now, what do these folks actually believe? The progressive movement was born out of the Darwinian Evolution movement, most conservatives, whether Democrat or Republican, believe in creation and a creator God. Progressives ideology takes Darwinian Evolution to the next level, they apply it to govt., economics, society, basically everything. This is the driving force in their way of thinking. The Progressive movement is the same movement that came up with EUGENICS. A Eugenicist says, that since man evolves, we can make a better society by preventing those that are not as whole or inferior from pro-creating (making babies). If this is prevented, society will start to evolve at a quicker rate and humanity will become more pure. This very idea was taken to the extreme with Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany and America too has a nasty history that has been well suppressed. Just Google EUGENICS and see for yourself if you don't believe me.

Now, the next time you hear about a progressive supporting abortion rights, or you see them standing behind organizations like Planned Parenthood, you should start seeing the "big picture," a bit more clearly. A great documentary is available at the local video store titled "Expelled," this video, starring Ben Stein, exposes the dark history of Eugenics.

Another Progressive view of society is that there is no such thing as absolute truth, after all everything is constantly changing or evolving. That is why they seem to go against anything that is traditional, fundamental or orthodox. They believe that if man, society, economics and govt. evolves then the truth must also evolve. Progressives do not believe "we hold these truths to be self evident," in fact they argue that ALL TRUTH is up to the individual. In other words what was true back in the day, may not be true today. Hence, "all men are created equal, " might have been true in Jefferson's day but may not be in this day.

Progressives in general DO NOT BELIEVE in God. You might say, well President Obama goes to church and so did George Bush and several others. But the underlying truth about progressivism is that "God does not exist, therefore the state must exist." This is why the progressives are so dead set on expanding the role of govt. The progressives believe that the STATE (govt.) issues rights and can take rights away when these rights interfere with the best interest of the collective. The idea that our founding Fathers taught which suggests that everyone is born with God given rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is false in their eyes. Therefore, if God does not exist, then a substitute must, and in the case of the Modern Progressives, that substitute is the Govt.

America was founded on the principal of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, modern progressives believe that the Collective is more important than the individual. This is precisely the same philosophy that dominated Fascist Europe prior to and during WWII. If there is any question as to the validity of these statements, the progressives that I am referring to have written books, thesis papers, and commentaries supporting their views regarding this ideology. Most of us just don't take the time to read the stuff. In fact just as recently as a week ago, Hillary Clinton praised EUGENICIST Margaret Sanger as being on or above the level of greatness as Thomas Jefferson. It is rather clear that the modern progressives have their influences and that they are not ashamed to own them publicly. They are however, afraid to clearly define to the American people the purpose of their agenda. After all, if the people really knew what they were thinking, they probably wouldn't vote for any of them.

This piece was not written to upset or offend anyone, on the contrary. It was written to INFORM. Many of us are so caught up in the political game that is being played out before our eyes that we fail to see the forest for the trees. Both parties are progressive in ideology, one perhaps more so than the other. Nonetheless, it really doesn't matter which one is in power, we will sooner or later become the ultimate NANNY STATE if the progressives have their way.

Therefore, now is the time for COMMON SENSE, if you do not believe in the evolution of "all things," if you believe in individual rights and freedoms, if you believe in God and the sanctity of life, contact your representative often, start holding elected officials accountable, demand transparency in government and compel Washington to "CHANGE," back to the America that our Founding Fathers envisioned.

Cap and Trade AFFECTS US ALL!

The term cap and trade may not be familiar to many average Americans but trust me it is a term that everyone needs to understand. If most Americans realized just how much these three little words are going to cost them, they would not only be familiar with it but they would probably become activist for the first time in their lives.

What is Cap and Trade? It is basically a government imposed system of regulating the amount of carbon emissions. This regulation is done in an attempt to reduce pollution, this is known as the "cap." The government then issues credits that are equal to the sum of the target emissions annual goal. Companies then must then have enough "credits," which are used to burn fossil fuels, to maintain their operations. If a company exceeds it's number of credits, or burns too much fossil fuels, it then will be forced to "trade" for more credits from a company that has not used all of it's credits. This is the "trade" part of Cap and Trade.

Now, if you listen to the libeal media and Al Gore, you might think that this is a great idea, after all it is saving the planet. But when you examine the real intention behind this movement you will see the impact that it will have on energy consumers. This system will eventually lead to a decrease in the amount of energy consumed, it is basically a govt. controlled rationing system. Once the amount of energy consumption decreases the price of energy will skyrocket, this is common knowledge and is based on the laws of supply and demand.

This plan has several cons and very few pros. For example those with enough money will not have a problem purchasing the extra credits needed to use more energy. While the average American sits at home in the dark, the Al Gores of the world will be flying around on their lear jets burning the fuel that we can't afford to buy, but remember what they are doing is not to be called pollution, they simply will be able to afford the energy that you and I can't. Another con of Cap and Trade is that it will severely hurt the Coal Industry and it will have a major impact in the coalfields employment rate. By creating a big corporate payoff. Companies that have already invested heavily in low CO2 (read: less efficient) energy sources will finally get bailed out of their bad investments. Companies like Google and Microsoft, who have limited emissions, will actually profit by selling their "credits" to other sources that need them.

This sysetem of Cap and Trade does not solve the phony global warming problem nor does it create wealth, but it does re-distribute and transfer wealth among corporations. If this sounds familiar it should, not only is wealth being re-distributed among the citizenry but now it will be done so among corporations. In an interesting note, one of the largest supporters of this movement is General Electric, who just happens to sell some of the most energy efficient products on the market today. When the price of energy goes up 65 to 70 percent, everyone will be trying to cut corners by purchasing more energy efficient products and guess who is going to profit? Thats right GE!

Finally, the bottom line question about Cap and trade comes down to this, how much or what will it cost you financially? At this time no specific dollar amount has been affixed to this proposal, however it will result in a rather large TAX on the average American family. Some estimates have it at around $1,500 annually to as high as $3,800, I imagine that it will be somewhere in between. Now there will be some that will argue as to how this is going to passed on to the consumer, the response is simple. When have you ever heard of a large coporation NOT PASSING it's financial burdon onto it's customers. Mark it down "we the people" will pay for Cap and Trade and we will pay heavily.

Audit The Fed

It seems that everyone is talking about the economic situation in this country. Despite the rumors that things are starting to look up, it appears that this is just the calm before the storm. In headlines released today, regulators are now telling CitiBank and Bank of America that they are in need of an infusion of cash in order to withstand a deep economic downturn. The government mandated stress test is suggesting that Citi Group will need as much as 10 Billion and that Bank of America will need a whopping 34 Billion.

Regardless of whether or not you believe the hype coming out of Washington that things are improving, one thing is for sure, until the Federal Reserve is made accountable for it's dealings nothing will ever be truly resolved.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul is proposing a bill before the House that currently has 120 sponsors this "Audit the Fed," bill as it has came to be known, is the most logical step in understanding our financial crisis. If this Bill is inacted, it would then create the transparency that is needed and was promised by the Obama Administration to help us get to the root of our problems.

I seriously doubt that it will garner enough support to pass, but with enough pressure, it is possible. Therefore, I am encouraging everyone to email your representative and encourage them to support HR 1207.