GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....


Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF


Sunday, May 31, 2009

This "American Freedom Thing" Makes People Uncomfortable

American freedom is spiraling out of control, and it needs to be reigned-in.  Right?… Wrong!

jefferson_poster_sm - Freedom

I don’t know any American who would actually say such a thing - at least not in so many words. But far too many Americans have succumbed to a certain “sickness” these days. It’s the perverse notion that their lives will be improved, and that they will be made to “feel better,” when the freedom of other American individuals and groups is diminished.

This nonsense not only makes for some nasty politics, but is also shaping the ways in which many Americans view the world around them.

Ever since the release of my first book “White House Confidential - The Little Book Of Weird Presidential History,” I frequently get asked if our modern-day politics are the nastiest in American history. The answer is clearly “no.” In terms of nasty behavior among politicians and candidates, things have been far uglier in previous generations.

For example, most Americans would be shocked to learn that a former U.S. Vice President (Aaron Burr) once got in such a heated argument with the former U.S. Treasury Secretary (Alexander Hamilton), that the V.P. ended up shooting and murdering the Treasury Secretary. And it may be “news” to some that while campaigning for re-election in 1828, President John Quincy Adams was so ugly in his attacks on his opponent‘s wife, Rachel Jackson became emotionally debilitated during the campaign, and died from a heart attack days after Andrew Jackson won the election (she was, quite literally, buried in the dress that she intended to wear at her husband’s inauguration).

But those are examples of politicians and candidates beating-up on each other. Today, private American citizens want to do damage to other private American citizens, and politicians are all-too- happy to “play” us for all we’re worth.

Our current President ran an incredibly successful campaign, driven in no small part by his promises of punishing certain groups of Americans. “Rich people,” “overpaid corporate executives,” “the oil companies,” and “pharmaceutical manufacturers” were all targets of Barack Obama’s vicious attacks.

And his message to the rest of us about these select groups of Americans was clear: I’ll make your life better, by constraining their freedom - - making “rich people” less free to create and possess wealth, making companies less free to produce a profit, limiting how much an individual can earn at their job, and so forth. These ideas make for absurd economic policy, in that no President, not even dear leader Barack, can simply re-distribute the nation into prosperity - at some point, somebody has to actually “produce wealth.”

But as political rhetoric, it resonates, which means that at least some Americans really like the idea of taking away other people’s freedom.

In my current hometown of Phoenix, Arizona, there is further evidence of this sickness. After the irrational run-up in Phoenix area real estate prices earlier this decade, followed by the devastating foreclosure crash over the past 18 months, homes in Phoenix are finally starting to sell again. But one of the challenges facing realtors and buyers is what to do with the “damaged” foreclosures.

It’s a bit of an epidemic. Americans, living in Arizona, who, upon losing their otherwise nice, suburban house, on their way out the door go about breaking all the windows, stealing hardware and appliances, and in some instances - - just to “get even,” I suppose - - urinating and defecating on carpets, and burning walls and cabinetry with matches and lighters. Once again, evidence of “the sickness” presents itself - -“I’ll feel better by restricting somebody else’s freedom” - in this case, the next owner’s freedom to enjoy the house.

The sickness also impacts the ways in which some Americans view the world. While hosting talk radio at Phoenix, Arizona’s Newstalk 92-3 KTAR, I spoke last Friday about Recording Artist Tyrese Gibson’s absurd performance of “The Star Spangled Banner” at the Los Angeles Lakers’ NBA playoff game the night before. Where the lyric reads “the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there..,” Gibson sang “..that our Lakers were still there..” It was disrespectful, it was nonsensical, and I said as much on the show.

But talk show caller Darren, an Army veteran, declared that he fought for “everything that flag represents” - and then explained that Gibson should be “imprisoned for six months” for his stupidity.

“When you were in the Army, were you protecting and upholding the U.S. Constitution?” I asked.

“Of course I was” Darren explained.

“Did that include the First Amendment, or did you leave that one out?” I asked. After a few more seconds of discussion, I thanked Darren for his service in the Army, and assured him that constraining somebody else’s First Amendment rights - - even if that person is “an idiot” - - does NOT make his life any better.

Americans need to become “okay” with freedom again - - not only their own freedom, but that of their fellow Americans.  And they better do it quickly!!

by Austin Hill


Related Articles: 



I generally support the idea of nominating a woman or a Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court, but not this one, not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. And she's so biased, that I'll go out on a limb to predict she won't be confirmed, for ten reasons:

In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She said the "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."  As a judicial activist, she jokingly admits "making policy" from the bench, based on feelings or empathy or judicial precedent, not laws passed by Congress, and so she assumes the power of legislature, to make policy, legislating from the bench.

Although she ruled to uphold the longstanding "Mexico City Policy" which had limited funds for abortions performed overseas (until President Obama struck down that policy, now fully funding abortions overseas with our taxes), Sotomayor stands squarely in the camp of supporting and upholding the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized child killing across America and cost 50,000,000 children their lives.
Furthermore, Rev. Rob Schenck of The National Clergy Council now reports that Sotomayor was or is an active board member of a group called the "Childbirth Connection" that advocates for "reproductive rights of women," which is generally a code word for abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion, which Sotomayor has never publicly opposed.  Since I was born to a single mom who courageously gave me up for adoption, and I was adopted at age three by a Christian family, I'm passionately pro-life.

In her ruling to allow government to ban privately owned weapons belonging to New York citizens, Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Maloney v. Cuomo: "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right . . . not upon that of the state." Since her crazy reading of the 2nd Amendment only forbids Congress from seizing your guns, the New York State Assembly was fully authorized to ban nunchuks, or seize ANY AND ALL of your weapons, according to Sotomayor's anti-liberty reasoning.  But as a former military distinguished marksman and former captain of my rifle team at a New York State high school, I care about protecting our right to bear arms.

ACLJ Attorney Jay Sekulow said of Sotomayor: "She is left in judicial philosophy, ranges much further left than Justice Ginsburg or Justice Souter . . . I just had a case where the Court was unanimous, it was involving the 10 commandments issue, and the court was unanimous 9 to 0, but I would not expect that if Judge Sotomayor was confirmed, that it would probably have been 8 to 1.  She has a very, very strict view of church-state separation, and she was aggressive on this idea of a 'living constitution.'"  Meanwhile she ruled one Muslim prisoner had a right to receive the Eid ul Fitr feast (a Muslim holiday meal) in his prison cell, and another Muslim prisoner had a right to access a Muslim chaplain, which is fine if she treats other faiths equally.  But I personally suspect Sotomayor would rule to disallow public prayers offered "in Jesus name" but allow prayers to Allah, just like Obama's other judicial nominee David Hamilton.

NOW President Kim Gandy quickly endorsed Sotomayor, saying: "This morning we will celebrate, and this afternoon NOW will launch our 'Confirm Her' campaign to ensure the swift confirmation of the next Supreme Court Justice."  There's no way this liberal group would endorse Sotomayor unless she were pro-lesbian and pro-abortion, as Gandy openly advocates on the NOW web-site.

Sotomayor has had 5 decisions reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, 3 of which have been reversed.  One of these was her aggressive pro-environmental anti-energy decision, another was her aggressive pro-litigation anti-business decision, which was overturned unanimously.  She has carried only 11 of 44 possible votes during those cases.  Chief Justice Roberts once stated that her method of reading the statute in question "flies in the face of the statutory language." Dean Mat Staver of Liberty Law School cites these reasons to oppose Sotomayor, saying, "No one ever expected President Barack Obama to nominate someone who respects the original intent of the Constitution."

Sotomayor told the Berkeley Law School: "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging . . .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."  It is no surprise, therefore, she ruled against white Firefighters of New Haven, throwing out the results of a promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified.  She denied promotion for the white firefighters who performed well on the exam, and gave minorities who failed the exam favorable consideration toward promotion.  Sotomayor promotes aggressive affirmative action, promoting race or gender, not merit.   The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed this case in April 2009, and is expected to overturn her again.

Opposing a U.S. Congressional bill that would forbid activist judges from citing international law (instead of applying American law) in their decisions, Sotomayor wrote the controversial introduction for The International Judge, a book that promotes, in her words, "developing an international rule of law and institution-building" and idealizes the "pioneers who work tirelessly to bring these institutions from their incipience to their maturity."    No doubt she will vote with Justice Ginsberg, who believes American judges should sometimes look toward international law rather than the U.S. Constitution. 

Her own former clerk, liberal Jeffrey Rosen, now legal affairs editor for The New Republic, said she has "has an inflated opinion of herself" and is "kind of a bully on the bench." Another clerk who worked on the 2nd Circuit said she's: "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench . . .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."

As a native of South Bronx, Sotomayor's hidden home-town bias became manifest in her love for the New York Yankees, judicially favoring her "Bronx Bombers" over teams from all other cities.  No kidding!  When ruling to end the 1995 baseball strike, she sided with the player's union against team owners (who sought parity among all teams with an talent-sharing salary cap).  Instead Sotomayor created bias in favor of rich teams who can afford to buy up all the good free agents.  So when the New York Yankees hogged 4 titles and 6 pennants in the 8 years after her ruling, with payrolls averaging three times most other team salaries, you can blame Sotomayor for creating that competitive imbalance.  I understand why Yankees fans might celebrate her promotion to the Supreme Court, but baseball fans from all other cities should complain loudly against her confirmation!

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush was forced to pick Sotomayor, in a back-room deal manipulated by powerful New York Senator Patrick Moynihan, but Bush Sr. likely regrets this just like he later regretted nominating Justice Souter.  In 1998, Sotomayor was barely confirmed to the 2nd Circuit Court under Bill Clinton, but only seven current 2009 Republicans voted for Sotomayor then: Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Robert Bennett (R-Utah).  They were misled into joining all Democrats to push Sotomayor through by a vote of 68-28.  Perhaps you might call these 7 Republicans (and all Southern Democrats, and both Penn. Democrats Specter and Casey, and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.) at 202-225-3121 and ask them to OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER Judge Sotomayor.

But remember, 100 emails = 10 phone calls = 1 fax in political capital, since the Senate staffers must handle each paper and usually write a reply. So please join our automated fax campaign first!


In 1998, twenty-eight conservative Senators united against Sotomayor, but now we need 40 to uphold a filibuster.  Two leading conservative Senators have already questioned her credentials:  "The role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law evenhandedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.  "We must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one's own personal preferences or political views," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

Let's support Leader McConnell and Ranking Member Sessions by encouraging them to stand firm, and get more Senators to OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER Sotomayor's nomination.

God Bless you, in Jesus' name,

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt                                         The Pray In Jesus Name Project

Source:  Human Events

Related Articles: 

Saturday, May 30, 2009

American capitalism gone with a whimper - Pravda

Wow… Is this really how we want to go out… without a fight??

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

By: Stanislav Mishin

Source:  Pravda.Ru – 04.27.09

The article has been reprinted from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina – Posted on


This is why when I hear someone say "I have faith in the American people",  I just *sigh*!
Americans have become like bugs going directly for the "bright light".
The most frustrating thing is Nobody is doing anything about it.

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Related Resources:

Is a National Sales Tax in Our Future?

By Mary Pilon


More for eggs?

A debate in Washington could lead to you paying more for everything.

The possible tradeoff? Better health care for all.

Policymakers are debating a value-added tax, or VAT. Put simply, it’s a national sales tax. The concept was dismissed as a nonstarter among policymakers in the past, but is now wiggling its way into political conversation, according to the Washington Post.

From the WaPo:

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American — a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Some debate that end result, the article says, and argue that the details could work out differently in practice in the U.S. One argument claims that those who are wealthier tend to consume more, and therefore would pay more VAT.

Although the VAT is only an idea at this point and unlikely to hit taxpayers anytime soon, it’s interesting to note that it’s now part of the conversation and that top VAT advocates are now represented in discussions. Especially now as the federal government looks for new ways to create revenue.

Europeans are no strangers to the VAT. It started in France in the 1950s and has spread to other European countries as well as Australia and India. Europeans even have to pay the VAT on U.S.-based things such as memberships on Second Life. The VAT has experienced success in countries where collecting taxes based on income is difficult, such as developing nations.

Fortune offers an example of how the VAT could figure into the purchase of a car:

Take, for instance, a car with a sticker price of $30,000 and a value-added rate of 10%. Ford might buy its steel and other materials for $8,000 plus $800 in a VAT tax. A dealer then pays $25,000 plus a $2,500 tax for the finished vehicle. Ford takes an $800 credit for the tax it already paid and sends $1,700 to the government. A buyer then pays $30,000 for the SUV and $3,000 in taxes. The dealer collects the $3,000, takes a credit for the $2,500 worth of taxes already paid, and sends $500 to tax authorities. Ultimately, the government pockets $3,000, or 10% of the retail price of the car, in taxes.

Source:  WSJ Blog – The Wallet

The concept of the VAT is not a new thing… but when it has been looked at before it was to replace Federal Income Tax not in addition to, which is what is being considered presently.  It is a hidden tax source and it is a bad thing unless it replaces the Federal Income Tax.

Cap and Trade (tax) – BAD

the VAT unless it replaces National Income Tax – BAD

Remember Obama’s campaign promise of no tax increases for people who make under $250,000 and hold him to it!!

It there was ever a time to pay attention to what is going on… it is now!

Friday, May 29, 2009

Obama's Uncle: He's Using Buchenwald for Political Purpose

Barack Obama's great uncle offered some blunt language as to why his nephew is visiting the memorial at the former Buchenwald concentration camp next week during his trip to Europe and the Middle East.

“This is a trip that he chose, not because of me I'm sure, but for political reasons,” Charles Payne told the German magazine Spiegel. “Perhaps his visit also has something to do with improving his standing with (German Chancellor) Angela Merkel. She gave him a hard time during his campaign and also afterwards.”

Obama will visit Saudi Arabia, make a long-awaited speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, travel to Dresden and the Buchenwald Nazi concentration camp in Germany, and attend D-Day commemorations in France. His uncle said he'd love to tag along if he gets a lift on Air Force One.

Payne, 84, is no stranger to Americans: The Obama campaign used his WWII experiences last year to burnish the candidate’s all-American upbringing. But Obama made a gaffe when he said his great uncle liberated Auschwitz. In fact, Payne was part of the force that liberated Ohrdruf, a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp, in April 1945.

Payne told Spiegel that he was shocked to see his war experience, especially his "liberation" of a concentration camp, used in campaign commercials. He said he had never spoken with his nephew about the matter, nor did Obama ever express any interest in Payne's experience.

“I was quite surprised when the whole thing came up and Barack talked about my war experiences in Nazi Germany,” Payne said. “We had never talked about that before.”

Payne doesn’t know where Obama came up with the fictitious Auschwitz connection.

“He couldn't have gotten it from me since we had never talked about this particular episode in the war,” said Payne. “My sister and her husband were both great storytellers and sometimes made up the details to go along with it.

“They told him about my deployment with the 89th Infantry Division and apparently they mixed up a few details,” Payne said. “Of course it came out immediately that he was wrong since there are enough people in America who know that Auschwitz is in the East and that the camp was liberated by the Red Army.”

After the mistake was made, Obama called Payne to get the correct details.

“He wanted to know where this camp was that I had helped liberate,” Payne said. “I told him that it was Ohrdruf and that it was a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp. I described a little bit of what I had seen.”

Payne stressed that he has no political ax to grind. He is a life-long Democrat, but said he isn’t particularly close to his famous relative.

“Our relationship is warm and friendly, but I'm not part of his inner circle. We always have an interesting chat when we get in the same room together. He doesn't call me up and ask what I have to say about world policy or anything. And I never offer my opinions on any of this.”

In the article, Payne described an incident very similar to what many members of the “Greatest Generation” had experienced. A young man from Kansas, he had little knowledge of the world and few opinions about Germany or foreign policy in general before landing in Europe for the liberation.

“Everybody who was able-bodied was drafted,” Payne recalled. “I went down right at the time I graduated and told the lady that ran the Selective Service office. I said, ‘I'm ready to go,’ and she said: ‘Don't you worry about it, honey. You're on the list.’ Since I had been colorblind since birth, I was first turned down by the Air Force, then by the Navy and the Marines. Only the Army didn't care and put me into the infantry.”

Raised in Kansas, Payne did his basic training at North Camp Hood, Texas.

“What did you think about the Germans at the time?” Spiegel asked him.

“I am unable to tell you what I was thinking then. That was a long time ago, and as I told you, until Barack misspoke, I hadn't thought about any of this for a very, very long time,” Payne said.

“They were the enemy, evil incarnate, and we were the good guys coming to save the world. We were all for the war. We all wanted to be in it. That doesn't mean we enjoyed being in it, though,” he said. He then described his experiences in Europe.

“At first there was no front,” he said. “Because there were no facilities for our ship, we couldn't anchor in the harbor. Le Havre had been summarily bombed. They finally took us off in the middle of the night on landing barges. It was bitter cold and snowing. There was about three or four inches of water sloshing around in the bottom. So we landed at Le Havre in bitter cold with wet feet. Soon afterwards we had a large number of people who suffered from frostbite. The camp doctors were forced to amputate fingers, toes, and feet and send these soldiers back to the United States. For them the war was over.

“Ohrdruf was in that string of towns going across, south of Gotha and Erfurt,” Payne said, describing his arrival near the concentration camp. “Our division was the first one in there. When we arrived there were no German soldiers anywhere around that I knew about. There was no fighting with the Germans, no camp guards. The whole area was overrun by people from the camp dressed in the most pitiful rags, and most of them were in a bad state of starvation. The first thing I saw was a dead body lying square in the middle of the front gate.

“Inside the gate was an area where a bunch of the camp inmates had been machine gunned and were all lying on the ground,” Payne continued. “Each one had their tin cup in their hand or lying next to them.”

The interviewer asked him to describe his feelings when he was "confronted with these images.”

Payne said he doesn’t like to think about it, and hadn’t for a long time until Obama’s gaffe caused all the harsh memories of that time to come back in force.

“You know, I am unable to tell you what I was thinking then,” Payne said. “That was a long time ago, and as I told you, until Barack misspoke, I hadn't thought about any of this for a very, very long time. In fact, I guess I prefer not to think about it. I can assure you I was horrified by the lengths to which men will go to mistreat other men. This was, to me, almost unbelievable. There was more: There were sheds full of dead bodies that had been stripped and thrown in and then stacked up on top of each other. I don't know how many, but many high and the whole length of the room. They sprinkled lime to keep the smell down. That's about the extent that I remember actually seeing.

“I am puzzled by intelligent people who stand by and allow their country to be taken over and run by extreme radical types,” Payne said. “I'm still somewhat puzzled by that. And I am fully aware that it could happen and has almost happened in this country. You know, I lived through the McCarthy era in the 1950s, when it was getting dangerously close to that sort of thing.”

Source:  Newsmax

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power 

Related Articles:


Asked why he was naming some of his rivals to top administration jobs, President Lyndon B. Johnson said it best: "I'd rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in." President Obama seems to echo Johnson's management style in his handling of Bill and Hillary Clinton. By bringing them into his inner circle, he has marginalized them both and sharply reduced their freedom of action.
It may appear odd to describe a secretary of State as marginalized, but Obama has surrounded Hillary with his people and carved up her jurisdiction geographically. Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine) is in charge of Arab-Israeli relations. Dennis Ross has Iran. Former U.N. Ambassador Dick Holbrooke has Pakistan and Afghanistan. And Hillary has to share her foreign policy role on the National Security Council (NSC) with Vice President Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, CIA chief Leon Panetta, and NSC staffer Samantha Powers (who once called Hillary a "monster").

With peers who are competitors and subordinates who can deal directly with the president, Hillary is reduced to announcing foreign aid packages for Pakistan while Holbrooke does the heavy lifting.

Part of Hillary's problem is the institutional shrinking of the State Department. During the Bush years, while war raged, the Defense Department became more relevant to the conduct of foreign policy. And, under Obama, the financial crisis has propelled the Treasury into the forefront. State, with its emphasis on traditional diplomacy, has been forced to take a back seat. Even though Obama appointed Hillary, he clearly has not been willing to make her a co-president and confines her to the diminished role of her department.

For his part, Bill Clinton has been asked to be a special envoy to Haiti. Yes, Haiti. Obama's predecessor asked the former president to orchestrate the response to the Asian tsunami and then to Hurricane Katrina. Obama gives him Haiti.

Meanwhile, both Clintons are effectively muzzled and cannot criticize Obama even as he reverses President Clinton's free market proclivities and budget balancing discipline. Hillary, the supposed friend of Israel, must sit by quietly and watch Iran get the bomb while trying all the while to stop Israel from preventing it.

Bill can't even make money. Denied the ability to accept speeches from foreign governments or their organs and fenced out of continuing his profitable relationship with the Emir of Dubai, he and his wife must accept the loss of the $13 million they spent on her campaign and sit by passively, unable to earn the money to replace it.
Just as Lincoln buried his rivals Seward, Chase and Stanton in the Cabinet and then on the Supreme Court, and Wilson buried Bryan at the State Department, so Obama has hidden his predecessor and his rival in plain sight at the upper reaches of the government.

How long will Hillary subject herself to this discipline? Likely as long as Obama is popular. Should his ratings fade, she might move away from the president and could even consider a primary contest against him in 2012. But while he is on top of his game, she'll stay loyal.

But she is shrinking by the day. Once Obama's equal -- and before that his superior -- she now looks tiny compared to the president. She doesn't look like a president in waiting; she's more like a senior staff member hoping to rise in the bureaucracy. No longer at the head of a movement or the symbol of rising women all over the world, she has faded into the State Department woodwork. She is much less visible than her predecessors Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker, Madeleine Albright or Condi Rice. She is even less in the public eye than was Al Haig during his one-year tenure. One has to go back to the likes of Warren Christopher or William Rogers to find a secretary of State as far down the totem poll. This diminished status has got to grate on her and on him. But they are trapped in Obama's web and cannot easily escape.

Published on on May 26, 2009

Dick Morris is an American political author and commentator who previously worked as a pollster, political campaign consultant, and general political consultant.  Morris became an adviser to the Bill Clinton administration after Clinton was elected president in 1992.

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Queen Elizabeth Snubbed! War Declared on France

Queen Elizabeth

By BRUCE CRUMLEY / PARIS - Thursday, May 28, 2009

Queen Elizabeth in May

Phil Noble / REUTERS

France and England have fought each other in the 100 Years' War, the Seven Years' War, the Napoleonic Wars and scads of less memorably named conflicts. And more recently, the French and English have treated the blood-and-tears clashes between their national rugby and soccer teams as fetishes for those battles of yore. The geysers of bile pouring forth from the London tabloids this week suggests a new chapter in Anglo-French enmity may be upon us. Call it the "Great D-Day Hissy Fit." 

The casus belli in the latest cross-Channel spat is the slight dealt by the French government to Queen Elizabeth II in failing to invite her to the June 6 ceremonies marking the 65th anniversary of the 1944 Allied invasion at Normandy. While the Queen has attended — and also skipped — various previous D-Day commemorations, this year's event seems to have been given heightened allure by the planned attendance of U.S. President Barack Obama, who remains the King of Pop on the diplomatic circuit. British tabloids have gone ballistic over what they see as French President Nicolas Sarkozy trying to hog the Obama-radiated limelight.

"A diminutive egomaniac, the stain of Nazi collaboration and why the French can't forgive us for saving them in the War", was Thursday's headline in London's Daily Mail, above an article filled with denunciation of the French and their leaders as cheese-eating surrender monkeys. For good measure, the paper ran a second story titled, "What did YOUR dad do in the war, Sarkozy?" The paper's answer to its own question was to claim Sarkozy's Hungarian-born father celebrated D-Day by fleeing collaborationist Budapest for Nazi-controlled Germany to escape advancing Soviet troops. The same story also alleges that the family of Sarkozy's current wife, industrial scion Carla Bruni Sarkozy, had been pretty chummy with Mussolini.

The D-Day contretemps began on Wednesday, after the British tabloids discovered that their sovereign had been snubbed by the French — and was reportedly not amused. And the vitriol went up a notch on Thursday after French officials didn't bother denying they hadn't invited the Queen.

"The June 6 celebration is foremost a Franco-American celebration," said French government spokesman Luc Chatel, noting the event takes place on U.S. territory in Normandy that houses the American military cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer — a detail that appears to ignore the tens of thousands of British and Canadian troops that hit the beaches along with U.S. forces. Chatel provided further ammo for tabloid accusations that Sarkozy was looking to steal the show by stressing that the bilateral nature of the event was of particular significance this year, since it will be the first Obama attends as President.

The unapologetic candor from Paris had even the broadsheet Daily Telegraphon Thursday running the "gotcha" headline "France admits not inviting the Queen to 65th D-Day anniversary." France also appeared to try to shift responsibility onto the scandal-plagued British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. An invitation, French spokesmen noted, had been sent to the U.K. and was accepted by the Prime Minister. "The British wanted to be associated with this ceremony, and they are naturally welcome," Chatel said, oozing innocence and virtue. "(But) it is not up to France to designate British representation."

Amid the barrage from the London papers, perplexed French reporters covered the British pique with reports quoting Buckingham Palace officials denying that the Queen had been hacked off by the matter — royally or otherwise. Still, there was some sense of unease in France over the affair. French people young and old still express enduring gratitude for the sacrifices of the Allied forces that drove the Germans out of France — an effort that cost the Allies some 37,000 lives in queen_elizabeth_1943Normandy. That feeling prompted many in France to wince at the British tabloid accusations of wartime fecklessness and current ingratitude. Still, those French who are even aware of the British ranting are weathering it with Gallic shrugs. After all, how much is really new about a spat between the British crown and a diminutive French leader?

And to add additional insult to the matter, Queen Elizabeth is the only reigning Monarch and only living Head of State to have served in WWII. 

Posted:  Ask Marion – Knowledge Creates Power

Thursday, May 28, 2009

End of Free Speech -

Check out:, you can learn the information about "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech," a book from Brad O'leary. You can read the book reviews, author bio and media relations.

This book is filled with information from historical to current perspectives on how the freedom of speech is under attack. The left-wingers are threatened by freedom of speech, especially by conservative talk radio shows, which expose many left-wingers' ideologies and hypocrisies that are detrimental to this great nation.

You can buy this book from Amazon - Shut Up, America!
Learn more from

Source: ERIC AT End Of Free Speech

Posted: Ask Marion - Knowledge Creates Power

How GOP Can Fight Soto's Identity Politics | The FOX Nation

Posted using ShareThis

'Empathy' Is Code for Judicial Activism

Both President Barack Obama and Republicans get something they want from the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

Mr. Obama said he wanted to replace Justice David Souter with someone who had "empathy" and who'd temper the court's decisions with a concern for the downtrodden, the powerless and the voiceless.

"Empathy" is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.

There is a certain irony in a president who routinely praises America's commitment to "the rule of law" but who picks Supreme Court nominees for their readiness to discard the rule of law whenever emotion moves them.

Mr. Obama's pick also allows him to placate Hispanic groups who'd complained of his failure to appoint more high profile Latinos to his administration. After the Democratic share of the Hispanic vote increased to 67% in 2008 from 53% in 2004, Latino groups felt they were due more cabinet and White House posts.

Mr. Obama also hopes to score political points as GOP senators oppose a Latina. Being able to jam opponents is a favorite Chicago political pastime. Besides, the president has been reluctant to make comprehensive immigration reform an issue, so a high-profile Latina appointment buys him time.

The Sotomayor nomination also provides Republicans with some advantages. They can stress their support for judges who strictly interpret the Constitution and apply the law as written. A majority of the public is with the GOP on opposing liberal activist judges. There is something in our political DNA that wants impartial umpires who apply the rules, regardless of who thereby wins or loses.

Mr. Obama understands the danger of heralding Judge Sotomayor as the liberal activist she is, so his spinners are intent on selling her as a moderate. The problem is that she described herself as liberal before becoming a judge, and fair-minded observers find her on the left of the federal bench.

Republicans also get a nominee who likes showing off and whose YouTube moments and Google insights cause people to wince. There are likely to be more revelations like Stuart Taylor's find last Saturday of this Sotomayor gem in a speech at Berkeley: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Invert the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and have a conservative say it: A career would be finished.

Both Mr. Obama and the Republicans are also are denied things in this nomination. Republicans are denied an easy target. Ms. Sotomayor has a compelling personal story, attractive for cable, celebrity magazines and tabloids.

The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor. But what damage did Democrats suffer when they viciously attacked Miguel Estrada's nomination by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second-highest court? New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was particularly ugly, labeling Mr. Estrada a right-wing "stealth missile" who was "way out of the mainstream" and openly questioning Mr. Estrada's truthfulness.

Nonetheless, Republicans must treat her with far more care than Democrats treated John Roberts or Samuel Alito and avoid angry speeches like Sen. Ted Kennedy's tirade against Robert Bork. The GOP must make measured arguments against her views and philosophy, using her own words and actions.

The Ricci case is an example: Whites were denied fire department promotions because of a clear racial quota. Ms. Sotomayor's refusal to hear their arguments won her stinging criticism from fellow Second Court of Appeals judge José Cabranes, a respected Clinton appointee.

Mr. Obama won't get a new leader on the Supreme Court. Ms. Sotomayor does not appear to be a consensus builder whose persuasive abilities would allow her to flip a 4-5 decision to a 5-4 decision. She is likely to be just another reliable liberal vote, much as Justice Souter was, only without his gloomy silences and withdrawn nature.

While the next two to four months of maneuverings and hearings may provide more insights into the views of Mr. Obama's pick, barring an unforeseen development -- not unheard of in Supreme Court nominations -- Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic) and third woman confirmed to the Supreme Court. Democrats will win the vote, but Republicans can win the argument by making a clear case against the judicial activism she represents.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

March to Socialism: Out of Money – Glenn Beck

America's March to Socialism: Why we're one step closer to giant missile parades is now available as an audio book...

GLENN: President Obama was recently asked a tough question. Yes, believe it or not they will happen once in a while. The interviewer, C Span hosts Steve Scully, asking about soaring trillion dollar deficits and said at what point do we run out of money? Here's what Barack Obama said.

VOICE: You know the number's $1.8 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

GLENN: Well, the way we print and spend money, I would expect President Obama just to respond, well, we're not going to, et cetera, et cetera. Here's what he said.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we're out of money now.

GLENN: So the hang on. This is critical. The Messiah knows that we're out of money now. That's weird, you know, that he's aware of that because he's spending trillions of dollars. That's like going to the mall and your wife is in the Prada store and you are like, honey, at what point do we run out of money? And she's got all these purses and everything and she's bringing them up to the counter and she's like, oh, honey, we're out of money now. Why are we in the Prada store then? Apparently Obama knew he said something that scenario at the Prada store, something true but crazy. As Mr. Brilliant politician man, he should have known you can't just say it that way. So he started to backtrack.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We're operating in deep deficits not caused by any decisions we've made on healthcare so far.

GLENN: Okay. So that's your wife standing in the Prada store: Honey, at what point do we run out of money? Oh, my gosh, we are I mean, we're out of money now. But not because of any bad decisions we've made in the past on buying purses or anything like that, no. It's not our fault, you see. I love this explanation. Not caused by any decisions that we've made on health, so far. He doesn't even consider that all of the other spending has contributed to the problem of, you know, being out of money. So in other words, this might be the first time your wife had a purse she doesn't have a purse problem. She hasn't been spending money on purses. She's been spending it on shoes. "Honey, we're out of money now but not because of the purses." "Yeah, I know, but because you were spending it on shoes." "Honey, we haven't been spending it on purses. If I just buy enough purses, then we'll be okay."
Here's Barack Obama once again.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: This is as a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and, in fact, our failure to make some good decisions on healthcare over the last several decades.

GLENN: See, the problem with the deficit is we didn't have enough spending over the past several decades on the right stuff. If we would have only given away free healthcare to every citizen, visitor, illegal alien, exchange student, maybe, then just maybe everything would be okay. Is anybody buying this? How? I'd love an explanation. I mean, what would have been a good decision in the past? Should we have bankrupt our country back then? It's socialism. Socialism. Not happy with the speed which we're destroying our country; we can do it even faster. Let's step on the gas and accelerate right into that red brick wall at the end of the road we like to call problem solved. What? We're not speeding out of control anymore. Isn't it great?
VOICE: That was even more overwhelming evidence that we are destined to be a bunch of socialist pigs very, very soon on the Glenn Beck program.

Source:  Daily Thought Pad

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Justices to decide if vets can be honored with cross

lpi3442_13-FB~Rows-of-white-crosses-at-American-Military-Cemetery-Colleville-sur-Mer-France-Posters Some see it as the universal symbol of sacrifice in World War I, others see it as the undisputed sign of Christianity, but it will be up to the Supreme Court to make a final determination as to whether a 7-foot cross remains standing in a California desert to memorialize war veterans.

The cross was first erected in 1934 in what is now the federally protected Mojave Desert Preserve by a group of veterans whose doctors advised them that the desert heat would help them recover from shell shock.

Veterans today say this war memorial and others like it across the country that use religious symbols are under attack by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

"They are not the enemy; they are just dead wrong," says Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW).

But the civil liberties group says the cross is offensive to Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim and other non-Christian veterans.

"People of every faith have fought and died for this country," says Peter Eliasberg, counsel for the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. "Yet we will have veterans divided about the idea of how you reflect the sacrifice of American veterans."

"For us to choose the principal symbol of one religion that says Jesus is the Son of God and He is divine and say that is an appropriate way to reflect the sacrifice of people who don't believe that ... is excluding by its very nature," Mr. Eliasberg said.

"What we would like done, it is appropriate to have a war memorial and to choose a symbol that reflects everyone, and not a symbol that divides veterans by their faith," Mr. Eliasberg said.

At a gathering last week at the National Press Club, just before the Memorial Day weekend, several veterans organizations made their case for why the Supreme Court should rule in their favor during its next session, which begins in October.

"This Memorial Day is more than just a three-day weekend at the beach," Mr. Davis said. "This is about remembrance."

Veterans say the white cross is meant to symbolize the Fallen Soldier Battle Cross, a rifle and bayonet that are a symbol meant to replicate the cross on the battlefield to show honor for those who died in battle.

Mark Seavey, assistant national legislative director for the American Legion, says veterans are determined "to fight to save the cross from the ACLU."

"It is our opinion this case is not about a single cross," said Jim Sims, senior vice president of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. "It's about thousands of veteran memorials and monuments around the country. This is about the issue of honoring veterans."

"If the plaintiff is so offended that he might possibly come across this cross someday, will the plaintiff be offended when he drives by Arlington Cemetery?" Mr. Sims asked.

The ACLU filed the suit in 2001 on behalf of Frank Buono, a former National Park Service employee who lives in Oregon.

The suit worked its way through the system and, in 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the memorial violated the First Amendment clause forbidding an establishment of religion and ordered its removal.

Today, the cross remains standing, but is encased in a plywood box, hidden from view in the vast desert.

Henry and Wanda Sandoz are the caretakers of the cross, which originally was made out of wood.

"They would tear it clear off at times and throw it down between the rocks, probably at night," Mr. Sandoz says.

After a few incidents of vandalism over the decades, the cross is now made out of metal pipes that are welded to the rocks below.

The Sandozes have to drive 160 miles into the desert to check on the memorial periodically.

"It's still there, at least it was the last time I was there, a week ago," Mr. Sandoz said.

Asked what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled that the cross must be removed, Mr. Sandoz said, "It'd be too sad."

The veterans groups and their lawyers say such a decision would go beyond that, and would have repercussions not just on war memorials, but on roadside memorials that dot highways to mark fatal car crashes around the nation.

"It's hard to drive through Virginia and not throw a rock and hit one of those," Mr. Seavey said.

Kelly Shackelford, the chief counsel for the Liberty Legal Institute, who will argue the case on behalf of the veterans in the high court, calls the case "historic" and said it will have "huge implications."

"If this is upheld, a lot of bad things will happen," Mr. Shackelford said. "If that cross has to be torn down, then thousands and thousands will have to be torn down in every state."

"We simply see this as a disgrace," Mr. Shackelford said. "It's outrageous to say the government cannot give the memorial back to the people who spilled their blood for them."

According to the National Clergy Council, which plans to file an amicus brief on behalf of the veterans, as many as 140,000 memorials marked by the cross could be affected nationwide - a figure at which the ACLU spokesman scoffed.

"That is balderdash; that is so silly," Mr. Eliasberg said. "It would be silly to say we would go into every cemetery and take religious symbols off of monuments."

The difference, Mr. Eliasberg said, is that the religious symbol is the choice made by the family, not by the government.

In this case, Congress intervened in 2002 and designated the cross as a "national memorial commemorating United States participation in World War I and honoring American veterans of that war."

"It amazes me that veterans groups that fought shoulder to shoulder with Jews and Buddhists and Muslims, for them to think something is appropriate to recognize as the common sacrifice of every religion by choosing a symbol that Jesus is the Son of God, is very selfish or oblivious," Mr. Eliasberg said.

"But don't pretend it's just a burial marker. It has a meaning," he said, noting that it "would be insulting to Christians" to take the cross as "just a sign that somebody died there."

The Washington Times 

By:  Audrey Hudson (Contact)

Source: Daily Thought Pad

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Articles:


Hot Topics:


We need your help in watching stimulus projects nationwide
We need your help in watching stimulus projects nationwide

It is never too early to start watchdogging one of the largest spending bills in U.S. history – the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It includes $27 billion to repair America’s roads and bridges.

Monitoring thousands of construction sites around the country is an impossible task for a single reporter. Or a handful of reporters. That’s why we need your help.

Search for stimulus projects in your state below, then pick one to monitor over the next few months. We’ll send you suggestions and tips on how to watchdog your project. Use this form to send us reports (we'll also send you a link to it by email when you sign up).

Email Amanda Michel at for more information. If you don’t see a project in your area join ProPublica’s Reporting Network; we’ll notify you when projects get started in your county.

Your State: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

88 results were found for Wisconsin check out your state.   Click on the column heads to sort at:

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Why Sotomayor Worries Judicial Conservatives

Tuesday, May 26, 2009
By Brit Hume


Judge Sonia Sotomayor appears to be just what President Obama wanted and needed: A well-qualified jurist with a compelling personal story, a minority and a woman, and someone with the empathy which Obama has said was an important qualification.

Her initial prospects for Senate confirmation appear very bright, but she bears the earmarks of the kind of justice who drives judicial conservatives crazy. That's because when judges say — as Sotomayor did Tuesday — that she strives "never to forget the real world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government," they suspect they are in the presence of a judge more worried about the results of her decisions than their fidelity to the law.

Cases which reach the Supreme Court generally do not do so because of the plight of the plaintiffs or defendants. They come to the high court because of the difficult legal and constitutional issues embedded in them.

The justices do not so much decide legal cases as legal issues. They are supposed to decide them dispassionately, with neither empathy nor malice.

In other words without emotion.

That is why the symbol of justice is of a lady balancing scales, but wearing a blindfold. Once sensitivity to the parties and worry about the consequences come into play, the blindfold is off and the law is vulnerable to being not upheld but adjusted to achieve the desired result.

This is what worries judicial conservatives.

Brit Hume is the senior political analyst for FOX News Channel.

Related Resources:

O’s Mettle Test Is Here: North Korea Prepares For War While Iran Moves Forward With Their Nukes

Joe Biden predicted that President Obama would be

tested early on... Well Here it is...

And Obama Failed

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

The Case Against Sotomayor

Liberals Make Case Against Sotomayor

Liberals Make Case Against Sotomayor - Indictments of Obama's front-runner to replace Souter.

This isthe first in a series of reports by TNR legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen about the strengths and weaknesses of the leading candidates on Barack Obama's Supreme Court shortlist.

A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor's biography is so compelling that many view her as the presumptive front-runner for Obama's first Supreme Court appointment. She grew up in the South Bronx, the daughter of Puerto Rican parents. Her father, a manual laborer who never attended high school, died a year after she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of eight. She was raised by her mother, a nurse, and went to Princeton and then Yale Law School. She worked as a New York assistant district attorney and commercial litigator before Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended her as a district court nominee to the first President Bush. She would be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, if you don't count Benjamin Cardozo. (She went to Catholic schools and would also be the sixth Catholic justice on the current Supreme Court if she is, in fact, Catholic, which isn't clear from her official biography.) And she has powerful supporters: Last month, the two senators from New York wrote to President Obama in a burst of demographic enthusiasm, urging him to appoint Sotomayor or Ken Salazar.

Sotomayor's former clerks sing her praises as a demanding but thoughtful boss whose personal experiences have given her a commitment to legal fairness. "She is a rule-bound pragmatist--very geared toward determining what the right answer is and what the law dictates, but her general approach is, unsurprisingly, influenced by her unique background," says one former clerk. "She grew up in a situation of disadvantage, and was able, by virtue of the system operating in such a fair way, to accomplish what she did. I think she sees the law as an instrument that can accomplish the same thing for other people, a system that, if administered fairly, can give everyone the fair break they deserve, regardless of who they are."

Her former clerks report that because Sotomayor is divorced and has no children, her clerks become like her extended family--working late with her, visiting her apartment once a month for card games (where she remembers their favorite drinks), and taking a field trip together to the premier of a Harry Potter movie.

Click here to find out more!

But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "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." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?") Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."

Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)

Not all the former clerks for other judges I talked to were skeptical about Sotomayor. "I know the word on the street is that she's not the brainiest of people, but I didn't have that experience," said one former clerk for another judge. "She's an incredibly impressive person, she's not shy or apologetic about who she is, and that's great." This supporter praised Sotomayor for not being a wilting violet. "She commands attention, she's clearly in charge, she speaks her mind, she's funny, she's voluble, and she has ownership over the role in a very positive way," she said. "She's a fine Second Circuit judge--maybe not the smartest ever, but how often are Supreme Court nominees the smartest ever?"

I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths. It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they're not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement--they'd like the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible. And they think that Sotomayor, although personally and professionally impressive, may not meet that demanding standard. Given the stakes, the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble.

By:  Jeffrey Rosen - the legal affairs editor at The New Republic.

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power


Rosen (5/8/09): More Sotomayor--A Response To Critics

Rosen (3/8/1993): The Education of David Souter

Rosen (3/12/08): Why The Dems Lack Supreme Court Nominees

  • A Portrait of Judge Sonia Sotomayor
  • "Empathy" Versus Law
  • "Empathy" Versus Law”… Continued
  • Karl Rove: Obama's Past Will Haunt Court Pick
  • How Joe Biden Wrecked the Judicial Confirmation Process
  • New Haven, Ct. Firefighters Claim Reverse Discrimination
  • Obama the Destroyer
  • Justice not for all
  • Firefighter Case Heads to Supreme Court
  • A Portrait of Judge Sonia Sotomayor

    Educational and Professional Background

    Judge Sonia Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University summa **** laude in 1976 and attended Yale Law School. At Yale, she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. She began her legal career in 1979 as an Assistant District Attorney in New York County. Since October 7th, 1998, Sonia Sotomayor has been a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Despite the fact that President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor for the district court judgeship, there is more to the story. "When President Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991, the New York senators Moynihan and D'Amato, had forced on the White House a deal that enabled a senator not of the President's party to name one of every four District Court nominees in New York. Sotomayor was Moynihan's pick." According to Ed Whelan, it is likely that Bush only nominated her to move along the other nominees that Moynihan was holding up.

    Judicial Activism

    Judge Sotomayor appears willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution. The most direct example of this is found in her decision in Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 229 F. 3d 374 (2d Cir 2000), rev'd 534 U.S. 61 (2001). In that case, Judge Sotomayor attempted to expand the liability of individual federal agents who violate constitutional rights to include corporations. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that the plaintiff was "seek[ing] a marked extension of Bivens, to a context that would not advance Bivens' core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing." Correctional Services Corp v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001).


    Judge Sotomayor has written a foreword to a book called The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World's Cases, which suggests that she believes foreign case law and statutes have a role in the adjudication of U.S. cases.

    Track Record

    In an October 3, 2008 commentary on National Review Online, Ed Whelan pointed out that "[o]n those occasions on which the Supreme Court has reviewed Sotomayor's rulings, she hasn't fared well, drawing some pointed criticism and garnering at most 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning across five cases.
    No one expects that Barack Obama will select federal judges who are faithful to the Constitution, and many Americans (especially we Constitutionalists) have expressed a sense of alienation and futility in opposing Obama nominees. The truth is, however, that now is the time to mount the most vigorous campaign possible on behalf of Constitutionalist principles. James Madison said it well, "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives."

    Now is the perfect time to arm ourselves with knowledge — to become knowledge-empowered! You can begin this process by visiting our Eagle Forum web site and clicking on "Blackstone Blitz" — a short but power-packed study designed for just such a time as this. Continue to arm yourself with additional knowledge from reputable sources as the Sotomayor nomination battle heats to a white-hot intensity, climaxing in the confirmation vote in the U. S. Senate. Share that knowledge, and let your leaders know the truth about Constitutionalist judging!

    How close is the "portrait of Sotomayor" to the "portrait of a Constitutionalist judge"? Judge for yourself!!!



    She may get passed but probably not, as she has in all likelihood not paid her taxes, and most probably has a few too many skeletons in her closet, if she did pay her taxes she would be the very first one of Obama's appointees that has.


    She already mis-spoke and then had to correct herself on judges ‘making laws’ instead of interpreting laws and judging whether they are in line with the Constitution… a Supreme Judge’s job.


    According to Obama, Judge Sotomayor, is a good woman, but she is a crappy judge, most of her opinions and judgments have been overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional. she holds an judicial rating of 11 out of 44 points. and is extremely negatively biased against white males and toward woman and Latinos. She also believes that the  judicial opinions on our laws should be based  in the foreign laws of the EU and UN, and not our constitution. Another of her beliefs is that judges create policy, that one reason alone is enough to disqualify her.


    Judge Sotomayor dismissed the case of the New Haven, Connecticut Firefighters Claiming Reverse Discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court  has decided to hear the New Haven Reverse Discrimination Case… should make you (us) think!

    She drew much negative from her opinion and stand on this case.


    Many of Sotomayor’s comments and opinions are troubling!  She has made statement like a Latina’s perspective would be different than a white males. Hello???  The law and especially the constitutional law is the law… period.  If can’t be objective, this is not the job for you.  It is not the job of the Supreme Court to make policy or affect policy in anyway!  You want a Constitutional specialist or at least some who understands the position of a Supreme Court Judge to fill one of those nine seats, and that is not her.  Sotomayor said, “ The Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”  Hello??


    Sotomayor is liberal, a reverse racist, and believes that race and gender affect a judge’s rulings and opinions… and that that is okay.  She has also been described as combative and not a team player.


    There is not room for empathy or personal belief on the Supreme Court. Justices need to be able to put their personal politics away and interpret the law according to the Constitution; no more no less.  This is not Judge Sotomayor!!  Time for the next nominee!!

    Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

    Related Articles: